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

[sunshineray]

I'm currently reading a book on the murders and it's made me wonder: assuming Richard Allen is guilty as charged, what happened here? How did he evade capture for so long? Is he especially skilled or were the investigators especially bumbling?

Somewhere in the deep grey middle of your two extremes, IMO

 

[grannygates]

It was recorded in writing.
How facts have been recorded for thousands of years. Including our Constitution.

audio or video recording is definitely preferred so any 3rd party can be absolutely certain of what was said since the written word can be an incorrect interpretation. Like who is Rick Whiteman ?

 

[photographer4]

It was recorded in writing.
How facts have been recorded for thousands of years. Including our Constitution.

I wonder if the D will attack whatever was written as possibly erroneous, or ask how he’s certain he got it correct since it’s only written? That’s possibly a point of officer said / Rick said (he said / she said). Would it be enough to create reasonable doubt? If the jury believes he may have erred?

Sometimes I wonder what the tipping point is in any case for a juror.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

The “muddy or muddy/bloody” argument can be found in the FM pg. 117

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

I just want to point out that SC could have described RA as muddy and looking he got into a fight with the red colored stuff on his face and hands as well as scratches on his face and arms.

One could conclude he was “muddy and bloody” like in the PCA.

Defense claims that SC never said his “ clothing was covered with blood.”

Both statements can be true.

Defense just worded things in the Franks to make it appear that the PCA contained an untruth about this particular description.
This is where it is extremely important to use critical linguistic comprehension when reading the documents.
Words are being used to mislead by defense.
And they aren’t trying to mislead the judge, she can read the whole testimony and separate the fact from fiction.

All my opinion

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



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

 

[photographer4]

I just want to point out that SC could have described RA as muddy and looking he got into a fight with the red colored stuff on his face and hands as well as scratches on his face and arms.

One could conclude he was “muddy and bloody” like in the PCA.

Defense claims that SC never said his “ clothing was covered with blood.”

Both statements can be true.

Defense just worded things in the Franks to make it appear that the PCA contained an untruth about this particular description.
This is where it is extremely important to use critical linguistic comprehension when reading the documents.
Words are being used to mislead by defense.
And they aren’t trying to mislead the judge, she can read the whole testimony and separate the fact from fiction.

All my opinion

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



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

A question about SC since we are back to her again. Do we know when she contacted Le about the man she saw exiting the area? Did she call that evening? Or was it sometime later after the kids were found dead?

I’m wondering if she knew the girls were missing that evening, if it was concerning enough for her to phone Le before they were found dead or if it didn’t occur to her they may be connected until sometime later?

If I were the D I might also ask if she told anyone else what she saw before she contacted Le and told them. Why? Because sometimes the more one talks about things like he more details get added imo.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Hearings aren't always required.

In this case, if there's a proper motion to file, these seasoned attorneys know how to do it, in order to present the testimony of the prisoner who refused transport. Maybe she ruled, under seal, on their proffer alone, that what he would have testified to would not stand up in court.

He was a witness for the defense who then refused to appear for the defense. Doubtful the judge can or would order him to be transported by force when there are other remedies. Like zoom.

It looks to me like the Defense has chosen to drop the hot potato, not pursue it, while simultaneously representing that the judge was in error. Clever? Duplicitous.

Seems to be a theme here.

JMO

You're right Megs, I do wonder if we will hear anything at all from the Defense about RB at trial? IMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

A question about SC since we are back to her again. Do we know when she contacted Le about the man she saw exiting the area? Did she call that evening? Or was it sometime later after the kids were found dead?

I’m wondering if she knew the girls were missing that evening, if it was concerning enough for her to phone Le before they were found dead or if it didn’t occur to her they may be connected until sometime later?

If I were the D I might also ask if she told anyone else what she saw before she contacted Le and told them. Why? Because sometimes the more one talks about things like he more details get added imo.

My understanding is she contacted LE weeks later, because she was scared and had concerns about her safety.
All my opinion based on foggy recollection

 

[sunshineray]

Doesn't matter how smart anyone is - the jury can only go with facts and what is presented in court as convincing evidence.

Facts and evidence.

During deliberations the jury can certainly use their brains in how believable witnesses were to them and what weigh to give the evidence in turn. Some with a more keen sense of some things may even point out different things to the others, for discussion. The jurors are not robots and are allowed to use all their human qualities to help determine guilt or innocence, like cognitive, intuitive, mechanical etc.. Hoping for a well-rounded group of individuals myself, with one or two good multitaskers. AJMO

 

[photographer4]

My understanding is she contacted LE weeks later, because she was scared and had concerns about her safety.
All my opinion based on foggy recollection

I wonder what she told police what she may have been afraid of? Moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

All of the witnesses in this case were probably terrified and that is why LE were keeping such a tight lid on things. 4 young girls and 2 lady eyewitnesses would have had every logical reason to be afraid because there was a murderer on the loose.

They live in that area, it makes perfect sense that they would be afraid their identities would be leaked. I'm grateful the docs were sealed under after the BG= RA = Killer was charged and arrested.

JMO

#Justice4Abby&Libby

 

[grannygates]

That would be crazy if a lawyer said “the witness actually said the man was wearing a tan jacket, not blue, and the witness never said the man was bloody” and then the lawyer attaches the videotape of the witness statement and have none of that be true. I don’t see Gull just letting that slide.

It’s come up in a few filings so I’d like to see if Nick has ever directly addressed the witness statement discrepancies in his responses. I only recall the vague “Tony didn’t lie” responses.

All MOO

 

[photographer4]

What kind of preparation for court and being questioned and cross examined do witnesses for the state get if any? When does this happen? Who does this with them and via what method?

 

[sunshineray]

I suppose maybe that would have happened. If a hearing had been held.

I'd think that would have been brought up immediately at his arraignment?

 

[sunshineray]

My comment about BMcD was about early in the investigation when she tells us that the bullet was found during a “re-securing” of the crime scene.

Line 22 is saying that he saw the pictures of BM holding the Purdue report and that he doesn’t care to fight about it, as its years later.

I’m not sure where you got any information regarding a reaction of one of the defense attorneys over that podcast episode reading off content creators private messages ? It wasn’t the “defense team” and we all know that by now. It’s was some desperate irrelevant idiots tormenting a family, reading a private group chat, trying to get clicks for their pod. MOO

In my opinion it was a whistleblower to the unethical discussions and meetings of some on the defense team. MO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I just want to point out that SC could have described RA as muddy and looking he got into a fight with the red colored stuff on his face and hands as well as scratches on his face and arms.

One could conclude he was “muddy and bloody” like in the PCA.

Defense claims that SC never said his “ clothing was covered with blood.”

Both statements can be true.

Defense just worded things in the Franks to make it appear that the PCA contained an untruth about this particular description.
This is where it is extremely important to use critical linguistic comprehension when reading the documents.
Words are being used to mislead by defense.
And they aren’t trying to mislead the judge, she can read the whole testimony and separate the fact from fiction.

All my opinion

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



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

At this point I would be more surprised to hear something truthful come out of the defense team than to hear lies.
I believe nothing they have put forth in any motion is true.

 

[sunshineray]

Does she really “have to” or is it just the right thing to do?

Why would it be the right thing to do?

 

[sunshineray]

No recording was found IIRC. The recorded interview RA states he left at 1:30.

It gets finicky, but is leaving at 1:30 considered between 1:30-3:30?

RA changed his "remembrance" of his whereabouts after almost six years and interrogations later. His original statement was immediately after the murders. I'd be more inclined to believe his original statement being more accurate of the two. JMO

 

[sunshineray]

That would be crazy if a lawyer said “the witness actually said the man was wearing a tan jacket, not blue, and the witness never said the man was bloody” and then the lawyer attaches the videotape of the witness statement and have none of that be true. I don’t see Gull just letting that slide.

It’s come up in a few filings so I’d like to see if Nick has ever directly addressed the witness statement discrepancies in his responses. I only recall the vague “Tony didn’t lie” responses.

All MOO

It's always left out but I believe, IIRC, SC also stated (paraphrasing) he looked like he'd been in a fight. That's why waiting to hear her testimony is so important. MO

 

[sunshineray]

What kind of preparation for court and being questioned and cross examined do witnesses for the state get if any? When does this happen? Who does this with them and via what method?

Same as the defense I'd gather?

 

[sunshineray]

audio or video recording is definitely preferred so any 3rd party can be absolutely certain of what was said since the written word can be an incorrect interpretation. Like who is Rick Whiteman ?

We'll probably get to see the written words of DD as an exhibit and I'm sure they will be read onto the record too. MO