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

[FrostedGlass]

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

I am.

 

[mrjitty]

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.?

My guess is the trial stays in the county where the murders went down unless and until a judge rules to move it somewhere else on a change of venue application?

 

[INfisherman]

I am.

Well, you know I’m not a legal person but I would think since charges were filed in Carroll, they stay there & don’t follow to the county that’s doing the incarceration.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by RA decisions as well?

ETA clarity - can’t type today.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Well, you know I’m not a legal person but I would think since charges were filed in Carroll, they stay there & don’t follow to the county that’s doing the incarceration.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by RA decisions as well?

ETA clarity - can’t type today.

It appears that way but I don't know that to be fact.
Decisions for RA = safekeeping.

I've never heard even a whisper of what the agreement was between the two counties and when that agreement was made. Nor have I seen the time or date of his transfer between them.

 

[Emma Peel]

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

I would agree that these are the relevant questions.

As I understand the term, and JMHO, this could be an example of "ineffective representation".
Or ... could it be argued better as an example of structural error? I suppose the D's appellate counsel would determine which argument is strongest ... which is the proper higher court to bring the issue to ... and if it is among the strongest of the potential issues to put in front of the higher court(s). This is the interesting stuff to me. JMHO

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

I read Wieneke's comments as that there's no electronic way to enter the case at that stage.
(After arraignment/first hearing ... there probably is.)

I agree with your comment a bit earlier that Gibson's absence 10/28 is very odd, but ultimately, irrelevant. It is customary for the State/Defense/Court coordinate and schedule hearing dates in advance. Even then ... day-of stuff happens and if any of the 3 can't show up day of b/c car accident or whatever, the courtesy of re-setting the matter is the norm. IMO whatever went down w/ Gibson ... wasn't customary ... and that leaves me with "very odd".

RA's matter was set for next hearing in 7 months - June (IIRC) - the bail hearing, IIRC.

IMO, (and just speculating here) after 10/28, Gibson/Allens did a reality check as to funding a private defense and ... the writing was on the wall as to the RA's immediate need for a public defender to be assigned to him.

We know RA made that formal request to Judge Diener Nov 1st. So that reality check didn't take long. 14 days elapsed b/4 RA was assigned his court-appointed defense. (Diener recused 11/4, Gull got the case and assigned RA his PD team 11/15) (Those dates are in the MTCE under the safekeeping motion #1)

The announcing via the docket speculation ... makes me think of Judge Diener ... who ... for that same timeframe ... could not wait to get his name off that docket.

There's very little that's normal in this case.
You'd think by now we'd stop expecting the norm.
Embrace the weird! (?)

(?) coping strategy

JMHO

 

[FromGermany1]

I am wondering, why a white van is in the play since the BW story, and I meant to see (like some others) a WHITE VAN at the North end of bridge, which was disputed immediately.
All of it fits and then: nothing fits.
I'm confused as most of the time ..... and I am suspicious. It thas nothing to do, whether RA is guilty or not.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I am wondering, why a white van is in the play since the BW story, and I meant to see (like some others) a WHITE VAN at the North end of bridge, which was disputed immediately.
All of it fits and then: nothing fits.
I'm confused as most of the time ..... and I am suspicious. It thas nothing to do, whether RA is guilty or not.

The part I highlighted is the same for me.

I think of how much time we spent speculating every detail of the image of the man on the bridge. His exact location on the bridge, how far he was away from the girls when L began the video. How close he was when he clearly spoke the words: Guys... down the hill. smh.

Ironically, some thought they could actually see a man at the beginning of the bridge but that was said to be just the gate or such.

 

[Emma Peel]

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.

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

IIRC, and qualifying with JMO, there are very few cases in Indiana where a pre-trial detainee been held in prison. Of the (a single digit - 4? ) the stay was less than (2 months) and they were not held in prison were not held in solitaire. (Weineke provided the info via twitter and IIRC, it was quoted in her RA-SCOIN submissions.)

Obviously, pre-trial detainees have constitutional rights that post-trial inmates do not have.

It's my understanding that ... when a State Law is not quite clear ... and it's taken advantage of such that the State Law is used as support for actions that violate US Law (civil rights) ... that State Law can be challenged as unconstitutional. Don't know if Motion #1 has the merits, but it's certainly ponder-worthy.

JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

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.

As Weineke explained, Gibson was already recognized for practical purposes.
IMO, Gibson knew he wasn't going to rep RA long term. And Gibson knew local custom.

(FWIW re Local customs. The more casual customs are the norm in smaller counties, with less formal conventions. The giant districts - are a different world. When a NYC or DC hot shot white-shoe lawyer first shows up in a rural county ... they stick out like a sore thumb. These big-city attnys are so meticulous ... and the local attorneys and judges have a quiet giggle at all their formalities - with due respect/appreciation, of course. e.g.: With motion responses in the same civil matter ... the locals have maybe 1 cite. The white shoes have 30 cites. And that annoys the local Court a bit. More work for the Judge. IMO it's interesting to see these differences across the country.)

INAL, just hired them.
jmho

 

[girlhasnoname]

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.

Agree 100%

It's RA's brutal murder of Abby & Libby that is costing him 130 well deserved years, the unprofessional and unethical conduct of his Defense is just the cherry on top of the 'I Did It, I'm Guilty Sundae'.

BW said he arrived home around 2:30 - AROUND. Maybe traffic was moving slower that day by him or others enjoying the unseasonably warm day, maybe he used his cell before heading out. 2:44 certainly falls into that time frame and still does not alter the course of events that occurred on MHB and DTH.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

IIRC, and qualifying with JMO, there are very few cases in Indiana where a pre-trial detainee been held in prison. Of the (a single digit - 4? ) the stay was less than (2 months) and they were not held in prison were not held in solitaire. (Weineke provided the info via twitter and IIRC, it was quoted in her RA-SCOIN submissions.)

Obviously, pre-trial detainees have constitutional rights that post-trial inmates do not have.

It's my understanding that ... when a State Law is not quite clear ... and it's taken advantage of such that the State Law is used as support for actions that violate US Law (civil rights) ... that State Law can be challenged as unconstitutional. Don't know if Motion #1 has the merits, but it's certainly ponder-worthy.

JMHO

I'm going to have to take a hard pass on any explanations or thoughts Weineke chooses to spout out on X. It was and still is a game to be played and won, even though a jury convicted him.

Her words and those of her fellow Due Process Gang members and Internet Cranks were beyond hurtful and heartless as any I've seen and not just because "lawyers", but mainly as fellow human beings with even a smidge of empathy. I wonder if any or all of them have children of their own?

RA was held in a separate segregation unit consisting of other pods housing inmates, although I know solitary sounds so much more conspiratorial. He was afforded privileges as a detainee that inmates don't receive. He was a charged Defendant, not staying somewhere on vacation. He was acclimating, good natured and being helpful assisting in his case according to Rozzi and Baldwin. Until Confession Ricky kicked in April 3 - June 15th. Hmm, I guess that could be a coincidence.

The jury viewed 5 hand picked videos by the Defense in support of their claims of the horrible abuse and POW like conditions and found them to be pretty typical of being housed in jail, except the ones where RA inflicted strange behavior on himself during April - mid June. That says a lot to me. I haven't seen them personally, has anyone else besides the Lawyers, Judge and Jury?

Thank goodness IDOC had 24 hour cell video coverage and handheld cam footage when RA was moved within the prison.

The only civil rights that were violated in this case were those of Abby and Libby. They had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. HE took that away by viciously murdering them and is right where he should be after being found guilty by a jury of his peers.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I think he could have gone on platform 1 and then left the Monon High Bridge. This could be why he admits to being on platform 1, but denies being the person in the 2:13pm Liberty German phone video.

In my opinion, the video is too grainy to make a positive identification of Richard Allen. The toolmark evidence of the unspent cartridge was not convincing enough after reading testimony from the trial. Maybe someday they can get him to give a full and factual confession starting with the question, "Are you the person in the still picture/video from Liberty German's 2:13 pm phone video?" I cannot understand why the prosecution would not have presented this type of confession at trial if Richard Allen admitted to it.

I agree the case is over, and the jury has made their decision.

He obviously did leave the bridge after being seen on platform one...unless Abby and Libby decided to just go out onto the bridge and pass him...doubtful, MO. The ID-ing was done by those who saw him closer up than Libby's video. In my opinion, RA gave many factual confessions, they're on the books and he was judged and convicted. He'll have the rest of his life to decide whether or not he wants to elaborate anymore on what he did. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

I do not agree at all.

I think I would want to be sure. I have only commented that Richard Allen might not be guilty in this particular case, not in other cases with other defendants. Maybe in the future some more evidence will come out that will change my mind.

I would hope that any jury member would stand by what they think during a deliberation based on how each of them interprets the evidence. I do not think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt Richard Allen is the killer. Richard Allen might be the murderer, but they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I might have gone along with a guilty verdict once the van information and testimony was offered at trial. I would not be happy when I found out later there was video surveillance evidence showing the van arrived later than when the prosecution said the phone stopped moving and was found underneath Abigail Williams body.

Well the phone didn't stop moving altogether until RA, interrupted by the van, changed his plan and forced the girls to crossed the creek, mostly likely to get away from the access road. JMO

 

[INfisherman]

I'm going to have to take a hard pass on any explanations or thoughts Weineke chooses to spout out on X. It was and still is a game to be played and won, even though a jury convicted him.

Her words and those of her fellow Due Process Gang members and Internet Cranks were beyond hurtful and heartless as any I've seen and not just because "lawyers", but mainly as fellow human beings with even a smidge of empathy. I wonder if any or all of them have children of their own?

RSBM

Oh - yet another mouthpiece for the defense. I see. Wonderful. Yeah, more sour grapes & illusions of errors needing correcting.

The jury viewed 5 hand picked videos by the Defense in support of their claims of the horrible abuse and POW like conditions and found them to be pretty typical of being housed in jail, except the ones where RA inflicted strange behavior on himself during April - mid June. That says a lot to me. I haven't seen them personally, has anyone else besides the Lawyers, Judge and Jury?

RSBM

Let’s not forget the juror who was interviewed said the conditions she saw were not as bad as she’d expected (my paraphrasing) given the defense’s descriptions during trial & images of the torture racks.

I’m anxious to see how the state responds to this. Would’ve loved to have been a fly on the wall when JG read the D’s filings last week. I’m pretty sure I heard the sound of grinding teeth coming from a northerly direction early last week.

All MOO

 

[Vern]

RW's phone pings at 2.50pm to parent's address as per exhibit 3E in the motion. JMO.
View attachment 561195

Pings to parents address.

I do wonder, based on the specific wording of "address", if that is the time he actually connected to their actual wifi network (vice pinging off a tower). There is a difference, especially if his phone does not autoconnect to wifi networks.

 

[INfisherman]

Pings to parents address.

I do wonder, based on the specific wording of "address", if that is the time he actually connected to their actual wifi network (vice pinging off a tower). There is a difference, especially if his phone does not autoconnect to wifi networks.

I often do things outside for several minutes before entering the house & WiFi rarely connects in driveway but that’s all relative to area of coverage/shape. D’s time is just relative to when he was close enough to connect, turn on WiFi or even turn on phone, had it been off.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

I'm going to have to take a hard pass on any explanations or thoughts Weineke chooses to spout out on X. It was and still is a game to be played and won, even though a jury convicted him.

Her words and those of her fellow Due Process Gang members and Internet Cranks were beyond hurtful and heartless as any I've seen and not just because "lawyers", but mainly as fellow human beings with even a smidge of empathy. I wonder if any or all of them have children of their own?

RA was held in a separate segregation unit consisting of other pods housing inmates, although I know solitary sounds so much more conspiratorial. He was afforded privileges as a detainee that inmates don't receive. He was a charged Defendant, not staying somewhere on vacation. He was acclimating, good natured and being helpful assisting in his case according to Rozzi and Baldwin. Until Confession Ricky kicked in April 3 - June 15th. Hmm, I guess that could be a coincidence.

The jury viewed 5 hand picked videos by the Defense in support of their claims of the horrible abuse and POW like conditions and found them to be pretty typical of being housed in jail, except the ones where RA inflicted strange behavior on himself during April - mid June. That says a lot to me. I haven't seen them personally, has anyone else besides the Lawyers, Judge and Jury?

Thank goodness IDOC had 24 hour cell video coverage and handheld cam footage when RA was moved within the prison.

The only civil rights that were violated in this case were those of Abby and Libby. They had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. HE took that away by viciously murdering them and is right where he should be after being found guilty by a jury of his peers.

JMO

Appreciate you sharing your feelings. Thank you.

 

[Vern]

I am wondering, why a white van is in the play since the BW story, and I meant to see (like some others) a WHITE VAN at the North end of bridge, which was disputed immediately.
All of it fits and then: nothing fits.
I'm confused as most of the time ..... and I am suspicious. It thas nothing to do, whether RA is guilty or not.

The white van would actually be at the south end of the bridge which is the end from where the girls were abducted. It would be travelling underneath the bridge on the Weber's Private Driveway. At some point while BW drove up that private driveway to his parent's home, he interrupted RA as per his confession.

The Private Driveway that the white van drove up can be seen on this linked casemap. The private driveway is identified as N625W:

Abigail Williams & Liberty German. Delphi, IN. 2/13/17 - Google My Maps

October 2022 UPDATE - THEY GOT HIM! Indiana man, 50, arrested on murder charges in 2017 killings of 2 teenage girls Richard M. Allen, of Delphi, was arrested on two counts of murder, police said. Abigail “Abby” Williams, 13, and Liberty “Libby” German, 14, vanished while hiking in Delphi, their...

www.google.com

 

[Vern]

Title 35

2024 Indiana Code​

IC 35-33-11
Chapter 11. Emergency Transfer of Certain Jail Inmates

IC 35-33-11-1
Inmate in county jail in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents substantial threat to safety of others
Sec. 1. Upon motion by the:

(1) sheriff;
(2) prosecuting attorney;
(3) defendant or his counsel;
(4) attorney general; or
(5) court;

alleging that an inmate in a county jail awaiting trial is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, the court shall determine whether the inmate is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. If the court finds that the inmate is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, it shall order the sheriff to transfer the inmate to another county jail or to a facility of the department of correction designated by the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of that prisoner and provided that space is available. For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.

IC 35-33-11-2
Posttransfer hearing
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.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-3
Overcrowding or inadequacy of local penal facility
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.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-4
Return to county jail
Sec. 4. Whenever the court finds that the circumstances which necessitated a transfer under this chapter no longer exist, it shall order the sheriff to return the inmate to the county jail from which he was transferred.

As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-5
Transportation to and from facilities; payment of costs by county
Sec. 5. When an inmate is transferred under this chapter, the sheriff of the county from which the inmate is transferred shall be responsible for transporting the inmates to and from the other facility. If the sheriff is unable to adequately protect the inmate during the transfer, the sheriff or the court may request assistance from any other law enforcement agency. The county which transfers an inmate shall pay:

(1) a per diem of the average daily cost of housing a prisoner at the facility to which the inmate has been assigned; and
(2) any additional costs reasonably necessary to maintain the health and welfare of a transferred inmate.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-6
Delivery of data with prisoner
Sec. 6. When an inmate is transferred under this chapter, the sheriff of the county from which the inmate is received shall deliver with the prisoner a certified copy of the order, a current medical report, if available, and other data relating the proper medical care and classification of the inmate that is established as necessary by written policy of the department of correction or the receiving institution, pertaining to the health, safety, and proper confinement of safekeepers.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-7
Notice of subsequent transfer
Sec. 7. The department of correction will notify the sheriff of the county and judge of the court from which the inmate was transferred of any subsequent transfer of a prisoner within the department of correction necessary to assure the purposes of the original transfer.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-8
Assignment of prisoners serving sentence to program or work
Sec. 8. Prisoners serving a sentence after a conviction and transfer to the department or other receiving institution may be assigned to any program or work consistent with procedures and requirements for other prisoners committed to the department or other receiving institution.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-9
Assignment of prisoners awaiting trial to program or work
Sec. 9. Prisoners awaiting trial may be allowed to work or be assigned to programs consistent with the rights regarding prisoners awaiting trial.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.

IC 35-33-11-10
Discipline of prisoners awaiting trial
Sec. 10. The department of correction or other receiving sheriff may discipline prisoners awaiting trial as authorized under IC 35-50.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.2.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

So it seems that "the inmate" (Richard Allen), under Section 2 above, would be entitled to a post transfer hearing upon his request. That first request occurred on 5 April 2023

It also seems that Carroll County retains jurisdiction: per diems, housing costs, transportation arragements etc throughout in RAs case per Section 5.

Sheriff's Original Motion Requesting Transfer // 3 Nov 2022

 

[steeltowngirl]

It appears that way but I don't know that to be fact.
Decisions for RA = safekeeping.

I've never heard even a whisper of what the agreement was between the two counties and when that agreement was made. Nor have I seen the time or date of his transfer between them.

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]​