Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #192

[girlhasnoname]

Nope, because he is guilty. He thought he was so clever by admitting he was out on the trail before somebody came forward who could ID him from CVS, so he thought he would get ahead of the train, not realising there was a video of him approaching the girls.

No wonder he Hates Libby, who was his downfall in all this.

IMHO

Wow, I never thought he might have had more rage focused on Libby because she taped him. Good thinking.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Ryjiy

IMO the only evidence that should be thrown out in any case is when a person's constitutional rights are ignored. Sometimes I'm really torn on some of these cases I follow; I feel the accused is guilty but LE possibly screwed up in getting the evidence.

For me, I need solid evidence in order to send a person to prison for the rest of his life. This case hasn't gotten to that point, IMO.

You are right that we haven’t gotten to that point.
We can’t really say that there is no solid evidence, because we have not seen the vast majority of the State’s. Two sides to every story.
So the amount of effort spent trying to defend the now admitted made up FM, knowing we have only one side of everything is baffling and mindboggling to me.

 

[m00c0w]

Individuals keep pointing out how eyewitness memory can be faulty, but also are surprised that there are minor differences between eyewitness testimony and that must be exculpatory. The general trend is that there was a man in dark clothing whose description generally matched RA’s. One saw blue, one saw black… this isn’t quite the same as something like one saw red and one saw gray. The general concept is intact, and that’s all that really matters as far as those witnesses go. They’re not going to have perfect memory, as many have pointed out. What’s important is they didn’t see a super tall man dressed like Santa Claus, for instance. Or a stocky woman dressed in a blue/black jacket, jeans, etc.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

The Judge already held that he didn't misrepresent anything. I've posted this a number of times

Judge in Delphi murders case hands down multiple rulings

The special judge in the Delphi double murders case handed down several rulings Monday. Judge Francis Gull denied Richard Allen's motions.

www.wishtv.com

Well, we'll have to see at trial. At this point, I totally disagree with her. And as I stated earlier, I'd like to see Tony Liggett's explanations for the discrepancies under oath.

How much ya wanna bet the State moves to have the testimony of BB and SC excluded due to these discrepancies?

IMO MOO

 

[Megnut]

If RA was aware he'd been recorded/photographed, I don't think he'd have left her phone behind.

I DO think he tried to get out ahead of suspicion -- because he knew he'd been seen by the group of juveniles. His cover story seems to be, was there, walked to the bridge, walked back, sat on a bench, left, never saw the girls, so whatever happened, happened after that....

But it was a bad admission from the start because he put himself in the park when the crime happened.

What he DIDN'T account for is being seen on the platform at a fixed time, being recorded on the bridge at a specific time and being seen walking toward his car at a specific time, creating the brackets around the crime.

Unaware of those eye witnesses, IMO RA figured no one would know WHEN the crime occurred therefore his protected alibi was solid -- didn't see the girls. Left long before they were murdered.

He certainly didn't anticipate being recorded abducting him. Huge problem. Because NOW the crime started WHILE he was there, where he said he was and he's caught in a lie for having said he hadn't seen them. Why lie? We know why.

If he wants to say that's not him in the video, then how did he not see the other guy? How did he not see the girls?

If it IS him, well, here we are. He brandished a weapon, he forced them against their will, and both girls were murdered.

So far, he hasn't said HE was forced to abduct them and handed them off to the real murderer.

He hasn't said he had a psychotic break.

Nope, he gave a careful admission which made him look favorable, honest, credible with little to add -- except for the lead on the group of juveniles "for possible follow-up", a group that ultimately added -- not detracted -- from his own probable cause and culpability!

He tried. He lied. He later said he left at 1:30. But he can't substantiate it.

He can't get off the bridge at 2:13.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

All of which the defence will argue at trial.

That's a good point.

The issue I see is this: Why would any defense atty risk his defendant's life on findings of subjective nature? I would think an atty would take any route possible to get subjective issues tossed out.

 

[sunshineray]

I am curious, whether RA had a habit of

Parking nose out
Carrying a utility knife of some sort
Concealing and carrying

The association with catfishing is hard for me to dismiss, but on the chance that this was a spontaneous crime of opportunity, just actually what was his intent and when did he first intend it? Undressing makes it automatically a secually motivated crime IMO but did he begin his day with that intention?

If no link prior to that day, was he hunting for a victim? Did he go there to harm another? Might be have gone there to harm himself? On a mission to suicide, predetermined location? Just what exactly was he doing, contemplating on the platform? His life? Was he thinking about jumping? Was he studying vantage, mentally mapping his rover crossing? Selecting a crime scene within or without view? Scanning for potential witnesses?

Did he murder them ultimately because they were young and happy and chatty and he was not?

They had their whole lives ahead of them.

That is, until he and his ugly intentions showed up behind them.

JMO

Do we know, did RA have a permit to carry a firearm?

 

[Willow Knight]

IMO the only evidence that should be thrown out in any case is when a person's constitutional rights are ignored. Sometimes I'm really torn on some of these cases I follow; I feel the accused is guilty but LE possibly screwed up in getting the evidence.

RSBM

Are you referring to the search warrant for Richard Allen's home? I ask this because you spoke of his gun. That was ruled on, but not everyone may agree with the ruling. Our constitutional rights are to be protected, 100% agree.

What I see are the ludicrous statements regarding Richard Allen passed a different group of girls as he entered the trails, Richard Allen confessed 61 plus times because he was threatened, others are responsible for the crime of murder and LE chose to ignore it or hide it, the bullet found between the girls at the crime scene was planted. And the ridiculous demand for evidence to be released to the public prior to trial.

 

[sunshineray]

That's a good point.

The issue I see is this: Why would any defense atty risk his defendant's life on findings of subjective nature? I would think an atty would take any route possible to get subjective issues tossed out.

It seems that the prosecution is doing just that, as there's no substantive or credible evidence to put the defense's SODDI "murderers" at the scene of the crimes that day, that time, that place. MO

 

[m00c0w]

Well, we'll have to see at trial. At this point, I totally disagree with her. And as I stated earlier, I'd like to see Tony Liggett's explanations for the discrepancies under oath.

How much ya wanna bet the State moves to have the testimony of BB and SC excluded due to these discrepancies?

IMO MOO

I think if the state were going to move to exclude them, that would have been done by now. That would indicate to me whatever the “discrepancy” is can withstand scrutiny and cross-examination. The defense’s claims are based on their own paraphrasing of some sort of witness testimony. We don’t know the full context behind any of it, or what exactly was said, to be able to render any sort of well-informed opinion about misrepresentation versus not.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Well, we'll have to see at trial. At this point, I totally disagree with her. And as I stated earlier, I'd like to see Tony Liggett's explanations for the discrepancies under oath.

How much ya wanna bet the State moves to have the testimony of BB and SC excluded due to these discrepancies?

IMO MOO

Quite the opposite, they are witnesses FOR the State. They bolster the State's case alongside the other circumstantial evidence.

If the State calls them to testify, the Defense will have an opportunity to cross examine them, attempt to impeach them if they so endeavor, and then rightfully, it will be the task of the jurors to weigh their credibility. If they find their testimony believable, relatable (as compared to their own experiences of recall), they will consider it alongside the totality of evidence they accept, rendering a verdict once they've heard and seen it all and then deliberated on it.

Does the testimony support, align, corroborate or conflict?

Just as they will be instructed, for each witness, expert, exhibit and piece of evidence.

It won't, but if the case hung on just one axis -- what time RA left the park, whose word would ring truer? An accidental witness who saw a man leaving in line with where RA's car was parked or the defendant who said he left at 3 and 1:30 alternately? The jurors get to decide who they want to believe and by which degree, as it should be.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I think if the state were going to move to exclude them, that would have been done by now. That would indicate to me whatever the “discrepancy” is can withstand scrutiny and cross-examination. The defense’s claims are based on their own paraphrasing of some sort of witness testimony. We don’t know the full context behind any of it, or what exactly was said, to be able to render any sort of well-informed opinion about misrepresentation versus not.

JMO

Exactly. The witness could have said, (this is my own supposition as an example) The man looked muddy and his jeans were kind of wet looking. He looked like he'd been in a fight, he was looking disheveled and a bit bloody.

So is that then a lie for LE to say she described him as "muddy and bloody"? The interview with her could have lasted who knows how long. She may have said bloody at the begin of it and included muddy towards the end?

She obviously eventually thought, I need to tell the police what I saw. Was that after she saw the picture LE released? Maybe it was and the witness knew they had to come forth as she saw that man the police were looking to talk to?

My point is we won't know until we hear the witness's full testimony. AJMO

 

[Vern]

Wow, I never thought he might have had more rage focused on Libby because she taped him. Good thinking.

Except that he focussed more rage on Libby at the crime scene too. He never knew he was taped by her at that point in time ... else that phone never would have been left at the scene.

And, IMO, we're going to find out all about that rage towards her and the motive behind it at the trial. I wonder if they're going to call any of his daughter's friends who they questioned in the case to the stand during trial? There's something more to their reasons for being questionned, does it fit in with any of his confessions (??) ... and IMO it will be very, very interesting if we do see them testify.

 

[grannygates]

Well, we'll have to see at trial. At this point, I totally disagree with her. And as I stated earlier, I'd like to see Tony Liggett's explanations for the discrepancies under oath.

How much ya wanna bet the State moves to have the testimony of BB and SC excluded due to these discrepancies?

IMO MOO

This is my biggest question mark. We heard how adamant BB was about having the YBG sketch put out there and how OBG was not who she saw that day.

Would the state still put that witness knowing she’s going to say she saw a 20 year old with brown poofy hair ? And the other witness says she sees a man in a muddy tan jacket?

That’s how the state formed their timeline, so I don’t know how they can’t introduce them. I really wonder how that will be handled!

 

[Spartygirl]

IMO the only evidence that should be thrown out in any case is when a person's constitutional rights are ignored. Sometimes I'm really torn on some of these cases I follow; I feel the accused is guilty but LE possibly screwed up in getting the evidence.

For me, I need solid evidence in order to send a person to prison for the rest of his life. This case hasn't gotten to that point, IMO.

BBM
Of course it hasn't gotten to that point yet -

There hasn't been a trial yet !!

The D team keeps delaying the trial.

 

[Salah11]

This is my biggest question mark. We heard how adamant BB was about having the YBG sketch put out there and how OBG was not who she saw that day.

Would the state still put that witness knowing she’s going to say she saw a 20 year old with brown poofy hair ? And the other witness says she sees a man in a muddy tan jacket?

That’s how the state formed their timeline, so I don’t know how they can’t introduce them. I really wonder how that will be handled!

Do you have link where BB claims she saw a 20 year old?

Im just intrigued because RA likely had a Hood or Hat up so it would be a struggle to see his hair.

The exact quote is

He advised he may of been of been wearing some type of head covering.

Plus his jacket also had a hood so it wouldn’t be easy to see his hair at all. IMO

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[grannygates]

Individuals keep pointing out how eyewitness memory can be faulty, but also are surprised that there are minor differences between eyewitness testimony and that must be exculpatory. The general trend is that there was a man in dark clothing whose description generally matched RA’s. One saw blue, one saw black… this isn’t quite the same as something like one saw red and one saw gray. The general concept is intact, and that’s all that really matters as far as those witnesses go. They’re not going to have perfect memory, as many have pointed out. What’s important is they didn’t see a super tall man dressed like Santa Claus, for instance. Or a stocky woman dressed in a blue/black jacket, jeans, etc.

JMO

I don’t think the discrepancies would be that big of a deal in an average case, but here the state is using these conflicting eyewitness statements as a big part of their case. Theyre using them to form their entire timeline and place RA on the trails after he said he left.

It is cause for concern when all of these people have different descriptions for the person they saw. But to be fair, we also don’t know if the other witnesses also gave a more detailed description regarding what the actual man looked like, not just clothing, that was perhaps left out of the PCA.

 

[sunshineray]

Do you have link where BB claims she saw a 20 year old?

Im just intrigued because RA likely had a Hood or Hat up so it would be a struggle to see his hair.

The exact quote is



Plus his jacket also had a hood so it wouldn’t be easy to see his hair at all. IMO

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

I've never read anywhere tgat BB stated the man they saw was a 20 year old. Another witness we will have to wait to hear their full testimony at trial. MO

 

[grannygates]

Do you have link where BB claims she saw a 20 year old?

Im just intrigued because RA likely had a Hood or Hat up so it would be a struggle to see his hair.

The exact quote is



Plus his jacket also had a hood so it wouldn’t be easy to see his hair at all. IMO

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

This response refers to the videotaped statements of both BB and SC.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[Salah11]

I've never read anywhere tgat BB stated the man they saw was a 20 year old. Another witness we will have to wait to hear their full testimony at trial. MO

Exactly and he could of looked way younger as there are loads of photos where he looks young and then he loses weight and he looks older.

He is a chameleon and we can see that even more since he got arrested as in all the photos he looks different apart from the bulging eyes.

MOO