IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

[Ward Thisperer]

You'd have to have a large firm with deep pockets to try a double murder high profile case Pro Bono. I don't believe they were ever serious about both working for free. JMO

Perhaps, if they were being genuine, they were willing to bankrupt themselves in order to work to free someone they view as an innocent man falsely imprisoned. They wouldn't be the first defense attorneys to work on behalf of a defendant they truly believed, to their own personal and financial detriments.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Re: URGENT

Dear Gentlemen,

This is beyond tragic...Once again, I am at a loss for words.

I am deeply concerned that Mr Allen's defence is being compromised by all these recent events.

I will have my staff schedule a hearing in Fort Wayne for next Thursday October 19th 2023 at 2 pm to discuss these recent developments and the upcoming hearing on October 31st.

I will have a transfer order to get Mr Allen to the hearing.

Please arrange your schedules accordingly to appear in Allen Superior Court. Mr Rozzi and Mr Baldwin, please cease work on Mr Allen's case until we meet on the 19th.

Judge Gull



How can Shay try and say that Rozzi and Baldwin would not know they were heading into a hearing about THEIR competence and job status. Judge Gull spelled it out in her URGENT email.

She said she was very upset about the tragedy and was concerned that Mr Allen's defence was being compromised---she ordered them to STOP WORKING ON HIS CASE and proceed to superior court so she could discuss these recent developments.

She spelled it out.

This is the only hearing she had scheduled for that date. I omitted a couple of her media orders to save space. I don't know enough about this type of thing to debate it. I'm from the US so I'm going with what our attorneys have to say. SH says an email isn't enough; I'll take that.

10/16/2023	Hearing Scheduling Activity Status Hearing scheduled for 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM.
10/16/2023	Hearing Scheduling Activity Status Hearing originally scheduled on 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM was rescheduled to 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM. Reason: Data Entry Error.
10/19/2023	Status Hearing Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Rescheduled Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Comment: To be held in Allen Superior D05

 

[Salah11]

Perhaps, if they were being genuine, they were willing to bankrupt themselves in order to work to free someone they view as an innocent man falsely imprisoned. They wouldn't be the first defense attorneys to work on behalf of a defendant they truly believed, to their own personal and financial detriments.

He has confessed multiple times and placed himself moments before crime happened.

If they believe he is innocent then they are idiots but then considering their mates walked into their office and took confidential information and leaked it I guess I shouldn’t be that shocked at the level of stupidity that they work at.

MOO

 

[CGBSpender]

The Odinist repetition is skewing thinking. AB and BR agree with the task force investigation of Murphy, Ferency, and Click that someone else is responsible for these crimes. Click tells us this in that interview posted upthread.

It's not a matter of whether that LE group (or any portion of the public) disagreed on the motive for the crimes - we know they did (and do). Click distinctly told us in his MS interview "I don't subscribe to the ritual stuff"). The relevance here is not ritual sacrifice, it is that they all agree that the perp is not RA. It is that Click submitted the report. It is that this report was withheld. One has to be able to put extraneous information to the side and out of one's mind and have the ability to look at the facts.

jmo

I'm not sure I follow. Here's my problem with that logic...

1) Discovery had not closed, so it is not possible for something to be withheld. Something being scanned and produced in for example, batch 4 of the discovery vs batch 1...all of which is being produced according to the schedule set by the Court and agreed up on by both sides does not equal withholding of information IMO.

2) I don't recall it ever being alleged that RA was the murderer with knife in hand. RA is being charged with ordering the girls down the hill by force (unlawful detention / kidnapping) which resulted in their death within a short time of their unlawful detention (thus Felony Murder). RA doesn't have to have the knife in his hand and staging a scene across the river to be held criminally liable. Someone else absolutely could have encountered the girls in the woods and killed them...and it doesn't matter...there is still a case to charge RA with Felony Murder. Everyone agreeing that someone else had the knife in hand doing whatever it is they did across the river doesn't change much for RA...RA's defense needs to put someone else on that bridge other than their client. If RA were being charged with Intentional Homicide, what happened across the river would matter...but he is not.

To explain further...once those girls were ordered down the hill against their will by force...even if that person had stayed on the bridge and gone back to their car...a valid argument can be made that the kidnapping does not "end" until the girls have reached safety and/or where they would have been had they not been ordered off their intended path to begin with...in other words...until the girls made it back to the Mear's lot...that person that ordered them off the bridge is potentially criminally liable if they die trying to get back to that lot...whether the death was foreseeable or not.

People are getting caught up in the razzle dazzle of what happened at the crime scene across the river...and was it RA or wasn't it...and it doesn't matter in the context of what RA has been charged with. Depending on what other evidence they have from LG's phone and other evidence supporting their timeline of RA's being on the bridge...I'm not sure they even need the "magic bullet"...the bullet could be just a bit of added support for the nexus argument if a jury isn't convinced the kidnapping and death are close enough in proximity and nexus to satisfy the Felony Murder elements based on the other evidence presented.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

LE looked into many people with tens of thousands of tips and submitted confidental reports. What the D did was tantamount to publically accusing those 5 men of murdering two young girls on theory. Considering the writer's and filers have been removed from the case for gross negligence and JG sealed the FM. I hope those named are able to sue them for it. Again that's AJMO.

Such a lawsuit would knock against the Defendant's 6th Amendment right to a fair trial; presenting exculpatory witnesses is one of those named rights. Blocking constitutional rights can interfere with a guilty verdict surviving appeal. IMO, a fair trial overseen by a knowledgeable Judge calling fouls and strikes without favor solves the issue of your concern.

As to Court's management of confidentiality of the public records in this case ...
To this day, Gull - who guards this proceeding and it's due process, defendant's rights and public transparency - has failed to provide a record of her findings/decisions for gross negligence, for removal of RA's counsel, for the sealing of the FM, and for the Court's policies on confidentiality.

IMO, your ire might be better directed at this incredibly lazy Judge.

 

[susiQ]

O

Were all their major arteries cut and drained? I've never heard anything that says so.
Was the body drained of blood upon discovery?? Not that we have ever heard.

Why are we even discussing something so preposterous at this point?

One major artery would suffice .

Also, please recall, It was you who stated in the post I was responding to that ”they weren’t there long enough to collect all the blood from a body.” While the heart is still beating, it helps facilitate the speedy loss of blood. JMO

 

[KentuckyMama]

I'm not sure I follow. Here's my problem with that logic...

1) Discovery had not closed, so it is not possible for something to be withheld. Something being scanned and produced in for example, batch 4 of the discovery vs batch 1...all of which is being produced according to the schedule set by the Court and agreed up on by both sides does not equal withholding of information IMO.

2) I don't recall it ever being alleged that RA was the murderer with knife in hand. RA is being charged with ordering the girls down the hill by force (unlawful detention / kidnapping) which resulted in their death within a short time of their unlawful detention (thus Felony Murder). RA doesn't have to have the knife in his hand and staging a scene across the river to be held criminally liable. Someone else absolutely could have encountered the girls in the woods and killed them...and it doesn't matter...there is still a case to charge RA with Felony Murder. Everyone agreeing that someone else had the knife in hand doing whatever it is they did across the river doesn't change much for RA...RA's defense needs to put someone else on that bridge other than their client. If RA were being charged with Intentional Homicide, what happened across the river would matter...but he is not.

To explain further...once those girls were ordered down the hill against their will by force...even if that person had stayed on the bridge and gone back to their car...a valid argument can be made that the kidnapping does not "end" until the girls have reached safety and/or where they would have been had they not been ordered off their intended path to begin with...in other words...until the girls made it back to the Mear's lot...that person that ordered them off the bridge is potentially criminally liable if they die trying to get back to that lot...whether the death was foreseeable or not.

People are getting caught up in the razzle dazzle of what happened at the crime scene across the river...and was it RA or wasn't it...and it doesn't matter in the context of what RA has been charged with. Depending on what other evidence they have from LG's phone and other evidence supporting their timeline of RA's being on the bridge...I'm not sure they even need the "magic bullet"...the bullet could be just a bit of added support for the nexus argument if a jury isn't convinced the kidnapping and death are close enough in proximity and nexus to satisfy the Felony Murder elements based on the other evidence presented.

JMO

Thank you for explaining a different way of seeing this. The same old back and forth arguments make this unreadable most of the time now. Makes me miss the puppy\goat in the jacket arguments. I do appreciate you taking the time to give me something new to read.

 

[Emma Peel]

He has confessed multiple times and placed himself moments before crime happened.

If they believe he is innocent then they are idiots but then considering their mates walked into their office and took confidential information and leaked it I guess I shouldn’t be that shocked at the level of stupidity that they work at.

MOO

Defense attorneys cannot take the intellectually lazy approach you describe here to assess the guilt/innocence of their client. Even if Defense counsel accepts that their client is guilty, they're obligated to take the best possible legal course for their client's best possible legal outcome. They are obligated to mitigate. We'll see a plea deal when there's irrefutable evidence and no reasonable doubt and no mitigating circumstances. Otherwise, we'll see a trial that focuses on facts the expose law enforcement/investigative/evidence errors to develop that reasonable doubt. We'll see the defense bring in mitigating facts. That's the job, and a competent vigorous defense is every US defendant's legal right. JMHO

 

[MistyWaters]

This is the only hearing she had scheduled for that date. I omitted a couple of her media orders to save space. I don't know enough about this type of thing to debate it. I'm from the US so I'm going with what our attorneys have to say. SH says an email isn't enough; I'll take that.

10/16/2023	Hearing Scheduling Activity Status Hearing scheduled for 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM.
10/16/2023	Hearing Scheduling Activity Status Hearing originally scheduled on 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM was rescheduled to 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM. Reason: Data Entry Error.
10/19/2023	Status Hearing Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Rescheduled Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Comment: To be held in Allen Superior D05

Hennessy‘s memorandum expressing concern over ‘possible disqualification or sanctions” was filed at 10:07am, prior to the meeting in the Judge’s chambers and proof the ex-D was advised of the seriousness of the situation. But as it wasn’t a public hearing I‘d not expect it would be recorded in mycase but probably the reason a recording is requested by the SC.

ETA - If anyone’s interested in reading it, Hennessy touches on various avenues of disqualification and quotes respective cases ….”a court may remove a defendant‘s attorney on the basis of gross incompetence, physical incapacity or contumacious conduct….”

Source from here-

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Richard Allen attorneys announce withdrawal, leaving Delphi murders suspect without representation

The withdrawal comes two days after Indiana State Police said they would investigate an evidence leak, allegedly at the hands of one attorney's team members.

www.wthr.com

 

[Salah11]

Defense attorneys cannot take the intellectually lazy approach you describe here to assess the guilt/innocence of their client. Even if Defense counsel accepts that their client is guilty, they're obligated to take the best possible legal course for their client's best possible legal outcome. They are obligated to mitigate. We'll see a plea deal when there's irrefutable evidence and no reasonable doubt and no mitigating circumstances. Otherwise, we'll see a trial that focuses on facts the expose law enforcement/investigative/evidence errors to develop that reasonable doubt. We'll see the defense bring in mitigating facts. That's the job, and a competent vigorous defense is every US defendant's legal right. JMHO

I believe RA deserves better than these two and that says a lot.

But maybe RA is playing the long game here and if they do somehow get reinstated and he is found guilty RA can claim poor representation and make a appeal that way.

MOOO

 

[Emma Peel]

I believe RA deserves better than these two and that says a lot.

But maybe RA is playing the long game here and if they do somehow get reinstated and he is found guilty RA can claim poor representation and make a appeal that way.

MOOO

Murder convictions resulting out of a fair process are difficult to successfully appeal.
Rozzi and Baldwin have already far exceeded the definition of "competent counsel". They EACH have more than 20 years successful defense practice - no claims or discipline. They're the definition of competent.

IMO reinstating RA's preferred counsel would protect the verdict. Tossing out R & B as Gull has done here - without fair process opens to door for a successful appeal of a guilty verdict.

I recommend reviewing the SCION briefs which detail Gull's failures to oversee this case (including the gag breaches) through a timely, fair and rules-compliant process. Overseeing this case and each mini-decision fairly ... is the Judge's ONLY role here.

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Yes, of course, and it is up to his defence to prove he was falsely accused, which is what they were trying to do.

Should be done inside a courtroom, not in the court of public opinion.
If there is any strength to the Odinist theory, argue it in court, show that it has merit and can withstand cross-examination.
Just my thoughts, but I think that is the last thing the ex-defense wanted.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I'm not sure I follow. Here's my problem with that logic...

1) Discovery had not closed, so it is not possible for something to be withheld. Something being scanned and produced in for example, batch 4 of the discovery vs batch 1...all of which is being produced according to the schedule set by the Court and agreed up on by both sides does not equal withholding of information IMO.

[sbm]

Judge Diener. Please look at the materials. Exculpatory evidence was obtained through investigation dating back to 2019.

jmo

 

[katydid23]

If you find any examples of this, please do share. I recall that Ali of Defense Diaries was able to search databases of filings and couldn't find any mention of the word "negligence" in a decision of an attorney being disqualified.

They were clearly aware that Gull had said she was "leaning toward disqualification" but Imo they had every reason to expect a formal legal notice for a hearing.

She told them very clearly in a personal email, that they had to STOP working on the case and meet her in court for an emergency meeting she had set up for the 19th of October. What else did they need to know?

She told them the reason for that hearing---she was concerned about the status of the defense for Mrs Allen because of recent developments, and she planned to speak with them all concerning the issues with his defense and made it very clear she was upset about the tragic suicide and the leaks.

She gave them a very clear notice that the hearing on the 19th was all about these 'recent developments.' They had every reason to suspect that they needed to be prepared to defend themselves and could have brought representation if they wanted to.

Her email, titled URGENT, was very clear and concise.

She said she was very upset about the recent developments, was concerned about the status of Allen's defence, told them to immediately stop working on the case, clear their schedule and plan to meet her in court for an emergency hearing.

What else did they need to hear to take that October 19th hearing seriously?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Murder convictions resulting out of a fair process are difficult to successfully appeal.
Rozzi and Baldwin have already far exceeded the definition of "competent counsel". They EACH have more than 20 years successful defense practice - no claims or discipline. They're the definition of competent.

IMO reinstating RA's preferred counsel would protect the verdict. Tossing out R & B as Gull has done here - without fair process opens to door for a successful appeal of a guilty verdict.

I recommend reviewing the SCION briefs which detail Gull's failures to oversee this case (including the gag breaches) through a timely, fair and rules-compliant process. Overseeing this case and each mini-decision fairly ... is the Judge's ONLY role here.

MOO

I don’t think the ex-defense’s competence in other trials would have any bearing in an appeal for this case. It’s how they served RA, not somebody ten years ago.
The SCOIN briefs are one sided opinions of this situation. I’ll wait till I have both sides of the argument before I weigh in on it.

 

[Emma Peel]

Was KAK cleared?

On November 11th 2022, Doug Carter (Superintendent of the Indiana State Police & well known leader & figurehead of the Delphi Murders investigation) visited the Hammer & Nigel Show at the 93.1 WIBC studio.

DOUG CARTER: We’ll continue to work… work on Kegan Kline, and whatever his connectivity might be to Abby and Libby and… almost 2100 days ago. So we will continue to work towards that.

At 8:05
ISP Superintendent Doug Carter - Hammer + Nigel Show Podcast

I'd be very interested in that, were I the D.
What did the river reveal?

Does KAK know RA? (no evidence of that)
Did the river search and RA's arrest 2 weeks later intersect somehow?
Is there a middleman between KAK and RA?
The imagination runs.

KAK is a pathological liar. Craves attention so much, he's the type to tell you what he thinks you'd like to hear. Gets fields trips out of prison this way. Very very frustrating. Would likely get destroyed on the witness stand.

But KAK deals in digital records; which do not lie, and which (one would think) have been vigorously harvested and studied and are discoverable.

I haven't seen any digital records in the RA case ... has anyone else?

JHMO

 

[susiQ]

Should be done inside a courtroom, not in the court of public opinion.
If there is any strength to the Odinist theory, argue it in court, show that it has merit and can withstand cross-examination.
Just my thoughts, but I think that is the last thing the ex-defense wanted.

I too would like to see it played out in the courtroom. With regard to what the xD wanted, moo, they want the same thing. One thing I do know is, they want justice for RA.

We need not get all hung up on the Odinism. The FM has so much more compelling evidence of negligence on the part of LE in securing the AW. That kind of negligence lead to an AW for a man who had an alibi. He left the trails at 1:30 and went home. Liggett contorted evidence to fit his fanciful timeline which resulted in deceiving a Judge into signing the AW. So much about outrageous “negligence” on the part of the xD. What should we call obtaining an AW under false pretense? Personally, I think it’s criminal but IANAL and don’t truly understand the implications of such actions under the law. All JMO.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

She told them very clearly in a personal email, that they had to STOP working on the case and meet her in court for an emergency meeting she had set up for the 19th of October. What else did they need to know?

She told them the reason for that hearing---she was concerned about the status of the defense for Mrs Allen because of recent developments, and she planned to speak with them all concerning the issues with his defense and made it very clear she was upset about the tragic suicide and the leaks.

She gave them a very clear notice that the hearing on the 19th was all about these 'recent developments.' They had every reason to suspect that they needed to be prepared to defend themselves and could have brought representation if they wanted to.

Her email, titled URGENT, was very clear and concise.

She said she was very upset about the recent developments, was concerned about the status of Allen's defence, told them to immediately stop working on the case, clear their schedule and plan to meet her in court for an emergency hearing.

What else did they need to hear to take that October 19th hearing seriously?

I would add that the ex-defense knew more than anybody else exactly what had happened and how serious it was.
As you said, the judge’s order only reminded them of the seriousness. They were certainly not “ambushed”.
I think the ex-defense saw the handwriting on the wall and came up with their “strategy” that they admitted to in the Oct 31st hearing. “We resigned, but we didn’t mean it…it was our strategy”. That’s why they showed up unprepared on the 19th.
Welcome to their strategy. To selfishly blow this case sky high for no other reason than their egos. It does not benefit RA in any way.

 

[katydid23]

This is the only hearing she had scheduled for that date. I omitted a couple of her media orders to save space. I don't know enough about this type of thing to debate it. I'm from the US so I'm going with what our attorneys have to say. SH says an email isn't enough; I'll take that.

10/16/2023	Hearing Scheduling Activity Status Hearing scheduled for 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM.
10/16/2023	Hearing Scheduling Activity Status Hearing originally scheduled on 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM was rescheduled to 10/19/2023 at 2:00 PM. Reason: Data Entry Error.
10/19/2023	Status Hearing Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Rescheduled Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Comment: To be held in Allen Superior D05

That's the only hearing she needed to have scheduled. It was a status hearing and that is what she planned to discuss---the status of Allen's defence.

When they arrived she told them she wanted to DQ them for gross negligence. They could have agreed to go into open court, and hear her statement. At that time they could have requested a hearing to defend their positions.

Or they could have come prepared, with their own counsel and their own statement. They came with nothing.

They chose a less effective strategy, which was to be deceitful----to pretend to withdraw, then lie about it afterwards, until finding out there was actually a transcript of the audio.

We will have to wait and see what the Appellate Courts decide.

 

[Emma Peel]

I'm not sure I follow. Here's my problem with that logic...

1) Discovery had not closed, so it is not possible for something to be withheld. Something being scanned and produced in for example, batch 4 of the discovery vs batch 1...all of which is being produced according to the schedule set by the Court and agreed up on by both sides does not equal withholding of information IMO.

2) I don't recall it ever being alleged that RA was the murderer with knife in hand. RA is being charged with ordering the girls down the hill by force (unlawful detention / kidnapping) which resulted in their death within a short time of their unlawful detention (thus Felony Murder). RA doesn't have to have the knife in his hand and staging a scene across the river to be held criminally liable. Someone else absolutely could have encountered the girls in the woods and killed them...and it doesn't matter...there is still a case to charge RA with Felony Murder. Everyone agreeing that someone else had the knife in hand doing whatever it is they did across the river doesn't change much for RA...RA's defense needs to put someone else on that bridge other than their client. If RA were being charged with Intentional Homicide, what happened across the river would matter...but he is not.

To explain further...once those girls were ordered down the hill against their will by force...even if that person had stayed on the bridge and gone back to their car...a valid argument can be made that the kidnapping does not "end" until the girls have reached safety and/or where they would have been had they not been ordered off their intended path to begin with...in other words...until the girls made it back to the Mear's lot...that person that ordered them off the bridge is potentially criminally liable if they die trying to get back to that lot...whether the death was foreseeable or not.

People are getting caught up in the razzle dazzle of what happened at the crime scene across the river...and was it RA or wasn't it...and it doesn't matter in the context of what RA has been charged with. Depending on what other evidence they have from LG's phone and other evidence supporting their timeline of RA's being on the bridge...I'm not sure they even need the "magic bullet"...the bullet could be just a bit of added support for the nexus argument if a jury isn't convinced the kidnapping and death are close enough in proximity and nexus to satisfy the Felony Murder elements based on the other evidence presented.

JMO

I appreciate you sharing your thinking here.

Agree that the D has to bring the reasonable doubt to the premise that BG is RA.