Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #180

[katydid23]

It was in a document posted here. I will go back and try to find it again. I did paste the exact quote in an earlier post.

This is from the Motion for Parity:
(snip)
Since being reinstated in this case, the State of Indiana
has served up additional discovery to the Defense in the form of multiple interviews
conducted by law enforcement with Westville prisoners and correctional officers. In
these interviews, law enforcement investigators have inquired about the
interviewees’ opinions regarding Defendant Allen’s state of mental health,
practically seeking clinical diagnostic opinions from these lay witnesses. Defense
counsel retained a clinical psychologist to evaluate Allen and review health records
and video relevant to Allen’s confinement conditions. This Court previously
authorized funds for the defense to retain the expert. However, those funds are now
depleted, and additional services are still needed.
This Court authorized payment for the two-hour visit defense counsel had
scheduled with the expert but denied the request for additional funding, finding
that the “unsupported request is denied as an unreasonable expenditure of county
funds.”
From Frosted Glass post#852


Motion for Parity in Resources, To Reconsider the Denial of Anticipated Defense Costs, or to Exclude Evidence

 

[AugustWest]

I agree about them speaking to office staff. I worked in my Dad's law firm when I was in college.

MW was NOT office staff at that time. He was not an employee. He had been one at an earlier time but he worked somewhere else at the time of the incident.

When an attorney is working on a high profile murder case, where there is a gag order, what do they do with the sealed documents and pictures? Would they normally be left on top of a table in an unlocked, unsupervised room?

I know that in my father's law office, documents like that were kept in locked cabinets or locked desk drawers. Never out in the open on a table with no one in charge of them. JMO

I think preferences differ among lawyers how they like to organize the exhibits they plan to use. I am fairly OCD so I like my stuff put away and tidy. I know others who look like a tornado tore through their office. Either way, there really should not be any chance of personal/confidential information falling into the hands of unauthorized persons.

I mentioned in another post that I regularly speak with physicians who aren't employees of mine about cases. They would be considered "professional staff and other personnel" with the language of the gag order in this case, in my opinion. The distinction between employee or not employee makes little difference here to me.

I feel that what happened here was that AB likely trusted MW as a professional associate, was taken advantage of by MW, and the allure of money/fame/both caused MW to act outside his normal character.

 

[FrostedGlass]

This is from the Motion for Parity:
(snip)
Since being reinstated in this case, the State of Indiana
has served up additional discovery to the Defense in the form of multiple interviews
conducted by law enforcement with Westville prisoners and correctional officers. In
these interviews, law enforcement investigators have inquired about the
interviewees’ opinions regarding Defendant Allen’s state of mental health,
practically seeking clinical diagnostic opinions from these lay witnesses. Defense
counsel retained a clinical psychologist to evaluate Allen and review health records
and video relevant to Allen’s confinement conditions. This Court previously
authorized funds for the defense to retain the expert. However, those funds are now
depleted, and additional services are still needed.
This Court authorized payment for the two-hour visit defense counsel had
scheduled with the expert but denied the request for additional funding, finding
that the “unsupported request is denied as an unreasonable expenditure of county
funds.”
From Frosted Glass post#852


Motion for Parity in Resources, To Reconsider the Denial of Anticipated Defense Costs, or to Exclude Evidence

Thanks for looking that up.
I understand that to say the D have used the funds up that she authorized but they still need more, which she won't authorize.
I don't think it says that the judge is out of money.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

And yet the defense filed a motion for a speedy trial.

After the contempt motion was filed. It was so they could ask for a delay in the contempt trial. IMO. Also to protect themselves from DQ because it would bump up against their clients 6th amendment rights. The same excuse they used at SCION. JMO
It seems they have a couple signature moves
MOO

 

[AugustWest]

Is the State really behind in Discovery or is that a false accusation? I think the defense is behind in looking through all those terabytes.

Why wouldn't Nick want the contempt hearing beforehand? It will be meaningless afterwards.

Nick wouldn't want it now because it is simply another way for possible juror bias to be introduced. This only helps the defense, as it could create appealable error.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Before they knew of 70 days (is that correct?) of "lost" evidence and the geofence stuff the State never intended to hand over (IMO).

Can you tell me what was potentially exculpatory because it seems that BH was interviewed in home and EF was not interviewed in Delphi?
TIA
Also since the geofence was discussed in August 2023 by MW and RF per the motions filed by the state it seems defense had access to it as early as the summer of 2023. JMO based on everything I’ve read.

 

[AugustWest]

The Defense has admitted more than once that the State handed over evidence that they could have missed.

When you hand over discovery, you have a duty to hand it over to the other side in a manner that will not unduly burden them or hinder their ability to usefully process the information.

 

[Ravenmoon]

When you hand over discovery, you have a duty to hand it over to the other side in a manner that will not unduly burden them or hinder their ability to usefully process the information.

Understood.
But would it be more egregious to hold some back? Is there a proper amount to be distributed in specific intervals?
I would think this almost a no win situation for the state when a mountain of evidence exists?

 

[AugustWest]

This defense team has purposely and intentionally brought all kinds of you-tubers and influencers under their umbrella, from day one. They have run their defense through these contributors. So now they are all muddled together, IMO.

Look at the circus sideshow they created at the last hearing. They brought those social media influencers to the court and have 'courted' them and flirted with them continuously from day one. JMO

So the people 'sharing' the donation campaign are all a part of the defense team, IMO.

Sorry I keep responding to you piecemeal @katydid23

I just wanted to add that you can't really pick a good witness for yourself when all the choices are dregs of society. I feel nearly all those persons running youtube crime channels, true crime blogs, and the like are the bottom feeders of this world, regardless of side. They peddle human misery. They had to deal with them, since the leaks manifested in the content these creators put out.

 

[TTF14]

Can you tell me what was potentially exculpatory because it seems that BH was interviewed in home and EF was not interviewed in Delphi?

No, I can't. At least not without violating Websleuths' TOS.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

This is from the Motion for Parity:
(snip)
Since being reinstated in this case, the State of Indiana
has served up additional discovery to the Defense in the form of multiple interviews
conducted by law enforcement with Westville prisoners and correctional officers. In
these interviews, law enforcement investigators have inquired about the
interviewees’ opinions regarding Defendant Allen’s state of mental health,
practically seeking clinical diagnostic opinions from these lay witnesses. Defense
counsel retained a clinical psychologist to evaluate Allen and review health records
and video relevant to Allen’s confinement conditions. This Court previously
authorized funds for the defense to retain the expert. However, those funds are now
depleted, and additional services are still needed.
This Court authorized payment for the two-hour visit defense counsel had
scheduled with the expert but denied the request for additional funding, finding
that the “unsupported request is denied as an unreasonable expenditure of county
funds.”
From Frosted Glass post#852


Motion for Parity in Resources, To Reconsider the Denial of Anticipated Defense Costs, or to Exclude Evidence

Thanks for posting this again. It’s been linked by me several times to show the defense was NOT denied ANY funding. They just weren’t being granted excessive funding and also IN ADVANCE.
Courts don’t pay fees in advance. In my personal experience they take a significant amount of time to reimburse and slash what they see as being excessive.
But defense doesn’t need to worry now. IMO they’ve used their social media machine to print money for them without any accounting.
MOO

 

[AugustWest]

Understood.
But would it be more egregious to hold some back? Is there a proper amount to be distributed in specific intervals?
I would think this almost a no win situation for the state when a mountain of evidence exists?

It would be more egregious to hold some back, but still would not excuse discovery coming in a form undigestible to the defense. In a perfect world, each side would be respectful of one another and not impose hardship in their dealings with each other. This is not always the case, as apparent here.

 

[katydid23]

I think preferences differ among lawyers how they like to organize the exhibits they plan to use. I am fairly OCD so I like my stuff put away and tidy. I know others who look like a tornado tore through their office. Either way, there really should not be any chance of personal/confidential information falling into the hands of unauthorized persons.

I mentioned in another post that I regularly speak with physicians who aren't employees of mine about cases. They would be considered "professional staff and other personnel" with the language of the gag order in this case, in my opinion. The distinction between employee or not employee makes little difference here to me.

I feel that what happened here was that AB likely trusted MW as a professional associate, was taken advantage of by MW, and the allure of money/fame/both caused MW to act outside his normal character.

All of there above rings true---but it doesn't address the fact that crime scene photos of dead children were left unattended on top of a table. That is sheer negligence, IMO.

Talking to your friends and associates about medical malpractice cases is all well and good. But the case we are talking about has court protected photos of dead teen girls and there is no excuse for those photos to be left out haphazardly.

Have you read the recently released emails between MW and the defense? They portray a different relationship from what the defense originally stated to the judge. He was being treated as though he was part of the defense team, imo

 

[vinayd]

Well they first have to admit who “Andy” is. It’s things like this that makes nothing the defense is doing ok with me.

 

[TTF14]

All of there above rings true---but it doesn't address the fact that crime scene photos of dead children were left unattended on top of a table. That is sheer negligence, IMO.

Talking to your friends and associates about medical malpractice cases is all well and good. But the case we are talking about has court protected photos of dead teen girls and there is no excuse for those photos to be left out haphazardly.

Have you read the recently released emails between MW and the defense? They portray a different relationship from what the defense originally stated to the judge. He was being treated as though he was part of the defense team, imo

BBM.

But is that a crime?

Also, I would imagine that some malpractice photos are probably quite private, so it could be just as egregious.

 

[katydid23]

Thanks for looking that up.
I understand that to say the D have used the funds up that she authorized but they still need more, which she won't authorize.
I don't think it says that the judge is out of money.

She used the term =="those funds are now depleted"

" to use up the supply or resources of."

It sounds like it is a matter of lack of potential funding, imo

 

[katydid23]

BBM.

But is that a crime?

Yes, contempt of court is the charge. And possibly negligence?

The reason it is important is because the defense originally painted MW as some rogue charlatan who snuck into the office uninvited and stole the documents.

In reality, he was being treated as if he were part of the defense team, so it is even more astounding that he took photos and sent them out. That makes it seem like the DT was in on it in some way. This wasn't a rogue infiltrator but one of the team.

 

[TTF14]

Yes, contempt of court is the charge. And possibly negligence?

It's a crime/contempt of court to talk about the case with non-employees?

 

[AugustWest]

All of there above rings true---but it doesn't address the fact that crime scene photos of dead children were left unattended on top of a table. That is sheer negligence, IMO.

Talking to your friends and associates about medical malpractice cases is all well and good. But the case we are talking about has court protected photos of dead teen girls and there is no excuse for those photos to be left out haphazardly.

Have you read the recently released emails between MW and the defense? They portray a different relationship from what the defense originally stated to the judge. He was being treated as though he was part of the defense team, imo

The information I am talking about is no less protected, like HIPAA protected. I have associates who have images of persons with their guts splayed all over the place, out on the desk daily. I don't leave them out, but some do. We also have use scanner badges to get in and out of our office areas. A bad actor office staff could definitely get out the door with some protected material if they really wanted to. I don't know how you expect everything to be guarded like a bank vault. It practically doesn't work that way. You have to have trust in your support staff to make good and moral decisions.

I don't read the factual background of the cases I follow because it hinders my ability to objectively analyze the legal issues in these cases. I haven't read anything that isn't included in the official record. What I glean from the case comes only from you all discussing it.

 

[katydid23]

Sorry I keep responding to you piecemeal @katydid23

I just wanted to add that you can't really pick a good witness for yourself when all the choices are dregs of society. I feel nearly all those persons running youtube crime channels, true crime blogs, and the like are the bottom feeders of this world, regardless of side. They peddle human misery. They had to deal with them, since the leaks manifested in the content these creators put out.

Birds Of A Feather ?