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

 

[photographer4]

dbm

 

[otto]

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

If there is no evidence connecting Richard Allen to the murders of the two girls, there would be no charges. He was not arrested based on eye-witness statements at the park.

I read that Richard Allen's neighbour had complained to police about tools stolen from his shed. As a show of neighbourly friendship, Richard Allen was fingerprinted so he could be eliminated. That led to the discovery of a coat or hat in his backyard, clothing that was similar to the man on the bridge.

Richard Allen was arrested. Were shell casings found at the scene? Is the evidence a fingerprint?

 

[shonyakay]

Absolutely not. Her information came BEFORE the photo came out.

Can you lead me to where this information came from? Did the Freedom Bridge girls' tell one of their mother's about the encounter with the man that day? It seems I remember reading that but can't be sure.

 

[Soulmagent]

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.

Just jumping off your post because this question has me wondering if anyone remembers the one witness who may have taken a photo that day around the time everyone was near or on the bridge or has heard ANYTHING about it ?

 

[mrjitty]

My personal 2 cents is the purpose of the eye witnesses is not to definitely say yes the person i saw was 100% the guy in the video.

Rather they set 3 key timings for a man consistent with Bridge Guy.

It is RA himself who appears to confirm he is the man the 3 juvenile girls saw.

The second sighting is important to confirm a guy was on the bridge before the girls - a guy could likely could be bridge guy. The third sighting is a man i think the jury will accept has to be bridge guy.

IMO it does not matter that much whether they can say exactly who it was, as long as it is consistent. It's the fact that there was a guy like bridge guy that matters, and especially that he appears 3 times, and on the video - around the time of the murder.

Of course the defence will try to muddy the waters over specific jacket colour or hair to claim there is more than one Bridge Guy, because one of them is of course RA

02c

 

[shonyakay]

Just jumping off your post because this question has me wondering if anyone remembers the one witness who may have taken a photo that day around the time everyone was near or on the bridge or has heard ANYTHING about it ?

Are you talking about the one girl (teenage I believe) that took a photo of the bridge around the time of the crime? I vaguely remember this.
I don't know if it was ever confirmed though. If you find more jnformation about this, please share.

 

[Soulmagent]

Are you talking about the one girl (teenage I believe) that took a photo of the bridge around the time of the crime? I vaguely remember this.
I don't know if it was ever confirmed though. If you find more jnformation about this, please share.

I dont think it will be confirmed outside of court. I have not read the docs at all so maybe it mentions something that can clear up our memories.
Would we really know if they had other peoples pictures from that day ?