Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to wonder if he had the opportunity to invoke his Miranda rights if he wasn't even informed of them.
Snipped from Suppress 2nd:

3. Rick was read his Miranda rights and signed an advisement of rights
form, which is normal protocol for law enforcement before an
interrogation begins.

This was his first pre-custodial interrogation, so that should be when the right attaches. Any time after that point that he invokes would be the end of questioning without counsel. Once that happens, he must speak with an attorney to be questioned. IMO
 
No he didn’t.

That’s what RA spewed in his so called psychotic state where actual items used in the crime revealed his propensity for ruminations further perverting the case with his willingness to admit that he could envision himself murdering the girls with the alternative method of killing he had at his disposal.


All imo

I didn't follow that.
 
Snipped from Suppress 2nd:

3. Rick was read his Miranda rights and signed an advisement of rights
form, which is normal protocol for law enforcement before an
interrogation begins.

This was his first pre-custodial interrogation, so that should be when the right attaches. Any time after that point that he invokes would be the end of questioning without counsel. Once that happens, he must speak with an attorney to be questioned. IMO

Do you mean he doesn't have to expressly ask for an attorney if he invokes?

Also, is there specific verbiage he must use to invoke or is it a pretty broad definition?
 
Do you mean he doesn't have to expressly ask for an attorney if he invokes?

Also, is there specific verbiage he must use to invoke or is it a pretty broad definition?
Yes, I think that is the rub here, and why B & R are stressing the non-ability of RA to leave freely. He must make it clear he wants counsel, so it might be a good argument that he didn't do so. Might be why B & R really don't get too argumentative about the first interrogation's lack of counsel. I'm gonna re-read closely; I'm flying between both this and the VB/JK threads, so I may be missing something.
 
I’m not seeing anything said by RA in the second interrogation that is so damning that it would need thrown out. Is there more than we see in this transcript?

I suspect that's the case (and it's what all of the YouTube Delphi pitchfork-holding pundits will harp on, ignoring all else). But, even if there is something damning, if he wasn't read his rights.....

Judge Gull won't grant this of course, but it's good to build the appeal case nonetheless.
 
I have so many questions.

The Defense accepts the first interview and is not asking for it to be thrown out, correct?

But,they are asking for the second interview to be thrown out?
They say the Miranda Rights were not recorded.
They also said that RA stated that " he was done."
Is there any clarity on what that actually means?
Did he say I am done talking,?
Or did he say "I am done." as in, I am toast, I am busted?

The way that the interview presents, it doesn't provide any type of indication that RA made incriminating statements, or did he and that is the reason that they want it thrown out?
 
Yes, I realize he didn't actually shoot them in the back. False confession.

Oh I thought it was said to be the ravings of a psychotic state not a confession.

That does go to guilt he sure does like talking about killing them.

So he just gettin off on talking about scenarios.

Real confession of his ability to see himself in that position taking the gun route.

All imo
 
Oh I thought it was said to be the ravings of a psychotic state not a confession.

That does go to guilt he sure does like talking about killing them.

So he just gettin off on talking about scenarios.

Real confession of his ability to see himself in that position taking the gun route.

All imo

A false confession can't occur during an episode of psychosis?
 
They also said that RA stated that " he was done."
Is there any clarity on what that actually means?
Did he say I am done talking,?
Or did he say "I am done." as in, I am toast, I am busted?
It’s over. I was perfectly fine. I was cooperating. I was going to give you my phone and then, you know, when you started reading all these documents – that’s at the – here’s my thing is. I feel like you guys think I done this. So, I’m done. You do what you need to do. It’s your job. I understand that, but you better <edit for language> leave my reputation out if it. So you do what you need to do, and then, like I said, when you do find this guy, I’ll expect the apology.
 
I have so many questions.

The Defense accepts the first interview and is not asking for it to be thrown out, correct?

But,they are asking for the second interview to be thrown out?
They say the Miranda Rights were not recorded.
They also said that RA stated that " he was done."
Is there any clarity on what that actually means?
Did he say I am done talking,?
Or did he say "I am done." as in, I am toast, I am busted?

The way that the interview presents, it doesn't provide any type of indication that RA made incriminating statements, or did he and that is the reason that they want it thrown out?
I think the argument is that he was read his rights during the first interrogation, didn't incriminate himself, then left. No issue there. This was a non-custodial interrogation (which doesn't require Miranda) and the police still felt it necessary to Mirandize RA. We don't want that suppressed.

Then, he returned with his wife, no proof of being re-MIrandized, then locked in a room, denied his car to leave, and coerced into questioning. This flipped the circumstances from a non-custodial interrogation to a custodial one (requiring Miranda). Since he was questioned without a Miranda warning at this time, we want that suppressed. Then they use another Indiana case analogous to RA's to show that Indiana courts in the past have held these circumstances to be violative of his right against self incrimination.

They are attempting a U.S. v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002) argument that physical and psychological restraints were placed on RA, making it custodial, thus requiring Miranda warnings, which weren't given. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
It’s over. I was perfectly fine. I was cooperating. I was going to give you my phone and then, you know, when you started reading all these documents – that’s at the – here’s my thing is. I feel like you guys think I done this. So, I’m done. You do what you need to do. It’s your job. I understand that, but you better <edit for language> leave my reputation out if it. So you do what you need to do, and then, like I said, when you do find this guy, I’ll expect the apology.


Sounds guilty to me , he suddenly realized they had a lot more on him than he suspected so he decided to snowball at that stage.

Mooo
 
Sounds guilty to me , he suddenly realized they had a lot more on him than he suspected so he decided to snowball at that stage.

Mooo

What part of "So you do what you need to do, and then, like I said, when you do find this guy, I’ll expect the apology" sounds guilty to you? With zero context, "I'm done" could definitely sound like "My goose is cooked." Thankfully, we have the benefit of the rest of the paragraph for context.
 
It’s over. I was perfectly fine. I was cooperating. I was going to give you my phone and then, you know, when you started reading all these documents – that’s at the – here’s my thing is. I feel like you guys think I done this. So, I’m done. You do what you need to do. It’s your job. I understand that, but you better <edit for language> leave my reputation out if it. So you do what you need to do, and then, like I said, when you do find this guy, I’ll expect the apology.

That is from the first interview :rolleyes:
I am referring to the October 26th interview.
 
I think the argument is that he was read his rights during the first interrogation, didn't incriminate himself, then left. No issue there. This was a non-custodial interrogation (which doesn't require Miranda) and the police still felt it necessary to Mirandize RA. We don't want that suppressed.

Then, he returned with his wife, no proof of being re-MIrandized, then locked in a room, denied his car to leave, and coerced into questioning. This flipped the circumstances to a non-custodial interrogation to a custodial one (requiring Miranda). Since he was questioned without a Miranda warning at this time, we want that suppressed. Then they use another Indiana case analogous to RA's to show that Indiana courts in the past have held these circumstances to be violative of his right against self incrimination.

They are attempting a U.S. v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002) argument that physical and psychological restraints were placed on RA, making it custodial, thus requiring Miranda warnings, which weren't given. Interesting.

Thank you for this explanation. The part I bolded is something the majority of us non-lawyers didn't know/understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
2,536
Total visitors
2,689

Forum statistics

Threads
594,579
Messages
18,008,636
Members
229,439
Latest member
oliverfreckles
Back
Top