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

[photographer4]

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.

The answers Mullin provided make me think he is worried about possibly perjuring himself if he answers yes or no vs repeating his assertions on who the witnesses saw.

I don’t think JG is going to compel the deponents to answer the questions and I imagine she or the Prosecution will shut these down if they come up at trial as well. I wonder if the D only filed this to add to their ever growing pile of reasons to seek appeal on possible conviction?

 

[photographer4]

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.

I have no idea - I only know that Grey Hughes is an approved source, so I shared the link. I do believe the man said he notified police of the car he saw in that video so there’s that. I wonder if the police ever worked out who that car belonged to / who was driving it that day and why it was there all day?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

So the defense demands certain people answer their certified questions.
What they really want is that these people be required to answer the questions in the way the defense WANTS them to answer.
Ridiculous as usual.
I would like to demand the defense stop playing games and plead out their guilty child killer client.


My opinion.

 

[photographer4]

So the defense demands certain people answer their certified questions.
What they really want is that these people be required to answer the questions in the way the defense WANTS them to answer.
Ridiculous as usual.
I would like to demand the defense stop playing games and plead out their guilty child killer client.


My opinion.

I actually don’t have a problem with them requiring a yes or no answer to their questions. You’d think that asking yes or no questions would make it less likely for a person to perjure themselves - eg: fewer details to remember that they may be asked about later. I’m over here wondering why they declined to say a simple yes or no? And also, what issue does the Prosecution have with the questions that they advised their client not to answer? Interesting motion here. Surely JG will deny the motion and it will all just end up as fodder for the appeals court down the road…. MOO

 

[Tealgrove]

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.

It’s quite steep. I’ve been there. I have a bad knee so going down would be difficult. Coming up might have me crawling up in parts.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

So the defense demands certain people answer their certified questions.
What they really want is that these people be required to answer the questions in the way the defense WANTS them to answer.
Ridiculous as usual.
I would like to demand the defense stop playing games and plead out their guilty child killer client.


My opinion.

agreed.

eg who the witness saw is a question for the witness. Mullins opinion on her testimony is not evidence?? Just speculation IMO

 

[tlcya]

to me the question to Holeman about why did "you guys" wait so long to get a blood spatter expert is a weird question. Several instances where the same basic question was asked.

The suggestion by the DT in asking these questions is that somehow investigators should have known prior to RA's arrest and long AFTER investigators had moved away from the whole was this a ritual sacrifice? part of their investigation that the DT would be trying an Odin defense and should have anticipated that and gotten a blood patter expert way back then.

As to the "alleged" questions asked of Ligget about timeline of the case and whether it was fatal to the prosecutions of any of the witnesses didn't see RA that day, that would seem to be a question better suited for prosecutors rather than the investigator. But then, Prosecution wasn't being deposed and so they tried to get the answers they wanted to hear and Ligget wasn't having it. NOTE this section of the motion contains this qualifier: The deposition has not yet been transcribed, so the defense cannot be certain as to the exact questions formed at the deposition, but the questions certified were to the effect of a-d below, or (if answered) would have led to questions similar to a-d below

seriously they are asking that someone provide a certified answer to questions they are pretty sure they asked but cannot prove they asked because the transcript isn't ready and so they are approximating and paraphrasing?? that is bizarre to me

 

[photographer4]

agreed.

eg who the witness saw is a question for the witness. Mullins opinion on her testimony is not evidence?? Just speculation IMO

Right? So if he can only speculate, then how can he keep asserting that RA is the man the witnesses saw and it was his car? How does he know for a fact? His answers and insistence on what / who the witnesses saw really makes me think he isn’t answering in a yes or no because he is trying to hide something. MOOOOOO.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

agreed.

eg who the witness saw is a question for the witness. Mullins opinion on her testimony is not evidence?? Just speculation IMO

Yes.
As usual, the defense asks questions in a motion that should just be asked at trial.

 

[photographer4]

to me the question to Holeman about why did "you guys" wait so long to get a blood spatter expert is a weird question. Several instances where the same basic question was asked.

The suggestion by the DT in asking these questions is that somehow investigators should have known prior to RA's arrest and long AFTER investigators had moved away from the whole was this a ritual sacrifice? part of their investigation that the DT would be trying an Odin defense and should have anticipated that and gotten a blood patter expert way back then.

As to the "alleged" questions asked of Ligget about timeline of the case and whether it was fatal to the prosecutions of any of the witnesses didn't see RA that day, that would seem to be a question better suited for prosecutors rather than the investigator. But then, Prosecution wasn't being deposed and so they tried to get the answers they wanted to hear and Ligget wasn't having it. NOTE this section of the motion contains this qualifier: The deposition has not yet been transcribed, so the defense cannot be certain as to the exact questions formed at the deposition, but the questions certified were to the effect of a-d below, or (if answered) would have led to questions similar to a-d below

seriously they are asking that someone provide a certified answer to questions they are pretty sure they asked but cannot prove they asked because the transcript isn't ready and so they are approximating and paraphrasing?? that is bizarre to me

This part of the questioning made me think that perhaps there was not a blood spatter expert brought to the scene at the time of the crime? Do we know if there actually was or wasn’t? Did LE / the state really just not have such an expert examine the scene until 2024? OR - was there an expert there and they gave LE / the State a different explanation of the blood spatter that they didn’t like so they didn’t want to use them on the stand?

2. In regards to the lack of transcript of the deposition in question, I can’t really fault the D for that, but I do think it’s hard for JG to rule on that one in particular in absence of the actual transcript. Will this motion compel the staff to transcribe it very quickly now so she can rule?

3. Does she have to issue some sort of ruling? IF so, what are her options? I assume she could go with granted or denied but could she also go with “under advisement” as she did with some issues from the recent 3 day hearings? What are her options here?

 

[FromGermany1]

Yes.
As usual, the defense asks questions in a motion that should just be asked at trial.

For us here on WS not bad, IMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

These questions below are ones I've wondered about, too. If they have the goods on RA, I wonder why they refused to answer them.

a. “Why did it take you guys so long to get a blood spatter expert in April of 2024?”
b. “Why did it take so long for the investigators to get a blood spatter expert?”
c. “Did anyone in your Unified Command or greater law enforcement investigative team ever suggest that you should do that [(retain someone to discuss blood spatter)] during the investigation?”

8. On May 3, 2024, the Defense deposed Tony Liggett and the following question was certified: a. “What was the purpose of that [Unified Command] meeting?”

 

[AugustWest]

Yes.
As usual, the defense asks questions in a motion that should just be asked at trial.

There are several reasons why they should be asked prior to trial, outside the presence of the jury. One, they could be being used for impeachment of a witness. Two, the answers to the questions may contain hearsay. Three, the answers to the questions may need to be limited by the judge to limit prejudicial testimony.

 

[FrostedGlass]

For us here on WS not bad, IMO.

IMO if it wasn't for the defense team, we would know nothing about this case except for what Nick has told us.

 

[tlcya]

This part of the questioning made me think that perhaps there was not a blood spatter expert brought to the scene at the time of the crime? Do we know if there actually was or wasn’t? Did LE / the state really just not have such an expert examine the scene until 2024? OR - was there an expert there and they gave LE / the State a different explanation of the blood spatter that they didn’t like so they didn’t want to use them on the stand?

2. In regards to the lack of transcript of the deposition in question, I can’t really fault the D for that, but I do think it’s hard for JG to rule on that one in particular in absence of the actual transcript. Will this motion compel the staff to transcribe it very quickly now so she can rule?

3. Does she have to issue some sort of ruling? IF so, what are her options? I assume she could go with granted or denied but could she also go with “under advisement” as she did with some issues from the recent 3 day hearings? What are her options here?

MOO there was no blood pattern expert at the scene after the murders and there is nothing nefarious in that absence. Unlike on TV where CSI or NCIS have in house experts on all things murder to bring to a fresh crime scene and offer analysis, it is not unusual to not have experts come to fresh crime scenes to prepare their opinions and testimony for a future trial of criminal or criminals unknown at that time.

as to transcription, I find it odd that no transcript for these deps have been produced. In civil cases that I have been involved with or am familiar with, the party doing the deposing hires and pays the court reporter who will be transcribing that deposition. I am assuming these were DT's deps so any lack of rush in getting them transposed I would think would ultimately fall to them - the DT. Have they paid the court reporter's bill?

(keep in my when I call the individual the court reported I am NOT referring to the reporter who sits in the court transcribing at hearings/trials. I am referring to privately contracted persons who attend and transcribe deposition testimony.)

It is my hope that JG will rule on this motion, I suspect she will. It is better to address these things now rather than with continued protracted sidebars when the jury is sat. JMO

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Thanks! Sounds like it was checked out by LE then, that's good. There were quite a lot of people on the trails that day and I'm sure LE was very methodical in checking cars out that were tipped. MO

 

[sunshineray]

So the defense demands certain people answer their certified questions.
What they really want is that these people be required to answer the questions in the way the defense WANTS them to answer.
Ridiculous as usual.
I would like to demand the defense stop playing games and plead out their guilty child killer client.


My opinion.

I agree. If the D intends to bring the case to court those questions, if admissible as to content being asked and answered, can be asked at trial. MO

 

[sunshineray]

I actually don’t have a problem with them requiring a yes or no answer to their questions. You’d think that asking yes or no questions would make it less likely for a person to perjure themselves - eg: fewer details to remember that they may be asked about later. I’m over here wondering why they declined to say a simple yes or no? And also, what issue does the Prosecution have with the questions that they advised their client not to answer? Interesting motion here. Surely JG will deny the motion and it will all just end up as fodder for the appeals court down the road…. MOO

Not everything denied by the judge will end up fodder for an appeal...only those things that the law allows and have sufficient proof. MO

 

[photographer4]

MOO there was no blood pattern expert at the scene after the murders and there is nothing nefarious in that absence. Unlike on TV where CSI or NCIS have in house experts on all things murder to bring to a fresh crime scene and offer analysis, it is not unusual to not have experts come to fresh crime scenes to prepare their opinions and testimony for a future trial of criminal or criminals unknown at that time.

as to transcription, I find it odd that no transcript for these deps have been produced. In civil cases that I have been involved with or am familiar with, the party doing the deposing hires and pays the court reporter who will be transcribing that deposition. I am assuming these were DT's deps so any lack of rush in getting them transposed I would think would ultimately fall to them - the DT. Have they paid the court reporter's bill?

(keep in my when I call the individual the court reported I am NOT referring to the reporter who sits in the court transcribing at hearings/trials. I am referring to privately contracted persons who attend and transcribe deposition testimony.)

It is my hope that JG will rule on this motion, I suspect she will. It is better to address these things now rather than with continued protracted sidebars when the jury is sat. JMO

Out of curiosity and based only on my limited experience with shows like Suits or The LIncoln Lawyer (cool shows on Netflix btw)… aren’t depositions video and or audio recorded? If so, wouldn’t these be available to submit to the judge for accuracy? Or is that only in Hollywood??

 

[sunshineray]

to me the question to Holeman about why did "you guys" wait so long to get a blood spatter expert is a weird question. Several instances where the same basic question was asked.

The suggestion by the DT in asking these questions is that somehow investigators should have known prior to RA's arrest and long AFTER investigators had moved away from the whole was this a ritual sacrifice? part of their investigation that the DT would be trying an Odin defense and should have anticipated that and gotten a blood patter expert way back then.

As to the "alleged" questions asked of Ligget about timeline of the case and whether it was fatal to the prosecutions of any of the witnesses didn't see RA that day, that would seem to be a question better suited for prosecutors rather than the investigator. But then, Prosecution wasn't being deposed and so they tried to get the answers they wanted to hear and Ligget wasn't having it. NOTE this section of the motion contains this qualifier: The deposition has not yet been transcribed, so the defense cannot be certain as to the exact questions formed at the deposition, but the questions certified were to the effect of a-d below, or (if answered) would have led to questions similar to a-d below

seriously they are asking that someone provide a certified answer to questions they are pretty sure they asked but cannot prove they asked because the transcript isn't ready and so they are approximating and paraphrasing?? that is bizarre to me

I thought that very unprofessional and reminiscent of the FMs. MO