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

[Salah11]

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

Now, now, let’s not be hasty here



Maybe he was looking at a stock ticker so intently that two teenagers managed to walk past him without him looking up and then BG also managed to sneak past him, and he just remained completely oblivious to it all.

This sounds as plausible Odins did it to me but I’m sure some will believe it.

Let’s hope he can prove he was looking at stock tickers out on that bridge at a lot earlier time than he originally claimed.
IMHO

 

[MiniMoo]

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.

It would be interesting to know exactly what she recalls especially as she only saw him briefly.

The only thing is, SC can give all the reasons she wants as to why she thought what she thought, but because she never visually saw an altercation or a physical fight it mightn't hold up at all or could possibly be considered hearsay.

The Defense would probably object on the grounds of her not been an expert, not being a witness to an actual fight and it not being based on fact.

 

[Salah11]

It would be interesting to know exactly what she recalls especially as she only saw him briefly.

The only thing is, SC can give all the reasons she wants as to why she thought what she thought, but because she never visually saw an altercation or a physical fight it mightn't hold up at all or could possibly be considered hearsay.

The Defense would probably object on the grounds of her not been an expert, not being a witness to an actual fight and it not being based on fact.

He must of been quite a sight as it was enough for her to take notice of his rough appearance.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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 think SC got a good look at RA walking alone on that road. In light of finding out a day later that 2 young girls were viscously murdered, I believe that memory would be seared in her mind from the first 24 hours to the next however long.

RA could have taken his blue Carhart type jacket off because it was so bloody and that would have left the hoodie he was wearing as his outer layer (tan/brown). But then again, this is coming from the FM, so I will take it with a pound of salt until trial and we hear SC's own words in the PCA.

It's important, IMO, to remember these witnesses were terrified because the killer had not been arrested. The young girls, BB and SC were all traumatized and scared I'd wager, and rightly so.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

It would be interesting to know exactly what she recalls especially as she only saw him briefly.

The only thing is, SC can give all the reasons she wants as to why she thought what she thought, but because she never visually saw an altercation or a physical fight it mightn't hold up at all or could possibly be considered hearsay.

The Defense would probably object on the grounds of her not been an expert, not being a witness to an actual fight and it not being based on fact.

She's just one piece in the puzzle. Maybe she has life experience in seeing a person who's been in a bloody fight and therefore she's testifying with that knowledge and experience? We don't know, but we will when she testifies.

 

[m00c0w]

It would be interesting to know exactly what she recalls especially as she only saw him briefly.

The only thing is, SC can give all the reasons she wants as to why she thought what she thought, but because she never visually saw an altercation or a physical fight it mightn't hold up at all or could possibly be considered hearsay.

The Defense would probably object on the grounds of her not been an expert, not being a witness to an actual fight and it not being based on fact.

It's not hearsay, because she's testifying to things she actually witnessed. She's not testifying about things someone else witnessed and then told her. She also doesn't have to be an expert to testify about thing she saw and describe how they looked... lay witnesses would never be able to testify in court if that were the case. Experts are necessary for technical opinions in which the average person would not be able to tell truth from untruth. If she has a reasonable basis to believe the person was in a fight, my opinion is that's a valid descriptor. There's an easy counter to that, as well - the defense can cross-examine her and dig into specifics about why she believes the person was in a fight.

That's if she even uses that phrasing to describe it, and not just a description that heavily implies he was involved in a fight (mud all over, bloody, disheveled clothing).

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Which would make for the weirdest trial in all of history.

I think it was legal maneuvering. No way does a defense needs twice as long as a prosecution!

Proof will be in the trial pudding, when we see how long or short their defense is.

Notable they couldn't explain why they needed additional time.

I don't believe they believe they needed more time to present. I think they needed more time to prepare and this was a way to achieve thar. This way, the delay looks like the Court forced it.

We can't know. We can't call their bluff, but if the Judge did magically clear off an additional couple of weeks, I think the defense would have been forced, by morning, to ask for the continuance.

JMO

Agree Megs, we know AB was still looking for an Odin Expert online mid April (haha) to help consult with the D. They had to use their gimmie money somewhere.

They were not ready, period.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

He didn't do a very good job of that by going to a conservation officer right after the crime to tell them he was there.

He kind of had to IMO because he was seen by several witnesses. Maybe he thought they recognized him as the handy helper CVS Manager?

Not coming forward at all, and being placed there by witnesses or cameras (he didn't know exactly to what extent he may have been seen) would appear much more suspect than giving a quick "Hey buddy (DD) I was at the trails that day, saw a group of girls one was taller with brown hair (that shows RA obviously saw them and noticed their features weird to me btw), a few cars at Mears Entrance, but didn't notice anything else." statement early on.

RA didn't mention he was on the MHB in his first interview with DD. It came out in the Oct 13th 2022 interview. Why didn't he admit he was on the MHB back in 2017? Minimizing IMO.

All JMO

 

[Tealgrove]

Agree Megs, we know AB was still looking for an Odin Expert online mid April (haha) to help consult with the D. They had to use their gimmie money somewhere.

They were not ready, period.

MOO

They’re still not ready.

It appears that all their time and energy is focussed on getting rid of Judge Gull. It’s their last gasp of delaying yet again, having a new Judge put in place, and hoping the new Judge will play better with them.

Even if RA hadn’t confessed multiple times, the Defence’s strategy tells me that RA is in serious doo doo and they know it. That search of RA’s home and vehicle must have turned up some pretty bad stuff.

So off to SCOIN again we may go, I guess.

What happens if a new Judge does get appointed and still won’t play ball? Do they finally concede defeat and let RA plead guilty or do they start this crap all over again?

If Judge Gull remains on the case, does the Defence finally throw in the towel? My guess is not. So long as there is an avenue for appeal this will continue to be messy and drawn out, with infantile reactions from the Defence throughout.

Honestly, IMO, the Defence has made this about them and not their client.

So not only has this ceased to be about Abby and Libby, it has ceased to be about RA as well. The boys got caught doing shady stuff. They got caught! The boys’ feelings have been hurt and now they’re throwing a tantrum like a couple of little kids.

MOO JMHO IMHO and all that jazz.

#justiceforabbyandlibby

 

[photographer4]

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

They agreed likely under the belief it would be extended if needed or allowed time accordingly. I believe it wasn’t until the courtroom when she cancelled it at their request that she made clear it wasn’t going to be extended. At all. If she would have gone on record and said it could be if needed, perhaps they’d have not sought to cancel. Imagine what could have been dealt with if she had held pretrial case management etc before that point? Nothing really gets resolved usually when she holds court. IMO.

 

[MiniMoo]

He must of been quite a sight as it was enough for her to take notice of his rough appearance.

His appearance she can describe for sure, but as for him being in a fight probably not.

 

[Salah11]

It’s going to take something massive to convince the vast majority that he isn’t the killer when you compare him to the video and the photos that show the unique way he wore his jeans and his short legs.

Then add in, by own admission, he was out there that day dressed as BG and, unless it was fancy dress day, then it doesn't make sense. Then, of course, adding in the final nail in the coffin, his gun ejected a bullet at the crime scene where he claims he had never stepped foot before.

All signs point to him being involved and participating in these horrific murders.

Mooooooooo

 

[MiniMoo]

It's not hearsay, because she's testifying to things she actually witnessed. She's not testifying about things someone else witnessed and then told her. She also doesn't have to be an expert to testify about thing she saw and describe how they looked... lay witnesses would never be able to testify in court if that were the case. Experts are necessary for technical opinions in which the average person would not be able to tell truth from untruth. If she has a reasonable basis to believe the person was in a fight, my opinion is that's a valid descriptor. There's an easy counter to that, as well - the defense can cross-examine her and dig into specifics about why she believes the person was in a fight.

That's if she even uses that phrasing to describe it, and not just a description that heavily implies he was involved in a fight (mud all over, bloody, disheveled clothing).

JMO

She can definitely give a description of his appearance, but to say he was in a fight isn't something that can be confirmed. To describe him as being dishevelled would be fine, but she still only saw the person in passing so it would have only been for a matter of seconds.

What I would like to know is how much attention did she pay to his facial features and head.

Someone walking with muddy clothes on is one thing, but what about his face and hair colour.

The video interview is one I'd like to watch.

 

[m00c0w]

His appearance she can describe for sure, but as for him being in a fight probably not.

This is just not accurate.

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

www.law.cornell.edu

She is free to say he looked like he was in a fight, and the defense is free to cross and ask specifics about why she felt that way.

JMO

 

[MiniMoo]

This is just not accurate.

If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception;
(b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and
(c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

www.law.cornell.edu

She is free to say he looked like he was in a fight, and the defense is free to cross and ask specifics about why she felt that way.

JMO

Even if she says it looked like he was in a fight - it probably would be pointless.

 

[m00c0w]

She can definitely give a description of his appearance, but to say he was in a fight isn't something that can be confirmed.

RSBM

She's not saying he was in a fight, she's saying he looked like he was in a fight. That's a large difference. If she stated he was in a fight, that would be inadmissible because she doesn't have firsthand knowledge. If she were to say "he looked like he just killed two girls in the woods by the river and staged the area to look like a sacrifice to Odin", that would not be something she could rationally claim based on only seeing his appearance. Saying "he looked like he was in a fight" is a completely rational observation and helps understand her testimony that he wasn't just a dude with some mud on him walking down the street... he was roughed up and looked like he had been in a fight.

And again, this is all assuming she even uses this language in court to begin with. I'm not sure why this is alleged to be such a crazy statement that she made.

JMO

 

[MiniMoo]

I think SC got a good look at RA walking alone on that road. In light of finding out a day later that 2 young girls were viscously murdered, I believe that memory would be seared in her mind from the first 24 hours to the next however long.

RA could have taken his blue Carhart type jacket off because it was so bloody and that would have left the hoodie he was wearing as his outer layer (tan/brown). But then again, this is coming from the FM, so I will take it with a pound of salt until trial and we hear SC's own words in the PCA.

It's important, IMO, to remember these witnesses were terrified because the killer had not been arrested. The young girls, BB and SC were all traumatized and scared I'd wager, and rightly so.

JMO

BLOOD

There wasn't a lot of blood on the clothes Abby had on - if at all. Just maybe a little where she was cut on her neck.

With Libby it was different, but then her blood was also used to write that F on the tree.

If he attacked both girls say from behind and knew what he was doing there is a chance he didn't get much blood on himself at all especially if he let them bleed out before posing or staging the crime scene.

JMT

 

[MiniMoo]

RSBM

She's not saying he was in a fight, she's saying he looked like he was in a fight. That's a large difference. If she stated he was in a fight, that would be inadmissible because she doesn't have firsthand knowledge. If she were to say "he looked like he just killed two girls in the woods by the river and staged the area to look like a sacrifice to Odin", that would not be something she could rationally claim based on only seeing his appearance. Saying "he looked like he was in a fight" is a completely rational observation and helps understand her testimony that he wasn't just a dude with some mud on him walking down the street... he was roughed up and looked like he had been in a fight.

And again, this is all assuming she even uses this language in court to begin with. I'm not sure why this is alleged to be such a crazy statement that she made.

JMO

The he looks like he was in a fight is irrelevant really.

Was she able to describe his face, hair colour, build, scars, tattoos if he has any - the details that really do matter.

 

[Emma Peel]

Excuse my commenting 2 days after this filing. (vacation time here, checking in less frequently.)

Praecipe for Determination - All.pdf

The Praecipe for Determination filed 7/11/24 is not for Judge Gull to determine. It's filed on RA's docket so that it becomes part of this case's record. The issue is described in the Praecipe, and the determination request is directed to the administrative official(s) - the parties responsible for appointing IN Special Judges. There's clear procedural rules on the issue of a Judge who ignores or fails to respond to motions. Colloquially, that rule is known as Indiana's lazy judge rule.

IMO, here the D attempts to resolve some long-outstanding (long-ignored) motions this one via a higher authority. IIRC, Judge Gull told RA (via his temporary counsel) that there'd be a hearing on the Franks. It never happened.

It's the D's job to ensure RA's right to be heard. This is part of that effort.

JMHO

Cara Wieneke, RA's attorney who brought his 2 cases/writs to the SCOIN (1st writ - to force the Court to keep a proper docket, and 2nd writ - to force the Court to re-instate his choice of counsel) explains here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811384787761864867

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811384836482895976

 

[MiniMoo]

She's just one piece in the puzzle. Maybe she has life experience in seeing a person who's been in a bloody fight and therefore she's testifying with that knowledge and experience? We don't know, but we will when she testifies.

I'm glad that there maybe one witness at least if they can prove it was him.