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

[statt#1]

It’s the Defense's job to ensure that the Prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that their client is guilty of the crime they’re being accused of. They’re doing their job to ensure no innocent person is penalized for a crime that they did not commit. IMO

And my argument is that some of their approach is doing a disservice to the defense.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

That is not at all what I said.

I do think there's a strategic reason some things have been scrubbed.

As always, JMO.

That seems to by illegal to me. How can LE hide information about a murder case and it be ok? JMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I am pretty sure the Hoosier Harveststore building is literally right by the drop off point.
I will double check on that though.

It's just a short distance away. L's sister said she watched them go down the trail and at some point she was talking on the phone. We'll see what is said during the trial about it.

 

[twall]

As a trial watcher, your opinion is that it's a hoax.

As a trial watcher, my opinion is that it's important and I want to see how this plays out. Who the hair belongs to and why the investigators didn't follow up on it (and told Angela Ganote to pull reporting on DNA).

What else has LE told media outlets to pull so the public doesn't know about it? <modsnip: Stating something unsourced as fact and tacking on a JMO is not allowed.>

As always, IMO

I think a lot of people are missing the point of why AB mentioned the hair. The point is to show LE didn't do a stellar job of investigating because they didn't id a hair that was found on the hand of a victim.
Rule #1 of criminal defense is attack the investigation. JMO

 

[statt#1]

Can someone please clear something up for me?
Did the search parties search the area where Abby and Libby were eventually found BEFORE they were found? In other words, did they not find their bodies under the tree the first time they looked there? OR did they not search that area until they actually found Abby and Libby? That would be the first time that area was searched when they found the girls.
I hope that makes sense.
Thank you,
Tricia

I recall early on that nobody thought the girls were led across the creek to where they were eventually found. I just don't think they were searching over there. I doubt seriously that any searchers even went 'down the hill' following a trail through the woods to the stream, crossed the stream, and came upon the final crime scene, the day and night when the girls were first reported missing.

 

[katydid23]

As a trial watcher, your opinion is that it's a hoax.

As a trial watcher, my opinion is that it's important and I want to see how this plays out. Who the hair belongs to and why the investigators didn't follow up on it (and told Angela Ganote to pull reporting on DNA).

What else has LE told media outlets to pull so the public doesn't know about it? <modsnip: Stating something unsourced as fact and tacking on a JMO is not allowed.>

As always, IMO

How is it important? Did one of Libby's female cousins kill the girls? Or her grandmother? Does anyone really believe that?

It is total deflection to point attention away from the man who has already admitted to being there on that bridge on that afternoon. IMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Nothing that has been reported on in mainstream media. If you follow alternative/social media posts, searchers have spoken out and said, unequivocally, they searched there.

As always, JMO

So it's not a fact, just something posted on social media?

 

[TTF14]

I am pretty sure the Hoosier Harveststore building is literally right by the drop off point.
I will double check on that though.

It's nearby but the camera doesn't show the drop-off point. Just the cars that would be driving by (but not who is in the cars).

As always, JMO.

 

[Deleted member 229974]

I don’t “hate” them at all.

I don’t know them and they have zero to do with my own life.

What I am is DISMISSIVE of them.

IMO their negligence about securing the crime scene photos of A and L was not only horrific, but directly led to another death, this time by suicide.

Then their purported theories in their endless Franks were not substantiated by any evidence.

The Constitution requires the law to regard RA as innocent until proven otherwise. The D’s job is to prove his innocence.

IMO if he is innocent the facts will show it, rather than the defense creating smoke and mirror distraction tactics, or write-your-own-ending narratives.

Just my opinion.

A criminal defense attorney doesn't have to prove that their client is innocent; they must simply convince the judge or jury that there is some doubt in the case about their client's guilt.

 

[rez125]

I think a lot of people are missing the point of why AB mentioned the hair. The point is to show LE didn't do a stellar job of investigating because they didn't id a hair that was found on the hand of a victim.
Rule #1 of criminal defense is attack the investigation. JMO

Yeah... people are grasping IMO and annoyed that the D are challenging something that should have been dotted and crossed in the beginning.

It's sloppy and is rightly being exposed.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

How is it important? Did one of Libby's female cousins kill the girls? Or her grandmother? Does anyone really believe that?

It is total deflection to point attention away from the man who has already admitted to being there on that bridge on that afternoon. IMO

Good points.

If the defense really tries to push the familial hair as a defense for their client, without anything to back it up, it will make them look, well not so good to put it politely. JMO.

 

[Seattle1]

BBM - but times change and evolve with the progression of technology and society.

Part of the angst is due to the fact that Judge Gull was/is a proponent for livestreaming trials. Just not this one.

But this does not take away from the fact the Court is still charged with ensuring the orderly disposition of the case and preserving the processes by which a fair trial may be conducted, generally, on a case by case basis.

To that end, the Court enters a Decorum Order pertaining to the conduct of the trial in this matter which may or may not include EMC (expanded media coverage). The media, the
public, the parties, and the parties' legal representatives and agents shall at all times be subject the Order by the Court.

Evolving or not, it's unfortunate that human behavior can not be predicted to be civil, dignified, or honorable -- even under solemnity of a courtroom.

For examples, it was recently reported that people posing as law enforcement officers or official media outlets to gain access to private, locked WebEx live streams were nude and playing during livestreaming court proceedings.

And if the Court had to Order restrictions to enter/exit the courtroom, it's likely due to prior experience. In other words, it's not so unusual.

A similar instruction was provided for the 2019 decorum Order for Colorado's Patrick Frazee's trial -- convicted of murdering Kelsey Berreth:

Except for emergencies, all members of the public and media in Division 11 Courtroom
shall be seated before the Court session begins. When the Judge enters the courtroom,
everyone must rise and then be seated at his direction. Everyone must then remain
seated until a recess is called. No admittance will be permitted while Court is in session.
Spectators or media leaving the courtroom while the Court is in session will not be
permitted to re-enter until the next break.

Here, I also recall the Court further requiring media and the public to cross the street to utilize their electronics, a parameter used to establishing the Courthouse location. It soon became known as 'tweeting the trial from across the street,' but not due to any infringement against the civil rights of the defendant or others.

MOO

https://krdo.com/news/2024/08/07/na...ng-colorado-court-live-streams-officials-say/

The People of the State of Colorado v. Patrick Frazee | Colorado Judicial Branch

www.coloradojudicial.gov

 

[Deleted member 229974]

Usually that is what the Defense is doing.
Here we have grown lawyers leaking crime scene photos. filing baseless Franks etc.

There are always going to be bad apples in the bunch. IMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I think a lot of people are missing the point of why AB mentioned the hair. The point is to show LE didn't do a stellar job of investigating because they didn't id a hair that was found on the hand of a victim.
Rule #1 of criminal defense is attack the investigation. JMO

No.
We all get the point. A classic defense strategy.
What we don’t get is why the defense attorneys didn’t cobble together a defense of this type a year ago instead of fabricating fiction and wasting time and money.
Also, why do they still spout out half-truths and try and play smoke and mirrors. There was an honorable way to defend RA, they have chosen not to do that.
For me, I don’t believe a word they say.

All my opinion

 

[katydid23]

I think a lot of people are missing the point of why AB mentioned the hair. The point is to show LE didn't do a stellar job of investigating because they didn't id a hair that was found on the hand of a victim.
Rule #1 of criminal defense is attack the investigation. JMO

It seems like an unfair attack, imo. They spent 20k to find out it was a female familial match. Abby was wearing a hoodie borrowed from Libby's sister. So they no longer cared if it was an aunt or a cousin or grandma. They needed to conserve time and resources and move on to more important tasks.

How is it 'not stellar' for a DA in a small, not wealthy town, to have to make financial decisions about what to test next instead of following an expensive dead end.

They are attacking him for making the same kind of decisions everyone has to make with tight budgetary constraints.

They have video of the guy on the bridge who forced the girls down the hill at gunpoint. It was not one of Libby's female family members so they moved on and kept the bill at 20k. That would pay for 3 more expert witnesses. It's a lot of money.

 

[Tricia]

Nothing that has been reported on in mainstream media. If you follow alternative/social media posts, searchers have spoken out and said, unequivocally, they searched there.

As always, JMO

Thank you. That's what I thought. We will find out for sure during the trial.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Well, I can't way whether it is a fact or not, but there have been claims, unequivocally, of searching that area that night and the girls were not there. It was from someone who knows the area well. I happened to believe him but your mileage may vary.

As we've seen with reporting in mainstream media about the shoes recently, mainstream media also is not always fact.

As always, JMO.

How do you know that the persons making these claims are really who they claim to be and witnessed these things?

 

[katydid23]

There are always going to be bad apples in the bunch. IMO

But sometimes those bad apples spoil the whole barrel.

But in this case, I think it's the head of the snake. IMO

 

[statt#1]

Yeah... people are grasping IMO and annoyed that the D are challenging something that should have been dotted and crossed in the beginning.

It's sloppy and is rightly being exposed.

See, my opinion, this is simply not true, this idea that it was 'sloppy'. They obviously tested that hair, found that it traced back to a family member, said family members not being suspects for various and sundry reasons determined throughout the investigation. There simply was no need to try and determine which family member as it would make no difference whatsoever, as the girls were not murdered at the hands of family.

 

[ClearAhead]

I recall early on that nobody thought the girls were led across the creek to where they were eventually found. I just don't think they were searching over there. I doubt seriously that any searchers even went 'down the hill' following a trail through the woods to the stream, crossed the stream, and came upon the final crime scene, the day and night when the girls were first reported missing.

Yes, there was no reason for anyone to search in the darkness of night in the location where they were found, reportedly steep terrain. The testimony yesterday by S Mullen, ex police chief, was that at worst it was believed the girls might’ve succumbed to an accident, ie drowning in the river.