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

[mrjitty]

It looks like the death penalty and LWOP in Indiana both require that the defendant be convicted of "intentionally killing the victim" and that there be an aggravating circumstance.

In this case, there would be an aggravating circumstance (kidnapping) but since they've charged him under subsection (2) of the murder statute, they haven't charged him with intentional murder. So it fails that part of the requirement. So basically the prosecutors choice to charge him with felony murder eliminates the death penalty and life without parole as possible sentences. That makes me even more curious why they decided to charge it that way.

Could it be so simple that they have a felony abduction on video?

Makes things easier for the prosecution if they just want a conviction and don’t place much value on enhancements

 

[girlhasnoname]

Just because the Judge believes they chose the tactics they did to throw prosecution’s case into doubt doesn’t make it true either. Baldwin and Rozzi may well believe everything they put in the Franks motion. Or not. Either way, if Gall found it that inflamatory she should have had the sealed the document immediately. But didn’t.

I agree they might have believe some of the information they put into the Franks Memo.

IMO, R&B did a sneak play Hail Mary on the filing of that document. They didn't mark it Confidential and posted it at 2:14 am electronically to the site when there were no "eyes" on it. MSM and SM conveniently, ahem, got wind of it and ran with it before it was noticed by the Court and taken down and marked as sealed.

Rozzi was complacent in the first press release which blabbed confidential information about their boy Rick, Rozzi knew of the defense strategy information sent to BH by mistake and neither notified the Court for months, Rozzi helped prepare the famous Franks Memo, and I'm sure not sure about when he knew for sure about the stolen and distributed pics and depositions. They were assigned as a team to represent RA and I think they both should be held responsible as a whole.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes, I’m just pointing it out because it’s been a topic of discussion in here a couple times that people are surprised that he isn’t up for DP or LWOP.

Can't the Prosecution upgrade the charges against RA, especially if more information has come to light?

MOO

 

[TL4S]

Could it be so simple that they have a felony abduction on video?

Makes things easier for the prosecution if they just want a conviction and don’t place much value on enhancements

Plus, with two victims, maybe they will push for consecutive sentences, meaning most likely this middle-aged man will die in prison. Jmo.

 

[TL4S]

IMO, I think it's possible they really don't have DNA or other digital or physical evidence (except the unspent round) linking RA to the CS or the girls, but it seems they are banking on the evidence proving RA is BG (the abductor). With the video recording of the actual abduction (great work L!), the case might truly be about witnesses, videos, and RA placing himself on the trails at the right time, in the right clothing. Even the unspent round probably isn't needed under the felony murder charge, although it would be extremely helpful in linking RA to the gun used in the abduction and/or the CS. If the jurors believe it's his, that places him on the scene. If they don't, then do they believe the witness and video evidence placing him there? Either way, the unspent round holds much more significance to the kidnapping than the deaths, since they did not die by gun. All of this helps the charges make sense, IMO.

Even the theory of an accomplice, which they have never outright dismissed since NMcL claimed such in court back in Nov. 2022, would make Murder One harder to argue. JMO.

I guess I do sit back and consider the charges and what that might possibly mean for what LE has for evidence. However, I don't think that has to mean they have a weak case. We know very little of their case against RA, honestly. Perhaps they have a strong one against RA being BG. But then what are the families supposed to think? That their children's killer has been served? Or will they, too, always wonder if anyone else was there that day? I hope NMcL makes this clear at trial. Otherwise, that book will always be open to the same page. JMO.

 

[Colorado303]

I agree they might have believe some of the information they put into the Franks Memo.

IMO, R&B did a sneak play Hail Mary on the filing of that document. They didn't mark it Confidential and posted it at 2:14 am electronically to the site when there were no "eyes" on it. MSM and SM conveniently, ahem, got wind of it and ran with it before it was noticed by the Court and taken down and marked as sealed.

Rozzi was complacent in the first press release which blabbed confidential information about their boy Rick, Rozzi knew of the defense strategy information sent to BH by mistake and neither notified the Court for months, Rozzi helped prepare the famous Franks Memo, and I'm sure not sure about when he knew for sure about the stolen and distributed pics and depositions. They were assigned as a team to represent RA and I think they both should be held responsible as a whole.

JMO

I don’t disagree that Rozzi could well have been party to the stuff that happened prior to the most recent leak. But if those actions were enough to disqualify counsel it probably should have been addressed before ConferenceRoomGate. Thus I think Rozzi may have a better chance of being reinstated than Baldwin does.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

I guess I do sit back and consider the charges and what that might possibly mean for what LE has for evidence. However, I don't think that has to mean they have a weak case. We know very little of their case against RA, honestly. Perhaps they have a strong one against RA being BG. But then what are the families supposed to think? That their children's killer has been served? Or will they, too, always wonder if anyone else was there that day? I hope NMcL makes this clear at trial. Otherwise, that book will always be open to the same page. JMO.

SBM - if they do think that RA has an accomplice and have strong evidence showing that RA is guilty, I feel that makes these particular charges more confusing. If as NM stated upon initial charging, he does have an accomplice and they haven't been able to close in on that person, I would think they would charge him as harshly as possible with the intentional killing in order to attempt to get him to give that person up so he can reduce his charges or punishment. If they have strong evidence RA was involved and no longer believe there is another perp, or RA has been unwilling to give up anyone else, they could charge him with something stronger as the sole perp. So I really don't get it.
One potential complicating factor for this line of thinking could be if they have evidence that RL was the primary killer and will be able to present this evidence at trial, but weren't able to establish probable cause before RL's death. Perhaps they believe RA was an accomplice to RL but wasn't sure if there were other accomplices hence NM's statements.

 

[TL4S]

SBM - if they do think that RA has an accomplice and have strong evidence showing that RA is guilty, I feel that makes these particular charges more confusing. If as NM stated upon initial charging, he does have an accomplice and they haven't been able to close in on that person, I would think they would charge him as harshly as possible with the intentional killing in order to attempt to get him to give that person up so he can reduce his charges or punishment. If they have strong evidence RA was involved and no longer believe there is another perp, or RA has been unwilling to give up anyone else, they could charge him with something stronger as the sole perp. So I really don't get it.
One potential complicating factor for this line of thinking could be if they have evidence that RL was the primary killer and will be able to present this evidence at trial, but weren't able to establish probable cause before RL's death. Perhaps they believe RA was an accomplice to RL but wasn't sure if there were other accomplices hence NM's statements.

I don't really know, either, but I would imagine the state would want to charge him with what they feel confident in taking him to trial for, and not wager a possible acquittal for the possibility of him turning over an accomplice. That's JMO, and admittedly, I've always been stuck to NMcL telling the judge they have "good reason to believe" others are involved.

 

[Jurisprudence]

That makes me even more curious why they decided to charge it that way.

sbm

Agree. If they had the evidence, we'd be talkin' murder.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I guess I do sit back and consider the charges and what that might possibly mean for what LE has for evidence. However, I don't think that has to mean they have a weak case.

sbm

We wld have seen upgraded charges by now. jmo

All they seem to have is that bullet and a grainy video. They haven't released the full video. If it is him on the bridge, and if there is a time lag/delay between the girls just being silly and filming him as they enter the trail and as he is exiting, the state has a problem imo. Imagine walking past someone on a trail. 13 yo girls are being their silly selves and decide to film a guy they are approaching -- but then they pass him and the guy keeps walking. If there is a 2 minute time delay between BG in the frame and the voice over/audio, it is very plausible if BG kept walking that he was far away from them at that point, and that voice belongs to someone else.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I don’t disagree that Rozzi could well have been party to the stuff that happened prior to the most recent leak. But if those actions were enough to disqualify counsel it probably should have been addressed before ConferenceRoomGate. Thus I think Rozzi may have a better chance of being reinstated than Baldwin does.

I've said this before and it is not a popular opinion on this thread, but as a lawyer it is what I'd say every day of the week and is my opinion only. The LAST thing any defense counsel would/should want out in the public right before going to trial are horrific cs photos. There's only one guy in custody - their client - their guy. The last thing they want is for the public to have those images in their head when a jury has not even been selected and there is only one person LE thinks is responsible for the crime(s). That would be the dumbest move of all time because it could be the end of any planned defense. Rozzi and Baldwin don't strike me as dumb. They weren't in on this in any way imo. If I had to guess how and why those pictures were stolen, it would be because money was to be made off selling them.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

SBM - if they do think that RA has an accomplice and have strong evidence showing that RA is guilty, I feel that makes these particular charges more confusing. If as NM stated upon initial charging, he does have an accomplice and they haven't been able to close in on that person, I would think they would charge him as harshly as possible with the intentional killing in order to attempt to get him to give that person up so he can reduce his charges or punishment. If they have strong evidence RA was involved and no longer believe there is another perp, or RA has been unwilling to give up anyone else, they could charge him with something stronger as the sole perp. So I really don't get it.
One potential complicating factor for this line of thinking could be if they have evidence that RL was the primary killer and will be able to present this evidence at trial, but weren't able to establish probable cause before RL's death. Perhaps they believe RA was an accomplice to RL but wasn't sure if there were other accomplices hence NM's statements.

Agree. They saying there is an accomplice because they have to explain how and why they aren't charging him with the actual murders. If they actually believed there was an accomplice they's be doing all they could to roll him. The case stinks. All jmo

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Agree. They saying there is an accomplice because they have to explain how and why they aren't charging him with the actual murders. If they actually believed there was an accomplice they's be doing all they could to roll him. The case stinks. All jmo

After RA was charged, it was only the prosecutor that was insisting others were involved and he made those statements in an attempt to keep the PCA sealed "because it would jeopardize the ongoing investigation".
So the PCA is released and it is obvious that RA, who was very familiar with the area, was perfectly capable of committing the kidnappings, picking a place and committing the murders, and leaving the scene without any help.
After looking over the prosecutor's career and the few cases he has handled, I thought his excuses, for wanting the PCA to remain sealed were because it shows why there isn't a (DP) murder charge and a lack of confidence. I think he wasn't looking forward to a close examination of the evidence. Perhaps he was worried the case looked weak because it all rests on the kidnapping and he kept hoping something else would come up to strengthen the case or RA would ask for a deal.
The prosecutor knew what LE knew, there were no leads from RA to another person that they suspected was involved and the claim "we are still investigating" could go on forever in any murder trial.
And since when does one publicly give a heads-up to other possible suspects?
MOO

 

[TL4S]

After RA was charged, it was only the prosecutor that was insisting others were involved and he made those statements in an attempt to keep the PCA sealed "because it would jeopardize the ongoing investigation".
So the PCA is released and it is obvious that RA, who was very familiar with the area, was perfectly capable of committing the kidnappings, picking a place and committing the murders, and leaving the scene without any help.
After looking over the prosecutor's career and the few cases he has handled, I thought his excuses, for wanting the PCA to remain sealed were because it shows why there isn't a (DP) murder charge and a lack of confidence. I think he wasn't looking forward to a close examination of the evidence. Perhaps he was worried the case looked weak because it all rests on the kidnapping and he kept hoping something else would come up to strengthen the case or RA would ask for a deal.
The prosecutor knew what LE knew, there were no leads from RA to another person that they suspected was involved and the claim "we are still investigating" could go on forever in any murder trial.
And since when does one publicly give a heads-up to other possible suspects?
MOO

I've seen this idea mentioned before, and I've tried to consider it. But to me, it would seem like lying for NMcL to say to the court that they "have good reason to believe" others are involved, if they did not consider that an accurate statement, or just to keep a document sealed. This is the sort of thing everyone has accused the D of doing, making them unreliable, untrustworthy, and negligent. Should the P get to play word games, while the D cannot? I guess I think the expectations of honesty should work both ways. Jmo.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I've seen this idea mentioned many times, and I've tried to consider it. But to me, it would seem like lying for NMcL to say to the court that they "have good reason to believe" others are involved, if they did not consider that an accurate statement, or just to keep a document sealed. This is the sort of thing everyone has accused the D of doing, making them unreliable, untrustworthy, and negligent. Should the P get to play word games, while the D cannot? I guess I think the expectations of honesty should work both ways. Jmo.

What does "good reason to believe" something mean? Good reason means evidence that something was done but RA didn't do that part. "Good reason" is far stronger than a possibility.
I think it would require at least some evidence to state that. DNA of unknown persons at the scene? Extra shoe prints? Nothing required another person to have taken part in the crime. I even considered he was referring to RA's wife as helping him somehow, after the fact.
Another reason I don't think the prosecutor believed his own argument, Doug Carter said it would not hurt the case to unseal the PCA, he even said it should be released.
A prosecutor is not going to expect for someone to pin him down for verifiable facts about what he said, he can always fall back on "that is what my understanding was at that time."

 

[mrjitty]

IMO, R&B did a sneak play Hail Mary on the filing of that document. They didn't mark it Confidential and posted it at 2:14 am electronically to the site when there were no "eyes" on it. MSM and SM conveniently, ahem, got wind of it and ran with it before it was noticed by the Court and taken down and marked as sealed.

It's of no special relevance, but in terms of the vibe between judge and attorneys i do feel like this was just one more example of where they were quite happy to mug her off in chambers - they knew full well it was up to them to mark it confidential and it's not as if the judge sits round all day and night waiting to see if they file something

 

[mrjitty]

I don't really know, either, but I would imagine the state would want to charge him with what they feel confident in taking him to trial for, and not wager a possible acquittal for the possibility of him turning over an accomplice. That's JMO, and admittedly, I've always been stuck to NMcL telling the judge they have "good reason to believe" others are involved.

Right - it seems most likely to me they simply charged the most appropriate charges. As was discussed ad nauseam at the time the charges were laid, the felony murder rationale is to make like easier for prosecution where a murder occurs in the context of a felony like abduction. The prosecution need not concern itself so much specific roles and acts or who else was involved (if anyone).

Especially the defence can argue that an entire odinist convention was present 'down the hill" - it all does not matter if the prosecution can show RA is the guy in the video, because any rational juror will believe he is the guy that abducted the girls and is connected to the murders.

tldr; why not take the easiest route to conviction when you have a video of the abduction

 

[mrjitty]

Even if the most recent leak is enough to deem Baldwin negligent or incompetent, that doesn’t necessarily make Rozzi incompetent. Rozzi is not part of Baldwin’s office. And in chambers Rozzi proposed a scenario where Baldwin would leave while he stayed on. Gull refused to consider that option. IMO that’s an important distinction and SCOIN may choose to reinstate Rozzi even if Baldwin is permanently dismissed. Particularly because in chambers Rozzi did not withdraw but indicated he preferred to put his withdrawal in writing. Then never did. IANAL but I’ve been around them enough to know often things don’t count until you “get it in writing”. I’m very interested to hear oral arguments and see where SCOIN nets out.

This is why I favour the AGs argument.

So basically SCOIN could find the DQ was improper, due to lack of process, and lack of a record to establish the grounds for DQ. This ensures defence attorneys aren't suddenly in jeopardy from sweeping DQs from Judges.

But the Court could also deny AB in particular any remedy, because he did clearly withdraw via oral motion in chambers, and per the AGs argument, this contributes to the incomplete record. It doesn't sit well with me that you can trick the judge by saying one thing, she acts in reliance, then you try to take it back. Even if the judge is acting outside her powers, I think counsel simply can't do this.

02c

 

[katydid23]

IMO, I think it's possible they really don't have DNA or other digital or physical evidence (except the unspent round) linking RA to the CS or the girls, but it seems they are banking on the evidence proving RA is BG (the abductor). With the video recording of the actual abduction (great work L!), the case might truly be about witnesses, videos, and RA placing himself on the trails at the right time, in the right clothing. Even the unspent round probably isn't needed under the felony murder charge, although it would be extremely helpful in linking RA to the gun used in the abduction and/or the CS. If the jurors believe it's his, that places him on the scene. If they don't, then do they believe the witness and video evidence placing him there? Either way, the unspent round holds much more significance to the kidnapping than the deaths, since they did not die by gun. All of this helps the charges make sense, IMO.

Even the theory of an accomplice, which they have never outright dismissed since NMcL claimed such in court back in Nov. 2022, would make Murder One harder to argue. JMO.

I guess I do sit back and consider the charges and what that might possibly mean for what LE has for evidence. However, I don't think that has to mean they have a weak case. We know very little of their case against RA, honestly. Perhaps they have a strong one against RA being BG. But then what are the families supposed to think? That their children's killer has been served? Or will they, too, always wonder if anyone else was there that day? I hope NMcL makes this clear at trial. Otherwise, that book will always be open to the same page. JMO.

If it is true that he confessed to his wife and possibly his mother, on a recorded call from jail, then that would greatly enhance that other circumstantial evidence, imo.

 

[katydid23]

SBM - if they do think that RA has an accomplice and have strong evidence showing that RA is guilty, I feel that makes these particular charges more confusing. If as NM stated upon initial charging, he does have an accomplice and they haven't been able to close in on that person, I would think they would charge him as harshly as possible with the intentional killing in order to attempt to get him to give that person up so he can reduce his charges or punishment. If they have strong evidence RA was involved and no longer believe there is another perp, or RA has been unwilling to give up anyone else, they could charge him with something stronger as the sole perp. So I really don't get it.
One potential complicating factor for this line of thinking could be if they have evidence that RL was the primary killer and will be able to present this evidence at trial, but weren't able to establish probable cause before RL's death. Perhaps they believe RA was an accomplice to RL but wasn't sure if there were other accomplices hence NM's statements.

If they can prove he was the one who kidnapped the girls, and walked them down the hill, to their deaths----then it is going to be felony murder and a long sentence for that. He won't be walking away from a double kidnapping that ended in murder. JMO

ETA:
I think that gets between 45 and 65 years in prison---and for a double murder they can possibly do it consecutive?