Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #206

[Yuletide]

No he doesn't. The prosecution have to prove this to be the case BARD. Which IMO they have failed to do so far.

And we are yet to hear the defense.

JMO

In my opinion, they have not failed. They have tied together an extremely tight time line which places RA at the beginning of the crime scene wearing the same clothes as BG and a bullet that was ejected from RA’s gun at the end of the crime scene. Compelling in my opinion. It meets beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion.

 

[KSwizzle]

In my opinion, they have not failed. They have tied together an extremely tight time line which places RA at the beginning of the crime scene wearing the same clothes as BG and a bullet that was ejected from RA’s gun at the end of the crime scene. Compelling in my opinion. It meets beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion.

The bullet came from A sauer 226, they cannot 100% say that bullet came from RA's gun

 

[Web_Sleuth]

This… not starting with the assumption of guilty but starting with innocent until proven guilty- in a vacuum- taking only what has been presented thus far, in court (as best can be understood given the media limitations) I’d have a hard time seeing BARD that RA is BG and then BG is the killer-

And even if RA was BG — BG is the killer (because who else could have it been?) hasn’t been shown-

All the circumstantial evidence thus far hasn’t shown that - and as far as I know, the D has to poke enough holes in their case to show reasonable doubt- not give a plausible explanation for all of the claims-

But proving RA is BG and BG is the killer hasn’t been proven BARD so far - and no I don’t have theories to explain everything- and I don’t know that RA didn’t do it - he could be 110% guilty as charged and possibly to probably is-

I am saying that starting with a presumption of innocence and based on what has been presented so far in court -and being intellectually honest with myself- it is not FACT nor has proven that RA is guilty - based upon the P’s case thus far - for me- moo

I am right there with you.

 

[arielilane]

From the link:
Before the videos were played, Special Judge Fran Gull asked the jury if any of them had been contacted by the media or anyone regarding the case. All jurors answered no.

My question: Is this just standard operating procedure/a random check-up?

It's a standard question from a judge presiding over a trial- kind of odd the timing of the question being asked before the videos are played, though. moo

 

[tlcya]

-Judge Gull then read the transcript of the part where Allen is arrested because it can’t be shown to the jury

I don't get why that part can't be shown to the jury? It exists on video but is part of the redaction that the jury won't see. I wish I knew why. I wonder if he says the name of an alternate suspect he had recently seen in the news or something that the judge says can't come in due to a previous ruling she's made?

 

[MassGuy]

RS&BBM,

Interesting tidbit here about LE speaking with his daughter.

We know his wife accompanied him to the station.

But when did LE speak with his daughter??

She's married and lives away from Delphi. LE also spoke with some of her friends as / the Three Day Hearings testimony.

Spousal priviledge would not apply. Ae we going to hear from his daughter on the stand I wonder?

That’s what I’m wondering. She hasn’t been in court, as far as I know.

 

[vinayd]

If RA was that "hostile" during questioning his arrest may have also been a bit eventful. No need to prejudice the jury.

 

[BUF]

Allen responded by saying “ kill me. Make my wife rich.”

WOW

 

[BUF]

Holeman also says “Tell him Kathy. Tell him to do the right thing.”
-When Holeman come back Allen says “ you wanna with me? with me. But leave my wife out of this.”

Wonder what KA told the investigators

 

[EllaMinnowP]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851315480172118391

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851315430943502767

Why is the part where he is arrested not allowed to be viewed by the jury, if anyone knows?
Is it because of the Miranda warning not being recorded as part of this video, or some other legal kind of thing?

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851304611313066269

 

[MassGuy]

Thread here. I see nothing incriminating from Allen, as he’s acting like how I would expect an innocent person to react. I’m just not a fan of this particular tactic, as calmly getting him to incriminate himself is probably a much higher percentage play than going for the home run.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851315427894309146

 

[m00c0w]

-Judge Gull then read the transcript of the part where Allen is arrested because it can’t be shown to the jury

I don't get why that part can't be shown to the jury? It exists on video but is part of the redaction that the jury won't see. I wish I knew why. I wonder if he says the name of an alternate suspect he had recently seen in the news or something that the judge says can't come in due to a previous ruling she's made?

I think they’re just being careful about prejudice. Based on what’s been said, he probably got pretty angry and maybe had some outbursts to that effect. They don’t want the argument to be made that the jury convicted partially based on what might appear to be violent behavior in this outburst, as it’s ultimately irrelevant to the facts of the case and whether or not he committed the crime.

Just my take on it. JMO

 

[arielilane]

Why is the part where he is arrested not allowed to be viewed by the jury, if anyone knows?
Is it because of the Miranda warning not being recorded as part of this video, or some other legal kind of thing?

It may taint the jury. It could appear that he's possibly guilty of the double murder.

 

[Yuletide]

If Libby had not snapped that picture on the bridge and if Abby had not concealed Libbys phone with her body when she passed, this case would not be where it is at this point, in my humble opinion. I believe justice will be served

 

[Megnut]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851315447393833093

https://twitter.com/x/status/1851315451479138694

In my opinion, they have not failed. They have tied together an extremely tight time line which places RA at the beginning of the crime scene wearing the same clothes as BG and a bullet that was ejected from RA’s gun at the end of the crime scene. Compelling in my opinion. It meets beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion.

Interesting. RA says he's not going to turn into that guy.

When it's exactly how this has unfolded.... BG's timeline is worked out nearly to the minute, brought into as close a focus as possible, and when RA's own admissions are laid atop BG's, RA and BG do turn into one another.

Libby's video supplies the image, the action, the audio and the critical timestamps which complete the merge.

RA = BG

Separated by a jacket brand, if you want to believe him.

I don't.

 

[Bergmann]

This… not starting with the assumption of guilty but starting with innocent until proven guilty- in a vacuum- taking only what has been presented thus far, in court (as best can be understood given the media limitations) I’d have a hard time seeing BARD that RA is BG and then BG is the killer-

And even if RA was BG — BG is the killer (because who else could have it been?) hasn’t been shown-

All the circumstantial evidence thus far hasn’t shown that - and as far as I know, the D has to poke enough holes in their case to show reasonable doubt- not give a plausible explanation for all of the claims-

But proving RA is BG and BG is the killer hasn’t been proven BARD so far - and no I don’t have theories to explain everything- and I don’t know that RA didn’t do it - he could be 110% guilty as charged and possibly to probably is-

I am saying that starting with a presumption of innocence and based on what has been presented so far in court -and being intellectually honest with myself- it is not FACT nor has proven that RA is guilty - based upon the P’s case thus far - for me- moo

Agree.

For me you have to have decided in advance that RA is guilty and then force fit the evidence you see to this preconceived conclusion, and then expend a great deal of effort finding ways to reject or obfuscate evidence that appears to contradict this.

JMO

 

[arielilane]

Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Law Cases

 

[Megnut]

Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde? IMO that's exactly how he hyd in plain sight all that time.

CVS guy has a dark side.

Don't poke the bear.

JMO

 

[Stormy415]

That’s what I’m wondering. She hasn’t been in court, as far as I know.

She was there the first day, Saturday, then not appearing anymore. Perhaps she is working and cannot get off.