Bob Motta Points Out Solid Delphi Defense Evidence
Oct 05, 2023, 03:00 PM
In the recent episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers," Tony Brueski sits down with Defense Attorney Bob Motta, host of "Defense Diaries," to dissect the controversial defense strategy adopted by Richard Allen's lawyers. The question on everyone's mind: Have they made a grave misstep by venturing into fantastical and arguably bizarre territory?
The primary point of contention revolves around the Frank's hearing argument in a document discussing Allen's defense. Bob Motta observes, "Maybe they would have, I think that they needed to give some context to the judge because remember, it's like people are confusing the concept that there's a gag order on this with the fact that the case is sealed and it's not sealed." This differentiation between a gag order and sealing the case is significant. A gag order restricts the involved parties from discussing the case with the press, while a sealed case hides the details from the public.
Bringing up the case titled "Idaho 4," Motta exemplifies how gag orders restrict information flow. In the Idaho 4 case, essential parts of the filings are concealed, depriving the public of crucial details – a stark contrast to the Delphi case.
But the crux of the discussion hinges on the surreal nature of the claims put forth by Allen's defense. Motta articulates, "the fantastical nature of it. Does not mean it's not true." He indicates a specific paragraph in the state's response, suggesting there's an implied criticism of the defense. The strange narrative presented could potentially backfire.
Drawing attention to the eeriness of the defense's narrative, Brueski humorously ponders whether the document was the result of an artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, conjuring a story based on Odinism and murders. Motta affirms, however, that despite the defense's fantastical tone, they aren't fabricating the details. He stresses, "Those aren't coming from thin air. No, those are coming from the discovery that was tendered to the defense by the state. So it's coming from the police reports."
The narrative is further muddled by Richard Allen's confessions. In various jail calls, Allen confessed to his wife, raising questions about his defense's credibility. Brueski and Motta then delve deep into the circumstances surrounding these confessions, suggesting possible coercion. Motta points out that two prison guards, reportedly followers of Odinism, could have played a role in manipulating Allen. He emphasizes that during Allen's attorney-client meetings, these guards allegedly recorded interactions, potentially violating Allen's rights.
The defense's insinuation is clear: they believe that these guards threatened Allen's family, compelling him to confess. However, Motta also brings up a perplexing footnote in the memo, revealing the guards didn't explicitly say these words. The defense assumes that the constant surveillance by the guards inhibited Allen from expressing these concerns directly.
In conclusion, while the defense's approach for Richard Allen is undeniably unusual, it is grounded in tangible reports and evidence. The question remains: Has the defense strategy swayed in favor of or against Richard Allen? And, will the fantastical elements overshadow the tangible truths within their narrative, potentially affecting the outcome of the case?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK’s Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The primary point of contention revolves around the Frank's hearing argument in a document discussing Allen's defense. Bob Motta observes, "Maybe they would have, I think that they needed to give some context to the judge because remember, it's like people are confusing the concept that there's a gag order on this with the fact that the case is sealed and it's not sealed." This differentiation between a gag order and sealing the case is significant. A gag order restricts the involved parties from discussing the case with the press, while a sealed case hides the details from the public.
Bringing up the case titled "Idaho 4," Motta exemplifies how gag orders restrict information flow. In the Idaho 4 case, essential parts of the filings are concealed, depriving the public of crucial details – a stark contrast to the Delphi case.
But the crux of the discussion hinges on the surreal nature of the claims put forth by Allen's defense. Motta articulates, "the fantastical nature of it. Does not mean it's not true." He indicates a specific paragraph in the state's response, suggesting there's an implied criticism of the defense. The strange narrative presented could potentially backfire.
Drawing attention to the eeriness of the defense's narrative, Brueski humorously ponders whether the document was the result of an artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, conjuring a story based on Odinism and murders. Motta affirms, however, that despite the defense's fantastical tone, they aren't fabricating the details. He stresses, "Those aren't coming from thin air. No, those are coming from the discovery that was tendered to the defense by the state. So it's coming from the police reports."
The narrative is further muddled by Richard Allen's confessions. In various jail calls, Allen confessed to his wife, raising questions about his defense's credibility. Brueski and Motta then delve deep into the circumstances surrounding these confessions, suggesting possible coercion. Motta points out that two prison guards, reportedly followers of Odinism, could have played a role in manipulating Allen. He emphasizes that during Allen's attorney-client meetings, these guards allegedly recorded interactions, potentially violating Allen's rights.
The defense's insinuation is clear: they believe that these guards threatened Allen's family, compelling him to confess. However, Motta also brings up a perplexing footnote in the memo, revealing the guards didn't explicitly say these words. The defense assumes that the constant surveillance by the guards inhibited Allen from expressing these concerns directly.
In conclusion, while the defense's approach for Richard Allen is undeniably unusual, it is grounded in tangible reports and evidence. The question remains: Has the defense strategy swayed in favor of or against Richard Allen? And, will the fantastical elements overshadow the tangible truths within their narrative, potentially affecting the outcome of the case?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK’s Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com