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

[photographer4]

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

I can’t say whether or not LE investigated the car along the side of the road as I only watched (listed to more accurately) the first four minutes of the episode. My patience for things like this is very thin. I wonder if the witness did speak to police about whatever he saw, what sort of investigation (if any) police engaged in regarding this info? I wonder if we may hear more about it at trial- eg: maybe the D will bring that person as a witness if possible? Is that a thing?

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Why not keep their questions like that for the actual witnesses I wonder? Is the D afraid of the witnesses?

 

[tlcya]

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??

Video depositions are indeed a thing IME but video isn't utilized in all depositions. the recording is done by a court reporter who "records" testimony under oath by means of typing in a specialized shorthand if you will. This allows them to type at speeds in excess of 260 words per minute. Which allows them to keep an accurate record of what occurred and was said in addition to allowing them to be able to provide a readback immediately should any question arise about what has just occurred/been said.

Video depositions are most frequently used IME when deponent has a major or terminal health issue that may prevent them being able to testify at trial or someone's competency is in question. Again, just my own civil experience from way way back in the day when I worked for a medical malpractice and insurance defense firm.

In 90% of cases I have seen no video was taken of the deposition and a court reporter was the only record keeper of that deposition.

They then take that shorthand they've typed and later, transcribe it into readable text. In my area the turn around to receive your transcript after a deposition is generally a few weeks to a month. Also in my area some court reporting firms demand payment up front prior to providing that transcript (usually from firms or attorneys they are less familiar with). Others will present the transcripts and an invoice for their service at the same time. Again this is simply my experience I am no court reporter

 

[photographer4]

Why not keep their questions like that for the actual witnesses I wonder? Is the D afraid of the witnesses?

I don’t imagine they’re afraid but I do think they believe that Le misconstrued the facts that got them their search warrant for RA’s property and car. I’m not saying Le did this to be clear - I am saying I suspect this is what the D thinks has happened as evidenced by their how many Franks motions? I think they hope the deponents will perjure themselves which wouldn’t be good for the state imo. Idk not a lawyer. Just guesses here.

 

[sunshineray]

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?

I would think crime scene photos were taken in abundance and pretty straight forward. I'm guessing when the D continued on with their fantasy Odinist sacrificial ritual defense, it was time to have an expert in blood spatter assess the crime scene to disprove that ridiculous and without proof theory. The Prosecution probably thought, well ok, they ARE actually going with this nonsense. That would be my guess, my opinion.

I think the lack of a transcript of questions and answers, that you're including in a motion, shows a real lack of competence on the D's part. It's rather embarrassing really, IMO

 

[sunshineray]

I can’t say whether or not LE investigated the car along the side of the road as I only watched (listed to more accurately) the first four minutes of the episode. My patience for things like this is very thin. I wonder if the witness did speak to police about whatever he saw, what sort of investigation (if any) police engaged in regarding this info? I wonder if we may hear more about it at trial- eg: maybe the D will bring that person as a witness if possible? Is that a thing?

I'm confident it was investigated.

 

[sunshineray]

I don’t imagine they’re afraid but I do think they believe that Le misconstrued the facts that got them their search warrant for RA’s property and car. I’m not saying Le did this to be clear - I am saying I suspect this is what the D thinks has happened as evidenced by their how many Franks motions? I think they hope the deponents will perjure themselves which wouldn’t be good for the state imo. Idk not a lawyer. Just guesses here.

That's been motioned now four times (FMs) and denied. It's like they just want false drama because they don't have a case to put on. MO

 

[FrostedGlass]

If the prosecution had solid proof of RA's guilt, why would blood spatter even matter?
DNA would probably seal the deal. Bring it and and let the "clowns" embarrass themselves.
Let the P open his vest and show us what he's been hiding all this time. Tic Toc

 

[gremlin444]

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.

Do you mean the legal system doesn't mind or do you mean that Websleuths/true crime followers don't mind? Because I do mind greatly. It is one thing to acknowledge that you received the photos, and I have no problem with a recipient making very very general statements like "it definitely was that one wooded area we suspected was where they were found." But IMHO, details beyond that should not be publicly disclosed by someone who received leaked or mis-sent information. And I hold that opinion irregardless of who relays those details, whether it be Gray Hughes or The Murder Sheet (however, iirc, TMS did NOT give any specifics of what they saw in the photos, but I would need to go back to check).

 

[ClearAhead]

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??

Speaking of Netflix I recently watched Behind the Fire, the true story of the conviction of Dennis Bowman for two murders that had occurred decades earlier. One of the murders had no motive whatsoever other than he was very drunk and bored at the time and the devil was inside him.

But what really stood out to me, I was totally flabbergasted at the behavior of his wife. Even though he lied and lied to her, eventually confessed, and she helped LE by getting him to disclose the location of the body of their adopted daughter, all that and she still stood by him out of her love for him. Their main ask was that he could be imprisoned close to where she lived so she could still visit him.

That true story totally blows apart the belief that a wife wouldn’t stand by her husband if she knew he was guilty and could perhaps explain why RA’s wife was so quick to shut his confessions to her down. MOO and JMO

 

[mrjitty]

If the prosecution had solid proof of RA's guilt, why would blood spatter even matter?
DNA would probably seal the deal. Bring it and and let the "clowns" embarrass themselves.
Let the P open his vest and show us what he's been hiding all this time. Tic Toc

BIB

Likely to counter the arguments that the defence telegraphed in the Franks

Otherwise, like you say, it could well not be important.

 

[justtrish]

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

Well that depends on the question being asked. It's easy to confuse a question or state it in a way that part of it is right and part of it is not right so how do you answer yes or no to something that factually to your knowledge isn't 100% true, but part of it is. Then without letting the person being questioned explain the answer or clarify that yes x is true, but y is not accurate as they know it.. that is the problem.

 

[mrjitty]

i wonder if the state will have some kind of timeline presentation and they intend to cross examine the presenting witness along the lines of two bridge guys.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

Right, the D filed the Motion for Speedy Trial after they were reinstated in March and let the 70 day clock run down to ask for a continuance of the May trial. Gosh, there's been so many trial dates it's hard to keep up with them all. Original Jan, then May, and now Oct.

We'll just have to see if the D gets their man to Court this time.

JMO

 

[justtrish]

If the prosecution had solid proof of RA's guilt, why would blood spatter even matter?
DNA would probably seal the deal. Bring it and and let the "clowns" embarrass themselves.
Let the P open his vest and show us what he's been hiding all this time. Tic Toc

Blood spatter matters because the defense is trying to claim that the blood Libby left on a tree as she was dying is not what it is. Their claims that have now been not allowed in at trial were outrageous and THAT is why blood spatter matters. They brought in an expert to prove that the blood was left by Libby and not painted on the tree. It matters a lot to many of us. The state hasn't been able to "open their vest" because there is a gag order and they are abiding by it.

 

[FrostedGlass]

BIB

Likely to counter the arguments that the defence telegraphed in the Franks

Otherwise, like you say, it could well not be important.

Didn't Nick and the judge shut all of that convo down?

 

[girlhasnoname]

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.

Interesting the particular ones they're pushing on. I don't think Judge Gull will grant their Motion. As Megs mentioned above, they can ask on cross.

I envision a lot of objections sustained and overruled will be the words of the day. This is exactly what the D wants, especially since their 3rd Party Defense Motion was denied, confuse and conflate the jury as much as possible.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

I feel a Motion Denied by Judge Gull probably. JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

Agree, but not surprising coming from this Defense.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Blood spatter matters because the defense is trying to claim that the blood Libby left on a tree as she was dying is not what it is. Their claims that have now been not allowed in at trial were outrageous and THAT is why blood spatter matters. They brought in an expert to prove that the blood was left by Libby and not painted on the tree. It matters a lot to many of us. The state hasn't been able to "open their vest" because there is a gag order and they are abiding by it.

I've read a number of articles where the thinking is blood spatter is subjective.

Study Reports Error Rates for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis

Bloodstains are commonly encountered at scenes of violent crime. Forensic practitioners known as bloodstain pattern analysts seek to answer questions about the manner and sequence of events of a crime by examining the bloodstains left behind. Their methods are largely based on subjective expert...

nij.ojp.gov

The gag order doesn't prevent the P from presenting issues in court motions, similar to what the D has done. The gag order only prevents them from talking to the press. That is my understanding. MOO