IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173

Status
Not open for further replies.
Allen, 51, was moved from Westville Correctional Facility to Wabash Valley Correctional Facility on Dec. 6, according to the notice. Inmate records indicate Allen remains on ‘long-term segregation,’ which means he is kept physically separated from the general offender population, typically in a designated unit.

Allen’s transfer is one of many issues surrounding the former pharmacy tech’s case as he fights to have Judge Gull removed and his former attorneys, Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi, reinstated. Both Judge Gull and AG Todd Rokita rejected Allen’s petition, calling it “improper” and “inappropriate” and stating that the proper avenue would have been for Allen to appeal, which he did not do.


December 7, 2023
 
I see DH was on DD podcast. I haven't listened to it in any detail yet, but do note that DH now says MW 'sneaked in". This seems to be a new claim that the defence duo did not make to Judge Gull in the emails/conferences pre hearing, nor in chambers. Assuming this is what AB told DH, I wonder why they didn't say this sooner? IMO it does change the complexion of it, if there was such an element of subterfuge.

I really am curious what MW will present at his own trial
 
Glad to see this got mentioned. By all means disagree with their coverage. But the attacks on them have been beyond disgusting. Especially claims, based on no evidence, that they have somehow tried to bring down the defence, by <checks notes> reporting leaked discovery to the police.



"reporting leaked discovery to the police" and broadcasting their own accusations, without actually sharing evidence of such (besides their description of evidence received from MRC who allegedly reported to several other podcasts, but is a really good person, just trust them!), that B&R were actively involved in leaking.

I personally do have a lot of respect for their reporting on this case and the fact that they have continued to platform opposing viewpoints. Despite criticisms I may have of particular coverage or suspicions on what may be occurring behind the scenes I do think they have brought tremendous value in their reporting.

It's also worth noting that David Hennessy stated on Defense Diaries that they seemed to deliberately falsely or at best uncharitably report on what was occurring in the courtroom before the start of the 10/31 hearing. They insinuated that he was being very loud and the insinuation was that it was unprofessional/inappropriate (I don't recall the exact descriptions they used) but Hennessy shared that he is hard of hearing and perhaps was talking a bit louder than others for that reason but wasn't being very loud, was just talking to Bob Motta 1 seat over from him.
DH said that MS said he was 'getting personal' about the other lawyers and DH says this was not true, he said he didn't know Lebrato but goes way back with Scremin and thinks he's a good lawyer, and said Luttrell was 'above board'. BM agrees with this characterization.
DH says he lost all respect for them after that and that MS was 'petty and vindictive'. He had appeared on their show a few months ago, and that they reached out to him for more info and he didn't give them any so he thinks they attacked him for that reason. He also believes they are reporting uncharitably on the defense in general especially relating to the leak and that they have done AB dirty after he gave them access (unsure what he meant by access, perhaps it was regarding the previous trial they covered and interviewed him regarding)
Meat of the MS talk starts around 39 mins
 
I don't have any views on the DH vs MS catfight.

I did find DHs claim that AB had given generous access to MS therefore he should have got more favourable coverage to be bizarre. MS were correct the leak came from his office.

DH is an advocate for AB so of course gives ABs version - we have no way of knowing whether he's told the full truth, or how we should evaluate the written admission that AB discussed the case with MW. I feel this is a bit of deflection on to journalists who in the end have nothing to do with MWs conduct or Judge Gull's decision.

DH is obviously a skilled advocate so I was more interested in what he didn't say - which was yet again to leave out how exactly MW came to be in the war room - though he did give some scant insight into the office layout and claimed MW "sneaked in". I could be wrong but I don't think he that said in Court?

It's a shame BM is such a poor interviewer and spent most of the interview talking endlessly and doing fan service rather than asking any incisive questions of his more interesting guest!

Although probably no one will really say much until the trial is done.
 
I don't have any views on the DH vs MS catfight.

I did find DHs claim that AB had given generous access to MS therefore he should have got more favourable coverage to be bizarre. MS were correct the leak came from his office.

DH is an advocate for AB so of course gives ABs version - we have no way of knowing whether he's told the full truth, or how we should evaluate the written admission that AB discussed the case with MW. I feel this is a bit of deflection on to journalists who in the end have nothing to do with MWs conduct or Judge Gull's decision.

DH is obviously a skilled advocate so I was more interested in what he didn't say - which was yet again to leave out how exactly MW came to be in the war room - though he did give some scant insight into the office layout and claimed MW "sneaked in". I could be wrong but I don't think he that said in Court?

It's a shame BM is such a poor interviewer and spent most of the interview talking endlessly and doing fan service rather than asking any incisive questions of his more interesting guest!

Although probably no one will really say much until the trial is done.
I thought DH came across petty and poorly, why should AB have been given more favorable coverage? The leaker was MW, his good pal, friend, bouncer off-er. AB failed to maintain confidentiality of work product material, period. To what extent? We will probably never know the real truth.

I used to enjoy DD and BM, not any longer. He's let his 15 minutes of fame overtake his rationale in this case.

How are these attorneys able to go on these podcasts and X/Twitter and speak about the case when there is a gag order in place? I thought it applied to any attorney involved in the case....DH certainly is, also CW on the appellate side. It makes no sense to me.

MOO
 
Well DH was ABs attorney in this matter so his comments should be seen as straight advocacy IMO. Also he is obviously bound by attorney client privilege so can’t say things he knows even if he wanted to

BM I struggle with compared to straight legal analysis. I get why the defence community is upset about this issue, and advocacy in that direction is fully understandable.

But he keeps saying we know nothing about this case until evidence gets presented yet then pushes the defence side without questioning their contentions and claims the attorneys believe RA is innocent. That’s advocacy IMO. Which is fine but we shouldn’t pretend that isn’t where he’s landed.

I find Shay Hughes much more even handed as he doesn’t just assume defence allegations are true.

I guess if we ever get to trial all these podcast cat fights are going to get intense.

As to the gag order perhaps it doesn’t apply to the attorneys in these side proceedings so long as they don’t discuss the main case?
 
I see DH was on DD podcast. I haven't listened to it in any detail yet, but do note that DH now says MW 'sneaked in". This seems to be a new claim that the defence duo did not make to Judge Gull in the emails/conferences pre hearing, nor in chambers. Assuming this is what AB told DH, I wonder why they didn't say this sooner? IMO it does change the complexion of it, if there was such an element of subterfuge.

I really am curious what MW will present at his own trial
Well just the fact that MW is asking for a jury trial (so I'm assuming he's pled not guilty?) when he's already stated in an affidavit that he generated copies of discovery images without AB's permission/knowledge...I haven't a clue what MW is going to say? Is he going to say he lied on his affidavit?
 
Well just the fact that MW is asking for a jury trial (so I'm assuming he's pled not guilty?) when he's already stated in an affidavit that he generated copies of discovery images without AB's permission/knowledge...I haven't a clue what MW is going to say? Is he going to say he lied on his affidavit?
My wild speculation is he might argue he was in the room with permission and thought it would be fine to take photos - like some kind of implied consent but no direct knowledge from AB. So that MW had no criminal intent.

Then the bad thing he did was to later leak them but he might argue that later act is not a crime.
 
My wild speculation is he might argue he was in the room with permission and thought it would be fine to take photos - like some kind of implied consent but no direct knowledge from AB. So that MW had no criminal intent.

Then the bad thing he did was to later leak them but he might argue that later act is not a crime.
I don’t know. I feel like he could have easily plead out. I feel like he might have been persuaded to fall on his sword. Publicly.
 
I don’t know. I feel like he could have easily plead out. I feel like he might have been persuaded to fall on his sword. Publicly.
I listened to Lawyer, Shay Hughes if I remember correctly, saying what MW did doesn’t really fit the definition of conversion in Indiana law. Moo because I just can’t remember where I heard it.
 
I listened to Lawyer, Shay Hughes if I remember correctly, saying what MW did doesn’t really fit the definition of conversion in Indiana law. Moo because I just can’t remember where I heard it.
I’m not even sure the theft/conversion is the worst part. It’s the distributing that really concerns me. Especially given that he was somewhat knowledgeable of the law and compliance procedures. He can’t claim ignorance.
 
I see DH was on DD podcast. I haven't listened to it in any detail yet, but do note that DH now says MW 'sneaked in". This seems to be a new claim that the defence duo did not make to Judge Gull in the emails/conferences pre hearing, nor in chambers. Assuming this is what AB told DH, I wonder why they didn't say this sooner? IMO it does change the complexion of it, if there was such an element of subterfuge.

I really am curious what MW will present at his own trial
MW already confessed in his affadavit. So if he’s asking for a trial I expect his defense will be what he did wasn’t a crime. We may never get full details as to motive and/or the particulars.
 
Last edited:
I’m not even sure the theft/conversion is the worst part. It’s the distributing that really concerns me. Especially given that he was somewhat knowledgeable of the law and compliance procedures. He can’t claim ignorance.
My guess is MW will argue A) taking the pics does not fall under IN’s conversion laws so that wasn’t a crime and B) He wasn’t an attorney for the defendant so not covered by the gag order and by distributing the info he was simply exercising his 1st amendment freedom of speech rights. IANAL so no idea if those would be successful arguments or not.
 
But he's asking for a jury trial. Doesn't that mean he's pleading not guilty? I thought he admitted guilt in that affidavit too, so I'm confused as to why a jury trial?
I didn’t realize he had requested a jury trial the learned he had and was editing my post while you were responding.
 
MW already confessed in his affadavit. So if he’s asking for a trial I expect his defense will be what he did wasn’t a crime. We may never get full details as to motive and/or the particulars.

BIB. Did he though? I've said for a while that MW's affidavit was very narrowly drafted in order to obscure critical details e.g
  • Was he in the conference room / war room with express/implied consent?
  • Had he been in there before or since?
  • Had AB shared / shown any of these documents to MW before?
  • What happened at the end of the waiting period? Did AB see that MW was in the conference room?
  • Did MW believe AB was be OK with him taking photos? (e.g because he'd been shown them before?)
  • Why did MW take the photos?
All he really says is AB was not there when he took the photos, so AB did not know he took the photos. To me it is interesting that he does not say that AB did not know he went in the room. Especially there is nothing about 'sneaking in there'

I agree he'll say it wasn't a crime. For instance (hypothetically), what if he says they'd collaborated on the Odin strategy, so he took the photos to do further research?

A part of this I struggle with, is AB could have finished up at any moment, and seen him in the war room. So it seems a reasonable inference to me that MW did not 'sneak' in there. He says he went in there expressly to wait for AB! We know from the chambers transcript that both Rozzi and AB gave statements to LE about all this, but curiously that info wasn't referenced by DH.

Screenshot of the text of MW affidavit attached. I guess in the end, none of this is going to matter to the trial.
Screenshot 2023-12-11 at 09.38.47.png
 
Last edited:
My guess is MW will argue A) taking the pics does not fall under IN’s conversion laws so that wasn’t a crime and B) He wasn’t an attorney for the defendant so not covered by the gag order and by distributing the info he was simply exercising his 1st amendment freedom of speech rights. IANAL so no idea if those would be successful arguments or not.
You'd think that AB has got to be very nervous as to what MW's defense is going to be. His affidavit, IMO, was an admission of guilt...of stealing. He's charged with a misdemeanor. Now he asks for a jury trial. What's up with this guy? Is he afraid that pleading guilty is going to open himself up to futher charges? Is he now going to say he was allowed to copy the crime scene photos for his own use because he was consulting? How would he explain RF recieving them and the emails/texts...whatever?
 
My wild speculation is he might argue he was in the room with permission and thought it would be fine to take photos - like some kind of implied consent but no direct knowledge from AB. So that MW had no criminal intent.

Then the bad thing he did was to later leak them but he might argue that later act is not a crime.
I think it's possible that his lawyers think what he's admitted to doesn't meet the elements of the crime he's charged with.

Indiana's criminal code defines criminal conversion this way: "A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person commits criminal conversion..."

In his affidavit, MW admits that he intentionally took the pictures without authorization, so I think the intent and unauthorized prongs are satisfied. But I'm not sure that merely taking a picture satisfies the 'exert control' prong.

"As used in this chapter, "exert control over property" means to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right to property." Maybe there's Indiana case law saying that taking a picture of another picture qualifies, but it's not immediately obvious to me that it would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
219
Guests online
1,267
Total visitors
1,486

Forum statistics

Threads
587,739
Messages
17,888,751
Members
227,220
Latest member
Lizl C
Back
Top