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

[photographer4]

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

What bugs me so much about RA and makes me think he did it is where he told off the cop for questioning him and specifically told him not to F with his wife. Add this to he was at the scene and saw some people who saw him — it’s likely he did it in whole or in part to me. But why a face covering?? This guy is guilty! I want his trial to be as fair as it can and don’t want his rights trampled so that when he is convicted it sticks! Ugh!

No link because I am too lazy to go find them right now so: moooo.

 

[photographer4]

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 ....

Wait three phones? Two victims had one phone that we know of. And RA had one. Where is the third phone from? Who owned :m/ brought that!?

 

[photographer4]

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


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.


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

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.

My understanding of the issue is that there was no assurance of time management for the prosecution. We can assume she would be on top of them but without any assurance of it on the record, the defence was worried there may not be enough time to get through their defence by the time prosecution was done. If JG was confident that it was going to be done on time, she wouldn’t have allowed the postponement, would she? Wouldn’t she have told both sides to get their nonsense sorted? But she didn’t. She agreed to postpone it. That request was made seemingly spur of the minute by Rossi and granted by JG. She could have denied it couldn’t she?

 

[m00c0w]

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.

It's not irrelevant if a man dressed like RA was seen leaving the area of the murders, walking towards the area RA's car was allegedly parked. She doesn't have to have intricate knowledge of his appearance for the prosecution to use her statement as just one more piece of circumstantial evidence that ties RA to the crime.

The case doesn't solely rely on her testimony to prosecute. It's her testimony with all of the other pieces of circumstantial evidence that start to paint a picture that makes it very unlikely it was anyone other than RA.

People can pick apart a single piece of circumstantial evidence and pretend it has no relevance all day long. The thing that seems to be forgotten is it's the totality of circumstances that is being examined, not each piece of evidence in a vacuum.

RA just fitting the description of BG doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just admitting he was wearing the same clothing as BG in the video doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just being seen by three females on the trail that day, who he also admits seeing, doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just somehow losing a round that was forensically linked to his firearm between the two bodies doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just claiming his nose was buried in his phone, looking at a stock ticker, while there is possibly dispositive evidence of him being on his phone at this point in time doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just owning a car that fits the description of a car seen parked at the CPS building at the time of the murders doesn't mean anything by itself.
A man fitting RA's description being seen walking away from the area of the crime scene, towards RA's car doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just confessing to random people a dozen times doesn't mean anything by itself.

However, if one were to start connecting some dots... a pattern might emerge...

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

Wait three phones? Two victims had one phone that we know of. And RA had one. Where is the third phone from? Who owned :m/ brought that!?

This is exactly why the prosecution wants the cellphone data to be carefully utilized in court.

There were three phones that may have been near the crime scene. Cellular analysis experts found that they were not at the crime scene. The owners of the phones were identified, interviewed, and cleared.

The three phones are irrelevant at this point in time.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

Fair enough.

That is according to the D FM, along with the suggestion it was an F painted in Libby's blood. How do we know Abby didn't have blood on her? Again, it's information from the Defense FM.

LE's statement that it was a bloody crime scene and the perpetrator would have likely gotten blood on himself makes me believe differently, but we will have to wait until trial to find out for sure. If the D can ever get it trial.

JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

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.

I don’t see how it could be considered hearsay since nothing was said to her.
She is simply going to testify about seeing him walking along the side of the road at a particular time. Period. She has no knowledge of the actual crime. Her testimony would be no different than someone testifying after a bank robbery that they saw someone four blocks away from the bank minutes after the robbery running while wearing a mask and carrying a bank bag.
Her testimony is only one part of the puzzle.
I would argue, within the scope of her testimony, that she is an expert. She drives her car everyday, she sees things everyday while driving.

 

[Willow Knight]

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

I don't understand why anyone would find humor in this post. The video was taken by Libby of the man following them, a man stalking them and recording the man telling the girls, down the hill.

That video may be one of the best pieces of evidence presented. It IS worth a lot. We have been told what has been released is NOT the whole video. IMO, we will also hear the girls talk and possibly splashing noise. That video is Libby telling us who killed them.

The video is worth more than any sketch. MOO

 

[MiniMoo]

It's not irrelevant if a man dressed like RA was seen leaving the area of the murders, walking towards the area RA's car was allegedly parked. She doesn't have to have intricate knowledge of his appearance for the prosecution to use her statement as just one more piece of circumstantial evidence that ties RA to the crime.

The case doesn't solely rely on her testimony to prosecute. It's her testimony with all of the other pieces of circumstantial evidence that start to paint a picture that makes it very unlikely it was anyone other than RA.

People can pick apart a single piece of circumstantial evidence and pretend it has no relevance all day long. The thing that seems to be forgotten is it's the totality of circumstances that is being examined, not each piece of evidence in a vacuum.

RA just fitting the description of BG doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just admitting he was wearing the same clothing as BG in the video doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just being seen by three females on the trail that day, who he also admits seeing, doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just somehow losing a round that was forensically linked to his firearm between the two bodies doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just claiming his nose was buried in his phone, looking at a stock ticker, while there is possibly dispositive evidence of him being on his phone at this point in time doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just owning a car that fits the description of a car seen parked at the CPS building at the time of the murders doesn't mean anything by itself.
A man fitting RA's description being seen walking away from the area of the crime scene, towards RA's car doesn't mean anything by itself.
RA just confessing to random people a dozen times doesn't mean anything by itself.

However, if one were to start connecting some dots... a pattern might emerge...

JMO

And this is why I appreciate cameras because they are the perfect witnesses and never lie.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

Why do you think that? SC described RA as muddy, bloody and looking as if he had been in a fight.

He had mud on his jean from crossing the creek I would safely say, maybe he had blood on his jacket or hoodie? How do we don't know that he didn't have scratches on his face or arms. Something led SC to believe that to be the case. I'll wait until I hear it from her at trial to make a final decision.

It's all individual interpretation until then.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

And this is why I appreciate cameras because they are the perfect witnesses and never lie.

I agree wholeheartedly... however, people's interpretations of what is on camera can be less than trustworthy.

This case is a perfect example - people saw clown t-shirts, dogs in pockets, or all sorts of weird things in the BG video.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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.

I believe SC will be able to speak to that. IMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I don’t see how it could be considered hearsay since nothing was said to her.
She is simply going to testify about seeing him walking along the side of the road at a particular time. Period. She has no knowledge of the actual crime. Her testimony would be no different than someone testifying after a bank robbery that they saw someone four blocks away from the bank minutes after the robbery running while wearing a mask and carrying a bank bag.
Her testimony is only one part of the puzzle.
I would argue, within the scope of her testimony, that she is an expert. She drives her car everyday, she sees things everyday while driving.

And just my 2 cents. I do think she saw blood on RA as he left the scene.
Defense has used very precise language in their motions to point out that she did not state that his clothing was covered with blood.
This still leaves it open that she may have seen blood on his hands, arms, face or hair, even shoes.

 

[girlhasnoname]

And this is why I appreciate cameras because they are the perfect witnesses and never lie.

It's very rare that a camera anywhere actually catches the homicide in progress. Suspects arriving and leaving the scene, sure. No cameras out in the dreaded MHB. JMO

 

[MiniMoo]

It's very rare that a camera anywhere actually catches the homicide in progress. Suspects arriving and leaving the scene, sure. No cameras out in the dreaded MHB. JMO

I didn't mean actual homicides although I'm sure some have caught such moments.

I mean like a witness - like a witness seeing the suspect at a gas station, showing somewhere as the last place known that the suspect and victim were together, showing vehicles on a number of streets at different times taking the victim from point c to Point v and it goes on.

Cameras can pick up all of that.

One court case I watched a few years back used cameras extensively as well as cell phone locations to piece it all together to prove the suspect's every move from the time the victim disappeared.

One of the best court cases I've ever watched!

 

[girlhasnoname]

I don’t see how it could be considered hearsay since nothing was said to her.
She is simply going to testify about seeing him walking along the side of the road at a particular time. Period. She has no knowledge of the actual crime. Her testimony would be no different than someone testifying after a bank robbery that they saw someone four blocks away from the bank minutes after the robbery running while wearing a mask and carrying a bank bag.
Her testimony is only one part of the puzzle.
I would argue, within the scope of her testimony, that she is an expert. She drives her car everyday, she sees things everyday while driving.

And they were passing each other east/west On N300, so RA would have been in her direct line of sight.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I agree wholeheartedly... however, people's interpretations of what is on camera can be less than trustworthy.

This case is a perfect example - people saw clown t-shirts, dogs in pockets, or all sorts of weird things in the BG video.

Don't forget baby goats too.

 

[MiniMoo]

Why do you think that? SC described RA as muddy, bloody and looking as if he had been in a fight.

He had mud on his jean from crossing the creek I would safely say, maybe he had blood on his jacket or hoodie? How do we don't know that he didn't have scratches on his face or arms. Something led SC to believe that to be the case. I'll wait until I hear it from her at trial to make a final decision.

It's all individual interpretation until then.

JMO

I think it was just mud not blood and she saw tan coloured clothing not blue.

Someone changed it to suit some purpose.

4 months is still time enough to forget details or get things wrong though, but it is far better than 5 years on.

I hope she proves to be a jigsaw puzzle piece that helps to put it all together.

 

[MiniMoo]

I don't understand why anyone would find humor in this post. The video was taken by Libby of the man following them, a man stalking them and recording the man telling the girls, down the hill.

That video may be one of the best pieces of evidence presented. It IS worth a lot. We have been told what has been released is NOT the whole video. IMO, we will also hear the girls talk and possibly splashing noise. That video is Libby telling us who killed them.

The video is worth more than any sketch. MOO

Absolutely relevant! Agreed.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think it was just mud not blood and she saw tan coloured clothing not blue.

Someone changed it to suit some purpose.

4 months is still time enough to forget details or get things wrong though, but it is far better than 5 years on.

I hope she proves to be a jigsaw puzzle piece that helps to put it all together.

Me too and I believe she will. I think it will be the totality of ALL the evidence, not just one single piece, that will send RA bye bye forever.

I'm glad that an unbiased jury of his peers will get to make that decision. I freely admit I find him guilty based on what has been presented so far, but that is just my opinion. No better or worse than anyone else's.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO