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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I don't know what we will learn, but it's still a vivid memory in my mind of being totally surprised at the Murdaugh trial with Paul's cellphone info. That was a very well-known case, but the public was clueless about the strong evidence the prosecution had.

jmo
Yes, it is often surprising how much they are holding back.

In the Jodi Arias trial, I had no idea that she had left her camera in the washer, and there were pictures of her committing the deadly crime, of killing her boyfriend, and it is all retrieved from the camera. It shocked everyone that the DA was sitting on all that evidence. Including Jodi, because most figured she put it through the was cycle to destroy the evidence.
 
My comment was about how people think negatively upon those who are paid to appear as an expert in court cases. I was just making the connection that every single person in that courtroom is being paid for their participation. So I don’t find it to be immediately distrustful just because someone is being paid for their special expertise that they’ve spent their lifetime building. IMO
Does that go for You-Tube content creators too? I've seen some speculation that some shouldn't be trusted because they make money doing the shows.
 
Yes, it is often surprising how much they are holding back.

In the Jodi Arias trial, I had no idea that she had left her camera in the washer, and there were pictures of her committing the deadly crime, of killing her boyfriend, and it is all retrieved from the camera. It shocked everyone that the DA was sitting on all that evidence. Including Jodi, because most figured she put it through the was cycle to destroy the evidence.
Yep. I'll never assume we know much.

The evidence that leads to conviction will be presented at trial.

There is a time to set aside theories that don't fit the actual charges against the person actually charged. My opinion only, of course.

jmo
 
IMO I think that we should be looking at what the evidence actually says and not which side is presenting it.
In a hearing though like in a trial, the evidence of testimony, questions posed to witnesses by either side, prosecution or defense, give great and necessary context to the testimony. Also the demeanor of the questioners can also aid the jury, ie Attorney BR raising his voice for effect or to jolt a witness or Prosecutor NMcL cool as a cucumber cross of a stubborn witness...all in front of a jury done for particular reasons. AJMO
 
Does that go for You-Tube content creators too? I've seen some speculation that some shouldn't be trusted because they make money doing the shows.
I totally think the Odinist story got airtime was because people found it fascinating. I don't think legit content creators (including mainstream outlets) believed it was a viable theory.....but it got clicks so they covered more than what they originally intended. And because it was widely covered, some people thought it was believable.

It's bunk. It's fascinating, that's true, but it's bunk. My opinion.

JMO
 
I totally think the Odinist story got airtime was because people found it fascinating. I don't think legit content creators (including mainstream outlets) believed it was a viable theory.....but it got clicks so they covered more than what they originally intended. And because it was widely covered, some people thought it was believable.

It's bunk. It's fascinating, that's true, but it's bunk. My opinion.

JMO
I don't even find it fascinating, to be honest.

It's the satanic panic in a horned helmet.

And the satanic panic was just the Salem witch trials with fewer bonnets.

Transparent, fake, boring, and nothing but a poor attempt to derail justice by playing on people's fears.

MOO
 
There's only one guy in the vid taken by Libby on that bridge. There's only one guy who admitted to being on that bridge. Coincidently, that same guy, the one who admitted being on the bridge, also admitted dozens of times he killed the girls.

I've followed this case for years, since the beginning. All potential scenarios crafted by the human mind have been discussed ad nauseum.

There was no grand meeting in the bottom land that day. Those girls were marched down a steep embankment, through a wooded area next to a stream, across the stream, up a rather steep bank, and in to an area of bottom land not unlike all other wetland/bottomland along streams throughout the world.

This is where they were murdered. There was no tour bus parked above in the cemetery, no group of cars, no vans, no nothing reported to that effect, via witness or cam.

I've personally studied the terrain, followed the rail track, followed deer creek, thought of escape by raft, boat, and canoe, pondered escape via bridge creek, wondered about accomplices, thought maybe they were squirreled away in a car waiting on the driveway under the bridge, heard of the shack, the runes, the rabbits, the puppies, the swords, the guns, the artifacts hanging from the trees, the searches....I could go on, like I said, ad nauseum.

Never has another person been charged. Never. Yeah, I thought maybe KAK and company, but hey, I thought too of numerous others, a guy from Kokomo, a father son team, a relative, somebody at a factory, a serial killer, a trucker, a man just passin' through, a local politician, a judge.....again, ad nauseum.

Yet here we are. One guy on the bridge in the video. One guy admitted he was on that bridge. One guy admitted to killing the girls....with details known only to the killer.

He's busted. Game over. Done deal....if it was typed by me, which it was, then assume it's my opinion :)
Perfectly written !!!!

Thank you
 
I don't even find it fascinating, to be honest.

It's the satanic panic in a horned helmet.

And the satanic panic was just the Salem witch trials with fewer bonnets.

Transparent, fake, boring, and nothing but a poor attempt to derail justice by playing on people's fears.

MOO

The paranoia it created destroyed lives. Now that the D is attempting to ride on that same scheme while testing it out on a whole new generation, IMO is the most sickening means of attempting to defend their client that I can possibly imagine. Especially because it’s based on nothing other than speculation and imagination. MOO

JP received an official government apology and a $1.3 million settlement for malicious prosecution in the '92 Satanic child sex abuse case. Yet, the former police officer says, the heinous false accusations originally made against him will be 'associated with me until I go to my grave.'
 
I don't even find it fascinating, to be honest.

It's the satanic panic in a horned helmet.

And the satanic panic was just the Salem witch trials with fewer bonnets.

Transparent, fake, boring, and nothing but a poor attempt to derail justice by playing on people's fears.

MOO
I hear ya, but in general, culty things tend to fascinate people. Maybe sensational would've been a better word.

I recall the santanic panic in the 1980s and ever since then, these types of theories stand out as bunk to me.

jmo
 
So, I am curious about the video.
It is supposed to be 43 seconds long ( I think)
We have only been allowed to see about 2 seconds, at most.
The defense doesn't want the video to be presented to the jury.
Is there something on the video, perhaps BG's hand, a view of the gun, etc. And whatever tha could be, is directly associated with Richard Allen.
Maybe his hand has a scar or a finger once broken that shows predominantly... maybe the gun has something unique?

If that is possible, would it change anyone's mind about him being on the bridge with the girls?

If it's not anything like that, does anyone have a theory about why we haven't seen it, or why the defense doesn't want the jury to see it?
I think it might be the girls, their words, getting scared, reacting to the gun and him? It was once theorized that maybe BG had a badge he flashed to get them obedient? Just a thought.
 
Realistically - if a juror starts to think on their own that some other guy may have done the crime, regardless of the evidence, what stops them from voting that RA is not guilty? I know it is not supposed to work this way, but what would stop someone arguing to the rest of the jury that it *could* have been someone else? I understand they're told instructions by the judge, but again, what stops them?
You might enjoy watching the movie 12 Angry Men...the original. A lot of arguing can go on in the jury room and minds can be swayed.
 
That’s totally OK! We are all here to discuss the case and share our opinions so I totally understand and appreciate that there are people that will have a different opinion than me. I absolutely reserve the right to be wrong LOL

It’s nice to see others thoughtful opinions on different aspects of the case and filings because it can give more food for thought and a lot more to talk about.

I’m an “on the fencer”. I just know that I personally need far more than what is publicly available in order to form any sort of opinion. There are too many coincidences for it not to be on purpose. There’s also soooo many unknowns, I can’t hitch my wagon to any one theory at this point!

MOO

I'm the type of person that likes to see two sides of a story, if possible, and when it comes to a court trial although I haven't watched many - what is presented in the way of convincing evidence and solid witnesses. Must be a fair trial and based on facts.

Maybe I'm on the fence as well as I need to be convinced beyond a doubt that the person on trial is the right one.
 
I assume he could just do this himself without need of his lawyers? Like, what would stop him standing up in court and just blurting out what he wants to?
If it was in front of the jury, that would be the end of that trial. If he stuck to it, then the plea gets changed. If his lawyers family talked him back down. New trial.
 
I'm curious as to what his relationship with "god" (whichever he subscribes to) may be at present? Has his faith always been a consistent factor in his life or did this just randomly appear one day in prison? How's his faith been since having made the "confessions"? I know we don't know - I'm just curious is all.
I think they ask that question when they do the induction interview to the prison.
 
I actually don't know - has he? For that matter, has he denied that he was the guy in LG's video or acknowledged it was him? Perhaps I've missed something - I've been following as and when I can, but its a ton to catch up on!
Has RA ever provided an alibi? Never have heard one mentioned by his lawyers.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
2,751
Total visitors
2,880

Forum statistics

Threads
601,282
Messages
18,121,876
Members
230,996
Latest member
unnamedTV
Back
Top