TTF14
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 14,929
- Reaction score
- 69,458
The timeline is proven.
How so?
The timeline is proven.
It is in the PCAHow so?
Unless their statements are part of the evidence the was "lost." That's what I mean.
IMO MOO
I believe the only people on that section of the trail (from that parking area toward Monon high bridge) was BB and the man she saw out on the bridge, then Abby and Libby. We have no reason not to believe BB when she says she saw a man on the high bridge and then she turns to walk back toward her car and she passes Abby and Libby. I think it's nearly 100% that she actually saw Abby and Libby because her arrival to the parking area is time stamped due to the video cameras. Abby and Libby arriving is also time stamped due to video cameras. BB's time leaving is time stamped due to the video of her car leaving. We have an exact time that Libby takes a photo of Abby on the Monon High bridge. I think those things line up to show that the girls passed BB and then went to the bridge to take the photo and the timing all works.Outside of BB believing that she sees the girls while she is walking back from the bridge, has any other person on the trial said they saw the girls? MOO There are many more people on the trials that aren’t mentioned in the PCA.
Sadly, wrongful convictions happen all the time. With all the “coincidences” in this case, it’s hard to trust the source that appears to be the cause of said “coincidences”. Then there’s the issue with similar sources on either side. If I’m supposed to trust a cop just because they’re a cop, why would I pick ISP over the FBI? If I’m supposed to not believing the inmate who reported the jail conditions, why would I believe the inmates telling me about confessions?
Eyewitness reports and false confessions are the leading causes of wrongful conviction. We have both options in this case. That’s why so many people are adamant that real evidence should be presented in order to convict someone. Scientific evidence, digital data etc. Items that don’t rely on human opinion.
All MOO
Eyewitness misidentification is one of the most common factors in cases of wrongful conviction. Nationally, 28% of all exonerations involve mistaken eyewitness identification
False confessions have been a factor in 12% of proven wrongful convictions nationwide. While it may seem difficult to understand why someone would confess to a crime they did not commit, there are many reasons that this can happen. For instance, physical intimidation or threats of violence by law enforcement can lead a suspect to falsely confess.
That too but for me, the main take away was more how co-witnesses adopt what their co-witnesses tell them as their own recollections when they discuss things amongst themselves, especially before giving their statements to police. So if the three witnesses went on with their walk, and they spoke about the guy who wore X clothes and was Yay tall, and who didn’t say hello or whatever they said, then each thing said by one of them can and is likely to become part of the other’s collective memory, even if that isn’t how they actually saw it. The research on it is quite interesting and very compelling imo. Often times, witness statements are a huge factor that lead to wrongful convictions. Some stats say that witness statements factor into over 70% of wrongful convictions. Causes of Wrongful Convictions - Innocence Canada.
I’ve read other stats that suggest they factor into well over 75% percent of wrongful convictions. So to me, witness statements are good and helpful but can be also very flawed and dangerous!
Maybe they did by form of a letter to the court? Maybe that's who the "KMS" correspondence was from we can't read?i wonder if Murdersheet can file these leaks into the case for the Judge?
Law enforcement seems the wrong move here. MH may be in contempt.
I hear ya, but him saying he saw the girls, and them having seen him does NOT necessarily make him a killer. It makes him a man, who at a minimum was at the trails and on the bridge that day who saw a couple of kids. I’m really interested to see the story unfold to learn how they tied him specifically to the crime.DD's notes are informal. His notes led to believe that he didn't know about the timeline and the importance of the girls. Which is normal because it was in the early days, probably LE were still worked in a timeline. So probably he was just asking very simple questions like at the time people were there in the trails and what people saw. He tought he was made a recording but probably didn't. Which is my greatest regret about the case: I'm sure if we have a recording of that, RA would be completely screwed. But anyway, RA boxed himself with his own words. DD know it was girls because RA said and even describe one of them. The girls also describe the same interacion than RA. He boxed himself.
It is hard to know if he straight up lied that he didn’t see the kids or if he just didn’t register there presence really for some reason. Maybe he was engaged with something else. Maybe his mind was focused on something else. There was a great video on YouTube about this:The problem I have is, even if I try and give him the benefit of doubt, then I come back to thinking he is a liar and therefore guilty of this crime.
His timeline, his original one, matches up with the young teenage girls and then the Bridge witness who places him on platform 1, which he admits he went out to and stood there, and we know she saw the girls walk past.
So we can place the girls on his direct path, so I have options
A - He comes off the bridge and walks to find this bench and the girls walk past
B- He is still on the bridge as the girls walk on to it
Whichever option I look at, he must have seen them so therefore, he is lying, and he would only do that because he is involved.
MOOOOOOOO
Thank goodness there's going to be far more information and true facts coming in from the State during the trial, which is when it should happen, instead of being sneakily piece milled in Motions, Filings and Hail Mary'd around the gag order.Outside of BB believing that she sees the girls while she is walking back from the bridge, has any other person on the trial said they saw the girls? MOO There are many more people on the trials that aren’t mentioned in the PCA.
Sadly, wrongful convictions happen all the time. With all the “coincidences” in this case, it’s hard to trust the source that appears to be the cause of said “coincidences”. Then there’s the issue with similar sources on either side. If I’m supposed to trust a cop just because they’re a cop, why would I pick ISP over the FBI? If I’m supposed to not believing the inmate who reported the jail conditions, why would I believe the inmates telling me about confessions?
Eyewitness reports and false confessions are the leading causes of wrongful conviction. We have both options in this case. That’s why so many people are adamant that real evidence should be presented in order to convict someone. Scientific evidence, digital data etc. Items that don’t rely on human opinion.
All MOO
Eyewitness misidentification is one of the most common factors in cases of wrongful conviction. Nationally, 28% of all exonerations involve mistaken eyewitness identification
False confessions have been a factor in 12% of proven wrongful convictions nationwide. While it may seem difficult to understand why someone would confess to a crime they did not commit, there are many reasons that this can happen. For instance, physical intimidation or threats of violence by law enforcement can lead a suspect to falsely confess.
MurderSheet has a new episode on alleged leaks from the defence investigator MH to 'internet cranks'
![]()
The Delphi Murders: Defense Investigator Matthew Hoffman, Phone Pings, and Youtube Leaks: "If Something Happens to Us"
Today, we will delve more into the relationship between Richard Allen's defense investigator Matthew Hoffman and internet cranks. Specifically, we unpack...murdersheetpodcast.com