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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

photographer4 said:
Then how helpful could it have been for experts seeing it for the first time in 2024?? Moo
Click to expand...
Because they're expert in their field, blood splatter. They need to look at the media then do calculations using landmarks at the scene. The jurors are not qualified to do that. That's why they ARE expert witnesses testifying, to help them understand the science of blood splatter. Jurors don't need to see the actual ground Libby's blood was spilt and pooled over nor the tree. It's been documented and now analyzed by an expert who will tell them the knowledge, the science they need to consider. MO
 
photographer4 said:
No, but they all have the same general job - assess the scene and work out in their minds what happened. I think it makes sense that they should see where the events took place - even if things look different now. If they're as different as the prosecution asserted (post by someone else upthread included a link that I"ll add in a moment).... then how was it helpful to their own expert? Mooo.

ETA: here is the link to the post I mentioned: Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #197
Click to expand...
Has anyone claimed it was particularly helpful to the expert? IIRC, the question was asked if he had visited the crime scene and it was related to how the sticks may have been concealment methods. That one line of inquiry was heavily objected to by the defense (who argued at the time that things had changed so much he wouldn't be able to construct a valid opinion). That one item seemed to be more of an aside than an actual claim that visiting the scene gave super revelatory information. The bulk of the questions and answers, IMO, had little to do with his visit to the scene or anything he gleaned from visiting the scene.

Something that a lot of folks seem to be forgetting (not you in particular, photo, referring to the discussion at large here) is that the jury is not necessarily entitled to whatever evidence is out there. Opinions are only valid in very specific circumstances, scientific evidence is only valid when able to be testified to by experts with relevant qualifications, hearsay is only allowed in specific circumstances, and it is not the jury's job to weight all possible evidence there ever could be in order to come up with a verdict that's based on any possible doubt. Their job is to look at the totality of relevant and admissible evidence and determine if the likelihood an individual committed a crime (or crimes) is beyond a reasonable doubt. If the landscape and area has changed so much, it is pretty simple to argue that the jury visiting would be wholly irrelevant and not at all probative in value. It would essentially be a sideshow.

All my opinion.
 
m00c0w said:
Has anyone claimed it was particularly helpful to the expert? IIRC, the question was asked if he had visited the crime scene and it was related to how the sticks may have been concealment methods. That one line of inquiry was heavily objected to by the defense (who argued at the time that things had changed so much he wouldn't be able to construct a valid opinion). That one item seemed to be more of an aside than an actual claim that visiting the scene gave super revelatory information. The bulk of the questions and answers, IMO, had little to do with his visit to the scene or anything he gleaned from visiting the scene.

Something that a lot of folks seem to be forgetting (not you in particular, photo, referring to the discussion at large here) is that the jury is not necessarily entitled to whatever evidence is out there. Opinions are only valid in very specific circumstances, scientific evidence is only valid when able to be testified to by experts with relevant qualifications, hearsay is only allowed in specific circumstances, and it is not the jury's job to weight all possible evidence there ever could be in order to come up with a verdict that's based on any possible doubt. Their job is to look at the totality of relevant and admissible evidence and determine if the likelihood an individual committed a crime (or crimes) is beyond a reasonable doubt. If the landscape and area has changed so much, it is pretty simple to argue that the jury visiting would be wholly irrelevant and not at all probative in value. It would essentially be a sideshow.

All my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's going to be great to finally get opening arguments and most of this pregame drama can drop away.

As we've seen at hearings, just because arguments are made in motions, doesn't mean they can be evidenced, and so much of what we have talked about isn't going to be in the trial for that reason.

I am really ambivalent about a jury visit. I doubt it will make any difference to the outcome. But i do agree with you, that it probably is not essential or particularly relevant

IMO
 
Has Gull ruled on the motion letting the jury visit the scene?
I would be absolutely shocked if she allows it.
 
I have ONE motion still open from this hearing:

Judge Gull will hold hearings in Carroll County on Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday. She’s scheduled to hear multiple motions over the course of the three days:
*State’s Motion for Admissibility (filed May 6, 2024) [Under Advisement/8/1/24] [Granted on 8/28/24]
*Defense Motion to Suppress Second Statement (filed April 15, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/31/24] [Denied on 8/28/24]
*State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (filed April 15, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/31/24] [Granted on 8/28/24]
*Defendant’s Motion to Compel & Motion for Sanctions (filed April 23, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/30/24]. [Denied on 8/15/24].
*Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order (filed May 13, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/30/24]. 8/1/24: Order to vacate granted by Judge.
*State’s Motion in Limine (filed April 28, 2024) [Under Advisement/8/1/24]. [Granted & Denied in part on 9/4/24].
*Defense Response to State’s Motion in Limine [Under Advisement/8/1/24] [Granted & denied in part on 9/4/24].
*Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (filed May 20, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/30/24/withdrawn by defense/7/31/24] [Denied on 8/15/24].
*State’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (filed June 9, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/31/24]
Transcripts of the 3-day hearing link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aa...jatyBBg3jGPmgBmTR8_aem_8R6ZReLchOkMcOPsLVa0iw


and as far as I can tell - only this one left -

9/25/24 Docket update: Order issued. Court takes defendant's Motion for Jury to View Scene under advisement pending a response by the State of Indiana & a hearing to be conducted at the conclusion of jury selection in Allen County. Judge Frances Gull. Noticed: McLeland, Baldwin, Rozzi, L, Diener & Auger.

Oh - and these motions

9//27/24 Docket updates: State's Response to Motion to Compel Deponents to Answer. State's Objection to Defense request to visit crime scene. State's Motion in Limine regarding Defense Witness. State’s response Motion to Certify. Non-Party Indiana DOC's response to defendant's Motion to Compel deponents to answer certified questions. The "Exhibits A through D" (transcripts [now completed apparently] of actual questions. posed).

Is that it? LOL! :)
 
Gray Hughes Investigates is an approved source here. In this video he talks about the young lady that took pictures on the bridge that day after Abby and Libby were kidnapped from the high bridge. This is the girl I was talking about. Thanks to the poster who provided me with her name which led to me finding this video.
 
Niner said:
I have ONE motion still open from this hearing:

Judge Gull will hold hearings in Carroll County on Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday. She’s scheduled to hear multiple motions over the course of the three days:
*State’s Motion for Admissibility (filed May 6, 2024) [Under Advisement/8/1/24] [Granted on 8/28/24]
*Defense Motion to Suppress Second Statement (filed April 15, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/31/24] [Denied on 8/28/24]
*State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (filed April 15, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/31/24] [Granted on 8/28/24]
*Defendant’s Motion to Compel & Motion for Sanctions (filed April 23, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/30/24]. [Denied on 8/15/24].
*Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order (filed May 13, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/30/24]. 8/1/24: Order to vacate granted by Judge.
*State’s Motion in Limine (filed April 28, 2024) [Under Advisement/8/1/24]. [Granted & Denied in part on 9/4/24].
*Defense Response to State’s Motion in Limine [Under Advisement/8/1/24] [Granted & denied in part on 9/4/24].
*Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (filed May 20, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/30/24/withdrawn by defense/7/31/24] [Denied on 8/15/24].
*State’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (filed June 9, 2024) [Under Advisement/7/31/24]
Transcripts of the 3-day hearing link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aa...jatyBBg3jGPmgBmTR8_aem_8R6ZReLchOkMcOPsLVa0iw


and as far as I can tell - only this one left -

9/25/24 Docket update: Order issued. Court takes defendant's Motion for Jury to View Scene under advisement pending a response by the State of Indiana & a hearing to be conducted at the conclusion of jury selection in Allen County. Judge Frances Gull. Noticed: McLeland, Baldwin, Rozzi, L, Diener & Auger.

Oh - and these motions

9//27/24 Docket updates: State's Response to Motion to Compel Deponents to Answer. State's Objection to Defense request to visit crime scene. State's Motion in Limine regarding Defense Witness. State’s response Motion to Certify. Non-Party Indiana DOC's response to defendant's Motion to Compel deponents to answer certified questions. The "Exhibits A through D" (transcripts [now completed apparently] of actual questions. posed).

Is that it? LOL! :)
Click to expand...
The one "missing" from the first set isn't actually missing. It's the state's response to the defense's second motion to dismiss. The second motion to dismiss was denied, so it's been answered.

The main outstanding issue is the visit to the crime scene. Aside from that, there's a motion by the defense to compel deponents to answer certain questions the defense feels were not answered properly, and a state motion to bar a witness the state doesn't feel has the necessary qualifications to testify (and another IN court ruled the same against the same witness).

So one big motion and two smaller motions that were recently filed are outstanding.

JMO
 
How would a site visit work?

Since it is the DT that is requesting it, would they lead the “tour”?

Would the DT be able to provide commentary as the Jurors moved from point to point?

Who would point out the various significant locations and provide context?

Without every Juror being able to access/view the bowl (and I don’t think it is possible), I honestly don’t think a visit will be permitted.

MOO
 
Last edited:
Tealgrove said:
How would a site visit work?

Since it is the DT that is requesting it, would they lead the “tour”?

Would the DT be able to provide commentary as the Jurors moved from point to point?

Who would point out the various significant locations and provide context?

Without every Juror being able to access/view the bowl (and I don’t think it is possible).

I honestly don’t think a visit will be permitted.

MOO
Click to expand...

Me neither. Too time consuming, too expensive, unfair, and dangerous. Imo
 
Tealgrove said:
How would a site visit work?

Since it is the DT that is requesting it, would they lead the “tour”?

Would the DT be able to provide commentary as the Jurors moved from point to point?

Who would point out the various significant locations and provide context?

Without every Juror being able to access/view the bowl (and I don’t think it is possible).

I honestly don’t think a visit will be permitted.

MOO
Click to expand...

It would be too time consuming but hey the defense is trying to find something to occupy their allotted time because at this rate I think the defense's case will last 2 days max. Lol.
 
shonyakay said:
Gray Hughes Investigates is an approved source here. In this video he talks about the young lady that took pictures on the bridge that day after Abby and Libby were kidnapped from the high bridge. This is the girl I was talking about. Thanks to the poster who provided me with her name which led to me finding this video.
Click to expand...

In RA's PCA, it states there were other people on the trail that day AFTER 2:13 p.m. and NONE of those people saw BG (RA imo) nor Libby or Abby.

I think this young lady Cheyenne is one of them. I think at least one of the McCain brothers, and possibly a couple (A man and woman). Two more weeks and we will start to get answers to the questions we've had for years, but first and foremost...

Justice for Abby and Libby.
 
m00c0w said:
The one "missing" from the first set isn't actually missing. It's the state's response to the defense's second motion to dismiss. The second motion to dismiss was denied, so it's been answered.

The main outstanding issue is the visit to the crime scene. Aside from that, there's a motion by the defense to compel deponents to answer certain questions the defense feels were not answered properly, and a state motion to bar a witness the state doesn't feel has the necessary qualifications to testify (and another IN court ruled the same against the same witness).

So one big motion and two smaller motions that were recently filed are outstanding.

JMO
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info on that first set of motion {to dismiss]! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 108 more.
Total: 1,882 (members: 109, guests: 1,773)

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
1,773
Total visitors
1,882
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,489
Messages
18,187,692
Members
233,389
Latest member
Bwitzke
Back
Top