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

[Emma Peel]

It was a five week long search of the Wabash River near Peru (Aug/Sept). KAK was taken into custody by the ISP, per court records, near the beginning. MS reported it was related to Delphi and based off things KAK told ISP.

ISP search of Wabash River concludes, police not saying if anything was found.

Like magic!! So much better than my memory. Thanks, TL4S!

 

[StarryStarryNight]

But by removing the two defense attorneys who were on the case for 11 months, isn't it the judge who is "creating situations that are pushing the endgame further and further away"? Because by her removing those attorneys, the trial date was moved from Jan 2024 to November 2024--nearly a year further out.

I see it as the ex-defense team‘s fault the trial has been pushed back a year. If they had protected the discovery as they were required to do, there would have been no reason to remove them and reset the clock. And they admitted they did not protect it.

 

[Justice101]

IMO, there would have been LOTS of options for APPEALS IF the old defense team had been left in place and had lost the case.

 

[mrjitty]

IMO, there would have been LOTS of options for APPEALS IF the old defense team had been left in place and had lost the case.

There is also a not insignificant possibility Baldwin and MW intentionally leaked the crime scene as part of their strategy to influence a future jury. He should be in front of a disciplinary tribunal.

My solution would be to bail the defendant pre-trial.

Its the only fair way IMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

# 23S-OR-00302

11/17/2023

Order Granting Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae Being duly advised, Media Coalition's "Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae" is GRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to file the amicus curiae brief as of the date of this order. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Party: The Indiana Broadcasters Association Party: Hoosier State Press Association Party: American Broadcasting Companies, Inc dba ABC News Party: E.W. Scripps Company dba WRTV Party: Gannett Satellite Information Network LLC dba The Indianapolis Star Party: Nexstar Media Inc dba WXIN/WTTV Party: TEGNA Inc. dba WTHR Serve: Smith, Margaret Lee Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Cook, Jessie A. Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Byron, Daniel P Serve: Leisz, Scott Russell Serve: Christensen, Margaret Marie Serve: Meek, Jessica Laurin File Stamp: 11/17/2023

Order
Proposed amici curiae the Indiana Broadcasters Association, the Hoosier State PressAssociation, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. d/b/a ABC News, E.W. ScrippsCompany d/b/a WRTV, Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC d/b/a the IndianapolisStar, Nexstar Media Inc. d/b/a WXIN/WTTV, and TEGNA Inc. d/b/a WTHR (collectively,the “Media Coalition”), represent that they are associations and entities with a substantialinterest in the newsgathering process, maintaining an informed citizenry, and ensuring thepublic’s free and robust access to public records, news, information, and matters of publicconcern and safety. Proposed amici are substantively aligned with the Relator, who filed apetition for writ of mandamus on October 30, 2023. Proposed amici filed a motion to appear asamicus curiae according to Appellate Rule 41 and tendered a joint brief.Being duly advised, Media Coalition’s “Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae” isGRANTED, and the Clerk is directed to file the amicus curiae brief as of the date of this order.Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on ___________.Loretta H. RushChief Justice of Indiana

 

[FrostedGlass]

Case # 23S-OR-00311
Order
Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus on November 6, 2023, and we issued an order setting a briefing schedule in this matter. On November 9, 2023, we granted Respondents’ verified motion for extension of time, ordering that Respondents’ response brief and any supplemental records must be filed by November 27, 2023.The State of Indiana now moves to clarify this deadline. The verified motion indicates that the State, by the Attorney General, is authorized to file a response but is not a Respondent as defined in the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions. The State therefore requests clarification on whether the order extending Respondents’ deadline also extended the deadline for any additional response briefs. Being duly advised, the State’s “Verified Motion to Clarify Deadline for Response” is GRANTED. Any response brief filed under Rule 3(F) of the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, November 27, 2023.Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on ___________.
Loretta H. Rush Chief Justice of Indiana

11/17/2023

Order Granting Motion to Clarify Being duly advised, the State's "Verified Motion to Clarify Deadline for Response" is GRANTED. Any response brief filed under Rule 3(F) of the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, November 27, 2023. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 11/17/2023

 

[everlearning]

Judge Gull's response

Judge in Delphi murders case defends her actions to Indiana Supreme Court

Richard Allen is accused of killing Abigail Williams, 13, and Liberty German, 14, in February 2017.

www.wthr.com

 

[everlearning]

I just finished listening to episode 76 of The Prosecutor's "Legal Briefs" podcast. They explain the case law concerning the right to continuity of counsel. Very informative.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Judge Gull's response

Judge in Delphi murders case defends her actions to Indiana Supreme Court

Richard Allen is accused of killing Abigail Williams, 13, and Liberty German, 14, in February 2017.

www.wthr.com

I got this far in her response; maybe I'll tackle the other 19 pages tomorrow.
case # 23S-OR-00302
ARGUMENT
Pages 7 through 16
I. Relator Does Not Meet the Conditions Precedent or Mandatory Requirements
to Seek a Writ
A. Relator Admits that He Failed to Comply with Conditions Precedent
for Original Actions to Seek Relief from the Trial Court. .
B. Relator Failed to File His Petition “Expeditiously.”
C. Relator Fails to Show that the Denial of the Petition Will Result in
Extreme Hardship
D. Relator Fails to Show that the Remedies Available by Appeal Will Be
Wholly Inadequate

II. The Petition Fails on the Merits.
A. Most of the Relief Relator Seeks Is Moot.
B. The Clerk, Not Respondent, Is Required to Maintain the CCS.
C. Respondent Did Not Abuse Her Discretion in Managing the Docket,
Much Less Violate an Absolute Duty

 

[Emma Peel]

IMO, there would have been LOTS of options for APPEALS IF the old defense team had been left in place and had lost the case.

I would think these options for appeal (if the offering the appeals options is related to Old D somehow) are still viable for RA if/when a New D team lost the case.

(Also, my understanding from Rozzi & Baldwin requesting reinstatement etc is that RA agreed to release Old D of any conflicts over the matter.)

JMO

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Pick your poison. If you leave as is, and go to trial in January 2024 (which I don't believe is realistic no matter what the former D says)...and he gets convicted...he's likely got some good grounds for appeal based on the situation with the former D, so with a successful appeal...you're looking at all of that work being for nothing, and starting the process all over again...which probably pushes a final resolution out at least to 2026 (likely longer). Not taking the course of action that she has selected is also a bit like gambling probably well north of a million dollars in taxpayer money...when the issue can be remedied by simply making the change now, and pushing the trial date out by 10 months.

JMO

IMO, there would have been LOTS of options for APPEALS IF the old defense team had been left in place and had lost the case.

What makes you think this? Are you aware of any cases where an appeal was awarded because of leaked material or whatever reason you think would benefit him on appeal?
Considering he would need to prove that it’s likely he would have a different outcome if he had different counsel, and the CS photos will be shown to the jury at trial, I find it hard to believe the leak would have any major impact in an appeal.
This is also where the lack of an evidentiary hearing with RA present can be an issue. If he saw all the evidence presented and still wanted to have those lawyers, he would have no recourse on appeal to claim they were incompetent.
JMO

 

[tlcya]

I just finished listening to episode 76 of The Prosecutor's "Legal Briefs" podcast. They explain the case law concerning the right to continuity of counsel. Very informative.

thanks for mentioning it. I am alone in the office today and it was a good listen.

 

[Willow Knight]

'"The state of Indiana acquired a large section of land from the Grissom Air Force Base, located in north central Indiana for use as a new state correctional facility."

Wow!
It seems like KAK might still have a connection to this case after all.

As to speculating on the why, it could have been for his protection. He is in general population, isn't he?

Maybe there was information regarding specific people within his current residence that he had information about. Who knows how far up the chain that could go?

Miami Correctional Facility.

I am so happy to see this post. Was beginning to feel that I was the only one left with KAK being a player in RA's arrest. It took LE some time to make this arrest, however I believe LE had their heart in finding the true killers of these girls. As evidence and rumors start flooding, it can be confusing and overwhelming. But three clear and simple events won't leave my mind.

1. 8-19-22 KAK is in custody

2. 9-13-22 SW for RA home

3. 10-26-22 RA arrested

After app five years we have the above three in two months.

I believe there was a reason RA's yard was dug up. (buried pet?) It matters not if these two actually were friends or associates, what bothers me is if RA had access to the A.S account. Is the AS account and or CSAM the connection?

 

[Jurisprudence]

Pick your poison. If you leave as is, and go to trial in January 2024 (which I don't believe is realistic no matter what the former D says)...and he gets convicted...he's likely got some good grounds for appeal based on the situation with the former D, so with a successful appeal...you're looking at all of that work being for nothing, and starting the process all over again...which probably pushes a final resolution out at least to 2026 (likely longer). Not taking the course of action that she has selected is also a bit like gambling probably well north of a million dollars in taxpayer money...when the issue can be remedied by simply making the change now, and pushing the trial date out by 10 months.

JMO

It's not our poison to pick. That's precisely the problem here. We are not the accused sitting in a prison in solitary with convicted felons instead of in a county jail awaiting trial with others who have not yet been convicted.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

The judge didn’t just randomly decide to do that. But I’m sure you know this. If not, her email to them and the P is on the last thread.
MOO.

[bbm]

People differ on this point.
jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Case # 23S-OR-00311
Order
Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus on November 6, 2023, and we issued an order setting a briefing schedule in this matter. On November 9, 2023, we granted Respondents’ verified motion for extension of time, ordering that Respondents’ response brief and any supplemental records must be filed by November 27, 2023.The State of Indiana now moves to clarify this deadline. The verified motion indicates that the State, by the Attorney General, is authorized to file a response but is not a Respondent as defined in the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions. The State therefore requests clarification on whether the order extending Respondents’ deadline also extended the deadline for any additional response briefs. Being duly advised, the State’s “Verified Motion to Clarify Deadline for Response” is GRANTED. Any response brief filed under Rule 3(F) of the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, November 27, 2023.Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on ___________.
Loretta H. Rush Chief Justice of Indiana

11/17/2023

Order Granting Motion to Clarify Being duly advised, the State's "Verified Motion to Clarify Deadline for Response" is GRANTED. Any response brief filed under Rule 3(F) of the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Monday, November 27, 2023. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 11/17/2023

I find it very interesting that the guy who wanted nothing to do with this now wants to hop in now that it appears the first case will likely be dismissed as moot (because she used the time for extension to fix the problems). Now they'll stand behind her. I'm looking forward to his filing on how and why the removal - without the accused even present, was fully constitutional.
jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

I find it very interesting that the guy who wanted nothing to do with this now wants to hop in now that it appears the first case will likely be dismissed as moot (because she used the time for extension to fix the problems). Now they'll stand behind her. I'm looking forward to his filing on how and why the removal - without the accused even present, was fully constitutional.
jmo

I find the timing of the motion to clarify the Nov. 16 deadline interesting. Why wait until the deadline? Did they just assume they had until Nov 27 and then thought they had better check.
Filed: 11/16/2023 7:33 PM

 

[Pitsleuth]

Mental gymnastics should never factor into things. One must be capable of separating emotion and preconceived notions aside and instead, look at the facts that are currently public. There are some who would have this man executed already, without the need for any trial. Imo, that's a huge problem.

jmo

Why do you suppose three different LE agencies did “nothing” with the Odinist theory, even when they were under intense scrutiny and pressure to solve this crime?
Not being snarky. I genuinely want someone to answer this question, without the answer being “maybe they are all Odinists”. If someone can put forth a legitimate reason as to why this may have happened, maybe I can be swayed.
Thus far all I’ve seen is talk of antlers, blood draining, Odinist guards forcing RA to confess, a “lazy” judge, and the like. Color me not convinced.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Why do you suppose three different LE agencies did “nothing” with the Odinist theory, even when they were under intense scrutiny and pressure to solve this crime?
Not being snarky. I genuinely want someone to answer this question, without the answer being “maybe they are all Odinists”. If someone can put forth a legitimate reason as to why this may have happened, maybe I can be swayed.
Thus far all I’ve seen is talk of antlers, blood draining, Odinist guards forcing RA to confess, a “lazy” judge, and the like. Color me not convinced.

They didn't do "nothing". They buried it. See pages 4-6, 8. It's important to read sworn documents supported by time-stamped evidence before posting false information. There's too much of that going on imo. All of us now have access to a decent amount of materials since the SCION actions were instituted so this should have cooled off by now.

jmo

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

 

[duckcat]

Why do you suppose three different LE agencies did “nothing” with the Odinist theory, even when they were under intense scrutiny and pressure to solve this crime?
Not being snarky. I genuinely want someone to answer this question, without the answer being “maybe they are all Odinists”. If someone can put forth a legitimate reason as to why this may have happened, maybe I can be swayed.
Thus far all I’ve seen is talk of antlers, blood draining, Odinist guards forcing RA to confess, a “lazy” judge, and the like. Color me not convinced.

As far as speculation goes, there is a long history throughout many states in the US of jurisdiction fights between various LE agencies. This typically occurs because each agency protects a different interest.

The FBI specifically has a history of being an unwelcome presence in very red states, the ones that leaned heavily a certain way after 2016 for example. It goes back to quarreling over the constitution and for some who fear an overreach of the federal government, hence why the FBI, a federal agency, sets up operations in those states. The deceased FBI task force officer for example was assigned to counterterrorism and the FBI nationally has been focused on homegrown white domestic terrorism specifically since about 2016. Recall this case that involved domestic terrorism plots, FBI informants, Midwest, etc.: Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot - Wikipedia.
It’s exactly why the FBI would be in the area looking at the white nationalist/prison gang offshoot of Odinism

Why the confusing relationship between Carroll County, the Indiana State Police, and the FBI? Why did each want control of the investigation? That’s the question I think everyone wants answered. From day 1, the investigation belonged to the Carroll County Sherrif (not the Delphi PD) because of where the crime scene was located. The FBI led a parallel investigation till the 2019 shift, and it was largely ignored and unwelcomed by the local Sheriff, which is really not a surprise if you understand those dynamics. As soon as KK entered the investigation it gave jurisdiction to the ISP, who have been in control since (Holeman, and this is also why Holeman can claim to have never learned about the FBI reports, because he wasn’t in charge at that time, Carroll County was).

From a speculation standpoint, the interest in leading could come from many places. CC or ISP for example may have political and financial incentives, local relationships to protect. The FBI already had a presence in the area and may have already been running an operation prior to this crime taking place, maybe they have skeletons to hide too. Some of the names we’ve all discussed here the FBI interviewed within days of the crime, these people were already on their radar. I think it’s naive to mistake the battle over control of the investigation as each agency solely fighting for the name of justice unfortunately, there is usually more happening behind the scenes.