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

[Trebor5591]

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

Maybe in the UK it's different. but here in the USA, the defense does not have to prove anything is true. The state has to prove their case, and the defense has but to create "reasonable doubt". That is my understanding.

 

[photographer4]

But how do we know he actually used it to see the stocks? I'd think if he did, LE would have found evidence of him having that phone in the park that day, and been able to track his time there and when he left and where he went. I don't know that they have that info. ?

So this was my earlier question - if the phone he claimed he was using on abduction day didn’t have the IMEI was its location still trackable? Seems maybe if it had the MEID. So if the police have this info - why not say there IS evidence of his phone at the bridge etc this day? But they’re silent. This makes me think:

They don’t have evidence to show THAT specific device was at the bridge that day. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have a device with him / couldn’t be using it to see the stocks.

But it might mean they can’t work out which device he was using if any that day.

 

[Salah11]

Maybe in the UK it's different. but here in the USA, the defense does not have to prove anything is true. The state has to prove their case, and the defense has but to create "reasonable doubt". That is my understanding.

They still need to provide evidence what they are claiming has relevance. Which according to The Murder Sheet they didn’t meet that burden.

We will see when Judge Gull rules on if the Odins did it can be allowed in.

 

[katydid23]

I also think EF could have told his sister this story.. she would then be telling the truth to LE and on a polygraph because she would be relaying what EF said to her. That doesn't mean EF is telling her the truth to begin with.

I come back to IF there was really any merit to the defense thinking EF could have done this and they wanted to present him as a SODDI, then why not present specifics at the hearings last week? Was EF's cell in the area?

IIRC, LE found that EF's cell was in his home all day. Not sure that they proved he was home with it though. but it was not tracked to Delphi that day.

What proof is there that EF told his sister before the girls were found on the 14th? What specifics did he tell her that only the killer would know?

He could have easily known about the 2 girls going missing from the Bridge park on the night of the 13th. There were very likely many announcements and news reports about it and asking for help the next morning to search. Their names and pictures would have been on the local news. IMO

I am certain exactly the 'specifics' he knew. I know he supposedly said Abigail was a troublemaker and he spit on her and made horns from branches to put on her head. But did he hang out with Norlanders? He could have easily made that up out of vivid imagination and meth usage.

Is there ANY evidence at all that he was in Delphi from 130-330 on the 13th?

I don't believe so.

I think if there was something solid that showed EF was even possibly in Delphi they would have presented it because that would bolster their defense of using the SODDI.. if they can't even present one basic provable detail in the hearing then why would the judge allow them to present things at trial? I thought this was the point of the hearing so the judge could determine whether they can use this defense at trial. Surely, if they had something solid, they would have presented it so she would allow them to proceed with that defense strategy.

YUP.

 

[katydid23]

So this was my earlier question - if the phone he claimed he was using on abduction day didn’t have the IMEI was its location still trackable? Seems maybe if it had the MEID. So if the police have this info - why not say there IS evidence of his phone at the bridge etc this day? But they’re silent. This makes me think:

They don’t have evidence to show THAT specific device was at the bridge that day. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have a device with him / couldn’t be using it to see the stocks.

You mean a DIFFERENT device from the one he told DD about?

But it might mean they can’t work out which device he was using if any that day.

Right, and if they can't 'work out' which device he was using, doesn't that mean he was not truthful when he gave them his phone info?

 

[katydid23]

Maybe in the UK it's different. but here in the USA, the defense does not have to prove anything is true. The state has to prove their case, and the defense has but to create "reasonable doubt". That is my understanding.

Yes, but in order to 'create' reasonable doubt they need to show sufficient proof to have some of their evidence admitted into the trial. For example, if they want to name alternate suspects, they have to give evidence , even a small amount, which shows that suspect was in the general area and had a possible motive. They don't need BARD proof, but they can't just throw a random suspect into the trial if they were not in Delphi and had no connection to the victims.

 

[Salah11]

Yes, but in order to 'create' reasonable doubt they need to show sufficient proof to have some of their evidence admitted into the trial. For example, if they want to name alternate suspects, they have to give evidence , even a small amount, which shows that suspect was in the general area and had a possible motive. They don't need BARD proof, but they can't just throw a random suspect into the trial if they were not in Delphi and had no connection to the victims.

Thank you for explaining it so much better than I can

 

[photographer4]

You mean a DIFFERENT device from the one he told DD about?

Right, and if they can't 'work out' which device he was using, doesn't that mean he was not truthful when he gave them his phone info?

I did mean yes, he could have been on a device different from the one he told DD about. I just can’t imagine why? Yes. It would mean may not have been honest with Dd about which phone he used.

I know this is WILD speculation on my part but if he got a phone from a tree (eg/ prearranged pick up) as part of CSAM sharing with Kk or whoever? Wouldn’t shock me at all. Nothing is gonna shock me on this case.

 

[photographer4]

Yes, but in order to 'create' reasonable doubt they need to show sufficient proof to have some of their evidence admitted into the trial. For example, if they want to name alternate suspects, they have to give evidence , even a small amount, which shows that suspect was in the general area and had a possible motive. They don't need BARD proof, but they can't just throw a random suspect into the trial if they were not in Delphi and had no connection to the victims.

So they can’t just say X could have been in Delphi and done this because they can’t prove BaRD where X actually was that day, right?

 

[Megnut]

.

But how do we know he actually used it to see the stocks? I'd think if he did, LE would have found evidence of him having that phone in the park that day, and been able to track his time there and when he left and where he went. I don't know that they have that info. ?

Perhaps LE could not pair a number with an owner.

Until they executed a search warrant and located the phone in their roundup of electronics.

That would be a very shiny reason for the Defense to want that SW tossed.


JMO

 

[katydid23]

So they can’t just say X could have been in Delphi and done this because they can’t prove BaRD where X actually was that day, right?

If the defense wants to try and say 'X could have been in Delphi' they are taking a chance if they have no evidence supporting it---because the state could come in and show evidence that X's phone was at home 2 hours away and he had no car or license to get to Delphi anyway....for example

 

[photographer4]

If the defense wants to try and say 'X could have been in Delphi' they are taking a chance if they have no evidence supporting it---because the state could come in and show evidence that X's phone was at home 2 hours away and he had no car or license to get to Delphi anyway....for example

I mean I know people who forget their phones regularly and don’t care who’s tryin to reach them. lol. The days before cellular was such a simpler time!!