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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
cherrybier said:
"Fans"? Odd way to describe people who don't align with the guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
Perhaps "cheerleaders" is more apt in this case? They do seem to believe that the defense is faultless and stellar while everyone else is corrupt and in consiracy with everyone else (including the jury) ... despite those who actually did DIRECTLY see and hear the evidence presented at trial finding RA guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When they believe they know this case and it's actual evidence better than the jury does ... well ....

IMO, those that were selecting "not guilty" from the get-go in the poll ... despite what evidence might have come later at trial. They will never believe RA is guilty. Never IMO.
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
Perhaps "cheerleaders" is more apt in this case? They do seem to believe that the defense is faultless and stellar while everyone else is corrupt and in consiracy with everyone else (including the jury) ... despite those who actually did DIRECTLY see and hear the evidence presented at trial finding RA guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When they believe they know this case and it's actual evidence better than the jury does ... well ....

IMO, those that were selecting "not guilty" from the get-go in the poll ... despite what evidence might have come later at trial. They will never believe RA is guilty. Never IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes but evidence was known prior to trial... and this case has a lot of holes, from the get go.

Fans or cheerleaders is a bit much but I guess could also apply to the opposing side.

What's good for the goose.
 
cherrybier said:
Yes but evidence was known prior to trial... and this case has a lot of holes, from the get go.

Fans or cheerleaders is a bit much but I guess could also apply to the opposing side.

What's good for the goose.
Click to expand...
It sure could apply to both sides. And I'm missing the "holes" (perhaps they are as absent as the fauxdinists), but seeing the conspiracy theorists all over the internet.

I'm glad RAs goose is cooked though as the jury saw and heard the facts and evidence.
 
Vern said:
Perhaps "cheerleaders" is more apt in this case? They do seem to believe that the defense is faultless and stellar while everyone else is corrupt and in consiracy with everyone else (including the jury) ... despite those who actually did DIRECTLY see and hear the evidence presented at trial finding RA guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When they believe they know this case and it's actual evidence better than the jury does ... well ....

IMO, those that were selecting "not guilty" from the get-go in the poll ... despite what evidence might have come later at trial. They will never believe RA is guilty. Never IMO.
Click to expand...
I wish I could find the picture or would have saved it when I saw it, but someone created a portrait like photo of RA in a saint like pose. "Fans", "cheerleaders", "conspiracists"...any noun seems to fit.
 
Richard Allen was convicted of slaughtering these two precious girls by a jury who heard sworn testimony and cross examination along with expert testimony.
None of this trash the defense pulled out of their desk drawers changes that and it will not change it going forward.
Tried. Convicted.

1737766972133.jpeg
 
INfisherman said:
I find it interesting that while the defense claims RA had representation, as well as KA through her sworn affidavit, there was no sworn affidavit from the alleged attorney representing RA, Gibson(?) nor RA. Just an alleged email chain.
Click to expand...
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

Allen Lawyer.jpg

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":

Allen Letter.jpg

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.
 
Last edited:
cherrybier said:
Yes but evidence was known prior to trial... and this case has a lot of holes, from the get go.

Fans or cheerleaders is a bit much but I guess could also apply to the opposing side.

What's good for the goose.
Click to expand...

See the Defense SM circus pretrial.

There simply was not one by the Prosecution; nothing to fan on.

The repugnant behavior of the Defense provides no basis for comparison to the Prosecution.

all imo
 
Vern said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, then there’s this, plain as day. Seems a strange way of wording things if the intent is to represent beyond the 27th.

IMG_2558.jpeg
Next, move to the emails. Why didn’t good ol’ Brad simply ask the obvious question, "were you representing RA on the 28th?" There has to be a reason they’re ignoring the obvious.

I hope JG calls for a hearing & makes them look like the fools they are & invites in the media. This is ambulance chaser type of stuff. Saul Goodman could come up with better BS than this.


JMO
 

Attachments

Last edited:
INfisherman said:
Well, then there’s this, plain as day. Seems a strange way of wording things if the intent is to represent beyond the 27th.

View attachment 560141
Next, move to the emails. Why didn’t good ol’ Brad simply ask the obvious question, "were you representing RA on the 28th?" There has to be a reason they’re ignoring the obvious.

I hope JG calls for a hearing & makes them look like the fools they are & invites in the media. This is ambulance chaser type of stuff. Saul Goodman could come up with better BS than this.


JMO
Click to expand...
Pre-arrest representation. So before RAs arrest on 26th October --- probably costs for chats after the first pre-arrest interview and search warrant execution, but for the 5K he got, figured a visit to RA after his arrest on the 27th telling him to zip up would be the 'sociable' thing to do.

That settles it for me. He was arrested on the 26th, visited on the 27th for a talk with Attorney Gibson, and abandoned in court by the 28th to his fate by Attorney Gibson (who, I point out, never ever showed up in court a single time or raised his voice a single, solitary time, about he being RAs counsel in this matter).... admitting in court that "he was seeking his own counsel" on the 28th and in his letter Nov 1st, that he had learned "just how expensive it was just to talk to a lawyer".

Well ain't that receipt special?? I am safely, IMO, sticking a spork into the "RA had a lawyer/legal representation on the 28th" claim, IMO.

I wondered why neither RA, KA nor the D-Team has filed for any disciplinary action against Attorney Gibson for not showing up to 'represent' their client. Because ... deflated by the spork.
 
Last edited:
INfisherman said:
RSBM

Because they’re evidently not repugnant & never try to misrepresent facts? ;)

MOO
Click to expand...
I agree because that receipt clearly states "Pre-Arrest Representation" and not "Retainer". IMO.

I await the State's responses to this filing and will be sure to post as I have a feeling that they are going to be quite interesting.
 
cherrybier said:
Please list evidence that the defense team leaked any photos.

SM doesn't count.
Click to expand...

They may not have leaked the photos intentionally, but the defense team did in fact leave those extremely sensitive photos unsecured in an office. Where they were seen, copied and distributed by an outsider to the public via Internet.

Abby and Libby nude or partially nude and sliced open.

The defense team’s negligence and unprofessionalism led DIRECTLY to anyone who cared to see those pictures online, and also led to the suicide of the person involved.

Obviously the casual perusal of their daughter/grandaughter dead and unclothed, by anyone who chose to see it online, intensified the already unendurable grief for the families.

I agree with @Jade using the term “repugnant.

I too see this as repugnant. To the thousandth power.

JMO
 
Last edited:
Arkay said:
They may not have leaked the photos intentionally, but the defense team did in fact leave those extremely sensitive photos unsecured in an office. Where they were seen, copied and distributed to the public via Internet.

Abby and Libby nude or partially nude and sliced open.

Their negligence and unprofessionalism led DIRECTLY to anyone who cared to see those pictures online, and also led to the suicide of the person involved.

Obviously the casual perusal of their daughter/grandaughter dead and unclothed by anyone who chose to see it intensified the already unendurable grief for the families.

I see this as repugnant. To the thousandth power.

JMO
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget the former employee just dropping by to say hello to his ol’ buddy Andy, who allowed him to walk around the office unescorted & evidently with no security cameras. :rolleyes:

Hang on Mitch ol’ buddy, nature calls! I’ll be right back. You know not to take pictures of this stuff, right? Atta boy! <wink, wink>

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tricia
  • Locked
GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #217
49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
72K
Sillybilly
Sillybilly
Tricia
  • Locked
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #199
62 63 64
Replies
1K
Views
61K
Tricia
Tricia
Tricia
  • Locked
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #198
56 57 58
Replies
1K
Views
56K
Knitty
Knitty
Tricia
  • Locked
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #212
44 45 46
Replies
914
Views
52K
Tricia
Tricia
Tricia
  • Locked
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #211
53 54 55
Replies
1K
Views
60K
Knitty
Knitty

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 689 (members: 182, guests: 507)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
507
Total visitors
689
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,590
Messages
18,506,753
Members
240,820
Latest member
Berloni75
Back
Top