Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #198

[tlcya]

Hey, we just want to have the most publicized pieces of information in this case completely disregarded, mmmkay? We don’t want the jury wondering why there were two sketches released that don’t look even remotely like one another, now do we?

no, we don't if those things are not among the evidence prosecution plans to present. the important thing is what evidence are they going to present and will the jury find it enough to find the accused guilty or will they feel the state hasn't met the bar. IMO

 

[arielilane]

@MaxLewisTV

In day 1 of jury selection, 14 jurors were seated. It was an interesting day that included one prospective juror telling the judge he was a psychic. Another juror told the judge he didn't like people who were the color green. Here's a wrap up...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1845999150040584391

https://cbs4indy.com/delphi-trial/6-jurors-seated-so-far-in-delphi-murders-trial/

10/14/2024

 

[TTF14]

Makes it less likely for a successful appeal!

Oh I don’t think (this is my opinion) that there would be a chance at all of appeal on grounds of ineffective counsel. These are excellent attorneys, in my opinion. If he’s convicted, the appeals will come for other reasons, in my opinion.

 

[Inthedetails]

The transcripts show only 2, both witnesses from that day, sat with sketch artists, separately. The witnesses did not want to do it. The prosecutor is saving them from being grilled on the stand about the sketches, for the defense to try to impeach their testimony.
MOO

The controversy over the sketches needs to ends, imo. The purpose of the sketches was to generate leads from the public. They are not meant to be matched to the actual perp to determine if they are exact renditions or otherwise the perp gets to go free.

They are a tool. Whether they served a purpose in this case is a debate, I guess, but the person on trial doesn't need to match the sketch(es) in order to be found guilty by evidence presented in court.

jmo

 

[Melted]

I don't think the hair will be anything of the sort for the prosecution.

a) we don't know where on or in Abby's hand it was located
b) we don't know if it is human or animal or some hairlike fiber from a fabric or textile
c) we don't know if the prosecution will come into this trial already having figured out and able to explain what that hair/fiber is
d) not everything found on a victim or a crime scene is connected to the crime so I don't feel it is on the prosecution to explain what it is or how it got there

JMO MOO IMO

I strongly disagree, forensics can tell the difference between a piece of fiber and a hair. Given the fact that it’s not connected to RA that would mean they got a dna profile from it to rule it out as his.

Bob Motta says the hair is human.

 

[Vern]

The transcripts show only 2, both witnesses from that day, sat with sketch artists, separately. The witnesses did not want to do it. The prosecutor is saving them from being grilled on the stand about the sketches, for the defense to try to impeach their testimony.
MOO

Do you have a source to link for this statement above? The keeping these witnesses off the stand bit? Where's that coming from/what are you basing it on? Or is it strictly your opinion too?

I haven't seen the witness lists actually uploaded yet.

I have seen the motion to have the sketches excluded, but certainly haven't seen anything to prohibit the calling of these eye witnesses to testify as to the clothing the BG was wearing nor their relating it to being similar to the clothing seen in the girls' video.

 

[Melted]

The controversy over the sketches needs to ends, imo. The purpose of the sketches was to generate leads from the public. They are not meant to be matched to the actual perp to determine if they are exact renditions or otherwise the perp gets to go free.

They are a tool. Whether they served a purpose in this case is a debate, I guess, but the person on trial doesn't need to match the sketch(es) in order to be found guilty by evidence presented in court.

jmo

Nobody is saying that the sketches need to match the suspect in order to find him guilty, they were an integral part of the investigation and bring in to question the eyewitness accounts. Trying to exclude them is ridiculous imo.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

The controversy over the sketches needs to ends, imo. The purpose of the sketches was to generate leads from the public. They are not meant to be matched to the actual perp to determine if they are exact renditions or otherwise the perp gets to go free.

They are a tool. Whether they served a purpose in this case is a debate, I guess, but the person on trial doesn't need to match the sketch(es) in order to be found guilty by evidence presented in court.

jmo

I certainly agree. I don't have a "controversy" about the sketches. My post was to inform, again, that only 2 witnesses, not several, had imput for the sketches and neither wanted to do them. The defense specifically wants to go after those witnesses for the sketches.
We hope they are protected from that.

'From the transcript, Lt Holeman, page 4
that is a sketch made by Sarah Carbaugh’s description of what she saw; correct? A Yes. Q And sketch 2 is what Betsy Blair – the description she gave of the person

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[Caylee Advocate]

In my own, personal opinion, If I’m a juror, I’m going to wonder how and why, if a SA was the motive, but RA was interrupted, he took the time to redress Abby and stage the crime scene the way it was staged. If he was interrupted, wouldn’t he have just high-tailed it out of there? This my opinion.

As always, JMO IMO MOOOO

Agree, I am curious as to what was at that scene (besides a naked victim and a "re-dressed victim) that made anyone think it was a sexually motivated crime? How could they know the perp was interrupted?

I sincerely hope that this was NOT the case, and the girls were undressed to keep them from running. With that said, it is my opinion it was a form of humiliation and sending a message to someone whom the murderer felt wronged them/ ALL JUST MY OPINION.

I am also interested in this newly disclosed "HAIR" evidence.

 

[Vaderman]

Nobody is saying that the sketches need to match the suspect in order to find him guilty, they were an integral part of the investigation and bring in to question the eyewitness accounts. Trying to exclude them is ridiculous imo.

I suppose this is the first case where I've really gotten into the weeds of the events leading up to a trial, but is it normal for both sides to try to kneecap each other as much seems to be occurring in this case? It's not making me feel confident in the prosecution's strength of evidence against Allen.

 

[Melted]

I suppose this is the first case where I've really gotten into the weeds of the events leading up to a trial, but is it normal for both sides to try to kneecap each other as much seems to be occurring in this case? It's not making me feel confident in the prosecution's strength of evidence against Allen.

Yes that’s the goal of defense and prosecution pre trial. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen it at these levels though.

Moo

 

[Vern]

Nobody is saying that the sketches need to match the suspect in order to find him guilty, they were an integral part of the investigation and bring in to question the eyewitness accounts. Trying to exclude them is ridiculous imo.

Or, IMO, it's also entirely possible that when these witnesses saw the video that was released on the 15th February 2017, they saw it and went, "OMG - that's the guy I saw/passed!" due to the clothing he was wearing and thus came forward. The sketches then came later IMO and therefore the sketches would neither diminish nor impeach their initial identification of the BG they saw/passed/observed on 13 February 2017.

The same BG who placed himself at the scene of the crime, at the time of the crimes and in same clothing as BG was porting on his person that day (and captured on video).

 

[Trebor5591]

4 (or 5) alternates seems like too few.

It would be terrible if the trial falls apart over jury number.

Jmo

I agree!

 

[renah]

I certainly agree. I don't have a "controvery" about the sketches. My post was to inform, again, that only 2 witnesses, not several, had imput for the sketches and neither wanted to do them. The defense specifically wants to go after those witnesses for the sketches.
We hope they are protected from that.

Who says neither one of them wanted to do it? Besides the recent prosecution filing, I mean.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I strongly disagree, forensics can tell the difference between a piece of fiber and a hair. Given the fact that it’s not connected to RA that would mean they got a dna profile from it to rule it out as his.

Bob Motta says the hair is human.

How does he know? Does he have access to evidence to this case. Where is he getting access to lab results?

 

[sunshineray]

The second sketch came out because the witness who provided it was upset that it hadn't been used. I believe it was quite some time later that SHE approached LE and it was at her insistence that they finally made "her" sketch public. I'm not sure how that jibes with the P saying that both sketch witnesses were reluctant.

This information was in the much-bemoaned Frank's memo, so take it as you will. However IMO it's one of those things (similar to guard tattoos & patches, and the interview room tray slot) that simply can't be made up or exaggerated for effect. That's why it still stands out in my mind.

Is there a link for BB doing that? TIA

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Do you have a source to link for this statement above? The keeping these witnesses off the stand bit? Where's that coming from/what are you basing it on? Or is it strictly your opinion too?

I haven't seen the witness lists actually uploaded yet.

I have seen the motion to have the sketches excluded, but certainly haven't seen anything to prohibit the calling of these eye witnesses to testify as to the clothing the BG was wearing nor their relating it to being similar to the clothing seen in the girls' video.

I said nothing about keeping them off the stand, I said I think the prosecution would like them not to be grilled about the sketches. They would still be able to testify to what they saw if the sketches are exluded. I thought I already gave a link to the transcripts from the 3 day hearing. Go to page 4 of Lt Holeman

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[SouthEnd]

The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen on Trial: Jury Selection: Day Two

We are at the Allen County Courthouse in Fort Wayne, Indiana for the second day of jury selection in the Richard Allen trial. Support The Murder Sheet by...

murdersheetpodcast.com

Ok the MS is back and in the first 5 mins they offer clarification for AB's moment of standing behind RA and asking the potential juror's to contemplate that he might not be guilty:

NM objected and JG ruled it was jury conditioning and forbid it.

A lot of context for everything that has been coming through the tweets today, I would recommend a listen - MOO

 

[TTF14]

Is there a link for BB doing that? TIA

As stated in the OP, it’s in the first Franks memo.

As always, JMO.

 

[Ravenmoon]

That hair in Abby’s hand is going to be an absolute nightmare for the prosecution.

MOO

I really don't see how.
If it was the smoking gun that will exonerate RA the Defense would have written it in neon on all 5 of the Franks Memorandums.


JMO