The Delphi Case

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.