Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #196

[Vaderman]

The way I read the document, the Defense is conceding the point -- proactively asking to waive his right to be there.

IMO NO GOOD (for the Defense) from putting RA at the scene of the crime, ESPECIALLY on foot.

JMO

I wonder if the defense attorneys would direct the jurors, "guys...down the hill"...

 

[FrostedGlass]

From GH transcript of the video:

The shoe (He also has a pic of the shoe in the water)
20:40
cool MH so you guys remember before
where um somebody had found Libby's shoe during the search and said hey there's a
shoe here and it was always believed that that the shoe was found on the
opposite side of the creek that they were found on you know kind of down there but it turns out that the person
who said hey we found a shoe obviously was looking at the shoe in the water the
photograph of just like the thumbnail because we now know that the other shoe
that Libby was wearing was underneath Abby and the phone was
underneath uh the shoe right so that was in that document so you see how that's uh you
know that's another interesting different thing now there is no sort of
shoe I mean it doesn't change much but the shoe itself wasn't found on the other side of the creek it was found in the water

The jeans:
25:33
(I) understand correctly that you saw the real crime scene pics no I saw them I saw
them yeah I've seen them um and you know so the thing is is
it's true that apparently that Abby was wearing Libby's jeans and Libby was
wearing jeans not sweatpants like we all thought you remember how we all thought thought that there were sweatpants but
they were actually jeans and she was wearing those and then she was also wearing her shoes but that
would mean that the shoes would have had been taken off to get those tight the tighter jeans that she wears off and
then you would put Libby's jeans on so you sort of Wonder like okay so what was happening there I mean was Abby maybe
still alive and cold so then the person put you know I I don't really know what
the hell happened I mean it's just crazy

 

[mrjitty]

I thought it was interesting that they are now stating prosecution is “alleging” that RA parked at CPS.
Is DT tryout to change the place he parked?
Just curious with the wording in the recent motion.

Be interesting to know what RA said in his interview

But my guess is they will admit nothing

 

[m00c0w]

I can see the defense making some weird circular argument that RA couldn’t have done it alone because he wouldn’t have been able to carry the girls out by himself (and possibly bring up some sort of disability), so obviously it had to be other people involved.

All the while ignoring that he could have just kidnapped them down the hill and killed them at the crime scene.

JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I am curious if RA would go to the scene with everyone? I can't recall in past trials if the accused goes along on these trips or not.

When I saw this came from the DT, my first thought was I am sure they will walk him around and he will pretend to have difficulty walking around in the terrain. There has to be something they think will be gained from this or they wouldn't put this request in.

I am curious how they would get jurors out to the actual crime scene? This would mean they need to walk the trail and to get to the location they were killed would mean walking through the woods. Often jurors are older and less mobile than others. I can see that being a problem.

Unless all the jurors can visit all the relevant areas I think this is not going to happen.
JG may wait to rule on it after a jury is selected.
If it’s a jury of 30 year old Olympians, it might fly.
If it’s a jury of regular folks, the chances of somebody, through age or infirmary not being able to participate fully in the visit would be probably 50%.
If you were named a juror today, would you be able to go? I wouldn’t. Ten years ago, yes. Not now with neuropathy feet.

 

[photographer4]

I wonder if the defense attorneys would direct the jurors, "guys...down the hill"...

I don’t believe lawyers on either side would be allowed to talk to the jurors at all moooooo.

 

[eaosipow]

I stopped by Delphi this summer and parked by the freedom bridge and walked the very short paved path to the bridge. I stopped at the point where they have half the bridge paved in cement and then a barrier was built preventing anyone from continuing on to the original railroad ties. While trying to find the parking lot I accidentally ended up on the road that would have been BG’s escape route and had to turn around in the cemetery. All I gleaned from walking and driving by these sites is how small the whole area is and how easy it would have been for him to commit this crime in that time frame. I was there at 2 PM in July and I didn’t see a single person. From my experience the jury (even wheelchair bound people) could easily see everything except the place where the bodies were found. That could be pointed out from the bridge. I do not see how this would benefit the defense at all as my site visit only solidified the prosecution’s position.

 

[photographer4]

Q: recently a media outlet reported and shared an image of a questionnaire they said had been sent to potential jurors. The same media outlet removed that report from their website within about 24 hours or less of having posted / reporting it. I was able to find a link to what I'm referring to so I'm sharing it here: MSN (I believe it was WANE that had originally reported on this, but again, they pulled it soon after reporting it so I cannot be sure).

Soon after - Judge Gull ruled that evidence regarding possible 3d parties is NOT admissible in trial. https://www.wane.com/news/crime/jud...enses-alternative-theories-in-delphi-murders/

I am now wondering have we had any actual mainstream media report that questionnaires have gone out aside the one I linked to that was pulled from the website of the agency that originally reported on it?

 

[photographer4]

I don’t believe lawyers on either side would be allowed to talk to the jurors at all moooooo.

Actually - I found a link - might be a bit outdated, but... it asserts my view that lawyers are not to interact with jurors at scene visits... When jurors are allowed to visit crime scenes

 

[photographer4]

Unless all the jurors can visit all the relevant areas I think this is not going to happen.
JG may wait to rule on it after a jury is selected.
If it’s a jury of 30 year old Olympians, it might fly.
If it’s a jury of regular folks, the chances of somebody, through age or infirmary not being able to participate fully in the visit would be probably 50%.
If you were named a juror today, would you be able to go? I wouldn’t. Ten years ago, yes. Not now with neuropathy feet.

Can she actually wait to rule on this until after a jury is selected? How would she indicate that she is waiting until that point to rule? Would this just be "taken under advisement" for many of the issues presented at the recent three day hearings that she then ruled on weeks later? Or?

 

[ClearAhead]

I wonder if the defense attorneys would direct the jurors, "guys...down the hill"...

No they couldn’t because they couldn’t get to that area, assuming the video posted to this thread is accurate and only a portion of the bridge has been improved, but the part that goes high over land is still closed off.

I doubt the court would have the jurors walking through a cemetery down a steep bank, then crossing the creek to get up the hill where ‘down the hill’ all began. But in reality that’s not at all how it began at all.

If the jury can visit a crime scene that’s essentially unchanged that’s helpful IMO but too many changes, there’s not any point to it IMO.

If the DT had an underlying motive in presenting this motion, it’s to muddy the waters by confusing the jurors regarding the course of events including the crime scene.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Oh this reminds me that there was that women's beach cruiser bike sitting outside at the Murdaughs house when the jury when to view it. I think it was "staged" if I am remembering right. I just found it all odd. I understand going there can give you a feel for things especially when one side is saying one thing happened and the other side is trying to paint a different picture.

Yes Maggie's bike with flowers and Alex's shirt hanging in the window on a hanger. Like a wonderful, happy family home.
Gah, it made me sick, but I don't think there would be any chance to stage anything during a walk through of this crime scene.

I'm torn on the plus and minuses and knowing this D, they've got a trick or two up their sleeve.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

No they couldn’t because they couldn’t get to that area, assuming the video posted to this thread is accurate and only a portion of the bridge has been improved, but the part that goes high over land is still closed off.

I doubt the court would have the jurors walking through a cemetery down a steep bank, then crossing the creek to get up the hill where ‘down the hill’ all began. But in reality that’s not at all how it began at all.

If the jury can visit a crime scene that’s essentially unchanged that’s helpful IMO but too many changes, there’s not any point to it IMO.

If the DT had an underlying motive in presenting this motion, it’s to muddy the waters by confusing the jurors regarding the course of events including the crime scene.

OR they (the Defense) already know the judge will deny it but are creating the spectre of advantage (that a tour would somehow benefit the defendant) (when it absolutely wouldn't), setting up for a motion to dismiss or appeal on the grounds that the judge denied the defendant this "vital" field trip.

JMO

 

[LaborDayRN]

Or maybe they just want to confuse the jury because it has changed quite a bit since 2017.

The jury won't be able to get to the side of the bridge where these girls' were ordered down the hill at gun point. They won't be able to go down the hill and walk to the edge of that side of the creek where these girls' most likely crossed.

Does anyone know if the procecution asked to have the modifications to the bridge delayed until after the trial? I feel like it would have been important for jurors to see how it actually was at the time of the murders.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I stopped by Delphi this summer and parked by the freedom bridge and walked the very short paved path to the bridge. I stopped at the point where they have half the bridge paved in cement and then a barrier was built preventing anyone from continuing on to the original railroad ties. While trying to find the parking lot I accidentally ended up on the road that would have been BG’s escape route and had to turn around in the cemetery. All I gleaned from walking and driving by these sites is how small the whole area is and how easy it would have been for him to commit this crime in that time frame. I was there at 2 PM in July and I didn’t see a single person. From my experience the jury (even wheelchair bound people) could easily see everything except the place where the bodies were found. That could be pointed out from the bridge. I do not see how this would benefit the defense at all as my site visit only solidified the prosecution’s position.

I think the point of defense to have the jury tour the crime scene is to try to prove how difficult it would be to abduct the girls and take them such a short distance and murder them without being seen or heard in the middle of the day. Especially with others arriving at the trail shortly after the crime began.
Obviously this same logic also work against them if no one witnessed him there during the time period he now states he was there.
JMO

 

[statt#1]

OR they (the Defense) already know the judge will deny it but are creating the spectre of advantage (that a tour would somehow benefit the defendant) (when it absolutely wouldn't), setting up for a motion to dismiss or appeal on the grounds that the judge denied the defendant this "vital" field trip.

JMO

I see this as entirely feasible. Think about it. Are we really going to arrange transportation for 12 jurors to the CS? Who else gets to go on this little field trip? Lawyers? Court reporter? Sargent of Arms? Judge? Bus driver? How about associated necessary equipment? What about security? How about potential special needs for jurors? Lunch? Dinner? Motel rooms for a little overnight?

Assuming we arrive, where's the bus park? Are we walking to the bridge? In January? Or any other month for that matter. Golf carts to run back the paved trail? Just how do we expect 12 jurors and associated entourage is to arrive at the CS where the girls were found? Shall they cross the creek to get a good feel for what it was like? Or are they going to scale the fence at the back of the cemetery, and scramble down the wooded hill to the bottom land? ATV's? Yeah, we'll put 'em on ATV's and it'll be a 4-wheel excursion for everybody.

I sure hope it ain't rainin', or snowing that day

 

[Mirabel091]

I think the point of defense to have the jury tour the crime scene is to try to prove how difficult it would be to abduct the girls and take them such a short distance and murder them without being seen or heard in the middle of the day. Especially with others arriving at the trail shortly after the crime began.
Obviously this same logic also work against them if no one witnessed him there during the time period he now states he was there.
JMO

Yes, but someone did that. They were on the trails, then they were missing, then they were found dead. It's not really a point for or against RA, IMO.

 

[ClearAhead]

Does anyone know if the procecution asked to have the modifications to the bridge delayed until after the trial? I feel like it would have been important for jurors to see how it actually was at the time of the murders.

The bridge was in such poor condition and I presume getting worse with each passing year, nobody would expect jurors to literally risk their life crossing it MOO.

 

[sunshineray]

From GH transcript of the video:

The shoe (He also has a pic of the shoe in the water)
20:40
cool MH so you guys remember before
where um somebody had found Libby's shoe during the search and said hey there's a
shoe here and it was always believed that that the shoe was found on the
opposite side of the creek that they were found on you know kind of down there but it turns out that the person
who said hey we found a shoe obviously was looking at the shoe in the water the
photograph of just like the thumbnail because we now know that the other shoe
that Libby was wearing was underneath Abby and the phone was
underneath uh the shoe right so that was in that document so you see how that's uh you
know that's another interesting different thing now there is no sort of
shoe I mean it doesn't change much but the shoe itself wasn't found on the other side of the creek it was found in the water

The jeans:
25:33
(I) understand correctly that you saw the real crime scene pics no I saw them I saw
them yeah I've seen them um and you know so the thing is is
it's true that apparently that Abby was wearing Libby's jeans and Libby was
wearing jeans not sweatpants like we all thought you remember how we all thought thought that there were sweatpants but
they were actually jeans and she was wearing those and then she was also wearing her shoes but that
would mean that the shoes would have had been taken off to get those tight the tighter jeans that she wears off and
then you would put Libby's jeans on so you sort of Wonder like okay so what was happening there I mean was Abby maybe
still alive and cold so then the person put you know I I don't really know what
the hell happened I mean it's just crazy

So Libby was wearing jeans. Thanks for finding this FrostedGlass.. GH was one of the people sent the crime scene photos so he would know if Abby was dressed in her tight skinny jeans or a much bigger cut/style jean. MO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Yes, but someone did that. They were on the trails, then they were missing, then they were found dead. It's not really a point for or against RA, IMO.

Yes agree and that someone was RA IMO

I just think DT is still trying to float the theory that the victims were taken to another location shortly after 230.
JMO I don’t think it will float.