Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #189

[AugustWest]

Isn't the omnibus usually held shortly after the arraignment? They never held it?

The two parties agreed to the omnibus date...no need for hearing.

 

[m00c0w]

Honest question - if a D team find strong exculpatory evidence, let’s say an unbreakable alibi, as they conduct their own investigation, what would the process be to raise this? Bring to police? DPP? Court? Would this move quickly?

They’d probably bring it up to the prosecution on the side to give them a heads up and allow the prosecution an opportunity to file to dismiss on their own. If that doesn’t work, they’d file their own motion to dismiss and highlight why and attach whatever exhibits back up the alibi, whether it’s a deposition or cell phone analysis or video or whatever, to that motion.

JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Isn't the omnibus usually held shortly after the arraignment? They never held it?

From AW’s post above, it was set for 2/17/23. Located my own old post from that date, clipped below. Although the bail portion of the hearing was pushed out until June, trial dates were set. I suppose that means 2/17/23 was the omnibus, but honestly, I am unsure. Don’t know if this answers the question of RA bringing forth an alibi defense. Seems odd that there would be a deadline at all, if a suspect was later able to prove an alibi, would seem to me to be worth hearing about. RA has said he left the trail by 1:30, per the FM. I would think if he had an actual substantiated alibi, we’d have heard it by now. jmo

Post in thread 'IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #162'
Found Deceased - IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #162

 

[FrostedGlass]

Sorry @steeltowngirl don't have time this morning to discuss, but here is date from CCS:

11/22/2022

Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel. State by Prosecuting Attorney. Hearing held on State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record. Matter taken under advisement. Defendant's Petition to Let to Bail ordered set for hearing in Carroll Circuit Court on February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am. Court to enter transport order. Omnibus date rescheduled to February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am by agreement of counsel Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed:

It's never that simple, it seems.
I didn't find any more references to it after this June date.

02/21/2023

Order Issued Court grants Defendant's Motion to Continue Bail Hearing and resets the hearing to June 15-16, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in the Carroll Circuit Court. Jury trial also continued to be reset at the bond/omni hearing June 15, 2023. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 02/21/2023

 

[photographer4]

Honest question - if a D team find strong exculpatory evidence, let’s say an unbreakable alibi, as they conduct their own investigation, what would the process be to raise this? Bring to police? DPP? Court? Would this move quickly?

IANAL but I imagine they’d then bring forward a motion to dismiss based on whatever new evidence they found that could prove their client did not do the crime / could not have done the crime. I imagine they’d then file their evidence with the court and at that point, if the judge believed they had shown that it couldn’t have been the accused for whatever solid reason, they could then dismiss the case with an apology to the accused?

 

[photographer4]

I don’t find the latest Frank’s response with ping references having much, if any, relevance to the search warrant PCA.

RA is charged with murder on 2/13/17. He is accused of being on the bridge and ordering the girls down the hill to their deaths by murder.

Doesn’t matter if Libby’s phone was still pinging in the wee hours of 2/14. Libby and Abby were marched to their deaths after 2:07 pm and likely deceased by 3:30. RA placed himself there. Witnesses saw him. That’s plenty for probable cause. Testing then showed that the unspent bullet had been cycled through his gun.

Murder 1 and 2.
jmo

2023 Indiana Code​

Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure​

Article 42. Offenses Against the Person​

Chapter 1. Homicide​

Sec. 1. A person who:

(1) knowingly or intentionally kills another human being;

(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct (under IC 35-42-4-2 before its repeal), kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human labor trafficking, promotion of human sexual trafficking, promotion of child sexual trafficking, promotion of sexual trafficking of a younger child, child sexual trafficking, or carjacking (before its repeal);

2023 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 42. Offenses Against the Person :: Chapter 1. Homicide :: 35-42-1-1. Murder

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

I really hope the State can present the evidence about the gun, and the science behind how it all works, and why a juror should believe them in a clear and easy to follow manner. I’ve read bits about it but there seems to be some conflicts of opinion in what I’ve read as too the legitimacy of the science behind proving a gun matches a bullet cycled through a chamber. I don’t actually understand it as I haven’t spent much time trying to do so as it’s just not something of great interest to me at this time. But I can see how easy it might be for the D to completely flip that issue on its head and confuse the jurors enough to introduce reasonable doubt about this one issue….

 

[sunshineray]

This is that June 15, 2023 hearing. I've read it but I don't think everything that would need to be discussed concerning evidence was, though it did seem like some things were agreed upon before court started?

6.15.23 Safekeeping - Google Drive

 

[steeltowngirl]

I really hope the State can present the evidence about the gun, and the science behind how it all works, and why a juror should believe them in a clear and easy to follow manner. I’ve read bits about it but there seems to be some conflicts of opinion in what I’ve read as too the legitimacy of the science behind proving a gun matches a bullet cycled through a chamber. I don’t actually understand it as I haven’t spent much time trying to do so as it’s just not something of great interest to me at this time. But I can see how easy it might be for the D to completely flip that issue on its head and confuse the jurors enough to introduce reasonable doubt about this one issue….

Defense will certainly attempt to confuse jurors. Fortunately, people generally don’t thrive on confusion. The prosecution will bring experts with logical, well thought-out and understandable data. Saw it done well recently in the Kaitlin Armstrong trial.

jmo

 

[Willow Knight]

Precious victims..View attachment 520377

Two years after Delphi's Abby Williams and Libby German were murdered, their families set up photos and candles for a Community prayer remembrance at Delphi United Methodist Church 1796 US-421, on Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2019.
Photo Provided By The Helmuth Family

This is so sad and so difficult. Emotions got the best of many of us here, I cannot imagine what family and loved ones are going through. THIS is what it is about! Two young girls, no one had the right to take their lives away. Thank you and everyone keeping their images out front.

Justice for Abby and Libby.

 

[sunshineray]

I really hope the State can present the evidence about the gun, and the science behind how it all works, and why a juror should believe them in a clear and easy to follow manner. I’ve read bits about it but there seems to be some conflicts of opinion in what I’ve read as too the legitimacy of the science behind proving a gun matches a bullet cycled through a chamber. I don’t actually understand it as I haven’t spent much time trying to do so as it’s just not something of great interest to me at this time. But I can see how easy it might be for the D to completely flip that issue on its head and confuse the jurors enough to introduce reasonable doubt about this one issue….

I've seen some trials where they bring up that same type of argument about fired ballistics. I guess it's all still an evolving science?

 

[Megnut]

Honest question - if a D team find strong exculpatory evidence, let’s say an unbreakable alibi, as they conduct their own investigation, what would the process be to raise this? Bring to police? DPP? Court? Would this move quickly?

I am not a lawyer, but if it was true, verified, (like a new video of someone else committing the crime or new, irrefutable evidence a defendant was elsewhere), I would think defense attorneys would file an immediate motion for the charges to be dropped, probably a hearing at which the State would drop the charges, and then a process for expediting the exonerated individual from jail, followed by the mother of all lawsuits.

In this case, because the Defdnse has been so visible with its motions, we are seeing a mad scramble IMO -- their ever-changing strategies are showing.

So far, Odinism, certain individuals, not doable by one person, wasn't RA because he was gone by 1:30, not RA because pings (shoving the potential TOD to a point fir which RA has a legitimate alibi, scrubbing 2-4 for which he does not).

In laypeople terms, that's a lot of spaghetti, no wall.

Even this last bit about pings is easily explained by the evidence, as indicated in the State's response. No useful data from the pings. The Defense is right about this: AT&T only had a historical location for the phone (which, by itself, might include quite a radius).... so, even if that phone (which was not receiving or sending data) went to Disneyland, AT&T would only report the historical location, back in the general area of the CS. Where they are wrong is that there is no evidence that Libby herself left the the park and returned. For that ping data to be exculpatory or even relative, the Defense would need to produce corroborating evidence. They haven't and IMO they can't. Because it doesn't exist.

It's the State IMO that has the corroborating evidence to explain the cellphone anomaly.

They have her phone. In addition to the video, they likely have A CAST report showing a flurry of movement of Libby's phone before it goes untouched and ultimately dark. In the Murdaugh trial, I think they counted how many times the cellphone flipped, having been tossed out the winfow of a moving car. The orientation changes from Libby's phone alone might tell a stark tale.

I distrust their methods but the defense team is doing what Defense attorneys do -- challenge the evidence, the investigation, the investigators, the science -- and attack the arrest warrants, the search warrants in the hopes of getting evidence and/or charges thrown out.

IMO this Defense team can't get RA off the bridge so they're going after the timeline.

This attempt will fail. The warrant was solid and the Defense hasn't even met the threshold for a hearing let alone an overturn on the warrant.

JMnoviceO

 

[TTF14]

JG granted the motion for the "mini opening statement."

 

[photographer4]

I recall one officer saying the he would never forget the look on one of the girl’s faces when she realized what was happening. He didn’t mention which girl, or what was happening. I’ll say MOO here because I don’T have the link handy, but it was discussed in many threads. This makes me think it is likely there is some significant video and audio that we haven’t heard. I wonder if they’ll be played for the jury? I can’t imagine being on a jury and having to be subjected to things like crime scene photos or videos, audio evidence of atrocious crimes being committed. I bet it could be traumatizing and I was wondering, if the jury in this (or any other) case ends up with some sort of trauma as a result of their participation on a jury panel, what, if any supports are available to them? What happens if something they see / hear at court has such a negative effect that it leads to severe anxiety, depression etc or makes them incapable of resuming their usual work duties?

 

[photographer4]

JG granted the motion for the "mini opening statement."

View attachment 520465

Interesting, I wonder if we should expect to hear anything that happens at this?

 

[TTF14]

Interesting, I wonder if we should expect to hear anything that happens at this?

Only by any journalists attending and reporting on it. They can attend jury selection just like any other part of the trial I think.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I recall one officer saying the he would never forget the look on one of the girl’s faces when she realized what was happening. He didn’t mention which girl, or what was happening. I’ll say MOO here because I don’T have the link handy, but it was discussed in many threads. This makes me think it is likely there is some significant video and audio that we haven’t heard. I wonder if they’ll be played for the jury? I can’t imagine being on a jury and having to be subjected to things like crime scene photos or videos, audio evidence of atrocious crimes being committed. I bet it could be traumatizing and I was wondering, if the jury in this (or any other) case ends up with some sort of trauma as a result of their participation on a jury panel, what, if any supports are available to them? What happens if something they see / hear at court has such a negative effect that it leads to severe anxiety, depression etc or makes them incapable of resuming their usual work duties?

Perhaps potential jurors are asked at voir dire if they will be able to handle the graphic nature of the trial evidence. I’m not sure.

Years ago, I was a jury member on a criminal trial where a 4 year old was beaten into permanent blindness and paralysis. When the neurosurgeon from Children's Hospital described the injuries, the whole jury would have to have been excused if crying were not allowed. It was awful. I myself slumped in my seat, (the courtroom was hot) and a recess was called.

As to negative effects, seeing and hearing stuff like that never really leaves your mind for good. But the court is not responsible for anxiety or depression treatment. That’s individual responsibility and would fall under someone’s personal health care.

 

[photographer4]

In terms of the three girls who reported seeing BG on the bridge that day - given they were all out together that day, imo they were friends at that point. I was wondering, how long after the kids were found dead did they contact LE to report they’d seen a man there? I am also wondering, how much did the witnesses talk with one another about what they’d seen before talking with police about it?

In the time since having reported what they saw, have they continued to be friends? I’m asking because I am wondering what would stop them from further discussing what they witnessed amongst themselves or with other friends or family members? Have they continued to follow the case online as they wait to possibly testify?

In addition to these questions, I wonder, what questions did the police ask the kids when they interviewed them? Specifically I mean. Did they ask open ended questions such as “what can you tell me about the person you saw”? Or did they ask leading questions such as: “Witness A says she thinks the man had blue eyes, do you agree with that statement?”

These are some worrisome points given what researchers know about how these things can impact the reliability of a witness statement, and the impacts they could have during trial! Here is an interesting link about the issue of witness reliability and factors which influence it for those who have a moment to read it: Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable?

 

[photographer4]

Perhaps potential jurors are asked at voir dire if they will be able to handle the graphic nature of the trial evidence. I’m not sure.

Years ago, I was a jury member on a criminal trial where a 4 year old was beaten into permanent blindness and paralysis. When the neurosurgeon from Children's Hospital described the injuries, the whole jury would have to have been excused if crying were not allowed. It was awful. I myself slumped in my seat, (the courtroom was hot) and a recess was called.

As to negative effects, seeing and hearing stuff like that never really leaves your mind for good. But the court is not responsible for anxiety or depression treatment. That’s individual responsibility and would fall under someone’s personal health care.

That must have been super hard to be on that jury! It is interesting to me how little if any support is available through the courts for those who suffer vicarious trauma as a result of being on a jury! What happens when one doesn’t have private health insurance for such issues? You would think that given what is known about the impacts being on a jury can have, that more support would be available to those who do their civic duty if required!!

 

[FromGermany1]

The sketches aren't photos

The 1st sketch is a likeness, IMO, to Libby's video capture of BG and who the witnesses saw, RA=BG

The 2nd sketch, announced at the 2019 presser, when LE said--

"We believe you were hiding in plain sight. For more than 2 years, you never thought we would shift gears to a different investigative strategy. But we have."

The new direction, different strategy released sketch #2 was a brilliant maneuver by LE. IMO

It sure makes sense now after connecting all the dots. JMO

Delphi murders update: ISP shares new sketch, video, audio​

Indiana State Police say they will announced a 'new direction' in the 2017 homicides of Delphi teens Abby Williams and Libby German.
www.jconline.com

Answer from a member (thread before):
And yet it still took another 3 years and I don't think those sketches had anything to do with it.

-.-.-
When the trial is over, I want to hear from sources, why LE/FBI thought, it would be important in 2017 to place billboards in 46 states, especially why the girl's portraits were larger than BG's figure (as they weren't missing but found dead).

 

[TTF14]

Answer from a member (thread before):
And yet it still took another 3 years and I don't think those sketches had anything to do with it.

-.-.-
When the trial is over, I want to hear from sources, why LE/FBI thought, it would be important in 2017 to place billboards in 46 states, especially why the girl's portraits were larger than BG's figure (as they weren't missing but found dead).

Yes, extremely strange. I remember lots of talk about it at the time.

ETA: Maybe putting the pics of the girls out was considered to be the best way to get attention....if people recognized the girls, they'd maybe log on to where they saw photos of the girls and see what it was all about. (i.e. if KAK or anyone else was sharing photos of them.)

Just a theory.

IMO MOO