IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #172

[MistyWaters]

Whatever it was that happened, it does seem like the imminent danger passed. According to the article she's already back to work remotely, and will be physically back in-court soon it says. So, that's a good sign. I think the timing of the article gave pause. If the timing of the release had nothing to do with case so be it. But, it's not unusual to have a news dump in law, high profile cases, as in politics, to manipulate the news cycle. So that question did cross some minds. And, you saw it at play out in real time yesterday. The news shifted from "Relator reply brief filed this morning states case not mooted bc only 20% was cured as opposed to what respondent claims" to "JG (respondent) hospitalized". I don't think anyone who wondered about this did so to wish the judge harm.

jmo

From where I sit it seems the Judge can’t even undergo a serious health crisis followed by a press release issued on her behalf, without being criticized.

 

[susiQ]

RA wouldn't have to reveal gory details, just something about the crime scene to convince his wife that he was telling her the truth.

While we're guessing about his odd behavior, let's guess about the meds he might have been given at that time.

It's good that you read the document; as many times as you've repeated "gross negligence" I didn't think you understood that's not been proven.

Thank you FG for bringing up meds RA may have been given. I’ve seen first hand a number of times how a med can totally change a person’s behaviour. It can be downright scary. A med may help one person or may detrimentally affect another. We are all different and therefore meds do not always affect us in the same way as it does others. When introducing new meds a patient needs to be followed carefully. Regrettably, this is not always done. JMO
ed:gr

 

[FrostedGlass]

I always appreciate attorney Shay Hughes input:
Shay Hughes@publicdefender_
Some thoughts on the transcript of the in camera proceeding on Oct. 19, 2023…

Deeply troubled by the State’s conduct leading up to and throughout the proceeding. According to transcript, McLeland referenced disqualifying Rozzi/Baldwin during a telephonic conference. He then intended on presenting witnesses and exhibits regarding the leak investigation. He wanted to do so even though, by his own admission, it may ‘harm’ the investigation. Moreover, he was going to do so despite no notice, no disclosure to defense.

There is limited authority in Indiana RE the disqualification of trial counsel. Nevertheless, the State would be required to show an actual conflict exists. Further, bc disqualification is being sought by the State and the State is seeking to disqualify an opposing party’s counsel, I believe the State’s burden is a heavy burden.

In this instance, I am not aware of an actual conflict as it relates to Allen. There’s no dispute of an evidence leak. However, the evidence in question appears to be admissible (and doesn’t appear to be ‘contested’). Similarly, there’s nothing to suggest Baldwin committed a criminal act. Moreover, would note this case has been highly publicized w/ law enforcement intentionally releasing evidence, holding press conferences, and issuing several public statements. Simply put, there’s nothing to suggest the evidence leak would lead counsel to adopt a strategy other than that most favorable to Allen (any conflict would also be waived given Allen’s letter).

More importantly, SCOTUS has stated that the 6th Amendment “imposes on the State an affirmative obligation to respect and preserve the accused’s choice to seek assistance.” Maine v. Moulton, 474 US 159, 171 (1985). Further, Indiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct provide special responsibilities of prosecutors and state that a “prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice[.]”

IMO, seeking to disqualify counsel and doing so w/o advance notice falls short of the special obligations imposed. Nevertheless, the Court ultimately took matters into its own hands. #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders
Last edited 10:23 PM · Nov 21, 2023
1,532 Views

https://twitter.com/x/status/1727165933943144596

 

[susiQ]

I absolutely believe they will and I will also be curious to see if he repeated basically the same story each time. Even the Defense conceded that RA had implicated himself in the crimes, that was during the hearing where they were going to talk about a transfer and possibly bail. June IIRC?

MOO

Yes, he admitted to the crime, but under what circumstances? That really is the question, isn’t it?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Thank you FG for bringing up meds RA may have been given. I’ve seen first hand a number of times how a med can totally change a person’s behaviour. It can be downright scary. A med may help one person or may detrimentally affect another. We are all different and therefore meds do not always affect us in the same way as it does others. When introducing new meds a patient needs to be followed carefully. Regrettably, this is not always done. JMO
ed:gr

In the few glimpses we've had of him in the past year, he looks drugged to me.

 

[MistyWaters]

Yes, he admitted to the crime, but under what circumstances? That really is the question, isn’t it?

Yes a very good question. It’s surprising the D had never attempted to quash his confessions through prescription/medical/mental health evidence rather than duress due to Odinist guards.

However I understand this statement to mean the ex-D did not intend to blame his confessions on his mental state. If so that indicates anything related to his mental health must not be an issue. JMO

Delphi murder suspect’s attorneys ask judge to deny prosecution’s subpoena for medical, mental health records

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. – Attorneys for Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen are asking the court to deny the prosecution access to their client’s mental health and medical records. In September, Carro…

fox59.com

“Allen’s attorneys wrote that they had not filed an insanity defense, nor have they requested a competency evaluation of Allen, meaning his “mental state is not at issue in the guilt/innocence phase of this proceeding.”

 

[steeltowngirl]

Right to Hire the Lawyer of Your Choice​

Though there is a presumption under the Sixth Amendment that a defendant may retain counsel of choice, the right to choose a particular attorney is not absolute. The prospect of compromised loyalty or competence may be sufficiently immediate and serious for a court to deny a defendant's selection.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment6/annotation07.html

 

[sunshineray]

Well said. Will it resonate? I hope so.

sbbm
This is my assessment based on the public facing information we know. It's the reason I believe they would have pushed forward to trial and it's also the reason the state needed to stop the clock and have the time (delay) charged to accused, not to the state. jmo

sbbm
Agree. You would think. It shouldn't be tribal. There should be some modicum of objective and rational thinking. Not sure if its strictly emotions, incapacity, or both. jmo



Thank you for stating the obvious. I got this from the initial post but I appreciate you taking the time to make an extra point of it again for clarity.

jmo

Well if there's one thing observed about this case, IMO, it needs more clarity.

 

[susiQ]

How is the Defense admitting to being responsible through a 3rd party for leaking the highly sensitive CS photos and depositions and naming non POI (according to LE) and in a Memorandum not gross negligence? It's exactly why we are where we are in this case today.

• Gross Negligence means an indifference to, and/or a blatant violation of a legal duty with respect of the rights of others, being a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.

MOO

Personally, I think the “gravest injury and harm” was done on Feb. 13, 2017. What has happened with the leak, does not amount to “gross negligence” IMO. What appears to get lost in all this talk of gross negligence is the fact that MW secretly copied confidential information and disseminated it. That, I see as downright criminal and hopefully the investigation will bring some charges for the person ultimately responsible.

Now, if you are speaking about the individual that died, I still don’t agree. First off, I’m very sorry he died, however, I in no way feel that the leak was directly responsible for this tragedy. This individual had a choice before LE showed up at his door. He could have called them to report he was in possession of the leaked evidence like MS did. He didn’t. Why? Was there something SO damaging in his possession that he knew would be uncovered during an investigation over and above the leaked documents that he did not want exposed? We may never know. JMT

I just don’t see the leak as gross negligence on the part of B & R and we would do well not to bandy about JG‘s estimation of the situation as it has not been proven. AJMO
eta I think

 

[Jade]

I doubt RA is undergoing problems from any imaginary medications.

Besides some lurid creative writing to make it look like their client is anything but a surly, sulky thing that doesn’t even believe in his own innocence in order to make any effort they haven’t put forth anything beyond what all incarcerated whine about.

He looks like the killer of two young innocent girls having his own pity party to me.

all imo

 

[sunshineray]

I respectfully disagree. I’m not the OP but there are some things that need to be “fairly” assessed.

“Why would LE need to reopen an investigation that is ongoing?“ They don’t, they just need to go back and reinvestigate those people they failed to investigate properly the first time. Liggett by all accounts lied by omission by failing to reveal exculpatory evidence and gaining a SW and then the AW by not being honest and forthright. Why would he do that? Is it not in the best interest of all concerned to know there is exculpatory evidence? What is there to gain by arresting the wrong man? Waste of time and resources. But hey, NM’s got 2.1 million to try the case with what may amount to very flimsy evidence, a lone bullet.

Concerning the delays that you say, IYO, ”lays totally on the shoulders of his” D, R & B, I dispute that. Had LE done what they should have done years ago, and not given certain characters a pass, individuals that should have been investigated thoroughly, we would not be here at all. This would have been over with a long time ago. But no, they could not have the trail going back to a certain individual because of who he is associated with.

And those ”tip” lines are still open! Yeah great! They sure worked before didn’t they? They had the tips and they did not thoroughly investigate them. Nothing more than the fox guarding the henhouse. Don’t like the tip? Just ignore it. I think R & B should set up a tip line. Maybe then things would get investigated the way they should be. AJMVHO

I also respectfully agree to disagree just adding that all of the above were looked at and further actions to bring them up, in the context of RA's trial, would appropriately be at RA's trial with all the evidence the prosecution has to present.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I respectfully disagree. I’m not the OP but there are some things that need to be “fairly” assessed.

“Why would LE need to reopen an investigation that is ongoing?“ They don’t, they just need to go back and reinvestigate those people they failed to investigate properly the first time. Liggett by all accounts lied by omission by failing to reveal exculpatory evidence and gaining a SW and then the AW by not being honest and forthright. Why would he do that? Is it not in the best interest of all concerned to know there is exculpatory evidence? What is there to gain by arresting the wrong man? Waste of time and resources. But hey, NM’s got 2.1 million to try the case with what may amount to very flimsy evidence, a lone bullet.

Concerning the delays that you say, IYO, ”lays totally on the shoulders of his” D, R & B, I dispute that. Had LE done what they should have done years ago, and not given certain characters a pass, individuals that should have been investigated thoroughly, we would not be here at all. This would have been over with a long time ago. But no, they could not have the trail going back to a certain individual because of who he is associated with.

And those ”tip” lines are still open! Yeah great! They sure worked before didn’t they? They had the tips and they did not thoroughly investigate them. Nothing more than the fox guarding the henhouse. Don’t like the tip? Just ignore it. I think R & B should set up a tip line. Maybe then things would get investigated the way they should be. AJMVHO

Do you have proof that LE didn't investigate those people properly?

And simply referring to the Frank's motion isn't proof. It's the D's story.

Exculpatory evidence is something that could exonerate a person, correct?

Please explain how LE failed in that respect if they looked at the people you mention, did an investigation and ruled them out.

The D has said that they had so much discovery, that there is potentially information that they missed!


JMO

 

[susiQ]

Please explain how LE failed in that respect if they looked at the people you mention, did an investigation and ruled them out.




JMO

RSBM
It is my opinion (which I stated). If they did not investigate thoroughly, they failed. IMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I doubt RA is undergoing problems from any imaginary medications.

Besides some lurid creative writing to make it look like their client is anything but a surly, sulky thing that doesn’t even believe in his own innocence in order to make any effort they haven’t put forth anything beyond what all incarcerated whine about.

He looks like the killer of two young innocent girls having his own pity party to me.

all imo

I'm not a medical expert.

He was put on suicide watch for weeks/months. I assumed they would give him something to help him through that. Maybe not... maybe they just threw him in his cell and let him deal with it.

What do you think?

 

[Ravenmoon]

RSBM
It is my opinion (which I stated). If they did not investigate thoroughly, they failed. IMO.

“Why would LE need to reopen an investigation that is ongoing?“ They don’t, they just need to go back and reinvestigate those people they failed to investigate properly the first time.
Your quote.

Okay. I must be reading incorrectly. Because apparently LE failed to investigate certain people.
Even though from all accounts they did their job.

JMO

 

[susiQ]

“Why would LE need to reopen an investigation that is ongoing?“ They don’t, they just need to go back and reinvestigate those people they failed to investigate properly the first time.
Your quote.

Okay. I must be reading incorrectly. Because apparently LE failed to investigate certain people.
Even though from all accounts they did their job.

JMO

Yes, SOME did their job and did it well. Others maybe not so much. JMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

LE has made mistakes.
They are far from perfect, no doubt.

They arrested the person that has admitted to being there, that wore the same clothes and owns a gun that matches an ejected bullet at the CS.

3 Teenagers were at the bridge having fun, taking photos. They have proof of the timing through photos. They walked towards the bridge at approximately 12: 50 PM. They have a time stamped photo ( 12:47 PM) There was no one that they encountered fitting RA'S description until 1:27 PM as they were leaving the trail. They were leaving. The man they encountered was entering the trail. Even RA confirmed that he saw them as well.

BB walks out to the bridge were she sees a man standing on platform 1. Funny, because RA says he was there on THAT platform as well.

Now,BB had a different description ..yes. HOWEVER, once shown the still frame from Libby's phone she CONFIRMS that person is the SAME guy that she witnessed on the bridge. What time did she leave? She left after 2 PM. GUESS WHO SHE ALSO ENCOUNTERS?
Libby and Abby who are walking towards the bridge where the man dressed in the same clothes that RA says he wore that day, was standing.

Oh, and RA admitted no less than 5 times that he killed the girls.

This is powerful and incriminating circumstancial evidence IMO.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Personally, I think the “gravest injury and harm” was done on Feb. 13, 2017. What has happened with the leak, does not amount to “gross negligence” IMO. What appears to get lost in all this talk of gross negligence is the fact that MW secretly copied confidential information and disseminated it. That, I see as downright criminal and hopefully the investigation will bring some charges for the person ultimately responsible.

Now, if you are speaking about the individual that died, I still don’t agree. First off, I’m very sorry he died, however, I in no way feel that the leak was directly responsible for this tragedy. This individual had a choice before LE showed up at his door. He could have called them to report he was in possession of the leaked evidence like MS did. He didn’t. Why? Was there something SO damaging in his possession that he knew would be uncovered during an investigation over and above the leaked documents that he did not want exposed? We may never know. JMT

I just don’t see the leak as gross negligence on the part of B & R and we would do well not to bandy about JG‘s estimation of the situation as it has not been proven. AJMO
eta I think

Yes, the most harm was done on Feb 13th 2017.
Yes, MW needs to be charged with something.
I would say though that not safeguarding the discovery like the ex-defense were required to do does amount to gross negligence, but there was a lot more going on.
The ex-defense had repeatedly ignored the judges orders. They had circumvented the gag order by filing motions unsealed that possibly contained details of the crime scene with the intent of trying this case in the public eye.
During the in camera hearing, they shockingly stated they did not care if evidence was leaked. Well, the families do! And frankly it doesn’t matter what they want, the judge ordered the discovery be protected, and they didn’t, not once but twice. They do not get to make the rules, or pick and choose which ones they will follow based on how much they “care” about it.

This definition of gross negligence that @girlhasnoname posted cannot be any clearer.
—an indifference to, and/or a blatant violation of a legal duty with respect of the rights of others..
The ex-defense certainly were indifferent to protecting the discovery. Out of their own mouths, they admit they “didn’t care”. They also violated a legal duty. JG ordered them to protect the evidence and they ignored it…twice.
—being a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care..
The ex-defense certainly did not use reasonable care and it was their decision to handle the evidence that, by their own admission, was spread out across a large table in an unlocked and unmonitored conference room.
—which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both
It certainly caused emotional injury to the families(but the defense didn’t care), it certainly hurt RA and his chance at a fair trial.

The ex-defense blew this entire thing up by their gross negligence.

Judge Gull has some behavior she’s going to have to explain and she may be removed. So be it.
What I don’t understand is trying to argue that the ex-defense is totally blameless here. They are the reason we are where we are right now. They want to run the show, and they can’t. They are not knights in white armor.

 

[MistyWaters]

Do you have proof that LE didn't investigate those people properly?

And simply referring to the Frank's motion isn't proof. It's the D's story.

Exculpatory evidence is something that could exonerate a person, correct?

Please explain how LE failed in that respect if they looked at the people you mention, did an investigation and ruled them out.

The D has said that they had so much discovery, that there is potentially information that they missed!


JMO

Yes good point.

As of us are privy to the full and complete investigative file it’s pointless to fool ourselves into believing it truly contains exculpatory evidence, just because the ex-D said so.

Unless the new D are far more proficient than the old one and manage to get RA’s charges dropped, much of what‘s being speculated is a full year away from being proven or disproven. IMO it’s better not to know than to pretend to know and be wrong. JMO

ETA I don’t get how it can be insisted the Odin theory is exculpatory evidence given the current circumstances including the ex-D being off the case, not knowing even if the new D will go with it. There’s so much love for that theory maybe copyright should be filed on it!

 

[susiQ]

Yes, the most harm was done on Feb 13th 2017.
Yes, MW needs to be charged with something.
I would say though that not safeguarding the discovery like the ex-defense were required to do does amount to gross negligence, but there was a lot more going on.
The ex-defense had repeatedly ignored the judges orders. They had circumvented the gag order by filing motions unsealed that possibly contained details of the crime scene with the intent of trying this case in the public eye.
During the in camera hearing, they shockingly stated they did not care if evidence was leaked. Well, the families do! And frankly it doesn’t matter what they want, the judge ordered the discovery be protected, and they didn’t, not once but twice. They do not get to make the rules, or pick and choose which ones they will follow based on how much they “care” about it.

This definition of gross negligence that @girlhasnoname posted cannot be any clearer.
—an indifference to, and/or a blatant violation of a legal duty with respect of the rights of others..
The ex-defense certainly were indifferent to protecting the discovery. Out of their own mouths, they admit they “didn’t care”. They also violated a legal duty. JG ordered them to protect the evidence and they ignored it…twice.
—being a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care..
The ex-defense certainly did not use reasonable care and it was their decision to handle the evidence that, by their own admission, was spread out across a large table in an unlocked and unmonitored conference room.
—which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both
It certainly caused emotional injury to the families(but the defense didn’t care), it certainly hurt RA and his chance at a fair trial.

The ex-defense blew this entire thing up by their gross negligence.

Judge Gull has some behavior she’s going to have to explain and she may be removed. So be it.
What I don’t understand is trying to argue that the ex-defense is totally blameless here. They are the reason we are where we are right now. They want to run the show, and they can’t. They are not knights in white armor.

I’m not defending any misdeeds by the D, R & B. Let the courts decide on how or if “gross negligence” applies.
In my opinion, there are quite a few people that need to answer for their misdeeds. Not solely R&B, nor JG. There’s lots of misdeeds to go around. IMHO