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

[sunshineray]

That would be crazy if a lawyer said “the witness actually said the man was wearing a tan jacket, not blue, and the witness never said the man was bloody” and then the lawyer attaches the videotape of the witness statement and have none of that be true. I don’t see Gull just letting that slide.

It’s come up in a few filings so I’d like to see if Nick has ever directly addressed the witness statement discrepancies in his responses. I only recall the vague “Tony didn’t lie” responses.

All MOO

It's always left out but I believe, IIRC, SC also stated (paraphrasing) he looked like he'd been in a fight. That's why waiting to hear her testimony is so important. MO

 

[sunshineray]

What kind of preparation for court and being questioned and cross examined do witnesses for the state get if any? When does this happen? Who does this with them and via what method?

Same as the defense I'd gather?

 

[sunshineray]

audio or video recording is definitely preferred so any 3rd party can be absolutely certain of what was said since the written word can be an incorrect interpretation. Like who is Rick Whiteman ?

We'll probably get to see the written words of DD as an exhibit and I'm sure they will be read onto the record too. MO

 

[sunshineray]

I wonder what she told police what she may have been afraid of? Moo

My guess, being a witness to a killer still on the loose?

 

[grannygates]

It's always left out but I believe, IIRC, SC also stated (paraphrasing) he looked like he'd been in a fight. That's why waiting to hear her testimony is so important. MO

I guess I'm just wondering if the defense's allegations are incorrect and SC says bloody blue jacket or any alternative that could be described as bloody blue jacket, why Nick doesn't directly respond to the defense's allegations and correct them with what she actually said.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

That would be crazy if a lawyer said “the witness actually said the man was wearing a tan jacket, not blue, and the witness never said the man was bloody” and then the lawyer attaches the videotape of the witness statement and have none of that be true. I don’t see Gull just letting that slide.

It’s come up in a few filings so I’d like to see if Nick has ever directly addressed the witness statement discrepancies in his responses. I only recall the vague “Tony didn’t lie” responses.

All MOO

BBM

Gull’s response to defense prevarication:

• Denied without hearing.

 

[grannygates]

BBM

Gull’s response to defense prevarication:

• Denied without hearing.

my point was if the defense was actually lying in their motion about what the videotape showed - I don't see how Gull could pass up that opportunity to admonish them for "lying". Not just the classic rubber stamp "denied without hearing".

 

[susiQ]

audio or video recording is definitely preferred so any 3rd party can be absolutely certain of what was said since the written word can be an incorrect interpretation. Like who is Rick Whiteman ?

There is no “Rick Whiteman.” DD (conservation officer) who took down RA’s information actually wrote that his name was Rick Whiteman, when in fact his surname was Allen and he lived on Whiteman Way. Another reason I do not trust any recollection by DD. JMO

 

[Justice101]

There is no “Rick Whiteman.” DD (conservation officer) who took down RA’s information actually wrote that his name was Rick Whiteman, when in fact his surname was Allen and he lived on Whiteman Way. Another reason I do not trust any recollection by DD. JMO

Will that even be used in the trial? Didn't RA talk to LE a second time or am I mistaken?

 

[sunshineray]

I guess I'm just wondering if the defense's allegations are incorrect and SC says bloody blue jacket or any alternative that could be described as bloody blue jacket, why Nick doesn't directly respond to the defense's allegations and correct them with what she actually said.

It would to me the reason he doesn't is the gag order.

 

[TTF14]

There is no “Rick Whiteman.” DD (conservation officer) who took down RA’s information actually wrote that his name was Rick Whiteman, when in fact his surname was Allen and he lived on Whiteman Way. Another reason I do not trust any recollection by DD. JMO

Don't be silly. He simply misspoke that time. But the timeframe....that part was correct. Because, reasons.

IMO MOO

 

[sunshineray]

my point was if the defense was actually lying in their motion about what the videotape showed - I don't see how Gull could pass up that opportunity to admonish them for "lying". Not just the classic rubber stamp "denied without hearing".

Because she's not biased and doesn't want to compromise a fair trial?

 

[sunshineray]

There is no “Rick Whiteman.” DD (conservation officer) who took down RA’s information actually wrote that his name was Rick Whiteman, when in fact his surname was Allen and he lived on Whiteman Way. Another reason I do not trust any recollection by DD. JMO

In all fairness to DD, we don't know yet, by his testimony, if it was written in DD's report like that or transposed by someone else like that in error. MO

 

[sunshineray]

Will that even be used in the trial? Didn't RA talk to LE a second time or am I mistaken?

Yes and changed his original statement greater, putting himself as leaving the trails before Abby and Libby ever got there. That also contradicts the witnesses who saw him and his own words about seeing them.

 

[Salah11]

I am so relieved Judge Gull is still the Trial Judge.

She has acted completely professionally and the defense have now failed twice to remove her. Maybe now they can get ready for the trial in October even though I won’t hold my breath.

It’s just one more embarrassment for the team representing RA after last week and Murdersheet.

MOOOOOOOO

 

[katydid23]

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.

'Call her as a witness ' how? When? Do you mean during the trial? The attorneys have no legal power to 'call' the sitting judge as a witness. IMO

IF they have some evidence that she lied about something tangible, they have to file some kind of complaint with her superiors or the Board Of Ethics, or the Higher Courts. If they feel compelled they will open an investigation.

But even then, it would not be this defense team 'calling her as a witness.'

 

[grannygates]

Will that even be used in the trial? Didn't RA talk to LE a second time or am I mistaken?

MOO I think they need the DD note in as that’s when they say RA (or Rick Whiteman) said he was on the trails between the hours of 1:30-3:30. The subsequent LE interviews that were videotaped have RA saying he left at 1:30. MOO

 

[TTF14]

It would to me the reason he doesn't is the gag order.

Nobody is suggesting he speak to the media, which would be a violation of the gag order. He has disputed claims made by the defense in other responses to their motions, so why not this particular thing? Responding in an official filing, like he's done before, would not be a violation of the gag order.

IMO MOO

 

[Salah11]

Yes and changed his original statement greater, putting himself as leaving the trails before Abby and Libby ever got there. That also contradicts the witnesses who saw him and his own words about seeing them.

Yes and it doesn’t even add up, as the girls who believe they saw him, and he also saw those young girls took a photo of a Bench at 1.26pm and they saw him after that photo was taken. So his new timeline simply doesn’t work. He didn’t get on to those trails until 1.30ish.

IMO to be safe

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

 

[Vaderman]

What are your thoughts so far?

I'm not very far into it, but it has been a good read to remember where this all started.

It does a good job summarizing the arguments that have filled these [many] threads into an easily digestible account of events as they happened and how the "key players" felt along the way.

I have been annoyed by her constant use of her first name, however. I find it a little hard to believe that Susan has so many people in Susan's life who insist that they refer to Susan by her first name, Susan, when they address Susan.