Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #180

[snooptroop88]

Show us where the "defense" is using that hashtag please.

I see online sources noting it was used when I see the "Take Back the Hashtag" movement info. I know this movement was started by YouTubers, I don't care who started it, it's a good idea. If YouTubers are good enough for the D to bring to court to make their case, I guess they're good enough in this circumstance, too. As already noted on here, the family actually had to call out people using the tag in inappropriate circumstances. I don't care if the use is directly from the D or their "followers" who "share" it as the "info is passed along down the chain." If so, the D should be taking aggressive action to make sure that it doesn't occur. D's very aggressive and outspoken in social media when it suits the D's purposes, and have (arguably) been instrumental in creating the mindset that makes their "followers" so certain it's "okay" to use that hashtag in conjunction with-- their fundraising?? If their followers are the ones using the tag in info "passed along down the chain," I expect that same dynamic of the D we've come to know and love to "kick in" so they make sure it ceases. And if they can't, maybe they should reconsider their "crowdsourcing idea." I would hope the D doesn't want "Rick" to build such a zealous following that they can't be restrained from making such bad choices.

If we want to say it's just "followers" of the D, that's fine by me. I would still view it as the D since they're the ones who decided to "crowdsource," and they're the ones that have been so busy cultivating contacts in social media and the media generally. If D wants to use the media so much, D needs to be held responsible for how it is used, including on their behalf. If they can't, maybe they should reconsider their tactics because that issue is that important. https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/screenshot_20240406-104339-3-png.495493/

All MOO

 

[zh0r4]

Can you tell me what was potentially exculpatory because it seems that BH was interviewed in home and EF was not interviewed in Delphi?
TIA
Also since the geofence was discussed in August 2023 by MW and RF per the motions filed by the state it seems defense had access to it as early as the summer of 2023. JMO based on everything I’ve read.

I’m unsure about what location an interview has, if any, in relation to exculpatory evidence? It may be important? Either way, my understanding, the eyewitness statements discussed in in the FM, not being what they actually said vs what was said in the SWA, was exculpatory. Since the D is saying they did not say the person they saw looked like RA and/or their description was actually different from what LE quoted them as saying. Also, the car one eyewitness spotted looked nothing like RA’s car, but was an older, vintage car. In his recorded October interview RA also said he had left the trail by 1:30pm, which contradicts what LE said he said in 2017 (I’m still unclear if there is a reliable record of this, as a date for the notes/page/etc has never been cited)-I don’t know if that would or could be considered exculpatory?

Re: the geofencing, I’m still personally unclear what has and hasn’t been provided to the D AND what has or hasn’t been provided to the P.

AJMO.

 

[AugustWest]

Because it's not going to get the attorneys kicked off the case. The Supreme Court already said they can stay. Why waste time with it now?

The attorneys here are likely not getting off this case, even if they wanted to. That ship has sailed, methinks.

 

[AugustWest]

It could be charged as negligence, IMO. The sealed documents are entrusted to the defense, to be taken care of, not to be left unsupervised and vulnerable.

Negligence (as a noun) isn't a crime. The term denotes this: (1) do I have a duty of some kind?; (2) Did I breach the duty?; (3) Was the breach a proximate and actual cause of any harm suffered?; and (4) Was there any harm actually suffered by the breach.

 

[katydid23]

The information I am talking about is no less protected, like HIPAA protected. I have associates who have images of persons with their guts splayed all over the place, out on the desk daily. I don't leave them out, but some do. We also have use scanner badges to get in and out of our office areas. A bad actor office staff could definitely get out the door with some protected material if they really wanted to. I don't know how you expect everything to be guarded like a bank vault. It practically doesn't work that way. You have to have trust in your support staff to make good and moral decisions.

I don't read the factual background of the cases I follow because it hinders my ability to objectively analyze the legal issues in these cases. I haven't read anything that isn't included in the official record. What I glean from the case comes only from you all discussing it.

I understand what you are saying about the HIPAA protection, etc.

But I guess I see a big difference between the public's thirst for secret info about the Delphi murders and HIPPA protected photos of an abdominal operation gone wrong. There is an obvious danger that other's might want to get a hold of the Delphi death photos as they could sell for quite a sum. Or at least bring someone street cred.

Leaving them out on a table in an unlocked room is negligent, imo. I am not saying they should be in a guarded bank vault. But they deserved some kind of protection, IMO.

 

[AugustWest]

I understand what you are saying about the HIPAA protection, etc.

But I guess I see a big difference between the public's thirst for secret info about the Delphi murders and HIPPA protected photos of an abdominal operation gone wrong. There is an obvious danger that other's might want to get a hold of the Delphi death photos as they could sell for quite a sum. Or at least bring someone street cred.

Leaving them out on a table in an unlocked room is negligent, imo. I am not saying they should be in a guarded bank vault. But they deserved some kind of protection, IMO.

<modsnip - off topic>

Maybe they were protected in some way? Maybe MW had a way to get past those protections? I don't know.

 

[katydid23]

Negligence (as a noun) isn't a crime. The term denotes this: (1) do I have a duty of some kind?; (2) Did I breach the duty?; (3) Was the breach a proximate and actual cause of any harm suffered?; and (4) Was there any harm actually suffered by the breach.

Wasn't their duty to protect the evidence and the crime photos from the press and the public? That is what I meant by negligence.
Negligent in their duty and there was harm suffered. One man killed himself. And the girl's families endured suffering knowing their photos were being shared with the public.

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip - off topic>

Maybe they were protected in some way? Maybe MW had a way to get past those protections? I don't know.

<modsnip - off toipc>

And NO, MW did not have to get past any protections. They all admitted that the photos were on top of a conference table, in an unlocked room. unsupervised by anyone. MW came by for a visit, walked into the unlocked room, saw the materials and took some photos.

 

[AugustWest]

Wasn't their duty to protect the evidence and the crime photos from the press and the public? That is what I meant by negligence.
Negligent in their duty and there was harm suffered. One man killed himself. And the girl's families endured suffering knowing their photos were being shared with the public.

That is why I put the "as a noun" thing there (and I even over-simplified it there). There is, for instance, negligent homicide. Criminal negligence is a thing, but I don't think here it applies. The way to do with any actual harm is to sue them civilly. Courts look at "harm" as something they can rectify, like by giving a plaintiff money for the "harm" they suffer.

As far as the man killing himself, I refuse to blame anyone for his death other than himself. It's tragic, but to say that the defense could have foreseen he would kill himself because one of their professional associates stole protected info from their office and then shared it with him is a road way too far. He shouldn't have been dealing in stolen photographs.

 

[TTF14]

Wasn't their duty to protect the evidence and the crime photos from the press and the public? That is what I meant by negligence.
Negligent in their duty and there was harm suffered. One man killed himself. And the girl's families endured suffering knowing their photos were being shared with the public.

There has to be some leeway for something so unprecedented though. Can you think of any other case where someone snuck into a defense attorney's office and stole crime scene photos and distributed them? I mean, who in the world would have predicted that something like that would happen? COULD happen (meaning who would do that??) It's just not reasonable to expect human beings to predict such terrible, unhinged behavior. They aren't mind readers. Where is the line drawn? People make mistakes every day and it doesn't mean it rises to the level of negligence.

Now, if it was purposeful, that's a whole 'nother story.

 

[layer]

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>
Maybe we need to create some sort of HIPAA privacy rule for the victims in crime scene images.

 

[TTF14]

Maybe we need to create some sort of HIPAA privacy rule for the victims in crime scene images.

Not a bad idea. Maybe something will get started because of this.

 

[zh0r4]

All of there above rings true---but it doesn't address the fact that crime scene photos of dead children were left unattended on top of a table. That is sheer negligence, IMO.

Talking to your friends and associates about medical malpractice cases is all well and good. But the case we are talking about has court protected photos of dead teen girls and there is no excuse for those photos to be left out haphazardly.

Have you read the recently released emails between MW and the defense? They portray a different relationship from what the defense originally stated to the judge. He was being treated as though he was part of the defense team, imo

The alleged leak is awful and irresponsible, to clarify.

With that being said, which damages justice to Abby and Libby more:

Leaked CS photos

or

Months and TBs of lost investigative evidence

?

I understand and respect there are a lot of feelings about the case in general, but realistically, emotions and solving crimes are at odds. The case is overall a mess, but I am surprised there is not more concern and discussion about lost evidence. If RA is guilty, for example, this could be one of many grounds for appeal. If RA is guilty and let out due to improper storage of evidence (or other reasons), it would be a tragedy to Abby and Libby. Everything matters. Some things more than others.

JMO.

 

[Ravenmoon]

The alleged leak is awful and irresponsible, to clarify.

With that being said, which damages justice to Abby and Libby more:

Leaked CS photos

or

Months and TBs of lost investigative evidence

?

I understand and respect there are a lots of feelings about the case in general, but realistically, emotions and solving crimes are at odds. The case is overall a mess, but I am surprised there is not more concern about lost evidence. If RA is guilty, for example, this could be one of many grounds for appeal. If RA is guilty and let out due to improper storage of evidence (or other reasons), it would be a tragedy to Abby and Libby. Everything matters. Some things more than others.

JMO.

I don't perceive a lack of concern because the " lost evidence" does nothing to absolve RA of the crime.

There is nothing to say that the interviews were exculpatory.

JMO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

An oldie moldy article that doesn't appear to be in the archives of their county council meetings, nor on Debbie Lowe's utube. I heard it got pretty heated.

County Council not pleased with Prosecutor’s secretary position change - Carroll County Comet

The Carroll County Council met in regular session March 16 with a full agenda. It got even fuller at what was expected to be the end of the meeting. Recorder Penny Titus approached the Council after all other business had concluded. She informed council members that the person who was supposed...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

 

[layer]

There is nothing to say that the interviews were exculpatory.

True!
Could it be argued that evidence of a reckless investigation is exculpatory in itself on some level?

 

[katydid23]

There has to be some leeway for something so unprecedented though. Can you think of any other case where someone snuck into a defense attorney's office and stole crime scene photos and distributed them?

No, but it was no secret that this was a very high profile case with a huge public interest magnified by social media.

I mean, who in the world would have predicted that something like that would happen? COULD happen (meaning who would do that??) It's just not reasonable to expect human beings to predict such terrible, unhinged behavior. They aren't mind readers. Where is the line drawn? People make mistakes every day and it doesn't mean it rises to the level of negligence.

If reasonable precautions were taken I'd agree with you. It would be a shock if someone broke into a locked room and foraged around looking for them. Who could predict that?

But these crime photos were left on top of a table in an unlocked, unsupervised room. That's like leaving money on top of that table in an unlocked room and walking away.

Now, if it was purposeful, that's a whole 'nother story.

I'm not convinced it wasn't...


If you entrusted your attorney some valuable paperwork and it was stolen by one of his staff, YES, I'd agree he wouldn't have been able to foresee that happening.

But I'd assume he had my valuable papers in his desk or his file cabinet.

If I then found out my valuables were left unsupervised, on a table in an unlocked room---I'd be very angry and would want some kind of payment in return.

Sure, as you say, Who could predict someone could be such a thief? But why would anyone make it so easy and so tempting for them by leaving the valuables out in the open, unsupervised? Is it too much to ask to keep them in a desk or cabinet when not in use?

To me, it's not about predicting that his friend and associate would do that. It's more about the attorney making it so easy for someone, ANYONE, to do that.

And why is it so hard to understand or predict that someone would want to get their hands on those photos? They were valuable because of the gag order and the tremendous public interest in the high profile case.

 

[zh0r4]

I don't perceive a lack of concern because the " lost evidence" does nothing to absolve RA of the crime.

There is nothing to say that the interviews were exculpatory.

JMO

If there was a recorded interview of RA from 2017 saying he was at the trail at a different time than what he said in 2022, wouldn’t that corroborate his guilt?

If there is no official record of the 2017 interview, how does it corroborate his guilt?

If there were interviews and/or tips from 2017 that were lost with the other data mentioned by Officer Mullin, how does anyone know for a fact it wasn’t exculpatory? If we don’t know what the data was?

If the tip about RA was lost for 5 years, how can we be confident nothing else about another potential suspect was lost?

 

[susiQ]

This Court authorized payment for the two-hour visit defense counsel had
scheduled with the expert but denied the request for additional funding, finding
that the “unsupported request is denied as an unreasonable expenditure of county
funds.”

RSABBM
I find it unreasonable that additional funds were not granted over and above a mere two hours considering what is at stake. Unbelievable actually! JMHO

Thank you for finding this.

 

[layer]

Thanks for looking that up.
I understand that to say the D have used the funds up that she authorized but they still need more, which she won't authorize.
I don't think it says that the judge is out of money.

Isn't that motion specific to depleted funds for one clinical psychologist to evaluate Allen and review health records
and video relevant to Allen’s confinement condition?