Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #189

[sunshineray]

Interesting, I wonder if we should expect to hear anything that happens at this?

They still have to hash out all the evidence that will be presented, what's admissible, what's not.

 

[FromGermany1]

Yes, extremely strange. I remember lots of talk about it at the time.

ETA: Maybe putting the pics of the girls out was considered to be the best way to get attention....if people recognized the girls, they'd maybe log on to where they saw photos of the girls and see what it was all about. (i.e. if KAK or anyone else was sharing photos of them.)

Just a theory.

IMO MOO

bbm
Exactly my guess today (not then).ETA: Although at that time one was already thinking of some Internet "things" going on.

 

[FromGermany1]

I recall one officer saying the he would never forget the look on one of the girl’s faces when she realized what was happening. He didn’t mention which girl, or what was happening. I’ll say MOO here because I don’T have the link handy, but it was discussed in many threads. This makes me think it is likely there is some significant video and audio that we haven’t heard. I wonder if they’ll be played for the jury? I can’t imagine being on a jury and having to be subjected to things like crime scene photos or videos, audio evidence of atrocious crimes being committed. I bet it could be traumatizing and I was wondering, if the jury in this (or any other) case ends up with some sort of trauma as a result of their participation on a jury panel, what, if any supports are available to them? What happens if something they see / hear at court has such a negative effect that it leads to severe anxiety, depression etc or makes them incapable of resuming their usual work duties?

The victim maybe was L, who filmed Abby at that moment (we don't know). In any case, the shocked victim wouldn't have filmed herself in these minutes, I think.

 

[Chimera]

I recall one officer saying the he would never forget the look on one of the girl’s faces when she realized what was happening. He didn’t mention which girl, or what was happening. I’ll say MOO here because I don’T have the link handy, but it was discussed in many threads. This makes me think it is likely there is some significant video and audio that we haven’t heard. I wonder if they’ll be played for the jury? I can’t imagine being on a jury and having to be subjected to things like crime scene photos or videos, audio evidence of atrocious crimes being committed. I bet it could be traumatizing and I was wondering, if the jury in this (or any other) case ends up with some sort of trauma as a result of their participation on a jury panel, what, if any supports are available to them? What happens if something they see / hear at court has such a negative effect that it leads to severe anxiety, depression etc or makes them incapable of resuming their usual work duties?

Bbm.

I think those are some very good questions !

 

[m00c0w]

In terms of the three girls who reported seeing BG on the bridge that day - given they were all out together that day, imo they were friends at that point. I was wondering, how long after the kids were found dead did they contact LE to report they’d seen a man there? I am also wondering, how much did the witnesses talk with one another about what they’d seen before talking with police about it?

In the time since having reported what they saw, have they continued to be friends? I’m asking because I am wondering what would stop them from further discussing what they witnessed amongst themselves or with other friends or family members? Have they continued to follow the case online as they wait to possibly testify?

In addition to these questions, I wonder, what questions did the police ask the kids when they interviewed them? Specifically I mean. Did they ask open ended questions such as “what can you tell me about the person you saw”? Or did they ask leading questions such as: “Witness A says she thinks the man had blue eyes, do you agree with that statement?”

These are some worrisome points given what researchers know about how these things can impact the reliability of a witness statement, and the impacts they could have during trial! Here is an interesting link about the issue of witness reliability and factors which influence it for those who have a moment to read it: Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable?

This is exactly why testimony is memorialized early. The defense then has the ability to depose witnesses before the trial to see if the story stays the same. After that, at trial, they can either directly call or cross-examine witnesses to try to impeach their testimony if their version of events has changed over time or if there’s a possibility of them having rehearsed their testimonies together.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

This is exactly why testimony is memorialized early. The defense then has the ability to depose witnesses before the trial to see if the story stays the same. After that, at trial, they can either directly call or cross-examine witnesses to try to impeach their testimony if their version of events has changed over time or if there’s a possibility of them having rehearsed their testimonies together.

JMO

And what happens when all that initial testimony was "lost" or "recorded over?"

IMO

 

[m00c0w]

And what happens when all that initial testimony was "lost" or "recorded over?"

IMO

You go by the written reports, since not all interviews are even recorded in the first place?

 

[TTF14]

You go by the written reports, since not all interviews are even recorded in the first place?

I'm losing track of information.....do we know if written reports exist or if everything was wiped out?

IMO

 

[ClearAhead]

I'm losing track of information.....do we know if written reports exist or if everything was wiped out?

IMO

Even the D did not allege ‘everything was wiped out’. Potential witnesses would not generally be considered “key suspects”. It’s not unusual for witnesses to be asked to hand-write their statements, therefore no recording exists at all.

Police 'recorded over' interviews with 'key suspects' in Delphi murders case: Defense lawyers

Accused Delphi murderer Richard Allen's lawyers asked for the charges against him to be dismissed, claiming police destroyed exculpatory evidence.

lawandcrime.com

 

[m00c0w]

I'm losing track of information.....do we know if written reports exist or if everything was wiped out?

IMO

I’m not sure what you mean by “everything was wiped out”. The defense has given very little attention to the three females at the bridge and their statements, so I am assuming there is something present to substantiate what Liggett put in the PCAs. What that is, I’m not sure because we don’t really know what’s in discovery for the most part. Could be video. Could be audio. Could be an investigator’s report (like a 302 if they were interviewed by FBI), or even a handwritten statement by the girls (as is common for witnesses with local/state LE).

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

In terms of the three girls who reported seeing BG on the bridge that day - given they were all out together that day, imo they were friends at that point. I was wondering, how long after the kids were found dead did they contact LE to report they’d seen a man there? I am also wondering, how much did the witnesses talk with one another about what they’d seen before talking with police about it?

In the time since having reported what they saw, have they continued to be friends? I’m asking because I am wondering what would stop them from further discussing what they witnessed amongst themselves or with other friends or family members? Have they continued to follow the case online as they wait to possibly testify?

In addition to these questions, I wonder, what questions did the police ask the kids when they interviewed them? Specifically I mean. Did they ask open ended questions such as “what can you tell me about the person you saw”? Or did they ask leading questions such as: “Witness A says she thinks the man had blue eyes, do you agree with that statement?”

These are some worrisome points given what researchers know about how these things can impact the reliability of a witness statement, and the impacts they could have during trial! Here is an interesting link about the issue of witness reliability and factors which influence it for those who have a moment to read it: Is Eyewitness Testimony Reliable?

People don't live in a bubble just because they witnessed something and came forward to LE and told them. The investigation went on and so did the witnesses's lives. What they saw has been memorialized by LE and if called to be a witness on the stand they will tell their story via questions from the P & D.

To think those girls never talked amongst themselves immediately afterwards or to family, friends about what they saw is unrealistic. LE took their statements early in the investigation.

Since RA's arrest and the gag order, that's a different story. All witnesses should be keeping quiet.

But to think people witnessed something and then expect them to never talk about it for the almost 6 before the arrest, it's logically unrealistic. Because they may have talked about it in their lives since Feb 13, 2017 doesn't make them a bad witness. They saw what they saw, it was memorialized, it's really not that complicated. AJMO

 

[MiniMoo]

People don't live in a bubble just because they witnessed something and came forward to LE and told them. The investigation went on and so did the witnesses's lives. What they saw has been memorialized by LE and if called to be a witness on the stand they will tell their story via questions from the P & D.

To think those girls never talked amongst themselves immediately afterwards or to family, friends about what they saw is unrealistic. LE took their statements early in the investigation.

Since RA's arrest and the gag order, that's a different story. All witnesses should be keeping quiet.

But to think people witnessed something and then expect them to never talk about it for the almost 6 before the arrest, it's logically unrealistic. Because they may have talked about it in their lives since Feb 13, 2017 doesn't make them a bad witness. They saw what they saw, it was memorialized, it's really not that complicated. AJMO

It doesn't make them bad at all - true.

In court, if any of those witnesses are put on the stand, it is likely they will have their own written statements in front of them (or if requested) so that they can refer to them if they can't recall anything. There to refresh their memories only.

 

[Niner]

JG granted the motion for the "mini opening statement."

View attachment 520465

Anyone else noticed that it says trial commencing on 10/15/24. So the judge is figuring one day [10/14/24] of jury selection?? Or was the trial date moved one day....

I have 3 days for jury selection (10/14 to 10/17) with trial beginning on 10/18/24.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Photo CrimeOnline
by Leigh Egan
March 25, 2022


#Justice4Abby&Libby

 

[steeltowngirl]

It doesn't make them bad at all - true.

In court, if any of those witnesses are put on the stand, it is likely they will have their own written statements in front of them (or if requested) so that they can refer to them if they can't recall anything. There to refresh their memories only.

I would expect the witnesses will be asked if this is the man they encountered on the trail. If yes, then they saw BG, who ordered the girls down the hill to be murdered. The prosecution then needs to prove BARD to the jury that RA=BG.

Do that successfully, and there will be a conviction.

Police reveal man in photograph is suspect in slayings of Delphi teens

The man in the grainy photo released by police is suspected of killing Delphi teens Liberty German and Abigail Williams.

www.jconline.com

 

[TTF14]

It doesn't make them bad at all - true.

In court, if any of those witnesses are put on the stand, it is likely they will have their own written statements in front of them (or if requested) so that they can refer to them if they can't recall anything. There to refresh their memories only.

Unless they were "lost."

IMO MOO

 

[Vern]

People don't live in a bubble just because they witnessed something and came forward to LE and told them. The investigation went on and so did the witnesses's lives. What they saw has been memorialized by LE and if called to be a witness on the stand they will tell their story via questions from the P & D.

To think those girls never talked amongst themselves immediately afterwards or to family, friends about what they saw is unrealistic. LE took their statements early in the investigation.

Since RA's arrest and the gag order, that's a different story. All witnesses should be keeping quiet.

But to think people witnessed something and then expect them to never talk about it for the almost 6 before the arrest, it's logically unrealistic. Because they may have talked about it in their lives since Feb 13, 2017 doesn't make them a bad witness. They saw what they saw, it was memorialized, it's really not that complicated. AJMO

Fully agree.

Same thing has happened in cases for eons. Nothing about people discussing their shared experiences - especially when it comes to trumatic events. I've no doubt there was conversation akin to, "do you think that guy we saw did it?" / "Do you think they'll ever figure out who that guy we saw is?", etc etc. Normal. Not nefarious.

The questions that they were asked during interviews etc are preserved for the record. If any of them testify they will be cross-examined by the Defence. Exactly as witness' have been in the past and during millions of other trials.

I'm beginning to think that there are people these days who could/would never find a soul guilty of anything if the crime and their commission of it were not directly captured on videotape. Interestingly, IMO I also notice that they tend not to apply the same standard to other cases.

 

[Vern]

Unless they were "lost."

IMO MOO

Then they can still testify to what they saw/witnessed and were questionned about. Then be cross examined by the Defence.

IMO MOO.

 

[TTF14]

Anyone else noticed that it says trial commencing on 10/15/24. So the judge is figuring one day [10/14/24] of jury selection?? Or was the trial date moved one day....

I have 3 days for jury selection (10/14 to 10/17) with trial beginning on 10/18/24.

Good catch. The trial is still scheduled to start 10/14. Maybe the voir dire doesn't start until the 2nd day, though?

 

[TTF14]

Then they can still testify to what they saw/witnessed and were questionned about. Then be cross examined by the Defence.

IMO MOO.

Right. But there will be no way to know if their statements have changed.

IMO MOO