ClearAhead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2024
- Messages
- 1,210
- Reaction score
- 16,913
Except the word "maybe" is not in the transcript.
Nor was it Harshman who was confessing to the murder of Libby and Abby.
Except the word "maybe" is not in the transcript.
You are correct. My apologies.It absolutely is.
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #195
I'm trying to find the document/transcript where RA said/confessed he might have killed Abby. I think I read it here yesterday, but it's not in this one. Anyone know where to look? #598www.websleuths.com
I cut and pasted directly from the transcript.
Adobe Acrobat
acrobat.adobe.com
It's page 14, actually, as labelled on the page itself. Are you viewing double spread?You are correct. My apologies.
Page 7, lines 11 to 18:
Yes -- I am doubled. Sigh. It's been a long day already. Probably why I hate Mondays.It's page 14, actually, as labelled on the page itself. Are you viewing double spread?
Hey, don't stress it. Happens to us all.Yes -- I am doubled. Sigh. It's been a long day already. Probably why I hate Mondays.
If Harshman had said RA used the words ‘definitely killed’ Abby, some people would say he was embellishing or misunderstanding. If RA was captured on audio, or in his own writing, using the word ‘definitely’, some people would say it was due to his psychotic break from prison torture.I was looking for the exact wording @iamshadow21 posted, which includes the word "maybe." I wanted to read the context. It's impossible to know, though, from this transcript whether Harshman meant "RA maybe said...." or "RA said 'maybe'..."
We'll have to wait for trial.
IMO MOO
Harshman was under oath so words matter. IMOIf Harshman had said RA used the words ‘definitely killed’ Abby, some people would say he was embellishing or misunderstanding. If RA was captured on audio, or in his own writing, using the word ‘definitely’, some people would say it was due to his psychotic break from prison torture.
Yet, here we are, searching for the word ‘maybe’. Interpretation of RA’s admissions seem to only become meaningful when they favor defense theories.
jmo
I agree.Harshman was under oath so words matter. IMO
IMOI agree.
So were Wala, Holman, Cecil, Cicero et al and their words actually matter too.
During NM rebuttal at some point in the hearings he asks a witness something to the effect of, "What if they ended up being murdered before that (SA) could happen?" Can't remember which witness atm. Maybe Dr.PM. If anyone has the link to that excerpt will you please post it? Thanks.IMO of course he doesn't testify to what Allen stated "was the motive" --- that is exactly the kind of item that is kept for trial.
Abby and Libby will have their day(s) in court soon. Thankfully. Finally.
His confessions.What (if anything) preceded him finding god?
Guilt?What (if anything) preceded him finding god?
I personally find her dismissiveness about mental health challenges offensive.
IMO MOO
I thought this statement by the Judge was interesting. Is she attributing RA’s ‘voluntary statements’ (aka confessions) to his diagnosis of MDD and anxiety disorders in a backward sort of way? While his mental health conditions didn’t prevent his confessions, could’ve the confessions been the result of his mental health? Certainly I say IMO.
I’m going on from there to believe his mental state was directly involved in his motive to murder. But as with most murderers, it doesn’t justify an insanity defense. Just my opinion…
“The Court is not persuaded that the detention caused the defendant to make incriminating statements,” Gull wrote. “While the defendant does suffer from major depressive disorder and anxiety, those are not serious mental illnesses that prevent the defendant from making voluntary statements.”
Perfectly sane people kill every day for any number of reasons.Well she wouldn’t have said it if it wasn’t a FACT. Regardless of who murdered Libby and Abby, there obviously was severe mental health issues involved. Any murder, for that matter.
“Maybe” doesn’t always signify confusion regarding facts. It often expresses that a concession is reluctant, grudging, painful.IMO
Their words matter when stated as fact. He seemed truthful in that "maybe" reply.
If it's an opinion, then I weigh it.
you are correct, it was Perlmutter NM asked about SA of victims and whether that would factor into her interpretation of the crime scene during his cross.During NM rebuttal at some point in the hearings he asks a witness something to the effect of, "What if they ended up being murdered before that (SA) could happen?" Can't remember which witness atm. Maybe Dr.PM. If anyone has the link to that excerpt will you please post it? Thanks.
I don't think it was Dr. W's personal phone was it? I thought it was a phone from another office from where they were meeting because she had to dial the number for him. The first time his wife hung up on RA and the second time RA insisted she stay and listen.Wasn't there also mention in Dr W's testimony that RA was discussing with her how he tried to confess to his family members and they wouldn't listen and now they wouldn't take his call? She let him use her phone (I had gathered so they'd pick up the phone) and RA asked her to stay and listen while he talked to them? I don't have Dr. W's testimony transcript link, does anyone?