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

[MiniMoo]

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.

So, ejected.

JMT

 

[cherrybier]

Did Mullin slip out LE thought multiple people were involved that day. How interesting. MOO.

Per Andrea Burkhart YT.

 

[fred&edna]

Are there "rational rules of evidence" regarding the 6th amendment compulsory process?? Is that a thing?

Edited to remove last line.

 

[shonyakay]

Any confession. Any, regardless of who I am talking about.

If someone claims that someone did a crime or they claim they heard someone say they commited a crime, wouldn't that be hearsay?

<modsnip: Removed personalizing question>

 

[SouthEnd]

Did Mullin slip out LE thought multiple people were involved that day. How interesting. MOO.

Per Andrea Burkhart YT.

That wasn't a very well kept secret imo, I mean in the pressers DC kept talking about multiple preps.

It was the KAK and Co era.

All MOO

 

[MassGuy]

Did Mullin slip out LE thought multiple people were involved that day. How interesting. MOO.

Per Andrea Burkhart YT.

It wasn’t unreasonable to believe that at the time. Unlikely but reasonable.

 

[helpfulcharlie]

Can you imagine, as a juror, having to live with failing to convict a person of such an awful, heinous, senseless crime after hearing him confess it so many times, in so many ways, to so many people?

 

[AugustWest]

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

@steeltowngirl Thank you for the discussion. I really appreciate your interest.

 

[INfisherman]

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.

To add, I’ve read on gun forums that some guns, if slow racked (pulling the slide back slower than normal) can also result in jamming in certain gun models. I was curious if this might have happened then the jammed bullet popped out & he didn’t notice it (say while dealing with things at the CS). Seemed to be a bit more of a long shot to me.

JMO

 

[AugustWest]

If someone claims that someone did a crime or they claim they heard someone say they commited a crime, wouldn't that be hearsay?

<modsnip: Removed personalizing question>

Hearsay:
(1) The statement must be made outside of court; if you are under oath then it isn't hearsay.
(2) It must be a statement being presented as evidence to prove the truth of the statement itself.

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped>

 

[otto]

Not so fast.

• The adult female witness did not say she saw Richard Allen at the first platform of the MHB.
• So she saw Libby and Abby. This is not disputed.
• This does not place Richard Allen and the girls on the MHB at the same time, shortly before the kidnappings.

I personally do not think any of the eyewitnesses are so important because it can’t be established who they saw.

True. She saw a man who might be Richard Allen on the bridge at the same time that Richard Allen said he was on the bridge looking at a fish. She thought he was on the first platform, he was vague.

She turned around and walked to her car. We don't know whether the man on the bridge followed her. We do know that as she was walking to her car, she saw Libby and Abby walking towards the bridge. Bridge guy and the girls were between her and bridge. The girls were on the South end of the Monon bridge when a man, moving with purpose, was right behind Abby.

I think eye witness testimony that corresponds with Richard Allen's testimony is more important than trail descriptions. The witness places the girls on the bridge trail at the same time as the man she saw on the bridge. RA admitted that he was there, looking at stock market reports and fish.

One witness connects Richard Allen to the bridge near the time that the girls are on the bridge. Other witnesses might have seen Richard Allen on the trails in the form of bridge guy until the 3:57 muddy bloody sighting.

His wife is not a witness, but I would like to hear what happened when he arrived home that day. He must have been covered with blood, from head to toe. Libby put up a good fight.

 

[cherrybier]

That wasn't a very well kept secret imo, I mean in the pressers DC kept talking about multiple preps.

It was the KAK and Co era.

All MOO

Mullin answered when did they stop thinking multiple people were involved and his answer was when RA was arrested.

So for 5 years the crime scene looked to them to have been carried out by more than one perp. MOO.

 

[INfisherman]

Can you imagine, as a juror, having to live with failing to convict a person of such an awful, heinous, senseless crime after hearing him confess it so many times, in so many ways, to so many people?

…or the opposite, putting an innocent man in prison? Not implying my personal opinion regarding this trial by any means.

JMO

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Can you imagine, as a juror, having to live with failing to convict a person of such an awful, heinous, senseless crime after hearing him confess it so many times, in so many ways, to so many people?

From what I've read, these jurors are taking their job seriously and asking intelligent questions.

Whether they acquit or convict, I will trust their verdict. They were there every day and heard everything, and I wasn't and didn't.

And I trust that they will reach a verdict that enables them to sleep at night.

 

[m00c0w]

Mullin answered when did they stop thinking multiple people were involved and his answer was when RA was arrested.

So for 5 years the crime scene looked to them to have been carried out by more than one perp. MOO.

Is that what was said, or did he say that they didn’t rule out any possibilities until RA was arrested? Big difference.

 

[Boxer]

I have not been able to find a single case where an unspent cartridge was used as a main piece of evidence in a murder trial. But an unspent vs spent cartridge would tadefinitely be different. From my understanding, ballistics generally only uses spent cartridges.

True. She saw a man who might be Richard Allen on the bridge at the same time that Richard Allen said he was on the bridge looking at a fish. She thought he was on the first platform, he was vague.

She turned around and walked to her car. We don't know whether the man on the bridge followed her. We do know that as she was walking to her car, she saw Libby and Abby walking towards the bridge. Bridge guy and the girls were between her and bridge. The girls were on the South end of the Monon bridge when a man, moving with purpose, was right behind Abby.

I think eye witness testimony that corresponds with Richard Allen's testimony is more important than trail descriptions. The witness places the girls on the bridge trail at the same time as the man she saw on the bridge. RA admitted that he was there, looking at stock market reports and fish.

One witness connects Richard Allen to the bridge near the time that the girls are on the bridge. Other witnesses might have seen Richard Allen on the trails in the form of bridge guy until the 3:57 muddy bloody sighting.

His wife is not a witness, but I would like to hear what happened when he arrived home that day. He must have been covered with blood, from head to toe. Libby put up a good fight.

She turned aroundand walked to Freedom Bridge and then back to her car.

 

[MassGuy]

Mullin answered when did they stop thinking multiple people were involved and his answer was when RA was arrested.

So for 5 years the crime scene looked to them to have been carried out by more than one perp. MOO.

That's why you don't get tunnel vision.

But I don't know how any of those guys could have believed that was likely here. All of this could have easily been done by a lone man, considering he had a gun to control the victims.

The unspent round is evidence of that, as multiple offenders would make that unnecessary.

Multiple killers, yet none of them leave DNA, no signs of rape, and both victims are slashed the same way. That's just not how it works.

Libby appears to have been able to run a short distance as well, which is further evidence of one offender trying to control two victims.

If they believed this then they are more incompetent than I already believed.

 

[MassGuy]

Is that what was said, or did he say that they didn’t rule out any possibilities until RA was arrested? Big difference.

We've been burned many times before, so I always err on the side of misrepresentation (like that green scarf not being tested which sent social media into an uproar).

 

[katydid23]

Many of the confessions can be worked around it sounds like. It will be a tall task, but not impossible for the defense, IMO.

All the jury has to do is find one or two of them credible. IMO

So even if the D can create doubts about the ones overheard by others, the ones they heard on audiotape, with him confessing to his mother and wife, will probably be accepted as genuine, IMO.

 

[otto]

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.

It sounds like a jury should rule on evidence that is admissible. Is the issue that the judge ruled the wild-goose-chase theory inadmissible before it reached the jury ... so it denies Richard Allen the right to present to jury regardless of Judge's decision?

What am I missing?