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

[FrostedGlass]

The court records were sealed, gag order in place. The leaked photos should not have been released in public. I suppose they are now out there somewhere in social media.

IIRC, the Katsouras family obtained a settlement for damages over a photo leak. Will there be a civil suit in the Delphi case? The victims‘ families have demonstrated much grace throughout the years of the ongoing case investigation, and may have no interest in a civil suit. They can’t even talk about any of it, due to the gag order.

The whole thing stinks.

jmo

We've speculated for years whether or no photos were taken at the crime scene by the murderer. Maybe they've been floating around in dark places all this time?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I believe this is where Judge Gull did herself no favours by not preparing a proper written reasoning for her decision - the record is just what she read out in chambers.

So for instance IMO it is on the record that defence was found to have attempted to mislead the court in relation to conditions of detention. As much as DH and BM complain about it, the Judge found it on the record, and listed it as a ground.

On the leaks, IMO "The Prosecutors" are right that reading between the lines, Judge Gull does not accept the explanations of AB, or perhaps more accurately, can't take his word for it, but neither Judge Gull nor AB particularly wants to get to the bottom of it.

So we never get a detailed finding on it, because Gull messed up, but also per the AG's pleading - because AB contributes to the defective record by his oral motion to withdraw in chambers.

I have no idea how SCOIN resolves that hot mess. Personally I think it would be odd if they can get back on the case without having to endure a proper DQ hearing but does anyone actually want one?

I don’t think Judge Gull messed up at all, except the administrative matters that the SCOIN already ruled on and have been made right.
The transcript on the in camera meeting clearly shows that the ex-defense lied about what went on in that meeting.
The ex-defense absolutely knew their dismissal was the main topic of discussion on Oct 19th. They requested the meeting with the judge that day, not the judge. They manipulated everything including pretending to resign. They admitted this in open court on Oct 31st.
I do not see how the SCOIN could possibly ignore this behavior, their ongoing behavior ignoring the gag order etc, and the leaks, and the motions filled with lies and allow them back on the case.
If the judge is dismissed I think it will be a gesture to try to restore public confidence more than a rebuke. If the Court rules she can remain, I think she will feel vindicated and then resign.
I think SCOIN is having the hearing in January because they have some legitimate questions but mostly because they knew the public needed to see and hear what was really going on. Everything has been clouded behind a huge swirl of legal mumbo jumbo.
By the time the Supreme Court hearing happens in January we should have been starting a trial, but we won’t because of the ex-defense’s atrocious behavior. They are the reason RA will be sitting in jail for months longer. They haven’t done one thing that has benefited their client.

 

[steeltowngirl]

We've speculated for years whether or no photos were taken at the crime scene by the murderer. Maybe they've been floating around in dark places all this time?

Could be. Those wouldn’t be the same photos as the ones that were leaked by defense though, since the leaked crime scene photos were taken by homicide investigators. I would assume the protected evidence photos can be distinguished easily from whatever potentially might be found on the dark web {shudder}.

 

[TL4S]

You can watch old Indiana Supreme Court oral arguments online here: Oral Arguments

I am linking one that is of no relevance to the upcoming RA hearing, but I chose it randomly because it is the same court in which the Jan. 18 hearing will be heard, and one of the judges is the same judge who signed the Notice of Hearing (Rush). Just for anyone who might be interested in getting a glimpse into how such a hearing plays out.

Indiana Appellate Clerk's Portal

ETA: You can search through many, many oral arguments via court, judge, dates, etc.

 

[sunshineray]

During trial, I cannot imagine a judge not screening the images from public view.

Post-trial, however, is more uncertain. There is a presumption by courts that the public has a right to see and copy judicial records.

Here are Indiana's rules on access: https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/records/records.pdf

Even if the victims are minor children? There must be an exception in that case, no?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I came across an interesting Access to Public Records Act case out of Allen Co.; JG's court. The inmate has been requesting certain documents on policies and agreements between the P and D, hasn't been able to get them and finally filed a complaint with the public access councilor. The opinion was just issued on December 6, 2023.

Here are some snips from it:
BRENT TAYLOR, Complainant, v. ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Respondent.

https://www.in.gov/pac/files/advisory/23-FC-101.pdf

BRITT, opinion of the counselor:
This advisory opinion is in response to the formal complaint alleging the Allen County Public Defender’s Office violated the Access to Public Records Act.1 The agency did not fully respond despite several invitations to do so. In accordance with Indiana Code § 5-14-5-10, I issue the following opinion to the formal complaint received by the Office of the Public Access Counselor on September 27, 2023.
...
On September 13, 2023, Brent A. Taylor (Complainant),submitted a public records request to the Allen County Public Defender’s Office seeking the following documents:
1. All agreements between the Allen County Public Defender’s Office & the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office regarding Discovery practices pertaining to individuals represented by the Allen County Public Defender’s Office....Not seeing anything by way of “agreements” or “policies,” this office sought clarification the same day. After not receiving any response, we once again asked for clarification on November 8 whether any policies existed. This time, on November 9, the Allen County Public Defender simply stated: “The discovery practices of Allen County are governed by the local trial rules” but did not address the question whether there were any agreements or policies or policies responsive to Taylor’s request. Therefore, we once again asked the yes-or-no question whether there were any documented agreements of policies.
...
Here, this office sought a simple yes-or-no confirmation on three separate occasions but only received an unhelpful and dismissive answer. ... Nevertheless, the Public Defender would not grant the professional courtesy of a definitive response despite being asked three distinct times to provide one.... Even so, when this office calls for a response from a public agency, it has a statutory duty to cooperate. We typically do not ask more from agencies than a good faith effort to state a position. Here, we asked for the minimum but were unsuccessful in obtaining even that.
...
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is the opinion of the public access counselor that the Allen County Public Defender’s Office violated the Access to Public Records Act.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I came across an interesting Access to Public Records Act case out of Allen Co.; JG's court. The inmate has been requesting certain documents on policies and agreements between the P and D, hasn't been able to get them and finally filed a complaint with the public access councilor. The opinion was just issued on December 6, 2023.

Here are some snips from it:
BRENT TAYLOR, Complainant, v. ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Respondent.

https://www.in.gov/pac/files/advisory/23-FC-101.pdf

BRITT, opinion of the counselor:
This advisory opinion is in response to the formal complaint alleging the Allen County Public Defender’s Office violated the Access to Public Records Act.1 The agency did not fully respond despite several invitations to do so. In accordance with Indiana Code § 5-14-5-10, I issue the following opinion to the formal complaint received by the Office of the Public Access Counselor on September 27, 2023.
...
On September 13, 2023, Brent A. Taylor (Complainant),submitted a public records request to the Allen County Public Defender’s Office seeking the following documents:
1. All agreements between the Allen County Public Defender’s Office & the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office regarding Discovery practices pertaining to individuals represented by the Allen County Public Defender’s Office....Not seeing anything by way of “agreements” or “policies,” this office sought clarification the same day. After not receiving any response, we once again asked for clarification on November 8 whether any policies existed. This time, on November 9, the Allen County Public Defender simply stated: “The discovery practices of Allen County are governed by the local trial rules” but did not address the question whether there were any agreements or policies or policies responsive to Taylor’s request. Therefore, we once again asked the yes-or-no question whether there were any documented agreements of policies.
...
Here, this office sought a simple yes-or-no confirmation on three separate occasions but only received an unhelpful and dismissive answer. ... Nevertheless, the Public Defender would not grant the professional courtesy of a definitive response despite being asked three distinct times to provide one.... Even so, when this office calls for a response from a public agency, it has a statutory duty to cooperate. We typically do not ask more from agencies than a good faith effort to state a position. Here, we asked for the minimum but were unsuccessful in obtaining even that.
...
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is the opinion of the public access counselor that the Allen County Public Defender’s Office violated the Access to Public Records Act.

Agreed they should have provided the information as requested, but this BT guy :

Pro-se appellant BT(“Taylor”) appeals his convictions for Child Molesting, as a Level 1 felony, and Kidnapping, as a Level 5 felony.

MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Agreed they should have provided the information as requested, but this BT guy :

Pro-se appellant BT(“Taylor”) appeals his convictions for Child Molesting, as a Level 1 felony, and Kidnapping, as a Level 5 felony.

MOO

He's testing everyone's patience. He reminds me of that Milwaukee guy last year.

 

[sunshineray]

I came across an interesting Access to Public Records Act case out of Allen Co.; JG's court. The inmate has been requesting certain documents on policies and agreements between the P and D, hasn't been able to get them and finally filed a complaint with the public access councilor. The opinion was just issued on December 6, 2023.

Here are some snips from it:
BRENT TAYLOR, Complainant, v. ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Respondent.

https://www.in.gov/pac/files/advisory/23-FC-101.pdf

BRITT, opinion of the counselor:
This advisory opinion is in response to the formal complaint alleging the Allen County Public Defender’s Office violated the Access to Public Records Act.1 The agency did not fully respond despite several invitations to do so. In accordance with Indiana Code § 5-14-5-10, I issue the following opinion to the formal complaint received by the Office of the Public Access Counselor on September 27, 2023.
...
On September 13, 2023, Brent A. Taylor (Complainant),submitted a public records request to the Allen County Public Defender’s Office seeking the following documents:
1. All agreements between the Allen County Public Defender’s Office & the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office regarding Discovery practices pertaining to individuals represented by the Allen County Public Defender’s Office....Not seeing anything by way of “agreements” or “policies,” this office sought clarification the same day. After not receiving any response, we once again asked for clarification on November 8 whether any policies existed. This time, on November 9, the Allen County Public Defender simply stated: “The discovery practices of Allen County are governed by the local trial rules” but did not address the question whether there were any agreements or policies or policies responsive to Taylor’s request. Therefore, we once again asked the yes-or-no question whether there were any documented agreements of policies.
...
Here, this office sought a simple yes-or-no confirmation on three separate occasions but only received an unhelpful and dismissive answer. ... Nevertheless, the Public Defender would not grant the professional courtesy of a definitive response despite being asked three distinct times to provide one.... Even so, when this office calls for a response from a public agency, it has a statutory duty to cooperate. We typically do not ask more from agencies than a good faith effort to state a position. Here, we asked for the minimum but were unsuccessful in obtaining even that.
...
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is the opinion of the public access counselor that the Allen County Public Defender’s Office violated the Access to Public Records Act.

I'm confused as to the nature of any agreements between the Public Defender's Office and the Allen County Prosecutor's Office, concerning discovery, that would cause a defendant to feel he'd been wronged in some way? Is it not the law that there's FULL reciprocal disclosure between those two County offices and the law's governing them (as in the court rulings) decide what can or cannot be disclosed to the public and when it can be disclosed. Isn't this done case by case according to keeping a trial fair and even for both the defendant and the state?

What other "agreements" or "polices" is the Complainant addressing in his action?

 

[Betty P]

The transcript on the in camera meeting clearly shows that the ex-defense lied about what went on in that meeting.
The ex-defense absolutely knew their dismissal was the main topic of discussion on Oct 19th. They requested the meeting with the judge that day, not the judge. They manipulated everything including pretending to resign. They admitted this in open court on Oct 31st.

So true. Lying about these key details means you can't really trust anything else they've said.

 

[girlhasnoname]

He's testing everyone's patience. He reminds me of that Milwaukee guy last year.

Agree he was the worst, I absolutely do not know how that Judge kept it together. He was a horrible person and so argumentative.

 

[girlhasnoname]

So true. Lying about these key details means you can't really trust anything else they've said.

That's the very thing that makes me want to see them DQ'd from this case. They have caused me to question every single move they make from their sneaky shenanigans.

If Judge G is found to have violated Defendant Allen's civil liberties and due process by the SCOIN, she should go as well. There is no room for questionable behavior from anyone going forward in this trial. Too much has already happened and it needs to restart with a clean slate. It's gone beyond crazy train, we're in the Upside Down World at this point.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

So true. Lying about these key details means you can't really trust anything else they've said.

So far, trust is running low all the way around in this case. MOO
It's a sad state of affairs. MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Even if the victims are minor children? There must be an exception in that case, no?

If I remember correctly, after the Alex Murdaugh trial, it was agreed that the crime scene photos would remained sealed. I’m sure someone could file a request for them for legitimate reasons though.

 

[AugustWest]

Even if the victims are minor children? There must be an exception in that case, no?

If I remember correctly, after the Alex Murdaugh trial, it was agreed that the crime scene photos would remained sealed. I’m sure someone could file a request for them for legitimate reasons though.

Depends on the state. For instance, anyone who is curious/morbid/whatever can get on the internet, go to a Colorado state site (.gov) and view crime scene photos from the Redwine case, Ramsey case, etc.... involving minors.

I'm not sure of Indiana, as I don't practice there, but the statutory language of the rules I cited include language regarding some specific instances (Rule 5 a and b in particular). Again, the presumption favors First Amendment freedoms.

I won't express an opinion as to disclosure is appropriate/inappropriate, rather I'll cite the rules, allow everyone to read them, then form their own opinion. I will say I think it is premature to worry over these matters, and only mentioned disclosure to demonstrate the law is unclear as to whether such images "would come out at trial anyway."

 

[Justice101]

Even if the victims are minor children? There must be an exception in that case, no?

Hopefully, IF THEY HAVE TO show photos of the girls, hopefully they can be somewhat discrete from a little further away and blur out what they need to blur out.

Honestly, I really feel sorry for the jury and those in court having to see such pictures. This will scar many of them for life.

 

[sunshineray]

Hopefully, IF THEY HAVE TO show photos of the girls, hopefully they can be somewhat discrete from a little further away and blur out what they need to blur out.

Honestly, I really feel sorry for the jury and those in court having to see such pictures. This will scar many of them for life.

Showing them to the jury and witnesses testifying is expected and needed during trial but releasing crime scene or autopsy photos of murdered children to the public, well that just seems such a violation any way you look at it. AJMO

 

[Betty P]

That's the very thing that makes me want to see them DQ'd from this case. They have caused me to question every single move they make from their sneaky shenanigans.

If Judge G is found to have violated Defendant Allen's civil liberties and due process by the SCOIN, she should go as well. There is no room for questionable behavior from anyone going forward in this trial. Too much has already happened and it needs to restart with a clean slate. It's gone beyond crazy train, we're in the Upside Down World at this point.

JMO

AFAIK, the Judge's behavior has been fine. Removing the judge when she did the right thing sends the wrong message to the public and the criminal justice system. It would say that unethical, dishonest defense attorneys are in charge of the criminal court judges.

 

[Betty P]

If I remember correctly, after the Alex Murdaugh trial, it was agreed that the crime scene photos would remained sealed. I’m sure someone could file a request for them for legitimate reasons though.

Same with the Rhoden Murders trials. Photos of the poor victims will be shown again at Billy Wagners trial next year, but they won't be seen by the public, only jurors. There's some twit reporter who is trying to get them in the public domain, but I don't think he'll succeed.

 

[girlhasnoname]

AFAIK, the Judge's behavior has been fine. Removing the judge when she did the right thing sends the wrong message to the public and the criminal justice system. It would say that unethical, dishonest defense attorneys are in charge of the criminal court judges.

I'm not disagreeing that JG should have DQ'd the Defense, I'm just anxious about how it was handled procedurally. It will be interesting to hear what the SCOIN decides, I know I'll be listening to the oral arguments.

JMO