Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #205

[rez125]

That’s odd. TMS claimed Holeman was asked the question and he explained Miranda wasn’t required, RA agreed to speak with him and was free to leave any time had he wanted to. After the interview LE decided to arrest him. Given some of RA’s responses, the reason may’ve been for his own well-being.

Miranda is required at any point that somebody may say something that may incriminate them.

It should be used as often as possible rather than not.

Do you believe a suspect who is being told multiple times they killed two children, that they're going to seek the DP, that they have vision with a positive ID of them at the crime scene really thinks they're just "free to leave".

This Lt was an absolute debacle for the State today and rightly so.

To your edit: Andrea explained exactly why you don't go and pick up property the police have taken, you give permission for someone else to go and pick it up.

The result in this case was that train wreck of an interrogation.

 

[m00c0w]

Miranda is required at any point that somebody may say something that may incriminate them.

It should be used as often as possible rather than not.

Do you believe a suspect who is being told multiple times they killed two children, that they're going to seek the DP, that they have vision with a positive ID of them at the crime scene really thinks they're just "free to leave".

This Lt was an absolute debacle for the State today and rightly so.

BBM

This is just not true. Spontaneous utterances, non-custodial interviews, there are a ton of exceptions. Is it a good idea? Sure. But it's not required in many, many circumstances. This is very well-known and settled case law.

Exceptions to Miranda

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ClearAhead]

This entire thing was litigated to death pre-trial when the defense tried to get the interview suppressed because the video didn't contain the Miranda warning.

That’s right, this isn’t anything new. The D withdrew their motion to
suppress this interview. No reason was given. That wouldn’t have happened if it was conducted improperly. So here’s the interview unsuppressed and we’re supposed to believe it reflects poorly on the P when it was originally the D who didn’t want it to see the light of day?

ETA. Is Rozzi’s tendency to misstate evidence contagious to his youtube supporters?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I can't stand that we are getting the information about the trial from people who profit off of clicks. The more dramatic the post, the more attention it gets. We should be getting factual reporting, not dramatics and personal opinion. My opinion, only.

The important thing is we only use approved sources. I don't like the ones who make a living from clicks so I don't post their content.
With that said, it's good to have a choice.

 

[sunshineray]

She says it was testimony at trial, I guess. But she gets it 100% wrong.

"He pinky swears that at the time they went to do this interview, the plan was not to arrest Richard Allen, and so they did not read him his Miranda warning. They didn't advise him of his rights. Let me repeat that - they didn't advise him of his rights."

She then glares at the camera in a disbelieving manner.

Not only did he state they read RA his Miranda warning, but it actually became a point of contention because it was in the first portion of the interview that was not recorded.

Why would Baldwin be grilling Holeman about his Miranda warning not being recorded if Holeman claimed he never Mirandized RA?

What's even more amazing to me is about an hour later, she talks about that very interaction with Baldwin and scoffs at how convenient it is that the portion of the video where he was advised of his rights is missing.

"But lo and behold, that part of the interview where Lt. Holeman says he reminded Mr. Allen of his rights is missing from the video."

This should be all it takes to recognize the incredible unreliability of this narrator.

All my opinion.

Wow thank you! My first thought, after having previously sampled a show from this host was it was very much biased to the defense, in the reporting. I guess that's to be expected as she's been a criminal defense attorney for a long time.

I personally find TMS's well-rounded reporting more my speed, just the facts and honest impressions. If the defense lawyer has a good cross examination, they laud him/her for it. I find it to be a balanced accounting and they take a lot of notes as well as report on the atmosphere of things too.

TMS is my first go to, to hear what happened as I know them to be fair in the telling. Then it's off to some MM channels to fill out my understanding of the trial day. So hard to not have that first-hand knowledge from watching a trial live

Thanks again for that insight mOOcOw.

 

[rez125]

Wow thank you! My first thought, after having previously sampled a show from this host was it was very much biased to the defense, in the reporting. I guess that's to be expected as she's been a criminal defense attorney for a long time.

I personally find TMS's well-rounded reporting more my speed, just the facts and honest impressions. If the defense lawyer has a good cross examination, they laud him/her for it. I find it to be a balanced accounting and they take a lot of notes as well as report on the atmosphere of things too.

TMS is my first go to, to hear what happened as I know them to be fair in the telling. Then it's off to some MM channels to fill out my understanding of the trial day. So hard to not have that first-hand knowledge from watching a trial live

Thanks again for that insight mOOcOw.

I've heard repeatedly that NM is the strongest lawyer in the room.

That's pretty balanced from a defense lawyer's perspective.

 

[ClearAhead]

Miranda is required at any point that somebody may say something that may incriminate them.

It should be used as often as possible rather than not.

Do you believe a suspect who is being told multiple times they killed two children, that they're going to seek the DP, that they have vision with a positive ID of them at the crime scene really thinks they're just "free to leave".

This Lt was an absolute debacle for the State today and rightly so.

To your edit: Andrea explained exactly why you don't go and pick up property the police have taken, you give permission for someone else to go and pick it up.

The result in this case was that train wreck of an interrogation.

During that same interview RA informed his wife if she got a lawyer she could leave, so he knew both of them could’ve left had he not literally asked to be arrested.

The reason the interview isn’t suppressed is because there’s no grounds on which to suppress it. Absolutely no point in debating what’s already been determined.

 

[m00c0w]

That’s odd. TMS claimed Holeman was asked the question and he explained Miranda wasn’t required, RA agreed to speak with him and was free to leave any time had he wanted to. After the interview LE decided to arrest him. Given some of RA’s responses, the reason may’ve been for his own well-being.

ETA RA and his wife were at the police station because they came to pick up their car.

I guess I'm confused, because at around 19:00 they state that RA was advised of his rights during the missing portion of the video. There were witnesses to the interview that confirm his rights were read. Around 48:30, they talk again about the missing portion of the video and how Miranda was supposed to have happened during that missing portion.

JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

I can't find it now but somewhere earlier here someone posted a motion I think from the defense to try and get the 2nd interview/interrogation out and it says that there is no recording of the Miranda rights and the defense didn't receive the Miranda form that im presuming RA would sign after being Mirandized? I just saw it when I was trying to catch up on break so I might be wrong.

You are correct, the motion was posted here. That motion was withdrawn prior to the hearing iirc in July, 2024.

“The second motion to suppress deals with statements made to ISP just before he was arrested. Oct. 26, 2022, Allen and his wife went to the police station in West Lafayette pick up a vehicle that was seized earlier that month. When they got to the station, Allen had a conversation with ISP officer Jerry Holeman. The defense wants the content of that conversation kept out.
Prosecutors object to both motions to suppress statements.

Here's what will be argued at the Delphi murders trial hearing

Richard Allen is accused of killing Libby German and Abby Williams in Delphi, Indiana in 2017.

www.wthr.com

 

[ClearAhead]

I guess I'm confused, because at around 19:00 they state that RA was advised of his rights during the missing portion of the video. There were witnesses to the interview that confirm his rights were read. Around 48:30, they talk again about the missing portion of the video and how Miranda was supposed to have happened during that missing portion.

JMO

I wish I could find the P’s response to the Motion to Suppress which was later withdrawn. You’re probably right.

 

[photographer4]

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #204'
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #204

Bringing this over from the last thread. I don’t think we really know. We know how many LE told us about but we don’t know if other people saw a vehicle there at all that was the same or in addition to the one police assert was backed in there. There could be people who, like SC, were too scared to come forward for whatever reason. Moo.

 

[m00c0w]

I wish I could find the P’s response to the Motion to Suppress which was later withdrawn. You’re probably right.

Points 6 and 9 cover the Miranda issue.

 

[m00c0w]

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #204'
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #204

Bringing this over from the last thread. I don’t think we really know. We know how many LE told us about but we don’t know if other people saw a vehicle there at all that was the same or in addition to the one police assert was backed in there. There could be people who, like SC, were too scared to come forward for whatever reason. Moo.

BBM

If they were too scared to come forward within a reasonable amount of time, does that make them untrustworthy and/or their story bunk?

The defense would also have access to any reports of people that reported other vehicles there as part of discovery. They have the entire case file. We've heard nothing about reports of other vehicles and/or witnesses corroborating RA's "revised" timeline.

JMO

 

[rez125]

A good juror question was asked. Can you get to where the girls were found any other way other than across the bridge?

Yes, from the back.

 

[photographer4]

BBM

If they were too scared to come forward within a reasonable amount of time, does that make them untrustworthy and/or their story bunk?

The defense would also have access to any reports of people that reported other vehicles there as part of discovery. They have the entire case file. We've heard nothing about reports of other vehicles and/or witnesses corroborating RA's "revised" timeline.

JMO

Reasonable is a subjective term. And I do think if they came forward now, I’d question their credibility too. I still have zero faith in what SC testified to and still consider it bunk. Moo.

 

[m00c0w]

Reasonable is a subjective term. And I do think if they came forward now, I’d question their credibility too. I still have zero faith in what SC testified to and still consider it bunk. Moo.

So in summary, if anyone did see RA's vehicle at the CPS building, they have not come forward. And if they come forward since, say, 2022, they're not credible and their stories are bunk. So effectively, no one saw any vehicles at the CPS building to corroborate RA's "revised" timeline.

If BB came forward and said she was mistaken in 2017, she actually saw BG on one of her earlier passes through the trails, between noon and 1... would that be credible?

JMO

 

[photographer4]

So in summary, if anyone did see RA's vehicle at the CPS building, they have not come forward. And if they come forward since, say, 2022, they're not credible and their stories are bunk. So effectively, no one saw any vehicles at the CPS building to corroborate RA's "revised" timeline.

If BB came forward and said she was mistaken in 2017, she actually saw BG on one of her earlier passes through the trails, between noon and 1... would that be credible?

JMO

Not about to debate Bb with you as I have not yet heard her testimony.

 

[m00c0w]

Not about to debate Bb with you as I have not yet heard her testimony.

If a hypothetical witness came forward in 2017 and said they saw a man that fit BG's description between 1:30-2:00 on the trails, and later (around 2022) said that they were mistaken and they actually saw the man that fit BG's description sometime around noon to 1:00, would that witness be credible?

 

[ClearAhead]

Points 6 and 9 cover the Miranda issue.

Thank you for finding that. It’s good the jury will have an opportunity to watch the video next week. MOO

 

[Vern]

I wish I could find the P’s response to the Motion to Suppress which was later withdrawn. You’re probably right.

Filed 4/15/24: Defence Motion To Suppress Second Statement

_Motion to Suppress the Accused's Second Statement.pdf

drive.google.com

Filed 4/26/24: State's Response to Defendant's Motion To Suppress Second Statement

_State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Filed April 15, 2024.pdf

drive.google.com