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

[girlhasnoname]

When do we think voir dire will start?

Soon if the Defense doesn't try and pull a rabbit out of their hats to cause another delay.

moo

 

[iamshadow21]

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.

RSBM

On or about is standard legal jargon, in my experience.

On Or About Definition

www.nolo.com

 

[Niner]

10/14/24 - 11/15/24

I have it starting 10/15/24... do I have that wrong? TIA if someone can let me know!

 

[FrostedGlass]

I have it starting 10/15/24... do I have that wrong? TIA if someone can let me know!

That was the old date: new date is 10/14- 11/15
I put this behind a spoiler because it's so long to scoll by.

Spoiler Jury Trial Session: 10/15/2024 9:00 AM, Rescheduled Session: 10/16/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/17/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/18/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/21/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/22/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/23/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/24/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/25/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/28/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/29/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/30/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/31/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 11/01/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/14/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/15/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/16/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/17/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/18/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/21/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/22/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/23/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/24/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/25/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/28/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/29/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/30/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/31/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/01/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/04/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/05/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/06/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/07/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/08/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/11/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/12/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/13/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/14/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/15/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

 

[sunshineray]

What's this about? Anybody know?

08/28/2024

Order Issued At request of counsel, Court orders the Clerk of Carroll County to withdraw the appearances of the attorneys delineated in the order, as they were entered as intervenors or for a limited purpose. 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:

 

[sunshineray]

Do we know why Dr. Fidler was subpoenaed? I can't remember.

I don't think it's been said but I believe she's been deposed once.

 

[sunshineray]

interesting. I've never heard of her in relation to this case and apparently the D wants to depose her. About what? Also interesting to me that the motion to quash subpoena comes from her, and not from the state.

I believe that's because they've already deposed her once?

 

[Niner]

That was the old date: new date is 10/14- 11/15
I put this behind a spoiler because it's so long to scoll by.

Spoiler Jury Trial Session: 10/15/2024 9:00 AM, Rescheduled Session: 10/16/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/17/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/18/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/21/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/22/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/23/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/24/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/25/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/28/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/29/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/30/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/31/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 11/01/2024 9:00 AM, Cancelled Session: 10/14/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/15/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/16/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/17/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/18/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/21/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/22/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/23/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/24/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/25/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/28/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/29/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/30/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/31/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/01/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/04/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/05/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/06/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/07/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/08/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/11/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/12/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/13/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/14/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/15/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

So - it DOES start on 10/14/24... thanks!

 

[sunshineray]

It's very curious!

According to the links provided by @Cyber sleuth above, she objects to the subpoena for deposition because: 1. She doesn't live or conduct business in Carroll County; 2. she received the subpoena only 9 days before being required to appear with no notice to rearrange her busy practice schedule (and Indiana law requires 10 days); and the subpoena did not offer her mileage and other witness/statutory fees which are required by law.

I thought she was one the people the D wanted to depose again, so she already had been, and the prosecution was calling it harassment?

 

[sunshineray]

Do you have any actual pictures of the south end of the bridge?

This is the hill

Eerie photos capture teens' death march 'down the hill'

Two schoolgirls were ordered to march down a hill by the man who murdered them.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[katydid23]

Unfortunately, BB and SC’s descriptions in no way align. Two different men. SC reported seeing a muddy man (not bloody) wearing a tan jacket (not blue). This is part of the discovery. FM pg 115,116. Whatever one thinks of the FM, one cannot deny a taped interview that will likely come into evidence at trial. Someone lied on the PCA and this will be exposed. JMHO

BB and SC's general descriptions must align somewhat if they both identified BG as the man they saw.IMO

Not only the taped interview but the witnesses will also most likely testify. They will be asked about their confirmation of BG being the man they both saw. If they are confident and sincere the jury will probably accept that identification. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Google Earth view of the south end of the bridge. The white "ribbon" on the left is the private drive. If you expand the image, you can see a path beginning at the end of the bridge and going toward the 2 properties. That's the abandoned rr that you mentioned. RR are set upon a deep base of rocks called ballast. Those rocks are generally left behind when the rails and ties are removed.

Understanding The Railroad Track Ballast - R&S Track, Inc.

Have you ever wondered why railroad tracks have layers of crushed rocks underneath them? Learn more about the railroad track ballast.

rstrackinc.com

View attachment 527437

Would the kidnapper want to walk two girls at gunpoint towards private property and driveways?

 

[katydid23]

Yes, thank you. That's the path I was referring to and people are claiming it isn't there. I just didn't have a link to it. IMO, if the girls would have been able to make a break at that point, I think they would have gone on down that path.

While a man had a gun pointing at their heads? Why do people keep speculating the young girls 'could have' made a break for it? They were babies facing a vicious armed killer.He wasn't going to let them run down a garden path and escape.

 

[FromGermany1]

This is the hill
View attachment 527672

Eerie photos capture teens' death march 'down the hill'

Two schoolgirls were ordered to march down a hill by the man who murdered them.

www.nzherald.co.nz

When videos and theories were created with the march of the girls, going down the hill and crossing the creek, LE (forgot the one officer's name) said, it was wrong and was not, what happened. So I still wonder, what was wrong about the route of their march. Or did they (LE) lie about it?

 

[katydid23]

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.

affidavit

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.

If a witness says she thinks it might have been blood, isn't that OK, if the blood is not the ONLY thing she was testifying to. If she is also identifying the man she saw walking, with either mud or blood all over him, saying he is ALSO the man in the BG video, I'd think that might be important factually?

 

[girlhasnoname]

When videos and theories were created with the march of the girls, going down the hill and crossing the creek, LE (forgot the one officer's name) said, it was wrong and was not, what happened. So I still wonder, what was wrong about the route of their march. Or did they (LE) lie about it?

Which videos showed the march of the girls? I've never seen or heard that rumor on any MSM sites. Much appreciated to see that myself.

 

[FrostedGlass]

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.

I don't understand your argument. Here is what the defense team wrote in the FM. The idea that the man seen walking by SC would have blood on him is likely supported by this statement by the FBI's search for RL:

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/logan-warrrant.pdf

(snip)
"Because of the nature of the Victim's wounds it is nearly certain the perpetrator of the crime would have gotten blood on his person/clothing."

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

Pg 24
(snips)
"The evidence will also show that Liggett just flat out lied about what he (Liggett) claimed Sarah Carbaugh told him in 2017 concerning a man walking down the road near the murder scene. For Liggett’s timeline to work, Liggett needed Sarah Carbaugh to describe a man walking down the road wearing a blue jacket, who had blood covering his clothing. However, in 2017 Sarah did not say these things. This did not prevent Liggett from affirming under oath that Sarah Carbaugh did say those things."

"In fact, what Sarah Carbaugh actually told Liggett in 2017, was that she (Carbaugh) observed a man walking down the road wearing a tan coat whose clothes were muddy. Nowhere did Carbaugh claim in 2017 that the man she observed was wearing a blue coat. Nowhere did Carbaugh claim in 2017 that the man she observed was wearing bloody clothes. Nowhere. This truth about what Sarah Carbaugh actually told Liggett in 2017 blows up Liggett’s timeline, which is the likely reason Liggett failed to include this information in his affidavit."

 

[FrostedGlass]

When videos and theories were created with the march of the girls, going down the hill and crossing the creek, LE (forgot the one officer's name) said, it was wrong and was not, what happened. So I still wonder, what was wrong about the route of their march. Or did they (LE) lie about it?

PUBLISHED: February 12, 2019
UPDATED: October 31, 2022

Why Police Have Not Released Details on the Murders of Libby German and Abby Williams from Delphi, Indiana

Since the 2017 murder of Indiana teens Libby German and Abby Williams, local authorities have not released any information about the cause or time of death of either victim, leading to rumors and speculation. We spoke with Indiana State Police First Sgt. Jerry Holeman about why the police are...

www.aetv.com

(snips)
"And armchair detectives are even taking their interest in the case a step further by creating YouTube reenactments of the crime."

"Holeman: “[The videos] help us know that people don’t know [the true details], because the facts haven’t been released,” Holeman says. “People watch the news and think they are picking up on things, but it’s false. Nothing out there is accurate, which only leads to more false tips.”"

 

[Megnut]

If a witness says she thinks it might have been blood, isn't that OK, if the blood is not the ONLY thing she was testifying to. If she is also identifying the man she saw walking, with either mud or blood all over him, saying he is ALSO the man in the BG video, I'd think that might be important factually?

Which parallels other known facts.

A violent, bloody scene nearby.

A video captured on the phone of one of the victims, capturing a lone male.

The timing of the sighting.

The location of the sighting.

And that the judge has reviewed the relevant evidence and determined the PCA didn't contain a falsehood.

What's left to dispute?

Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe it's like that time the defence omitted to mention to the Judge that MW was a trusted consultant on the Franks motion both in chambers and in filings.

My position is we can't resolve any of this without the source exhibits, but i certainly am sceptical of any bare claims made in motions because they misrepresented many other things like the FBI BAU report and Prof Turco.

IMO you don't do this if you want to have credibility with a Judge.

MOO