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

[Cyber sleuth]

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.

Yes section 8 states
“ Below is a proposed Order Granting Franks Hearing which is intended to assist the Court” followed by their regular misleading and belie by defense.
Absolutely not fact but rather their sly twisting of the truth.

Anyone that believes that the defense is not able to lie during a motion must have a very narrow definition of what constitutes a lie.
Because why would a judge express concern over this teams dishonesty in an in chambers meeting if she hadn’t witnessed it first hand in motions.

They are writing these motions to enflare the public and create a fan base of those willing to believe whatever defense tells them.
All my opinion.

Link to the document cited even though it’s complete garbage.

Adobe Acrobat

 

[tlcya]

seems to me we will not know what any of the witnesses had to say to in video depositions or statements with any sort of specificity until trial. So I will wait until then to form an opinion of those statements made until I myself can see/hear them.

Until then, our opinions on the "facts" of this case will continue to rely upon whether we believe the DT or prosecution.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

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??

I don’t know if it’s normal but I can’t imagine it gained much favor with the Court.
it solidified for me that defense must think the general public is pretty gullible.
All my opinion.

 

[ClearAhead]

This is what I was looking to find which strongly indicates we don’t know it all.

From the PCA.
* The video reveals the male subject “walks behind” Abby. He didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere. That he began approaching Abby while she was posing for photos is a strong possibility IMO. This video of him walking behind Abby hasn’t been released to the public but one of the still frames revealed an artifact which many people speculated looked like Abby’s arm. It could very well be.
* Notice it says “the video ends”. But it doesn’t say the audio ends. The term ‘video’ is commonly associated with recorded images.

 

[grannygates]

Yes section 8 states
“ Below is a proposed Order Granting Franks Hearing which is intended to assist the Court” followed by their regular misleading and belie by defense.
Absolutely not fact but rather their sly twisting of the truth.

Anyone that believes that the defense is not able to lie during a motion must have a very narrow definition of what constitutes a lie.
Because why would a judge express concern over this teams dishonesty in an in chambers meeting if she hadn’t witnessed it first hand in motions.

They are writing these motions to enflare the public and create a fan base of those willing to believe whatever defense tells them.
All my opinion.

Link to the document cited even though it complete garbage.

Adobe Acrobat

Has the judge ever accused the defense of lying?

 

[Megnut]

No one expects RA to be convicted based on any own witness' testimony.

What is compelling about witness testimony is that it will correspond to other evidence.

RA said he left at 3 pm (or 3:30, I can't recall) and only changed his story later. It's ridiculous imaging DD seven years ago trying to frame RA ....

To seal it for doubting Thomases, it'll be interesting if we get to hear from other visitors that were there that day. Did anyone encounter RA when they were there, over the the lunch hour? Anyone see RA on the platform or on the bench? What evidence does RA have to show he was there at that time? Cellphone records? CCTV? Another witness? Any evidence to support it or just his word?

The thing about the witnesses wbo DID see a man, their testimony aligns with what RA said he did and is supported by multiple witnesses. But also sets his trajectory to encounter the girls. So how did he miss them? Does he have motive to lie and say he didn't?

The witness descriptions are similar within a margin of error and don't exclude RA...

We haven't heard directly from those witnesses either, not in entirety. Because of the gag order, they can't explain, correct, clarify what's been attributed to them.

Reverse it.

Imagine RA has no phone on him and no recollection of his own what time he was on the bridge. He just knows he was on the platform midday. Pretty compelling corrobarating evidence puts him there after the juveniles photographed the bench, after BB arrives, after AW and LG arrive (because BB saw them) and 2:07 when LG photographs that platform. There appears to be no one who encountered RA after 2:13 on or near the bridge.

To date, the Defense has produced nothing to support an early departure -- if they had it they would because his best fefense would be not being there. Instead the Defense has labored, in vain, to call up a g(host) of would be murderers and an unsupported narrative moving the time of the crime.

The jury will never hear about that. So we might see the Defense come at this another way -- the obvious, keep pushing to get the video thrown out. Otherwise, do as many Defense teams do at trial -- utilize objections and cross examination and make sure he's getting a fair trial as is his right. They aren't required to offer a defense, don't even need to call a single witness. Just attend to the record.

JMO

 

[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.

Woah!

Can this be considered factual by any stretch??

This is the Defense really hoping that the court answers with their wording.

I don't want to come off as disrespectful, but can this even be used as a legitimate source of information?


From the document:Adobe Acrobat

 

[justtrish]

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

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

We also have no idea what he had on under that coat. We analyzed that one for years... lol I mean remember those days?? Was it a gun, an animal, a shovel, a stick, good grief it went on and on and on. We know he has at least a gun and a knife or possibly a box cutter so what else is under that coat? Seems very logical that BG had a blue coat based on the photo of him. This scene was bloody so I'd say it's very likely he got bloody and took off the blue coat.

What we also know is nobody else on the trail after 2:13 saw the man or described a man matching BG.

Another interesting note I just saw in the PCA is it says near the end of Libby's video the man is seen and heard saying down the hill. I am curious if they have some other images of part of BG.

 

[Ravenmoon]

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.

Well, the problem that I have is that they have ommitted the full statement. There is a lot that just isn't shared. It's basically cherry picking, isn't it?

JMO

 

[grannygates]

Well, the problem that I have is that they have committed the full statement. There is a lot that just isn't shared. It's basically cherry picking, isn't it?

JMO

Yes, because the issue at hand is that the PCA says muddy and bloody and blue jacket. The defense is showing that the witness did not say “bloody” ever in that statement and also said the man was wearing a tan jacket.

So, yes, they are cherry picking the actual words that refer to the particular statements that are in dispute.

They’ve also submitted the video tape with the filing so that the court is able to watch the videotape in full.

 

[photographer4]

One would think the witnesses would know what Richard Allen looks like now. We should see in trial, if it ever gets to trial, we should see if the girls can identify Richard Allen as the person they passed. The girls may not have known his name at that time.

Do they still do this? Ask the witness to point dramatically to the defendant as the person they saw? I didn't think they did this anymore?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

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

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:65e91672-3bc9-4017-8ce5-4795b3dbd971[/[I]URL][/I]

This perfectly shows how defense has twisted facts. In their proposed order above they state.

SC never said “Bloody” when describing his clothing.

The PCA did not say she said his clothing was bloody.

Here defense uses trickery to make you think there was a lie in the PCA by trying to misquote it.

SC could have seen a man with blood on his face, arms, hands or hair. But she didn’t specify clothing.
Wouldn’t that still make him “bloody”?
Yes it would. No lie told.

My opinion

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

 

[tlcya]

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??

actually providing the court with a proposed order is common practice IME. We do it all the time. each side does when they have filed a motion. It is standard practice to also include a proposed order granting all the things you have requested in your motion. MOE

 

[Ravenmoon]

actually providing the court with a proposed order is common practice IME. We do it all the time. each side does when they have filed a motion. It is standard practice to also include a proposed order granting all the things you have requested in your motion. MOE

Thank you. I really didn't know this.
Learning more everyday!

 

[Ravenmoon]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>


Neither of us has seen it ( the video)
So, how can we know what she actually said?
Having her full statement is important.

What comes to your mind if you hear that someone looks like they had been in a fight,,?

We don't know the context of the tan jacket either. Also, it's really clear that the man on the bridge did have a brown jacket underneath the blue one.

And, since we are discussing it, what color is mud?
She said he was muddy.


JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

One would think the witnesses would know what Richard Allen looks like now. We should see in trial, if it ever gets to trial, we should see if the girls can identify Richard Allen as the person they passed. The girls may not have known his name at that time.

The witnesses would surely know what RA looks like now because his mug shots and clips taken during his hearings appear all over SM and MSM.

So I don’t think identifying him in 2024 would prove he’s the person they saw in 2017, not to discount all the other evidence which I believe is just awaiting trial. MOO

 

[tlcya]

I don't follow those who insist the DT cannot lie in their filings.

Anytime someone disputes the DT filings and interpretations of the evidence, the argument seems to be attorneys can't lie to the court. Unless of course we are discussing the prosecutors, and then the suggestion is they lie all the time.

So too do police, when getting SWs apparently.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are those whose opinions and how they've arrived at them I will never understand.

Just as there are those who will never understand mine.

It's the beauty of WS that we can discuss those differences of opinion.

 

[photographer4]

That website means nothing in terms of evidence submitted in court for a jury trial. That website is not set up and run by the DA or the homicide investigators. It is probably run by interns.

You said:
But the ISP website still says the girls were dropped at around 1pm.

That says 'AROUND' 1 pm. It's not wrong. It's just not specific and timed to the minute because it is a website. It is not going to be used at trial as a timeline. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to say they were dropped off @ 1:46pm CST.

I think this website info is being blown out of proportion. It is not trial evidence and is not meant to be,IMO

Well, I'm a bit more particular than I guess some folks are and imo, that is just too big an estimate - around 1:00pm imo can get ya from abotu 12:55pm to about 1:10pm... ish. Even that throws the timeline into question to me. I get that I may be more fussy than others and that is ok...

 

[photographer4]

The witnesses would surely know what RA looks like now because his mug shots and clips taken during his hearings appear all over SM and MSM.

So I don’t think identifying him in 2024 would prove he’s the person they saw in 2017, not to discount all the other evidence which I believe is just awaiting trial. MOO

I wonder how much their memory of who they saw has been impacted by having seen mugshots or a line up? I wonder if they were asked to point out who they saw vs - the person you saw may or may not be in these mug shots / line up etc... Memory is fragile and easy to mess with unfortunately - I'll say MOO for now, but its a matter of googling witness issues really.

 

[Yemelyan]

Do they still do this? Ask the witness to point dramatically to the defendant as the person they saw? I didn't think they did this anymore?

Yes. They do it (not every witness, but certain witnesses) in every trial I have ever seen, including one I watched last week.