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

[m00c0w]

RA gave DD the phone IMEI number back in 2017. It hasn't been stated what the CAST data is yet in entirety, I'm sure that will come out at trial with dueling experts.

I don't see RA giving up the actual phone (if any) he was using that day to LE, but it will hard to explain why it wasn't included in the numbers from a tower dump. It is possible to track a phone’s location using the IMEI number, as long as the device is connected to a network. If was checking stock quotes like he said, it would have had to been connected.

They did recover 10-12 phones, including burners from his home during the Search so who knows what they might find.

JMO

IMO, this will be his undoing. He came forward to explain his presence because he had been seen and didn’t want to look suspicious. He tried to come up with unfalsifiable claims, but I’m guessing didn’t realize that it’s relatively trivial to see if data was being used on a phone and where that data was being used.

If his phone records showed he was somewhere else, the defense would have filed 20 motions to dismiss already. The defense has also not stated that the phone records show what RA claimed, either. Instead, they only focused on a couple of random numbers they “know” aren’t connected to RA, seemingly painted an incorrect picture regarding the location of those phones… and that’s about it.

All JMO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Dang, have I missed where RA has denied being on the bridge? SMH.

 

[Salah11]

Dang, have I missed where RA has denied being on the bridge? SMH.

I never knew he denied being on the bridge. All he did was change his time line I believed.

Has anybody got a link to saying he wasn’t on the bridge as the first I’m hearing about it?

 

[M. Kay]

I was just listening to podcast about another case and it was mentioned that LE sometimes withholds information in order to be able to identify false confessions. We know LE in the Delphi case did that and I hadn’t thought about it for a long time. A tried and true tool in investigation.
Thinking about it now, I think it worked in reverse for LE here.
I feel sure one of the things LE kept to themselves was that a witness had seen BG/RA standing on the 1st platform shortly before the girls got to the bridge.
On October 13, 2022, when RA offered and admitted that he was on that platform at that time, he placed the last piece of the puzzle for LE.
RA cannot take himself off that bridge. He absolutely cannot take himself off the bridge. Not only is there a witness, RA himself puts himself on that bridge.
What that means is it doesn’t matter if RA’s cellphone shows up in the data or not, because he is STILL on that bridge, by his on word. Talk about Odinists or other players or unspent bullets or dozens of confessions, people who saw him and people who didn’t, etc……but RA is still on that bridge.
If feel confident LE has much more evidence against RA. Some will need to be weighed thoughtfully by the jury. Other evidence will be more directly tied to RA, and he will still be on that bridge. Nobody can take him off.

BG=RA and he will forever be on that bridge

Opinion

Repetition used effectively; almost mesmerizing. Sounds like
summation before deliberation.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Repetition used effectively; almost mesmerizing. Sounds like
summation before deliberation.

I rest my case. HaHa

 

[Willow Knight]

Can they pin his cell phone in that location during that time?

I know there were a few cell phones in the area at that time, but I think his may not have been one of them.

I wonder who leaves home without a cell phone these days?

Killers?

 

[m00c0w]

Hot off the presses - defense's reply to the state's reply to the fourth franks motion.

Basic gist IMO is that the defense almost completely ignores the explanation given by the state's reply and tries to equivocate the state's citing of expert testimony with non-expert interpretation of the phone records by the defense... and the defense is now outright stating that the girls were moved (instead of just implying it), which means RA couldn't have done it.

It's still very interesting how with all of this phone data, they apparently can't show RA's phone was anywhere that would be exculpatory (even with their very liberal interpretation of the data).

JMO

 

[TTF14]

Basic gist IMO is that the defense almost completely ignores the explanation given by the state's reply and tries to equivocate the state's citing of expert testimony with non-expert interpretation of the phone records by the defense.

RSBM

I'm not sure I remember where the State presented expert testimony. They are not experts themselves, as the defense pointed out.

This motion was excellent and makes total sense.

Let's let the experts speak and let the jury hear them! Or let Judge Gull hear them and let her decide if this case should maybe even be thrown out!

Also, let's define "expert testimony" while we're at it....

IMO MOO

 

[grannygates]

Hot off the presses - defense's reply to the state's reply to the fourth franks motion.

Basic gist IMO is that the defense almost completely ignores the explanation given by the state's reply and tries to equivocate the state's citing of expert testimony with non-expert interpretation of the phone records by the defense... and the defense is now outright stating that the girls were moved (instead of just implying it), which means RA couldn't have done it.

It's still very interesting how with all of this phone data, they apparently can't show RA's phone was anywhere that would be exculpatory (even with their very liberal interpretation of the data).

JMO

It makes sense IMO. The attorneys are not forensic experts or cellphone experts of any type and seeing as they are disagreeing about what this data says, the suggestion that the actual forensic expert explain to the court what the data actually says would be the proper solution in my opinion. MOO

 

[TTF14]

It makes sense IMO. The attorneys are not forensic experts or cellphone experts of any type and seeing as they are disagreeing about what this data says, the suggestion that the actual forensic expert explain to the court what the data actually says would be the proper solution in my opinion. MOO

I agree, and anyone railing against this just doesn't want the digital forensic evidence to be out there and explained, IMO. And this pertains to both sides.

IMO MOO

 

[Salah11]

Hot off the presses - defense's reply to the state's reply to the fourth franks motion.

Basic gist IMO is that the defense almost completely ignores the explanation given by the state's reply and tries to equivocate the state's citing of expert testimony with non-expert interpretation of the phone records by the defense... and the defense is now outright stating that the girls were moved (instead of just implying it), which means RA couldn't have done it.

It's still very interesting how with all of this phone data, they apparently can't show RA's phone was anywhere that would be exculpatory (even with their very liberal interpretation of the data).

JMO

I can smell the defense’s desperation all the way here in the U.K..

Mooooooo

 

[TTF14]

I can smell the defense’s desperation all the way here in the U.K..

Mooooooo

I'm curious why you think them wanting experts to weigh in is desperation on their part. Can you explain?

 

[m00c0w]

RSBM

I'm not sure I remember where the State presented expert testimony. They are not experts themselves, as the defense pointed out.

This motion was excellent and makes total sense.

Let's let the experts speak and let the jury hear them! Or let Judge Gull hear them and let her decide if this case should maybe even be thrown out!

Also, let's define "expert testimony" while we're at it....

IMO MOO

Expert testimony is already defined by Indiana trial rules:

(a) A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.(b) Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the expert testimony rests upon reliable scientific principles.

Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses, Ind. R. Evid. 702 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses, Ind. R. Evid. 702, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

In the state's response to the defense's fourth franks motion, the state reveals that the defense deposed ISP Sergeant Greg Edwards back in February, to document his review of the pings and evidence. In order for him to provide his opinion of this technical subject matter, he would have to be considered an expert under Rule 702.

The state then quotes Sergeant Edwards verbatim for several paragraphs where he explains the pings, how they work, and that the pings shift over to historical records when the phone can no longer be contacted. At least half of the state's discussion of pings is literally Edwards' testimony, and most of the further discussion is based on this testimony as juxtaposed with the defense's claims.

Lastly, this isn't a motion to decide if the jury hears the experts, nor is it a motion to decide if the case gets thrown out. It's a motion to have a hearing to decide if the search warrant is suppressed because it was unlawfully obtained.

If the defense just wants the experts to be heard, they will 100% be heard and cross-examined during the jury trial.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

I agree, and anyone railing against this just doesn't want the digital forensic evidence to be out there and explained, IMO. And this pertains to both sides.

IMO MOO

That's... not what this is. Like, even a little bit.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

In the states response to the fourth franks, NM goes into detail about what he believes a ping is and quotes the sergeant’s deposition for historical pings. There is no citation or reference of where NM is getting his own anecdotal ping info from.

NM says the last ping on Feb 13 was the 5:44pm one. Right. So what about FEB14? the 4:33am ping. I didn’t see any explanation or any specific statement acknowledging why this 4:33am ping occurred or how the defense misinterpreted it. MOO

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[grannygates]

That's... not what this is. Like, even a little bit.

JMO

This is a motion to hold a hearing with expert witnesses and expert testimony to explain to the court what the digital evidence actually means.

If each party believes that they are correct in their interpretation of the data and the expert will prove that, they should both be in favour of this hearing to clear up the inaccuracies.

 

[TTF14]

This is a motion to hold a hearing with expert witnesses and expert testimony to explain to the court what the digital evidence actually means.

If each party believes that they are correct in their interpretation of the data and the expert will prove that, they should both be in favour of this hearing to clear up the inaccuracies.

I agree. Why would either side be opposed to this?

 

[m00c0w]

In the states response to the fourth franks, NM goes into detail about what he believes a ping is and quotes the sergeant’s deposition for historical pings. There is no citation or reference of where NM is getting his own anecdotal ping info from.

NM says the last ping on Feb 13 was the 5:44pm one. Right. So what about FEB14? the 4:33am ping. I didn’t see any explanation or any specific statement acknowledging why this 4:33am ping occurred or how the defense misinterpreted it. MOO

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

NM goes into detail regarding what is essentially the definition of a ping. Then, when it comes to interpreting the information, he defers to the experts.

As far as the 4:33am ping, he states (from your source):

Sergeant Blocher reports that from his evaluation, the last contact that the phone had with the cellular tower was at 5:44 P.M. on February 13th, 2017. The records from AT&T show that there has been no contact with the tower since then.

This also appears to be what Edwards was referring to when he was explaining why the pings transitioned from live to historical.

In essence, it appears that the defense is misconstruing a "ping" that was solely based on historical data as a live ping. And this is in spite of the expert they deposed explaining to them otherwise.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

I was just listening to podcast about another case and it was mentioned that LE sometimes withholds information in order to be able to identify false confessions. We know LE in the Delphi case did that and I hadn’t thought about it for a long time. A tried and true tool in investigation.
Thinking about it now, I think it worked in reverse for LE here.
I feel sure one of the things LE kept to themselves was that a witness had seen BG/RA standing on the 1st platform shortly before the girls got to the bridge.
On October 13, 2022, when RA offered and admitted that he was on that platform at that time, he placed the last piece of the puzzle for LE.
RA cannot take himself off that bridge. He absolutely cannot take himself off the bridge. Not only is there a witness, RA himself puts himself on that bridge.
What that means is it doesn’t matter if RA’s cellphone shows up in the data or not, because he is STILL on that bridge, by his on word. Talk about Odinists or other players or unspent bullets or dozens of confessions, people who saw him and people who didn’t, etc……but RA is still on that bridge.
If feel confident LE has much more evidence against RA. Some will need to be weighed thoughtfully by the jury. Other evidence will be more directly tied to RA, and he will still be on that bridge. Nobody can take him off.

BG=RA and he will forever be on that bridge

Opinion

AND... the timing is tight, almost to the minute. The bench photo, RA passing the group of juveniles, RA on the bridge, walking lady seeing Jim on the bridge, walking lady turning around, passing Abby and Libby, then leaving, her car captured.

Abby and Libby were making forward progress.... if RA remained on the platform, or if he left it, he would have seen the girls. There was no way for him not to have seen them.

Yet he said he did not.

The juveniles didn't say they saw Abby and Libby. Because they didn't. Didn't, wouldn't, couldn't. Because they (the juvenile) left before they (Abby and Libby) arrived.

Walking lady saw them and said so.

RA boxed himself in.

If he continued along the bridge to the far end, he puts himself in the middle of abduction.

If he stays on the bridge looking at fish, Abby and Libby walk right past him and he's in the background of Libby's photo of Abby.

He leaves the bridge, he passes them as they approach.

He is the only one who lied.

He is the only one served by lying.

It's all very simple. If he can produce one iota of evidence that he was somewhere else at 3 pm, the court would be obligated to hear it.

Purposely misrepresenting ping data in an attempt to push the murder into a timeframe for which RA does have an alibi is not good lawyering. It is disingenuous, and as the State concludes, in its clear and concise response, they have not met their burden for a hearing on the subject. That's not about the State refusing to let the experts duke it out; it's the rule of law -- the Defense attempt falls flat for it is without merit.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

This is a motion to hold a hearing with expert witnesses and expert testimony to explain to the court what the digital evidence actually means.

If each party believes that they are correct in their interpretation of the data and the expert will prove that, they should both be in favour of this hearing to clear up the inaccuracies.

I agree. Why would either side be opposed to this?

The place for this testimony would be at trial. The defense is basically asking to test run part of their defense strategy so they can adjust it before trial. That's not the purpose of a Franks motion, and I would argue that having to bring in experts to testify about this matter would completely undermine the concept that Liggett would have knowingly and intentionally lied in the probable cause affidavit.

If the concepts are so hard to understand that they would have to bring in experts to sift through raw data in order to make their case to the judge... are they also then claiming that Liggett completely understood this same data as a layperson and knowingly and intentionally misled the court regarding the data?

It's self-defeating.

JMO