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

[TL4S]

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.

I agree, depending on what exactly he said. It wasn't enough to upgrade the charges, though, it seems. It's curious.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I agree, depending on what exactly he said. It wasn't enough to upgrade the charges, though, it seems. It's curious.

I am curious about the charges filed too, and will be interested to learn how those all shake out. Is there something major that we just don't know about yet? It makes no sense to me.

MOO

 

[TL4S]

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.

RSBM

This doesn't sit well with me, either. But I must admit, it also doesn't sit well with me that a full seven days before the hearing, JG ordered AB and BR to stop working on the case. All the while, she allowed cameras in, had a formally prepared statement to read aloud before the court and national television, the P had a line of ISP sitting in the jury box ready to testify, had an in-chambers meeting only because BR had requested it, and then when all was said and done, she walks into the courtroom and says there's been an "unexpected turn of events."

I feel just as duped by her saying that as others feel about AB and BR claiming they were "ambushed." I don't think there was any alternative for AB and BR than to withdrawal under those circumstances. Having that hearing would have been devastating for their client.

JMO.

 

[mrjitty]

I am curious about the charges filed too, and will be interested to learn how those all shake out. Is there something major that we just don't know about yet? It makes no sense to me.

MOO

It could be so simple that they can't exclude the involvement of accomplices

 

[girlhasnoname]

It could be so simple that they can't exclude the involvement of accomplices

True. Would we know if there is a Confidential Informant working directly with LE? I still believe someone tipped RA in and that's how he came back on LE's radar in Oct 2022.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

RSBM

This doesn't sit well with me, either. But I must admit, it also doesn't sit well with me that a full seven days before the hearing, JG ordered AB and BR to stop working on the case. All the while, she allowed cameras in for the 19th hearing, had a formally prepared statement to read aloud before the court and national television, the P had a line of ISP sitting in the courtroom ready to testify, had an in-chambers meeting only because BR had requested it, and then when all was said and done, she walks into the courtroom and says there's been an "unexpected turn of events."

I feel just as duped by her saying that as others feel about AB and BR claiming they were "ambushed."

JMO.

Sure - that is why SCOIN should IMO find that those actions were all outside the correct process, so no one tries it again.

 

[TL4S]

Getting the SCOIN involved is the best thing to happen to this case, IMO.

If AB and BR had gone ahead with the hearing on the 19th (without the in-chambers meeting first), especially not fully knowing exactly what was going to be presented, would that have been damaging to RA's right to a fair trial? The fact that BR requested the in-chambers meeting signals his concern about that, imo.

Sure, he and AB were worried about their own reputations, as well, but I think BR acted appropriately by requesting that meeting since he had already been ordered not to work the case for a week prior. How was he supposed to prepare? He was still formally RA's attorney on the 19th, so if they had gone directly to the hearing without the in-chambers meeting, how was he supposed to zealously represent his client in the courtroom?

Setting a date for a DQ hearing seems the more appropriate action that day, IMO, and I think BR was likely expecting that, but he had the foresight to request the in-chambers meeting before walking into the unknown. I'm not idolizing BR in any way, but I'm willing to give him the benefit that he was doing his job. They knew DQ was on the table, that was never what they were claiming to be "ambushed" with. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the job they were doing up to that point, due process should have been followed and by all accounts, they were still RA's attorney's at the time of the hearing, yet forbidden to prepare.

IMO, since JG ordered them to stop working the case a week prior to the hearing, RA was walking into that hearing with lawyers by his side, but no representation. That's a dangerous game for the court to play, IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

RSBM

This doesn't sit well with me, either. But I must admit, it also doesn't sit well with me that a full seven days before the hearing, JG ordered AB and BR to stop working on the case. All the while, she allowed cameras in, had a formally prepared statement to read aloud before the court and national television, the P had a line of ISP sitting in the jury box ready to testify, had an in-chambers meeting only because BR had requested it, and then when all was said and done, she walks into the courtroom and says there's been an "unexpected turn of events."

I feel just as duped by her saying that as others feel about AB and BR claiming they were "ambushed." I don't think there was any alternative for AB and BR than to withdrawal under those circumstances. Having that hearing would have been devastating for their client.

JMO.

Respectfully, B&R are the ones that lobbied and motioned for cameras to be allowed in the Courtroom not the State. The Defense knew they were going to be talking about possible DQ, AB had a lawyer (DH) draw up a signed statement explaining the reasons that they shouldn't be DQ'd that he submitted that day, so they 'knew' what was going to happen. They had known about the leak for over a week, of course they would be questioned about it and rightly so. It was a serious screw up by the D, regardless. Combined with the other instances JG cited into the record, she had a right to be concerned about the D's conduct IMO.

I do agree with you that JG should have handled it differently, I think it all should have been done on camera in open court. Not in chambers, but I honestly think she was trying to give them an opportunity to 'save face', which they ultimately took. They could have shown up at 2 pm and pleaded their case on record, especially since they felt they hadn't done anything wrong. I believe AB in particular was quite worried about what ISP had found out about the leak and what might be disclosed, which is surprising to me because he insisted that MW was responsible and he had no knowledge of it.

I think it will be important to get a ruling from the SCOIN on how this was handled. It will hopefully prevent something like this happening again in the future. As I've said before, I have no problem with them recusing JG, but I don't believe there is any way B&R can continue on this case moving forward. Too much damage already done. It needs a clean slate all the around IMO.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

Respectfully, B&R are the ones that lobbied and motioned for cameras to be allowed in the Courtroom not the State. The Defense knew they were going to be talking about possible DQ, AB had a lawyer (DH) draw up a signed statement explaining the reasons that they shouldn't be DQ'd that he submitted that day, so they 'knew' what was going to happen. They had known about the leak for over a week, of course they would be questioned about it and rightly so. It was a serious screw up by the D, regardless. Combined with the other instances JG cited into the record, she had a right to be concerned about the D's conduct IMO.

I do agree with you that JG should have handled it differently, I think it all should have been done on camera in open court. Not in chambers, but I honestly think she was trying to give them an opportunity to 'save face', which they ultimately took. They could have shown up at 2 pm and pleaded their case on record, especially since they felt they hadn't done anything wrong. I believe AB in particular was quite worried about what ISP had found out about the leak and what might be disclosed, which is surprising to me because he insisted that MW was responsible and he had no knowledge of it.

I think it will be important to get a ruling from the SCOIN on how this was handled. It will hopefully prevent something like this happening again in the future. As I've said before, I have no problem with them recusing JG, but I don't believe there is any way B&R can continue on this case moving forward. Too much damage already done. It needs a clean slate all the around IMO.

JMO

I agree that they knew. They admit that they knew. AB getting a lawyer and BR requesting an in-chambers meeting might have been a CYA move because due process was already in question, imo.

I would guess they went into that day assuming a DQ hearing date would be set, not more violation of due process. Since they had been ordered to stop working the case, and no record was made as to what would be heard, then nothing should have been covered other than a DQ hearing date. That's just my non-lawyer thought.

It's kind of like going in to take an SAT practice test, but told not to study for it, and then when you get there, you're told it's the real test and you can't take it again.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I agree that they knew. They admit that they knew. AB getting a lawyer and BR requesting an in-chambers meeting might have been a CYA move because due process was already in question, imo.

I would guess they went into that day assuming a DQ hearing date would be set, not more violation of due process. Since they had been ordered to stop working the case, and no record was made as to what would be heard, then nothing should have been covered other than a DQ hearing date. That's just my non-lawyer thought.

It's kind of like going in to take an SAT practice test, but told not to study for it, and then when you get there, you're told it's the real test and you can't take it again.

That's a great analogy TL. It helps me understand that they thought a DQ hearing would be scheduled, not happening that afternoon. I'll admit Rozzi was smart enough to call an in chambers meeting that morning because his radar was up.

 

[O.Incandenza]

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

I guess. However, if you think you can convince a jury that RA was bridge guy and committed the abduction, it seems to me that puts you 99% of the way to convincing them he was the killer. They seem to be saying we can put him on the bridge abducting the girls, we can tie him to the crime scene via the bullet, and we can put him leaving the crime scene after the murders covered with mud/blood. If you can actually prove those 3 things to the jury, I don't think you'd have an issue proving intentional murder. It's not like the crime scene supports self-defense or an unintentional killing.

Leaving the death penalty and LWOP on the table gives you a lot more leverage in trying to get him to plead out before trial, so you'd want a good reason for eliminating them. Plus it spares the families from having to deal with the possibility of parole hearings down the line, etc.

The only way it makes sense to me is if they think there's some real evidence of other people at the crime scene. If that's the case, then proving RA was bridge guy no longer means he necessarily did the actual killing. Felony murder eliminates that as a defense. That also sort of squares with the prosecutor's public statements about possible accomplices. But you'd think we'd have heard about that sort of evidence by now (in the Franks Memo, for example), so I don't know.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

It could be so simple that they can't exclude the involvement of accomplices

I think this could be said for a lot of cases, especially those based on DNA, with no witnesses, no video, etc. where there is no exculpatory evidence.
However, it is not announced as more than a possibility, when there is no evidence of an accomplice and it can't be said that the suspect could not possibly have accomplished it alone.

I doubt this would be such a talking point if the prosecutor had not made that statement in support of sealing the PCA.

True. Would we know if there is a Confidential Informant working directly with LE? I still believe someone tipped RA in and that's how he came back on LE's radar in Oct 2022.

We wouldn't ordinarily know if a CI was working with LE. But, if the CI provided information to LE, leading to an action being taken by LE, and it is a step in the events leading to an arrest/charges, that will be in the PCA, especially if the chain of events can't exist without the CI.

 

[M. Kay]

Since they had been ordered to stop working the case, and no record was made as to what would be heard...

It's kind of like going in to take an SAT practice test, but told not to study for it, and then when you get there, you're told it's the real test and you can't take it again.

This is one helpful kind of post for me. I hang around when legal matters are explained, though usually simply trusting others' explanations and reactions. This analogy sheds light...finally.
(Retired from career that only involved a dab of copyright law.)

 

[Ward Thisperer]

The only way it makes sense to me is if they think there's some real evidence of other people at the crime scene. If that's the case, then proving RA was bridge guy no longer means he necessarily did the actual killing. Felony murder eliminates that as a defense. That also sort of squares with the prosecutor's public statements about possible accomplices. But you'd think we'd have heard about that sort of evidence by now (in the Franks Memo, for example), so I don't know.

SBM Great point, haven’t we been told by LE that there was DNA at the scene? we’ve also heard in the FM from LE depositions that we do NOT have RA’s DNA at the scene.

I would REALLY like to see the results of the DNA analysis from people like EF, PW who gave their samples. I’d love to know if these were actually analyzed. I don’t recall if the FM mentions that any of these gave DNA but I recall that they don’t mention any of the results nor that they have requested the results as discovery. Could be either that they knew the results don’t show a match for any of them and left out that info, or could be they weren’t aware that these people gave DNA at all.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

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.

NMcL also argued for sealing the PCA because it would harm the families if released, not just for the ongoing investigation reason.
I think the families knew his statements about "others involved" were to convince the judge to agree.

SBM Great point, haven’t we been told by LE that there was DNA at the scene? we’ve also heard in the FM from LE depositions that we do NOT have RA’s DNA at the scene.

I would REALLY like to see the results of the DNA analysis from people like EF, PW who gave their samples. I’d love to know if these were actually analyzed. I don’t recall if the FM mentions that any of these gave DNA but I recall that they don’t mention any of the results nor that they have requested the results as discovery. Could be either that they knew the results don’t show a match for any of them and left out that info, or could be they weren’t aware that these people gave DNA at all.

Cryptically, Doug Carter said something like "We have DNA but it's not what you would think". Thus a ton of speculation if it meant dog or cat hair was found and whether were they looking for a buried pet in the backyard at RA's house.

 

[mrjitty]

I guess. However, if you think you can convince a jury that RA was bridge guy and committed the abduction, it seems to me that puts you 99% of the way to convincing them he was the killer. They seem to be saying we can put him on the bridge abducting the girls, we can tie him to the crime scene via the bullet, and we can put him leaving the crime scene after the murders covered with mud/blood. If you can actually prove those 3 things to the jury, I don't think you'd have an issue proving intentional murder. It's not like the crime scene supports self-defense or an unintentional killing.

Leaving the death penalty and LWOP on the table gives you a lot more leverage in trying to get him to plead out before trial, so you'd want a good reason for eliminating them. Plus it spares the families from having to deal with the possibility of parole hearings down the line, etc.

The only way it makes sense to me is if they think there's some real evidence of other people at the crime scene. If that's the case, then proving RA was bridge guy no longer means he necessarily did the actual killing. Felony murder eliminates that as a defense. That also sort of squares with the prosecutor's public statements about possible accomplices. But you'd think we'd have heard about that sort of evidence by now (in the Franks Memo, for example), so I don't know.

One thing we do know about is the catfishing which surely the defence will raise as a possible exculpatory theory. So I wonder if, this is simply the prosecution prosecuting the evidence as they see it, because some things can't be excluded as reasonable possibilities?

I get your point as to why in terms of trial tactics it is strange, but it might be the DA is simply doing his job by the book and not overcharging.

02c

 

[Niner]

Do not know if this article was posted yet - I just got it in my alerts. But of course I can not access it - so if someone can give a 10% synopsis on it - it would be appreciated! TIA!

Supreme Court denies Delphi double-murder suspect's request to unseal court documents

On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court denied a request from Delphi double-murder suspect Richard Allen to unseal documents that were excluded from public access due to a rule that permits

www.wfft.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

Do not know if this article was posted yet - I just got it in my alerts. But of course I can not access it - so if someone can give a 10% synopsis on it - it would be appreciated! TIA!

Supreme Court denies Delphi double-murder suspect's request to unseal court documents

On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court denied a request from Delphi double-murder suspect Richard Allen to unseal documents that were excluded from public access due to a rule that permits

www.wfft.com

INDIANAPOLIS (WFFT) - On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court denied a request from Delphi double-murder suspect Richard Allen to unseal documents that were excluded from public access due to a rule that permits a trial court to keep court records from public view.

The Court said Allen failed to "show a clear and obvious emergency where the failure of this Court to act will result in substantial injustice."

 

[Niner]

INDIANAPOLIS (WFFT) - On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court denied a request from Delphi double-murder suspect Richard Allen to unseal documents that were excluded from public access due to a rule that permits a trial court to keep court records from public view.

The Court said Allen failed to "show a clear and obvious emergency where the failure of this Court to act will result in substantial injustice."

Thanks a bunch!

 

[girlhasnoname]

Do not know if this article was posted yet - I just got it in my alerts. But of course I can not access it - so if someone can give a 10% synopsis on it - it would be appreciated! TIA!

Supreme Court denies Delphi double-murder suspect's request to unseal court documents

On Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court denied a request from Delphi double-murder suspect Richard Allen to unseal documents that were excluded from public access due to a rule that permits

www.wfft.com

Wow, thanks Niner. I'm wondering since the SCOIN upheld Judge Gull's decision here, if it might be leaning towards her DQ of the Defense? Of course I could totally be reading into this. hah I will be nuts until oral arguments on 1/18 @ 11:00 am.