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

[Salah11]

Well then, WHO is the YBG? The old BG was kicked to the curb IIRC. I couldn't care less about the continuous griping about delays, it's taken over what this case SHOULD be about and that is...... Justice for Abby, Libby and their loved ones AND yes, for RA/his loved ones.
Thanks to Sparty for trying to keep the focus on them when it gets in the weeds. Much appreciated

I don’t care about the sketch the video is worth a lot more.

 

[sunshineray]

Well, maybe he didn't see them because he's not "BG."

In my opinion, that's doubtful.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Have a good weekend E1 and try to be kind to one another.

 

[sunshineray]

The witness didn't even say "bloody." Just "muddy." "Bloody" appears to have been added to bolster the PCA. Also, changing the coat color from tan to blue.

View attachment 517306

Says the FM, I'll wait to hear her testimony. It's also interesting how the rest of her statement, (paraphrasing) he looked like he'd been in a fight...that doesn't get mentioned much along with the she said only muddy, not bloody. Interesting

 

[m00c0w]

I’m reading that the geofencing map had 3 phones that investigators investigated and cleared.

Regardless of whether the defense read the map inaccurately, there were interviews completed with the 3 phone owners (I’m assuming) confirming where they were at that time.
MOO

Okay? Why do you believe the defense does not have this data, especially since NM clearly states he feels the defense should have included it in their motion?

Your initial claim was that there was some 100m FBI geofence that the prosecution was misinterpreting. The prosecution's claim is that although there were "pinpoints" within the 100m geofence, the range of uncertainty puts them possibly outside of that area. Furthermore, experts informed the prosecution that this was the case, and that they could not determine any cell phone was around the crime scene at the time of the murders. Finally, they interviewed the three phone users and cleared them... which resulted in the prosecution admonishing the defense for not including this information in their motion.

Given the defense hasn't filed a motion for discovery regarding this, and that NM called them out for not including this information, I think it's safe to assume they have this information.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

In the CCSO sheriffs debate, SEP29/2022, TL announces that he is the only investigator left on this case. MP says outside agencies have offered and are being ignored and refused to help.

Shortly after, they interview RA October 13/22 and arrest him Oct26/22. TL was the affiant for the PCA. The bullet went to the ISP state lab, not FBI.

We know FBI&Click task force focused on 3rd party culp, the FBI BAU was 3rd party culps and the FBI geofence division’s work contradicts the states timeline so state doesn’t want it at trial. I’m not sure where the FBI would be involved in the RA case. IMO it’s only ISP/CCSO.

ALL MOO

Click was never on the FBI joint task force, FBI Agent Ferency and ISP Murphy were.

 

[sunshineray]

In addition to the motions from P&D regarding the content of the geofencing, the prosecution requesting that the FBI agent KH not be allowed to testify and his geofencing work & maps be excluded from trial tells me that the prosecution thinks this will conflict with their case and their timeline.

IMO If the information was simply transcribed incorrectly by defense and did support their case/timeline, prosecution would either be presenting the FBI work themselves or would otherwise not care if it was presented by defense because it wouldn’t conflict with their case.

https://www.scribd.com/document/728043164/Motion-in-Limine-Richard-Allen

The GPS information is more accurate than the Geofencing data. That's why it shouldn't be used.
JMO

 

[sunshineray]

It strikes me how similar this is to the argument that RA must want the search warrant thrown out because of something incriminating they had to have found in his home. What other reason could there be?

Does the State want the geofence findings excluded because of something incriminating (exculpatory) it shows? What other reason could there be?

IMO MOO

Because the Geofencing data is inferior to the GPS data. It's as simple as that.

 

[Salah11]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

Thankfully for me it’s as clear as day.

He admits he was out on that bridge and from an eyewitness he was there moments before the girls and then add In everything else on and he is BG as clear as day.

Right down to the short legs and over hanging jeans he considered fashion.

IMHO

 

[TTF14]

Because the Geofencing data is inferior to the GPS data. It's as simple as that.

Can you explain?

 

[grannygates]

Okay? Why do you believe the defense does not have this data, especially since NM clearly states he feels the defense should have included it in their motion?

Your initial claim was that there was some 100m FBI geofence that the prosecution was misinterpreting. The prosecution's claim is that although there were "pinpoints" within the 100m geofence, the range of uncertainty puts them possibly outside of that area. Furthermore, experts informed the prosecution that this was the case, and that they could not determine any cell phone was around the crime scene at the time of the murders. Finally, they interviewed the three phone users and cleared them... which resulted in the prosecution admonishing the defense for not including this information in their motion.

Given the defense hasn't filed a motion for discovery regarding this, and that NM called them out for not including this information, I think it's safe to assume they have this information.

JMO

I didn’t say NM misinterpreted the map. I said that NM first claims that these people could be up to 5,000m away, but then later indicates LE already interviewed and cleared the people, so NM should know where they were in relation to the mapped area and if they were actually miles away from the FBIs geofenced area. (ETA: if the phones were actually outside of the geofencing, why not say the actual distance, rather than a hypothetical number?)

I have no idea if the prosecution gave them the interviews of these phone users but I think they should.

MOO

 

[al66pine]

Richard Allen. Concealed Carry in 2017?

IDK if RA had an IN. CC permit then.
But a 40 yo man -
- who was PERVY enough to dream about SA w ~ EARLY TEEN girls and to take actions to carry out a plan (either w specific girl/s in mind or whenever an opportunity arose w random girl/s), and
- who planned to use gun to intimidate & perhaps kill girl/s, to make his previously unfulfilled FANTASIES come to life -

- IMO would not give a second thought about violating the law by carrying concealed w'out a permit. A totally overwhelming, simply irresistible desire?

^Making a few assumptions^ but if he did not have a permit, imo, likely he would have ignored CC permit law.

 

[Spartygirl]

Richard Allen. Concealed Carry in 2017?

IDK if RA had an IN. CC permit then.
But a 40 yo man -
- who was PERVY enough to dream about SA w ~ EARLY TEEN girls and to take actions to carry out a plan (either w specific girl/s in mind or whenever an opportunity arose w random girl/s), and
- who planned to use gun to intimidate & perhaps kill girl/s, to make his previously unfulfilled FANTASIES come to life -

- IMO would not give a second thought about violating the law by carrying concealed w'out a permit. A totally overwhelming, simply irresistible desire?

^Making a few assumptions^ but if he did not have a permit, imo, likely he would have disregarded CC permit law.

!00% Agree

 

[m00c0w]

I didn’t say NM misinterpreted the map. I said that NM first claims that these people could be up to 5,000m away, but then later indicates LE already interviewed and cleared the people, so NM should know where they were in relation to the mapped area and if they were actually miles away from the FBIs geofenced area. (ETA: if the phones were actually outside of the geofencing, why not say the actual distance, rather than a hypothetical number?)

I have no idea if the prosecution gave them the interviews of these phone users but I think they should.

MOO

The claim is very straightforward.

1. The defense made the argument that there were 3 people with cell phones traipsing through the crime scene during the murders, and that TL hid this fact from the judge to obtain the search warrant.
2. NM is saying that the three phones' center points may appear near the crime scene, but that it's actually a several thousand meter area the phone could have been in.
3. NM further states that experts analyzed the data and came to the conclusion that they could not put any cell phones at the crime scene during the murders.
4. NM finally states that the three cell phone users referred to by the defense were also interviewed and cleared, and that the defense should have included this information in their motion.

The exact locations of the uninvolved, random people that have already been cleared is irrelevant to the defense's motion. The defense is claiming that the probable cause affidavit for the search warrant was flawed, and the prosecution is rebutting their motion. They don't have to litigate the entire case to show that the defense was either deliberately or incompetently misinterpreting this one segment of data/evidence.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

The claim is very straightforward.

1. The defense made the argument that there were 3 people with cell phones traipsing through the crime scene during the murders, and that TL hid this fact from the judge to obtain the search warrant.
2. NM is saying that the three phones' center points may appear near the crime scene, but that it's actually a several thousand meter area the phone could have been in.
3. NM further states that experts analyzed the data and came to the conclusion that they could not put any cell phones at the crime scene during the murders.
4. NM finally states that the three cell phone users referred to by the defense were also interviewed and cleared, and that the defense should have included this information in their motion.

The exact locations of the uninvolved, random people that have already been cleared is irrelevant to the defense's motion. The defense is claiming that the probable cause affidavit for the search warrant was flawed, and the prosecution is rebutting their motion. They don't have to litigate the entire case to show that the defense was either deliberately or incompetently misinterpreting this one segment of data/evidence.

JMO

My point is that NM doesn’t ever state where these phones actually were in relation to the geomapped area. He makes up a hypothetical range. Neither of us know, so we don’t need to keep going in circles.

 

[m00c0w]

My point is that NM doesn’t ever state where these phones actually were in relation to the geomapped area. He makes up a hypothetical range. Neither of us know, so we don’t need to keep going in circles.

He doesn't go into specifics because it's not necessary to rebut the defense's theory. He's not required to give away the prosecution's strategy because the defense made a weird, misleading claim. All he has to do is show the defense made a weird, misleading claim. Which he did, in three different ways.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

He doesn't go into specifics because it's not necessary to rebut the defense's theory. He's not required to give away the prosecution's strategy because the defense made a weird, misleading claim. All he has to do is show the defense made a weird, misleading claim. Which he did, in three different ways.

JMO

Well, he made a great record for future defendants should he ever try to use geofencing as evidence in any future cases. IMO

 

[m00c0w]

Well, he made a great record for future defendants should he ever try to use geofencing as evidence in any future cases. IMO

Just because these three phones are at 5,000m accuracy doesn't mean every phone in every case does... the timing advance data changes from situation to situation... I'm confused about what you're even arguing at this point.

 

[katydid23]

Well, he made a great record for future defendants should he ever try to use geofencing as evidence in any future cases. IMO

Geofencing is not used to show precise location. It is used to make a record of ALL the active cell phones in the area of a major crime. And then, they investigate each cell owner, and find out where they were by interviewing, talking to their witnesses, and then using GPS on their cell phones if deemed necessary.

Hypothetically, two of those cells may have been a 50 yr old woman and her 70 yr old father, going on a walk. Once they were interviewed it would become clear they were never on the bridge and were not good suspects. So those two numbers would be cleared, EVEN IF they didn't have concise location data. Maybe the 3rd phone was a college girl out for a jog? So again, it wouldn't matter ....

Geo fencing can be very effective evidence, just not for exact, precise location data. But that is not what it's used for.

 

[grannygates]

Just because these three phones are at 5,000m accuracy doesn't mean every phone in every case does... the timing advance data changes from situation to situation... I'm confused about what you're even arguing at this point.

I’m not arguing anything. I think we all agree that law enforcement already know who these three phones belonged to, have spoken with them and should know where they were in relation to the FBIs geofencing map.