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

[ClearAhead]

I haven’t seen any confirmation that the 61 was only telephone calls? I only heard of one call to the wife and one to mom, so I’m missing a lot of info here. We also heard of inmate door sheets and letters to the warden and the chaplain, whispers through the cell door

But if you have something that confirms that all approximate 61 confessions were on the telephone calls?

Yes I posted two separate links for you already.

 

[SouthEnd]

We've seen NO evidence that RA wears "lifts."

We've seen no evidence that BH was anywhere near Delphi but the DT has made an entire SODDI based on the possibility.

IMO this is guesswork as much as anything that has to do with the DT theory.

 

[SouthEnd]

Is it not curious for the ones who claim he is innocent that he doesn’t have a alibi?

The defense are so desperate that they are willing to blame people who actually do have Albi’s which is rather ironic

We have heard 4 Franks and the Defense have yet to mention that they can place him anyway but the crime scene that day.

I agree that the DT should be at least trying to construct an alibi, but honestly? IMO it is rarely the cases for which a defendant has an alibi that go to trial. If a defendant has a provable alibi (eg KK and BH) it almost never reaches trial.

So I'm not holding my breath that we will get one.

All IMO

 

[photographer4]

She calls him the "defendant" three times and only says offender when addressing the DOC. I think it's just a case of using the general terminology used if someone's in the custody of corrections. MO

Even if that is the case, it doesn't give the feeling that she is as unbiased as she'd have people believe imo.

 

[photographer4]

It appears there's not even a hint of having any sort of alibi of not being where he originally said he was, at the time he said he was either.

Just wondering, why would he LIE about having been there? For whatever reason, he didn't care if DD or LE knew he'd been at the bridge that day initially. He was open about that. Being in the general area doesn't make him an offender or even suspicious imo.

 

[m00c0w]

Even if that is the case, it doesn't give the feeling that she is as unbiased as she'd have people believe imo.

For all we know, they drafted the order and JG just signed it.

After all, they did refer to RA as an offender in their first motion to modify the safekeeping order:

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/ALLEN-MOVE-PRISON-REQUEST-1.pdf

 

[photographer4]

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

How do we get past descriptions of “poofy hair”? (Franks 1) How do we move past tan / blue / black - also Franks 1…

At one point, we were told that the suspect definitely did NOT have blue eyes, and yet, doesn’t RA have… blue eyes? Here is the link for those who may not have seen it / may not quite recall it….

https://fox59.com/instagram/police-release-sketch-of-man-accused-of-murdering-delphi-teens-liberty-german-and-abigail-williams/#:~:text=Police%20say%20the%20person%20depicted,that%20may%20not%20be%20accurate.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Just wondering, why would he LIE about having been there? For whatever reason, he didn't care if DD or LE knew he'd been at the bridge that day initially. He was open about that. Being in the general area doesn't make him an offender or even suspicious imo.

He lied because he didn’t know his appearance on the bridge would connect him to the crime. Then the video was released which clearly shows the crime started on the bridge.
If the video wasn’t taken we would have no idea when and where the girls were abducted. They would have been found the next day almost 23 hours after they went missing and LE would have had to build a timeline from scratch. The video is a perfect witness and jumping point to the investigation.
Just my opinion

 

[TTF14]

How do we get past descriptions of “poofy hair”? (Franks 1) How do we move past tan / blue / black - also Franks 1…

At one point, we were told that the suspect definitely did NOT have blue eyes, and yet, doesn’t RA have… blue eyes? Here is the link for those who may not have seen it / may not quite recall it….

https://fox59.com/instagram/police-release-sketch-of-man-accused-of-murdering-delphi-teens-liberty-german-and-abigail-williams/#:~:text=Police%20say%20the%20person%20depicted,that%20may%20not%20be%20accurate.

Details only matter when it comes to RA's "confessions." Otherwise....details don't matter. Descriptions from witnesses, timeline vagueness, etc. Only details in confessions matter.

 

[katydid23]

Unsuccessful in JG"s subjective opinion. I wouldn't mind one bit if they took this higher

The Higher Courts would have to agree to accept the case. I'm not sure they would. I think Judge G is on sound legal territory here in her denial of the Frank's hearing. It's pretty cut and dry. You either meet the burden of proof or you don't.

I think the D might be better off to start focusing on the upcoming trial and the evidence which they know they will be confronted with, instead of constantly taking big swings and misses. JMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

Well the prosecution wants you to believe he “found god”, but don’t think that was ever suggested by anyone else including the psychologist who described his psychotic process and administration of involuntary medication.

I think that he was thrown in this prison, in solitary confinement, with 24/7 video recording and was tortured and harassed by guards and inmates 24 hours a day until he confessed to something. We have only heard broad generic statements or statements that conflict with known facts, so we have yet to hear an actual statement that was “something only the killer would know”.

He was tortured by guards while being recorded??!!!

 

[photographer4]

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.

I hope that the state has a smoking gun to go with the bullet they say they found at the scene. I hope they have something huge that we don’T know about yet.

 

[TTF14]

The Higher Courts would have to agree to accept the case. I'm not sure they would. I think Judge G is on sound legal territory here in her denial of the Frank's hearing. It's pretty cut and dry. You either meet the burden of proof or you don't.

I think this is probably true, but what I've learned from this whole process is that it doesn't matter if there are lies in a PCA as long as truths outweigh them enough. I believe this is probably a commonly accepted practice/truth in the judicial community.

The system is far from perfect.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

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

To add to this, we don’t know what police asked either, and I would like to know this. Not paraphrased, but in exact detail.

 

[TTF14]

I hope that the state has a smoking gun to go with the bullet they say they found at the scene. I hope they have something huge that we don’T know about yet.

Especially since the bullet was allegedly found 3 days after the crime scene was released and resecured.

And found by whom?

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

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

To me, the State would have to make me believe it was RA’s car as opposed to any other possible car (eg: a classic mercury or whatever the descriptions were). Then, if the D brought up the other parked car that a pest control called in and spoke to Grey Hughes about, the State would have to make me believe it COULD NOT have been that dude. IMO, if the police don’t yet know who that dude was, they’d have a hard time convincing me it couldn’t have been him if the D brought that dude up at all. MOOOOO

 

[m00c0w]

Details only matter when it comes to RA's "confessions." Otherwise....details don't matter. Descriptions from witnesses, timeline vagueness, etc. Only details in confessions matter.

Details absolutely do matter. If witnesses saw a 6’0” woman dressed like Batman, RA wouldn’t be in jail right now. It’s all about context, nuance, and the totality of circumstances. If several people saw someone whose description generally aligns, and then someone that fits that description says he was there and even saw some of these witnesses… that’s not exactly crazy circumstantial evidence, even if witnesses dare mess up dark blue versus black, or poofy brown hair versus wearing a poofy brown hat.

Not too long ago, people in this very thread were posting all sorts of things claiming witnesses aren’t 100% reliable. But now we expect witnesses to get it 100% right?

Every single piece of evidence in every trial ever will fall apart if looked at in a vacuum. That’s why context and the totality of circumstances are so important to keep in mind. These pieces of evidence aren’t just out there floating around on their own. There are many layers of corroboration, including from the suspect himself, that helps define the true picture of what occurred. That’s the entire point of an investigation.

All my opinion.

 

[TTF14]

Details absolutely do matter. If witnesses saw a 6’0” woman dressed like Batman, RA wouldn’t be in jail right now. It’s all about context, nuance, and the totality of circumstances. If several people saw someone whose description generally aligns, and then someone that fits that description says he was there and even saw some of these witnesses… that’s not exactly crazy circumstantial evidence, even if witnesses dare mess up dark blue versus black, or poofy brown hair versus wearing a poofy brown hat.

Not too long ago, people in this very thread were posting all sorts of things claiming witnesses aren’t 100% reliable. But now we expect witnesses to get it 100% right?

Every single piece of evidence in every trial ever will fall apart if looked at in a vacuum. That’s why context and the totality of circumstances are so important to keep in mind. These pieces of evidence aren’t just out there floating around on their own. There are many layers of corroboration, including from the suspect himself, that helps define the true picture of what occurred. That’s the entire point of an investigation.

All my opinion.

RA looks nothing like a 20 something young man with poofy hair and never did. That's not even "generally aligns."

IMO MOO

 

[katydid23]

There are ways to discredit witnesses without tearing them to shreds,as you have said.

I would like to know why in the world that would be necessary?

A good attorney with solid information and proof can be tactful and conduct themselves with integrity.

That would be much more impactful IMO.

Especially when the witnesses were just young girls who happened to be near the crime scene and had a quick glimpse of the suspect. WHY would they deserve to be 'torn to shreds' over what colour jacket they thought he had on?

Attacking them aggressively would only make the D look like bullies towards sympathetic witnesses. It would make sense to go after some witnesses aggressively---like maybe one that was an alternative suspect who the D thought was lying and guilty of something.

It's fine to try and make the girls look uncertain or confused about their testimony and memories of the sighting. But that can be done without tearing them apart. IMO.

 

[katydid23]

RA looks nothing like a 20 something young man with poofy hair and never did. That's not even "generally aligns."

IMO MOO

So what does that mean in reality? Does it mean there was a 20 yr old guy with goofy hair on the bridge that no one else is remembering or talking about?

The reality is that Libby took a video which shows that BG looks like. And he is not a 20 yr old guy with poofy hair. But with his brown head covering it could look like goofy hair. IMO