Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #190

[Cyber sleuth]

yes. the crime scene forensics are clearly going to establish that abby was murdered at the tree. pooled blood will show she was not brought back from another location.

three strikes from a sharp weapon. this didn’t happen somewhere else.

the franks intentionally omitted the blood evidence for this reason.

Surely the world can see by now it was dishonestly crafted.

MOO

The testimony given under oath yesterday strongly conflicts with the information given on Abby’s condition at the crime scene in the Franks memorandum filed by defense.IMO

Page 29
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

 

[mrjitty]

The testimony given under oath yesterday strongly conflicts with the information given on Abby’s condition at the crime scene in the Franks memorandum filed by defense.

Page 29
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

Precisely. Of course many of us predicted it was fanfic. Now the game is up.

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

I think that the most important thing we learned in the full testimony is that this cell phone expert was only tasked by the prosecution with reporting on the FEB13 cell phone extraction. So as he was not tasked with a FEB14 extraction, he could state that the phone did not turn on again in his report because his report is only FEB13.

He did confirm that the phone was powered on again at 4:33 AM and there were 14 messages received on the device at that time.

You will also note that the expert indicated in their full testimony that the blood saturation on Abby was the hood of her hoodie. There was no blood below her injury. That’s a very crucial detail for the podcast to include in their episode.

MOO

And so if the phone didn't move after those 18 mins from "G,DTH" and was found under a shoe, under a victim at the crime scene, what is it that you think is so dubious about the phone connecting to the tower at 4:30...most likely right before the battery was finally depleted?

 

[sunshineray]

The FBI was involved pretty quick and said use all the resources that you need. I would think there had to be an original expert who did all of this actually at the crime scene. I am wondering if their original report, identity or involvement is not being disclosed or is missing. MOO

Yes and the FBI experts having stated there was no Odinist stuff involved, pretty strong corroboration for the ISP and local investigators. MO

 

[photographer4]

i think also the hearings need to be assessed as pre trial hearings that shape the trial and not the trial itself.

it’s hard to see what motions look positive for the defence apart from the safe keeping result which was not seriously contested.

i can’t see many if any of the confessions being excluded.

the motion in limine also looked bad because the defence does not have any evidence against their suspects.

Of course at trial they will obviously be able to argue the girls were killed elsewhere. the phone antenna sounds like their best argument by far IMO. i just wonder if it isn’t exculpatory

MOO

Does anyone happen to know if JG has a specific date by which she must rule on the matters she took under advisement from this hearing?

 

[sunshineray]

Murphy was tasked with the Rushville people. He broke the alibi of the Rushville people as he mentioned yesterday. The prosecution can’t even put RA at the crime scene, so why do they have a higher standard for offering a third-party suspect then they do in actually convicting a person of double homicide? That’s pretty backwards.

I think that the attention of this podcast is on the cross examination and not the actual direct exam where the Murphy and Click are detailing their investigation per the interviews, reports, etc. (that were not destroyed OCT/22) and were submitted when he found out that RA was arrested as they found their own work to be far more compelling than a blue jacket.

Again, incredibly biased sources that intentionally excluding hours of testimony to push one narrative and misinform their viewers is the exact reason why we need cameras in the court room.

MOO

They obviously can place RA there, RA has placed himself there. He's also admitted in his mountains of confessions details only the killer would know. He's also confessed his motive. We shall hear all about it from RA's point of view. Should we not believe him?

 

[mrjitty]

Does anyone know if the phone expert actually testified that the phone made a connection to the tower in the 4am hour? Or was this something the defence attorney said to him that was not in evidence?

I can't find the specific context of that discussion.

 

[sunshineray]

Isn’t he charged with felony murder with no underlying charge. What do they have to prove? They can say that a man wore a blue jacket on a trail and he gets convicted of a double homicide? How exactly is that solving this case?



MOO

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Many posts have been removed. Stop the senseless back and forth bickering and move on. It's fine to disagree respectfully without personalizing but then members need to scroll and roll without derailing the discussion by hyperfocusing or trying to hold someone else's feet to the fire.

Members who engage in bickering may be removed entirely from the discussion. Post accordingly.

 

[sunshineray]

OK so I’m wondering what the Murder Sheet said about the direct examination of the expert who opined on how the crime scene may reflect the religious views of the people who created it ?

That she was unprepared to testify, never having looked at evidence before she made her judgements backed in Dec 2023 (she only recieved the evidence to evaluate in April this year). She was also pretty obstinate when confronted with evidence to never change her mind...so a very close-minded person, maybe just out for a paycheck. Her testimony was torn apart by the prosecution. MO

 

[mrjitty]

The testimony given under oath yesterday strongly conflicts with the information given on Abby’s condition at the crime scene in the Franks memorandum filed by defense.IMO

Page 29
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

I've always been troubled by this 'hanging' claim at the bottom of page 39 - by far the biggest clue that 100+ pages of this Franks motion was a press release not written for the Judge. Screenshot attached. MOO. Not only was there zero evidence for this wild claim, we now know it is contrary to the blood testimony. IMO it was included to promote a conspiracy, and this is what MW was 'consulting' on. MOO - my own inference only.

 

[photographer4]

And so if the phone didn't move after those 18 mins from "G,DTH" and was found under a shoe, under a victim at the crime scene, what is it that you think is so dubious about the phone connecting to the tower at 4:30...most likely right before the battery was finally depleted?

One thing I hope they (either side) talk about in trial is what the phone was charged to before the kids entered the trails and how long the charge lasted. They should have prob been able to know this based on the settings. I think they should have been able to see when last charged, to what percentage and which apps were draining the battery (eg running in background or in use). I would like to know the general stats for her typical usage and the stats for post abduction.

 

[photographer4]

They obviously can place RA there, RA has placed himself there. He's also admitted in his mountains of confessions details only the killer would know. He's also confessed his motive. We shall hear all about it from RA's point of view. Should we not believe him?

If his confessions are solid and consistent and such, could the judge not just issue a summary judgement of guilty against him and remove his right to trial?? Like if she reviewed herself what he said, to whom, what conditions etc — can she forgo trial in favour of a summary conviction? Not a lawyer so genuine question

 

[mrjitty]

If his confessions are solid and consistent and such, could the judge not just issue a summary judgement of guilty against him and remove his right to trial?? Like if she reviewed herself what he said, to whom, what conditions etc — can she forgo trial in favour of a summary conviction? Not a lawyer so genuine question

no!

MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

One thing I hope they (either side) talk about in trial is what the phone was charged to before the kids entered the trails and how long the charge lasted. They should have prob been able to know this based on the settings. I think they should have been able to see when last charged, to what percentage and which apps were draining the battery (eg running in background or in use). I would like to know the general stats for her typical usage and the stats for post abduction.

Well, one thing we do know is she was taking pictures and video immediately before her abduction. Video in particular tends to pull on battery life pretty hard.

MOO

 

[photographer4]

Well, one thing we do know is she was taking pictures and video immediately before her abduction. Video in particular tends to pull on battery life pretty hard.

MOO

For sure! And if her phone wasn’t new the battery may have had a shorter life span. I wonder what it was normally between charge times?

 

[mrjitty]

Murder Sheet appeared on "The Prosecutors- Legal Briefs" - this is for you in you love 3 lawyers chewing over the legal arguments and evidence presented. Alice is a sharp critic of the defense legal strategy. For instance, on the confessions, she points out there is a process to suppress confessions, specifically one by one. The defence did not do that, but the reason is they don't have any good arguments to make. So they make generic arguments about state actors and harsh conditions.

ETA: They also cover a sleight of hand by the defence in relation to the FBI BAUs opinion on the case.

 

[iamshadow21]

For sure! And if her phone wasn’t new the battery may have had a shorter life span. I wonder what it was normally between charge times?

It wasn't new. I can't remember what model it was, but it got chewed over way back on the threads somewhere.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

It would’ve been far more compelling testimony if he was able to provide any video recording of his experiment proving his theory.

A thick solid 7” inch long line, that fills all the grooves and niches of the bark, is hard to imagine being created by the amount blood that was transferred onto the hand from another part of the body (there is no cut on the hand) and that this line was caused by one simple swipe of the hand in a downward motion. I would like to know what quantity of blood would’ve been required to make that that very intentional looking 7 inch line solid line.

I would’ve appreciated if this expert video recorded his experiment to prove his point, because it is a hard theory to get behind when looking at the actual image. I understand he did a lot of different experiments before getting to this particular one.

MOO

He did do multiple experiments, tested clothing, went to the actual crime scene and I believe we'll see those come in at trial. This was not trial so it makes perfect sense that the State wouldn't show all their cards. It was sick and upsetting enough to hear the generalities, I can only imagine how upsetting it is going to be at trial.

Warning - Sensitive subject matter

Spoiler: Libby's Injuries

The State's Certified Crime Scene Expert and Blood Spatter Expert stated that Libby was had 3 cut wounds to the neck. The first would have caused massive blow flow but she was still upright and (most likely put her hand over the wound to stop the bleeding) moving or falling in his estimation, but was cut 2 more times on the neck and that is when she sank down to the bottom of the tree. Blood pools in those locations show she was down at that spot and the F on the tree was actually Libby's bloody handprint in his estimation not an intentional letter F painted in blood.

At approx 1:25 min mark
The Delphi Murders: Three Days of Pretrial Hearings: Day Three

 

[girlhasnoname]

At Approx 1:28 min mark:

Spoiler: Abby's Injuries - Sensitive Information

Abby was dressed in Libby's clothes at the time she was killed as there was heavy blood saturation to those clothes and blood pooling according to State Expert, so not redressed in them after her murder as speculated in the Franks.

The Expert testified that the sticks placed on the bodies were placed there to help hide the bodies from someone looking from across the creek. He showed a sample of blood saturated hand print which helped him determine it was one of the last dying efforts of Libby.

How anyone can listen to these horrifying last minutes of these girls and not be affected and not want their killer behind prison bars for the rest of his sick, miserable life is beyond me. What was done to them is far worse than being held in segregation awaiting trial for their murders will ever be.

JMO
#Justice4Abby&Libby

The Delphi Murders: Three Days of Pretrial Hearings: Day Three