GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #215

[girlhasnoname]

So they can’t bring them to the hotel to review them in the evenings??? Geez no wonder it’s taking so long to reach a verdict! Moo.

These jurors are abiding by their ethical duties as they swore an oath to do. They actually haven't had the case very long and it surely isn't about our timeline and wants. Thankfully.

JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I don’t find it strange or even interesting that Carter told the FBI they were no longer needed to actively investigate.
He did not tell them we will never ever avail ourselves of your vast forensic lab and tools. He did not say we won’t ever change our minds about this.
I think he did it to clear some cooks out of the kitchen mostly.
I think also it was because the FBI had made some mistakes that Carter was miffed about, such as, clearing KAK before the sun went down after searching his house right after the murders. It turned out to be nothing, but it sure didn’t seem that way at the time. Also, the FBI bungled receiving the security video from the gas station. Again at the time that seemed like a big thing.
Lastly FBI agent Jay Abbot, that helped with Delphi, was discredited for his dismissing victims accusations in the US Gymnastic scandal. Carter may have felt it might taint the Delphi investigation.
Carter was more than justified in my opinion.
The defense has tried to twist it into some weird conspiracy thing, as usual.

 

[mrjitty]

It's encouraging to see that DC called in other resources I forgot about Homeland, US Marshalls, ATF. I think they might have even used NASA resources. This shows me they were willing and did look to others for help and direction.

The fact that Carter asked the FBI to leave in 2021 isn't surprising. They had worked jointly on the case since 2017 and there wasn't any forward movement. I do believe they might have had differing opinions by the end of that time, but the FBI did not have jurisdiction of the investigation. After 4 1/2 years it could have simply been we're moving on. That was also during COVID times as well.

If the FBI couldn't help progress it forward after all that time, I don't think it was going to happen under any circumstances until the misfiled tip was found. Tragic, infuriating, unbelievable and heartbreaking absolutely yes, but a human error not a conspiracy IMO.

In their recent Podcast the Prosecutors said it was likely a nothing burger. After so many years the FBI probably was not doing anything and it's an admin hassle to have their open involvement so it wasn't literally Carter asking them to leave - rather they just closed it administratively. Otherwise Carter has to justify their involvement every couple of months.

See the end of the podcast.

129. Delphi Trial Week Three Part 2

Podcast Episode · The Prosecutors: Legal Briefs · 11/05/2024 · 52m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[CSIDreamer]

This trial has had a huge price tag for a small, rural county. I fear they won’t have the budget for another try.

If they try again, they may have to raise taxes. IMO, it's been done before.

 

[photographer4]

I would agree to, that Indiana didn't need their assistance any longer.

I wonder why they didn't want the FBI testing the hairs found at the scene exactly? I am not suggesting a conspiracy of any kind - I'm genuinely wondering, why did they NOT want this done?

"The defense questioned why DNA wasn't tested on the three rootless hairs that were termed "inconsistent" with DNA found from Abby and Libby. Again, Bozinovski claimed she did not want to risk it."

Delphi Murders Trial: Day 9 | DNA and Blood Spatter experts take the stand: Allen's DNA not found at scene

The jury heard testimony from Stacy Bozinovski. She tested the sexual assault kits that came from the bodies of Abby Williams and Libby German during their autopsies.

www.wrtv.com

"She told the jury she did send a sample of human hair to the FBI that consisted of 72 hairs. The FBI told Bozinovski that 3 of the hairs were “not consistent” with Libby or Abby. She told the jury she chose not to test using “rootless” hair testing as there was not enough hairs to even send and there was a low success rate for the testing."

Delphi Murders trial: Day 9 live blog

Follow the trial of Richard Allen, accused of the Delphi murders, as it continues in the Carroll County Courthouse. Stay updated with WISH-TV's live blog.

www.wishtv.com

 

[AugustWest]

ok but then why didn’t the defence out Turco on the stand?

The only reasonable conclusion is they did misrepresent his opinion in the Franks

I agree they can bring evidence of unlikely theories. But if they intentionally mirepresent the evidence in a motion and then don’t bring any relevant evidence it is fair to say they are creating conspiracies in my view.

moo

Gull disallowed third party culpability as a theory. You are asking the defense to offer evidence of something the judge told them was inadmissible.

As far as the hearing you have mentioned, remember that hearing was conducted on the State's motion, not the defense's. Attorneys don't raise issues outside of the specific reasons that a hearing is conducted. We can't bring up any issue we desire at a hearing. Further, the defense wasn't required to offer any and all evidence of third-party culpability they had. And requiring witnesses to attend a hearing under subpoena for limited utility isn't a good strategy.

 

[Deleted member 229974]

What’s the law in Indiana on the prosecution including unfairly prejudicial evidence about an accused’s character/behaviour / actions?

I know we saw the Google searches , which I thought were a nothing burger . But if , for example, RA had watched *advertiser censored* involving the rape of minors in circumstances similar to this crime, would that be admissible or not ?

Personally, I’d find it difficult to convict RA based on the evidence at trial. Perhaps I’m being naive , but part of me can’t get my head around how many things the police didn’t properly chase down (eg not checking how many cars like RA’s were registered in Carroll county until during the trial ). This case had huge attention on it from the beginning, so you’d think that the police would have been assiduous in chasing down all details .

I have wondered whether there is some other evidence which the police have (not presented at trial ) which makes RA’s guilt beyond doubt. If there is and they thought that would be presented at trial , I can see how some police would think they didn’t need to chase down all these other details which have come up in the case .

Or maybe not, and the investigation was just your run of the mill substandard investigation carried out by a force without much experience of these types of crimes.

I think the latter.

 

[photographer4]

These jurors are abiding by their ethical duties as they swore an oath to do. They actually haven't had the case very long and it surely isn't about our timeline and wants. Thankfully.

JMO

I'm sure they are! It can't be an easy thing to do either - to be stuck in a hotel room, no devices, no tv... no phone access... no thanks. I'm sure they take their role very seriously (as they should when the rest of a man's life hangs in the balance in their hands).

 

[fcavanaugh]

What were the reasons behind him doing that?

Don’t know if we’ll ever find out the reasons but I do also find it odd due to most small town LE usually don’t have the resources the FBI does which have proven to be very helpful/successful in a lot of cases helping them through to the end of an investigation with their many areas of expertise- profiling, BAU, interviewing witnesses, interrogating suspects, digital forensics etc.

LE asked for FBI assistance early on and FBI were assisting for awhile doing/handing in reports and were booted off the investigation by Carter iirc sometime in 2021 going off my memory from his testimony. iirc he wasn’t on the stand very long.

I wonder if it was just a matter of ego and/or personality clashes between Carter/local LE and the FBI agents or something else entirely.

At any rate, we’ll likely never hear the reasons why directly from the horse’s mouth iykwim.

IMHOO

 

[Snoop Sister]

I think neither side should be in the juror's presence, while they're in deliberations, reviewing evidence. I explained why that is in my earlier post. JMO

Not what anyone thinks….it was up to the jurors whether they wanted him there or not as per JG’s instructions, which the link has been posted several times on these threads.

 

[Deleted member 229974]

I wonder why they didn't want the FBI testing the hairs found at the scene exactly? I am not suggesting a conspiracy of any kind - I'm genuinely wondering, why did they NOT want this done?

"The defense questioned why DNA wasn't tested on the three rootless hairs that were termed "inconsistent" with DNA found from Abby and Libby. Again, Bozinovski claimed she did not want to risk it."

Delphi Murders Trial: Day 9 | DNA and Blood Spatter experts take the stand: Allen's DNA not found at scene

The jury heard testimony from Stacy Bozinovski. She tested the sexual assault kits that came from the bodies of Abby Williams and Libby German during their autopsies.

www.wrtv.com

"She told the jury she did send a sample of human hair to the FBI that consisted of 72 hairs. The FBI told Bozinovski that 3 of the hairs were “not consistent” with Libby or Abby. She told the jury she chose not to test using “rootless” hair testing as there was not enough hairs to even send and there was a low success rate for the testing."

Delphi Murders trial: Day 9 live blog

Follow the trial of Richard Allen, accused of the Delphi murders, as it continues in the Carroll County Courthouse. Stay updated with WISH-TV's live blog.

www.wishtv.com

What “risk”??? To create “doubt” in a jury’s mind or to ensure a defendant doesn’t go free? IMO

 

[AugustWest]

What’s the law in Indiana on the prosecution including unfairly prejudicial evidence about an accused’s character/behaviour / actions?

I know we saw the Google searches , which I thought were a nothing burger . But if , for example, RA had watched *advertiser censored* involving the rape of minors in circumstances similar to this crime, would that be admissible or not ?

Personally, I’d find it difficult to convict RA based on the evidence at trial. Perhaps I’m being naive , but part of me can’t get my head around how many things the police didn’t properly chase down (eg not checking how many cars like RA’s were registered in Carroll county until during the trial ). This case had huge attention on it from the beginning, so you’d think that the police would have been assiduous in chasing down all details .

I have wondered whether there is some other evidence which the police have (not presented at trial ) which makes RA’s guilt beyond doubt. If there is and they thought that would be presented at trial , I can see how some police would think they didn’t need to chase down all these other details which have come up in the case .

Or maybe not, and the investigation was just your run of the mill substandard investigation carried out by a force without much experience of these types of crimes.

The prosecution wouldn't be able to get the google searches you have referenced in strictly as character evidence. They would likely be able to offer it as motive evidence though.

 

[getthefax]

He knew he'd been seen by the girls on the bridge and possibly BB as well. Better to come clean than get caught in lie right up front. IMO

But he did try to adjust the time in 2017—I think he originally told the DNP officer he had been there, but an earlier window—like 12-1:30, which (after Kathy Shanks located the tip sheet) was debunked when they had HH store pics of his car, and witnesses having already reported seeing BG.

RA also told his wife he hadn’t been on the bridge that day (as we saw in the Holman interview).

I will look now for a link to what he told the DNP officer.

 

[mrjitty]

Gull disallowed third party culpability as a theory. You are asking the defense to offer evidence of something the judge told them was inadmissible.

No - I mean why did they not bring the witness at the 3 day evidential hearing? Obviously they can't call him at trial.

As far as the hearing you have mentioned, remember that hearing was conducted on the State's motion, not the defense's. Attorneys don't raise issues outside of the specific reasons that a hearing is conducted. We can't bring up any issue we desire at a hearing. Further, the defense wasn't required to offer any and all evidence of third-party culpability they had. And requiring witnesses to attend a hearing under subpoena for limited utility isn't a good strategy.

But again would it make sense if Prof Turco was the critical Odinism theory witness not to call him at the evidential hearing where the admissibility of the theory was at stake?

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm sure they are! It can't be an easy thing to do either - to be stuck in a hotel room, no devices, no tv... no phone access... no thanks. I'm sure they take their role very seriously (as they should when the rest of a man's life hangs in the balance in their hands).

Thank goodness for voir dire and what a testimony to commitment for the real trier of facts. Justice and Truth for an alleged child murderers guilt or innocence is what hangs in the balance to me. MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Don’t know if we’ll ever find out the reasons but I do also find it odd due to most small town LE usually don’t have the resources the FBI does which have proven to be very helpful/successful in a lot of cases helping them through to the end of an investigation with their many areas of expertise- profiling, BAU, interviewing witnesses, interrogating suspects, digital forensics etc.

LE asked for FBI assistance early on and FBI were assisting for awhile doing/handing in reports and were booted off the investigation by Carter iirc sometime in 2021 going off my memory from his testimony. iirc he wasn’t on the stand very long.

I wonder if it was just a matter of ego and/or personality clashes between Carter/local LE and the FBI agents or something else entirely.

At any rate, we’ll likely never hear the reasons why directly from the horse’s mouth iykwim.

IMHOO

What resources did the FBI have on the case 4 years later?

I suspect it wasn't much.

 

[photographer4]

Thank goodness for voir dire and what a testimony to commitment for the real trier of facts. Justice and Truth for an alleged child murderers guilt or innocence is what hangs in the balance to me. MOO

Certainly is an interesting case when one considers what the State put forward as facts and what the judge refused to allow.... mooo. Not directed at you in particular Girl, but if he is found guilty a lot of people will say it doesn't mean he did the crime, just as much as being found not guilty could mean to others that it doesn't mean he didn't. To a great many people, it will only mean the State didn't prove he did, Bard. No matter what comes back, many folks are likely to feel justice wasn't done as a result of the police work in the case. Mooo.

Edited for clarity.

 

[AugustWest]

No - I mean why did they not bring the witness at the 3 day evidential hearing? Obviously they can't call him at trial.



But again would it make sense if Prof Turco was the critical Odinism theory witness not to call him at the evidential hearing where the admissibility of the theory was at stake?

MOO

Because a defense is allowed to change ideas and theories as a case matures. New discovery offers new ideas and leads in a case. Taking a snapshot of the case a month before trial will show a completely different picture of the totality of available options and which are feasible than one several months prior.

Why didn't the state produce any FBI witnesses in support of their case? Probably for the same reason the defense didn't do so at the evidentiary hearing. Because it wasn't helpful to their case.

 

[getthefax]

I think neither side should be in the juror's presence, while they're in deliberations, reviewing evidence. I explained why that is in my earlier post. JMO

The jury are not deliberating inside the courtroom. They only go in there to re-review evidence.

The accused has a right to see what evidence is presented against him, even if it’s being presented for the second time, so he absolutely has a right to be there, and to have legal representation present.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

This trial has had a huge price tag for a small, rural county. I fear they won’t have the budget for another try.

I just don’t know how it works or if they could choose to retry later or have to say if they are going to retry right away-