August 30, 2024

Confessions from a Concrete Cage: Justice or Just Gull-ible? (29 Aug Order)


The Delphi Murders, a case shrouded in mystery, took another Kafkaesque turn this week with Judge Frances Gull's August 28th order (Page 1 | Page 2). Richard Allen, the man accused of the heinous crime, saw his purported "confessions" deemed admissible, despite concerns over the conditions in which they were extracted. One might be forgiven for wondering if we're witnessing justice unfold or a masterclass in legal acrobatics.

Judge Gull, seemingly unfazed by the unorthodox methods employed to elicit these "confessions", offered a rather simplistic rationale: if the words came out of Allen's mouth, they're fair game. The fact that these pronouncements were made within the stark confines of solitary confinement, amidst a cocktail of powerful psychotropic medications, appears to be of little consequence.

Let's be clear: this is not about Allen's guilt or innocence. This is about the very bedrock of the justice system: the presumption of innocence, the right to due process, and the inadmissibility of coerced statements. Judge Gull, however, seems content to glaze over these inconvenient truths, accepting the prosecution's narrative with the eagerness of a child presented with a shiny new toy.

Allen's mental state, meticulously documented as fragile and deteriorating under the strain of his confinement, is casually dismissed. The fact that his "confessions" emerged after months of what can only be described as psychological torture raises more eyebrows than a game of eyebrow twister.

The prosecution, naturally, paints a picture of a cunning criminal feigning mental illness. Yet, one has to wonder: if Allen were truly a mastermind, would he confess in such a haphazard manner, to prison guards, fellow inmates, and even his own psychologist? Or is it more likely that a vulnerable, mentally unstable individual, under immense pressure, cracked under the weight of his circumstances?

Judge Gull's order leaves a bitter taste, a sense that expediency trumps justice in the hallowed halls of her courtroom. Whether this decision will withstand the scrutiny of a higher court remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the fight for justice in the Delphi Murders, much like the case itself, continues down a winding, and frankly, disturbing, path.

We'll shortly learn if third-party culpability evidence will also be deemed admissible...


August 2, 2024

The Delphi Murders Unraveled: Key Insights and Testimonies from July Hearings

This week’s pre-trial hearings in the Delphi murders case have dramatically shifted the narrative, unveiling new information and formally validating earlier speculations. Key revelations include the surprise vacating of Richard Allen’s safekeeping order, new forensic insights into blood placement and body positioning, and significant witness testimonies that further add to the complexities surrounding Allen and the investigation into the tragic deaths of Abby and Libby in Delphi, Indiana, in February 2017.

Richard Allen’s Mental Health and Treatment

The hearings have revealed troubling aspects of Richard Allen’s mental health treatment. Diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) with psychosis, Allen experienced prolonged solitary confinement at the Reception Diagnostic Center (RDC) despite not exhibiting suicidal ideation at intake. This solitary confinement lasted 12 months, a prison condition known to exacerbate psychological issues. Dr. Wala, who managed Allen's medication and offered limited therapy sessions, noted his initial claims of innocence but later shifted her focus to his deteriorating mental state, including suicidal ideation and delusions. Concerns have emerged about Dr. Wala’s potential bias and ethical breaches, including the use of involuntary medication, namely questionable doses of Haldol, an archaic antipsychotic medication, which the defense argues could have influenced the validity of Allen’s confessions. The defense contends that Allen’s mental state, deteriorated by the harsh conditions of confinement and inadequate psychiatric care, may have led to coerced confessions.

Safekeeping Order and Conditions

In a surprising twist, Judge Gull vacated Allen’s safekeeping order on August 1, marking a significant shift in the case. Allen had been held under this measure for seven months without a formal hearing, a decision now confirmed as lacking clear evidence of imminent danger and legality. The defense argues that this prolonged isolation, coupled with Allen's severe mental health issues and inadequate treatment, aggravated his condition and potentially coerced his confessions. The vacating of the safekeeping order now places Allen in the custody of the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office, altering the conditions under which he will face trial.

Confessions and Their Validity

The hearings have spotlighted the contentious issue of Allen’s confessions. Testimonies revealed that Allen’s statements, made between March and June 2023, are under scrutiny for their voluntariness. The defense argues that these confessions may have been tainted by Allen’s deteriorating mental state and possible coercion due to his prolonged confinement and Dr. Wala’s questionable practices. The prosecution counters that the statements were voluntary, attributing them to Allen’s religious motivations rather than undue influence. This divergence raises questions about the reliability of his alleged confessions.

Todd Click

Todd Click’s testimony suggested a potential motive for the murders. Click proposed that Abby and Libby were killed out of anger after inadvertently stumbling upon a ritual they mocked. According to Click, Libby was likely the primary target and killed first, with Abby then murdered as a witness. This theory introduces a new angle on the possible motivations behind the killings.

Elvis Fields

Elvis Fields was mentioned in relation to suspicious social media activity where he reportedly mimicked the crime scene. While Murphy testified to Fields' actions, he could not link Fields directly to the scene on the day of the murders. This detail adds complexity to the investigation but does not establish a clear connection to the crime, yet.

Brad Holder

Brad Holder emerged as a significant figure, with forensic anthropologist Dawn Perlmutter’s testimony suggesting a potential connection to ritualistic practices. Perlmutter linked elements of the crime scene to known Odinist rituals, introducing Holder as a suspect who may have been involved in a ritualistic murder. Anticipated testimony from Amber Holder - Brad Holder's ex-wife - is expected to assert that Brad Holder implicated himself and another person in the murders. Despite this, the defense has provided an alibi placing Holder at a gym during the murders, though it was revealed that Holder left work around 2:30 PM on the day of the murders and did not arrive at the gym until 4:30 PM, opening a window of possibility for his involvement.

Keegan Kline and His Father

Keegan Kline remains under scrutiny. Indiana State Police Trooper David Veto testified about intense investigations into Kline and his father, highlighting Kline’s history of violence, app deletions, and discrepancies in his alibi. Veto noted physical similarities between Kline and the bridge guy in the video. Kline initially denied knowing Libby but later claimed to be at the cemetery with his father that day, admitting to disposing of a phone and knife into the Wabash River. Kline has also admitted to having communicated with Libby via social media and planning a meet-up on the day of the murders.

Libby's Cellphone

Libby’s cellphone has been a focal point in the hearings. Cecil, a phone expert, disputed earlier claims that the phone was off at 4:33 AM, asserting it was receiving texts at that time. Specifically, he testified that the phone was off from around 4 PM on February 13 and was switched back on at 4:33 AM the next day, at which point 15 text messages that had been sent since her disappearance were delivered. It remains unclear how Libby's phone came back on at 4:33 AM. Cecil also detailed the Apple Health step tracking data from Libby's phone, but could not confirm if the recorded steps matched the state’s version of the distances traveled.

The Crime Scene, Blood and Body Placement

New forensic insights have clarified several aspects of the crime scene. Official testimony confirmed that Libby’s blood was "pooled" at the scene, indicating she was mobile after the initial attack, while Abby’s blood was found only near her body. Blood splatter expert Patrick Cicero suggested that Libby’s left arm was raised and her body dragged, possibly with injuries occurring while she was sitting down. The positioning of the bodies—Libby’s left arm up and signs of dragging—along with the use of sticks to conceal them, adds to the scene’s complexity. 

No suspect DNA was found, and the state has yet to establish a definitive time of death or fully explain the timing of the murders. 

Novel blood splatter analysis was conducted by Cicero as late as February 2024, but his experiments and analysis were not video-recorded.

A Box Cutter

The prosecution has focused on the potential disposal of a box cutter, suggesting it may be a crucial piece of evidence. This aspect of the case is being scrutinized, though it appears to overshadow other potential suspects and theories. Evidence points to potentially more sophisticated tools being involved, such as a saw, which contradicts the state’s focus on a box cutter.

Geofencing

Geofencing data has played a role in the hearings, with the defense attempting to introduce this data to support their theories. The prosecution disputed its accuracy, however it was clarified that geofencing data is precise within 3-5 meters, challenging the prosecution’s claims. Questions remain about why specialized forensic expertise was not utilized until February 2024.

Conclusion

This week’s hearings have introduced pivotal new information and confirmed previously speculated details, but perhaps the most surprising development was Judge Gull's decision to vacate the safekeeping order for Richard Allen. This unexpected ruling has shifted the dynamics of the case, with Allen now transferred from the extreme isolation of safekeeping to the custody of the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office.

The vacating of the safekeeping order, announced on August 1, has significant implications. It marks a dramatic turn in Allen’s treatment and could affect his mental state and the overall strategy of both the defense and prosecution. The hearings have also brought to light key testimonies and forensic insights, including revelations about Allen’s mental health, the validity of his confessions, the implications of Liberty German's phone being switched back on at 4:33 AM on February 14, and new perspectives on potential suspects like Brad Holder.

Huge credit to Yellow Jackette for attending each hearing and getting a very numb butt in the process, providing excellent notes. Hear her experiences of the hearings on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@RMproductionsyoutube.


July 30, 2024

The Nine Motions in This Week’s Richard Allen Delphi Murders Hearings.

The upcoming three days of hearings in the Delphi Murders trial, set to begin today 30 July, 2024, will be crucial for both the prosecution and the defense. A series of motions filed by both parties will be heard, potentially impacting the course of the trial and influencing the evidence presented to the jury. 

Here’s a breakdown of all the motions being heard, and what they entail:

State’s Motion for Admissibility:

  • Key Issue: This motion concerns the admissibility of statements made by the defendant, Richard Allen, to a psychologist at the Indiana Department of Corrections where he is currently held for safekeeping.
  • Details: The prosecution argues that these statements fall under an exception to confidentiality, allowing them to be introduced in court as evidence, as they relate directly to the homicide charges.
  • Importance: The potential admission of these statements could offer crucial insights into the defendant's mental state, motivations, and potential involvement in the murders.

Defense Motion to Suppress Second Statement:

  • Key Issue: This motion aims to suppress statements made by Richard Allen during a second interrogation conducted by Indiana State Police Trooper Jerry Holeman on October 26, 2022.
  • Details: The defense claims that Holeman violated Allen’s Miranda rights during this interrogation, as he didn’t read him his Miranda warning and made false statements about the evidence against him. Additionally, the beginning portion of the interrogation video provided to the defense is missing, adding to the suspicions surrounding the interrogation.
  • Importance: If the court grants this motion, Allen’s statements from the second interrogation would be excluded as evidence, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case.

State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress:

  • Key Issue: This response by the prosecution counters the defense’s motion to suppress the second statement.
  • Details: The state asserts that the interview was non-custodial as Allen arrived voluntarily and was informed that he was free to leave. The prosecution emphasizes that the interrogation wasn’t coerced, highlighting Allen’s calm demeanor and continued participation, despite occasional accusatory remarks by Holeman.
  • Importance: This argument aims to convince the court that the interrogation was conducted appropriately, and Allen's statements are therefore admissible.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions:

  • Key Issue: The defense requests the court to compel the state to produce specific evidence they claim has been withheld, including data extracted from victims’ phones and evidence related to potential third-party suspects. They also demand sanctions against the prosecution for the late disclosure of evidence, which they allege has significantly hampered their ability to mount a proper defense.
  • Details: The defense argues that the delayed and incomplete discovery provided by the prosecution has compromised their preparation for the trial. They specifically cite the withheld phone extraction data from third-party suspect Brad Holder, who they believe is central to the case, and the exculpatory information from the Rushville Police Chief's report, which was not provided for several months after its creation.
  • Importance: The granting of this motion would potentially significantly expand the defense's access to crucial evidence and force the prosecution to provide adequate information in a timely manner.

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order:

  • Key Issue: The defense requests that the court overturn the safekeeping order, which requires Richard Allen to be held in a high-security unit of the Indiana Department of Corrections instead of a county jail.
  • Details: The defense argues that the original concerns about transport and safety issues have been resolved, and the defendant poses no threat to the safety of others.
  • Importance: If granted, this motion could lead to a transfer of Allen to a less restrictive environment, potentially improving his mental and physical condition while awaiting trial.

State’s Motion in Limine:

  • Key Issue: This motion seeks to prevent the defense from mentioning specific evidence or arguments that the state deems irrelevant or prejudicial to the trial.
  • Details: The motion specifically targets mentions of Odinism, cult activities, the names of several individuals investigated as potential suspects (including Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall, and Elvis Fields), as well as evidence related to the geofencing investigation.
  • Importance: This motion seeks to tightly control the scope of evidence presented to the jury, preventing the defense from introducing arguments that could create confusion or bias.

Defense Response to State’s Motion in Limine:

  • Key Issue: This response challenges the state's attempt to limit the presentation of evidence, particularly regarding potential third-party perpetrators.
  • Details: The defense argues that their ability to present evidence of possible third-party involvement is essential for their case and their Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. They argue that the prosecution’s attempts to limit this evidence is an overreach that will only hinder a fair trial and judicial efficiency.
  • Importance: The outcome of this response could dramatically impact the defendant’s ability to introduce evidence that supports alternative theories about the murders, directly impacting the jury's understanding of the case.

Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss:

  • Key Issue: The defense argues for dismissal of the charges against Richard Allen based on the destruction and/or withholding of exculpatory evidence, particularly concerning potential third-party suspects Brad Holder and Odinism.
  • Details: The motion argues that various items of evidence have been intentionally lost or destroyed by law enforcement, specifically highlighting the missing Brad Holder phone extraction data, the absence of his second interview with authorities, and the missing images of a mimicked crime scene found on Holder’s social media. The defense argues that this evidence is highly exculpatory and crucial to their ability to mount a robust defense.
  • Importance: The potential dismissal of the charges based on prosecutorial misconduct is a significant legal hurdle for the prosecution to overcome. It highlights the severe consequences of losing or withholding potentially critical evidence, raising concerns about fairness and the integrity of the legal process.

State’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss:

  • Key Issue: This response directly challenges the defense's claim of lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence, arguing that the claims lack any substantive evidence and that Brad Holder is not a third-party suspect.
  • Details: The state argues that the defense's allegations of intentional destruction and concealment are unfounded. They maintain that Brad Holder’s involvement in the murders is unsubstantiated and the evidence they have already provided is sufficient.
  • Importance: This response attempts to dismiss the defense's allegations, arguing that the state has not engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and that the evidence they have presented adequately proves Richard Allen’s involvement in the murders.

Beyond being a fascinating week for true crime and legal folks who have followed the case, the outcomes of these hearings is likely to set the tone for the remaining period between now and the start of the trial in October. For context, it's unprecedented in Richard Allen's proceedings so far to have this many hearings - or actually many hearings at all - and I'm personally not sure if Judge Gull realises that she's ordered herself a huge plate of hearing, that she will now have to consume. 

Of course it's possible that nothing will be ruled on this week and that the Judge will take everything under advisement, for her to consider while she's on vacation this Summer. However it's also possible that she will make key findings here and now. Many will be watching to see if her posture has changed at all since the recent "lazy judge" motion.

Stay tuned, I guess...


July 24, 2024

The Phone Pings... But will Judge Gull Answer?

The Richard Allen Delphi murders continue to be a battleground of technical evidence, with yesterday's defense filing (Defense Reply to State's Response to Defense's 4th Motion for Franks Hearing) throwing a curveball into the ongoing fight over the search warrant used on Allen's property, ultimately leading to him becoming Defendant Allen. The back-and-forth really is a Franks showdown. 

The latest wrinkle? Cell phone data from one of the victims, Liberty German.

Why the Phone Pings Matter:

  • The Prosecution's Story: They believe the girls were dropped off near the trailhead on 13 February, 2017, never left the area, and were murdered soon after being ordered down a hill by their abductor.
  • The Defense's Argument: They entered a response to the state's rebuttal of their previous Franks motions. This latest filing centres on phone pings generated between 13-14 February, 2017. The defense claims these pings show activity outside the original area where the bodies were found, contradicting the prosecution's timeline.

The Defense Focuses on the Gap:

The crux of the defense's argument hinges on a gap in the pings after 5:44 pm on 13 February. They suggest phone activity outside the original area occurred sometime between then and 14 February. They reference Sergeant Blocher's interpretation of the pings in their motion, suggesting the phone was likely not in the area or not working at that time. Their implication? That the phone was taken elsewhere, then brought back – a scenario at odds with the prosecution's narrative.

Holes in the State's Counterarguments:

The state argues the defense is misreading the phone data, but their arguments have some weaknesses:

  • Silent on the Switch: The state says pings after 5:44 pm represent historical data, but they don't explain why the pings would abruptly switch at that specific time.
  • Blocher's Interpretation Sidestepped: The defense cites Sergeant Blocher's analysis, suggesting the phone wasn't in the area. The state doesn't address this directly, leaving the phone's status during the gap unclear.
  • Accuracy Questions Linger: While the state acknowledges ping inaccuracy, they don't specify an acceptable level of error in this case. Inconsistent ping accuracy weakens their argument that pings during the gap are unreliable outliers.
  • Alternative Explanations Not Addressed: The state argues the pings don't necessarily contradict their timeline because the phone could have been left behind. However, this doesn't eliminate the possibility the phone was moved, especially if pings after the gap show a significant location change.

Data Recovery: The Missing Piece?

The state's response makes no mention of data recovery efforts from Liberty German's phone. This is important because:

  • Deleted Data: Recovered data might include messages or location information that could clarify the phone's movements.
  • Phone Functionality: Data recovery efforts could also indicate whether the phone was functioning during the gap,potentially impacting the state's argument about the phone being out of range.

The absence of mention in this filing doesn't necessarily mean data recovery efforts haven't happened, but it raises questions the court may consider.

What's Next?

The court will now decide whether the defense's arguments about the phone pings warrant a Franks hearing. If granted, the court would hear evidence from both sides about the ping data and its significance to the case. The outcome of this motion - if heard - could significantly impact what evidence is allowed at trial. 

Will it lead to that ever-evasive Franks hearing? I wouldn't hold my breath, but it would be interesting if it does. Perhaps some of the funds raised for defense expert witnesses will go towards cell data experts who might finally be able to put this contentious point to bed.

If Libby's phone was moved away from the bridge area after the girls encountered Bridge Guy, what does it mean? Where did the phone - or the girls - go? Was the phone switched off on the afternoon of 13 February and switched back on in the dawn hours of the next day? If so, why, and by whom?


July 23, 2024

Understanding the Defense Motion for Mini Opening Statements: A Strategic Move

Richard Allen's defense has today (23 July) filed a motion (Mini summary motion page 1Page 2) seeking permission to present mini opening statements to the jury panel before the commencement of voir dire. This motion is not just a procedural request but a strategic maneuver aimed at ensuring a fair trial. Let's look into what this motion means, its historical and legal context, and what the defense might be hoping to achieve with it, especially in light of the challenges this case has faced so far.

What is the Motion Asking For?

The motion requests the court to allow both the defense and prosecution to present brief opening statements to the jury panel before the voir dire process begins. According to Indiana Jury Rule 14(b), these mini opening statements are intended to help the jury panel understand the case's key issues and facts. The defense suggests that these statements be limited to three minutes or less, allowing each party to summarize the main issues that will be contested at trial.

Historical and Legal Context

Mini opening statements are not a new concept. They have been used in various jurisdictions to improve the jury selection process. The rationale behind this practice is rooted in the belief that an informed jury is better equipped to serve impartially. By providing jurors with a snapshot of the case, attorneys can help them understand the context and identify any biases or preconceived notions they might have.

Historically, voir dire has been the primary tool for uncovering juror biases, but it has limitations. In a case as controversial as the Delphi Murders, voir dire may be particularly challenging. Traditional voir dire questions can sometimes fail to reveal deeper prejudices or misunderstandings about the case. Mini opening statements offer a proactive approach to address these issues by giving jurors a clearer picture of what to expect.

What the Defense Hopes to Achieve

In the case of Richard M. Allen, the defense's motion for mini opening statements is particularly significant given the case's troubled history. The trial has been plagued with due process errors, and the relationship with the judge has been contentious to say the least. 

Here are some potential objectives the defense might be aiming for with this motion:

  1. Enhancing Juror Understanding: By providing a concise overview of the defense's position, the defense hopes to ensure that jurors have a balanced understanding of the case from the outset. This is crucial in a case that may have already been influenced by media coverage and public opinion.
  2. Identifying Bias: Mini opening statements can help expose potential biases or preconceived notions among the jury pool. This can be particularly important in a high-profile case where jurors might have formed opinions based on incomplete or biased information.
  3. Setting the Narrative: The defense can use this opportunity to establish key themes and narratives that will be important throughout the trial. This early framing can help jurors better understand the defense's arguments and evidence.
  4. Balancing the Scales: In a case where the judge's hostility has been a concern, presenting a mini opening statement allows the defense to ensure their perspective is heard clearly and without interruption. This can help counteract any perceived or actual bias from the bench.
  5. Fair Trial Safeguards: Given the due process issues that have arisen, this motion is a proactive step to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial. By enhancing the jury's understanding and helping to select impartial jurors, the defense is taking a crucial step to protect their client's constitutional rights.

Conclusion

The motion for mini opening statements in the case of Richard M. Allen is more than a procedural request; it is a strategic effort to ensure a fair and impartial trial. By providing jurors with a brief overview of the case before voir dire, the defense aims to enhance understanding, identify biases, and establish a balanced narrative. In a trial marked by due process errors and a hostile judge, this motion represents a vital step towards safeguarding the defendant's rights and achieving a just outcome.


July 21, 2024

Implications of Justin Forkner's IN 53.1 Decision.

On 7 July Richard Allen's defense attorneys made an arcane legal move, invoking Indiana Trial Rule 53.1 (the "lazy judge" rule), in an attempt to have Judge Gull removed from the case, for delaying in ruling on motions. The premise of IN 53.1 is that if a motion requires a judgment or a hearing has not been addressed within thirty days, the defendant has the right to have the cause removed from the presiding judge.

The ethos behind IN 53.1 is the fair execution of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, and that is the basis for this powerful tool which ensures justice is timely.

The motions which not ruled on are the defense's Franks motions, which are powerful, because if successful the case can be thrown out. Franks motions attack the evidential root by which someone becomes a defendant.

When the defense filed their "lazy judge" praecipe on 7 July there was a flurry of online chatter about what would happen. Going by the letter of IN 53.1, and a detailed look at the motions that were cited, it looked like the case might get a new judge. 

On 19 July Justin Forkner - the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration official who gets to decide if there has been a relevant delay in ruling on a motion - published his finding. Forkner found that Judge Gull did delay ruling on defense's 9 April Franks motion (which I'll refer to as the "Latest Franks motion"). 

However, he also found that Allen had waived his IN 53.1 right by filing, on 18 June, a subsequent motion titled "Accused's Response to This Court's May 31, 2024 'Order or Judgment of the Court', and Notice of Conflict" (which I'll refer to as the "Resetting motion"). 

Justin said no.

By Forkner's interpretation, the thirty-day clock which was started by the Latest Franks motion was reset by the filing of the Resetting motion. He interprets the Resetting motion to be so central to what was being asked of the court in the Latest Franks motion that it nullifies the right provided by IN 53.1.

The Resetting motion, however, was about one thing only: Judge Gull's bias. It wasn't about the contents of the Franks, or anything else you might consider foundational to Indiana v Richard M Allen. Is that relevant? Yes, it is, and here's why.

Forkner - who remember is not a judge - cited a piece of Indiana case law, Board of Medical Registration and Examination v Turner 168 N.E.2d 193, 195 (Ind. 1960) (which I'll refer to as "Board of Medical Registration and Examination") as his legal rationale, quoting (where it references Rule 1-13, understand that Rule 1-13 was the predecessor rule to IN 53.1):

"[...] it is well settled that a party cannot claim the benefit of Rule 1-13 when by his conduct has has consented or waived his right to claim it."

He then goes on to tell us that in more recent case law - State Koppe v Cass Circuit Court (Ind. 2000) - the Indiana Supreme Court added the following footnote:

"Similarly, the benefit of Trial Rules 53.1 or 53.2 may be waived where the deadline for a ruling has passed, but rather than filing a praecipe to withdraw the cause, a party files pleadings or otherwise takes voluntary action of record inconsistent with that party's right to invoke those rules."

In legal rulings, and in legislation, words hold power, and their strict interpretation sometimes hinges on a single word, and why that word was chosen. 

What does "may be" mean to you? The Oxford Dictionary defines the verb "may" as:

"used to say that something is possible

  • That may or may not be true.
  • He may have (= perhaps he has) missed his train.
  • They may well win.
  • There is a range of programs on the market which may be described as design aids."

To me this is ambiguous enough to leave space for "may not". Something may or may not be. If the Indiana Supreme Court wanted that footnote to be an absolute bar on subsequent-action waiver of IN 53.1, they would have used "is", not "may be". Appellate courts don't misuse words, because doing so introduces risk of misinterpretation.

The problem is there is nowhere for Richard Allen to go with Forkner's interpretation of the law. Indiana apparently has a serious due process issue, and a messy mish-mash of officials making quasi-judicial decisions that cannot be reviewed.

Due process is a fundamental right in any legal system. It means that up to a point, any decision impacting one's legal rights must be challengeable. 

Ultra vires is an interesting legal term, meaning "beyond the powers", as in when an official acts beyond their powers. Ultra vires is the legal basis for judicial review, whereby someone asks a court to review the actions of an official. In the case of Allen's "lazy judge" attempt, his attorneys might argue that Justin Forkner is merely an official and has acted "beyond his powersin his interpretation of the law, that they'd prefer a judge to clarify whether Allen's Resetting motion really should be considered a subsequent-action waiver to the rights inherent in IN 53.1.

Perhaps in that footnote, the Indiana Supreme Court foresaw a situation where there might be some subsequent-action that doesn't contradict the intent to enforce rights inherent in IN 53.1. Perhaps they - by using "may be" instead of "is" - wanted to maintain some judicial discretion over such decisions in future.

However, the way the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration was created, of which Forkner is the chief official, means that it is an arm of the Indiana Supreme Court itself (via §33-24-6 of the Indiana Code). It might be uncomfortable, or very unusual, for an attorney to ask that court to review its own actions. It may be that nobody has attempted before.

How can such a due process black hole be left unaddressed just because it's unusual, though? For Richard Allen, and everyone else in Indiana, it shouldn't. Quasi-judicial officials who are non-reviewable is the stuff of tyrannical legal regimes, where a faceless person not vested with judicial responsibilities and accountability can determine the fate of individuals facing the full might of the state.

Novelty is how law progresses. Novelty on the part of the Indiana Supreme Court has created this due process black hole, perhaps novelty on the part of Indiana attorneys is the only way to correct it.


June 23, 2024

May Trial - The Jury Questionnaire.

These are the questions that were asked to prospective jurors in Indiana v Richard Allen, which was scheduled for May of this year but was since moved to October.

1. Name

2. Age

3. Home Address

4. If you have lived at any other address in the last five years, please list each such address

5. What is your occupation and who is your current employer?

6. If you are married or if you live with a companion, what is his or her name?

7. If you are married or if you live with a companion, please list his or her employers for the last three years, including his/her present employer:

8. With respect to other members of your household, if any, please state their names, ages, occupations, and employers, if applicable:

9. Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a violent crime? If yes, please explain:

10. Are you or any member of your family related to, or a close friend of any law enforcement officer? If so, please explain:

11. Have you ever been called for jury service before?

If so, were you seated as a juror?

If so, was it a civil or a criminal case?

What was the outcome of the case?

What concerns you most about the jury system?

12. Have you ever appeared as a witness in a court?

If so, was it a civil or a criminal matter?

13. If so, for whom did you testify?

Have you or any member of your family ever been involved in a lawsuit?

If so, please describe briefly the type of lawsuit and the outcome of the proceeding:

14. How much education have you completed? (Select all that apply)

Grade School ____

High School ____

College ____

Graduate School ____

Vocational School or Specialized Training ____

15. Have you or any members of your immediate family served in the military?

If so, when and in what branch?

16. How do you keep up with the news? (Select all that apply)

TV ____

Newspaper ____

Friends ____

Magazines ____

Don't Keep Up With The News ____

17. How often do you read the newspaper?

Daily ____

Weekly ____

Monthly ____

Once In A While ____

Never ____

18. Which books, newspapers or magazines, if any, have you read in the last three months?

19. Which television programs, if any, do you regularly watch?

20. What podcasts, if any, do you regularly listen to?

21. What social media platforms do you use?

22. How reliable do you believe the media is?

Very Reliable ____

Somewhat Reliable ____

Not Reliable ____

Please explain your answer.

23. Are you familiar with the investigation and/or prosecution of Richard Allen for Murder? Yes ____ No ____

If Yes, what do you know about the case?

24. Have you heard any discussion in the local community about the prosecution of Richard Allen for Murder? Yes ____ No ____

If Yes, what have you heard?

25. Have you formed an opinion about what you have heard about this case such that your opinion would interfere with your ability to decide this case by what you hear in court? Yes ____ No ____

Please explain your answer:

26. Please list any organizations or associations to which you belong or are interested in, such as PTA, social clubs, political organizations, etc.:

27. Please list any organizations or associations to which your spouse, if any, belongs or is interested in:

28. Please list any religious organizations to which you or your spouse belongs or is interested in:

29. Do you have any disabilities or health-related problems which would make it difficult for you to serve as a juror?

30. Is there any information which you would like to provide to the court that you believe is relevant to your ability to serve as a juror in this case?

31. Do you or have you suffered from a mental illness? If you answered yes, please explain:

32. Do you have any pressing matters which would make it impossible for you to serve as a juror during the time frame of May 15th, 2024, through May 31st, 2024?

33. Have you ever heard of the Delphi murders? Yes ____ No ____

34. Do you have a family member or close friend who works in the legal system as a judge, lawyer, court reporter, paralegal, legal secretary or law enforcement officer?

If you answered yes, please explain:

35. Have you or anyone close to you been convicted of a felony? If you answered yes, please explain:

36. Are you currently on probation or serving a sentence of house arrest, work release or under suspended sentence?

37. Have you, or anyone close to you, been prosecuted for a criminal offense in Allen County and/or Carroll County? (This Does Not Include Traffic Infractions Such As Speeding)

38. Do you believe that the jury system in this country is a fair system?

Yes ____ No ____

Please explain your answer:

39. Have you ever seen anything on television related to this case?

40. Are you part of an online group, YouTube channel, or other internet-based organization that has discussed this case? If so, what group?

41. No matter what you have heard or seen about this case, and no matter what opinions you might have formed, what difficulty might you have putting all of that aside and deciding this case only on the evidence you receive in court, following the law, and deciding the case in a fair and impartial manner?

42. The jury is told not to read, watch or listen to news accounts of a trial they are involved in until it is over, and not talk to anyone about the case, and to not post anything on social media or elsewhere, including through jury deliberations.

What difficulty might you have following these instructions for any reason?


April 16, 2024

15 April - Summary of Motion to Suppress - Illegal interrogation & inept detectives

This filing on behalf of the defense is a "Motion to Suppress the Accused’s Second Statement" filed by Richard Allen, the accused, through his counsel. It requests the court to suppress all statements made during his interrogation on October 26, 2022, on the grounds of constitutional violations and irregularities in the interrogation process. This follows Allen's first motion to suppress which related to admissions he made under duress while in prison, which is summarized here.

Summary of Allegations and Evidence:

  1. First Interrogation (October 13, 2022):
    • Initially, Allen cooperated voluntarily, believing he was assisting in solving the case of the murders of Libby and Abby.
    • The interrogation turned accusatory, causing Allen to assert his innocence and express frustration.
    • Despite being read his Miranda rights, Allen eventually decided to stop cooperating.
    • Subsequently, a search warrant was issued for Allen's home and vehicle.
  2. Second Interrogation (October 26, 2022):
    • Allen and his wife went to retrieve their seized vehicle but were unexpectedly subjected to further interrogation.
    • The beginning of the interrogation, including Miranda rights reading, is missing from the provided video.
    • Discrepancies exist between the interrogation video and the officer's report regarding Miranda rights and freedom to leave.
    • The defense alleges various constitutional violations during this interrogation, including:
      • Lack of Miranda rights reading.
      • Unlawful detention.
      • Coercive and deceptive interrogation tactics.
      • False statements made by the interrogating officer.

State v E.R.:

The filing cites State v. E.R., a similar case where the defendant's constitutional rights were deemed violated, leading to the suppression of statements. It highlights specific parallels between E.R.'s case and Allen's interrogation, emphasizing the importance of Miranda rights, freedom to leave, and the nature of the interrogation atmosphere.

What this means:

The motion asserts that Allen's constitutional rights against self-incrimination were violated during both interrogations due to the absence of Miranda rights reading, coercive tactics, and deceptive statements by law enforcement. It requests the suppression of Allen's statements and a finding that the interrogating officer and the State Police violated Allen's constitutional rights.

In essence, the filing aims to challenge the admissibility of Allen's statements in court, arguing that they were obtained unlawfully and in violation of his constitutional rights, thereby weakening the prosecution's case against him.

Custodial interrogation or not?

There has already been debate since this document was released about whether or not interview/interrogation number two was covered by the Miranda requirement, hinging on whether or not it was a custodial interrogation or an informal conversation with the police. 

I think the point is moot, because they clearly did read his Miranda rights in the first conversation, and failed to in the second. No reasonable person would conclude that these two conversations were acutely different to the point that the second conversation wasn't similar in nature and structure to the first. 

Impact on the trial

In a "normal" trial, if evidence extracted from the second interrogation was central to a prosecution's case, the failure to read the defendant his Miranda rights could be grounds to request dismissal of the charges. However, if what the police extracted from Allen in that conversation only forms part of their case against him, then that part can be directly challenged as inadmissible. There's plenty of precedent/jurisprudence at a United States Supreme Court level that should instruct the court on that. There is also, as the filing itself indicates, Indiana-specific jurisprudence in State vs E.R. 

Richard Allen however has a hostile judge, so it's not clear if she will follow the jurisprudence at this level or leave it as a prospective appellate issue. I think it depends very much on what information was extracted from the interrogation and how central it is to the prosecution's case. If it is central, then forget it, because Judge Gull isn't going to act against the interests of the State, but if it's peripheral, then perhaps she'll let it be suppressed because it does the State no harm.

Why did Indiana State Police read Rick Allen his Miranda rights in the first conversation on 13 October, but not the second on 16 October? 

Is this another case of Detective Dufus forgetting to do his actual job while pretending to be a detective? I think it's got to be, because they were trying really hard to put Allen in the frame for the murders in October 2022, and every cop in America is aware that if they screw up the suspect's constitutional rights in interviews then those interviews are worthless. It just goes to show how inept the senior figures in law enforcement around this case were, and are.


April 13, 2024

Coerced Compliant Confessions - Five academic studies that add important context to Richard Allen's confession evidence.

The idea of an innocent person confessing to a crime seems absurd on the surface. Why would someone admit to something they didn't do? Yet, the reality is that false confessions are a disturbingly common occurrence, especially within the coercive environment of prisons. While skepticism is understandable, extensive research and expert analysis demonstrate that prisoners under duress are particularly vulnerable to making false confessions.

Plenty of academics have studied this phenomenon. This post highlights a few of those studies and their conclusions. These authors are not people who are fighting for "Justice for Person Y" or "Justice for Person X", they are independent academics who have to follow a rigorous process in their work.

Understanding Coerced Compliant Confessions

Let's begin by recognizing that not all false confessions are created equal. Coerced compliant confessions happen when individuals, often in vulnerable positions, succumb to pressure from authority figures and confess to a crime they didn't commit. This pressure can manifest as threats, violence, or even manipulative psychological tactics. As experts Kassin, et al. (2003) describe it, such confessions occur because individuals "succumb to pressure from law enforcement or other authoritative figures to confess to a crime they did not commit."

The prison environment is a breeding ground for such pressure. Leo and Ofshe (1998) highlight how "the prison environment, characterized by its coercive nature and power differentials, can compel inmates to make false confessions to prison staff in order to alleviate punishment or gain privileges within the institution." 

Imagine the desperation of an inmate facing solitary confinement or denied basic necessities. In such a situation, confessing to a crime, even a false one, might seem like the only path to relief.

Vulnerable Populations and Duress

The susceptibility to false confessions intensifies for certain individuals. Gudjonsson and Clare (2004) point out that those with "intellectual disabilities or psychological impairments, are particularly susceptible to making coerced compliant confessions when subjected to intense interrogation tactics." 

In the pressure cooker environment of prison, these vulnerabilities are magnified, leaving these individuals at even greater risk of confessing to crimes they did not commit.

False Confessions Between Prisoners

The pressure to falsely confess doesn't always come from prison staff. Kassin et al. (2016) highlight how prisoners may also falsely confess "to crimes within the prison environment as a means of self-protection or to gain acceptance or status among their peers." 

In the harsh reality of prison life, where violence and intimidation are commonplace, confessing to a crime may seem like a survival strategy to avoid becoming a target. This must magnify for a defendant who is yet to be prosecuted, who happens to be temporarily held in a prison, rather than the traditional temporary jail environment they belong.

A Call for Awareness and Reform

The prevalence of false confessions within the prison system points to a larger issue: the vulnerability of individuals under duress and the potential for grave miscarriages of justice. As Drizin and Leo (2004) emphasize, "False confessions made by prisoners under duress highlight the vulnerability of individuals within the criminal justice system, particularly when subjected to coercive pressures from authority figures or peers."

Ignoring this is not an option. Some of us are advocating for justice for Richard Allen in the Delphi murder trial. If boring, dry academic people - with rigorous methods - have reached the conclusions that I've highlighted here, then why should any half-sane person accept that the supposed confessions are real. It's unthinkable that there are people who, given the information that came with Allen's Motion to Suppress this "confession" evidence, can look themselves in the mirror and double-down on the validity of the confessions Richard Allen made. Do you consider yourself American?

The National Registry of Exonerations: Shedding Light on Injustice

One of the most powerful tools in understanding the prevalence of wrongful convictions, including those based on coerced confessions, is the National Registry of Exonerations. This database documents cases where individuals have been wrongfully convicted and later cleared of their charges, often due to newly discovered evidence or advancements in forensic techniques.

In Indiana alone, the National Registry of Exonerations has recorded 46 cases of wrongful convictions that have been formally exonerated. Each entry in this registry represents a life disrupted, a family torn apart, and a miscarriage of justice that must be rectified.

The National Registry of Exonerations' catalog shows us that the state can - and does - get it wrong, either by incompetence, malice or a mixture of the both. These cases underscore the urgency of addressing issues such as coerced confessions, inadequate legal representation, and flawed investigative techniques.


For Richard Allen's trial, I don't think the confession "evidence" needs to be suppressed at all. The filed motion did a service to the the idea that an innocent man is being tortured by the state. 

A jury of twelve - if they are presented with confession "evidence" by the prosecution - will also have to hear what the defense say about those confessions, and will have to search their souls. 

If McCleland goes heavy on the confessions as primary evidence of Allen's guilt, then perhaps we'll see the defense bring in confession experts too, possibly including some of the academics named here. If they can find a way to pay for them.


April 11, 2024

11 April 2024 - Summary of Richard Allen's Motion to Suppress (admission evidence)

This document is a legal memorandum supporting a motion to suppress evidence (specifically, statements made by Richard M. Allen that amount to an "admission") in the case of the State of Indiana vs. Richard M. Allen. Allen is accused of the double homicide of Abigail Williams and Liberty German.

Key Points:

  • Unusual Detention: Allen, while awaiting trial, was held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison unit typically used for individuals with suicidal ideations, despite no evidence suggesting he was suicidal.
  • Harsh Conditions: He endured extreme isolation, limited amenities, constant surveillance, and shackling even during meetings with his attorneys.
  • Mental Health Concerns: Allen had a history of depression and his mental health deteriorated significantly during his detention, leading to possible psychosis.
  • Questionable Statements: While in this state, Allen allegedly made incriminating statements to inmates and guards, which his lawyers argue were involuntary and should be suppressed.
  • Due Process Concerns: The defense argues that the conditions of Allen's detention violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, as well as his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution.

Important Quotes:

  • "[Allen's] free will was overcome by the forces of his environment, all of which were placed upon him by the government and its actors." This quote highlights the defense's argument that the harsh conditions of Allen's detention were coercive and led to involuntary statements.
  • "[Allen] was reduced to nothing more than a human experiment." This quote emphasizes the defense's belief that the extreme isolation and lack of proper mental health care severely impacted Allen's mental state.
  • "The system of pre-trial detention employed against Allen runs afoul of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article 1 Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution." This quote clearly states the defense's claim that Allen's rights were violated by the manner of his detention.

Why This Matters:

This motion raises critical questions about the limits of pre-trial detention and the protection of individuals' constitutional rights. The defense argues that the extreme conditions Allen faced, combined with his pre-existing mental health issues, rendered any statements he made involuntary and unreliable. If the court agrees - which frankly is unlikely - it means the "admission" will not be admissible in evidence in front of a jury..

Additional Points of Interest:

  • The document mentions the existence of investigative findings related to a group of suspects associated with Odinist religious practices, and the potential involvement of prison guards with similar beliefs.
  • It also highlights inconsistencies between Allen's alleged confessions and the known facts of the case, further supporting the argument that his statements were unreliable.

April 10, 2024

8 April 2024 - Gull gags again. But does it do anything new?

You just know Judge Gull would love to stick a ball-gag over David Hennessy's mouth after he called her Gollum...

But she hasn't. She has however issued a new injunction barring relevant parties to the Delphi case from speaking to the media. We didn't learn about this from the docket, because... it's not on the docket. News of the new gag order came from the media (WSBT article).

WSBT says this about the new gag order:

"The order will prohibit prosecutors, the defense team and investigators from talking to the media about the case against Richard Allen."

"The order does not extend to the attorney representing Allen's defense team."

So what we have is a new gag order, that sounds a lot like the gag order that's already in place. It prevents the parties - prosecution, defense, and investigators - from talking to the media about the case against Richard Allen. Okay, but we've already had an active order barring the same since December 2022.

When I first heard about this I thought she'd be extending the scope of her original order to include the other attorneys that have tangentially become involved in the case, i.e. David Hennessy and others. I assumed this because those attorneys have been more talkative in recent weeks, particularly David Hennessy, notably in the YouTube live he did with Bob Motta and Unsolved Crimes: Unsolved. But she didn't.

The new gag order appears to do nothing new at all.


April 6, 2024

3 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support Richard Allen's Fight for Justice

Richard Allen's case is not just about one man; it's about the very foundation of our justice system and the rights of every American citizen. Here are three crucial reasons why you should consider donating to his legal defense fund:

1. Denial of Funding for Critical Evidence Examination:

Imagine being accused of a crime you didn't commit, with evidence existing that could prove your innocence. Now imagine being denied the resources to even examine that evidence. This is the shocking reality for Richard Allen. He's been refused funding for crucial analysis, including analysis of the cellphones present at the crime scene, and shell casing analysis, that could potentially exonerate him. This denial is not just unfair; it strikes at the heart of justice itself. By supporting his legal fund, you're ensuring he has the means to fight for the truth and expose potential flaws in the prosecution's case.

2. Destruction of Exculpatory Evidence:

In a truly just system, all evidence, whether it points towards guilt or innocence, must be preserved. However, in Richard Allen's case, potentially exculpatory evidence has been destroyed. This could include anything from witness statements to surveillance footage, all of which could have been crucial in establishing his alibi and proving his innocence. Such actions not only hinder his defense but also raise serious concerns about transparency and accountability within the justice system. Your support can help his legal team investigate these actions and fight for the truth, regardless of the obstacles.

3. Judicial Misconduct and Concealment of Evidence:

The role of a judge is to ensure a fair trial, where both sides have the opportunity to present their case. However, Richard Allen's case is marred by allegations of judicial misconduct and evidence concealment. This could involve suppressing evidence favorable to the defense or even colluding with the prosecution. Such actions undermine the very foundation of a fair trial and threaten the integrity of the entire judicial process. By supporting Richard Allen's legal fund, you're taking a stand against such injustices and advocating for a system that upholds the principles of fairness and due process for all.

Richard Allen's fight is not just his own; it's a fight for justice for all. Your contribution, no matter how small, can make a significant difference in ensuring he has the resources to defend himself and challenge the systemic failures that threaten the very core of our justice system. Donate today and stand up for what's right.

-

Richard Allen's defense has created a crowdsourced fundraising campaign. Every single dollar will go towards the payment of defense experts to ensure a fair trial. It's reached two thirds of its target - if you can donate now via PayIt2 by clicking here

For legal information about the fundraiser, click here.


April 5, 2024

5 April 2024 - Tl;Dr Summary of Defense Reply to Prosecution's Response to 3rd Franks Memorandum

The Defense Reply to Prosecution's Response to 3rd Franks Memorandum hit the Internet earlier, but it's a weighty read. If you want to know the key arguments, here is a summary of the filing.

Richard Allen's defense team argues that a Franks hearing is necessary due to alleged false information and omissions in the search warrant affidavit, as well as a pattern of concealing evidence by law enforcement and the prosecution.

Key Points:

  • False Information in Affidavit: The defense claims the affidavit contains false information regarding witness statements, specifically about the color of a jacket and the presence of blood. They argue this misinformation impacted the timeline presented by the prosecution.
  • Omission of Crucial Information: The defense highlights the omission of witness descriptions of the suspect and vehicle, which they believe do not match Richard Allen and his car. They argue these omissions were intentional and crucial to establishing the timeline.
  • Pattern of Concealing Evidence: The defense presents several instances where they believe law enforcement and the prosecution concealed or misrepresented evidence, including:
    • Misrepresenting statements by a Purdue professor regarding Odinism.
    • Delaying the disclosure of exculpatory evidence supporting the defense's theory of Odinism involvement.
    • Providing conflicting testimonies about the number of individuals involved in the crime.
    • Late disclosure of geofencing data and refusal to identify the expert who analyzed it.
  • Defense's Theory: The defense maintains their theory that individuals involved in Odinism committed the murders, supported by evidence and the findings of some investigators.
  • Late Discovery: The defense emphasizes the prosecution's late disclosure of crucial evidence, hindering their ability to prepare for trial and depositions.

Key Quotes:

  • "The defense has provided evidence that throughout the history of this case, but particularly in 2023, law enforcement and/or the prosecution have presented false information or attempted to conceal evidence."
  • "If this Court expects or requires that law enforcement admit to intentionality or reckless disregard for the truth, then a Franks hearing is nothing more than a legal fiction."
  • "Clearly, by September 6, 2023, McLeland had been fully aware for over 3 weeks that Holeman had learned the possible identity of the Purdue Professor (Jeffrey Turco) and by then had even received the unsigned 2017 report of that professor. Yet McLeland claimed to the defense that the FBI and Purdue Police had not yet responded to Holeman when clearly both had, even providing the name Turco to Holeman."

Requested Action:

The defense urges the court to grant a Franks hearing to assess the validity of the search warrant based on the alleged false information and omissions, and the pattern of concealing evidence.


April 4, 2024

Judge Gull's order releasing health records was illegal under Indiana Code.

Yesterday - 3 April 2024 - Judge Gull ordered the release of Richard Allen's health records to the prosecution, without hearing.

Let's read the Indiana Code. Section 16-39-3 deals with health records.

Section 16-39-3-4 - Notice of hearing

Except as provided in section 8 of this chapter, notice of a hearing to be conducted under this chapter shall be served at least fifteen (15) days in advance on the following:

(1) The patient.

(2) The guardian, guardian ad litem or court appointed special advocate appointed for a minor, parent, or custodian of a patient who is incompetent.

(3) The provider that maintains the record or the attorney general if the provider is a state institution.

Now, consider the order made yesterday, and its wording:

"State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (mental health records) filed March 14, 2024 granted without hearing. State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (medical records) filed March 14, 2024, granted without hearing."

You can see where I'm going with this. Sometimes in court cases the "authorities" that lawyers cite to say a court can't or should do something are difficult to unravel, relying on case law that has gone through appeals, or state or federal Supreme Court rulings. Those can be open to interpretation or misinterpretation. Statute however - in this case the Indiana Code - is much less open to interpretation, and §16-39-3-4 is about as clear as you can get. "Notice of a hearing to be conducted" is the key language, and Judge Gull's order completely ignored it. She ignored the law.

So what next?

I think Gull's calculation was that Allen's defense will go for an interlocutory appeal on this order, which would delay the trial by many months. But I think she might have shot herself in the foot. Such a bare failure to follow the law in a case that has already seen a man jailed (in solitary, in a high-security prison) for a year and a half, where speedy trial rights have been activated, is in my opinion a sound reason to go straight to Indianapolis, straight to the Indiana Supreme Court (SCOIN). 

If the lawyers go down that route, this matter could be ruled on by SCOIN before the trial is even scheduled to begin, and the implications of another slap-down from SCOIN could be very chilling for Judge Gull. Not least, SCOIN would be forced to look at Gull's actions since their last ruling earlier in the year, and perhaps the issue of impartiality will finally be given the weight it needs.


April 3, 2024

2 April 2024 - Jennifer Auger costs approved

In a 2 April order, the Carroll Circuit Court has approved the request for public funds to cover some specific defense costs.

The approved motion, initiated by Attorney Brad Rozzi, sought reimbursement of public funds to cover legal services provided by Attorney Jennifer Auger to indigent defendant Richard Allen. Attorney Auger's assistance was deemed necessary due to the overwhelming volume of discovery and evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly in the identification and vetting of prosecution witnesses, notably FBI agents.

To read a more detailed summary of the motion that led to this order see this post.

The order issued by Frances Gull, Special Judge of the Carroll Circuit Court, grants authorization for Attorney Auger to submit invoices for her services. Upon approval by the Court, the Carroll County Auditor will be directed to reimburse Attorney Auger at the same hourly rate as the public defenders.

This will come as a relief to a defense that is still having to crowdsource funds to pay for expert witnesses. It will be interesting to see what - if any - FBI involvement comes about because of Jennifer Auger's actions, but considering they had a key role in the early days of the Delphi murders investigation, it could be an important element of the trial.


April 3, 2024

Chinese Software.

One of the more intriguing things to emerge from the transcript to the Motion to Dismiss hearing on 18 March is the emergence of "Chinese software" as a new thread in the conversation around Richard Allen.

At the heart of the matter lies the mysterious disappearance of crucial video footage, believed to hold the key to Allen's defense.

In the courtroom on 18 March, Todd Click, a police officer, was asked about the intricacies of software used in evidence retrieval specific to the evidence around Elvis Fields et al. Central to the discussion was the revelation of the use of "Chinese software" in attempts to recover the lost videos spanning the critical timeframe when Fields was being investigated.

Questions centered on the efficacy and reliability of this software, with the defense attorney pressing Click on the completeness of the recovered videos. Click's admission that some videos lacked audio will only further fuel speculation about the reliability of any Carroll County/ISP evidence, and the murky circumstances around the early investigation into the Delphi murders, and why and how Richard Allen was named a suspect.

Adding fuel to the fire was the absence of a report confirming the success of the Chinese software, casting doubt on the methods employed by law enforcement in their efforts to salvage the lost evidence. As the defense probed deeper, Click shed light on the labyrinthine nature of software systems utilized by various entities, complicating the already challenging task of evidence retrieval.

It's likely this key evidence - which could exonerate Richard Allen - is lost forever, depriving the defense of what could be a key pillar in its efforts to bring justice to Allen, and, importantly, Abby & Libby.

The hearing also underscored the critical importance of time in reviewing received information, particularly in light of the voluminous nature of digital records stored in intricate software formats. Click's request for additional time to peruse data from the Department of Corrections highlighted the complexities inherent in navigating the digital landscape.

As the case unfolds, the role of software in evidence retrieval emerges as a central theme, underscoring the imperative of transparency, accountability, and meticulous attention to detail in the pursuit of truth. Values that many feel the LE establishment around this case are lacking. 

In a case already shrouded in uncertainty, the quest for justice remains paramount, with each twist and turn bringing Allen closer to uncovering the truth behind his ordeal - or does it? How many murky turns will this case take before finding a conclusion?


April 1, 2024

18 March Motion to Dismiss - Excerpts from A Major Turning Point

The good folks at Defense Diaries, The Unravelling, as well as Cara Wieneke spent their own money securing the court transcript for the 18 March hearing on Defense's Motion to Dismiss (Exculpatory Evidence). A huge hat-tip to them for doing this, and I hope we can find ways to fund similar initiative in future.

Last night Bob and Ali Motta of Defense Diaries held a reading of the entire transcript on their YouTube Channel (Defense Diaries on Youtube). Revelations from the court hearing on the 3/18 Motion to Dismiss have shed new light on the case, unveiling potentially crucial evidence that challenges the prosecution's narrative.

I can't help but feel that if the Jury in Allen's trial hears this same evidence, they will be forced to acquit Richard, because it is so compelling. It's especially compelling considering its source: a veteran police officer with first-hand knowledge of how the Delphi Murders investigation was carried out. I want to say it here and now: Todd Click is a hero for doing this in the name of justice. At least one of his colleagues was murdered in the course of this investigation, and in the tense and dangerous world of Indiana law enforcement and some of the corrupt elements surrounding this case, he is genuinely risking his life.

Here are some key takeaways from the transcript.

Key Points and Incriminating Evidence:

  • Missing Audio Evidence: Defense attorney Andrew Baldwin highlighted the absence of critical audio evidence, which could potentially implicate Elvis Fields in the murders. This missing evidence suggests a possible oversight or negligence in the investigation process.
  • Fields' Alleged Statements: Elvis Fields purportedly made several admissions that could link him to the crimes. He allegedly told Detective Murphy that if his spit were found on one of the victims, he had a reason for it. This statement strongly implies Fields' involvement or awareness of the crime scene. Additionally, Fields allegedly confessed to his sister, Mary Abrams, admitting to "having done something bad to some girls." He also allegedly described placing sticks in a victim's hair and claimed to be part of a gang with a brother. These statements provide compelling circumstantial evidence of Fields' guilt.

Primary Insights:

  • Significance of Fields' Admissions: The defense argues that Fields' admissions to both Detective Murphy and his sister, Mary Abrams, serve as crucial evidence linking him to the murders. These statements, if proven to be true, establish a direct connection between Fields and the crimes.
  • Failure to Obtain Search Warrant: Despite the compelling nature of Fields' admissions, law enforcement failed to obtain a search warrant for Fields' residence. This failure raises questions about the thoroughness of the investigation and suggests a potential oversight on the part of law enforcement.

Additional Information:

Detective Ferency, RIP
Detective Ferency, RIP
  • Impact of Detective Ferency's Death: The investigation into Fields' potential involvement stalled following the tragic death of Detective Ferency. Ferency was shot to death by FORMER CORRECTIONS OFFICER Shane Meehan in July 2021. This event significantly impeded the progress of the investigation, leaving crucial leads unexplored. It is unlikely the circumstances of Ferency's murder will ever be known, but it had a chilling effect on a key line of investigation.
  • Letter to Prosecutor's Office: Officer Todd Click, along with other detectives, drafted a letter to the prosecutor's office outlining their findings regarding Fields' potential involvement in the murders. This letter, dated April 28, 2023, underscores the seriousness of the allegations against Fields and the detectives' concerns regarding the direction of the investigation.

Relevant Quotes:

  • Defense Attorney Baldwin emphasized the importance of Fields' alleged admissions, stating, "If his spit was found on one of the victims, he had a reason for it." This quote highlights the potentially incriminating nature of Fields' statements to Detective Murphy.
  • Baldwin also referenced Fields' alleged confession to his sister, Mary Abrams, stating, "He had done something bad to some girls." This quote underscores the gravity of Fields' admissions and their potential significance in the investigation.

It's hard not to be enraged when you read this transcript, and/or consider what it implies. If Judge Gull doesn't prevent this "SODDI" (Some Other Dude Did It) defense into the trial proceedings, I strongly believe it - in and of itself - will be enough to force the Jury to acquit Richard Allen.


March 31, 2024

The Media vs. Judge Gull - A Summary To-Date

Given the extensive involvement of media entities throughout the Delphi Murders trial and the subsequent Indiana Supreme Court appeal, the overall status of the media in the case is multifaceted.

TIMELINE OF MEDIA INTERVENTIONS IN THE STATE v RICHARD ALLEN

November 21, 2022: The media intervenes in support of a petition for bail, signaling an early push for transparency in the legal process.

November 21, 2022: Media entities file a memorandum seeking public access to crucial legal documents, highlighting the media's commitment to information dissemination.

November 29, 2022: The court partially denies the state's request to limit public access to court records but denies the media intervenors' motion to intervene, reflecting initial resistance to media involvement.

December 2, 2022: The court issues an order prohibiting the dissemination of information pending further hearings, emphasizing efforts to control information flow.

February 21, 2023: The court grants media intervenors' renewed motion, acknowledging the significance of public access to legal proceedings, a pivotal win for media transparency.

June 8, 2023: MYSTERY SHEET LLC DBA MURDER SHEET files a motion for public access to court records, showcasing ongoing efforts by media entities to obtain relevant information.

June 28, 2023: The court makes certain documents remotely accessible, a step towards broader transparency in the legal process. The way this directive as implemented, however, led to further claims of lack of transparency, as the court made the documents "available" in an incoherent, complex format.

October 17, 2023: Limited media coverage of a hearing is authorized, balancing the public's right to information with courtroom decorum.

March 22, 2024: Despite earlier victories, the court denies a request for recording of court proceedings, highlighting continued tension between media entities and the court over coverage rights.

Indiana Supreme Court Appeal: Additional Complexities

In parallel to the trial proceedings, an Indiana Supreme Court appeal adds layers of complexity to the media-court battle.

October 30, 2023: Richard M. Allen files a petition for Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition, marking the initiation of the appeal process.

November 16, 2023: The Indiana Broadcasters Association and other media entities submit an amicus curiae brief, highlighting the broader media support for transparency in legal proceedings.

November 17, 2023: The Media Coalition's motion to appear as Amicus Curiae is granted, further solidifying media involvement in the appeal process.

December 11, 2023: The Indiana Supreme Court denies Allen's petition, emphasizing the burden of proof and the finality of the decision, closing this chapter of the legal saga.

Conclusion

On one hand, media organizations have made significant strides in their quest for transparency and access to information related to the trial. Through legal interventions, motions, and advocacy efforts, media entities have successfully obtained public access to crucial legal documents and certain court proceedings. These victories reflect the media's commitment to upholding the public's right to information and ensuring accountability within the judicial system.

However, challenges and limitations persist. Despite efforts to grant media access to certain aspects of the trial, the court has imposed restrictions on recording proceedings and disseminating information, citing concerns about maintaining decorum and protecting the integrity of the legal process. Additionally, the denial of certain media requests, such as recording court proceedings, highlights ongoing tensions between media entities and the court over coverage rights and access privileges.

Overall, while media organizations have made significant progress in advocating for transparency and access in the Delphi Murders case, the status remains a complex interplay of victories, challenges, and ongoing negotiations between the media and the court. As the legal proceedings continue, the role of the media in the case will likely continue to evolve, shaping the narrative surrounding the trial and influencing broader discussions about media freedom, legal transparency, and the public's right to information.


March 30, 2024

Summarizing the Five Franks Memo Suspects - Holder, Westfall, Fields, Messer & Abrams

The original Franks Memo from Richard Allen's defense was a huge document. It triggered a lot of discussion, and is arguably the most important turning point in the case. As we approach Richard Allen's trial, it's important that the information in the Memo is looked at with fresh eyes. 

The first Franks Memo named five individuals who could be responsible for the murders. Here we look at those five individuals again, and summarize the reasons RA's defense pointed the finger at them.

Brad Holder: A Friend with Dark Ties

Evidence:

  • Social Media Disappearance: Holder's abrupt disappearance from social media following the murders raises eyebrows, especially considering his close ties to Patrick Westfall.
  • Symbolism: The eerie resemblance of a rune symbol on Holder's hand to one found on Abby's body raises chilling questions.
  • Disturbing Posts: Suspicious social media activity, including posts referencing "half-dead women" and a fascination with Gothic figures, hint at a disturbing mindset.
  • Alibi Concerns: Questions linger over the adequacy of Holder's alibi at Liberty Landfill, which warrants further investigation.

Connection to Elvis Fields:

  • Social Media Mimicry: Fields' emulation of Holder's posts on social media suggests a possible connection and shared interests.
  • Personal Connection: Holder's son's relationship with Abby Williams adds a personal dimension to the suspicion surrounding him.

Patrick Westfall: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle

Evidence:

  • Close Association: Westfall's close friendship with Holder and subsequent disappearance from social media align him closely with the case.
  • Ritualistic Behavior: Allegations of involvement in a ritual with Holder in the woods, coupled with proximity to the crime scene, paint a concerning picture.
  • Incriminating Posts: A Facebook post depicting Westfall carving runes into tree limbs reminiscent of those found at the crime scene raises significant red flags.

Connection to Brad Holder:

  • Religious Ties: Participation in Asatru religious ceremonies alongside Holder deepens the connection between the two friends.
  • Potential Conflict: A reported rift over a ritual in the woods hints at underlying tensions that could have escalated.

Elvis Fields: A Troubled Confession

Evidence:

  • Confession: Fields' confession to his sisters, coupled with intimate crime scene details, positions him squarely as a suspect.
  • Physical Resemblance: The resemblance between Fields and a sketch of a man near the crime scene further intensifies scrutiny.
  • Influence Suspicions: Fields' mental state and alleged susceptibility to Holder's influence raise questions about his culpability.

Connection to Brad Holder:

  • Familial Connection: Holder's son's relationship with Abby Williams establishes a direct link between Fields and the victims.
  • Possible Grooming: Speculation about Holder grooming Fields for involvement in the crime adds layers to the investigation.

Johnny Messer: The Gang Connection

Evidence:

  • Gang Affiliation: Messer's ties to the Vinlander gang, along with connections to other suspects, position him within the realm of suspicion.
  • Unexplained Blood: The discovery of Messer's vehicle with unexplained blood in Delphi around the time of the murders raises significant concerns.

Connection to Brad Holder:

  • Gang Affiliation: Shared associations with Holder through Vinlander connections suggest potential collaboration or recruitment.

Rod Abrams: Concealed Complicity?

Evidence:

  • Deception: Abrams' deceit regarding his whereabouts on the day of the murders raises suspicions about his involvement.
  • Concealed Communications: Refusal to allow examination of his phone for communications with Fields raises red flags about potential collaboration.

Connection to Elvis Fields:

  • Friendship: Abrams' friendship with Fields suggests a possible connection to the crimes, especially considering his reluctance to cooperate with authorities.

March 29, 2024

4 Other Persons-of-Interest, 2017-2022

Richard Allen is not the only person who has been named as suspect or person-of-interest in the Delphi Murders. Over the five years between the murders and Allen's arrest, four others were discussed as possible killers. Let's take a look at some of the main ones.

James Brian Chadwell:

James Brian Chadwell emerged as a person of interest in the investigation into the tragic murders of Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi, Indiana. Suspicion fell upon Chadwell due to several factors uncovered during the meticulous examination of evidence at the crime scene and surrounding area. Among the most compelling pieces of evidence were kitchen utensils and a distinctive blue jacket found at the scene, suggesting a possible connection to Chadwell. Additionally, scrutiny of Chadwell's social media history revealed posts from 2011 and 2014 that investigators believed warranted further examination in the context of the case.

Authorities scrutinized Chadwell's background and behavior for any potential links to the crime. Although specifics regarding his alleged involvement were not disclosed publicly, investigators considered Chadwell's proximity to the crime scene and any potential motive that may have led him to commit such a heinous act. Despite the suspicion cast upon him, Chadwell's direct involvement in the murders remained unconfirmed, leaving investigators to continue their pursuit of justice through thorough examination of all available evidence.

Kegan Kline:

Kegan Kline emerged as a person of interest in the investigation into the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German based on a series of suspicious actions and communications that caught the attention of law enforcement. Investigators scrutinized Kline's digital footprint, uncovering multiple phones containing troubling discussions related to the crime and DNA evidence. Additionally, Kline's behavior following the murders raised red flags, prompting investigators to delve deeper into his potential involvement.

One of the key factors that contributed to Kline's status as a person of interest was his apparent knowledge of the crime and his interactions with individuals connected to the case. Investigators questioned Kline and explored his familial connections, including discussions with his father, which further fueled suspicions surrounding his possible role in the murders. Despite initial evidence pointing towards Kline, authorities faced challenges in obtaining concrete proof of his involvement, leaving his connection to the case shrouded in uncertainty.

Ron Logan:

Ron Logan became a person of interest in the investigation into the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German due to his proximity to the crime scene and the potential significance of his property in relation to the case. As the owner of property near the area where the girls were last seen alive, Logan's actions and the characteristics of his land came under scrutiny from law enforcement officials.

Investigators focused their attention on Logan's property, including Morning Heights Cemetery, and examined the presence of a tree stand on his land for any potential connections to the crime. The location of his property and its proximity to the crime scene raised questions about whether Logan may have had knowledge of the area that could have facilitated the commission of the murders. Despite being considered a person of interest, Logan's involvement in the case remained unconfirmed, leaving investigators to continue exploring all avenues in their pursuit of justice.

Daniel Nations (Colorado Springs Suspect):

Daniel Nations, also known as the Colorado Springs Suspect, emerged as a person of interest in the investigation into the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German. His association with the case stemmed from his criminal history and potential connections to the Delphi area. Nations gained attention after being arrested in 2017 in Colorado Springs for threatening individuals with a hatchet on a hiking trail and being suspected in the murder of cyclist Tim Watkins. Additionally, a warrant was issued for Nations for failing to register as a sex offender in Indiana, further raising suspicions about his potential involvement in the Delphi case.

Investigators scrutinized Nations' background and activities, exploring whether he had any ties to the Delphi area or any other relevant connections that could link him to the crime. Despite these red flags, concrete evidence linking Nations to the Delphi murders remained elusive, leaving investigators to continue their pursuit of justice through thorough examination of all available leads.


March 28, 2024

Since SCOIN, Prosecution has had 78% of its motions granted, Defense has had 23% of its motions granted.

Since the SCOIN intervention, Prosecution has had 78% of its motions granted, Defense has had just 23% of its motions granted.

Defense Motions:

  • Motion to Transfer - Denied
  • Motion for Leave to Amend - Granted
  • Motion for Summary Denial of State's Information - Denied
  • Motion to Dismiss for Destroying Exculpatory Evidence - Denied
  • Motion to Continue the hearing scheduled for February 12, 2024 - Granted
  • Petition for Clarification Regarding Contempt Hearing - Denied
  • Request to Allow Electronic Devices at Hearing - Denied
  • Motion for More Time - Denied
  • Motion to Vacate Hearing - Denied
  • Verified Motion to Disqualify - Denied
  • Motion to Dismiss for Destroying Exculpatory Evidence - Denied
  • Motion for Summary Denial of State's Information - Denied
  • Verified Petition for Clarification Regarding Contempt Hearing - Denied
  • Request to Allow Electronic Devices at Hearing - Denied
  • Motion for Continuance - Denied
  • Verified Ex Parte Motion for Hearing on Funding for Expert Services - Denied
  • Motion for Early Trial - Granted
  • Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records. 3rd Request for Mental Health Records - Granted
  • Verified Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline - Denied
  • Motion for Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions Thereon - Granted
  • Verified Petition for Recusal from Contempt Proceedings - Denied
  • Motion to Stay All Ancillary Proceedings and Get This Case to Trial - Denied
  • Verified Emergency Motion for Continuance - Denied
  • Supplement to Verified Emergency Motion for Continuance - Denied
  • Richard Allen's Third Franks Notice and Request for Franks Hearing Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence and Request for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Upon Any Ruling on this Request - Denied
  • Third Request for Medical Health Records - Granted
  • Fourth Request for Mental Health Records - Granted
  • Verified Supplement to Verified Emergency Motion for Continuance - Denied
  • Motion for Parity in Resources, To Reconsider the Denial of Anticipated Defense Costs, or to Exclude Evidence - Denied
  • Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions - Denied
  • Amended Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions - Denied
  • Verified Petition for Public Funds - Denied
  • Motion for Motion for Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions Thereon - Granted

Prosecution Motions:

  • Motion to Amend Information - Granted
  • Motion for Leave to File Amended Charges - Granted
  • Motion for Discovery Compel - Granted
  • Motion to Compel Discovery - Granted
  • State's Motion to Withdraw Motion - Granted
  • State's Motion to Compel Discovery - Granted
  • State's Motion to Withdraw Motion - Granted
  • State's Motion for Protective Order - Denied
  • State's Motion for Protective Order for Evidence Gathered From The Indiana Department Of Correction - Denied
  • State's Response to Amended Motion to Compel - Denied

Defense Motions Granted: 6 Defense Motions Denied: 20 Prosecution Motions Granted: 7 Prosecution Motions Denied: 2.


March 28, 2024

March 27 2024 - Jennifer Auger Attorney Costs.

Type of Filing: Verified Petition for Public Funds

Petitioner: Attorney Bradley A. Rozzi

Request: Reimbursement of public funds to cover legal services provided by Attorney Jennifer Auger to Pauper Defendant Richard M. Allen.

Background:

  • Defendant Allen is indigent and currently represented by Public Defenders Bradley A. Rozzi and Andrew J. Baldwin.
  • A speedy trial is scheduled for May 13, 2024.
  • The defense has been overwhelmed by the volume of discovery and evidence presented by the prosecution.

Reasons for Request:

  • The defense needs assistance with identifying and vetting prosecution witnesses, particularly FBI agents.
  • The "Tuohy" process, required for obtaining FBI agent depositions, presents a significant burden.
  • Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin have limited time and require assistance to ensure effective representation.
  • Attorney Auger, who practices near the Carroll County Auditor, has agreed to provide assistance.

Relief Requested:

  • Authorization for the expenditure of public funds to reimburse Attorney Auger for her legal services at the same hourly rate as the public defenders.
  • Contingency upon court pre-approval of the reimbursement.

Supporting Documentation:

  • Affidavit of Attorney Bradley A. Rozzi
  • Defendant Allen's consent to Attorney Auger's limited appearance

Status:

  • Limited appearance of Attorney Jennifer Auger has been entered.
  • Petition for public funds is pending court approval., and the Court is aware of Attorney Allen's Limited Appearance.

March 27, 2024

March 25 2024 - Orders.

Judge Gull issued three orders on Monday the 25th of March. 

Here's a summary:

  1. State's Motion for Protective Order Denied: The court considered the State's Motion to Enter Protective Order for Evidence Gathered from the Indiana Department of Correction, alongside the Defendant's Response, and ultimately denied the State's motion. However, the court imposed restrictions on the defense, prohibiting the dissemination of personal practices of any deponent.
  2. Defense Motion to Dismiss Under Review: A hearing was held on the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Destroying Exculpatory Evidence. The court took the matter under advisement to review the evidence submitted, indicating that a decision on this motion is pending further review.
  3. Preliminary Matters Addressed Before Contempt Proceedings Hearing: Prior to the commencement of the hearing on the State's Verified Information of Contemptuous Conduct, several preliminary matters were addressed by the court:
    • The State's Motion for Leave to Amend Charging Information was granted without objection.
    • Certain counts were dismissed upon the State's oral motion.
    • The Verified Petition for Recusal of Prosecutor from Contempt Proceedings was denied.
    • The Motion to Stay All Ancillary Proceedings was denied.
    • Various other motions and objections were heard and addressed by the court.
  4. Further Proceedings Scheduled: The court set a date for the speedy trial, scheduled from May 13 to May 31, 2024. Additionally, the court granted requests for submission of post-hearing briefs from both parties, with deadlines for submission specified.

Maintained by @CuriousLuke93x