GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #218

[somequestions]

Why would the MTCE cause you to lose sleep? That’s only what the defense claims occurred, it’s not undeniable fact or truth, much like the 12 minutes which are of the utmost importance to you now. The other half of the story will be in the state’s response to the MTCE, but it sounds like you’re taking the defense at their word & have already come to conclusions which is the equivalent of hearing half a trial as a juror & doesn’t sound very open minded towards the state or reasonable.

As always, I respect your opinions I just don’t agree with them in this instance at all.

Sleep well, you have nothing about which to be concerned regarding the jury’s decision nor those 12 minutes.

MOO

I can explain it.

During the trial, what if Judge Gall has ruled in favor of the defense for the FBI agent to testify remotely about BW saying initially that he was out servicing his ATM machines at a much later time than he claimed he arrived home around 2:30pm? Then with this 2:44 pm video of the white van showing BW arriving home, the prosecutor could prove with this video surveillance evidence that was not true.

The problem is that by introducing the 2:44 pm surveillance video of the van arriving home into evidence, it then would have caused big problems with the assertion the phone located underneath Abigail Williams body on the other side of the creek had stopped moving at 2:32 pm. Maybe the prosecution already knew they had to keep that 2:44 tape of the white van out of evidence no matter what because that was their second piece of evidence to place Richard Allen at the scene of the crime through his confession if the unspent cartridge evidence did not work out?

If Richard Allen did it, then he did it and a jury convicted him. I wonder about this question now even if the jury does not. I was not on the jury so I will sleep fine.

 

[INfisherman]

I can explain it.

During the trial, what if Judge Gall has ruled in favor of the defense for the FBI agent to testify remotely about BW saying initially that he was out servicing his ATM machines at a much later time than he claimed he arrived home around 2:30pm? Then with this 2:44 pm video of the white van showing BW arriving home, the prosecutor could prove with this video surveillance evidence that was not true.

The problem is that by introducing the 2:44 pm surveillance video of the van arriving home into evidence, it then would have caused big problems with the assertion the phone located underneath Abigail Williams body on the other side of the creek had stopped moving at 2:32 pm. Maybe the prosecution already knew they had to keep that 2:44 tape of the white van out of evidence no matter what because that was their second piece of evidence to place Richard Allen at the scene of the crime through his confession if the unspent cartridge evidence did not work out?

If Richard Allen did it, then he did it and a jury convicted him. I wonder about this question now even if the jury does not. I was not on the jury so I will sleep fine.

During all of your speculation, did it ever occur to you that BW may have been interviewed once by the FBI in 2017 then again after the FBI was asked to leave the investigation up to ISP & local LE? Does it seem reasonable to think that the state interviewed him again just to make sure his story from 2017 didn’t change prior to going to trial? Most prosecutors or investigators go over statements multiple times with the people who give them before presenting a case at trial.

The first statement BW gave in 2017 was simply not accurate. He very well could have gone back to work, at any point after the 2017 interview, & verified his timesheet & saw his original statement in 2017 was in error. He then corrected it prior to trial with ISP or local police, which is what I believe occurred. Neither ISP nor local LE would have reason to inform an agent with the FBI, working on the case in 2017, that a statement taken by the agent had changed. The prosecution wouldn’t have called BW to the stand to testify, with only that 2017 statement as proof, & leave that low hanging fruit for the defense to use against the state’s case. A good prosecutor is going to verify all statements more than just once & after BWs statement sitting for 5 years before RA was arrested, I imagine BW was asked to verify his 2017 statement & that is when it changed. It’s very likely the defense knew this long before the trial but decided to try & pull a fast one out of desperation & subpoenaed the agent just a few weeks prior to trial, which is what they actually did (as far as the timing of the subpoenaing the agent).

NM didn’t object to the FBI agent testifying. He objected to how the defense was trying to impeach BWs testimony by trying use different evidence (the 2017 statement) versus BWs own (newer) statement & testimony. JG said this during the trial & I provided a link to this event last week. There is a difference. You’re inferring from that event as the state was possibly trying to hide something, which was not the case. They were trying to prevent the defense from presenting the older 2017 statement, made to the FBI agent they wanted to testify, to the jury as the only statement made by BW. Once the objection was sustained, the state had no reason to present the corrected, more recent BW statement, as it was being presented via his testimony.

The time the phone stopped moving & the time the van appeared are not linked, just like every detail confessed by RA is not gospel as to how the events after DTH occurred. RAs confession to Wala was likely a mixture of lies or truth or just misremembering details. His goal was the crime, that’s what was his thrill, not all the tiny details leading up to it. 2:32 is not necessarily when the girls died - it’s simply when the phone stopped moving (was hidden, dropped no one knows). I’ve stated before they could be across the creek at or near the CS & still have heard &/or seen the van. They do not have to be in possession of the phone for that to have happened. The state never gave specific statements as to what order or when specific events occurred once they were forced from the bridge. The only thing stated was their phone stopped moving at 2:32 & the girls died sometime afterwards. NM had no evidence to prove the time or order of events after DTH, why would he risk messing up the entire trial by suggesting things he cannot prove through evidence?

Absolutely nothing in your response above addresses that you’re taking the defense’s claims in the MTCE as verified facts, which they are not. How does anyone know the video of the van wasn’t in discovery all along? Think about how the defense used that 2017 statement at trial long & hard before answering about this van video. You’re also not considering what evidence the state is going to present to counter the claims being made in the MTCE, which is on its way.

Take care!

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I thought the opportunity to allege ineffective counsel went out the window when the Supreme Court allowed reinstatement of B&R?

We are making a joke and Gibsons representation because he slept in and forgot to go the arraignment and indeed forgot to file into the case at all. I guess he forgot where the courthouse is.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

see time on the email below (from MTCE).
First contact w/ McLeland was an email Gibson sent at 6:37 pm Oct 28.
Note attached to McLeland email is "email to Carroll County Sherriff re: representation"

Gibson emails very late, after-hours, the retained counsel of a murder defendant asks the DA (see email below - these are quotes) "I called the jail and they told me he is not there", "do you know his whereabouts", "is he in police custody?" and "I want to confirm any interrogation is halted".

SOP?
Here's the SOP: 230 years, the statutory burden (the bill of rights), the responsibility to ensure the rights of a citizen in custody/awaiting trial is on the State, the entrusted Power for the People.

So. The DA. The Sherriff. Both servants of the State and the Power, sworn to uphold, ethically bound.

I feel certain that if McCleland knew date/time/place of arraignment being held imminently (in the next 15 hours), he would inform RA's counsel Gibson (maybe after checking that Gibson is the real thing) immediately. It's his job and ethical duty. No games. That's my thinking. JMHO

Secrets!
Is being in holding under an alias a secret?
Jail staff did not know "RA" was in jail due to alias.
Does sealing a PCA ... keep probable cause a secret?
Its been well established the State (and Court) were sealing and secreting almost everything RA related at the time. The State explained: they were still looking at others involved.

JMHO


View attachment 561056

There is no secret.

Gibson located RA, met with him, and learned he was being charged the next day. No one hid the client from his counsel.

At this point there is simply nothing preventing Gibson from contacting the Clerk / Courthouse to learn timing, or make alternative arrangements. The proceeding then is in the system - nothing is preventing Gibson filing into the case on that day, or any one of the following days.

Gibson decided not to - even though he 100% knew his client had been charged for murder that day. It made news.

Why did he do that?

Then in the following days, more details emerged including Allans identity. Gibson still failed to file into the case.

To my mind there is no secret here. Nothing preventing him from contacting RA or his wife. His failure to file into the case or appear has nothing to do with Nick or the Judge. Did he forget where the Courthouse was?

I get the argument over the safekeeping hearing and whether RA should have been represented at that hearing. But i fail to see what that has to do with Gibson failing to tell the court about his representation of a charged murderer for days ...

I think this is yet another example of throwing everything into the pot and hoping to make stew. For instance the PCA being sealed is irrelevant. It is not sealed from RAs counsel. This is of course the whole reason why it would be important for Gibson to officially join the case so he could get the PCA and see the case against Allan. His lack of interest in doing that and obtaining the PCA says it all IMO.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

My guess is Gibson will turn out to be irrelevant.

The better question is whether RA should have been represented by anyone before the Judge made the safekeeping order or whether this is some kind of exparte process? Not an Indiana lawyer. Does anyone know?

But perhaps the even more burning question ...

Why did the defence not immediately file a motion to get the post-transfer hearing provided for in the safekeeping statute?

IIRC Rozzi and Baldwin joined the case on 15 Novemeber 22, but did not ask for any hearing/change to the safekeeping order until early May of '23. i.e 6 months later, by which time he had confessed.

Was this incompetent representation? Or did they correctly assess that in November '22 there was little basis for success?

I find it hard to square these things.

MOO

 

[Mirabel091]

Then with this 2:44 pm video of the white van showing BW arriving home, the prosecutor could prove with this video surveillance evidence that was not true.

The problem is that by introducing the 2:44 pm surveillance video of the van arriving home into evidence, it then would have caused big problems with the assertion the phone located underneath Abigail Williams body on the other side of the creek had stopped moving at 2:32 pm. Maybe the prosecution already knew they had to keep that 2:44 tape of the white van out of evidence no matter what because that was their second piece of evidence to place Richard Allen at the scene of the crime through his confession if the unspent cartridge evidence did not work out?

RSBM. Isn't it a 2.44 am video, though? Some are assuming the timestamp is exactly 12 hours out, but it may not be. If we can't place the timestamp with any certainty, the video is meaningless to me. JMO.

 

[Emma Peel]

There is no secret.

Gibson located RA, met with him, and learned he was being charged the next day. No one hid the client from his counsel.

At this point there is simply nothing preventing Gibson from contacting the Clerk / Courthouse to learn timing, or make alternative arrangements. The proceeding then is in the system - nothing is preventing Gibson filing into the case on that day, or any one of the following days.

Gibson decided not to - even though he 100% knew his client had been charged for murder that day. It made news.

Why did he do that?

Then in the following days, more details emerged including Allans identity. Gibson still failed to file into the case.

To my mind there is no secret here. Nothing preventing him from contacting RA or his wife. His failure to file into the case or appear has nothing to do with Nick or the Judge. Did he forget where the Courthouse was?

I get the argument over the safekeeping hearing and whether RA should have been represented at that hearing. But i fail to see what that has to do with Gibson failing to tell the court about his representation of a charged murderer for days ...

I think this is yet another example of throwing everything into the pot and hoping to make stew. For instance the PCA being sealed is irrelevant. It is not sealed from RAs counsel. This is of course the whole reason why it would be important for Gibson to officially join the case so he could get the PCA and see the case against Allan. His lack of interest in doing that and obtaining the PCA says it all IMO.

MOO

good morning.

Explanation from RA’s Indiana (SCOIN) appellate attorney, Cara Weineke.

She responds to questions about Gibson appearance notice requirements ie Gibson announcing on a non-existent docket etc.

Hope this is helpful for all who do not conduct business/matters in US courts.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882499173913710813

 

[RexLuther]

RSBM. Isn't it a 2.44 am video, though? Some are assuming the timestamp is exactly 12 hours out, but it may not be. If we can't place the timestamp with any certainty, the video is meaningless to me. JMO.

RW's phone pings at 2.50pm to parent's address as per exhibit 3E in the motion. JMO.

 

[susane7]

RSBM. Isn't it a 2.44 am video, though? Some are assuming the timestamp is exactly 12 hours out, but it may not be. If we can't place the timestamp with any certainty, the video is meaningless to me. JMO.

And even if the 2:44 am is correct in fact it is really incriminanting against RA IMO. Just proves that in fact there was a van around the time the girls were being killed like he said in his more detailed confession (although he still tried to minimize his actions in that confession). Only the killer (RA) would now that.

 

[snooptroop88]

This is the one item in the Defense filing that has me curious and is actually "new information".

Everything else is not "new evidence" and was within the discovery materials. Whether or not the Defence legitimately 'missed' it or 'deliberately chose not to present it at trial' really is moot to me. It was there and available for them to use and present, but was not brought forth for whatever reason. Ergo, IMO, it does not meet the legal requirement of "New Evidence" found that would result in a susccessful appeal.

But, that lawyer/legal counsel bit is new ... and interesting. You mention the email chain, but in reading the actual Defence filing on behalf of RA, I notice a couple of things that I find hinky although I'm not sure of the implications under Indiana law (IANAL).

27 October 2022: Probable Cause Affadavit

27 October 2022: Charging Documents Count 1 & Count 2

28 October 2022: Initial Hearing for RA

28 October 2022: Court Order Sealing Public Records Request

So then we have the Defendant's Verified Motion To Correct Errors from 20 January 2025. Within it, the "new" to me info is about the legal representation. But I see issues with parts of that claim:

According to this document, timeline is as follows:
26 October 2022:
- RA is arrested
27 October 2022:
- KA apparently 'hires' Brett Gibson to represent RA (Kathy swears to this via affadavit)
- that evening Gibson emails Sheriffs office & Prosecutor NM (Exhibit 1B)
- Sheriff acknowledges receipt "via telephone" that evening
- Gibson contacts McLelland by telephone
- McLelland arranges for Gibson to visit RA in Carroll County Jail that night (27 October 2022)
- During meeting with RA on 27 October 2022, Gibson advises him NOT to discuss his case over telephone as it would be recorded
- At 10pm Night of October 27th 2022 Attorney Gibson calls KA and advises her that he would not be getting RA out of jail as he was going to be charged with two counts of murder the next day on October 28th 2022

View attachment 560127

So the lawyer was "in town" obviously as he visited Allen in jail the night of October 27th.

BUT, this lawyer is nowhere to be found and is not in court with RA the very next morning when he admittedly already knew, according to the defence's own filing, that RA was to be in court and was being charged with two counts of murder. Where was he??!! Why wasn't he in court with "his client"??

Then we have the court documents from 28 October where RA advised the court that he intends to hire private counsel. (Link: _Order on Initial Hearing.pdf ) Note that he didn't say, "I have hired private counsel (Gibson)" nor did he even bring up his name. Nor, as we know, was this lawyer Gibson, present in the courtroom despite knowing RA had a hearing that day as he himself had told KA on the phone the night before.

On 1 November 2022, Allen writes the court seeking a court appointed attorney due to costs. Within this letter he again reitterates that on 28 October, he told the court he would be seeking his own counsel ... and not that he already HAD counsel in the form of this Attorney Gibson despite the claim in the Defense's recent filing that, "nothing in the letter indicated that he was not already represented":

View attachment 560129

Very interesting. There's more to this "he had a lawyer" line/story than we can see and I suspect we'll get to the actual full and telling details eventually when this makes the docket higher up the line.

I suspect that KA spoke to a lawyer, or had a friend who knew a lawyer etc, that reached out to RA and visited him in jail the night of the 27th October on a limited pro bono basis. But, that lawyer failed to appear the next day in court on behalf of RA ... and RA failed to mention them and actually stated he would find his own lawyer when queried about having counsel.

Because RA possibly refused his hired services on the night of the 27th due to costs?? (Could explain why the lawyer wasn't present in court on the 28th And could also explain RAs turnaround in requesting one be provided to him as he now realized "how expensive it would be") ...

RA nor Kathy didn't pay a retainer so actually hired no lawyer?? A receipt for such a retainer attached as an exhibit to this latest filing would go a long way IMO ...

Yep: there's more details to come on this lawyer bit ... if he was retained and just failed to show up in court on 28th October 2022 despite knowing of RA's (his alleged client's) being charged that very day ... could he face disciplinary action?? IANAL, but I'm pretty certain there's a reason he wasn't there in the courtroom IMO.

There is no secret.

Gibson located RA, met with him, and learned he was being charged the next day. No one hid the client from his counsel.

At this point there is simply nothing preventing Gibson from contacting the Clerk / Courthouse to learn timing, or make alternative arrangements. The proceeding then is in the system - nothing is preventing Gibson filing into the case on that day, or any one of the following days.

Gibson decided not to - even though he 100% knew his client had been charged for murder that day. It made news.

Why did he do that?

Then in the following days, more details emerged including Allans identity. Gibson still failed to file into the case.

To my mind there is no secret here. Nothing preventing him from contacting RA or his wife. His failure to file into the case or appear has nothing to do with Nick or the Judge. Did he forget where the Courthouse was?

I get the argument over the safekeeping hearing and whether RA should have been represented at that hearing. But i fail to see what that has to do with Gibson failing to tell the court about his representation of a charged murderer for days ...

I think this is yet another example of throwing everything into the pot and hoping to make stew. For instance the PCA being sealed is irrelevant. It is not sealed from RAs counsel. This is of course the whole reason why it would be important for Gibson to officially join the case so he could get the PCA and see the case against Allan. His lack of interest in doing that and obtaining the PCA says it all IMO.

MOO

Exactly, there's nothing here. If there was some secret, it was a secret from Allen as well because Richard Allen also fails to recognize Gibson's counsel in his (postmarked) Nov 7 letter throwing himself on the mercy of the court for a public defender. In that letter, Allen specifically mentions his own understanding of his own situation on Oct 28, the day following the Gibson "Where's Waldo?" email:

Per Richard Allen: "At my initial hearing on Oct. 28, 2022 I asked to find representation for myself," Allen wrote in the letter that was postmarked Nov. 7 with a return address of the White County Jail. "However, at the time I had no clue how expensive it would be just to talk to someone."

Does this defense ever stop disputing what their own client states he himself believes about his own situations? That is Richard Allen himself saying hey, no counsel! No counsel as of Oct 28. Right, it's not complicated. Let me guess, is it the power of suggestion? Did someone tell Ricky he didn't want that counsel at the time? Because I know that can't be, this client never shies away from demanding lawyers from this court. Are we all now supposed to believe that all that screaming from the rooftops for his "great defense team" back way back when... Are we supposed to believe that wasn't his own idea??

It's just more of their antics. They'll go down swinging, but they'll still go down (probably looking for another SODDI-- so if I were Gibson, I'd produce myself right quick!!).

 

[mrjitty]

good morning.

Explanation from RA’s Indiana (SCOIN) appellate attorney, Cara Weineke.

She responds to questions about Gibson appearance notice requirements ie Gibson announcing on a non-existent docket etc.

Hope this is helpful for all who do not conduct business/matters in US courts.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882499173913710813

Thanks! So Wieneke says

If true (and I have to assume it was), that means the State had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that Allen was represented by counsel.

But no one disputes that.

The question is why didn't Gibson present himself at the hearing or anytime subsequently? I feel like this is a very internet discussion. But IRL, one simply walks out of the office, down to the courthouse, and talks to the staff, or does the same via electronic means.

It becomes even more difficult to believe when this was all reported in the papers. The papers did not report who was charged, but Gibson knew it was RA who was charged.

Are we supposed to believe he was waiting for the state to tell him what was going on? Why was he not contacting the state/court for the PCA?

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

IMO this is a much better argument from CW. However the problem is what was the harm and what is the remedy? IMO a weakness of the D argument is that having joined the case in November, Rozzi and Baldwin then proceeded to wait 6 months before contesting the safekeeping by which time most of the damage was done.

So perhaps the state argument is, the harm is only for a couple of weeks until they joined the case. After that, it was their decision not to request the hearing? Then when they did request one 6 months later, they lost.

There are certain stages of a criminal case that we consider critical. What that means is that they are so important, and so case-altering, that it is necessary that the defendant have the assistance of counsel. These stages change the entire trajectory of the case. The stages are so critical that we don't have to show how the entire case was changed, we just know it was.That's what the claim is in Rick's case. The safekeeping proceeding was critical to the case. Anyone who has followed this case and is being honest about the facts can see that his placement in the DOC changed the entire trajectory of his case. If there were no confessions, and if Rick could have fully assisted his attorneys with the case, how might the case have been different?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882895579614703695

 

[mrjitty]

I must say I lean towards the idea that granting such an emergency application to move the defendant on an ex-parte seems dangerous and bad, but I have no idea if that is usual in Indiana.

It seems the defendant can then request a post-transfer hearing, which Rozzi and Baldwin did not do for 6 months

I guess the existence of this post hearing provision suggests that you don't get a hearing before you get transferred.

Sec. 3. Upon petition by the sheriff alleging that:

(1) the local penal facility is overcrowded or otherwise physically inadequate to house inmates; and

(2) another sheriff or the commissioner of the department of correction has agreed to accept custody of inmates from the sheriff;

the court may order inmates transferred to the custody of the person who has agreed to accept custody. Whenever a transfer order is necessary under this section, only inmates serving a sentence after conviction for a crime may be transferred, unless the overcrowding or inadequacy of the facility also requires transfer of inmates awaiting trial or sentencing.

Sec. 2. The inmate or receiving authority is entitled to a posttransfer hearing upon request. The inmate may refuse a transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.

2024 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 33. Preliminary Proceedings :: Chapter 11. Emergency Transfer of Certain Jail Inmates :: 35-33-11-2. Posttransfer Hearing

Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

MOO, FWIW, 02c

 

[Vern]

The problem is that by introducing the 2:44 pm surveillance video of the van arriving home into evidence, it then would have caused big problems with the assertion the phone located underneath Abigail Williams body on the other side of the creek had stopped moving at 2:32 pm. Maybe the prosecution already knew they had to keep that 2:44 tape of the white van out of evidence no matter what because that was their second piece of evidence to place Richard Allen at the scene of the crime through his confession if the unspent cartridge evidence did not work out?

RS&BM,

IMO, the issue with this theory is that on cross, the defence steamed and stomped at BW and slapped a subpoena on him due to his "about 2:30pm" timing of return testimony.

It's all got nothing to do with the Prosecution knowing they had to keep that 2:44(am) tape out of evidence.

The Defence also HAD this tape and failed to bring it forth then and there in the trial. Ask them why.

I really wish the blame gaming of the Prosecution would stop. It was the Defence who is responsible for the Defence. They failed to present evidence they had in their posession. Every Defence failure seems to be blamed, by some, on the Prosecution. The Defence Team are adults - very well paid adults - their failures are not the Prosecution's problem. Their failures though are RAs problem as it's costing him 130 years.

 

[Megnut]

Exactly, there's nothing here. If there was some secret, it was a secret from Allen as well because Richard Allen also fails to recognize Gibson's counsel in his (postmarked) Nov 7 letter throwing himself on the mercy of the court for a public defender. In that letter, Al)len specifically mentions his own understanding of his own situation on Oct 28, the day following the Gibson "Where's Waldo?" email:

Per Richard Allen: "At my initial hearing on Oct. 28, 2022 I asked to find representation for myself," Allen wrote in the letter that was postmarked Nov. 7 with a return address of the White County Jail. "However, at the time I had no clue how expensive it would be just to talk to someone."

Does this defense ever stop disputing what their own client states he himself believes about his own situations? That is Richard Allen himself saying hey, no counsel! No counsel as of Oct 28. Right, it's not complicated. Let me guess, is it the power of suggestion? Did someone tell Ricky he didn't want that counsel at the time? Because I know that can't be, this client never shies away from demanding lawyers from this court. Are we all now supposed to believe that all that screaming from the rooftops for his "great defense team" back way back when... Are we supposed to believe that wasn't his own idea??

It's just more of their antics. They'll go down swinging, but they'll still go down (probably looking for another SODDI-- so if I were Gibson, I'd produce myself right quick!!).

4th bold by me

Whoop, there it is.

"However, at the time I had no clue how expensive it would be just to talk to someone."

By the time he wrote the letter to the Court, RA had been made aware how much it cost "just to talk to someone", that being Gibson. $5K.

As much, at the time of the hearing, RA didn't say (to the judge) that he already had a lawyer on retainer (Gibson). Because he didn't.

Likely Gibson, when he met with RA (for a  consulation), advised him of the processes, for hiring private counsel or having the Court assign one. Since KA hired Gibson, it's entirely possible RA was unaware of what she paid; regardless, he didn’t tell the judge he'd already retained Gibson (to represent him against the charges -- because he hadn't) or that he expected "his" attorney to be there, in which case I'd think the judge would halt proceedings to request the appearance from said attorney. Didn't happen. No one expected a consulting attorney to be there, that attorney included.

The Defense whipped a whole lot of hubaloo about nothing.

You know what's missing from their filing? The contract KA or RA signed. The contract the lawyer signed. IMO there'd be one if he was RA's attorney of record. As lawyers themselves, they also know Gibson isn't likely to make any public statements or corrections out of professionalism.

If this were a legitimate claim, they'd have raised it years ago.

JMO

 

[Vern]

Thanks! So Wieneke says



But no one disputes that.

The question is why didn't Gibson present himself at the hearing or anytime subsequently? I feel like this is a very internet discussion. But IRL, one simply walks out of the office, down to the courthouse, and talks to the staff, or does the same via electronic means.

It becomes even more difficult to believe when this was all reported in the papers. The papers did not report who was charged, but Gibson knew it was RA who was charged.

Are we supposed to believe he was waiting for the state to tell him what was going on? Why was he not contacting the state/court for the PCA?

MOO

The case number was available on the 27th (see filings):

PCA 27 October 2022

_Probable Cause Affidavit.pdf

drive.google.com

Charges 1 & 2: 27 October 2022

_Count 1 and Count 2.pdf

drive.google.com

Let's not forget that Gibson visited RA in Carroll County jail that night, after the case #s were assigned and knew that RA was to be in court the 28th (but mysteriously fails to appear on his behalf and here we are in 2025 and Gibson has utterly failed to make a peep about that 'secret' hearing or the fact that he did, indeed respresent RA [because IMO, he did not represent RA on 28 Oct 22]).

Request to Prohibit PUBLIC access to court records was filed the 28th of October 2022

_Verified Request To Prohibit Public Access To A Court Record.pdf

drive.google.com

Attorney's of Record would be availed of legal documents even though the public is not.

 

[INfisherman]

The case number was available on the 27th (see filings):

PCA 27 October 2022

_Probable Cause Affidavit.pdf

drive.google.com

Charges 1 & 2: 27 October 2022

_Count 1 and Count 2.pdf

drive.google.com

Let's not forget that Gibson visited RA in Carroll County jail that night, after the case #s were assigned and knew that RA was to be in court the 28th (but mysteriously fails to appear on his behalf and here we are in 2025 and Gibson has utterly failed to make a peep about that 'secret' hearing or the fact that he did, indeed respresent RA [because IMO, he did not represent RA on 28 Oct 22]).

Request to Prohibit PUBLIC access to court records was filed the 28th of October 2022

_Verified Request To Prohibit Public Access To A Court Record.pdf

drive.google.com

Attorney's of Record would be availed of legal documents even though the public is not.

You laughing yet?

 

[FrostedGlass]

A question for some of the legal folks on here:
Why was Carroll County still making RA decisions after they gave him over to White Co.?

 

[mrjitty]

The case number was available on the 27th (see filings):

PCA 27 October 2022

_Probable Cause Affidavit.pdf

drive.google.com

Charges 1 & 2: 27 October 2022

_Count 1 and Count 2.pdf

drive.google.com

Let's not forget that Gibson visited RA in Carroll County jail that night, after the case #s were assigned and knew that RA was to be in court the 28th (but mysteriously fails to appear on his behalf and here we are in 2025 and Gibson has utterly failed to make a peep about that 'secret' hearing or the fact that he did, indeed respresent RA [because IMO, he did not represent RA on 28 Oct 22]).

Request to Prohibit PUBLIC access to court records was filed the 28th of October 2022

_Verified Request To Prohibit Public Access To A Court Record.pdf

drive.google.com

Attorney's of Record would be availed of legal documents even though the public is not.

Yeah it just makes no sense to me. And I am old school. If due to some bizarre circumstance, Gibson missed the arraignment, he can literally soldier on down to the Court house to talk to the clerk. There is no way to keep this all secret.

 

[INfisherman]

A question for some of the legal folks on here:
Why was Carroll County still making RA decisions after they gave him over to White Co.?

Just to clarify & make sure I’m following your question, are you referring to him being held in White Co.?