Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #191

[Salah11]

I don't understand why the Judge would tell the defense they are not allowed to present a "some other dude did it" defense. The defense should be able to present the defense they deem best, and allow the jury to evaluate the merits of it. Isn't that the way the criminal justice system works in the US? If the judge and prosecution start telling the defense what they can and can not argue, then "we have a problem, Houston", IMO.

Well they still have to prove what they are claiming is true. So from Muder Sheet they claim the defense didn’t prove that. We will see when Judge Gull makes her rulings I guess.

This Is my understanding but I’m from the UK so maybe im wrong. Im sure a U.S.er will know more.

MOO

 

[ClearAhead]

So Click may’ve optimistically yet incorrectly assumed the FBI BAU determined the crime scene involved ritualistic elements. But the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force would’ve consisted of more members than only Ferency and Murphy. There’d be no reason for the final FBI BAU conclusion to be shared with an officer from Rushville, especially one who was already part way out the door to retirement.

But enough for a defense team lacking integrity to run with.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

I just gave you direct testimony from Murphy and Holeman and cross. What are you talking about, I'm honestly confused here?

I never referenced geofencing because I don't know enough about it myself to claim anything, but I have seen Certified FBI CAST experts explain it easily for the juries to understand. Most recently the Barry Morphew case and the Alex Murdaugh case. Fascinating stuff there.

JMO

I was acknowledging that the podcast intentionally reported on just the cross examination.

 

[Willow Knight]

They can and do represent their statements to the' best of their knowledge', all you need to do is look at the Franks Memo #1 and you can see them getting around many things by stating in the footnotes that it may or may not have happened that way.

They've been stretching the truth all along.

JMO

At times it's very frustrating to keep noting the footnotes when it' obvious some won't bother. IMO one of the best ways to form valid opinions is to read everything. Not simply cherry pick to support and spread lies. It is sad to read lies regarding prison guards. Innocent people being verbally attacked for what? Attacked with lies.

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

""If it’s this clear, why can’t they see the guy walking ?""

Has it been said or released that the HH video had not picked up a guy walking? I am hoping at trial we are shown video of this, and the guy getting into his vehicle. At this point, have to wait for trial to see how much the HH camera was able to pick up. (remembering Ross Harris trial, video did pick up RH getting into his car at lunch time) Don't recall that information being released prior to trial.

RA could have easily walked behind the Hoosier Harvest Store.
My guess is that’s exactly what he did.

 

[photographer4]

As stated previously by me - some wish to ignore their testimony that they could not place their 'suspects' at the scene of the crime despite their best attempts to do so.

Utterly fascinating indeed.

During their investigation into these folks, could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were where they claimed to be? I am pages and pages behind, and I asked similar questions earlier - <modsnip - if you can't link it, you can't post about it here (rumor)>

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I don't understand why the Judge would tell the defense they are not allowed to present a "some other dude did it" defense. The defense should be able to present the defense they deem best, and allow the jury to evaluate the merits of it. Isn't that the way the criminal justice system works in the US? If the judge and prosecution start telling the defense what they can and can not argue, then "we have a problem, Houston", IMO.

The rules are there to prevent defense teams from just making up complete fairy tales and blaming innocent people to confuse juries.
So the rules say there has to be a connection in some way to the crime from an alternate theory. Pretty low bar actually.

 

[steeltowngirl]

An innocent POI shouldn’t go down for a crime they didn’t commit simply because they seem a “better” fit. A suspect can appear innocent as a lamb, yet evidence will show they are, in fact, guilty.

jmo

 

[photographer4]

People would rather believe that a group of people are covering up the broad-daylight murder of two innocent local girls than that the real murderer is awaiting trial.

So be it. It will all come out in court....not that we will get to see it.

jmo

I could believe all sorts of people might be trying to cover up their own involvement here, including RA tbh. So many things in this case make it easy for followers to be pulled in this direction or that trying to wade through what is what and to figure out the truth of it all.

 

[grannygates]

Well they still have to prove what they are claiming is true. So from Muder Sheet they claim the defense didn’t prove that. We will see when Judge Gull makes her rulings I guess.

This Is my understanding but I’m from the UK so maybe im wrong. Im sure a U.S.er will know more.

MOO

Did the murder sheet explain what they believe the legal requirements are to enter this type of defense and why the defense didn’t meet that burden?

 

[photographer4]

Because they had alibis. They couldn't have physically been there. It may not be a popular concept to some because RA has no alibi and has physically placed himself at the scene, at the time of the murders. He's also confessed a multitude of times, with details. Should we not believe him?

Imo: possibly not (yet). Not until we know what police said to him / showed him etc and what he learned about the crime from the disclosure etc. Did he confess BEFORE he got disclosure? Was that confession accurate if he did? Asking as I’m so far behind, I fear I’m never going to be caught up!

 

[photographer4]

I'm not nosy or gossipy IRL, just not my nature. SC told LE probably the day after the murders and I feel pretty confident that they asked that she not repeat her story.

There was a murderer on the loose, she wouldn't want to draw attention to herself it could have been dangerous. Same for the young girl witnesses and their families. It seems people don't remember how scared everyone was, especially the people who actually saw RA. That confuses me why some don't consider that a legitimate reason for running around repeating the story.

EBM: Added clarification

JMO

Just because the kids saw RA doesn’t mean he killed LG and AW though. It means he was… at the bridge. When he said he was. I do believe he probably is some sort of guilty but for now, all we know is RA was at the bridge and he saw some kids there who may also (likely) have seen him.

 

[Salah11]

The rules are there to prevent defense teams from just making up complete fairy tales and blaming innocent people to confuse juries.
So the rules say there has to be a connection in some way to the crime from an alternate theory. Pretty low bar actually.

Which makes it even more hilarious the defense likely didn’t meet the obligation to present the Odin angle at trial and were schooled by Nick and his cross examinations according to The Murder Sheet.

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

Additional content warning: This episode contains discussion of suicide. Today in the Delphi case, we attended the final day of pre-trial hearings. It ended around 8:30 p.m. Our coverage of the first day: https://art19.com/shows/murder-sheet/episodes/2c839e4e-6eee-4c56-b185-f7821df89131 Our...

art19.com

 

[photographer4]

LE wouldn’t be searching for cars necessarily expecting a witness to have seen someone walking near the road.
A car traveling west to east at 3:57pm wouldn’t be suspicious IMO
She may have told 10 people before coming to LE and that wouldn’t discount her testimony- if anything it would support her narrative. Imo
According to The Murder Sheet, she was the source of the first composite sketch so I imagine the light would have been decent ( sun may have been in his eyes as he walked west)
I do believe it’s covered in this episode that she was scared to come forward.
https://murdersheetpodcast.com/podcast/murder-sheet/episode/the-delphi-murders-muddy-and-bloody

While I appreciate the link, I can’t stand them and won’t listen. As much as we hope she is a stellar witness for the prosecution, there are issues with eye witness statements that we can’t just ignore in many cases. The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their modern consequences

 

[photographer4]

They absolutely tracked down evey car that they could passed the camera on 300.
Also they had road blocks up everywhere for days to stop every car and ask they if they had seen anything anywhere.

So how many cars were they able to identify and track down? Was the witness who saw muddy bloody in the list of persons they tracked down? I am never going to catch up. Thanks in advance!

 

[photographer4]

Libby's video tells me BG=RA=Killer all day long in my obsessive interpretation and comparison of it over the years with numerous photos in MSM and video clips of RA that were from a lot of different sources. Of course that is my opinion.

Just as much as BG=RA=Killer all day long to you, in your opinion based on whatever research you’ve done over the years… many people can and have taken the opposite side that BG does NOT = RA and does NOT = Killer. They’ll have based their opinions on whatever research they’ve done on this over the years as well. One only need to look as far as the FB or Reddit groups on this topic to see how both sides disagree with one another on this topic. In the end, my hope is for a very solid case by the State that is going to make it very hard for jurors to see this as anyone else. IF RA is guilty, then I’m hoping he gets the punishment for it. I’d like NOT to see a book by him in 20 years titled: If I Did It, Heres How It Happened (an actual book by O.J Simpson). How OJ Simpson said he would have murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman — 'if' he did it

 

[Salah11]

Just because the kids saw RA doesn’t mean he killed LG and AW though. It means he was… at the bridge. When he said he was. I do believe he probably is some sort of guilty but for now, all we know is RA was at the bridge and he saw some kids there who may also (likely) have seen him.

Matches the BG video as well let’s not forget that massive fact.

It may be grainy but you can see it’s not a slim tall man for example.

IMHO

 

[photographer4]

It could be that those things aren't mutually exclusive in that a a broad-daylight murder committed out in public was committed by more than one person, like RA could have conspired with others. Whether or not RA was involved or not, how can you be so sure nobody else was? Saying they have the right person, doesn't mean they have the only person. How for instance would it be impossible for something like this, like RA is the one seen on the video and he points a gun and brings them to the murder spot, which is already occupied by one or more others that are there waiting?

Not a lawyer, but my understanding of the charges is that if he is guilty of the kidnapping that ended up with two dead kids, then he is going down for their murders even if he didn’t directly murder them. Any involvement is enough to hang him here if he is found guilty. If the LE can’t find anyone else to take down with him, then that isn’t good for society as that would mean others are still running about and posing a danger to others. But at least they’ll have gotten RA if he was guilty of some part of it (MOOOO).

 

[Salah11]

Did the murder sheet explain what they believe the legal requirements are to enter this type of defense and why the defense didn’t meet that burden?

You would have to ask them why they interpreted it the way they did, as I can not speak for them, I’m afraid.

I simply reported what they claimed and backed it up with a link as per the rules.

 

[photographer4]

Yep, basically their “interpretation” which we saw last week was basically a bunch of lies or, to put it more kindly,” just not very good at their jobs” it would seem like they got 98% wrong.

IMHO

If they’ve spun the heads of people who follow this enough that we’re all discussing it as we are still… then they can’t be as as bad at their jobs as MS would have people believe. If they can spin the internet into a frenzy of reasonable doubt, I imagine they’ll whip the jury into a state of difficult deliberations as well.