Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #203

[Deleted member 296739]

I... just... mind has been boggled. I have never encountered a scenario in which a person who is not, you know, a box cutter distributor, keeps about 25 box cutters in their home.

Don’t look in my garage, sheds, workshop or craft room etc

Having hosted large groups of youth over 20+ years for various art, craft, community service projects, parties- I’ve had 20-30 glue guns, box cutters, cheap hammers, foam board, screwdrivers etc… at times accumulate - and sometimes getting 12 of something from amazon is cheaper than 2 at the local store-

And that’s stuff I’ve purchased on purpose- Not counting the stuff that’s ended up in my house from friends relatives downsizing or passing away or whatever-

I have no idea why he had so many box cutters but there are many non nefarious reasons for oddly high numbers of odd things to accumulate in one’s possession

Moo

 

[Niner]

Delphi Murders trial: Day 7 live blog

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Friday is the seventh day of testimonies in the trial of Delphi Murders suspect Richard Allen at the Carroll County Courthouse in Delphi. Allen, 52, is charged with murder and murder while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping in the deaths of 13-year-old Abigail...

www.wishtv.com

9 a.m.: Court is set to begin​

News 8’s Kyla Russell is at the Carroll County Courthouse to share the latest developments in the Delphi Murders trial.

 

[ClearAhead]

It will be interesting to hear the juror's reactions to RA's imprisonment. I think the "keeping him there for his safety" will fly out the window when they hear the story behind that. MOO

If RA is acting strangely during this trial, the jury might not be at all surprised by his strange behavior in prison. MOO

 

[mrjitty]

This would be why the defense implied there’s no evidence BG actually kidnapped the girls in the opening statement, and tried to say it may have actually been someone else not seen on camera. They have to know it’s a hard sell that RA is not BG when you look at the cumulative facts.

JMO

I was wondering this as well

Are they going to say "even if you think RA might be Bridge Guy, there is no evidence BG did it?"

Motta and co have been trailing the idea that there is no abduction shown on the video since the 3 hearing

 

[mrjitty]

Don’t look in my garage, sheds, workshop or craft room etc

Having hosted large groups of youth over 20+ years for various art, craft, community service projects, parties- I’ve had 20-30 glue guns, box cutters, cheap hammers, foam board, screwdrivers etc… at times accumulate - and sometimes getting 12 of something from amazon is cheaper than 2 at the local store-

And that’s stuff I’ve purchased on purpose- Not counting the stuff that’s ended up in my house from friends relatives downsizing or passing away or whatever-

I have no idea why he had so many box cutters but there are many non nefarious reasons for oddly high numbers of odd things to accumulate in one’s possession

Moo

It's always possible with circumstantial evidence to hen peck every individual piece one by one and speculate it away.

But you have to take it all together and ask what it shows.

IMO

 

[m00c0w]

I was wondering this as well

Are they going to say "even if you think RA might be Bridge Guy, there is no evidence BG did it?"

Motta and co have been trailing the idea that there is no abduction shown on the video since the 3 hearing

Yes. I highlighted their layered defense in depth in a previous thread close to when opening statements happened.

He wasn’t there at that time. But if he was, he wasn’t BG. And even if he was BG, he didn’t kidnap the girls. Next will be if he did kidnap the girls, he didn’t kill them.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

It's always possible with circumstantial evidence to hen peck every individual piece one by one and speculate it away.

But you have to take it all together and ask what it shows.

IMO

That’s why it’s reasonable doubt, not any and all doubt.

Is it reasonable that the totality of evidence points to someone that did all the things RA did, at the same time RA did them, wore the same clothes RA wore, had the same type of gun RA has, drove the same car RA drove (complete with specific black rims), but was never seen and left no evidence behind that points to them versus RA?

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Different households are really different in how they handle laundry, clothes and closet space- all my kids have helped with laundry from a young age and after about 10-12 could and did do their own- outfits and jackets get lent out and disappear and occasionally show up and I don’t always know where things went or came from

my partner and I have separate closets and take stuff to donate and/or buy new stuff independently-

Coats typically go to the cleaners vs washing machine

Everyone goes to thrift stores to purchase items from time to time

All this to say- assuming that a spouse has close tabs on all things clothing, especially seasonal clothing- might be very true in some households while not be a universal experience or valid assumption in all households - moo

I totally agree with what you said. My opinion was based on just this couple.

It's really expensive to have clothes cleaned; I would imagine his coats were washed at home, by her.

I have one family member who has been married for many years and it's like they are joined at the hip. They only have one car and they are always together.

 

[INfisherman]

DD is a conservation officer, likely used to land that is well-hunted. This is not that. It was a strategic question by the defense that is ultimately fairly misleading in the relevant context.

JMO

I understand that but some rebuttal or witness expanding their answer, if allowed, or responding with, "do you want the full answer or just a half truth you’re implying" would seem more appropriate.

Criminal trial lawyers, as I’m sure you’re aware, can be slippery worms with how they effectively railroad witnesses into answering in the manners they wish, which are effectively half truths. Granted they’re just doing their job but truth should outweigh all else - ironic how lawyers aren’t required to be sworn in before every cross exam or trial.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I have been wondering something similar - wouldn’t we think some of that would come out to family, friends and co-workers?

IMO

I think it has. He apparently admitted guilt over 60 times, to family, his psychiatrist, other inmates and to the warden and various prison guards. IMO

 

[Salah11]

So this mythical boyish good looking man will the defense produce this fine specimen of a gentleman to prove there was another man unaccounted for?

 

[justtrish]

I'll be curious to see if you are correct that the jury didn't like Sarah becAuse she was 'abrasive.' I am feeling it might be the opposite, actually. JMO

I think the D duo has been kind of abrasive towards many witnesses and so if they don't like abrasive people, then the D might b the ones in trouble, imo.

And because the jury has seen the D being aggressive, impatient and abrasive at times, maybe the jury would understand why a young female witness, who admitted to having anxiety about being involved in another murder case, might be defensive and agitated during a heavy cross examination. IMO

Jurors are every day people like you and I. These witnesses are every day people. I don't think it ever goes over well with a jury when either side comes at an every day person in an abrasive way. The D here basically victim blamed when they asked SC why she didn't stop to help the muddy and bloody man. No sir, ridiculous.

 

[m00c0w]

I understand that but some rebuttal or witness expanding their answer, if allowed, or responding with, "do you want the full answer or just a half truth you’re implying" would seem more appropriate.

Criminal trial lawyers, as I’m sure you’re aware, can be slippery worms with how they effectively railroad witnesses into answering in the manners they wish, which are effectively half truths. Granted they’re just doing their job but truth should outweigh all else - ironic how lawyers aren’t required to be sworn in before every cross exam or trial.

JMO

The witness is already considered hostile since it’s on cross, so there’s not much they can do aside from answer the question as asked (unless they want to get into an argument). It was totally on the prosecution if they didn’t object to the question (speculation, relevance) or provide clarification on redirect. Not sure if either happened since reporting is so hit or miss on specifics.

JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

TMS - Day 6
51:40 Liggett testimony
Video replayed, it’s been stabilized, not upside down
Image of BG disturbingly close behind Abby shown, horrifying
easier to hear voices using headphones
Liggett hears metallic sound (gun rack?) immediately before DTH

Other-
RA has a lifetime handgun permit
RA says he wore a skullcap that day which he keeps in his pocket.

58:50 for another 2 to 3 minutes Reasons why RA’s arrest had nothing to do with Liggett winning the election. TMS thinks the D is losing the jury over these allegations of a mega- conspiracy judging by the looks on the jury’s faces whenever it’s alleged.

 

[Shadowtrix]

I'll be curious to see if you are correct that the jury didn't like Sarah becAuse she was 'abrasive.' I am feeling it might be the opposite, actually. JMO

I think the D duo has been kind of abrasive towards many witnesses and so if they don't like abrasive people, then the D might b the ones in trouble, imo.

And because the jury has seen the D being aggressive, impatient and abrasive at times, maybe the jury would understand why a young female witness, who admitted to having anxiety about being involved in another murder case, might be defensive and agitated during a heavy cross examination. IMO

Agreed about the likelihood the jury won’t have an issue with how that one witness may have come across on the stand.

She’s there because she has to be. Because she saw something that day. Witnesses are all human beings at the end of the day. Just because they may not come across as the most angelic, likeable, agreeable or pleasant individual at all times, especially while on the stand giving testimony at such a trial involving heinous murders, really doesn’t mean anything.

If I were a juror, I don’t think I’d criticize any witness for something like that.

 

[Inthedetails]

I understand that but some rebuttal or witness expanding their answer, if allowed, or responding with, "do you want the full answer or just a half truth you’re implying" would seem more appropriate.

Criminal trial lawyers, as I’m sure you’re aware, can be slippery worms with how they effectively railroad witnesses into answering in the manners they wish, which are effectively half truths. Granted they’re just doing their job but truth should outweigh all else - ironic how lawyers aren’t required to be sworn in before every cross exam or trial.

JMO

And juries see when lawyers do that, fwiw.

jmo

 

[WildHuncher]

Does he bring them home from work? I worked at a retail store in college and we had box cutters laying around all over the store. Have to admit a few ended up in my cargo pants pockets and ended up in my kitchen junk drawer.

It seems like he accidentally trapped himself because he had told his wife he went hiking on those trails on the 13th. We don't know when he told her, but he did say his wife asked him to report it, and offer his help.

So guilty or innocent, his wife knew he was there and expected him to 'do the right thing' and help with any info he might have. So he was kind of trapped. IMO

My own reconstruction is his wife sees the BG picture and confronts him. “That’s YOU!”

“Ooh! That IS me! I better straighten that out! Believe me, Honey! I was on the trail but I never even SAW those girls.”

And so proceed.

 

[Inthedetails]

TMS thinks the D is losing the jury over these allegations of a mega- conspiracy judging by the looks on the jury’s faces whenever it’s alleged.

snipped

As expected, but good to hear.

jmo

 

[INfisherman]

Deer stand on public or private property?
Iirc the girls were on private property, it was that owner that was at first looked at. Which was sad.

I can’t be sure due to so many summaries lacking detailed testimony. I would assume the D focused their question on the crime scene and area around it. IMO Dulin or P should have clarified with rebuttal. Really a minor detail but every brick counts if no BAM moment occurs in the future. Seems to be mounds of circumstantial evidence which the D might find a way to slither their way through. We shall see.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 296739]

It's always possible with circumstantial evidence to hen peck every individual piece one by one and speculate it away.

But you have to take it all together and ask what it shows.

IMO

Agreed- I was speaking to OP saying no conceivable reason for that many box cutters