Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179

[Spartygirl]

Gah, mystery solved. The poster cut off the end of the sentence. LOL
The girls advised after encountering the male they continued their walk across Freedom Bridge and the old railroad bridge over Old State Road 25.
I'm assuming that's a different bridge, closer to town.

That makes more sense LOL

I have been there so kind of know the "lay of the Land" so to speak.

 

[somequestions]

I do not know what to think anymore about Richard Allen's guilt or innocence. I think I thought he was innocent more before he confessed to the crime. If he is the killer, he is a very strange killer.

If the details that have been released about the crime are true, that maybe sticks were placed on the girls bodies and one was dressed in the other one's clothing, then that takes time. Usually when people take the time to do something, there is a reason.

I thought from the court filings it said that Abigail Williams was dressed in Liberty German's clothing? Was Abigail Williams wearing socks when she was found?

 

[zh0r4]

I dont think so.
Isnt BB the one who saw him walking later ???

Thanks, I’m trying to get everything/docs together. I know BB was interviewed by LE, hence my confusion. Were there other girls mentioned in the SWA/another group of girls?

I assumed it was the same group of girls but looking back she doesn’t say anything about him being creepy (unless I’m missing something)?

My notes on the eyewitnesses BB & SC with source/exhibits.

Bbm

“Betsy Blair's first description of the man she saw on the bridge was memorialized in sketch #2 illustrated on February 17, 2017 (3 days after the girls were found) but not released to the public until April 22, 2019 - following Superintendent Doug Carter's press conference.

On February 17, 2017, Betsy Blair met with State Police sketch artist Taylor D. Bryant and provided a description of the man she observed from 50 feet away on the Monon High Bridge - the same man that Liggett claimed in his affidavit was the killer. Betsy Blair told the sketch artist that the man she (Betsy Blair) observed was:

• A white male
• Age 20
• Had Brown Curly Hair,
• Medium build

Find attached and marked as Exhibit 103 the unredacted "Facial Identification Reference Sheet" (filed as confidential) that contains the description that Betsy Blair provided to the sketch artist. Also, find attached a copy of the sketch that Taylor D. Bryant produced from Betsy Blair's description of the man she observed on the bridge, marked as Exhibit 104. This illustration is also called "sketch #2" (because it was released to the public second). Upon looking at the sketch, Betsy Blair told the sketch artist that the illustration was a "10 out of 10" for accuracy.

The Unified Command did not release the Betsy Blair sketch to the public for over two years. Instead, they first released the Sarah Carbaugh sketch, also called "sketch #1" (because it was released to the public first). The Sarah Carbaugh sketch was illustrated by FBI sketch artist "Plantz" from Detroit on June 19, 2017, and released to the public on July 17, 2017. <snip>
According to Liggett's affidavit, at approximately 3:57 pm, Sarah Carbaugh observed a man walking westbound on county road 300 north. Sarah Carbaugh was headed eastbound on county road 300 N, operating her motor vehicle while simultaneously observing this man walking on the road toward her on the opposite side of the road. This is the same man that Sarah Carbaugh described for the sketch artist on June 19, 2017. <snip>

Roughly two years later, in March 2019, Betsy Blair met with Tony Liggett, frustrated that her sketch (sketch #2) had not been released to the public. Betsy was frustrated because sketch #1, which had been released to the public almost two years before, did not match the man that she (Betsy Blair) observed on the high bridge. Betsy even commented that sketch #1 was "wrong." <snip>

During her March 7, 2017, interview, Betsy Blair was talking with two members of Unified Command: Kevin Hammond and Tony Liggett At this interview, Betsy Blair told Liggett, face-to-face, that the man she (Betsy Blair) observed on the high bridge fit the following description:

-The man was slender and youthful looking.

-He was more "boyish" looking.

-The man was in his 20s to early 30s.

-His hair seemed "poofy" just as the sketch portrayed.

-He had no facial hair, that she can remember.

Finally, on April 22, 2019, Unified Command released Betsy Blair's sketch #2 to the general public. In fact, upon its release, Superintendent Doug Carter commented that the man in Blair's sketch #2 was "responsible for the murders " Also, at the time of the release of sketch #2, Doug Carter also stated that sketch #1 had now become "secondary" to the investigation.”

Exhibits cited:

144 Blair's 10 out of 10 comment is memorialized in a report identified as "Incident No. 17-0091-S03. This 10 out of 10 wording can be found in the second full paragraph. Find attached the unredacted report marked as Exhibit 105.

145 Find attached a screenshot from WTHR news (Indianapolis) showing the release of sketch #1, Exhibit 106

146 See exhibit 105 (Incident No. 17-0091-S03) last sentence of second paragraph.

147 Find attached a flash drive containing Betsy Blair's March 7, 2019, interview with Tony Liggett, marked as Exhibit 107. Betsy Blair states that sketch #1 with the "golf hat" is "wrong" at the 11:37:55 mark.

148 Liggett's affidavit, marked as Exhibit 108, and also Exhibit 107 at the 11:42:10 mark.

149 Liggett's Affidavit for Search Warrant.

150 Exhibit 107 at the 11:42:10 mark.

151 Find attached Doug Carters' April 22, 2019, press conference in which Betsy Blair's sketch #2 is unveiled to the public. It is marked as Exhibit 109.

152 The fact that Sarah Carbaugh's sketch #1 had become secondary to the investigation is confusing, considering Liggett's and Holeman's claim that sketch #1 and sketch #2 are the same person.

Source: page 105-108

https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-

RA’s timeline himself:

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179'

Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179

 

[zh0r4]

I thought from the court filings it said that Abigail Williams was dressed in Liberty German's clothing? Was Abigail Williams wearing socks when she was found?

RSBM

Yes, Abby was dressed in Libby’s clothes. My understanding is that she was not wearing socks when she was found. Do you have a theory about the socks?

Source: p. 28-31
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

 

[Spartygirl]

Thanks, I’m trying to get everything/docs together. I know BB was interviewed by LE, hence my confusion. Were there other girls mentioned in the SWA/another group of girls?

I assumed it was the same group of girls but looking back she doesn’t say anything about him being creepy (unless I’m missing something)?

My notes on the eyewitnesses BB & SC with source/exhibits.

Bbm

“Betsy Blair's first description of the man she saw on the bridge was memorialized in sketch #2 illustrated on February 17, 2017 (3 days after the girls were found) but not released to the public until April 22, 2019 - following Superintendent Doug Carter's press conference.

On February 17, 2017, Betsy Blair met with State Police sketch artist Taylor D. Bryant and provided a description of the man she observed from 50 feet away on the Monon High Bridge - the same man that Liggett claimed in his affidavit was the killer. Betsy Blair told the sketch artist that the man she (Betsy Blair) observed was:

• A white male
• Age 20
• Had Brown Curly Hair,
• Medium build

Find attached and marked as Exhibit 103 the unredacted "Facial Identification Reference Sheet" (filed as confidential) that contains the description that Betsy Blair provided to the sketch artist. Also, find attached a copy of the sketch that Taylor D. Bryant produced from Betsy Blair's description of the man she observed on the bridge, marked as Exhibit 104. This illustration is also called "sketch #2" (because it was released to the public second). Upon looking at the sketch, Betsy Blair told the sketch artist that the illustration was a "10 out of 10" for accuracy.

The Unified Command did not release the Betsy Blair sketch to the public for over two years. Instead, they first released the Sarah Carbaugh sketch, also called "sketch #1" (because it was released to the public first). The Sarah Carbaugh sketch was illustrated by FBI sketch artist "Plantz" from Detroit on June 19, 2017, and released to the public on July 17, 2017. <snip>
According to Liggett's affidavit, at approximately 3:57 pm, Sarah Carbaugh observed a man walking westbound on county road 300 north. Sarah Carbaugh was headed eastbound on county road 300 N, operating her motor vehicle while simultaneously observing this man walking on the road toward her on the opposite side of the road. This is the same man that Sarah Carbaugh described for the sketch artist on June 19, 2017. <snip>

Roughly two years later, in March 2019, Betsy Blair met with Tony Liggett, frustrated that her sketch (sketch #2) had not been released to the public. Betsy was frustrated because sketch #1, which had been released to the public almost two years before, did not match the man that she (Betsy Blair) observed on the high bridge. Betsy even commented that sketch #1 was "wrong." <snip>

During her March 7, 2017, interview, Betsy Blair was talking with two members of Unified Command: Kevin Hammond and Tony Liggett At this interview, Betsy Blair told Liggett, face-to-face, that the man she (Betsy Blair) observed on the high bridge fit the following description:

-The man was slender and youthful looking.

-He was more "boyish" looking.

-The man was in his 20s to early 30s.

-His hair seemed "poofy" just as the sketch portrayed.

-He had no facial hair, that she can remember.

Finally, on April 22, 2019, Unified Command released Betsy Blair's sketch #2 to the general public. In fact, upon its release, Superintendent Doug Carter commented that the man in Blair's sketch #2 was "responsible for the murders " Also, at the time of the release of sketch #2, Doug Carter also stated that sketch #1 had now become "secondary" to the investigation.”

Exhibits cited:

144 Blair's 10 out of 10 comment is memorialized in a report identified as "Incident No. 17-0091-S03. This 10 out of 10 wording can be found in the second full paragraph. Find attached the unredacted report marked as Exhibit 105.

145 Find attached a screenshot from WTHR news (Indianapolis) showing the release of sketch #1, Exhibit 106

146 See exhibit 105 (Incident No. 17-0091-S03) last sentence of second paragraph.

147 Find attached a flash drive containing Betsy Blair's March 7, 2019, interview with Tony Liggett, marked as Exhibit 107. Betsy Blair states that sketch #1 with the "golf hat" is "wrong" at the 11:37:55 mark.

148 Liggett's affidavit, marked as Exhibit 108, and also Exhibit 107 at the 11:42:10 mark.

149 Liggett's Affidavit for Search Warrant.

150 Exhibit 107 at the 11:42:10 mark.

151 Find attached Doug Carters' April 22, 2019, press conference in which Betsy Blair's sketch #2 is unveiled to the public. It is marked as Exhibit 109.

152 The fact that Sarah Carbaugh's sketch #1 had become secondary to the investigation is confusing, considering Liggett's and Holeman's claim that sketch #1 and sketch #2 are the same person.

Source: page 105-108

https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-

RA’s timeline himself:

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179'

Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179

Not BB
Interviews were conducted with juveniles, and They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Tiail on February 13, 2017. They advised they were walking on the trail toward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered male walking from Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. described the male as "kind of creepy"
It is listed in this Probable cause court document..

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

 

[sunshineray]

Could someone bear with me on this? I know this question has probably been trodden over already, but why'd BG leave that phone there? I like many try to say well, he just didn't see them recording. I mean, he was close enough, the recording was long enough where I'd swear he had to have been aware of that phone in some kind of use. I don't know if there's signal on the bridge, I'd assume yes. That means he had to have feared a 911 call, he would even probably have checked the phone for it. So I think he actually may even have had heightened awareness of the phone. Why leave it there?? Possible answers (?):

-He really didn't see them recording
-He did see, but the phone was somehow lost and he couldn't find it before he had to vacate the scene
-He did see, but he figured he'd concealed his identity well enough where it didn't matter
-He did see but was more afraid of handling the phone than having LE view it, ie "took his chances"
-BG did see but was on drugs, too much adrenaline pumping, etc.
-He did see; there were multiple parties involved; he left the scene before another party to the crime left, maybe BG couldn't find the phone or one of the others took it; the other party disliked BG and left the phone for LE to find
-He did see but was taking the girls to other parties & BG had no idea the girls were going to be killed; the other parties had demanded his phone before BG left; other parties then killed the girls and left the phone so BG would be captured by LE
-He did see, but BG is unbalanced and wanted to be caught
-He did see, is unbalanced, and figured he could somehow "explain away" any resemblance he as a suspect would have to "BG"
-He did see, but BG hates LE and enjoyed the idea of leaving info almost as a "taunt" to them
-He did see but in the commission of the crimes somehow either came close or thought he was coming close to being discovered while still at the CS/"in a hurry"
-He did see, but had a phone himself and knew there was no signal; the only thing he was really afraid of was a 911 call
-He did see, attempted to damage the phone (unbeknownst to us) and LE was still able to extract the data

If multiple parties involved, leaning towards one of them leaving it there to get BG captured. But if just BG?? Like a vicious murderer/SK that hates LE? I'm thinking he had to have seen that phone in use, but maybe not??

The phone was found under Libby's body. Maybe knowing she filmed BG on her phone, she maybe slipped it inside her jeans in the back? Then when he undressed her or made her undress herself it came loose and fell to the ground unnoticed by RA and faith would have it exactly where her body came to rest upon? Just some thoughts.

 

[sunshineray]

Thanks, very interesting. We talked about this a while ago, but I wonder about the validity of the tests due to the time between 2017 and 2023. Let’s say RA fired that gun 100 times since the ejected bullet was picked up. Do we expect the extraction marks to still be exactly the same or would we expect slight differences due to wear and tear? I really think that the bullet evidence will be nullified the experts cancelling each other out.
MOO

Maybe LE asked him if he fired the gun?

Possible question asked... When was the last time you used it?

Just my answer example: Oh I haven't fired that gun in years, it's just been stored at my home.

Question we know was asked... (paraphrasing) "Have you ever let anyone borrow your gun?"

Answer we know about...(paraphrasing)
"No I never let anyone borrow my gun."

Maybe RA was confident and open about the gun because he knew he never fired it that day, he only used it for show to abduct and intimidate? Maybe LE asked him if he'd used it and what seemed like a safe answer at the time will actually lend itself to a better ballistics match history?

 

[schooling]

Thanks, very interesting. We talked about this a while ago, but I wonder about the validity of the tests due to the time between 2017 and 2023. Let’s say RA fired that gun 100 times since the ejected bullet was picked up. Do we expect the extraction marks to still be exactly the same or would we expect slight differences due to wear and tear? I really think that the bullet evidence will be nullified the experts cancelling each other out.
MOO

They should let both experts testify, show their work, and let the jury decide.

 

[layer]

My understanding is that she was not wearing socks when she was found. Do you have a theory about the socks?

Right? Seemed like a leading question with a direction. Now the suspense is killing me.

 

[layer]

Thanks, very interesting. We talked about this a while ago, but I wonder about the validity of the tests due to the time between 2017 and 2023. Let’s say RA fired that gun 100 times since the ejected bullet was picked up. Do we expect the extraction marks to still be exactly the same or would we expect slight differences due to wear and tear? I really think that the bullet evidence will be nullified the experts cancelling each other out.
MOO

It could have even had the extractor replaced since the crime. It's a fairly commonly replaced part. If I was to wager I'd bet it hasn't been changed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the gun hasn't even been fired since before the crime. If you've shot much .40 S&W, you know why most agencies moved back to 9mm. It's somewhat unpleasant to fire.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't get it too.

I think the state will destroy them at the trial if they keeping into these huge conspiracies and misinformation. I am not impressed with their representation and I am wondering if RA may have a case for inadequate defense after and if he is convicted.

There was a very strange ongoing exchange on the Motion to Dismiss
P17
10 THE COURT Any response?
II MR. BALDWIN: If you're hiding evidence back in 2017, it might be
2 something that you would do in 2023, and that's where this is headed, so
13 MS. DIENER: There's been no testimony of hidden evidence, Judge.
14 MR. BALDWIN Well, we're about to get into that
15 THE COURT You keep telling me we're
16 and-
17 MR. BALDWIN; It takes time, Judge, I'm sorry I will

And at P25

16 THE COURT None of this is in your motion
17 MR. BALDWIN This is the evidence to support the motion and to
18 counteract Mr McLeland's argument that there's bad - there's not bad faith and
19 that this is -
20 THE COURT: This is very specific, Mr. Baldwin. You did not
21 incorporate any of this information in your motion to dismiss

March 18, 2024 Motion to Dismiss Hearing.pdf

drive.google.com

I could go on with cites but the tldr version is that in the motion to dismiss, Baldwin needed to focus on what law enforcement knew all the way back in 2017 when they conducted the lost BH interview. Instead Baldwin started in on a wide ranging fishing expedition with Click including the idea that evidence relating to PW had been destroyed by the prosecution - despite never having pled that.

p26

MR. BALDWIN What you would learn, Judge, is that Patrick
recording that's missing of Brad Holder. So our response about bad faith is after
we get through whether we're in the category of materially exculpatory, which is
the heading of their motion, or potentially useful, and we aren't at either one.

MR. BALDWIN Westfall, his phone - he brought his phone in to the police at their request, and
the phone that he brought to them only had four days - knowing that he was
going there, that he brought a phone with no data on it predating when he knew
he was going in there; i.e., it's either scrubbed or he brought in a new phone
And that goes toward, Judge, showing that he had a predisposition or a - he was
trying to hide evidence; and when he's trying to hide evidence, that then goes
toward, "Well, if he was trying to hide evidence in 2023, what was he doing back
in 20172

THE COURT Then, perhaps, you should have pled that, because
you did not plead that in this particular motion that I am holding in my hand
MS. DIENER: And if I may say, Judge, the content of the motion
with regard to Patrick Westfall says that they have been given a narrative and
there is no recording and they are speculating as to whether we're not telling the
truth about whether there's a recording, so I have a witness here to testify to
that effect. So our preparation has been for the allegation of a dismissal based
on destruction of exculpatory evidence, it is specific to a recording of Brad Holder
on February 17 of '7 that was discovered missing or lost in August of 'I7 That's

Baldwin didn't even bother to deliver a close for his motion to dismiss. All of which leads me to wonder if his point was simply to surface all this stuff for the media. Here is a conspiracy, based on no evidence, that the PW evidence has been destroyed by LE.

Then we see it again with the 3rd Franks which surely does not relate to the motion filed.

I guess where I worry, is perhaps this is a very clever thing to do, if not strictly legit?

 

[snooptroop88]

After finally getting a chance to read this, I wonder one thing. If the geofence data is total trash as far as exonerating RA because the geofence data isn't accurate to outside ranges that could include the whole town of Delphi, then how could it help the prosecution at all? The response basically admits the information isn't worth much. Hmm, well where does this leave us?

I was wondering the same thing. Think it goes to where they note this: geolocation is gathered from 3 sources, gps, wifi, and cell sites/timing advance (signal bounces from tower to device and back) GPS accuracy: 3-15 meters; wifi 15-100 meters; cell site/timing advance up to several thousand meters ("could include entire town of Delphi and beyond"). When the person's in rural area, it continues, the whole thing might "default" into the cell site/timing advance method of collecting data b/c wifi and gps might be unavailable. That means for all these little dots I'd picture showing up as phones on a geofence map, these have a certain range of accuracy, and it might well be like thousands of meters if it's the "default" type of data gathering used with the cell site/timing advance.

However, if someone told you they had successfully used a wifi signal in a certain place at a very specific time, you'd know to look for that little phone "dot" within 15-100 meters of specified location. I am definitely not an expert and am not very good at all with electronics, but that is what I'm getting from this, and yes (guessing based on what I see), it potentially could still help the P.

 

[mrjitty]

I was wondering the same thing. Think it goes to where they note this: geolocation is gathered from 3 sources, gps, wifi, and cell sites/timing advance (signal bounces from tower to device and back) GPS accuracy: 3-15 meters; wifi 15-100 meters; cell site/timing advance up to several thousand meters ("could include entire town of Delphi and beyond"). When the person's in rural area, it continues, the whole thing might "default" into the cell site/timing advance method of collecting data b/c wifi and gps might be unavailable. That means for all these little dots I'd picture showing up as phones on a geofence map, these have a certain range of accuracy, and it might well be like thousands of meters if it's the "default" type of data gathering used with the cell site/timing advance.

However, if someone told you they had successfully used a wifi signal in a certain place at a very specific time, you'd know to look for that little phone "dot" within 15-100 meters of specified location. I am definitely not an expert and am not very good at all with electronics, but that is what I'm getting from this, and yes (guessing based on what I see), it potentially could still help the P.

I've followed older cases where there was no locational data per se - only azimuth and ways to approximate how far away the phone is. Azimuth can be approximated in an arc as the tower knows what side of the tower the phone is on.

Distances can be approximated via techniques like timing advance, which calculate the time for a signal to make the return trip.

In the GSM cellular mobile phone standard, timing advance (TA) value corresponds to the length of time a signal takes to reach the base station from a mobile phone. GSM uses TDMA technology in the radio interface to share a single frequency between several users, assigning sequential timeslots to the individual users sharing a frequency. Each user transmits periodically for less than one-eighth of the time within one of the eight timeslots. Since the users are at various distances from the base station and radio waves travel at the finite speed of light, the precise arrival-time within the slot can be used by the base station to determine the distance to the mobile phone. The time at which the phone is allowed to transmit a burst of traffic within a timeslot must be adjusted accordingly to prevent collisions with adjacent users. Timing Advance (TA) is the variable controlling this adjustment.

One thing we don't know about, is the LE/FBI had access to the first searchers on the ground e.g family, plus witnesses, so they may have location data from the phones of those people directly, without need for any geofence warrant. Also the victims phone may have had useful location data extracted.

I tend to feel there is no point speculating about this too much before we hear from the FBI CAST expert, as there are multiple sources of data here, not just the geofence warrant.

 

[mrjitty]

After finally getting a chance to read this, I wonder one thing. If the geofence data is total trash as far as exonerating RA because the geofence data isn't accurate to outside ranges that could include the whole town of Delphi, then how could it help the prosecution at all? The response basically admits the information isn't worth much. Hmm, well where does this leave us?

This has been my view all along. If RA's phone had showed up within that original warrant, they would have IDed him long ago. For some reason, it wasn't. We don't know how many phones were captured in that warrant. Just that someone plotted 3 of them. IMO.

 

[FromGermany1]

The phone was found under Libby's body. Maybe knowing she filmed BG on her phone, she maybe slipped it inside her jeans in the back? Then when he undressed her or made her undress herself it came loose and fell to the ground unnoticed by RA and faith would have it exactly where her body came to rest upon? Just some thoughts.

Imagine, smart Libby managed it to lay down herself onto her own phone after she got undressed. Would mean, she died at that exact spot and wasn't moved by BG. Though my thoughts in 2017 were, that BG had to know, she had a phone, and he looked at her phone at some point, even viewed the video. Maybe he considered himself unidentifiable, and the rest was just nature and Abby in his eyes.

 

[mrjitty]

Those who feel RA is guilty have every right to feel that way. It's a reasonable take. It's an opinion, we all have different ones, and that makes the world more colorful.

However:
(1) being there that day doesn't complete the equation that RA is BG. Others were there.
(2) Others wear blue jackets and blue jeans, so that doesn't complete the equation either.
(3) Some feel the chain of custody is not well established for the bullet, and some feel that ejector toolmark analysis isn't as solid a science as we once thought.
(4) A gun (probably) was pulled on the girls. Whose gun that was we can't conclusively say. Nor can we tell what type of gun was pulled on the girls.
(5) Anyone that has watched "My Cousin Vinny" knows that eyewitness ID's can be wrong at times. People are, wait for it, human, and thus fallible.
(6) The human body is amazing! We can bend our heads down and then up a few seconds later. Doesn't really prove much.
(7) We don't know the circumstances of his "incriminating statements," nor the content of the conversation (yet).

All of this is to say that there are competing, alternative hypotheses to the data which is being discussed. None of the things I listed above are an unreasonable take. This is why I always, regardless of the case I am interested in, keep an open mind until I hear actual testimony. Trials are not a math equation. IMO

I have a question for you @AugustWest - if you don't find it too philosophical.

I've always believed that some deference should be given to the prosecution as an institution, in that in order for a trial to be stood up in the first place, it has been subject to judicial oversight to determine there is a case to answer. That is of course an entirely separate question to the burden in the subsequent trial naturally - but there is actually a strong basis for suspicion of guilt to get to trial in the first place.

However I have found in recent years that cases get more conspiratorial and it is seemingly the norm in high profile cases to accuse the prosecution not just of mistakes, but actual misfeasance or even straight corruption.

I wonder if this is all quite corrosive. But by the same token it doesn't sit well with me that the accused sits in prison under maximum security for 18 months without so much as a preliminary hearing or a bail hearing to verify there actually is a case to answer?

In any event, its odd to me that it gets so positional as to guilt before we even got to trial

ETA: I guess my reason to ask you this, is do you think this is how these types of trials will go now? Or is it just a very weird case.

 

[marv hucker]

I have a question for you @AugustWest - if you don't find it too philosophical.

I've always believed that some deference should be given to the prosecution as an institution, in that in order for a trial to be stood up in the first place, it has been subject to judicial oversight to determine there is a case to answer. That is of course an entirely separate question to the burden in the subsequent trial naturally - but there is actually a strong basis for suspicion of guilt to get to trial in the first place.

However I have found in recent years that cases get more conspiratorial and it is seemingly the norm in high profile cases to accuse the prosecution not just of mistakes, but actual misfeasance or even straight corruption.

I wonder if this is all quite corrosive. But by the same token it doesn't sit well with me that the accused sits in prison under maximum security for 18 months without so much as a preliminary hearing or a bail hearing to verify there actually is a case to answer?

In any event, its odd to me that it gets so positional as to guilt before we even got to trial

ETA: I guess my reason to ask you this, is do you think this is how these types of trials will go now? Or is it just a very weird case.

Wasn’t so long as that - arrest late October 2022 & his bail hearing was June 2023

Still too long IMO but 8 months, not 18.

EDIT: and I too think it’s regrettable how much this has played out in the media. From really the first few weeks the Indiana LE have leaned heavily on MSM. Seems somewhat out of the ordinary and I think D have used every tool, tactic and trick at their disposal including using MSM as far as they’re allowed.

 

[layer]

I guess where I worry, is perhaps this is a very clever thing to do, if not strictly legit?

You're worried the defense is being clever?

 

[AugustWest]

@mrjitty What a good question!

I'll have to start by saying that I don't agree that deference should be given to a prosecution. I believe our (U.S.) system functions best when our adversarial system is in full swing. The defense checks the prosecution by offering a rigorous defense, and the prosecution does the best they can for the people they serve. Judges, in my mind, should be a completely neutral arbiter, with zero input in the factual basis of a case. Only input on the law, just as we envision Lady Justice with even scales and a blindfold over her eyes. Our Founding Fathers were incredibly smart to craft the documents they did. True genius. That said, I appreciate that many disagree, and the public needs to feel secure and safe from wrongdoers, as well as have faith that their government truly is working in a fair and just manner.

The corrosive and toxic nature of our trials, in my opinion, is a product of our current society and the way we consume news. We want instant gratification and expect our government to keep us informed of what their actions are at all times. Couple this with the way we use social media as a news source, unfettered and already containing bias (one way or another), and you get a less than optimal information space surrounding trials. I don't know the answer, but we may need to look to our European brethren and actually limit the amount of information pretrial that is out there. Our system simply wasn't designed for it; it was created in a time period where you might not know the outcome of a specific trial for months (trial on East coast, news to West coast). Further, we are becoming more and more polarized in our viewpoints. All you have to do is listen to news, and almost everything is "us vs. them;" democrat vs. republican, Christian vs. Atheist vs. Muslim vs. Jew, Ukraine vs. Russia, East vs. West. It's becoming ridiculous to me. Imagine what we could accomplish if we weren't constantly hating on each other. I guess that's the hippy coming out of me. Sadly, I feel this may be our new norm, until we remember that we work better with a diversity of viewpoints and tolerance in our hearts.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Photo by: Cox, Katie - WRTV

Just posting this pic of RA to remind us of his reddish/brown and gray hair that has been referred to by witness(es). He also appears much younger here with that full round face to me. Now trim the goatee back to the way he wore it before the murders and it makes all the difference in the world. JMO