VERDICT WATCH Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #214

[joe jones]

We don’t even know if the jury requested earphones to listen to Libby’s video to hear it more clearly

Wouldn't be allowed, you get the evidence as it was presented at trial, plus they would all be brought back in to court to watch it, IIRC the Judge said that they would watch video in the courtroom

 

[Deleted member 296739]

REPORTERS

Not attorneys or families.== they were told to stay within 5 minutes away.

The above is regarding the Reporters from the way I am reading it.

JMO

Wow, does the judge have to wait the 2 hrs? That would be brutal for the families to know that a verdict had been reached and then waiting on the press for 2 hrs???
moo

 

[Amber29]

I agree with your prediction. With no "slam dunk" here, I can't imagine 12 out of 12 will be able to agree on Guilty. Not today anyway.
I do believe he is guilty by the way, I just don't think the case was as strong as any of us would like. IMO

I agree with your opinion. I personally think he’s guilty but I do not think the case is very strong against him. I can see the other side finding reasonable doubt.

 

[Spartygirl]

We don’t even know if the jury requested earphones to listen to Libby’s video to hear it more clearly

They could have asked the D= Team if they could use their fictional ones
JMO

 

[Tealgrove]

Makes you wonder, how happy the family would be to welcome him home. I would be afraid to have him home and I’m sure they are questioning if he’s innocent or guilty themselves.

Ohhh I think they know.

MOO

 

[Spartygirl]

Wow, does the judge have to wait the 2 hrs? That would be brutal for the families to know that a verdict had been reached and then waiting on the press for 2 hrs???
moo

I would not think so.

Once families and attorneys are notified for jury questions or verdict, they, along with the Judge will be there ASAP

This is just regarding Reporters.

 

[SouthEnd]

I would not think so.

Once families and attorneys are notified for jury questions or verdict, they, along with the Judge will be there ASAP

This is just regarding Reporters.

But they would still need to wait for 2 hrs until all the reporters are there, for the jury to read the verdict? Ooof

 

[Notthisshipsister]

jmo but I believe KA knows either way.

I agree. Whether KA has verbalized to others, or even acknowledged to RA, she knows. IMO she would know if BG clothes matched RA, if the timeline for everything fit-- she would know details probably beyond what the rest of us, even LE, would notice.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I feel for the jury. I can understand that the evidence wasn’t a slam dunk, as in having DNA evidence. They will struggle to determine guilt. They will also struggle to say ‘not guilty’, even though legally they should, if BARD wasn’t reached in their assessment. I realize that does not necessarily mean he is factually innocent - that’s certainly not been proven, and likely never will be. But a ‘not guilty’ would feel like a declaration of RA’s innocence in the eyes of many.

There is so much weight on the jury’s shoulders in making this decision. I’m glad they are taking their time.

jmo

 

[Salah11]

Checking in to see if there is a verdict and doesn’t seem to be.

 

[Tealgrove]

Checking in to see if there is a verdict and doesn’t seem to be.

Not yet @Salah11 Hang in there!

 

[Kudzuu]

Idk how anyone can’t see RA is the same guy in the drawing and video still imo

Actually I learned in drawing class that the eyes are key to drawing faces. If you get the eyes right the rest falls into place. In the first sketch if you pull the eyes closer then the shape of the head matches RA.

Given that his face was covered and his hair too I can see how the eyes were too far apart. RA has eyes that are pretty close. It give him that intense stare.
MOO
I am agreeing with you, just explaining why some can't see it.
EBM

 

[getthefax]

I wonder what rules there are in Indiana relating to character witnesses, maybe they aren't allowed or maybe the defence never requested any, or my favourite explanation the judge didn't allow them,

EBM (typo):

Character witnesses aren’t part of the trial if they do not provide factual evidence of innocence or guilt.

Imagine, for a moment, that the state got people up on the stand who knew RA and said “he just gave off creepy vibes, and I wouldn’t put it past him to commit this crime…”

You would cry foul, that it wasn’t evidence whether he did or did not commit this crime. Same goes for character witnesses for the defense—character witness testimony (and victim impact statements) makes sense AFTER a verdict, but their approval/disapproval of a person doesn’t help anyone determine whether that person committed the crime(s) in question.

It’s worth noting here that prisons are FULL of people who “couldn’t possibly” have committed crimes, many of them convicted on multiple charges, under mountains of incontrovertible evidence.

Very few of us aren’t shocked AS HELL when someone around us commits a murder.

MOO

 

[Vern]

I see a number of motions getting entered in the docket, anyone can see the content? @Vern (I meant to add pretty pretty please, since I have no idea how to access the content)

@Niner

_Final Instructions of the Court.pdf

drive.google.com

​

Order Issued Order for Nov. 6, 2024. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 11/06/2024​

Order Issued Order for Nov. 7, 2024. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 11/07/2024​

Order Issued Order on Pending Motions. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 11/01/2024​

Order Issued Security Order. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 10/29/2024​

Order Issued Joint Stipulation Regarding Evidentiary Matters. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 10/18/2024​

Final Instructions Given by Court Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Issued: 11/07/2024​

​

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I would not think so.

Once families and attorneys are notified for jury questions or verdict, they, along with the Judge will be there ASAP

This is just regarding Reporters.

So the verdict could be read without reporters? Am I reading that right?

 

[Vaderman]

So the verdict could be read without reporters? Am I reading that right?

The way things have been going, I would not be the least bit surprised.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

The way things have been going, I would not be the least bit surprised.

I wouldn’t either- and it would give the jury a chance to leave and the family some privacy I suppose- but this the absolutely the strangest trial I’ve ever followed in terms of courtroom proceedings… moo

 

[Inthedetails]

So the verdict could be read without reporters? Am I reading that right?

No. I don't think that is the intention at all.

jmo

 

[steeltowngirl]

I don’t think anyone on here thinks the state had a slam dunk case, and I would argue most cases brought to trial aren’t. I certainly don’t agree with the threats being made against RA if he is acquitted, that’s just wrong and uncivilized.

You are right that if the Jury finds RA not guilty it means they have reasonable doubt/believe the state didn’t prove their case BARD. That is the high burden the state must meet/standard of our judicial system. Not sure if what you said about people need to understand that if a jury of his peers finds him not guilty means he’s not guilty, are you saying you believe that means he’s truly factually not guilty/innocent of these murders,
or not guilty in the court’s eyes because the state failed to prove their case BARD? Hopefully that makes sense the way I asked.

IMO, a not guilty verdict does not mean RA is truly factually not guilty/innocent. To elaborate, some jurors might feel that he probably is guilty but the state didn’t prove it/present enough convincing evidence BARD for them to vote to convict. It might not be common or ever talked about as we don’t always hear from jurors after trials, but imo it is not unheard of. Case in point, a case I followed of a former LEO brought to trial for the murder of his wife who supposedly died of suicide according to him and his Defense team (I forget his last name but first name was Levi), was found not guilty at trial and afterwards some Jury members were interviewed on National TV, Dateline I believe, and said although they believed he likely did kill his wife they could not vote to convict based on the state’s case/evidence not reaching the BARD threshold. You could tell from the way they described how conflicted they felt and their body language and expressions that they struggled greatly with their decision to let a likely murderer go free, but in the end said they had to follow the law and vote to acquit based on the state not proving their case to them BARD. It was heartbreaking to watch and I hope I never have to be on a jury deciding someone’s fate.

Unless there is video of a person committing murder which we know rarely if ever? is the case, imo most cases are brought to trial on mostly, if not all, circumstantial evidence and tons of cases have ended in guilty verdicts based on totality of circumstantial evidence alone.

As for the court of public opinion, it obviously isn’t a court of law and everyone is entitled to own opinion and imo even if there was actual video of a person committing murder, some people still wouldn’t believe the person/perp caught on video committing the murder did it, so there’s that.

Having said all that, I have utmost respect for the jurors and will accept and respect their decision.

IMHOO

ETA-punctuation

I wish I’d have read your post before I just made mine. You stated it so very well. 100%

 

[Deleted member 296739]

No. I don't think that is the intention at all.

jmo

I was curious if it was possible, not sure what the judges intentions are and not going to even try to guess - moo