Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absolutely agree, and I've said that is exactly what happened during the Oct 2022 interview. RA may have said "yes, I remember some girls walking on Freedom Bridge at xyz time" and then LE slapped him with a "yeah, no. It was actually 1:48 according to them"we have some timestamped photos from them and with the lady who saw him on the MH Bridge on the platform, "we have a witness that places you there at approx 2:05 pm". "Oh yeah, that's right, I went out there to gaze at fish".

He changed his statements to fit the narrative because he knew he was caught in lies verses his first story when he said he wasn't on the MHB, just the trails, and was unaware of any witnesses discrepancies. Slick Rick, not so much really.

MOO
Speaking of fish….

A catfisher using A_shots contacted Libby.
RA was on the bridge looking at fish.
RL went shopping for tropical fish.

All on the day of the murders.

Assigning no meaning or connections with the above.
Just a random observation of another of the many oddities in this case.
 
Attorney Michael Ausbrook, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of law who specializes in post conviction appeals and federal habeas cases, answers all of these questions with numerous law citations in his February 7 filing (doc linked below).

Bbm

The State's Information has many flaws. Not least among them is its failure to allege, either directly or by inference, either Mr. Baldwin or Mr. Rozzi committed any of the supposed offending acts willfully. See Ind. Code § 34-47-3-1 (defining indirect contempt as "willful disobedience" of a court order).

But the State's information has two additional flaws that are fatal. First, to the extent the State's Information purports to allege indirect civil contempt, it fails to allege any act injuring the State that a remedial or coercive contempt sanction could redress. The State therefore lacks standing to pursue its Information as one for indirect civil contempt, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it.

Second, because there is no available remedial or coercive contempt sanction, any contempt sanction would necessarily be punitive and therefore for a finding of indirect criminal contempt. But to pursue indirect criminal contempt against Messrs. Baldwin and Rozzi, the State would have to file its Information in a separate criminal case. It has not done so, and this Court has no authority to punish Messrs. Baldwin and Rozzi for indirect criminal contempt in this criminal case against Mr. Allen.

Finally, were the Court to impose, without jurisdiction or authority to do so, any necessarily punitive sanction on the State's Information in this criminal case against Mr. Allen, it would be at least the second time the Court has interfered with Mr. Allen's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to counsel.
See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 683 (1984) (*The Court has considered Sixth Amendment claims based ... on state interference with the ability of counsel to render effective assistance to the accused."


Source:
Defendant's Counsel's Motion for Summary Denial of the State's Verified Information for Contemptuous Conduct filed By Ausbrook, 2/7/2024

This doesn't answer my points at all.

Were the Court to rule that the Ausbrook is correct and the information needs to be refiled in a new proceeding, Rozzi still face that inconvenience of that proceeding until the merits are determined.

None of that has anything to do with Richard Allan. It will be the same if Baldwin gets sued in negligence in respect of the same facts. The inconvenience of that cannot be a reason to fail to conduct Allan's case in the most effective / expeditious manner.
 
They get paid to represent him, not to believe him. They chose to do that. I freely admit, many will falsely state that their client is innocent without ever believing it. But, I strongly believe these attorneys actually do. JMHO
Agreed, in representing him they must appear to always believe him. Nobody knows what they really think.
 
So..Jumping off your post straight into a question .
Wasn't our whole legal system influenced and inspired by centuries of improper prosecution ?
Most probably, you ask a rhetorical question. Are you saying our present judical system has learned absolutely nothing in centuries of development? Oh I certainly hope not.
 
New/revised Indiana court rules.
This one (among others) is said by a legal firm to have important changes: Rule 2.5. Discovery
(in part)
(B) Disclosures by the State
(1) The state must disclose and furnish all relevant items and information under section (B)(2) to the defense within thirty days from the date of the initial hearing, an appearance by defense counsel, or an appearance by pro se defendant, whichever is later.

(2) The state must disclose the following material and information within its possession or control:
(a) The names and last known addresses of persons whom the state intends to call as witnesses, with their relevant written or recorded statements. The state may refrain from providing a witness' address or other contact information under this rule if the state in good faith believes the disclosure of the witness' address or other contact information may jeopardize the safety of the witness or the witness' immediate family. If the state does not disclose the witness' address or other contact information in its possession for the reason stated under this rule, then the state must make the witness available to defense counsel upon reasonable notice.
(b) Any written, oral, or recorded statements made by the accused or by a co-defendant, regardless of whether charged or joined, and a list of witnesses to the making and acknowledgement of such statements.
(c) A transcript of those portions of grand jury minutes containing testimony of persons whom the prosecuting attorney intends to call as witnesses at the trial.
(d) Any reports or statements of experts, made in connection with the case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons.
(e) Any books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects that the prosecuting attorney intends to use in the hearing or trial.
(f) Any books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects which were obtained from or belong to the accused.
(g) Documents produced pursuant to Rule 1.4.

(3) The state must disclose to the defense any material or information within its possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the accused as to the offense charged or would tend to reduce the punishment.

(4) The state must disclose and furnish to the defense prior to the trial date, subject to protective orders: any record of prior criminal convictions or other evidence that may be used to impeach the persons whom the state intends to call as witnesses at the hearing or trial.

(5) Upon a reasonable defense request and a showing of materiality to the preparation of the defense, the court may require disclosure to the defense of unprivileged information not covered by this rule.
*****************************
(C) Disclosures by the Defense
(1) Within thirty days after the prosecutor’s disclosure, the defense must furnish the state with the following material and information within the defense’s possession or control:
(a) The names and last known addresses of persons whom the defense intends to call as witnesses, with their relevant written or recorded statements. The defense may refrain from providing a witness' address or other contact information under this rule if the defense in good faith believes the disclosure of the witness' address or other contact information may jeopardize the safety of the witness or the witness' immediate family. If the defense does not disclose the witness' address or other contact information in its possession for the reason stated under this rule, then the defense must make the witness available to the state upon reasonable notice.
(b) Any books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects the defense intends to use as evidence.
(c) Any reports or statements of experts, made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons, that may be used at a hearing or trial.

(2) The defense must disclose any statutory defense in writing by the statutory deadline or, if there is no statutory deadline, within a reasonable time.

(D) Court-ordered Disclosures
(1) After the formal charge has been filed, upon written motion by the state, the court may require the defendant to do the following:
(a) appear in a line-up;
(b) speak for identification by witnesses to an offense;
(c) be fingerprinted;
(d) pose for photographs not involving re-enactment of a scene;
(e) try on articles of clothing;
(f) allow the taking of specimens of material from under fingernails;
(g) allow the taking of samples of blood, hair, saliva, and other bodily materials that involve no unreasonable intrusion;
(h) provide a handwriting sample; and
(i) submit to a reasonable physical or medical body inspection.

Whenever the personal appearance of the accused is required for the foregoing purposes, reasonable notice of the time and place of such appearance must be given by the state to the accused and defense counsel, who have the right to be present. The court may provide for these appearances in an order admitting the accused to bail or providing for release.

 
Maybe he was afraid of trail cams going in on the Reserve entrance or the graveyard? He may not have realized the Harvest store had a camera facing the road? Maybe he surveilled the old building where he parked and saw no cameras mounted?

I think something he said repeatedly must have upset his wife because she finally hung up on him.

We shall see in October, hopefully, all these things play out. AJMO
The problem with Richard Allen not knowing about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera is that then i think he or someone should have been captured walking back along 300 N after the crime towards his car parked at the old CPS building. I think it definitely would have been smarter to walk along the road all the way back to his car considering him being wet and at least muddy. This would have helped him avoid anyone along the trails considering he was already on the other side of Deer Creek anyway after the crime, if he is the killer.

If Richard Allen does know about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera, then I think he would have avoided all surveillance cameras if he drove to the Monon High Bridge trail coming from the west towards the old CPS building and instead parked at the Mears entrance or the Delphi cemetery and avoided the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera altogether because he would not have driven that far with his car. He also would have been closer to his car to leave after the crime.
 
The problem with Richard Allen not knowing about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera is that then i think he or someone should have been captured walking back along 300 N after the crime towards his car parked at the old CPS building. I think it definitely would have been smarter to walk along the road all the way back to his car considering him being wet and at least muddy. This would have helped him avoid anyone along the trails considering he was already on the other side of Deer Creek anyway after the crime, if he is the killer.

If Richard Allen does know about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera, then I think he would have avoided all surveillance cameras if he drove to the Monon High Bridge trail coming from the west towards the old CPS building and instead parked at the Mears entrance or the Delphi cemetery and avoided the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera altogether because he would not have driven that far with his car. He also would have been closer to his car to leave after the crime.
I'm learning from another trial how many different kinds and qualities of security cameras there. Perhaps this one is motion activated and had many lapses in recording. Perhaps it recorded in frames. Choppy as it were. Perhaps a truck passed by in the one moment he might have been recorded.

In another case, the murdered entered a house with the victim, captured on camera. No footage of her leaving. Her, her body. We know she was removed. Camera just didn't capture it

Just saying, there might be glitches to account for RA's exodus going uncaptured.

JMO
 
(in part)
IV. Speedy Trial Requirements and Remedies
Rule 4. Impact of Delay in Criminal Trials
(A) Defendant in Jail.
If a defendant is detained in jail on a pending charge, a trial must be commenced no later than 180 days from the date the criminal charge against the defendant is filed, or from the date of arrest on such charge, whichever is later. Delays caused by a defendant, congestion of the court calendar, or an emergency are excluded from the time period. Any defendant detained beyond the time period of this section must be released on recognizance but continues to be subject to the criminal charge within the limitations provided for in section (C).

(B) Defendant in Jail – Motion for Early Trial.
A defendant held in jail on a pending charge may move for an early trial. If such motion is filed, a trial must be commenced no later than seventy calendar days from the date of such motion except as follows:
(1) delays due to congestion of the court calendar or emergency are excluded from the seventy-day calculation;
(2) the defendant who moved for early trial is released from jail before the expiration of the seventy-day period; or
(3) an act of the defendant delays the trial.

If a defendant is held beyond the time limit of this section and moves for dismissal, the criminal charge against the defendant must be dismissed.
 
This doesn't answer my points at all.

Were the Court to rule that the Ausbrook is correct and the information needs to be refiled in a new proceeding, <modnote- ROZZI> still face that inconvenience of that proceeding until the merits are determined.

None of that has anything to do with Richard Allan. It will be the same if Baldwin gets sued in negligence in respect of the same facts. The inconvenience of that cannot be a reason to fail to conduct Allan's case in the most effective / expeditious manner.
Seems to me RA would be better served if AB and BR took on a couple prominent and death penalty certified lawyers to handle/expedite RA's case while they are dealing with the fruits of their actions. They'd probably have to pay them their fees collected from the State though or pay them out of their pockets That might not fly.

I sure hope AB and BR aren't using any funds they're being paid to defend RA in their own defense of contempt charges. There should be an accounting for keeping those funds separate. AJMO

Never have I seen such a case where a defendant's lawyer's actions have caused such pretrial legal trouble for themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not convinced he did anything at all but be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing about this case makes sense. I just read a post that said he confessed to his wife no less than 5 times. Why would someone confess 5 times? If he were my husband, the first time he confessed would be the last time I spoke to him.

But she's going to give him 4 more excruciating conversations? It doesn't make sense.
Well, again, we don't know what exactly he said. He might have said, 'I did it. I did what they said". And that might be all he said. Or. He might have said in excruciating detail what he did, with gory details. This may have been in one phone call to his wife, or over several, I do not recall. Even if he said something only the killer would know, I'd have to ask if there is any chance the LE fed him the information even perhaps unintentionally as has happened in other "false confession" cases... We don't know yet what he said.
 
Agreed, in representing him they must appear to always believe him. Nobody knows what they really think.
The attorneys actual belief is pretty immaterial since they will represent that they do in any case.
What we know is they conduct their business shoddily at best.
 
Last edited:
Ausbrook is saying Mcleland filed the contempt charges incorrectly, and it should have been filed in a different court. This doesn’t mean it doesn’t affect the defense and their time, as it is still contempt charges they now need to defend themselves from instead of moving on with the trial, and still the court is meddling in the constitutional rights of a defendant by allowing this circus to continue. Especially when they are ignoring the law and protocol as they do so, as most judges wouldn’t even have a hearing for something filed incorrectly (and typically this would be another judge). This should be about justice for Abby & Libby, not attacking the attorneys that are your adversaries in court. The law is pointless when courts do not follow it. Protocol exists for this exact reason.

JMHO
If we are going to focus on protocol, then we need to apply it across the board. Defense needs to abide by the gag order. Prosecution need to file their motions in the correct manner. Defense needs to not share crime scene photos or at the very least follow a protocol to have them safely and properly stored. Prosecution would have needed to follow the protocol for providing those photos/discovery in a timely manner.
We can't cry about protocol in some instances and not others. "Oh the prosecution failed protocol in filing a document, but when the defense basically left crime scene photos strewn about every which way that's ok because they didn't mean to".
 
The thing is, what about a woman who absolutely believes in her husband’s innocence? Yes, RA “confessed” but I haven’t heard it and I suspect it was under a great deal of pressure, in that he perceived his family or even he himself was in imminent danger of harm, no matter if it was real or merely perceived.

If my late husband had been arrested for murder, and I knew (or absolutely believed in my heart) there was no way he did this heinous act and he then confessed to me on the phone, I too would have hung up, because I would have immediately suspected something was very, VERY wrong, and I would want to protect him from saying more. KA is not a stupid woman. She stands by her husband because she believes he is innocent. RA has not been convicted, at least not in a court of law.

As well, if any members on this thread had a loved one falsely accused in a prison (where he/she didn’t even belong at this point in time), guarded by dubious characters, medicated with God only knows what, losing weight by the week, how would you feel? I hope none here have to experience that circumstance, helpless, unable to comfort and support that loved one. All, JMO.
ETA - If 4 defence attorneys believe him to be innocent, why shouldn’t his wife?
Standing by someone because you KNOW they are innocent is one thing. i.e.- I was actually with my husband all day that day so I know he couldn't have done it.
Standing by someone because you "believe in your heart" they didn't do it is quite another.
If following true crime has taught me one thing, it's that you NEVER truly know someone. I will never believe in someone's innocence or guilt based solely on the opinions of their spouse, or their parents for that matter.
 
and ... here's the original request ... apparently ignored by the Court ... from way back in August 2023. (My 2nd thought here: why wasn't this request fulfilled months ago?)

Today's amended version adds that the transcript will be used for trial.
(My 3rd thought here: Is this a shot across the bow?)

1708365543879.png
 
Last edited:
The problem with Richard Allen not knowing about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera is that then i think he or someone should have been captured walking back along 300 N after the crime towards his car parked at the old CPS building. I think it definitely would have been smarter to walk along the road all the way back to his car considering him being wet and at least muddy. This would have helped him avoid anyone along the trails considering he was already on the other side of Deer Creek anyway after the crime, if he is the killer.

If Richard Allen does know about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera, then I think he would have avoided all surveillance cameras if he drove to the Monon High Bridge trail coming from the west towards the old CPS building and instead parked at the Mears entrance or the Delphi cemetery and avoided the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera altogether because he would not have driven that far with his car. He also would have been closer to his car to leave after the crime.
Be interesting to know if he had visited the Harvester store in the months before the crime? Or searched for webcams locally....
 
This turns out to be a simple crime.
My first impression of the crime, was that it was a crime of opportunity.
It reminded me of shoplifting, noticing where attentions were and what was unattended.
From there making the bridge crossing, literally crossing the Rubicon into first kidnapping, then rape or assault, then murder.
An unfortunately typical progression.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
1,275
Total visitors
1,458

Forum statistics

Threads
596,469
Messages
18,048,154
Members
230,010
Latest member
chrismatte
Back
Top