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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
FrostedGlass said:
A funny thing about that pic of her on the bridge...
From Cecil's testimony; cross-exam by MS. AUGER:
(snip)
Q All right. Is there a phone – or a picture that you have learned of that you
could not find on L.G.’s phone?
A Yes.
Q What was that?
A That was a picture of A.W. walking across the bridge and it’s kind of taken
off – like off on an angle.
Q And that was posted on her Snapchat account?
A So my understanding from social media is that’s what it was and I was
asked to try to see if I could find that by the investigators.
Q And you could not find that?
A I could not find it.

3 Day Hearing - Google Drive

drive.google.com drive.google.com

As a side note, there was at least one other pic that we never heard about (Cecil's testimony)
(snip)
Q Tilde, thank you. And what did you note there?
A It’s a picture of the Monon High Bridge and it’s like – it’s a picture that was
uploaded to Snapchat and the picture is like – just like somebody would be
standing like in front – like you’re getting ready to walk across it.
Click to expand...
Here you go.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3394.jpeg
    IMG_3394.jpeg
    118.3 KB · Views: 29
ClearAhead said:
I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that someone sent these photos other than Libby. While I don’t know much of anything about Snapchat other than it’s very different from sending a photograph to somebody and under certain circumstances the photo is deleted after viewing. During the trial I’d expect there will testimony regarding the dynamics of Snapchat. The source of the two photos has certainly been traced long ago, backtracking from the recipient who received them. JMO
Click to expand...

Is this even seriously in doubt that Libby posted the photo via snap?
 
justtrish said:
I am no expert, but I recall back in 2017 Snapchat was different than it is today. If someone opened the Snapchat app and took a photo with the app (not on the camera on their phone) and posted it, then it wasn't stored on the phone. You wouldn't be able to go into your photos and see the photo you took later becuase it wasn't stored on the device. I am unsure if that is still how this works because I no longer use Snapchat.

My kids use Snapchat and every single time they snap someone they take a photo of themselves or something they are doing or looking at and then send that with the snap.. so I'd say nobody would have phone storage space if every single photo was stored on the phone. :D

IMO this could be why they couldn't find the photo on the phone.
Click to expand...

I am no snapchat expert but just some common knowledge basics to maybe make this clearer. An app like snapchat uses the phones camera - just like many other apps do - for imaging. The main difference is going to be that the image is not stored on your phone in the usual place, but rather in some kind of temporary app memory and uploaded to the cloud. So when Cecil says he couldn't find it using his usual investigative tech - it likely is there IMO, but likely within the snapchat app. But there is no need to do complicated work to extract it when the picture is posted to the web. Snapchat will IMO, have given all the relevant info under subpoena, as that photo will need to be admitted into evidence. IMO this will happen without comment.

IIRC it was the Murdaugh case with a snapchat video that was actually not yet uploaded and it was recovered locally?

MOO
 
Vern said:
Judge Gull's Order on Decorum also does no such thing as restricitng youtubers based on if they are liked or not.

They are all being treated the same and held to the same standard: You aren't family, you're not part of the D or P, and you are not media. You are social media influencers (ie: members of the public) so get in line with the rest of the public.

No certain members have been singled out for special treatment.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite understanding your reply. This is what I said; are you agreeing with me?
Regarding the "internet cranks" (what are those, anyway?), our Indiana trials are open to the public. IMO it's a good thing we can't restrict certain members of the public based on who we like and who we don't.

Bad behavior from anyone shouldn't be tolerated.
 
FrostedGlass said:
What makes you think I missed it? I'm well aware of it and the judge took action on them. As I said = bad behavior from anyone should not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

I think the broader issue is where surrogates of the defence are collaborating with 'content creators' to promote conspiracies around the case. My concerns are wider than just this case, and I think there is little theJudge can do about it. We might need some comprehensive law reform.
 
FrostedGlass said:
I'm sure the judge was well aware of the size of the courthouse when she denied the change of venue motion. Regarding the "internet cranks" (what are those, anyway?), our Indiana trials are open to the public. IMO it's a good thing we can't restrict certain members of the public based on who we like and who we don't.

Bad behavior from anyone shouldn't be tolerated.
Click to expand...
Judge Gull does have the right to restrict anybody who doesn't follow the Courts Decorum policy. Like physically fighting and wearing recordable sunglasses (those are part of the term cranks btw). That's bad behavior, I haven't seen a case of bad behavior during the Hearings by any of the State's supporters have you? Genuinely curious question.

Her Court, her rules, which have been consistent and fair IMO. The Defense asked for the COV and she compromised by bringing in jurors from another county, but keeping it in Delphi. I don't think seating arrangements crossed her mind.

MOO

EBM: Wrong case :oops:
 
Last edited:
mrjitty said:
I think the broader issue is where surrogates of the defence are collaborating with 'content creators' to promote conspiracies around the case. My concerns are wider than just this case, and I think there is little theJudge can do about it. We might need some comprehensive law reform.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard both sides of the collaboration issue; I've only heard what some have repeated from TMS and a bit from one of the attorneys. So I don't have much of an opinion on that. Good luck on comprehensive law reform.
 
girlhasnoname said:
Judge Gull does have the right to restrict anybody who doesn't follow the Courts Decorum policy. Like physically fighting and wearing recordable sunglasses (those are part of the term cranks btw). That's bad behavior, I haven't seen a case of bad behavior during the Hearings by any of the State's supporters have you? Genuinely curious question.

Her Court, her rules, which have been consistent and fair IMO. The Defense asked for the COV and she compromised by bringing in jurors from Boise, but keeping it in Delphi. I don't think seating arrangements crossed her mind.

MOO
Click to expand...
I believe I stated bad actors should be restricted and Gull did restrict them.

In regard to the fighters, I'm not sure which one supported which side. I'm thinking one of them was brought in to testify about his interactions with the P. I could be wrong.

The judge had to know the Carroll Co. courthouse was very small and seating would be very limited.

The jurors aren't coming from Boise. IMO
 
FrostedGlass said:
I believe I stated bad actors should be restricted and Gull did restrict them.

In regard to the fighters, I'm not sure which one supported which side. I'm thinking one of them was brought in to testify about his interactions with the P. I could be wrong.

The judge had to know the Carroll Co. courthouse was very small and seating would be very limited.

The jurors aren't coming from Boise. IMO
Click to expand...
Thanks for catching that, I was thinking of the Idaho BK case. I fixed it in my post as not to confuse anyone else.
 
Melted said:
Here you go.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That picture didn't even enter my mind when I read Cecil's description of it.

Here is what I remember; after all these years, I'm not sure it's accurate:
GH talked about the differences in color between the photo of Abby and the color of the bridge pic. He thought Libby took the shot, changed her filter and then turned around and took the bridge pic. So, all this time, I thought that shot was taken from the middle portion of the bridge.

However, after going back through some videos and comparing pics, I believe it was taken at the beginning.
 
sunshineray said:
I have a couple questions for whomever might have an opinion on it. During ISP Harshman's testimony at the 3-day hearings, NMcL ask about one particular conversation between RA and his wife KA. It was said to have happened soon after his detention started in November 2022. RA told his wife that if his situation became too much for her to handle to let him know. He said he'd tell LE everything they wanted to know.

My first question is: How can that be anything LESS than RA saying, I did it and I will spill my guts, if you want/need me to?

My second question is for anyone who doesn't feel RA's guilt in those words is: Why would an innocent man ever say to his wife he'd be willing to falsely confess if his battle to state his complete innocence in court was too upsetting for her?

It makes no other sense, no matter how I look at it, except that RA is saying he's guilty. MO

Page 13 on the pdf of Harshman's testimony

View attachment 534515
Click to expand...
Speaking of Harshman’s testimony….

Asked how many incriminating statements Allen has made behind bars, Harshman responded “60-plus direct confessions.” He said some of those confessions included specifics of the Delphi murders that only the actual murderer would know, as well as motivation for the crimes. (The detective did not elaborate with additional details.)

www.21alivenews.com

Indiana State Police investigator says Richard Allen confessed 61 times to Delphi murders

The man accused of killing two Delphi teenagers has confessed more than 60 times to committing the murders, according to an Indiana State Police detective assigned to the case.
www.21alivenews.com www.21alivenews.com
 
sunshineray said:
I have a couple questions for whomever might have an opinion on it. During ISP Harshman's testimony at the 3-day hearings, NMcL ask about one particular conversation between RA and his wife KA. It was said to have happened soon after his detention started in November 2022. RA told his wife that if his situation became too much for her to handle to let him know. He said he'd tell LE everything they wanted to know.

My first question is: How can that be anything LESS than RA saying, I did it and I will spill my guts, if you want/need me to?

My second question is for anyone who doesn't feel RA's guilt in those words is: Why would an innocent man ever say to his wife he'd be willing to falsely confess if his battle to state his complete innocence in court was too upsetting for her?

It makes no other sense, no matter how I look at it, except that RA is saying he's guilty. MO

Page 13 on the pdf of Harshman's testimony

View attachment 534515
Click to expand...
I understand it like that:
RA confessed to KA and would have liked to tell her in detail, what he did and how and why. She didn't want to hear it and wanted him to shut up immediately. Then he offered to his wife, to tell all the things to the detective/s instead. Maybe, it was no offer but rather extortion: If you (KA) don't want to listen, then I will tell it someone other, ie. the detective/s. In any case RA wanted to speak about, what happened on February 13th.
Am I completely wrong with my interpretation?

ETA: Afaik, KA didn't want him to confess, but fight against the charges.
 
Last edited:
ClearAhead said:
I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that someone sent these photos other than Libby. While I don’t know much of anything about Snapchat other than it’s very different from sending a photograph to somebody and under certain circumstances the photo is deleted after viewing. During the trial I’d expect there will testimony regarding the dynamics of Snapchat. The source of the two photos has certainly been traced long ago, backtracking from the recipient who received them. JMO
Click to expand...
AG discusses receiving the Snapchat photo, starting at about 6:50 in Chapter 3 of Down the Hill: The Delphi Murders.
Discussion of 2 Snapchat photos, screenshots, etc
podcasts.apple.com

‎Down The Hill: The Delphi Murders: Chapter 3: A Picture & A Search Warrant on Apple Podcasts​

‎Show Down The Hill: The Delphi Murders, Ep Chapter 3: A Picture & A Search Warrant - Feb 12, 2020
podcasts.apple.com
 
shonyakay said:
What are the odds that the perp shown in LG's video would even resemble RA who places himself on the trails that day from 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (the time of the crimes), describes himself in the same kind of clothing, confessed in excess of 60 times to said crimes, and owns the gun that caused a unique marking to the unspent bullet found between Abby and Libby's bodies?

And this just what we know. I have no doubt there is more.
Click to expand...
I am skeptical of the tool markings. I feel like the State shopped around for an expert who would say on the stand that it matches RA’s gun. Moo. The science has been shown to be unreliable: Unvalidated Forensic Science — New England Innocence Project
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 211 more.
Total: 753 (members: 212, guests: 541)

Online statistics

Members online
212
Guests online
541
Total visitors
753
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,190
Messages
18,236,072
Members
234,317
Latest member
Spygirl09
Back
Top