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

[Emma Peel]

When does it cross the line though. I remember when OJ was on trial. The defense tried to say it was drug dealers/people FR hung around with and since she was Nicole Brown's BF ...there you go, an alternative group of possible killers. OJ's defense didn't name names of those people in court documents or in front of a jury.

RA's defense have slandered 5 not charged individuals in a court document they released to the public. Not only have they released their names but also their locations. I agree with Misty Waters, it's like they want to try those men in RA's case.

I disagree.
IMO, I think they want to "try" the investigation.

Old D is/was focused on discrediting LE and the investigation.
This should be no surprise. To LE.
(Or to anyone who remembers Mark Fuhrman.)

For LE everywhere, testimony and cross and expert-poking is just part of the job. A critical part, but still, just the job. And they have counsel too.

jmho

 

[katydid23]

Agree; the P could be referring to anyone ...

IMO, the critical thing (to my thinking) is that the P has publicly left this possibility open.
I think folks tend to overlook this.

Why would P keep the "RA/BG didn't act alone" door open if they're certain they have their man?

It's necessary (if not strategic) on the P's part, to keep that door open for another participant in this complex double murder. Why is it necessary? Let's work through that for a minute.

Fact: the P is keeping the door open for another participant.

Potential reasons:

1) Timeline. Because the P is well aware that the P's proposed timeline for these murders vs their evidence-linked timeline for RA ... leaves reasonable doubt ... that would be mitigated if the P's theory is that there is another participant (and RA won't rat on them).
(The RA timeline is too tight given the geography traveled, two victims, more than one crime scene(s) and the elaborate staging.)

2) Evidence (yet undisclosed). Does evidence suggest another (unknown) male at the scene?

3. Both 1 and 2 above.

The P theory of the case is one worthy of closer examination.
How does this potential other suspect a party to the crime; what's P's theory on this?
Apparently, it's not one that considers an Odin-mimicking staging theory.

Any guesses?

JHMO

Two things can be true simultaneously----RA can be guilty and RA could have had an accomplice.

 

[mrjitty]

Even legal professionals like the Prosecutors podcast who lean toward the guilt of RA are open about the fact that they need to actually see the content of the confessions before being confident it was a true confession.

RSBM

Of course. But one can infer the content is quite bad because the defence isn't arguing that the content doesn't mean much. Instead they are trying to argue he was forced into it, first by inhumane conditions, and second by Odinist prison guards.

So call me sceptical right now

 

[mrjitty]

Because he's saying, through that FM via his former attorneys, that he was basically threatened into it by Odinist guards and POW conditions in prison. He was not in his right mind on the phone...no less than 5 times...to his wife and mother.

We've yet to see a defense fight to throw out those phone call recordings of RA's supposed confessions. But it must be coming. IMO

There's very little basis to get them excluded. This wasn't an interrogation, and there is long established legal precedent that prison phone calls have no expectation of privacy and are admissible.

The odinist prison guard thing is nonsense for a jury - not an application to exclude

 

[katydid23]

It has been addressed already. RA should never have been sent to Westville. We have no idea exactly how he was treated by the guards this entire time nor what the prisoners were allowed to do. We do know the guards with Odin patches tased him twice. RA is probably mistreated the entire time. Look how they bring him into court dressed and shackled like no presumed innocent defendant I've seen. Compare his treatment to BryanKohberger and it's night and day.

MOO

It's Kohberger's defense team that worked to get him permission to wear the suits, that the defense brings for him.

It seems to me that RA's defense team purposely went with an opposite defense strategy. They seem to want to corroborate their previous claims that their client is being mistreated, is not of sound mind because of the mistreatment, so looking unkempt goes along with their narrative. JMO

 

[katydid23]

I find it very interesting that in order to discount the defense theory as ridiculous, one has to misrepresent it in pretty much every way. Nice job also cutting out my post to make it look like I’m arguing the truth of the defense theory rather than making an argument about legal relevance.


in his 2022 interview said he was at the bridge 12pm-1:30pm. Dan Dulins notes in 2017 said 1:30pm-3:30pm. Dulin didnt bother to record the conversation, so no one knows what RA actually told him in 2017.

Not enough for anyone in Delphi to consider that it was him for the past 5 years as he worked a public facing job, and not according to BB, whose witness sketch looks nothing like RA and whose sketch was “primary” to the investigation per LE. But sure yeah RA does look like a blurry man wearing hiking clothes.

that sure narrows it down

he has pistol they claim once held a bullet 5 years ago matched using a method which fails to identify a firearm 30-50% of the time even when the bullet had been fired, and which forensic scientists agree is heavily subjective based on the individual performing the identification, and which some jurisdictions do not allow to be testified to in trials based on the lack of reliable evidence.

Maryland Supreme Court imposes limits on ballistics evidence used to link guns to crimes

In Maryland, firearms experts will no longer be allowed to testify that a specific gun fired a specific bullet, the state’s highest court ruled in an opinion published Tuesday. Authored by Ch…

www.baltimoresun.com

This post tries to make it seem like a big stretch that RA was a solid suspect. But if I compare him as a suspect to the fanciful stories of the cult of Odinist prison guards, sacrificing young girls in broad daylight in the park, RA seems like a much more rational choice. IMO

 

[mrjitty]

As I understand such things, in a writ of mandamus (and in appeals generally) the superior court is not making factual findings as to the substance. Rather they are ordering the trial court to do something, because something has gone badly wrong from a legal point of view

So if the court orders the duo reinstated, it will be for the trial court to hold the actual evidentiary hearing as to dismissal, and perhaps some direction as to the requirements for such a proceeding. So this is focussed on process.

What they are not going to do, IMO, is hold a hearing in which they resolve the evidential question of whether the duo should ultimately be dismissed.

I fully anticipate them saying, hey while the court has discretion to dismiss (e.g a conflict), such a matter must be formally determined, unless counsel withdraws. SCOIN might find, that on the face of the record, counsel withdrew. But in every case, IMO, the record needs to be created properly, so that counsel have something to appeal.

Where I think the duo will struggle, is even if they have been wronged by Judge Gull, i suspect an appeal court is not going to grant the remedy they seek, because they come to Court with dirty hands, and overall justice might not be served. I believe RA is better off with competent counsel who don't leak the case files to randos

 

[katydid23]

Unless THEY collected the blood.

They weren't there long enough to collect an entire body full of blood. It was daylight, right next to the trails, where people had already begun looking for the missing girls.

No way a ragtag cult of bearded guards was standing by a hanging corpse and draining the blood. That memo is so ridiculous.

 

[sunshineray]

I disagree.
IMO, I think they want to "try" the investigation.

Old D is/was focused on discrediting LE and the investigation.
This should be no surprise. To LE.
(Or to anyone who remembers Mark Fuhrman.)

For LE everywhere, testimony and cross and expert-poking is just part of the job. A critical part, but still, just the job. And they have counsel too.

jmho

And respectfully I disagree. Putting thos 5 names and their locations in a filing they knew was going to be released to the public, IMO, was not as much about any LE investigation as it was about serving up 5 real live people, not charged with anything, as the murderers to influence prospective jurors. What other reason could there be for such an atrocious action? That is AJMO.

 

[mrjitty]

They weren't there long enough to collect an entire body full of blood. It was daylight, right next to the trails, where people had already begun looking for the missing girls.

No way a ragtag cult of bearded guards was standing by a hanging corpse and draining the blood. That memo is so ridiculous.

My benefit of the doubt for the defence team bleed out when i read the rope thing.

No professional does that. That's someone willing to betray their obligations to the court in order to spread wild speculation that they literally invented out of thin air.

 

[katydid23]

RSBM - right. The conspiracy doesn't make much sense. How did they know to plant the bullet years earlier?
Why didn't they frame the guy who was cat fishing the victims and no one would blink an eye at?

That's a great question. KAK would make a great patsy. In fact, he actually confessed to being part of the crime at one point. Said he drove his car to the McDonalds and waited after dropping off the killer/

I am still not sure how he was cleared.

 

[Emma Peel]

And respectfully I disagree. Putting thos 5 names and their locations in a filing they knew was going to be released to the public, IMO, was not as much about any LE investigation as it was about serving up 5 real live people, not charged with anything, as the murderers to influence prospective jurors. What other reason could there be for such an atrocious action? That is AJMO.

I think you are opining that Indiana's rule on redactions is atrocious. Because Old D was in compliance w/ Indiana's existing rules. Under those rules, it's not inappropriate that the Defense reviewed LE's investigative work in detail and got it into the record.

These names won't be introduced at trial. The venue change request is on record, and the Judge granting that request will help further with concerns about case-oblivious juries. The jury will never have heard of anyone's names, won't be the prosecution's 2nd uncle twice removed.

Via testimony and cross, LE will explain their 5 year investigative process to the jury.

They fact that LE looked into these other suspects earlier on, and determined they weren't involved (and why), and cleared them ... will only strengthen their case against RA. LE will have the opportunity to make sense of their case AND prove they've eliminated any other possibilities.

The parks officer that failed to properly file RA's witness statement, is STILL working the county, so that means he'll (likely) be able to explain how his errors kept the entire town in terror for 5 years over a misfile.

Otherwise, see Indiana Trial Rules posted here yesterday for what must be redacted from filings. IMO and as I recall, it's minors only. No minors in the FM. If Gull, who is in charge of the court record, believes there should be redactions beyond what the IN state statute requires, she's able to to provide specific instructions, and while she wouldn't do that for the Old D, (while she wasn't keeping the record properly), Gull has stated in her new order (in response to the SCION) that she looks forward to doing it for the New D, per yesterday's Order from Gull on her Court docket. (Gull's latest order also posted on this thread yesterday).

 

[mrjitty]

That's a great question. KAK would make a great patsy. In fact, he actually confessed to being part of the crime at one point. Said he drove his car to the McDonalds and waited after dropping off the killer/

I am still not sure how he was cleared.

In reality the prosecution doesn't really have to clear alternate suspects. e.g the property owner was a suspect basically because the bodies were on his property. enough for a warrant. But there never was any actual evidence discovered that implicates him. When you find the right suspect you will normally find hard evidence.

Same with Odinist dude. A mere investigatory lead is not enough for the defence. We have rules of evidence at trial. You can't just launch into wild speculation with no probative value. Most of it won't be admissible in my opinion.

I think the defence realise this, which is why they needed to get it out under cover of a franks memo

 

[katydid23]

And the costs of a trial being in excess of $1M out of pocket for pro bono defense counsel as preposterous is factually wrong. It is posted disinformation both imo and in my experience. If anything, it is a significant undervalue when for the state side alone it was already projected to exceed $2M back in March. jmo

Will the Delphi double murder case cost Carroll County more than $2 million?

Richard Allen is charged with the 2017 double murders of teenagers Abby Williams and Libby German near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi.

www.wthr.com

Delphi double murder trial costs pegged at $2.1M

Councilors are setting aside $1,535,000 for personnel services, $530,000 for “other services” and $35,000 for supplies.

fox59.com

So how did the 2 defense attorneys expect to do this 2 million dollar double murder case Pro Bono? Do they each have a million bucks available to donate to RA's defense?

 

[girlhasnoname]

“The Indiana Public Defender Council's brief filed Thursday with the Indiana Supreme Court indicates its advise is for Allen's original public defenders — Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi — to be reinstated, reversing Gull's Oct. 31 order removing them as Allen's attorneys.

The public defender council's brief conclusion states, "The issues presented in this case justify the intervention of this Court at this stage to preserve the independence of defense counsel and the integrity of the public defense structures established by the General Assembly. The Court can uphold these essential values by reinstating Mr. Allen’s initial and desired counsel. ..

<snip>

The Indiana Public Defender Council argued that the removal of Baldwin and Rozzi damages the faith Allen — as well as other defendants in the state who are forced to use public defenders — have in their legal council.

A judge's removal of public defenders also has a chilling effect on the quality of legal defense an accused might receive.

"The removal of appointed counsel for broad or vague reasons undermines the independence of the defense function and extinguishes a longstanding rapport with a client who must now languish in prison for an additional nine months," the public defender council's brief states.

It argues that public defenders who rely on a judge to employment "might be reluctant to represent his or her client as vigorously as necessary for fear of alienating the judge."

"The American Bar Association, among other groups, has long emphasized the critical importance of public defender independence," the brief stated.

The Indiana Public Defender Council requested Wednesday to file briefs as an impartial adviser in the motions before the Indiana Supreme Court for writs to block Gull from dismissing Allen's original public defenders, Baldwin and Rozzi.“

Public defender council supports Delphi suspect's original attorneys

Public defender council supports Delphi suspect's original attorneys

The Indiana Public Defender Council weighed in with the Indiana Supreme Court on Judge Frances Gull's dismissal of public defenders for Richard Allen.

www.jconline.com

It's not surprising to me at all that the Public Defender Council is supporting B&R. It's in their best interests.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think the way the defense will frame it at trial is to interrogate various members of LE about the investigation and the evidence against these other individuals. They aren’t focusing on anyone unrelated to the case, they are honing in on people who were investigated by LE pretty intensely. These include:
- an individual who was interviewed 3 times by LE and whose social media posts were submitted via tips and investigated by LE
- an individual who was interviewed multiple times by LE and gave DNA to LE, and took a polygraph
- an individual whose sisters reported multiple confessions to LE, who was then interviewed by LE multiple times, whose social media was noted in LE reports, and who asked an LE officer about spitting on the girls

I don’t think the defense would want to get the actual people on the stand, they would just need to show that there were other promising investigative angles that create reasonable doubt re: RA. I don’t know if they would even call others involved like the sisters, they could just show videos and reports and talk with LE witnesses.

NAL JMO

And I expect that the State would have an equally compelling explanation as to why they did not consider these other suspects and cleared X, Y or Z, although their job is not to explain why anyone other than RA is guilty of the crime in which he is accused. That, to me, is why the Defense leaked that ridiculous Memorandum. It was the only way to get their 'theory' and other information out in the public domain.

To submit the detailed 'testimony' of the individuals you cited, they would have to be called to the stand I believe. Polygraph results are not admissible in Court, so I don't think that would be allowed into evidence. The sisters might have passed a polygraph simply because that is what E told them, but it doesn't make it true. I have my doubts about that whole scenario because it took so long for them to report the information in the first place.

As always JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

As a well known defense strategy is to identify an alternate perpetrator to commit a crime (Third Party Guilt / Some Other Guy Did It),

https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2517&context=luclj

And in order to develop this defense, one likely will need to investigate it,
And that Indiana public defenders are allowed by law to use investigators in supporting their activities,
It certainly does follow that RA's defense attorneys are acting as one would expect defense attorneys to act in putting on a criminal defense.

I would have loved to see what NM found to be "not entirely true" at the Frank's Hearing, it's unfortunate that he found the preferable course of action to be pushing for the D to be DQed. That doesn't give me a whole lot of faith that the facts are on his side.

The State pushing for the disqualification of B&R was for gross misconduct in the leaking of CS photos and Depositions, not the Memorandum in support of the Franks Motion Hearing.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

And I expect that the State would have an equally compelling explanation as to why they did not consider these other suspects and cleared X, Y or Z, although their job is not to explain why anyone other than RA is guilty of the crime in which he is accused. That, to me, is why the Defense leaked that ridiculous Memorandum. It was the only way to get their 'theory' and other information out in the public domain.

To submit the detailed 'testimony' of the individuals you cited, they would have to be called to the stand I believe. Polygraph results are not admissible in Court, so I don't think that would be allowed into evidence. The sisters might have passed a polygraph simply because that is what E told them, but it doesn't make it true. I have my doubts about that whole scenario because it took so long for them to report the information in the first place.

As always JMO

I agree w/you that most of the above rumours would not be allowed into evidence.

It is sometimes allowed by the court, for the defense to offer a SODDI case strategy during their case. But I've only seen that happen fully when there is a very specific type of alternative suspect.
'
Like if the husband is on trial, but the murdered wife was having an affair, and the defense has some very suspicious circumstances they hope to bring forward. Sometimes the court will allow some of it to be admitted, but it is a narrowly defined scope.

The court is never going to allow the defense to pursue five various alternative suspects and bring in any evidence as such. Which is why the threw it all into the Franks motion instead. JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

The latest Murder Sheet podcast, although I haven’t listened to it yet. But as the content illustrates, allegations they’re solely pro-P seem a tad unfair.

Murder Sheet

The Murder Sheet is a weekly true crime podcast hosted by journalist Áine Cain and attorney Kevin Greenlee. We take a journalistic approach to covering true crime. We have broken national news on major cases, like the Delphi murders and the Burger Chef murders. We also cover plenty of other...

art19.com

The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen Goes to the Indiana Supreme Court: A Conversation with the Hoosier Public Defender

Richard Allen's team of attorneys filed with the Indiana Supreme Court on November 6, 2023 and made three requests.

1) That Allen's former defense team, Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin, be reinstated to the case.

2) That Judge Frances Gull be removed from the case.

3) That Allen be granted a trial within 70 days of the other requests being granted.

What does all of this mean? What are the chances that the requests will be granted?

Shay Hughes, or the Hoosier Public Defender, was kind enough to talk with us and help us sort it all out.

I will state again that there is no way, based on what we currently know that the Defense was going to be prepared for a jury trial in January. They haven't even had the FM hearing and many others. With holidays and the Courts calendar during this time, I just don't find it realistic. They had a signed Motion by RA for Speedy Trial waiting to be dated.....

Another bluff by the Defense IMO.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

I agree w/you that most of the above rumours would not be allowed into evidence.

It is sometimes allowed by the court, for the defense to offer a SODDI case strategy during their case. But I've only seen that happen fully when there is a very specific type of alternative suspect.
'
Like if the husband is on trial, but the murdered wife was having an affair, and the defense has some very suspicious circumstances they hope to bring forward. Sometimes the court will allow some of it to be admitted, but it is a narrowly defined scope.

The court is never going to allow the defense to pursue five various alternative suspects and bring in any evidence as such. Which is why the threw it all into the Franks motion instead. JMO

Agreed. There needs to be an evidential foundation. IMO, KK might come up to spec because of the catfishing and he was the central suspect in the case for a long time. Whereas, someone who was looked at, but had an alibi, and absolutely nothing links them to the murders, won't be allowed IMO.

Also other stuff like the hearsay confession, might not be admissible under any evidential rule, whereas confession by the defendant is an exception.

Finally as we saw in McStay, there are significant issues for the defence in calling such witnesses to testify if the prosecution doesn't call them.