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

[Boxer]

In my opinion, the descriptions do not line up.

MOO He saw them they saw him.
They passed him under bare tree cover, blotchy sun.

 

[TTF14]

They passed him under bare tree cover, blotchy sun.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean this accounts for their conflicting accounts of what he looked like? I don't understand.

 

[Boxer]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean this accounts for their conflicting accounts of what he looked like? I don't understand.

Yes. Their witness acounts complete with some discrepancies are how witnesses who are not coached answer.
RA said he saw them.

 

[m00c0w]

Yes. Their witness acounts complete with some discrepancies are how witnesses who are not coached answer.
RA said he saw them.

No, I’m sure RA meant another group of exactly 3 girls at that exact location, at that exact time who also described someone dressed in the same manner RA described himself as dressing. Pure coincidence and the descriptions are absolutely nothing alike.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

The prosecution always gets more time because they have the burden of responsibility to present their case in full. AND the defense has equal time to cross examine each witness---so that time is not ALL going to the prosecution.

The defense does not have to set out all the facts of the case to the jury. They are rebutting with their witnesses and experts, but that does not take as much time, because they do not have to lay out the entire explanation of the case to the jury---that has already been done.

The prosecution will present 45 witnesses/experts. But that is because they include the families of the victims, the officers present at crime scene, witnesses present that day, the homicide detectives, and the stable of experts from th Medical Examiners, The FBI forensics team, etc

The defense will have nowhere near 45 witnesses, but they do get to cross examine all 45, and they can recall any of them and bring in some rebuttal experts of their own.

Sure. But if they can’t rely on JG to keep to any kind of time management and the prosecution effectively uses too much time for each thing then what would happen? Is the defence then supposed to hastily cut down their case to meet her strict end date? It’s not realistic. All she needed to do was state on record if needed she would extend. She didn’t because she already set closed dates for the jurors. Ok I get that. But I feel like D went in expecting shared time not expecting the judge to suggest she’d cut them off to keep on time.

 

[photographer4]

Ol

There is only one BG as far as I’m aware. RA hasn’t mentioned another BG either.

He would have been found guilty by now if his defense actually did their jobs and didn’t delay the trial. No doubt more delays will be forthcoming as they continually try and play the system. As they won’t get him off in a trial as Odins did it is farcical and has a billion holes in it.

IMHO

old bridge guy & young bridge guy, no? One with the puffy hair who may look young but is NOT the same guy as the original sketch (old bridge guy). No wait. He’s the same. No wait he may be a mix of both sketches.

No link so moooo.

 

[grannygates]

I hadn’t seen this response before so I’ll share here for anyone interested. It does mention that SC and BBs statements were videotaped and did survive the “lost” videos of 2017, so that’s great news and reassuring that a person is able to watch and hear the witnesses describe the person they saw in their own words.

there is more in the link re: the defenses response to the states claims re:the geofencing interviews (D claims they were unaware of these until the states response) and the prosecution not disclosing the identity of the author of the report but rather giving a list of possible authors for the D to investigate? IMO that’s been dealt with, the D have been in contact with the the FBI agent but I don’t know anything further about the status of the interviews. I will simply link for whoever would like to read the motion for themselves. I don’t wish to rehash old discussion.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[sunshineray]

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

Some real skulduggery, IMO

 

[sunshineray]

Can you explain?

It's not as accurate as GPS. I don't know how else to say it.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

I've posted this before. Anna Williams, Abby's Mom, did an interview where she states LE told her there were 50+ people in and around the trails and Monon High Bridge area that day. Most people nowadays and back in 2017 carried cell phones. That a lot of pings to look into. Another reason why inaccurate geofencing data as opposed to reliable GPS data has no place in the trial. It would only serve to confuse the issue, which I'm sure is why the defense wants it. Pretrials going over evidentiary evidence to be included and excluded can't happen soon enough. AJMO

AW's Sept 2020 interview 27:45 (50+ peeps)

 

[sunshineray]

Ol

old bridge guy & young bridge guy, no? One with the puffy hair who may look young but is NOT the same guy as the original sketch (old bridge guy). No wait. He’s the same. No wait he may be a mix of both sketches.

No link so moooo.

Waiting to hear BB's testimony on what she saw, her full description of what she saw, not just the tiny bit that was included in the PCA (because they just need enough to prove probable cause, to get a judge's signature, not enough to convict) is probably going to clear up quite a lot about the second sketch released. JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Sure. But if they can’t rely on JG to keep to any kind of time management and the prosecution effectively uses too much time for each thing then what would happen? Is the defence then supposed to hastily cut down their case to meet her strict end date? It’s not realistic. All she needed to do was state on record if needed she would extend. She didn’t because she already set closed dates for the jurors. Ok I get that. But I feel like D went in expecting shared time not expecting the judge to suggest she’d cut them off to keep on time.

Funny the D agreed to it then. Maybe they should have raised it at the appropriate time. Wonder why they didn't?

 

[MiniMoo]

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

Even though that interview is like 4 months after the murders it is still better than 5 years on.

I would go with the muddy and tan not muddy, bloody and blue.

They shouldn't be changing things around like that - not at all.

4 months though isn't the same as what a person would remember in the first 24 hours and driving by someone only takes seconds.

As for me - I only really focused on the crime scene in that Final Draft when I looked at it the other night as that was what had my focus more. I did skim through it as much as I could though, but not the same like I did with the crime scene.

 

[sunshineray]

Even though that interview is like 4 months after the murders it is still better than 5 years on.

I would go with the muddy and tan not muddy, bloody and blue.

They shouldn't be changing things around like that - not at all.

4 months though isn't the same as what a person would remember in the first 24 hours and driving by someone only takes seconds.

As for me - I only really focused on the crime scene in that Final Draft when I looked at it the other night as that was what had my focus more. I did skim through it as much as I could though, but not the same like I did with the crime scene.

I look forward to hearing SC's full testimony at trial, not just the tidbit in the PCA. A fuller description of why she thought the man she saw looked like he was in a fight.

 

[Salah11]

Ol

old bridge guy & young bridge guy, no? One with the puffy hair who may look young but is NOT the same guy as the original sketch (old bridge guy). No wait. He’s the same. No wait he may be a mix of both sketches.

No link so moooo.

Witnesses often misremember details so it all comes back to the video who shows build and what he was wearing.

RA also admits to wearing a face covering so that would of also distorted his face when witnesses took a quick glance at him.

IMO

 

[FromGermany1]

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.

Which of the 3 phones belonged to Libby and which belonged to RA? Both phones had to be at the (wider) crime scene area. Why wasn't RA=BG/his report to DD found much earlier, when his phone was within the specific area (where it had to be, if his statement was true: "I looked at the stock ticker."?
ETA: I wonder, which 3 phone owners had been cleared ....

 

[susane7]

Yes. Their witness acounts complete with some discrepancies are how witnesses who are not coached answer.
RA said he saw them.

That's absolutely right. In my country we can't coach witnesses but we ask to our clients what the witnesses know and and one thing we tell the client to tell the witnesses is for the witnesses give their statement without saying "I remember it was exactly in the the day 12/05/2016, exactly at 10:53, and the clothings are exactly blabla" because the judges will not found that plausible and will think the witnesses are coached. Usually they ask how the witnesses know that so perfectly, in that day, without any mistake. Because the memories aren't perfect and no one witness would think "I'm about to be a witness for the crime in a 5 minutes, so let me look really at this individual and look at the clock to see the hours, etc". When witnesses describe the same thing but with some discrepancies (clothing, blue/black, red/brown not knowing the exactly hour at the second, etc) etc that gaves more weight to the statement for the judges because it's how memory works. The judges learn that and we too. But I know it's very difficult explain that and for people understand that. I guess in trials by jury (we rarely have them) is different because I doubt the juries understand that.

 

[katydid23]

Sure. But if they can’t rely on JG to keep to any kind of time management and the prosecution effectively uses too much time for each thing then what would happen?

Why would we assume JG wouldn't hold the prosecution to their time limit?

Is the defence then supposed to hastily cut down their case to meet her strict end date?

Why would she allow the prosecution to go over their time limit? She gave them each a 'budget' of time and will expect they both adhere to it.

It’s not realistic. All she needed to do was state on record if needed she would extend. She didn’t because she already set closed dates for the jurors. Ok I get that.

Right, she has to set a limit because of trials that are scheduled next. And because the jurors need an end date as well.

But I feel like D went in expecting shared time not expecting the judge to suggest she’d cut them off to keep on time.

I don't understand why you think they will not be sharing time. She clearly gave each a block of time and BOTH will be expected to use that time wisely.

 

[katydid23]

Which of the 3 phones belonged to Libby and which belonged to RA? Both phones had to be at the (wider) crime scene area. Why wasn't RA=BG/his report to DD found much earlier, when his phone was within the specific area (where it had to be, if his statement was true: "I looked at the stock ticker."?
ETA: I wonder, which 3 phone owners had been cleared ....

Well, we don't know for sure if he did actually have a phone there with him. He said he did, but what if it didnt show up in the Geo-Fence report?

 

[m00c0w]

Which of the 3 phones belonged to Libby and which belonged to RA? Both phones had to be at the (wider) crime scene area. Why wasn't RA=BG/his report to DD found much earlier, when his phone was within the specific area (where it had to be, if his statement was true: "I looked at the stock ticker."?
ETA: I wonder, which 3 phone owners had been cleared ....

Well, my theory is his phone was off and he wasn’t actually looking at a stock ticker. So the cell phone data will be used to impeach RA’s alibi versus putting him at a specific spot with it.

JMO