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

[Deleted member 39678]

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

Thanks.

I don't understand what the problem is with the exhibits.

The jury gets to see them. People in the gallery can see them being presented to the jury. And the press gets to look up close and report on them. JMO.

 

[Bergmann]

No they don't as they were approved twice but then approval was rescinded...twice.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

Wow that’s odd. So judge Gull initially granted them passes but then rescinded them if I’ve understand what you said correctly?

I didn’t think they had ever been given press passes? Sure I saw them in the overnight queue outside in the cold first night?

Why would Judge Gull do that?

 

[Dhighsmith]

The court has NO obligation to provide evidence to the general population in the courtroom.

The judge and law require information/evidence be provided to the defendant and a jury of his peers.

I'm not aware of any law or legal obligation .... maybe one of our attorneys could chime in, for the judge to provide an opportunity for the general public to review evidence during a trial. Never heard of such.

Moo

During Alex Murdaugh trial only media were allowed to view evidence at end of each day.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

We've not seen the autopsy testimony yet, why all the speculation on this now? Did AB say something in his opening about this? That would not be evidence. I'll wait for the pathologist to testify. Very disturbing topic. AJMO

 

[Inthedetails]

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.

She might be absent because she doesn't want the public scrutiny. Or maybe her father and/or father asked her not to be present as it's too painful for all of them. Or, perhaps, as you state, she will be taking the stand.

If she is taking the stand, I think that's another example of what RA could have meant when he "killed" his family. An intact family doesn't need to testify against each other (understatement).

But if she is not there to avoid the public, I totally get it. The public is a BURDEN on people in pain. People aren't always kind (another understatement).

jmo

 

[SouthEnd]

Thanks.

I don't understand what the problem is with the exhibits.

The jury gets to see them. People in the gallery can see them being presented to the jury. And the press gets to look up close and report on them. JMO.

I don't have an issue with who gets to see the exhibits, personally. There were members of the press (not MS) suggesting they would challenge her ruling because they believe that the rule means that all of the public has the right to view the exhibits, not just the press.

Additionally, initially Judge Gull did not want to give access to the press to view the exhibits, and there was a legal motion the Press raised that she felt was 'demanding' but ended up granting.

All MOO, if anyone can find the link to the tweets re: Press suggesting they will raise a motion for all the public to view exhibits, pls post it, thank you!

 

[Inthedetails]

Thanks.

I don't understand what the problem is with the exhibits.

The jury gets to see them. People in the gallery can see them being presented to the jury. And the press gets to look up close and report on them. JMO.

I am getting the impression that people in the gallery are NOT seeing the exhibits when they are shown to the jury. fwiw.

jmo

 

[sunshineray]

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

Yes, as admitted to evidence

 

[TTF14]

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

I think it's as simple as neither one of them are employed full time as journalists. Aine probably gets a 1099 as an independent contractor, and that seems to not count in JG's court. Whoever originally approved them simply made a mistake (twice, as you said).

As always, JMO.

 

[Inthedetails]

Yes, as admitted to evidence

I've been listening to Lawyer Lee and my understanding is the gallery is hearing the witnesses on the stand (of course) but are not seeing exhibits that are admitted.

Anyone else hearing it this way?

jmo

 

[Bergmann]

I think it's as simple as neither one of them are employed full time as journalists. Aine probably gets a 1099 as an independent contractor, and that seems to not count in JG's court. Whoever originally approved them simply made a mistake (twice, as you said).

As always, JMO.

Mistake? As in mistook them for journalists?

 

[sunshineray]

Wow that’s odd. So judge Gull initially granted them passes but then rescinded them if I’ve understand what you said correctly?

I didn’t think they had ever been given press passes? Sure I saw them in the overnight queue outside in the cold first night?

Why would Judge Gull do that?

The people JG put in charge of approving media passes, a court person and the media person put in charge of it all, verifying acceptable persons...both approved them two separate times. It's all very odd. MS talks about it at the beginning of Day One I've linked.


The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen On Trial: Day One: Opening Statements and More

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I am getting the impression that people in the gallery are NOT seeing the exhibits when they are shown to the jury. fwiw.

jmo

That's not what I said.

 

[sunshineray]

Mistake? As in mistook them for journalists?

They were hired by two different accredited and approved news sources...so?

 

[Bergmann]

The people JG put in charge of approving media passes, a court person and the media person put in charge of it all, verifying acceptable persons...both approved them two separate times. It's all very odd. MS talks about it at the beginning of Day One I've linked.


The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen On Trial: Day One: Opening Statements and More

Thanks but I won’t click any podcast / YouTuber link as IMO they are all flawed by commercial incentives.

The only opinion in any case that counts is Judge Gull and she clearly intervened and doesn’t consider them bona fide journalists.

 

[vls12345]

I know Libby's cellphone has been discussed (possibly powering on or waking up around 4am). Has that been officially disclosed in any way (like in prelim testimony) or is it just speculation at this point?

Do we know if there was any damage to the phone (like sitting in pooled blood, scratched or impacted by a knife, etc.)? I realize it likely worked ok in order for LE to pull the BG video (unless her phone automatically saved data to a cloud storage location and info was pulled from there).

Also, what were temps, precipitation, and humidity that night?

TIA.

 

[Bergmann]

They were hired by two different accredited and approved news sources...so?

So, strange that Gull won’t recognise them as bona fide journalists, no?

 

[Simply Southern]

She might be absent because she doesn't want the public scrutiny. Or maybe her father and/or father asked her not to be present as it's too painful for all of them. Or, perhaps, as you state, she will be taking the stand.

If she is taking the stand, I think that's another example of what RA could have meant when he "killed" his family. An intact family doesn't need to testify against each other (understatement).

But if she is not there to avoid the public, I totally get it. The public is a BURDEN on people in pain. People aren't always kind (another understatement).

jmo

I wonder if she is on the witness list? Won’t that prevent her from being in the court room.

Moo

 

[katydid23]

I understand. But there's no proof that the defense team was leaking information to the public through BM. As you said, they are allegations, and not even from a legal authority. They are allegations from social media consumers who are pro-prosecution and anti-defense, from what I understand. And the decider of the facts, the jury, is blissfully unaware of all of it.

As always, JMO.

They are not just unfounded allegations. We can READ many of the messages that were sent ourselves. And the members admitted to writing them. Discussing getting a hold of the questionairres filled out by the jurors and then having various you-tubers do a deep dive into their personal lives, for leverage of some kind, if need be. The messages said that. ..and many agreed it was a good idea.

So just saying it's no problem because the jurors are unaware is not enough, IMO. It should be a priority to make sure they cannot continue with that kind of sabotage . And having the orchestrator of that craziness being a part of the defense team crew at the trial just shows that the D is not going to stop that kind of subterfuge. IMO

 

[cbeagle]

The official story of RA’s identification/arrest is described below, upon the 60,000 or 70,000 tips being revisited. The ‘clerical error’ in mention has since been attributed to the tip being filed under the last name of what was his street address at the time

Makes no sense to me. If it **just** was under an incorrect name then presumably they would have been actively looking for a person with the wrong name. That doesn't appear to been the case.