Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #209

[MiniMoo]

Not at all. It has been 7.5 years. They were kids walking on a trail, briefly saw a man who fits his description. They didn’t know they were seeing a man who would later be on trial for murder.

They weren’t asked in court to identify RA as BG. Not even on cross. The key to the witnesses is they corroborate the timeline. It fits with the timeline that RA admitted.

jmo

The descriptions they gave back in 2017 dont fit him either.

None of the witnesses, actually.

JMO MOO JMT

 

[FrostedGlass]

I just don’t see how anyone can think it’s fair to preclude the defense from presenting evidence of other suspects. That’s insane and puts a guilty verdict, if there is one, in jeopardy.

I really hate to see this.

MOO
This is a sad time for Indiana and I hate what's happening here for everyone. However, I have the most confidence in this jury that I've ever had.

 

[minor4th]

They most certainly did. They all say the man they saw is "BG" from the still photo taken from Libby's cellphone video.

Incorrect.

 

[Vern]

Because they don't just want to say that someone else could have done it, they have specific people in mind and they haven't (as yet) met the judges criteria for proving those people are viable SODDIs.

It's not even the Judge's criteria.

Indiana requires factual evidence, not just rumour and innuendo.

IMO (because the post citing the laws are burried upteen threads ago and my digging through legal docs for the day is done).

Maybe after I've finshed my supper.

 

[SouthEnd]

There are specific people who are potential third-party culprits and there is admissible evidence. It is absolutely an injustice. You don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else did it <modsnip>.

I have read every transcript of the 3-day-hearing and I would love for someone to point me exactly were it was said that any of the people discussed had the opportunity. Every single one was cleared, from physically being seen at work, clocking out etc, or from phone activity.

All MOO.

 

[katydid23]

There are specific people who are potential third-party culprits and there is admissible evidence. It is absolutely an injustice. You don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else did it <modsnip>.

Did I say they needed to prove anything BARD?

I don't see it as an injustice of the alternate suspects have already been investigated and cleared. The specific third party people have been discussed in hearing 3x and the Judge ruled they were inadmissible.

I guess it will be appealed.

 

[MiniMoo]

They most certainly did. They all say the man they saw is "BG" from the still photo taken from Libby's cellphone video.

They saw BG.

But who saw Richard Allen.

 

[Spartygirl]

I am not understanding this decision either as the State opened that door to the Defense.

I wouldn't have gone with the Odinist argument, but third party possibilities is something that surely should have been admissible.

JMO MOO JMT

What is there to NOT understand ?

The Defense team can't prove it.

JG has given them a few different chances to prove their SODDI and they have not been able to.

They can't admit it because there is nothing to admit.

 

[SouthEnd]

Not all of them - one witness, the least credible of the bunch.

Did you see my second link?

 

[BUF]

Not one of the states witnesses identified Richard Allen as the person they saw that day, and I don’t believe any of them have identified the Bridge Guy in the photo/video as the man they saw either. Doesn’t it make you question just a teeny bit why they wouldn’t be able to identify Richard Allen or “Bridge Guy”?

I posted this the other day. This is one of the things that really convinced me RA was guilty….

One of the things that is really odd to me is these other people described seeing BG….but RA described these other people, but never mentioned he saw BG …and BG was dressed just like RA described himself.

 

[steeltowngirl]

The descriptions they gave back in 2017 dont fit him either.

None of the witnesses, actually.

RA admitted HE saw THEM.

 

[minor4th]

Not at all. It has been 7.5 years. They were kids walking on a trail, briefly saw a man who fits his description. They didn’t know they were seeing a man who would later be on trial for murder.

They weren’t asked in court to identify RA as BG. Not even on cross. The key to the witnesses is they corroborate the timeline. It fits with the timeline that RA admitted.

jmo

They weren’t asked in court to identify RA probably because that’s not who they saw.

And their timelines contradict each other and some contradict the state’s theory.

 

[shonyakay]

Not all of them - one witness, the least credible of the bunch.

If you are talking about Sarah Carbaugh she testified that when the photo came out she recognized "BG" as the man she saw she just didn't want to get involved in a murder investigation.

 

[minor4th]

The descriptions they gave back in 2017 dont fit him either.

None of the witnesses, actually.

JMO MOO JMT

Not one. And the descriptions are all over the place, so it’s plausible they al saw different people.

 

[katydid23]

They saw BG.

But who saw Richard Allen.

Same guy. Richard himself said so. He told the warden, his wife, his mother, that he was Bridge Guy.

 

[steeltowngirl]

They weren’t asked in court to identify RA probably because that’s not who they saw.

And their timelines contradict each other and some contradict the state’s theory.

Interesting.
If you are sure they would say RA was not the man they saw, why didn’t defense ask them if the man they saw was RA?

 

[WildHuncher]

Not one. And the descriptions are all over the place, so it’s plausible they al saw different people.

Three of the five were together in a group. They agree on the number (one) of men they saw.

 

[SouthEnd]

They weren’t asked in court to identify RA probably because that’s not who they saw.

And their timelines contradict each other and some contradict the state’s theory.

The only person contradicting the timeline was one of the 4 girls, who gave the time of seeing BG at about 2:10ish. The other girl who was with her had the time right, fortified by the photo of the bench and the text they received from Libby herself (they were already almost out of the trails by the time the text was received). IANAL but if I was I would say something like - it is very natural for witnesses to some details wrong. It only proves they did not collude with each other or the state.

All MOO

 

[MassGuy]

Three of the five were together in a group. They agree on the number (one) of men they saw.

And that’s the most important sighting for me, as Allen seemed to corroborate it himself.

 

[MrsWatson]

There are specific people who are potential third-party culprits and there is admissible evidence. It is absolutely an injustice. You don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else did it <modsnip>.

But who are these specific people? Why doesn't the defense have proof of their potential to show the judge?