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

[Tricia]

Remember these obnoxious type ads that were everywhere on Websleuths? You don't want them to return, right? If you could please subscribe to DNA Solves.com and make a monthly donation. Not only does this keep these awful ads off of Websleuths, but you are helping the families of the missing get the answers they deserve.
Find out how you can become a subscriber to DNA Solves.com by CLICKING HERE.
If you want to make a single donation, go to www.dnasolves.com and pick a case you would like to donate to.
Do not comment on this thread. CLICK HERE to ask questions and to learn more.
Thank you very much.

 

[mrjitty]

Now that we know how the sausage was made, I think it is clear the defence made a couple of strategic blunders on this case.

1. No request for immediate hearing on the safekeeping. By the time they filed this, and the hearing took place, the worst confessions all happened. It's hard to understand why they allowed this situation for 6 months before they filed.

2. Failure to mount a proper technical challenge on the bridge guy video. This video killed them. While I don't buy into the bridge guy innocence project, i do think you could at least try to create doubt with the idea bridge guy was too far away. It's odd to me that the defence did not try to create any kind of reconstruction of where they say BG was.

3. Overplaying the Odinism card. It's clear to me they were heavily influenced by the Karen Read team - get your theory of the case out there to mobilise support and hope for jury nullification. But the big difference is, Read's team were much more successful in getting their theory in at trial, as the case developed rather than directly accusing anyone. IMO Scott Reisch is correct that they ought to have preserved this theory for use on cross examination and suggestively on direct. Instead they went big and it got knocked out pre-trial. They took this obvious risk, when the authorities clearly did not support them. A blunder IMO.

4. Blowing their cred with the Judge. IMO by including so much obvious bunk in the Franks and umpteen motions to dismiss, they lost all benefit of the doubt with the Judge. So whereas they might have had some room to maneuver on 3rd party at trial, instead the Judge (correctly) put at end to their nonsense. As an example, the bogus inclusion of Geofence conspiracies in Franks III ended up getting that stuff tightly controlled, whereas they might have been able to use the idea at trial if they hadn't already given the game away.

Now obviously neither Rozzi or Baldwin ever ran a case of this size before, and it's easy to be wise in hindsight but i do think some of this stuff is entirely predictable. Indeed from Rozzi's own comments, the confessions really were a disaster, so it's not understandable to me, why they were not putting most of their efforts into psychosis/coercion - instead Baldwin was penning the Franks about Odinist prison guards. Indeed it seems the defence did not finally decide to put psychosis on the table until around the time of the motion to dismiss hearing in 2024 - we have Rozzi revealing the voluntary disclosure of those records to the state at that hearing. In other words, it seems plan A was not psychosis?

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

Now that we know how the sausage was made, I think it is clear the defence made a couple of strategic blunders on this case.

1. No request for immediate hearing on the safekeeping. By the time they filed this, and the hearing took place, the worst confessions all happened. It's hard to understand why they allowed this situation for 6 months before they filed.

2. Failure to mount a proper technical challenge on the bridge guy video. This video killed them. While I don't buy into the bridge guy innocence project, i do think you could at least try to create doubt with the idea bridge guy was too far away. It's odd to me that the defence did not try to create any kind of reconstruction of where they say BG was.

3. Overplaying the Odinism card. It's clear to me they were heavily influenced by the Karen Read team - get your theory of the case out there to mobilise support and hope for jury nullification. But the big difference is, Read's team were much more successful in getting their theory in at trial, as the case developed rather than directly accusing anyone. IMO Scott Reisch is correct that they ought to have preserved this theory for use on cross examination and suggestively on direct. Instead they went big and it got knocked out pre-trial. They took this obvious risk, when the authorities clearly did not support them. A blunder IMO.

4. Blowing their cred with the Judge. IMO by including so much obvious bunk in the Franks and umpteen motions to dismiss, they lost all benefit of the doubt with the Judge. So whereas they might have had some room to maneuver on 3rd party at trial, instead the Judge (correctly) put at end to their nonsense. As an example, the bogus inclusion of Geofence conspiracies in Franks III ended up getting that stuff tightly controlled, whereas they might have been able to use the idea at trial if they hadn't already given the game away.

Now obviously neither Rozzi or Baldwin ever ran a case of this size before, and it's easy to be wise in hindsight but i do think some of this stuff is entirely predictable. Indeed from Rozzi's own comments, the confessions really were a disaster, so it's not understandable to me, why they were not putting most of their efforts into psychosis/coercion - instead Baldwin was penning the Franks about Odinist prison guards. Indeed it seems the defence did not finally decide to put psychosis on the table until around the time of the motion to dismiss hearing in 2024 - we have Rozzi revealing the voluntary disclosure of those records to the state at that hearing. In other words, it seems plan A was not psychosis?

MOO

Hard to argue with your reasoning. I also believe the events after DTH were something they obviously tried to focus on at trial, as that was all they really mounted a strong defense (ballistics was handled decently). Probably could’ve done more on the bridge like you said - anything before DTH would have been an asset.

They did hamstring themselves going way too far down the Odinism hole. I bet Rozzi wishes AB never saw those alleged patches on the corrections officers.

Their antics outside the courtroom should’ve probably stopped after the contempt hearings. Rozzi admitted they didn’t win themselves any favors with JG afterwards. Also, the continuous trying pull the wool over people’s eyes (BW testimony impeachment attempt, etc.) must get old for a judge after awhile. It’s all on them though, so I hope they’re pleased with themselves.

<honks your new circus clown nose>

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Was it these motions?

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Motion Filed Request by the Sheriff of Carroll County, Indiana to Transfer Inmate from the Custody of the Sheriff to the Custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping filed. Filed By: Carroll County Sheriff's Department File Stamp: 11/03/2022​

Order Issued Order Re: Sheriff's Request for Safekeeping entered, per form. Judicial Officer: Diener, Benjamin A. Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Allen, Richard M. Noticed: Carroll County Sheriff's Department Order Signed: 11/03/2022​

[td]
11/03/2022

[/td]
[td]
11/03/2022

[/td]​

Funny how RA's 'supposedly retained Attorney G' was not noticed.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Now that we know how the sausage was made, I think it is clear the defence made a couple of strategic blunders on this case.

1. No request for immediate hearing on the safekeeping. By the time they filed this, and the hearing took place, the worst confessions all happened. It's hard to understand why they allowed this situation for 6 months before they filed.

2. Failure to mount a proper technical challenge on the bridge guy video. This video killed them. While I don't buy into the bridge guy innocence project, i do think you could at least try to create doubt with the idea bridge guy was too far away. It's odd to me that the defence did not try to create any kind of reconstruction of where they say BG was.

3. Overplaying the Odinism card. It's clear to me they were heavily influenced by the Karen Read team - get your theory of the case out there to mobilise support and hope for jury nullification. But the big difference is, Read's team were much more successful in getting their theory in at trial, as the case developed rather than directly accusing anyone. IMO Scott Reisch is correct that they ought to have preserved this theory for use on cross examination and suggestively on direct. Instead they went big and it got knocked out pre-trial. They took this obvious risk, when the authorities clearly did not support them. A blunder IMO.

4. Blowing their cred with the Judge. IMO by including so much obvious bunk in the Franks and umpteen motions to dismiss, they lost all benefit of the doubt with the Judge. So whereas they might have had some room to maneuver on 3rd party at trial, instead the Judge (correctly) put at end to their nonsense. As an example, the bogus inclusion of Geofence conspiracies in Franks III ended up getting that stuff tightly controlled, whereas they might have been able to use the idea at trial if they hadn't already given the game away.

Now obviously neither Rozzi or Baldwin ever ran a case of this size before, and it's easy to be wise in hindsight but i do think some of this stuff is entirely predictable. Indeed from Rozzi's own comments, the confessions really were a disaster, so it's not understandable to me, why they were not putting most of their efforts into psychosis/coercion - instead Baldwin was penning the Franks about Odinist prison guards. Indeed it seems the defence did not finally decide to put psychosis on the table until around the time of the motion to dismiss hearing in 2024 - we have Rozzi revealing the voluntary disclosure of those records to the state at that hearing. In other words, it seems plan A was not psychosis?

MOO

MOO
It looks like you are building a case for Inadequate Legal Defense; if so, you're doing a great job, keep going. In the 50 Indiana exonerations, 21 of them list ILD as a contributing factor.

I'm not sure if the appellate attys will be able to use this since RA wanted B&R reinstated.

Regarding the part I highlighted, I've seen no evidence of a safekeeping hearing (if that's what you're referring to). If you have seen the transcript, please share it.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Funny how RA's 'supposedly retained Attorney G' was not noticed.

I’m not convinced Gibson was ever retained. $5k seems to be a low amount to retain a defense attorney for double homicide charges in a high-profile case. It could have been a consultation fee, with representation contingent on paying a full retainer fee.

jmo

 

[mrjitty]

MOO
It looks like you are building a case for Inadequate Legal Defense; if so, you're doing a great job, keep going. In the 50 Indiana exonerations, 21 of them list ILD as a contributing factor.

I'm not sure if the appellate attys will be able to use this since RA wanted B&R reinstated.

Regarding the part I highlighted, I've seen no evidence of a safekeeping hearing (if that's what you're referring to). If you have seen the transcript, please share it.

My personal opinion is the reinstatement does not prevent them arguing inadequate defence. First SCOIN never said that in the judgement - though there was some oral argument about it. Second, even if that were the case, I think it would only relate to the facts of their removal. e.g. RA probably can't argue he should get a new trial because the D leaked the crime scene photos and that was prejudicial.

While Judge Gull did rely on their performance in the safekeeping hearing - i am not sure that would apply to their failure to challenge this way back in '22

MOO

 

[FromGermany1]

I’m not convinced Gibson was ever retained. $5k seems to be a low amount to retain a defense attorney for double homicide charges in a high-profile case. It could have been a consultation fee, with representation contingent on paying a full retainer fee.

jmo

A link, which I don't want to show ("Don't Hire ...... name"), says a lot about retainer praxis with this attorney. Very interesting!

 

[Vern]

I’m not convinced Gibson was ever retained. $5k seems to be a low amount to retain a defense attorney for double homicide charges in a high-profile case. It could have been a consultation fee, with representation contingent on paying a full retainer fee.

jmo

IMO, a quick google of the "Reviews" for him shows a case that was charged 15K retainer for a theft case defence from the outset... I'm really, no really, curious why the lowball cost from the outset for a double murder case retainer ... or perhaps that was just 5k for "Pre-Trial Representation" as the receipt states?? IMO.

Meh.

 

[Vern]

I posted the Indiana Safekeeping legalese a couple posts ago.

The request for safekeeping is done via motion ... no need for a hearing mentioned.

Post Transfer Hearing is requested by the inmate.

 

[Megnut]

I’m not convinced Gibson was ever retained. $5k seems to be a low amount to retain a defense attorney for double homicide charges in a high-profile case. It could have been a consultation fee, with representation contingent on paying a full retainer fee.

jmo

This.

Or RA himself would have told the judge his attorney hadn't arrived.

IMHO, no one expected Gibson to be at that hearing, especially Gibson.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

My personal opinion is the reinstatement does not prevent them arguing inadequate defence. First SCOIN never said that in the judgement - though there was some oral argument about it. Second, even if that were the case, I think it would only relate to the facts of their removal. e.g. RA probably can't argue he should get a new trial because the D leaked the crime scene photos and that was prejudicial.

While Judge Gull did rely on their performance in the safekeeping hearing - i am not sure that would apply to their failure to challenge this way back in '22

MOO

Thank you; that was helpful. I didn't know if that SC ruling covered the entire case or just the issues decided on.

I originally thought they were doing a good job but after reading all the arguments against that, I'm seeing where ILD can possibly come into play.

 

[FrostedGlass]

This.

Or RA himself would have told the judge his attorney hadn't arrived.

IMHO, no one expected Gibson to be at that hearing, especially Gibson.

JMO

What do you think would have changed if he had attended that initial hearing?

 

[Emma Peel]

Now that we know how the sausage was made, I think it is clear the defence made a couple of strategic blunders on this case.

1. No request for immediate hearing on the safekeeping. By the time they filed this, and the hearing took place, the worst confessions all happened. It's hard to understand why they allowed this situation for 6 months before they filed.

2. Failure to mount a proper technical challenge on the bridge guy video. This video killed them. While I don't buy into the bridge guy innocence project, i do think you could at least try to create doubt with the idea bridge guy was too far away. It's odd to me that the defence did not try to create any kind of reconstruction of where they say BG was.

3. Overplaying the Odinism card. It's clear to me they were heavily influenced by the Karen Read team - get your theory of the case out there to mobilise support and hope for jury nullification. But the big difference is, Read's team were much more successful in getting their theory in at trial, as the case developed rather than directly accusing anyone. IMO Scott Reisch is correct that they ought to have preserved this theory for use on cross examination and suggestively on direct. Instead they went big and it got knocked out pre-trial. They took this obvious risk, when the authorities clearly did not support them. A blunder IMO.

4. Blowing their cred with the Judge. IMO by including so much obvious bunk in the Franks and umpteen motions to dismiss, they lost all benefit of the doubt with the Judge. So whereas they might have had some room to maneuver on 3rd party at trial, instead the Judge (correctly) put at end to their nonsense. As an example, the bogus inclusion of Geofence conspiracies in Franks III ended up getting that stuff tightly controlled, whereas they might have been able to use the idea at trial if they hadn't already given the game away.

Now obviously neither Rozzi or Baldwin ever ran a case of this size before, and it's easy to be wise in hindsight but i do think some of this stuff is entirely predictable. Indeed from Rozzi's own comments, the confessions really were a disaster, so it's not understandable to me, why they were not putting most of their efforts into psychosis/coercion - instead Baldwin was penning the Franks about Odinist prison guards. Indeed it seems the defence did not finally decide to put psychosis on the table until around the time of the motion to dismiss hearing in 2024 - we have Rozzi revealing the voluntary disclosure of those records to the state at that hearing. In other words, it seems plan A was not psychosis?

MOO

As you point out hindsight is 20/20 ... that being said ...
my list of "hello? where's the defense?" is even longer.

#4 seems complicated. Strategies may fail, but should counsel know in advance (and anticipate) that one failed 3rd party strategy locks the door for others ... and disqualifies alternate use of GPS evidence?

Appreciate the attny Reisch mention - a voice I've not yet heard. I'll check him out.

 

[sunshineray]

I’m not convinced Gibson was ever retained. $5k seems to be a low amount to retain a defense attorney for double homicide charges in a high-profile case. It could have been a consultation fee, with representation contingent on paying a full retainer fee.

jmo

And if that was the case, why didn't RA or KA speak up to the court that he/she/they consulted an attorney but they were not present in court because they gave them all the money they could just for a consultation. Did Attorney G tell he/she/them that they didn't need him there at the arraignment? I find it odd that 5 grand doesn't get you at the least a day in court for an arraignment. Even if the guy charges $1,000 an hour, how long is an arraignment really? And he would have at least been there to object to the tranfer and a hearing would have been set. End result would most likely have been the DOC anyway, for safekeeping, IMO, so it's really not a big deal.

 

[FrostedGlass]

And if that was the case, why didn't RA or KA speak up to the court that he/she/they consulted an attorney but they were not present in court because they gave them all the money they could just for a consultation. Did Attorney G tell he/she/them that they didn't need him there at the arraignment? I find it odd that 5 grand doesn't get you at the least a day in court for an arraignment. Even if the guy charges $1,000 an hour, how long is an arraignment really? And he would have at least been there to object to the tranfer and a hearing would have been set. End result would most likely have been the DOC anyway, for safekeeping, IMO, so it's really not a big deal.

Did they discuss the transfer to White Co. during the initial hearing?

 

[Megnut]

What do you think would have changed if he had attended that initial hearing?

If Gibson was there as RA's attorney of record? I don't think it would have changed a thing.

As to the safe-keeping transfer, I don't think it was an issue -- except for distance/convenience -- until... it was (an issue). And the issue IMO wasn't Odinist guards, wasn't POW treatment or strict isolation. It was RA himself, running at the mouth.

If we're honest, it wasn't the prison conditions per se that were getting to RA at that point, IMO. It was that KA wasn't talking to him. THAT'S why he broke his tablet, smashed his head into the wall. Not crazy. Angry.

Further, it's my opinion that RA is reckless when he's angry, giving us a glimpse into the psychological makeup of the man who worked quietly at CVS most days but one day left Peru, bought a case of beer, and went to the MHB, apparently loaded for bear. Two sides. One you don't want to meet in seclusion.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Now that we know how the sausage was made, I think it is clear the defence made a couple of strategic blunders on this case.

1. No request for immediate hearing on the safekeeping. By the time they filed this, and the hearing took place, the worst confessions all happened. It's hard to understand why they allowed this situation for 6 months before they filed.

2. Failure to mount a proper technical challenge on the bridge guy video. This video killed them. While I don't buy into the bridge guy innocence project, i do think you could at least try to create doubt with the idea bridge guy was too far away. It's odd to me that the defence did not try to create any kind of reconstruction of where they say BG was.

3. Overplaying the Odinism card. It's clear to me they were heavily influenced by the Karen Read team - get your theory of the case out there to mobilise support and hope for jury nullification. But the big difference is, Read's team were much more successful in getting their theory in at trial, as the case developed rather than directly accusing anyone. IMO Scott Reisch is correct that they ought to have preserved this theory for use on cross examination and suggestively on direct. Instead they went big and it got knocked out pre-trial. They took this obvious risk, when the authorities clearly did not support them. A blunder IMO.

4. Blowing their cred with the Judge. IMO by including so much obvious bunk in the Franks and umpteen motions to dismiss, they lost all benefit of the doubt with the Judge. So whereas they might have had some room to maneuver on 3rd party at trial, instead the Judge (correctly) put at end to their nonsense. As an example, the bogus inclusion of Geofence conspiracies in Franks III ended up getting that stuff tightly controlled, whereas they might have been able to use the idea at trial if they hadn't already given the game away.

Now obviously neither Rozzi or Baldwin ever ran a case of this size before, and it's easy to be wise in hindsight but i do think some of this stuff is entirely predictable. Indeed from Rozzi's own comments, the confessions really were a disaster, so it's not understandable to me, why they were not putting most of their efforts into psychosis/coercion - instead Baldwin was penning the Franks about Odinist prison guards. Indeed it seems the defence did not finally decide to put psychosis on the table until around the time of the motion to dismiss hearing in 2024 - we have Rozzi revealing the voluntary disclosure of those records to the state at that hearing. In other words, it seems plan A was not psychosis?

MOO

quick P.S. to my comment above ...

#1 - With caveat as to this clairvoyance burden on the defense at the one month mark ... it turns out RA's pre-trial detainee solitary holding conditions/treatment were uniquely extraordinary in all of Indiana's detainment history (and hours away from counsel).

What should the D have been able to reasonably predict after initial client meeting with a calm, respectful, lucid RA in the first month ... no access to health records?

Reading the MTCE on this ... the arguments around safekeeping include: What documented impending peril due to local holding warranted the safekeeping order? Were RA's harsh pre-trial solitary holding conditions beyond the intent of IN statute and outside of his constitutional protections? I'm interested to see if this issue is one chosen for appellate court review.

 

[Peppery]

I’m not convinced Gibson was ever retained. $5k seems to be a low amount to retain a defense attorney for double homicide charges in a high-profile case. It could have been a consultation fee, with representation contingent on paying a full retainer fee.

jmo

I paid double that to retain my divorce attorney, then $450 an hour. Even in a small town, it’s hard to imagine $5k for double kidnapping and homicide.

 

[INfisherman]

Did they discuss the transfer to White Co. during the initial hearing?

Had the request for the safekeeping hearing been completed by the sheriff by then? It’s my understanding the sheriff makes the request for transfer then the court schedules the hearing. Unsure of when or how the new location is determined, related to the transfer.