Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #200

[Megnut]

.

Exactly. BM is not at the trial in his capacity as a defese attorney.

He is there in his capacity as a podcaster ... ergo should be treated as such and subject to the same "Court Rules" as the rest of them are.

And if he IS there in the capacity of a defense attorney, he is under the gag order.

Someone is playing it fast and loose, both ways.

JMO

 

[Bergmann]

JMO but I don't understand the hysteria over any of these YT characters.

If the case is strong then the jury in the court room (who won't be tuning in to any of these money generating podcasts and therefore not influenced by them) will be able to make their minds up based on weight of evidence presented in court.

 

[arielilane]

Saturday’s session was set to begin at 9 a.m. Follow this blog throughout the day and stay tuned to News 8 for the very latest.

NOTE: Times listed on the blog headers are the time the entry was written, not the time the events happened in court. Those events will be noted in the story when available.

Delphi Murders trial: Day 2 testimonies

Day 2 of the Delphi Murders trial begins at 9 a.m. Saturday. Follow WISH-TV's live blog for the latest updates from the courtroom.

wishtv.com

Updated: Oct 19, 2024 / 11:11 AM EST

 

[m00c0w]

JMO but I don't understand the hysteria over any of these YT characters.

If the case is strong then the jury in the court room (who won't be tuning in to any of these money generating podcasts and therefore not influenced by them) will be able to make their minds up based on weight of evidence presented in court.

It’s more about continuing questionable behavior by the defense team, in my opinion. There was a large issue with Motta and his involvement with the defense team early on, and the defense to that was “but he’s not actually on the defense team!” Now he’s literally sitting with them in court while apparently violating a gag order. It’s odd, to say the least.

JMO

 

[justtrish]

Yep. How is this ok if he’s sitting at the table with defense?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1847427286535991372

This is odd because I recall BB returned to the trail to finish her walk when she arrived before Abby and Libby did and she was leaving and passed Abby and Libby before she got in her car and left and she was on video leaving at 2:14 and she did see a car parked oddly in that old CPS lot.

So how is BB WALKING past the old CPS lot at 2:15 if she left in her car at 2:!4? BB is the person that walked to the bridge and saw BG on platform 1 right? She walked back to her car passing Abby and Libby and then leaving in her car and seeing the car at the CPS lot.. makes no sense how she could be leaving to go to the bathroom and walking past the CPS building.

 

[Warwick7]

And wasn’t Abbie redressed in Libby’s clothing? IMO

I'm not sure on that yet though, it could be that a gun or a knife was held up to Abby's throat to make Libby remove her clothing and then they were shoved at Abby to put on. As time goes by I don't think he had Abby in mind, she was just a tool, to make Libby do what he wanted. Or he thought Libby would do what he wanted. But it sounds like she had a mind of her own and fought him. M o o

 

[Bergmann]

It’s more about continuing questionable behavior by the defense team, in my opinion. There was a large issue with Motta and his involvement with the defense team early on, and the defense to that was “but he’s not actually on the defense team!” Now he’s literally sitting with them in court while apparently violating a gag order. It’s odd, to say the least.

JMO

Well 'continuing questionable behaviour by the defense team' is as you point out a matter of opinion.

But as I was at pains to point out, IMO this does not contaminate the court and what the jury will actually hear.

Again, if the state has RA 'bang to rights' then this is all immaterial IMO. Nothing Motta can say or do outside the court room can influence what happens inside the court room, or repudiate an overwhelming state case - IMO

That's partly why I tend to ignore what people say about MS too. I choose not to conflate the drama that YTers stir up on social media with what happens legally within the trial. The financial motivation of all them makes me discount them equally.

 

[Trebor5591]

How does that work when he has confessed 61 times and admits he was out on the bridge?

If the confessions were strong evidence, the prosecution would have used them more in his opening statement. As it was, he barely mentioned them. I can only suppose that the "61 confessions" are less than overwhelming evidence. Having said that, I hope I am wrong, since I think he is guilty.

 

[Trebor5591]

lol we haven’t even gotten to the prosecution presenting their actual case to call it “weak”.

Do we really expect to know everything on the first day of trial, in the first few hours? There is a ton of evidence and witnesses we know exist from the hearings that will back up the prosecution’s theory. Meanwhile, defense is apparently still workshopping their theory mid-opening statement.

JMO

Well, we do expect a decent opening statement, and we honestly did not get one.

 

[Warwick7]

If the confessions were strong evidence, the prosecution would have used them more in his opening statement. As it was, he barely mentioned them. I can only suppose that the "61 confessions" are less than overwhelming evidence. Having said that, I hope I am wrong, since I think he is guilty.

With his video not being able to be played, he may have had a lot more to say and that could have included these confessions. RIght now we don't know because everything that he wanted to go right seemed didn't go right.

 

[WildHuncher]

If the confessions were strong evidence, the prosecution would have used them more in his opening statement. As it was, he barely mentioned them. I can only suppose that the "61 confessions" are less than overwhelming evidence. Having said that, I hope I am wrong, since I think he is guilty.

It’s not the time spent but the content. “…That only the killer would know.”

 

[m00c0w]

Well 'continuing questionable behaviour by the defense team' is as you point out a matter of opinion.

But as I was at pains to point out, IMO this does not contaminate the court and what the jury will actually hear.

Again, if the state has RA 'bang to rights' then this is all immaterial IMO. Nothing Motta can say or do outside the court room can influence what happens inside the court room, or repudiate an overwhelming state case - IMO

That's partly why I tend to ignore what people say about MS too. I choose not to conflate the drama that YTers stir up on social media with what happens legally within the trial. The financial motivation of all them makes me discount them equally.

I’m not sure anyone has claimed it will influence the jury. The point is the defense team is continuing to engage in unprofessional and possibly unethical behavior. It’s more of the same, and just reinforces the viewpoint many here have had of them for a while. Even if unethical behavior won’t literally lead to a mistrial, it’s still unethical.

Let’s not forget it was the same group Motta was intimately involved with that suggested doing deep dives into jurors’ personal lives to help the defense. Now he’s sitting at the defense table.

Further, if there is a new trial won on appeal as many seem to think there will be, Motta’s meddling can still have an impact as he’s leaking gagged information to prospective future jurors.

You are correct, this is a matter of opinion. That’s why I annotate that this is just my opinion. Yours may differ. That’s the great thing about opinions.

JMO

 

[BUF]

From Becky’s testimony…

When a coroner’s vehicle and several police cars drove by, Becky Patty finally realized what was happening: Abigail Williams and Liberty German were dead.

The testimony had an impact on a handful of the jurors, who fought tears of their own. The families of Williams, German, and Richard Allen cried in the audience.

"Grandma, I'll be okay" - A Look at the Delphi Murders Trial Day One

DELPHI, Ind. -- It didn't take long for tears to start flowing down the faces of witnesses, family and jurors alike during day one of the State of Indiana versus Richard Allen. This is what went down inside the Carroll County Courthouse Friday.

wibc.com

 

[justtrish]

Well, we do expect a decent opening statement, and we honestly did not get one.

Reporting on the states opening statement has been that it was good and it flowed well and was easy to follow. It's meant to be an introduction to the case and it sounds like it was done well. No need to waste time by detailing everything they will present.

I think the confessions will speak for themselves and when the time comes and the state plays them it will be in RA's own words and that will always hit better than someone else trying to explain what will be in them.

 

[Bergmann]

How does that work when he has confessed 61 times and admits he was out on the bridge?

IMO devil is likely in the detail and context of those statements, otherwise we would just try people on hearsay without examining detail and weighing evidence against each other.
We wouldn't need the scales of justice, we could just take things literally and black and white and convict on that basis.

I'm pretty sure both those factors, the confessions and the statement LE took from RA will be presented and examined at length in the course of this trial - IMO

 

[m00c0w]

Well, we do expect a decent opening statement, and we honestly did not get one.

I’m not sure what you were expecting from an opening statement in a pretty straightforward case. If you remove the defense theatrics and conspiracy theories, the concept is pretty concise. A man kidnapped two girls and killed them. We now know who he is. The prosecution doesn’t have to go into flashy far-fetched tales (sometimes contradictory) to try to make their point. It’s very simple. The fact the defense is having to do gymnastics, mislead, and obfuscate is going to be their downfall when held up against a very clear-cut and believable theory by the prosecution that is backed up by evidence, and not just speculation meant to confuse and distract.

All my opinion.

 

[TTF14]

Now he’s sitting at the defense table.

Could someone provide actual proof of this before this thread goes completely off the rails?

As always, JMO.

 

[Vern]

Yep. How is this ok if he’s sitting at the table with defense?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1847427286535991372

Note: BM was actually sitting in one of the 10 chairs reserved for the Defence Team, not at the Defence table per se.

But, I get your point. The girls were leaving the trails at 1326pm. BB saw them crossing the bridge as she was returning to the trails.
BB was also caught on camera passing in front of the Hoosier Harveststore camera at 1346hrs, travelling east, to park at the trailhead.

This is odd because I recall BB returned to the trail to finish her walk when she arrived before Abby and Libby did and she was leaving and passed Abby and Libby before she got in her car and left and she was on video leaving at 2:14 and she did see a car parked oddly in that old CPS lot.

So how is BB WALKING past the old CPS lot at 2:15 if she left in her car at 2:!4? BB is the person that walked to the bridge and saw BG on platform 1 right? She walked back to her car passing Abby and Libby and then leaving in her car and seeing the car at the CPS lot.. makes no sense how she could be leaving to go to the bathroom and walking past the CPS building.

Yep. She probably drove by the old CPS at 2:15ish and there was indeed a car backed in in a manner that was 'odd' and as also noted by another witness. Where RA also stated he parked. Funny how those fleeting glimpses of vehicles that one sees in the split second it takes to pass them, with no idea that they should be "memorizing them" also tend to be viewed differently by different observers (just like .... sketchs IMO).

https://www.wane.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/Delphi-Docs-2022.pdf

 

[MAHBOOBOO]

MOO:

1) Libby was more of a target because she said something to RA while he was controlling them that made him lose control of his anger, probably called him some choice words. This would be in line with how vocal she was.

2) Abby was wearing Libby's clothes because they had crossed the creek, their clothes were wet, and Abby probably couldn't get her own clothes back on because they were wet, so she had to put on Libby's slightly larger clothes. RA either let her or made her put clothes back on.

 

[m00c0w]

Could someone provide actual proof of this before this thread goes completely off the rails?

As always, JMO.

Murder Sheets, an approved source, reports they saw him sitting at the defense table during the trial. This is what sparked the entire conversation.

This is further corroborated by Motta then tweeting later what he heard during opening statements, so he was clearly in the courtroom at the time.

JMO