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

[Salah11]

I’d like to know more about that photo of her on the bridge. Like how did that come about? Was her father present when that photo was taken?

I find it interesting she hadn’t been in court, and I think it’s likely she is set to testify against him.

Yes I am wondering if she will testify for the prosecution. Let’s not forget that whatever was in his confessions it made LE question his daughter’s friends. That must of been absolutely humiliating for her no doubt.

Mooo

 

[sunshineray]

Can you provide the law?

Never, ever heard of a judge allowing a special viewing time or even citizens to come forward and review evidence.

Moo

I was asking a question, can you provide why the public is not being allowed to view exhibits?

 

[TTF14]

If the Prosecution has said numerous times, in court and the PCA, the information that Libby's phone was under Libby's shoe under Abby's body and Abby had both her shoes on her feet minus socks, how many shoes from the victims is left? It must then logically be an error by WISH-TV.
JMO

I understand what you're saying, which is why it's a confusing detail that needs to be cleared up. I don't think a mistake by Wish-TV is the only explanation, although of course it's a logical possibility. A flubbed-up staging of the scene could be another explanation, which you'd have to be open to RA being not guilty to consider. I'm confident the evidence that comes out will make it clear. Until then, my attention to detail will keep it tucked away in my brain.

ETA: Also, opening statements from the Prosecution (or defense) aren't evidence. And I think (could be wrong) the PCA is also not evidence. What witnesses say on the stand is evidence, however, and this article says the witness said a pair of Nikes. Hence my confusion.

As always, JMO.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I still struggle to understand the no water rule. Sounds worse than prison.

I agree!

No water... no coffee...
would put me over the edge!

 

[Simply Southern]

I was asking a question, can you provide why the public is not being allowed to view exhibits?

The exhibits will not become public information until after the trial. Anyone can file a FOIA request, pay the fees and obtain the information, for unsealed documents. Much of the information already on file and available to the Press it's heavily redacted due to information excluded under FIOA.

I posted the links numerous times.

@sunshineray Can you provide law that requires evidence to be viewed during a trial by the general public?
Moo

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Is it correct information that JG is not letting the public view the exhibits, even though they are allowed to do so under the law? Or is it discretionary and the judge can set different rules?

What does "view the exhibits" mean? That they are present in the courtroom for all to see from the gallery?

 

[Shadowtrix]

What does "view the exhibits" mean? That they are present in the courtroom for all to see from the gallery?

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding but I don't ever remember a trial I've followed where the evidence was laid out each day for members of the public not serving on the jury to come and walk in and view. The jurors (members of the public) are allowed to view the exhibits in court.

 

[sunshineray]

I understand what you're saying, which is why it's a confusing detail that needs to be cleared up. I don't think a mistake by Wish-TV is the only explanation, although of course it's a logical possibility. A flubbed-up staging of the scene could be another explanation, which you'd have to be open to RA being not guilty to consider. I'm confident the evidence that comes out will make it clear. Until then, my attention to detail will keep it tucked away in my brain.

ETA: Also, opening statements from the Prosecution (or defense) aren't evidence. And I think (could be wrong) the PCA is also not evidence. What witnesses say on the stand is evidence, however, and this article says the witness said a pair of Nikes. Hence my confusion.

As always, JMO.

I guess we can only wait for the transcript of Johns testimony to be sure then, since we cannot take anyone else's word on anything. I wonder if we'll ever get those or have to wait until well after trial is over?

 

[Bergmann]

Bring on the evidence and a need for endless subjective speculation. Big week coming up.

 

[TTF14]

I guess we can only wait for the transcript of Johns testimony to be sure then, since we cannot take anyone else's word on anything. I wonder if we'll ever get those or have to wait until well after trial is over?

I think we'll have to wait until the trial is over and hope for someone with deep pockets to pay for them and share!

As always, JMO.

 

[sunshineray]

What does "view the exhibits" mean? That they are present in the courtroom for all to see from the gallery?

After court each day exhibits from that day are available to view (for just 15 minutes and with some exceptions of confidential information being redacted) for it seems by just the approved media. Still trying to understand that part myself.

 

[susiQ]

Around 52:26 Lawyer Lee mentions something that she found as being a really unusual question by the Defense although it was argued as being outside the scope and sustained.

Baldwin: "And are there feral animals and coyotes in that area?"

I'd be curious to know why it was asked and what it implied as well.

Not sure if it can be introduced to the trial in a different way as it progresses, but would sure like to know why it was brought up.

Are there any Defense Attorneys here that could shed some light on that at all?

JMO JMT MOO

I’ll take a stab at it. MOO

It may give an idea of TOD in a general sense. Feral animals will forage for food and they don’t care what it is for the most part. If the bodies were in fact dead (not found) by 3 pm, there could be a likely hood of there being evidence on the bodies of nocturnal creatures doing, well, what they do and that evidence would show on the bodies. Now otoh, if the bodies were returned at 4:33 am, when the phone came on, the likely hood of that happening are minimized as they usually forage earlier in the night. So, the question is, was there any evidence of nocturnal creatures foraging on the bodies? Not something we want to think about but it is a possibility. MOO

Example, at the cabins and trailer, we do have to deal with the mice getting in and if we can’t live trap them, well….
So, I know that a fox and some raccoons do pass through the property at night, so I put the little mouse on a plate way away from where we are and in the morning it’s gone.

 

[Bergmann]

just the approved media.

So Aine and Kevin don’t get to see these?

 

[sunshineray]

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding but I don't ever remember a trial I've followed where the evidence was laid out each day for members of the public not serving on the jury to come and walk in and view. The jurors (members of the public) are allowed to view the exhibits in court.

I think it's maybe because no cameras were allowed?I know JG met with a group of the press right before trial.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

After court each day exhibits from that day are available to view (for just 15 minutes and with some exceptions of confidential information being redacted) for it seems by just the approved media. Still trying to understand that part myself.

Are the exhibits shown to the jury in the courtroom during the trial?

 

[SouthEnd]

So Aine and Kevin don’t get to see these?

They said 'they were already gone' when the incident with AM happened, so I believe they don't get to see the exhibits, they get their information directly from their accredited press friends. From the MS episode The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen On Trial: Day One: Opening Statements and More

 

[SouthEnd]

Are the exhibits shown to the jury in the courtroom during the trial?

I assume that the exhibits the press sees every day post-court-session is the exhibits shown that same day in front of the jury. IMO

 

[sunshineray]

So Aine and Kevin don’t get to see these?

No they don't as they were approved twice but then approval was rescinded...twice. Very odd indeed since they've done nothing untold in court, that I've heard mention of anyways JMO

 

[susiQ]

That makes sense as animals of prey, especially with the scent of blood, would do what they do naturally which is to prey.

With searchers, however, that probably would have interrupted any animal.

The search was called off at one point and not resumed until 6 am. I acknowledge that some searchers continued despite that but many less than were there earlier. I can’t remember when the search was called off. I know LE have taken some flak for that. MOO

 

[Bergmann]

they get their information directly from their accredited press friends

Second hand then?

You can understand why they’re upset imo.