Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #175

[Cyber sleuth]

That surprises? Wasn't the SC ruling just a big take two steps back and proceed?

Feels like a high stakes game of “sorry”.

 

[photographer4]

Sometimes I wish there was a new judge.

Why? So all of this nonsense can come to an end.

B&R are NOT victims.

When a new (if) judge comes on the case and is even more harsh, refuses to put up with the shenanigans people will scream taint and bias. It won't make any difference.

Most of us that are supportive of NMcL and Judge Gull don't care for the exD , but we accept that they are back on the case.

Seems like those that support B&R can't reciprocate by allowing the judge to do her job.


JMO

I don't have any dog in this fight. I wasn't there and have no idea whether RA is guilty at all or in part. Its not my job to decide it. What has fascinated me to date though is the resolute belief by many members of society that he is guilty as sin and should be locked up and the key thrown away if they don't throw the death penalty at him. I believe in the idea of one being innocent until proven guilty. So far, I've seen no definitive proof that he is guilty (or that he is innocent). The outcome of his trial will have zero impact on me personally, but I follow because I'm interested in the law, and how it is applied (or not) in some cases.

In regards to B&R - I think they're doing what they're supposed to do. Vigorously defending their client and setting up avenues for him to seek an appeal should he be found guilty. Does it muddy the waters? Yes. Is it nice for the families of the victims? No. But criminal proceedings are not about being nice or fair to the victims or their families. They're not about the victims at all, nor should they be. They're about the accused and his (or her) access to a "speedy" and fair trial, which so far, he's not had, and it doesn't seem he will have any time soon.

I do not like JG one bit but I don't care if she stays on the case so long as she makes her rulings fairly and expediently (ideally with benefit of written decisions or hearings vs summary judgements as has been her habit in this matter).

 

[photographer4]

JUST MY OPINION:

All of theatrics will come to end before too long. . Why? I think RA will make a plea deal. I seriously doubt that this case will ever go to trial.

AMOO JMO

I'm interested to see if he does - so far B&R have asserted their belief that he is innocent, and more recently so did the lawyer who covered while B&R were off the case for a few months. I haven't heard any rumblings to suggest that they'll be seeking a plea deal - but I do wonder if given the "new" and "voluminous" disclosure from the prosecution if perhaps that may change things?

 

[Ravenmoon]

I don't have any dog in this fight. I wasn't there and have no idea whether RA is guilty at all or in part. Its not my job to decide it. What has fascinated me to date though is the resolute belief by many members of society that he is guilty as sin and should be locked up and the key thrown away if they don't throw the death penalty at him. I believe in the idea of one being innocent until proven guilty. So far, I've seen no definitive proof that he is guilty (or that he is innocent). The outcome of his trial will have zero impact on me personally, but I follow because I'm interested in the law, and how it is applied (or not) in some cases.

In regards to B&R - I think they're doing what they're supposed to do. Vigorously defending their client and setting up avenues for him to seek an appeal should he be found guilty. Does it muddy the waters? Yes. Is it nice for the families of the victims? No. But criminal proceedings are not about being nice or fair to the victims or their families. They're not about the victims at all, nor should they be. They're about the accused and his (or her) access to a "speedy" and fair trial, which so far, he's not had, and it doesn't seem he will have any time soon.

I do not like JG one bit but I don't care if she stays on the case so long as she makes her rulings fairly and expediently (ideally with benefit of written decisions or hearings vs summary judgements as has been her habit in this matter).

"Not about the victims at all, nor should it be?"

Had murder not be committed, no one would be where they are right now.


It is absolutely about the victims.



JMO

 

[photographer4]

Emma,

Does this mean that Baldwin and Rozzi don't have to be there?
Why would Baldwin choose not to appear?
I thought Rozzi was the only one with a conflict on his schedule.

Thank you!

I would imagine (I am not a lawyer) that they've hired him to represent them on this contempt matter, but that they will still want to be there to assist in their own defense and that they'll still be required to appear by JG. They can file that notice of representation even as they wait for her ruling about whether the 12th will be adjourned / continued to some other day per Rozzi's request.

 

[mrjitty]

It would be best if the contempt stuff was split off to a different judge. It has nothing to do with this trial anymore.

 

[Ravenmoon]

It would be best if the contempt stuff was split off to a different judge. It has nothing to do with this trial anymore.

Could you explain this?
Personally ( not that my opinion really matters) it wouldn't bother me if it did go to a different judge, but I don't understand how it doesn't relate to the trial.
Please help me to understand.

Thank you

 

[photographer4]

"Not about the victims at all, nor should it be?"

Had murder not be committed, no one would be where they are right now.


It is absolutely about the victims.



JMO

Well yes, this legal matter was started as a result of the girls being murdered. However, what we're seeing now is NOT about the girls. Its about whether a man is guilty or innocent of that crime. Its about whether he will go to prison for the rest of his life, or possibly to death for it. Its about legal baseball as it were - motions and filings, and hearings etc. Its about RA right now and the cases presented by each side for and against the idea that his is guilty.

I'd like to hope that people remember the girls in all of this, and their loved ones left behind. I can't imagine being them and having all this to deal with and missing the kids. But ultimately, this current case isn't about them. Its about RA and the legal baseball for lack of a better term between the prosecution and the defense.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I don't have any dog in this fight. I wasn't there and have no idea whether RA is guilty at all or in part. Its not my job to decide it. What has fascinated me to date though is the resolute belief by many members of society that he is guilty as sin and should be locked up and the key thrown away if they don't throw the death penalty at him. I believe in the idea of one being innocent until proven guilty. So far, I've seen no definitive proof that he is guilty (or that he is innocent). The outcome of his trial will have zero impact on me personally, but I follow because I'm interested in the law, and how it is applied (or not) in some cases.

In regards to B&R - I think they're doing what they're supposed to do. Vigorously defending their client and setting up avenues for him to seek an appeal should he be found guilty. Does it muddy the waters? Yes. Is it nice for the families of the victims? No. But criminal proceedings are not about being nice or fair to the victims or their families. They're not about the victims at all, nor should they be. They're about the accused and his (or her) access to a "speedy" and fair trial, which so far, he's not had, and it doesn't seem he will have any time soon.

I do not like JG one bit but I don't care if she stays on the case so long as she makes her rulings fairly and expediently (ideally with benefit of written decisions or hearings vs summary judgements as has been her habit in this matter).

Does anyone believe that if the trial had begun in mid January that the defense would have been ready to go?

Maybe?? I seriously doubt it.


AMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Emma,

Does this mean that Baldwin and Rozzi don't have to be there?
Why would Baldwin choose not to appear?
I thought Rozzi was the only one with a conflict on his schedule.

Thank you!

Baldwin and Rozzi are not coming because they are cowards.
Just like on Oct 19 2023 when they decided to resign instead of having a hearing in open court that was going to expose them for their horrible and unprofessional behavior that included leaking pictures of two young girls butchered on a forest floor. But that wasn’t all. It was ongoing and included lying to a judge.
These guys, revered by so many, cowered in the judges chambers begging to be allowed to slip out the backdoor.
Now that it’s time to finally pay the piper for their leaks and lies, they are cowering again. Did they truly think all their misdeeds would just be excused? How pathetic.
This has nothing to do with the judge, it is solely and finally about THEIR poor behavior. The judge faced her accusations. B and R run and scatter. And they are absolutely 100% guilty of these contempt allegations. They were in October 2023 and they are now. They admitted as much themselves.
While B and R continue to lead the circus of court filings Libby and Abby are out in the cemetery and RA sits in what they describe as medieval like prison conditions. Ironically, if the defense had not stirred up the recent circus, the trial would be over, and since the defense insists RA is not guilty, their client would be out and about breathing free air. At last a free man. But no, he sits rotting(according to his attorneys) in prison while they pout and whine to the SCOIN over something that was triggered by themselves.
I hope RA realizes the mistake he made when he signed the statement requesting they remain as his lawyers. The one they typed up for him.
As far the contempt hearing…..behold, as true selves are revealed and rats flee the sinking ship.

 

[photographer4]

Well, all I can say is that if they are as passionate as they have stated, they would do what is best for their clients ( barring true family or personal emergencies,)

It would probably be good for RA if they showed up.


JMO

Passionate does not mean they're precluded from time away. Even IF Rozzi were not already scheduled to be out of state that day for some reason, the fact remains, the time granted him by JG to prepare to defend against the motion was sorely inadequate. If you were facing this contempt motion, would you feel comfortable proceeding without benefit of time to prepare and consult with your own lawyer? Other issues include their motion to DQ the judge should be heard / decided on first. How has she just skipped that step? Was she just hoping it would somehow go away?

 

[Ravenmoon]

Passionate does not mean they're precluded from time away. Even IF Rozzi were not already scheduled to be out of state that day for some reason, the fact remains, the time granted him by JG to prepare to defend against the motion was sorely inadequate. If you were facing this contempt motion, would you feel comfortable proceeding without benefit of time to prepare and consult with your own lawyer? Other issues include their motion to DQ the judge should be heard / decided on first. How has she just skipped that step? Was she just hoping it would somehow go away?

The Supreme Court of Indiana unanimously chose to keep Judge Gull on.

I believe that 20 days is standard to prepare a response. Maybe I am wrong?

If I am correct, they had enough time.


JMO

 

[photographer4]

Does anyone believe that if the trial had begun in mid January that the defense would have been ready to go?

Maybe?? I seriously doubt it.


AMO

They may well have been, IF the prosecution had handed over all the disclosure in a timely fashion. As it was, they were Ordered by JG to have done so by Nov 1. I'd like to know, was everything submitted to Scremin and Lebrato by that date? If not, why not? If they weren't the lawyers on record as of that date, then shouldn't JG have issued a new order with a new date on it to ensure timely delivery of it to the new lawyers? Did she maybe and I just missed it?

If anything was submitted past November 1 or found out by the prosecution after November 1, is it still able to be included in the trial or will it be thrown out for having not met her imposed deadline?

This case is a mess!!

 

[somequestions]

Interesting post.
To me one of the big problems in the defence case is how come he didn’t see anyone else except for the 3 juvenile girls?

Woman walker had to have seen him on the bridge IMO. There is no other place he can be.

I guess the defence case has to be that the 3 juveniles saw bridge guy and Allen had left moments before.

I do not understand a lot of the timeline evidence released in this case. One of Richard Allen's former defense attorneys, William Lebrato, recently said that Richard Allen's story has not changed. Yet now the defense says Richard Allen was only there at the Monon High Bridge trail area from 12 - 1:30pm? This does not make any sense, especially if LE have Richard Allen's black Ford Focus with darked out wheels passing the Hoosier Harvest Store camera at 1:27pm heading towards the old CPS building where he supposedly parked. The tip narrative written up by the conservation officer Dulin has Richard Allen at the Monon High Bridge between 1:30 - 3:30pm. What is correct about Richard Allen's arrival and departure times from the Monon High Bridge trail area? This timeline is an important detail.

Also, if the witness saw a man out on platform 1 of the Monon High Bridge and you have a defendant, Richard Allen, stating in an interview that he was out on platform 1 and there are no other men in the area, then no matter what the description of the man by the witness, the probability that the man she saw on platform 1 was probably Richard Allen. Even if you take Abigail Williams and Liberty German out of the equation, it still means Richard Allen was there from around 1:30pm onward.

I used to think that maybe Richard Allen might be innocent, mainly because of my interpretation of bridge guy's hat from Liberty German's phone video, but this timeline stuff that shows cars going and coming to the area does not look good for Richard Allen.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Passionate does not mean they're precluded from time away. Even IF Rozzi were not already scheduled to be out of state that day for some reason, the fact remains, the time granted him by JG to prepare to defend against the motion was sorely inadequate. If you were facing this contempt motion, would you feel comfortable proceeding without benefit of time to prepare and consult with your own lawyer? Other issues include their motion to DQ the judge should be heard / decided on first. How has she just skipped that step? Was she just hoping it would somehow go away?

Judge Gull has done well for herself and has even been exhalted by one of the ex attorneys. Personal dislike for her is not a good reason to question her integrity.

Judge Frances C. Gull | Trellis

She is not perfect, but even the ex defense say that she is fair and will give RA a fair trial.

I dislike things she has done, but have immense respect for her career.

I do NOT like B & R, but they are the defendants choice of representation.

I do lean towards RA being the killer, but if there are other actors, they need to be charged.

Innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law. It doesn't apply to the general public or the families.


JMO

 

[photographer4]

Baldwin and Rozzi are not coming because they are cowards.
Just like on Oct 19 2023 when they decided to resign instead of having a hearing in open court that was going to expose them for their horrible and unprofessional behavior that included leaking pictures of two young girls butchered on a forest floor. But that wasn’t all. It was ongoing and included lying to a judge.
These guys, revered by so many, cowered in the judges chambers begging to be allowed to slip out the backdoor.
Now that it’s time to finally pay the piper for their leaks and lies, they are cowering again. Did they truly think all their misdeeds would just be excused? How pathetic.
This has nothing to do with the judge, it is solely and finally about THEIR poor behavior. The judge faced her accusations. B and R run and scatter. And they are absolutely 100% guilty of these contempt allegations. They were in October 2023 and they are now. They admitted as much themselves.
While B and R continue to lead the circus of court filings Libby and Abby are out in the cemetery and RA sits in what they describe as medieval like prison conditions. Ironically, if the defense had not stirred up the recent circus, the trial would be over, and since the defense insists RA is not guilty, their client would be out and about breathing free air. At last a free man. But no, he sits rotting(according to his attorneys) in prison while they pout and whine to the SCOIN over something that was triggered by themselves.
I hope RA realizes the mistake he made when he signed the statement requesting they remain as his lawyers. The one they typed up for him.
As far the contempt hearing…..behold, as true selves are revealed and rats flee the sinking ship.

I don't like their circus but I do find their legal plays interesting! I have zero problem with them taking JG to the SCOIN over her summary dismissal of them. NONE. She erred by not having the hearing. She should have set a hearing date and made them hash it out. And that might have been their end goal IF they were sending out info with someone into the wild - that would be a way to circumvent her zip it order (not the official term but I forget if its a protection or gag order in question). Interestingly, the SCOIN did NOT agree with her decision to DQ the lawyers. Wonder why not? Oh wait, we don't know yet. When will we know? "Promptly" according to the chief at SCOIN - but here we are, still waiting......

What is the "new" and "voluminous" disclosure from the Prosecution I wonder? If they'd received it on Nov 1, would they have decided they weren't ready for trial in Jan afterall and ask for a continuance? We don't know - and neither would B&R - they could only say they were ready with what was available to them at the time when they said they were ready to go.

 

[photographer4]

The Supreme Court of Indiana unanimously chose to keep Judge Gull on.

I believe that 20 days is standard to prepare a response. Maybe I am wrong?

If I am correct, they had enough time.


JMO

Yes, but WHY did they make that ruling? Was it to kick it back to lower court? Force a hearing on it? Would be nice to know, wouldn't it? I have no idea what standard time is to provide a written decision for SCOIN. I know that in typical court where I live, its 30 days to file a written response to a motion or a petition - again, I'm not a lawyer but that has been my experience of the legal system in my area.

 

[Jade]

I don't have any dog in this fight. I wasn't there and have no idea whether RA is guilty at all or in part. Its not my job to decide it. What has fascinated me to date though is the resolute belief by many members of society that he is guilty as sin and should be locked up and the key thrown away if they don't throw the death penalty at him. I believe in the idea of one being innocent until proven guilty. So far, I've seen no definitive proof that he is guilty (or that he is innocent). The outcome of his trial will have zero impact on me personally, but I follow because I'm interested in the law, and how it is applied (or not) in some cases.

In regards to B&R - I think they're doing what they're supposed to do. Vigorously defending their client and setting up avenues for him to seek an appeal should he be found guilty. Does it muddy the waters? Yes. Is it nice for the families of the victims? No. But criminal proceedings are not about being nice or fair to the victims or their families. They're not about the victims at all, nor should they be. They're about the accused and his (or her) access to a "speedy" and fair trial, which so far, he's not had, and it doesn't seem he will have any time soon.

I do not like JG one bit but I don't care if she stays on the case so long as she makes her rulings fairly and expediently (ideally with benefit of written decisions or hearings vs summary judgements as has been her habit in this matter).

BBM to address point since interested in the law:


Innocent until proven guilty is not in the US Constitution.

It is the Presumption of Innocence that is recognized as a due process right under the Fifth Amendment.

It is referring to a fair trial in a court of law.

The Prosecutor has the burden of proof to show that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


It has absolutely nothing to do with what people, who are not jurors, think about a crime or what posters online discuss.



A presumption of innocence means that any defendant in a criminal trial is assumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty. As such, a prosecutor is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime if that person is to be convicted. To do so, proof must be shown for every single element of a crime. That being said, a presumption of innocence does not guarantee that a person will remain free until their trial has concluded. In some circumstances, a person can be held in custody.
[..]

presumption of innocence


imo

 

[mrjitty]

Could you explain this?
Personally ( not that my opinion really matters) it wouldn't bother me if it did go to a different judge, but I don't understand how it doesn't relate to the trial.
Please help me to understand.

Thank you

The sanctions are like a punishment for the lawyers themselves. So the question of what they did wrong exactly and what sanctions are imposed isn't directly relevant to RA's criminal trial. For instance, you could likely just put it on hold until the trial is finished. As I understand it, the punishment could be fine of some kind.

 

[Ravenmoon]

The sanctions are like a punishment for the lawyers themselves. So the question of what they did wrong exactly and what sanctions are imposed isn't directly relevant to RA's criminal trial. For instance, you could likely just put it on hold until the trial is finished. As I understand it, the punishment could be fine of some kind.

That makes sense. Thank you.

Could the information at the hearing possibly be used to disqualify the defense,? Could that be a reason for the timing?