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

[grannygates]

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

It’s in this response that refers to the videotaped statement. It was also used for age range used on the poster for YBG. Also in several Franks memos.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Wayback Machine

 

[Salah11]

It’s in this response that refers to the videotaped statement. It was also used for age range used on the poster for YBG. Also in several Franks memos.

View attachment 524550

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Wayback Machine

To be fair that covers a rather large age range so it’s pretty broad. IMO

 

[grannygates]

To be fair that covers a rather large age range so it’s pretty broad. IMO

This is the relevant paragraph from the filing I linked you.

 

[justtrish]

Imagine what would be said if every witness described BG the same exact way. I know what would be said.. the police planted the idea of what BG looked like in their minds.. feed them info to get them to say the same thing. There will always be an issue with something somehow during a case. I don't see it as a big deal they are different, I see it as natural differences in how people recall things and as a previous post mentioned, they were not vastly different. They didn't say it was a tall dark man or a husky woman.. they got it similar enough that LE could connect dots that this single man walked the entire length of the trail and was seen at both ends by different people and then he abducted Abby and Libby from the bridge.

 

[grannygates]

Imagine what would be said if every witness described BG the same exact way. I know what would be said.. the police planted the idea of what BG looked like in their minds.. feed them info to get them to say the same thing. There will always be an issue with something somehow during a case. I don't see it as a big deal they are different, I see it as natural differences in how people recall things and as a previous post mentioned, they were not vastly different. They didn't say it was a tall dark man or a husky woman.. they got it similar enough that LE could connect dots that this single man walked the entire length of the trail and was seen at both ends by different people and then he abducted Abby and Libby from the bridge.

If every witness described an exceptionally short man with a goatee, I would think they all saw the same man. The issue is that these witnesses are not describing what RA looks like. Also, the foundation of many of their witness statements is simply the clothing that this person is wearing and no two descriptions match.

One mentions the man as not taller than 5’10”. Richard Allen is shorter than most grown women, and was the same height as the girls, so the most obvious identifying feature of him is his very short stature. Not a single witness said that BG was short, or shorter than them, so that leads me to believe they’re not describing RA.

 

[Spartygirl]

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

Ohh-- I haven't heard that either.

There might be other witnesses that were at the bridge that day that might testify in court but we definitely have not been privileged to know who they are as LE / Prosecutor have followed the Gag order and not divulged everything.

I didnt see who the OP is that posted this info about a witness seeing a 20 yr old, but did they provide a link per TOS ??
I would love to see it, as I am sure we all would.
TIA

 

[mrjitty]

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

end of the day Liggets SW affidavit won’t be an issue at trial.

we will hear from the witnesses direct. Ligget will not be called upon to paraphrase their evidence etc. that ship has sailed.

MOO.

 

[grannygates]

Ohh-- I haven't heard that either.

There might be other witnesses that were at the bridge that day that might testify in court but we definitely have not been privileged to know who they are as LE / Prosecutor have followed the Gag order and not divulged everything.

I didnt see who the OP is that posted this info about a witness seeing a 20 yr old, but did they provide a link per TOS ??
I would love to see it, as I am sure we all would.
TIA

It was linked and screenshotted above but will repost for anyone else who is wanting to read for themselves.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[grannygates]

And for posterity, while I have the filing up, I will SS the paragraph that describes the video statement made by the OBG witness as I know it’s been discussed recently on the thread.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[Ravenmoon]

And for posterity, while I have the filing up, I will SS the paragraph that describes the video statement made by the OBG witness as I know it’s been discussed recently on the thread.

View attachment 524566

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

It says what she "didn't say."
Does it actually clarify EXACTLY what she did say?

 

[tlcya]

And for posterity, while I have the filing up, I will SS the paragraph that describes the video statement made by the OBG witness as I know it’s been discussed recently on the thread.

View attachment 524566

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

the information you keep citing is from a PROPOSED order DT suggested that JG sign regarding granting a hearing for their frank's motion. That doesn't make it something the court actually found, ruled in their favor upon, or anything even close to evidence or FACT.

It is simply words from DT.

In other words, it is not something to court said, it is something the DT WANTED the court to say and the court did exactly the opposite after reviewing more evidence than we have access to.

 

[grannygates]

It says what she "didn't say."
Does it actually clarify EXACTLY what she did say?

The link is there if you’d like to read the filing for yourself. But in the screenshot I posted it says that she never said the word bloody in her interview and she said the jacket was tan.

 

[justtrish]

When we look at the photo from Libby's phone it sure looks like BG has something on his head. We here on WS analyzed that photo over and over again about what he had on his head, was it a hat, was it a hood from a hoodie, was it both a hat and a hood over his head, was it a bandanna or did he have something on his face, and on and on. I think it's very possible BG was wearing something on his head that might have made it look like he has puffy hair. She didn't walk past the man on the bridge, she saw him from a distance and turned around to head the other way. I'd say she likely saw the man we all saw on that video Libby took and we sure couldn't agree about what he had on his head and we had a photo to analyze and go over and study. She saw him from a distance and walked the other way.

I'd say something as simple as him being on the bridge lead her to say he's in his 20s. Might have assumed or made a best guess based on thinking he had puffy hair and was out on a scary old RR bridge so must be younger.

The timing of it all means whoever BB saw IS the man on the bridge that encountered Abby and Libby.

Edited because I quoted the wrong post for this reply and I don't know how to add the right one now. UGH I was trying to respond to the statement that BB saw a man with puffy hair in his 20s.

 

[grannygates]

the information you keep citing is from a PROPOSED order suggested that JG sign regarding granting a hearing for their frank's motion. That doesn't make it something the court actually found, ruled in their favor upon, or anything even close to evidence or FACT.

It is simply words from DT.

In other words, it is not something to court said, it is something the DT WANTED the court to say and the court did exactly the opposite after reviewing more evidence than we have access to.

I supplied the link to the filing several times. I’m assuming that people are asking for links because they want to read the filing for themselves.

The information that I was trying to get across is that there are video recordings of the statements from these witnesses that the court would be able to watch and confirm what the witness actually said in their statements. We have also discussed several times that lawyers are not allowed to lie to the court. Considering the defense supplied the court with a copy of these videotaped recordings to confirm, it would be ridiculous for the defense to lie about statements made on the video recordings.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

It was linked and screenshotted above but will repost for anyone else who is wanting to read for themselves.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

View attachment 524565

This is the defense proposing what they wanted the court to say.
I can’t imagine why they felt it would be effective but it is not backed by evidence. Rather severe stretching of the truth.
It should not be cited as a source of fact.
All my opinion.

 

[Ravenmoon]

The link is there if you’d like to read the filing for yourself. But in the screenshot I posted it says that she never said the word bloody in her interview and she said the jacket was tan.

Yes ma'am, I read that. However, it bothers me that her actual words are not to be found.

I skimmed through the attachment and didn't find anything regarding her full factual statement.

My opinion is that if she said " he looked like he had been in a fight" it would indicate that he had the appearance of blood.
Would it be reasonable to use the word " bloody" when summing up that statement? Some people might believe it's akin to twisting the narrative, but others would argue that it's a fair assessment.

I will go through this attachment again to see if this shows her actual statement.

 

[Salah11]

The link is there if you’d like to read the filing for yourself. But in the screenshot I posted it says that she never said the word bloody in her interview and she said the jacket was tan.

This is the Woman who saw RA after he murdered the girls?

If so you can see in the Blurry video he seems to be wearing a Brown Hoody so if the crime scene was a bloody mess he could of taken off his jacket and she saw him in the Hoody.

IMO

 

[grannygates]

This is the defense proposing what they wanted the court to say.
I can’t imagine why they felt it would be effective but it is not backed by evidence. Rather severe stretching of the truth.
It should not be cited as a source of fact.
All my opinion.

The defense submitted the video tapes of the two interviews with the filing for the court to watch. That would be the evidence that it is backed by.

Has it ever been stated in a prosecution filing that these witness statements are being misquoted by the defense?

 

[Ravenmoon]

This is the defense proposing what they wanted the court to say.
I can’t imagine why they felt it would be effective but it is not backed by evidence. Rather severe stretching of the truth.
It should not be cited as a source of fact.
All my opinion.

I am stunned!
This is a work of hopeful fiction!
Is it normal to write an entire document basically instructing the court on how they should respond??

 

[grannygates]

Yes ma'am, I read that. However, it bothers me that her actual words are not to be found.

I skimmed through the attachment and didn't find anything regarding her full factual statement.

My opinion is that if she said " he looked like he had been in a fight" it would indicate that he had the appearance of blood.
Would it be reasonable to use the word " bloody" when summing up that statement? Some people might believe it's akin to twisting the narrative, but others would argue that it's a fair assessment.

I will go through this attachment again to see if this shows her actual statement.

The rest of the words would be found on the videotaped interview that was submitted with the filing for the court to review.

I don’t believe that it would be proper for law-enforcement to fabricate a description based on what they believe the witness should have said.
The witness statement should be a direct quote from the witness. If the witness does not say the word bloody or blue jacket, the law-enforcement should not say that the witness said bloody or blue jacket. That’s just my opinion.