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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


You are quoting from the first interview. The Defense is not asking for that interview to be thrown out

JMO
 
Right " it seems".
But, we don't have full context of the second interview.
Without it, it's hard to know what he was referring to.

JMO
What I am saying is, he said "I'm done" in the first interrogation. He didn't say "I'm done" in the second one, or if he did it doesn't matter because he was arrested, thus making it a custodial interrogation. "It seems" doesn't matter in the second situation.
 
2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf
Reading the paragraph where RA says "I'm done". I think this is a matter of convenience. Could be my imagination but I picture this as whatever was on his phone he had to create a distraction. He is worried about his reputation and even accuses the cop of groping him. This is the kind of scene you cause to get up and leave. IMO

Also wondering what documents they had.. phone data?

SBM:

“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."

SBM:
"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.” Rick
then described how police were trying to ruin his reputation by
accusing him of the murders in public, even groping him as they
patted him down in the street.
 
Within a week or so after all this, RA was in Westville segregation unit. I really wish he had gotten counsel and a hearing before that move, so it was clear what made it necessary to put him on suicide watch at an IDOC maximum security facility. I mean, assumptions that it was because he was guilty and in danger isn't good enough for me, I want to see transparency. This is regardless guilt or innocence. Jmo.
 
Within a week or so after all this, RA was in Westville segregation unit. I really wish he had gotten counsel and a hearing before that move, so it was clear what made it necessary to put him on suicide watch at an IDOC maximum security facility. I mean, assumptions that it was because he was guilty and in danger isn't good enough for me, I want to see transparency. This is regardless guilt or innocence. Jmo.
I agree with you. We are finally seeing actual words from RA and he appears sane/lucid. We definitely have to hear more about the decline.
 
JH:The evidence clearly indicates that you were involved in this.
RA: No
JH: Well it #%£ does.
RA: I am telling you that there is no way that a
bullet from my gun was used in those murders.

Bottom of page 9 and top of 10.

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf

Interesting concise choice of words. IMO

JMO but RA thought he could out smart LE because he had for years. Ego took over and he didn’t invoke counsel because he was too concerned about his reputation.
After reading this exchange I am even more convinced RA is guilty as charged.
MOO
 
I agree with you. We are finally seeing actual words from RA and he appears sane/lucid. We definitely have to hear more about the decline.
Agreed. Again, this is the IN code used in the motion for Safekeeping, which Diener granted, without hearing, immediately before recusing himself. In my interpretation, mental illness was not the threat at that time.

35-33-11-1. Inmate in County Jail in Imminent Danger of Serious Bodily Injury or Death or Represents Substantial Threat to Safety of Others​

For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.

2022 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 33. Preliminary Proceedings :: Chapter 11. Emergency Transfer of Certain Jail Inmates :: 35-33-11-1. Inmate in County Jail in Imminent Danger of Serious Bodily Injury or Death or Represents Substantial Threat to Safety of Others
 
Page 10
JH: I am not on video
RA: Neither am I.
JH: Four or five witnesses didn’t see me out there
RA: Me either.

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf


RA already admitted he saw people on the trail that day : he knows they saw him. He just dug in here and refusing to admit the writing is in the wall. IMO
No one can convince me this is RA “attempting to assist” LE.IMO this is attempting to evade charges.
Lying liars lie. JMO.
 
JH:The evidence clearly indicates that you were involved in this.
RA: No
JH: Well it #%£ does.
RA: I am telling you that there is no way that a
bullet from my gun was used in those murders.

Bottom of page 9 and top of 10.

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf

Interesting concise choice of words. IMO

JMO but RA thought he could out smart LE because he had for years. Ego took over and he didn’t invoke counsel because he was too concerned about his reputation.
After reading this exchange I am even more convinced RA is guilty as charged.
MOO

Good observation!
 
@AugustWest

I have a dumb question.

If LE asks someone to sit for an interview, is it legal for them at any point, to turn a non custodial interview into a custodial interview?

Hypothetically - if they wanted to ask RA some questions, and let's say that during that process he made incriminating statements, is it possible that they could then decide it is enough to detain him?
 
@AugustWest

I have a dumb question.

If LE asks someone to sit for an interview, is it legal for them at any point, to turn a non custodial interview into a custodial interview?

Hypothetically - if they wanted to ask RA some questions, and let's say that during that process he made incriminating statements, is it possible that they could then decide it is enough to detain him?
Absolutely could, and not a dumb question. The most common type of scenario is one simply buckles under the pressure of a non-custodial interrogation and confesses. The police won't let you walk out that door. It is wise for law enforcement to always, always, always advise of rights whether custodial or not, for this exact reason.
 
I would really like to know what else was said by RA in the second interview. What we see in there now is kind of a nothing-burger in terms of admissions by RA. It feels to me like the transcript is designed to call attention to perceived mistreatment of RA by JH.

For a defense team that was concerned that extensive media attention would make it difficult to find a jury that has not heard of the case - they sure make a lot of noise.

jmo
 
For a defense team that was concerned that extensive media attention would make it difficult to find a jury that has not heard of the case - they sure make a lot of noise.
RSBM.

But how else will they get all this information filed in preparation for an eventual appeal? Is it their fault that it's accessible for all of us to read?

I'm asking because I genuinely don't know.
 
It feels to me like the transcript is designed to call attention to perceived mistreatment of RA by JH.
Well, it is a motion to supress, right?
I'm wondering this: If it is ruled that RA saying "it's over" in the first interview constitutes an invocation of right to counsel, would statements made during any subsequent questioning (including the second quiz session when he went to pick up the car) be inadmissable due to the fact that he was being questioned without his lawyer present?
 
I would really like to know what else was said by RA in the second interview. What we see in there now is kind of a nothing-burger in terms of admissions by RA. It feels to me like the transcript is designed to call attention to perceived mistreatment of RA by JH.

For a defense team that was concerned that extensive media attention would make it difficult to find a jury that has not heard of the case - they sure make a lot of noise.

jmo
It has always helped me to remember that these motions are not written with the general public in mind. These motions are written with a target audience of one person - the judge. The authors don't want to give away any unnecessary information, only that which helps a judge make a finding of law. Spreading more information than needed only works to the detriment of the defense; they don't want the world to know the substance of these confessions. They could be extremely damning or they could be innocuous, and we won't know until trial comes. But they know they only need to share enough information so that the judge can make a finding of law.
 
RSBM.

But how else will they get all this information filed in preparation for an eventual appeal? Is it their fault that it's accessible for all of us to read?

I'm asking because I genuinely don't know.
What appeal are they preparing for? They have said their client is innocent and there is no evidence against him. Do they not expect an acquittal at trial?
 
It has always helped me to remember that these motions are not written with the general public in mind. These motions are written with a target audience of one person - the judge. The authors don't want to give away any unnecessary information, only that which helps a judge make a finding of law. Spreading more information than needed only works to the detriment of the defense; they don't want the world to know the substance of these confessions. They could be extremely damning or they could be innocuous, and we won't know until trial comes. But they know they only need to share enough information so that the judge can make a finding of law.
So there is more to the story. Defense doesn’t want the rest heard now, or at trial. Thus, the motions to suppress as much as possible.
 
So there is more to the story. Defense doesn’t want the rest heard now, or at trial. Thus, the motions to suppress as much as possible.
Definitely more to the story, we just don't know what that story is yet. But there is one thing for sure, confessions are not good for the defendant. Get them tossed if you can, and if you can't, then argue facts at trial.

The X post by Wienecke that @Emma Peel posted earlier is a really good read. It gives you an idea of strategy and method of suppressing evidence. (Good stuff, Emma!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
983
Total visitors
1,086

Forum statistics

Threads
594,936
Messages
18,015,782
Members
229,551
Latest member
Nursestump
Back
Top