IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #166

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back in April 2019, when the YBG sketch came out and we found out it had been drawn only a few days after the murder, one of my initial questions was if maybe the reason LE didn't go with the younger sketch first was because the source of that sketch was unreliable for some reason, like a child, a known drug addict, something like that.

Looking at it now, I feel like BB's descriptions of both the vehicle and the man on the bridge are the outliers. A smaller SUV-type dark vehicle was seen in the CPS lot at 2:10 and again at 2:28. A similar vehicle was seen driving west past HH at 1:27, which LE says was likely RA's Ford Focus. All of those descriptions can be argued to be the same car, IMO. But then suddenly you have a not black '65 Comet right in the middle of those other descriptions, at 2:14. BB's description of the vehicle doesn't match the others.

Then you have three juveniles with only slightly varying descriptions of the man they saw. The one who claimed to see his face described more of a middle-aged man with gray hair. The other described the same clothing as the man in the bridge video. BB, meanwhile, described a young slender man with poofy brown hair. Doesn't match.

It seems to me that BB was, perhaps, not as reliable with her descriptions when in comparison to the other witnesses. I can see LE leaving her non-matching statements out of the PCA, because they really only used her to support the timeline AND put a man on scene only minutes before L and A arrived at the bridge.

That still doesn't explain why LE decided to change to her sketch in 2019. But since RA's arrest, the sketches have been vaguely hinted at being one in the same man by DC. JMO. I have trouble with that.

And why, for so long, through both sketches, did LE have reddish-brown hair in the suspect description? That doesn't match what any of the witnesses said, ASAIK. I always thought there might have been hair left at the CS, but it doesn't make sense. JMO.
Don’t forget “NOT blue eyes”. Such a confusing hot mess.
 
If I am called by any company, they warn “the case may be recorded for safety purposes”.

If someone records or tapes the conversation of an attorney with the clients, there should be a special form signed by the parties before. Pretty extensive. IMO.
They saw see the camera recording and there was never any audio recording of their meetings.
 
Don't think they can lie about what somebody said in a deposition. The only question is if and what they might have left out.
Willful misrepresentation is lying. Mistake is one thing, willfulness is something else. Shaping a narrative by omitting something or shading a perception is common, but that, too, is an act of deliberateness. I often think about the squid squirting ink into the water as it is trying to get away. Deception is a lot more common than we like to think. How many times in testimony to Congress do we hear partial truth? It's everywhere, even in law.
 
I was wondering about this - if there is so little evidence against their client, then why are they not just racing to trial screaming that an innocent man is wasting away in jail, and will SUE the system once his innocence is proven??

I think the defense knows that LE DOES have something that ties RA to the scene. Funny neither side has really told us what that something is yet, aside the bullet supposedly from RA's gun that he never loaned out....and witness statements.
Yeah, like their client freely confessing 5 times over the phone to his wife and mother. Man, that had to hurt.
 
As the defence lied about Click and the FBI BAU’s findings, no other untruths would surprise me. Did the RA’s attorneys even read the memorandum — I’m very curious about who actually wrote it on their behalf and therefore, who the disclosure is being shared with.

“…..Additionally, according to the filing, Click included in his letter to prosecutors “the Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU) of the FBI determined that the individual(s) responsible for the homicides were involved in Nordic beliefs.”…”
 
My guess would be that since the girls were found on RL'S property, RL was probably still being looked at.

Other than that, I have no idea.

JMO
It was more than that, IMO. RL asked his cousin to lie about his whereabouts on that day. I have posted about that extensively in previous threads.

Here is one such post so I'm not reinventing the wheel.


Looks like I have more than 1 pageful of search results with the word alibi in them for this case. One is above, if you want more of my posts talking about RL in relation to this case, search for the word alibi (everywhere, not just this thread as they are old posts in previous threads) by me.

1695592206491.png
 
I didn't see the original pleading. What was the Defense's Memo of Ps & As attached to?

Sounds like the Defense is making more than one claim--or else they've wrapped up everything in their grand, conspiracy theory. Their Memorandum may cover multiple claims.
The Defense Memorandum was in support of the Franks Motion hearing coming up. They have to find a way to squash what was found during the SW's.

IMO
 
No. He wasn't just playing pool.
He was literally jumping up and down.
Bouncing.
Respectfully, I have some limited mobility. I could shoot pool and jump around after a nice shot, but no way could I haul the bodies of two teenagers around and murder them both by myself.

And I am 6 inches taller than RA.
 
Whohoo, forget the courts, let’s go for trial by media! <intended shark>

BBM

“……The defense says investigators ignored the 12-page Odin Report, which details four possible suspects and their role in a pagan religion called Odinism.

As News 18 reported, Allen's attorneys say the crime scene resembled the "ghoulish" aftermath of a ritual "chalked full of cult involvement," including so-called runes in the form of sticks and branches deliberately arranged on the bodies of Abigail Williams and Liberty German and the letter "F" painted on a tree with German's blood……”

……Next week, News 18 will tell you about each of their alibis, when they talked to police and how detectives reportedly ruled them out….”
Omg. Calling someone guilty BEFORE they receive a trial? How awful!!!!!
 
Willful misrepresentation is lying. Mistake is one thing, willfulness is something else. Shaping a narrative by omitting something or shading a perception is common, but that, too, is an act of deliberateness. I often think about the squid squirting ink into the water as it is trying to get away. Deception is a lot more common than we like to think. How many times in testimony to Congress do we hear partial truth? It's everywhere, even in law.

I didn't say they left anything out, I just said we don't know. And no, they can't just lie in the memo, so I'm sure Holeman said that, but yes, they can leave things out. They can interpret things like the crime scene (wonder if they talked to an expert?), that wouldn't be lying either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
1,419
Total visitors
1,574

Forum statistics

Threads
599,298
Messages
18,094,132
Members
230,841
Latest member
FastRayne
Back
Top