Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #175

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
girlhasnoname said:
What if LE didn't want to publish the information/pics on the type of bullet found on scene in case of fearing the killer would get rid of the gun or ammo? They don't have to disclose every single piece of evidence collected to the public. LE often holds back evidence that is specific to the killer or a weapon.

MOO
Click to expand...
I think it's possible in his panic after the fact (who I believe is RA) didn't realize a bullet came out of his gun and dropped at the scene or he didn't know or think police would find it. He didn't shoot the girls, he only used it to abduct them from the bridge to the final location they were found. So I think it's possible he kept the gun because he didn't think LE knew he even used one. I'd say he likely got ride of the weapon he used to kill them because it could connect him to the scene, but he felt confident a gun wouldn't be something LE was looking for. I think you are right if they would have said the suspect would have used xyz type of gun, he would have ditched that gun. IMO/
 
If I were the D, I would try to ingratiate myself with JG. She's not going anywhere. I'm not talking fawning over, but simply showing professional respect in hopes that it's reciprocated. Both attorneys and the judge are highly experienced, so I believe they can get past this contemptuous time. All of them. The SCOIN has called each of them out for certain things, which is good, but they've also given credit where credit is due, for all three of them, IMO. I get the sense it's like, okay kids, work as a team and give the cat a bath.

My hope for this case is that mistakes are accounted for and addressed appropriately and fairly, no matter at what point along the line they happened. While the stakes are high, and so are emotions, this still has to be handled correctly at the procedural level. If they can get this back on track, then I think the State's evidence will then have to speak for itself at trial. Either the evidence is good enough, or it's not. It's JMO, but I think it really comes down to that.
 
FrostedGlass said:
McL turned the 3 pictures of the bullet and 1 lab picture over to D.
Why weren't the rest of the pictures turned over at that time?
Surely they aren't like a misplaced file?
We know about the caliber of the cartridges and gun info.
We've seen the SW and the pages of returns.
Why weren't the chain of custody pages included?
Click to expand...
What bothers me about the unspent round is how it is described as being "buried in the ground," and "taken out of the ground," and other such descriptions that make it sound like it wasn't just laying there, but perhaps at least partially sunk into the dirt. Obviously, we don't have access to the photo of it on the ground to see for ourselves.

Was the ground there really soft where somebody stepping on a bullet would sink it? It's just an odd detail I'd like to know more about.
 
TL4S said:
What bothers me about the unspent round is how it is described as being "buried in the ground," and "taken out of the ground," and other such descriptions that make it sound like it wasn't just laying there, but perhaps at least partially sunk into the dirt. Obviously, we don't have access to the photo of it on the ground to see for ourselves.

Was the ground there really soft where somebody stepping on a bullet would sink it? It's just an odd detail I'd like to know more about.
Click to expand...
That's the impression I got, too. In one of the early news reports, one of the searchers mentioned the muddy fields they had to walk through. If the high ground is muddy, will the area near the creek be muddy, too?
Plus, remember that article that mentioned footprints leading to the bodies?

While my mind is wandering around, we just learned about the missing interviews but Barbara MD's comments about the LE not suspecting anything Odin-related (they didn't take the sticks until later)... why, then, did they interview them so soon after the murders?
 
FrostedGlass said:
From the appeals I've read and oral augments I've watched, I believe the Indiana Supreme Court does strongly support their trial court judges.

And they want trial court issues to be decided on that level.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court sure didn't support the trial court when the trial court unbelievably removed the defense lawyers from the case! The Supreme Court reinstated the defense team, as we all know.
 
For all of those who wanted to know the source of whether the witnesses were shown photo(s) of RA and it was who they saw on the bridge, it's in the section from the release of Discovery Dump where they are addressing the Search Warrant. I can't copy and paste, you'll have to search for it. It's about halfway through the entire document maybe more towards the end and yes, it happened before he was arrested.

Unfortunately this isn't a continuous document that page numbers.

JMO
 
Trebor5591 said:
The Supreme Court sure didn't support the trial court when the trial court unbelievably removed the defense lawyers from the case! The Supreme Court reinstated the defense team, as we all know.
Click to expand...
I didn't say "Never". Once in a while there's no getting around a wrongful decision in the trial court.
We do still have rights.

Justice Slaughter's opinion at the end of the opinion is interesting. I'm not sure my interpretation of what he's saying is accurate.
 
FrostedGlass said:
That does not mean any such thing.

From the appeals I've read and oral augments I've watched, I believe the Indiana Supreme Court does strongly support their trial court judges.

And they want trial court issues to be decided on that level.
Click to expand...
I stated that in your response that "JG was hogtying the Defense". I still don't understand that conclusion when the SCOIN ruled that JG was not biased and would remain as Special Judge in this case, just like R&B were reinstated based on RA's 6th amendment right to counsel.

Trial court issues should be heard at trial levels, R&B did an unprecedented move in appealing directly to the SCOIN for this ruling. Again, another example of their snookery IMO.

ETA: Correction, here was the direct quote from you, sorry FG.

If the judge favors McLeland and hogties the defense, then I think the jury will find it easy to convict.

JMO
 
FrostedGlass said:
That's the impression I got, too. In one of the early news reports, one of the searchers mentioned the muddy fields they had to walk through. If the high ground is muddy, will the area near the creek be muddy, too?
Plus, remember that article that mentioned footprints leading to the bodies?

While my mind is wandering around, we just learned about the missing interviews but Barbara MD's comments about the LE not suspecting anything Odin-related (they didn't take the sticks until later)... why, then, did they interview them so soon after the murders?
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a good question. We don't have dates for the AT&T search warrants for BH and PW's phones, do we? Personally, I think there was more than just the supposed runes at the CS which could possibly be interpreted as religious. Things we don't know about yet. It isn't just the P who didn't have to include all their evidence. I doubt the D's entire case is in that Franks memo, either. IDK.

I still think there were other wounds to the bodies than just the ones we know of, as well. JMO.
 
girlhasnoname said:
Trial court issues should be heard at trial levels, R&B did an unprecedented move in appealing directly to the SCOIN for this ruling. Again, another example of their snookery IMO.
Click to expand...
RSBBM:

With respect, and in all seriousness, IMO, the SCOIN would likely not have been snookered. The justices laid out very clearly why they allowed this issue to be heard in oral arguments, and why they voted 4:1 to reinstate the attorneys. They explained in detail about why an interlocutory appeal might not have been feasible. Even the dissenter was respectful of his colleagues' decision, only questioning the procedural appropriateness due to a new rule. And, it was appellate attorneys who brought the issue up, not AB and BR, from my understanding. JMO.
 
Last edited:
mrjitty said:
Good points. I think this is why RA might need to testify. The discrepancy is a big issue and somehow he needs to convince the jury that Dulin made a mistake in what he noted down. IMO a contemporaneous note from the time of the murders is always going to carry more weight than what RA says years later.

Don't give police interviews without your lawyer kids!
Click to expand...
The evidence of his car going in the direction of the old CPS building is going to be hard to overcome if a jury can establish from the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera they think it is the same black Ford Focus owned by Richard Allen. I think the PCA has this part in there about Richard Allen's car on surveillance heading in the direction of the old CPS building.

What would have really made the prosecution case is if they had a tape recording of the conversation the conservation officer Dulin had with Richard Allen shortly after the crime. Then they would have Richard Allen's words on audio tape. I think that would make the decision a lot easier for a jury as to when he arrived and left. It would give credibility to the witness statements regarding the timeline.

Until trial though, no one knows what evidence either side has.

Are there any cars passing the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera at a little before 12 noon on February 13th, 2017 that resemble Richard Allen's black Ford Focus?
 
Ward Thisperer said:
SBM - direct connection to someone who was close to the victim — like his son being the bf of Abby?
The pieces of evidence that implicate BH are circumstantial, yes, but are about his postings on FB at the time such as drawings of bodies under a tree with sticks arranged on top of them like runes. This is not DNA evidence, but was investigated and thought to be significant by members of LE.
Personally I’m not convinced of the BH theory, but I don’t see any reason to discard this piece of info as if it’s not relevant at all.

p116 of the FM, B&R cite the timestamp where they say she says it was a tan jacket
View attachment 481793

My guess is that if they had any case to sue the D, they’d have lawyers jumping at the chance to take the case and get their cut. However, it seems they don’t have any case.

That doesn’t follow because the FM isn’t a portion of discovery, its work product. Some discovery material is contained in the exhibits and marked as confidential.

According to the FM p81 someone called in a tip soon after the murders based on what BH was posting on FB
View attachment 481798
Click to expand...
I guess not. It's ok for lawyers to call two not arrested and uncharged men child murderers in court filings that wind up on the internet.
 
photographer4 said:
EF (the one who said he spat on Abby’s body and she had sticks for horns) declined a polygraph requested by LE via a lawyer. Perhaps he has a probono?
Click to expand...
Why would declining a polygraph be connected to whether he has a pro bono lawyer? Anyone who thinks polygraphs are not accurate or doesn't trust the police for whatever reason can decline one. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 163 more.
Total: 395 (members: 164, guests: 231)

Online statistics

Members online
164
Guests online
231
Total visitors
395
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,936
Messages
18,247,848
Members
234,510
Latest member
Sarcon
Back
Top