Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #178

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The geo
Cyber sleuth said:
I truly believe the geofence warrant and returned information would have included the drop off location acrosd from Mears Farm, to the south end of bridge where Libby’s phone was used to capture RA and then going east to the crime scene.

Anything less given the type of crime and the isolation of the area makes zero sense.
Click to expand...
Geofence radius was large IIRC 5 miles out in all dorections.
 
Boxer said:
Might not have been negligence, the act of allowing access could be be either negligent or intentional.
Click to expand...
The negligence seems factual to me given that they admitted that the sealed docs and photos were left on the table in an unoccupied, unlocked conference room, unsupervised. That's negligence in itself, imo.

If an attorney is charged with keeping documents secret----one cannot leave them in such a vulnerable situation. They should have been in a locked drawer or room while not in use.

It is hard to justify the situation, imo.

ETA: OHHH, just reread your OP. Intentional slipped by me the first time. lol
 
Emma Peel said:
Oh! Fun. Word games. My turn:

If there were any others already down the hill, such information would be potentially exculpatory for RA. ;)
Click to expand...

I’ll play!

Two entries.

1) While taking on the persona of a defense team member:

“We believe that it is possible that the prosecution might have evidence that they have not given us and if that possible evidence does actually exist they might be keeping it from us intentionally. Furthermore, that evidence that might exist, if we saw it, it might be exculpatory. Therefore, the entire case should be dismissed.”

2) While playing Judge Gull

“Denied”
 
StarryStarryNight said:
I’ll play!

Two entries.

1) While taking on the persona of a defense team member:

“We believe that it is possible that the prosecution might have evidence that they have not given us and if that possible evidence does actually exist they might be keeping it from us intentionally. Furthermore, that evidence that might exist, if we saw it, it might be exculpatory. Therefore, the entire case should be dismissed.”

2) While playing Judge Gull

“Denied”
Click to expand...
I mean this would be a dangerous drinking game.
 
katydid23 said:
So is your assertion that someone kidnapped the girls off the bridge and then traveled with them to the South End of the bridge to meet up with a waiting group of Odinists? This was a pre-planned ritual between them all, and not one of them was seen coming or going that afternoon?
Click to expand...
Nope. I don't make up stories. I wait for facts.

So, that was just today's fun fact that I thought I'd share. That the first overlook deck is .6 miles from the location that LE's theory determines the girls were abducted and ordered "down the hill". I think it's useful to know the lay of the land.

I don't pretend to know what might have happened to these two beautiful two girls. This case is nuts.

katydid23 said:
It makes more sense to me that the crime scene was staged to make it look like a ritual instead of it really being one. JMO
Click to expand...
We totally agree here. In fact, experts have said this. Like Turco. And early reports from Command.

katydid23 said:
I don't believe it could have stayed a secret if it truly happened the way the FM described it.
Click to expand...

Welp.
If you read the experts, vinlander gangs worship and nurture their capacity for war (i.e. violence/fighting); and they do get away with various crimes. They form a brotherhood for the purpose of keeping secrets.

Unfortunately, I do not know how "war" relates to senselessly murdering two young teens out for a fun hike on a sunny day. :(
 
katydid23 said:
Nope. Not if he forced them off the bridge and down the hill, where they met their fate. He'd be on trial for murder no matter who else was there.
Click to expand...
Ah - You're making an assumption here that I did not.
I did not assume that RA forced them off the bridge and down the hill.

And my point was that the presence of other at the scene is indeed potential exculpatory evidence for RA ... in this example.

JMHO
 
StarryStarryNight said:
I’ll play!

Two entries.

1) While taking on the persona of a defense team member:

“We believe that it is possible that the prosecution might have evidence that they have not given us and if that possible evidence does actually exist they might be keeping it from us intentionally. Furthermore, that evidence that might exist, if we saw it, it might be exculpatory. Therefore, the entire case should be dismissed.”

2) While playing Judge Gull

“Denied”
Click to expand...
I appreciate humor, as most folks must know by now.

However ... 1) Is not what went down Monday :)

Yet 2) I WILL put money on. :p

(hey. Can we bet here?)
 
Emma Peel said:
Oh! Fun. Word games. My turn:

If there were any others already down the hill, such information would be potentially exculpatory for RA. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, what are you implying?
Are you saying the information of others in the area is being hidden by LE? I recently posted an interview with Anna Williams where she say LE told her there were 50+ people in and about the area of the trails that day. I'm sure that same info is in the discovery given to the defense. Why would you think they're hiding information? People weren't talked to, vetted and cleared by alibi. You think that just the possibility that there were others involved, like the prosecutor has mentioned in court, means that makes RA guilt free?

What if LE did NOT find any evidence to exculpate RA and only found evidence of his guilt? There's no word games to answer. It would mean there's no exculpatory evidence to be hidden. All Just My Opinion
 
Emma Peel said:
You'll have to forgive me if I'm not understanding your comment.

The State opted to Charge the Defense (the Public Defenders, Balwin and Rozzi, personally ... themselves) with Criminal Contempt. Baldwin and Rozzi (and not RA) were put in the position of defending themselves. The accusations included those related to Leaks to youtubers. This was a quick action, NO JURY.

How was Baldwin and Rozzi's efforts to defend themselves from this Criminal Contempt Motion brought by the State "all just a game to them to poison the (State vs RA) jury pool"?

Perhaps you're mixing the 2 different hearings conducted the same day?

You reference Baldwin's and Rozzi's witness exhibit as "the last straw". I don't understand this characterization either. As defendants against this Criminal Contempt action, they are entitled to present witness/exhibits for a hearing and its customary to provide such lists in advance of a hearing. As to their witness list, esteemed members of the Indiana Defense Bar were on that list and they gave testimony. The Contempt Motion attempted to hold Baldwin and Rozzi responsible for Leaks to youtubers. So, youtubers were also on the witness/exhibit list. Screen shots on the exhibit list. The State likewise had a list including a youtuber witness and screen shot evidence. Gull ended up determining - for both sides - that youtubers would not be heard, and that SM screenshot exhibits would not be allowed. (This was a quick action; and Gull opted to make these decisions on the fly as is her prerogative.)

For a different hearing on a different motion, the Defense for RA brought a Motion to Dismiss the Case and hold the State's Prosecutor in Contempt. Reason: the State's multiple failures to share critical and possibly exculpatory discovery. (Objecting to serious State errors (whether intentional or incompetent) also falls under the category of "the job of the Defense".) One possible error here could be that State brought charges against RA without benefit of knowing or considering exculpatory evidence themselves before charging.

Further, should the public and the public's interest in seeing justice for these victims - in fact - end up denied this trial because the Court finds the Defense is correct and there is fault and cause by State that requires charges be Dismissed ... the public should - logically - be pissed off at the State.

Not the Defense.

If I'm the family of these victims, I'd be hopeful that the State makes their case that the discovery that was lost was not exculpatory, and failures to forward discovery and/or to disclose the lost evidence was not the fault of the Prosecutor.
Click to expand...
No I'm mixing in more than two things, I'm looking at the whole. These two lawyers have conducted themselves disastrously. <modsnip - namecalling is a violation of TOS>the system and their client have suffered because of their disregard. Ever wonder why the SCOIN found unanimously that Judge Gull had no bias? Because she had no bias. She was thinking about the defendant's right to council that was not negligent but competent in being RA's advocate.

I can see the two defense attorneys clearly for what they are...<modsnip - namecalling is a violation of TOS> AJMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andieinsyd said:
I believe that Richard Allen is Bridge Guy. And I believe that Bridge Guy is the person who said Down the hill...and forced Abby and Libby down the hill to their deaths. From what I can see we have solid evidence that Richard Allen was this guy, not anyone else. He was there, at around the time, was on the bridge, was wearing what BG was wearing and wasn't seen after the time of the murders. I think the admissions and the bullet will add to this evidence. I don't know what happened down the hill, but my thoughts are that RA committed the murders himself.
To me, we just haven't seen enough evidence to back up the EF/Odinist angle. We have TC suggesting that it wasn't followed up well enough, but does he actually know this? He wasn't part of the Delphi team, so how would he know? As far as I can see the people were cleared and there is no evidence placing them at the scene. From what I have heard of the crime scene, the sticks are likely to be some kind of signature, but whether they are religious has not and cannot be determined (apart from by the murder(s) himself/themselves.
So to EF's statements, while they could be something, to me they are not strong enough unless there is actually some evidence that he was there. If his alibi is found to be not reliable, and something ties EF to the area on the day I'll be much more interested.
Click to expand...
RBBM

Far be it from me to be proselytizing but there is more than just TC suggesting the Odin theory was not completely investigated by LE. There must be evidence that it is true but, for now, this is all we know because we weren't in court to hear each word of testimony.

From last week's hearing, the Journal and Courier reports, on March 19, 2024, that Baldwin presented evidence that ISP did not follow up on the Rushville's police officer's investigation into Odinists.

Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen seeks charges' dismissal over lost evidence
 
Perhaps the post was tongue-in-cheek, but there's nothing legally known as "intentional negligence." W/r/t crime scene photos getting out, if there is a violation of a standard of care, it would be based on (in ascending order of how "bad" it would be) negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. Unlike most here, it seems, I don't have enough information to discern which it might be, if any.
 
sunshineray said:
No I'm mixing in more than two things, I'm looking at the whole. These two lawyers have conducted themselves disastrously. <modsnip - namecalling is a violation of TOS> their client have suffered because of their disregard. Ever wonder why the SCOIN found unanimously that Judge Gull had no bias? Because she had no bias. She was thinking about the defendant's right to council that was not negligent but competent in being RA's advocate.

I can see the two defense attorneys clearly for what they are...<modsnip - namecalling is a violation of TOS>AJMO
Click to expand...

That sounds about right!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kae27 said:
Perhaps the post was tongue-in-cheek, but there's nothing legally known as "intentional negligence." W/r/t crime scene photos getting out, if there is a violation of a standard of care, it would be based on (in ascending order of how "bad" it would be) negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. Unlike most here, it seems, I don't have enough information to discern which it might be, if any.
Click to expand...
1) negligence
2) gross negligence
3) recklessness
4) willful misconduct
5) none of the above

I’ll pick 5 :)
Just my non-legal opinion as IANAL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 1,818 (members: 116, guests: 1,702)

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
1,702
Total visitors
1,818
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,869
Messages
18,193,992
Members
233,618
Latest member
GFinder
Back
Top