Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #183

[layer]

Nick is just dying for this case to be granted an appeal!

I'm willing to chalk up Nick's... questionable decisions... to zeal.
I like zeal, just be smart about it.

 

[layer]

Some of us might recognize Horan's name from another case we followed. Mollie Tibbetts.

Mollie, that still touches a nerve

 

[photographer4]

The defense is not going to be removed from the case. No way.
I think they will be found guilty of contempt and probably fined and sanctioned in some way.
They deserve a lot more in my opinion. They’ve made a mockery of our judiciary.
RA deserves a hardnosed defense working in his best interest and he hasn’t gotten it. This case could have been professionally defended but B and R chose to bring the circus.

I'm thinking back to Scremin and Lebrato and when Lebratto said:

"“Honestly, when I first heard about it and that these attorneys were going down this road, Lebrato said, “I thought it was hocus pocus. I was wrong. I was a hundred percent wrong. This is a real thing, and it’s a dangerous thing.” (bolding done by media outlet, not me).
AND:
"Lebrato agrees with Rozzi and Baldwin that the investigation into the 2017 double murders was flawed and says his team had prepared their own petition for a Frank’s Hearing – alleging there were problems with the information used to obtain the search warrant for Allen’s home.

“Ours was similar to theirs but not the same. There were some differences,” he says.

(I don't know why the last sentence has ended up in yellow as if I'm quoting a member here, I'm not. I tried to delete it, wasn't able, it keeps re-appearing and I don't know why).

I wonder what their filings would have said how they may have differed from those of B&A? Sounds like they had some concerns about the information in support of the search warrant filing as well as concerns about Odins in the community and working as staff at the corrections facility. Seems they also had concerns about the timing of the arrest and election....

I hope that once the entire trial is all over, that S & L do tell us what their thoughts on the case were, and how they may have differed in their filings / strategy. I'm not sure it would have been super different at all really.

ETA link: EXCLUSIVE: Richard Allen's former defense attorney doubts he'll get a fair trial

 

[layer]

“Ours was similar to theirs but not the same. There were some differences,” he says.

Actually, happy accident highlighting a curious statement. Now I want to know the differences.

 

[AugustWest]

Wait! You think maybe AugustWest really isn't just an old hippie lawyer?

Haha! I prefer the terms "wise," "seasoned" or "aged" (as in a fine wine) hippie attorney, thank you very much!

 

[justtrish]

They don't need to prove him innocent, all they need to do is raise questions. You have questions? I have questions. We will see if Nick has the answers.

I don't really have any questions about his guilt based on what the D has thrown at us in their memos. I do have questions about why they are allowed to still be on this case and why they continue to put these memos out misrepresenting evidence and talking out both sides of their mouths.

 

[zh0r4]

I'm more curious if it just got a little water (or, sadly, blood) inside it, rather than a full submersion. My Android has gotten a small amount of water in it before and it didn't shut down, but it did act weird for a little while before functioning normal again later. I'm just trying to make sense of the pings while not having the phone leave the area or be manually turned off and on.

If it was on, it would ping. From my understanding, phone antennas are near waterproof, they are the last part of the phone to go, even if the battery is damaged they will keep a small charge and keep broadcasting/pinging. If that’s what you mean?

 

[justtrish]

I was looking up why a phone would ping and then not ping if it's in the same location and something interesting noted was if there were a lot of phones in the area it could interfere with signal. We know there were searches into the night for the girls. Perhaps after the ping attempt in the 5:45pm time frame there were so many searchers flooding the area that it messed up the ability to get a ping on Libby's phone?

Also weather in the area can mess up pinging a phone. I would be curious if the weather was more cloudy from 5pm on and the combo of cloudy skies, the phone being under something and the amount of phones in the area while searchers were looking for the girls just messed up the ability to ping it?

 

[layer]

Perhaps after the ping attempt in the 5:45pm time frame there were so many searchers flooding the area that it messed up the ability to get a ping on Libby's phone?

Possible, I only recently learned that Abby's grandpa Clif joined the search. I'm thinking the search was more involved than I had known.

 

[photographer4]

RSBM
RBBM

From my understanding no, if the phone was in a certain radius, it is within the radius. Whether or not Libby had the phone or whether someone else possibly had Libby’s phone is another issue. Either way this is alarming considering where the phone was found, very suspicious.

JMO.

Does anyone believe the phone was just missed by the killer? That when he staged the scene by moving the kids around and redressed them that he just did not notice the phone under the shoe, under AW's body?? I feel like that was somehow intentional. Why a shoe under a body in the first place? Specifically under her back, left side. I could believe the shoe just happened to be where it was when AW ended up on top of it, but with a phone under it??? That seems quite deliberate to me on the part of the killer, no?

Delphi murders: What happened to Abigail Williams and Libby German? (Phone found under AW's body).

Adobe Acrobat
(Franks Motion #1 - shoe found under AW's body and the phone was found UNDER the shoe).

 

[photographer4]

I wonder if there were any fingerprints on Libby's phone. Even her own. I doubt it.

Hypothetically speaking, if the girls were not there all night, but were brought back in the wee hours of the morning, and the phone was intentionally left by the killers, what would be the purpose in powering the phone on (hence the ping) instead of just leaving it powered off? Thinking as a criminal I mean...why would they do that?

IMO MOO

I wondered if they took the phone apart to see if there may have been even a tiny shred of DNA in the charging port, the mic or the speaker? Surely they did, right?

 

[justtrish]

Possible, I only recently learned that Abby's grandpa Clif joined the search. I'm thinking the search was more involved than I had known.

I know someone that lives in Delphi and her daughter played softball with Libby. The day the girls went missing she posted in our small private FB group (I group for moms who were having kids about the same time many many moons ago.. we've had the group before FB was even a thing.. it started on message boards before FB and then migrated to FB when it was an option). She posted that she was worried about 2 girls who went for a walk on a trail and didn't show up when it was pick up time. She said people were out searching. I do not know the extent of how many were searching that first night, but it seemed much of the town knew that 2 girls were missing and she at least knew there was a search going on. I also remember the next day when the news broke and we just were all stunned because we all have kids that were the ages of Abby/Libby when they were killed. It is what had me interested in this case from day 1 because I knew someone that knew them and I had kids their age.

Small towns are like that though.. everyone knows everyone or they at least know someone that knows someone. I have a feeling that first day the search had quite a few people because that is what small towns do when someone is missing.. they rally around and find ways to help.

 

[photographer4]

Exactly! This leads me to believe evidence was planted on the phone. Evidence the perp(s), for some reason, wanted LE to see. And by "evidence" I mean staged evidence to make LE look "that way" instead of "this way."

IMO MOO

Are you saying that the perp(s) may have been trying to frame someone? Anyone in particular or just someone in general? Is it possible that LG was required to record AW walking towards her on the bridge with BG behind them and the DTH remark for some reason? Could that have been staged and set up by the BG? I'd like to know, how steady is the original video of the approach of BG? EG: are LG's hands shaking? Would we be able to tell if they were based on the recording? Were their voices audible on the recording? Were their voices normal? Panicky?

 

[Betty P]

Hi @vinayd I wanted to reply to your reply to me on the last thread, I’m still behind!

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182'

Bbm

In the State’s Response to the Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (3/17/2024):

8. The law enforcement geofence reports have been provided to the Defense to the best of our knowledge.

In the State’s Response to the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (3/23/2024):

7. In response to request 11, all geo-fence data in the State's possession has been provided to the Defense and is listed in the Discovery Releases. The agency responsible for the interpretation of the geo-fence data is the FBI CAST team; specifically, Special Agent Kevin Horan (retired) and Special Agent Sabric.

On 4/3/2024 in the State’s Response to the 3rd Frank’s:

“The Defense was advised on March 4th, 2023, that State witnesses specializing in geofencing data would be ISP First Sergeant Christopher Cecil, FBI Agent Kevin Horan, and/or ISP Sergent Pete Glogoza. However, the Defense filed their 3rd Motion for Franks Hearing based on "newly discovered evidence" that was available during the first discovery disclosure in October 2023 and in the second discovery disclosure after counsel was reinstated. The State witnesses for geofencing data interpretations would testify that:”
View attachment 500655

A couple of weeks later in the Motion in Limine filed 4/29/2024

9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401. IRE 401. Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Evidence may be excluded if it confuses the issues.
View attachment 500656

What happened between 4/3 and 4/29 when the P filed the Motion in Limine seemingly trying to silence 2 LEOs, including one of the FBI agents mentioned in the state’s previously filing who they said would testify the D’s concerns about geofencing were misconstrued/not applicable?


This is all AFTER this was cited by the D in the 3rd Frank’s Motion on 3/13/2024

8. Specifically, the defense received certain geofencing evidence that at least 3 persons were in or around the crime scene at a time while the murders were taking place (according to law enforcement timelines) and none of the owners of the phones have any connection to Richard Allen.

9. This geofencing evidence would provide evidence of any of the following scenarios:
a. Those persons walking with the phones are witnesses that would have observed the murders as they were taking place and none of them have identified Richard Allen; or

b. Those persons walking with the phones were witnesses who observed nothing, as the murders did not take place the afternoon of February 13, 2023, but the victims were taken to the crime scene after the search was called off.

c. Those persons walking with the phones were participants in the murders.

10. Said geofencing evidence was so important to somebody involved in the investigation that they created a map and plotted the movements of these persons, including movements that show that at least one of these persons was within 60-100 yards of the crime scene at a time while the murders would have been committed according to law enforcement's timelines. The phones, once again, had no connection to Richard Allen.

11. Furthermore, the map shows that the other two phones, and the persons carrying those phones, were in and around the crime scene between 12:39:54 pm and 5:49 pm on February 13, 2017.

12. That defense has sought out, but has not been provided, any documents or reports that contradict or refutes said geofencing evidence, but have not found such evidence, nor has the prosecutor provided any when defense requested reports on said geofencing.
View attachment 500657
View attachment 500658


In my opinion, the chronological order of these mentions of the FBI’s geofencing then the Motion in Limine, almost sounds like at least (Ret) Agent Horan’s geofencing analysis does not support RA as a suspect in the area at the time of the murders. Otherwise the P would be citing the FBI reports and definitely wouldn’t be mentioning any of it in the Motion in Limine. IANAL but if I was a juror this sequence of filings on the geofencing data specifically wouldn’t convince me beyond a reasonable doubt, exactly the opposite.

Who is the state’s geofencing witness now? Is there support re: geofencing data that RA is a suspect or not? Why are 2 LEOs listed in the P’s Motion in Limine?

AJMO


Sources:
3rd Franks Motion
filed by Baldwin 3/13/2024 p. 2 & 3
Third Franks Notice & Request For Franks Hearing
State's response to defendant's motion to compel and request for sanctions
filed by Mcleland 3/17/2024
Adobe Acrobat
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS p. 3 &4
filed by Mcleland 3/23/2024 10:29PM
Adobe Acrobat
States response to the 3rd Franks
filed by Mcleland 4/3/2024 p. 3
State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion
Motion in Limine
filed by Mcleland 4/29/2024
Adobe Acrobat

I suspect we’ll find out when the trial begins, per usual.

 

[justtrish]

Does anyone believe the phone was just missed by the killer? That when he staged the scene by moving the kids around and redressed them that he just did not notice the phone under the shoe, under AW's body?? I feel like that was somehow intentional. Why a shoe under a body in the first place? Specifically under her back, left side. I could believe the shoe just happened to be where it was when AW ended up on top of it, but with a phone inside it??? That seems quite deliberate to me on the part of the killer, no?

Delphi murders: What happened to Abigail Williams and Libby German? (Phone found under AW's body).

Adobe Acrobat
(Franks Motion #1 - shoe found under AW's body and the phone was found UNDER the shoe).

If the phone was under her shoe, then I think it's likely she did that. If he ordered them to undress, then she knows she has her phone on her, she might have tried to hide it. She takes her shoes off first because pants don't usually come off over shoes. She puts the shoe on the phone on purpose.. then when he's done with whatever he was doing He moves her (this doesn't even have to be some big elaborate moving either. What if she was just slumped over one way and he moved her over a bit and that happened to be on top of the shoe that had her phone under it?

The defense might like to suggest that it was some conspiracy about this phone, but I think the solution is much more simple.

 

[layer]

I wondered if they took the phone apart to see if there may have been even a tiny shred of DNA in the charging port, the mic or the speaker? Surely they did, right?

If the killer's DNA wasn't shed all over that crime scene I wouldn't expect to find it on the phone. In fact, that's the last place I'd look. Huh... surely they did?

 

[Emma Peel]

Noting a lot of creative theories here in efforts to dismiss or explain away ping patterns that might conflict with the State's theory of the case.

Certainly, the State had the ping evidence when determining their timeline. They're surely prepared to explain (with experts) how the pings are consistent with their theory.

No worries there.

Except ... the State has asked Gull to block cellular-location related testimony.

huh.

It's a head-scratcher.


jmho

 

[TL4S]

If the killer's DNA wasn't shed all over that crime scene I wouldn't expect to find it on the phone. In fact, that's the last place I'd look. Huh... surely they did?

This brings me to something I've been thinking about. The phone ping info has people suggesting the girls were taken somewhere and brought back. I'd like to know more about the fiber, animal hair, DNA, and other physical and forensic evidence that was found on the girls and the CS, because if the girls had been transported by vehicle (I assume), and/or were in another location or building, I wonder if there would be evidence of that on them. It seems they would have been in contact with much more that way.

 

[Betty P]

I don't really have any questions about his guilt based on what the D has thrown at us in their memos. I do have questions about why they are allowed to still be on this case and why they continue to put these memos out misrepresenting evidence and talking out both sides of their mouths.

I’ve not followed a whole lot of trials, but I’d say they’re the most offensive defense team I’ve ever seen. JMO. Conspiracy theories are all the rage these days, so it’s no surprise defense attorneys are following the fad with their courtroom strategies.

Leaking the crime scene photos to the internet was the worst stunt I’ve ever seen in a murder trial. They can’t go any lower than that and I’ll forever judge them accordingly. I hope and pray they don’t try to top it. I may be forced to use vulgar language if they do.

 

[FrostedGlass]

"Pings" in this context are not incoming calls/texts, scheduled updates, nor are they internally generated events that awakened the phone.

"Pings" in this context refers to a signal sent by a cellular provider for the purpose of trying to locate a specific phone, initiated after law enforcement contacts a cellular provider (AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon) and asks that provider to help find that given phone's location.

The provider then sends out a signal from its tower(s) with the express purpose and intention to try to locate that phone's location. Based on different techniques and data (like triangulation and time-on-arrival), the cellular provider can then infer certain information about that phone's present location and provide that information to Law Enforcement.

These services from cellular providers intended to assist Law Enforcement are called "Location Based Services".

That is what is being referred to when this motion discusses "pings". This is not just texts and missed calls.

This process is initiated at the behest of law enforcement, and conducted specifically by the network carrier.

View attachment 500553

The table above is from the FBI's Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST) unclassified Cellular Analysis & Geo-Location Field Resource Guide.

In this instance, the provider LE contacted was AT&T.

From that same Field Resource Guide:

"AT&T — Mobile Locate: Triangulated coordinates of device based on Timing Advance or Time on Arrival (TOA) and suspected radius e mailed every 15 30 min. Use event based mobile locate."

Source — FBI's Cellular Analysis Survey Team (CAST) unclassified Cellular Analysis & Geo-Location Field Resource Guide
Link to Source — Document Detail

That's why the motion filed today specifically mentioned the 15 minute interval of these "pings".

If they were incoming calls/text, scheduled updates, or internally generated events, these would not correspond to a 15 minute interval. Instead, if what you're suggesting is true, these events would be more clustered together in their timing, and not spread out evenly across 15 minute intervals.

So these are not just random text messages. These are not just random calls. These are not just random app updates. This is not a cellphone only weakly connecting to a tower with a flakey connection strength.

The filing today suggests the phone was consistently "pinged" by the provider in 15 minute intervals, until for some reason, the provider and law enforcement no longer received any information back from these "pings". This missing gap in the location-based service data suggests that the phone was either 1) physically at a location far beyond the reach of the provider's location based service signal, or 2) the phone was powered off, then much later powered back on.

In either event, it blows up the State's timeline.

This is a great first post and thanks for sharing with us. If we still have your attention, it would be really appreciated if you could answer some questions.

We've believed that the girls' bodies and the phone were at that location from the time they went missing until the time they were found. We are really reaching for a reason the phone may have come back on again, other than by the human hand. Could there have been a malfunction of some type?

Also, it was said that family called and the calls went to voice mail for a period of time, then went dead (IIRC). I'm confused about pings. If the call went to vm, would that be considered a successful ping?