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

[ClearAhead]

Preferably, they called Le and said I saw A guy - and then described him without having seen the image released by LE to the media. It may have been better imo if LE had asked for anyone who had been at the trails that day to contact them and get their info BEFORE releasing the photo of Bg just to help ensure they weren’t unintentionally influenced by it. Of course they may not have done things this way as they maybe hoped someone would see the photo and name the suspect. Hard for LE to know which way to go in the chaotic first days of a murder investigation sometimes no doubt. Moooooo

It’s normal practise for police to release a photo or at least a description, asking anyone to come forward with information. I’m not clear on what you refer to as ‘unintentionally influenced’ or why that’s a problem. Releasing information about the suspect, asking for sightings or identification is an intentional influence IMO. There’s no reason for LE to keep what they know about the physical appearance of a double child murderer a secret. Their primary objective is to make an arrest and get him off the streets.

MOO

 

[photographer4]

It’s normal practise for police to release a photo or at least a description, asking anyone to come forward with information. I’m not clear on what you refer to as ‘unintentionally influenced’ or why that’s a problem. Releasing information about the suspect, asking for sightings or identification is an intentional influence IMO. There’s no reason for LE to keep physical appearance of a double child murderer a secret.

MOO

Yeah I think they were hoping just by photo someone might ring and say oh! That’s X. He works at…. But it seems no one did sadly.

I get why they released it. But I do wonder if the photo in media before witness statements / sketches etc done becomes a point for the D in terms of doubt.

Maybe it won’t though because one witness didn’t even contact LE til like 174 days post murders. How could LE ever know when they were done with witness statements in any crime? Maybe I answered my own question here. As ya were. lol.

 

[AugustWest]

Order Issued Court takes defendant's Motion for Jury to View Scene under advisement pending a response by the State of Indiana and a hearing to be conducted at the conclusion of jury selection in Allen County. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 09/25/2024​

[td]

09/26/2024​

[/td]​

 

[AugustWest]

And if they have none, having to do with the way you structured the question posed to them? To answer "yes" or "no" might not be accurate and elaborating just supposition. Lawyers try to play word games all the time with witnesses. IMO

That doesn't absolve the witness of the responsibility to answer the question. Nor does it give a prosecutor the power to instruct them not to answer.

There is another option; the answer "I don't know."

 

[ClearAhead]

Yeah I think they were hoping just by photo someone might ring and say oh! That’s X. He works at…. But it seems no one did sadly.

I get why they released it. But I do wonder if the photo in media before witness statements / sketches etc done becomes a point for the D in terms of doubt.

Maybe it won’t though because one witness didn’t even contact LE til like 174 days post murders. How could LE ever know when they were done with witness statements in any crime? Maybe I answered my own question here. As ya were. lol.

The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but I don’t think anything they said can be attributed to having seen the photo, whether they saw it or not, because the quality of the image is so grainy.

Even RA admitted to wearing similar clothing as the man in the photo. Was he unintentionally influenced also? lol!

 

[AugustWest]

The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but I don’t think anything they said can be attributed to having seen the photo, whether they saw it or not, because the quality of the image is so grainy.

Even RA admitted to wearing similar clothing as the man in the photo. Was he unintentionally influenced also? lol!

The U.S. Supreme Court has long noticed exactly what @photographer4 is referencing as a problem.

The Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Manson v. Braithwaite remains the last judicial word on eyewitness identification. Manson addresses the validity of eyewitness identifications provided under faulty methods. For example if the witness is simply presented with a picture of the suspect and asked if the individual in the picture is the same one the witness saw at the crime scene, the identification is flawed because it is suggests to the witness that the police have other reasons to suspect that the individual in the photograph is guilty. By contrast, a properly conducted photographic lineup in which the witness selects the suspect’s photograph from among several possibilities lacks this suggestive element.

See: Cornell University - Social Science and Law

 

[ClearAhead]

The U.S. Supreme Court has long noticed exactly what @photographer4 is referencing as a problem.



See: Cornell University - Social Science and Law

That ruling is from 1977. That’s 47 years ago.

Can’t be too much of a problem or LE wouldn’t continue to publish photos or descriptions of suspects when seeking tips.

 

[kae27]

That ruling is from 1977. That’s 47 years ago.

I think this is why August referred to the SC as having "long noticed." It's still good law today, and has been for nearly 50 years.

 

[sunshineray]

He's not their attorney, so he shouldn't be telling anyone to refuse to answer a question. The proper procedure would be to object, state his reasoning, then inform the witness to answer.

Wouldn't that be inform them to answer, if they can answer the question as asked?

 

[sunshineray]

Preferably, they called Le and said I saw A guy - and then described him without having seen the image released by LE to the media. It may have been better imo if LE had asked for anyone who had been at the trails that day to contact them and get their info BEFORE releasing the photo of Bg just to help ensure they weren’t unintentionally influenced by it. Of course they may not have done things this way as they maybe hoped someone would see the photo and name the suspect. Hard for LE to know which way to go in the chaotic first days of a murder investigation sometimes no doubt. Moooooo

But the whole reasoning to release THAT photo is for people TO recognize that person in that photo. Is that not correct? Why else do you think LE released it?

 

[Vern]

I think it’s a fair question which came first: did you describe your man to Le before or after you saw an image made public by Le?

That’s not even an attack. It’s a basic question. Is this somehow offensive?

How about: "Did you base your sketch on your in-person observatons of BG or did you base it on a published image taken from the cellphone?"

I think the answer is/will be pretty obvious given that there are facial features in both sketchs and zilch/zero in the way of that in the snippet of a second, blurry head down, still taken from the video IMO.

Needless, we'll find out the answer to those questions at the trial .... and time is continuing to tick away on that clock.

 

[sunshineray]

Me as a LE: can you tell me what makes you absolutely certain the man you saw is infact, Richard Allen?

Me as a lawyer would really like the answer!

And what if the person answers, Because that's the guy I saw? Q: How do you know? A: Because that's the guy I saw. How much redundancy of questions would be suitable in that situation, I wonder?

 

[sunshineray]

I think it’s a fair question which came first: did you describe your man to Le before or after you saw an image made public by Le?

That’s not even an attack. It’s a basic question. Is this somehow offensive?

To me, if the person calls LE after they release a picture to the public and they say who's this guy, did anyone see this guy, if your this guy we like to talk to you...any of those and someone calls in because they remember seeing that guy, that's investigating the murders. That's a lead...a good lead. The cops aren't thinking, ut-oh we've done it now, how will we ever be able to use this witness because they didn't describe that guy to us before we released the photo of him. It's nonsensical for investigators to think that way...but probably not for defense lawyers that are desperate. AJMO

 

[photographer4]

How about: "Did you base your sketch on your in-person observatons of BG or did you base it on a published image taken from the cellphone?"

I think the answer is/will be pretty obvious given that there are facial features in both sketchs and zilch/zero in the way of that in the snippet of a second, blurry head down, still taken from the video IMO.

Needless, we'll find out the answer to those questions at the trial .... and time is continuing to tick away on that clock.

Personally, I generally prefer open ended questions over yes or no or this or that type ones - they tend to yield more information from the person answering in my personal experience. I'm sure the lawyers will know how to word their questions to get whatever answers they expect and need from whomever they're questioning.

 

[otto]

But the whole reasoning to release THAT photo is for people TO recognize that person in that photo. Is that not correct? Why else do you think LE released it?

There has to be evidence, independent of eye-witness accounts, placing him at the park and connecting him to the murders. Testimony of anyone who saw the girls at the park is relevant. Prosecutors don't need witnesses to testify that they saw Richard Allen at the park at the same time. There should be indepedent evidence to prove that.

 

[ClearAhead]

How about: "Did you base your sketch on your in-person observatons of BG or did you base it on a published image taken from the cellphone?"

I think the answer is/will be pretty obvious given that there are facial features in both sketchs and zilch/zero in the way of that in the snippet of a second, blurry head down, still taken from the video IMO.

Needless, we'll find out the answer to those questions at the trial .... and time is continuing to tick away on that clock.

Well I’m glad it’s not only me because I don’t see any connection between the grainy image in the video, the sketches nor RA for that matter. Much of the evidence against him is largely due to his own self-incrimination, not identification from witnesses so I’m missing the point of whether or not the photo came before or after. JMO

 

[sunshineray]

There has to be evidence, independent of eye-witness accounts, placing him at the park and connecting him to the murders. Testimony of anyone who saw the girls at the park is relevant. Prosecutors don't need witnesses to testify that they saw Richard Allen at the park at the same time. There should be indepedent evidence to prove that.

But if they have witnesses to place him there, one more brick in the wall. MO

 

[sunshineray]

That doesn't absolve the witness of the responsibility to answer the question. Nor does it give a prosecutor the power to instruct them not to answer.

There is another option; the answer "I don't know."

Which would be met how by the defense attorneys, more and more questions? Demanding to be served up yes or no answers, that's a tricky game, IMO

 

[otto]

But if they have witnesses to place him there, one more brick in the wall. MO

If the brick is not necessary, why use it? When making an argument, less is more.

Eye witnesses can place the girls at the park. Those people may have seen other people at the park. Other evidence confirms that Richard Allen was at the park at the time the girls were murdered.

 

[snarast]

I think confirmation bias will settle this. Even if it’s really impossible to tell BG=RA, the jury will let the power of the confessions blow away any doubt.