IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

[MistyWaters]

I have to say that I’m very curious why anyone believes the Odinist theory is exculpatory evidence (ie proves RA is innocent). Seriously, isn’t it merely a defense theory? Two FBI agents along with Click were involved in the Rushville report, it wasn’t an internal secret investigation. Nothing I noticed in the memo proved it beyond dispute.

Furthermore the entire status of the memo appears to be in limbo at present. Who’s to say whether or not the new defense team abandons the Frank’s motion? What then?

JMO

exculpatory

1. involving the removal of blame from someone: 2. involving the removal of…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Jurisprudence]

I have to say that I’m very curious why anyone believes the Odinist theory is exculpatory evidence (ie proves RA is innocent).

Because contrary to popular belief, "exculpatory" does not = exonerating. It includes evidence that could lead to exoneration, but it isn't limited to it. (Kyles v Whitley. 514 U.S. 419, United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667)
"While the inconclusiveness of that evidence does not prove Kyles's innocence, and the jury might have found the unimpeached eyewitness testimony sufficient to convict, confidence that the verdict would have been the same cannot survive a recap of the suppressed evidence and its significance for the prosecution."
jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

Because contrary to popular belief, "exculpatory" does not = exonerating. It includes evidence that could lead to exoneration, but it isn't limited to it. (Kyles v Whitley. 514 U.S. 419, United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667)
"While the inconclusiveness of that evidence does not prove Kyles's innocence, and the jury might have found the unimpeached eyewitness testimony sufficient to convict, confidence that the verdict would have been the same cannot survive a recap of the suppressed evidence and its significance for the prosecution."
jmo

This one sentence involving a Federal ruling formally expands the definition of ‘exculpatory‘ to include ‘could’ which in turn is proof Liggett lied? That’s a baseless rational IMO.

 

[Jurisprudence]

This one sentence involving a Federal ruling formally expands the definition of ‘exculpatory‘ to include ‘could’ which in turn is proof Liggett lied? That’s a baseless rational IMO.

That's not me, that's SCOTUS. One of several in a line of cases shooting off Brady and Giglio. The Odin reports and evidence should have been disclosed and produced.

ETA: The post was only intended to clarify that the statement "exoneration" means it has to "prove he's innocent" is not correct. Exonerating evidence means more than that. And more importantly, defendants aren't required to prove their innocence under the US criminal justice system.

jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

That's not me, that's SCOTUS. One of several in a line of cases shooting off Brady and Giglio
The Odin reports and evidence should have been disclosed and produced.

jmo

I sincerely hope the new defense team will drop the Odinism nonsense. Even Click disputes it. Who’s left? One lone professor who‘s not involved in investigating the case.

The ex-defense won’t have reviewed the last bit of discovery that was due Nov 1st. That could be a reason they‘re uninformed as to the end of the Odin investigation? Not sure why they’d draw conclusions prior to receipt of the full discovery file, unless it happens to be advantageous.

JMO

 

[zh0r4]

I sincerely hope the new defense team will drop the Odinism nonsense. Even Click disputes it. Who’s left? One lone professor who‘s not involved in investigating the case.

The ex-defense won’t have reviewed the last bit of discovery that was due Nov 1st. That could be a reason they‘re uninformed as to the end of the Odin investigation? Not sure why they’d draw conclusions prior to receipt of the full discovery file, unless it happens to be advantageous.

JMO

Wouldn’t withholding info abt potential suspects who haven’t been officially cleared be exculpatory evidence?

Click doesn’t dispute the ex-D about who is responsible (obviously not RA, otherwise Click wouldn’t agree with the ex-D on this). JMO.

From Click’s interview with MS:

“Q. Some people have suggested that while you disagree with the defense that this was a ritual murder, that you have agreement with them on who is responsible. Is that something you can speak to?'
A: Yes, that is accurate.”

Source linking MS interview with Click:
Post in thread 'IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171'
IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

 

[Jurisprudence]

From Click’s interview with MS:

“Q. Some people have suggested that while you disagree with the defense that this was a ritual murder, that you have agreement with them on who is responsible. Is that something you can speak to?'
A: Yes, that is accurate.”

Source linking MS interview with Click:
Post in thread 'IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171'
IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

[sbbm]

I think people are so hyper-focused on Odinism and rituals that they are losing sight of the forest thru the trees. The bbm portion is never discussed. They were pursuing a third-party guilt defense. This doesn't change because LE didn't buy-into the ritual part. The point is that LE bought into the "we too think someone else is responsible" part, and that information never should have been withheld from them.

jmo

 

[zh0r4]

bbm

I noticed there is an article from November 2 abt Lebrato:

“Lebrato, who’s been a public defender for nearly 25 years, has had conversations with Bernice Corley, the executive director of Indiana Public Defender Council, who “has offered assistance if we needed it. We just don’t know at this point what’s coming our way as far as discovery. We’ve gotten a little bit, but not all of it yet,” Lebrato said.”

I thought I’d seen that name before-Bernice Corley is one of the 2 lawyers (the other is Schumm) who filed the amicus brief on November 8 on behalf of the IPDC (Indiana Public Defender Council).
From the table of contents of the brief:

Argument

This case raises significant concerns about the independence of defense counsel and the public defense structures designed to ensure it.

A. Indiana has been a leader in public defense and the independence of defense counsel........................................5

B. Counsel was replaced without regard to Carroll County's comprehensive plan ...9

C. Public defense in Allen County is also affected...10

D. Mr. Allen and the public paying for his defense deserve better... 10

What does this mean? What happened where Bernice Corley went from offering the new D help to filing the amicus brief? Is it more proper for the IPDC to choose new defense, and BC was giving Lebrato a chance to do the right thing (I.e. let the IPDC pick new defense instead of defense hand picked by Gull)?

Thoughts?

Sources:
Allen County’s chief public defender says his office is prepared to take on Delphi killings case (11/2/2023)
Allen County’s chief public defender says his office is prepared to take on Delphi killings case

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RELATOR’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (search case # 23S-OR-00311)
filed 11/8/2023 by Corley & Schumm

https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...Z7TDJ26tPaHsxVmS3pS9UpjM0Wupktwa24CEDLcAnHRM1
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RELATOR’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (PDF in case the above link times out)
filed 11/8/2023 by Corley & Schumm
Amicus Brief.pdf

 

[zh0r4]

So Judge Gull is fine with violating constitutional rights of defendants and defense attorneys, and refusing to allow RA to transfer from a prison to a county jail when he’s not even had a trial….but a conviction of child sexual abuse only gets you a 3 year suspended prison sentence and 4 years probation?? She is disgraceful. JMO.

bbm

“Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull sentenced 49-year-old Steven Wells to a three-year suspended prison sentence and ordered him to spend four years on probation, as called for in a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors.

Wells also was ordered not to contact the girls. The 11 other charges were dismissed.Court records state Wells admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old girl and abusing a 13-year-old girl who has the mental capacity of a 7-year-old.”

Source:

Fort Wayne man gets suspended sentence for molesting 2 teens (2019)

Fort Wayne man gets suspended sentence for molesting 2 teens

A Fort Wayne man who once faced 13 charges related to child molesting has avoided time in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor.

www.wndu.com

 

[sunshineray]

IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170

Oh. I meant links to news media articles/video reporting saying the leaks were the work of the prosecution and/or LE. So that was just your conspiracy theory then. Sorry, I couldn't figure out why AB would admit it was his good friend and fellow strategist MW who's responsible for the numerous leaks of defense strategy and crime scene photos. Then of course there's the Franks Memo written by the D that released even more confidential information. You're welcome to your theories but none of our theories are yet validated as fact with evidence in a court of law. MO

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[mrjitty]

I believe the exculpatory evidence was known when the SW was signed. If they were sitting on that evidence and still went after the RA SW, then I don't know where that falls within the law. I have absolutely NO background in law but maybe some of the many here who know more than I do can answer your question.

RSBM

Am a lawyer but not US so posting as my opinion.

Exculpatory evidence would more relate to the probable cause for the arrest affidavit, or evidence at a preliminary hearing (e.g. to determine if the case should go to trial, or for bail purposes), or at the main trial.

Search warrants relate to the investigatory phase and in laymans terms, law enforcement only need to clear a low hurdle to suspect evidence will be recovered. There can be multiple suspects and multiple warrants executed.

tldr; for a search warrant, the question is whether there is enough grounds to suspect that evidence might be found at the address

By contrast, for an arrest affidavit, the exculpatory evidence showing alternate suspects could well be relevant. And especially at a preliminary hearing, where you determine whether there is a case to answer, exculpatory evidence would be highly relevant.

The main point here is that the exculpatory evidence is going to be relevant at trial, and in pre-trial evidentiary hearings. For example, the defence is presumably going to raise the entire KAK saga and say there has to be a real possibility the guy was involved.

But note the defence is not saying KAK had to be disclosed in the Search Warrant PCA

 

[sunshineray]

I get the impression that you have some background in Indiana law.
OR is everything you say just your opinion?

Nope just common sense and AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

I share your theory and opinion that is based on these timelines and how things unfolded. It seems suspect to me too and I'd like to know who else MW might have been connected to. jmo


Things began to quickly spiral after they learned in August that the defense had become aware of these reports and evidence.

Thank you to @duckcat and @Ward Thisperer for providing the timelines with much detail.

jmo

Seems everything started spiraling when it was said in a court and then reported in the MM that RA had confessed no less than 5 times. AJMO

 

[mrjitty]

[sbbm]

I think people are so hyper-focused on Odinism and rituals that they are losing sight of the forest thru the trees. The bbm portion is never discussed. They were pursuing a third-party guilt defense. This doesn't change because LE didn't buy-into the ritual part. The point is that LE bought into the "we too think someone else is responsible" part, and that information never should have been withheld from them.

jmo

I agree these kinds of pre-trial games are dumb and bad, but the reality is the defence has the info, and before the discovery deadline. So I am not losing sleep over it.

It could be great evidence at trial but it just isn't relevant to a Franks hearing

 

[mrjitty]

Seems everything started spiraling when it was said in a court and then reported in the MM that RA had confessed no less than 5 times. AJMO

Right - this seems to be at the heart of everything because they need to explain that away and how do you do that?

 

[sunshineray]

[sbbm]

I think people are so hyper-focused on Odinism and rituals that they are losing sight of the forest thru the trees. The bbm portion is never discussed. They were pursuing a third-party guilt defense. This doesn't change because LE didn't buy-into the ritual part. The point is that LE bought into the "we too think someone else is responsible" part, and that information never should have been withheld from them.

jmo

The prosecutor said early on in a courtroom, on the record, that most of the documents should remain sealed because there may be others involved. That doesn't mean he was talking about the 5 men accused by the defense in the Franks memo. He could well have meant others discussed here or one or two that haven't come to the light of media...MM or social. AJMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

So Judge Gull is fine with violating constitutional rights of defendants and defense attorneys, and refusing to allow RA to transfer from a prison to a county jail when he’s not even had a trial….but a conviction of child sexual abuse only gets you a 3 year suspended prison sentence and 4 years probation?? She is disgraceful. JMO.

bbm

“Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull sentenced 49-year-old Steven Wells to a three-year suspended prison sentence and ordered him to spend four years on probation, as called for in a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors.

Wells also was ordered not to contact the girls. The 11 other charges were dismissed.Court records state Wells admitted to having sex with a 14-year-old girl and abusing a 13-year-old girl who has the mental capacity of a 7-year-old.”

Source:

Fort Wayne man gets suspended sentence for molesting 2 teens (2019)

Fort Wayne man gets suspended sentence for molesting 2 teens

A Fort Wayne man who once faced 13 charges related to child molesting has avoided time in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor.

www.wndu.com

The rest of that article puts that sentence (which I don't agree with btw) into perspective. The Defendant had reached a plea agreement with the Prosecutor.

<snipped & BBM>

Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull sentenced 49-year-old Steven Wells to a three-year suspended prison sentence and ordered him to spend four years on probation, as called for in a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors.

Wells also was ordered not to contact the girls. The 11 other charges were dismissed.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Discussion by the amici as to why they filed their brief in the case. The statement of interest is in the amicus brief for all to see but he boils it down here to the simple notion that if it is found the judge acted properly in replacing the attorneys, she should have replaced them with attorneys from Carroll County.

jmo

Perhaps there were not qualified Attorneys in Carroll County at the time to take on a case of this magnitude? The local ambulance chasers, DUI defenders or family law practitioners would not cut it.

It will be interesting to see Judge G's explanation (if she has to provide one) for the appointment.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Perhaps there were not qualified Attorneys in Carroll County at the time to take on a case of this magnitude? The local ambulance chasers, DUI defenders or family law practitioners would not cut it.

It will be interesting to see Judge G's explanation (if she has to provide one) for the appointment.

JMO

Personally I think SCOIN is likely to straighten up the procedural aspects of all this which seem quite messy

But I doubt they will upset the apple cart again. Even if Gull is ordered to hold an on the record hearing - the duo will still be booted. And the new counsel will stay IMO, though there might be guidance on how this should have been handled

 

[Schatz]

Personally I think SCOIN is likely to straighten up the procedural aspects of all this which seem quite messy

But I doubt they will upset the apple cart again. Even if Gull is ordered to hold an on the record hearing - the duo will still be booted. And the new counsel will stay IMO, though there might be guidance on how this should have been handled

I’m still unclear how they can forbid him counsel of his choice that has offered to work pro bono?