Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184

[FrostedGlass]

The old days of genuine investigative reporting are gone IMO. It's all moved to SM platforms and any person with a mic and a computer can spout out baseless and untrue facts. Sad to see it, but that's what's happening.

MOO

Do you think they do that on purpose or do they just remember things wrong?

 

[Ravenmoon]

I read nothing like that in the article we were discussing/quoting:
EXCLUSIVE: Richard Allen's former defense attorney doubts he'll get a fair trial

That being said you may be quoting a different article, which you could link?
As the Allen County Public Defender, Lebrato practices in Gull's court regularly and shares office space in the same building.

Fran Gull​

Lebrato thinks highly of Special Judge Fran Gull. He’s practiced law in front of Gull for more than two decades and believes she can be impartial, despite calls from the defense to have her removed from the proceedings.‘I’ve never seen so many twists and turns’: Former attorney for Delphi suspect Richard Allen discusses case

 

[Ravenmoon]

Judge Gull knows no other way than to be fair,” he said. “She does not play favorites. The Supreme Court didn’t pick her name out of a hat. They chose her for a specific reason. In their ruling, they unanimously voted that Judge Gull stays on this case.”

He said her “ethical and moral standards” were beyond reproach.


‘I’ve never seen so many twists and turns’: Former attorney for Delphi suspect Richard Allen discusses case

 

[Boxer]

RSBM

IMO the prosecution did not know of the alleged admissions to the psychologist until recently this year when they were given the records.

I am not sure the defence knew the full scope of things last year. e.g. when did they first get the defendants mental health records?

I don't know the answers to these questions. One observation I think is interesting - why did the defence not raise the psychosis issue properly last year? Especially why did they not get an independent assessment when it was all going south in Wesville? That focus seems more a 2024 thing than a 2023 thing. Now that may be precisely because they didn't want to put the mental health records in play - but on any view, it seems a change in direction?

All MOO

MOO to me, these lawyers continuously present as either fishy or negligent.
And RA gets his world perspective from them.

 

[sripey]

Judge Gull knows no other way than to be fair,” he said. “She does not play favorites. The Supreme Court didn’t pick her name out of a hat. They chose her for a specific reason. In their ruling, they unanimously voted that Judge Gull stays on this case.”

He said her “ethical and moral standards” were beyond reproach.


‘I’ve never seen so many twists and turns’: Former attorney for Delphi suspect Richard Allen discusses case

Obviously, the Odinists made him say that.

 

[Emma Peel]

Fran Gull​

Lebrato thinks highly of Special Judge Fran Gull. He’s practiced law in front of Gull for more than two decades and believes she can be impartial, despite calls from the defense to have her removed from the proceedings.‘I’ve never seen so many twists and turns’: Former attorney for Delphi suspect Richard Allen discusses case

Judge Gull knows no other way than to be fair,” he said. “She does not play favorites. The Supreme Court didn’t pick her name out of a hat. They chose her for a specific reason. In their ruling, they unanimously voted that Judge Gull stays on this case.”

He said her “ethical and moral standards” were beyond reproach.


‘I’ve never seen so many twists and turns’: Former attorney for Delphi suspect Richard Allen discusses case

Thank you!

If we take the Lebrato comments above from Fox (re: Judge Gull = positive review) together with the Lebrato comments from Court TV article (re: RA innocent and Rozzi/Baldwin as very good lawyers taking the same Defense path Lebrato would) ... it seems Lebrato is pointing to the investigation as the problem when he says "it's going to be hard" for RA to get a fair trial."

EXCLUSIVE: Richard Allen's former defense attorney doubts he'll get a fair trial

When I asked him whether Richard Allen would get a fair trial, he responded, “It’s going to be hard.”

“There’s something to the fact that he’s arrested living in that small town that whole time, 24 days before the new sheriff election. That just bothers me somehow, Lebrato said, “I mean, it’s not just coincidence.””

Lebrato agrees with Rozzi and Baldwin that the investigation into the 2017 double murders was flawed and says his team had prepared their own petition for a Frank’s Hearing – alleging there were problems with the information used to obtain the search warrant for Allen’s home

Things that make you go "huh".

I offer a rhetorical question from 1000 feet regarding Lebrato's view:

Is Lebrato saying that it is the failure of the investigation to timely follow through and execute phone and search warrants and alibi investigations on other serious leads that will make it hard for RA to get a fair trial? Or is Lebrato suggesting RA's search warrant and arrest was for political purposes? Or is he suggesting both?

(Don't blame me. Its Lebrato's lens.)

 

[steeltowngirl]

That second option is no option if you're a prosecutor. IF RA was being doped up by the P to get confessions, there's no way those would hold up, at all. I think that's why he was being give meds that he obviously, according to the doctors, didn't need. Now after he started eating feces and drinking toilet water those doctors may have reevaluated that. JMO The trial will tell us the particulars of all the confessions, if they are admitted.

RA wasn’t doped up. Defense claims his meds were given in a less than consistent method, whatever that means. But RA was not given any involuntary meds. I have been reading up and there are procedures in Indiana for the administration of medication in prison.

Here is an excerpt from pg 47 of “The Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in Prisons and Jails: A State Survey”

http://tacreports.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/treatment-behind-bars/treatment-behind-bars.pdf

Authorization of nonemergency involuntary medication is determined through a Washington v. Harper administrative proceeding by a Medical Treatment Review Committee consisting of
three or more members appointed by the IN DOC medical director or designee. At least two members must be physicians, and at least one of those must be a psychiatrist. The decision to medicate the inmate requires a simple majority vote of the committee.

 

[Emma Peel]

That one that you posted said, it was RA's right to have cameras in the courtroom so he could watch his trial on tv in prison. Ridiculous...for the obvious reason he'd be IN the courtroom for his own trial.

Okay - I just had a chance to read this ex parte from Lance Bloom filed today ... and I do see what you're talking about here.

Methinks this is an ex parte parody.
Or maybe an ex parody.
It felt so wrong to laugh, but I did.
LOL. plus

I know we're all frustrated and bored but yeah, I have to agree, there's no need to punk the Court.
JMH Oh my. Cinco de Mayo and the Sabbath!

Adobe Acrobat

 

[sunshineray]

Thank you!

If we take the Lebrato comments above from Fox (re: Judge Gull = positive review) together with the Lebrato comments from Court TV article (re: RA innocent and Rozzi/Baldwin as very good lawyers taking the same Defense path Lebrato would) ... it seems Lebrato is pointing to the investigation as the problem when he says "it's going to be hard" for RA to get a fair trial."

EXCLUSIVE: Richard Allen's former defense attorney doubts he'll get a fair trial





Things that make you go "huh".

I offer a rhetorical question from 1000 feet regarding Lebrato's view:

Is Lebrato saying that it is the failure of the investigation to timely follow through and execute phone and search warrants and alibi investigations on other serious leads that will make it hard for RA to get a fair trial? Or is Lebrato suggesting RA's search warrant and arrest was for political purposes? Or is he suggesting both?

(Don't blame me. Its Lebrato's lens.)

And yet he went out of his way to say when asked...

Me: Did you ever talk with Richard Allen about his desire to reinstate Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin

He answered...

Lebrato: “We never really addressed who he wanted as his lawyers, nor did he ever say: I don’t want you guys I want my old lawyers, nor did he ever say: I don’t want my old lawyers, I want you guys…I know that that was probably Mr. Allen’s wishes [on] October 11th, but I can’t say that that remained the same… up until yesterday.”

Lebrato is referencing a typed letter dated October 11, 2023, given to Special Judge Fran Gull. It was signed by Richard Allen and urged Gull not to take action against his appointed public defenders, Rozzi and Baldwin. The attorneys had been notified by Gull the day before to stop working on the case after the leak of sensitive crime scene photos, and a hearing was then set for October 19th in Gull’s Allen County Courtroom. A contentious debate in Gull’s chambers hours before that hearing ended with Rozzi and Baldwin off the case and set up the legal battle that ended in the Supreme Court.

“He didn’t write the letter. Mr. Rozzi prepared the letter and had Mr. Allen sign. It is my understanding. It was typed. And I’m assuming Mr. Allen doesn’t have access to a computer or a typewriter in the Department of Corrections,”

Lebrato says he thinks that when Allen found out that his attorneys would be off his case, he may not have had the understanding or legal concepts to know he would automatically be appointed other public defenders. “He may have been thinking that he and his wife were going to have to hire private attorneys or he wasn’t going to have representation. I don’t know. But that’s strictly my opinion, my belief, based on things I’ve seen and heard,” Lebrato said."

Sounds like he was throwing some shade to me, on at least BR.
AJMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

i can’t get enough of this letter.
Fess up, did one of our own pen this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791170575294935260

 

[sunshineray]

RA wasn’t doped up. Defense claims his meds were given in a less than consistent method, whatever that means. But RA was not given any involuntary meds. I have been reading up and there are procedures in Indiana for the administration of medication in prison.

Here is an excerpt from pg 47 of “The Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in Prisons and Jails: A State Survey”

http://tacreports.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/treatment-behind-bars/treatment-behind-bars.pdf

Authorization of nonemergency involuntary medication is determined through a Washington v. Harper administrative proceeding by a Medical Treatment Review Committee consisting of
three or more members appointed by the IN DOC medical director or designee. At least two members must be physicians, and at least one of those must be a psychiatrist. The decision to medicate the inmate requires a simple majority vote of the committee.

I'm sorry I didn't see this in time to fix it. I did not mean to say,

"I think that's why he was being give meds that he obviously, according to the doctors, didn't need"

Should have been...

"I think that's why he WASN'T being give meds that he obviously, according to the doctors, didn't need"

One little word wrong, BIG difference, my bad

 

[steeltowngirl]

I'm sorry I didn't see this in time to fix it. I did not mean to say,

"I think that's why he was being give meds that he obviously, according to the doctors, didn't need"

Should have been...

"I think that's why he WASN'T being give meds that he obviously, according to the doctors, didn't need"

One little word wrong, BIG difference, my bad

Oh gosh, I realize I sounded harsh and it wasn’t intended towards you. Just me generally being upset with the relentlessness of the innuendos and accusations against everyone from LE to prosecution to the judge and now the prison staff.

We are good!

 

[sunshineray]

Oh gosh, I realize I sounded harsh and it wasn’t intended towards you. Just me generally being upset with the relentlessness of the innuendos and accusations against everyone from LE to prosecution to the judge and now the prison staff.

We are good!

Oh no no no, not at all did I take it that way! No worries

 

[snooptroop88]

i can’t get enough of this letter.
Fess up, did one of our own pen this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1791170575294935260

It wasn't me! I swear it!

But with that said, May 20 is the Odinite Frigga Blot.

Merrymoon 20,
"Frigga Blot: Today we rejoice in the warmth and splendor of Spring. A traditional time for a Kindred campout, perform blot to honor the AllMother and thank Her for the health and vitality of the Family, Kindred and Tribe."

If court's in session that day, watch for the Odinites in the crowd to stand up and go out a lot. They'll be planning for Kindred campouts. And take note if anyone starts chanting.

Wow. Maybe this letter is the reason the trial's delayed.

 

[Willow Knight]

I think this is some kind of SM related campaign purposely meant to send these to the Judge. I put nothing past these people.

MOO

Oh yeah. Bet if we searched around the internet we would find the movements encouraging the letter writing. Pathetic. Two girls were killed, LE role is to investigate. When there is evidence the proper procedure is to take it to trial. At this stage anyone wanting Richard Allen released is ludicrous, it needs to go to trial. This is another shameful tactic, blowing up the judge with letters to read.

 

[katydid23]

But isn't that what good attys do? = lay down the foundation in case of appeal?

If there is a legal technicality, we know where the blame lies and it's not at the feet of the defense team.
We can't allow our constitutional rights to be trampled.

MOO

If a defendant is actually guilty of stabbing 2 girls to death in broad daylight in the park, and it is later determined he should have been held in jail instead of prison, would it be wise and judicial to set him free because of that constitutional issue?

 

[mrjitty]

No at all, IMO

If ever an Indiana case needed transparency, it is this one. I hope the media pushes it as far as they can.
I hope the old days of investigative reporting return.

No one is actually stopping the media from going to the trial and reporting of course. And justice has worked well enough for years that way. Cameras in court is a pretty new thing and not common elsewhere.

I feel having cameras is more about direct public access than any transparency.

Ironically the reason why I'd actually support it in this case is to break the power of the youtubers who attend and then live stream. We wouldn't then need to rely on them spinning.

But in the end, few are going to watch this trial in relative terms, and justice is mostly about the parties having their day in court, and jurors reaching their verdcit following a fair hearing. It doesn't depend on whether we watch or not.

I guess also being a cynic, i doubt those who have strong views are going to believe in any contrary verdict, whether it's live streamed or not!

My 02c, MOO etc

 

[mrjitty]

If a defendant is actually guilty of stabbing 2 girls to death in broad daylight in the park, and it is later determined he should have been held in jail instead of prison, would it be wise and judicial to set him free because of that constitutional issue?

A successful appeal would just lead to a new trial anyway. IMO

 

[mrjitty]

RA wasn’t doped up. Defense claims his meds were given in a less than consistent method, whatever that means. But RA was not given any involuntary meds. I have been reading up and there are procedures in Indiana for the administration of medication in prison.

Here is an excerpt from pg 47 of “The Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in Prisons and Jails: A State Survey”

http://tacreports.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/documents/treatment-behind-bars/treatment-behind-bars.pdf

Authorization of nonemergency involuntary medication is determined through a Washington v. Harper administrative proceeding by a Medical Treatment Review Committee consisting of
three or more members appointed by the IN DOC medical director or designee. At least two members must be physicians, and at least one of those must be a psychiatrist. The decision to medicate the inmate requires a simple majority vote of the committee.

IMO the 'doped up' idea is a red herring anyway.

The thing that would make him say a lot of stuff that is a fantasy is a psychosis. Clinical practitioners would be giving him medication to help with that. Who knows what it might be. Antipsychotics? possibly sedatives? Anti depressives?

I haven't heard any serious argument that they would be giving him anything that might make him utter a false confession. I especially react strongly to the idea that doctors are somehow in on the plot.

What i would believe is that if he was taking anti-psychotics, that would presumably be good evidence that he was actually psychotic.

Presumably this is where his medical assessments from that time will be critical.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

I can't think of one reason why pleading guilty would be a benefit to RA. He'll only get more of the same.

I can think of one reason why pleading GUILTY would be a benefit to RA >>>>IF he was actually GUILTY then telling the truth and taking responsibility would be the right thing to do.

He seems to know that somehow since he apparently told those closest to him that he did it. He seemed to be committed to telling his truth to anyone who would listen.

Articles promoting solitary confinement for mental health issues are hard to find. All the ones I've found say it's very detrimental. I tend to believe them. By all accounts, RA was functioning well before he was sent to prison. As for medical treatment, I think it's possible that whatever they were giving him brought on the state of mind he was in. Some drugs promoted to make you better have really, really bad side effects. Some last for quite a while.

Apparently he had been taking meds for depression for quite some time, before his arrest. And he was known to go out drinking as well---so that might not have been a good combination.

I'm not sure we can assume 'he was functioning well' for all that time.

His attys have tried multiple times to get him out of those hell holes with no luck.
Maybe this time will be successful.

How many times did they actually go meet with him?

Maybe his attys should have just accepted the judge's decision and walked away.
Think about how that whole scenario would have played out.

If he had kept confessing and accepted a plea deal, it may have been the best thing for everyone IMO.