IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

[girlhasnoname]

You and me both!

Prosecution won’t need to prove a motive, but I think the jury will want to know the “why”. Why those two girls, why that day?

I recently started watching MindHunter.
In one scene, the FBI profilers ask killer Monte Rissell: why?
He answers: “The idea just popped into my head like a sneeze.“

Maybe that’s all there was to it.

jmo

Sadly sometimes we'll just never know, but maybe he said somethings during one of his 5 confessions that will shed some light on it. I think RA was in contact with Libby on some SM platform, either trolling on his own or something KAK helped with.

Libby had a striking, I mean totally freaky resemblance to RA's daughter IMO. Maybe RA was upset over her engagement and subsequent marriage? I know the idea seems crazy to us, but who knows how these minds work?

And then there's your quote.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

You and me both!

Prosecution won’t need to prove a motive, but I think the jury will want to know the “why”. Why those two girls, why that day?

I recently started watching MindHunter.
In one scene, the FBI profilers ask killer Monte Rissell: why?
He answers: “The idea just popped into my head like a sneeze.“

Maybe that’s all there was to it.

jmo

Then Monte had an impulse problem. JK. But seriously, if RA killed those girls, at 45 years old, walking them a distance, staging them, leaving signatures, then giving a tip of himself being there, then I'm expecting we're eventually going to hear about some deeper issues and prior troubling behaviors, despite not having a rap sheet. Jmo.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Then Monte had an impulse problem. JK. But seriously, if RA killed those girls, at 45 years old, walking them a distance, staging them, leaving signatures, then giving a tip of himself being there, then I'm expecting we're eventually going to hear about some deeper issues and prior troubling behaviors, despite not having a rap sheet. Jmo.

Agree. I suspect they have digital evidence of CSAM. jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

I wonder McL still thinks he has until the Oct trial date; he said as much in his latest motion = that date will give the D sufficient time to investigate the new charges (not his exact wording)
He might be in for a surprise. MOO

 

[arielilane]

You and me both!

Prosecution won’t need to prove a motive, but I think the jury will want to know the “why”. Why those two girls, why that day?

I recently started watching MindHunter.
In one scene, the FBI profilers ask killer Monte Rissell: why?
He answers: “The idea just popped into my head like a sneeze.“

Maybe that’s all there was to it.

jmo

Thank you for posting this bit of info. I find the investigators, profilers, etc. who are speaking with convicted child killers extremely fascinating and much is learnt. I heard in a video that a child rapist could not stop his urge to rape... I was so disgusted to hear that, but that was his truth. That needs to be known, as disgusting as it is. Knowledge is power.

I am not justifying their monstrous crimes, only saying that there are red flags ignored about these monsters prior to crimes being committed. imo, LWOP, is sufficient.

Jmo and speculation only

 

[Emma Peel]

Agree. I suspect they have digital evidence of CSAM. jmo

IIRC, the FM references LE depositions, where LE acknowledges there is no such digital evidence or other evidence.

Wondering, in a world where there was such evidence ... would the murder suspect also be charged for that history of CSAM as well? Or would the P not charge for CSAM and only bring murder-related charges.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I wonder McL still thinks he has until the Oct trial date; he said as much in his latest motion = that date will give the D sufficient time to investigate the new charges (not his exact wording)
He might be in for a surprise. MOO

Yeah that date is the latest thing the State has to go on, unless or until the Defense files its Speedy Trial Motion. Of course the State would have to turn over (and continue to) to the Defense any Discoverable items right up until trial.

MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

I'm not a strong supporter of the death penalty. I've always wrestled with the idea, can't seem to clearly define what circumstances I'm ok with it.

Alan Matheny was put to death for murdering Lisa Bianco and I was good with that. When death row inmate William Gibson goes to meet his maker, I'll be good with that, too. Maybe that's because there's no remorse.

We have cases where people do horrid things to small children before they murder them but they don't get DP.
I'm always glad I don't have to make DP decisions.

This reminds me that a DP request ALSO affects jury selection; as well as - practically (not legally) speaking - raises the bar for a guilty verdict.

The ask or no-ask for the DP - is a very strategic decision.
It seems to comes up closer to jury selection - after pre-trial has all cards on the table.

 

[mrjitty]

I wonder McL still thinks he has until the Oct trial date; he said as much in his latest motion = that date will give the D sufficient time to investigate the new charges (not his exact wording)
He might be in for a surprise. MOO

Why would he be in for a surprise? He knows as well as us that the defence sought a speedy trial ruling. He must surely expect they could file it as soon as next week. Indeed Pros had to prepare for the fact that SCOIN might have ordered it.

Whatever their preparation levels, surprised is one thing that won't be.

 

[Ravenmoon]

IIRC, the FM references LE depositions, where LE acknowledges there is no such digital evidence or other evidence.

Wondering, in a world where there was such evidence ... would the murder suspect also be charged for that history of CSAM as well? Or would the P not charge for CSAM and only bring murder-related charges.

Could that end up being a separate case altogether?

Let's say that he was found to be part of the CSAM ring in Indiana, and they have not put all of those pieces together yet?

I don't know how that would work, but maybe?


JMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

I have a question for anyone who knows the answer please.

If the defendant signed documents to assure a speedy trial way back in August how come they never filed them?

Thank you.

EBM include the month.

 

[FrostedGlass]

This reminds me that a DP request ALSO affects jury selection; as well as - practically (not legally) speaking - raises the bar for a guilty verdict.

The ask or no-ask for the DP - is a very strategic decision.
It seems to comes up closer to jury selection - after pre-trial has all cards on the table.

DP doesn't seem to be very popular; I only have these 2 for comparison:
Jason Brown:
08/01/2017 Case opened
09/28/2017 Request for Death Sentence

Orlando Mitchell
07/13/2023 Case opened
07/13/2023 Death Penalty Requested

 

[Commercens]

I have a question for anyone who knows the answer please.

If the defendant signed documents to assure a speedy trial way back in August how come they never filed them?

Thank you.

EBM include the month.

Counsel Mark Leeman said before the SCOIN that it was part of the defense strategy to file for Speedy Trial right before the Nov 1st date when all DISCOVERY had to be in. The tactic was to hold off until the very last minute before springing it on the prosecution to catch them off their guard and …(that way they make sure there wont be anything new in the DISCOVERY that could catch the defense off guard that would make it not in R.A.’s best interest to pursue their speedy trial strategy - MOO).

 

[mrjitty]

Counsel Mark Leeman said before the SCOIN that it was part of the defense strategy to file for Speedy Trial right before the Nov 1st date when all DISCOVERY had to be in. The tactic was to hold off until the very last minute before springing it on the prosecution to catch them off their guard and …(that way they make sure there wont be anything new in the DISCOVERY that could catch the defense off guard that would make it not in R.A.’s best interest to pursue their speedy trial strategy - MOO).

I’m still at a loss as to how this would catch anyone off guard when there was a January trial date set.

That’s why the Judge set the Nov deadline.

ETA: Not particularly directed at you @Commercens - i just don't see the 9D chess here. Sure if the D had filed the speedy back in June for example, that would likely cause the prosecution to have to switch to high gear to be ready, but when everyone knew the trial was happening in Jan, how does filing in Nov catch anyone out when they already had a Jan date which everyone agreed on?

And now, I'd be surprised if it is in April, so surely no one is getting caught on the hop.

My 02c - I just don't think this angle was ever real unless the prosecution somehow believed the trial was never really happening in Jan. But that would have been a bold assumption.

 

[Jurisprudence]

@Emma Peel You asked how long it would take to appoint a special judge.
The answer is: Not long if you are Judge Diener.
Judge Gull's appointment to RA's case: Case 22S-SJ-00369

11/03/2022	Order Issued Order of Recusal and Certification to the Indiana Supreme Court for Selection of a Special Judge Outside of Carroll County entered, per form. (copy to Indiana Supreme Court) Judicial Officer: Diener, Benjamin A. Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Allen, Richard M. Order Signed: 11/03/2022
11/04/2022	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 11/3/2022 : Carroll County Sheriff's Department
11/04/2022	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 11/3/2022 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 11/3/2022 : Nicholas Charles McLeland
11/04/2022	Special Judge Assigned Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Allen, Richard M. Order Signed: 11/03/2022

Are you speaking hypothetically if Gull recuses? I'm not sure what their internal workings require here but hypothetically, since the administrator of the court rotates every 2 years and since it is now Gull's turn to be that person, it's possible Gull could simply reassign it. Good question.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I’m still at a loss as to how this would catch anyone off guard when there was a January trial date set.

That’s why the Judge set the Nov deadline.

ETA: Not particularly directed at you @Commercens - i just don't see the 9D chess here. Sure if the D had filed the speedy back in June for example, that would likely cause the prosecution to have to switch to high gear to be ready, but when everyone knew the trial was happening in Jan, how does filing in Nov catch anyone out when they already had a Jan date which everyone agreed on?

And now, I'd be surprised if it is in April, so surely no one is getting caught on the hop.

My 02c - I just don't think this angle was ever real unless the prosecution somehow believed the trial was never really happening in Jan. But that would have been a bold assumption.

As you know, court cases often have many trial dates before one is set in stone. Usually there are pre-trial conferences, status conferences... where it's discussed where both sides are in their cases and how long it will be before they are ready for trial. In my experience, it's wrong to assume just because a trial date is set, both sides are ready to go.

The very first jury trial date in this case was this one:

11/02/2022

Hearing Scheduling Activity Jury Trial scheduled for 03/20/2023 at 9:00 AM.

Then they fiddled around with that date for some reason and this was the new one:

02/23/2023

Hearing Scheduling Activity Jury Trial scheduled for 03/21/2023 at 9:00 AM was cancelled. Reason: Judicial Action.

And then this:

06/15/2023

Hearing Scheduling Activity Jury Trial scheduled for 01/08/2024 at 9:00 AM.

And finally this:

10/31/2023

Hearing Scheduling Activity Jury Trial originally scheduled on 01/08/2024 at 9:00 AM was rescheduled to 10/15/2024 at 9:00 AM. Reason: By Request.

 

[Willow Knight]

Yeah that date is the latest thing the State has to go on, unless or until the Defense files its Speedy Trial Motion. Of course the State would have to turn over (and continue to) to the Defense any Discoverable items right up until trial.

MOO

How does that work I wonder? Is the P required to turn over all their evidence as they find it, or do they have X amount of days to work with their evidence before turning it over to the D?

Hope I worded that clearly. Also, does all evidence need to be presented prior to trial for said evidence to be brought up at trial. This would include the witness list?

Never really thought this deeply before, I simply remember the day these two girls were found. I was so ANGRY. I'm still angry. Nothing can give Libby and Abby their life back, we can only demand justice for them. I don't remember what SM platform Libby and/or Abby utilized.

For example, for LE to start with Libby's SM accounts, is it possible to trace all other accounts that interacted with Libby's account? And for each account that had connection to Libby's, then go down the line to see what account those accounts lead to. That would take a long time, if even possible. However that web could lead to new evidence. Which I so hope happens.

Justice for Abby and Libby.

 

[Commercens]

I’m still at a loss as to how this would catch anyone off guard when there was a January trial date set.

That’s why the Judge set the Nov deadline.

ETA: Not particularly directed at you @Commercens - i just don't see the 9D chess here. Sure if the D had filed the speedy back in June for example, that would likely cause the prosecution to have to switch to high gear to be ready, but when everyone knew the trial was happening in Jan, how does filing in Nov catch anyone out when they already had a Jan date which everyone agreed on?

And now, I'd be surprised if it is in April, so surely no one is getting caught on the hop.

My 02c - I just don't think this angle was ever real unless the prosecution somehow believed the trial was never really happening in Jan. But that would have been a bold assumption

Sorry for any confusion. I suppose my subjective choice of words “off guard” is not really correct.

From Kokomo Tribune:

Leeman responded to Rush’s claim by stating Rozzi and Baldwin essentially believed they would have had time to ultimately file a motion for a speedy trial, but they were “blown out of the water from a judge who exceeded her authority.”

“My client (referring to Allen in this case) was entitled to a jury trial today,” Leeman argued. “My client’s entitled to a jury trial with effective lawyers that he spent a year and three months developing a well-thought-out strategy ... and a speedy trial to catch that prosecutor on their back foot.”

Delphi defense team makes plea to state Supreme Court; gets reinstated

————————————-
When I said “off guard,” I meant if and when the defense actually followed through and filed for the speedy trial…then at that point in time, the Prosecution and JG would be up “against the clock“ - a timeframe that was grounded in reality with very adverse legal consequences for the state’s case if not satisfied vs dealing in the “theoretical.” Once filed, neither side could really afford to have any false sense of “ample time” to complete whatever they had pending on their side of their respective “agendas.”

I guess my subjective choice of words “off guard” is not really correct. But yes, I believe the defense thought it would be to their advantage and to the state’s disadvantage in that they would from now on really have “to scramble.” (MOO - It was my understanding that there still needed to be a Franks Hearing and JG was starting to have to deal with some health issues. So I imagine the defense probably felt the state would be hard pressed once the Speedy Trial was filed.)

 

[Willow Knight]

Counsel Mark Leeman said before the SCOIN that it was part of the defense strategy to file for Speedy Trial right before the Nov 1st date when all DISCOVERY had to be in. The tactic was to hold off until the very last minute before springing it on the prosecution to catch them off their guard and …(that way they make sure there wont be anything new in the DISCOVERY that could catch the defense off guard that would make it not in R.A.’s best interest to pursue their speedy trial strategy - MOO).

You just answered one of my questions! So can I assume all discovery is due X number of days before trial date is to begin?

 

[photographer4]

My post said 'definitive' evidence, not new. I think there could be any number of reasons this was just revealed in a Motion by the State (rather than a cheap, tawdry memo or Press Release). The State is ready for trial, this cements that idea for me. They added a special assistant Prosecutor months ago to the case and they've had all this time that we've been waiting on a ruling.

The only ones shaking in their boots is going to be R&B now that they've won their 'prize', let's see how long it is before their 15 minutes of fame quickly fades from the SM groups and and the reality of this case sinks in. IMO

They had other legal avenues to appeal their DQ by JG, that were the typical ways of handling things, but they chose to appeal to the SCOIN for, in their statement, "the speed of getting a quick decision, since they were ready to go on Jan 14." I am anxious to see what R&B do now. Put your $$$ where your mouth is fellas and lets get it on.

MOO

I should possibly not have quoted you, but I saw the filing, and someone had posted it here, the State listed "new evidence" as the reason for their upgraded or additional (not sure how to word that) charges. I've linked the post that attaches the document I"m referencing: IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173 (hopefully that works!)