GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #219

[FrostedGlass]

So what in your mind exonerated him? Reasonable doubt is not unquestionable doubt IMO.

So what makes him not the murderer in your mind? 47+ people wrongly convicted has nothing to do with this case, as that is what you bring in your mind, not the prosecution.

I haven't exonerated him; I just haven't been convinced of his guilt.

My remark about exoneration was this:
'Sometimes they (defense attys) really do think their clients are innocent and sometimes they are.
Indiana has 50 wrongfully convicted/exonerated folks.'
IOW, 50 times the prosecution was able to convince the jury the defendant was guilty and it was proven later that they were wrong.

 

[INfisherman]

I haven't exonerated him; I just haven't been convinced of his guilt.

My remark about exoneration was this:
'Sometimes they (defense attys) really do think their clients are innocent and sometimes they are.
Indiana has 50 wrongfully convicted/exonerated folks.'
IOW, 50 times the prosecution was able to convince the jury the defendant was guilty and it was proven later that they were wrong.

Respectfully, those 50 people you mention have zero to do with this case other than they are stuck in your mind. The prosecution didn’t mention any of them & neither did the defense for that matter. No, that doesn’t mean they do not matter, FWIW.

So you can’t get him off the bridge either, I guess?

 

[mrjitty]

Looks like Auger has filed another MTCE - which is basically a rehash of the original AB one to do with the van timeline - but with a newly decided case.

Hopefully someone can post the link to the docket.

 

[mrjitty]

I haven't exonerated him; I just haven't been convinced of his guilt.

My remark about exoneration was this:
'Sometimes they (defense attys) really do think their clients are innocent and sometimes they are.
Indiana has 50 wrongfully convicted/exonerated folks.'
IOW, 50 times the prosecution was able to convince the jury the defendant was guilty and it was proven later that they were wrong.

I guess where I am going with this, is I can fully accept arguments that guilt wasn't proven BARD, but the carry on from Lobrato and all the other defence influencers that he is factually innocent ... I've never seen what evidence indicates that.

So what was Lobrato basing his comment on? Just general vibes?

This is why i think he was just doing a defence lawyer thing and he opinion is no better than anyone elses. Indeed maybe less credible as he has incentives to claim it.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I guess where I am going with this, is I can fully accept arguments that guilt wasn't proven BARD, but the carry on from Lobrato and all the other defence influencers that he is factually innocent ... I've never seen what evidence indicates that.

So what was Lobrato basing his comment on? Just general vibes?

This is why i think he was just doing a defence lawyer thing and he opinion is no better than anyone elses. Indeed maybe less credible as he has incentives to claim it.

We don't know what he based his opinion on. However, he did have the discovery for ~2.5 months so he has seen way more evidence than we have.

What adds credibility for me is knowing that he was off the case, no longer their attorney, when he made his statements. There would be no reason for him to do his defense lawyer thing after the fact. His agreement with the Odin theory probably didn't do much for his reputation in the eyes of some people, either.

As for an alibi, I haven't been able to find reports in the media on KA's testimony or anything a neighbor might have said.
MOO

 

[mrjitty]

We don't know what he based his opinion on. However, he did have the discovery for ~2.5 months so he has seen way more evidence than we have.

What adds credibility for me is knowing that he was off the case, no longer their attorney, when he made his statements. There would be no reason for him to do his defense lawyer thing after the fact. His agreement with the Odin theory probably didn't do much for his reputation in the eyes of some people, either.

As for an alibi, I haven't been able to find reports in the media on KA's testimony or anything a neighbor might have said.
MOO

Why would the defence be sitting on discovery that shows RA is innocent?

MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Why would the defence be sitting on discovery that shows RA is innocent?

MOO

They wouldn't but I believe there is something in discovery that made him and RA's other attorneys believe that. The judge ruled against so much of the D's case, it's hard to see the whole picture. MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Looks like Auger has filed another MTCE - which is basically a rehash of the original AB one to do with the van timeline - but with a newly decided case.

Hopefully someone can post the link to the docket.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1899566044869722294

I think this is the one she's talking about

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/22-7466_5h25.pdf

 

[Megnut]

This was a case with strikingly little physical evidence, but what it did have us a pop-up cctv camera in the middle of nowhere, thanks to Libby's phone and her wherewithal to record the man on the bridge as he overtook them and forced them off the bridge.

This case was all about the timeline.

You could invent an entire fable around sticks and runes and ritual sacrifice, girls whisked away on magic carpet rides, brought back while searchers were searching with no evidence to support such a thing, even abandoned by ABaldwin in favor of a new take to intrigue, brought forth by a jailhouse letter-writer whose story is worse than the first.

But the evidence shows that two little girls were murdered where they lay, the phone stopped moving when the little girl on top of it did. Why were they abducted? That they were forced to undress answers that, motive as old as the ages.

No witnesses placed RA on the bridge prior to 1:30. BB didn't see him on her first two loops. The juveniles didn't see him until they were leaving, just ahead of Abby and Libby's arrival. There were no other groups of juveniles, nor a group with a taller girl with long hair. RA saw them, they saw him. BB saw RA, we don't know whether he saw her. Perhaps he followed her. She saw the girls. RA was on course to see them but claimed he did not. He didn't report seeing any doppelgangers.

The timeline tightens.

RA wasn't in the bridge in the 2:07 Snapchat photo. Syncs with his confession. He said he followed them. Which means he had to get around behind them. He let them pass him. So he could overtake them, at the end of the bridge, nowhere to run, underscored with a gun, racked for maximum fear.

Either RA saw the girls and someone else parachuted in and murdered them, or he saw them and he murdered them.

He said he didn't see them. There is only one reason to lie about that.

And no one saw RA, Abby or Libby after 2:14... until SC saw what she saw, walking along the road, looking like he'd been in a fight. Abby and Libby's fights for their lives.

The timeline IS evidence, and it was enough to convict.

JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Looks like Auger has filed another MTCE - which is basically a rehash of the original AB one to do with the van timeline - but with a newly decided case.

Hopefully someone can post the link to the docket.

Ah….Auger, the unethical lawyer.
I’m sorry, but I cannot get over the fact that she got in the face of McCL after the sentencing and victims’ statements loudly complaining about being called unethical along with Baldwin and Rozzi by one of the family members.
The audacity to question the words of a family victim in public for all to see. And why did she seek out McCL to yell at, why not get in the face of the family member you tortured and tormented with your colleagues. That was their time to talk so just shut up and listen to all the harm you caused these people. You lie down with dogs, you have to accept the fleas.
Classless. She’s no better than the other two. Unethical.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Auger’s new motion is blah blahing about BW’s testimony again.
BW testified in court under oath. RA’s defense team cross examined him. It didn’t their way. Boo Hoo.
Move on people.

 

[Vern]

@Niner

3/11/25 - Defendant's Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Motion To Correct Error

_Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Correct Error.pdf

drive.google.com

-

 

[tlcya]

so the basis described in the Mot to reconsider the MTEC is the state failed to correct Weber's testimony as to time. And yet the defense could have entered evidence to correct/dispute that and chose not to. Have I got that right?

 

[mrjitty]

so the basis described in the Mot to reconsider the MTEC is the state failed to correct Weber's testimony as to time. And yet the defense could have entered evidence to correct/dispute that and chose not to. Have I got that right?
View attachment 570429

Basically. I think it's highly questionable that the state knows the facts of the time - where was it established exactly?

The defence could have lead evidence to try to prove the time, but instead argued for an even later time.

They have never actually exhibited anything that proves the time in my view.

MOO

 

[Vern]

Auger’s new motion is blah blahing about BW’s testimony again.
BW testified in court under oath. RA’s defense team cross examined him. It didn’t their way. Boo Hoo.
Move on people.

Isn't it frustrating?? They actually slapped the subpoena on him while he was under cross too.

What else is false?? This continuing insistence by the defence that the security camera footage proves he arrived home after 2:44pm. The time on the security footage is incorrect; it reads as "a.m.". They've already admitted that in their very own prior motion.

The timing on the video is proof of nothing except the fact that the timing on the video is wrong.

Cell towers do not ping "at Weber's family's house" or anyone else's house for that matter. They ping to a general area. They don't talk about him 'pinging' as he drove up that very long, dirt private driveway - and odds are he would have pinged on that too to a tower.
Because the 'ping' they write of, is most likely not a ping at all. It's probably when BW connected to his parents' actual wifi network. That doesnot mean that BW didn't arrive home until then.

IIRC, wasn't the whole issue at trial, and the reason for that subpoena, being that when he was questionned, BW stated that he had worked on his bank machines via his cellphone? They were pretty insistent that he had told the FBI that he had worked on bank machines after work. Turns out that he did, only on his phone.

After he did that, is that when he got out of his white truck and then walked into his parents house connecting to the wifi to get the 'ping' time the D-Team is insisting shows when he got home?

I guess we'll never know because they didn't bring that out on cross, had the discovery, had even subpoenaed him to reappear. But failed to do so.

Didn't the judge even admonish them to "impeach this witness properly" if they wanted to do so? Why didn't they? They had the video? They had him on the stand - twice!
IMO, that's why this newest will go nowhere. It and the cited case are not alike. IMO.

_Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Correct Error.pdf

drive.google.com

-

 

[legalmomma]

Looks like Auger has filed another MTCE - which is basically a rehash of the original AB one to do with the van timeline - but with a newly decided case.

Hopefully someone can post the link to the docket.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Motion to Reconsider Motion to Reconsider Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/11/2025​

Appearance Filed Limited Appearance of Jennifer Auger For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/11/2025​

[td]

03/11/2025​

[/td]​

[td]

03/12/2025​

[/td]​

 

[INfisherman]

Basically. I think it's highly questionable that the state knows the facts of the time - where was it established exactly?

The defence could have lead evidence to try to prove the time, but instead argued for an even later time.

They have never actually exhibited anything that proves the time in my view.

MOO

Pretty please, JG, won’t you reconsider?

No one has proved anything regarding the timeline outside of phone data & it’s not required for the events to have occurred as the prosecution laid out. The only fact is LG’s phone stopped moving around the same time BW said he arrived home. His driveway sits atop a steep elevated cliff which could likely be seen from across the creek in the low lying area near the CS during mid-February when zero leaves are obscuring the line of sight. There isn’t a shred of evidence that proves precisely when BW arrived home other than his cell connected to WiFi around 4pm, which only means that was when the connection was made, not when he arrived. It’s reasonable to think that because RA even mentioned a van to Wala that he saw it at some point that day. It’s not just a coincidence & doesn’t change the timeline leading up to DTH in any way, shape or form.

Likely just more delays by the defense which favors the appellate attorneys so they can go through all the discovery, etc.

MOO

 

[Vern]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Motion to Reconsider Motion to Reconsider Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/11/2025​

Appearance Filed Limited Appearance of Jennifer Auger For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/11/2025​

[td]
03/11/2025

[/td]
[td]
03/12/2025

[/td]​

Already posted:

GUILTY Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #219'

Mar 12, 2025

@Niner

3/11/25 - Defendant's Motion To Reconsider Denial Of Motion To Correct Error

_Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Correct Error.pdf

drive.google.com

-

• Vern

• 
• 

 

[INfisherman]

Didn't the judge even admonish them to "impeach this witness properly" if they wanted to do so? Why didn't they? They had the video? They had him on the stand - twice!
IMO, that's why this newest will go nowhere. It and the cited case are not alike. IMO.

They couldn’t impeach him properly because they didn’t have any evidence with which to do so & they knew it then & still know it to this day.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Ah….Auger, the unethical lawyer.
I’m sorry, but I cannot get over the fact that she got in the face of McCL after the sentencing and victims’ statements loudly complaining about being called unethical along with Baldwin and Rozzi by one of the family members.
The audacity to question the words of a family victim in public for all to see. And why did she seek out McCL to yell at, why not get in the face of the family member you tortured and tormented with your colleagues. That was their time to talk so just shut up and listen to all the harm you caused these people. You lie down with dogs, you have to accept the fleas.
Classless. She’s no better than the other two. Unethical.

Yes!! Water seeks its own level IMO. The fact Auger would accost NMcL period in the Courtroom after their predictable loss, and her hand written note on that grotesque 'GIFT' of the MHB that Baldwin gave to their PI, who in turn posts it on Fakebook, reinforces that none of these 3 have basic human empathy and will stoop to any level to play dirty, fabricate, and exploit the innocent victims without a second thought.

Gross and completely unprofessional conduct by Baldwin, Rozzi and Auger throughout, I guess the truth hurts. Oh, and let's not forget their Internet cranks and The Due Process Gang and their bizarre and unethical behavior. I bet BM from the DD is still hanging on for dear life. It's not like he has any real cases to work. Maybe CW has finally figured out that man actually landed on the moon? If not, she should get right on that.

I'd love to see all of them disbarred for misconduct. One can dream...

JMO