IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173

[technicallymissing]

I don’t know. I feel like he could have easily plead out. I feel like he might have been persuaded to fall on his sword. Publicly.

This crossed my mind too if for no other reason than hearing his interview with Murder Sheet about Andy Baldwin/his relationship with Baldwin. "Gushing" would be putting it mildly.

 

[iamshadow21]

I don't believe there is any chance that R&B will be reinstated and ready for trial in 70 days. Talk about a huge appellate issue for RA if this were to happen and he is found guilty.

This case if a legal nightmare at this point, IMO, thanks to the unethical tactics of B&R. Maybe that was their intentions all along??

MOO

Except they were representing him as public defenders, and they've essentially destroyed their careers with their actions. I believe a defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense, but I doubt many defense attorneys would push the big red button on their professional career for one.

MOO

 

[TL4S]

I thought this was an interesting explanation of the legal definitions of both gross negligence and gross incompetence:

Define Incompetence​

Incompetence is the lack of ability or skill to perform a task or duty adequately. It refers to a person’s inability to meet the required standard of performance in a particular area. Incompetence can be a result of a lack of knowledge, experience, or training. It can also be due to a lack of effort or motivation to improve one’s skills.

Define Negligence​

Negligence refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care or caution in performing a task or duty. It is the act of not taking appropriate action or precautions that a reasonable person would have taken in a similar situation. Negligence can result in harm or damage to others, and it is often associated with legal liability. Negligence can be intentional or unintentional, but it is always a breach of the duty of care owed to others.

https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/incompetence-vs-negligence

MOO

This is exactly what I'm saying. In her SCOIN filings, JG only cited cases with the wording "incompetence." It's a very different thing, and I don't think JG's original arguments against AB and BR show incompetence. We can discuss their negligence all day, but apparently JG couldn't find any cases to cite regarding negligence, so her wording changed. Jmo.

 

[TL4S]

Are we going to see this issue, surrounding the leak, delved into more deeply during the upcoming hearing? I assume that Judge G is going to make her presentation concerning the negligence and her decision to remove the defense team.

Will that force the D team to put forth their version more fully? Will anyone be able to question their version? Like how MW ended up in that conference room while all those 'classified' documents were left out, unattended?

In some ways, this hearing may be a difficult one for the original defense duo, if everything is investigated publicly and thoroughly. JMO

Each side only gets 30 minutes total, and that includes rebuttal time and interruptions from the judges with questions. I'm totally guessing, but I don't think we're going to hear much about this leak investigation. I'm imagining them giving deeper explanations into how their cited caselaw applies, and how each decision withheld or denied RA's rights. Only my own take on things, though, and I'm admittedly not a lawyer.

 

[katydid23]

Each side only gets 30 minutes total, and that includes rebuttal time and interruptions from the judges with questions.

wow---I had no idea it was such a narrow window of time.

I'm totally guessing, but I don't think we're going to hear much about this leak investigation. I'm imagining them giving deeper explanations into how their cited caselaw applies, and how each decision withheld or denied RA's rights. Only my own take on things, though, and I'm admittedly not a lawyer.

You are probably right. I'm overthinking it and falling into rabbit holes, as usual.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Except they were representing him as public defenders, and they've essentially destroyed their careers with their actions. I believe a defendant is entitled to a vigorous defense, but I doubt many defense attorneys would push the big red button on their professional career for one.

MOO

Maybe B&R thought the fame and recognition that comes along with defending such a high profile Defendant would be worth it? IDK We certainly know their names well now verses before RA.

If they are not reinstated, goodbye to all the future fame and glory they may have been hoping for. (Film/books, etc)

If they are, it will be expounded upon exponentially. B&R challenged the SCOIN and won, what a story.

MOO

 

[TL4S]

wow---I had no idea it was such a narrow window of time.

You are probably right. I'm overthinking it and falling into rabbit holes, as usual.

It's because we all want so badly to know more about what happened! What I'm curious about is whether AB is being investigated for criminal conduct, because that would be a conflict, if I'm understanding things correctly, which would violate RA's rights. I'm not sure if that would be determined before he's reinstated (if he is), or after.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm interested in the amicus curiae being directly addressed in the motion. I wonder if there is someone already lined up and for whose side?

• amicus curiae, (Latin: “friend of the court”), one who assists the court by furnishing information or advice regarding questions of law or fact. He is not a party to a lawsuit and thus differs from an intervenor, who has a direct interest in the outcome of the lawsuit and is therefore permitted to participate as a party to the suit.

Order - OA.pdf

 

[TL4S]

Maybe B&R thought the fame and recognition that comes along with defending such a high profile Defendant would be worth it? IDK We certainly know their names well now verses before RA.

If they are not reinstated, goodbye to all the future fame and glory they may have been hoping for. (Film/books, etc)

If they are, it will be expounded upon exponentially. B&R challenged the SCOIN and won, what a story.

MOO

If they are reinstated (and I think there's that chance), what I'll be curious to see is if they come back on as appointed counsel status, or pro bono. I think it will all depend on how the SCOIN decides on the DQ matter, and where JG went wrong with it (if they determine that she did). If RA's 6th amendment rights were violate, then at which step did that occur? When AB and BR were his appointed counsel, or after they filed as pro bono? If it even gets that far...

I'm still thinking his right to a speedy trial will come into play, as well.

 

[girlhasnoname]

If they are reinstated (and I think there's that chance), what I'll be curious to see is if they come back on as appointed counsel status, or pro bono. I think it will all depend on how the SCOIN decides on the DQ matter, and where JG went wrong with it (if they determine that she did). If RA's 6th amendment rights were violate, then at which step did that occur? When AB and BR were his appointed counsel, or after they filed as pro bono? If it even gets that far...

I'm still thinking his right to a speedy trial will come into play, as well.

At this point, anything and everything is possible.

If they are reinstated as appointed counsel for RA I definitely don't see them coming back pro bono. If RA's rights are decided to have been violated by JG, their reinstatement wouldn't penalize them by not paying them.

I don't think anybody will be ready for a speedy trial at this point to be honest. But that's just my opinion.

MOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Even then though - how did he get in? Any place I had experience with, big or small, after the support staff are done, the door is locked.

And if all these details were exculpatory for AB - why on earth did they not get them on the record?

I think he was in the office under open invitation by AB. I am not convinced that AB was ignorant of MW’s presence in the conference room. I think he had included MW in strategy and possibly shared discovery in that very conference room. I do believe, that MW may have taken the photos of the discovery without AB’s knowledge.
The blame still lays at the feet of defense IMO because of their reckless security practices and inclusion of uninvolved parties to highly sensitive documents.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think he was in the office under open invitation by AB. I am not convinced that AB was ignorant of MW’s presence in the conference room. I think he had included MW in strategy and possibly shared discovery in that very conference room. I do believe, that MW may have taken the photos of the discovery without AB’s knowledge.
The blame still lays at the feet of defense IMO because of their reckless security practices and inclusion of uninvolved parties to highly sensitive documents.

Agreed, I think MW's actions are highly questionable. I've often thought of the scenario of "Hey, you stop by, I'll be on a phone call and if you should happen to take photos and leak them, I wouldn't know a thing about it".

That is how little I trust AB at this point, and I've never suggested such a thing about a Defense attorney. I've not like the actions of many, but I've never come across one that I thought was capable of such criminal activity. I honestly take no pleasure in even saying it.

ALL MOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

It's because we all want so badly to know more about what happened! What I'm curious about is whether AB is being investigated for criminal conduct, because that would be a conflict, if I'm understanding things correctly, which would violate RA's rights. I'm not sure if that would be determined before he's reinstated (if he is), or after.

I am curious as well. Surely in 2 months time they have acquired a significant amount of information of what was shared, with whom and when.

 

[TL4S]

At this point, anything and everything is possible.

If they are reinstated as appointed counsel for RA I definitely don't see them coming back pro bono. If RA's rights are decided to have been violated by JG, their reinstatement wouldn't penalize them by not paying them.

I don't think anybody will be ready for a speedy trial at this point to be honest. But that's just my opinion.

MOO

I wasn't very clear in my post, but I meant if they are allowed to come back pro bono, that would be because the SCOIN decided the judge was appropriate in her original decision to DQ them, but it was not within her rights to refuse them back pro bono. Jmo.

 

[sunshineray]

RSBM - I also speculate it was something like your bolded text. AB had every incentive to hammer the point if MW really did sneak in, and especially DH in his submissions. The fact that DH did not, leads me to believe that the facts are more like your version.

Especially it seems odd to me that MW would be sneaking in to the conference room when AB could walk in any minute? The whole theme of betrayal seems to admit he was somehow trusted in the first place. i.e as the former chief of operations he was trusted to be back there

My 02c is the judge did not believe the explanations, but unfortunately she did not get that on the record.

Maybe LE got it on the record

 

[girlhasnoname]

I wasn't very clear in my post, but I meant if they are allowed to come back pro bono, that would be because the SCOIN decided the judge was appropriate in her original decision to DQ them, but it was not within her rights to refuse them back pro bono. Jmo.

Gotcha. I don't know, I think this will all hinge on whether JG was within her rights to DQ them at all in the first place.

B&R both did withdraw in court chambers as evidenced by the Transcript. So they weren't technically attorney's of record for Defendant Allen to file for pro bono reinstatement IMO. This will be an interesting hearing to say the least.

Thanks for a civilized discussion TL. It's always good to hear other people's ideas and thoughts.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

This is exactly what I'm saying. In her SCOIN filings, JG only cited cases with the wording "incompetence." It's a very different thing, and I don't think JG's original arguments against AB and BR show incompetence. We can discuss their negligence all day, but apparently JG couldn't find any cases to cite regarding negligence, so her wording changed. Jmo.

IDK----I think we could make a case for incompetence in the leaking situation.

"Incompetence is the lack of ability or skill to perform a task or duty adequately. It refers to a person’s inability to meet the required standard of performance in a particular area. Incompetence can be a result of a lack of knowledge, experience, or training. It can also be due to a lack of effort or motivation to improve one’s skills."

I think there was a lack of ability to perform their duty to protect the evidence and there was a lack of effort on their prt and a lack of motivation to improve their skills in that area.

After being sloppy and incompetent by sending the sealed documents to the wrong person, they acted even sloppier and made an even bigger mistake resulting in various you-tubers having the crime scene photos of dead girls. Leaving the sealed documents out, on a table, in an unoccupied room, unlocked room was incompetent and showed a lack of effort. And it ended with the tragic suicide of one of the participants.

I think there was a lack of effort and lack of motivation shown by the team in terms of their duty to protect the sealed documents. I would call that gross incompetence given the outcome.

 

[tlcya]

[SBM for focus]

After being sloppy and incompetent by sending the sealed documents to the wrong person, they acted even sloppier and made an even bigger mistake resulting in various you-tubers having the crime scene photos of dead girls. Leaving the sealed documents out, on a table, in an unoccupied room, unlocked room was incompetent and showed a lack of effort. And it ended with the tragic suicide of one of the participants.

I think there was a lack of effort and lack of motivation shown by the team in terms of their duty to protect the sealed documents. I would call that gross incompetence given the outcome.

Emphasis mine. MOO they felt stifled by the gag, felt it was unreasonable, and therefore demonstrated an extreme lack of effort and motivation to safeguard against violating it. JMO

 

[DeDee]

as someone who has spent 30 years working in law offices, nobody who isn't employed there should have had access to ANY client or file materials. I don't care if those materials were on a conference room table or a desk or a PC.

Even the lowliest receptionist is trained (or should have been) that you do not allow visitors (not even other clients) to see file materials that relate to another's case. you have a screen protector in place to protect even the most basic client info on your PC, you do not allow anyone to go back or stay back in areas unaccompanied and supervised beyond the waiting area for even one minute. non attorney support staff in every office I have ever been employed are taught not to leave ANYTHING lying around within view of outsiders. Not documents, not exhibits, not photos, zip.

I think the problem came when MW was allowed access to inner areas of the firm's office space as if he were still an insider (former consultant or whatever they want to term him). The minute he left the employ of that firm he should have been treated as an outsider. But he wasn't.

IME MOO

I agree that it is unfathomable why someone who understands legal practices and protocols, and respects the law, as well as himself, although not being paid to work the case, to gain insider access to case sensitive information then, publish the material. It is bewildering that the opportunity presented itself. Who wants to live and die without their integrity intact?

Has a motive been offered? There can be many motivators in this world but they're merely excuses. LoveMoneyFameFearBlackmailRevenge

If there is any good measure to be found in the recent missteps, it is, I presume, that everyone respected the request and deleted the files received.

 

[Cedars]

Agreed, I think MW's actions are highly questionable. I've often thought of the scenario of "Hey, you stop by, I'll be on a phone call and if you should happen to take photos and leak them, I wouldn't know a thing about it".

That is how little I trust AB at this point, and I've never suggested such a thing about a Defense attorney. I've not like the actions of many, but I've never come across one that I thought was capable of such criminal activity. I honestly take no pleasure in even saying it.

ALL MOO

However, IMO that would imply the sequence of passing it along via multiple parties to social media was prearranged.

If the Texas man hadn't shared to social media influencers, it's highly likely no one would know about it.

And the social media influencers never revealed the documents or what was in them, they just called police.

So, in terms of a purposeful 'leak', nothing was achieved except the suicide of MW's friend. How can that have been part of the plan?

I just don't believe it's necessary to always jump to a conspiracy theory. IMO that implies the world is full of extremely competent people who have complete control over what other people say and do.

IMO, the explanation is actually a bit more scary: everything and everyone is out of control.

JMO