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

[oviedo]

17 days of testimony is a lot - I think the jury is carefully going back through it so they can render a verdict that matches the evidence - I would not be surprised if they deliberate for 17 hours at least.

JMO

 

[smamda]

Nearly 8 hours is a long time if the jury had consensus early. I am beginning to worry there is at least one and possibly more holdouts for acquittal.

Although there were intelligent and diligent questions from "the jury" during the trial, that does NOT mean every member of the 12 processes what they've heard and seen the same way as whatever member(s) asked those questions. Some may be more susceptible to attempts to confuse by this DT. However, at worst, it seems apparent to me from the questions we saw that there is at least ONE juror who will not be swayed in that direction.

So, I predict "guilty" OR "hung." But not acquittal.

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

 

[BUF]

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

 

[Justice101]

Long deliberations don't necessarily mean not guilty or a hung jury...

What Does a Long Jury Deliberation Mean?
Many people believe a long jury deliberation favors the defendant because there was no quick rush to vote “guilty.” Others believe that a long deliberation means the jurors believe the defendant is guilty but are taking their responsibility seriously. Instead of rushing, juries leaning towards a guilty verdict often comb through the evidence carefully before making the final decision to convict someone of a crime. In the end, a long deliberation really just means the jurors are taking their time to go through the evidence and discuss their positions. This can end in either a guilty or not guilty verdict.

A long jury deliberation could mean the jurors are at an impasse or a deadlock. If this happens, the jury’s foreperson sends a note to the judge advising that the jurors cannot reach a unanimous agreement. The judge almost always instructs the jurors to return to the jury room and do their best to come up with a unanimous decision.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Set the clocks back 1 hr last weekend. Delphi is on EST so it is 2:18 pm.

Thank you!

 

[crhedBngr]

Trying to be patient, waiting for the verdict.



JMVHO.

 

[arielilane]

Indiana State Police Lt. Jerry Holeman also gave damning testimony, telling the court a fellow inmate had come forward to claim that Allen had not only confessed but also revealed the murder weapon.

Allen allegedly claimed he killed Libby and Abby with a boxcutter and disposed of it by throwing it in a dumpster outside the CVS where he worked.

Allen’s defense has long argued that his confessions were the result of his poor mental health after being treated like a “prisoner of war” in state prison while awaiting trial.

But Judge Gull allowed the jury to hear all of Allen’s confessions that police say he has made since his arrest in 2022.


Two girls were murdered in Delphi, Indiana, in 2017. The man accused of killing them is now on trial

November 7, 2024 at 10:19 AM

 

[Diddian]

17 days of testimony is a lot - I think the jury is carefully going back through it so they can render a verdict that matches the evidence - I would not be surprised if they deliberate for 17 hours at least.

JMO

I would normally agree, but others here have said that the state of Indiana allows jurors to discuss the case among themselves before the case is fully heard and turned over for jury deliberations.

Personally, I think that is very odd. IMO, it potentially turns jurors into substitute prosecutors or defense representatives without full discovery (ETA: not sure that is the right word...?)

But if the jury has discussed some of the 17 days of testimony along the way, then that might reduce what is left to discuss to just that testimony about which jurors find disagreement among themselves.

 

[MassGuy]

Nearly 8 hours is a long time if the jury had consensus early. I am beginning to worry there is at least one and possibly more holdouts for acquittal.

Although there were intelligent and diligent questions from "the jury" during the trial, that does NOT mean every member of the 12 processes what they've heard and seen the same way as whatever member(s) asked those questions. Some may be more susceptible to attempts to confuse by this DT. However, at worst, it seems apparent to me from the questions we saw that there is at least ONE juror who will not be swayed in that direction.

So, I predict "guilty" OR "hung." But not acquittal.

I was just discussing this with someone. I’m not at all bothered by this going on a long time, as I already expected it to stretch into early next week.

I think there’s an 80% chance of guilty, 15% hung, 5% not guilty.

 

[fcavanaugh]

I think it’s very important to understand that if he is found not guilty by a jury of his peers who have spent nearly a month viewing all of this evidence in person then that means he’s not guilty, <modsnip: WS does NOT condone threats of any kind. If there are such posts, Report them !!>.. In no way was the states case a slam dunk and every lawyer I’ve seen talk about this case other than Kevin from TMS agrees that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is their burden.
JMO

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. <modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped>

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

 

[BUF]

I don’t ever remember a trial that has had so many restrictions placed on it

 

[joe jones]

It speaks volumes IMO that they couldn’t find ANYONE to get up on the stand and talk about how he could never have done this, he’s such a good guy etc. At best maybe a stray coworker here and there thought RA was an alright dude. At worst, well, one can imagine. By RA’s own admission even his “friends” were quick to believe he could have done it

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,

 

[Spartygirl]

Wow wasn’t expecting that after the judge had said stay 5 mins away.

I believe the Judge told the Attorneys, DA and families to be within 5 minutes.

The above from Court TV is referring to the REPORTERS.. not families or attorneys.

 

[Snoop Sister]

I would normally agree, but others here have said that the state of Indiana allows jurors to discuss the case among themselves before the case is fully heard and turned over for jury deliberations.

Personally, I think that is very odd. IMO, it potentially turns jurors into substitute prosecutors or defense representatives without full discovery (ETA: not sure that is the right word...?)

But if the jury has discussed some of the 17 days of testimony along the way, then that might reduce what is left to discuss to just that testimony about which jurors find disagreement among themselves.

They were allowed to discuss the evidence, not necessarily testimonies, if all jurors were present during recesses.

 

[Mauig’ma]

Indiana State Police Lt. Jerry Holeman also gave damning testimony, telling the court a fellow inmate had come forward to claim that Allen had not only confessed but also revealed the murder weapon.

Allen allegedly claimed he killed Libby and Abby with a boxcutter and disposed of it by throwing it in a dumpster outside the CVS where he worked.

Allen’s defense has long argued that his confessions were the result of his poor mental health after being treated like a “prisoner of war” in state prison while awaiting trial.

But Judge Gull allowed the jury to hear all of Allen’s confessions that police say he has made since his arrest in 2022.


Two girls were murdered in Delphi, Indiana, in 2017. The man accused of killing them is now on trial

November 7, 2024 at 10:19 AM


View attachment 543883View attachment 543884

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

 

[Spartygirl]

CourtTV is saying that reporters will not be notified if the jury has a question, lunch break, a note, deadlocked, etc. Now there will be a 2 hour delay when a verdict is reached to when the verdict will be read.

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

 

[Caylee Advocate]

It speaks volumes IMO that they couldn’t find ANYONE to get up on the stand and talk about how he could never have done this, he’s such a good guy etc. At best maybe a stray coworker here and there thought RA was an alright dude. At worst, well, one can imagine. By RA’s own admission even his “friends” were quick to believe he could have done it

OMO, but that would be a part of the sentencing phase IF it even comes to one. JMO.

 

[arielilane]

@KylaBRussell

#UPDATE: Deliberations continue in the #Delphi double murders trial. Going on eight hours.

2:59 PM · Nov 8, 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1854977141051359742

 

[SouthEnd]

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)

 

[BUF]

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

Yes