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

[otto]

Also, why their clothes were discarded in the creek like that although it seems it may be just one girls really as only one of the two was fully undressed. JMT.

The Mirror US
"Williams was found wearing Liberty's clothing, while other articles of the girls clothing was found dumped in a nearby creek, McLeland added."

Source: Delphi Trial Reveals Bone Chilling...

I cannot wait until the confessions are revealed.

JMO MOO JMT

That's my understanding as well. Libby's t-shirt was in the creek, as were one or two shoes. She was not wearing any clothes when found. It sounds like Abby was fully clothed, and wearing Libby's jeans overtop of her skinny-jeans. The accused must have told Libby to take off her pants, and told Abby to put them on. Abby wouldn't do that on her own while he's pointing a gun.

Reporting seems to be vague or generalize rather than providing the detail we want.

 

[Emma Peel]

Why in the world would guests of the defense team not be allowed to view the exhibits of evidence?

Apparently the thinking is b/c JG's rule at the moment is only credentialed press can view the exhibits of evidence.

I'm thinking that rule is weird and could be out of constitutional bounds ... is that what you're thinking?

JMHO

 

[sunshineray]

I never said it did. Why is BM being singled out when others do it on both sides? I don't even have a side and don't watch/listen to YouTubers/Podcasters so could really care less. This fence is getting mighty hard and splintery! Off to bed now, bike trip tomorrow. Have a good day/night wherever you are!

Who besides Prosecution staff is sitting in their allotted seats? I think he's being singled out because of his proficiency at skewing facts.
MO entirely.

 

[Melted]

We haven’t even heard what RA said while confessing yet the insinuation is his confessions must be false?

I’m just going off what I have heard so far about his confessions and his mental state during said confessions.

I have seen first hand how solitary confinement can take the most hardened lifelong criminals (nearly the opposite of Richard Allen) and completely break them in less than a month.

I have also personally suffered a psychotic break with reality, twice. One time I was fully convinced I had been shot in the head even thought I hadn’t had contact with anyone, in my mind I truly believed a biker gang had came and shot me. I ended up laying on the sidewalk without a shadow of a doubt that I had been shot in my head and I was currently dying, going so far as to wish that I could have a chance to say goodbye to my daughter until police and paramedics showed up, they put me in a 8 point restraint and even in the ambulance when the paramedic was trying to give me a shot of whatever calms you down I thought he was part of said biker gang and was there to finish the job.

Needless to say, none of this really happened and if nothing that I said while suffering that psychotic episode should in any way whatsoever be interpreted as reality.

This is why it is so interesting to me that Richard Allen confessed to killing his family, that’s the type of thing I can imagine someone suffering a psychotic episode to say and I am sure at the time that the accusations made against him were weighing extremely heavy on his mind.

Add on to this we know that he was literally eating his own feces and paperwork and smashing his head against the wall it paints the picture of a completely mentally broken man, and nothing said by him during the time he was locked down in solitary confinement having a psychotic break should be taken as truth.

And from the only 2 confessions we heard, which are he shot the girls in the back and buried them in a shallow grave and that he murdered his family, we know that those are NOT true.

Whether he is guilty or not is another story completely. In my opinion, taking the ramblings of a man who’s having a mental breakdown in solitary confinement in a maximum security state prison as evidence is harrowing.

 

[TTF14]

Weren't accredited press caught trying to take photos of jurors entering the court this week?

Let's not pretend they're saints. The press were the reason the Idaho hearings went to the Judge's feed, with a threat of removing camera access to the case all together.

Mainstream media is also who Judge Gull cited for her decision to ban cameras in the first place.



As always, JMO.

 

[Melted]

Apparently the thinking is b/c JG's rule at the moment is only credentialed press can view the exhibits of evidence.

I'm thinking that rule is weird and could be out of constitutional bounds ... is that what you're thinking?

JMHO

Yeah I believe that the media pool is actually the ones that corrected Judge Gull on that and told her that is unconstitutional.

 

[SouthEnd]

If the defense puts forth a theory that multiple people are involved with this, that unspent round destroys that argument. It should not be there.

Scaring the girls with a gun might be something a lone individual would find necessary (you can't hold a knife at both at once), but it would not be unnecessary if there was another perpetrator there.

Two men, two knives, no reason to rack the slide.

My understanding of the Defence's theory thus far is:

If there was an unspent bullet in the scene, it was because the Police left it there. But if you don't believe the police left it there, then one alternative suspect left it there. But if you believe that the one suspect could be RA, then the wounds mean that two separate ppl committed the attacks. But if there is no proof of 2+ perps being in the trails and the scene because of lack of footsteps, then the girls were murdered somewhere else. But if you don't believe that they were murdered somewhere else because of the cold, hard blood evidence, then how do you explain that one of the phone's had a brief handshake with a towed in the early morning hours?

You don't need to worry about damning evidence if you keep moving the goalposts. Just keep juicy theories with little evidenciary backing coming, and perhaps at least once juror will be bamboozled enough to not realise that the train of thought they lead them on has no wheels.

All MOO

 

[Melted]

As far as the question of how someone could control 2 teenage girls this isn’t even a discussion worth having in my opinion, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.

I’m a 6’7 260 lb adult male and if Richard Allen or anyone for that matter pointed that .40 caliber at me I would do exactly what they tell me to, these were two little girls who had probably never even encountered a firearm in their life.

 

[Melted]

My understanding of the Defence's theory thus far is:

If there was an unspent bullet in the scene, it was because the Police left it there. But if you don't believe the police left it there, then one alternative suspect left it there. But if you believe that the one suspect could be RA, then the wounds mean that two separate ppl committed the attacks. But if there is no proof of 2+ perps being in the trails and the scene because of lack of footsteps, then the girls were murdered somewhere else. But if you don't believe that they were murdered somewhere else because of the cold, hard blood evidence, then how do you explain that one of the phone's had a brief handshake with a towed in the early morning hours?

You don't need to worry about damning evidence if you keep moving the goalposts. Just keep juicy theories with little evidenciary backing coming, and perhaps at least once juror will be bamboozled enough to not realise that the train of thought they lead them on has no wheels.

All MOO

That is their job, to establish reasonable doubt. Maybe Richard Allen dropped that bullet there but maybe someone else did.

They don’t have to prove what happened that day, that’s the prosecutions job.

 

[sripey]

My source is Websleuths conversation all day October 19, 2024 . I don't listen to MS and I'm not the one who started this train. @sunshineray has clued me in that this is NOT what they said, so I'm thankful that maybe this whole conversation can be put to rest! There was nothing wrong with where he was sitting, but some still have an issue with it I guess. To each their own. I couldn't care less where any of them sit as long as they can hear and tell us what happened since we can't be there.

As always, JMO.

I don't have any problem if he is allowed to sit in the seats reserved to the defense. But it puts to rest any notion that he is an impartial source in regards to this trial. He is a public mouthpiece for the defense.

I do have a problem when innuendo is spread without fact checking.

 

[susiQ]

Apparently the thinking is b/c JG's rule at the moment is only credentialed press can view the exhibits of evidence.

I'm thinking that rule is weird and could be out of constitutional bounds ... is that what you're thinking?

JMHO

My understanding according to AM (defense attorney) is that once exhibits are entered into evidence they become public record and should therefore be accessible to the public. I hope I expressed that correctly. Of course, JG has made her own ruling on who she will allow to view the evidence for 15 min, but I suspect it is possible this can be challenged? I really don’t know the legal strength of the argument. JMHO

 

[TTF14]

I don't have any problem if he is allowed to sit in the seats reserved to the defense. But it puts to rest any notion that he is an impartial source in regards to this trial. He is a public mouthpiece for the defense.

I do have a problem when innuendo is spread without fact checking.

BBM - In my experience (and opinion) watching him, he's done nothing of the sort. I recall one time he got the gender of a victim wrong and he corrected it quite quickly. He's a human being, just like the rest of us, and therefore prone to making occasional mistakes.

As far as him being a public mouthpiece for THE defense, I'd argue he's simply a public mouthpiece for DEFENSE. Period. Not just this one. He's a defense attorney and extremely passionate about the constitution and due process. And it shows. He actually discusses a lot of cases, not just this one.

As always, JMO.

 

[otto]

I imagine if they split up and ran, they'd both be alive. We'll never know the answer for sure, but his plan would have been destroyed, and he'd be worried about immediately getting out of there.

These were two young teens though, who didn't have the benefit of our hindsight, or adult logic.

Exactly. Their instinct would be to protect each other by staying together.

 

[SouthEnd]

My understanding according to AM (defense attorney) is that once exhibits are entered into evidence they become public record and should therefore be accessible to the public. I hope I expressed that correctly. Of course, JG has made her own ruling on who she will allow to view the evidence for 15 min, but I suspect it is possible this can be challenged? I really don’t know the legal strength of the argument. JMHO

100% my understanding too.

Listening to the MS episodes from the past two days gave me a headache because they went over, in painstaking detail, how JG's court kept changing the rules of media access, literally after their access was confirmed. It changed the rules of access for the public, to the point where if anyone goes to use the restroom they lose the right to go back to the courtroom to observe the trial. If they leave for lunch, they lose their place, and they are not allowed to eat in the courtroom, so if a member of the public wants to observe the trial... they are not allowed to eat for 8hrs or use the restroom, and that is not a hyperbole.

IMO, that violates the spirit of the law, that representatives of the public should be allowed to observe a public trial.

All MOO

 

[rez125]

100% my understanding too.

Listening to the MS episode's from the last two days gave me a headache because they went over, in painstaking detail, how JG's court kept changing the rules of media access, literally after their access was confirmed. It changed the rules of access for the public, to the point where if anyone goes to use the restroom they lose the right to go back to the courtroom to observe the trial. If they leave for lunch, they lose their place, and they are not allowed to eat in the courtroom, so if a member of the public wants to observe the trial... they are not allowed to eat for 8hrs or use the restroom, and that is not a hyperbole.

IMO, that violates the spirit of the law, that representatives of the public should be allowed to observe a public trial.

All MOO

It's absolutely crazy the lengths people are having to go to to attend this trial.

No water allowed so the jury can "concentrate".

I've never heard of anything more ridiculous.

 

[TTF14]

100% my understanding too.

Listening to the MS episode's from the last two days gave me a headache because they went over, in painstaking detail, how JG's court kept changing the rules of media access, literally after their access was confirmed. It changed the rules of access for the public, to the point where if anyone goes to use the restroom they lose the right to go back to the courtroom to observe the trial. If they leave for lunch, they lose their place, and they are not allowed to eat in the courtroom, so if a member of the public wants to observe the trial... they are not allowed to eat for 8hrs or use the restroom, and that is not a hyperbole.

IMO, that violates the spirit of the law, that representatives of the public should be allowed to observe a public trial.

All MOO

Maybe she's secretly conducting some kind of psyop, auditioning unknowing peeps for a secret mission that requires extraordinary mental and physical fortitude! Last one standing wins?

I kid, I kid! But I could never do it. I drink a gallon of water a day.

As always, JMO.

 

[SouthEnd]

Maybe she's secretly conducting some kind of psyop, auditioning unknowing peeps for a secret mission that requires extraordinary mental and physical fortitude! Last one standing wins?

I kid, I kid! But I could never do it. I drink a gallon of water a day.

As always, JMO.

I was thinking something along the same lines...

But in all seriousness, do we all want to start betting how fast the quality of the reporting / court etiquette will start degrading under these conditions? If the press and public attending can't get comfort breaks or clear information, how is their memory going to hold up, and how soon before every outlet starts putting out wildly inaccurate information?

I find a lot of JG's rulings very cut+dry when it comes to following precedent and law, but her handling of the access baffles me.

All MOO

 

[TTF14]

I find a lot of JG's rulings very cut+dry when it comes to following precedent and law, but her handling of the access baffles me.

rsbm

It is extreme. I doubt any of us have seen anything remotely like this.

As always, JMO.

 

[otto]

I think it has legs due to the severity of how poorly he was treated. If that hadn't have occurred I doubt anybody would be questioning his guilt.

I haven't followed closely in the last couple of years, but is "confession" too strong a word?

Will we hear evidence that the accused knew something about the crime scene that was not released publicly; only known to the killer? That's as good as a confession, without being a confession.

 

[Vaderman]

Sorry please delete this