Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #202

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a really great summary!

By the time this trial is near the end I think the various mistakes and mixups on the P side will appear minor in the eyes of the jury compared to the overdo of the D who seem to be accusing or insinuating that every one of the P’s witnesses are either mistaken, wrong or lying.

JMO

IMO the advantage of being late to this case is that from my perspective, the mistakes is why they didn't solve it. As soon as they corrected a key mistake they solved the case.

The idea that the mistakes mean RA is being set up is 180 degrees out IMO.
 
The quote above is from the autopsy report posted by seattle1. No restraint wounds at least on Abby.

I disagree, melted, due to the autopsy report.






Agreeing with MassGuy and southend.

The autopsy report again says “ no” to restraint wounds on Abby and mentions nothing that I saw about residue, except for possibly the mouth, and maybe I missed it but I can’t recall seeing anything about fibers on their bodies.

IMO
This fibres on the body was testified to yesterday - Here's what has happened so far in the Delphi murders trial

ETA: I am now confused and looking for a new link because the header on google says it mentions it but I can't find it in the article.
1729715073003.png

Screen shot from second link... Ty for your patience.
 
Nah.

If she were being framed up by someone coercing her into "changing her mind" (you have alleged exactly that above with the "who"; not to mention the allegation of her comitting perjury that comes with it)

She would have given a timing of 1530hrs ... which would have aligned with what Richard Allen himself advised Officer Dulin he was on the trails until.

No coercion. No-one changing her mind.

Just more spin IMO.
lol what? Doesn’t have to be coerced. Just is what it is. Terrible memory terrible investigating terrible witness.
 
JBC is a witness in this trial
Well he's certainly in the Defence's Witness list.

I still haven't seen a Transport Order for him from the Court though (and I keep looking for new doc updates to post here).

I suspect he is who the Defence now wants bring in as the SODDI ... if they can factually connect him to the crime as a "show proof" during the trial.

If they can, we may then see the transport order come, if they can't there's no guarantee we'll actually see him on the stand IMO.

He was certainly investigated in this case, but no public confirmation that I can find of him being ruled out. That doesn't mean he hasn't been because if he was, then it isn't relevant for release as part of this trial. That would make him just another POI in this case who was investigated and ruled out.
 
I was just wondering - if AW was wearing LG's clothes right - did LE ever locate AW's clothing? Her jeans? The pink top? The whatever warm jacket or sweater she was given by KG?
Quoting myself here because this link https://fox59.com/delphi-trial/delp...ion-of-investigator-marks-day-4-of-testimony/

The screenshot from the link shows that they recovered a pair of holister blue jeans - who's were these? If they found a pair of jeans - what about whatever pants LG was wearing that day? What was she wearing and where is it? Do we know?

1729715333039.png
 
Extremely puzzling!

It appears the D intended to trip her up ever since she clarified the man was muddy and bloody in 2019. It’s impossible to know what impression she left on the jury.

“Defense attorney Andrew Baldwin sought to discredit Carbaugh by picking apart the statements she gave to police during three interviews.

Baldwin pointed out that Carbaugh mentioned the word "mud" 11 times during the first interview. She said the word 13 times during the second interview in June of 2017. The word "blood" was not in the transcript of both interviews, Baldwin said, but Carbaugh insisted she remembers talking to investigators about it.

During the third interview two years later, in 2019, she mentioned the word "blood" 16 times but not the word "mud" or "muddy." Carbaugh said she talked about blood more because that's what investigators focused on during the interview.

The cross-examination was intense, with Carbaugh addressing the jury instead of Baldwin as she answered questions and later growing defensive and sarcastic. When Baldwin pointed out that her statements were not consistent, she said, "I guess not."

At one point, Baldwin questioned why Carbaugh didn't stop to help the man. Carbaugh said she didn't feel safe stopping to help a random man on the side of a county road.“
 
Having read the witness testimony for the people who saw BG that day, I can’t help but feel LE have failed to identify ‘the link’ between RA and the girls.

Look at what the witnesses say:

‘He was walking with purpose’

‘Like he had somewhere to be’

‘His posture and how he was stood on the bridge told me that he was waiting for someone’

It all tells me that RA knew they were going to be there and most likely lured them there.
 
It appears the D intended to trip her up ever since she clarified the man was muddy and bloody in 2019. It’s impossible to know what impression she left on the jury.

“Defense attorney Andrew Baldwin sought to discredit Carbaugh by picking apart the statements she gave to police during three interviews.

Baldwin pointed out that Carbaugh mentioned the word "mud" 11 times during the first interview. She said the word 13 times during the second interview in June of 2017. The word "blood" was not in the transcript of both interviews, Baldwin said, but Carbaugh insisted she remembers talking to investigators about it.

During the third interview two years later, in 2019, she mentioned the word "blood" 16 times but not the word "mud" or "muddy." Carbaugh said she talked about blood more because that's what investigators focused on during the interview.

The cross-examination was intense, with Carbaugh addressing the jury instead of Baldwin as she answered questions and later growing defensive and sarcastic. When Baldwin pointed out that her statements were not consistent, she said, "I guess not."

At one point, Baldwin questioned why Carbaugh didn't stop to help the man. Carbaugh said she didn't feel safe stopping to help a random man on the side of a county road.“
Personally, I do not think it looks brilliant for the State that they've somehow lost the recordings (of not just her interview but others as well). Its just not a good look imo and it casts a lot of doubt for me as to what LE asked her / what she said when even she says that she "talked about blood more because that's what investigators focused on during the interview". Even she agrees her statements were not consistent. I do wonder as well, if she saw a man who was muddy etc why she didn't at least call police to do a wellness check on him at the time when she saw him? Why not call police the following day when it was then in the news the kids had been found dead? I'd also like to have heard how many people (if any) she spoke with about what she saw that day BEFORE she gave any statement to the police? MOOOOO.
 

I personally feel this SHOULD be heard by the jury. I do not believe the sticks were about concealment at all. I have no idea if they were symbolic to any particular group etc, but they were certainly not random imo. Do not believe JG will grant the motion however.
 
Personally, I do not think it looks brilliant for the State that they've somehow lost the recordings (of not just her interview but others as well). Its just not a good look imo and it casts a lot of doubt for me as to what LE asked her / what she said when even she says that she "talked about blood more because that's what investigators focused on during the interview". Even she agrees her statements were not consistent. I do wonder as well, if she saw a man who was muddy etc why she didn't at least call police to do a wellness check on him at the time when she saw him? Why not call police the following day when it was then in the news the kids had been found dead? I'd also like to have heard how many people (if any) she spoke with about what she saw that day BEFORE she gave any statement to the police? MOOOOO.

It’s not been reported if the jury asked any questions of her.

She already gave her reason why she didn’t contact LE away. Then when she saw an officer taking tips at a road block to her that as a “sign from god” that she should disclose her information.
 

I personally feel this SHOULD be heard by the jury. I do not believe the sticks were about concealment at all. I have no idea if they were symbolic to any particular group etc, but they were certainly not random imo. Do not believe JG will grant the motion however.

I don’t believe she’ll grant it either as nothing has changed since she denied the request.
 
Personally, I do not think it looks brilliant for the State that they've somehow lost the recordings (of not just her interview but others as well). Its just not a good look imo and it casts a lot of doubt for me as to what LE asked her / what she said when even she says that she "talked about blood more because that's what investigators focused on during the interview". Even she agrees her statements were not consistent. I do wonder as well, if she saw a man who was muddy etc why she didn't at least call police to do a wellness check on him at the time when she saw him? Why not call police the following day when it was then in the news the kids had been found dead? I'd also like to have heard how many people (if any) she spoke with about what she saw that day BEFORE she gave any statement to the police? MOOOOO.
This man (attached) was walking along the road looking dirty with what appeared to be mud and blood on his clothing. He was described by other witnesses as being unfriendly and having his face covered. He is over-dressed for the weather and carried a suspicious pouch that may contain a weapon.

The defence wants to know why the female witness did not stop to offer the man a ride. Absurd question. Furthermore, if it wasn't the defendant, what difference does it make how dirty he looked? According to the defence, their client was not there. Their client left the park at 2:15 and the real culprit was in the area during the middle of the night.

The line of questioning implies that it was their client, he was there, but he wasn't dirty with mud and blood.

"She also saw a man covered in “mud” and “blood” walking along a country road. She said she drove past the man, who did not acknowledge her, but says she later recognized him as “Bridge Guy.” She waited three weeks to report who she saw to police, saying she was afraid."

 

Attachments

  • 1729716193407.png
    1729716193407.png
    191.6 KB · Views: 10

Wednesday afternoon began with a testimony from Sgt. Christopher Cecil, a former digital forensics expert for the Indiana State Police who provided jurors with a timeline of the girls' movements based on an analysis of the contents of Libby's iPhone.

At 1:38 p.m. on Feb. 13, 2017, Libby called her father, named "Daddy-o" in her contacts list. Derrick German testified last week that Libby called him to ask him to pick them up from the Monon High Bridge trail later that afternoon.

At 1:41 p.m., while the girls were on the way to the trail, Libby posted a selfie on Snapchat. Abby was sitting in the backseat. Libby posted another selfie two minutes later. She was smiling, while Abby had a blank expression.

At 2:05 p.m., Libby posted a photo of the high bridge just before they crossed.

At 2:13 p.m., Cecil said, "a video was recorded."

The 43-second video, which jurors saw Tuesday, showed Abby crossing the bridge and a man ― the one who would later become widely known as the "Bridge Guy" and a primary suspect in the case ― following her. Prosecutors allege that man is Allen.

The last movement detected by the phone's Apple health app was at 2:32 p.m.

Officials initially believed that the last signal the phone received was around 10 p.m. on Feb. 13, Cecil said. But a second analysis conducted earlier this year using more advanced programs found that the last signal was actually received at 4:33 a.m. on Feb. 14, Cecil testified.

At that time, Libby's phone received several text messages at once. One came from her grandmother, Becky Patty, who, along with relatives and others, had been searching for Abby and Libby for several hours.

"You need to call me now!!!" Patty texted.

Cecil said there was no indication that Libby's phone had been turned off, and it's unclear why the messages all came at once.
 

I personally feel this SHOULD be heard by the jury. I do not believe the sticks were about concealment at all. I have no idea if they were symbolic to any particular group etc, but they were certainly not random imo. Do not believe JG will grant the motion however.
Apparently there is no evidence of ritual at the crime scene. Putting a couple of sticks on a couple of dead bodies does not mean the murders were ritualistic, although some rituals may involve sticks.
 
I think I'm a bit of a fool because in a few situations I chose to get involved and some of those situations weren't safe, but I wouldn't change it.

Understandable, of course, if you are all alone and not sure of your own safety, but at least you would call 911 or would have called 911.

JMO MOO JMT
Or, it's very plausable that she had driven past a group pf people at the Mear's Farm Entrance to the trails and saw a group of distressed people - one in a pink shirt who was visibly distressed.

Possibly, she associates the muddy and bloody guy walking beside the road that she had driven by quite seperately with a possible altercation that involved the group of distressed people she also passed by who were down at the Mears' Farm Trail Entrance.

Thinks nothing more of it until that pic gets released and goes (something like), "OMG - that's the guy I saw!" Just like the other 4 females who saw him on the trails earlier did. They identified him by clothing as being the guy, not by his face.

She testified on the stand today that she was terrified. I suspect that she became terrified after she found out there had been a greusome double murder and realized that she had probably passed by the killer.

IMO of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
592
Total visitors
752

Forum statistics

Threads
626,031
Messages
18,516,024
Members
240,897
Latest member
crime belarby
Back
Top