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

[photographer4]

Never heard of a pest guy witness seeing a car.

Ok, here is the link:

Basically a citizen who works in pest control or something drove by on way to work and saw a car at side of road. Still there when he left hours later. Morning to afternoon.

 

[girlhasnoname]

But he has discussed them in social media in detail. So him being in receipt of them and disclosing the details as he did is not a breach of the order I guess. And no one minds or finds this egregious because he’s not a party to the proceedings. Ok. Fair enough.

Oh no, I find it beyond egregious behavior that the Defense and AB's pal MW to have gotten the pics and distributed them on web to begin with. Those leaks were not supposed to happen per the gag order.

I also find the CS detailed section of the first Franks Memo beyond egregious bordering on professional misconduct by the D team again by putting it out around the gag order and the gross sensationalism of it. They exploited Abby and Libby horribly even in their deaths.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm actually surprised the defense wants it at all.

Hah, they've gotta do something. Remember, they've been ready (not) since the SCOIN hearings.

They have to show they've dome something, anything, besides scan the internet and cold call for an Odin expert and drive to Georgia to pick up a copy of a Facebook posting to the tune of $12K.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Ok, here is the link:

Basically a citizen who works in pest control or something drove by on way to work and saw a car at side of road. Still there when he left hours later. Morning to afternoon.

Is there a time stamp to go to? I cannot listen to the whole thing right now. It would make it easier. TIA, if you have one.

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1838208422350577844

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1838368516518416565

 

[photographer4]

Is there a time stamp to go to? I cannot listen to the whole thing right now. It would make it easier. TIA, if you have one.

I couldn’t tell ya. I read a transcript of it once forever ago. I don’t watch YouTube or listen to podcasts generally.

 

[tlcya]

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

here's my thinking on that argument. That is absolutely the argument the DT will attempt to make. Get the jury to question the timeline by muddying the waters of when RA arrived, how, when he left, etc. Then argue he couldn't possibly have done it in that time frame.

But they are going to argue that whether or not the jury visits the scene. I say take em to the scene, let the DT do their worst (best) and then the prosecution addresses it with cold fact. It is what it is, I think it would be good for the Prosecution to have their opportunity to rebut what we know is coming from DT and I think the field trip could actually be the means to do it. JMO

 

[photographer4]

Hah, they've gotta do something. Remember, they've been ready (not) since the SCOIN hearings.

They have to show they've dome something, anything, besides scan the internet and cold call for an Odin expert and drive to Georgia to pick up a copy of a Facebook posting to the tune of $12K.

JMO

Actually - the trial that was scheduled in May of 2024 that was cancelled, I think we were slightly closer to the potential start date than we are now and the D hadn’t filed a motion for a jury field trip to the point when it was cancelled had they? Wrong season? Too much possible foliage? Just hadn’t gotten to it yet? Moooo

 

[Tealgrove]

here's my thinking on that argument. That is absolutely the argument the DT will attempt to make. Get the jury to question the timeline by muddying the waters of when RA arrived, how, when he left, etc. Then argue he couldn't possibly have done it in that time frame.

But they are going to argue that whether or not the jury visits the scene. I say take em to the scene, let the DT do their worst (best) and then the prosecution addresses it with cold fact. It is what it is, I think it would be good for the Prosecution to have their opportunity to rebut what we know is coming from DT and I think the field trip could actually be the means to do it. JMO

Agreed.

 

[sunshineray]

here's my thinking on that argument. That is absolutely the argument the DT will attempt to make. Get the jury to question the timeline by muddying the waters of when RA arrived, how, when he left, etc. Then argue he couldn't possibly have done it in that time frame.

But they are going to argue that whether or not the jury visits the scene. I say take em to the scene, let the DT do their worst (best) and then the prosecution addresses it with cold fact. It is what it is, I think it would be good for the Prosecution to have their opportunity to rebut what we know is coming from DT and I think the field trip could actually be the means to do it. JMO

Yes if you remember, going by the loooooooong
drawn out explanation of actions in the FM, it's a certifiable wonder anybody could have accomplished kidnapping and murdering two young girls, in the woods, with a sharp object...and a gun for intimidation. MO

 

[photographer4]

Is there a time stamp to go to? I cannot listen to the whole thing right now. It would make it easier. TIA, if you have one.

Actually, I went to watch this, and the whole video is 8 mins long - it starts immediately with the caller / witness talking about a car he saw and shows where it was parked in relation to the trails. He arrived at about 8:45am. When he left at 2:07pm, that car was still there. It was “an older model car” parked about 2/3ft off the side of the road near the CPS building (it is highlighted in the video where it was in relation to the trail / CPS building). The man said he called and told LE and sent them photos of cars that looked similar. The man went on to say that it was still there at 2:15 when he left and another guy said he saw it at about 3:30pm in the same place. A second segment sounds like an earlier call by perhaps the same guy - who says the car was there, and he spoke with LE - they told him they were interested in a car parked backed in at CPS - but he did not see that one. He saw the one at the side of the road. Really interesting to listen to if you have a few mins.

 

[sunshineray]

Actually - the trial that was scheduled in May of 2024 that was cancelled, I think we were slightly closer to the potential start date than we are now and the D hadn’t filed a motion for a jury field trip to the point when it was cancelled had they? Wrong season? Too much possible foliage? Just hadn’t gotten to it yet? Moooo

Maybe they just knew they weren't going to trial? It was well-planned that way?

 

[photographer4]

Looks like there was another new motion filed - this one to compel the deponents to answer certified questions:

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[tlcya]

Looks like there was another new motion filed - this one to compel the deponents to answer certified questions:

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

curious to get everyone's take on the questions they want answered and if you think the judge will or won't / should or shouldn't grant their motion.

 

[Megnut]

curious to get everyone's take on the questions they want answered and if you think the judge will or won't / should or shouldn't grant their motion.

Fine questions to ask on cross.

JMO

 

[Vern]

curious to get everyone's take on the questions they want answered and if you think the judge will or won't / should or shouldn't grant their motion.

Well, I find it very interesting that the Defence doesn't like that Steven Mullin actually DID answer the questions at para 9 ( A. through D.) but not by not answering "yes" or "no" but rather he did so by making "conclusory statements to defense counsel that Richard Allen was the man that Betsy Blair observed, and was the man Sarah Carbaugh observed etc…" IE: "But it was Richard Allen that BB and SC saw" or words to that effect.

They didn't like his answers obviously, but his specific answers tells me that he isn't into "hypothesizing about what-ifs'" and has reason/evidence to believe that the man they observed was in fact Richard Allen.

Perhaps these witnesses were shown RA in a photo line-up ... and directly identified him as the individual they saw. We'll find out at trial!
______________

With Para 8 and Joshua Robinson: The D wants to learn "what questions were asked" of him rather than asking him their own questions in their own deposition. Weird. Robinson is a guard (one with the patch) and they want to know what questions "Elsie" asked him. She is an IDOC staff.

Seems to me the Defence is still trying to get that DENIED SODDI by Odinists in there through a back door. Good luck with that.

 

[FromGermany1]

Wow!!

Looks like there was another new motion filed - this one to compel the deponents to answer certified questions:

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I'm getting up there and I walk the woods, our forest, regularly. If land owners allow access I think seeing the crime scene (through RL property) and even the south end of Monon Bridge (through Mear's property) might be doable for most. Going "down the hill" though, no. They could be taken in the SUV vans on the access road at the bottom and get out to view that aspect of things. It will depend for sure on juror's capabilities though. Every juror must participate in what is visited, that's for sure, nobody excluded. MO

I think from the cemetery or RL’s property down to the crime scene is very steep. I think even regular folks with no issues would struggle.
They might be able to look down on the crime scene without climbing down. No sure how helpful that might be.

 

[statt#1]

Actually, I went to watch this, and the whole video is 8 mins long - it starts immediately with the caller / witness talking about a car he saw and shows where it was parked in relation to the trails. He arrived at about 8:45am. When he left at 2:07pm, that car was still there. It was “an older model car” parked about 2/3ft off the side of the road near the CPS building (it is highlighted in the video where it was in relation to the trail / CPS building). The man said he called and told LE and sent them photos of cars that looked similar. The man went on to say that it was still there at 2:15 when he left and another guy said he saw it at about 3:30pm in the same place. A second segment sounds like an earlier call by perhaps the same guy - who says the car was there, and he spoke with LE - they told him they were interested in a car parked backed in at CPS - but he did not see that one. He saw the one at the side of the road. Really interesting to listen to if you have a few mins.

Dude references saturday morning in this vid, the guy might of been cat fishin' on saturday morning or somethin'. @ 1:50.

Too bad there's no proof as to what day this guy is talkin' about...unless there is, and if so, I'd like to see it.