Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #212

[INfisherman]

The defense objected.

I assume then it was overruled? Not seeing it specifically detailed in reports - not questioning you either, just clarifying.

 

[katydid23]

Yea, no, that is not at all what they were implying.

The headphones were *physically* plugged in to Libby’s phone by someone after the girls were dead (according to the state). This means the phone couldn’t have been sitting at the crime scene under a body if headphones were physically being plugged in to Libby’s phone. A couple of explanations could be 1. Someone else plugged the headphones into Libby’s phone. 2. Libby plugged the headphones into her phone bc she was still alive.

The ME said Abby had her throat slit in 3 places and bled out rather quickly. I highly doubt she plugged in her headphones. What 'somebody else' would this be? Somebody sat between 2 dead girls and plugged in headphones and listened to music for awhile? While the search was going on around them? Then left and took the mysterious headphones along with them, before putting the phone under Abby's remains?

It is too ridiculous to even try to make this scenario work. What a joke.

Regardless, if the jury is to believe the state’s timeline, this makes zero sense-i.e. the phone was under a deceased victim this entire time….this is obviously not true, as headphones were being physically plugged into the phone hours later by someone.

The only thing that is 'obviously not true' is the bizarre conclusion that someone physically plugged in invisible headphones @ 10 pm----while the searchers were out and about with flashlights, looking for the girls.

If it was not Libby and was the perp, then why on earth would they have left the phone at the crime scene? It is simple and not some “CIA operation” “conspiracy theory” as you say.

Exactly, why would the perp leave the phone there? Why would they plug in headphones while searchlights and first responders were circling the area? It's insulting for them to even try and sell that explanation to the jury.

JMO.

Source:
Edit to add timestamp 2:01:34

 

[arielilane]

To be a fly on the wall.

 

[AugustWest]

I assume then it was overruled? Not seeing it specifically detailed in reports - not questioning you either, just clarifying.

It was overruled.

 

[MiniMoo]

@BobSegallWTHR

The prosecutor, judge and jury were all visibly surprised by the sudden announcement that the defense rests. #wthr


10:13 AM · Nov 6, 2024

Seems there were lots of objections to everything the Defense wanted in so it's no wonder they've rested.

They did try it seems.

All attorneys have done a wonderful job with what they've had to work with though.

JMO MOO JMT

 

[photographer4]

Seems there were lots of objections to everything the Defense wanted in so it's no wonder they've rested.

They did try it seems.

All attorneys have done a wonderful job with what they had to work with though.

JMO MOO JMT

What they were *allowed* to work with.

 

[justtrish]

The ME said Abby had her throat slit in 3 places and bled out rather quickly. I highly doubt she plugged in her headphones. What 'somebody else' would this be? Somebody sat between 2 dead girls and plugged in headphones and listened to music for awhile? While the search was going on around them? Then left and took the mysterious headphones along with them, before putting the phone under Abby's remains?

It is too ridiculous to even try to make this scenario work. What a joke.



The only thing that is 'obviously not true' is the bizarre conclusion that someone physically plugged in invisible headphones @ 10 pm----while the searchers were out and about with flashlights, looking for the girls.


Exactly, why would the perp leave the phone there? Why would they plug in headphones while searchlights and first responders were circling the area? It's insulting for them to even try and sell that explanation to the jury.

BBM- we know the phone was never unlocked after the attempt immediately after the video ended so if headphones were plugged in, nobody used them so if I was a juror, I'd be using my common sense here. Nobody was plugging in headphones while a phone is laying under a body in the middle of the night just to sit there and do nothing.. no attempts were made to unlock that phone while it laid there either so exactly why would someone plug in headphones to just unplug them and leave the area.

IMO it's ridiculous. It sounds exactly like other defense wild claims about things that turned out to be false.

I am curious how their closing will go since they didn't show ANY evidence that their theory in the opening statement was even possible let alone likely. They didn't even mention the girls leaving in a car or being returned.. nothing to suggest they didn't die right there between 3-4pm on the 13th. Sounds like they had a whole story laid out. Again if I was a juror, I'd be wondering why that grand story and then no mention of it after that.

 

[ClearAhead]

Without the Odinist stuff, they don't have much else to present I guess MOO

Yes R&B were absolutely right when they declared their defense was ‘gutted’ when the Odinist stuff was ruled out.

 

[justtrish]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
Seems reasonable to note that. 2-2.5 hours is about how long the sessions are before a break is given when they were calling witnesses. It makes sense to suggest this is a good length of time so the jurors don't start focusing on the discomfort and wondering when they will get a break while trying to focus on what the lawyers are saying. It likely isn't a great idea to take a break in the middle of one side giving their closing arguments either. 2-2.5 hours is plenty of time to summarize what they need to say. IMO

 

[MiniMoo]

What they were *allowed* to work with.

True.

 

[sunshineray]

Use of alibi defense was precluded long ago; see:

2024 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 36. Pretrial Notices, Motions, and Procedures :: Chapter 4. Notice of Alibi Defense :: 35-36-4-1. Time of Filing; Requisite Information

Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

I didn't say they had to, just wondering why they wouldn't want to? Maybe it's just a simple answer like he never mentioned one, ever, to anyone. That could be the reason. MO And that to me seems very odd indeed, from a defense point of view. Also MO

 

[katydid23]

According to an expert witness who previously worked for the FBI as a digital examiner. As sourced and timestamped in the reply.

And the last training this 'expert' had on Cellibrite usage was in 2009 IIRC. I think phones and extraction methods have changed since then.

The phone was never moved--- and the girls were killed at that location.

So are you saying that someone sat and listened to music from around 6 to 10 pm, in between 2 dead bodies----while the cops and fire fighters were circling the area with flashlights?

 

[AugustWest]

I didn't say they had to, just wondering why they wouldn't want to? Maybe it's just a simple answer like he never mentioned one, ever, to anyone. That could be the reason. MO And that to me seems very odd indeed, from a defense point of view. Also MO

The state hasn't had the easiest of times pinning down exactly where RA was at specific times themselves. They have the burden of proof of doing so.

If a defense uses the defense of alibi, they switch the burden to themselves to prove where the defendant was at a specific time. Not an easy thing to do without the information to do so.

 

[Bbgiraffe]

What they were *allowed* to work with.

I believe the defense has to show some connection between the girls' murder and a 3rd party suspect in order to present that theory. Thankfully rumor and innuendo are not considered evidence in murder trials so people who have already been cleared by LE won't be slandered in court.

 

[justtrish]

I didn't say they had to, just wondering why they wouldn't want to? Maybe it's just a simple answer like he never mentioned one, ever, to anyone. That could be the reason. MO And that to me seems very odd indeed, from a defense point of view. Also MO

I don't think they wanted to focus on the fact his phone was NOT in the area. It sorta blows up an alibi if a person isn't with their phone when they say they were on that phone. That phone could have cleared him fully if he actually had it on him and if he actually was NOT on the trail from 130-330. I mean it would have showed exactly where he was and when, but he didn't have it and the one he showed DD in the days after the murders, was not in the area so where was it and why would he say he had it on that trail because he was checking stocks.. he didn't even just say oh yeah I think I had my phone.. he said I was on it, using it, doing something specifiic. That is a huge deal then if it isn't there on the trail and he also didn't keep that phone. If he left as he tried to change his story to suggest, then his phone would show him leaving at 130, but it didn't and it wasn't even there.

The defense can't highlight all his lies when trying to present their case.

IMO

 

[fred&edna]

Am I correct in remembering correctly that it was after the video image of BG was released that RA called in to LE to report he was on the bridge?

 

[katydid23]

Sounds like the bodies were not there until after 10 imo. Moo.

So the girls were moved back to the crime scene while the searchers were still there looking for them?

 

[Davemac1]

Guess that would have been too risky with what the prosecution would have gotten out on cross

Why didn't prosecution call her as a witness?
Of all the witnesses she is probably most qualified to articulate his actions and disposition in a reasonable timeframe before and after the murders occured.
They were still living together right?

 

[steeltowngirl]

The state hasn't had the easiest of times pinning down exactly where RA was at specific times themselves. They have the burden of proof of doing so.

If a defense uses the defense of alibi, they switch the burden to themselves to prove where the defendant was at a specific time. Not an easy thing to do without the information to do so.

RA provided the information himself.

 

[SeattleStew]

Am I correct in remembering correctly that it was after the video image of BG was released that RA called in to LE to report he was on the bridge?

Yes. Photo of BG was released on February 15, and RA tipped himself on February 16.