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

[photographer4]

A link was given several threads ago, afaik. If I remember well, it was an interview with Anna/video.
I think, I wouldn't be successful with searching for it.
A "creepy" unknown man , no description, was sitting in a car and then speaking to Abby's mum, asking "Do you know me?" No idea, what Anna answered, but certainly she answered "No." He spoke further to her like a warning: she would have to think of, if she would recognize someone, she could make a mistake and it would be someone other possibly. Things weren't always as they appear. - All my wording.
When I still had my own personal poi for the crime, who I wouldn't name "for reasons", the person would have fitted well with this creepy approach.
Are you a bit satisfied with my answer? I hope so.

I thank you for providing it! I recall the encounter in question. I wasn’t aware the man said anything to Aw. Interesting indeed!

 

[Inthedetails]

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.

If that is the case, the jury will not like later learning it's a cat. That feels like manipulation and juries tend to not like that, imo.

jmo

 

[TristanP]

The ride from Fort Wayne to Delphi is two hours, not counting loading up baggage on the bus/van, etc. And I am under the impression there is work to be done in the courtroom that the jury wouldn't hear today anyway.

FWIW, I'm trusting the court personnel who handle these logistical situations to know what they are doing and are being thoughtful both to the judicial process and to the jurors.

Yet, still, some people think the case should start Monday and others say today. Despite differing opinions in the public, the trial starts Friday.

jmo

I thought it was weird at first, too, but I had forgotten about the motions that needed to be heard. Especially since there will be court on Saturday as well, I think it will be best for the jurors to have the afternoon and evening to relax a bit and mentally prepare themselves for this.

 

[TristanP]

If that is the case, the jury will not like later learning it's a cat. That feels like manipulation and juries tend to not like that, imo.

jmo

I know many who hate the defense attorneys will disagree, but I don't think they would say that during voir dire and then be like "ha ha it was just an animal hair."

My best guess is that the hair remains unidentified, but is human. It is a seed of doubt they rightfully want to sow. As a juror, I would take an unidentified hair into consideration for reasonable doubt (along with all the other info I learned, of course).

 

[TTF14]

If that is the case, the jury will not like later learning it's a cat. That feels like manipulation and juries tend to not like that, imo.

jmo

I'm getting a little lost. Is there any link out there, besides from the DM, that the hair is feline?

 

[Gerrymd8]

"What may matter though is that a guy can be on a bridge and still not be the killer.

Actually it may not matter if the guy on the bridge is Richard Allen and he didn't kill them. He will still go to prison for murder because he didn't have to kill them; he just had to be bridge guy.

 

[Trebor5591]

^^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/

IMO, the answer is because no government agency will ever admit it made a mistake.

 

[photographer4]

Actually it may not matter if the guy on the bridge is Richard Allen and he didn't kill them. He will still go to prison for murder because he didn't have to kill them; he just had to be bridge guy.

Well imo, he has to be the BG who ordered the girls DTH for him to go to prison. I accept that the charges allow for RA to go to prison for any involvement in the crime. But so far, we have RA on the bridge not RA ordering the kids DTH. Waiting on the trial to begin and hoping all becomes more clear. Moooo

 

[WildHuncher]

What may matter though is that a guy can be on a bridge and still not be the killer imo. Is it POSSIBLE that a guy was at the far end of the bridge where the words DTH were spoken to the kids? IMO it is. We don’t know. If the image of Bg is unclear on the video (could be RA could be anyone)… then it may form a reasonable doubt for the jurors. Other evidence may clarify or solidify any reasonable doubt. Very interesting to watch unfold imo.

This scenario has two similarly dressed BGs, Killer BG and RA BG. Killer BG has passed RA undetected by RA. (And any of the other witnesses, unless some of them saw Killer BG but not RA BG. For sure, nobody still living saw two males.)

RA puts himself on the first platform. BB’s testimony seems to confirm this, and adds that Abby and Libby were approaching the bridge at that time. Neither RA nor BB has reported another male being there.

Killer’s options for passing RA from his perch on that first platform are very narrow. As narrow, in fact, as the MHB itself. We don’t call him Bridge Guy for nothing. He approached the girls from off of the bridge. Not from any other direction. That video shows him on the bridge. In short order, the same file, he’s ordering them down the hill.

Maybe he snuck by RA. The fish seen from that platform on the bridge were totally engrossing. Or maybe RA was on the bench watching stocks on his phone. Must have taken a lot of nerve for the killer to abduct two girls in broad daylight knowing there was another guy right there in easy hearing if maybe not direct line of sight. (Not sure where that bench is.)

I wouldn’t buy it even without the cartridge and the post-arrest confessions.

 

[Vern]

I'm getting a little lost. Is there any link out there, besides from the DM, that the hair is feline?

I do believe that a poster earlier linked (this morning perhaps??) a Nancy Grace link that brought up a cat as well.

As for getting lost, me too because in any case, I've not seen anything testified to at any hearings, or evidence that confirm the hair as being cat hair or human hair.

The the trial and evidence presentations don't start until tomorrow, and there's not been any evidence presented during the mini openings - just statements IMO.

Time - testimony and evidence - will confirm any facts/fiction about the hair.

I can't help but harken back to OJ's lawyers, "the blood under Nicole's fingernails was not OJs!!!" .... to find out from the prosecution that was because it was Nicole's.

I'll wait for the testimony and the evidence.

 

[katydid23]

What’s the actual point of sequestering them if they get visitors?

The visitors are limited to immediate family. I think a juror should be able to swim in the hotel pool with their spouse and/or kids, without it posing any threat to their duties. It is actually helpful to their mental well being, imo.

 

[katydid23]

Under Indiana law court recordings are meant to be made public.

So, that 3 day hearing would have been recorded, I would think, for the transcripts to have been transcribed.

Really speaking whatever was recorded should be public now only I think Judge Gull doesn't want any of the trial to be made public until the trial has ended.

JMT

If we get to see or hear much of it AFTER the verdicts, I'll be fine with that.

 

[katydid23]

Interesting. I have never heard of a sequestered jury not being well, sequestered.

I've never heard of them not being allowed to see their children if it is a one or 2 or more month trial. Unfair for the children, IMO. And the kids or spouses are not any threat to the gag order. IMO

 

[katydid23]

In my opinion, it's not so much the sketches themselves, but the testimony of the witnesses who gave the information for the sketches. There is a lot of controversy over what they said/saw and what was reported in the probable cause affidavit. If the sketches are kept out, those witnesses will likely not be called either (in my opinion/assumption), which would be a win for the State because what they (the witnesses) say could potentially be quite different from what was stated that they said in the probable cause affidavit. In my opinion and how I understand it. I could be wrong.

As always, JMO.

Why wouldn't they be called, if the sketches were out? These were witnesses to seeing Bridge Guy. That is important testimony. They need to nail down the timeline of the guy seen in Abby's bridge video.

They do NOT need to identify BG as RA though. The Prosecution will do that themselves, IMO.

 

[TTF14]

RA puts himself on the first platform. BB’s testimony seems to confirm this, and adds that Abby and Libby were approaching the bridge at that time. Neither has reported another male being there.

RSBM BBM

If you mean that BB's statement indicated she saw a man who looked like RA while also observing the girls approaching, I strongly disagree. Maybe I'm misinterpreting exactly what you mean, and if so, I apologize.

In my opinion, BB's testimony does NOT seem to confirm that the man on the first platform she saw was RA. In fact, in her March 7, 2019 interview (as described and cited on page 108 of the Franks memo), she said the man was young (in his twenties or maybe 30s) and had poofy hair. That doesn't at all describe Richard Allen.






As always, JMO.

 

[mpnola]

The visitors are limited to immediate family. I think a juror should be able to swim in the hotel pool with their spouse and/or kids, without it posing any threat to their duties. It is actually helpful to their mental well being, imo.

I could do jury duty. I could sequester. I can do without internet, as long as I was given approved entertainment. What I could not do is not see my child for a month. I would be a sobbing mess. I see no reason to torture the jury. They all have rules that we have to assume they will abide by. I will bet the last thing they want to talk about will be the trial. More like, how was Halloween? Can I see your costume?

 

[TTF14]

Why wouldn't they be called, if the sketches were out?

RSBM

Because their descriptions of the man/men they saw not only differ from one another, but don't resemble RA. So, I could see the State wanting to keep their testimonies out so as to "not confuse the jurors."

What would your take on it be if the State wanted to suppress their statements?

As always, JMO.

 

[Salah11]

How can the man the witnesses claim to have seen not match RA when he himself admits he was out on platform one at the exact same time?!



These witnesses got a quick glance, but RA has also placed him on that bridge at the pivotal moment.

 

[katydid23]

I can’t keep track I thought today it all properly started. Why does it take a whole day to be sworn in?

When I did it in the U.K. it takes about 15 mins give or take. Then you proceed with the trial.

Considering the cost of this trial was being moaned about it seems crazy how much time seems to be wasted. moo

I think it's more than just being sworn in that day. The jurors will most likely be excused right after being sworn in.

They need to show up the next morning for court and opening statements, for their sequestration In Delphi---many miles away.

The attorneys will continue after the swearing in, and have a hearing to sort out various important issues before trial. And then they have to do last minute tune ups to their Opening Statements.

So I don't think they are wasting time on Thursday. IMO

 

[sunshineray]

There's still a few that I'm watching for ... and new ones probably going to pop up too.

One of the big ones being the Motion to Visit Crime Scene. I'll post when I see them unless someone else gets to them first.

Thank you Vern!