Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #186

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
katydid23 said:
I think you may have missed the point of their explanation. The Prosecutor did not say that 'ALL' of this information will be incorrect by thousands of miles, but it is ONLY the cell sites or timing advance data that is not pinpoint accurate.

The data from GPS and from WiFi Triangulation is very precise in terms of geo-location.

It is trusted only when experienced tech experts are doing the interpretations. The defense team tried to interpret this raw data and made some huge errors. The prosecution clarified the issue.

NM was not trying to throw out any 'evidence' ---he was trying to clarify erroneous interpretations of the raw data, made by the defense attorneys. IMO
Click to expand...
I agree that the geofencing expert should be the most trusted source to decipher the geofencing data, not a non-expert lawyer on either side.

In States the motion in limine, NM asks for the geofencing data and the FBI geofencing expert to not be allowed at trial.


Point 9
 
Andieinsyd said:
We don’t know but as girlhasnoname says above, he likely had a daily phone that he used regularly like most people. I think that phone can give us good data for the 13 Feb v other days in terms of usage and carrying it. If he left that one home or turned off and took a burner on that day that is interesting too. Ideally for RA his usual phone will be on trails until 1:30pm ish then track home or somewhere else entirely. Or he will have some other alibi.
Click to expand...
With all the information the D has leaked via the 4 FMs, if he had a phone that confirmed he left the trails at 1:30 we'd have seen that information by now. MO
 
grannygates said:
I agree that the geofencing expert should be the most trusted source to decipher the geofencing data, not a non-expert lawyer on either side.

In States the motion in limine, NM asks for the geofencing data and the FBI geofencing expert to not be allowed at trial.


Point 9
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like NM is afraid of what that data and expert will reveal. Judge Gull will probably grant his request.

IMO MOO
 
Emma Peel said:
Who's phones were confirmed as being in close vicinity of the crime scene by the geofence study?
Was follow-up questioning conducted with each geofencing tracked phone's owner?
Is the geofence information re: others inculpatory? Why/why not?
Is the geofence information re: RA inculpatory or exculpatory? Why/why not?
If geofence information was found irrelevant, explain why?
Click to expand...
bbm
Follow-up question: Are these interviews with phone owners still available in any form or did they get lost???
 
FromGermany1 said:
bbm
Follow-up question: Are these interviews with phone owners still available in any form or did they get lost???
Click to expand...

And another: Were all phones involved in the timeline in any way checked to make sure the purported timeline is correct? Minutes and seconds matter. Libby's family said it was confirmed, via phone records, that the girls were dropped off around 1:38. However, the PCA puts that at a full ten minutes later. <modsnip: No link to support> ALL phones and their movements need to be analyzed and synced to establish, without a shadow of doubt, what the actual timeline was. Not just Richard Allen's.

If the defense attempts to do this and NM objects, you have to wonder why.

IMO MOO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This may have already been posted, posting for those who may have missed it.
Justice for Abby & Libby

With the trial looming, bikers gathered to honor the two girls Allen allegedly killed in Delphi in 2017 — Abby Williams and Libby German. Thanks to the efforts of volunteers and donors, 127 people rode 108 miles in remembrance of the girls.

“It puts the fact it could happen in your backyard,” ride leader Ryan Browning said of the girls’ deaths. “Everyone always thinks, ‘Not in my town, not in my neighborhood,’ but it can happen anywhere.”

Updated: Jun 16, 2024
 
arielilane said:
This may have already been posted, posting for those who may have missed it.
Justice for Abby & Libby

With the trial looming, bikers gathered to honor the two girls Allen allegedly killed in Delphi in 2017 — Abby Williams and Libby German. Thanks to the efforts of volunteers and donors, 127 people rode 108 miles in remembrance of the girls.

“It puts the fact it could happen in your backyard,” ride leader Ryan Browning said of the girls’ deaths. “Everyone always thinks, ‘Not in my town, not in my neighborhood,’ but it can happen anywhere.”

Updated: Jun 16, 2024
Click to expand...

What exactly is the money raised going toward? Anyone know? Hopefully the reward.....

IMO MOO
 
StarryStarryNight said:
Wouldn’t that be wonderful! Great questions for experts to answer, under oath and cross examined. Perfect for a trial!
Not for a motion.
The defense will not let us have a trial.
Click to expand...

Well, that was my thinking - those were the Q's for geofencing experts at trial, (and as deposed) etc.

The D wants the State's geofence reports (written by geofence experts) for discovery purposes; experts don't just show up at trial, they (typically) have access to and review facts/data and they are deposed in advance. Here, the D can't depose experts without the geofence discovery and reports in possession of the State. The State suggests the D does not need this information, and none of it should be admissible at trial. JMHO
 
Last edited:
TTF14 said:
Sounds to me like NM is afraid of what that data and expert will reveal. Judge Gull will probably grant his request.

IMO MOO
Click to expand...
Im with you. If the defense are just some big dummies who can’t read the report, why exclude the expert that can actually read the report?

I found it very interesting that NM mentions the geofencing expert by name only in the motion in limine and not “FBI agent KH” like he does in other documents. I found that to be an interesting place to happen to leave out that this person is an expert and FBI agent.
 
grannygates said:
I agree that the geofencing expert should be the most trusted source to decipher the geofencing data, not a non-expert lawyer on either side.

In States the motion in limine, NM asks for the geofencing data and the FBI geofencing expert to not be allowed at trial.


Point 9
Click to expand...

I’m thinking the State is wary of the defense twisting this information that is difficult to explain and that the defense doesn’t understand, into incorrect information(lies), hoping the jury will buy it. The defense did it in the motion.
If it’s ruled admissible I doubt they’ll worry much.
 
StarryStarryNight said:
I’m thinking the State is wary of the defense twisting this information that is difficult to explain and that the defense doesn’t understand, into incorrect information(lies), hoping the jury will buy it. The defense did it in the motion.
If it’s ruled admissible I doubt they’ll worry much.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure juries handle experts' interpretation of phone data just fine in literally every other trial where it is presented.

ETA: Also, lawyers don't testify. Witnesses and experts do.

JMO MOO
 
Last edited:
grannygates said:
I agree that the geofencing expert should be the most trusted source to decipher the geofencing data, not a non-expert lawyer on either side.

In States the motion in limine, NM asks for the geofencing data and the FBI geofencing expert to not be allowed at trial.


Point 9
Click to expand...
The question for me is WHY? Why would NM ask for the geofencing data and expert to be excluded if he has a rock solid case against RA? Me thinks this is just a bit suspicious. JMO
 
Emma Peel said:
Well, that was my thinking - those were the Q's for geofencing experts at trial, (and as deposed) etc.

The D wants the State's geofence reports (written by geofence experts) for discovery purposes; experts don't just show up at trial, they (typically) have access to and review facts/data and they are deposed in advance. Here, the D can't depose experts without the geofence discovery and reports in possession of the State. The State suggests the D does not need this information, and none of it should be admissible at trial. JMHO
Click to expand...
Could you link that please, I haven't read that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 67 more.
Total: 333 (members: 68, guests: 265)

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
265
Total visitors
333
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,498
Messages
18,254,893
Members
234,664
Latest member
wrongplatform
Back
Top