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

[ClearAhead]

I wonder, if she declines the theory presentation by the D of SODDI (Odins) did it, will the D swing over to KK and his dad did it or?

If she denies SODDI at all, I wonder if that alone will be a good basis for the D to file appeal on a guilty verdict?

It been stated by several legal experts that a SODDI theory requires proof that the accused was also at the crime scene when the crime occurred (ie had opportunity to commit the crime). They can’t just pick a name and accuse anyone. That seems reasonable. After all, how could some other dude do it if he wasn’t even there? The D may well have to go the old-fashioned route by trying to refute the evidence the P puts forth. MOO

 

[justtrish]

Which Odinist suspects? The ones the defence alleged did this were ruled out ... even by their own testimony LE could NOT, NOT place any of them at the scene.

And I think LE would have liked nothing more than to have placed one of them at the scene way back when. I think everyone close to this case would have preferred that this be wrapped up a long time ago.. like in 2017 so if any of those other guys could have been placed in Delphi even, I am sure we would have seen an arrest long ago.

 

[TTF14]

I am hoping the Odins did it is thrown out. I trust MS and they say they didn’t meet the burden of proof needed for trial.

None of their so called suspects can be placed in
Delphi and have been investigated throughly.

So I have my fingers and toes crossed this comes to fruition.

IMO MOO

I'd love to see a panel of like 5 or 6 attorneys discussing/debating this. Including KG from the MS.

 

[justtrish]

It been stated by several legal experts that a SODDI theory requires proof that the accused was also at the crime scene when the crime occurred (ie had opportunity to commit the crime). They can’t just pick a name and accuse anyone. That seems reasonable. After all, how could some other dude do it if he wasn’t even there? The D may well have to go the old-fashioned route by trying to refute the evidence the P puts forth. MOO

Is it possible they present SODDI without having a specific person in mind? Could they try to say it was an Odin ritual killing, but then not present specific actors that could have done it? If they do this SODDI defense do they have to present a specific person?

 

[TTF14]

At what time? Libby’s phone powering back on and receiving texts at 4:30 am throws quite the wrench into the timeline narrative.

IMO

 

[Salah11]

It been stated by several legal experts that a SODDI theory requires proof that the accused was also at the crime scene when the crime occurred (ie had opportunity to commit the crime). They can’t just pick a name and accuse anyone. That seems reasonable. After all, how could some other dude do it if he wasn’t even there? The D may well have to go the old-fashioned route by trying to refute the evidence the P puts forth. MOO

Yes, it’s crazy they can accuse somebody who LE has investigated and who has a solid alibi.


I don’t understand how it's OK to accuse a person of a horrific crime without a shred of proof, but then moan about poor old RA and his rights when he is the man who can be placed at the crime scene.

Its absolutely crazy the hypocrisy of the defence and their team.



MOO

 

[Salah11]

At what time? Libby’s phone powering back on and receiving texts at 4:30 am throws quite the wrench into the timeline narrative.

IMO

No it doesn’t because there are a loads of reasons that happened and I bet you the phone didn’t power back on and nobody moved the phone. MOO

 

[ClearAhead]

Is it possible they present SODDI without having a specific person in mind? Could they try to say it was an Odin ritual killing, but then not present specific actors that could have done it? If they do this SODDI defense do they have to present a specific person?

I don’t know but that would seem to be a very weak argument as it appears the P have witnesses to debunk that the crime had Odin markings. For example the blood spatter expert testified the blood on the tree was from Libby’s hand. IIRC even Clink stated his group couldn’t connect the crime to Odinism, that the D had twisted the findings.

 

[tlcya]

[snipped]
I think these 2 guards were just the 2 easy targets for the defense to make their claims to try to get RA moved. I doubt these guards even knew the defense was planning to lay out some Odin connection to try to show RA wasn't guilty. In order for them to be using this Odin thinking/belief to intimidate him, wouldn't they need to know this was even a scenario that the defense was going to use? How could they know wearing a patch would be some link to the defenses theory of the crime that RA is accused of? It was just something the defense could add on as to a reason why RA was confessing to anyone and everyone. To my knowledge the Odin angle wasn't even presented to anyone at the point that RA was confessing and certainly not before April 3rd or 4th when he told his wife. I mean how would the guards know the defense was going to say the murders were an Odin ritual killing? Did RA even know what those patches were or did he even see the patches?? Has he said he was intimidated by these guards were the patches or is this the defense saying this bad treatment was because the guards had these beliefs?
[snip]

SBM for focus, I think some who believe the Odinist SODDI theory will probably say the guards would know because they or their Odinist gang associates WERE the SODDIs.

So to connect the dots I've been tripping over in these threads. Prosecutors (conspirators) put RA in Westville so he could be intimidated by Odinist guards into giving false confessions, and prosecutors are hiding and destroying all evidence of Odinist involvement in this crime. JG is obviously in on it to because she likes the prosecution better.

 

[sunshineray]

I agree. But only if the confession(s) came before he read the Discovery. If after....nope.

IMO MOO

His lawyers haven't read all the discovery, I seriously doubt RA has. JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

Yes, it’s crazy they can accuse somebody who LE has investigated and who has a solid alibi.


I don’t understand how it's OK to accuse a person of a horrific crime without a shred of proof, but then moan about poor old RA and his rights when he is the man who can be placed at the crime scene.

Its absolutely crazy the hypocrisy of the defence and their team.



MOO

Very true. And RA doesn't even appear to have an alibi.

What do we know about RA that indicates he cannot possibly be guilty? Nothing comes to mind, other than in a court of law a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty BARD but we are not in a courtroom.

 

[TTF14]

No it doesn’t because there are a loads of reasons that happened and I bet you the phone didn’t power back on and nobody moved the phone. MOO

I haven't heard one logical reason, but am very much looking forward to experts weighing in about it.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

His lawyers haven't read all the discovery, I seriously doubt RA has. JMO

Touché! That was funny.

 

[Salah11]

I haven't heard one logical reason, but am very much looking forward to experts weighing in about it.

IMO MOO

No doubt there will be a very good explanation which doesn’t involve Odins going back in the middle of the night to switch the phone back on

ETA - sorry a dyslexic moment

 

[katydid23]

If solitary confinement was so wholesome and good for inmates suicide watchers wouldn't be needed nor would there be such strong complaints against it.

Suicide watchers are there because he is charged with a brutal double murder and could be facing LWOP. THAT is the motivation for any suicidal thoughts, not the made up narrative by the D that he was tortured and held isolated in a hole. IMO

 

[ClearAhead]

I haven't heard one logical reason, but am very much looking forward to experts weighing in about it.

IMO MOO

How could the battery in the phone be dead as soon as it got powered on? It wasn’t as if the phone was turned at 4:30am and pinged until the bodies were found. There was only that one final ping at that time.

I’m confident the P will introduce a witness to explain the behaviour of cellphone batteries. I recall it being explained that the charge in all the individual cells regroup to reenergize the battery for that one last call-out. I don’t know if that’s true but it might be.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

This could indicate the Judge’s rulings are impending and by August 23rd she wants to know if both sides are ready and set for the trial Oct 15th. If the rulings haven’t been released, I can’t think why it’d be necessary to hold a Status Hearing. MOO

I am confused: are you suggesting she may have issued her rulings on the preliminary hearing matters already, but we're not privy to them? EG: perhaps they're under seal or gag (unsure the difference so using both and hoping one is correct). WHy would a ruling on them be kept from the general public? Is that the norm?

 

[TTF14]

How could the battery in the phone be dead as soon as it got powered on? It wasn’t as if the phone was turned at 4:30am and pinged until the bodies were found. There was only that one final ping at that time.

I’m confident the P will introduce a witness to explain the behaviour of cellphone batteries. I recall it being explained that the charge in all the individual cells regroup to reenergize the battery for that one last call-out. I don’t know if that’s true but it might be.

JMO

I was talking about all the text messages that came in at 4:33AM. Not pings.

 

[TTF14]

I am confused: are you suggesting she may have issued her rulings on the preliminary hearing matters already, but we're not privy to them? EG: perhaps they're under seal or gag (unsure the difference so using both and hoping one is correct). WHy would a ruling on them be kept from the general public? Is that the norm?

I took it as ClearAhead theorizing that JG is about to release them. Hopefully they aren't under seal!

 

[ClearAhead]

I am confused: are you suggesting she may have issued her rulings on the preliminary hearing matters already, but we're not privy to them? EG: perhaps they're under seal or gag (unsure the difference so using both and hoping one is correct). WHy would a ruling on them be kept from the general public? Is that the norm?

No that’s not what I wrote. The Judge issues her ruling so she’d know when she’s intending to release them. I have no idea if they’re provided to the two relevant parties in advance.