Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #178

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cyber sleuth said:
It’s ineffictive. The public they are reaching won’t be sitting in the jury box. They are simply tainting the jury pool.
All their exaggerations and posturing to the public won’t make one lick of difference in the trial in front of a jury, where facts will be layed out and tested.
Click to expand...
I very much look forward to the facts being laid out and tested.
 
Cyber sleuth said:
It’s ineffictive. The public they are reaching won’t be sitting in the jury box. They are simply tainting the jury pool.
All their exaggerations and posturing to the public won’t make one lick of difference in the trial in front of a jury, where facts will be layed out and tested.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and most of the people I mention this case to don't even know about it. Of course it is big here on WS, we've followed for years and have been searching for justice for Abby & Libby for so long. We read and hunt for everything we can about it. John Q Public potential juror doesn't have a clue (mostly).

I feel like the Defense has made themselves look bad, really unprofessional and almost comical, if this weren't a real case with real victims - Abby & Libby and their families and loved ones where nothing should be comical. RA deserves better representation than what R&B have provided and he has 6th amendment rights.

There is no way there will be a trial in May IMO. The Defense is not ready, not even for their own Contempt hearing or Motion to Dismiss. I expect a pause or an eject button pushed by them any time now.

All JMO
 
@susane7 It wasn't specifically the geofence data that was listed for exclusion; so I don't conclude that the geofence data was bad for RA. The Ds issue is: If I don't get funding for professionals on these items and you do, then they shouldn't be used in court. (I personally tend to agree.)

This is from the motion:

Motion for Parity in Resources, To Reconsider the Denial of Anticipated Defense Costs, or to Exclude Evidence

drive.google.com drive.google.com
13. At the very least, there are three pieces of evidence critical to this case:
the bullet purportedly found at the crime scene; digital data pulled from cell phones
belonging to the victims and other individuals; and Allen’s purported post-arrest
“confession.” Allen’s request for funding related to obtaining expert assistance to
investigate each of the three critical pieces of evidence, and for general assistance
given the enormity of this case is reasonable.
14. The first piece of critical evidence is the bullet purportedly found at the
crime scene. The State utilized the Indiana State Police Crime Lab’s Firearms Unit,
which employs 15 people, to examine the bullet found at the crime scene. Defense
counsel retained a firearm/toolmark expert to conduct an independent analysis and
to assist them in reviewing the Crime Lab’s analysis. The funds needed to retain
the firearm/toolmark expert and begin working on Allen’s case were advanced by
Attorney Rozzi in the amount of $2,550. Defense counsel requested reimbursement
for that amount, as well as authorization to pay the expert for additional services
needed to prepare Allen’s defense.
This Court authorized reimbursement for the amount Attorney Rozzi had
already paid but denied the request for defense counsel to continue receiving the
expert’s services, finding that the request was “unsupported.”
15. The second piece of evidence is the digital data collected from various
sources, including cell phones, location data, and social media data. The State
utilized the Indiana State Police Crime Lab’s Digital Forensic Unit, which employs
14 people, to examine the large amount of digital data collected in this case. Defense
counsel retained a digital forensic expert to help them decipher, interpret, and
analyze the digital data. The funds needed to retain the expert and begin working
on Allen’s case were advanced by Attorney Baldwin in the amount of $3,712.50.
Defense counsel requested reimbursement for that amount, as well as authorization
to pay the expert for additional services necessary to prepare Allen’s defense.
This Court authorized reimbursement for the amount Attorney Baldwin had
already paid but denied the request for defense counsel to continue receiving the
expert’s services, finding that this request was also “unsupported.”
16. The third piece of critical evidence is Allen’s alleged confession. The
State has utilized investigators, police officers, and experts from the Carroll County
Sheriff’s Department, the Indiana State Police, the Delphi City Police Department,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, and other law enforcement agencies around the
state, to assist in the investigation that led to Allen’s prosecution. Allen’s alleged
confession was obtained while Allen was held for safekeeping in solitary
confinement in the D.O.C. Since being reinstated in this case, the State of Indiana
has served up additional discovery to the Defense in the form of multiple interviews
conducted by law enforcement with Westville prisoners and correctional officers. In
these interviews, law enforcement investigators have inquired about the
interviewees’ opinions regarding Defendant Allen’s state of mental health,
practically seeking clinical diagnostic opinions from these lay witnesses. Defense
counsel retained a clinical psychologist to evaluate Allen and review health records
and video relevant to Allen’s confinement conditions. This Court previously
authorized funds for the defense to retain the expert. However, those funds are now
depleted, and additional services are still needed.
 
03/22/2024Order Issued
Court has received Request for Recording of Court Proceedings by News Media from Corryn Brock, WPTA, and Jeff Wiehe, WANE 15, for trial May 13-31, 2024, and denies same
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed:
Diener, Stacey Lynn
Order Signed:
03/21/2024

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access
public.courts.in.gov public.courts.in.gov
 
steeltowngirl said:
03/22/2024Order Issued
Court has received Request for Recording of Court Proceedings by News Media from Corryn Brock, WPTA, and Jeff Wiehe, WANE 15, for trial May 13-31, 2024, and denies same
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed:
Diener, Stacey Lynn
Order Signed:
03/21/2024

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access
public.courts.in.gov public.courts.in.gov
Click to expand...
Well, this sucks. Hopefully the media will use one of their high powered attorneys to appeal
 
I hope for the family’s sake that May trial does happen as it’s completely unfair on them.

There can be no worse pain than having your young children stolen away from you in the worse way imaginable. But then to have years of agonizing pain on not having anybody arrested and then to think you are finally getting somewhere with a suspect for it to turn into a circus.

It just makes me hate RA and his team even more.
{mod edit}

IMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
steeltowngirl said:
03/22/2024Order Issued
Court has received Request for Recording of Court Proceedings by News Media from Corryn Brock, WPTA, and Jeff Wiehe, WANE 15, for trial May 13-31, 2024, and denies same
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed:
Diener, Stacey Lynn
Order Signed:
03/21/2024

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access
public.courts.in.gov public.courts.in.gov
Click to expand...
No surprise here! I guess her last appearance on camera while disqualifying the D (which backfired) has made her a bit camera shy? JMHO
 
steeltowngirl said:
03/22/2024Order Issued
Court has received Request for Recording of Court Proceedings by News Media from Corryn Brock, WPTA, and Jeff Wiehe, WANE 15, for trial May 13-31, 2024, and denies same
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed:
Diener, Stacey Lynn
Order Signed:
03/21/2024

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access
public.courts.in.gov public.courts.in.gov
Click to expand...
So who is this from the list of noticed?
Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn
Order Signed:
03/21/2024
 
girlhasnoname said:
Agreed, and most of the people I mention this case to don't even know about it. Of course it is big here on WS, we've followed for years and have been searching for justice for Abby & Libby for so long. We read and hunt for everything we can about it. John Q Public potential juror doesn't have a clue (mostly).

I feel like the Defense has made themselves look bad, really unprofessional and almost comical, if this weren't a real case with real victims - Abby & Libby and their families and loved ones where nothing should be comical. RA deserves better representation than what R&B have provided and he has 6th amendment rights.

There is no way there will be a trial in May IMO. The Defense is not ready, not even for their own Contempt hearing or Motion to Dismiss. I expect a pause or an eject button pushed by them any time now.

All JMO
Click to expand...

A colossal waste of time and money like all of these cases are.
 
steeltowngirl said:
03/22/2024Order Issued
Court has received Request for Recording of Court Proceedings by News Media from Corryn Brock, WPTA, and Jeff Wiehe, WANE 15, for trial May 13-31, 2024, and denies same
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed:
Diener, Stacey Lynn
Order Signed:
03/21/2024

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access
public.courts.in.gov public.courts.in.gov
Click to expand...
Rubbish!
 
layer said:
That there are articulable concerns based on prior behavior that Defense counsel
will release information to the media that could publicly embarrass the IDOC

Seriously???
Click to expand...
Seriously, I see what happened here ...

Here is the actual text/context: Bolded and coloured by me.

5. That there are articulable concerns based on prior behavior that Defense counsel will release information to the media that could publicly embarrass the IDOC or further place its employees in danger or subject to ridicule or harassment.
Click to expand...

Those "OR"s are very important being that we've seen the D engage in the last bits already with the whacky Frank's.
 
susiQ said:
No surprise here! I guess her last appearance on camera while disqualifying the D (which backfired) has made her a bit camera shy? JMHO
Click to expand...
Or she's entirely fed up with the amateurs trying this in the public domain and tainiting jury-pool attempts, while having seen a scant portion of the evidence. That's what trials or for. This case is no different.
 
Vern said:
Or she's entirely fed up with the amateurs trying this in the public domain and tainiting jury-pool attempts, while having seen a scant portion of the evidence. That's what trials or for. This case is no different.
Click to expand...
Cameras in the court room have nothing to do with trying this in the public domain. We’re talking about the trial. As you say, “this is what trials are meant for.” That is why it has everything to do with being completely transparent. Sunlight is the best disinfectant . Let’s bring some of that into this. JMO

Eta: clarify - MSM cameras - not podcasters
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
Seriously, I see what happened here ...

Here is the actual text/context: Bolded and coloured by me.



Those "OR"s are very important being that we've seen the D engage in the last bits already with the whacky Frank's.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. As long as we make sure nothing comes out that could publicly embarrass the IDOC
 
layer said:
Fair enough. As long as we make sure nothing comes out that could publicly embarrass the IDOC
Click to expand...
Call me slow, but why would it be wrong to expose what goes on behind closed doors, even if it is an embarrassment to them. Are employees of the IDOC immune from scrutiny with regard to their behaviour and treatment of inmates? Serious question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 164 more.
Total: 4,039 (members: 165, guests: 3,874)

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
3,874
Total visitors
4,039
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,244
Messages
18,000,853
Members
229,344
Latest member
tvfire1018
Back
Top