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

[steeltowngirl]

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?

That is what defense is now suggesting. What it suggests to me is that defense can’t find a way to place RA anywhere else other than the bridge and trails during the timeframe of the murders. He didn’t leave at 1:30 pm. So, now they have to try to move the timeline by misrepresenting the late night pings from Libby’s phone as meaning the girls were still alive.

LE has evidence that it was all over by 3:30 pm. The autopsy will provide the estimated time of death, and it won’t be off by 12 hours.

jmo

 

[Megnut]

The State is not required to try their case in motions or responses.

Based on what I saw in the Murdaugh CAST report, I expect a sharp history from Libby's phone. We may get a sense of battery level, there will be a history of phone activity (internal processes the phone does) and actor activity (instigated by a human), there will be a record of orientation changes (from landscape to portrait), incoming and outgoing activity, handshakes with towers, there will be a record of movement and a rate of movement and there will be a time at which the phone no longer records, transmits, receives or responds.

Damaged, perhaps. But more than likely, no great mystery, the phone was in use, then it wasn't, then the battery died.

Why did Libby stop engaging with her phone? It's really this plain, this disturbing and this sad -- whatever it was, there was the last operation Libby did, and then it was still....

That deserves pause.

Almost like a smartwatch that stops recording steps, because the wearer stopped moving. TOD.

...

When LE requested the ping, AT&T could only provide the historical location of the phone, at 5:44. Because it wwan't receiving, responding, reacting.

It did not get up and go somewhere and come back.

The CAST report will be definitive, and it will be explained at trial, as it should be. It may well reveal the route from home, the route along the path, and a point at which it stopped altogether, and following an earlier point, after which no further human input was recorded, not an exact time of death, but a telling piece of circumstantial evidence.

Sobering.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

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.

What is your interpretation of “The records from AT&T show that there has been no contact with the tower since then.”?

Does that mean there could have been contact after that point that NM just omitted? Does that mean they stopped for a while and started back up? Or does that mean there were no valid live pings after a certain point in time, regardless of what times the defense may claim next?

I don’t even really see how that language is unclear or debatable.

In reviewing the fourth franks motion, I believe part of the reason NM never mentioned a specific time is because the defense apparently doesn’t even have their own narrative straight and are claiming the super revelatory ping was at two different times. One at 4:33 (which you keep citing), and one at 5:39:

Pursuant to the information which the prosecution disclosed to Mr. Allen’s counsel, the first ping on February 14, 2017 was sent to L.G.’s phone at 5:39:41 a.m.

Saying the phone was in contact with the tower at no point after 5:44pm on 7/13 rebuts both of these claims, as well as future claims. Interestingly, the defense included zero times in their response. Coincidence?

JMO

 

[katydid23]

"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

I don't think the prosecution cares whether we know all of the missing facts and data right now. I don't see how that would 'help the trial go smoothly.'

Its doesn't even matter what any of us here know or think about the upcoming evidence. It is totally irrelevant.

The ONLY thing that matters is that the jury is given a chance to hear the case in chief and then the rebuttal case by the defense. Almost none of the so called 'evidence' in the FM's will have any kind of impact upon the actual trial.

The DA does not care whether we understand all of the upcoming details of his case. Unlike the DT, who seem to be purposely trying to flood the public with as much speculative data as possible, the DA wants to save it for the jury. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Mini-opening statement by defense? This should be interesting.

Four Franks Memos. I have lost count of their motions.
This defense doesn’t know the meaning of “mini” anything.

jmo

And what could they possibly say to all of the potential jurors that
1] the DA will agree with
2]and the potential jurors even need to be told about before even being cleared as a juror?

 

[grannygates]

What is your interpretation of “The records from AT&T show that there has been no contact with the tower since then.”?

Does that mean there could have been contact after that point that NM just omitted? Does that mean they stopped for a while and started back up? Or does that mean there were no valid live pings after a certain point in time, regardless of what times the defense may claim next?

I don’t even really see how that language is unclear or debatable.

In reviewing the fourth franks motion, I believe part of the reason NM never mentioned a specific time is because the defense apparently doesn’t even have their own narrative straight and are claiming the super revelatory ping was at two different times. One at 4:33 (which you keep citing), and one at 5:39:

Pursuant to the information which the prosecution disclosed to Mr. Allen’s counsel, the first ping on February 14, 2017 was sent to L.G.’s phone at 5:39:41 a.m.

Saying the phone was in contact with the tower at no point after 5:44pm on 7/13 rebuts both of these claims, as well as future claims. Interestingly, the defense included zero times in their response. Coincidence?

JMO

Again, I don’t want to have to come to my own conclusion. I expect the response to include what the 4:33am ping in question meant and why it was being misunderstood by the defense. IMO That seems like the most basic, simplest and straightforward way to refute the defenses argument if they are actually misunderstanding the ping data. MOO

I think we know and can accept eachothers position on this by now.

MOO

 

[Spartygirl]

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


I don't think the prosecution cares whether we know all of the missing facts and data right now. I don't see how that would 'help the trial go smoothly.'

Its doesn't even matter what any of us here know or think about the upcoming evidence. It is totally irrelevant.

The ONLY thing that matters is that the jury is given a chance to hear the case in chief and then the rebuttal case by the defense. Almost none of the so called 'evidence' in the FM's will have any kind of impact upon the actual trial.

The DA does not care whether we understand all of the upcoming details of his case. Unlike the DT, who seem to be purposely trying to flood the public with as much speculative data as possible, the DA wants to save it for the jury. IMO

Amen !!!!

Plus the DA and prosecutors are ABIDING BY THE GAG ORDER !!!

Thank you for trying to explain this ... again

 

[MiniMoo]

Killers?

Could be more than one, but personally I think it was just one person.

MOO

 

[m00c0w]

For those interested in some light reading regarding phone location information, here’s a decent journal article from Syracuse Law Review. It’s from 2022, so fairly up to date.

https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Quinteros-Macro-Draft-FIXED8.pdf

Notably, around page 377 (digital page 11) they start talking about NELOS, a proprietary AT&T technology that is used to locate phones when GPS and triangulation methods are unavailable. Based on the descriptions given by NM, I believe it’s likely that NELOS was used to ping LG’s phone.



The paper goes into some good detail regarding the unknowns and pitfalls with NELOS, as well as gives some background and basic info on the other geolocation methods.

 

[grannygates]

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


I don't think the prosecution cares whether we know all of the missing facts and data right now. I don't see how that would 'help the trial go smoothly.'

Its doesn't even matter what any of us here know or think about the upcoming evidence. It is totally irrelevant.

The ONLY thing that matters is that the jury is given a chance to hear the case in chief and then the rebuttal case by the defense. Almost none of the so called 'evidence' in the FM's will have any kind of impact upon the actual trial.

The DA does not care whether we understand all of the upcoming details of his case. Unlike the DT, who seem to be purposely trying to flood the public with as much speculative data as possible, the DA wants to save it for the jury. IMO

I’m not sure how it continues to be misunderstood that me sharing my opinion on wording in court filings means that I think the lawyers should be announcing anything to the public?

We all know there’s a gag order. It’s brought up every.single.day. It doesn’t mean the attorneys are restricted from doing their normal everyday pre-trial business. It doesn’t mean they can’t prepare for the trial.

<modsnip>

MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Again, I don’t want to have to come to my own conclusion. I expect the response to include what the 4:33am ping in question meant and why it was being misunderstood by the defense. IMO That seems like the most basic, simplest and straightforward way to refute the defenses argument if they are actually misunderstanding the ping data. MOO

I think we know and can accept eachothers position on this by now.

MOO

<modsnip> No pings after 5:44pm on 2/13 means no pings after 5:44pm on 2/13. You’re not having to guess as to whether they actually mean there may have also been pings at 4:33am on 2/14, because that’s after 5:44pm on 2/13 and there were no pings after 5:44pm on 2/13. <modsnip>

I’m also not sure how we reconcile which “first ping” on 2/14 the defense is even talking about when they give two completely different times at two different points in the filing.

JMO

 

[MollyDDD]

Given how many holes this investigation had, what conflicting and confusing information the public was fed, the sheer size of the reward sum, they’d better have airtight evidence, including the DNA. As to the fact that multitude confessions prove anything, I disagree with it from all my heart. This strategy is not fit for any democracy. To add, there is a case discussed here, that of Samantha Woll, whose ex-bf confessed of fatally stabbing her, but as it seems now, it was a totally different man. We don’t know what makes innocent people make self-incriminating utterances, but judging by Woll’s case, extreme anxiety and mental illness are to be blamed.

I’ve been following this case since day one and after all of these years, the ups and downs, the accusations, the rumors, the incompetence, the suspects, investigators, photos, etc., I can honestly say, imo, there’s no way a jury will be unanimous in their verdict.

 

[m00c0w]

One thing I find kind of crazy and very interesting here is that I could probably be swayed into having some doubt as to RA’s guilt if the defense took the time to flesh out inconsistencies in the witness accounts, discussed actual flaws with the physical evidence and its collection (“we haven’t seen photos of it being taken out of the ground” isn’t quite the same as “the round is inconsistent with other ammunition found at RA’s house” or “the round was clearly degraded and had been at the crime scene since well before the crimes took place.”), or even provided the slimmest alibi for RA beyond “yeah, he was there but he left earlier and idk did stuff”.

Instead, there are these zany conspiracy theories about Odinists doing blood sacrifices in the woods, the confessions were coerced by Odinist prison guards, pretty much every LE agency that touched this case has to be in on it, including CCSO, ISP, FBI, DNR, in order for the “I’m being set up” narrative to be true… Liggett lied in the PCA, just not sure about what exactly. Holeman bullied RA into confessing or something after allegedly improperly mirandizing him. Someone with the exact same model firearm just happened to be in the same spot as the crime scene and the models were so close, toolmark forensics misidentified RA’s firearm as consistent with the markings. The judge has it out for RA. He was apparently randomly selected one day by this megacult to be the sacrifice. Clothing at the bridge was all a coincidence. The cops knew this was the guy they had to set up and went to work rewriting years of leads, tips, evidence so it all fit.

That defense just doesn’t quite sit right with me. I hope they figure out something a little more reasonable by the time the trial comes around. I don’t think the jury will suspend disbelief that much, either.

All JMO

 

[katydid23]

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?

Goldman doesn't have to worry about that because neither the phone or the girls left the area and then returned.

How could that have even been accomplished? By 3:30 pm on the 13th, Libby's father was already in the area, calling the phone and calling out their names. He also asked everyone he saw to help him search, and immediately there were a dozen people calling out to them and spreading out to find them. Soon there were dozens of first responders, and locals and friends and family walking all around, and many stayed throughout the entire night.

Why and how would a killer or killers return to that area, with all those police vehicles and searchers, calling out loudly for the girls? Do we seriously believe anyone would walk into that heavily watched area carrying two dead bodies, after they had already escaped the area safely already? Who would do that?

Does anyone think the DT is seriously going to try and convince the jury that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, someone killed the girls and then carried them BACK into the area that was actively being searched? Forensics blood evidence says that the girls were killed right where they lay. I am pretty sure there is other evidence showing that as well, like footprints, etc.

And what about the pesky Odinists? Were they the ones who took the girls and returned them? None of the searchers noticed a clan of bearded woodsmen carrying 2 bodies through the brush?

 

[MollyDDD]

#Justice4Abby&Libby

View attachment 519900
Picture by WRTV

God it’s hard to look at that. Those young, beautiful, innocent girls.
It’s just unimaginable.

 

[m00c0w]

Goldman doesn't have to worry about that because neither the phone or the girls left the area and then returned.

How could that have even been accomplished? By 3:30 pm on the 13th, Libby's father was already in the area, calling the phone and calling out their names. He also asked everyone he saw to help him search, and immediately there were a dozen people calling out to them and spreading out to find them. Soon there were dozens of first responders, and locals and friends and family walking all around, and many stayed throughout the entire night.

Why and how would a killer or killers return to that area, with all those police vehicles and searchers, calling out loudly for the girls? Do we seriously believe anyone would walk into that heavily watched area carrying two dead bodies, after they had already escaped the area safely already? Who would do that?

Does anyone think the DT is seriously going to try and convince the jury that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, someone killed the girls and then carried them BACK into the area that was actively being searched? Forensics blood evidence says that the girls were killed right where they lay. I am pretty sure there is other evidence showing that as well, like footprints, etc.

And what about the pesky Odinists? Were they the ones who took the girls and returned them? None of the searchers noticed a clan of bearded woodsmen carrying 2 bodies through the brush?

It’s all a final desperate last attempt to get the Franks hearing. I don’t think they actually believe any of it, they just need to manufacture a way to get the search warrant thrown out.

Which again leads me to wonder what could be so incredible at the search that they’re having to go for broke trying to get it suppressed…

 

[grannygates]

Well, I’m hitched because I re-read the 4th Franks and now I understand where Nick is getting this quote re:no contact with the tower past 5:44pm. It’s from the communication between Holeman and Blocher, which occurred at 1:00am on Feb14.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[MollyDDD]

Goldman doesn't have to worry about that because neither the phone or the girls left the area and then returned.

How could that have even been accomplished? By 3:30 pm on the 13th, Libby's father was already in the area, calling the phone and calling out their names. He also asked everyone he saw to help him search, and immediately there were a dozen people calling out to them and spreading out to find them. Soon there were dozens of first responders, and locals and friends and family walking all around, and many stayed throughout the entire night.

Why and how would a killer or killers return to that area, with all those police vehicles and searchers, calling out loudly for the girls? Do we seriously believe anyone would walk into that heavily watched area carrying two dead bodies, after they had already escaped the area safely already? Who would do that?

Does anyone think the DT is seriously going to try and convince the jury that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, someone killed the girls and then carried them BACK into the area that was actively being searched? Forensics blood evidence says that the girls were killed right where they lay. I am pretty sure there is other evidence showing that as well, like footprints, etc.

And what about the pesky Odinists? Were they the ones who took the girls and returned them? None of the searchers noticed a clan of bearded woodsmen carrying 2 bodies through the brush?

“bearded woodsmen”…reminds me of Snow White.

 

[katydid23]

I’ve been following this case since day one and after all of these years, the ups and downs, the accusations, the rumors, the incompetence, the suspects, investigators, photos, etc., I can honestly say, imo, there’s no way a jury will be unanimous in their verdict.

But that is the beauty of an actual trial----random accusations, rumours, irrelevant suspects will be suppressed. The jury will only be shown and told about valid, relevant evidence from verified experts and key eye witnesses.

I have faith that they will come to a unanimous decision once they have the chance to deliberate. IMO

 

[m00c0w]

Well, I’m hitched because I re-read the 4th Franks and now I understand where Nick is getting this quote re:no contact with the tower past 5:44pm. It’s from the communication between Holeman and Blocher, which occurred at 1:00am on Feb14.

View attachment 520138

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

That doesn’t make his statement untruthful if that was, in fact, the last time the phone contacted a tower.

NM makes it extremely clear that this is the case. For example:


Do you believe that NM is outright lying when he states that the pings collected from AT&T were all historical? Either they are labeled as historical or they aren’t.

Back to my own burning question: was the “first ping” on 2/14 at 4:33 or 5:39?

JMO