Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - #154 *Richard Allen Arrested*

[ACG2x]

Just thinking about the sealing and a couple things I haven’t seen discussed. Forgive my novice questions.

1. Could there be other victims discussed somehow that haven’t been identified or contacted? I know there are no child …. Charges against RA but could that be mentioned in the PC with other victims? (Edited as I see discussed above now)

2. methods- could methods be identified or even honeypot sites that are currently in use to identify other perpetrators?

3. could it have just been poorly written and included too much detail?

re: #2 - I've had the thought that if RA did in fact find the logon info to the a_s IG profile from various pedophile sites/boards/online gathering places it's possible that the PCD includes some of those and LE may be building a case against other users of said sites and/or setting up stings, etc.

If the PCD is released with that info, then it gives the users of those places a chance to scatter or breaks up that investigation. Perhaps the reason for it being sealed has nothing to do with information about the A&L case but as to not jeopardize other active investigations.

 

[Fancynancy]

re: #2 - I've had the thought that if RA did in fact find the logon info to the a_s IG profile from various pedophile sites/boards/online gathering places it's possible that the PCD includes some of those and LE may be building a case against other users of said sites and/or setting up stings, etc.

If the PCD is released with that info, then it gives the users of those places a chance to scatter or breaks up that investigation. Perhaps the reason for it being sealed has nothing to do with information about the A&L case but as to not jeopardize other active investigations.

This is what I suspect. An ongoing sting op.

 

[ACG2x]

Yup. The public has a right to know why the prosecutors have probable cause to arrest the suspect. No, I won’t be signing any petition to keep it sealed, a petition like that is not appropriate for legal consideration.

I'm confused as to what law or statute demands that the general public has a right to know this immediately. Really the only ones who have a legal basis or right for knowing right now are RA and his attorney(s).

 

[vls12345]

re: #2 - I've had the thought that if RA did in fact find the logon info to the a_s IG profile from various pedophile sites/boards/online gathering places it's possible that the PCD includes some of those and LE may be building a case against other users of said sites and/or setting up stings, etc.

If the PCD is released with that info, then it gives the users of those places a chance to scatter or breaks up that investigation. Perhaps the reason for it being sealed has nothing to do with information about the A&L case but as to not jeopardize other active investigations.

If that's the case, couldn't the site name/address or other very sensitive info be redacted, allowing the PC document/AA to be released?

 

[diggndeeperstill]

If that's the case, couldn't the site name/address or other very sensitive info be redacted, allowing the PC document/AA to be released?

You would think. I was reminded of this app.

FBI Created Encrypted App That Lured, Trapped Global Criminals

A global sting operation by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies duped criminals into using an encrypted app created by investigators, intercepting more than 27 million messages and exposing plots to smuggle drugs, sell illegal weapons and launder money.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[WingsOverTX]

I'm confused as to what law or statute demands that the general public has a right to know this immediately. Really the only ones who have a legal basis or right for knowing right now are RA and his attorney(s).

State laws, for the most part, have enshrined this basic principle from United States law: the public has a right to know, barring very rare & clearly specified need to prevent disclosure.

Some of those state laws are discussed at the link below. Unfortunately, this site does not cover the laws in all states but it makes clear there is a longstanding legal precedent in favor of release on the basis of the public's right to know (Constitutional law 101).

16. Arrest/search warrants and supporting affidavits Archives - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

www.rcfp.org

 

[lgh0309]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0auv9wX7k4UShtFYEff3HFBgdT72xYovv7MjuN3b7SY3vBhgCkj67Ctz5wqi5DuJsl&id=100044311365463

You can see who actually started it from clicking through.

Angela Ganote:

Libby German’s grandma is trying to stop the unsealing of the probable cause document.

She is trying to get at least 30,000 signatures to take into the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Sharing here if that is something you would like to support. Just click the picture. 

it may sound harsh but I’d like to think that would be inadmissible… but I don’t know the rules of such a hearing….

 

[kittythehare]

State laws, for the most part, have enshrined this basic principle from United States law: the public has a right to know, barring very rare & clearly specified need to prevent disclosure.

Some of those state laws are discussed at the link below. Unfortunately, this site does not cover the laws in all states but it makes clear there is a longstanding legal precedent in favor of release on the basis of the public's right to know (Constitutional law 101).

16. Arrest/search warrants and supporting affidavits Archives - The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

www.rcfp.org

Indiana Rules on Access to Court Records

www.in.gov

 

[MadMcGoo]

MOD NOTE:

There has been a major cleanup on this thread tonight due to numerous TOS violations. Here are the RULES we all agreed to upon joining this site.

We have a thread dedicated to KAK HERE. If you have an update specific to any of his current charges, pending charges or news, it is to be posted on that thread. For example, dismissals, court appearances, etc.

This is an example of an article and subject matter that may be brought up for discussion on this thread. This pertains to KAK and Abby’s and Libby’s cases. Although sources such as this are approved, you personally have the right to decide how much credibility you give to them. Nevertheless, they remain approved sources here on Websleuths.

Regardless of what is posted in ANY approved source, RA’s family (to include photos) are completely off limits as of this post. They are victims. PERIOD.

If you’re going to reference or discuss a topic (even if it’s been brought up before), a link to an approved source must be provided. Otherwise, don’t mention it.

Decisions made by officials may not sit well with us, but they’re most often made for a reason.

And lastly, STAY ON TOPIC. Please and THANK YOU!

- Mad

 

[Charlot123]

.

I'm going to rely on LE's judgement in this case. They have a reason for keeping the details sealed for now. Let's support them in increasing the odds of getting a valid conviction.

Just a random voice from the grand void.

Well…when I read the product of the judge’s quill and juris mind, I couldn’t but wish they still spoke Latin in court. (What did poor English language do to deserve it?)

As a professional, one should explain things better.

I still remember how in 2019, we heard “if you knew all the history, you’d understand why we kept things close to our vest”.

Now, in 2022, we hear “if you knew all the history, you’d understand why we keep the affidavit sealed”.

Could it be so that one day one might hear, “if you knew all the history, you’d understand why we are considering this man guilty without making the proceedings of the trial public domain”?

 

[kittythehare]

 

[WingsOverTX]

.


Well…when I read the product of the judge’s quill and juris mind, I couldn’t but wish they still spoke Latin in court. (What did poor English language do to deserve it?)

As a professional, one should explain things better.

I still remember how in 2019, we heard “if you knew all the history, you’d understand why we kept things close to our vest”.

Now, in 2022, we hear “if you knew all the history, you’d understand why we keep the affidavit sealed”.

Could it be so that one day one might hear, “if you knew all the history, you’d understand why we are considering this man guilty without making the proceedings of the trial public domain”?

Great analysis! Too many really don't understand what is at stake that makes the fight to release the PC worthwhile.

 

[MadMcGoo]

Here are Abby and Libby. The reason we are all here.

Delphi park honoring Libby German and Abby Williams gets donated light poles

A planned northern Indiana park honoring two teenage girls who were slain in 2017 is getting donated light poles to illuminate its softball fields and playgrounds.

www.wthr.com

 

[evilwise]

It'll all come out in due time, I assure you. More than a good person should want to know.

 

[Turkeytrot]

I support the family and what they would want. On the flip side - I'm not sure how that will play out legally? Would the court take a petition into consideration with something like this?

 

[Batgirl 2.0]

My guess is he had a more recent victim and his dna matched the double murder . They wouldn’t take a car from a 7 year murder . He must of killer again and they took the car for his most recent crime

Interesting, but I’m just curious why you think they wouldn’t take a car from a murder that happened 7 years ago? In the Rachel Cooke case, Georgetown, TX, investigators impounded a car 16 years after her disappearance in hopes of finding clues.

Car linked to Rachel Cooke case impounded for forensic analysis

More than 16 years after Rachel Cooke vanished in Williamson County, authorities think they have have located a sports car that could be the same one that raised the suspicions of witnesses in her ne…

www.statesman.com

 

[kittythehare]

I support the family and what they would want. On the flip side - I'm not sure how that will play out legally? Would the court take a petition into consideration with something like this?

If conditions 1-3 are met, yes, is my reading

Rule 6: Excluding Other Court Records From Public Access.​

(A) In extraordinary circumstances, a Court Record that otherwise would be publicly accessible may be excluded from Public Access by a Court having jurisdiction over the record. A verified written request to prohibit Public Access to a Court Record may be made by any person affected by the release of the Court Record. The request shall demonstrate that:

(1) The public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access;

(2) Access or dissemination of the Court Record will create a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons or the general public; or

(3) A substantial prejudicial effect to on-going proceedings cannot be avoided without prohibiting Public Access.

When this request is made, the request and the Court Record will be rendered confidential for a reasonable period of time until the Court rules on the request.

(B) Notice and Right to Respond.

(1) The person seeking to prohibit access has the burden of providing notice to the parties and such other persons as the Court may direct.

(2) The person seeking to prohibit access shall provide proof of notice to the Court or the reason why notice could not or should not be given consistent with the requirements found in Trial Rule 65(B).

(3) A party or person to whom notice is given shall have twenty (20) days from receiving notice to respond to the request.

(C) Public Hearing.

(1) A Court may deny a request to prohibit Public Access without a hearing.

(2) If the Court does not initially deny the request, it shall post advance public notice of the hearing consistent with the notice requirements found in the Access to Public Records Act.

(3) Following public notice, the Court shall hold a hearing on the request to prohibit Public Access to a Court Record.

Indiana Rules on Access to Court Records

www.in.gov

 

[Red Pill]

Indiana police superintendent: Delphi murders’ facts will come out at trial​

by: Richard Essex
Posted: Nov 3, 2022 / 09:55 PM EST / Updated: Nov 3, 2022 / 10:50 PM EST

Here is a paraphrased transcript of Carter’s interview with I-Team 8:

I-Team: Allen was charged. The statute that he is charged under, the murder charge, also indicated that he has to have committed another crime, like rape, child molestation or human trafficking. Is charged properly?

Carter: He is, and those questions will be answered in due time, and they certainly should come from the prosecutor and not from me, but eventually when that PC (probable cause affidavit) is released that will be clear.


Indiana police superintendent: Delphi murders' facts will come out at trial

 

[evilwise]

If conditions 1-3 are met, yes, is my reading

Rule 6: Excluding Other Court Records From Public Access.​

(A) In extraordinary circumstances, a Court Record that otherwise would be publicly accessible may be excluded from Public Access by a Court having jurisdiction over the record. A verified written request to prohibit Public Access to a Court Record may be made by any person affected by the release of the Court Record. The request shall demonstrate that:

(1) The public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access;

(2) Access or dissemination of the Court Record will create a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons or the general public; or

(3) A substantial prejudicial effect to on-going proceedings cannot be avoided without prohibiting Public Access.

When this request is made, the request and the Court Record will be rendered confidential for a reasonable period of time until the Court rules on the request.

(B) Notice and Right to Respond.

(1) The person seeking to prohibit access has the burden of providing notice to the parties and such other persons as the Court may direct.

(2) The person seeking to prohibit access shall provide proof of notice to the Court or the reason why notice could not or should not be given consistent with the requirements found in Trial Rule 65(B).

(3) A party or person to whom notice is given shall have twenty (20) days from receiving notice to respond to the request.

(C) Public Hearing.

(1) A Court may deny a request to prohibit Public Access without a hearing.

(2) If the Court does not initially deny the request, it shall post advance public notice of the hearing consistent with the notice requirements found in the Access to Public Records Act.

(3) Following public notice, the Court shall hold a hearing on the request to prohibit Public Access to a Court Record.

Indiana Rules on Access to Court Records

www.in.gov

It's already sealed though. A petition to keep it sealed seems effectively meaningless to me, from a legal perspective. Petitions (of the constituency, not worldwide webizens) can influence legislators (or judges) but that's usually the sort of thing the press tries to pull to unseal records the fast way, rather than the conventional slow expensive filing of a suit.

 

[TeaTime]

Seriously, what difference can it possibly make in anyone's life that the document is sealed to all but LE, the court, the state, the defendant and counsel?

No one else needs to know, people just want to see it, hoping there are some gory details contained therein.

There is no reason to chum the water, the feeding frenzy has begun based solely on speculation and opinion.

If there is a trial, which I doubt will happen, the details will then be public.

Every person accused of a crime is cloaked in the presumption of innocence and is entitled to vigorous representation.

Whomever RMA retains as counsel has the duty to make the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.

For the UK inquirer, private attorneys can turn down any case, public defense counsel (free lawyer) gets assigned to represent the impoverished by the Public Defenders Office. The PD may get stuck with an unpleasant case, but is obligated to exercise vigorous representation.

It doesn't matter if the lawyer believes the client is guilty, duty is duty. The only thing the attorney can not do is put her client on the stand and ask questions knowing that the client's answers will be a lie. It is subornation of perjury.