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

[mrjitty]

It’s my opinion that Cicero was brought on by the state mainly to support the motion in limine. The MIL was filed in April, which is when Cicero said he began work. The state likely saw that after repeated Franks motions full of half truths and misleading statements that the defense would not be reasonable and they would need to ask the court to specifically restrict certain talking points. A key step towards discrediting the defense’s theory was getting the “rune” on the tree debunked. That’s what Cicero was for. It’s less that they rushed to get something done because they felt exposed, they were probably just tired of having to wade through the ridiculous theories, speculation, and misstatements and decided to just make the defense put their money where their mouths were, so to speak.

All my opinion.

This is where I agree with Scott Reisch that the defence had the wrong strategy with Franks and then at the motion in limine hearing. They should have kept this stuff as a cross examination strategy to create doubt.

Instead Cicero killed them on the tree mark and the blood pooling and they didn't have their own competing expert.

It seems like a major error, unless they never intended this to be a trial strategy?

My only other explanation is they 100% an alt who looks like Bridge Guy

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

For starters, it’s convenient that the defense doesn’t have access to the actual questions and answers, so what we have is effectively paraphrasing. And we don’t even know which of the questions was actually posed, because the defense carefully points out the questions were either asked or would have been asked if Mullins was answering as the defense wished.

As far as perjury, the defense is asking for an opinion on a hypothetical scenario. He’s not perjuring himself on that question regardless of which way he answers (yes or no). Instead, he probably just doesn’t want to get locked into yes/no answers with loaded questions… which I don’t blame him.

Now, stating that they did see RA is interesting because that would potentially open him up to perjury if he’s stating that as a fact and it is not something known as a fact. If he were as afraid of perjuring himself as you suggest, he certainly wouldn’t be saying what he’s alleged to have said.

All my opinion.

The main thing I take from his answers is both witnesses are going to say the person they saw was the guy in the video. The defence then seems to want to ask him to speculate on what it would mean if the witnesses were wrong about that. MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I knew that Motion to Compel Certified Questions had to come from AB lol, he's the gift that keeps on giving: <BBM>

9. On September 13, 2024, the Defense deposed Steven Mullin. Mr. Mullin refused to answer questions posed in subsections a-d below. Rather than answer the simple yes or no question, Mullin repeatedly made conclusory statements to defense counsel that Richard Allen was the man that Betsy Blair observed, and was the man Sarah Carbaugh observed etc…

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:

a. “Is your timeline and theory of the case fatal to the prosecution’s case against Richard Allen if the person Betsy Blair observed on the bridge is not Richard Allen?
b. Is your timeline and theory of the case fatal to the prosecution’s case against Richard Allen if the vehicle Betsy Blair observed at the CPS building was not Richard Allen’s vehicle?”
c. If Betsy Blair observed one person and Sarah Carbaugh observed an entirely different person, is the prosecution’s timeline and theory of the case as it relates to Richard Allen fatally flawed?
d. If neither Betsy Blair, nor Sarah Carbaugh observed Richard Allen on February 13, 2017, is the State’s timeline and theory of the case as it relates to Richard Allen fatally flawed?

Adobe Acrobat

MOO

 

[shonyakay]

I knew that Motion to Compel Certified Questions had to come from AB lol, he's the gift that keeps on giving: <BBM>

9. On September 13, 2024, the Defense deposed Steven Mullin. Mr. Mullin refused to answer questions posed in subsections a-d below. Rather than answer the simple yes or no question, Mullin repeatedly made conclusory statements to defense counsel that Richard Allen was the man that Betsy Blair observed, and was the man Sarah Carbaugh observed etc…

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:

a. “Is your timeline and theory of the case fatal to the prosecution’s case against Richard Allen if the person Betsy Blair observed on the bridge is not Richard Allen?
b. Is your timeline and theory of the case fatal to the prosecution’s case against Richard Allen if the vehicle Betsy Blair observed at the CPS building was not Richard Allen’s vehicle?”
c. If Betsy Blair observed one person and Sarah Carbaugh observed an entirely different person, is the prosecution’s timeline and theory of the case as it relates to Richard Allen fatally flawed?
d. If neither Betsy Blair, nor Sarah Carbaugh observed Richard Allen on February 13, 2017, is the State’s timeline and theory of the case as it relates to Richard Allen fatally flawed?

Adobe Acrobat

MOO

Looks to me like they are probably going to try to discredit the witness testimony of BB, SC, the girls' RA observed when he arrived at the Freedom Bridge, and anyone else who may have observed BG. I bet they do not want any of these sightings linked to Allen. Except maybe the Freedom Bridge girls. They may try to
claim RA left shortly after he saw them.

I bet DT are going to use the two sketches to hammer home that the men in the sketches don't look a whole lot alike.

The DT have an uphill battle though.

First of all, BB and SC did not want to create the sketches. I guess they were not confident enough in their specific observations of the men they saw.

At the time BB saw the man she had no idea that a horrific crime was about to occur.

SC had no idea that a horrific crime had occurred 30 minutes to an hour before she seen the man.

Carter made it clear that sketches are not photographs and that the perp will probably be a blended version of the two sketches.

Based on my memory only, in the unredacted PCA of RA's, it mentions BB and SC agree that the man that each of them saw is the man (BG) on LG's video.

If the state gets these women on the stand and they identify RA as the man they both saw, he is done for.

 

[mrjitty]

Looks to me like they are probably going to try to discredit the witness testimony of BB, SC, the girls' RA observed when he arrived at the Freedom Bridge, and anyone else who may have observed BG. I bet they do not want any of these sightings linked to Allen. Except maybe the Freedom Bridge girls. They may try to
claim RA left shortly after he saw them.

I bet DT are going to use the two sketches to hammer home that the men in the sketches don't look a whole lot alike.

The DT have an uphill battle though.

First of all, BB and SC did not want to create the sketches. I guess they were not confident enough in their specific observations of the men they saw.

At the time BB saw the man she had no idea that a horrific crime was about to occur.

SC had no idea that a horrific crime had occurred 30 minutes to an hour before she seen the man.

Carter made it clear that sketches are not photographs and that the perp will probably be a blended version of the two sketches.

Based on my memory only, in the unredacted PCA of RA's, it mentions BB and SC agree that the man that each of them saw is the man (BG) on LG's video.

If the state gets these women on the stand and they identify RA as the man they both saw, he is done for.

Yes I think they want to argue there were two Bridge Guys, so we can't be sure which one was RA

And of course RA was never there because he left at 1.30

So there were 3 Bridge Guys

Or something ...

 

[photographer4]

Looks to me like they are probably going to try to discredit the witness testimony of BB, SC, the girls' RA observed when he arrived at the Freedom Bridge, and anyone else who may have observed BG. I bet they do not want any of these sightings linked to Allen. Except maybe the Freedom Bridge girls. They may try to
claim RA left shortly after he saw them.

I bet DT are going to use the two sketches to hammer home that the men in the sketches don't look a whole lot alike.

The DT have an uphill battle though.

First of all, BB and SC did not want to create the sketches. I guess they were not confident enough in their specific observations of the men they saw.

At the time BB saw the man she had no idea that a horrific crime was about to occur.

SC had no idea that a horrific crime had occurred 30 minutes to an hour before she seen the man.

Carter made it clear that sketches are not photographs and that the perp will probably be a blended version of the two sketches.

Based on my memory only, in the unredacted PCA of RA's, it mentions BB and SC agree that the man that each of them saw is the man (BG) on LG's video.

If the state gets these women on the stand and they identify RA as the man they both saw, he is done for.

Do you happen to have a link that shows neither BB or SC wanted to make the sketches?

I don’t believe this because one of them was adamant that the man SHE saw was NOT RA. Infact, she was certain that it was a young man she saw with hair. She demanded they release HER sketch because she was sure the man in the original sketch wasn’t the man she saw.

I googled and it was BB who wasn’t happy LE had not released the sketch of the man SHE said she saw: https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

Around page 106/7 details what she said and that she asserted HER sketch was a “10/10” for the guy she saw…

 

[steeltowngirl]

Since the hearing we now know why he said this. They were looking to see if RA had any link to a 3rd party suspect. no link was found.

No link at all? Or no link that was suitable for prosecution? We know there was a connection between Libby and the anthony shots profile.

I’m not convinced others were not involved. But that doesn’t absolve RA whatsoever.
If he is proven BARD to a jury to be BG, he’s going down for felony murder.

jmo

 

[mrjitty]

No link at all? Or no link that was suitable for prosecution? We know there was a connection between Libby and the anthony shots profile.

RSBM - that is in part why the looked at it. But my understanding of the testimony was they found no evidence of a link between the parties

 

[shonyakay]

Looks to me like they are probably going to try to discredit the witness testimony of BB, SC, the girls' RA observed when he arrived at the Freedom Bridge, and anyone else who may have observed BG. I bet they do not want any of these sightings linked to Allen. Except maybe the Freedom Bridge girls. They may try to
claim RA left shortly after he saw them.

I bet DT are going to use the two sketches to hammer home that the men in the sketches don't look a whole lot alike.

The DT have an uphill battle though.

First of all, BB and SC did not want to create the sketches. I guess they were not confident enough in their specific observations of the men they saw.

At the time BB saw the man she had no idea that a horrific crime was about to occur.

SC had no idea that a horrific crime had occurred 30 minutes to an hour before she seen the man.

Carter made it clear that sketches are not photographs and that the perp will probably be a blended version of the two sketches.

Based on my memory only, in the unredacted PCA of RA's, it mentions BB and SC agree that the man that each of them saw is the man (BG) on LG's video.

If the state gets these women on the stand and they identify RA as the man they both saw, he is done for.

Want to correct something in regards to SC's sighting...

LG's video starts at 2:13 p.m. and stops at 2:14 p.m. The girls are kidnapped at gun point during that time and told to go "down the hill."
LG's apple health data stops tracking movement at 2:32 p.m.
LE says girls were killed between 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.
SC sees man at 3:57 p.m. on 300 N walking away from the area of the Monon high bridge.

2:13 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. would be the timeframe of when these horrific crimes occurred.

So SC would have seen the man at the earliest 27 minutes to the latest 1 and 44 minutes after this crime occurred.

Sorry. I have OCD and Math was never my strong suit. Lol.

 

[shonyakay]

Do you happen to have a link that shows neither BB or SC wanted to make the sketches?

I'll search for a link for you. It's in somebody's testimony from the recent hearings.

 

[photographer4]

I'll search for a link for you. It's in somebody's testimony from the recent hearings.

If you do happen to find it pls post it as I haven’t read most of the recent testimony yet. I only got through Cicero yesterday - I’m forever behind!

 

[shonyakay]

No link at all? Or no link that was suitable for prosecution? We know there was a connection between Libby and the anthony shots profile.

I’m not convinced others were not involved. But that doesn’t absolve RA whatsoever.
If he is proven BARD to a jury to be BG, he’s going down for felony murder.

jmo

There was communication between AS account and Libby prior to and up until February 13, 2017.

Imo it's a huge coincidence. This perv was talking to so many young girls including Libby's friends.

Did you happen to listen to information from those who attended the recent hearings regarding Vito's testimony?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

When any defense team keeps having to come up with new scenarios and fairy tales as to why their client is innocent, they don’t have a case.
Too bad the prosecution can’t bring up “that which will not be named” to impeach the new story by pointing out the defense was pushing a completely different scenario for a year.

 

[WildHuncher]

I knew that Motion to Compel Certified Questions had to come from AB lol, he's the gift that keeps on giving: <BBM>

9. On September 13, 2024, the Defense deposed Steven Mullin. Mr. Mullin refused to answer questions posed in subsections a-d below. Rather than answer the simple yes or no question, Mullin repeatedly made conclusory statements to defense counsel that Richard Allen was the man that Betsy Blair observed, and was the man Sarah Carbaugh observed etc…

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:

a. “Is your timeline and theory of the case fatal to the prosecution’s case against Richard Allen if the person Betsy Blair observed on the bridge is not Richard Allen?
b. Is your timeline and theory of the case fatal to the prosecution’s case against Richard Allen if the vehicle Betsy Blair observed at the CPS building was not Richard Allen’s vehicle?”
c. If Betsy Blair observed one person and Sarah Carbaugh observed an entirely different person, is the prosecution’s timeline and theory of the case as it relates to Richard Allen fatally flawed?
d. If neither Betsy Blair, nor Sarah Carbaugh observed Richard Allen on February 13, 2017, is the State’s timeline and theory of the case as it relates to Richard Allen fatally flawed?

Adobe Acrobat

MOO

I don’t think any one bit of evidence is so vital to the prosecution case that the whole thing collapses if you pull it out. You have the group of girls, BB, SC, (ETA: RA putting himself very nearby in appropriate costume), the video itself, and the IMHO utterly damning cartridge. Good luck shaking all that off. I could also be forgetting some, and there may be more we don’t know about.

 

[m00c0w]

Do you happen to have a link that shows neither BB or SC wanted to make the sketches?

I don’t believe this because one of them was adamant that the man SHE saw was NOT RA. Infact, she was certain that it was a young man she saw with hair. She demanded they release HER sketch because she was sure the man in the original sketch wasn’t the man she saw.

I googled and it was BB who wasn’t happy LE had not released the sketch of the man SHE said she saw: https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

Around page 106/7 details what she said and that she asserted HER sketch was a “10/10” for the guy she saw…

This is a complete misstatement of the facts. Nowhere in the Franks memo does BB discuss the man she saw being RA or not RA. She was adamant her sketch be released because she didn’t feel like sketch 1 fit the man she saw, but she could have easily agreed RA looked like the man she saw at a later point in time after the arrests. The defense never tried to claim she denied it was RA in recent statements, just implying it with old statements regarding the sketches.

All opinion, based on your source.

 

[m00c0w]

When any defense team keeps having to come up with new scenarios and fairy tales as to why their client is innocent, they don’t have a case.
Too bad the prosecution can’t bring up “that which will not be named” to impeach the new story by pointing out the defense was pushing a completely different scenario for a year.

I think they technically could since the MIL only bars the defense. Doing so would almost certainly open the door fairly wide for the defense to re-introduce the theory, though. I don’t think they would be able to use any of the defense filings specifically, though, as it could be seen as prejudicial to the jury. However, it would certainly be interesting for the prosecution to call Perlmutter, for instance, to ask why she was hired by the defense.

JMO

 

[shonyakay]

If you do happen to find it pls post it as I haven’t read most of the recent testimony yet. I only got through Cicero yesterday - I’m forever behind!

I found it. It's in Holeman's testimony from August 1, 2024.

Q. And are you aware that in this offense my understanding is that Ms. Carbaugh and Ms.Blair, they didn't want to do a sketch, but they were pressured by police to assist in the investigation, is that a true statement? - NM
A. Yes. - Holeman

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/allenholemanaug1-pdf.530074/

 

[girlhasnoname]

Do you happen to have a link that shows neither BB or SC wanted to make the sketches?

I don’t believe this because one of them was adamant that the man SHE saw was NOT RA. Infact, she was certain that it was a young man she saw with hair. She demanded they release HER sketch because she was sure the man in the original sketch wasn’t the man she saw.

I googled and it was BB who wasn’t happy LE had not released the sketch of the man SHE said she saw: https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

Around page 106/7 details what she said and that she asserted HER sketch was a “10/10” for the guy she saw…

According to the Franks Memo #1. I'll wait and see what BB has to say come trial time rather than take the word of this Defense. JMO

 

[photographer4]

First of all, BB and SC did not want to create the sketches. I guess they were not confident enough in their specific observations of the men they saw.

Snipped for focus by me: If they were not confident enough in who / what they saw, then isn't that a point for the defense? You're saying the transcripts say that they didn't want to make the sketches at all right? But then in the motion to answer certified questions we saw yesterday, we have the D asking LE yes or no questions about what the witnesses said... and the LE in question won't give a yes or no - instead, he just keeps on asserting the witnesses saw RA - which, frankly, he cannot possibly know who or what they saw since ya know, he isn't them. Adobe Acrobat

 

[tlcya]

BB and SC were reticent to sit with a sketch artist at the time they were approached. Do we know if they were shown photos of RA at any point after he became a suspect for LE? Do we know if, at any lineup they may have been shown, they picked him out as the man they'd seen? Because until I know that, I do not take anything the defense says as gospel.

I am content to wait until I see or hear the testimony of BB and SC for myself rather than waste a second of my time debating whether they identified RA or not. In just a matter of days we will know the answer. JMO