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

[Emma Peel]

Hi, @Emma Peel. I have no problem with individuals or groups starting any legal fundraiser. If they want to use the money to pay a defense attorney or buy a new car or get plastic surgery, that is up to them. We see all kind of fundraisers for all kinds of causes.
I think it gets murky when we have an attorney working in an official capacity who is soliciting funds for trial purposes. In order to avoid an impression of impropriety, I think a fundraiser such as this should be at least once removed from the attorneys’ offices. MOO

Thanks for clarifying.
Is it your opinion that Hennessy is not once removed from RA's attorney's offices?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I need to start reading these threads in order, before replying.
doh

Happens to the best of us, these threads fly sometimes.

 

[sunshineray]

I don’t believe a plea deal is even on the table. The Defense have just crowdfunded for a ton of money to get the right experts in. It would make zero sense imo

Possibly...but then again like someone just said, nothing would surprise me with this defense.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I don’t believe a plea deal is even on the table. The Defense have just crowdfunded for a ton of money to get the right experts in. It would make zero sense imo

But per the vague language of the crowdfunding campaign they can use that money pretty much any way they please IMO.
Nice fat cowboy cut at Ruth’s Chris and some truffle Mac n cheese. Make sure to tip your server nicely. Haha

 

[justtrish]

OMG, you literally made me gasp. Do you think that is even a possibility? Has this case been so tanked they'd be willing to make a plea deal?

I don't see it, but if anything, I have learned that just as soon as I say "I think I've seen it all", they show me what a stupid statement I've made.

Wow, now my mind is spinning Sunshine. I probably won't sleep a wink.

JMO

I sure hope not. At this point, with all the issues there have been, I think a trial and the exact evidence against RA needs to be shared so people will believe he did it. If he pleas then many will still say it's because he's afraid or wonder if others are involved. The families deserve to have the closure of knowing RA is the guy and he acted alone (or didn't act alone).

 

[Cyber sleuth]

For whatever reason, about half of my reply was cut out of the quote that you're quoting.
Too bad that wasn't caught in time. Here it is again intact:

From the site:
We have identified the experts needed and the costs of fees, travel, and lodging are greater than originally anticipated. Please be advised that no funds collected will be offset against fees related to David Hennessy's law firm, Richard Allen's defense team, or to Richard Allen.

Shows up complete on my post.
And what do you think that disclaimer means? “No funds collected will be offset against fees…”

 

[DeDee]

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.

finding that the “unsupported request is denied as an unreasonable expenditure of county
funds.”

We have a Judge deciding how much funding is necessary or unreasonable to spend on an expert(s) in the high profile murders of Abby and Libby. Ok. That must indicate she will not be willing to allow expert testimony into the trial for the purposes of an expert witness.

My own interpretation MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

dbm

 

[justtrish]

So I have a question. In the case of court appointed attorneys does the court have a say in what experts the defense can use? I understand in a situation where a person hires an attorney and if he has endless money they can hire experts that cost whatever they want.. $100,000 okay if they can pay. But if it's a case like this with court appointed attorneys is it possible expenses are denied because the experts the D is trying to use are just that expensive? Let's say there are 10 experts that could testify and the D wants to use one that costs twice what others cost.. could that be a reason for a denial of funds? I don't know that this is what is happening, it was just something I was thinking about. It seems experts can cost very little or quite a bit and while I don't know that opinions are bought, I do think expert "shopping" might happen. They send out feelers for various experts and when they find out what an expert would say, they choose based on that. Of course they wouldn't pick an expert that agrees with the analysis of the state or something like that. They want to find one that can refute what the state is saying. So where is the line between the D hiring experts and them being given endless funds to shop around and find ones that will help them. If those experts are twice the cost of another then I can see why the courts could say funds are gone.

If this isn't making sense, I'm sorry. It's been a long day and my brain moves faster than I can type sometimes..

 

[zh0r4]

Hi, @Emma Peel. I have no problem with individuals or groups starting any legal fundraiser. If they want to use the money to pay a defense attorney or buy a new car or get plastic surgery, that is up to them. We see all kind of fundraisers for all kinds of causes.
I think it gets murky when we have an attorney working in an official capacity who is soliciting funds for trial purposes. In order to avoid an impression of impropriety, I think a fundraiser such as this should be at least once removed from the attorneys’ offices. MOO

Hi @OldCop , I have questions regarding evidence storage, if you have time.

How does LE make sure homicide case evidence is secure/preserved? What type of measures are typically put into place to avoid loss of data?

In your career, did you ever witness loss of 2 months + 2 weeks and 6TB of homicide case evidence? Or loss of 2 weeks of evidence from the first week after the body(ies) were discovered? If so, what were the circumstances? I understand there can be natural disasters like floods, or fires.

If you were collecting evidence or taking a statement, were there any things that you did individually to secure important information (I.e., make like make duplicate copies that were stored in different places or on a private server)?

To clarify, the reason I ask is because in the transcript from the March 18 (2024) hearing, LE Stephen Mullin testifies that interviews/evidence collected Feb 13-Feb 20 2017 (the first week) stored on a DVR system was lost/it was overwritten-apparently 6TB of interviews missing, which would be approximately 48 hours of constant video recording (p. 49, 52, 55). He also testified investigative data collected between April 28 2017-June 30 2017 was either lost or corrupted (p. 66-76).

How could this lost data potentially influence a homicide case, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty? Would you consider this a big deal or does it happen often?

Thank you so much for your input!

Source: page 49, 52, 55, 66-76
Transcript: Record of Proceedings at Hearing on Motion to Dismiss, Held MARCH 18, 2024
March 18, 2024 Motion to Dismiss Hearing.pdf

 

[mrjitty]

finding that the “unsupported request is denied as an unreasonable expenditure of county
funds.”

We have a Judge deciding how much funding is necessary or unreasonable to spend on an expert(s) in the high profile murders of Abby and Libby. Ok. That must indicate she will not be willing to allow expert testimony into the trial for the purposes of an expert witness.

My own interpretation MOO

BBM

The Judge is literally required to decide the funding requests on a case by case basis. I think there is an idea that Judge Gull is doing something strange here, but it appears to me that Judges are required to approve / decline such requests in every trial and that this is something that is happening every day throughout the jurisdiction.

Of course every defence attorney will be aggrieved when their requests are turned down - possibly in some cases with good reason.

I have no idea how tough Judges are on these requests usually but I think it is unfair to say the Judge has erred in denying some of these when we don't even know what exactly was requested or what standards are usually applied.

 

[mrjitty]

Hi, @Emma Peel. I have no problem with individuals or groups starting any legal fundraiser. If they want to use the money to pay a defense attorney or buy a new car or get plastic surgery, that is up to them. We see all kind of fundraisers for all kinds of causes.
I think it gets murky when we have an attorney working in an official capacity who is soliciting funds for trial purposes. In order to avoid an impression of impropriety, I think a fundraiser such as this should be at least once removed from the attorneys’ offices. MOO

BIB - this is exactly what the fundraising experts were suggesting. Please note they were not addressing the Delphi case specifically but a wide array of practice through out the US. This is a growing practice area, hence why these attorneys are experts in it. In some cases millions of dollars have been raised in politicised cases.

Their suggestion is it is better for the attorney not to be the fundraiser, because then the attorney does not become burdened with all the ethics/compliance issues which apply to attorneys but not to private citizens. Where the attorney is a fundraiser, then a detailed disclosure statement is recommended as best practice - mostly so that donors can't later complain.

 

[katydid23]

It's a big deal either way. But the defense didn't do it. It happened in their house by a burglar.

Supposedly.

But what would people be saying if the prosecutor left secret medical/mental health files of RA, unsupervised, on a table in an unlocked room? And someone wandered in and took photos and released them to YouTubers?

Would the defense be upset that the P didn't take better precautions with that private info?

 

[mrjitty]

But per the vague language of the crowdfunding campaign they can use that money pretty much any way they please IMO.
Nice fat cowboy cut at Ruth’s Chris and some truffle Mac n cheese. Make sure to tip your server nicely. Haha

This is what I took from the interview. If you are going to do this you need a very detailed fine print about how decisions will be made, what communications to expect, what happens with unused funds etc etc.

DH was a very rough launch. It still doesn't say who the client is. Like does RA have the final say on what experts to fund? Or are the clients B&R? These things appear to be quite important CYA for attorneys doing fund raisers.

 

[mrjitty]

Supposedly.

But what would people be saying if the prosecutor left secret medical/mental health files of RA, unsupervised, on a table in an unlocked room? And someone wandered in and took photos and released them to YouTubers?

Would the defense be upset that the P didn't take better precautions with that private info?

My bigger question is what would people say if the attorney invited the thief to go into the room, invited them to browse the documents and photos so they could brainstorm, then left the room for a period leaving the thief unsupervised.

 

[katydid23]

My bigger question is what would people say if the attorney invited the thief to go into the room, invited them to browser the documents and photos so they could brainstorm, then left the room for a period leaving the thief unsupervised.

IF that had happened, I think the DT would call for an emergency hearing to sanction the DA and perhaps ask for a dismissal of the charges.

 

[FromGermany1]

Shows up complete on my post.
And what do you think that disclaimer means? “No funds collected will be offset against fees…”

The funds are EXCLUSIVELY for the necessary experts. (What is happening with leftover money?)

 

[Emma Peel]

BIB - this is exactly what the fundraising experts were suggesting. Please note they were not addressing the Delphi case specifically but a wide array of practice through out the US. This is a growing practice area, hence why these attorneys are experts in it. In some cases millions of dollars have been raised in politicised cases.

Their suggestion is it is better for the attorney not to be the fundraiser, because then the attorney does not become burdened with all the ethics/compliance issues which apply to attorneys but not to private citizens. Where the attorney is a fundraiser, then a detailed disclosure statement is recommended as best practice - mostly so that donors can't later complain.

Interesting.
So, the bottom line here is that there's no problem with Hennessy as fundraiser as Hennessy is not the attorney for Richard Allen.

And, even if RA's counsel were to directly conduct the fundraiser, it's still not a problem; in that case a disclosure statement is "best practice".

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Interesting.
So, the bottom line here is that there's no problem with Hennessy as fundraiser as Hennessy is not the attorney for Richard Allen.

DH is subject to the ethics rules, no matter who his client is.

And, even if RA's counsel were to directly conduct the fundraiser, it's still not a problem; in that case a disclosure statement is "best practice".

JMO

Attorneys are allowed to raise funds, but they should CYA with extensive disclosure.

It's worth listening to the interview even if you don't like MS. The two ladies interviewed provide really great content

 

[FrostedGlass]

The funds are EXCLUSIVELY for the necessary experts. (What is happening with leftover money?)

If the P keeps throwing new discovery to them, there probably won't be any leftover money to worry about.