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

[girlhasnoname]

Indeed, he’d be wise to withdraw that one, as I imagine it would initiate an investigation he might want to avoid. Then again, he just might want to drop the contempt charge against the D as well. Not a good look for Nick, at the moment. The dirt is starting to pile up. JMHO

Eta: On second thought, I hope they do investigate THAT leak. How did Nick come to know what was in the ex parte filing? Clever Nick, not so clever after all.

Why would the Prosecutor want to drop a request for records when the Defense has clamored on and on about the mental condition/deterioration of their client since his incarceration? They swung that door open wide IMO.

If it pertains to their defense of RA during trial, the State is clearly entitled to them under reciprocal Discovery.

I hope they investigate any and all legitimate claims of misconduct whether it's the State or Defense. This is a trial of the murders of 2 innocent young girls, that is where my commitment lies. Not to the P or the D, but in justice for Abby and Libby.

MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

I believe that is a Navy Seal MK25 (9mm P226), not a .40 SW P226. As I see it, there is no reason to believe that BG even had a gun with him that day; or if he did, it was this specific firearm. He could have had a mouse gun in any pocket, and also carried a full size service pistol IWB appendix, which would never even be seen in frontal video.

As for carrying it in a jacket pocket, pour about half of a 5 lb bag of sugar in your jacket pocket and see how it wears.

Abby says "gun" in the video.
BG did have a gun.
You can read this in the document that the P released yesterday.

 

[abams]

I am not speculating that Nmc’s asking a you tuber to delete information as illegal quite yet. Without context I cant jump to a conclusion.
And none of this has to do with the defense leaking crime scene photos of two minor victims. All against the protective order.
IMO it’s all a ploy to try to paint the prosecution dirty in the public eye.
If NMc did do something shady then bring on the consequences but right now the defense is on the block.

I've been thinking about it and the only way it wouldn't seem shady is if it was at the first opportunity (i.e. when the 3rd party first contacted him.) But it appears there were multiple communications. If a request to delete everything came after a chain of communication, I'm sorry but it smells, especially in the context of this leak sideshow.

Indeed, unbelievable! Now, since IANAL, can NMcL drop the contempt charges against R & B to avoid his dirt being exposed publicly? Wouldn’t that take all! JMO

Yes, I believe so. The crazy part is none of this has a single thing to do with the defendant on trial.

 

[TL4S]

I wonder if it's this one? Is this the one where he quoted the ex parte filing?

03/07/2024

Motion Filed Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records. 3rd Request for Mental Health Records.pdf Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 03/06/2024

Here it is (I couldn't find any other link to the court document):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1766122740606452060

 

[layer]

Abby says "gun" in the video.
BG did have a gun.
You can read this in the document that the P released yesterday.

Which document are you referring to? The fact that either/both girls said "gun" does not prove that there was a gun. Without the context it's impossible to say. For example, people have been known to threaten others by holding their hand in their jacket in such a way as to suggest a gun.

 

[Emma Peel]

re: ex=parte

For now, one theory could be that this Court's obsession with secrecy and sealing as much as possible and avoiding public transparency contributed to the ex-parte "error". And Gull's records have already been dragged to SCOIN for irregularities and violations of records law.

The public sees only a portion of this court's record (the non-sealed portion).

I imagine many records sent to counsel are sealed, it's possible the clerks didn't distinguish sealed ex-parte comms from a regular sealed motions or comms. Although McL should have "known better" and "thought twice" given the ex-parte document's content and expert involvement ... perhaps McL's not experienced enough to have suspected he received the ex-parte comms by clerical error. Or perhaps team P was rushed or overwhelmed given the contempt sideshow.

(Another theory is this ex-parte privacy violation was an intentional violation on the P's part.
If that's the case ... IMO ... a fair court would have to consider P sanctions.)

In no way would a "clerk error" situation minimize the seriousness/impact of this error. The error becomes part of the record ... and I'm curious to see the follow-up and/or consequence. This is not a harmless error, it's not a small error, and it does not happens often. Is this yet another incident for appellate review?

JMHO

 

[Ravenmoon]

Which document are you referring to? The fact that either/both girls said "gun" does not prove that there was a gun. Without the context it's impossible to say. For example, people have been known to threaten others by holding their hand in their jacket in such a way as to suggest a gun.

I am referring to this document:



So you believe that 2 teenagers were forced to their deaths by a finger in a jacket while a single hand did.... something that scared them?

That is a lot harder to believe than it would be for him to have displayed a weapon.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here it is (I couldn't find any other link to the court document):

https://twitter.com/x/status/1766122740606452060

Thank you for posting that.

Since I don't understand the paths these motions take, I'm questioning the P's first remark: "That the State received the Verified...." Why would he have received it? That leads me to wonder if someone sent it to him.

I'm handwaving away all of his reasoning as to why he had access to it. Here's part of the reason why:
In JG's 06/28/2023 document dump order she states (in part)

and that the Defense Ex Parte Motions and related Orders shall remain sealed pursuant to long established case law.

If the P was having access the the Ex Parte motions he lists in his withdrawal: Dec 8, 2022, June 6, 2023 and June 16, 2023, then that's a real problem because of the part I bolded above. IMO

I've gone through one version of the doc dump and may go through the version posted here to see if there is any indication that the Ex Parte docs are/were available.

 

[WildHuncher]

Which document are you referring to? The fact that either/both girls said "gun" does not prove that there was a gun. Without the context it's impossible to say. For example, people have been known to threaten others by holding their hand in their jacket in such a way as to suggest a gun.

There’s a preponderance of evidence that there was a gun there and then. A girl thinks she sees a gun and says so. LE identifies the racking of a slide on the full audio if not the released version. An ejected but unfired cartridge is found between the bodies. This cartridge has scratchings that very strongly point to it having come from the individual weapon owned by the defendant and found in the search of his house. It can only have come from a .40 caliber weapon at any rate. Its placement associates it with the crime.

With any set of data points, in math or in life, you have freedom to interpolate the connections between them. Possibilities are infinite. Malevolent global conspiracies, leprechauns, corrupt cops…

There are guidelines for how to stay real. One of the best is a thing called Occam’s Razor. If you can explain the hard data points without recourse to fairies, do so. Most things are just what they look like. No, not everything is what it seems at first, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck…

 

[Emma Peel]

Irony:
At this moment - it appears Cara Wieneke's appellate Twitter is doing a better job of overseeing/managing Gull's court process than Gull is.

jmho

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Thank you for posting that.

Since I don't understand the paths these motions take, I'm questioning the P's first remark: "That the State received the Verified...." Why would he have received it? That leads me to wonder if someone sent it to him.

I'm handwaving away all of his reasoning as to why he had access to it. Here's part of the reason why:
In JG's 06/28/2023 document dump order she states (in part)



If the P was having access the the Ex Parte motions he lists in his withdrawal: Dec 8, 2022, June 6, 2023 and June 16, 2023, then that's a real problem because of the part I bolded above. IMO

I've gone through one version of the doc dump and may go through the version posted here to see if there is any indication that the Ex Parte docs are/were available.

I think it wouldn’t be a terrible reach to think that the ex-parte motion wasn’t accidentally emailed to the prosecution from defense.
I mean DH’s filing yesterday one such occurrence that was to be brought up correspondence between BR and Gull about a misdirected email.
We know it’s happened before.
IMO If NMc received it by error from the defense he should have checked whether it could be used before filing the third party record request.
If he got it in nefarious way then it should be absolutely be addressed.

 

[Emma Peel]

Memory lane:
Re: contempt hearing witnesses/evidence lists.

IIRC, MS was on witness list for the P.

And, IIRC, when the leak story broke with the content creators ... both Fig and MS were telling their listeners that the D would be removed from the case ... according to their "knowledgeable sources" ... more than 2 weeks before the D were actually removed from the case. At the time, I recall feeling appalled - at both these "content creators" incredible boldness in their certain and harsh predictions.

JMHO and me and my memory and the things that STILL stick in my craw.

 

[AugustWest]

Irony:
At this moment - it appears Cara Wieneke's appellate Twitter is doing a better job of overseeing/managing Gull's court process than Gull is.

jmho

Only at this moment? She should probably charge the State for her services as official records custodian at this point.

 

[Justice101]

I am referring to this document:

View attachment 488937

So you believe that 2 teenagers were forced to their deaths by a finger in a jacket while a single hand did.... something that scared them?

That is a lot harder to believe than it would be for him to have displayed a weapon.

JMO

In court, isn't it considered a gun IF it is reasonable for you to assume so??

An example is people holding up a convenience store with a toy gun.

The victim CAN LAWFULLY use lethal force against the perpetrator.

 

[layer]

There’s a preponderance of evidence that there was a gun there and then. A girl thinks she sees a gun and says so. LE identifies the racking of a slide on the full audio if not the released version. An ejected but unfired cartridge is found between the bodies. This cartridge has scratchings that very strongly point to it having come from the individual weapon owned by the defendant and found in the search of his house. It can only have come from a .40 caliber weapon at any rate. Its placement associates it with the crime.

With any set of data points, in math or in life, you have freedom to interpolate the connections between them. Possibilities are infinite. Malevolent global conspiracies, leprechauns, corrupt cops…

There are guidelines for how to stay real. One of the best is a thing called Occam’s Razor. If you can explain the hard data points without recourse to fairies, do so. Most things are just what they look like. No, not everything is what it seems at first, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck…

Occam has sliced up everyone here at some point or other. I'm a big fan but there are exceptions.

I agree there is evidence that BG had (showed, etc) a gun. In an ordinary case the fact that the authorities say they believe BG had a gun would constitute enough of a preponderance for me. Not with this case.

Speaking of the unfired cartridge, (and my mistrust of these same authorities) I understand it was found in the soil, several days after the crime scene had been released. If that's true there would be very little evidentiary value to the cartridge, IMHO

I do like your leprechaun theory, though!

 

[Betty P]

Irony:
At this moment - it appears Cara Wieneke's appellate Twitter is doing a better job of overseeing/managing Gull's court process than Gull is.

jmho

How are YouTube and Twitter people able to access information from sealed documents and other information relating to this case? Never have seen this happen leading up to a major murder trial before. The defense was caught already leaking crime scene photos that were splashed across the internet. When does this stop?

 

[Betty P]

Only at this moment? She should probably charge the State for her services as official records custodian at this point.

Not familiar with her and not interested in giving her any clicks, but how is she getting access to public documents (or information from them) that are supposed to be sealed? Are you sure that's the case or just guessing?

 

[AugustWest]

Not familiar with her and not interested in giving her any clicks, but how is she getting access to public documents (or information from them) that are supposed to be sealed? Are you sure that's the case or just guessing?

She has the same access any of us have as far as I know. She's not posting any documents that aren't publicly accessible.

 

[layer]

In court, isn't it considered a gun IF it is reasonable for you to assume so??

An example is people holding up a convenience store with a toy gun.

True

The victim CAN LAWFULLY use lethal force against the perpetrator.

I soooooooo wish they had...

 

[Emma Peel]

How are YouTube and Twitter people able to access information from sealed documents and other information relating to this case? Never have seen this happen leading up to a major murder trial before. The defense was caught already leaking crime scene photos that were splashed across the internet. When does this stop?

Cara Wieneke is RA's appellate attorney (prepared SCOIN filings).

At one time Cara W entered her appearance in Gull's court for the RA matter in order to get access to the docs she needed to prepare her SCOIN filings. IIRC, she withdrew when her business there was completed. Obviously RA's appellate team (incl Cara W) continue to follow the docket as filings are made available to the public ...