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

[detectivewannab]

You would think so.

They probably didn't even open the video files until today only to discover there are not dates.

Should have done their homework but too busy writing fantasy Franks full of rituals and other nonsense.

They seem to not go through everything (files, discovery, etc) that they receive.
Incompetent lawyers, from what I am reading. JMO

They also put a witness on stand to testify about a 302 Report --
One that he did NOT even write

OOPS.
JMO

I think they did it on purpose to show bad police work. Grandstanding

 

[katydid23]

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

How could three people walking together on a trail, see one person, walk by, and then it is somehow plausible they actually are describing three different people?

That is impossible. They all saw the same person. When interviewed separately, their descriptions varied, AS IS EXPECTED with witness descriptions after he fact.

 

[MiniMoo]

RA admitted HE saw THEM.

RA saw an older female with long black hair that looked like a babysitter with two younger ones.

The three teens and minor saw a creepy man.

He saw three females not four and the group of four saw a man that creeped them out.

He didn't see three teens and a minor.

Whoever the group of four saw, however, didn't describe Richard Allen.

JMO MOO JMT

 

[AugustWest]

But that's the point - they don't have evidence, just theories.

jmo

A third-party confession to the crime is direct evidence. As we see with the evidence against RA, timelines can change and there can be fact questions about alibis and their veracity.

 

[minor4th]

RA admitted HE saw THEM.

He said he saw three girls (not 4). I don’t think it’s conclusive that he saw the people who have testified against him.

 

[zh0r4]

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.

Does the inability of the D to present other potential suspects violate the defendant’s constitutional rights? Or is it legal?

 

[Inthedetails]

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.

So many people are repeating the same things about the "injustice" about a decision that seems to have followed procedure. Huh.

jmo

 

[Vern]

The states own witnesses said they saw potentially two other people that weren’t bridge guy, the muddy and bloody walking person and a younger individual, that’s literally state witnesses own testimony

Yo are speaking of SC, the witness who testified to the "muddy and bloody". She insisted that it was BG that she saw walking.

The young guy by the mailbox a few thousand feet up the road where the gate to the private driveway begins? That was the morning of 13th February. The witness testified she did not see him again after that intitial glimpse. And no one else saw a similar guy on or around the trails or the MHB tat afternoon or around the time of the crimes.

The Defence's own filing for bringing in the Odinism/3rd Party the other day is "because a State witness tesified that there were branches on the bodies." That was in their original Franks' that was denied. People covering bodies with sticks, leaves etc is not a show "proof" of Odinism IMO.

 

[cbeagle]

I posted a link overnight that quoted Wala as saying RA said "a van" - he did not say a "white van" per her testimony according to the link I shared in that post (pls search for it under my username if you are interested). As such, I am wondering, what makes people think RA said he saw a "white van"? Is there a link to where HE said this? Anything I've read from various articles asserts that another witness (may have been Holeman, not sure) said "white van" - but, to my knowledge, RA did not. Ty in advance for the link to where RA said it himself.

Fox59 video report explicitly said RA said white van. I posted the link yesterday.

 

[MiniMoo]

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.

To my understanding...

The Defense needs to establish reasonable doubt - it is the State that has the burden of proof.

Third party possibilities should be permitted!

What has the State got to lose?

JMO MOO JMT

 

[steeltowngirl]

RA saw an older female with long black hair that looked like a babysitter with two younger ones.

The three teens and minor saw a creepy man.

He saw three females not four and the group of four saw a man that creeped them out.

He didn't see three teens and a minor.

Whoever the group of four saw, however, didn't describe Richard Allen.

JMO MOO JMT

I will seriously give you props for keeping that straight and posting it so quickly. My head hurts. That looks like one of those mathematical word puzzles people post on FB.

jmo

 

[Vern]

I've never understood this. If there was evidence, why wouldn't they have been arrested?

There was evidence ... that they were elsewhere. Thus, denied.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why the Defense did not concentrate on KAK and possibly his father too. That floors me.

 

[otto]

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 man on the left was on the bridge at the same time that the girls were kidnapped. The man on the right is sitting in the courtroom today.

Should witnesses have been asked to confirm that the man on the right was on the bridge on Feb 13, 2017?

The timeline seems coherent. A man resembling Richard Allen was seen walking towards the Monon bridge (3 girls). He was seen by a witness (adult female) standing on the bridge. He admitted being on the bridge and saw a fish. The girls (Libby and Abby) were seen walking towards the bridge by the witness (adult female) who saw a man resembling RA on the bridge. Shortly afterward, at 2:!3, the girls were abducted (video) at the South end of the bridge.

 

[SouthEnd]

A third-party confession to the crime is direct evidence. As we see with the evidence against RA, timelines can change and there can be fact questions about alibis and their veracity.

Wasn't all said questions about their alibis asked and answered during the pre-trial hearing? How much more evidence is required to prove that a person who clocked out at a time that makes it impossible to be at the bridge at 2:13, who had sworn testimony from a coworker placing them at work and even posted on SM about work was, indeed, at work?

That's why, IMO, it is the Judge's job to rule at which point the questioning is sufficient and needs to be dropped. Because lets be honest, if it was up to D attorneys there wouldn't be any evidence enough to prove that Someone Else Did Not Do It. (you can agree with me off the record, I will never tell!)

All MOO

 

[minor4th]

The man on the left was on the bridge at the same time that the girls were kidnapped. The man on the right is sitting in the courtroom today.

Should witnesses have been asked to confirm that the man on the right was on the bridge on Feb 13, 2017?

The timeline seems coherent. A man resembling Richard Allen was seen walking towards the Monon bridge (3 girls). He was seen by a witness (adult female) standing on the bridge. He admitted being on the bridge and saw a fish. The girls (Libby and Abby) were seen walking towards the bridge by the witness (adult female) who saw a man resembling RA on the bridge. Shortly afterward, at 2:!3, the girls were abducted (video) at the South end of the bridge.

But it wasn’t a man resembling Richard Allen according to the witness descriptions.

 

[MiniMoo]

I will seriously give you props for keeping that straight and posting it so quickly. My head hurts. That looks like one of those mathematical word puzzles people post on FB.

jmo

It is what it is according to what has come out in the trial.

I asked about the three and four girls on here, but no one could answer. Not one person. It was the minor couldn't be seen or maybe the minor was behind someone.

Richard Allen saw three girls and their descriptions don't fit the four that included a minor.

The trial, for me, gave the answers and clarity about who saw who and the difference between the three and four.

JMO MOO JMT

 

[m00c0w]

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.

It’s not just “other suspects”, it’s two specific suspects. There is apparently pretty significant case law in Indiana that in order to employ a third party defense, there has to be a showing that the potential third parties are materially linked to the crime. The defense has not been able to do this so far; all that they have demonstrated is a ton of speculation and a pretty bad expert witness.

It certainly doesn’t help that since the trial started it’s been made pretty apparent that the defense took enormous liberties in manipulating the truth (putting it nicely) in several motions they filed regarding these theories.

As far as Odinism itself, I don’t recall what the rationale is there. It does seem sort of strange to eliminate that altogether. I’ll have to look at the motion in limine again to see what the prosecution actually gave as the reasoning.

JMO

 

[JosieMae]

How can the judge deny the theory it was comitted by someone not RA, that’s wild. I do think he did it but this is seeming like a witch trial, literally someone not RA committing these murders whether he knew and worked with them to do it or he didn’t and they are completely separate is the only to me plausible explanation that a defense could argue and they’re not even allowed to do that? That’s an injustice to everyone, MOO

Because there is no evidence. Theory is not evidence.

 

[minor4th]

A third-party confession to the crime is direct evidence. As we see with the evidence against RA, timelines can change and there can be fact questions about alibis and their veracity.

Yes, and there have been third-party confessions and inculpatory statements. Those should definitely be allowed.

 

[Vern]

It’s the video of BG taking a couple of steps. The one we’ve all seen. I think that is the sum total of the video of BG that was taken.

It's actually 3 frames. That's it.

The jury got to see the entire video, all 47 seconds of it.