Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182

[girlhasnoname]

LE (on all levels) don't have to tell me anything. Sure, they can mislead me, keep me in the dark, treat us all like idiots. But after you behave like that, don't turn around and expect me to trust you.

I appreciate that sentiment layer, but this case is not about us, or how they treat us, or whether they care if we the public likes or trusts the decisions they've made. I knew these couple of weeks were going to be hard.

This case is about Abby & Libby and putting their monstrous killer behind bars where he deserves to be for the rest of his sick and miserable life.

Also for their families that they may have one tiny step towards healing, and I am okay with that.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Anybody who was questioned in the first week or two. Why does the State want the geofence data excluded? What are they afraid it will show?

The State isn't seeking to preclude all the geofencing data; they are seeking legal limits to what the Defense can do with that data and are asking the Court to limit the Defense to data that is relevant only.

For argument's sake, let's say a tower dump over four hours yields 400 numbers. 300 of those numbers were one point in time, associated with drivers passing along a nearby highway. Let's say 75 of the numbers belonged to searchers. 25 fall in a range of relevancy and of those only a few are most relevant. IMO the State is asking for Defense to be prevented from presenting irrelevant testimony relative to 375+ returns.

Every trial has boundaries or they'd be endless. You can't present every single minute of an investigation or every lead that didn't pan out.

IMO the State isn't attempting to clip the Defense's wings; rather, they're alerting the Court to issues in advance in the hopes of conducting a tidy trial. Something not unique to this trial. It's how it's done.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Totally, It is a standard safety and logistics protocol. Murder defendants are not escorted into the Judge's chambers for a hearing.

If the D really wanted the Judge to hear from RA directly they shouldn't have withdrawn as counsel and instead went to the open court hearing at 2 p.m. where the Judge could have safely and on the record heard from RA. Of course, they chose not to do that.

MOO

I did not know the part I highlighted or I wouldn't made that statement. I googled: "Can a murder suspect accompany his attorney into the judge's chambers" and I didn't really find what I was looking for.

Do you have a link specific to Indiana?

 

[photographer4]

I appreciate that sentiment layer, but this case is not about us, or how they treat us, or whether they care if we the public likes or trusts the decisions they've made. I knew these couple of weeks were going to be hard.

This case is about Abby & Libby and putting their monstrous killer behind bars where he deserves to be for the rest of his sick and miserable life.

Also for their families that they may have one tiny step towards healing, and I am okay with that.

JMO

This case is just as much about RA as anyone else you mentioned given that he is the one standing accused and on trial. I hope for his sake, and the sake of all the people involved on all sides including the loved ones of the girls and of RA that LE got this right. I hope for everyone's sake that LE got this right and he was the sole killer and that they're able to prove their case BARD. Because if they are wrong, or they fail to prove it, I cannot imagine what turmoil that may leave all involved in going forward.

 

[Salah11]

This case is just as much about RA as anyone else you mentioned given that he is the one standing accused and on trial. I hope for his sake, and the sake of all the people involved on all sides including the loved ones of the girls and of RA that LE got this right. I hope for everyone's sake that LE got this right and he was the sole killer and that they're able to prove their case BARD. Because if they are wrong, or they fail to prove it, I cannot imagine what turmoil that may leave all involved in going forward.

No matter what some will refuse to believe RA has done it. You get this with every case that for some reason some members of society refuse to believe the truth even when these people are found guilty.

Personally as long as he is found guilty and the family can get some relief from this pain and move forward and they are happy I won’t care what a few naysayers think. Ultimately I want justice for them and that’s why I am so invested.


MOOO

 

[Niner]

So.... after a few hundred posts - no hearing date yet?? I saw the motion for request for one! Hopefully soon!

only 13 days before trial!!

 

[FrostedGlass]

No matter what some will refuse to believe RA has done it. You get this with every case that for some reason some members of society refuse to believe the truth even when these people are found guilty.

Personally as long as he is found guilty and the family can get some relief from this pain and move forward and they are happy I won’t care what a few naysayers think. Ultimately I want justice for them and that’s why I am so invested.


MOOO

A guilty verdict does not always equal the truth. Sometimes people are wrongfully convicted. They spend years and years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

It's sometimes a really good thing that people refuse to believe the "truth." IMO

 

[Emma Peel]

I've always had a problem with the State's BG-did-it timeline (evidentiarily). (Even the State early on allows for accomplices in this timeline.)

There's no excuse and no polite words for the State's withholding of this Libby phone ping information from the Defense - if this is the case.

(I think we (sleuthers) unofficially had heard of a long time of no-pings until finally some delayed pings from Libby's phone. (Through unofficial sources, like family's social media?)

I've been surprised the Defense had not previously brought forward the late pings in support of their theory. I wondered if the social media/unofficial info on late pings was perhaps inaccurate.

The forensic info given the public - that "the bodies were moved and staged" - has been known for awhile. IMO, Re-thinking the timeline around the final ping report, and the understanding that the bodies were moved and staged, opens alternate timelines. And opens the possible suspect pool.

It seems to me the State's case timeline does not consider these late phone pings. Given the State had this ping info all along ... I'm unsure why the State chose to lock itself into a timeline as to when and where the victims were murdered. But that's what they've seem to have done here. And that may prove to be a key weakness in the State's case. We'll see.

JMHO

 

[FrostedGlass]

So.... after a few hundred posts - no hearing date yet?? I saw the motion for request for one! Hopefully soon!

only 13 days before trial!!

Well, I don't know if we should get excited or not. Will she even set a date for one?

 

[Salah11]

A guilty verdict does not always equal the truth. Sometimes people are wrongfully convicted. They spend years and years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

It's sometimes a really good thing that people refuse to believe the "truth." IMO

For sure but those are few and far between. Most of the time the right decision is made imo.

 

[Emma Peel]

A guilty verdict does not always equal the truth. Sometimes people are wrongfully convicted. They spend years and years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

It's sometimes a really good thing that people refuse to believe the "truth." IMO

An important consequence of not inviting RA to chambers is that RA had no knowledge of the chamber proceeding where, without a hearing where RA could be present (and be heard), the Court Hobson-choice-removed his counsel.

IIRC, this critical fact (RA's right to know and be heard on this) was not missed by the SCOIN.

JMHO

 

[10ofRods]

I've often wondered why she was not comfortable with the thought of having him in her office. RA was surrounded with big, burly LE (carrying guns?) and he was leg shackled and his arms were somehow shackled to his body. I think the chances of him physically harming her would have been very, very low. IMO

People often have personal items in their offices, and a Judge typically leaves their robe in an antechamber. They are in normal civilian dress.

I can see how the Court would feel uncomfortable with a murder defendant seeing them in that setting.

She should not even have to think about what types of information can be gleaned from going inside her office. It's always an issue if one has an office that is public-facing. Judges do not want any type of personal connection to the defendant or to the defendant's network of people. She should not have to inconvenience herself and staff to accommodate him going inside her space if she doesn't want to. To me, the psychic intrusion of having an accused murderer see me in my personal space, in civilian clothes, with whatever personal decor might be there, would be significant. I wouldn't even want the criminal defendant to know where I'd gone to uni (most Judges have their diplomas on the wall). Nope, the Judge needs to be appear only in her guise as Judge, in the courtroom, to that defendant. IMO.

The Judge cannot possibly know if RA will be behind bars for the rest of his life, or not.

IMO.

 

[Knitty]

This thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #183