Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #197

[photographer4]

Genuine question for you:

Could a visit to the crime scene convince you that RA is either guilty or innocent?

What would factor into your choice?

It would go a long way towards helping me to understand the State's theory and to work out timing etc. I already believe RA is guilty in some way, whether he did this entirely on his own, or had help - I believe he should do the time for the crime. I am a kinetic learning a lot of the time so for me, photos and videos won't help me as much as a visit to the actual scene would. I'm most curious about the area of "dth" and where the bodies were found in relation to where a witness saw someone muddy / bloody. I'd like to kinda see that for myself. When I'm considering the testimony already heard by Cicero, I want to be able to see what he saw, and solidify in my mind what his testimony is - concretely. Easier in person for me. Maybe not so for others.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

It would go a long way towards helping me to understand the State's theory and to work out timing etc. I already believe RA is guilty in some way, whether he did this entirely on his own, or had help - I believe he should do the time for the crime. I am a kinetic learning a lot of the time so for me, photos and videos won't help me as much as a visit to the actual scene would. I'm most curious about the area of "dth" and where the bodies were found in relation to where a witness saw someone muddy / bloody. I'd like to kinda see that for myself. When I'm considering the testimony already heard by Cicero, I want to be able to see what he saw, and solidify in my mind what his testimony is - concretely. Easier in person for me. Maybe not so for others.

I understand wanting to see things in person but when the things you would be seeing aren’t even the same as they were the day of the crime scene in fact some things are vastly different; then it would most likely confuse the participants more than give clarity.
Which IMO is the sole purpose of this request.
To cloud logic.

The cps building is not there
The trails are not the same
The bridge is not the same
The route of the crime cannot be retraced due to the changes over the past 7 years. In fact the method for a jury to view all the different portions of the crime scene would not support the timeline

Not to mention the due process crew can use this field trip as a way to expose the jury to Pro-RA groups and possibly expose the identities of thr jurors to the public.

Usually I would agree with the defense’s motion. But too much has changed and too many negative factors are involved IMO.

All my opinion

 

[Ravenmoon]

It would go a long way towards helping me to understand the State's theory and to work out timing etc. I already believe RA is guilty in some way, whether he did this entirely on his own, or had help - I believe he should do the time for the crime. I am a kinetic learning a lot of the time so for me, photos and videos won't help me as much as a visit to the actual scene would. I'm most curious about the area of "dth" and where the bodies were found in relation to where a witness saw someone muddy / bloody. I'd like to kinda see that for myself. When I'm considering the testimony already heard by Cicero, I want to be able to see what he saw, and solidify in my mind what his testimony is - concretely. Easier in person for me. Maybe not so for others.

Well, the jurors won't ( or should not) have any thoughts regarding the accused guilt or innocence pretrial.

I wish that I understood how visiting the scene could sway you toward guilt or innocence.

Seeing where A&L were forced down the hill doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Seeing the route back to the vehicle would be interesting ( maybe) but it no longer looks the same as it was. That will be confusing, I would expect.
I think that seeing the evidence in the courtroom is the best way to know what happened that day

The evidence is strong, it will paint the most accurate chain of events.

Whether someone believes that the killer is RA or someone else, visiting the scene won't change the facts as they are.

Abby and Libby were at the bridge, made to walk down the hill and ultimately murdered on Ron Logans property.

RA is on video at a bar about 70 ish days before the murders. No doubt about his physical ability.

There won't be physical evidence found while visiting today.

I just can't wrap my mind around how this could convict or exonerate RA.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

I understand wanting to see things in person but when the things you would be seeing aren’t even the same as they were the day of the crime scene in fact some things are vastly different; then it would most likely confuse the participants more than give clarity.
Which IMO is the sole purpose of this request.
To cloud logic.

The cps building is not there
The trails are not the same
The bridge is not the same
The route of the crime cannot be retraced due to the changes over the past 7 years. In fact the method for a jury to view all the different portions of the crime scene would not support the timeline

Not to mention the due process crew can use this field trip as a way to expose the jury to Pro-RA groups and possibly expose the identities of thr jurors to the public.

Usually I would agree with the defense’s motion. But too much has changed and too many negative factors are involved IMO.

All my opinion

Then how helpful could it have been for experts seeing it for the first time in 2024?? Moo

 

[photographer4]

Well, the jurors won't ( or should not) have any thoughts regarding the accused guilt or innocence pretrial.

I wish that I understood how visiting the scene could sway you toward guilt or innocence.

Seeing where A&L were forced down the hill doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Seeing the route back to the vehicle would be interesting ( maybe) but it no longer looks the same as it was. That will be confusing, I would expect.
I think that seeing the evidence in the courtroom is the best way to know what happened that day

The evidence is strong, it will paint the most accurate chain of events.

Whether someone believes that the killer is RA or someone else, visiting the scene won't change the facts as they are.

Abby and Libby were at the bridge, made to walk down the hill and ultimately murdered on Ron Logans property.

RA is on video at a bar about 70 ish days before the murders. No doubt about his physical ability.

There won't be physical evidence found while visiting today.

I just can't wrap my mind around how this could convict or exonerate RA.

JMO

What if anything does RA being in a bar 70 days before the murders have to do with anything? I’m confused.

 

[shonyakay]

Unfair because the areas have changed significantly. It is not an accurate representation of what those areas looked like on February 13th and 14th, 2007. Imo.

Whoops just noticed this typo. 2017 not 2007, but you guys knew that.

 

[ClearAhead]

I would want to see the key points of the case if I were a juror. I am glad the bridge is no longer crossable, but I'd still like to see the rest of it - including the old CPS building area, even if is just a plot of land now. Distance / how long it takes to traverse from the crime scene to that old CPS building where the state parked, how tricky is the lay of the land etc... those would leave me with an impression. I think there IS a point but that is just MOO. I'm sure JG is going to deny the motion anyhow because of the possibly safety issues to RA and the Jury / Staff etc...

As a juror you’d not be expected to reinvestigate the case. LE has already done that and onus will now be on the Prosecution to present evidence to the jury to prove why RA is guilty as charged. If that’s not understood clearly by the jury, it creates doubt that he’s guilty. The defense doesn’t have to prove anything at all, especially not that he’s innocent.

If the motion to visit the crime scene is denied, without other illustrations the prosecution runs the risk the jury is unable to understand the dynamics of the crime scene, causing a verdict that RA is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

So the D probably doesn’t really care what the judge decides about the motion, given all the changes since 2017. Either way a jury visiting a crime scene exactly the way it was 7 years ago is often not possible, time moves on. I’m sure they’d understand. JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Then how helpful could it have been for experts seeing it for the first time in 2024?? Moo

Because that expert isn’t determining the timeline or any other component of the crime outside the scope of blood evidence.
If the final crime scene has been vastly changed ( trees cut down, structures erected) then it would also serve no purpose to the blood expert.
IMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

What if anything does RA being in a bar 70 days before the murders have to do with anything? I’m confused.

It is relevant to his ability to cross the bridge and also get back to his vehicle.

JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

Then how helpful could it have been for experts seeing it for the first time in 2024?? Moo

How helpful was it for the D to travel to Georgia?

 

[Argonaut]

 

[photographer4]

As a juror you’d not be expected to reinvestigate the case. LE has already done that and onus will now be on the Prosecution to present evidence to the jury to prove why RA is guilty as charged. If that’s not understood clearly by the jury, it creates doubt that he’s guilty. The defense doesn’t have to prove anything at all, especially not that he’s innocent.

If the motion to visit the crime scene is denied, without other illustrations the prosecution runs the risk the jury is unable to understand the dynamics of the crime scene, causing a verdict that RA is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

So the D probably doesn’t really care what the judge decides about the motion, given all the changes since 2017. Either way a jury visiting a crime scene exactly the way it was 7 years ago is often not possible, time moves on. I’m sure they’d understand. JMO

Probably right that the D doesn't actually care if JG grants the motion or not. Good to get it on record though that they did ask for it. I wonder, if she denies this motion, can the D then say... "well Jury... we wanted to take you there to see the scene for yourselves so you could see what the State alleges happened, and so you could see it similar to how their expert would have seen it in 2024 etc... but JG denied it because it is too difficult for you, an average citizen, like RA to traverse in a calm moment, at a controlled time etc... But the State wants you to believe that tiny ole RA did so in a stressful moment after they say he kidnapped two teens etc... etc... ". -- or will the jury be barred from hearing that they filed a motion too this effect at all?

 

[photographer4]

Because that expert isn’t determining the timeline or any other component of the crime outside the scope of blood evidence.
If the final crime scene has been vastly changed ( trees cut down, structures erected) then it would also serve no purpose to the blood expert.
IMO

So if the expert found it helpful, then how different could it possibly be then that the State doesn't want the jurors to see it? Curious. Either way, JG is gonna deny it for sure imo.

 

[photographer4]

It is relevant to his ability to cross the bridge and also get back to his vehicle.

JMO

Not really imo. Lots of people are fine one minute then not the next. MOO. 70 days prior to the crime being at a bar does not, imo, make RA a guilty man or involved in the crime. That is a stretch that I don't think even the state has made yet, have they?

 

[photographer4]

How helpful was it for the D to travel to Georgia?

Going to another State vs visiting the crime scene are not comparable imo. Especially since no one is asking the jurors to go to Georgia (that I know of?).

 

[Vern]

I would want to see the key points of the case if I were a juror. I am glad the bridge is no longer crossable, but I'd still like to see the rest of it - including the old CPS building area, even if is just a plot of land now. Distance / how long it takes to traverse from the crime scene to that old CPS building where the state parked, how tricky is the lay of the land etc... those would leave me with an impression. I think there IS a point but that is just MOO. I'm sure JG is going to deny the motion anyhow because of the possibly safety issues to RA and the Jury / Staff etc...

If I were a juror and deciding someone's fate, I'm sorry but I'd much rather prefer to be presented with facts and with evidential crime scene photos and videos that accurately depict the geography, topography and context of the crime scene on the day that crime occured.

I shouldn't have to 'imagine' a darn thing as a juror. It's the Prosecutions job and burden to paint the picture via evidence for me. Then it's the Defence's turn to further as they see fit to defend their client.

Visiting the bridge today will not get the jury there and in no way represents an accurate or contextual picture of 13th February 2017. IMO.

 

[photographer4]

I hope there is a better video than this available to jurors, especially if the motion to visit the area is denied - I know a lot of of folks who might get motion sickness from watching this.... mooooo

 

[Ravenmoon]

Not really imo. Lots of people are fine one minute then not the next. MOO. 70 days prior to the crime being at a bar does not, imo, make RA a guilty man or involved in the crime. That is a stretch that I don't think even the state has made yet, have they?

I didn't say it makes him guilty.
This is a total misstatement.
I said it shows that he was physically capable.

70 days prior to the crime is much more poignant than 7 and a half years AFTER the crime.

JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

Going to another State vs visiting the crime scene are not comparable imo. Especially since no one is asking the jurors to go to Georgia (that I know of?).

Nope the jury won’t get paid expenses. Fact is whether or not it was worthwhile for the blood spatter expert to have visited the crime scene, experts often get asked that exact question by the defense when testifying. Maybe he studied the topography and the circumference of that tree he spoke of Libby grabbing in relation to the blood spatter? Why do you need to know? Experts are expected to be experts in their profession, why they’re hired to provide an expert opinion and if that involves a trip to study the crime scene, well that doesn’t require permission from the judge. IMO.

 

[photographer4]

I didn't say it makes him guilty.
This is a total misstatement.
I said it shows that he was physically capable.

70 days prior to the crime is much more poignant than 7 and a half years AFTER the crime.

JMO

Ehhh... ok. I see what you're saying. I just don't agree that his physical condition 70 days prior to the crime is all that relevant. MOO. Also, I wanted to clarify, I'm not saying you have said it makes him guilty. I was only asserting what I said above about physical condition not being relevant from 70 days prior to the murders.... just moo.