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

[MiniMoo]

First, unless I’m hearing the full version, cleaned up (audio), I’m not going to speculate on what can or cannot be heard.

Whether a round is in the chamber or not, the slide can be racked. If one carries a gun with a round in the chamber in hopes of committing a murder & wishes to leave as little evidence behind, then I’d say racking the slide is making a pretty big mistake. It’s one more casing or round with which the perp must be concerned.

Yes, some carry a gun locked & loaded, so to speak.

JMO

ETA locked & loaded response

Only one bullet can be racked at a time, right?

Am I understanding that correctly.

JMT

 

[MassGuy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1852547141547258213

 

[KSwizzle]

This is a top-notch defense team, especially as public defenders.

And that’s why I’m an engineer not a lawyer, the odinism thing makes no sense to me when more plausible realistic defenses are there, MOO

 

[INfisherman]

Only one bullet can be racked at a time, right?

Am I understanding that correctly.

JMT

Yes, unless the gun is empty.

JMO

 

[AugustWest]

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped> ... there’s an example about Aaron Burr. It’s weighty stuff.

FG denied Odinism and other suspects. I am trying to understand specifically how that disallows a witness in one’s favor. If you mean SODDI, I get that. Clearly, if defense says he didn’t do it, someone else did. The jury understands that. Defense wants to present another part of the investigation, one that didn’t provide evidence to bring charges against others.

I think you are indicating that Gull is presiding over a trial and making rulings in a manner that are unconstitutional.

I will have to respect your opinion as an attorney, take a step back, and read some more.

It denies him the right to present a defense of his choosing, which is one of the things the constitution means when it says "obtaining witnesses in one's favor." All that Aaron Burr heady stuff and the case law that has flowed since the founding of our country is incorporated into that term: "obtaining witnesses in one's favor."

Does the jury understand that? If you were a juror, and a defendant was only able to poke at prosecution witnesses, wouldn't you wonder "well who did it then?" By not allowing RA to obtain witnesses in his favor, to not allow him to put up people to say "it wasn't him, it might have been this guy or that guy" is violative of his right to present a defense of his choosing, no matter how bad that defense may be. Not allowing 3rd party is effectively not allowing the jury to consider anyone other than RA.

 

[MassGuy]

#UPDATE: Fourth update from day 13 in the #Delphi double murders trial. Splitting this up into several updates. I cannot fit all details here, feel free to click the link I posted below.- The defense called former Delphi Fire Chief Darrell Sterrett. He was the Fire Chief on Feb. 13, 2017.- Sterrett said he was at the station around 6 p.m. that night because there was a training. Word came in that two girls were missing.- He tells the jury that they were directing the search through dispatch and that Mullin and Lazenby were in charge of the search.- Sterrett tells the jury they were notified about the girls at 7:01 p.m. He said he left to go to unified command at 7:10 p.m. He says about six of the volunteer firefighters were at the bridge that night, around 9:30 p.m. He took his personal vehicle and the volunteer firefighters took two firetrucks.- Sterrett said he entered the trails off of 625W and drove to the “end of it” and parked. He said there were houses on the left. He said he parked in The Liebert's yard. - Sterrett tells the jury that they needed the search to be “boots on the ground.” He said he thought the girls were scared and cold. “It was not an organized grid type search” he said. - Sterrett said he left the scene around 1:30 a.m. or 2 a.m. on Feb. 14, 2017. Sterrett corrects himself and says he left at 2:30 a.m. on Feb. 14.- Sterrett said he ordered a search north, south, east and west of the bridge. In a deposition he said there may have been higher intensity lights from vehicles, but he is not sure.- Sterrett told the jury that nobody from his team saw anything floating in the creek and did not hear anyone shout out saying they saw anything.
@WISHNews8
#RichardAllen #RichardAllenTrial

https://twitter.com/x/status/1852548037983285414

 

[Han]

Oct 13th interview?

Delphi murders: Suspect's confessions, denials in spotlight during trial's second week

Richard Allen repeatedly denied involvement in the 2017 killing of Abigail Williams and Liberty German before he repeatedly confessed.

www.nbcnews.com

In the interview, Allen — then a CVS clerk — provided an account of what he’d done that Feb. 13. He described the outfit he’d worn that day — jeans and a blue Carhartt jacket — and said that after seeing his mother, he went for a walk at Monon High Bridge Trail around noon.

WTH. He said in 2017 he went to the trail around noon?

 

[minor4th]

That’s what those prison confessions come down to. Do you believe he was of sound mind and they are legitimate? Or do you believe he was not of sound mind? The latter has a caveat though, he could not be of sound mind yet still provide details that were true, in which case it wouldn't matter what his mental health condition was.

Allen saying he did it over and over didn’t do it for me, because I do believe he was in a horrible mental state.

That phone call to his mom was incredibly compelling though, as it read like he was of sound mind (very lucid). Reporters in the courtroom confirmed as much.

Allen saying he skipped lunch with his parents, bought a 6 pack, drank 3, went home and bundled up, hit the trails, encountered the girls, planned to rape them, and killed them, does ring true to me. It is possible the got the part where he covered them with sticks from discovery, but that doesn't move the needle for me.

IMO the issue is not whether the confessions were fake or real. Rather, are they reliable? If he was in the midst of psychosis, they might still be true or they could be false, but they’re unreliable.

 

[minor4th]

WTH. He said in 2017 he went to the trail around noon?

I don’t think that reporting is reliable.

 

[Gigiky]

It denies him the right to present a defense of his choosing, which is one of the things the constitution means when it says "obtaining witnesses in one's favor." All that Aaron Burr heady stuff and the case law that has flowed since the founding of our country is incorporated into that term: "obtaining witnesses in one's favor."

Does the jury understand that? If you were a juror, and a defendant was only able to poke at prosecution witnesses, wouldn't you wonder "well who did it then?" By not allowing RA to obtain witnesses in his favor, to not allow him to put up people to say "it wasn't him, it might have been this guy or that guy" is violative of him to present a defense of his choosing, no matter how bad that defense may be. Not allowing 3rd party is effectively not allowing the jury to consider anyone other than RA.

So ~ What if anything can be done about this?

 

[MiniMoo]

Yes, unless the gun is empty.

JMO

So, if one bullet is lined up to be fired what happens if you try to rack another?

Is that even possible.

Would a gun jam, load up a new one and put the previous racked one back in the magazine or would it eject the already racked bullet trying to rack the second one.

JMT

 

[SouthEnd]

It denies him the right to present a defense of his choosing, which is one of the things the constitution means when it says "obtaining witnesses in one's favor." All that Aaron Burr heady stuff and the case law that has flowed since the founding of our country is incorporated into that term: "obtaining witnesses in one's favor."

Does the jury understand that? If you were a juror, and a defendant was only able to poke at prosecution witnesses, wouldn't you wonder "well who did it then?" By not allowing RA to obtain witnesses in his favor, to not allow him to put up people to say "it wasn't him, it might have been this guy or that guy" is violative of him to present a defense of his choosing, no matter how bad that defense may be. Not allowing 3rd party is effectively not allowing the jury to consider anyone other than RA.

But that all hinges on whether indeed the third party defence meets some pre-defined standards. Which is open to interpretation, and that's why the brilliant USA judicial system has DTs that argue one interpretation, and PTs that argue otherwise, and a judge to hear their arguments and decide. And Supreme Courts and so forth.

Nothing here is happening in the void. I for sure will be fascinated to follow the supreme court case that will follow the violation of the 6th ammendment.

All MOO

 

[MassGuy]

So, if one bullet is lined up to be fired what happens if you try to rack another?

Is that even possible.

Would a gun jam, load up a new one and put the previous racked one back in the magazine or would it eject the already racked bullet trying to rack the second one.

JMT

That's exactly what happened here. A bullet was already in the chamber, and he racked the slide. It then ejected the round in the chamber, and chambered another round from the magazine.

 

[gremlin444]

So, if one bullet is lined up to be fired what happens if you try to rack another?

Is that even possible.

Would a gun jam, load up a new one and put the previous racked one back in the magazine or would it eject the already racked bullet trying to rack the second one.

JMT

If one bullet is lined up to be fired, and you try to rack another---

then what happens is that unspent bullet gets ejected....

just like the bullet found between the girls.

 

[INfisherman]

And that’s why I’m an engineer not a lawyer, the odinism thing makes no sense to me when more plausible realistic defenses are there, MOO

The way they presented their claims to the judge, to me, read more like a list of reasons why RA was innocent versus actual events that linked the group of people mentioned all together. Just a bunch of witness statements which most had already been vetted by LE at some point. No attorney here, but it read to me like they’d connected a bunch of social media theories & made a scenario which fit those theories.

I was shocked, as it just didn’t seem put together very well at all.

JMO

ETA grammar, spelling

 

[Gigiky]

As will I!

 

[AugustWest]

So ~ What if anything can be done about this?

Us personally? Nothing really. We will sit here and watch the trial take place. If he is acquitted, nothing will happen. If he is convicted, we will watch this trial happen all over again. If we have a mistrial, who knows? Maybe retried, maybe not, maybe he doesn't make it to another trial.

The defense is doing what can be done about this. They are making proper objections and preparing the work for appeal should conviction occur. They are doing a very good job.

 

[SouthEnd]

The way they presented their claims to the judge, to me, read more like a list of reasons why RA was innocent versus actual events that linked the group of of people mentioned all together. Just a bunch of witness statements which most had already been vetted by LE at some point. No attorney here, but it read to me like they’d connected a bunch of social media theories & made a scenario which fit those theories.

I was shocked, as it just didn’t seem put together very well at all.

JMO

I agree. I am a layperson but I do need a wee bit of logic and analytical thinking for my job, and I could not see any rhyme or reason in the 3 day presentation. The Prosecutors and Attorney KG from tMS also agreed, that's why the vehement back and forth surprises me, since I don't view any of the evidence presented as compelling.

Of course my opinion is worth -0.02 cents, so I digress.

All MOO

 

[IzzyBlanche]

To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. That isn't being granted in this instance. It's violative of the rights of every American citizen. Every one of them. I'd fight just as hard for you, or any other person here, to guarantee them the same.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-5-4/ALDE_00013333/#:~:text=The%20Sixth%20Amendment%20guarantees%20a,obtaining%20witnesses%20in%20his%20favor.

IANAL so would you please define "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor"?

Please disregard if you have already answered this. The thread moves rapidly.

ETA: and how it isn't being granted? Thank you.

 

[steeltowngirl]

It denies him the right to present a defense of his choosing, which is one of the things the constitution means when it says "obtaining witnesses in one's favor." All that Aaron Burr heady stuff and the case law that has flowed since the founding of our country is incorporated into that term: "obtaining witnesses in one's favor."

Does the jury understand that? If you were a juror, and a defendant was only able to poke at prosecution witnesses, wouldn't you wonder "well who did it then?" By not allowing RA to obtain witnesses in his favor, to not allow him to put up people to say "it wasn't him, it might have been this guy or that guy" is violative of his right to present a defense of his choosing, no matter how bad that defense may be. Not allowing 3rd party is effectively not allowing the jury to consider anyone other than RA.

To be honest, if I were a juror who didn’t find the evidence the prosecution presented to be enough to find him guilty, I would vote to find him not guilty. I might wonder who did it, but that would not be my job as a juror to figure it out. I would assume the killer is still out there, which would make me nervous, but convicting an innocent man would not solve that problem. I’d do my job as a juror, and trust the people who find killers to go and do their jobs. Then I would go home and lock my doors.

jmo