IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #167

[steeltowngirl]

What the Public Defender MS interviewed was getting at is that the 1.30-3.30 pm note is the contemporaneous record. Sure you can attack it at trial. e.g why wasn't it on tape, other mistakes in the note... but at the end of the day, to dispute the time, only RA can do this

The prosecution meanwhile will call the note taker, and point to multiple corroborating data points as to the noted time being correct.

Wow. I am always learning something new on here. I thought it was rare for defendants to testify. It’s not!

About 50% of defendants generally testify in their own criminal trials, according to Jeffrey Bellin, a William & Mary Law School professor and jury researcher.

From Ghislaine Maxwell to Kim Potter, It's the Risk Every Defendant Weighs

Several high-profile defendants have opted to testify in their own defense lately, with mixed results. There are several factors to consider before putting a defendant on the witness stand

time.com

 

[TL4S]

Yes; on second thought, though, she surely would have noticed if there were strange ones mixed in with hers.

But still, I'm surprised undergarments weren't on the list of items to search for. Why would they leave missing items off?

Wasn't "clothing" one of the items? I can't remember for sure. That would cover pretty much everything though, imo.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Wasn't "clothing" one of the items? I can't remember for sure. That would cover pretty much everything though, imo.

You're right. I guess I was looking for something more specific.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes; on second thought, though, she surely would have noticed if there were strange ones mixed in with hers.

But still, I'm surprised undergarments weren't on the list of items to search for. Why would they leave missing items off?

Maybe the Mrs.'s didn't remotely match anything they found?

 

[Falling Down]

What the Public Defender MS interviewed was getting at is that the 1.30-3.30 pm note is the contemporaneous record. Sure you can attack it at trial. e.g why wasn't it on tape, other mistakes in the note... but at the end of the day, to dispute the time, only RA can do this

The prosecution meanwhile will call the note taker, and point to multiple corroborating data points as to the noted time being correct.

I've maintained since early on they have to put the perp at the CS. CS in this case is a fairly large, outdoor area. LE have alluded to this on different occasions, in this case.

He admitted to being there for roughly two hours. Additionally, the PCA claims there's evidence RA was in and near the CS from roughly 1:30 PM to roughly 3:50 PM.

Just throwing this out there, I'd say it would be difficult for him to take the stand and try to explain away facts in the case. As well as explain what he was up to for over two hours, in what is for all intents a relatively small area. An area easily walkable for most adults, where I've observed adults spending a half-hour, maybe 45 minutes, tops, in.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

IMO RA won't take the stand.

He has no defense.

What he has is a defense attorney. Who is required to pull out all the stops. The system requires it.

Jmo

 

[TL4S]

You're right. I guess I was looking for something more specific.

I think the D wanted something more specific, too. It was the same thing for RL affidavit. One of the girls' missing undergarments is mentioned, but not listed as something specific in the SWs. I wonder why?

 

[mrjitty]

IMO RA won't take the stand.

He has no defense.

What he has is a defense attorney. Who is required to pull out all the stops. The system requires it.

Jmo

I don’t know if he will or not.

The point more was that the timeline is a huge problem for the defence and they have no way to counter it if he doesn’t.

Especially as far as PC goes the evidence puts him at the crime scene and it’s very hard to overcome the Search warrant pre trial.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I don’t know if he will or not.

The point more was that the timeline is a huge problem for the defence and they have no way to counter it if he doesn’t.

Especially as far as PC goes the evidence puts him at the crime scene and it’s very hard to overcome the Search warrant pre trial.

Trying to picture how this would go.

Defense: Mr. Allen, were you on or near the Monon High bridge on 2/13/17 after 1:30 pm?

RA: No

Prosecution on Cross: Mr Allen, where were you on 2/13/17 after 1:30 pm?

RA: I can’t recall.

 

[TL4S]

Trying to picture how this would go.

Defense: Mr. Allen, were you on or near the Monon High bridge on 2/13/17 after 1:30 pm?

RA: No

Prosecution on Cross: Mr Allen, where were you on 2/13/17 after 1:30 pm?

RA: I can’t recall.

He said he was on his phone, and while I know there aren't many towers in the area, if the FBI could place RL near his property (per affidavit), then I would imagine they could place RA's phone at the trails vs at his house, or at the very least, show him traveling (think Molly Tibbetts trial). Jmo. I think phone records might hopefully be more useful evidence than a back and forth with RA on the stand. Jmo.

 

[sunshineray]

Taken together, it's possible he racked the slide twice. One bullet landed on the ground, the other he found.

If the unspent but cycled bullet matches the bullet (perhaps also cycled but unspent, from the same gun on the same day), that might not be a smoking gun. But it very well could be a smoking bullet. Matching striations. Strong circumstsntial evidence further linking the crime and the defendant.

JMO

I never thought of that. If he did pick up one but missed another then reinserted the one he found into the clip, those two bullets could be a very good match.

I can't wait to see testimony about these ballistics, though I'd much rather RA take a life plea and spare the families a trial.

 

[sunshineray]

Trying to picture how this would go.

Defense: Mr. Allen, were you on or near the Monon High bridge on 2/13/17 after 1:30 pm?

RA: No

Prosecution on Cross: Mr Allen, where were you on 2/13/17 after 1:30 pm?

RA: I can’t recall.

I would say to that...which is it Mr. Allen..."No" or "I can't recall"? And then a lot more cross examination of a hostile witness would ensue. He'll never take the stand. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

He said he was on his phone, and while I know there aren't many towers in the area, if the FBI could place RL near his property (per affidavit), then I would imagine they could place RA's phone at the trails vs at his house, or at the very least, show him traveling (think Molly Tibbetts trial). Jmo. I think phone records might hopefully be useful evidence instead of a back and forth with RA on the stand. Jmo.

Unless "his" phone is nowhere on the tower dump and there's a number not identified that's tracked to the bridge area. But innuendo is not fact for the prosecution's case. If RA went to the trails hunting a victim I doubt he brought his known phone. AJMO

 

[TL4S]

Unless "his" phone is nowhere on the tower dump and there's a number not identified that's tracked to the bridge area. But innuendo is not fact for the prosecution's case. If RA went to the trails hunting a victim I doubt he brought his known phone. AJMO

Honestly, it was surprising to me that he made a claim about being on his phone. The CO took down his phone identification information. If it ends up his phone was sitting idle at home the whole time, when RA said he'd been on it at the trails, that will be suspicious too. Jmo.

 

[Bergmann]

the timeline is a huge problem for the defence

You've said that a few times.

I see it differently. It is the prosecution's job to nail their own timeline not RA. The P will present a narrative and timeline and then they have to underpin that will significant evidence.

I think the timeline is going to be a bigger problem for P. Also their most credible witness is the CO who cannot find his recording.

The rest are to going to face a tough cross.

No way is RA going near the stand. He looks a mess, there's no way if he was my client he is in a fit state to do that.

 

[schooling]

You've said that a few times.

I see it differently. It is the prosecution's job to nail their own timeline not RA. The P will present a narrative and timeline and then they have to underpin that will significant evidence.

I think the timeline is going to be a bigger problem for P. Also their most credible witness is the CO who cannot find his recording.

The rest are to going to face a tough cross.

No way is RA going near the stand. He looks a mess, there's no way if he was my client he is in a fit state to do that.

Prosecutors most credible witness is RA himself in his two prior interviews with LE. Even if he doesn't take the stand his statements to police are likely covered under Federal Rule of evidence 801 which covers hearsay exclusion. Specifically party-opponent statements.

Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

www.law.cornell.edu

Without RA taking the stand to add additional context to those statements. They will go largely unchallenged and be used by the prosecution to corroborate other pieces of evidence along the timeline.

Never mind what may have been captured on the reported recorded confessions to his wife. Which if found admissible, might also provide corroboration for the timeline.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Honestly, it was surprising to me that he made a claim about being on his phone. The CO took down his phone identification information. If it ends up his phone was sitting idle at home the whole time, when RA said he'd been on it at the trails, that will be suspicious too. Jmo.

Good point about his phone. If phone records did somehow place his real phone at home, then he either used a different phone that he didn’t disclose, or he lied about being on a phone.

It will be interesting to hear if defense offers up RA’s whereabouts after 1:30 pm. They may simply say he had left the bridge, and leave it at that.

Maybe he was home making construction paper valentines and watching General Hospital.

 

[mrjitty]

You've said that a few times.

I see it differently. It is the prosecution's job to nail their own timeline not RA. The P will present a narrative and timeline and then they have to underpin that will significant evidence.

I think the timeline is going to be a bigger problem for P. Also their most credible witness is the CO who cannot find his recording.

The rest are to going to face a tough cross.

No way is RA going near the stand. He looks a mess, there's no way if he was my client he is in a fit state to do that.

The prosecution have the following evidence establishing a 1.30 pm entrance time

1. The contemporaneous note recording entrance time 1.30pm
2. The witness who took the note
3. The 3 girls see a man resembling RA at 1.30
4. Digital evidence confirms the girls sighting of the man was at approx 1.30
5. RA corroborates seeing the 3 girls - therefore we know who they saw - it was RA
6. Security footage of a car resembling RAs car just before 1.30

How can the defence contest this?

All they have is RAs interview years later claiming a different time which can't physically be correct.

I agree they could run a passive defence where they seek to pick holes in the timeline, but the will always lose on the 1.30pm point IMO and that spells disaster.

 

[Bergmann]

The prosecution have the following evidence establishing a 1.30 pm entrance time

1. The contemporaneous note recording entrance time 1.30pm
2. The witness who took the note
3. The 3 girls see a man resembling RA at 1.30
4. Digital evidence confirms the girls sighting of the man was at approx 1.30
5. RA corroborates seeing the 3 girls - therefore we know who they saw - it was RA
6. Security footage of a car resembling RAs car just before 1.30

How can the defence contest this?

All they have is RAs interview years later claiming a different time which can't physically be correct.

I agree they could run a passive defence where they seek to pick holes in the timeline, but the will always lose on the 1.30pm point IMO and that spells disaster.

1.30pm isn't necessarily the issue is it?

The girls were alleged to have been kidnapped at c 2.15pm. Doesn't the state have to place the perp at the Monon High Bridge at that time? At the very least show that RAs car is still present at/ beyond that time?

I'm hoping that there is some cell tower evidence that can confirm RA entering and exiting the trails at specific times. Maybe something on RAs phone which is contemporaneous with the 2.15pm timing.

Depends what standard of evidence people are looking for.

 

[mrjitty]

1.30pm isn't necessarily the issue is it?

The girls were alleged to have been kidnapped at c 2.15pm. Doesn't the state have to place the perp at the Monon High Bridge at that time? At the very least show that RAs car is still present at/ beyond that time?

I'm hoping that there is some cell tower evidence that can confirm RA entering and exiting the trails at specific times. Maybe something on RAs phone which is contemporaneous with the 2.15pm timing.

Depends what standard of evidence people are looking for.

I don't have time to discuss the full timeline which I've done in previous threads, but if the state shows he entered the trails at 1.30 then they are some way to proving that his 1.30-3.30 pm statement is more accurate than his 12.00-1.30 claim. This leads to an inference he is now lying.

The MS podcast argument was that this starts getting quite problematic for the defence as they have no way to produce a different timeline unless RA testifies.