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

[photographer4]

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

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Page 107.

 

[photographer4]

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

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

P. 107 - linking again in case it hasn’t yet been linked.. I’m behind again…

 

[grannygates]

Yep it sure is the Prosecutions theory. I wonder which pic they now believe is RA? OBG was taken out of the equation IIRC so that only leaves YBG. MOO

Surely the state doesn't think YBG is RA.

Ummm actually Holeman says that they’re all RA and he’s always thought so. We are supposed to not remember that the ISP put out a notice that the first sketch was not a suspect that the two sketches we’re not of the same people. Also Holeman didn’t say at 2018 Crime Con that the first sketch was a family member who was out searching.

Delphi Murders CrimeCon Interview Transcript - CrimeLights

Delphi Murders: The Family of Libby & Abby speak at CrimeCon about the sketch, witnesses, and suspects. Read the full interview transcript.

crimelights.com

 

[m00c0w]

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Page 107.

Page 107 says "The man was in his 20s to early 30s".

 

[SouthEnd]

Even so, it's no reason to keep it out of a trial.

If it is not relevant, as in the example I poised, it should be kept out of the trial. That's what a judge's role is, to rule what is relevant and what is not. Surely we are not debating the nature of the judicial system - because if they were I'd restructure the whole thing, but that's neither here nor there.

Additionally, in MS, they mentioned there was a juvenile male caught in the geofence that the State wanted to keep anonymous. It is either a deep-state conspiracy, or they have cleared the kid and don't want the wider geofencing to ruin his life. IMO

PS: Boring and drawn-out trials make the jurors numb/less engaged, leading to verdicts more favourable to the defence, while more visceral trials lead to angry jurors who tend to vote guilty. I understand why the DT would prefer a more drawn out trial, but it is up to the Judge to decide what is relevant. The Impact of State and Trait Anger on Processing of Evidential Inconsistencies

All MOO

 

[Arkay]

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!

I have multiple pages left to catch up here today, so I haven’t yet seen my fellow posters responses to this.

I’ll just say, in my opinion, I’m not sure what other method you’d expect?

This is the court system in the United States. A jury of one’s peers. A unanimous verdict must be obtained. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

The suspect is afforded legal representation.

Of course there have been miscarriages of justice, but we aren’t talking about a random 12 people who “say you did it.” We are talking about 12 people who will hear both sides of a story and evidence will be presented. Deliberations will take place and only if all 12 agree will there be a verdict. Incriminating evidence vs. exculpatory will be presented prior to that verdict.

If you feel that the jury system is unfair, the only thing left is a bench trial where the judge alone will decide, or else a plea deal if the suspect agrees to that.

This is the Constitutional judicial system. Again, it’s not 12 people just walking down the street and being asked for their opinions.

I’m not sure what you think should replace the judicial system as it now stands?

Jmo and the Constitution of the United States.

 

[m00c0w]

Ummm actually Holeman says that they’re all RA and he’s always thought so. We are supposed to not remember that the ISP put out a notice that the first sketch was not a suspect that the two sketches we’re not of the same people. Also Holeman didn’t say at 2018 Crime Con that the first sketch was a family member who was out searching.

Delphi Murders CrimeCon Interview Transcript - CrimeLights

Delphi Murders: The Family of Libby & Abby speak at CrimeCon about the sketch, witnesses, and suspects. Read the full interview transcript.

crimelights.com

You're right, he didn't say that at Crime Con. He said they received sketches of family members and people searching, so they had to eliminate those. What he did say of the sketch is "...but we think that’s a really good sketch, and we think it’s really close to the person that we’re looking for on the bridge".

From your source.

 

[SouthEnd]

Sure is a good thing the prosecution isn't trying to outright keep him from testifying, then.

Thank you for linking the source. I think I have been trying to say the same thing over the past few pages...

We can all agree that it is a good thing if only relevant data is accepted in a trial, right? That's how we don't get to hear EG... a Defendant's highschool teacher testimony about how he called a girl names that one time, meaning he always hated women.

Trials are a highlight reel of years of investigation, as it pertains to the person being on trial. They are not a chance to listen to every single tip that has ever gone through. That's why there is a Judge, gatekeeping what is and what is not relevant.

All MOO

 

[grannygates]

Because there hasn't been a trial yet.

And, unlike the Defence, the prosecution is following the gag order.

And, IMO, the Pro-Allen side is ignoring even their own LEs testiony about their 'suspects', their non-expert expert statements, etc etc and everything is a conspiracy. Everything.

What is RAs alibi again? The other 'suspects' have them, so they are off the bridge. RA is stil on it and he placed himself there all on his own and by his own choice.

At this point, there is 1 out of the 6 third party people with an alibi of “work records” that doesn’t even cover the states time of the murders. We have no idea where any of them were that day, really.

 

[Vern]

Even if they do get called, I don’t know what bearing their testimony may have on the case at hand really.

IMO, I am thinking that it will go towards his motive and may bear out something he stated in one of his multitude of confessions.

Perhaps more, "info only the killer would know" which has already been testified to being included in at least one of his confessions.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Why does he want to keep out the geofencing ?

My understanding?
It's not enough of a perfect science to pinpoint phones to an exact location.

As stated before, my knowledge of this is very limited.

 

[SouthEnd]

At this point, there is 1 out of the 6 third party people with an alibi of “work records” that doesn’t even cover the states time of the murders. We have no idea where any of them were that day, really.

On one of the many previous pages, there was an article where they LE confirmed that they have sworn testimony that they saw BH at work that day. There are less than 2hrs between his two verified alibis. If BH was on trial instead of RA, I'd be a vocal supporter of his DT.

IMO

 

[m00c0w]

My understanding?
It's not enough of a perfect science to pinpoint phones to an exact location.

As stated before, my knowledge of this is very limited.

It's a trick question. He doesn't want to keep out geofencing.

 

[grannygates]

Thank you for linking the source. I think I have been trying to say the same thing over the past few pages...

We can all agree that it is a good thing if only relevant data is accepted in a trial, right? That's how we don't get to hear EG... a Defendant's highschool teacher testimony about how he called a girl names that one time, meaning he always hated women.

Trials are a highlight reel of years of investigation, as it pertains to the person being on trial. They are not a chance to listen to every single tip that has ever gone through. That's why there is a Judge, gatekeeping what is and what is not relevant.

All MOO

I think that different people will have a different idea of what would be considered “relevant” . My opinion is that it’s data/reports/evidence surrounding the actual crime and the full length of the investigation into the crime. My interest is finding and prosecuting the people that are responsible for the crime based on the evidence and the full investigation. Where the state thinks relevant means just things that will implicate Richard Allen.

So that’s going to be our big discrepancy regarding what would be considered “relevant”. Are we looking at the justice for the victims and the full investigation or are we looking at the narrow case of what just implicates this one person.

 

[grannygates]

My understanding?
It's not enough of a perfect science to pinpoint phones to an exact location.

As stated before, my knowledge of this is very limited.

Yeah that seems to be something that prosecution just pulled from the sky and has nothing to do with this case? I can’t seem to find where he got that information but when we get the transcripts, we can read it being discussed in court and we will hear the accuracy range for this map.

 

[Vern]

At this point, there is 1 out of the 6 third party people with an alibi of “work records” that doesn’t even cover the states time of the murders. We have no idea where any of them were that day, really.

Well, IMO we certainly have a very, very good idea where RA was that day at the time of the crime which began on the bridge he placed himself on.

 

[m00c0w]

I think that different people will have a different idea of what would be considered “relevant” . My opinion is that it’s data/reports/evidence surrounding the actual crime and the full length of the investigation into the crime. My interest is finding and prosecuting the people that are responsible for the crime based on the evidence and the full investigation. Where the state thinks relevant means just things that will implicate Richard Allen.

So that’s going to be our big discrepancy regarding what would be considered “relevant”. Are we looking at the justice for the victims and the full investigation or are we looking at the narrow case of what just implicates this one person.

The state of indiana has one definition of "relevant", rule 401 that was cited in the motion in limine.

Evidence is relevant if:
(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and
(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

401. Test for Relevant Evidence

rules.incourts.gov

To be abundantly clear, this is the same test the prosecution asked the court to use in determining relevance regarding geolocation data and its admissibility.

 

[TTF14]

Where the state thinks relevant means just things that will implicate Richard Allen.

So that’s going to be our big discrepancy regarding what would be considered “relevant”. Are we looking at the justice for the victims and the full investigation or are we looking at the narrow case of what just implicates this one person.

Snipped for focus.

EXACTLY.

People are already so convinced he's guilty, without a trial, that anything that doesn't support that is automatically "irrelevant." And it's accepted!

I hope I never have to stand in front of a jury.

IMO MOO

 

[grannygates]

Well, IMO we certainly have a very, very good idea where RA was that day at the time of the crime which began on the bridge he placed himself on.

That’s in dispute, so the state can’t just say that RA was on the bridge when RA is also on video saying that he left at 1:30. This is where that whole burden of proof comes in.

 

[SouthEnd]

I think that different people will have a different idea of what would be considered “relevant” . My opinion is that it’s data/reports/evidence surrounding the actual crime and the full length of the investigation into the crime. My interest is finding and prosecuting the people that are responsible for the crime based on the evidence and the full investigation. Where the state thinks relevant means just things that will implicate Richard Allen.

So that’s going to be our big discrepancy regarding what would be considered “relevant”. Are we looking at the justice for the victims and the full investigation or are we looking at the narrow case of what just implicates this one person.

Our opinion of what is relevant does not matter though. It is up to the Judge.

IMO and that of the judicial system. I am all for measures and boundaries when it comes to authority. The USA have a history of some egregious miscarriages of justice and as people who follow True Crime I believe it is our duty to be informed. That's why I trust in statistics. The majority of false convictions have race as a contributing factor. Class, race. I always go back to case like the Central Park five and read through the material we have available. See where it all went wrong and it is, more often than not, the single-minded pursuit of a single suspect/group of suspects and the internal bias of the investigators early on.

The RA case has very few of the contributing factors of any wrongful conviction I have studied. I am very very very open to being proven wrong.

All MOO

Edited - to add clarity in the first sentence.