Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #199

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #301
I know that if I was a juror about to be sequestered, I’d want the trial to start right away - not be sworn in at 9:00am and sent to the hotel for the next 24 hours.

Checking them all in, explaining all the rules, logistics, etc. will take a while. Perhaps it would all be done by mid-afternoon, but that's too late for opening statements. Best to start fresh in the morning.

As always, JMO.
 
  • #302
So I've spent months trying to catch up from taking some time off in May and still didn't quite make it all the way. However I'm going to post some of my thoughts, observations, questions, and general points to ponder (all MOO) before the trial gets going full steam. Below is Part I of what could be quite a few, depending on time.

I've now concluded RA is guilty at least in some role, which of course makes him guilty in whole of what he's charged of. Still, I am concerned IMO the evidence in this cases still raises a number of questions and is not the slam dunk pro-prosecution folks think it will be.

"Between 130-330"
While we don't know from what we've seen of DD's interview (which I believe was during the Missing Persons stage of the investigation/pre-homicide) - whether the notes are complete and un-snipped/un-altered, I lean towards thinking that absent any recording available or more detail not yet presented on what the questions were and/or any assumptions made, this encounter will be of minimal value.

Doubt will quickly creep in that the notes don't say he arrived at 130 and left at 330 - only "on the trails between 1330-1530". Hypothetically IMO DD could've lead the interview asking RA to confirm his presence on the trails anytime within that time parameter. RA could've offered to meet with DD saying he indeed was on the trails at some point within the range LE was asking people to come forward. We don't know and seven years later, it's doubtful that either DD or RA can decisively claim they exactly remember the wording that transpired (especially since DD didn't apparently IMO recall his RA interview only days/weeks later where a man said he was on the trails near bridge exactly when the abduction occurred). If the D were to side-by-side present DD's phrasing here next to DC's 2019 press conference where he asks for help from anyone who saw cars parked near the CPS building "between noon and 5:00" the illustration should be effective as no one IMO reading DC's comment believes he's asking for persons to come forward with info on cars who arrived at noon and left at 5:00 - he simply means if you saw a car anytime between those hours please tell us.

If DD can be questioned as to the accuracy of other parts of these notes, his credibility won't be helped.

RA changing later representations to being on trails 1200-1330
Yes of course it looks suspicious knowing what we know from the 5 years in between DD's 2017 encounter and LE's 2022 interview. However it's plausible even if going with the assumption he DID provide DD the 1:30 arrival and 3:30 departure (especially if he's truly innocent that the details wouldn't stick in his mind so much) that he didn't recall what he'd told DD from 5 years earlier, that he can only remember for sure being there around 1330 which is a part of both date ranges, or that in those 5 years some type of time marker came to his recall that cemented more accurately his time at the trails - something IMO like he later remembered watching the end of a certain tv show at home which ended at 3:00, that the mail truck drove by which always happens on his street between 2:30 and 3:00, being awoken from a nap by a pet right after the stock market closed (4:00 eastern time) etc. any of which would indicate he couldn't have still been at the trails at 3:30.

All in all IMO, this DD interview probably turns into something of minor importance if anything. Should there be other evidence that proves RA was on the trail nearby at the time of the murders, his claim of his times here/there becomes moot.
 
  • #303
If he is, then there should be a public uproar imo! Considering how much this has / will cost the tax payers, who don’t even have access to the trial they’re paying for… they should be mad as heck if the State fails to prove their case Bard and RA is acquitted. To be clear - before anyone comes at me - I am not in any way suggesting any vocal or physical assaults towards the people involved on either side, nor towards the court staff, LE or jurors!! I am only positing that an acquittal should make people mad and in turn should make people really consider arrests more carefully in the future. Mooooo.

This is a public trial.

A public trial is not absolute and judges close or partially close trials like for juveniles or rape or organized crime.

In the US we have the Constitution to define and protect our Rights.

LE and the Courts work within the written law. It’s not to be capricious.

There has to be probable cause of a likely criminal offence established through facts and evidence before an arrest warrant is issued.

As a US taxpayer an acquittal would not make me mad if the jury decides that way. Not thrilled; see Florida Anthony case.

It is not our way in the United States to act in the manner suggested.

In the US paying for a trial does not guarantee the State will win that's not how the Justice system works.

The accused has Rights on acquittal:
>>
If a defendant is found not guilty, the defendant is released and the government may not appeal. The person may not be charged again for the same offense in a federal court. The Constitution prohibits “double jeopardy,” or being tried twice for the same offense.
>>
Criminal Cases

Those mad can attempt to bring about changes for the future through the proper channels as is their Constitutional Right.

The majority of Public Prosecutors and Judges are elected so ones that don’t serve the community well in arrests and convictions can be replaced by citizen vote.

Richard Allen supporters might think about The Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and the First Amendment right to public access both presume that opening criminal proceedings helps ensure their fairness, but there are circumstances in which an accused might consider openness and its attendant publicity to be unfairly prejudicial.


All imo
 
  • #304
^^rsbm

IMO, this debacle with the sketches was one of the biggest disservices done to this investigation. To this date, it makes no sense to me how this was handled. Why ISP could not say Sketch #1 was an error, we have a news on a new suspect -- see Sketch #2, is beyond me...

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/in...-released-new-sketch-in-delphi-investigation/

Agree.

That and the cryptic references to The Shed remain baffling to me.

Whilst I have no love for the DT, this case was a circus, unjustifiably and IMO perhaps harmfully, long before they arrived on the scene.

A trial sensitively, effectively and fairly handled by the judge and attorneys is going to be essential to justice and the families and friends, IMO. I'm almost relieved it's finally starting, vultury as that sounds.

Here's hoping for steady procedure and proper justice. IMO, MOO, etc.
 
  • #305
  • #306
  • #307
  • #308
Pending Motions for JG to rule on today I believe, anything else since the D withdrew their Motion to visit the CS?

State’s Motion in Limine - Sketches

State’s Motion in Limine - IPAS

State’s Motion in Limine- Tobin

Defense’s Response To State’s Motion in Limine-Tobin

Defense’s Motion in Limine Regarding Witnesses Testifying to Defendant’s Mental Health

Motion for Order on Designated Defense Representatives

As always, MOO
 
  • #309
  • #310
  • #311
I’m belatedly finding out who this man is, and I agree he’s a warrior, but not a legal one.

He’s an investigative reporter, so still just media, but he certainly seems dogged.

JMO
A bit too whinging for me. ;)

MOO
 
  • #312
Pending Motions for JG to rule on today I believe, anything else since the D withdrew their Motion to visit the CS?

State’s Motion in Limine - Sketches

State’s Motion in Limine - IPAS

State’s Motion in Limine- Tobin

Defense’s Response To State’s Motion in Limine-Tobin

Defense’s Motion in Limine Regarding Witnesses Testifying to Defendant’s Mental Health

Motion for Order on Designated Defense Representatives

As always, MOO
Judge Gull will issue a ruling on the sketches tomorrow morning.
 
  • #313
I really question why the defense would wait to bring up exculpatory hair evidence not in the Franks motions, not in any other filings, not even in the mini opening on day one of voir dire, but on day two. Why. What part of their strategy for choosing jurors changed overnight from day one to day two. That's the answer for what is going on with the hair in Abby's hand.
IF it truly is a cat hair from RA's dead cat, IMO without telling a big fat one, the defence can say it is not RA's DNA. They've now put that thought into the minds of the jury with the opening statement.
 
  • #314
I am surprised that the jury was choosen so quickly. The mini opening of NM leads me to believe the case is highly circunstancial against RA. He wanted the jury would use their common sense. I think it's strong circuntanciually but we never know that the jury will do. I hope it is a jury that understand circunstancial evidence.
 
  • #315
Judge Gull will issue a ruling on the sketches tomorrow morning.

So if JG rules in favor of the State, will the State then move to have the witnesses (who provided info. for the sketches) barred from testifying too?

As always, JMO (or, in this case, JMQ).
 
  • #316
Part II of my catch-up journey observations. As said earlier, I am in the RA=guilty camp though believe there could be others in addition to him.

Camera at the Hoosier Harvestore
The Hoosier Harvestore camera near the trails has been often used as timestamp evidence for various cases to be made. All of KG, BB, SC and a car resembling one of RA's were spotted by this camera. While helpful in a general sense as to times in play, IMO it's meaningful to note as we nitpick over detailed by-the-minute times which have become quite important in this case that the camera (despite being near the Mears parking lot, the MHB, the CPS building, cemetary, etc.), obviously only notes what time the vehicle(s) passed the camera going in a certain direction - and we can only either extrapolate logic, assuming what happened or didn't happen after passing the camera, or rely on witness recall for other specifics. For example:
-- KG is reported by LE to have driven past the HH camera at 1:50 away from the Mears parking lot after letting A&L out of the car at the trails. That assumes she drove off immediately after the girls got out of the car, as 1:50 is being reported as the girls' arrival time as well (AffidavitSearchWarrant). Maybe she told LE she drove off immediately and that she recalled that correctly. However if hypothetically IMO she paused to watch the girls walk out of eyesight or talked a bit longer on phone to boyfriend before driving away, that could put the dropoff at 1:47-1:48 which might put the girls ahead of BB who arrived in the 1:47-1:48 time, thus eliminating the premise of BB being ahead of the girls....
-- BB is reported by LE to have driven past the HH camera at 1:46 heading in the direction of the Mears parking lot. Again the assumption IMO is that she started walking immediately at 1:46 also. However, what IMO if BB did some stretching before the hike, changed her shoes, put her purse in the trunk, took the car key off the keychain, and so forth as many exercisers do all of these? That would have her actually beginning her hike at closer to 1:48-1:49 which certainly is very close to when the girls also started their hike. Again, maybe BB has crystal clear recall about whether she started immediately or not, but remembering that it's reported BB hiked the 6-ish minutes out to the MHB start point plus halfway back before passing A&L, then we're left to grapple with how she covered 9-ish minutes of hiking while A&L only covered 3-ish minutes (halfway out only) when they likely began only 1 to 1.5 minutes apart.
-- SC is reported by LE to have driven past the HH camera at 3:57 before her witnessing of a man who looked like he'd been in a fight. This is the most straightforward one as there's no reason to imagine she pulled over or stopped the car before seeing him, thus reasonable to presume she passed him at 3:58-3:59 along the County Road.
-- RA is thought to maybe have passed the HH camera at 1:27, at least a car resembling one of the two vehicles he owned, traveling in the direction of the CPS building. It's not known IMO whether this vehicle stopped at CPS for sure or not, but the trial may clear that up. It's also not known whether RA exits this car immediately and begins his walk or pauses for whatever reason. Gray Hughes in his excellent timeline video (can't link any longer due to password-protect, so MOO) takes the liberty of having RA stay in his car for about 6 minutes after parking before exiting because... if he starts hiking sooner than that, especially at a brisk pace, he encounters the Freedom Bridge 4 girls at a different spot than where they both claim that encounter takes place. We don't know what really happened after 1:27 passing the camera IMO but it takes some reconciling.

I do think the defense will try to methodically pick apart this timeline minute by minute and I think if they do that well, the events can be jumbled enough to create some doubt of its accuracy in the mind of some jurors.
 
Last edited:
  • #317
  • #318
I really question why the defense would wait to bring up exculpatory hair evidence not in the Franks motions, not in any other filings, not even in the mini opening on day one of voir dire, but on day two. Why. What part of their strategy for choosing jurors changed overnight from day one to day two. That's the answer for what is going on with the hair in Abby's hand.

But as we know, opening statements (mini or otherwise) are NOT evidence, the judge will caution all the jurors on that. In watching other trials, I have heard things in opening statements that were never shown or referred to again in testimony. It's just a matter of if the idea has already prejudiced anyone who was chosen to serve.
IMO nothing changed overnight.

They only had 5 minutes to present their mini opening each day of jury selection. So, IMO they ensured they tossed in different *Oh gasp, why's this guy even charged then* moments and bits of info to each session ... in hopes that the Jurors discuss amongst themselves and allow these comments to fester in their minds. It did garner shocks and gasps here too ... and lots of clicks and comments for the SM realm.

I've no doubt that the true context of the hair and the "confession" regarding the killing of family members will be adressed at trial by the Prosecution at trial now.

Bring on the context. Bring on the evidence.

"Tomorrow, tommorow ... you're only a day away!"
 
  • #319
  • #320
Reminding the prospective jurors to remain skeptical and open-minded, both attorneys referenced an instance where an unnamed Greenwood man posed as an attorney without actually being admitted to the bar.

“Things aren’t always as they appear,” Baldwin said on Monday.

Baldwin asked prospective jurors to avoid rushing to judgment over the confessions.
-.-.-
When Anna and Abby met an unknown man in a car in a parking lot of Wal Mart (or similar) and he had his eyes on them for too long or too intensive, he finally said nearly the same words to Anna, as far as I remember. I find that an odd coincidence .... :oops:
Sorry, respectfully what do you mean? Is there a link or somewhere I can learn more about what you’ve stated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
1,531
Total visitors
1,669

Forum statistics

Threads
632,299
Messages
18,624,497
Members
243,081
Latest member
TruthSeekerJen
Back
Top