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

[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

 

[Megnut]

The sad reality is stark. By the time LE made the request to AT&T to ping Libby's phone, Libby and her phone were both dead.

That's enough to break me.

JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

The latest response by defense is alleging the girls left and were returned.
“6. This new evidence, therefore, would show that the phone and the victims were taken outside of the area where they were ultimately found, but then brought back to the area at a later time.”

In the original FM, they alleged it had to be more than one killer to have it all done in one hour and 17 minutes.
Pg 32
“Liggett must convince others, including the public, to ignore the voluminous mountain of evidence that supports the coordinated efforts of multiple Odinites.”

Footnote 22
“Jerry Holeman testified in his deposition that investigators estimated the time of death as occurring somewhere
between 2:30 and 3:30 p.m. (Holeman depo., p. 17, lines 6-21).”

So, which narrative are they going with?

 

[photographer4]

DNA is not a necessity in my opinion. I also don't think there are many holes because RA himself provided his whereabouts that day, that time, what he was wearing and placed himself on the first bridge platform, corroborated by witness BB, moments before Abby and Libby arrived at the bridge. MO

Him being there doesn’t make him as killer by default imo. I’d like to see how the State ties it all together to build what I hope is a solid case.

 

[grannygates]

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

I find it curious why he doesn’t specifically mention the 4:33am ping or explain how that specific ping is being misconstrued.

My own opinion of reading this motion is that I want NMs explanation stated outright. I don’t want to have to pick and chose bits and pieces of the motions to add all up to come to my own conclusion of what this person is attempting to say, or what they are trying to get the reader to think he is saying.

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

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

Agree!
RA is not only on that bridge, there is a lot of evidence that proves that he was.

 

[m00c0w]

The latest response by defense is alleging the girls left and were returned.
“6. This new evidence, therefore, would show that the phone and the victims were taken outside of the area where they were ultimately found, but then brought back to the area at a later time.”

In the original FM, they alleged it had to be more than one killer to have it all done in one hour and 17 minutes.
Pg 32
“Liggett must convince others, including the public, to ignore the voluminous mountain of evidence that supports the coordinated efforts of multiple Odinites.”

Footnote 22
“Jerry Holeman testified in his deposition that investigators estimated the time of death as occurring somewhere
between 2:30 and 3:30 p.m. (Holeman depo., p. 17, lines 6-21).”

So, which narrative are they going with?

That’s the thing - they don’t have to go with one right now. Chances are the jury never sees any of this. They’re literally workshopping and A/B testing their defense strategy as they go, which does not inspire confidence to me that there is actually a solid defense strategy. Trial will be brutal, if RA doesn’t plea first.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

I find it curious why he doesn’t specifically mention the 4:33am ping or explain how that specific ping is being misconstrued.

My own opinion of reading this motion is that I want NMs explanation stated outright. I don’t want to have to pick and chose bits and pieces of the motions to add all up to come to my own conclusion of what this person is attempting to say, or what they are trying to get the reader to think he is saying.

MOO

You are not the intended audience. It’s almost a series of conversations that you are looking at from a distance as a third party, lacking a lot of context by way of attachments, exhibits, and material already in the record. NM isn’t writing this to appease the public, and it does not take any stretch of the imagination to understand what is being talked about without having the actual deposition in front of you.

Further, I don’t see what’s unclear about “The records from AT&T show that there has been no contact with the tower since then.”

That includes 5:45 PM on 2/13, 5:46 PM on 2/13, and even 4:32am on 2/14, 4:33am on 2/14, 4:34am on 2/14, 4:35am on 2/14… I think you get the gist. He literally said what you’re asking for him to say, in no unclear terms.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

The latest response by defense is alleging the girls left and were returned.
“6. This new evidence, therefore, would show that the phone and the victims were taken outside of the area where they were ultimately found, but then brought back to the area at a later time.”

In the original FM, they alleged it had to be more than one killer to have it all done in one hour and 17 minutes.
Pg 32
“Liggett must convince others, including the public, to ignore the voluminous mountain of evidence that supports the coordinated efforts of multiple Odinites.”

Footnote 22
“Jerry Holeman testified in his deposition that investigators estimated the time of death as occurring somewhere
between 2:30 and 3:30 p.m. (Holeman depo., p. 17, lines 6-21).”

So, which narrative are they going with?

Haven’t read the doc but doesn’t that all suggest an estimated time of death by Goldman can’t be right if the phone and the kids left the area and then returned later?

 

[katydid23]

I’m talking about in his court filings. Response to the 3rd Franks for example, the defense had brought up the witness statements, geofencing and the professor. NM responds in detail about the geofencing and the professors report but says nothing about the witness statements other that Tony didn’t lie and no details correcting what the defense is alleging. MOO

Why would he want to telegraph all of his future witnesses testimony? That just allows the D to come up with another way to try and rebut the evidence they will present at trial.

 

[katydid23]

I think it was obvious that I meant to the court in the subsequent response filing.

The example I gave was the 3rd Franks, which pointed out the inconsistent witness statements, geofencing and the Turco statement. NM’s response goes into detail about the geofencing and Turco statement but IMO completely avoids addressing the issue re: the witness statement with any detail.

My curiousity was why there is such detail about the two other items, pages, and then no acknowledgment or detail at all about the conflicting witness statements.

All MOO

I think it is because the witnesses will take the stand and be cross examined by the D. Why would the DA want to help them get more detailed evidence about where they are mistaken? That just gives them more time to try and come up with ways to confuse the eye witnesses. IMO

 

[TTF14]

Why would he want to telegraph all of his future witnesses testimony? That just allows the D to come up with another way to try and rebut the evidence they will present at trial.

Well, I guess that would go to what his motive is. Is it simply to win or to actually get justice and leave no doubt?

IMO MOO

 

[grannygates]

You are not the intended audience. It’s almost a series of conversations that you are looking at from a distance as a third party, lacking a lot of context by way of attachments, exhibits, and material already in the record. NM isn’t writing this to appease the public, and it does not take any stretch of the imagination to understand what is being talked about without having the actual deposition in front of you.

Further, I don’t see what’s unclear about “The records from AT&T show that there has been no contact with the tower since then.”

That includes 5:45 PM on 2/13, 5:46 PM on 2/13, and even 4:32am on 2/14, 4:33am on 2/14, 4:34am on 2/14, 4:35am on 2/14… I think you get the gist. He literally said what you’re asking for him to say, in no unclear terms.

JMO

Ya I’m fully aware Nick is not tailoring his writing to Granny Gates’ personal taste. I’m simply sharing my own opinion of what I feel like the response does not address - the 4:33am ping. JMO IMO MOO and all those fun acronyms.

What I’m asking/expecting him to say is “the 4:33am ping that the defense is suggesting means X, actually means Y”. I don’t expect him to completely omit any specific reference to it and have the reader just conclude on our own that he secretly meant it really was a historical ping.

Anyways, as we will continue to disagree, I think it warrants being explained to the court by an actual expert and not lawyers. Look where we are now because we don’t have actual experts explaining things. I don’t see the harm in being thorough in pre-trial to help the trial go smoothly.

IMO MOO and all that fun stuff.

 

[TTF14]

I don’t see the harm in being thorough in pre-trial to help the trial go smoothly.

RSBM

Agree. Why would anyone disagree with this?

JMO IMO

 

[katydid23]

RSABBM ^^this^^
When considering a video made by BH and posted to YT, this is what stood out to me. Just one more thing that makes me wonder how he is involved. BH is also a chameleon who participates in more than one religion which is a FACT proven by pictures he has posted publicly and what is said about him by a former friend. For Unified Command to drop the investigation into these other characters was a monumental mistake. Heck, even NM spoke of “others being involved.” So did some LE. Even the locals tipped in BH and PW so much so that they were interviewed within days! But, conveniently the videos of those two and many other early interviews in the following weeks, if not months, were taped over. Just a mere oversight they would have us believe.
All MOO
FM pgs 16-18

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

So why do we think they dropped investigating them and considered them cleared?

They surely needed to find the killers and get them off the street. They surely felt pressure to solve this case. So why did they drop BH and PW as suspects?

The one reason that comes to my mind is that they had alibis and were not the actual guilty parties. If the detectives had any reason to believe they actually were valid potential suspects the investigation would have continued. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Speaking of the bullet. Is it standard procedure to load your weapon with gloves on?
My gun knowledge is limited to my family and friends and have always seen them load their weapons with bare hands.
Thanks

Is your family loading weapons right before a home invasion? Or are they going to the shooting range?

 

[katydid23]

It could have easily fallen out of a pocket. The tool markings on the unspent round just means at one time in its life, it was chambered and ejected from a weapon.

Of course, the markings wont say when that happened, so it could have been chambered a day, a month or a year prior to the person dropping it onto the ground.

MOO

If it had been out there for a year, it would be looking pretty rough. Probably wouldn't have even been visible. Even a month would have probably made a difference---it wouldn't have looked like it was possibly part of the crime scene.
IMO