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

[girlhasnoname]

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

We do know that he was not being held and questioned by LE or Prison Officials at the time. He was talking freely on a recorded phone line. None of us has the complete answer at this time, but I'm positive it will be used during trial.

RA has been provided medical and mental health support since being incarcerated at Westville. RA was doing as well as one could expect according to the Defense and the prison officials up until April; eating, showering, exercising, watching tv, communicating with family, etc.

Then along comes the State's discovery dump and suddenly RA is no longer eating, sleeping, breaking his iPad or whatever it was, discontinuing to talk with family members, and of course trying to eat court documents.

I find that coincidence just a little too large to swallow. Why wasn't he showing signs of the abuse by the guards or mistreatment he is now claiming for over 6 months? He had regularly scheduled meeting with his Defense. They were not concerned or alarmed. Why didn't he raise the issues with the medical staff at Westville or the Warden?

Nothing happened until after April's Discovery, that's not a coinky dink and it's not something the Defense is going to be able to out maneuver during trial.

ALL JMO

 

[EllaMinnowP]

Perhaps this will sound like I’m way out in the weeds with this post, but it’s something that I think about, so I’m going to try to express it.

Often when people die, or are murdered, those left to grieve them and uphold their memories speak of feeling the spirit of the deceased in certain situations. Sometimes it is a brief moment of peace that instantly calls the deceased to the survivor’s mind. Sometimes it’s an unexpected visit from an animal that is perceived as either an incarnation of, or a message from the deceased. Still other times, when a difficult situation has been resolved in such a coincidental way that it seems miraculous, particularly a situation that would have been of interest to the deceased, survivors often say that they believe their loved one’s spirit had a hand in resolving the situation.

Of course I don’t know how anything works after we die and ‘leave this earth’. Most days I don’t even feel like I understand how anything works living on this earth.
If there’s any credence to the idea that the spirit-world can have a hand in earthly matters though, if there’s any way at all, perhaps a murder victim, or two, might try to shine light on corruption and/or injustice that led to their murder, and try to protect others from becoming victims of the same criminals.

Again, this is just something that I think about, and is based on opinion and experience, alone.

Personally, I can’t wrap my mind around how given everything that we’ve been given regarding the shoddy initial investigation and all of the shady dealings that have been revealed over the years, including recently, anyone could feel confident/comfortable that the one thing LE got right was catching RA.

One thing that is for sure, in my mind, is that RA’s case landed in the lap of the right PDs. Not just by providing him with a sound defense either, they are exposing secretive and unlawful procedures, and taking those concerns straight to the highest court in Indiana. From where I’m sitting, it seems incredibly brave of them to take this on, especially in light of the deaths that appear to be at least peripherally related to A&L’s case.

The way I see it, if some corruption and/or incompetency amounting to injustice is uncovered and corrected at the state level, that will be a beautiful and worthy tribute to Liberty and Abigail, both of whom should be credited as being the catalyst.

MOO

 

[Ward Thisperer]

I haven't read any discussion since the transcript came out yet, I wanted to write this post with fresh eyes. All IMO IANAL. Blue text to indicate MOO

Page 6: B&R are under the impression that the hearing today would be about getting decisions on pending motions and discussing the investigation, which he seems to have gathered via an email sent before this meeting.

Page 7: B&R have given formal statements to police and intend to fully cooperate with leak investigation. B&R indicate they are very willing to present their side but they expect they will have some framing and notice, such as a pleading they can respond to, in order to know what type of material they will need to prepare.


Page 8: AB indicates he was not sure the status of disqualification and was needing clarification on what was said in the phone conversation from several days ago.
Page 9: NM indicates he is concerned about this leak being ongoing and that he has been investigating this since Oct 2nd. Why is NM investigating this?
BR confirms they have not been given any notice of the evidence that will be presented at this hearing.

Page 10: BR outlines evidence he is aware of regarding previous leaks (starting with searchers at the CS, and he believes that Barbara MacDonald was holding "documents that I know to be directly related to the Purdue report" when discussing LE sources on CourtTV).
This makes it clear that had he been made aware of the issues that were to be presented such as NM's claim of an ongoing leak, he could put forth his own arguments and evidence to address that claim.
Page 11: AB addresses an additional leak, stating that a county employee leaked a whole file to a man in Texas. AB reiterates he is very willing to participate in a formal hearing. He says he hasn't even seen the leaked photos.

Page 12: JG reads her prepared statement. She was going to begin with again denying for a transfer of custody for RA because she thinks the affidavits from the prison are good enough proof that the allegations from the defense (which also included sworn affidavits) that RA is not unsafe in the prison. (Despite the fact that the affidavits did confirm key info (that these prison guards did indeed wear pagan patches on their uniform while guarding RA) and the other content was just denying they are committing crimes, as if they would have admitted to that if it was true.) She was going to deny motion for broadcasting order but can consider requests for individual hearings.

Page 13 & 14: Discussing NM motion for pleadings and filings to be sealed before confidential release. B&R stated they were under the impression that the court had decided they were no longer going to be sealing things, and he says the court reporter had told him that when they submitted something it would be put in a queue that the court could review before making public. JG says this is not correct.
I'm curious as to whether this is true or not that the court reporter did tell them this.
Page 15: JG says "I had my staff mark the memorandum confidential after it had been filed and disseminated to the public, because the actual warrant was in there, and that's covered under a miscellaneous cause number."
Huh??? The warrant is literally UNREDACTED on the website Gull created for the documents! This also proves that B&R were NEVER directed to remove the names of A&L from the filing in order to have it no longer marked confidential, as she is now directing the new defense team and is now claiming is her reasoning. This is proof of dishonesty by JG.
JG IT staff has "cleaned" the "hours and hours and hours of interviews" and 1500 pages of motions/exhibits to "make sure they're okay"
JG then begins reading her written statement, which she "raised with all of you on our phone call."
Count 1: "My concerns began at our hearing on November 22nd of last year. Mr. McLeland filed a motion for a gag order, and we were in chambers, and you assured me, gentlemen, "We don't want the media in our lives, we will not try this case in the media." And less than two weeks later, you issued an undated press release that contained an awful lot of information that would not normally be revealed. I don't, know, I think you knew or should have known those were potentially violative of Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but it is that press release that prompted me to issue the order December 2nd, granting the gag order until further hearing."
Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity
Timeline:
Motion for gag order 11/22/22, lawyers say they don't want to try this in the media
Press release issued 12/1/2022
Gag order signed 12/2/2022
While JG says that she believes this is "potentially violative" of the Rules, the intro to the Press Release discusses this same possibility. BBM
"We do not want to try this case in the media and we intend to adhere to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct that provide guidance on pretrial publicity. However, the police and prosecutor’s office have conducted many press conferences over the five-plus years of this investigation and following our client’s arrest. On the other hand, Rick’s ability to assert his innocence has been reduced to only one short, post-hearing press conference. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate, necessary, and within the bounds of our rules of professional conduct to make a few comments concerning the probable cause affidavit and Rick’s innocence."
They are invoking Rule 3.6(c)
"(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity."

Page 16: Count 2: "April 18th of this year, you filed a notice of tort claim against the Department of Correction. You stated in that notice that it was your intent to pursue, "Our client's claims against you. The full amount of damages sought on behalf of my client is unknown." I don't know how you could do that in representing Mr. Allen in a criminal matter and then launch off into a civil matter, I think that's inappropriate."
JG thinks this is inappropriate but does she have any justification for thinking that? If the D believe that RA is being abused in prison and the court is unwilling to do anything to change his circumstances, then is this not simply acting vigorously in defense of RA by trying to go another avenue to change his treatment at the prison by promising a lawsuit should abuse continue??
NAL, but on the ABA website, they list a counterclaim as a common pre-trial pleading. This seems pretty similar to me. ABA - Pleadings
Count 3: "May of this year, we were notified by the State of the Brandon Woodhouse arrest and the subsequent discovery of your work product, and I think it was an outline that you created for yourselves with the discovery. It was pretty detailed, I don't know if that's the right word. That, apparently, happened in December of last year, and that was not revealed to anybody, not shared with the Court" (she says NM wasn't told and B&R indicate that BR also wasn't told.) "So then, Mr. Woodhouse gets arrested and here we are. Grossly negligent to e-mail that to the wrong Brad."
What info was contained in the "outline"? It apparently didn't include the actual discovery items. How detailed is "pretty detailed"? JG doesn't even seem to know if detailed is a good word to describe this leak. Does this violate the protective order if it wasn't even the actual discovery material? I don't see any point in the protective order that to me states clearly that would cover an outline, which I assume by the nature of an outline, doesn't substantively describe the contents of discovery.
Count 4: "Your pleadings on the safekeeping order contain inaccuracies and falsehoods. That was proven in the hearing we conducted in June, the evidence presented by the State clearly demonstrated the falsity of your claims, and that was very troubling to me."
She doesn't even bother to outline what the inaccuracies and falsehoods were in the safekeeping order pleading. If RA is not to be entitled to his chosen counsel, shouldn't he at least be told what they said that the court deemed to be so false?? Is it that the defense claimed they "have reason to believe" his cell is "as small as a 6ft in width by 10 ft in length, a space no larger than that of a dog kennel," while the warden testified his cell was 8.5ftx12ft? That they said he can only shower 2x per week and the warden said 3x per week? That the warden said he gets to leave his cell for recreation time 5x per week and the defense said "very little if any"? Are exaggerations made in order to plead the case of the defendant considered "grossly negligent"? Is a prison warden with interest in claiming RA is not being mistreated considered an unimpeachable witness?
Page 17: Count 5: the current leak, JG states that she finds gross negligence.

JG seems to put significant weight on the fact that AB had a lawyer and takes issue with the info put forth in the Memorandum Regarding Possible Disqualification or Sanctions.
She seems to characterize this as if DH is defending AB on the leak investigation, but as far as we know, DH was simply entering the case to argue on behalf of AB to not be DQed or receive sanctions. JG references DH's Memorandum which argues the legal authorities relating to DQing an attorney. JG declines to engage with DH's legal arguments, she does reference case law in general but not anything specific.
Page 18: JG says that she will read the statement in open court but would prefer for them to "have a private conversation", B&R clearly understand that she is telling them to withdraw before the hearing or she will read the statement to take them off the case.
Page 18 & 19: BR asks if he could be given an opportunity to stay on the case without AB, JG states "No," without giving any further reasoning. She makes it even more clear that she is telling them to withdraw or they will have this statement read in front of the cameras, with RA in the court room.

The questions from B&R make it even more clear that they did not expect to have a hearing on disqualification they were expecting a hearing on the motions she opened the meeting to discuss.

Page 20: pause in the record as B&R talk with RA.
Page 21: BR affirms that RA wants them to continue to represent him. "He would like to say that on the record. We asked him if that's what he wanted to do. We suggested maybe he would do it in chambers. It seems a little bit of a difficult position to put a man who's accused but not been found guilty, put him in a courtroom and have him, you know, have to speak on this circumstance with maybe 15 minutes notice."
RA wanted to speak on this and wanted it on the record that he does not want them to withdraw. It sounds like he would have been up to speaking on it in the courtroom or chambers. IANAL but according to Indiana's Rules of Trial Procedure 3.1(H), he should have been given at least 10 days notice and the withdrawal needed to be "required by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(a), or is otherwise permitted by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)." This should have been explained by B&R in a written notice to RA.

BR reiterates 1. they were under the impression they would be discussing other motions for the hearing today. 2. they would have been able and willing to refute the claims against them had they been given notice and opportunity to do so 3. RA wants him to stand his ground but BR does not believe it would be in RA's best interest.
He says he will have his staff file a motion, indicating that he did NOT make an oral motion to withdraw.

Page 22: JG insists that "I think we talked about, when you" meaning NM "asked for a disqualification, and I indicated on our phone conversation I'm inclined to do that.", when BR says that this was informal and not on the record, she admits this. BR says that she had also told them that she was going to do research and talk to senior Judge before DQ would occur.
This appears extremely improper imo. NM didn't bother to file a motion, because he knew he could count on JG to do this anyway? How did NM and JG arrange everything for the shaming hearing without B&R being informed? Was JG aware of evidence that was not shared with B&R?
Page 23: BR reiterates his due process concerns and that he believes this is an improper action by JG. AB says "I do appreciate giving us the advance notice" rather than just going in there and reading the statement. "I don't know what to say, so I'll just say I'm moving to withdraw orally."
Page 24: They discuss returning discovery to the state.
Page 25: BR asks JG to let RA put his wishes on the record. JG declines and says she would not be comfortable with him in her chambers.

I can understand why JG would not want a presumed innocent man, who hasn't had any reports of violence apart from the crime he is presumed innocent of, to enter her chambers so he can look her in the face as she disregards his constitutional rights.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Perhaps this will sound like I’m way out in the weeds with this post, but it’s something that I think about, so I’m going to try to express it.

Often when people die, or are murdered, those left to grieve them and uphold their memories speak of feeling the spirit of the deceased in certain situations. Sometimes it is a brief moment of peace that instantly calls the deceased to the survivor’s mind. Sometimes it’s an unexpected visit from an animal that is perceived as either an incarnation of, or a message from the deceased. Still other times, when a difficult situation has been resolved in such a coincidental way that it seems miraculous, particularly a situation that would have been of interest to the deceased, survivors often say that they believe their loved one’s spirit had a hand in resolving the situation.

Of course I don’t know how anything works after we die and ‘leave this earth’. Most days I don’t even feel like I understand how anything works living on this earth.
If there’s any credence to the idea that the spirit-world can have a hand in earthly matters though, if there’s any way at all, perhaps a murder victim, or two, might try to shine light on corruption and/or injustice that led to their murder, and try to protect others from becoming victims of the same criminals.

Again, this is just something that I think about, and is based on opinion and experience, alone.

Personally, I can’t wrap my mind around how given everything that we’ve been given regarding the shoddy initial investigation and all of the shady dealings that have been revealed over the years, including recently, anyone could feel confident/comfortable that the one thing LE got right was catching RA.

One thing that is for sure, in my mind, is that RA’s case landed in the lap of the right PDs. Not just by providing him with a sound defense either, they are exposing secretive and unlawful procedures, and taking those concerns straight to the highest court in Indiana. From where I’m sitting, it seems incredibly brave of them to take this on, especially in light of the deaths that appear to be at least peripherally related to A&L’s case.

The way I see it, if some corruption and/or incompetency amounting to injustice is uncovered and corrected at the state level, that will be a beautiful and worthy tribute to Liberty and Abigail, both of whom should be credited as being the catalyst.

MOO

RSBBM
I find your last paragraph especially well stated and heartfelt.
<snip>
The way I see it, if some corruption and/or incompetency amounting to injustice is uncovered and corrected at the state level, that will be a beautiful and worthy tribute to Liberty and Abigail, both of whom should be credited as being the catalyst.

 

[MadMcGoo]

If someone is being offensive, rude or you feel their comment has violated TOS, do NOT respond. Report it and let us handle it.

If you can not engage in civil discussion with your fellow posters, you run the risk of losing your posting privileges. Take a break from the thread, scroll on by or use the ignore feature, but enough with the personal attacks!

Enjoy your holidays!!
Mad

 

[Jade]

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?

Probably. Like everyone else. They just keep an eye on them.

Apparently authorities figured since RA seems the type to kill himself rather than buck up to fight the charges or have it in him to face the penalties they better keep him on watch so he will make it to trial.

It’s his former attorneys who make him out to be a puny grouch thinking it favors him somehow.

So, no, I do not assume that he was put on any medication.

I assume the opposite based on this on the record assessment:

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.”

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/delphi-murder-suspects-attorneys-ask-judge-to-deny-prosecutions-subpoena-for-medical-mental-health-records/#:~:text=Allen's%20attorneys%20wrote%20that%20they,innocence%20phase%20of%20this%20proceeding.%E2%80%9D


all imo

 

[Ward Thisperer]

If they’re going to challenge the CCS, surely they’ve read the disclaimer and have visited the courthouse.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

“Information displayed on this site is not to be considered or used as an official court record and may contain errors or omissions. Accuracy of the information is not warranted. Official records of court proceedings may only be obtained directly from the court maintaining a particular record.”

Interestingly, the first author of the first writ, Maggie Smith, served on a committee with the Indiana Supreme Court regarding the rules of practice in the state and published guidance for Indiana lawyers on the public access rules as part of her appointment, and continued to train IN lawyers in these rules.

“The Indiana Supreme Court appointed Maggie to an eight-year term on its Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in 2009, and in this capacity, she was engaged in the continuous study of all the Indiana Rules of Procedure (Trial Rules, Evidence Rules, Jury Rules, Appellate Rules, Professional Conduct Rules, etc.). Maggie was actively involved in the e-fling projects, Administrative Rule 9(G) overhaul, and the appellate rules.”

“Chair and Presenter, Indiana Access to Court Records Rules, Access Approved or Access Denied? The Three Paths to Public Records – Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, May 10, 2023”

Maggie L. Smith - Frost Brown Todd

frostbrowntodd.com

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/AR9(G)-info.pdf

 

[FrostedGlass]

Probably. Like everyone else. They just keep an eye on them.

Apparently authorities figured since RA seems the type to kill himself rather than buck up to fight the charges or have it in him to face the penalties they better keep him on watch so he will make it to trial.

It’s his former attorneys who make him out to be a puny grouch thinking it favors him somehow.

So, no, I do not assume that he was put on any medication.

I assume the opposite based on this on the record assessment:

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.”

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/delphi-murder-suspects-attorneys-ask-judge-to-deny-prosecutions-subpoena-for-medical-mental-health-records/#:~:text=Allen's%20attorneys%20wrote%20that%20they,innocence%20phase%20of%20this%20proceeding.%E2%80%9D


all imo

I had my doubts about actual suicide thoughts but they seemed to be concerned about his mental health and treatment in the safekeeping motions. Since he has a history of depression and was suicidal, I think he's been medicated. For the record:

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf

Emergency Order To Modify Safekeeping Order Filed 4/5/23
pg 243
12. To further complicate matters, Mr. Allen has suffered from depression
dating back to his early years. Upon his incarceration, Mr. Allen was presumably
evaluated and medicated by prison medical staff.
***
These are some of the mentions of mental health in NMcL's response the D's motion.

State's Response to Defense's Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order Filed April 14, 2023
5. That the Defendant is being seen on regular basis by medical personnel and mental health providers.
f. That the Cass County Jail does not have mental health team to address any mental health needs.
15. That the Carroll County Jail does not have mental health counselors or counseling, whereas the Department of Corrections has those resources available for the well being of the Defendant
28. That the State has been made aware that the Defendant is being evaluated at 10:00 A.M. on April 14'", 2023 to assess his mental health needs and the State believes it is important to see the result of that testing before decision is made.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I had my doubts about actual suicide thoughts but they seemed to be concerned about his mental health and treatment in the safekeeping motions. Since he has a history of depression and was suicidal, I think he's been medicated. For the record:

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf

Emergency Order To Modify Safekeeping Order Filed 4/5/23
pg 243
12. To further complicate matters, Mr. Allen has suffered from depression
dating back to his early years. Upon his incarceration, Mr. Allen was presumably
evaluated and medicated by prison medical staff.
***
These are some of the mentions of mental health in NMcL's response the D's motion.

State's Response to Defense's Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order Filed April 14, 2023
5. That the Defendant is being seen on regular basis by medical personnel and mental health providers.
f. That the Cass County Jail does not have mental health team to address any mental health needs.
15. That the Carroll County Jail does not have mental health counselors or counseling, whereas the Department of Corrections has those resources available for the well being of the Defendant
28. That the State has been made aware that the Defendant is being evaluated at 10:00 A.M. on April 14'", 2023 to assess his mental health needs and the State believes it is important to see the result of that testing before decision is made.

I hope that this can offer some reassurance for the people that feel RA is being unfairly housed. This shows that he is receiving counseling. That is good news.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I hope that this can offer some reassurance for the people that feel RA is being unfairly housed. This shows that he is receiving counseling. That is good news.

JMO

That's kind of funny. I'm playing that mental health session out in my head.

 

[Dhighsmith]

Perhaps this will sound like I’m way out in the weeds with this post, but it’s something that I think about, so I’m going to try to express it.

Often when people die, or are murdered, those left to grieve them and uphold their memories speak of feeling the spirit of the deceased in certain situations. Sometimes it is a brief moment of peace that instantly calls the deceased to the survivor’s mind. Sometimes it’s an unexpected visit from an animal that is perceived as either an incarnation of, or a message from the deceased. Still other times, when a difficult situation has been resolved in such a coincidental way that it seems miraculous, particularly a situation that would have been of interest to the deceased, survivors often say that they believe their loved one’s spirit had a hand in resolving the situation.

Of course I don’t know how anything works after we die and ‘leave this earth’. Most days I don’t even feel like I understand how anything works living on this earth.
If there’s any credence to the idea that the spirit-world can have a hand in earthly matters though, if there’s any way at all, perhaps a murder victim, or two, might try to shine light on corruption and/or injustice that led to their murder, and try to protect others from becoming victims of the same criminals.

Again, this is just something that I think about, and is based on opinion and experience, alone.

Personally, I can’t wrap my mind around how given everything that we’ve been given regarding the shoddy initial investigation and all of the shady dealings that have been revealed over the years, including recently, anyone could feel confident/comfortable that the one thing LE got right was catching RA.

One thing that is for sure, in my mind, is that RA’s case landed in the lap of the right PDs. Not just by providing him with a sound defense either, they are exposing secretive and unlawful procedures, and taking those concerns straight to the highest court in Indiana. From where I’m sitting, it seems incredibly brave of them to take this on, especially in light of the deaths that appear to be at least peripherally related to A&L’s case.

The way I see it, if some corruption and/or incompetency amounting to injustice is uncovered and corrected at the state level, that will be a beautiful and worthy tribute to Liberty and Abigail, both of whom should be credited as being the catalyst.

MOO

I enjoy discussions that requires us to open our mind to the unknown. Obviously, the afterlife is a mystery and not truly known to any of us at the moment (thankfully), which lack of factual information naturally has potential for an abundance of theories and speculation many focused on interpretation of religious beliefs or some form of spiritual guidance or lack there of. So, your thoughts on much needed information being revealed to right a wrong is not out of the realm of possibility- “what’s done in the dark comes to light”. Keeping with those thoughts, it’s equally possible that a misplaced or misfiled document is also revealed identifying an unknown person hiding in the dark.

I think we’ll all be relieved once facts are presented at trial so Abby and Libby along with their loved ones achieve a sense of peace in the mysterious unknowns of the dark.

My family and I personally question the existence of justice, achieving peace is our light for accepting actions done in the dark.

 

[EllaMinnowP]

RSBBM
I find your last paragraph especially well stated and heartfelt.
<snip>
The way I see it, if some corruption and/or incompetency amounting to injustice is uncovered and corrected at the state level, that will be a beautiful and worthy tribute to Liberty and Abigail, both of whom should be credited as being the catalyst.

I appreciate your willingness to wade through those weeds with me, or at least watch me do it, while you firmly stand your ground. Thank you for taking the time to find ~and highlight~ the crux. <3

 

[Boxer]

I agree. Since we now know it was filed with the incorrect name, it seems that mistake might not have been found by chance, with the sudden assumption the name was incorrect, but because a name was inputted into the database and this is what came up, and then the mislabel was figured out. Jmo.

Databases are searchable by every enrty.
The search "bridge" should have brought up Richard Allen Whiteman and from there unravelling what happened to the interview.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

6

I haven't read any discussion since the transcript came out yet, I wanted to write this post with fresh eyes. All IMO IANAL. Blue text to indicate MOO

Page 6: B&R are under the impression that the hearing today would be about getting decisions on pending motions and discussing the investigation, which he seems to have gathered via an email sent before this meeting.
View attachment 462768
Page 7: B&R have given formal statements to police and intend to fully cooperate with leak investigation. B&R indicate they are very willing to present their side but they expect they will have some framing and notice, such as a pleading they can respond to, in order to know what type of material they will need to prepare.
View attachment 462779
View attachment 462780
Page 8: AB indicates he was not sure the status of disqualification and was needing clarification on what was said in the phone conversation from several days ago.
Page 9: NM indicates he is concerned about this leak being ongoing and that he has been investigating this since Oct 2nd. Why is NM investigating this?
BR confirms they have not been given any notice of the evidence that will be presented at this hearing.
View attachment 462782
Page 10: BR outlines evidence he is aware of regarding previous leaks (starting with searchers at the CS, and he believes that Barbara MacDonald was holding "documents that I know to be directly related to the Purdue report" when discussing LE sources on CourtTV).
This makes it clear that had he been made aware of the issues that were to be presented such as NM's claim of an ongoing leak, he could put forth his own arguments and evidence to address that claim.
Page 11: AB addresses an additional leak, stating that a county employee leaked a whole file to a man in Texas. AB reiterates he is very willing to participate in a formal hearing. He says he hasn't even seen the leaked photos.
View attachment 462783
Page 12: JG reads her prepared statement. She was going to begin with again denying for a transfer of custody for RA because she thinks the affidavits from the prison are good enough proof that the allegations from the defense (which also included sworn affidavits) that RA is not unsafe in the prison. (Despite the fact that the affidavits did confirm key info (that these prison guards did indeed wear pagan patches on their uniform while guarding RA) and the other content was just denying they are committing crimes, as if they would have admitted to that if it was true.) She was going to deny motion for broadcasting order but can consider requests for individual hearings.
View attachment 462784
Page 13 & 14: Discussing NM motion for pleadings and filings to be sealed before confidential release. B&R stated they were under the impression that the court had decided they were no longer going to be sealing things, and he says the court reporter had told him that when they submitted something it would be put in a queue that the court could review before making public. JG says this is not correct.
I'm curious as to whether this is true or not that the court reporter did tell them this.
Page 15: JG says "I had my staff mark the memorandum confidential after it had been filed and disseminated to the public, because the actual warrant was in there, and that's covered under a miscellaneous cause number."
Huh??? The warrant is literally UNREDACTED on the website Gull created for the documents! This also proves that B&R were NEVER directed to remove the names of A&L from the filing in order to have it no longer marked confidential, as she is now directing the new defense team and is now claiming is her reasoning. This is proof of dishonesty by JG.
JG IT staff has "cleaned" the "hours and hours and hours of interviews" and 1500 pages of motions/exhibits to "make sure they're okay"
JG then begins reading her written statement, which she "raised with all of you on our phone call."
Count 1: "My concerns began at our hearing on November 22nd of last year. Mr. McLeland filed a motion for a gag order, and we were in chambers, and you assured me, gentlemen, "We don't want the media in our lives, we will not try this case in the media." And less than two weeks later, you issued an undated press release that contained an awful lot of information that would not normally be revealed. I don't, know, I think you knew or should have known those were potentially violative of Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but it is that press release that prompted me to issue the order December 2nd, granting the gag order until further hearing."
Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity
Timeline:
Motion for gag order 11/22/22, lawyers say they don't want to try this in the media
Press release issued 12/1/2022
Gag order signed 12/2/2022
While JG says that she believes this is "potentially violative" of the Rules, the intro to the Press Release discusses this same possibility. BBM
"We do not want to try this case in the media and we intend to adhere to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct that provide guidance on pretrial publicity. However, the police and prosecutor’s office have conducted many press conferences over the five-plus years of this investigation and following our client’s arrest. On the other hand, Rick’s ability to assert his innocence has been reduced to only one short, post-hearing press conference. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate, necessary, and within the bounds of our rules of professional conduct to make a few comments concerning the probable cause affidavit and Rick’s innocence."
They are invoking Rule 3.6(c)
"(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity."

Page 16: Count 2: "April 18th of this year, you filed a notice of tort claim against the Department of Correction. You stated in that notice that it was your intent to pursue, "Our client's claims against you. The full amount of damages sought on behalf of my client is unknown." I don't know how you could do that in representing Mr. Allen in a criminal matter and then launch off into a civil matter, I think that's inappropriate."
JG thinks this is inappropriate but does she have any justification for thinking that? If the D believe that RA is being abused in prison and the court is unwilling to do anything to change his circumstances, then is this not simply acting vigorously in defense of RA by trying to go another avenue to change his treatment at the prison by promising a lawsuit should abuse continue??
NAL, but on the ABA website, they list a counterclaim as a common pre-trial pleading. This seems pretty similar to me. ABA - Pleadings
Count 3: "May of this year, we were notified by the State of the Brandon Woodhouse arrest and the subsequent discovery of your work product, and I think it was an outline that you created for yourselves with the discovery. It was pretty detailed, I don't know if that's the right word. That, apparently, happened in December of last year, and that was not revealed to anybody, not shared with the Court" (she says NM wasn't told and B&R indicate that BR also wasn't told.) "So then, Mr. Woodhouse gets arrested and here we are. Grossly negligent to e-mail that to the wrong Brad."
What info was contained in the "outline"? It apparently didn't include the actual discovery items. How detailed is "pretty detailed"? JG doesn't even seem to know if detailed is a good word to describe this leak. Does this violate the protective order if it wasn't even the actual discovery material? I don't see any point in the protective order that to me states clearly that would cover an outline, which I assume by the nature of an outline, doesn't substantively describe the contents of discovery.
Count 4: "Your pleadings on the safekeeping order contain inaccuracies and falsehoods. That was proven in the hearing we conducted in June, the evidence presented by the State clearly demonstrated the falsity of your claims, and that was very troubling to me."
She doesn't even bother to outline what the inaccuracies and falsehoods were in the safekeeping order pleading. If RA is not to be entitled to his chosen counsel, shouldn't he at least be told what they said that the court deemed to be so false?? Is it that the defense claimed they "have reason to believe" his cell is "as small as a 6ft in width by 10 ft in length, a space no larger than that of a dog kennel," while the warden testified his cell was 8.5ftx12ft? That they said he can only shower 2x per week and the warden said 3x per week? That the warden said he gets to leave his cell for recreation time 5x per week and the defense said "very little if any"? Are exaggerations made in order to plead the case of the defendant considered "grossly negligent"? Is a prison warden with interest in claiming RA is not being mistreated considered an unimpeachable witness?
Page 17: Count 5: the current leak, JG states that she finds gross negligence.
View attachment 462990
JG seems to put significant weight on the fact that AB had a lawyer and takes issue with the info put forth in the Memorandum Regarding Possible Disqualification or Sanctions.
She seems to characterize this as if DH is defending AB on the leak investigation, but as far as we know, DH was simply entering the case to argue on behalf of AB to not be DQed or receive sanctions. JG references DH's Memorandum which argues the legal authorities relating to DQing an attorney. JG declines to engage with DH's legal arguments, she does reference case law in general but not anything specific.
Page 18: JG says that she will read the statement in open court but would prefer for them to "have a private conversation", B&R clearly understand that she is telling them to withdraw before the hearing or she will read the statement to take them off the case.
Page 18 & 19: BR asks if he could be given an opportunity to stay on the case without AB, JG states "No," without giving any further reasoning. She makes it even more clear that she is telling them to withdraw or they will have this statement read in front of the cameras, with RA in the court room.
View attachment 462993
The questions from B&R make it even more clear that they did not expect to have a hearing on disqualification they were expecting a hearing on the motions she opened the meeting to discuss.

Page 20: pause in the record as B&R talk with RA.
Page 21: BR affirms that RA wants them to continue to represent him. "He would like to say that on the record. We asked him if that's what he wanted to do. We suggested maybe he would do it in chambers. It seems a little bit of a difficult position to put a man who's accused but not been found guilty, put him in a courtroom and have him, you know, have to speak on this circumstance with maybe 15 minutes notice."
RA wanted to speak on this and wanted it on the record that he does not want them to withdraw. It sounds like he would have been up to speaking on it in the courtroom or chambers. IANAL but according to Indiana's Rules of Trial Procedure 3.1(H), he should have been given at least 10 days notice and the withdrawal needed to be "required by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(a), or is otherwise permitted by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)." This should have been explained by B&R in a written notice to RA.

BR reiterates 1. they were under the impression they would be discussing other motions for the hearing today. 2. they would have been able and willing to refute the claims against them had they been given notice and opportunity to do so 3. RA wants him to stand his ground but BR does not believe it would be in RA's best interest.
He says he will have his staff file a motion, indicating that he did NOT make an oral motion to withdraw.
View attachment 462997
Page 22: JG insists that "I think we talked about, when you" meaning NM "asked for a disqualification, and I indicated on our phone conversation I'm inclined to do that.", when BR says that this was informal and not on the record, she admits this. BR says that she had also told them that she was going to do research and talk to senior Judge before DQ would occur.
This appears extremely improper imo. NM didn't bother to file a motion, because he knew he could count on JG to do this anyway? How did NM and JG arrange everything for the shaming hearing without B&R being informed? Was JG aware of evidence that was not shared with B&R?
Page 23: BR reiterates his due process concerns and that he believes this is an improper action by JG. AB says "I do appreciate giving us the advance notice" rather than just going in there and reading the statement. "I don't know what to say, so I'll just say I'm moving to withdraw orally."
Page 24: They discuss returning discovery to the state.
Page 25: BR asks JG to let RA put his wishes on the record. JG declines and says she would not be comfortable with him in her chambers.
View attachment 463006
I can understand why JG would not want a presumed innocent man, who hasn't had any reports of violence apart from the crime he is presumed innocent of, to enter her chambers so he can look her in the face as she disregards his constitutional rights.

Thank you for bringing this over. I was about to list the points that JG had stated were a culmination of acts of gross negligence.
Even though my takeaway on these points is vastly different- I appreciate that you saved me loads of time.

 

[zh0r4]

I haven't read any discussion since the transcript came out yet, I wanted to write this post with fresh eyes. All IMO IANAL. Blue text to indicate MOO

Page 6: B&R are under the impression that the hearing today would be about getting decisions on pending motions and discussing the investigation, which he seems to have gathered via an email sent before this meeting.
View attachment 462768
Page 7: B&R have given formal statements to police and intend to fully cooperate with leak investigation. B&R indicate they are very willing to present their side but they expect they will have some framing and notice, such as a pleading they can respond to, in order to know what type of material they will need to prepare.
View attachment 462779
View attachment 462780
Page 8: AB indicates he was not sure the status of disqualification and was needing clarification on what was said in the phone conversation from several days ago.
Page 9: NM indicates he is concerned about this leak being ongoing and that he has been investigating this since Oct 2nd. Why is NM investigating this?
BR confirms they have not been given any notice of the evidence that will be presented at this hearing.
View attachment 462782
Page 10: BR outlines evidence he is aware of regarding previous leaks (starting with searchers at the CS, and he believes that Barbara MacDonald was holding "documents that I know to be directly related to the Purdue report" when discussing LE sources on CourtTV).
This makes it clear that had he been made aware of the issues that were to be presented such as NM's claim of an ongoing leak, he could put forth his own arguments and evidence to address that claim.
Page 11: AB addresses an additional leak, stating that a county employee leaked a whole file to a man in Texas. AB reiterates he is very willing to participate in a formal hearing. He says he hasn't even seen the leaked photos.
View attachment 462783
Page 12: JG reads her prepared statement. She was going to begin with again denying for a transfer of custody for RA because she thinks the affidavits from the prison are good enough proof that the allegations from the defense (which also included sworn affidavits) that RA is not unsafe in the prison. (Despite the fact that the affidavits did confirm key info (that these prison guards did indeed wear pagan patches on their uniform while guarding RA) and the other content was just denying they are committing crimes, as if they would have admitted to that if it was true.) She was going to deny motion for broadcasting order but can consider requests for individual hearings.
View attachment 462784
Page 13 & 14: Discussing NM motion for pleadings and filings to be sealed before confidential release. B&R stated they were under the impression that the court had decided they were no longer going to be sealing things, and he says the court reporter had told him that when they submitted something it would be put in a queue that the court could review before making public. JG says this is not correct.
I'm curious as to whether this is true or not that the court reporter did tell them this.
Page 15: JG says "I had my staff mark the memorandum confidential after it had been filed and disseminated to the public, because the actual warrant was in there, and that's covered under a miscellaneous cause number."
Huh??? The warrant is literally UNREDACTED on the website Gull created for the documents! This also proves that B&R were NEVER directed to remove the names of A&L from the filing in order to have it no longer marked confidential, as she is now directing the new defense team and is now claiming is her reasoning. This is proof of dishonesty by JG.
JG IT staff has "cleaned" the "hours and hours and hours of interviews" and 1500 pages of motions/exhibits to "make sure they're okay"
JG then begins reading her written statement, which she "raised with all of you on our phone call."
Count 1: "My concerns began at our hearing on November 22nd of last year. Mr. McLeland filed a motion for a gag order, and we were in chambers, and you assured me, gentlemen, "We don't want the media in our lives, we will not try this case in the media." And less than two weeks later, you issued an undated press release that contained an awful lot of information that would not normally be revealed. I don't, know, I think you knew or should have known those were potentially violative of Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but it is that press release that prompted me to issue the order December 2nd, granting the gag order until further hearing."
Rule 3.6. Trial Publicity
Timeline:
Motion for gag order 11/22/22, lawyers say they don't want to try this in the media
Press release issued 12/1/2022
Gag order signed 12/2/2022
While JG says that she believes this is "potentially violative" of the Rules, the intro to the Press Release discusses this same possibility. BBM
"We do not want to try this case in the media and we intend to adhere to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct that provide guidance on pretrial publicity. However, the police and prosecutor’s office have conducted many press conferences over the five-plus years of this investigation and following our client’s arrest. On the other hand, Rick’s ability to assert his innocence has been reduced to only one short, post-hearing press conference. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate, necessary, and within the bounds of our rules of professional conduct to make a few comments concerning the probable cause affidavit and Rick’s innocence."
They are invoking Rule 3.6(c)
"(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity."

Page 16: Count 2: "April 18th of this year, you filed a notice of tort claim against the Department of Correction. You stated in that notice that it was your intent to pursue, "Our client's claims against you. The full amount of damages sought on behalf of my client is unknown." I don't know how you could do that in representing Mr. Allen in a criminal matter and then launch off into a civil matter, I think that's inappropriate."
JG thinks this is inappropriate but does she have any justification for thinking that? If the D believe that RA is being abused in prison and the court is unwilling to do anything to change his circumstances, then is this not simply acting vigorously in defense of RA by trying to go another avenue to change his treatment at the prison by promising a lawsuit should abuse continue??
NAL, but on the ABA website, they list a counterclaim as a common pre-trial pleading. This seems pretty similar to me. ABA - Pleadings
Count 3: "May of this year, we were notified by the State of the Brandon Woodhouse arrest and the subsequent discovery of your work product, and I think it was an outline that you created for yourselves with the discovery. It was pretty detailed, I don't know if that's the right word. That, apparently, happened in December of last year, and that was not revealed to anybody, not shared with the Court" (she says NM wasn't told and B&R indicate that BR also wasn't told.) "So then, Mr. Woodhouse gets arrested and here we are. Grossly negligent to e-mail that to the wrong Brad."
What info was contained in the "outline"? It apparently didn't include the actual discovery items. How detailed is "pretty detailed"? JG doesn't even seem to know if detailed is a good word to describe this leak. Does this violate the protective order if it wasn't even the actual discovery material? I don't see any point in the protective order that to me states clearly that would cover an outline, which I assume by the nature of an outline, doesn't substantively describe the contents of discovery.
Count 4: "Your pleadings on the safekeeping order contain inaccuracies and falsehoods. That was proven in the hearing we conducted in June, the evidence presented by the State clearly demonstrated the falsity of your claims, and that was very troubling to me."
She doesn't even bother to outline what the inaccuracies and falsehoods were in the safekeeping order pleading. If RA is not to be entitled to his chosen counsel, shouldn't he at least be told what they said that the court deemed to be so false?? Is it that the defense claimed they "have reason to believe" his cell is "as small as a 6ft in width by 10 ft in length, a space no larger than that of a dog kennel," while the warden testified his cell was 8.5ftx12ft? That they said he can only shower 2x per week and the warden said 3x per week? That the warden said he gets to leave his cell for recreation time 5x per week and the defense said "very little if any"? Are exaggerations made in order to plead the case of the defendant considered "grossly negligent"? Is a prison warden with interest in claiming RA is not being mistreated considered an unimpeachable witness?
Page 17: Count 5: the current leak, JG states that she finds gross negligence.
View attachment 462990
JG seems to put significant weight on the fact that AB had a lawyer and takes issue with the info put forth in the Memorandum Regarding Possible Disqualification or Sanctions.
She seems to characterize this as if DH is defending AB on the leak investigation, but as far as we know, DH was simply entering the case to argue on behalf of AB to not be DQed or receive sanctions. JG references DH's Memorandum which argues the legal authorities relating to DQing an attorney. JG declines to engage with DH's legal arguments, she does reference case law in general but not anything specific.
Page 18: JG says that she will read the statement in open court but would prefer for them to "have a private conversation", B&R clearly understand that she is telling them to withdraw before the hearing or she will read the statement to take them off the case.
Page 18 & 19: BR asks if he could be given an opportunity to stay on the case without AB, JG states "No," without giving any further reasoning. She makes it even more clear that she is telling them to withdraw or they will have this statement read in front of the cameras, with RA in the court room.
View attachment 462993
The questions from B&R make it even more clear that they did not expect to have a hearing on disqualification they were expecting a hearing on the motions she opened the meeting to discuss.

Page 20: pause in the record as B&R talk with RA.
Page 21: BR affirms that RA wants them to continue to represent him. "He would like to say that on the record. We asked him if that's what he wanted to do. We suggested maybe he would do it in chambers. It seems a little bit of a difficult position to put a man who's accused but not been found guilty, put him in a courtroom and have him, you know, have to speak on this circumstance with maybe 15 minutes notice."
RA wanted to speak on this and wanted it on the record that he does not want them to withdraw. It sounds like he would have been up to speaking on it in the courtroom or chambers. IANAL but according to Indiana's Rules of Trial Procedure 3.1(H), he should have been given at least 10 days notice and the withdrawal needed to be "required by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(a), or is otherwise permitted by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)." This should have been explained by B&R in a written notice to RA.

BR reiterates 1. they were under the impression they would be discussing other motions for the hearing today. 2. they would have been able and willing to refute the claims against them had they been given notice and opportunity to do so 3. RA wants him to stand his ground but BR does not believe it would be in RA's best interest.
He says he will have his staff file a motion, indicating that he did NOT make an oral motion to withdraw.
View attachment 462997
Page 22: JG insists that "I think we talked about, when you" meaning NM "asked for a disqualification, and I indicated on our phone conversation I'm inclined to do that.", when BR says that this was informal and not on the record, she admits this. BR says that she had also told them that she was going to do research and talk to senior Judge before DQ would occur.
This appears extremely improper imo. NM didn't bother to file a motion, because he knew he could count on JG to do this anyway? How did NM and JG arrange everything for the shaming hearing without B&R being informed? Was JG aware of evidence that was not shared with B&R?
Page 23: BR reiterates his due process concerns and that he believes this is an improper action by JG. AB says "I do appreciate giving us the advance notice" rather than just going in there and reading the statement. "I don't know what to say, so I'll just say I'm moving to withdraw orally."
Page 24: They discuss returning discovery to the state.
Page 25: BR asks JG to let RA put his wishes on the record. JG declines and says she would not be comfortable with him in her chambers.
View attachment 463006
I can understand why JG would not want a presumed innocent man, who hasn't had any reports of violence apart from the crime he is presumed innocent of, to enter her chambers so he can look her in the face as she disregards his constitutional rights.

Incredible summary WH! I look forward to reading the discussion about specifics of this most recent revelation-the transcript that reiterates exactly what the defense says happened-which is incredibly unconstitutional. Hopefully the D will be reinstated, or maybe DH can hop on with Rozzi, so the trial can happen January 2024. The P would obviously have no issue with the trial continuing in January 2024 if their case was strong. Instead they tried to have their opponent DQ’d.

AJMO.

 

[Boxer]

Databases are searchable by every enrty.
The search "bridge" should have brought up Richard Allen Whiteman and from there unravelling what happened to the interview.

Databases are searchable by every enrty.
The search "bridge" should have brought up Richard Allen Whiteman and from there unravelling what happened to the interview.

Adding. The police were less thorough than an average hard working teenager at McD's s trying to see if an orders got misplaced in the last FY.
GBI did a case review as well.

 

[Jade]

I had my doubts about actual suicide thoughts but they seemed to be concerned about his mental health and treatment in the safekeeping motions. Since he has a history of depression and was suicidal, I think he's been medicated. For the record:

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf

Emergency Order To Modify Safekeeping Order Filed 4/5/23
pg 243
12. To further complicate matters, Mr. Allen has suffered from depression
dating back to his early years. Upon his incarceration, Mr. Allen was presumably
evaluated and medicated by prison medical staff.
***
These are some of the mentions of mental health in NMcL's response the D's motion.

State's Response to Defense's Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order Filed April 14, 2023
5. That the Defendant is being seen on regular basis by medical personnel and mental health providers.
f. That the Cass County Jail does not have mental health team to address any mental health needs.
15. That the Carroll County Jail does not have mental health counselors or counseling, whereas the Department of Corrections has those resources available for the well being of the Defendant
28. That the State has been made aware that the Defendant is being evaluated at 10:00 A.M. on April 14'", 2023 to assess his mental health needs and the State believes it is important to see the result of that testing before decision is made.

Of course the State wants to see confirmation of an actual condition.

It’s like Defense bait and switch: he’s so depressed- then- he’s competent nothing to see here.

Unless it’s that gross negligence going on those who would seem to have RA’s best interest in mind said no issue.

I see zero evidence he has been medicated. Or that he has suffered from diagnosed clinical depression.

State response says he’s just a big crybaby that gets treated better than others and his attorneys are dramatic.

Medical staff classify him as very healthy.

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf

I hope the jury gets to see lots of the videos of RA all fat and sassy displaying a cruel sense of humor.


Updated: Oct 10, 2023 / 11:46 AM EDT

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.
>>
his “mental state is not at issue in the guilt/innocence phase of this proceeding.”
>>Delphi murder suspect’s attorneys ask judge to deny prosecution’s subpoena for medical, mental health records

 

[Willow Knight]

I still have questions.
Who killed Libby and Abby?
RA? What is the totality of evidence?
If it was RA, did he do it alone, or were others involved?
WHO are they? WHERE are they?
Are the killers still out there, free to kill again, or is the right and solo suspect behind bars?

What have I missed?

Are you peeking in my thoughts?

Evidence, yes IMO we have been privy to enough evidence to warrant search warrants and accuse a person of a crime. Have not met anyone ready to convict RA on what the public knows thus far.

How many individuals were involved in the crime, wow..good question. In my opinion there are several scenarios. We, the public, must wait until all the evidence is presented at a trial. (should there be no trial I assume the gag orders will be eliminated)

As far as other suspects at large, no way will I ever be convinced LE is freely allowing known murderers to run free. It is my strong opinion that LE is aggressively investigating that possibility.

I hope and believe if this goes to trial many of these questions will be answered. While we wait for answers and justice for these two beautiful girls let's appreciate all opinions. The results are going to be decided by everyday people using evidence and common sense.

Quote:
“What comes, when it comes, will be what it is.”

 

[Cyber sleuth]

What I found in the transcript that was interesting is
Page 3 line 24-25.
BR acknowledges he had requested the huddle up and asks to lead. ( judge affirms Pg 4 ln 2)
Page 4 line 13-15
BR acknowledges that DQ had been mentioned weeks prior.
Page 4 lines 17-20
BR acknowledges they will be airing this in open court and that it also had been mentioned in a prior email. (Judge affirms)
Page 5 lines 1-3
BR states he feels more comfortable discussing this privately (on record) or ex-parte CONFIDENTIAL hearing.
Page 5 line 22
AB states he feels ambushed but doesn’t want to use that word.
Page 5 line going into the top of page 6
AB mentions that he thinks Nick used the word “ disqualification “.

The reason I find this interesting is that they used the word ambush within a few moments of having the floor. The judge had not laid out her thoughts “hobsons choice” at that point. ( she doesn’t until page 13)
AB had introduced that word “ambush”even though they both had heads up that DQ was on the table.
I think this was strategic.
AB arrived with counsel and a file showing that leaks had occurred on the onset of the investigation. They spent two+ pages in attempt to point fingers at non lawyers under no gag order or protective order of discovery that may have been involved in early leaks.
This does not point to ambush to me.
I think they introduced the scenario of wanting to keep this leak issue and the possible legal/professional consequences for them out of the public eye.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Of course the State wants to see confirmation of an actual condition.

It’s like Defense bait and switch: he’s so depressed- then- he’s competent nothing to see here.

Unless it’s that gross negligence going on those who would seem to have RA’s best interest in mind said no issue.

I see zero evidence he has been medicated. Or that he has suffered from diagnosed clinical depression.

State response says he’s just a big crybaby that gets treated better than others and his attorneys are dramatic.

Medical staff classify him as very healthy.

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf

I hope the jury gets to see lots of the videos of RA all fat and sassy displaying a cruel sense of humor.


Updated: Oct 10, 2023 / 11:46 AM EDT

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.
>>
his “mental state is not at issue in the guilt/innocence phase of this proceeding.”
>>Delphi murder suspect’s attorneys ask judge to deny prosecution’s subpoena for medical, mental health records

RA attys weren't the ones who were intent on keeping him in prison, the mental health condition worries appeared to be from the other side. He's been in there since November; surely they would have known by April if he was having mental issues or not.

He hasn't looked fat and healthy in any of the quick views the media has been able to catch of him. His current look is kind of bad for Westville, IMO. Fat and sassy would be helpful for them.