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

[TTF14]

RA only admitted to seeing the 1st group of girls when entering the trails. According to everything we have heard he never admitted to seeing anyone else.

Not BB, not Abby &Libby,

Very important, I agree.

 

[ClearAhead]

If the whistleblowers were in court blowing whistles or defending their actions in doing so, yes, I'd want that court proceeding televised as well actually.

What court proceedings are you referring to? Whistleblowers have the ability to influence public opinion and IMO it’s the most appropriate action to take here even if nothing comes of it. It exposes the D team’s underhanded and unscrupulous tactics. Pot kettle black and all that because it’s exactly what the Judge, the Prosecution and LE have been accused of engaging in.

So do we just pick and choose what information gets ignored depending if it’s pro-D or pro-P? How enlightening is that?

MOO and JMO

 

[photographer4]

The YouTubers were given protected information about someone that had a ping in the area of the murders.

I believe that person was a minor at the time. That individual had an alibi that checked out.

Giving information to YouTubers that are fixated on conspiracies and have continuously been disrespectful and plain nasty to the both the memories of the victims and their families is disgusting and also possibly criminal.

This is my take and opinion.

How is giving the info to MS any better? Honest question as I haven't listened and will not listen...

 

[TTF14]

How is giving the info to MS any better? Honest question as I haven't listened and will not listen...

And then MS broadcasting it to planet Earth.

 

[photographer4]

If he was on the bridge and 'saw the girls' then he was most probably the guy in the video that Libby took. He was wearing the same clothing that he described. And he never said anything about seeing another guy dressed like him on the bridge at same time.

I agree that he probably saw the girls, and they probably saw him. I'm of the view that is he probably guilty in whole or in part. I'd still like to know how the state actually goes about proving BARD that he did the crime as accused. I hope they manage to if RA is in fact the guilty party

 

[photographer4]

The DT PURPOSELY leaked crime scene information to a couple of random you-tubers, and that is 'no harm, no foul?'
How so? He was under a court ordered gag order. And there have been other leaks as well, which he tried to deny being intentional. This new info makes me doubt his prior explanation for those leaks.

Just out of curiosity, any chance that whatever has been "leaked" is fake? That wouldn't surprise me - to learn that people put things out that were not true, or were not quite true. How do we know any of it is true at all until trial? If there was some issue with the D team leaking actual things in contravention of the court order, what should we expect to see happen as a result?

 

[photographer4]

What court proceedings are you referring to? Whistleblowers have the ability to influence public opinion and IMO it’s the most appropriate action to take here even if nothing comes of it. It exposes the D team’s underhanded and unscrupulous tactics. Pot kettle black and all that because it’s exactly what the Judge, the Prosecution and LE have been accused of engaging in.

So do we just pick and choose what information gets ignored depending if it’s pro-D or pro-P? How enlightening is that?

MOO and JMO

My response was in regards to this post wherein you said:

You want transparency in the courtroom but whistleblowers silenced? Seems contradictory.

And then I said:

If the whistleblowers were in court blowing whistles or defending their actions in doing so, yes, I'd want that court proceeding televised as well actually.

So there is not currently a court proceeding regarding the whistleblower in question, but if there was, yes, I would want that proceeding televised as well. I hope this helps clarify what I was on about.

ETA: why does it matter if they influence public opinion? Shouldn't the jury focus on what is before them alone and nothing else? Wouldn't things like the youtubers and podcasters be considered an outside influence? And if so, wouldn't a prospective juror be asked if they'd followed the case in the news / social media etc? I just don't think I understand what impact this might have over RA's trial, if any to make people so up in arms over it all.

If what they did is illegal, then I'd expect some sort of repercussions from the judge, or the Bar or something, no?

 

[photographer4]

If I was a juror that’s the reason I’d doubt the truthfulness of RA’s statement. He claimed to not have seen Libby and Abby nor another man who was dressed exactly the same as him at the bridge. MOO

So because he didn't state he saw someone else wearing X clothes, that makes him guilty? Is it not possible that he left before someone else arrived? What makes it completely impossible that he left before someone else arrived? I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm asking why it couldn't have happened? I'm not asking for his alibi or anything else. I am only asking, what makes it completely impossible that he left before someone else arrived such that he didn't see BB or L & A?

 

[Ravenmoon]

How is giving the info to MS any better? Honest question as I haven't listened and will not listen...

The only way that I can respond is by offering my opinion. So, take it as you would like:

The majority of us that feel like the Defense is undermining the case did NOT feel that way straight out of the gate

MS are podcasters that have been given information that has consistently and continuously verified that the Defense has dealt with unscrupulous people to possibly taint a jury, try the case with the public and has tried to destroy the reputation of a well liked and respected judge.

For me, it just verifies that what we have thought is true.

None of this would be an issue if the defense would have stuck to the rules and not handed out information that was to be protected from being in the grasp of people known to be conspiracy theorists.

Again, I can only answer in my opinion.

 

[Ravenmoon]

How is giving the info to MS any better? Honest question as I haven't listened and will not listen...

I would also like to say that discussing a podcast with anyone that hasn't listened is challenging.
It's almost akin to showing up for a book club discussion when you have not read the book.

Again, my opinion

 

[Spartygirl]

Sorry trying to catch up, but you guys are talking more than the original pictures taken from the defense, correct? TYIA

Correct !!

 

[photographer4]

RA only admitted to seeing the 1st group of girls when entering the trails. According to everything we have heard he never admitted to seeing anyone else.

Not BB, not Abby &Libby,
And certainly not any Other Men.

By all accounts there were only 8 people on the trails between Freedom Bridge, MHB and the trailhead entrance between 1:30pm and 2:13pm.
Group of 4 young girls
BB
Abby and Libby
RA

Only one man was seen. Only one man was recorded. They match in location and appearance.
That man is awaiting trial and apparently does not have an alibi IMO.
An alibi shouldn’t be that hard to provide for the middle of a Monday afternoon.
All my opinion.

By all accounts - but that is one of the problems - no one, police included can account for:
people who may have been at the trails when the kids were there if they did not / have not yet come forward to report themselves as having been there, or unless someone else told LE they knew so and so had been there.

We can only account for the *known* people who were there. There could easily be more people than we're aware of for whatever reason. Just because we or the police may not be aware of them does not mean no one else was there.

 

[photographer4]

The only way that I can respond is by offering my opinion. So, take it as you would like:

The majority of us that feel like the Defense is undermining the case did NOT feel that way straight out of the gate

MS are podcasters that have been given information that has consistently and continuously verified that the Defense has dealt with unscrupulous people to possibly taint a jury, try the case with the public and has tried to destroy the reputation of a well liked and respected judge.

For me, it just verifies that what we have thought is true.

None of this would be an issue if the defense would have stuck to the rules and not handed out information that was to be protected from being in the grasp of people known to be conspiracy theorists.

Again, I can only answer in my opinion.

I appreciate hearing your opinion on this matter, especially since as I noted, I have not and will not listen to the podcast. Bearing that in mind, what makes what MS is saying the gospel truth? I believe it is possible they're reporting it based on how they heard it / saw it / learned about it (whatever "it" is, since I've not heard it, can't really comment on that) - but how come they're the only ones who could be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Why is it impossible that some of their sources are unscrupulous, incorrect or somehow motivated to provide such information to perhaps further the "try it in public" idea that we're hearing about? Doesn't the podcast (and other content creations) have the same effect of kinda trying the case in public overall? If that is what MS is trying to blow the whistle on, then I'm not sure I really get how they doing so in ya know, public, is a means to that end?

 

[photographer4]

I would also like to say that discussing a podcast with anyone that hasn't listened is challenging.
It's almost akin to showing up for a book club discussion when you have not read the book.

Again, my opinion

I certainly appreciate that this poses a challenge. I view it though as me remaining a bit unbiased in the case - I haven't focused on the social media creations he said / she said of the case or its attorneys. Instead, I'm trying to remain focused on what comes out at actual court proceedings as evidence in the case. If there was some wrongdoing on part of the attorneys (be they on the record for RA, or representing his lawyers, or somehow actually professionally involved in this case), then I would hope that those issues would also be tried in some court of law, and the offenders held accountable. So far, I think it has been about a week since we last heard from MS, and all the drama about whatever was said that has made people think the D is leaking information etc and so far, it seems nothing has come of that either, that I am aware of?

I'd kinda like to think that if something illegal had gone down, JG would be all over it, if she had been made aware? Or that some governing body would be all over it if it were about other professionals with actual legitimate involvement in the case and involved actual law breaking or serious concerns for the safety and security of the jury?

 

[TTF14]

I certainly appreciate that this poses a challenge. I view it though as me remaining a bit unbiased in the case - I haven't focused on the social media creations he said / she said of the case or its attorneys. Instead, I'm trying to remain focused on what comes out at actual court proceedings as evidence in the case. If there was some wrongdoing on part of the attorneys (be they on the record for RA, or representing his lawyers, or somehow actually professionally involved in this case), then I would hope that those issues would also be tried in some court of law, and the offenders held accountable. So far, I think it has been about a week since we last heard from MS, and all the drama about whatever was said that has made people think the D is leaking information etc and so far, it seems nothing has come of that either, that I am aware of?

I'd kinda like to think that if something illegal had gone down, JG would be all over it, if she had been made aware? Or that some governing body would be all over it if it were about other professionals with actual legitimate involvement in the case and involved actual law breaking or serious concerns for the safety and security of the jury?

I think you might be the most unbiased poster in this entire thread.

IMO MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

I appreciate hearing your opinion on this matter, especially since as I noted, I have not and will not listen to the podcast. Bearing that in mind, what makes what MS is saying the gospel truth? I believe it is possible they're reporting it based on how they heard it / saw it / learned about it (whatever "it" is, since I've not heard it, can't really comment on that) - but how come they're the only ones who could be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Why is it impossible that some of their sources are unscrupulous, incorrect or somehow motivated to provide such information to perhaps further the "try it in public" idea that we're hearing about? Doesn't the podcast (and other content creations) have the same effect of kinda trying the case in public overall? If that is what MS is trying to blow the whistle on, then I'm not sure I really get how they doing so in ya know, public, is a means to that end?

The source gave MS access to their Twitter (X) accounts and also Discord.

Within this access, there are messages between the parties that we have discussed here. There were messages, conversations, screenshots and whatever else happens within group chats.

I don't have to be in love with MS to believe that they intend to be around long after the Delphi case commences. If they want to continue to grow, they are not going to fabricate information.

They are allowed to be used as references here on WS. That is a pretty big deal to me. It means that their information is trusted. So far, they have not lied about their information.

I have no doubt that they are imperfect, that they make mistakes. But that is not the same as plotting to derail a case.

All of this is simply my opinion.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I certainly appreciate that this poses a challenge. I view it though as me remaining a bit unbiased in the case - I haven't focused on the social media creations he said / she said of the case or its attorneys. Instead, I'm trying to remain focused on what comes out at actual court proceedings as evidence in the case. If there was some wrongdoing on part of the attorneys (be they on the record for RA, or representing his lawyers, or somehow actually professionally involved in this case), then I would hope that those issues would also be tried in some court of law, and the offenders held accountable. So far, I think it has been about a week since we last heard from MS, and all the drama about whatever was said that has made people think the D is leaking information etc and so far, it seems nothing has come of that either, that I am aware of?

I'd kinda like to think that if something illegal had gone down, JG would be all over it, if she had been made aware? Or that some governing body would be all over it if it were about other professionals with actual legitimate involvement in the case and involved actual law breaking or serious concerns for the safety and security of the jur

We have to wait and see, don't we?
I have no idea what could come from any of this.

 

[TTF14]

I don't have to be in love with MS to believe that they intend to be around long after the Delphi case commences. If they want to continue to grow, they are not going to fabricate information.

RSBM BBM

No, but they will exploit it. How is this helping further justice for Abby and Libby?

IMO MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

RSBM BBM

No, but they will exploit it. How is this helping further justice for Abby and Libby?

IMO MOO

I am sorry, I don't want you to misunderstand this, but I feel like discussing this with you is difficult because you have not listened to the podcast.

I support your right to boycott anyone you like, but discussing the content within is basically impossible.

You will ask for links that are within that material. It feels like a Merry go round.

 

[Megnut]

Sometimes it can be who writes the witness statements as well getting it wrong.

Years ago, I unexpectedly witnessed these lounge windows (large arch style ones) being shattered from the inside out in the middle of a not sure what.

The apartment was about 3 stories off the ground, well lit up from the inside as it was dark outside and the people inside could be heard arguing prior to the damage being done, but not really anything else.

I do remember this umbrella sticking out like a sore thumb after the last window was smashed in only as there were curtains I couldn't see who was responsible for the damage or who had been holding the umbrella.

I was the only witness (outside).

Anyhow, about two weeks after it happened, the young police officer (I remember his face quite clearly) who wrote down my statement came to see me to ask if I would attend court as a witness even though he couldn't say if I'd be called up or not, also, he wanted to make sure my witness statement was in order.

It wasn't!

I told him straight that he had written parts incorrectly and that I would write it again for him instead because what he had written didn't sit right with me at all. Like things in the wrong order and Im sure he was trying to make out I had seen who was inside whereas I hadn't. Silhouettes maybe, but no one's actual face.

Point is - sometimes Witness Statements can be incorrectly written up as well by whoever is doing it.

Most of the time, however, I'm sure they aren't!

Indeed! Just like a Defense team can misconstrue, conflate or jumble a witness' words and, with a gag order in place, the witness can't make a public correction.

JMO