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

[TTF14]

They may not be witnesses at all?

Then it would have to be proven that they were there like with time stamps used on any video recordings or photos taken by those girls, on that day and at that location around the time BG was seen there.

And that the phone on which the recordings and photos were taken/uploaded were also there, at that time, on that day.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Who would have been in the photos in a proposed lineup? There wasn’t a human suspect to compare to. Only a photo and the witnesses recollection.

If they did a photo or live lineup after RA was arrested, they’d have had his photo and others who looked similar to him.

Before a lineup - eg at witness statement time, I wonder if they did an identi-kit? This is where a catalogue of facial features get added on top of each other to create a “suspect face”. Home | Identi-Kit Solutions

There was actually once (probably more than once but I only know of this particular case so far) where a woman woke to find a man in her bedroom. He attacked her. She decided during the attack to memorize everything about his face etc. Police used an identikit with her and a composite was made. A man was arrested. He served ten years after being convicted of the crime. Except…. He was innocent! A year after he was incarcerated another man wound up in the prison and bragged about the assault someone else got time for. He and the convict looked so alike when the officers often mixed them up! The innocent man was freed finally when DNA exonerated him and nailed the look alike. Read about this case here: Innocence Project: Ronald Cotton

 

[Spartygirl]

The pressure in a courtroom and when on the stand can be quite highly stressful, also, 7 years after a brief encounter mightn't quite go that well for pointing him out if we are considering facial recognition. His weight has changed in between that time and now and he may have averted his face when walking passed them. If BG is indeed RA.

Different things could factor in that we don't know about.

A creepy looking man could describe lots of different men.

I wonder.

BBM
So true--There are a lot of creepy men out there in the world

However, this particular "creepy guy" admits he was at the trails, on the bridge, he was seen by others and arrested for the double murders of 2 innocent young girls.

Creepy guy=BG=RA

JMO

 

[Megnut]

If RA is guilty, it's despicable what his attorneys are doing. Vigorous defense is one thing. Unethical is another matter entirely.

Forcing the State to labor to prove the charges is one thing. Being party to a round table of brainstorming how best to taint the jury pool undermines fairness not just in this case but all cases.

Defense attorneys are officers of the court, first and foremost.

IMO they have engaged in a campaign to bait, provoke, exhaust, defame the judge.

I hope the judge attaches stringent parameters to the mino opening statements-- I'm a little surprised she's allowed, surprised on account of how many ways it can go all kinds of wrong. Most of those called to jury duty will be dismissed, is the judge going to hold them all to the gag rule, if the defense includes details that aren't factual or are salacious? I trust she will admonish prospective jurors that attorney statements aren't facts, aren't evidence but....

If the D says something that absolutely would not be admitted into evidence, how will she put that horse back in the barn? If the judge disallows testimony on Odinism as being irrelevant, unsupported, confusing, what's to stop the Defense from raising it at the kickoff to voir dire? Will the judge correct them, can the State object? I worry about mockery.

I just watched a robust trial where a SEALED DOCUMENT was front and center throughout a trial (including in large font on the defendant's laptop) even though it was sealed two judges ruled it couldn't be raised, but there it was, mentioned often and nearly sneaked into the court record. I trust THIS Defense THAT much.

I fully support defending RA by whatever LEGAL means possible. He's entitled to that. It protects everyone's freedom. Respectful, decent, befitting officers of the court.

Anything less than that or outside of that is an assault on justice.

JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

If they did a photo or live lineup after RA was arrested, they’d have had his photo and others who looked similar to him.

Before a lineup - eg at witness statement time, I wonder if they did an identi-kit? This is where a catalogue of facial features get added on top of each other to create a “suspect face”. Home | Identi-Kit Solutions

There was actually once (probably more than once but I only know of this particular case so far) where a woman woke to find a man in her bedroom. He attacked her. She decided during the attack to memorize everything about his face etc. Police used an identikit with her and a composite was made. A man was arrested. He served ten years after being convicted of the crime. Except…. He was innocent! A year after he was incarcerated another man wound up in the prison and bragged about the assault someone else got time for. He and the convict looked so alike when the officers often mixed them up! The innocent man was freed finally when DNA exonerated him and nailed the look alike. Read about this case here: Innocence Project: Ronald Cotton

I’m aware of the Innocence Project. Innocent people have gone to prison. I choose to believe that the justice system works, and the vast majority of the time, the right suspect is correctly convicted. Is it perfect? No. All eyes are on this case, straight up to SCOIN. Richard Allen is presumed innocent and the burden is on prosecution to prove he is guilty BARD of the murders of Libby and Abby. They will get it right. If Richard Allen is convicted, there will not be doubt that he was wrongfully convicted.

jmo

 

[mrjitty]

MurderSheet has a new episode on alleged leaks from the defence investigator MH to 'internet cranks'

Today, we will delve more into the relationship between Richard Allen's defense investigator Matthew Hoffman and internet cranks. Specifically, we unpack communications from Discord in which Angela Sadlowski and Courtney Parsons discuss meeting with Hoffman in November 2023 and getting information on phone pings around the crime scene, as well as identifying information about at least one person whose phone pinged there.

The Delphi Murders: Defense Investigator Matthew Hoffman, Phone Pings, and Youtube Leaks: "If Something Happens to Us"

Today, we will delve more into the relationship between Richard Allen's defense investigator Matthew Hoffman and internet cranks. Specifically, we unpack...

murdersheetpodcast.com

 

[photographer4]

That is why written statements are vital because if they (witnesses) go off track or say something different it will be challenged or pointed out within the context of those statements.

Memories do fade and conversations can definitely distort them, however, well written statements should contain what is necessary so that there is no confusion or discrepancies over what was said so many years before.

That too but for me, the main take away was more how co-witnesses adopt what their co-witnesses tell them as their own recollections when they discuss things amongst themselves, especially before giving their statements to police. So if the three witnesses went on with their walk, and they spoke about the guy who wore X clothes and was Yay tall, and who didn’t say hello or whatever they said, then each thing said by one of them can and is likely to become part of the other’s collective memory, even if that isn’t how they actually saw it. The research on it is quite interesting and very compelling imo. Often times, witness statements are a huge factor that lead to wrongful convictions. Some stats say that witness statements factor into over 70% of wrongful convictions. Causes of Wrongful Convictions - Innocence Canada.

I’ve read other stats that suggest they factor into well over 75% percent of wrongful convictions. So to me, witness statements are good and helpful but can be also very flawed and dangerous!

 

[ClearAhead]

Agree. The sheer amount of work for multiple law enforcement agencies to get on the same page, for many layers of law enforcement personnel to willingly destroy or “lose” evidence, for witnesses to change testimony, for forensics experts to give improper assessments, for the judge handling the case (who was independently appointed by SCOIN) to be somehow specifically corrupt towards this case, all so they can hang a random CVS manager out to dry is… even more far-fetched than Odinists having sacrificed the girls, I’d say.

JMO

Then for the defense to allege that witness after witness is committing perjury on the witness stand just to incriminate their client….and for no good reason. This isn’t going to become a RichardGate and the D aren’t going to risk their reputations over utter nonsense.

Let’s wait for the trial to roll out but I suspect it’s not going to be nearly as sensationalistic and entertaining as some people might imagine. MOO

 

[photographer4]

RA admitted to see the girls, described them and describe the same exact interaction at the same time that they describe. He just noted 3 instead of 4 girls (or lied). If he will be convicted, it’s because his own words.

Doesn’t mean he lied necessarily.

It could be as simple as LE asked RA: “when you were out on the trail that day, did you see the three girls walking out of the area?” — a question worded like this is leading. It tells RA he should agree that he did or didn’t see three girls. If he says yes, and doesn’t include that he saw another girl with them, it can look like he lied, when he didn’t. He just agreed with what police suggested. That is much different than if he had been asked “What can you tell me about what you saw that day?” - an open ended question that isn’t a YES or NO response, and which encourages the witness to relay as much info as possible about his recollections.

How police interview witnesses can be quite damning to a case and can help lead to wrongful convictions. In this case, it is possible that it could lead to RA’s wrongful conviction (I say possible here because I want to see what the State has and hear what the D comes up with as rebuttal before I go ahead and convict him, even though I believe its likely he is guilty in whole or in part). Since I’ve not got time to cough up a link on how police interviews of witnesses can severely impact the information provided by witnesses, I’ll say MOO for now.

 

[susane7]

Doesn’t mean he lied necessarily.

It could be as simple as LE asked RA: “when you were out on the trail that day, did you see the three girls walking out of the area?” — a question worded like this is leading. It tells RA he should agree that he did or didn’t see three girls. If he says yes, and doesn’t include that he saw another girl with them, it can look like he lied, when he didn’t. He just agreed with what police suggested. That is much different than if he had been asked “What can you tell me about what you saw that day?” - an open ended question that isn’t a YES or NO response, and which encourages the witness to relay as much info as possible about his recollections.

How police interview witnesses can be quite damning to a case and can help lead to wrongful convictions. In this case, it is possible that it could lead to RA’s wrongful conviction (I say possible here because I want to see what the State has and hear what the D comes up with as rebuttal before I go ahead and convict him, even though I believe its likely he is guilty in whole or in part). Since I’ve not got time to cough up a link on how police interviews of witnesses can severely impact the information provided by witnesses, I’ll say MOO for now.

I don't think he lied too. I think he didn't notice her since she was little and he seemed focus on one of the older ones. I doubt DD asked that question since his note is "WHO ARE THE 3 GIRLS THAT HE SAW?" and he didn't focus on the guy at all. Unfortunately. But RA boxed himself.

 

[photographer4]

A joint conspiracy of LE losing interviews PLUS witnesses falsely testifying to frame up RA is well beyond the realm of a reasonable possibility. MOO

To be clear, I don’t think that there was a conspiracy to lose interviews by LE or the State. I think these things do happen - quite by accident. But it’s not good when those interviews could have been helpful to a jury to see exactly what was asked, how it was asked and what the answers were. EG: a lot of human communication isn’t spoken. Instead, it is body language. Imagine hearing as a juror that a witness described a man emerge from the woods “bloody and muddy” - now imagine seeing how she was asked to describe the man she saw, and watching her become quite animated in doing so on a tv screen. Big difference imo as now you can see, hear and assess what happened entirely vs just being told from an officer’s notes what happened. No link… so MOOOO.

Regarding witnesses: I don’t believe they’d testify falsely on purpose at all. I think though there are very real and rather well researched and documented cases where witness testimony has been subtly (not even intentionally) impacted by factors such as: what they’re asked, by whom, when they’re asked. By factors such as: whether they witnessed a violent crime, or didn’t even know a crime was taking place when they became a witness… etc etc…

The list of issues a witness statement could have is quite long actually, so… have a link instead: Eyewitness Misidentification - Innocence Project.

Again, I believe there are concerns with RA - he is likely guilty in whole or in part but I’m waiting for the trial before I convict him.

 

[photographer4]

I don't think he lied too. I think he didn't notice her since she was little and he seemed focus on one of the older ones. I doubt DD asked that question since his note is "WHO ARE THE 3 GIRLS THAT HE SAW?" and he didn't focus on the guy at all. Unfortunately. But RA boxed himself.

I’d believe DD’s notes more if he had taken well, better notes. Has he found the recording of the interview that he thought he had made? No link so mooooo. And really, we don’t know how DD may have asked RA what he saw. He could have said, “did you see anyone else?” And RA may have said, “I saw a few kids”. And DD may have asked how many? And RA may have said, three or four? And DD may have written, “Who are the 3 girls he saw”. We don’t even know how DD knew it was girls vs a mix of male and female or all boys. What we have instead is a snippet of info recorded by someone who seems to have met DD in an informal setting, perhaps on the fly / pressed for time even. We have no idea. I’m sure there will be a lot more info that comes out, but I’m just interested in making sure the right guy goes down for it - beyond a reasonable doubt and with as much evidence as possible. Ideally we don’t hear about a wrongful conviction ever in this particular case, because I can think of nothing worse for the families than knowing the wrong man went down for it, and / or they have another trial to face to get someone else for it.

 

[photographer4]

Unless RA hates freedom and has decided to spend the next 50 years in a 8x8 Cell then he isn’t being framed.

He committed a crime and isn’t very intelligent and due to LE incompetence at the beginning he managed to get a extra 5 years of freedom.

Thankfully LE managed to solve the case after initial failures.

Mooooooo

Right now, LE thinks they’ve solved the case. I’m interested to hear how they think the day unfolded. I’m interested to know what they asked, who they asked, and how they asked - but mostly, I’m interested to know - how did their suspect sit under their noses for all those years without being noticed???

 

[susane7]

DD's notes are informal. His notes led to believe that he didn't know about the timeline and the importance of the girls. Which is normal because it was in the early days, probably LE were still worked in a timeline. So probably he was just asking very simple questions like at the time people were there in the trails and what people saw. He tought he was made a recording but probably didn't. Which is my greatest regret about the case: I'm sure if we have a recording of that, RA would be completely screwed. But anyway, RA boxed himself with his own words. DD know it was girls because RA said and even describe one of them. The girls also describe the same interacion than RA. He boxed himself.

 

[mrjitty]

My jaw is on the floor after the latest MS episode (see my last post).

I hope the state bar is taking a hard look at these people.

 

[Salah11]

The problem I have is, even if I try and give him the benefit of doubt, then I come back to thinking he is a liar and therefore guilty of this crime.

His timeline, his original one, matches up with the young teenage girls and then the Bridge witness who places him on platform 1, which he admits he went out to and stood there, and we know she saw the girls walk past.

So we can place the girls on his direct path, so I have options

A - He comes off the bridge and walks to find this bench and the girls walk past
B- He is still on the bridge as the girls walk on to it

Whichever option I look at, he must have seen them so therefore, he is lying, and he would only do that because he is involved.

MOOOOOOOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

They may not be witnesses at all?

Then it would have to be proven that they were there like with time stamps used on any video recordings or photos taken by those girls, on that day and at that location around the time BG was seen there.

Well, this is your lucky day because all of those things you mentioned, actually exist.
The timeline is proven.


My opinion is I believe this fact that was stated in the PCA under penalty of perjury is true.

 

[TTF14]

The timeline is proven.

How so?

 

[grannygates]

Outside of BB believing that she sees the girls while she is walking back from the bridge, has any other person on the trial said they saw the girls? MOO There are many more people on the trials that aren’t mentioned in the PCA.

Sadly, wrongful convictions happen all the time. With all the “coincidences” in this case, it’s hard to trust the source that appears to be the cause of said “coincidences”. Then there’s the issue with similar sources on either side. If I’m supposed to trust a cop just because they’re a cop, why would I pick ISP over the FBI? If I’m supposed to not believing the inmate who reported the jail conditions, why would I believe the inmates telling me about confessions?

Eyewitness reports and false confessions are the leading causes of wrongful conviction. We have both options in this case. That’s why so many people are adamant that real evidence should be presented in order to convict someone. Scientific evidence, digital data etc. Items that don’t rely on human opinion.

All MOO

Eyewitness misidentification is one of the most common factors in cases of wrongful conviction. Nationally, 28% of all exonerations involve mistaken eyewitness identification
False confessions have been a factor in 12% of proven wrongful convictions nationwide. While it may seem difficult to understand why someone would confess to a crime they did not commit, there are many reasons that this can happen. For instance, physical intimidation or threats of violence by law enforcement can lead a suspect to falsely confess.

Why Do Wrongful Convictions Happen?

By studying cases where individuals have been exonerated, we have been able to identify the main factors that contribute to wrongful convictions. At KWIP, we

www.colorado.edu

 

[Spartygirl]

How so?

It is in the PCA