IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

[Caylee Advocate]

Throwback Tuesday. So no one has been cleared, I wonder if that still rings true today?

Does anyone know if SE is actively involved in this case as the asst. prosecutor? He may have recused himself though???

 

[mrjitty]

Even if this is true, is he suppose to be discussing discovery related to another case which he is not the prosecutor in and which is under a protective order?

There are ways to protect attorney privileged communications and work product seized under a search warrant from being misused by the government.

I don't know that this happened here, but I don't think we should assume McL has seen the protected material (if it is protected). It is possible he has simply been told what is in it.

It is of course not great that potentially attorney privileged comms have been seized - though this is a thing that happens and for which there are procedures.

Taint teams

 

[sunshineray]

I think you've asked some great questions and wanted to respond to the rest of your post here - it could be that he's confessed of his own accord, and that he is guilty. OR. It could be a number of things:

"Another major factor in false confessions is “contamination.” Showing crime scene photos or sharing other evidence is a typical way police contaminate a person’s story, prompting them to incorporate facts about a crime of which they otherwise have no knowledge.(((James Trainum, How the Police Generate False Confessions – An Inside Look at the Interrogation Room, Rowan & Littlefield (2016), pp. 133-35.))) It is how innocent people with no knowledge of a crime learn what happened: police can unintentionally (or intentionally) leak information to the suspect when trying to convince them of the strength of the “evidence” against them." --

False Confessions, Explained

Ending false confessions is a moral imperative that requires action from police and all the stakeholders in the criminal legal system.

theappeal.org

This is what I want more information about before I deem his "confessions" as signs of his guilt. We do not know what questions he was asked by LE. We don't know if they showed him photos of the scene, or if they lied outright to him in their statements to him. We don't know if they told him the court would go easier on him if he confessed at all, or to someone in particular. We don't know what he said, or when. We don't know if he was in sight of the guards when he made those statements or if the man was intimidated somehow into thinking that Odinists might get him or his loved ones if he didn't confess. We just don't know. What we DO know, from other cases, and from any small amount of research online is that false confessions can and do happen, seemingly more commonly than even I had previously thought. That link I posted shows clearly some of the tactics used by investigators to get a "confession". Did they employ those techniques in this case? I don't know yet. I'd like the state to prove their case - that this is the man who kidnapped and killed those girls that day, beyond a reasonable doubt before I convict him in my own mind. Right now, I'm afraid I don't trust the LE, the state or even the defence team one bit.

I think RA has probably not talked to LE since his arrest and the timing of his confessions would not coincide with an LE interrogation where he could have been shown crime scene photos at the Oct 22' interview. It would be quite the delayed reaction to then in April 23' falsely confess numerous times on the phone to his wife and mother. Doesn't add up to me. AJMO

 

[mrjitty]

It's more or less what I assumed it was, depending on the exact nature of the communications between Baldwin & MW. Personally, I think Baldwin's an idiot. As to whether this is sanctionable conduct on his part, probably. Just discussing the case with MW doesn't seem like a violation of the protective order to me (though it seems tremendously dumb and obviously raises privilege concerns). Sending MW the Franks Memo to review might be alright, I'd have to see the exact wording of the protective order and think it about before having a strong opinion. Sending MW the exhibits to the Franks Memo would obviously violate the order. Not sure if that happened though. The prosecution motion is quite vague about exactly what the communications consisted of and there aren't any relevant exhibits.

Thanks for the detailed response! I agree it is hard to assess exactly what happened without the exhibits.

It definitely raises the question of whether MW was in the conference room with Baldwin's permission. But if MW denies that and Baldwin denies it, I'm not sure how you prove it. Especially since the state has charged MW with conversion, indicating that they believe he acted without authorization. Of course if Judge Gull is the one judging the sanctions motion, I don't think Baldwin is going to get any benefit of the doubt. I'm fine with that personally.

Agreed. Where i land on this is i don't really care about sanctions. It is simply revealing how they were prepared to misrepresent the true relationship between AB and MW. So frankly I don't see why AB and MW's statements should be given much credibility. I agree the fact that he is charged crystallises an aspect of it - but then on the other hand, why should the state not charge him with the offence he has admitted even if its possible it went down otherwise. It can't be proven like you say.

I'm not sure that much of this implicates Rozzi.

FWIW, I don't think this was an intentional leak from the defense. If you're going to intentionally leak photos in violation of a protective order and a gag order, you don't do it by having someone take pictures of your prepared exhibits which apparently had distinctive alterations (I'm assuming blurring or added graphics) and can easily be traced back to you.

But on a moral level I think Baldwin is responsible for the leak. He's the one who trusted MW. He's the one who involved him in the case. He's the one who left him alone and gave him the opportunity to take the pictures. Whether or not he's sanctioned, he should be embarrassed by what he did and what it led to.

Right, If the guy was an adhoc advisor or consultant - then he's a team member - even if the disclosures were unauthorised. This is not some old mate who snuck in - Baldwin is responsible for it.

I do wonder if he has blown his PI cover here? Imagine i have a clever friend, and let him in to my office to review a complex commerical case i am working on but he doesn't sign any NDA etc. When i am not looking, he takes some photos of a spreadsheet, then he goes and leaks the info to a competitor. I get sued by my client. Would the insurer simply laugh in my face?

 

[iamshadow21]

Thanks for the detailed response! I agree it is hard to assess exactly what happened without the exhibits.



Agreed. Where i land on this is i don't really care about sanctions. It is simply revealing how they were prepared to misrepresent the true relationship between AB and MW. So frankly I don't see why AB and MW's statements should be given much credibility. I agree the fact that he is charged crystallises an aspect of it - but then on the other hand, why should the state not charge him with the offence he has admitted even if its possible it went down otherwise. It can't be proven like you say.



Right, If the guy was an adhoc advisor or consultant - then he's a team member - even if the disclosures were unauthorised. This is not some old mate who snuck in - Baldwin is responsible for it.

I do wonder if he has blown his PI cover here? Imagine i have a clever friend, and let him in to my office to review a complex commerical case i am working on but he doesn't sign any NDA etc. When i am not looking, he takes some photos of a spreadsheet, then he goes and leaks the info to a competitor. I get sued by my client. Would the insurer simply laugh in my face?

Well, imagine the same scenario with a bank manager letting a friend just stroll around the vault unsupervised, and the friend nicks something out of a safety deposit box. Yes, the friend made the choice to steal, but without the laissez faire attitude of the bank manager, he never would have had the opportunity. Would you trust him with your pay cheque?

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Well, imagine the same scenario with a bank manager letting a friend just stroll around the vault unsupervised, and the friend nicks something out of a safety deposit box. Yes, the friend made the choice to steal, but without the laissez faire attitude of the bank manager, he never would have had the opportunity. Would you trust him with your pay cheque?

MOO

This is why misleading the Court about MWs role is so significant.

The defence narrative has been something along the lines of, in small practice you don't have fancy premises and lots of support staff, and in reality you don't lock the door when you pop to the toilet or to answer the phone. I have time for that argument, though it's negligent on it's face.

But if AB permitted or knew that his ad hoc consultant who was trusted by AB to receive confidential case materials was in the room alone with the case files and discovery - that is a whole different level and not what they told the court. I believe he did know MW was in there, because otherwise he would have said. Indeed MW's own affidavit doesn't say he was sneaking in to the room - he went in there to wait for AB!

I'll leave this now but my only purpose is to illustrate we shouldn't give much credibility to claims by AB because he's been blatantly deceptive here.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Did the family know that the tree was part of the sealed evidence then? If so, how and when did they come to know it? I haven't / won't listen to MS podcast (or any podcast for that matter)... any help appreciated.

They didn't elaborate.

Barbara MacDonald stated in the Court TV link below that she has been hearing about the stick formations and the image on the tree for a very long time. Since the bark/blood was left on the tree for anyone who visited the crime scene to see, there almost has to have been images out there for a long time. IMO

Since MS contradicts some of the things McL put out there, I'm not sure his statements are accurate. I'm not sure MS statements are accurate, either.

This is also the video where BM talks about the speculation that the bullet could have come from LE.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Throwback Tuesday. So no one has been cleared, I wonder if that still rings true today?

Does anyone know if SE is actively involved in this case as the asst. prosecutor? He may have recused himself though???

His name doesn't show up as being an atty in this case. Here's the one who came on to help McL.
It's an interesting reminder, that upon RA's arrest, no one had been cleared (from your link).

Attorney: James David Luttrull Jr.
#1001827
Attorney address
101 E 4th ST
RM 107
Marion, IN 46952

 

[mrjitty]

I'm wondering if any of our lawyers know the answer to this privilege issue

In the present case MW is not an attorney BUT Wieneke appears to be suggesting that the communications between the AB (the lawyer) and MW as an agent are privileged work product.

1. Can AB assert work product privilege over his comms in MWs icloud?
2. I presume they would have needed to do this from the get go? Is it too late?

"[A]n attorney's work product, or that of their agent, is privileged and protected from disclosure . . . . Further, absent extenuating circumstances, an attorney's work product is not discoverable in criminal litigation. . . . To qualify as work product, the material must satisfy a two-pronged definition--the material must have been (1) prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial (2) 'by or for another party or . . . that other party's representative' or agent." Minges v. State, 192 N.E.3d 893, 898 (Ind. 2022) (cleaned up).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752408295053176865

This again might be where AB+MW should have asserted from the start that this was a privileged discussion between team members?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Again, it's something to read all the reasons why the State or the Judge G have acted inappropriately. Does anyone not believe that R&B acted inappropriately and should be called on the carpet for their actions?

NONE of this latest round of crazy train would be going on and investigated if not for the misconduct of the Defense. They shared their own work product and Discovery under protected order with a person(s) not employed or working for them on this case, as stated in AB's statement by his lawyer DH on Oct 19th pre-hearing in the Judge's chambers. To even think that MW was working secretly with AB as a paid consultant is laughable. AB states he was "taken advantage of and snookered" by his old pal MW and had no knowledge that he had taken photos and docs, yet the investigation says he shared them freely with MW and others long before.

LE, I believe, would have to disclosed their investigation findings to the State, Court and R&B themselves. So why now is it that the State is to blame for mentioning screen shots of the Defense case that they themselves 1) shared with MW 2) sent by "accident" to BH and goodness knows who else? The investigation will show when and to whom this information was shared. No wonder the poor man R committed suicide, he probably understood the scope of damage of the illegal activity that had been going on and was genuinely scared, embarrassed, and worried about the consequences of the fallout. I'm sure everybody was in CYA mode by then and he was left hanging. He left behind a wife and children folks.

It's unbelievable to me that any practicing attorney worth a grain of salt would engage in such behavior. This is like reading a John Grisham novel. Except, it's not pretend. 2 young girls were viciously murdered and there needs to be justice for them and their families.

I say scrap the entire lot of attorneys and the Judge, move the case into another county and start over, it's too tainted at this point. I don't see how it can move forward any other way without appellate issues by the dozens hanging over it.

RA deserves competent attorneys (not bozo clowns) and a fair trial, regardless of whether I think he's guilty or not. That's the cornerstone of our judicial system.

JMO

 

[Jade]

I will add, even RA *an accused and not yet tried or convicted* citizen of Delphi. Even if someone were to admit to these horrific murders of these kids.. imagine the future for RA and his family.

That's why I am so pro 6th amendment. MOO

Someone has admitted to killing the girls: Richard Allen.

Richard Allen did, of his own free will, admit so repeatedly to his Mother and wife.

Any cries of he is so scared applies to anyone else that might admit to the murders maybe they are chased by Odins.

So where does that get us?

To the man that admits he was on the trail and the bridge that day by himself wearing BG looking clothes: Richard Allen.




all imo

 

[Tealgrove]

What happens now?

Does Judge Gull rule on this? Can the Defence team be removed again but this time properly?

I’m lost.

This has ceased to be about 2 young girls who were viciously murdered 6 years ago.

What a travesty.

It didn’t need to be this way.

MOO

 

[Salah11]

Someone has admitted to killing the girls: Richard Allen.

Richard Allen did, of his own free will, admit so repeatedly to his Mother and wife.

Any cries of he is so scared applies to anyone else that might admit to the murders maybe they are chased by Odins.

So where does that get us?

To the man that admits he was on the trail and the bridge that day by himself wearing BG looking clothes: Richard Allen.




all imo

Bingo!!

But let’s all pretend this is all just a grand old conspiracy to frame RA.

It’s funny though how until he got caught he never walked into the police station and owned up considering outside forces are controlling his moves.

MOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I'm wondering if any of our lawyers know the answer to this privilege issue

In the present case MW is not an attorney BUT Wieneke appears to be suggesting that the communications between the AB (the lawyer) and MW as an agent are privileged work product.

1. Can AB assert work product privilege over his comms in MWs icloud?
2. I presume they would have needed to do this from the get go? Is it too late?

"[A]n attorney's work product, or that of their agent, is privileged and protected from disclosure . . . . Further, absent extenuating circumstances, an attorney's work product is not discoverable in criminal litigation. . . . To qualify as work product, the material must satisfy a two-pronged definition--the material must have been (1) prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial (2) 'by or for another party or . . . that other party's representative' or agent." Minges v. State, 192 N.E.3d 893, 898 (Ind. 2022) (cleaned up).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752408295053176865

This again might be where AB+MW should have asserted from the start that this was a privileged discussion between team members?

Yes it’s seems they want it both ways.
Work product was stolen- not our fault please press charges against the sneaky, snookering thief.
AND… we shared that with him. That’s work product - it’s should be protected! It’s privilege.
The search warrant may have shown that the flow of information and evidence had been going on and was saved in the cloud. But it was also shared with MS and other individuals
Those screenshots including discovery and exhibits were seen by TMS and freely handed over as well. They could have been shared to the public if they had chosen. The cat was out of the bag.
I think the SW simply validated that they are authentic and came directly from the sources claimed.

 

[TL4S]

So, will the next thing we see be the SCOIN explanation? It seems like JG can't effectively rule on her own DQ or recusal without first hearing why the SCOIN did what they did. And until she does that, she can't really rule on NMcL's contempt motion. Can BR/AB file a motion for a special prosecutor since NMcL has now possibly seen the D's work product? Even if they did file a motion for that, it, too, would have to wait, wouldn't it? Even S/L's motion to transfer probably won't be ruled on until after the SCOIN's explanation comes in, since we don't know if the SCOIN might treat this like it shouldn't have ever happened, like S/L never existed, therefore so wouldn't their motion? IDK...the SCOIN says the proceedings are not at a standstill during this time, but they kinda are. JMO.

 

[Tealgrove]

So, will the next thing we see be the SCOIN explanation? It seems like JG can't effectively rule on her own DQ or recusal without first hearing why the SCOIN did what they did. And until she does that, she can't really rule on NMcL's contempt motion. Can BR/AB file a motion for a special prosecutor since NMcL has now possibly seen the D's work product? Even if they did file a motion for that, it, too, would have to wait, wouldn't it? Even S/L's motion to transfer probably won't be ruled on until after the SCOIN's explanation comes in, since we don't know if the SCOIN might treat this like it shouldn't have ever happened, like S/L never existed, therefore so wouldn't their motion? IDK...the SCOIN says the proceedings are not at a standstill during this time, but they kinda are. JMO.

I’m glad I’m not the only one trying to wade through this mess. Brutal. Just brutal.

MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

So, will the next thing we see be the SCOIN explanation? It seems like JG can't effectively rule on her own DQ or recusal without first hearing why the SCOIN did what they did. And until she does that, she can't really rule on NMcL's contempt motion. Can BR/AB file a motion for a special prosecutor since NMcL has now possibly seen the D's work product? Even if they did file a motion for that, it, too, would have to wait, wouldn't it? Even the S/L's motion to transfer probably won't be ruled on until after the SCOIN's explanation comes in, since we don't know if the SCOIN might call it "nunc pro tunc," as if S/L never existed, therefore their motion wouldn't exist? IDK...the SCOIN says the proceedings are not at a standstill during this time, but they kinda are, IMO.

If we wear Judge Gull's hat:

Gull has marching orders from SCOIN: move trial quickly along and due process is necessary to violate RA's rights. Gull knows THAT decision will be extremely well-documented, including the dissent.

The only recent motions she's NOT batted away from the D involves RA's rights.
Yesterday's DQ motion is all about RA's rights to a fair an unbiased Judge.

So, she's in a bit of a spot, she probably should not use the bat on the DQ but I'm sure she'd like to.

IMO, the next move is Gull's, she could deal with the DQ motion with RA's rights in mind ... even if it's just to answer, hold hearing, then swat it away.

In the meantime, the D must answer the P's allegations, and assuming they have a counter claim against the P, I would think they'd make it in order to get their concern about being spied upon by the P on the record.

That being said ...
I'd put money on a quick swat from Gull to that DQ, finding the D in contempt with no hearing and before the D answers ... all in one tiny minute order, and setting the hearing dates her previous minute order mentioned.

After all the SCOIN didn't rule on whether or not due process was necessary to find RA's counsel in contempt. Nor did SCOIN deal with RA's specific right to a DQ hearing. So, why bother?

JMHO

 

[photographer4]

Thanks for the detailed response! I agree it is hard to assess exactly what happened without the exhibits.



Agreed. Where i land on this is i don't really care about sanctions. It is simply revealing how they were prepared to misrepresent the true relationship between AB and MW. So frankly I don't see why AB and MW's statements should be given much credibility. I agree the fact that he is charged crystallises an aspect of it - but then on the other hand, why should the state not charge him with the offence he has admitted even if its possible it went down otherwise. It can't be proven like you say.



Right, If the guy was an adhoc advisor or consultant - then he's a team member - even if the disclosures were unauthorised. This is not some old mate who snuck in - Baldwin is responsible for it.

I do wonder if he has blown his PI cover here? Imagine i have a clever friend, and let him in to my office to review a complex commerical case i am working on but he doesn't sign any NDA etc. When i am not looking, he takes some photos of a spreadsheet, then he goes and leaks the info to a competitor. I get sued by my client. Would the insurer simply laugh in my face?

I’m with you and I think maybe? He has blown his PI cover here. He didn’t just do this for the fun of it. He had an end goal in his forwarding the info / photos along. I suspect the idea what to throw the bombs in the water and see which fish jumped out to try to swim away and save themselves. The fact that MW is asking for a trial and hasn’t been charged with more severe charges really makes me think he / they (defence) want the public to become aware of something else and this is their best idea to make it happen as we wait for RA’s trial. What other reason would he have for doing this? And really, the guy he sent them to - Mr Fortson (I think) suicided and stated something like it would all go away if he just came clean - about what?!? To whom? What happened when he suicided? I suspect that his suicide though tragic, may be a very big clue in what happened to the kids. Can’t prove it (yet) but all these things have got to mean something!

 

[TL4S]

I’m with you and I think maybe? He has blown his PI cover here. He didn’t just do this for the fun of it. He had an end goal in his forwarding the info / photos along. I suspect the idea what to throw the bombs in the water and see which fish jumped out to try to swim away and save themselves. The fact that MW is asking for a trial and hasn’t been charged with more severe charges really makes me think he / they (defence) want the public to become aware of something else and this is their best idea to make it happen as we wait for RA’s trial. What other reason would he have for doing this? And really, the guy he sent them to - Mr Fortson (I think) suicided and stated something like it would all go away if he just came clean - about what?!? To whom? What happened when he suicided? I suspect that his suicide though tragic, may be a very big clue in what happened to the kids. Can’t prove it (yet) but all these things have got to mean something!

I think the suicide might convey how R felt about his role in the leak. Based on MW's charges and desire for trial, and AB's lack of charges (separate from possible sanctions), it could suggest that it was R who took it upon himself to send those images and texts outside of their "inner circle." I'm not condoning AB and MW's actions, but I am not convinced either had the intentions of a widespread leak. Without more insight into the leak investigation, it's hard to guess. Jmo.

 

[photographer4]

Again, it's something to read all the reasons why the State or the Judge G have acted inappropriately. Does anyone not believe that R&B acted inappropriately and should be called on the carpet for their actions?

NONE of this latest round of crazy train would be going on and investigated if not for the misconduct of the Defense. They shared their own work product and Discovery under protected order with a person(s) not employed or working for them on this case, as stated in AB's statement by his lawyer DH on Oct 19th pre-hearing in the Judge's chambers. To even think that MW was working secretly with AB as a paid consultant is laughable. AB states he was "taken advantage of and snookered" by his old pal MW and had no knowledge that he had taken photos and docs, yet the investigation says he shared them freely with MW and others long before.

LE, I believe, would have to disclosed their investigation findings to the State, Court and R&B themselves. So why now is it that the State is to blame for mentioning screen shots of the Defense case that they themselves 1) shared with MW 2) sent by "accident" to BH and goodness knows who else? The investigation will show when and to whom this information was shared. No wonder the poor man R committed suicide, he probably understood the scope of damage of the illegal activity that had been going on and was genuinely scared, embarrassed, and worried about the consequences of the fallout. I'm sure everybody was in CYA mode by then and he was left hanging. He left behind a wife and children folks.

It's unbelievable to me that any practicing attorney worth a grain of salt would engage in such behavior. This is like reading a John Grisham novel. Except, it's not pretend. 2 young girls were viciously murdered and there needs to be justice for them and their families.

I say scrap the entire lot of attorneys and the Judge, move the case into another county and start over, it's too tainted at this point. I don't see how it can move forward any other way without appellate issues by the dozens hanging over it.

RA deserves competent attorneys (not bozo clowns) and a fair trial, regardless of whether I think he's guilty or not. That's the cornerstone of our judicial system.

JMO

Even when the lawyers were replaced, two new defence lawyers seemed concerned enough to bring up similar issues. Either they’re all four crazy or there is a grain of truth to their assertions.

Even if we scrapped the entire lot on both sides plus the judge, I wonder if the new defence would again take the position of the original team? Somehow it seems inescapable at this point, no?