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

[photographer4]

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

Oh wow! I wonder what would happen then if they asked the witness who seems like she described a younger man with poofy hair if the man she saw is in the courtroom a la Perry Mason style and she said NO. Or… imagine if she pointed to literally anyone other than RA?? Ok. That’s enough internet for me today. Adobe Acrobat

 

[ClearAhead]

My comment was about the after effects or bruised egos that this failed search may have caused investigators. I didn’t mention diligence of investigating tips.

My reply was to your question - “Why did they do a million dollar dredge of the river after already confirming both Klines were at home actively using their phones.”

 

[grannygates]

My reply was to your question - “Why did they do a million dollar dredge of the river after already confirming both Klines were at home actively using their phones.”

Oh that was a rhetorical question because I don’t really get questioning a guy that they already confirmed was at home all day actively using his phone via his cell records. That’s the best “confirmed” alibi we’ve seen in this entire case.

 

[grannygates]

Oh wow! I wonder what would happen then if they asked the witness who seems like she described a younger man with poofy hair if the man she saw is in the courtroom a la Perry Mason style and she said NO. Or… imagine if she pointed to literally anyone other than RA?? Ok. That’s enough internet for me today. Adobe Acrobat

That’s what I’m wondering !! How do they even get around that ? They’ll say “do you see that person in the court room today?” and she’ll say “no…” so then what ? Now I’m gonna try to find a case where thats happened..

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Witnesses are notoriously bad at estimating someone's actual height. Imagine a young girl trying to make an accurate assessment about someone she just saw in passing?

Not that bad IMO. She didn't estimate a height per se, only remembered she came up to his shoulder. War zones are not my style... thank goodness. MOO

 

[grannygates]

And yet some people are having a hard time believing those actual FBI experts with years of actual investigative work experience when they say this was not a ritualistic murder.

IMO, everyone chooses what bits to believe, who to believe and when to believe them ... or not.

The original investigators may not agree on one particular motive behind the murders, but they do agree on the 6 people that they believe may have been involved and needed additional investigation.

 

[grannygates]

BBM

Could you please point out specifically where this occurred? Perhaps I missed it. I’ll help by providing the list of items to be searched/seized:

View attachment 524636

LOGAN WARRANT final_Redacted.pdf

et he rS de. ur M. et he rS de. ur M. et he rS de. ur M. ...

www.docdroid.net

(It’s also not mentioned in the affidavit that I could find…)

Thanks!

Murder Sheet Coverage of court hearing Day 3, defense introduced the deposition and discussed it. You can listen to that episode to confirm.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

That’s what I’m wondering !! How do they even get around that ? They’ll say “do you see that person in the court room today?” and she’ll say “no…” so then what ? Now I’m gonna try to find a case where thats happened..

Well from my over-tired brain, I don't see it happening simply because I don't remember any of the witness's (juveniles) saying they saw his face. Please feel free to correct me if ya' feel the need.

 

[MiniMoo]

Well from my over-tired brain, I don't see it happening simply because I don't remember any of the witness's (juveniles) saying they saw his face. Please feel free to correct me if ya' feel the need.

I think we have a man dressed in blue, a creepy man and muddy bloody man.

Important details and they can't be easily disregarded, but I think you could be right about no actual face.

I'm thinking the sketches may not count, right?

I am 15 pages behind and am not sure I'm going to go all the way back to catch up. Wow!

 

[photographer4]

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.

There was apparently a whole FB group discussing this case in the beginning and in that group, some folks mentioned an F painted on LG’s body at the scene (it wasn’t on her body, but on the tree). They accused BH of the crime in that group. This was BEFORE the F issue was public knowledge and before RA was arrested - so before the D named BH as a suspect. Apparently this was not investigated or not investigated to the fullest (I forget which). How did these people know about the bloody F? Further, some people called LE and said that the voice for “GDTH” sounded like BH. Adobe Acrobat

This is discussed starting on p. 87.

 

[grannygates]

I think we have a man dressed in blue, a creepy man and muddy bloody man.

Important details and they can't be easily disregarded, but I think you could be right about no actual face.

I'm thinking the sketches may not count, right?

I am 15 pages behind and am not sure I'm going to go all the way back to catch up. Wow!

If you want a TLDR, I think the new thing we talked about today was the letters from Holeman and Mullin, the transcript, and whether that documentation would say that they were still investigating other possible accomplices after RAs arrest. Have you had a chance to read those?

 

[photographer4]

Pathetically poor defense if the only way they have of poking holes in evidence is by ripping young witnesses to shreds.

A defense who cannot act with the upmost of integrity won’t be successful in poking holes in anything but their own reputation and that of their client too. The end result is antagonizing a jury.

JMO

Remains to be seen whether they’re horrible to witnesses or conduct themselves gracefully. It’s not always a defense attorney’s fault if a witness starts to crumble or cry on the stand. Sometimes that happens, no matter how gentle a lawyer is.

 

[grannygates]

There was apparently a whole FB group discussing this case in the beginning and in that group, some folks mentioned an F painted on LG’s body at the scene (it wasn’t on her body, but on the tree). They accused BH of the crime in that group. This was BEFORE the F issue was public knowledge and before RA was arrested - so before the D named BH as a suspect. Apparently this was not investigated or not investigated to the fullest (I forget which). How did these people know about the bloody F? Further, some people called LE and said that the voice for “GDTH” sounded like BH. Adobe Acrobat

This is discussed starting on p. 87.

Using your handy link April 12,2017 is the date that the man from Georgia called Winters about the mimicked crime scene photo, so that was really quick after the murders that people were looking at him and his online presence. I didn’t realize it was that fast.

 

[photographer4]

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.

I think they’ll be as nice as they can about things, but I do think they may be able to ask questions that might make the witnesses uncomfortable or may cause them to second guess themselves. Sometimes no matter how nicely a witness is questioned, they end up crying or saying things differently than they did initially to LE etc. I expect the lawyers to do their jobs as nicely as they can, but attack the testimony is kinda their job and it isn’t always a nice experience for the witness(es).

 

[grannygates]

I was looking up how the court handles jury instruction etc. and admissibility surrounding eyewitness testimony and I found the admissibility test in Indiana that they use for eyewitness testimony. Its super long so I’ll put it behind a spoiler for people who don’t want a wall of text lol

I’d also like to share the standard jury instruction I found in Canada to compare and contrast. (Of course, if a lawyer sees this and knows any of it is not the current standard, please correct me!)

The Indiana law review article is also really interesting read in itself as well. It’s offering a suggested change due to the high rate of wrongful convictions that occur from faulty eyewitness testimony.

Confidence is Key: A Reform to Indiana Eyewitness Identification Admissibility Using a Rules of Evidence Approach

Mya Zajakowski, J.D. Candidate, 2024, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law; B.S. in Neuroscience, 2021, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis – Indianapolis, Indiana. Int…

indianalawreview.com

A. The Manson Admissibility Test

The U.S. Supreme Court summarized the current federal approach in Manson v. Brathwaite and balanced the need for eyewitness identification with the harmful effects an unreliable identification poses to a defendant’s due process right. In Brathwaite, the Court devised a two-prong test declaring that “reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification.”[47] The first prong asks whether the identification procedure was “so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”[48] A court will thus admit an identification arising out of suggestive conduct so long as the conduct does not rise to the level of “impermissibly suggestive.”[49] Even so, identifications resulting from impermissibly suggestive police procedures may still be admitted if the second prong is satisfied.

The second prong asks whether the evidence is reliable under the “totality of the circumstances,” examining the five factors outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers factors (the “Biggers Factors”).[50] The Biggers factors include: (1) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention; (3) the accuracy of the witness’s prior description of the criminal; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation; and (5) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.[51]

If the court finds that the eyewitness identification was reliable under the “totality of the circumstances,” then the evidence is admissible even if the identification resulted from “impermissibly suggestive” police procedures.[52]State courts have added to these factors, supplementing the reliability factors with emerging psychological evidence.[53]The Biggers factors, however, do not account for system and estimator variables shown to undermine the reliability of an identification.[54] Therefore, Manson’s “impermissibly suggestive” threshold is too strict, and the factors weighed are underinclusive.

In devising this admissibility procedure, the Manson Court inherently suggested that eyewitness identification evidence is susceptible to error; it must be screened for “indicia of reliability” before being presented to a jury.[55]Thus, Mansonconferred the jury’s role of accessing credibility to a judge. Once a judge finds that the evidence has “aspects of reliability . . . juries are not so susceptible that they cannot measure intelligently the weight of identification testimony that has some questionable feature.”[56] But this belief contradicts modern psychology and the futility of jury instructions—most jurors cannot accurately weigh the reliability factors when a confident witness is on the stand. Even so, the U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the Manson admissibility procedure, and it continues to be used.[57]

This is the special jury instruction I found regarding the use and concern with eyewitness testimony, in Canada:

Identification Evidence – Criminal Defence Lawyers

The Need for Special Caution

It is settled law that trial judges must specially caution juries as to the dangers associated with eyewitness identification evidence. Watt’s Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions recommends final jury instructions that include:[4]

The case against (NOA)(or, the persons charged) depends entirely, or to a large extent, on eyewitness testimony.

You must be very cautious about relying on eyewitness testimony to find (NOA) (or, anyone) guilty of any criminal offence [or the offence(s)] charged. In the past, there have been miscarriages of justice, persons have been wrongly convicted, because eyewitnesses have made mistakes in identifying the person(s) whom they saw committing a crime.

Eyewitness testimony is an expression by a witness of (his/her)belief or impression. It is quite possible for an honest witness to make a mistake in identification. Honest people do make mistakes. An apparently convincing witness can be mistaken. So can a number of apparently convincing witnesses.

When you decide how much or little to believe of or rely upon this evidence, everything that I told you earlier about assessing evidence applies to eyewitnesses. In addition, you should keep in mind several factors that relate specifically to the eyewitness(es) and (his/her/their)identification of(NOA)(or, the persons charged) as the person(s) who committed the offence(s) charged.

The model instruction then recommends that the judge address at least three categories of evidence: the circumstances in which the witness made his/her observations; the description(s) given by the witness after he/she made the observations; and the circumstances of the witness’s identification of the accused as the person whom he/she saw. For each category, the judge is to outline the kinds of questions that the jurors should consider, and review the relevant evidence pertaining to that category. For example, in relation to the circumstances in which the witness made his/her observations, the model instructions include:

The circumstances in which the witness made his/her observations

• Did the witness know the person before s/he saw him/her at the time?
• Had the witness seen the person on a prior occasion?
• How long did the witness watch the person s/he says is the accused?
• How good or bad was the visibility?
• Was there anything that prevented or hindered a clear view?
• How far apart were the witness and the person whom s/he saw?
• How good was the lighting?
• Did anything distract the witness’ attention at the time s/he made the observations?

(Review relevant evidence about circumstances.)

The kinds of questions will, of course, vary depending on the individual case.

The model instructions do explain in general terms why the special caution is needed, reinforced by recognition of the role that mistaken identifications have played in past miscarriages of justice. Despite that commendable language, scientists working in this area question the efficacy of jury instructions generally in preventing jurors from unduly relying on eyewitness testimony. This point is revisited below.

The reasons of trial judges, sitting without a jury, should similarly articulate the need for special caution in approaching this testimony. Failure to do so may result in appellate reversal.

Where the witness has expressed certainty about the identification made, the jury should, in most cases, also be instructed about the dubious relationship between the certainty of a witness’s eyewitness identification and its accuracy.[5] Again, trial judges sitting without a jury should instruct themselves in similar terms.[6]

It is generally inadequate for jury instructions to simply recite a “boilerplate” caution surrounding eyewitness identification evidence without focusing on its “weaknesses” or the specific features of the evidence that invite concern or scrutiny. As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Baltovich, “the need for a direction warning the jury of any specific weaknesses [in the identification evidence] has long been recognized.”[7] Similarly, a self-caution as to the inherent dangers of eyewitness identification may not immunize a trial judge’s reasons from appellate reversal if unaccompanied by some articulation of the specific features of the case that invite concern and how they are resolved.

 

[photographer4]

Luckily, the defense is free to call witness in just such an event! I suspect they won’t, though, because they know they can’t just take commentary out of context when the person is on the stand and open to cross.

JMO

Not aimed at you specifically MooCoW just jumping off here with a question: I don’t think either side (?) can make KA testify in court directly right but we expect they can use the recorded phone calls as “evidence” if the need or want to? But how about his mother? Can the State subpoena her to the stand to answer to whatever they want to ask her about regarding those “confessions”? If yes, then would she still be permitted to attend court proceedings? Or does her presence there indicate that she has NOT / will NOT be called?

 

[photographer4]

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:

View attachment 524605

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

If that happened then I guess she didn’t really read what she signed and that also is not a particularly good look for her? I don’t know what to tell ya here. This is probably a typo, or even possibly a template that was filled in by her or a staffer and likely an error was made somewhere - but in the end, it was her job to (review &) sign off. Even though I know how easily this could have happened, I still think it doesn’t make a great impression imo. Forgivable typo for sure - but still - ugh.

 

[Willow Knight]

I am curious, whether RA had a habit of

Parking nose out
Carrying a utility knife of some sort
Concealing and carrying

The association with catfishing is hard for me to dismiss, but on the chance that this was a spontaneous crime of opportunity, just actually what was his intent and when did he first intend it? Undressing makes it automatically a secually motivated crime IMO but did he begin his day with that intention?


JMO

Some of my thought on the catfishing account A.S. I believe LE suspect Richard Allen had a connection to A.S. account, not only because of the searches at the two homes, (KAK family and RA) also because LE states KAK was in contact with Libby. ETC

LE also stated more than one person in the KAK household was using that account.

However, to my knowledge, only KAK has been charged. No one else in his household, why, because possibly LE could not positively identify another A.S. user. No evidence to charge another.

Same with Richard Allen, LE could find no evidence to prove he was involved with A.S. account. Without evidence a person should/can't be charged with the crime.

I do think this was a CSAM crime, however lack of evidence does not mean a person is innocent of the crime, simply that the person isn't charged.

Others involved. (simply can't prove it)

 

[photographer4]

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

Well, imo, maybe the should petition the Supreme Court. They weren’t the only ones who felt there were issues with the SW as I’ve pointed out in this thread already (so did Scranton and Lebrato who planned to file their own version of a Franks Motion - I linked it up thread already a few times so not linking it here again). I’d have liked to have known what issues they felt it had, and would have liked to see what they’d have filed. I think it says something when 2 unrelated sets of attorneys have taken issue with the SW. I personally think the matter should be heard - even if just to give the appearance of fairness. MOO.

 

[photographer4]

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.

To be clear, I’m not saying they should attack and go for the jugular. I’m saying they should question them accordingly as nicely as they can. Witnesses want to be helpful, and will do their best to be good witnesses and helpful as they can. I can only imagine the stress and upset for them throughout the past several years and I don’t want this to make it worse for them - but I do think they’re going to face tough questions and its possible they may end up feeling hurt and angry as a result, even if the lawyers are as sweet as they can be about it.