Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[WildHuncher]

He placed him self on the bridge and there's a witness to him standing RIGHT where he said he was. His own words put him right there, remarkable.

“Ah, but where’s the proof that that’s STILL him walking over to the other side of the same bridge a few minutes later in the video from a dead girl’s phone?”

Gets pretty silly, doesn’t it?

 

[photographer4]

When the things destroyed were not intentional done, there are written reports made of the interviews and those things were investigated and not of any substantive to the case against Richard Allen, the man on trial...why would a jury need to consider such things?

At what point were the things erased? If they were gone long before RA was arrested then no one could have known how important they would be or not down the road. Mooo

 

[TTF14]

Click should be very angry with the defense team.
He knows now that the defense was just using him to prop up the Odinist theory, a theory they didn’t even believe in and had pretty much just made up.
He’s like the wannabe that the popular kids finally invite to a party, but they just wanted him there because he was 18 and could buy the beer.
Wow. Perspective has changed hasn’t it.

How do we know what he knows or thinks or feels? Do you have a link supporting this?

 

[Jade]

Obviously the Defense not simply saying no Rick couldn’t have he was at home watching Criminal Minds, the one where the guy kills young girls and dresses them up and keeps them sitting at a tea party, means they know where RA was and what he was doing.

The Defense doth protest too much, methinks.

all imo

 

[nadia90]

RSBM

You keep saying this, but that's not what Brady says. Maybe that's how you think it should be, but the defense is only guaranteed materially exculpatory information. If it was "everything", and a case could be dismissed because the defense didn't get "everything", then no case would ever get prosecuted because it's an unreasonable burden. That napkin the detective scrawled a phone number on five years ago was thrown away after the fact? DISMISSED!

RA is the one on trial, not anyone else. There are limits to the SODDI defense, and the defense is not guaranteed the right to effectively try a different person at RA"s trial. They would do a lot of good to develop things like a basic alibi, but instead they're throwing all of their weight behind trying to find procedural errors. I can almost guarantee you that they have zero actual interest in the BH interview, they're just hoping they can get a Brady violation out of it and get the case dismissed.

I have a hunch that quite a few folks will be feeling pretty foolish when this does eventually get to trial, everything is laid out, and the defense's ridiculous antics are undeniable. The way they have twisted truth and reality will be laid bare.

JMO

Thank you, that's common sense. You explained it very well

 

[nadia90]

Yes, they should turn over all Brady material whether or not they believe it will impact the outcome of the trial. If it was literally “all” material, there would be no qualification as what material is being referred to…

What do you think the point is of basically defining Brady material in the description of things the prosecutor should search for, if that’s not what is obligated to be produced? Why not just leave it at “all material”?

Common sense again thank you!

 

[StarryStarryNight]

The state of Indiana should demand a refund on this fraud.
With proper lawyers, all of this would have been settled in January 2024. RA would be either serving time or walking free.

 

[Willow Knight]

We already heard that the two main investigators testified in their depositions that there is no direct evidence linking RA to the crime or the victims. No fingerprints, DNA, cell phone, digital data. I’m not sure what else there could be?

RSBM

This is the reason there is a trial.

What the public has heard will not find Richard Allen guilty or not guilty.

 

[photographer4]

But truth be told, those kinds of IT glitches/snafus do happen sometimes. Especially in a bureaucratic environment.

I worked for a large school district years ago, and we had similar issues occasionally. We once had a glitch with the statewide student test scores where hundreds were accidentally deleted, inexplicably. I don't think they ever really figured out how or why---it just happened.

Not everything is malicious or nefarious. And I don't think it's that surprising that no one replayed any of the interviews in the 6 months before they discovered the problem. Detectives take notes and there are often other officers, or coworkers ,watching from the adjacent room. So whatever they needed to hear in the interview has already been noted and so they quickly move on.

The question becomes - how reliable are their notes? Do we choose to believe what they say or not? Without an audio at minimum but preferably video with sound - it’s a he said / she said scenario with no way to verify who is being truthful entirely. I don’t think Le will outright lie in their notes but how they write them may not be how the person stated things. Eg: someone may say they had earbuds in and officer could write down headphones. Who cares? Well it’s a massive difference if a witness saw a man with headphones over his ears because earbuds go IN the ears and aren’t as noticeable. A discrepancy doesn’t have to be malicious or nefarious any more than a loss of a recording really. But it would help if they were available.

 

[dm799]

The state of Indiana should demand a refund on this fraud.
With proper lawyers, all of this would have been settled in January 2024. RA would be either serving time or walking free.

I agree, but why stop there?

With proper investigators we wouldn't have had to wait over 5 years for an arrest.

 

[Megnut]

RSBM

This is the reason there is a trial.

What the public has heard will not find Richard Allen guilty or not guilty.

And much of what we've heard will never be heard in the courtroom.

The jury will hear the State's case in chief, with lay and expert testimony and exhibits as accepted by the Court and from the Defense, if they have any.

They talk big now but may wind up with very little to say. Frankly.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

oops. I'll be baaaaaaaaaack.

 

[nadia90]

What a joke this defense is

 

[steeltowngirl]

The question becomes - how reliable are their notes? Do we choose to believe what they say or not? Without an audio at minimum but preferably video with sound - it’s a he said / she said scenario with no way to verify who is being truthful entirely. I don’t think Le will outright lie in their notes but how they write them may not be how the person stated things. Eg: someone may say they had earbuds in and officer could write down headphones. Who cares? Well it’s a massive difference if a witness saw a man with headphones over his ears because earbuds go IN the ears and aren’t as noticeable. A discrepancy doesn’t have to be malicious or nefarious any more than a loss of a recording really. But it would help if they were available.

Yes but imo, the missing recording can be pointed out at trial to a jury and may help defense. Why do they belabor the point?

 

[Ravenmoon]

@grannygates was clearly talking about exculpatory evidence, as they used the adjective "exculpatory" in the post. They qualified what information they were speaking of.


The ABA model rules on the subject were written in response to the Brady decision, which is why the language is the same or similar in all states' model rules of professional conduct.

Hi August!

Question regarding what would be exculpatory evidence:

If the Odinists were ruled out because of verified alibis, would that still be considered exculpatory?

 

[Willow Knight]

IMO MOO

The sheer nastiness of criticizing the family members for remembering the girls in this way is mind-boggling. But here we are.

I suspect the complaints about the “dead [profanity] victims” were during the same time period when the money grab was happening (IMO). The merry band of nasty fundraising promoters used the #Justice4Abby&Libby hashtag to provoke a response and drive donations among the like-minded. And to show vitriol to the family, IMO.

RSBM

Seriously? Really? I'm having a difficult and slow time getting through even the first podcast. (little people running around the house saying Nana).

At one time I thought nothing more could shock me regarding this case. How can Libby and Abby's families deal with this? How? My concern is for them! This defense team and it's fan base is the most cruel group of supporters ever. Nothing the defense team and their supporters can ever do or say will reverse the torture inflicted on these families. Richard Allen has not even been to trial where evidence will be presented. Once trial has exposed all the facts I will never accept an apology from these nasty humans. Some things are simply unforgivable.

 

[twall]

DETERMINATION:
Praecipe to Withdraw for Cause Denied.

View attachment 518509

????
How is this relevant to RA?

 

[Emma Peel]

????
How is this relevant to RA?

Heck, did I mess up? I deleted ... until I find what I thought I found.
(Thank you Twall!)

 

[ClearAhead]

Can someone please remind me of what is the missing exculpatory evidence? And how does defense know it exists and is now missing?

I’ve lost the point of debate in this discussion as well. What is it that the D hasn’t been given which they already know will result in a guilty verdict against RA?

According to this link, Brady violations typically occur when exculpatory evidence is withheld which would’ve made a difference to the outcome of the trial.

Brady rule

www.law.cornell.edu

To be considered a violation, there are four aspects to the test.

1. “Reasonable probability” is a question of whether the government’s failure to disclose this information undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.
2. “Reasonable probability” is not a sufficiency of evidence test and the defendant does not need to show that the evidence, barring any evidence undermined by the withheld information, is inadequate to support a conviction. Rather, the defendant merely must show that the withheld information can reasonably be taken to put the whole case in a different light.
3. Failure to disclose information which has a reasonable probability of changing the outcome of the trial is inherently harmful, thus there is no need for a separate harmless error review.
4. All information not disclosed must be considered collectively, not item by item.

 

[Salah11]

I was thinking about the Podcasts again and the vile attacks on the poor families of Libby and Abby.
Its no wonder these people decided to use the hashtag "justiceforabbyandlibby" when fundraising for RA, as they clearly have zero respect for what the family have gone through.

Moo