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

[m00c0w]

BP stated that the girls left around 1:30, give or take a few. I understand that as meaning it could have been a little earlier or later that 1:30. My question is: "Why to we always argue for the later time?"

What if they left before 1:30? How would that change the timeline?

The fact is LE probably knows exactly where they were when the call came in, what time the call came in and what time it ended but they have chosen to use only the time on the HHS cam as arrival and departure.

If they got there 10 minutes earlier than suggested by LE, does that substantially change LE's case? If the search warrant read "they were dropped off at 1:39" instead of "they were dropped off at 1:49", would the search warrant have not been granted?

In my opinion, it would have still been granted. It doesn't substantially change anything with respect to the timeline. It's not like they were actually there an hour earlier or later.

JMO

 

[justtrish]

BP stated that the girls left around 1:30, give or take a few. I understand that as meaning it could have been a little earlier or later that 1:30. My question is: "Why to we always argue for the later time?"

What if they left before 1:30? How would that change the timeline?

The fact is LE probably knows exactly where they were when the call came in, what time the call came in and what time it ended but they have chosen to use only the time on the HHS cam as arrival and departure.

I recall Libby took a photo of Abby on the MHB. It is time stamped and so it her video that captured BG. So when they were on the bridge isn't in question is it?

I think they used the HHS cam in the PCA because each car they are speaking about is seen on that camera and so why not use that as a general timeline for when cars were seen on the camera? It all lines up to BB seeing the man on the bridge, then walking to her car and passing Abby and Libby. Her car is then seen leaving AFTER Abby and Libby arrived and AFTER RA's car is seen. They use the HHS cam because BB also passes freedom bridge and sees a group of girls on that bridge. Those girls passed a creepy man. I think it would seem more suspicious if they used various methods to show the general timeline. They use the HHS because each person in this timeline passes by it at one point or another and it isn't about the specific exact time as it is the order of the cars passing and it lining up with each of them coming into contact with the other. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, but I guess the HHS acts as a constant in the timeline so each person isn't being placed there based on a different method.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Well the PCA claims it is and they know a lot more than any of us. IMO

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

The opinion is subjective.

 

[TTF14]

Just that I don't think they're lying as much as exaggerating certain things to make it seem like they have a more robust case than they do. It can be seen as similar to lying, but I don't think they're actually lying.

rsbm bbm

Similar to how the investigators exaggerated to make their case seem more robust in order to get the PCA signed off on.

• Embellished "muddy" to be "muddy and bloody"
• Said BB's description of the man she saw matched "BG" (it didn't, at all)
• Said SC saw a man with a blue coat (she didn't, it was tan)
• Said BB's description of the car matched RA's car (it didn't, at all)
• Said RA's bullet was found there (controversial science, bullet possibly found days later)

This case has been really educational for me, both about how the State does things and the Defense.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

The opinion is subjective.

I can't believe these words are coming out of my mouth, but I can't wait for the ballistics experts.

 

[FrostedGlass]

If they got there 10 minutes earlier than suggested by LE, does that substantially change LE's case? If the search warrant read "they were dropped off at 1:39" instead of "they were dropped off at 1:49", would the search warrant have not been granted?

In my opinion, it would have still been granted. It doesn't substantially change anything with respect to the timeline. It's not like they were actually there an hour earlier or later.

JMO

I doubt that it would have changed the warrant but it might have affected the timeline.
IMO
If they arrived at any time before BB's stated arrival, that puts them on the trail in front of BB. Kelsi said she watched them until they got to the trailhead.

The only way I can work around that is maybe they decided to take some pics on the other branch of the trail and then came back, continued to the bridge...passing BB. However, there's never been any indication from LE that happened.

 

[legalmomma]

Two orders from Judge Gull today

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

08/16/2024

Order Issued The Court, having taken defendant's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions under advisement following a hearing conducted July 30, 2024, and having reviewed the submitted exhibits and arguments of counsel, now denies the defendant's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions as the defendant has failed to comply with Trial Rule 26(F) in seeking an informal resolution of discovery disputes; however, the Court will order the State to turn over Sergeant Cecil's report within ten (10) days of date of this order and that any new discovery be provided within seven (7) days of receipt. The Court further orders the parties to exchange a list of trial exhibits by October 1, 2024. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 08/15/2024

08/16/2024

Order Issued The Court, having had the Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Newly Discovered Destroyed And/or Missing Exculpatory or Potentially Useful Evidence under advisement following a hearing conducted on July 30, 2024, and having reviewed the exhibits submitted and the arguments of counsel now finds that the law is against the defendant. No evidence has been presented to the Court that the State destroyed exculpatory evidence nor that the State acted in bad faith. The defense argues that this alleged exculpatory evidence all relates to one person, Brad Holder. However, no evidence has been presented to support this argument, nor has any evidence been presented to negate the evidence offered by the State which cleared Brad Holder of involvement in these crimes. Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss is therefore denied as unsupported by the law and the evidence. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 08/15/2024

 

[m00c0w]

Two orders from Judge Gull today

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

08/16/2024

Order Issued The Court, having taken defendant's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions under advisement following a hearing conducted July 30, 2024, and having reviewed the submitted exhibits and arguments of counsel, now denies the defendant's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions as the defendant has failed to comply with Trial Rule 26(F) in seeking an informal resolution of discovery disputes; however, the Court will order the State to turn over Sergeant Cecil's report within ten (10) days of date of this order and that any new discovery be provided within seven (7) days of receipt. The Court further orders the parties to exchange a list of trial exhibits by October 1, 2024. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 08/15/2024

08/16/2024

Order Issued The Court, having had the Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Newly Discovered Destroyed And/or Missing Exculpatory or Potentially Useful Evidence under advisement following a hearing conducted on July 30, 2024, and having reviewed the exhibits submitted and the arguments of counsel now finds that the law is against the defendant. No evidence has been presented to the Court that the State destroyed exculpatory evidence nor that the State acted in bad faith. The defense argues that this alleged exculpatory evidence all relates to one person, Brad Holder. However, no evidence has been presented to support this argument, nor has any evidence been presented to negate the evidence offered by the State which cleared Brad Holder of involvement in these crimes. Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss is therefore denied as unsupported by the law and the evidence. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 08/15/2024

There are some big words there:

nor has any evidence been presented to negate the evidence offered by the State which cleared Brad Holder of involvement in these crimes.

They will certainly have an extremely uphill battle to get third party evidence admitted if that’s the current stance of the court.

All my opinion.

 

[TTF14]

Can someone remind me who Cecil is and what he testified about? Brain fried this morning....

 

[Yemelyan]

Can someone remind me who Cecil is and what he testified about? Brain fried this morning....

He's the person in charge of the ISP's Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce and an expert in digital/cellular evidence. He testified that all movement on Libby's phone stopped at 2:32pm, and so forth.

 

[TTF14]

He's the person in charge of the ISP's Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce and an expert in digital/cellular evidence. He testified that all movement on Libby's phone stopped at 2:32pm, and so forth.

Oh ok, thank you!

Maybe this is where the case turns from the SODDI defense (since it looks like JG will likely deny it based on what she said about BH being "cleared" above) to attacking the timeline (which would be a good move, in my opinion, as I've said before.)

IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Oh ok, thank you!

Maybe this is where the case turns from the SODDI defense (since it looks like JG will likely deny it based on what she said about BH being "cleared" above) to attacking the timeline (which would be a good move, in my opinion, as I've said before.)

IMO MOO

Agree. They have to get away from the Odinists if they want any hope of success.

 

[TTF14]

Agree. They have to get away from the Odinists if they want any hope of success.

I don't think that's necessarily true, but I think the timeline can be proven to be wrong BARD. The "Odinists" are only "cleared" because of the currently accepted timeline. When that falls apart, I think the "Odinists" are back on the table.

I think (my opinion) the only reason JG said BH was "cleared" was not because she thinks there's no evidence that this was some kind of heathen ritual, but that the timeline narrative doesn't support it/he mostly has an alibi.

However, that doesn't excuse the rest of them (EF, PW, JM, etc.) so who knows, maybe she will allow the SODDI in.

IMO MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I can't believe these words are coming out of my mouth, but I can't wait for the ballistics experts.

It all depends on the jury. I'm not so eager. I do believe it will be more difficult since the cartridge wasn't fired but maybe there is a distinctive groove on it that can sway them.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

But they don't match, and we know this from BP's interview with Gray Hughes.

KG's phone records show drop off at 1:38.

HH shows drop off at 1:49 (PCA).

The source you linked states that KG was on the phone call with her boyfriend when she dropped off the girls.
This phone call began at 1:38.
So KG dropped off the girls at some point after 1:38.
So the 1:38 start of a phone call does not time stamp the drop off time. Without knowing long the call was we can’t even narrow the window.
Basically we know it happened after 1:38 and before HH capture at 1:49pm.

just my opinion based on the facts presented in the video that was source.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm pleased to see the judge did throw the defense team this little bone; does that mean Nick was withholding discovery?

From her order:
Court will order the State to turn over Sergeant Cecil's report within ten (10) days of date of this order and that any new discovery be provided within seven (7) days of receipt.

 

[m00c0w]

I don't think that's necessarily true, but I think the timeline can be proven to be wrong BARD. The "Odinists" are only "cleared" because of the currently accepted timeline. When that falls apart, I think the "Odinists" are back on the table.

I think (my opinion) the only reason JG said BH was "cleared" was not because she thinks there's no evidence that this was some kind of heathen ritual, but that the timeline narrative doesn't support it/he mostly has an alibi.

However, that doesn't excuse the rest of them (EF, PW, JM, etc.) so who knows, maybe she will allow the SODDI in.

IMO MOO

I guess I feel like they need to focus on attacking the actual facts of the case and less on trying to implicate some loose group of people that they have to rely on a ton of very strange speculations lining up to make work. I don’t see a jury buying unknowns and speculation when the state will be mostly presenting facts.

Odinists were useful pre-trial to try and get the warrant thrown out. That failed. Move on.

My opinion only.

 

[tlcya]

I'm pleased to see the judge did throw the defense team this little bone; does that mean Nick was withholding discovery?

From her order:
Court will order the State to turn over Sergeant Cecil's report within ten (10) days of date of this order and that any new discovery be provided within seven (7) days of receipt.

depends, do we know when Cecil's report was prepared and when State got it? They must turn discovery over timely. So I think it would depend upon how long Cecil's been involved and exactly when he provided his report to State MOO.

 

[TTF14]

The source you linked states that KG was on the phone call with her boyfriend when she dropped off the girls.
This phone call began at 1:38.
So KG dropped off the girls at some point after 1:38.
So the 1:38 start of a phone call does not time stamp the drop off time. Without knowing long the call was we can’t even narrow the window.
Basically we know it happened after 1:38 and before HH capture at 1:49pm.

just my opinion based on the facts presented in the video that was source.

Correct, but I also mentioned The Scene of the Crime podcast that Kelsi was a consulting producer of (and Gray Hughes a producer). In that, the narrator says the girls "hopped out of the car" at "1:38 or 1:39" and that was based on that phone call that came in.

Here's a link to one place you can listen to the podcast, although there many other places, like Apple, Spotify, etc.: Delphi: Abby and Libby

 

[TTF14]

I guess I feel like they need to focus on attacking the actual facts of the case and less on trying to implicate some loose group of people that they have to rely on a ton of very strange speculations lining up to make work. I don’t see a jury buying unknowns and speculation when the state will be mostly presenting facts.

Odinists were useful pre-trial to try and get the warrant thrown out. That failed. Move on.

My opinion only.

The timeline falls under "facts of the case" in my book.