Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #187

[photographer4]

"Going after other suspects"?

LE needs PC to go after anyone!;; But they did get tips and leads ans looked at other persons of interest, like RL. Investigations aren't linear either. LE might have been hot in one direction which then stalled, then had to abandon it when they'd exhausted it.

We don't even know State's whole case, only the small pieces contained in the AW. At the time of his arrest, they only knew what they knew! I imagine there's more than a bus load now. DNA returns, fiber comparisons, device data recovery, new tips!

It won't be a flimsy case.

JMO

So why didn’t they take the info seriously then from EF? When his sister went to Le with her concerns about things he had said, how long before they met him? Did he do a polygraph or dna test? I recall his lawyer declined one of these, but I forget which. Funny that.

 

[grannygates]

I can't speak to this absolutely, but we aren't at trial.

We won't know what the State has for evidence until it's admitted at trial.

But I can speak to this: defense attorneys love to ask good questions to the wrong guys. It's especially effective in ans around preliminaries. Ask the guy who has no information about something for whom he's not the proper authority! It's very effective too (even if kind of unscrupulous IMO). Makes the officer/witness look stoopid when in actuality is just not something for which they have personal knowledge. In huge investigations with lots of tentacles, many agents might be involved, each aware of a segment or arc of data. One might be altogether unaware of any DNA matches. Another, unaware of digital links.

The PCA is not a trial! There's an ongoing investigation that an arrest breaks open! New tips, more finessed searches, etc, etc...

I think the State has the goods.

JMO

I don’t think there are any other investigators to ask? I think Ligget and Holeman are the guys. It’s just CCSO and ISP accusing RA. The FBI and the other agencies that assisted earlier have nothing to do with this case with RA. TL sent the bullet to the state lab, not the FBI lab, so I don’t know if the FBI even handled any forensics or testing on the RA side of things? MOO

 

[TTF14]

I don’t think there are any other investigators to ask? I think Ligget and Holeman are the guys. It’s just CCSO and ISP accusing RA. The FBI and the other agencies that assisted earlier have nothing to do with this case with RA. TL sent the bullet to the state lab, not the FBI lab, so I don’t know if the FBI even handled any forensics or testing on the RA side of things? MOO

So, will a State expert be testifying about the bullet? If so, I sure hope their expert is better than the Massachusetts state (accident reconstruction) expert we just saw in the Karen Read trial!

IMO MOO

 

[Megnut]

I don’t know so asking genuinely - did the prosecution do these things? Lay out who they’d call, what they’d expect them to say, how long it generally would take? Because it isn’t ok if she left it so open ended that the the Prosecution could leave the D with literally no actual time to defend RA. I believe that was their argument when they withdrew from the May trial - that she would not limit the prosecution and had no idea what the case was as she had not seen it.

No, no, no! That's not how it works!

Every single trial has logistics. Shared courtrooms, other dockets, lawyers and judges with other cases, jury considerations, holiday schedules, etc, etc. Based on input received, a trial is set -- expected to run three weeks, three months, etc, etc.

The State didn't object to a three week trial which tells me they felt confident they could present their case in probably just over a week, maybe 7 or 9 days, assuming a few days for the Defense, plus a day or two for rebuttal witnesses if need be.

If a trial was scheduled for three weeks, that's NO WAY the State would eat up 15 days nor would a judge allow it! It's a Judge's job (one among many) to keep the trial on course.

I just saw a trial where the State had a critical final witness who was unavailable just then so, outside orthodoxy, the Judge apprised the jury, then moved for the Defense to begin calling its own witnesses before the State rested its case in chief! Defense called a few witnesses, then the State interrupted back in order to put their last expert on the stand. It was a little zig-zaggy but it worked.

Just like that overblown exchange recently, when Counsel requested a (bathroom) break, and the Judge inquired (no, not about bathrooming) in order to decide whether to call for the short break and resume or call it lynch and break for it. Time management.

At the end of every day of trial in the ones I've followed, outside the ear of the jury, the Judge asks both parties if they're ready. Witnesses lined up, etc. It's the Judge's job to keep the trial moving along, making sure each side has adequate time. No one wants to run into scheduling issues and have a trial in two parts, disjointed. Huge imposition on a jury!

These Defense attorneys know full well how trials are scheduled. IMO they used the schedule to force a delay (so they wouldn't have to ask for a continuance which IMO was what they REALLY wanted).

JMO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I do not understand people tying themselves to his innocence, before even a single day of evidence.

On balance of what is known - the bullet, the released snippet of footage, his being in that place at that time and that tiny matter of having confessed to it - it sure seems _likely_ he did it.

Reverse this thought, and maybe wonder why some don't understand people tying themselves to his guilt, before even a single day of evidence.

It works both ways, at least IMO.

 

[TTF14]

These Defense attorneys know full well how trials are scheduled. IMO they used the schedule to force a delay (so they wouldn't have to ask for a continuance which IMO was what they REALLY wanted).

JMO

RSBM

I'd want one too if I were them. The State hadn't turned over all of the discovery and they needed more time. Between that and being kicked off the case for several weeks (until the Supreme Court told Judge Gull, not so fast, she can't do that), the defense is not to blame for this case still not being tried.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

No, no, no! That's not how it works!

Every single trial has logistics. Shared courtrooms, other dockets, lawyers and judges with other cases, jury considerations, holiday schedules, etc, etc. Based on input received, a trial is set -- expected to run three weeks, three months, etc, etc.

The State didn't object to a three week trial which tells me they felt confident they could present their case in probably just over a week, maybe 7 or 9 days, assuming a few days for the Defense, plus a day or two for rebuttal witnesses if need be.

If a trial was scheduled for three weeks, that's NO WAY the State would eat up 15 days nor would a judge allow it! It's a Judge's job (one among many) to keep the trial on course.

I just saw a trial where the State had a critical final witness who was unavailable just then so, outside orthodoxy, the Judge apprised the jury, then moved for the Defense to begin calling its own witnesses before the State rested its case in chief! Defense called a few witnesses, then the State interrupted back in order to put their last expert on the stand. It was a little zig-zaggy but it worked.

Just like that overblown exchange recently, when Counsel requested a (bathroom) break, and the Judge inquired (no, not about bathrooming) in order to decide whether to call for the short break and resume or call it lynch and break for it. Time management.

At the end of every day of trial in the ones I've followed, outside the ear of the jury, the Judge asks both parties if they're ready. Witnesses lined up, etc. It's the Judge's job to keep the trial moving along, making sure each side has adequate time. No one wants to run into scheduling issues and have a trial in two parts, disjointed. Huge imposition on a jury!

These Defense attorneys know full well how trials are scheduled. IMO they used the schedule to force a delay (so they wouldn't have to ask for a continuance which IMO was what they REALLY wanted).

JMO

Sure. So JG should have committed then to some sort of time management for the two sides instead of agreeing to postpone the trial, no? But she didn’t do this. Surely if she had assured the D that they’d have time to defend RA in reasonably equal or necessary timing then Rossi wouldn’t have asked to postpone. That was my understanding anyhow. He had concerns that JG wasn’t going to ensure equal time or any time management to the prosecution such that it would allow them to present a proper defense. Why would they proceed with no assurance and given the issues they’ve already had with JG??

 

[Megnut]

So why didn’t they take the info seriously then from EF? When his sister went to Le with her concerns about things he had said, how long before they met him? Did he do a polygraph or dna test? I recall his lawyer declined one of these, but I forget which. Funny that.

LE couldn't demand a DNA test! Not without PC.

If EF had a verified alibi, then he was a lead with a dead stop.

Who knows where EF got his information, what he saw/believed, but LE apparently took that interview as far as it could go.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

No, no, no! That's not how it works!

Every single trial has logistics. Shared courtrooms, other dockets, lawyers and judges with other cases, jury considerations, holiday schedules, etc, etc. Based on input received, a trial is set -- expected to run three weeks, three months, etc, etc.

The State didn't object to a three week trial which tells me they felt confident they could present their case in probably just over a week, maybe 7 or 9 days, assuming a few days for the Defense, plus a day or two for rebuttal witnesses if need be.

If a trial was scheduled for three weeks, that's NO WAY the State would eat up 15 days nor would a judge allow it! It's a Judge's job (one among many) to keep the trial on course.

I just saw a trial where the State had a critical final witness who was unavailable just then so, outside orthodoxy, the Judge apprised the jury, then moved for the Defense to begin calling its own witnesses before the State rested its case in chief! Defense called a few witnesses, then the State interrupted back in order to put their last expert on the stand. It was a little zig-zaggy but it worked.

Just like that overblown exchange recently, when Counsel requested a (bathroom) break, and the Judge inquired (no, not about bathrooming) in order to decide whether to call for the short break and resume or call it lynch and break for it. Time management.

At the end of every day of trial in the ones I've followed, outside the ear of the jury, the Judge asks both parties if they're ready. Witnesses lined up, etc. It's the Judge's job to keep the trial moving along, making sure each side has adequate time. No one wants to run into scheduling issues and have a trial in two parts, disjointed. Huge imposition on a jury!

These Defense attorneys know full well how trials are scheduled. IMO they used the schedule to force a delay (so they wouldn't have to ask for a continuance which IMO was what they REALLY wanted).

JMO

Sure. So JG should have committed then to some sort of time management for the two sides instead of agreeing to postpone the trial, no? But she didn’t do this. Surely if she had assured the D that they’d have time to defend RA in reasonably equal or necessary timing then Rossi wouldn’t have asked to postpone. That was my understanding anyhow. He had concerns that JG wasn’t going to ensure equal time or any time management to the prosecution such that it would allow them to present a proper defense. Why would they proceed with no assurance and given the issues they’ve already had with JG??

 

[Caylee Advocate]

#JusticeforAbbyandLibby

View attachment 516986

BUMP!!!!!!

 

[photographer4]

RSBM

I'd want one too if I were them. The State hadn't turned over all of the discovery and they needed more time. Between that and being kicked off the case for several weeks (until the Supreme Court told Judge Gull, not so fast, she can't do that), the defense is not to blame for this case still not being tried.

IMO MOO

They’re all to blame. The prosecution, the defense and the judge. None of them is doing a stand up job here imo.

 

[MiniMoo]

Not me either, since this judge won't allow transparency in the courtroom by way of livestreaming.

I want it live streamed as well!

If the judge was ousted out do reckon there would be a chance of that?

 

[photographer4]

I want it live streamed as well!

If the judge was ousted out do reckon there would be a chance of that?

Probably! No judge coming on board is gonna be interested in the nonsense that has been ongoing in this case! IMO a good way to avoid some of it is to rule swiftly and fairly, hold pre trial conferences, learn the issues facing both sides and deal with each as they arise. Do so in the public eye as much as you can and then people can see who said or did what and when and how to whom. No emails between parties off the record, keep it all on the up and up and public.

 

[MiniMoo]

If the perpetrator kept trophies or souvenirs of the victims, Abby and Libby, and was reluctant to get rid of them (which is highly likely) the probability of finding them would have been right up there if he couldn't part with them.

This could be something the prosecuting team may have up their sleeves that we don't know about yet.

 

[snooptroop88]

No. Actually I wouldn’t.
I would be more interested in moving this trial forward in order to get my innocent rear out of this abusive prison environment…..as claims my defense team.
Why are you constantly delaying things that require me to remain in these conditions?
Why do you keep ignoring my confessions?

The judge is not the problem, the defense team is. They do not want RA to be tried on the facts, because they know they cannot win.
They know they can only win on a legal technicality or by manipulating the legal system.
They care more about putting a child murderer back on the streets than they care about justice for Libby and Abby, their families or the community.
Justice is not working hard to get a guilty man set free. Get that man the best deal you can get him.
The defense cannot win a trial on the facts. They can’t accept that.
They don’t even want to argue the evidence at the upcoming hearing.

Edit: that opinion thing

ALL SO, SO, SO true!! Like if they really thought these wack Odinites did this-- like you think the D would be stomping around making sure these supposed perps would be charged? They don't care. That's when they'd be screaming for LE to "do their jobs."

But D doesn't mind trying to do LE's jobs so long as it potentially works to the advantage of their client, who looks to be in reality guilty. D comes up empty, though, in terms of real facts and proof as a result of their quasi-investigation. I'm sorry, I am completely unconvinced by the Franks series. I am, however, struck by the fact that it basically insinuates guilt on the part of heretofore uncharged individuals to the crime, and this document itself was written by defense attorneys. Evidently, they see no ethical issues or challenges in such actions. (Shouldn't they as defense attorneys know better than anyone else that this is a no-no? Why are the insinuations of the D to be tolerated re: these individuals they name, but actual evidence re: their own client now facing trial-- why is that evidence to be ignored, done away with, suppressed, viewed as suspect, and the parties that gathered it condemned?)

"The defense cannot win a trial on the facts." Amen! 100% agreed, and all the footnotes in the world aren't going to change it.