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

[Cyber sleuth]

a

When "bloody" was put into the PCA and it wasn't actually said by SC, that also is "not entirely true." The P and the D need to be held to the same standard, as I'm sure we all agree.

IMO MOO

The Defense has not stated that she never said “bloody”. They stated that she never said his clothes were bloody.
Which the PCA also never stated.
I went over this yesterday and sourced.

Post #392

 

[statt#1]

Can't say for sure how or when, but if that bullet was ejected, or fell out of a pocket, and/or there was rustling around during the crime, chances are good they swept that whole area with a metal detector. That bullet was likely down in the leaves, not able to be seen or found without a detector. I have several thousand hours on a detector, many in the deciduous woods of North America.

 

[m00c0w]

Where is this from? Is there anything about the timing of the collection? (i.e. not three days later, not after the crime scene has been released, etc.? )

I’m not sure that’s really a chain of custody issue, as chain of custody is more after it’s seized. You document where it was, who found it, and who handles it from that point forward so it can be accounted for and ensure it wasn’t tampered with. And if it was, who had the opportunity.

Finding it a couple of days later would just open the door to questioning how they know the item is related, how do we know the crime scene wasn’t contaminated, basically attempting to provide alternate explanations for how the item arrived there since it wasn’t seized initially. That would be a pretty strong point if true (“You searched the scene and didn’t find anything, but then went back and found something three days later. Were your investigators super incompetent or did it appear after the fact?”).

All my opinion.

 

[tlcya]

Where is this from? Is there anything about the timing of the collection? (i.e. not three days later, not after the crime scene has been released, etc.? )

I was responding to a member who was surprised witnesses might be called to testify about chain of custody. I was not commenting on when any specific evidence was located or where.

 

[TTF14]

a

The Defense has not stated that she never said “bloody”. They stated that she never said his clothes were bloody.
Which the PCA also never stated.
I went over this yesterday and sourced.

I don't think the defense would have bothered to put it in the Franks memo at all if SC said he had muddy clothes and a bloody face. What would be the point of that?

IMO

 

[TTF14]

I’m not sure that’s really a chain of custody issue, as chain of custody is more after it’s seized. You document where it was, who found it, and who handles it from that point forward so it can be accounted for and ensure it wasn’t tampered with. And if it was, who had the opportunity.

Finding it a couple of days later would just open the door to questioning how they know the item is related, how do we know the crime scene wasn’t contaminated, basically attempting to provide alternate explanations for how the item arrived there since it wasn’t seized initially. That would be a pretty strong point if true (“You searched the scene and didn’t find anything, but then went back and found something three days later. Were your investigators super incompetent or did it appear after the fact?”).

All my opinion.

Gotcha.

Still, if it's true it was 3 days later (and I trust Barb MacDonald. She has loads of integrity), that's a problem. I guess it would just fall under "crime scene processing" and not necessarily chain of custody?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I don't think the defense would have bothered to put it in the Franks memo at all if SC said he had muddy clothes and a bloody face. What would be the point of that?

IMO

They put it in the franks to mislead the public and successfully IMO
it did not pass The Court’sscrutiny.
As you know they aren’t suppose to outright lie but they can absolutely mislead.
Perhaps a lazy judge would have not caught the twisting of truth.
Just my opinion
I think anyone that just allows the defense to lead their opinion without intense scrutiny of their motions ( especially tricky wording) will be very disappointed at trial IMO.

 

[TTF14]

They put it in the franks to mislead the public and successfully IMO
it did not pass The Court’sscrutiny.
As you know they aren’t suppose to outright lie but they can absolutely mislead.
Perhaps a lazy judge would have not caught the twisting of truth.
Just my opinion
I think anyone that just allows the defense to lead their opinion without intense scrutiny of their motions ( especially tricky wording) will be very disappointed at trial IMO.

They cited a specific document in which it's noted exactly what SC said. I firmly believe they would not put a lie in the FM, cite their source, and have the sourced document say the opposite and prove that it was a lie. This would not be professional or a good look for them. I believe it is 100% true that SC did NOT use the word bloody at all, to describe the man's face or clothing. Why? Because they cited their source. Just because we can't read that source doesn't mean it's a lie.

IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Gotcha.

Still, if it's true it was 3 days later (and I trust Barb MacDonald. She has loads of integrity), that's a problem. I guess it would just fall under "crime scene processing" and not necessarily chain of custody?

Yeah, I agree it can be a big problem the prosecution will have to address at some point. They might be able to bring in some witnesses that say it had clearly been there for a few days for reasons x, y, z. Still not something I’d want to have to defend in court.

Still all my opinion.

 

[Vern]

When "bloody" was put into the PCA and it wasn't actually said by SC, that also is "not entirely true." The P and the D need to be held to the same standard, as I'm sure we all agree.

IMO MOO

There's already been posts in here explaining how that can be.

The PCA does not quote the witness (note absolute lack of quotation marks in the PCA) - it paraphrases her statement.

Note the D-Team actually quotes the word "bloody" and only that word and uses it to imply that the PCA should be consdered invalid for the warrant.

I'm of the opinion that the witness statement video compared to the PCA is actually quite similar and that the paraphrase used by LE in writing that PCA is not misleading/lying at all.

Paraphrasing someone sating something like (IMO) "I passed by a guy who seemed to be covered in mud and blood so I thought he had maybe been in a fight":

into a PCA comment of: Witness passed by someone who was muddy and bloody is simply not misleading at all. Rather on point actually. The judge has seen the D-Teams submission and she has also had time to review the video of the witness included. And, IMO, there's a reason she ruled against them. For me, the very fact that the D-Team only quoted one word, just one, "bloody" leads me to believe that the witness did not use the word bloody, but that her sttement actually backs up the paraphrasing utilized by LE within the PCA.

 

[Vern]

They cited a specific document in which it's noted exactly what SC said. I firmly believe they would not put a lie in the FM, cite their source, and have the sourced document say the opposite and prove that it was a lie. This would not be professional or a good look for them. I believe it is 100% true that SC did NOT use the word bloody at all, to describe the man's face or clothing. Why? Because they cited their source. Just because we can't read that source doesn't mean it's a lie.

IMO MOO

Again, the PCA is "not exactly what she said" as you've implied above. LE does not quote the witness in it or else it would be within quotation marks. They paraphrased the overall context of her statement.

They (D-Team) quoted ONE word from the PCA. "Bloody". That does not mean the PCA was misleading or a lie.

 

[grannygates]

The defense has been debunked by their own witness like Turco on what he said (see attached link at 28 minute mark).

These ridiculous filings of what the Court 'should have said' listing items that have been disproven only further solidifies my opinion that they have no case of defense and have wasted precious time and resources on things that not only muddy the waters, but upon further investigation turn out to be completely false or stretched beyond reason.

The jury is not going to believe or like this DT at all IMO.

The Delphi Murders: State's Response to Defense's Third Motion for Franks Hearing

MOO

Can you give me specifics on which witness said what to “debunk” the original suspects ? I can’t seem to get any answers and I see these generic claims so often, I’d really like to know what I’ve missed.

 

[Vern]

Can you give me specifics on which witness said what to “debunk” the original suspects ? I can’t seem to get any answers and I see these generic claims so often, I’d really like to know what I’ve missed.

As cited previously to you, the D-Teams own witnesses testified at the recent three day hearings that even they could not link or place their suspects in Delphi the day the girls were murdered. They tried and could not.

 

[grannygates]

What if the bullet was found by a random citizen. Does this person come to court to testify why they decided to dig in that one spot and how they handed it off to LE ? What if someone forgot the evidence bag on top of their car and it flew away for a little while, does the court get to know that? You know, hypothetically speaking, I’m just curious how much of this bullets life the court gets to know ?

 

[steeltowngirl]

I’m not sure that’s really a chain of custody issue, as chain of custody is more after it’s seized. You document where it was, who found it, and who handles it from that point forward so it can be accounted for and ensure it wasn’t tampered with. And if it was, who had the opportunity.

Finding it a couple of days later would just open the door to questioning how they know the item is related, how do we know the crime scene wasn’t contaminated, basically attempting to provide alternate explanations for how the item arrived there since it wasn’t seized initially. That would be a pretty strong point if true (“You searched the scene and didn’t find anything, but then went back and found something three days later. Were your investigators super incompetent or did it appear after the fact?”).

All my opinion.

All of the above is good stuff, and among the challenges to evidence that I would expect the defense to present.

They lost me at ‘the Odinists did it’.

jmo

 

[grannygates]

As cited previously to you, the D-Teams own witnesses testified at the recent three day hearings that even they could not link or place their suspects in Delphi the day the girls were murdered. They tried and could not.

I don’t think that is “debunking” the theory. I think it’s highlighting loose ends and that there needed to be more investigation into those guys.

Unless there was something specifically said by one of the original investigators that they suddenly don’t believe that these third parties had anything to do with this and all of their prior testimony was untrue? That would be more inline with “debunking” or exposing the third-party theory as false.

 

[TTF14]

Again, the PCA is "not exactly what she said" as you've implied above. LE does not quote the witness in it or else it would be within quotation marks. They paraphrased the overall context of her statement.

They (D-Team) quoted ONE word from the PCA. "Bloody". That does not mean the PCA was misleading or a lie.

If SC didn't use the word bloody, it was certainly an embellishment. Blood implies violence. Mud doesn't. The girls were murdered. I believe the word bloody was added to influence the judge to sign off. A muddy guy could have just been fishing. A bloody guy was probably in a physical altercation.

All my opinion and interpretation. Last I'll say on the matter.

IMO MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Can't say for sure how or when, but if that bullet was ejected, or fell out of a pocket, and/or there was rustling around during the crime, chances are good they swept that whole area with a metal detector. That bullet was likely down in the leaves, not able to be seen or found without a detector. I have several thousand hours on a detector, many in the deciduous woods of North America.

Absolutely they would have covered that crime scene thoroughly, especially with it being between Abby and Libby's bodies.

It just makes it far more conspiratorial and sensational to allege the bullet wasn't found that day or there is no chain of custody for it.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

BBM

We basically know it didn’t, in my opinion, because that would have been included in Franks 1-4, and we’d have seen 6-9 by now. At least if it did, it’s not the slightest bit exculpatory.

JMO.

yes! i’ve said this all along!

 

[girlhasnoname]

Can you give me specifics on which witness said what to “debunk” the original suspects ? I can’t seem to get any answers and I see these generic claims so often, I’d really like to know what I’ve missed.

I linked the podcast that is an approved source here and gave the minute mark in my original post. It's a really good listen.

IMO