IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are entitled to your opinion and that's what makes these threads interesting... differences of opinions. I respect your thoughts and hopefully you respect mine. ;)

Just me, but I want to hear those "confessions" and hear evidence... not idle words from both sides.


That’s not my opinion.

It’s not idle words this is information from in Court in front of the Judge presentations.

The multiple confessions are a fact which has been confirmed by both sides.


[...]

Prosecutor Nick McLeland said in court Thursday that Richard Allen “confessed five or six times” that he killed best friends Abby Williams and Libby German on remote historic trail in Delphi in February 2017.

“He made multiple confessions to multiple people,” McLeland said on Thursday.

Richard Allen’s defense attorney acknowledged “incriminating statements” made by Allen but attributed the comments to his client’s deteriorating mental state.

“He has made incriminating statements implicating himself in the crime,” said Allen’s defense attorney, Bradley Rozzi.


Prosecutor: Richard Allen ‘confessed 5 or 6 times’ to Delphi murders


The Defense has not mounted a mental health case or had an evaluation done on RA for fit for trial purposes so RA’s mental health appears to be reasonable in light of the situation he has found himself in.

I see no reason not to believe RA’s confession to loved ones during one on one phone conversations.

As long as thoughts follow facts we are within WS TOS, imo.

All imo
 
From the Court TV YT video transcript, which doesn't translate quite as well as it could. IMO
29:30 mm
CT: I mean there's been talk I know a couple things about Richard Allen that I'm not going to say
today, I'm getting a lot of information about I am about another connection to a hunter out
there and...
 
From the Court TV YT video transcript, which doesn't translate quite as well as it could. IMO
29:30 mm
CT: I mean there's been talk I know a couple things about Richard Allen that I'm not going to say
today, I'm getting a lot of information about I am about another connection to a hunter out
there and...


Of course who happened to be on that First platform and dressed identical to BG.

Didn’t RA claim he was looking at stocks on his phone? So he admits being there just before the girls arrived.

All just a happy coincidence of course!!
 
Of course who happened to be on that First platform and dressed identical to BG.

Didn’t RA claim he was looking at stocks on his phone? So he admits being there just before the girls arrived.

All just a happy coincidence of course!!
Yeah... except he said he does not think Richard Allen is the guy on the bridge.

He was watching the fish when he was on the platform.

I have another hunter in mind, who is not RA.
 
But DH never said to the Court that AB had intentionally shared protected discovery with MW. Why not?



I am not that interested in the DQ/sanction aspect - more curious why AB hid the true relationship.

After all, it would be totally OK for AB to have appointed MW as an consultant of some kind and shared the Franks and discovery with him as a team member. Indeed that is apparently what happened!

If MW as team member, then went rogue, and stole/leaked the photos without authorisation - AB is obviously the wronged party

It's baffling to me that he did not disclose this fully from the start. What can explain it?
The sealed ruling on D motion to hire a PI at the outset of the case? Still can’t say if they were granted permission to? That’s the only thing I can think of that makes sense here. I can’t find any info on MW or his case so just a guess on my part.
 
Yeah... except he said he does not think Richard Allen is the guy on the bridge.

He was watching the fish when he was on the platform.

I have another hunter in mind, who is not RA.


Funny how his client admitted it was basically him yet his lawyer somehow knows better. Also who looks at Fish from that high up it’s a pathetic excuse to why he was just stood there when he must of been over 63 ft from the ground. imo
 
Last edited:
Funny how his client admitted it was basically him yet his lawyer somehow knows better. Also who looks at Fish from that high up it’s a pathetic excuse to why he was just stood there imo.
How big are the fish in the creek? They must be huge if they can be observed from 60+ feet above the creek bed :rolleyes: ;)
 
How big are the fish in the creek? They must be huge if they can be observed from 60+ feet above the creek bed :rolleyes: ;)
Catfish, carp, suckers, etc can get pretty big.
Fish will often come to the surface if it's warmer.
Catfish are apparently big enough to make a fishing trip worthwhile.
This is a screen cap from the GH video, where the caller tells GH about seeing a vehicle parked along the road by the trails. He described it as being similar to what the Saturday catfishers drive.

Cat Fishing GHR.jpg
 
Catfish, carp, suckers, etc can get pretty big.
Fish will often come to the surface if it's warmer.
Catfish are apparently big enough to make a fishing trip worthwhile.
This is a screen cap from the GH video, where the caller tells GH about seeing a vehicle parked along the road by the trails. He described it as being similar to what the Saturday catfishers drive.

View attachment 479897
all of which are known to enjoy hiding and hanging out in muddy waters. Mud would cut visibility, particularly from a height of in excess of 60 feet. JMO

I get that your mileage may vary but I know mine and it isn't going to change.
 
all of which are known to enjoy hiding and hanging out in muddy waters. Mud would cut visibility, particularly from a height of in excess of 60 feet. JMO

I get that your mileage may vary but I know mine and it isn't going to change.


Not forgetting that eyesight deteriorates as we age and he was over 40 when he likely committed these atrocities. So i would love to know what his vision was then.

MOO

 
But DH never said to the Court that AB had intentionally shared protected discovery with MW. Why not?



I am not that interested in the DQ/sanction aspect - more curious why AB hid the true relationship.

After all, it would be totally OK for AB to have appointed MW as an consultant of some kind and shared the Franks and discovery with him as a team member. Indeed that is apparently what happened!

If MW as team member, then went rogue, and stole/leaked the photos without authorisation - AB is obviously the wronged party


It's baffling to me that he did not disclose this fully from the start. What can explain it?
RBBM above.

Agree w/ the BBM above; this has been my take/understanding all along. JMHO
Is there a concern that the D has a formal obligation to disclose their use of a consultant?
I imagine the D has used and will use many consultants/experts.

I'm wondering which rule would control such an obligation?

(Discovery rules include deadlines for announcing experts who will testify.)

JMHO
 
Funny. RA didn't say he saw any hunters. Must have about tripped on him when they passed each other on the bridge.

Unless RA split into two.... his stock market self and his hunter self....

Not buying what that attorney is selling.

JMO
 
Last edited:
Funny. RA didn't say he saw any hunters. Must have about tripped on him when they passed each other on the bridge.

Unless RA split into two.... his stock market self and his hunter self....

Not buying what that attorney's is selling.

JMO

Just as clarification, Lebrato did not mention hunters.

The Court TV format for the Lebrato interview included chopping up Lebrato's interview with opining panelists.

One of the panelists eluded to a number of unsupported alternate theories - among these, he said something about currently running down rumors he's heard about a hunting theory.

IMO - the panelists on this episode seemed weak choices offering irrelevant commentary.

FWIW and JMHO
 
Just as clarification, Lebrato did not mention hunters.

The Court TV format for the Lebrato interview included chopping up Lebrato's interview with opining panelists.

One of the panelists eluded to a number of unsupported alternate theories - among these, he said something about currently running down rumors he's heard about a hunting theory.

IMO - the panelists on this episode seemed weak choices offering irrelevant commentary.

FWIW and JMHO
I agree. BMcD deserved to have her own time to discuss the interview, IMO.
 
thank you for this article. some of the comments by former defense attorney LeBrato that stood out to me:

ABOUT ODINIST THEORY:
There are people that follow this Odin religion,” he said. “There are people that were very brazen at the time of the murders on their Facebook accounts about being part of this Odinistic cult. Whether they’re responsible, I don’t know. I don’t want to get into what our legal defense theory would’ve been because I don’t want to hinder the current attorneys.”
ABOUT RA:
“He’s always very respectful to us in our meetings with him,” Lebrato said. “I think he’s not guilty or innocent because I believe the presumption of innocence is one of the most important legal theories that we have. That presumption of innocence carries with him through every stage of the trial, until the jury has heard all the evidence, including closing arguments, and until they deliberate. That presumption of innocence follows him the whole way.”
ABOUT Judge Gull:

Lebrato thinks highly of Special Judge Fran Gull. He’s practiced law in front of Gull for more than two decades and believes she can be impartial, despite calls from the defense to have her removed from the proceedings.
“Judge Gull knows no other way than to be fair,” he said. “She does not play favorites. The Supreme Court didn’t pick her name out of a hat. They chose her for a specific reason. In their ruling, they unanimously voted that Judge Gull stays on this case.”

He said her “ethical and moral standards” were beyond reproach.
 
thank you for this article. some of the comments by former defense attorney LeBrato that stood out to me:

ABOUT ODINIST THEORY:
There are people that follow this Odin religion,” he said. “There are people that were very brazen at the time of the murders on their Facebook accounts about being part of this Odinistic cult. Whether they’re responsible, I don’t know. I don’t want to get into what our legal defense theory would’ve been because I don’t want to hinder the current attorneys.”
ABOUT RA:
“He’s always very respectful to us in our meetings with him,” Lebrato said. “I think he’s not guilty or innocent because I believe the presumption of innocence is one of the most important legal theories that we have. That presumption of innocence carries with him through every stage of the trial, until the jury has heard all the evidence, including closing arguments, and until they deliberate. That presumption of innocence follows him the whole way.”
ABOUT Judge Gull:

Lebrato thinks highly of Special Judge Fran Gull. He’s practiced law in front of Gull for more than two decades and believes she can be impartial, despite calls from the defense to have her removed from the proceedings.
“Judge Gull knows no other way than to be fair,” he said. “She does not play favorites. The Supreme Court didn’t pick her name out of a hat. They chose her for a specific reason. In their ruling, they unanimously voted that Judge Gull stays on this case.”

He said her “ethical and moral standards” were beyond reproach.
Yes, and I thought it was interesting that he said the part you highlighted "I think he's not guilty or innocent because I believe the presumption of innocene is one of the most important legal theories that we have.....

He didn't say he thought RA was innocent. He said what any Defense Attorney should say.

I highly appreciate that he shared his positive thoughts about Judge Gull. That means something to me, he could have said nothing at all.

MOO
 
Yes, and I thought it was interesting that he said the part you highlighted "I think he's not guilty or innocent because I believe the presumption of innocene is one of the most important legal theories that we have.....

He didn't say he thought RA was innocent. He said what any Defense Attorney should say.

I highly appreciate that he shared his positive thoughts about Judge Gull. That means something to me, he could have said nothing at all.

MOO
yes, some articles seem to suggest he is convinced RA is innocent and also convinced of the Odinistic cult ritual killing and later conspiracy against RA theory. But his actual words do not seem to convey that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
221
Guests online
1,809
Total visitors
2,030

Forum statistics

Threads
599,820
Messages
18,099,967
Members
230,933
Latest member
anyclimate3010
Back
Top