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

[Warwick7]

I bet RA about cra-ped his pants when on the TV he saw they had a picture of him.
Lol!!!!

 

[cherrybier]

M00 he is the killer and too dangerous to be let loose. M00 they would definitely go to trial again if there is a hung jury.

I agree with your second sentence.

Moo.

 

[Salah11]

Yes, that is what I meant.

JMO

Are you a local to think this way?

It seems like the entire town have come out and joined forces in being united in Justice for Libby and Abby.

 

[INfisherman]

This is my brief summary from the March 18, 2024 Contempt Hearing:
Long-time attorneys John Boren, Kay Beehler and Andrew Maternowski testified for the defense. They stated that the war room practices done by B&R are common practices. There were 8 more attorneys who signed affidavits for the defense, among them are Joel Wieneke and well-known Thomas Leatherman out of Elkhart Co., IN.
page 109 of the second document

3.18.24 Contempt - Google Drive

drive.google.com

You’re just not getting with the program.

Folks have their conspiracy theories & I have mine. Some don’t trust LE or judges rulings in regards to RA but in this case some do & the same folks feel attorneys are all honest people & not above lying should their careers potentially be in the line?

ETA clarity, not aimed at OP

 

[FrostedGlass]

“Dr. William Tobin is an expert in the field of metallurgy and has been recognized as an expert in that field by several courts of various jurisdictions,” Judge Gull wrote. “Dr. Tobin is not firearms expert, has had no training in firearms identification, and has never conducted firearms examination.”

Gull – a special judge assigned to the Carroll County case out of Allen County – specifically concluded that Tobin could not testify because he never examined the evidence in this specific case. She wrote that, because of this, his testimony “lacks relevance.”

https://fox59.com/delphi-trial/delphi-murders-judge-rules-defense-teams-metallurgist-cannot-testify/

IMO They will not allow Tobin to testify because he would shine the light on what many believe is junk science. If he was allowed to do that, then we would have to deal with a huge problem of all the individuals who have been found guilty of crimes based tool mark analysis. MOO

 

[TTF14]

IMO They will not allow Tobin to testify because he would shine the light on what many believe is junk science. If he was allowed to do that, then we would have to deal with a huge problem of all the individuals who have been found guilty of crimes based tool mark analysis. MOO

Excellent observation.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Respectfully,

I get from where you’re coming. Please consider:

Do you feel a metallurgist would have been able to determine what to do with a gun to enhance the markings on it? Do you feel a metallurgist could accurately testify whether the tests conducted by the state were valid ballistics tests? Do you feel a metallurgist is qualified to give sworn testimony to refute any ballistics test methods including best practices or how to eliminate other weapons besides the one in question?

I do not dispute that a metallurgist would have value of some sort - I dispute that they have the in depth knowledge and expertise to accurately answer any & all questions pertaining to a firearm or it’s operation or to refute specific testimony which may not be related to metals.

It’s not even worth debating really. Perfectly fine to agree to disagree.

If the state had used a metallurgist to do their firearm tests, I'm sure the defense would have had a problem with it. JMO.

 

[Arkay]

On some sequestered trials, the jury is sent home during deliberations if it's taking long. I don't see that happening here but rules vary quite a bit. MOO

IMO this cannot happen.

It would defy the entire point of sequestration.

They are not allowed to discuss the case with family or friends, and they are prohibited from watching the news, reading a newspaper or reading about the case online.

They cannot be influenced by anything except what was presented at trial.

They would have to have someone monitoring their conversations and what they watch on TV, etc.

I can’t see that reasonably happening in the home of a juror. Monitoring your home life is not going to work.

 

[FrostedGlass]

You’re just not getting with the program.

You have your conspiracy theories & I have mine. So you don’t trust LE or judges rulings in regards to RA but in this case you do & you feel attorneys are all honest people & not above lying should their careers potentially be in the line?

Obviously I am because I'm missing your point. There's no conspiracy theory here.

Those eleven attorneys testified that they basically handle their war room docs the way Baldwin did. MW's case was dismissed and AFAIK, there hasn't been a ruling yet about the attys alleged wrong doings.

 

[FrostedGlass]

If the state had used a metallurgist to do their firearm tests, I'm sure the defense would have had a problem with it. JMO.

IMO The State calling a metallurgist would never happen.

 

[Muvvatrucka]

I wonder if we will ever find out what KA said regarding the day of the tragic murders.
When she finished work, how was RA acting that evening?
Did BZ ever say how her father was acting that day/evening?
Will we ever know where his phone actually pinged that day, as it certainly didn’t ping near the bridge…

 

[TTF14]

I wonder if we will ever find out what KA said regarding the day of the tragic murders.
When she finished work, how was RA acting that evening?
Did BZ ever say how her father was acting that day/evening?
Will we ever know where his phone actually pinged that day, as it certainly didn’t ping near the bridge…

I'm so curious why neither side brought up RA's phone data.

I believe BZ testified she moved out in 2015, so she wouldn't have been there that day. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

JMO IMO

 

[TTF14]

IMO The State calling a metallurgist would never happen.

I agree.

JMO

 

[lonetraveler]

IMO this cannot happen.

It would defy the entire point of sequestration.

They are not allowed to discuss the case with family or friends, and they are prohibited from watching the news, reading a newspaper or reading about the case online.

They cannot be influenced by anything except what was presented at trial.

They would have to have someone monitoring their conversations and what they watch on TV, etc.

I can’t see that reasonably happening in the home of a juror. Monitoring your home life is not going to work.

You are so right about monitoring in your home not working. In the trial I was a juror, the judge's wife became very ill and jurors were sent home for a couple of days. As soon as I returned to work, a co-worker came into my office and exclaimed: Did you see on the news where the main witness on the trial was seen burying a knife in his backyard?" No, I had not seen it because it was not part of the testimony we, the jury was allowed to hear.

 

[acehard]

IMO this cannot happen.

It would defy the entire point of sequestration.

They are not allowed to discuss the case with family or friends, and they are prohibited from watching the news, reading a newspaper or reading about the case online.

They cannot be influenced by anything except what was presented at trial.

They would have to have someone monitoring their conversations and what they watch on TV, etc.

I can’t see that reasonably happening in the home of a juror. Monitoring your home life is not going to work.

Murdaugh's trial judge said if takes more than a day, they will go home

 

[MassGuy]

I wonder if we will ever find out what KA said regarding the day of the tragic murders.
When she finished work, how was RA acting that evening?
Did BZ ever say how her father was acting that day/evening?
Will we ever know where his phone actually pinged that day, as it certainly didn’t ping near the bridge…

We actually might, as those interviews could be included in the discovery files that will be probably be released at some point following a verdict.

The phone thing kills me, and I’d like some answer there - whether they couldn’t recover data for some reason, or did and chose not to present it.

There could be answers there too.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

So he would stay locked up if they go for another trial?

I can not envision him being welcome very many places with this hanging over his head. IMO

If it’s a hung jury, the state’s attorney has to decide to retry or not, and I think that defense could ask for bail or pretrial detention conditions- if they don’t decide for a retrial then he’s free - what I don’t know is if they can retry him later or if they have to decide that they are or they aren’t- within a window of time- that would require a lawyer to explain- IANAL

 

[sunshineray]

I think he was brought into the courtroom to see the evidence they were seeing. Not to see the jury.

Why? He's seen it at trial, all of it. It's their deliberation period. All the evidence is admitted for the jury's use if needed during that deliberation. What right of RA's is being protected by him knowing what the jury wants to consider? He's on verdict watch, just like the Prosecution. Still makes no sense except it's a get out of jail day, enjoy the ride and civilian clothes day.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

Which better be free, IMO!

Seriously! This trial is brutal- and to be sequestered on top of it all-moo

 

[TTF14]

Why? He's seen it at trial, all of it. It's their deliberation period. All the evidence is admitted for the jury's use if needed during that deliberation. What right of RA's is being protected by him knowing what the jury wants to consider? He's on verdict watch, just like the Prosecution. Still make no sense except it's a get out of jail day, enjoy the ride and civilian clothes day.

In every trial I've ever followed (that has been livestreamed), every time the jury has a question and is brought back into the courtroom for the answer, the defendant is brought back in also. i guess they are just entitled to be in the courtroom for things that are discussed in the courtroom. : shrug :

If the jury was allowed to have equipment to view videos, etc. in their jury room, on their own, this wouldn't happen, IMO.

JMO IMO