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

[photographer4]

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

That is worrisome imo. But perhaps the worry will dissipate once more is known regarding those statements he made.

 

[sunshineray]

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



See: Cornell University - Social Science and Law

That's a bit different situation isn't it? Show a witness that has come forward a picture of an LE known suspect and saying is that him?. The BG photo was put out at the beginning of investigations to help ID a possible suspect...did you see this guy or do you know this guy? Or to the guy, we want to talk to you guy.

 

[steeltowngirl]

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.

I like that approach.

Use the witnesses to confirm seeing the girls, and for the timeline. Maybe to describe the man they saw, who also strongly resembled BG. Don’t use them to try to confirm who they saw was RA.

Safer to let the rest of the evidence speak to BG being RA.

jmo

 

[sunshineray]

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.

I think with a murder case jury more would be more. RA is a corroborating witness to the girls (the other teenagers) being where they said they were, at the time they said they were (a photograph taken by one of the teens right before they saw RA). How often does that happen?

 

[sunshineray]

That is worrisome imo. But perhaps the worry will dissipate once more is known regarding those statements he made.

Why would that be worrisome? Jurors are not bots, they're allowed to use their reason.

 

[snarast]

That is worrisome imo. But perhaps the worry will dissipate once more is known regarding those statements he made.

I should have added that I would probably be in the confirmation bias group myself, passing down guilty on what is partly a gut feeling - because that many confessions in combination with how much RA~BG….

I don’t think that the remaining doubt is enough to classify as reasonable, really. It all hinges on the nature of the confessions.

 

[AugustWest]

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.

And like the link I posted says, that is a seminal case regarding eyewitness testimony. It literally lays the test that has been followed since then. That is why I stated "has long noticed."

Manson v. Braithwaite is a really good read, because it contains both the Supreme Court's reasoning at the time, and also a dissent by Thurgood Marshall and William Brennen that laid the foundation for the exclusionary rule we use today.

 

[otto]

I think with a murder case jury more would be more. RA is a corroborating witness to the girls (the other teenagers) being where they said they were, at the time they said they were (a photograph taken by one of the teens right before they saw RA). How often does that happen?

Intuitively, it seems like more details, even those that are not necessary, will be more convincing. When making an argument to convince someone that something is true, the fewer unnecessary tangents, the better.

If there is evidence that Richard Allen committed the murders, then it doesn't matter whether someone saw him beforehand.

 

[AugustWest]

That's a bit different situation isn't it? Show a witness that has come forward a picture of an LE known suspect and saying is that him?. The BG photo was put out at the beginning of investigations to help ID a possible suspect...did you see this guy or do you know this guy? Or to the guy, we want to talk to you guy.

I wrote the response to a reply ClearAhead made that was discussing outside influence on eyewitness identifications. I wasn't talking about the release of the photo of BG to the public.

 

[Vern]

D-17 .....

 

[ClearAhead]

Intuitively, it seems like more details, even those that are not necessary, will be more convincing. When making an argument to convince someone that something is true, the fewer unnecessary tangents, the better.

If there is evidence that Richard Allen committed the murders, then it doesn't matter whether someone saw him beforehand.

This is a very good point. It’s not the timeline that requires proof, it’s that RA is the person who committed the kidnapping and murder of Libby and Abby.

 

[sunshineray]

Intuitively, it seems like more details, even those that are not necessary, will be more convincing. When making an argument to convince someone that something is true, the fewer unnecessary tangents, the better.

If there is evidence that Richard Allen committed the murders, then it doesn't matter whether someone saw him beforehand.

We disagree about it doesn't matter whether someone saw him beforehand. In light of Libby's video/audio (the girls being kidnapped) and RA changing his story 6 years later about when he was at the trails, it matters that witnesses can put him there, at the time of the crimes...like he originally stated, right after the crimes. JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

We disagree about it doesn't matter whether someone saw him beforehand. In light of Libby's video/audio (the girls being kidnapped) and RA changing his story 6 years later about when he was at the trails, it matters that witnesses can put him there, at the time of the crimes...like he originally stated, right after the crimes. JMO

Of what we know, the unspent round and his confessions could directly place him there, in addition to various descriptions of a man who very likely was him. JMO