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

[photographer4]

And I don’t have a link but it goes that according to LE nobody is cleared until an accused is convicted and only then is a crime considered solved.

It’s the jury’s decision if the accused is responsible for committing the crime, not LE.

What an awful notion! That 12 random people get to decide one’s fate based on whatever a judge says they’re allowed to hear about / know about from either side. What a scary thought that 12 people must decide if you’re guilty or not instead of the facts deciding it.

Just because 12 people say you did it, doesn’t ever mean you did. Even the reverse is true. Just ask OJ. You could be perfectly innocent but if 12 people don’t believe you are… Welp. Sorry about your luck!

 

[Salah11]

Simple.... those minors didn't know the man they seen was RA, nor did RA know the juveniles. <modsnip>

They knew it was Bridge guy though because of the video description and we know from the Prosecutions case that RA=BG.

IMO

 

[MiniMoo]

The 2:10 and 2:28 times are indicated by witnesses that spotted a car backed into the CPS parking lot.

Also the witness to RA stated she saw him after she took the photo of the bench.

So, after 1:26 pm and before 1:49 pm. I think I saw 1:49 pm written somewhere else on here by someone else.

 

[photographer4]

Okay, nothing is ever over. What’s with D’s inability to move on. Looping……

​

Judge refuses to throw out key evidence in Delphi murders case

Lawyers for Richard Allen had been requesting hearings to possibly throw out key evidence. Special judge Frances Gull denied their motions.

www.wthr.com

​

BBM
FORT WAYNE, Ind. — Special judge Frances Gull is refusing to throw out key evidence in the Delphi Murders case.

Richard Allen is charged with murdering Libby German and Abby Williams. His attorneys had been requesting a Franks Hearing, to dismiss some of the evidence prosecutors used to arrest and charge Allen with multiple counts of murder.
<>

The defense filed a response on Aug. 13, arguing the restrictions would violate Allen's Sixth Amendment Rights.

They also brought up police statements delivered when the prosecution wanted to keep the probable cause for Allen's arrest sealed. Those police statements mentioned that the investigation was "on going."

Allen's attorneys say that means the State has admitted someone else could have been responsible for the murders. “

If they believe they have a case and JG isn’t hearing them, then I believe they SHOULD take this back to her or, if necessary, over her head. The current D isn’t the only set of attorneys who had issues with the search warrant - Scranton and Lebrato said they had planned to file their own Franks as well though said theirs would have been different somehow - we weren’t told how. I would have liked to have seen what they would have filed!! I wonder if the D has asked them?

For those who may have forgotten about this, here’s a link:

EXCLUSIVE: Richard Allen's former defense attorney doubts he'll get a fair trial

Bill Lebrato opens up about accused Delphi killer Richard Allen's trial, alleged inhumane treatment and evidence of white nationalist Odinist involvement.

www.courttv.com

 

[sunshineray]

Has anyone come across an article or interview with either direct quotes from LE regarding this matter or audio/video where we can hear them say this for ourselves?

I've posted many times the interview that Anna Williams did. She discusses LE letting her listen to the audio.

 

[mrjitty]

In the MS Greenlee stated that because RA was the one who made the appeal to the Supreme Court to reinstate R&B, he pretty much gives up the right to appeal on basis of ineffective counsel. I am not a lawyer, but it sounded like the fact that RA had to sign that he understands about the leaks and he still wants them on, will make it much harder to appeal. (IMO - my interpretation)

Somehow that kind of explains why the DT is over-litigating, since it is 'their fault' (in a way) that RA no longer has the avenue of ineffective counsel to pursue during appeals. (JMO)

i don’t believe the SC actually commented on this point in their judgement but I tend to agree with your logic …. IMO

 

[photographer4]

No, it’s not.

What would make it a negative thing in your mind (or anyone’s mind) if she had opted to hold the hearing on it? I am confused. Do we not want RA to have a fair trial? Should the trial not be based on facts and evidence that lead to his arrest in the first place? If the LE was untruthful or twisted things or omitted things to get their SW, why wouldn’t we want to know about it via a hearing? People complain the D does these things; twists things/mistates things etc - wouldn’t it be good to make them dance and watch them squirm in a hearing?

 

[MiniMoo]

Has this been posted in here yet?

Why do you think the first portion of the hearing is closed to the public and will this be accessible at all afterwards? Eg Transcripts.

 

[mrjitty]

Since the last hearing we know one reason why the State said they were looking at possible additional perps post RAs arrest. they stated they were looking for any connection to KAK. MS reported no link was found to KAK.

MOO.

 

[photographer4]

Yes this is the one I was referring to earlier. Very helpful for anyone struggling to “see” how the timeline works.
Every time I watch this I wonder if RA hadn’t seen part of the group of girls (witnesses) on the trails as he drove past on CR300N. I often wonder if he had considered targeting them but took too long gathering his kill kit and by the time he caught up to them they were in public view of Hoosier Highway.
I wonder if they weren’t facing east when he drove past them and he thought they were heading to MHB or perhaps he didn’t see all 4 or the youngest.
I do feel he drove the long way to the trails so he could see how populated it was- If there were any targets.
It could explain his haste and glaring. It’s a chilling thought.

I wish his plans for evil that day had been thwarted.
All my opinion

How long a drive do you think it was for him to the trails? His house was I think close enough that he probably coulda walked there had been so inclined. I don’t have the map handy but if you google his address to the trail, it’s a few mins.

 

[mrjitty]

What would make it a negative thing in your mind (or anyone’s mind) if she had opted to hold the hearing on it? I am confused. Do we not want RA to have a fair trial? Should the trial not be based on facts and evidence that lead to his arrest in the first place? If the LE was untruthful or twisted things or omitted things to get their SW, why wouldn’t we want to know about it via a hearing? People complain the D does these things; twists things/mistates things etc - wouldn’t it be good to make them dance and watch them squirm in a hearing?

The Judge has specifically ruled that LE did not make untruthful statements or mislead the court. This question is settled as far as the case is concerned.

it doesn’t make sense to keep talking about Franks as if LE lied when the Judge has definitively ruled they did not.

The defence did not reach the standard for a Franks hearing at the end of the day.

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

IMO if the state puts them on the stand, then they’re fair game to the D team. I would rip them to shreds if I were RA’s lawyer. It’s not their job to worry about the mental anguish of the witnesses imo. Their only worry is RA. The jury may not like it. But that’s always a risk. You can’t always accomplish the task without risking making someone upset. IMO if a witness falls apart on the stand, if their testimony falls down with them, then I’m ok with that. A strong witness can still fall apart and be emotional but their statement won’t change and they’ll rebuke any suggestions by counsel that they didn’t see what they think or said they did.

And if the defense is so battering to a witness on the stand that the witness does break down and gets emotional but sticks to their truth, you don't think the jurors could then view that negatively? That would be an ok thing in the defense's scheme of things? To be thought of as a bully and possibly have that disgust transferred to their client? They can and should thoroughly cross examine without it coming off as an attack. AJMO

 

[photographer4]

So, there is no real time line.

I saw 1:13 pm, 1:30 pm and even some making allowances for K German as she didn't get things right with some information including the drop off time, but I do feel that was understandable really as losing a little sister like that and her sister's best friend would have been totally devastating. Gut wrenching and numbing.

Am sure we will see how it all fits by the time it goes to trial.

So long as it fits and isn’t *forced to fit*. The ISP website says around 1pm. That’s not been changed so I’m not sure why they’re stating it now as something totally different?! That’s one massive discrepancy imo. If they were dropped off around 1pm then the whole timeline the state wants people to believe is off.

 

[photographer4]

So, after 1:26 pm and before 1:49 pm. I think I saw 1:49 pm written somewhere else on here by someone else.

You did. I posted it with a bunch of articles that show 1pm through 1:49pm. Way up thread.

 

[photographer4]

The Judge has specifically ruled that LE did not make untruthful statements or mislead the court. This question is settled as far as the case is concerned.

it doesn’t make sense to keep talking about Franks as if LE lied when the Judge has definitively ruled they did not.

The defence did not reach the standard for a Franks hearing at the end of the day.

MOO

My post was in response to someone else who shared a link stating the matter is not settled as the D had filed something else regarding the franks being denied without hearing. I wonder if the D will take this matter over JG’s head? Who’s higher? The Supreme Court? I wonder if this will be delayed again - this time because JG refuses to actually settle it. With a hearing.

 

[Salah11]

If Kelsi was on the phone to her boyfriend then they can check her call log, so maybe originally she gave the wrong time, but then they could check the records to firm up the time.

She was dealing with her sister being murdered, and I am positive it was all quite overwhelming, so maybe her timing was off. When she dropped them off she couldn’t have imagined the horror that was about to unfold.

MOO

 

[photographer4]

And if the defense is so battering to a witness on the stand that the witness does break down and gets emotional but sticks to their truth, you don't think the jurors could then view that negatively? That would be an ok thing in the defense's scheme of things? To be thought of as a bully and possibly have that disgust transferred to their client? They can and should thoroughly cross examine without it coming off as an attack. AJMO

I don’t actually care one bit how the D comes off if they’re questioning a witness. I feel badly for whomever is on the stand sure. I hope they do it as nicely as they can. I hope they’ll do their best not to make themselves look awful but the jurors shouldn’t be deciding a case on their feelings about the lawyers, should they?

 

[photographer4]

One would think, even as a Non-attorney, a Lay-person, that it would be time better spent.

But this D team is not doing that.

I wonder if RA even knows that his defense team are a bunch of circus clowns just throwing crap out there to see what sticks ???

I get why some people think this but I kinda like their tenacity! I like that they have continued to mount a vigorous defense and that they’ve taken issue with JG refusing to have a franks hearing. Moo.

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe they should also have asked the boyfriend if he could confirm the girls were in the car with her at that time? If so, how was he certain?

Where are you going with this exactly?

 

[sunshineray]

The minors saw a male and allegedly LG took the photo, was it RA as you say? Hopefully one day we will know the answer. IMO

The photo was by a bench on the trail, (probably a group photo?) not a photo of RA. The important thing about that photo was the time stamp, not the subject matter. The witness said they passed RA right after the photo was taken, the group on their way out of the trails, he on his way in, going towards the bridge. That's my understanding of that photo