Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[girlhasnoname]

OR, maybe he didn’t do it? It will be interesting to see if the D can prove he wasn’t at the bridge after 1:30 pm. I can’t wait to see if the P can prove that he was there AFTER 1:30 pm, without a doubt. We don’t know do we, and yet, so many have him convicted already. SMH.

Yes, if the D finally gets RA to trial we shall see. We do know RA places himself at the bridge from 13:30 to 13:30 pm according to his first statement to DD. The State has witnesses also placing RA there on the trails and on the bridge.

Yet equally just as many have him innocent already. It works both ways.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

You know, RA put himself at the park between 1:30 and 3:30. Presumably unprompted.

Why?

IMO that could mean -- either he was also there earlier (twice) in the day and didn't want to cop to that or he had a real alibi for the morning...

So why 1:30? And why 3:30?

If he is BG as charged, he is the only living person who knows what time the girls were murdered.

Assuming he is the figure the witness saw walking along the roadway, he didn't leave at 3:30.

FWIW I think RA was confident there was no digital connection to either girl (the A_S and E_A accounts buried behind apps and resets) and was unaware he'd been recorded so he was comfortable saying he arrived at 1:30.... and I think he felt comfortable saying he left at 3:30 because, again, he didn't know Libby recorded the abduction or even that the girls had a scheduled pick up time. His presplain: if he's "gone" by 3:30, and something bad happened to the girls after 3:30, he was in the clear. He couldn't be the person who spent time with them and murdered them at/around/after 4-4:30.

It doesn't matter whether he adjusted that time later (other than the fact that he did) because he was bound to it by the store video, the group of juveniles, Kelsi, the walker and Libby's video, all timestamped. The truth of his admission -- he was in fact there from 1:30 to 3:30.... he just didn’t LEAVE at 3:30....

What will be both telling and damning -- his activity outside of 1 to 5. Did he work that morning? Did he use his cellphone? Any funky resets on his devices? When did activity drop off and when did it resume? Was KA interviewed? Could she recall any helpful details of the day? Day of a crime that had everyone talking but also the day before Valentine's Day. If RA returned to an empty house, he could have showered, dressed, been mowing the lawn when next seen. Dinner, maybe same as every day. Nothing to see here, RA just RAing...

I can't count the number of threads here, where after committing murder, murderers sup. They aren't sneaky, sweaty, nervous, suspicious. They're just hungry. It's part of the incongruity for family members and nearby witnesses -- couldn't be my husband, couldn't be my neighbor -- because they were acting normally.... (and not how one might, erroneously, imagine a murderer would act, after murdering).

I'm just really curious what RA's ACTUAL alibi for before and after the crime time. He will have one, because he really was somewhere before and after and LE will have that worked out. Neighborhood ring video, sadly long overwritten, but there will surely be corroborating data of some kind. Maybe he stopped for gas or a soda or the infamous trip to Walmart so many murderers make. Hopefully, if good video has been erased, he'll have left a financial trail to help tie down his minutes.

Digital forensics is the new DNA -- he'll have a string of it.

IMO there will be NO EVIDENCE that RA was at home or at work between 1 and 5 that day, especially including at 3:30/4. And NO EVIDENCE can be powerful evidence.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

That incident did not prove any one lied. There is no reason for her to take the witness stand. That was wishful thinking on their part. IMO

Respectfully, we have no idea whether it proved anyone lied or not. We haven't even heard any of the facts!

 

[TTF14]

IMO, if Rozzi & Baldwin had a solid, provable alibi, RA wouldn't still be sitting as a Defendant in Washburn going on 2 years, and we wouldn't be discussing his guilt or innocence daily.

JMO

This hasn't gone to trial yet.

 

[girlhasnoname]

This hasn't gone to trial yet.

No, but if RA had a provable, solid, confirmed alibi the charges would have been dropped IMO.

 

[Salah11]

No, but if RA had a provable, solid, confirmed alibi the charges would have been dropped IMO.

With multiple Franks if they could place him somewhere else, they would be singing it from the rooftops.. IMO

 

[TTF14]

No, but if RA had a provable, solid, confirmed alibi the charges would have been dropped IMO.

I suppose maybe that would have happened. If a hearing had been held.

 

[katydid23]

Respectfully, we have no idea whether it proved anyone lied or not. We haven't even heard any of the facts!

We've heard enough of the facts to see that there was no evidence of anyone being a liar. That was just a twisting and distortion by the DT. You cannot force a judge and a warden to come to some kind of a forced meeting with the defense team just because that team makes an unfounded assumption that one of them 'must have lied.' There is no reason to believe either of them lied about anything.

BOTH of their statements, by the judge and the warden , can be true at the same time. No reason to believe either of them were lying.

 

[TTF14]

We've heard enough of the facts to see that there was no evidence of anyone being a liar. That was just a twisting and distortion by the DT. You cannot force a judge and a warden to come to some kind of a forced meeting with the defense team just because that team makes an unfounded assumption that one of them 'must have lied.' There is no reason to believe either of them lied about anything.

BOTH of their statements, by the judge and the warden , can be true at the same time. No reason to believe either of them were lying.

TL is in that mix too. Not just the judge and warden/jail employee.

I do not think the Judge was lying. That's not what I was implying, for the record.

I don't possess the ability, personally, to know exactly what happened just based on what we've read. i don't think anyone here can. We'd need a hearing for that.

IMO MOO

 

[Megnut]

Hearings aren't always required.

In this case, if there's a proper motion to file, these seasoned attorneys know how to do it, in order to present the testimony of the prisoner who refused transport. Maybe she ruled, under seal, on their proffer alone, that what he would have testified to would not stand up in court.

He was a witness for the defense who then refused to appear for the defense. Doubtful the judge can or would order him to be transported by force when there are other remedies. Like zoom.

It looks to me like the Defense has chosen to drop the hot potato, not pursue it, while simultaneously representing that the judge was in error. Clever? Duplicitous.

Seems to be a theme here.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

Early on in the investigation when B McD was still a credible journalist, LE did share some things with her. They were still investigating and trying to find the murderer.

Nothing earth shattering IMO. Most of the questions she asked during the Down The Hill series with HLN LE gives vague or
"cannot comment due to an ongoing investigation" answers to many of questions she asks.

And it doesn't surprise me one bit that BM states at line 22 he really doesn't care if the pictures of deceased murdered children got out. Hah, but he sure cared when the Doo Process Gang DM's got out. The hypocrisy is not lost on me with any of these individuals.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

My comment about BMcD was about early in the investigation when she tells us that the bullet was found during a “re-securing” of the crime scene.

Line 22 is saying that he saw the pictures of BM holding the Purdue report and that he doesn’t care to fight about it, as its years later.

I’m not sure where you got any information regarding a reaction of one of the defense attorneys over that podcast episode reading off content creators private messages ? It wasn’t the “defense team” and we all know that by now. It’s was some desperate irrelevant idiots tormenting a family, reading a private group chat, trying to get clicks for their pod. MOO

 

[photographer4]

Yes, if the D finally gets RA to trial we shall see. We do know RA places himself at the bridge from 13:30 to 13:30 pm according to his first statement to DD. The State has witnesses also placing RA there on the trails and on the bridge.

Yet equally just as many have him innocent already. It works both ways.

MOO

The first statement he gave to the conservation officer…. Did the officer ever find the recording he thought he made of it but couldn’t find? No link so moooo.

 

[photographer4]

Hearings aren't always required.

In this case, if there's a proper motion to file, these seasoned attorneys know how to do it, in order to present the testimony of the prisoner who refused transport. Maybe she ruled, under seal, on their proffer alone, that what he would have testified to would not stand up in court.

He was a witness for the defense who then refused to appear for the defense. Doubtful the judge can or would order him to be transported by force when there are other remedies. Like zoom.

It looks to me like the Defense has chosen to drop the hot potato, not pursue it, while simultaneously representing that the judge was in error. Clever? Duplicitous.

Seems to be a theme here.

JMO

Wondering: what compels a presiding judge to hold a hearing on any matter at all? It seems that JG can just deny motions without explanation at a whim, or not hold hearings at all (eg; her dismissing the D without a hearing)… I can’t cough up links right now so moo for now on my examples. But yeah, what compels a judge to hold a hearing or allows her to disregard matters without one?

 

[MollyDDD]

I think she'd have to recuse herself.

Does she really “have to” or is it just the right thing to do?

 

[MollyDDD]

This would make me laugh so hard. LMAO. She'd fight that to the end no doubt. Maybe that will be the next big "delay tactic" by the D?

I actually did wonder though if they could call the original judge to testify as to why he granted the original Search Warrant? Is that a thing? Does this happen?

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[grannygates]

The first statement he gave to the conservation officer…. Did the officer ever find the recording he thought he made of it but couldn’t find? No link so moooo.

No recording was found IIRC. The recorded interview RA states he left at 1:30.

It gets finicky, but is leaving at 1:30 considered between 1:30-3:30?

 

[photographer4]

Does she really “have to” or is it just the right thing to do?

If they called her as a witness, how could she not be required to recuse herself? She surely can’t preside over her own questioning and answering can she? Not sure how either side could compel her to be a witness though. Interesting idea.

 

[mrjitty]

With multiple Franks if they could place him somewhere else, they would be singing it from the rooftops.. IMO

I've argued this all along. If there were any exculpatory alibi or digital evidence that was left out of the PCA's they would have included it in the Franks. That document had enough space to deal with all manner of speculation - so you'd think if there was any other evidence that showed he was elsewhere, beyond his claim in the police interview, Franks would have featured it.

IMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

The first statement he gave to the conservation officer…. Did the officer ever find the recording he thought he made of it but couldn’t find? No link so moooo.

It was recorded in writing.
How facts have been recorded for thousands of years. Including our Constitution.

 

[sunshineray]

Based on this, can we assume she thinks the jury will be smarter than the D thinks the jury might be?

She thinks the jury will be smart enough to listen to the evidence and the explanations of experts in that science and either judge it valuable or not in their deliberations. MO