GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #217

[mrjitty]

Something that remains odd to me and is now confirmed in baldwins interview with Motta.

Why did the defence not get proof from Facebook that the so called mimicked crime scene photo was posted in the alt suspects account? It seems odd to me that a key part of your case is some photo you got from some guy who says that's where it comes from.

Surely you would want to have the best primary source, including the context of the photo?

 

[mrjitty]

EM's wild interview on Motta's show makes more sense once you hear Baldwin's interview.

Of course Baldwin is much more careful about what he suggests.

I find his accounting for the leak and MWs involvement quite unconvincing.

 

[INfisherman]

Something that remains odd to me and is now confirmed in baldwins interview with Motta.

Why did the defence not get proof from Facebook that the so called mimicked crime scene photo was posted in the alt suspects account? It seems odd to me that a key part of your case is some photo you got from some guy who says that's where it comes from.

Surely you would want to have the best primary source, including the context of the photo?

Maybe they were too busy taking RAs taco & coffee orders & gathering photos of medieval torture devices & the like off of the internet to think of that.

It’s possible that portion you mention was contained in the 12-page report from Ferency, Click & the other investigator. IIUC, most of that branch of investigation was started from a guy out of state who brought it to LE’s attention. It’s hard to say why this team chose to focus on what they did - like the juror stated, where they were exactly going with everything was just very hard to follow. Is that 12-page report "out there" or still sealed?

Looking at it now, & I did mention it either during deliberations or just after the verdicts, it seemed to me like the defense was playing for the appeals more strongly than they were during the actual trial. In their interviews the past few days this week, they keep mentioning "another trial" which, to me, lends towards that. They know where they stand & it’s going to take some great lawyering to finagle their way out of where their client has put himself. Maybe they were confident in just 1 juror having doubt?

I kind of want to know where EM has gone to - zero mention of her wild assertions so far, at least that I’ve heard. I don’t know if I can stomach listening to the rest of ABs interview or BRs.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

I had a good chuckle when the juror said she's been spending a little too much time reading posts and comments on Reddit and the host groaned. Me too, Juror. Me too.

RSBM

Hi V-man! I forgot to add in my previous reply that I have also been following things said on Reddit & some YT channels. Some of the comments are way out there & I’ve grown to loathe reading the word "tentacles" as of late. I find it pretty appalling that some are already questioning the truthfulness of the juror & implying still that there may have been tampering outside of the courtroom. It’s just unending & sad that grifters are influencing & blatantly contributing to people’s thinking like this.

 

[katydid23]

The jury really did work hard on a timeline...placing sticky notes on a map and the evidence presented on the sticky note. Then removed the evidence that they did not think was credible.(my input)
------
Juror_Interview

first full day of deliberations, we again finished up the timeline. Then it was our foreman's idea to split into groups. It was groups of three, so we had four groups and each group had something they were working on.

Group went through the confessions on the sheets made by the suicide companion, so that wasn't my group. One group did all of the phone calls, and then another group, which was mine, did the confessions to Dr. Walla and Dr. Martin, along with noting all of the meds that he was on when they started and then when they're administered, things like that, and how they correspond with all of the different confessions that we have. I'm sure a lot of people can argue too that that doesn't matter, but a lot of us were truly considering maybe it was an act of psychosis that caused these confessions.

We were just at least allowing that to be a possibility.

Wow, this surprised me, about them breaking up in groups, because in California I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to deliberate in small factions like that. They say that if one juror leaves to use the restroom, the rest need to STOP discussing the trial until everyone is back together. They are never supposed to discuss the trial unless everyone is all together.

So I wonder if they would allow little groups to work separately like that? I think it was GENIUS to do it that way----work diligently to differentiate each specific confession for its precise circumstance. I just hope the new appellate team does not try and tear this process apart, legally.

 

[MassGuy]

Wow, this surprised me, about them breaking up in groups, because in California I'm pretty sure you are not allowed to deliberate in small factions like that. They say that if one juror leaves to use the restroom, the rest need to STOP discussing the trial until everyone is back together. They are never supposed to discuss the trial unless everyone is all together.

So I wonder if they would allow little groups to work separately like that? I think it was GENIUS to do it that way----work diligently to differentiate each specific confession for its precise circumstance. I just hope the new appellate team does not try and tear this process apart, legally.

Obviously not a legal expert, but that sounds fine to me. It seems like they basically did group projects, and then came together to discuss what each group determined. So there wasn't any private deliberation, per se.

I'm sure if this is an issue, we'll be hearing about it from the "due process" crowd soon.

 

[INfisherman]

I'm sure if this is an issue, we'll be hearing about it from the "due process" crowd soon.

RSBM

Oh dear lord, the agony. Bad enough hearing what a great guy "Rick" is & how he’s like one of the guys, while scarfing down tacos…..

Ugh…

MOO

 

[Vaderman]

RSBM

Hi V-man! I forgot to add in my previous reply that I have also been following things said on Reddit & some YT channels. Some of the comments are way out there & I’ve grown to loathe reading the word "tentacles" as of late. I find it pretty appalling that some are already questioning the truthfulness of the juror & implying still that there may have been tampering outside of the courtroom. It’s just unending & sad that grifters are influencing & blatantly contributing to people’s thinking like this.

I appreciated how clear-eyed this juror appeared about everything.

 

[INfisherman]

I appreciated how clear-eyed this juror appeared about everything.

Agreed. I hope any mental baggage can eventually be put aside so she can enjoy the rest of her life. She was obviously young & has a full life ahead of her.

 

[INfisherman]

Juror_Interview

The Delphi Murders: First Person: A Juror: Part One [Juror] (4:10 - 5:03) With the summons, I was really, it's weird when we got the postcard sent. I wish I could remember. It was pretty early on, I would say, like August-ish even. And I guess, because I'm sure you guys know the trial was suppose...

docs.google.com

to go back to the confession, one of my things that I had that stood out to me in a sense of thinking that he could be guilty is the mention of the van. Outside of that, I didn't put really any weight to anything else, although it is very eerie.

Looking back, I think like who would confess that many times that doesn't actually do that? I can't think of how that would ever happen. But again, it's really hard when you're asked to.

It's not just something that's no big deal if you get it wrong.

There's a lot of weight to it.

I appreciated what she outlined in regards to what the jurors felt while deliberating. She said regardless of the outcome it was going to suck. JG said something quite similar the day the verdict was read - someone was not going to be happy; be unhappy outside of this courtroom - or something to that effect.

I appreciated what she had to say with respect to JG & that the judge felt their civic duties were met permanently, IIUC. I get the impression JG treats people with the same respect they show to her, hence her reactions to the D & RA at various times.

JMO

 

[poppyquiche]

Ugh, these poor sweet girls. My kids are their age now. I hope they can rest in peace. This should never have happened or taken as long as it did to get justice but if we only have bad options, this is the best of those bad options.

 

[Spartygirl]

I'm listening to MS's interview with Holeman and it's really good.

Things I'm noting so far..

He talked about the sketches and releasing that second sketch. He said they were ALWAYS the same person. He felt that second sketch was a younger version of the first one. Different witnesses see people from different angles and lighting and their own age and experiences will sway their opinions on age of the person they are seeing. I have always thought they were the same person (as in police felt both sketches were the same guy). He said the tips had slowed down and they wanted to generate new tips so they decided to release the second sketch.

Side note I think them saying it was a different guy in the press conference was solely to get people to call in. If they said this is the same guy, but a different sketch then many people would think well the guy I think looks like sketch 2, but not sketch one so maybe they don't call in at all. People got so hung up on those sketches.

Second thing I noted was he mentioned KK and he said it was possible that Abby and Libby were there that day because they were communicating with KK.. but that doesn't mean he had any part in their murder. I know many of us have wondered about that connection. He said they could have been there because of the communications with KK.. but they had nothing to connect him to Delphi or the crime. Unfortunate that it may really be a coincidence that RA was there looking for someone to harm and the girls may have been there thinking a young cute guy they talked to online might be there too.

I agree KK was not involved, physically.

I do believe that thru him (KK) and the Anthony_Shotz profile, that was in communication with libby and Abby the night before/early morning hours, I have always thought that RA had access to the "dropbox" photos, conversations, etc and HE, (RA) knew the girls would be there, with the girls thinking they were meeting up with A_shotz.
JMO

 

[INfisherman]

I agree KK was not involved, physically.

I do believe that thru him (KK) and the Anthony_Shotz profile, that was in communication with libby and Abby the night before/early morning hours, I have always thought that RA had access to the "dropbox" photos, conversations, etc and HE, (RA) knew the girls would be there, with the girls thinking they were meeting up with A_shotz.
JMO

I tend to lean that way myself. The things that might have been revealed had LE gotten ahold of both KKs iPhone & RAs phone in 2017.

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Did MSM report specifically on the jury instructions J. Gull gave at trial? Any links?

From the state's jury instructions:
"29. (b) The court shall NOT permit the jury to SEPARATE during deliberation CRIMINAL cases UNLESS all PARTIES CONSENT to the separation and the INSTRUCTIONS found in section "a" of this rule are given."
[ ^ w my CAPS ]

IIUC, seems judge may allow separation of criminal case jurors, IF parties consent, and IF 29.(a) instructions are also given to jury.
See below re 29 (a) usually only for CIVIL cases.

W'out hearing the podcast referred to here, IDK specifically how that juror described the sub-groups functioning.

ETA. If there was a violation, and if the issue is raised on appeal, I hope that appellate court will not rule it to be reversible error.


___________________
Tedious Detail. St. of IN. Jury Instructions

Indiana Court Rules | Indiana Jury Rules | Casetext

Browse Indiana Court Rules | Indiana Jury Rules for free on Casetext

casetext.com

"Rule 20 - Preliminary Instructions"
"(8) that jurors, including alternates, are permitted to discuss the evidence among themselves in the jury room DURING RECESSES from trial when ALL are present, as long as they reserve judgment about the outcome of the case until deliberations commence. The court shall admonish jurors not to discuss the case with anyone other than fellow jurors during the trial." [ < my CAPS ]
(b) Judge to give instructions in writing to each juror.

Rule 20 - Preliminary Instructions, Ind. Ju. R. 20 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 20 - Preliminary Instructions, Ind. Ju. R. 20, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"Rule 26 - FINAL INSTRUCTIONS"
(a)(3) Judge to give instructions in writing to each juror.

Rule 26 - FINAL INSTRUCTIONS, Ind. Ju. R. 26 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 26 - FINAL INSTRUCTIONS, Ind. Ju. R. 26, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"Rule 29 - Separation during Deliberation"
"(a) The court, in its discretion may permit the jury in CIVIL cases to separate during deliberations. However, before the jurors are permitted to separate, the court shall instruct them that while they are separated, they shall:
"(1) not discuss the case among themselves or with anyone else;
"(2) not talk to the attorneys, parties, or witnesses;
"(3) not express any opinion about the case; and
"(4) not listen to or read any outside or media accounts of the trial."
[ ^ my CAPS ]

"(b) The court shall NOT permit the jury to SEPARATE during deliberation CRIMINAL cases UNLESS all PARTIES CONSENT to the separation and the INSTRUCTIONS found in section "a" of this rule are given." [ < my CAPS ]

Rule 29 - Separation during Deliberation, Ind. Ju. R. 29 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 29 - Separation during Deliberation, Ind. Ju. R. 29, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[INfisherman]

Did MSM report specifically on the jury instructions J. Gull gave at trial? Any links?

From the state's jury instructions:
"29. (b) The court shall NOT permit the jury to SEPARATE during deliberation CRIMINAL cases UNLESS all PARTIES CONSENT to the separation and the INSTRUCTIONS found in section "a" of this rule are given."
[ ^ w my CAPS ]

IIUC, seems judge may allow separation of criminal case jurors, IF parties consent, and IF 29.(a) instructions are also given to jury.
See below re 29 (a) usually only for CIVIL cases.

W'out hearing the podcast referred to here, IDK specifically how that juror described the sub-groups functioning. May or may not have violated jury instructions.
I sure hope not.

___________________
Tedious Detail. St. of IN. Jury Instructions

Indiana Court Rules | Indiana Jury Rules | Casetext

Browse Indiana Court Rules | Indiana Jury Rules for free on Casetext

casetext.com

"Rule 20 - Preliminary Instructions"
"(8) that jurors, including alternates, are permitted to discuss the evidence among themselves in the jury room DURING RECESSES from trial when ALL are present, as long as they reserve judgment about the outcome of the case until deliberations commence. The court shall admonish jurors not to discuss the case with anyone other than fellow jurors during the trial." [ < my CAPS ]
(b) Judge to give instructions in writing to each juror.

Rule 20 - Preliminary Instructions, Ind. Ju. R. 20 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 20 - Preliminary Instructions, Ind. Ju. R. 20, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"Rule 26 - FINAL INSTRUCTIONS"
(a)(3) Judge to give instructions in writing to each juror.

Rule 26 - FINAL INSTRUCTIONS, Ind. Ju. R. 26 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 26 - FINAL INSTRUCTIONS, Ind. Ju. R. 26, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"Rule 29 - Separation during Deliberation"
"(a) The court, in its discretion may permit the jury in CIVIL cases to separate during deliberations. However, before the jurors are permitted to separate, the court shall instruct them that while they are separated, they shall:
"(1) not discuss the case among themselves or with anyone else;
"(2) not talk to the attorneys, parties, or witnesses;
"(3) not express any opinion about the case; and
"(4) not listen to or read any outside or media accounts of the trial."
[ ^ my CAPS ]

"(b) The court shall NOT permit the jury to SEPARATE during deliberation CRIMINAL cases UNLESS all PARTIES CONSENT to the separation and the INSTRUCTIONS found in section "a" of this rule are given." [ < my CAPS ]

Rule 29 - Separation during Deliberation, Ind. Ju. R. 29 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 29 - Separation during Deliberation, Ind. Ju. R. 29, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Not a lawyer but I believe the intent is to mean the jury is not to be in separate locations (outside the deliberation room) & discussing the trial/evidence without consent. Would you consider them separated if they were still within the confines of the deliberation room but in groups for a period of time? Would be a good question for one of the verified attorneys to maybe give some clarity.

JMO

 

[al66pine]

St. of IN. Jury Instructions & "Separation"

Not a lawyer but I believe the intent is to mean the jury is not to be in separate locations (outside the deliberation room) & discussing the trial/evidence without consent. Would you consider them separated if they were still within the confines of the deliberation room but in groups for a period of time? Would be a good question for one of the verified attorneys to maybe give some clarity.
JMO

@INfisherman Thx for your post looking at this from a diff angle.

Agreeing w you re "I believe the intent is to mean the jury is not to be in separate locations (outside the deliberation room) & discussing the trial/evidence without consent."

Now re-reading Rule 29(b), I think it simply sets forth procedure when jury wants to take a meal or overnight BREAK from deliberations, which then triggers req'mt that judge reads aloud the oh-so-familiar warnings that jurors should not discuss the case among themselves, should not talk to parties or atty's, yadda, yadda.

The second point in ^ post? IDK. Hoping a verified atty will weigh in.

 

[INfisherman]

St. of IN. Jury Instructions & "Separation"

@INfisherman Thx for your post looking at this from a diff angle.

Agreeing w you re "I believe the intent is to mean the jury is not to be in separate locations (outside the deliberation room) & discussing the trial/evidence without consent."

Now re-reading Rule 29(b), I think it simply sets forth procedure when jury wants to take a meal or overnight BREAK from deliberations, which then triggers req'mt that judge reads aloud the oh-so-familiar warnings that jurors should not discuss the case among themselves, should not talk to parties or atty's, yadda, yadda.

The second point in ^ post? IDK. Hoping a verified atty will weigh in.

Not a problem at all.

I just don’t read the instructions as being specific to how to approach deliberations within the confines of the deliberation room. I read it as a requirement to prevent discussion around non jurors, the public, media, etc. as well as precautionary to prevent jurors from conspiring behind other juror’s backs - like to attempt to get a minority to agree with the majority or planning to try to sway one’s mind/opinion. Keeps things confined to the 12 & within certain locations where the info is as secure as possible until the verdict reaches the courtroom. I could be misinterpreting it though, so take my words with a grain of salt. I just have a feeling IN isn’t going to be restrictive in that particular regard. Plus, there was a juror who had been on a jury previously, so maybe they were able to have a clearer understanding of what is allowed.

In addition, I seriously doubt the grouping up described in the MS interview is of any major concern. I just don’t see the hosts being that irresponsible as to give the defendant any room for contention with this case. That would be career suicide for them as far as being involved in the TC community or any courtroom for that matter.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

It’s interesting to me that Baldwin articulates no theory of innocence. I get why that is because there might be a new trial so he isn’t going to say anything about what Rick was supposedly doing.

But at a high level his argument is just Odinism and beef with Holeman and colleagues.

There was an interesting moment in his interview with the real journalist where the journo says well Rick put himself in the gun and Baldwin says But Westville! and the journo says no i mean his talks with law enforcement and Baldwin really has no answer to that.

And now we know the jury put huge weight on that. Baldwin has no answer to Rick seeing the 3 girls. Rather he talks about lots of reasonable doubt.

Baldwin knows Rick is guilty IMO. The truth of it is between the lines. The four hours he spent talking to Motta are mostly about himself IMO.

To me this is just a new kind of fanfic. To his credit Rozzi had a lot less time for all of that.

Having now listened to the man in his own words for hours in two interviews it’s my opinion that Baldwin reveals a high level of disorganised thinking about the case. What is his simple high level narrative for his client?

It’s no wonder his part of the trial was so chaotic including opening statements never followed through on.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Maybe they were too busy taking RAs taco & coffee orders & gathering photos of medieval torture devices & the like off of the internet to think of that.

It’s possible that portion you mention was contained in the 12-page report from Ferency, Click & the other investigator. IIUC, most of that branch of investigation was started from a guy out of state who brought it to LE’s attention. It’s hard to say why this team chose to focus on what they did - like the juror stated, where they were exactly going with everything was just very hard to follow. Is that 12-page report "out there" or still sealed?

Looking at it now, & I did mention it either during deliberations or just after the verdicts, it seemed to me like the defense was playing for the appeals more strongly than they were during the actual trial. In their interviews the past few days this week, they keep mentioning "another trial" which, to me, lends towards that. They know where they stand & it’s going to take some great lawyering to finagle their way out of where their client has put himself. Maybe they were confident in just 1 juror having doubt?

I kind of want to know where EM has gone to - zero mention of her wild assertions so far, at least that I’ve heard. I don’t know if I can stomach listening to the rest of ABs interview or BRs.

MOO

I couldn't listen to the D Team on the DD with B. Motta but read the transcript highlights. Rozzi acted like he really couldn't be bothered, didn't contribute much other than to say that Oct 9th 2023 was the 'worst day of his professional career' oh, and he wanted to watch the Penn State/Notre Dame game.

J. Auger surprisingly seemed a little tight lipped too, I think she was stepping lightly for a reason IYKWIM. Baldwin tried hard to stick to the facts and be professional, but unfortunately A. Motta kept needling him on the social media rumors, which prompted Baldwin to go off on a bit of a tirade. I wonder if he regrets that now?

It doesn't surprise me one bit to hear from TMS interview with the juror that she thought Rozzi was a bit rude and condescending. The jury in whole seemed to like Nick McL's style and presentations the best and thought Baldwin did a good job. A little fact I learned was Rozzi was appointed first as PD, probably because he was DP certified, and then Baldwin came on board. Baldwin eventually brought Auger on because he has worked with her in the past.

Overall, I think the jury was just as we thought they were...observant, engaged, methodical and reasonable. They studied the evidence and concluded RA=BG=Killer, which has been said since his arrest. No giant conspiracy theories to be seen here folks, maybe we can move along from that. Hah

RA won't see the light of day as an innocent man again no matter how many appeals he makes IMO. I wish he'd just serve his 130 years without us having to hear about him again.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Something that emerged from this trial is all of the concerns about Mcl turned out to be unfounded. He ran a great trial IMO. Especially the narrative that the D was rushing to trial to catch him with his pants down? Well that didn't happen. We now know that the D was far from ready to go to trial in late '23 / early '24

Only think I fault him on is how they came to be blindsided by headphone theory.