IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173

[FrostedGlass]

White County jail piqued my interest. That was the jail that RA landed in when he was too hot for Carroll County to handle. I've been unable to determine how many days he was there before he was shipped off to Westville.

Now, convicted murderer G. Kirts, who was serving his time in Pendleton, is being housed in White County jail while he awaits his trial for yet another murder. Vine confirms this. https://vinelink.vineapps.com/search/IN/Person

There is no reason given for the extended housing motions but I'm guessing it's for the convenience of his attorney. How very different RA's and GK's treatment is.

From the White Co. jail site:
Link
[snip]
"The White County Jail is used to house state prisoners, both male and female. A large majority of them are classified as “pre-trial detainees”. It is hereby acknowledged that pre-trial detainees retain most of their individual rights afforded to them by the constitution. Punishment of pre-trial detainees is out of harmony with the 14th amendment to the constitution, which forbids the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The physical facility of the White County Jail may somewhat limit the rights of inmates, but whenever possible the fullest rights will be afforded to each inmate."

 

[mrjitty]

It would be funny if the judge simply ordered that the defendant be bought a police station local to the attorney's office for the meetings if Department of Corrects can't come up with a suitable arrangement?

After all, the defendant has plenty of free time to travel.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I disagree with this. His trial wasn't even set to begin until a full year and a bit past his original incarceration date. That isn't even "speedy" to begin with in my view.

The exD had never filed a right to speedy trial Motion, that's definitely on them.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Sure but this stuff shouldn't be in frame at all, and the judge should get to the bottom of it one way or other. For instance the defence seem to be implying in the affidavit upthread that the defendant is being drugged. Well the defendant has access to the defendant's medical records so this should be put into evidence or discounted.

Personally to me it is Kafkaesque that a defendant is held under such alleged conditions without so much as a prelim or bail hearing. I get that it is the defence who decided not to apply for bail and that the state does not have prelims, so to some extent that defence agrees the evidence is strong enough he can be held on remand.

But this stuff really should not be happening. e,g if a 10 hour round trip is accurate, to see a client who is not even in the same room and you can't have a reasonable conversation - does that meet requirements for access? IMO not, but then I have no idea of precedent here, so I simply say as a layman perception it seems crazy ... as alleged

Yes, Judge Gull denied the State access to RA's mental and physical health records, but did warn the exD that if they continued to make motions stating that fact, they would be opening the door for the State to have access in order to respond.

The exD were walking a very fine line in that regard IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I don't know what you are disagreeing with, I never said that it was unusual that RA is being held without bail, I've never suggested he should be out on bail, I've made it clear that I think he is guilty.
That is not relevant to his being housed in a prison. All over this country, murder suspects are housed in county jails. RA is no more a threat to the public, himself, or in more danger than a hundred other murderers. I think are unaware of that different and unusual treatment of a specific defendant is not without risk. Making up excuses of why he should be or that it is okay for RA to be at a prison is shortsighted. A number of people tried to claim that other (not convicted) defendants awaiting trial were also being held in prisons, but there aren't any in the same circumstances found. Several horrific cases, that are being followed on WS, have the defendants in the county jails, no one is proposing they be moved to a prison.

I agree and I think there is a reason that we are not privy to yet as to why RA is being held in the DOC vs jail. The State is not stupid enough (surely) to continue singling RA out without something in play in the background IMO. Maybe RA turned States Witness against someone else and it has been 'heard through the grapevine' that he will be targeted in any local jail.

I don't know, it's confusing and weird. I just want this case back on track and RA to go to trial with a jury of his peers deciding his fate. It's been way too long for justice in this case.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think it can be argued it was his original defense team and their associate who denied RA a speedy trial. JMO

Yes, they've had a signed copy by RA of the Motion For Speedy Trial in their possession since Aug according to them.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Yes, Judge Gull denied the State access to RA's mental and physical health records, but did warn the exD that if they continued to make motions stating that fact, they would be opening the door for the State to have access in order to respond.

The exD were walking a very fine line in that regard IMO.

I do agree it's odd to imply your client is being mysteriously drugged when you are the only party which can evidence what the medication is. The Judge should rip off the scab here. Call RA and the prison doctor, or don't. But I do think the Judge needs to shut down these potential conspiracies.

 

[mrjitty]

Yes, they've had a signed copy by RA of the Motion For Speedy Trial in their possession since Aug according to them.

MOO

I've never really understood this part of the SCOIN proceedings

Whomever is defence counsel after the SCOIN decision can file said motion. Why did they need SCOIN to act on that?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Curiosity got the best of me; I decided to check out what MS had to say about this latest motion to transfer.
Link
AC had a couple of interesting comments. First, she seems to think the old D's may/will be back on the case.
Second, I get the impression she has landed on "suicide risk" as the reason behind the security.
I wonder who she's been talking to when she says: "From what we've heard"
34:49m:
"From what we've heard... from what we've seen from the filings, I've seen no indication that RA has been violent with others in prison."

 

[Emma Peel]

Sure but this stuff shouldn't be in frame at all, and the judge should get to the bottom of it one way or other. For instance the defence seem to be implying in the affidavit upthread that the defendant is being drugged. Well the defendant has access to the defendant's medical records so this should be put into evidence or discounted.

Personally to me it is Kafkaesque that a defendant is held under such alleged conditions without so much as a prelim or bail hearing. I get that it is the defence who decided not to apply for bail and that the state does not have prelims, so to some extent that defence agrees the evidence is strong enough he can be held on remand.

But this stuff really should not be happening. e,g if a 10 hour round trip is accurate, to see a client who is not even in the same room and you can't have a reasonable conversation - does that meet requirements for access? IMO not, but then I have no idea of precedent here, so I simply say as a layman perception it seems crazy ... as alleged

Agree, and it shouldn't be happening yet AGAIN.
New D motion liberally adopts Old D motion arguments for same relief.

IMO, Judge Gull might as well schedule this motion's hearing for February 2nd because we're now watching "Groundhog Day".

 

[Emma Peel]

In Seattle right now, criminal cases are taking 1-3 years to go to trial due to courts being backed up from Covid. I’m sure it’s similar in Indiana.

That is the definition of a civil rights crisis ... and you're right ... it's a widespread problem.

Here's hoping no innocent-until-proven-guilty detainees with 3-year trial delays in Seattle get hannibal-lectered for 3 years.

It's no wonder so many found guilty (lesser crimes) manage to walk w/ time served. JMHO

 

[sunshineray]

I disagree with this. His trial wasn't even set to begin until a full year and a bit past his original incarceration date. That isn't even "speedy" to begin with in my view.

In a double murder trial that seems about right. Lots of pretrial motions and such. JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I don't know what you are disagreeing with, I never said that it was unusual that RA is being held without bail, I've never suggested he should be out on bail, I've made it clear that I think he is guilty.
That is not relevant to his being housed in a prison. All over this country, murder suspects are housed in county jails. RA is no more a threat to the public, himself, or in more danger than a hundred other murderers. I think are unaware of that different and unusual treatment of a specific defendant is not without risk. Making up excuses of why he should be or that it is okay for RA to be at a prison is shortsighted. A number of people tried to claim that other (not convicted) defendants awaiting trial were also being held in prisons, but there aren't any in the same circumstances found. Several horrific cases, that are being followed on WS, have the defendants in the county jails, no one is proposing they be moved to a prison.

I guess it all depends on the security of those jails and the workforce available. Out of the United States I'm sure there must be others awaiting trials in prisons and most likely it's for safety reasons. AJMO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

This is only an opinion and is subject to change (doubtful - though). Someone recently mentioned KAK though I can’t locate the post, my point is am surprised that the defense does not lean in more toward KAK as being their defense in lieu of the Odin theory.

KAK, had all the elements ... he knew LG would be on the trail that fateful day.

A so called "Odin confession" is certainly something the defense had to explore. Hopefully it's been debunked enough for a jury not to hear it or to disregard it. It's my opinion that the defense will not be bringing up KAK in the trial.

Any real evidence of someone else being involved has to be disclosed.
The defense attorneys know that they would have to call those interrogators to testify, they can't just quote the transcript or have it admitted to evidence. As shown in the interrogation, LE would not be testifying that they had proof of KAK's involvement or proof KAK knew their location that day.
Defense attorneys are well aware of tactics used in interrogations; they would see that KAK is not confronted with anything that proves what is being asked.
That would have been explored in 2017, not more than three years later when they were hoping to find KAK had let someone know something that could give them a lead in an unsolved murder(s).

"KAK had all the elements", I'm guessing that you mean motive, opportunity and means, instead of the elements of a crime.
KAK has never been shown to seek in person sexual violence, and that is what this crime was and that is what RA's motive was.
KAK was never shown to be anywhere near the crime scene and everything in his interrogation shows that LE didn't think he was. That is definitely not him on the bridge and nothing shows LE ever thought it was.

The often-said interrogation-based claim that KAK knew the location of LG that day or was in the area, or that LE claimed it was a fact, is not what the interrogation shows. That interpretation is used to support the theory that KAK must somehow be involved.
MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I guess it all depends on the security of those jails and the workforce available. Out of the United States I'm sure there must be others awaiting trials in prisons and most likely it's for safety reasons. AJMO

MOO
Can you find these defendants and show that they are not convicted inmates, that they are treated as an inmate in a prison rather than in jail as a defendant awaiting trial? It has already been thoroughly explored here on WS. If you are incorrect and there is not a practice of this, what would that mean?

It does not depend on the security of the jails and workforce available, his being in a prison is extremely unusual, when accused felony defendants are in court and denied bail, there is not a discussion of whether or not they should go to a prison, they go to the appropriate holding facility, deviations are rare. From personal experience being present during many felony arrangements.

 

[sunshineray]

MOO
Can you find these defendants and show that they are not convicted inmates, that they are treated as an inmate in a prison rather than in jail as a defendant awaiting trial? It has already been thoroughly explored here on WS. If you are incorrect and there is not a practice of this, what would that mean?

It does not depend on the security of the jails and workforce available, his being in a prison is extremely unusual, when accused felony defendants are in court and denied bail, there is not a discussion of whether or not they should go to a prison, they go to the appropriate holding facility, deviations are rare. From personal experience being present during many felony arrangements.

We will agree to disagree. I think trying to track down every prison in the United States to confirm or deny that there may be a murder defendant housed there is too daunting a task...as well as calling every jail in the country to see if any murder defendants have ever been moved to a prison facility for safety sake. There is the statute used in moving RA from Westville to Wabash for safety concerns and the first judge did agree with the County in moving him originally to Westville. I think we maybe not know an awful lot about the tensions/dangers that led to that original move.
AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

A so called "Odin confession" is certainly something the defense had to explore. Hopefully it's been debunked enough for a jury not to hear it or to disregard it. It's my opinion that the defense will not be bringing up KAK in the trial.

Any real evidence of someone else being involved has to be disclosed.
The defense attorneys know that they would have to call those interrogators to testify, they can't just quote the transcript or have it admitted to evidence. As shown in the interrogation, LE would not be testifying that they had proof of KAK's involvement or proof KAK knew their location that day.
Defense attorneys are well aware of tactics used in interrogations; they would see that KAK is not confronted with anything that proves what is being asked.
That would have been explored in 2017, not more than three years later when they were hoping to find KAK had let someone know something that could give them a lead in an unsolved murder(s).

"KAK had all the elements", I'm guessing that you mean motive, opportunity and means, instead of the elements of a crime.
KAK has never been shown to seek in person sexual violence, and that is what this crime was and that is what RA's motive was.
KAK was never shown to be anywhere near the crime scene and everything in his interrogation shows that LE didn't think he was. That is definitely not him on the bridge and nothing shows LE ever thought it was.

The often-said interrogation-based claim that KAK knew the location of LG that day or was in the area, or that LE claimed it was a fact, is not what the interrogation shows. That interpretation is used to support the theory that KAK must somehow be involved.
MOO

KAK admitting he created anthony_shots and admitting he used anthony_shots to catfish young girls (sometimes trying to set up meets) is interesting. So is one of his contacted young girls sharing her information with either anthony_shots or KAK's emily moniker (I can't recall which it was), and then after stepping off her school bus, seeing a masked man looking in her bedroom window. His electronic devices had all sorts of C S A M crimes on them including a violent act on a very small child. He downloaded and viewed that abhorrent violence.

If KAK was not involved in the actual act of the murders of Abby and Libby but by way of that online presence he was involved in setting up the girls to be met, abducted, assaulted and murdered by others, that makes him sexually violent. AJMO and something I can't discount especially since the prosecution has stated, in court, others could be involved.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

We will agree to disagree. I think trying to track down every prison in the United States to confirm or deny that there may be a murder defendant housed there is too daunting a task...as well as calling every jail in the country to see if any murder defendants have ever been moved to a prison facility for safety sake. There is the statute used in moving RA from Westville to Wabash for safety concerns and the first judge did agree with the County in moving him originally to Westville. I think we maybe not know an awful lot about the tensions/dangers that led to that original move.
AJMO

You made a claim that there are other defendants in prison awaiting trial in response to my explaining how unusual it is for RA to be an "inmate" at a prison. It is not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of you asserting something and then not showing a source or finding at least an example to prove your claim.
This has been researched by me and others and no one can find an example that is the same as the circumstances as RA. Safety concerns are for many murderers currently awaiting trial, none are known to be held at a prison. Any coverage of a murder arrest and trial includes the information of where the defendant is being held. While some find it acceptable, some of us are concerned as any interruption of the attorney's ability to see their client, any treatment different than what other defendants' receive is not acceptable and is a risk of affecting the trial.

Prisons are exclusively for convicted felons that have been ordered to serve a sentence in a prison.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

KAK admitting he created anthony_shots and admitting he used anthony_shots to catfish young girls (sometimes trying to set up meets) is interesting. So is one of his contacted young girls sharing her information with either anthony_shots or KAK's emily moniker (I can't recall which it was), and then after stepping off her school bus, seeing a masked man looking in her bedroom window. His electronic devices had all sorts of C S A M crimes on them including a violent act on a very small child. He downloaded and viewed that abhorrent violence.

If KAK was not involved in the actual act of the murders of Abby and Libby but by way of that online presence he was involved in setting up the girls to be met, abducted, assaulted and murdered by others, that makes him sexually violent. AJMO and something I can't discount especially since the prosecution has stated, in court, others could be involved.

Since the Odinist angle may be fading away, someone pondered if the defense might bring up KAK.
The point of my post was to say why I don't think the defense will be bringing up KAK at the trial, they might not even be allowed to attempt the alternative suspect defense. The defense would have to stick to the actual facts and rules of evidence. I don't think anything you said could be used as evidence showing KAK was involved in the murders.

Are you suggesting that the defense could pursue the KAK angle to help RA?

 

[mrjitty]

Since the Odinist angle may be fading away, someone pondered if the defense might bring up KAK.
The point of my post was to say why I don't think the defense will be bringing up KAK at the trial, they might not even be allowed to attempt the alternative suspect defense. The defense would have to stick to the actual facts and rules of evidence. I don't think anything you said could be used as evidence showing KAK was involved in the murders.

Are you suggesting that the defense could pursue the KAK angle to help RA?

I suspect they would be able to pursue it to some extent based on my experience of the McStay case, but I also agree there are significant problems

He's the perfect suspect, and the catfishing aspect would presumably be admissible. I think the problem with him is usually you try to argue that prosecutors got tunnel vision on the defendant instead of on the real killer. But KAK was investigated so heavily it feels like a bit of a losing argument.

Interestingly in McStay, the defence tactic was simply to lie in their opening arguments about how he was the real killer who was never cleared despite knowing the prosecution held alibi evidence. It seems like this is how the game is played these days.

In the end innuendo might be enough to shift one juror even when you have weak sauce