Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

[WildHuncher]

w

My understanding is he absolutely did use a gun to intimidate the girls into doing whatever he demanded. He could have easily made one girl restrain the other almost immediately and lead them to the crime scene where he did as he pleased and left them murdered. There is no evidence he had to carry anyone to execute the crime.
As much as I hate typing this he could have directed one girl to undress/redress the other or even stage the other.
IMO the gun is visible on the photo still of BG. IMO the sound of the gun being cocked is heard in the “ down the hill” clip and a a matching bullet was found at the crime scene.
He chose a sharp instrument to murder them because that was his preference. It’s up close and personal and IMO had a sexual component to it. And it’s quiet.
Discharging a gun in that area could have raised alarm.

It’s a really nervy bluff, threatening to shoot when almost the last thing you want to do is set that 40 caliber blockbuster off. You have to hope they don’t know that. You also have to hope they don’t get desperate because they realize you’ve committed such a major, major felony just by pulling that thing out and ordering them down the hill that you’re not likely to let them tell the tale.

Whatever he did would sound dumb, proposed as a plan. Doesn’t mean he didn’t plan it that way, though.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

It’s a really nervy bluff, threatening to shoot when almost the last thing you want to do is set that 40 caliber blockbuster off. You have to hope they don’t know that. You also have to hope they don’t get desperate because they realize you’ve committed such a major, major felony just by pulling that thing out and ordering them down the hill that you’re not likely to let them tell the tale.

Whatever he did would sound dumb, proposed as a plan. Doesn’t mean he didn’t plan it that way, though.

Sadly I don’t believe the girls thought they were being lead to their demise. But he lead them to a second location for a reason- privacy and time.
We have one girl to thank for being brave enough to capture her predator on film. I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t find out that bullet was buried by that same girl once she came to the realization that she was doomed.
Thankfully I will never know what logic goes through the mind of a murderer. Flawed logic for sure. People kill everyday in cold blood and most get caught due to the inability to plan the perfect crime.

 

[susiQ]

w

My understanding is he absolutely did use a gun to intimidate the girls into doing whatever he demanded. He could have easily made one girl restrain the other almost immediately and lead them to the crime scene where he did as he pleased and left them murdered. There is no evidence he had to carry anyone to execute the crime.
As much as I hate typing this he could have directed one girl to undress/redress the other or even stage the other.
IMO the gun is visible on the photo still of BG. IMO the sound of the gun being cocked is heard in the “ down the hill” clip and a a matching bullet was found at the crime scene.
He chose a sharp instrument to murder them because that was his preference. It’s up close and personal and IMO had a sexual component to it. And it’s quiet.
Discharging a gun in that area could have raised alarm.

I suppose I wasn’t clear enough. Whoever killed the girls did not use the gun to kill them. Yes, it was likely used to threaten them to do as they were told. MOO

As far as carrying anyone, your guess is as good as mine. We weren’t there. But, have you ever tried to “move” someone of that weight? I’ve done enough caregiving in my lifetime to know how difficult it can be to move someone of much less weight by oneself. That goes for dressing and undressing.

We obviously do not see this in the same way. That’s okay.

 

[M. Kay]

Delphi is a small town ... CCSO was not up to this herculean task (both re: forensics and leads) and was not open to expert help

Agree. The documentary this week made clear the posturing. Accepting needed help would be wise during seven years.

 

[Emma Peel]

A free gift at least. I am trying to imagine other cases I have followed where the accused then made confessions/admission on tape - it's pretty bad for the defence on any view compared to not doing that

Agree it's a very big concern for the D ... but ...
IMO, there's no such thing as a free gift from solitary.

 

[sunshineray]

I think it’s just a bit premature to call the confessions a “bow” on top without knowing the exact circumstances under which they we made. No icing, no bow…..yet. JMHO

All just a continued supposing from the info in the post I was replying to and in the same vein. We won't know the gist of it all until trial. IMO

 

[minazoe]

ok the police say they were very quickly killed..He must have used the gun to keep them quiet. I think he really did most of his murder ritual after the murders. I think there was a major fight so he couldn't have just immediately killed them.
He must be fairly practiced with a knife huh? I am still waiting for him to cop to other cases for a plea.
I hate him. mOO

 

[Emma Peel]

New docket item from the Defense: List of Witnesses/Exhibits for Contempt Hearing

Perhaps some light sleuthing to do on names here ... but in context ... ... these names seem likely to be legal/process/rules experts of some type. (The witness names are all defense lawyers ... the affidavit list is also lawyers.)

Noting one of the affidavit names seems to be Cara Wieneke's (repped RA with SCOIN) husband (also a lawyer).

Does Hennessey hope to stop the D-removal train by throwing legal experts on the track?
(Hennessey on MurderSheet - discussed his long-term involvement w/ professional organizations for Defense Lawyers.)

The Affidavits-as-Exhibits to this List are not docketed. Yet. JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

State's Objection to Defense's Response on Discovery


View attachment 485269
View attachment 485270

 

[mrjitty]

New docket item from the Defense: List of Witnesses/Exhibits for Contempt Hearing

Perhaps some light sleuthing to do on names here ... but in context ... ... these names seem likely to be legal/process/rules experts of some type. (The witness names are all defense lawyers ... the affidavit list is also lawyers.)

Noting one of the affidavit names seems to be Cara Wieneke's (repped RA with SCOIN) husband (also a lawyer).

Does Hennessey hope to stop the D-removal train by throwing legal experts on the track?
(Hennessey on MurderSheet - discussed his long-term involvement w/ professional organizations for Defense Lawyers.)

The Affidavits-as-Exhibits to this List are not docketed. Yet. JMHO

View attachment 485258

why do you say D removal train?

i think SCOIN has already settled that the defence cannot be removed in these circumstances

 

[sunshineray]

The lack outrage...about the noncompliance of submitting discovery by the deadline and the lack of information on witness names submitted by the D...is deafening. So do lawyers get held in contempt for that kind of disregard? Is it like a three strikes and you're sanctioned kind of thing? Just curious.

 

[Emma Peel]

why do you say D removal train?

i think SCOIN has already settled that the defence cannot be removed in these circumstances

I hope you are correct.

Q? Did SCOIN settle that the D cannot be removed via a formal hearing process where Gull decides removal is necessary?

(Until Lebrato went on Barb McD and waxed poetic about returning as RA's counsel, I also thought yes. Now, I'm not so sure. Would another removal put RA back at the SCOIN - for that clarification?)

In the meantime, I'll offer an edit: "the D contempt train".

 

[Emma Peel]

Here's the State's response to the Defense's Motion to Dismiss
(Motion to dismiss was re: State's withholding of exculpatory evidence ... citing Brady)

 

[Emma Peel]

More Orders/Decisions from the Court:

1. re: State's Motion to Compel Discovery:

Court orders Defense to get requested Discovery to State by March 8 (vs Defense's requested end of March)

Court also orders the Defense does NOT need to provide the State it's deposition exhibits in advance (vs. States demands for same)

2. re: Defense (Hennessey) March 18th Motion for permission to bring his electronic tools (laptop/phone) to the Hearing: DENIED.

(Hennessey's motion asked for electronics permission; Court denies Hennessey's request (but doesn't notice Hennessey?)

 

[Emma Peel]

well it's either a breakfast-lunch-dinner deal on the docket today ... or maybe just an all-day buffet.
Regardless, dear docket chefs: Emma's brain is full.

 

[FrostedGlass]

More Orders/Decisions from the Court:

1. re: State's Motion to Compel Discovery:

Court orders Defense to get requested Discovery to State by March 8 (vs Defense's requested end of March)

Court also orders the Defense does NOT need to provide the State it's deposition exhibits in advance (vs. States demands for same)

2. re: Defense (Hennessey) March 18th Motion for permission to bring his electronic tools (laptop/phone) to the Hearing: DENIED.

(Hennessey's motion asked for electronics permission; Court denies Hennessey's request (but doesn't notice Hennessey?)



View attachment 485330

This denial might be interesting because of the new rules beginning this year:
2. re: Defense (Hennessey) March 18th Motion for permission to bring his electronic tools (laptop/phone) to the Hearing: DENIED.

https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/criminal/#_Toc152240492

Another significant new provision is Rule 2.5(F)(4)

(4) Depositions.​

Parties may take and use depositions of witnesses in accordance with the Rules of Trial Procedure.
(a) A party may record a deposition without the use of a stenographer as provided in Trial Rule 30(B)(4).
(b) A party may take a deposition through audiovisual telecommunication. The notice must specify that the deposition will be taken through audiovisual telecommunication and provide the link for attendance. Unless the deposition is intended to be introduced in lieu of testimony, the court may not require in person depositions.

 

[Emma Peel]

Guess what? The docket chefs don't care, here's dessert:

3. Order regarding Defendant's List of Witnesses and Exhibits for Contempt hearing:
Defense attorneys must provide exhibits in advance of March 18th hearing and before March 7th.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Guess what? The docket chefs don't care, here's dessert:

3. Order regarding Defendant's List of Witnesses and Exhibits for Contempt hearing:
Defense attorneys must provide exhibits in advance of March 18th hearing and before March 7th.



View attachment 485331

Same day as MW’s next appearance in court.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

More Orders/Decisions from the Court:

1. re: State's Motion to Compel Discovery:

Court orders Defense to get requested Discovery to State by March 8 (vs Defense's requested end of March)

Court also orders the Defense does NOT need to provide the State it's deposition exhibits in advance (vs. States demands for same)

2. re: Defense (Hennessey) March 18th Motion for permission to bring his electronic tools (laptop/phone) to the Hearing: DENIED.

(Hennessey's motion asked for electronics permission; Court denies Hennessey's request (but doesn't notice Hennessey?)



View attachment 485330

Oh snap. Perhaps DH shouldn’t have been so disrespectful in her court on October 31st. Or in his motion.

 

[sunshineray]

ok the police say they were very quickly killed..He must have used the gun to keep them quiet. I think he really did most of his murder ritual after the murders. I think there was a major fight so he couldn't have just immediately killed them.
He must be fairly practiced with a knife huh? I am still waiting for him to cop to other cases for a plea.
I hate him. mOO

Yes we don't know what other injuries the girls may have suffered too. It's possible one was even knock unconcious so the killer could concentrate on the other.