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

[Arkay]

In a Court of Law RA was presumed innocent, an independent jury of his peers from another County who actually saw and heard the evidence found him Guilty, it really is that simple.

RA did it and hid in plain sight for 5+ years too many. His appeals will be automatic until they run out and he will fade back into obscurity where he belongs.

Good riddance RA...you left untold pain, heartache and grief in your wake. I hope you don't get a minute of true or blissful peace for the next 130 years.

MOO

Yep, same!
Absolutely.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Question 1) What injustice has been committed here?

Question 2) One fact that even just points to RA’s innocence.

Question 3) Opinions of YouTubers who laugh at Libby and Abby crossing the bridge.

Question 4) Opinions of defense attorneys who say they don’t care that crime scene photos of dead children were leaked.

 

[Boxer]

MOO
I don't know if he was drunk or not. A lot of folks think he had a bad drinking problem so I was just throwing that out there as an idea.

He saw 3 females; one was tall and appeared to be the babysitter. He was on the platform but the time depends on which version is being considered. The man BB saw on the bridge in no way described RA.

Still, he came up with very specific information about his time on the trail, details which were not possible to know if he had not been there.

 

[al66pine]

If Not RA, Then Who?

I'm addressing this remark: "prove RA's innocence." For me, innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven. The prosecution failed. I think the verdict would have been different if the judge had not cleared the path to RA. She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?" MOO

@FrostedGlass Not sure if I'm understanding ^ post.

IIUC post says that Judge G made some rulings (on evidence or motions, wha-ev) that were unfairly(?) favorable to prosecution (i.e., "she cleared the path to RA") or that were unfairly(?) prejujudicial to def.
Okay, maybe so, those issues are raised on appeal.

BUT this: "She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?"

Is that ^ saying -
During the trial, if jury's written question had been submitted to Judge, she would have/ should have posed this Q on jury's behalf. Really?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the gist of ^ post.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

If Not RA, Then Who?

@FrostedGlass Not sure if I'm understanding ^ post.

IIUC post says that Judge G made some rulings (on evidence or motions, wha-ev) that were unfairly(?) favorable to prosecution (i.e., "she cleared the path to RA") or that were unfairly(?) prejujudicial to def.
Okay, maybe so, those issues are raised on appeal.

BUT this: "She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?"

Is that ^ saying -
During the trial, if jury's written question had been submitted to Judge, she would have/ should have posed this Q on jury's behalf. Really?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the gist of ^ post.

I would add that it’s not the jury’s job to consider if someone else did it. It is to only decide if the evidence proves, to them, that the defendant did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Period.

 

[sunshineray]

No everyone who has consumed a lot of alcohol acts drunk.

And many who do are very functioning drunks.

 

[sunshineray]

Even after months and months, I still can not comprehend why anybody would support or find it acceptable to be able to drag somebody’s name through the mud in court when there is not a single bit of evidence supporting their involvement in such a crime.

Can anybody explain why this would be considered acceptable in simple terms as im obviously thick?

That part of the D's so-called masterful FM is never really addressed as being unethical written or wrong in any way. The judge knew it was wrong, as far as the law is concerned. But yet her desicion its viewed by some as something the judge did to knowingly disadvantage the D.

I'll never understand that. RA is seen as innocent until proven guilty, after being arrested with probable cause AND then after confessing with details, so many times. BUT 5 men can be labeled and presumed guilty of two heinous murders, in a Defense motion for all to see, with no nexus of relevant facts at all.
AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

MOO
I don't know if he was drunk or not. A lot of folks think he had a bad drinking problem so I was just throwing that out there as an idea.

He saw 3 females; one was tall and appeared to be the babysitter. He was on the platform but the time depends on which version is being considered. The man BB saw on the bridge in no way described RA.

BB identified the image of BG as the man she saw. So did others.

 

[al66pine]

Jury Asking Q's?

I would add that it’s not the jury’s job to consider if someone else did it. It is to only decide if the evidence proves, to them, that the defendant did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Period.

@StarryStarryNight
Yes, exactly, which is why I wondered if I was reading the post correctly.
Jury is to consider only the "evidence properly admitted."*

IN Rule 20. permits jury to ask questions of the witnesses" in writing.** bbm
The judge first reads to self, then consults w prosecution & def.
Nothing requires judge to pose the Q's to witness if the testimony/info is not admissible

Nothing re jury asking def atty who alternate suspects (SODDI?) are.
If def had developed SODDI info, and if it was admissible evidence, the def would have already put a witness on the stand to testify about the SODDI.
Jury would not need to ask about it.

Again if I misunderstood post, I hope @FrostedGlass clarifies.

_____________________________________

* from IN. Crim Jury Instrx in another case
(sorry, atm, cannot find instrux in IN. v. Allen. IIRC, I posted w a link waaay back re this)

"Concluding Instructions:
"Members of the jury. You have now heard the evidence and the arguments of counsel. It is my duty to instruct you on the law, which you are obliged to follow."
"It is your duty to determine the facts and decide what happened. The only evidence you may consider is the evidence that was properly admitted at trial. You may not consider any matter that was rejected or stricken by the Court. You may not consider anything you read in the paper or hear from your friends about this case, nor may you do your own investigation or look anything up on the Internet.." (bbm)

https://law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/b720/JuryInstrucCriminal.pdf

** IN. Rule re Jury Asking Questions
"Rule 20. Preliminary Instructions
"Effective July 1, 2010
"(a) The court shall instruct the jury before opening statements by reading the appropriate instructions which shall include at least the following:
.....
"(7) that jurors, including alternates, may seek to ask questions of the witnesses by submission of questions in writing." bbm

20. Preliminary Instructions

rules.incourts.gov

 

[ClearAhead]

I'm addressing this remark: "prove RA's innocence." For me, innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven. The prosecution failed. I think the verdict would have been different if the judge had not cleared the path to RA. She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?" MOO

Richard Allen lost his presumption of innocence on November 11, 2024 when a jury found him guilty on each of the four charges he faced, beyond reasonable doubt. So he is now presumed GUILTY.

Right to be Presumed Innocent | Helfrich Law Offices

Right to be Presumed Innocent Our Experience YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT AT ALL STAGES OF THE PROCEEDING AND TO HAVE THE STATE PROVE YOUR GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The State is not allowed to treat you like you’re guilty unless they’ve already proven it in a trial. This...

helfrichlawoffices.com

“The only time that you can be presumed guilty under the law is AFTER you have been found guilty at a trial.”

 

[Warwick7]

I'm addressing this remark: "prove RA's innocence." For me, innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven. The prosecution failed. I think the verdict would have been different if the judge had not cleared the path to RA. She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?" MOO

You are right when you said "For me."

Because you have the right to believe how and what you want to. That is the beauty of free will.

However, as for Law itself, it says you are innocent until proven guilty.
The jurors examined the evidence and pronounced him guilty. As said earlier Richard Allen lost his presumption of innocence on November 11, 2024.

 

[FrostedGlass]

If Not RA, Then Who?

@FrostedGlass Not sure if I'm understanding ^ post.

IIUC post says that Judge G made some rulings (on evidence or motions, wha-ev) that were unfairly(?) favorable to prosecution (i.e., "she cleared the path to RA") or that were unfairly(?) prejujudicial to def.
Okay, maybe so, those issues are raised on appeal.

BUT this: "She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?"

Is that ^ saying -
During the trial, if jury's written question had been submitted to Judge, she would have/ should have posed this Q on jury's behalf. Really?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the gist of ^ post.

You fully understand the first part of what I'm saying.

The other part: That wasn't my thought but I highly doubt that question would have been addressed. Thanks for asking about that, though, because I didn't word that well.

 

[pseudo_hum]

IMO, if I was the defendant of such a heinous crime, and I was innocent, no attorney would prevent me from testifying on my own behalf. Why didn't RA testify? He could have explained the circumstances better than anyone.

 

[al66pine]

You fully understand the first part of what I'm saying.

The other part: That wasn't my thought but I highly doubt that question would have been addressed. Thanks for asking about that, though, because I didn't word that well.

@FrostedGlass : )
Thanks for responding. "... didn't word that well." ???

No worries. I've posted a few imperfectly phrased thoughts too.

 

[Salah11]

IMO, if I was the defendant of such a heinous crime, and I was innocent, no attorney would prevent me from testifying on my own behalf. Why didn't RA testify? He could have explained the circumstances better than anyone.

Yep, but of course, we know why he didn't as he would have been torn apart as his story has more holes than a colander.

Just imagine sitting in court and explaining that it looks like me and sounds like me and dresses like me and walks like me, but it’s actually not me with a straight face.

 

[pseudo_hum]

Yep, but of course, we know why he didn't as he would have been torn apart as his story has more holes than a colander.

Just imagine sitting in court and explaining that it looks like me and sounds like me and dresses like me and walks like me, but it’s actually not me with a straight face.

Agreed. As I posted “if I was innocent”.

 

[FrostedGlass]

@FrostedGlass : )
Thanks for responding. "... didn't word that well." ???

No worries. I've posted a few imperfectly phrased thoughts too.

I knew where I was going with that lol. The MS transcript of the juror interview was on my mind when I wrote it. I should have said something like: With any 3rd party mention in front of the jury ruled out by the judge, the jury was left with no answer to the question: "If not RA, then who?"

These are all just my opinions, anyway. People have every right to ignore them.

I answered your original question before I saw the next one. I thought you explained things well. Thanks.
MOO

 

[ClearAhead]

I knew where I was going with that lol. The MS transcript of the juror interview was on my mind when I wrote it. I should have said something like: With any 3rd party mention in front of the jury ruled out by the judge, the jury was left with no answer to the question: "If not RA, then who?"

These are all just my opinions, anyway. People have every right to ignore them.

I answered your original question before I saw the next one. I thought you explained things well. Thanks.
MOO

A hypothetical scenario, had the jury acquitted RA or if his charges had been dropped and in turn the ‘who’ was then charged and convicted, people would be outraged at the wrongful conviction resulting from illegal (inadmissible) evidence. So how could anyone expect that same approach be used by RA’s defence during his trial? Surely you’re not expecting a jury should be tasked with determining if evidence they hear is admissible or not? That’s the judge’s responsibility.

BBM

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/judge-rules-on-admissibility-of-defenses-alternative-theories-in-delphi-murders/

“The case law is quite clear that the nexus must not be based on speculation, conjecture, rumors, or hearsay, but rather on admissible evidence,” Gull wrote in her order. She added that the defense had “failed to produce admissible evidence” demonstrating such a nexus during hearings.“

 

[FrostedGlass]

A hypothetical scenario, had the jury acquitted RA or if his charges had been dropped and in turn the ‘who’ was then charged and convicted, people would be outraged at the wrongful conviction resulting from illegal (inadmissible) evidence. So how could anyone expect that same approach be used by RA’s defence during his trial? Surely you’re not expecting a jury should be tasked with determining if evidence they hear is admissible or not? That’s the judge’s responsibility.

BBM

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/judge-rules-on-admissibility-of-defenses-alternative-theories-in-delphi-murders/

“The case law is quite clear that the nexus must not be based on speculation, conjecture, rumors, or hearsay, but rather on admissible evidence,” Gull wrote in her order. She added that the defense had “failed to produce admissible evidence” demonstrating such a nexus during hearings.“

I've admitted I don't understand this at all.
Can you give me actual examples of admissible 3rd party evidence?

Also from your link (how does evidence mislead the jury?):
[snip]
“The Court will not permit the evidence submitted by the defense in support of their arguments regarding third-party perpetrators in the trial of this cause as the probative value of such evidence is greatly outweighed by confusion of the issues and its potential to mislead the jury,” Gull wrote.

 

[ClearAhead]

I've admitted I don't understand this at all.
Can you give me actual examples of admissible 3rd party evidence?

Also from your link (how does evidence mislead the jury?):
[snip]
“The Court will not permit the evidence submitted by the defense in support of their arguments regarding third-party perpetrators in the trial of this cause as the probative value of such evidence is greatly outweighed by confusion of the issues and its potential to mislead the jury,” Gull wrote.

IMO an example of admissible 3rd party evidence could be when a violent murder occurs behind a bar in an alley, one witness claiming they saw the victim arguing with the accused earlier in the night. That’s an example of where the D might introduce the possibility of a 3rd party suspect involving other bar patrons or maybe it was just a robbery by a stranger that turned violent, victim was not directly targeted at all.

IIRC the D was not able to prove any of the 3rd party suspects were in Delphi the time of the crime. Imagine the frightening legal precedent set if just anyone - even you or me - could be accused by the D for a murder during a public trial without any proof we were anywhere near or involved.

This is just the kind of thing that has the potential to needlessly destroy reputations and lives so I’m grateful the legal system protects innocent people from aggressive defence attorneys in this way.

ETA Inadmissible evidence misleads a jury because it shouldn’t be allowed for them to consider. ‘Confusion of issues’ IMO the jury is only to consider if evidence proves the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not if someone else is guilty. If the jury is not convinced evidence proves the defendant is guilty, then obviously that leaves the door open someone else might be but it’s not their job - only RA was on trial. IMO the D intentionally misconstrued their role and the legal process in general throughout this case because they knew they had no other way to create reasonable doubt.

JMO