I feel so bad for the families and now it is being turned into a carnival sideshow. So disrespectful. Next we will hear how the two girls lured him and committed suicide to implicate him. I realize he needs a fair trial, don't want him not to get that, but all the monkey shines are horrible. HoughMade, thanks for the legal info/slant and for keeping this from becoming a horrible thread.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Two bodies found in Carroll County
- Thread starter JTScribe
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
They had the contempt hearing as to defense counsel a couple of weeks ago.
No ruling yet, but both sides have now filed post-hearing briefs. Having no inside info., but simply my opinion, I have a tendency to believe that the defense counsel, Andrew Baldwin, specifically, intentionally leaked materials subject to an order of confidentiality. IMHO, the materials were leaked in combination with the Odinist filings to taint the jury pool and get people to believe that there are viable suspects being ignored. As I said before, it's a variation on the O.J. defense where you stir up such a ...storm, that people susceptible to manipulation think that there just has to be more to the story and there is a coverup of some kind.
In reality, there is no there, there.
Since the hearing, there have been several people who have written e-mails and letters to the judge which display that such a defense strategy is working to some extent. Jury selection is going to be more important than it usually is for both sides. Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked of defense counsel, directly or indirectly, were putting people up to writing the judge simply in order to get these e-mails in the public file, but what do I know? It is my opinion that certain court filings by the defense were intended to end-run the gag order (The "Franks" motion- Odinist stuff) by putting their theory in the public court file which would obviously be reported upon. These letters could possibly be more of the same.
No ruling yet, but both sides have now filed post-hearing briefs. Having no inside info., but simply my opinion, I have a tendency to believe that the defense counsel, Andrew Baldwin, specifically, intentionally leaked materials subject to an order of confidentiality. IMHO, the materials were leaked in combination with the Odinist filings to taint the jury pool and get people to believe that there are viable suspects being ignored. As I said before, it's a variation on the O.J. defense where you stir up such a ...storm, that people susceptible to manipulation think that there just has to be more to the story and there is a coverup of some kind.
In reality, there is no there, there.
Since the hearing, there have been several people who have written e-mails and letters to the judge which display that such a defense strategy is working to some extent. Jury selection is going to be more important than it usually is for both sides. Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked of defense counsel, directly or indirectly, were putting people up to writing the judge simply in order to get these e-mails in the public file, but what do I know? It is my opinion that certain court filings by the defense were intended to end-run the gag order (The "Franks" motion- Odinist stuff) by putting their theory in the public court file which would obviously be reported upon. These letters could possibly be more of the same.
Last edited:
They should be disbarred if that were to be proved.
I agree, but if this is the case, I expect that there would be a few layers of insulation. Rank and rampant speculation based upon no inside information time- Theoretically, the defense has its "favorite" true crime podcasters/YouTubers (people have made this accusation, apparently), in return for access of some sort or, more likely, due to "Main Character Syndrome" the podcasters make statements in the podcasts that either directly call for "action" or incite people in the "someone should let the judge know" vein which in turn leads to followers of the podcast writing e-mails and letters without the defense having any direct or even indirect contact with the letter writers. It's all speculation on my part, but not impossible.
Less than a week after the MV Dali incident the mainstream media and government have said nothing about Odinists....so clearly, they were involved.
Next, they'll claim "Well, he was read his rights, but they mispronounced the word _____"
BS. Once again, the defense gets the headline they carefully planned for.
This is another example of them using a motion to get their side out without violating the gag order.
The first thing we need to keep in mind is that if an interrogation is not "custodial", it other words, you are free to leave, Miranda right need not be read.
Second, their own filings state that there was a first interview where his was read his rights and free to leave and he spoke with police. Then there was another interview several days later where he was also free to leave. The defense never denies that, but tries to make it sound like the interview taking place in a "small" room (whatever that is) and the fact that a door was closed- but not locked- when the interviewer left him alone is somehow custodial. Case law does not support this.
Remember, Allen had been read his Miranda rights and signed a paper to effect a few days before. At the second interview, the police officer states that he discussed the prior waiver of rights with Allen before the second interview and Allen acknowledged it. Then they sat down and started the camera- mistake not to get the discussion on camera, but that DOES NOT mean he did not acknowledge his rights, it's just an opening where the defense attorneys can claim he didn't waive because its not on tape. Besides, it was not custodial- he was free to go; the interview was voluntary no reading of rights is even required.
More e-mails sent to the judge. I haven't referenced them all, but the writer of the first e-mail attached echoes some things I have been saying as to the use of podcasters- and the term "use" is on purpose I believe that they are being used- though I don't know about the specific facts he states. The second is one of those drones. Good contrast.
If you can't win on intelligence and merit and have to resort to trickery you ****ing suck as an attorney and need to be... well... you know.
In a vacuum, they may be competent attorneys, but most of us try to play the hand we are dealt (the facts) the best way possible. Some may try to reshuffle the deck.
[ETA] I feel the need to further explain my comment. As a lawyer, you are allowed to "push the envelope" and "zealously" advocate for our client. I suppose each lawyer determines what their limits are...until a court tells you what the limits are. I have grown quite cynical about this defense team. My opinion that they are filing things with an eye for public consumption possibly more than for the Court is based upon my review of their filings which seem to be written more for podcasters to pick up talking points than to influence the Judge. My opinion. That being said, yes- they have to "preserve error" by objecting to evidence- I get that. Are they advocating positions they know are false? I have no way of knowing and would like to think not. That violates legal ethics, but suspecting or even believing what happened is not the same as "knowing" what happened if one has a high tolerance for pushing the envelope.
Not saying this happened in this case, but I have run into situations where it appeared that the lawyers are guiding their clients to a "recollection". Example- a party gives some very specific testimony, say about their medical symptoms. Then the other side's expert witness is deposed who says "he didn't say he had this, this or this, so he doesn't have this specific ailment"...then when we get to trial, the party magically uses the exact language the expert used saying that he did in fact have those symptoms. What other conclusion am I supposed to reach other than that the other attorney fed his client the specific words to use?
Now think about this- Again, pure theory- "You don't remember that officer reading your rights do you?" "I've seen the tape, so if you say he didn't, I'll believe you and the tape won't say anything different?" and "That room, you felt intimidated and you believed you couldn't leave, didn't you?"
So then the client says- he didn't read my my rights and I didn't believe I was free to leave. So as an attorney, that is (now) what my client is telling me, so I have to file the motion, don't I? Again- pure speculation. A thought exercise. I have no way of knowing what went on in private conversations.
Last edited:
It may well be BS...still I was under the impression that the test is whether a reasonable person would believe they were free to leave. That's very different from whether they were actually free to leave since the latter can't be ascertained later unless they actually tried. Is that not the case?
I've definitely read about appeals in Indiana where the defendant claimed that the police behaved in a way that made it clear they could not leave, but the police later claimed they could have. The court sided with the defendant in those cases even though we can't know for sure what would have happened if they had tried. But IANAL and I might have misunderstood what I was reading.
In Richard Allen's case it's pretty clear that he would have been stopped had he tried to leave, because he was in fact arrested at the end of this interview, based on evidence that existed before the interview. Is the prosecution going to claim that his arrest wasn't inevitable at this point, and that if only he had said the right thing he could have got up and walked out the door? I have a hard time imagining that.
I don't know if it matters anyway, I don't think he said anything incriminating in that interview.
I saw the discovery request yesterday. Interesting.
In other news, the judge has denied 4 motions for cameras in the courtroom in the last week. The Indiana Lawyer had an article about whether she would allow cameras. Apparently down at the IL, they don't pay attention. She has denied every request since the debacle last fall.
More e-mails from avid podcast listeners.
Richard Allen's Defense Attorneys want prosecutors sanctioned
DELPHI, Ind. (WLFI) — Delphi homicide suspect Richard Allen's defense attorneys want prosecutors sanctioned for not turning evidence over in a timely manner. That includes preventing the jury from seeing
Now they want cell phones from girls denied. Sounds like desperate defense to me.
Seems like that to me, but we will see.Richard Allen's Defense Attorneys want prosecutors sanctioned
DELPHI, Ind. (WLFI) — Delphi homicide suspect Richard Allen's defense attorneys want prosecutors sanctioned for not turning evidence over in a timely manner. That includes preventing the jury from seeingwww.wlfi.com
Now they want cell phones from girls denied. Sounds like desperate defense to me.
Keep track of this- when the prosecution files its response to this motion (or several previous motions), how much media coverage does it get?
Site Supporter
Members online
- tomcat13
- Revdev86
- 22LRFan
- jspy5
- shibumiseeker
- Thor
- Aldo
- LeftyGunner
- SouthernStar25
- DoggyDaddy
- Twinsen
- Doublestack
- jbm1521
- 1nderbeard
- hemicharger
- Dholcomb
- Dutchmaster
- OnPoint
- BP84
- erasure
- Skip
- Twinks46975
- yetti462
- 5point9
- Magyars
- nad63
- bullet
- mkgr22
- Talkinghalls
- Toole
- ROLEXrifleman
- Joegrz308
- williamsburg
- Okimeister
- Hoosierdood
- blain
- Squid556
- Nacho Man
- trimman83
- SEIndSAM
- AFvet3366
- pewpew2232
- bwframe
- DDadams
- deo62
- teufelmacht
- NHT3
- Ty Webb
- Ted!!
- JimH
