Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #194

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

AugustWest said:
The problem with this is that an affidavit, which is what a PCA is, should be a statement of absolute fact, to the best of one's knowledge.

www.law.cornell.edu

affidavit

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

LE saying "it could have been blood" isn't a fact. "Could have been yes" is not a fact. Misrepresenting facts in an affidavit is thus problematic, because that is the basis for the charges. Which led to RA being held in a prison for over a year. Nitpicking is kinda important when you are depriving someone of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...
SC will surely testify at trial. The PCA does not have to include everything LE knows, every word that witnesses told them. We'll find out soon what her full testimony is, hopefully MO
 
sunshineray said:
SC will surely testify at trial. The PCA does not have to include everything LE knows, every word that witnesses told them. We'll find out soon what her full testimony is, hopefully MO
Click to expand...
I never said the prosecution need say every word a witness told them. I'm not sure why you feel I insinuated that.

I do expect the prosecution to be truthful in their filings. Including a quote of a word never used by a witness in an affidavit is troublesome.
 
AugustWest said:
I never said the prosecution need say every word a witness told them. I'm not sure why you feel I insinuated that.

I do expect the prosecution to be truthful in their filings. Including a quote of a word never used by a witness in an affidavit is troublesome.
Click to expand...
Except the prosecution didn't use quotes. They paraphrased.

The D-Team is the only ones who used quotation marks and that was only for the word "bloody". That does not mean or infer that the witness statement did not say "was muddy and covered in blood" for example. That's not troublesome to me as it is not a misleading paraphrase of what the witness said ... and as the Judge has already ruled when she denied the defence's motion IMHOIANADL opinion.
 
Vern said:
Except the prosecution didn't use quotes. They paraphrased.

The D-Team is the only ones who used quotation marks and that was only for the word "bloody". That does not mean or infer that the witness statement did not say "was muddy and covered in blood" for example. That's not troublesome to me as it is not a misleading paraphrase of what the witness said ... and as the Judge has already ruled when she denied the defence's motion IMHOIANADL opinion.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, you are totally missing that an affidavit is supposed to be an absolute statement of truth...not a paraphrase.

Again: affidavit
 
AugustWest said:
Respectfully, you are totally missing that an affidavit is supposed to be an absolute statement of truth...not a paraphrase.

Again: affidavit
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I don't see anything in the link that makes what I suggested above to be "non factual". "Covered in blood" can, in fact, also infer "bloody".

If the entire comment she made was not akin to such, then the D-Team would have quoted the actual entire sentence with a, "she actually stated this: "...........". But, they did not. They quoted only one word. That's telling IMO.
 
Vern said:
Respectfully, I don't see anything in the link that makes what I suggested above to be "non factual". "Covered in blood" can, in fact, also infer "bloody".

If the entire comment she made was not akin to such, then the D-Team would have quoted the actual entire sentence with a, "she actually stated this: "...........". But, they did not. They quoted only one word. That's telling IMO.
Click to expand...
If she didn't say "bloody," and they insinuated she did, then that would be a misstatement of fact.
 
AugustWest said:
I never said the prosecution need say every word a witness told them. I'm not sure why you feel I insinuated that.

I do expect the prosecution to be truthful in their filings. Including a quote of a word never used by a witness in an affidavit is troublesome.
Click to expand...
Yes I understood that's what you meant
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

I'll have to side with the Judge who's made the decision and who has seen the video for now.
Click to expand...

I agree.
The things we all went back and forth with earlier this year have almost all been decided and/or ruled on.
In addition we have now heard some actual sworn testimony that supports the prosecution. Not one thing I can think of that that was a win for the defense. We’re talking sworn testimony, not half-truths, and fiction.
Anyway, why we are still arguing points that have been decided is beyond me. Folks may not like the rulings, they may not like to hear true testimony, but it’s done.
 
AugustWest said:
If she didn't say "bloody," and they insinuated she did, then that would be a misstatement of fact.
Click to expand...
What if she said he was muddy-looking and had what looked like blood on his clothes, like he'd been in a fight? He looked " muddy and bloody" would sum that up and the PCA would be accurate. The judge has ruled on the PCA being upheld. When SC testifies we'll find out the semantics of it all. MO
 
Last edited:
StarryStarryNight said:
I agree.
The things we all went back and forth with earlier this year have almost all been decided and/or ruled on.
In addition we have now heard some actual sworn testimony that supports the prosecution. Not one thing I can think of that that was a win for the defense. We’re talking sworn testimony, not half-truths, and fiction.
Anyway, why we are still arguing points that have been decided is beyond me. Folks may not like the rulings, they may not like to hear true testimony, but it’s done.
Click to expand...
I agree. We had the Franks. Now we've had more recent, sworn testimony under oath since that Franks that debunks the most sensationalized parts of it. Often from the very LE sources the D-Team was citing - for example: no evidence of Odinistic Ritual Sacrificial killings and the complete lack of evidence, despite their investigation, to place any of the SODDI 'suspects' (they've never been named as suspects or even POIs by LE) at the scene in Delphi on the day and at the time if the crimes.

www.wthr.com

Richard Allen gets approval to transfer out of maximum security prison ahead of Delphi murders trial

A third day of pre-trial hearings in the Delphi murders case ended with a win for defendant Richard Allen — he will now be detained in a county jail.
www.wthr.com www.wthr.com

What we do have is RA still on that bridge by his own statement. And I acknowledge that he changed his statement and timeline (after he found out there was video and eye witnesses). In any other case it would be, "Oh look, he's been caught in a lie!" IMHO.
 
susiQ said:
Many will discount all this "circumstantial evidence" yet champion that RA can indeed be convicted on the flimsy circumstantial evidence they have on him. The problem as I see it, is there's much more convincing circumstantial evidence pointing to third party actors than RA. I believe if JG denies a SODDI defense, this will most assuredly be appealed.
Click to expand...
RSBM

The main issue with the “circumstantial evidence” that you’ve highlighted is that it’s 80% hearsay and not even evidence that’s admissible in court. The things that aren’t hearsay aren’t exactly compelling. “On or around February 13”… so was it on, or was it around? If the defense had any evidence it was during the timeframe of the murders, it wouldn’t be couched in that way. Most of the statements are literally someone claiming someone else said something, sometimes someone claiming someone else told someone else something and that person then told the first person…

This is of an entirely different nature than people reporting things they saw proximate to the murders, RA putting himself on the bridge at the time of the murders, the video evidence, the bullet evidence… it’s certainly quite a bit stronger evidence than unfalsifiable claims about someone implicating someone else, or someone having a very common type of truck sometime around the date of the murders.

Richard Allen can’t get himself off of that bridge, dressed in the same clothes as BG. It’s really as simple as that. No grand Odinist conspiracy where every law enforcement agency in the area, including feds and ISP are in on it. No spooky rituals in the woods or things that would make for a thrilling murder mystery novel.

Just one guy that admitted he was there and dressed in the same clothes as the probable killer before he realized there was video. One incredibly messed up individual that tried to kidnap two girls, and wound up brutally killing then when it didn’t go according to plan.

All my opinion.
 
susiQ said:
Edit to a previous post. Link to FM below


Was AH lying when she repeated what BH said to her, FM pg 56, throwing his former friend PW under the bus and implicating him in the murders? Is PW lying when he denies BH's narrative and then gives his own account of why he fell out with his bestie?
FM pg 17, 18

Is TH lying when she tells LE that JM borrowed her car on or around Feb 13th to visit his Vinlander (white supremest) "brothers" in Delphi or is JM lying when he said he's never been to Delphi in his life? FM pg 18. Not to mention that TH recorded 3 conversations from JM's phone where in two of them he was looking to pay money for people they could harm or kill? FM pg 19. Was TH fabricating when she said, JM & BH are two of the most violent men she has ever known? FM pg 19. Of course, this is her "opinion" but may well be based in fact. Was EF lying when he identified himself as having been on a bridge where two girls were murdered, and AW was a pain in the *** and troublemaker to his sister MJ? FM pg 91 Or when he told her that he gave her horns? FM pg 98 <modsnip>
I believe EF was telling the truth about where he was and why. MOO Personally, I feel he was duped into believing he was being "initiated" into the Vinlander "brotherhood." MOO TH spoke of "blood in and blood out" meaning acceptance into the secret group. FM pg 19 How sad that he got mixed up (likely early in his life) with people like JM and RAbr.
FM pg 19

Many will discount all this "circumstantial evidence" yet champion that RA can indeed be convicted on the flimsy circumstantial evidence they have on him. The problem as I see it, is there's much more convincing circumstantial evidence pointing to third party actors than RA. I believe if JG denies a SODDI defense, this will most assuredly be appealed.
Everything that is not linked is MOO.


Attach files


Post


Memorandum in Support of Motion for Franks Hearing.pdf
Supplemental Motion for Franks Hearing.pdf FM2
Defendants Additional Franks Notice.pdf FM3
Click to expand...
We haven't heard full testimony yet. Using the subsequently denied FMs as being accurate as testimony, IMO, is folly. AJMO
 
He said he was on the bridge.
He’s confessed with details over 61 times.
He put himself in those clothes along with the too long pants.
It doesn’t matter whether people think it looks like him or not.
He’s still on that bridge. Nobody can take him off.

1724902354597.jpeg


Edit: edit
Edit: can’t spell either
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 88 more.
Total: 2,436 (members: 89, guests: 2,347)

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
2,347
Total visitors
2,436
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,008
Messages
18,150,188
Members
231,613
Latest member
Kayraeyn123
Back
Top