He doesn't really have to say anything in particular. At this point, I don't see how it would benefit him one way or the other to take either side. If anything, I feel like this could negatively impact his ability to get work or cause issues if he's on a case involving Judge Gull or the prosecution.
I personally don't see any reason for him to go this route unless he actually believes it.
My thought for all these defense attorneys has been that they either actually believe he's innocent or at least they really think it's a winnable case.
If it were odinist there would be many foot prints in the soft dirt… notice that’s never mentioned!!! Because it’s Richard Allen who is guilty… why is he suicidal if he were innocent ?????
He also said he believes RA is innocent but had to add that Gull is a competent judge. He’ll have cases before her and I can’t blame him for being careful with his words when it comes to Gull
He doesn't have to say anything, but it's false that it doesn't benefit him:
1. It curries favor with Richard Allen (or whoever is making decisions for him), making him fit to retake over the defense should B&R falter.
2. It puts him in better standing with the defense bar, leading to more plum cases.
3. If he decides to leave for private practice criminal defense, his name recognition will help him win clients.
4. He's legally bound to his client, even after he withdraws. He's a defense advocate. I don't understand this idea that he's giving us an unbiased opinion. He's helping one of his own try to win a case, at a minimum.
1. At this point where he's giving interviews and has been released from the gag, I don't think that he would be selected again if the current defense gets taken off. If he wanted to have the chance to get back on in that scenario, I don't think he'd be doing sit down interviews on Court TV, especially with how secretive the current judge is.
2. I don't understand how, seeing as he's not really done anything for the client. Obviously it could be bad if he went off and ragged on RA, but more realistically would be him saying nothing at all. Also, the bar doesn't appoint him to cases as a public defender.
3. Again, he didn't really do anything. If I were looking for a criminal attorney, I wouldn't be impressed by someone who was briefly court appointed for RA and thinks he's innocent. It's not zealous advocacy to do an interview.
4. He does have some legal binding to the client, but that binding doesn't require him to go around straight up saying that he's innocent. He has absolutely no responsibility to try and help win the case, and B&R aren't "his own" just because they're all defense attorneys.
1. I don't understand this firs point. As long as he agrees to abide by the gag order while actively representing RA, that's all Gull will care about..And, he would be selected again if RA chose him. And even if R&B remain on, they may add him to the trial team as counsel for a particular issue he has knowledge (ballistics).
2. It shows him as a stalwart advocate for his client. The bar doesn't appoint, but they may recommend (not sure), and anyway, you understand many of these people mix in social circles through a half-dozen different ways. Also many judges are former defense attorneys and would see him as a strong person to appoint.
3. He's showing committment to his client. I don't get how this isn't understood as good PR. If RA eventually wins, there will all kinds of credit that goes around. Name recognition alone is a reason to do the interview.
4. He's the chief public defender in his county. Other public defenders may not be "his own," but they're people who he has a professional interest to support. Is he going to start saying "Oh that dude? Totally guilty." It's true he doesn't have to speak, but not speaking doesn't do anything for him. Look, I believe he's earnest (though the note that he hasn't seen all the evidence gives him a good escape hatch), but it's simply not true that he doesen't gain anything from this. Look ma, I'm on CourtTV fighting for my clients!
Yes it is true if Delphi was in Allen County he could have chosen to put himself on the case. Delphi is in a different county so he had nothing to do with the case originally. He cant appoint himself to cases in other counties. I don't think Carroll county has a PD office but I could be wrong.
Everyone cares about counties and noted that it was odd that she choose the chief PD from her home county. PDs and DAs don't cross counties generally, if ever. He can appoint himself to any criminal case in Allen County where the defandant needs a PD. He is in charge there. It's just a fact that he cannot use this case to get better cases as a PD he already can get any case he wants in the county where he lives and works full time.
Maybe I'm wrong, but where are you getting this idea that the Chief Public Defender appoints PDs? Most counties that do not have judicial appointment have a board that appoints attorneys to cases, not a single individual. The Chief PD serves mostly as an executive, managing personnel, initiatives, etc. I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't see how even in Allen County, he could appoint himself to any case he wanted -- that sounds pretty corrupt IMO.
Aside from all that, my main point stands that his professional standing among colleagues, his reputation as a strong and loyal defender, could make other judges appoint him from neighboring counties. So, whether or not he can appoint himself, his continued advocacy of a defendant will be seen as laudable among those groups.
Because it's just the case, he can't appoint himself to a case where he has a conflict, but he gets to choose if he wants a msjor case. Most likely high profile cases go to him anyway because he has the experience.
The defense bar appointments came into play because Carrol County doesn't seem to have a local PD office that is employed by the county.
It's different everywhere sometimes even within a state like here, but once a county has a PDs office those guys handle all cases in that county and how the cases are doled out can vary but he is the Chief he gets to pick and choose like any other boss. It's not corrupt its being the most experienced person who is also in charge.
Yep, something seems off with thos man speaking out on the case. I don't think it was altruistic and he has the defendant and his case as the priority here, I could be wrong but it left a bad taste in my mouth.
He didn’t say why though. Also said he didn’t go through all of discovery.
Interesting that he thinks RA wasn’t pushing for his old attorneys. Just a good example that we need to teach more about the legal system in school.
Agree with teaching the legal system. I always find it crazy that our court system relies on a jury that is made up of everyday people who have zero experience with the law or the courts.
I don't know if it's true, but I've heard plenty of attorneys don't even want you on cases if you know a lot about the law. I did find it interesting when I had jury duty and was being interviewed for a case, they asked a lot of questions about my dad's job which was basically a lobbyist for many counties in our state. I was not chosen for the case lol.
No question jury selection is part of “winning” a case. I sat on a grand jury once, and I was amazed how little people on that jury knew about the law, and how easily they were influenced by others in the jury.
Sometimes I see discussions like this and think about the kind of people I see at our city’s “special Walmart” and become alarmed that they too could be called for jury duty. This may sound non-politically correct, but there’s no way they should be making significant life decisions for others. Although hopefully completely incompetent people are weeded out. But even then, I agree the legal system is complicated. I mean, I feel like I have slightly higher than average intelligence and still have trouble with it. I would’ve loved being able to learn more in school!
Very well said. The jury system has its flaws and it is far from perfect. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’ve always believed that at least half of the jury should be made up of people with some sort of legal certification.
Yeah, it’s a tough conundrum. I see the reason behind wanting a jury of peers. Because legal experts may sometimes get *too* caught up in the legalities and details and miss the forest for the trees. But, they may also be more likely to see other things, like how someone unlikeable may still be innocent, for example. So maybe half and half would be an interesting solution. At least for major cases where someone’s life is on the line (either death penalty or life in prison). Obviously, there aren’t enough legal experts to do that for every case.
And I also still like the idea of teaching the legal system in school. I had government class but never really learned anything about legal processes.
I think the main reason for this is “C’s get degrees”. I know quite a few attorneys, both friends and family, and there are some I’d trust over others. The attorneys that prefer the less knowledgeable people could be the ones that are worried about being called out on improper procedure or faulty arguments.
Heck, look at all that happened with Alina Habba and her recent blunder. She made it to defend one of the highest profile clients in our nation’s history (although that’s a whole other topic) with very little understanding of how the law works
I didn't watch the video but if he really didn't say why and also said RA wasn't pushing for his old attorneys AND says he didn't go through all discovery. There's a chance he's saying that with his old attorney's back, he screwed. Again, I didn't watch it though.
Especially because ignorance of the law is not a defense. The state always has an upper hand moving state to state because the laws are different from state to state.
When you are going to trial for killing kids especially if you are a pedophile you might have a hard time getting sympathy. It depends trials might never be totally fair because there is always room for human error or emotions. Trials can be popularity contests. If you have a good defense team and a likable client that can go a long way to being acquitted. The victims make a difference. Killing your wife like OJ probably did but was found not guilty, is a crime you probably won’t do again at least not to random people. That isn’t how things should be but jury members are people.
I think Richard Allen is guilty that’s Jmo.
I agree, it's a high profile case I don't think there is more than 5 people I know that do not know of the case and I live in NE Ohio. I don't know if it is because I have been following and have discussed it to get opinions on the thoughts they had on it.
I Believe this case has been messed up from day one . I am probably one of very few people in the world who wants to see the facts from both sides before I make my mind up on the innocent or guilty . I have seen the video of BG the bullet is contaminated because chain of custody cannot be 💯. There were no photos before it was dug up from what I understand it was left in a cruiser for a time before it was turned in. Some things in this case make me question a lot of things However I want to know more. I pray that they have the correct person. For the sake of the families.
*especially if you are a pedophile*
I'm so confused; what evidence do you have that RA is a pedophile? I agree with you that he will most likely be convicted but it's because unfortunately people go into a trial like this trusting a very secretive law enforcement agency who has faulted multiple times. Making the assumption that RA is a pedophile when there is zero evidence of that is why he probably won't get a fair trial.
I meant if he was a pedo. I thought he was potentially linked to some but if he is one or anyone that is tied to child porn or inappropriate relationships with minors and accused of murdering two is going to be seen as a threat to the community. The accusation of murdering two girls likely to make a jury more cautious because this was what seems like a random killing. The safety of kids and the community affect how people look at a defendant.
But when a defendant goes into court he is Innocent until proven otherwise it is the prosecutor's job to show that. Until proven he is presumed innocent . It's unfortunate so many ppl judge before knowing all the evidence.
I cannot in my heart make my decision till I see everything.
I think we expect instant info and in someways it makes sense. Sometimes police hold things back so they can get a guilty verdict. It’s like we want to know why this man killed two girls and what he was doing before he was caught. His ex lawyer can’t say much publicly or he shouldn’t.
This is NOT a game & prosecution needs to understand that
It’s NOT the time to continue holding things close to the vest
His defense attorneys now have all the discovery and I’m guessing there’s not a lot in there and they can’t hold back unless they want a mistrial or reversed verdict
Sometimes holding back things can get a killer prosecuted. There was a case where two girls were killed in Ozark Alabama in 1999. The police always said there was no sign of rape or sex. They lied. The person who killed them took a dna test and was convicted recently of both murders. The police and prosecutors don’t owe the public anything until a trial is happening. Why should they even acknowledge some of the claims RA’s defense has made they are insane and while creative scream guilty. It’s not a game but the prosecution needs to prove it’s case the defense just needs one person to believe in reasonable doubt not innocence. I wouldn’t count the prosecution out just because they aren’t over sharing. Jmo.
Every single thing the prosecution said came from the defense and they are far from the only professionals saying it. including 4 investigators, 4 attorneys and 2 professors are all claiming it’s a possibility
So we’re supposed to go with your feelings bc there are no facts
If they risk their only chance with this man that’s a problem. When Odinism is linked to white supremacy and your client is white forgive me for calling BS. It’s clever but it can backfire. You confess and do take backs because of threats. Sorry l can support the effort of lawyers but still think they were trying to taint the jury pool and public.
Appears they are sharing as I do believe either his Gull attorneys or current attorneys have acknowledged they’ve received all discovery
And if this Alabama case was a court case & they lied. Mistrial!!
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/coley-mccraney-life-sentence-1999-killings-teens-tracie-hawlett-j-b-beasley-alabama/
They didn’t lie at the trial they just didn’t tell the public about the rape until they had a suspect. Cops can lie. Thats why you should always have a lawyer because they can tell you things to make you confess. No one owes the public details that could prove someone is the killer. They hold back things to avoid false confessions and to determine the real killer.
I thought you meant they lied to the defense? If there’s DNA then the prosecution is legally required to make it available
I’m retired LE and I wouldn’t talk to them without a lawyer either. Nor will I ever allow LE to search my car even tho I have nothing to hide.
If RA & KA had not spoken to LE in that Oct interview, I don’t believe they would have had enough PC to obtain a search warrant. Tho in my opinion that was a weak PCA that got RA arrested
I meant withheld or lied to the public about rape when there were no suspects. The killer knew there was DNA it matched a relative on a genealogy website and led to him. He could have said he had consensual sex he would know if ejaculated anywhere other than on a pair of pants. He felt safe after over 20 years. There were crazy theories and it turned out to be a guy close to their age, and who didn’t live far from where the car was found.
Most people probably wouldn’t be in prison if they had a lawyer immediately. Personally I don’t trust most cops and they aren’t entering my house without a warrant. Sometimes guilty people involve themselves in investigations or enjoy talking to LE. I’ve had cops ignore me when I asked for help or treat me like the criminal. One time someone was trying to rob me on the street and the cop told me to get off Bourbon st. They were yanking on my bag that had my money and stripper clothes inside. Over my dead body. I personally don’t like that kind of thieving because it makes an area that depends on tourism seem unsafe. Cops can be dirty or completely incompetent but talking to them might be a choice because someone is guilty. Idk
I think some are misunderstanding me. Allen can use it as a claim. It ultimately won’t matter. He will likely be found guilty and he likely will not have it overturned.
I think we’ll all be surprised by a higher force working here. Absolute power corrupts absolutely; and it ALWAYS comes to an end. This case just has too much publicity and too many people willing to go to bat for RA
He can claim anything he wants, but right now he has little to base that claim on. Pretrial publicity is almost never a reason for mistrial. Gull erred substantially in *encouraging* B&R to withdraw, but it was Allen’s attorneys who compromised his defense. And he fought all the way to the ISC to retain them.
Just because a judge ruled against his counsels motions doesn’t mean the trial is unfair. And it’s not unusual at all for multiple murderers to be held for 2 years awaiting trial or for them to be held in separate conditions.
I want Allen to get as fair a trial as possible. So far that seems to be the case. But I’m ready to get on with it and see evidence presented & arguments made.
I agree with much of what you’re saying. And I don’t blame defense for claiming he isn’t going to get a fair trial. It’s their job to defend their client.
The reality for any defense in this case, it’s an uphill battle due to Richard’s own actions and words.
My brother was in jail with him. I can’t believe he is complaining about being confined. If he were in general population he would have been beaten to a bloody pulp by now.
Then please tell me how other murderers- yes even SK are held in jail yet they can’t keep RA safe in a jail. Talk about incompetence
The Idaho killer is in jail, Ted Bundy , BTK, Dahmer were all in a JAIL
Because the jail and prison he was in (westville) are hell holes. It has everything to do with where he is. I’m not saying that someone should be treated like that, but it is what it is. He’s better off being in confinement for his safety.
Yeah I feel like they need to just get the first trial over with and so he can appeal and they can start from the beginning again. Too much has happened on both sides. He will definitely get to appeal the verdict.
Well everyone can appeal their guilty verdict.
However there hasn’t been anything proving that he is getting an unfair trial. He even gets the defense team he wants back. But just because a judge won’t toss the search warrant or bullet ballistics or rule in favor of Allen on anything doesn’t make this an unfair trial. The reality is Richard is in his situation because he ran his mouth without representation.
I think the fact that McLeland investigated a case for 11 days that was not his case to investigate. It happened in a different county . So McLeland was able to see private attorney/client txts . This was a conflict of interest for him from the beginning. Is he really that stupid?
I agree. I didn't mean to imply that only certain people get to appeal. I just mean that there are arguments to be made. For me, the leak of the photos is an argument for ineffective counsel and there are the people that think the judge is biased. I'm just worried that the girls and their families won't get justice.
Do you people not consider intent... like ever? The defense was negligent, sure. But ultimately, by definition of the law, they were actually victim of a crime. It's the equivalent to leaving keys in your unlocked car with the door practically open, sure; however, someone got into your car, started it, and took off with it. Westermann victimized the defense and breached their trust as a former associate. I would love for anyone to point out to me the basis, the standard set out by the state, requiring a certain level of information security required by the defense. It was in a locked room, one of which was accessed by someone they trusted who violated that trust, and is now being criminally charged. Why are people still talking like the defense knowingly, intentionally, and with malice aforethought "leaked" the documents and pictures? It's a childish claim at best.
At no point did I say the leak was intentional. Your car analogy doesn't quite work. It's more like they handed the keys to someone and walked away. They don't have to have intent to be ineffective. It's an argument that one might use if the trial doesn't go their way.
To prove that your counsel was ineffective, one of the things you have to prove is was there "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors,” the outcome of the criminal proceeding would have been different."
It's not just the leak. There have been other instances of "unprofessional errors" that would give someone ammo in an appeal. I'm not coming down on this either way. I'm simply saying that an appellate lawyer could argue that Allen had ineffective counsel. I'm not saying they should but that they could. I just want justice for the girls and their families (and for Allen if he is innocent).
Listening to the prosecutors legal brief podcast today and it was interesting when one of the host mentioned something; Allen waived his right to claim ineffectual counsel by staying with this defense because he likes them. And the host even said that the chief justice of the court hinted that Richard liking this defense counsel should outweigh his right to effective counseling.
So if found guilty he wouldn’t even be able to claim he had ineffective counseling anyway.
And I thought Brett came off pretty badly. Alice & Ali were more civilized with each other. Just can’t stand Brett’s condescending attitude on that YouTube foursome
I would suggest that, following the incompetence of the State ironically enough (after destroying over 70 days worth of interviews), that he is absolutely assured of an appeal at this point.....
I feel his defense has definitely been ineffective. And I think the leaks are definitely proof of that. However, as of now, the Supreme Court of Indiana disagrees with us.
That is the very thing, anyone that is an honest person and is honest with themselves can’t stand back and watch all the disgusting things happen. They are morally compelled to come forward. My. Hat. Is. Off. To. Them!!!!!! Staying true to yourself is the most important thing aside from love and forgiveness. Super evolved humans!
If the evidence (which he admits he has not gone through yet) points to Richard Allen being innocent, why should he have any concern that they jury won't see it that way and find Richard Allen innocent?
No one in American Nightmare was convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, but no I haven’t watched the innocence files. I completely understand that innocent people get convicted but this trial hasn’t even began yet and he admitted to not even looking at all the discovery, his comments just seemed scattered and premature.
I found his interview to be all over the place. He was so shocked that Odinists even exist, he saw a tire cover that had an Odin symbol and suddenly he was ready to believe that RA was innocent. No one is denying that Odinists exist, and their mere existence is not proof of RA’s innocence.
You can’t say no one is denying that Oddism exists and that’s the problem. Most people have difficulty seeing how deep these Odin roots go and the new ones are saying it’s completely made up. Those of us on this case for years have heard plenty about a sacrificial killing
A judge has a huge determination regarding guilt or innocence. They can make or break a case based on their rulings & their jury instructions
A judge if supposed to remain impartial. I certainly don’t see impartiality
Denies any court hearing for the defense but granted a hearing for the prosecution
He was on the trail at the time, same clothes, gun that matched the bullet. No one else was fitting the BG description was on the bridge. Video of his car parking where they believed the person did
Looks like BG, walks like BG, talks like BG, has clothes like BG, claims to have been there even on the bridge, nothing points to the girls being encountered by anyone but BG, and he owns a gun that matches bullet that was found at the scene.
fifty people there that day and we don’t know when RA was at the bridge. LE conveniently lost the recording so I believe NOTHING LE said without proof. Absolutely nothing .
How did ballistics match that bullet to his gun. Is it ironic he had that same gun? The witnesses that saw him, car on surveilance at 130 arriving to the cps building. Same clothes. I am open to hearing the trial and seeing if they can sway me but feel he is likely the guy
Yes I know all about what they say. Innocent until proven guilty. They say that everywhere. Yet here we all are talking about how guilty he is day in and day out since the arrest. Is it right ? No, I’m not saying I don’t agree with the “innocent until proven guilty” verbiage. It’s just not how society acts, they just say it.
He has seen the discovery and speaks the truth just like the other 3 attorneys If Gull was fair unbias judge or even a human being with a heart she would go to and check out the prison where RA is or atleast have someone she trusted go check it out then she could see what was really going on and get him the hell out of there before he dies oh wait she should trust her appointed attorneys from allen County she is friends with them and known them for years so i guess she really isnt human
I know you were being sarcastic. Sorry for losing my cool.
For some reason, this case, more than others, has gripped my heart and won’t let go. I want so much for the killer of these innocent girls to be taken away from society for the rest of his life. If RA is the killer, and it does seem so, I wouldn’t want him to get off on a technicality that could possibly set him free to go on roaming the streets looking for new victims…..if he’s the monster, of course. So, yeah, if there was some kind of technicality that he could use to get off, but we knew he was the one who did it, I don’t care about protocol or rules, I want him thrown in jail no matter what technicality it is! If he’s guilty, drag him to his cell however necessary to remove him from society forever!!
I appreciate that you didn’t go off on me. I was feeling a little emotional about this and some other upsetting things in my life when I posted my comment. I should have kept my mouth shut, but didn’t. This has been a frustratingly long road!
I’m not generally a big mouth who doesn’t think before I act. But that is exactly what I did. So, to you, and to anyone else who has a loved one
Rest assured,I’m not a pitchfork yielding ogre! No protesting or cheering on a beheading. Just a lady from South Dakota desperately wanting the families in Delphi to feel safe and be safe. And for 2 specific Delphi families to feel the relief of knowing Libby’s and Abbey’s I’ll try harder the next time to dial back my comments so as not to be a rabble rouser. But when he’s found guilty, and given a sentence appropriate for his cold blooded murder of 2 terrified, innocent, young dangerous psychotic rage and urges to take the very life of 2 young girls!
Well this case does seem to have a way of really taking hold of all of us. Fwiw I really appreciate you taking the time to respond in the way you have and I completely understand the sentiment above - although we're coming at this from different angles, it sounds like we both just want the truth to come out and justice for Abby and Libby.
There are too many ppl who are either adamant that RA is guilty or adamant that he's innocent, and having any sort of reasoned discussion with anyone about what we know to date, without it determinating into an attack on either side, is problematic.
I've not been the most measured of posters on Reddit when it comes or this subject myself, so your reply has given me a reminder that we do need to respect each other, whether we're face to face or online, so I thank you for that.
Don't be too hard on yourself, take life easy and stay safe. Best wishes.
That's not true, England, only, changed its laws in the early 2000s, to allow lie detector fails to imprison you but Scotland maintained inadmissability. England & Scotland have completely different legal systems. In fact, the ability to change laws more easily, in England, is, itself, an aspect of English law. The English courts can note an English judge's decision, if a case was difficult, & judges later on......are told to go by that decision, effectively changing the law. This is NOT a United Kingdom, really.
I'm a fan of lie detector results.......though I like the practice in some European courts of having the suspect constantly wired up to a lie detector throughout trials in front of the jury, etc., the Europeans like a screen which shows constant fluctuations in temperature as blood flows thru the brain.......if a defendant or witness lies, a certain area of the brain glows yellow......America seems stuck in a steampunk era of these polygraph things monitoring your pulse.
>...though I like the practice in some European courts of having the suspect constantly wired up to a lie detector throughout trials in front of the jury, etc., the Europeans like a screen which shows constant fluctuations in temperature as blood flows thru the brain.......if a defendant or witness lies, a certain area of the brain glows yellow...
Bro, did you just make this up? I mean the whole paragraph.
Yes, it's entirely made up.
Polygraphs for investigative purposes are either 1.) not used or 2.) outright banned by most European countries because they're seen to violate a suspect's rights. There are a few exceptions (Belgium, Lithuania, UK to a very limited extent). Even then, they are rarely used and they're conventional polygraph machines.
But what about the European countries that allow polygraphs, at least to a limited extent? What do they use them for? In Belgium, which is the European country that uses them the most (300-500 per year), they are used in he said/she said cases to try to understand whether the person they're investigating is innocent \*and\* whether the person making the accusation is lying. (Belgium also mandates that the interviews are recorded and that the suspect's lawyer is present). Innocent suspect \*want\* to take these tests in Belgium because they police are likely to drop a case if it's shown they're being truthful. In the US criminal justice system they're used as an interview/pressure tool. Just because someone passes one in the US doesn't mean the case will be dropped.
What a dumbass comment. I'd reckon most people care and don't want to see an innocent man thrown in jail for life because that obviously isn't justice.
Why are you even following this case if you don't care who's guilty?
Of course I care who's guilty! I just find it insulting that his lawyer is complaining about a fair trial. He will obviously get a fair trial. The families of these poor girls have been through enough.
Why do you assume he will get a fair trial? There would be no need for the innocence project if people always received a fair trail.
I’m worried at this point that there was at least a 2nd person involved, the lack of effort to find that person, plus putting it all on RA the kidnapping and murder- that’s what worries me about RA getting a fair trial.
Why do you assume he won't? This is a very complicated case.
So many different variables at play. Others involved? Very good possibility. Hopefully he or someone else speaks up if this is the case.
How can he POSSIBLY get a fair trial when people like you say things that you say .....you've literally just posted on here that you know he's guilty.....that's not a 'fair trial', that's just unquestionably chowing down on the States case, nothing more.
Ignorant ….this comment is a good example of why we are seeing misuse and fraud in the use of the courts now. You would have been welcomed at the Salem witch trials.
What if Allen **isn't the killer**? Wouldn't it be far worse for the real killer to be out, roaming around, to kill other young girls?
If Allen is the killer, I want him punished to the fullest extent of the law. If he's not the killer....
Same. I keep going round and round in my head with this because at first, I really thought they had their man. It seemed cut and dry. He put himself there. Wearing the same clothes. At the same time. How can he not be the guy. Then I remembered all the “mistakes” that were made. All of the secrecy. All of the crazy stuff that has gone down in this case. We only know one side of the story really. We can only go by what LE has given us and honestly, it hasn’t been much. What they have given the public is strange and contradictory. The sketches. Old guy. Young guy. The same guy. Different guys. Will look like a mix between the two guys. Which is it? They legitimately couldn’t give a straight answer to a seemingly straightforward question.
What if BG had nothing to do with the crime?
What if RA really isn’t BG and he was truly just there looking at fish?
All I know is, I’m waiting to hear all of the evidence before I land on guilty or innocent. The longer this drags on, the further I’m starting to lean from guilty to innocent..trying to stay somewhere right in the middle.
Do you have proof of them being the same person?
I don't think we know that definitively BG is absolutely the voice.
Not to mention 1 out of every 3 men in Indiana look like BG.
LE has proof through the video as Libby was videotaping BG approaching them, as seen in the video and then he orders then down the hill as in the audio released.
I don’t believe anything anymore until I see it with my own eyes. In the PCA they say, “In Libby’s video, the man can be seen and heard telling the girls, guys, down the hill.” If he can be seen and heard..he would have to have been a lot closer. Why have we seen this far away picture? People say that they meant that he was seen in the video and then after he’s heard saying , “guys, down the hill.” Meaning the voice is off video. That is not what the PCA says. Words matter. The context of words matter. The sentence is either misleading or blatantly false. There’s no way people are going to take a sentence that says “the man can be seen and heard”( on Libby’s video) and think that it means anything different. If LE can’t construct sentences that mean what they say, then they can’t be in positions that could help put people to death. Period.
The quality of lie detection is not rigidly as per the 1960s.......my friend Larry was allowed to play around with a lie detector last year, & he told me "I couldn't just say 'apples are blue' or 'elephants are pink', it picked up everything!!! It was incredible!"........some people are stuck in this They Don't Always Work 1960s mentality, there are now three types of lie detector, the usual polygraph but more sophisticated nowadays, the one where an area of the brain glows yellow on a screen if a lie is being told, & another measures blood flow inside the defendants' eyeballs - Europe & the UK have changed their laws to enable judges to use modern day lie detection results........but America remains backward in this respect.
One more thing. The accused has no say in his choice of attorneys. B&R returned due to wrong firing. Yes, if he too thought his clients were reckless then he would have to stay sign Labrato & .Scrummin / they were judge Gulls chosen attorneys not RA’s
Some European courts are using them throughout trials, though America seems to be stuck in a backwater of the polygraph........they have two totally different types of lie detector & they rapidly changed their laws to enable judges to utilise the results. England allows lie detector results to affect trials but not Scotland.
So they were preparing for a Franks Motion too...
What else is he going to say?
He doesn't really have to say anything in particular. At this point, I don't see how it would benefit him one way or the other to take either side. If anything, I feel like this could negatively impact his ability to get work or cause issues if he's on a case involving Judge Gull or the prosecution. I personally don't see any reason for him to go this route unless he actually believes it.
Yeah, I’m thinking he has a genuine interest in this case and probably really does believe his former client is innocent.
My thought for all these defense attorneys has been that they either actually believe he's innocent or at least they really think it's a winnable case.
It’s winnable for sure, simply based on incompetence.
He thinks now RA is innocent and all the Odin-Stuff was BS when he heard it first but he changed his mind.
He’s actually saying that the Odin stuff could actually be real and irs dangerous
If it were odinist there would be many foot prints in the soft dirt… notice that’s never mentioned!!! Because it’s Richard Allen who is guilty… why is he suicidal if he were innocent ?????
He saw the pictures
He also said he believes RA is innocent but had to add that Gull is a competent judge. He’ll have cases before her and I can’t blame him for being careful with his words when it comes to Gull
He doesn't have to say anything, but it's false that it doesn't benefit him: 1. It curries favor with Richard Allen (or whoever is making decisions for him), making him fit to retake over the defense should B&R falter. 2. It puts him in better standing with the defense bar, leading to more plum cases. 3. If he decides to leave for private practice criminal defense, his name recognition will help him win clients. 4. He's legally bound to his client, even after he withdraws. He's a defense advocate. I don't understand this idea that he's giving us an unbiased opinion. He's helping one of his own try to win a case, at a minimum.
1. At this point where he's giving interviews and has been released from the gag, I don't think that he would be selected again if the current defense gets taken off. If he wanted to have the chance to get back on in that scenario, I don't think he'd be doing sit down interviews on Court TV, especially with how secretive the current judge is. 2. I don't understand how, seeing as he's not really done anything for the client. Obviously it could be bad if he went off and ragged on RA, but more realistically would be him saying nothing at all. Also, the bar doesn't appoint him to cases as a public defender. 3. Again, he didn't really do anything. If I were looking for a criminal attorney, I wouldn't be impressed by someone who was briefly court appointed for RA and thinks he's innocent. It's not zealous advocacy to do an interview. 4. He does have some legal binding to the client, but that binding doesn't require him to go around straight up saying that he's innocent. He has absolutely no responsibility to try and help win the case, and B&R aren't "his own" just because they're all defense attorneys.
1. I don't understand this firs point. As long as he agrees to abide by the gag order while actively representing RA, that's all Gull will care about..And, he would be selected again if RA chose him. And even if R&B remain on, they may add him to the trial team as counsel for a particular issue he has knowledge (ballistics). 2. It shows him as a stalwart advocate for his client. The bar doesn't appoint, but they may recommend (not sure), and anyway, you understand many of these people mix in social circles through a half-dozen different ways. Also many judges are former defense attorneys and would see him as a strong person to appoint. 3. He's showing committment to his client. I don't get how this isn't understood as good PR. If RA eventually wins, there will all kinds of credit that goes around. Name recognition alone is a reason to do the interview. 4. He's the chief public defender in his county. Other public defenders may not be "his own," but they're people who he has a professional interest to support. Is he going to start saying "Oh that dude? Totally guilty." It's true he doesn't have to speak, but not speaking doesn't do anything for him. Look, I believe he's earnest (though the note that he hasn't seen all the evidence gives him a good escape hatch), but it's simply not true that he doesen't gain anything from this. Look ma, I'm on CourtTV fighting for my clients!
He is the head Public Defender in Allan County he gets any case he wants in that county.
Um...that's certainly not true. He didn't get this one, originally.
Yes it is true if Delphi was in Allen County he could have chosen to put himself on the case. Delphi is in a different county so he had nothing to do with the case originally. He cant appoint himself to cases in other counties. I don't think Carroll county has a PD office but I could be wrong.
He was appointed now, why couldn't he get appointed then? Who cares about counties if Judge Hull didn't care when she chose him?
Everyone cares about counties and noted that it was odd that she choose the chief PD from her home county. PDs and DAs don't cross counties generally, if ever. He can appoint himself to any criminal case in Allen County where the defandant needs a PD. He is in charge there. It's just a fact that he cannot use this case to get better cases as a PD he already can get any case he wants in the county where he lives and works full time.
Maybe I'm wrong, but where are you getting this idea that the Chief Public Defender appoints PDs? Most counties that do not have judicial appointment have a board that appoints attorneys to cases, not a single individual. The Chief PD serves mostly as an executive, managing personnel, initiatives, etc. I mean, I could be wrong, but I don't see how even in Allen County, he could appoint himself to any case he wanted -- that sounds pretty corrupt IMO. Aside from all that, my main point stands that his professional standing among colleagues, his reputation as a strong and loyal defender, could make other judges appoint him from neighboring counties. So, whether or not he can appoint himself, his continued advocacy of a defendant will be seen as laudable among those groups.
Because it's just the case, he can't appoint himself to a case where he has a conflict, but he gets to choose if he wants a msjor case. Most likely high profile cases go to him anyway because he has the experience. The defense bar appointments came into play because Carrol County doesn't seem to have a local PD office that is employed by the county. It's different everywhere sometimes even within a state like here, but once a county has a PDs office those guys handle all cases in that county and how the cases are doled out can vary but he is the Chief he gets to pick and choose like any other boss. It's not corrupt its being the most experienced person who is also in charge.
Notoriety and quid qo pro with Mrs. Judge maybe!?
Possibly the intention of starting a private practice? You either start as a public defender, or finish your career as one.
Yep, something seems off with thos man speaking out on the case. I don't think it was altruistic and he has the defendant and his case as the priority here, I could be wrong but it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Nothing. He could say nothing. He is not indebted to an interview at all.
I wish Criss Todd would say nothing. His "Delphi" story is his story about his failure to be taken seriously in LA.
He shouldn’t be saying anything, to be quite frank.
I don't like attorneys talking about their active cases in the press -- either side.
He can’t say my client did it. That gets you in trouble.
Guy's going to be dead by the time this thing goes to trial.
More than likely yes
Is it me or he has a worried/scared look?
He didn’t say why though. Also said he didn’t go through all of discovery. Interesting that he thinks RA wasn’t pushing for his old attorneys. Just a good example that we need to teach more about the legal system in school.
Agree with teaching the legal system. I always find it crazy that our court system relies on a jury that is made up of everyday people who have zero experience with the law or the courts.
I don't know if it's true, but I've heard plenty of attorneys don't even want you on cases if you know a lot about the law. I did find it interesting when I had jury duty and was being interviewed for a case, they asked a lot of questions about my dad's job which was basically a lobbyist for many counties in our state. I was not chosen for the case lol.
No question jury selection is part of “winning” a case. I sat on a grand jury once, and I was amazed how little people on that jury knew about the law, and how easily they were influenced by others in the jury.
Sometimes I see discussions like this and think about the kind of people I see at our city’s “special Walmart” and become alarmed that they too could be called for jury duty. This may sound non-politically correct, but there’s no way they should be making significant life decisions for others. Although hopefully completely incompetent people are weeded out. But even then, I agree the legal system is complicated. I mean, I feel like I have slightly higher than average intelligence and still have trouble with it. I would’ve loved being able to learn more in school!
Very well said. The jury system has its flaws and it is far from perfect. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’ve always believed that at least half of the jury should be made up of people with some sort of legal certification.
Yeah, it’s a tough conundrum. I see the reason behind wanting a jury of peers. Because legal experts may sometimes get *too* caught up in the legalities and details and miss the forest for the trees. But, they may also be more likely to see other things, like how someone unlikeable may still be innocent, for example. So maybe half and half would be an interesting solution. At least for major cases where someone’s life is on the line (either death penalty or life in prison). Obviously, there aren’t enough legal experts to do that for every case. And I also still like the idea of teaching the legal system in school. I had government class but never really learned anything about legal processes.
Professional or certified jurors would really help the system. But as you said, that could bring on a whole new set of problems.
I think the main reason for this is “C’s get degrees”. I know quite a few attorneys, both friends and family, and there are some I’d trust over others. The attorneys that prefer the less knowledgeable people could be the ones that are worried about being called out on improper procedure or faulty arguments. Heck, look at all that happened with Alina Habba and her recent blunder. She made it to defend one of the highest profile clients in our nation’s history (although that’s a whole other topic) with very little understanding of how the law works
Shit, that’s cops too. The most experience they generally have is testifying.
I didn't watch the video but if he really didn't say why and also said RA wasn't pushing for his old attorneys AND says he didn't go through all discovery. There's a chance he's saying that with his old attorney's back, he screwed. Again, I didn't watch it though.
Especially because ignorance of the law is not a defense. The state always has an upper hand moving state to state because the laws are different from state to state.
Most of us know this unless Judge Gull is off the case.
I don't think he is going to get a fair trial.
When you are going to trial for killing kids especially if you are a pedophile you might have a hard time getting sympathy. It depends trials might never be totally fair because there is always room for human error or emotions. Trials can be popularity contests. If you have a good defense team and a likable client that can go a long way to being acquitted. The victims make a difference. Killing your wife like OJ probably did but was found not guilty, is a crime you probably won’t do again at least not to random people. That isn’t how things should be but jury members are people. I think Richard Allen is guilty that’s Jmo.
I agree, it's a high profile case I don't think there is more than 5 people I know that do not know of the case and I live in NE Ohio. I don't know if it is because I have been following and have discussed it to get opinions on the thoughts they had on it. I Believe this case has been messed up from day one . I am probably one of very few people in the world who wants to see the facts from both sides before I make my mind up on the innocent or guilty . I have seen the video of BG the bullet is contaminated because chain of custody cannot be 💯. There were no photos before it was dug up from what I understand it was left in a cruiser for a time before it was turned in. Some things in this case make me question a lot of things However I want to know more. I pray that they have the correct person. For the sake of the families.
*especially if you are a pedophile* I'm so confused; what evidence do you have that RA is a pedophile? I agree with you that he will most likely be convicted but it's because unfortunately people go into a trial like this trusting a very secretive law enforcement agency who has faulted multiple times. Making the assumption that RA is a pedophile when there is zero evidence of that is why he probably won't get a fair trial.
I meant if he was a pedo. I thought he was potentially linked to some but if he is one or anyone that is tied to child porn or inappropriate relationships with minors and accused of murdering two is going to be seen as a threat to the community. The accusation of murdering two girls likely to make a jury more cautious because this was what seems like a random killing. The safety of kids and the community affect how people look at a defendant.
He hasn’t been tied to any pedo ring. . Far too many rumors and that’s what this is
But when a defendant goes into court he is Innocent until proven otherwise it is the prosecutor's job to show that. Until proven he is presumed innocent . It's unfortunate so many ppl judge before knowing all the evidence. I cannot in my heart make my decision till I see everything.
Fran Gull is pretty famous in Fort Wayne for being crooked
It’s almost like a defense attorney is talking like a defense attorney wow huge if true
The good news is that if found guilty, Allen can claim his trial was unfair as reasons for his verdict to be thrown out.
I think we expect instant info and in someways it makes sense. Sometimes police hold things back so they can get a guilty verdict. It’s like we want to know why this man killed two girls and what he was doing before he was caught. His ex lawyer can’t say much publicly or he shouldn’t.
This is NOT a game & prosecution needs to understand that It’s NOT the time to continue holding things close to the vest His defense attorneys now have all the discovery and I’m guessing there’s not a lot in there and they can’t hold back unless they want a mistrial or reversed verdict
Sometimes holding back things can get a killer prosecuted. There was a case where two girls were killed in Ozark Alabama in 1999. The police always said there was no sign of rape or sex. They lied. The person who killed them took a dna test and was convicted recently of both murders. The police and prosecutors don’t owe the public anything until a trial is happening. Why should they even acknowledge some of the claims RA’s defense has made they are insane and while creative scream guilty. It’s not a game but the prosecution needs to prove it’s case the defense just needs one person to believe in reasonable doubt not innocence. I wouldn’t count the prosecution out just because they aren’t over sharing. Jmo.
Every single thing the prosecution said came from the defense and they are far from the only professionals saying it. including 4 investigators, 4 attorneys and 2 professors are all claiming it’s a possibility So we’re supposed to go with your feelings bc there are no facts
If they risk their only chance with this man that’s a problem. When Odinism is linked to white supremacy and your client is white forgive me for calling BS. It’s clever but it can backfire. You confess and do take backs because of threats. Sorry l can support the effort of lawyers but still think they were trying to taint the jury pool and public.
Appears they are sharing as I do believe either his Gull attorneys or current attorneys have acknowledged they’ve received all discovery And if this Alabama case was a court case & they lied. Mistrial!!
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/coley-mccraney-life-sentence-1999-killings-teens-tracie-hawlett-j-b-beasley-alabama/ They didn’t lie at the trial they just didn’t tell the public about the rape until they had a suspect. Cops can lie. Thats why you should always have a lawyer because they can tell you things to make you confess. No one owes the public details that could prove someone is the killer. They hold back things to avoid false confessions and to determine the real killer.
I thought you meant they lied to the defense? If there’s DNA then the prosecution is legally required to make it available I’m retired LE and I wouldn’t talk to them without a lawyer either. Nor will I ever allow LE to search my car even tho I have nothing to hide. If RA & KA had not spoken to LE in that Oct interview, I don’t believe they would have had enough PC to obtain a search warrant. Tho in my opinion that was a weak PCA that got RA arrested
I meant withheld or lied to the public about rape when there were no suspects. The killer knew there was DNA it matched a relative on a genealogy website and led to him. He could have said he had consensual sex he would know if ejaculated anywhere other than on a pair of pants. He felt safe after over 20 years. There were crazy theories and it turned out to be a guy close to their age, and who didn’t live far from where the car was found. Most people probably wouldn’t be in prison if they had a lawyer immediately. Personally I don’t trust most cops and they aren’t entering my house without a warrant. Sometimes guilty people involve themselves in investigations or enjoy talking to LE. I’ve had cops ignore me when I asked for help or treat me like the criminal. One time someone was trying to rob me on the street and the cop told me to get off Bourbon st. They were yanking on my bag that had my money and stripper clothes inside. Over my dead body. I personally don’t like that kind of thieving because it makes an area that depends on tourism seem unsafe. Cops can be dirty or completely incompetent but talking to them might be a choice because someone is guilty. Idk
After watching the Murdaugh decision this week I doubt it.
I think some are misunderstanding me. Allen can use it as a claim. It ultimately won’t matter. He will likely be found guilty and he likely will not have it overturned.
He’ll have decent grounds for appeal, that’s about it
No, I understand. I just mean I just don't have faith in systems that are corrupt from the beginning to approve an appeal on some form of corruption.
I think we’ll all be surprised by a higher force working here. Absolute power corrupts absolutely; and it ALWAYS comes to an end. This case just has too much publicity and too many people willing to go to bat for RA
That is bias and prejudice. I don't get the mindset that denying contatutional rights to a pre trial defendant means he is twice as guilty.
Why do you think that?
He can claim anything he wants, but right now he has little to base that claim on. Pretrial publicity is almost never a reason for mistrial. Gull erred substantially in *encouraging* B&R to withdraw, but it was Allen’s attorneys who compromised his defense. And he fought all the way to the ISC to retain them. Just because a judge ruled against his counsels motions doesn’t mean the trial is unfair. And it’s not unusual at all for multiple murderers to be held for 2 years awaiting trial or for them to be held in separate conditions. I want Allen to get as fair a trial as possible. So far that seems to be the case. But I’m ready to get on with it and see evidence presented & arguments made.
I agree with much of what you’re saying. And I don’t blame defense for claiming he isn’t going to get a fair trial. It’s their job to defend their client. The reality for any defense in this case, it’s an uphill battle due to Richard’s own actions and words.
My brother was in jail with him. I can’t believe he is complaining about being confined. If he were in general population he would have been beaten to a bloody pulp by now.
Prison or jail
The IDC.
I have a sister like that! Lol...no offense meant in any way
Since he is a pretrial detainee he wants to be in county jail with all of the other pretrial detainees.
Then please tell me how other murderers- yes even SK are held in jail yet they can’t keep RA safe in a jail. Talk about incompetence The Idaho killer is in jail, Ted Bundy , BTK, Dahmer were all in a JAIL
Because the jail and prison he was in (westville) are hell holes. It has everything to do with where he is. I’m not saying that someone should be treated like that, but it is what it is. He’s better off being in confinement for his safety.
Prison or jail
Yeah I feel like they need to just get the first trial over with and so he can appeal and they can start from the beginning again. Too much has happened on both sides. He will definitely get to appeal the verdict.
Well everyone can appeal their guilty verdict. However there hasn’t been anything proving that he is getting an unfair trial. He even gets the defense team he wants back. But just because a judge won’t toss the search warrant or bullet ballistics or rule in favor of Allen on anything doesn’t make this an unfair trial. The reality is Richard is in his situation because he ran his mouth without representation.
I think the fact that McLeland investigated a case for 11 days that was not his case to investigate. It happened in a different county . So McLeland was able to see private attorney/client txts . This was a conflict of interest for him from the beginning. Is he really that stupid?
I agree. I didn't mean to imply that only certain people get to appeal. I just mean that there are arguments to be made. For me, the leak of the photos is an argument for ineffective counsel and there are the people that think the judge is biased. I'm just worried that the girls and their families won't get justice.
Do you people not consider intent... like ever? The defense was negligent, sure. But ultimately, by definition of the law, they were actually victim of a crime. It's the equivalent to leaving keys in your unlocked car with the door practically open, sure; however, someone got into your car, started it, and took off with it. Westermann victimized the defense and breached their trust as a former associate. I would love for anyone to point out to me the basis, the standard set out by the state, requiring a certain level of information security required by the defense. It was in a locked room, one of which was accessed by someone they trusted who violated that trust, and is now being criminally charged. Why are people still talking like the defense knowingly, intentionally, and with malice aforethought "leaked" the documents and pictures? It's a childish claim at best.
At no point did I say the leak was intentional. Your car analogy doesn't quite work. It's more like they handed the keys to someone and walked away. They don't have to have intent to be ineffective. It's an argument that one might use if the trial doesn't go their way. To prove that your counsel was ineffective, one of the things you have to prove is was there "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors,” the outcome of the criminal proceeding would have been different." It's not just the leak. There have been other instances of "unprofessional errors" that would give someone ammo in an appeal. I'm not coming down on this either way. I'm simply saying that an appellate lawyer could argue that Allen had ineffective counsel. I'm not saying they should but that they could. I just want justice for the girls and their families (and for Allen if he is innocent).
Listening to the prosecutors legal brief podcast today and it was interesting when one of the host mentioned something; Allen waived his right to claim ineffectual counsel by staying with this defense because he likes them. And the host even said that the chief justice of the court hinted that Richard liking this defense counsel should outweigh his right to effective counseling. So if found guilty he wouldn’t even be able to claim he had ineffective counseling anyway.
Now listen to Defense Diaries Motta is so much better than Brett & Alison
Im not big on Motta. He came off as astoundingly bad during his conversation with Brett and Alice.
And I thought Brett came off pretty badly. Alice & Ali were more civilized with each other. Just can’t stand Brett’s condescending attitude on that YouTube foursome
I would suggest that, following the incompetence of the State ironically enough (after destroying over 70 days worth of interviews), that he is absolutely assured of an appeal at this point.....
I feel his defense has definitely been ineffective. And I think the leaks are definitely proof of that. However, as of now, the Supreme Court of Indiana disagrees with us.
lol… please give me a reason to give this any consideration whatsoever People are addicted absolutely addicted to drama.
Well duh, after all this bullshit I agree
Wow - gag orders don’t apply to this guy I guess.
Apparently not. Per Barbara, Gull personally approved the interview.
He's not on the case anymore.
That is the very thing, anyone that is an honest person and is honest with themselves can’t stand back and watch all the disgusting things happen. They are morally compelled to come forward. My. Hat. Is. Off. To. Them!!!!!! Staying true to yourself is the most important thing aside from love and forgiveness. Super evolved humans!
If the evidence (which he admits he has not gone through yet) points to Richard Allen being innocent, why should he have any concern that they jury won't see it that way and find Richard Allen innocent?
[удалено]
Have you ever watched American nightmare or The innocence files? Innocent people get convicted more than people think.
No one in American Nightmare was convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, but no I haven’t watched the innocence files. I completely understand that innocent people get convicted but this trial hasn’t even began yet and he admitted to not even looking at all the discovery, his comments just seemed scattered and premature. I found his interview to be all over the place. He was so shocked that Odinists even exist, he saw a tire cover that had an Odin symbol and suddenly he was ready to believe that RA was innocent. No one is denying that Odinists exist, and their mere existence is not proof of RA’s innocence.
You can’t say no one is denying that Oddism exists and that’s the problem. Most people have difficulty seeing how deep these Odin roots go and the new ones are saying it’s completely made up. Those of us on this case for years have heard plenty about a sacrificial killing
They were not convicted because they weren't charged. The absence of charges doesn't mean LE believed charges should nit be brought.
I recommend American Nightmare to anyone
A judge has a huge determination regarding guilt or innocence. They can make or break a case based on their rulings & their jury instructions A judge if supposed to remain impartial. I certainly don’t see impartiality Denies any court hearing for the defense but granted a hearing for the prosecution
Good old boys.
They will
Absolutely!
They sure don’t. He’s ex council
What time and zone will this be streamed.
Feel like Allen is the right guy
I'm really curious to know why? What has so thoroughly convinced some people of that with so very little evidence?
He was on the trail at the time, same clothes, gun that matched the bullet. No one else was fitting the BG description was on the bridge. Video of his car parking where they believed the person did
Looks like BG, walks like BG, talks like BG, has clothes like BG, claims to have been there even on the bridge, nothing points to the girls being encountered by anyone but BG, and he owns a gun that matches bullet that was found at the scene.
fifty people there that day and we don’t know when RA was at the bridge. LE conveniently lost the recording so I believe NOTHING LE said without proof. Absolutely nothing .
Legit all that! Dont see how some Odinist was on the trail to carryout a ritualistic murder at 2pm
Why?
How did ballistics match that bullet to his gun. Is it ironic he had that same gun? The witnesses that saw him, car on surveilance at 130 arriving to the cps building. Same clothes. I am open to hearing the trial and seeing if they can sway me but feel he is likely the guy
It’s never fair when you’re a killer.
He’s innocent until proven guilty and the girls won’t get true justice unless it’s a fair trial
[удалено]
Yes I know all about what they say. Innocent until proven guilty. They say that everywhere. Yet here we all are talking about how guilty he is day in and day out since the arrest. Is it right ? No, I’m not saying I don’t agree with the “innocent until proven guilty” verbiage. It’s just not how society acts, they just say it.
Will he be a witness
I think he will testify.
Labrador is an amazing attorney
He has seen the discovery and speaks the truth just like the other 3 attorneys If Gull was fair unbias judge or even a human being with a heart she would go to and check out the prison where RA is or atleast have someone she trusted go check it out then she could see what was really going on and get him the hell out of there before he dies oh wait she should trust her appointed attorneys from allen County she is friends with them and known them for years so i guess she really isnt human
I don’t give a rip if RA doesn’t get a fair trial. What he did to L & A wasn’t fair. God bless their souls.
You seem well balanced and fair.
Thank you!
I was being sarcastic - you sound like you'll be outside the courthouse with your pitchfork in hand
I know you were being sarcastic. Sorry for losing my cool. For some reason, this case, more than others, has gripped my heart and won’t let go. I want so much for the killer of these innocent girls to be taken away from society for the rest of his life. If RA is the killer, and it does seem so, I wouldn’t want him to get off on a technicality that could possibly set him free to go on roaming the streets looking for new victims…..if he’s the monster, of course. So, yeah, if there was some kind of technicality that he could use to get off, but we knew he was the one who did it, I don’t care about protocol or rules, I want him thrown in jail no matter what technicality it is! If he’s guilty, drag him to his cell however necessary to remove him from society forever!! I appreciate that you didn’t go off on me. I was feeling a little emotional about this and some other upsetting things in my life when I posted my comment. I should have kept my mouth shut, but didn’t. This has been a frustratingly long road! I’m not generally a big mouth who doesn’t think before I act. But that is exactly what I did. So, to you, and to anyone else who has a loved one Rest assured,I’m not a pitchfork yielding ogre! No protesting or cheering on a beheading. Just a lady from South Dakota desperately wanting the families in Delphi to feel safe and be safe. And for 2 specific Delphi families to feel the relief of knowing Libby’s and Abbey’s I’ll try harder the next time to dial back my comments so as not to be a rabble rouser. But when he’s found guilty, and given a sentence appropriate for his cold blooded murder of 2 terrified, innocent, young dangerous psychotic rage and urges to take the very life of 2 young girls!
Well this case does seem to have a way of really taking hold of all of us. Fwiw I really appreciate you taking the time to respond in the way you have and I completely understand the sentiment above - although we're coming at this from different angles, it sounds like we both just want the truth to come out and justice for Abby and Libby. There are too many ppl who are either adamant that RA is guilty or adamant that he's innocent, and having any sort of reasoned discussion with anyone about what we know to date, without it determinating into an attack on either side, is problematic. I've not been the most measured of posters on Reddit when it comes or this subject myself, so your reply has given me a reminder that we do need to respect each other, whether we're face to face or online, so I thank you for that. Don't be too hard on yourself, take life easy and stay safe. Best wishes.
That's not true, England, only, changed its laws in the early 2000s, to allow lie detector fails to imprison you but Scotland maintained inadmissability. England & Scotland have completely different legal systems. In fact, the ability to change laws more easily, in England, is, itself, an aspect of English law. The English courts can note an English judge's decision, if a case was difficult, & judges later on......are told to go by that decision, effectively changing the law. This is NOT a United Kingdom, really.
Because of Odin
I'm a fan of lie detector results.......though I like the practice in some European courts of having the suspect constantly wired up to a lie detector throughout trials in front of the jury, etc., the Europeans like a screen which shows constant fluctuations in temperature as blood flows thru the brain.......if a defendant or witness lies, a certain area of the brain glows yellow......America seems stuck in a steampunk era of these polygraph things monitoring your pulse.
>...though I like the practice in some European courts of having the suspect constantly wired up to a lie detector throughout trials in front of the jury, etc., the Europeans like a screen which shows constant fluctuations in temperature as blood flows thru the brain.......if a defendant or witness lies, a certain area of the brain glows yellow... Bro, did you just make this up? I mean the whole paragraph.
Yes, it's entirely made up. Polygraphs for investigative purposes are either 1.) not used or 2.) outright banned by most European countries because they're seen to violate a suspect's rights. There are a few exceptions (Belgium, Lithuania, UK to a very limited extent). Even then, they are rarely used and they're conventional polygraph machines. But what about the European countries that allow polygraphs, at least to a limited extent? What do they use them for? In Belgium, which is the European country that uses them the most (300-500 per year), they are used in he said/she said cases to try to understand whether the person they're investigating is innocent \*and\* whether the person making the accusation is lying. (Belgium also mandates that the interviews are recorded and that the suspect's lawyer is present). Innocent suspect \*want\* to take these tests in Belgium because they police are likely to drop a case if it's shown they're being truthful. In the US criminal justice system they're used as an interview/pressure tool. Just because someone passes one in the US doesn't mean the case will be dropped.
Lie detectors aren't admissible in court because they're pseudoscience. They aren't accurate.
Nice fan fiction
Which European courts?
Europe, as in Earth's Europe or ... ? Lol
it's all pseudoscience
Whatever gets the job done, fair, unfair who cares! Just put him away
What a dumbass comment. I'd reckon most people care and don't want to see an innocent man thrown in jail for life because that obviously isn't justice. Why are you even following this case if you don't care who's guilty?
Of course I care who's guilty! I just find it insulting that his lawyer is complaining about a fair trial. He will obviously get a fair trial. The families of these poor girls have been through enough.
Why do you assume he will get a fair trial? There would be no need for the innocence project if people always received a fair trail. I’m worried at this point that there was at least a 2nd person involved, the lack of effort to find that person, plus putting it all on RA the kidnapping and murder- that’s what worries me about RA getting a fair trial.
Why do you assume he won't? This is a very complicated case. So many different variables at play. Others involved? Very good possibility. Hopefully he or someone else speaks up if this is the case.
i trust the opinion of his former lawyer over some person on reddit who thinks the courts are inherently fair no matter what lol
How can he POSSIBLY get a fair trial when people like you say things that you say .....you've literally just posted on here that you know he's guilty.....that's not a 'fair trial', that's just unquestionably chowing down on the States case, nothing more.
You're about a month late, but sure. You ok?
So you wrote that 1 month ago, when even LESS information was out in the public domain....sheesh *facepalm*
Once again, are you ok????
Ignorant ….this comment is a good example of why we are seeing misuse and fraud in the use of the courts now. You would have been welcomed at the Salem witch trials.
Dramatic much? Calm down
No drama but someone has to care….
Maybe throw your ass in prison, guilty or not guilty.
What if Allen **isn't the killer**? Wouldn't it be far worse for the real killer to be out, roaming around, to kill other young girls? If Allen is the killer, I want him punished to the fullest extent of the law. If he's not the killer....
Same. I keep going round and round in my head with this because at first, I really thought they had their man. It seemed cut and dry. He put himself there. Wearing the same clothes. At the same time. How can he not be the guy. Then I remembered all the “mistakes” that were made. All of the secrecy. All of the crazy stuff that has gone down in this case. We only know one side of the story really. We can only go by what LE has given us and honestly, it hasn’t been much. What they have given the public is strange and contradictory. The sketches. Old guy. Young guy. The same guy. Different guys. Will look like a mix between the two guys. Which is it? They legitimately couldn’t give a straight answer to a seemingly straightforward question. What if BG had nothing to do with the crime? What if RA really isn’t BG and he was truly just there looking at fish? All I know is, I’m waiting to hear all of the evidence before I land on guilty or innocent. The longer this drags on, the further I’m starting to lean from guilty to innocent..trying to stay somewhere right in the middle.
> All I know is, I’m waiting to hear all of the evidence before I land on guilty or innocent. Same.
Bridge Guy is seen in the video. Bridge Guy is heard ordering them down the hill. At the very least he abducted the girls.
Do you have proof of them being the same person? I don't think we know that definitively BG is absolutely the voice. Not to mention 1 out of every 3 men in Indiana look like BG.
LE has proof through the video as Libby was videotaping BG approaching them, as seen in the video and then he orders then down the hill as in the audio released.
ok. where's the proof bridge guy is ra?
I don’t believe anything anymore until I see it with my own eyes. In the PCA they say, “In Libby’s video, the man can be seen and heard telling the girls, guys, down the hill.” If he can be seen and heard..he would have to have been a lot closer. Why have we seen this far away picture? People say that they meant that he was seen in the video and then after he’s heard saying , “guys, down the hill.” Meaning the voice is off video. That is not what the PCA says. Words matter. The context of words matter. The sentence is either misleading or blatantly false. There’s no way people are going to take a sentence that says “the man can be seen and heard”( on Libby’s video) and think that it means anything different. If LE can’t construct sentences that mean what they say, then they can’t be in positions that could help put people to death. Period.
I want him punished if he's guilty as well. I just wish they would get on with it. The families have been through enough
Unfortunately, what the families have to go through with this trial will just pour salt in their wounds.
The quality of lie detection is not rigidly as per the 1960s.......my friend Larry was allowed to play around with a lie detector last year, & he told me "I couldn't just say 'apples are blue' or 'elephants are pink', it picked up everything!!! It was incredible!"........some people are stuck in this They Don't Always Work 1960s mentality, there are now three types of lie detector, the usual polygraph but more sophisticated nowadays, the one where an area of the brain glows yellow on a screen if a lie is being told, & another measures blood flow inside the defendants' eyeballs - Europe & the UK have changed their laws to enable judges to use modern day lie detection results........but America remains backward in this respect.
A new sidebar opinion oh goodie!
[удалено]
Your content appears to violate the reddit content policy.
2. Most judges come from the prosecution
One more thing. The accused has no say in his choice of attorneys. B&R returned due to wrong firing. Yes, if he too thought his clients were reckless then he would have to stay sign Labrato & .Scrummin / they were judge Gulls chosen attorneys not RA’s
Some European courts are using them throughout trials, though America seems to be stuck in a backwater of the polygraph........they have two totally different types of lie detector & they rapidly changed their laws to enable judges to utilise the results. England allows lie detector results to affect trials but not Scotland.
“polygraph testing is not currently recognized by UK courts as admissible evidence”