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

[mrjitty]

One of the reasons Gull noted that the evidence must be admissible is hearsay evidence is a common source of these 3rd party theories because they tend to come from tips. The D odinist theory tended to rely on hearsay or other speculative sources rather than primary evidence. See also propensity evidence. eg the murder was done by odinists and x is an odinist therefore he might be guilty.

IIRC and example of a nexus was a guy who lied about an alibi and there was some moderately probative forensics but not smoking gun level. In such a case evidence actually tied him to the crime scene.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Two good cases to read are Sterling and Joyner - which demonstrate both sides of the line

I gave snippets of them here:

M

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181'

Apr 18, 2024

I've started to look into the case law about admissibility of SODDI evidence and it is very interesting - there are a number of authorities on point including Sterling vs State of Indiana. Short version, Sterling had not been allowed to introduce an alternate suspect at trial, despite that suspect actually being indicted for the attempted murder of the deceased some years earlier!

Sterling’s proposed theory of defense relating to another suspect stems from an instance involving Tommy Warren. In 2003, Dewayne was charged with the attempted murder of Warren...

• mrjitty

• 
• 

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Maybe because he'd confessed 60+ times? That could cause a defendant problems on the stand, MO

 

[sunshineray]

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

Is the jury supposed to be thinking, if not this guy, what guy? Aren't they supposed to be thinking, prove to us it's this guy?

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Didn't she also say their was no nexus of relevant facts supporting what the D was trying bring in?

 

[Vern]

RSBM

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.“

RSBM,

The Defence Team, contrary to allegations otherwise in this thread, had the opportunity to present and hint at a 3rd party suspect in this trial. Through their very own witness. They also had opportunity to bring in any of the other SODDIs provided they could actually find something tangible linking them to potential involvement in the crime (other than gossip, heresay & innuendo).

They queried her, she brought that potential 3rd party suspect up ... and the D-Team took it absolutely no where. Nary a peep.

The neighbor saw an unknown individual at the mailboxes earlier that day --- who then disppeared into the blue. She testified to that fact. Yet, no follow up by the D-Team. Nada.

Where did he potentially go?
Could he have scattered off into the woods at the side of the mailboxes?
Did you see him leave the area then?
See him leave later that day?
Could he have reached the crime scene through those woods unseen to you?
Have you ever seen him since?

Nope: No questions asked, so none answered. BUT their opportunity was there. BIG FAIL on them.

Poor Ricky.

IMO.

-

 

[ClearAhead]

Maybe because he'd confessed 60+ times? That could cause a defendant problems on the stand, MO

Yeah RA had his chance to take the stand but he didn’t take it. Imagine if the D had been allowed to introduce the various 3rd party suspects they’d named earlier? What a joke of a quasi-quadruple trial that would be with each set of defense attorneys proving their respective alibis, excluding RA’s of course who failed given the opportunity.

It continues to amaze me how his D team put so much energy into trying to place blame on others, but gave the jury no alternative explanation for RA’s activities around that critical time.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

.

Yeah RA had his chance to take the stand but he didn’t take it. Imagine if the D had been allowed to introduce the various 3rd party suspects they’d named earlier? What a joke of a quasi-quadruple trial that would be with each set of defense attorneys proving their respective alibis, excluding RA’s of course who failed given the opportunity.

It continues to amaze me how his D team put so much energy into trying to place blame on others, but gave the jury no alternative explanation for RA’s activities around that critical time.

JMO

Except in their opening statement. Iirc it was reported that they said, for the first time ever, that RA left at 2:15. (Going off an a misremembered and erroneous timestamp from the oldest juvenile.) I guess they wanted the jury to think maybe RA left right after Libby filmed him behind Abby. Guessing they never brought it up again, never tried to support, never satisfied the jury on the point.

Like the hair in Abby's hand. Female relative of LG, no good cause to test it further.

So busy trying to manipulate the Court (and the court of public opnion) they failed to prepare a reasonable defense. And they weren't required to. The judge rightly determined what constituted admissible evidence, and the jury deliberated.

If the guy who was on the first platform is the guy in Libby's video, RA is guilty as found.

Simple and straightforward.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

.

Except in their opening statement. Iirc it was reported that they said, for the first time ever, that RA left at 2:15. (Going off an a misremembered and erroneous timestamp from the oldest juvenile.) I guess they wanted the jury to think maybe RA left right after Libby filmed him behind Abby. Guessing they never brought it up again, never tried to support, never satisfied the jury on the point.

Like the hair in Abby's hand. Female relative of LG, no good cause to test it further.

So busy trying to manipulate the Court (and the court of public opnion) they failed to prepare a reasonable defense. And they weren't required to. The judge rightly determined what constituted admissible evidence, and the jury deliberated.

If the guy who was on the first platform is the guy in Libby's video, RA is guilty as found.

Simple and straightforward.

JMO

And IMO the judge had previously and rightfully determined RA's lawyer to have been grossly negligent in their representation of their client. MO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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.

1) Two beautiful, smart, and innocent young girls Abby and Libby lost their lives due to the sick
perversion of RA and that the rotten, guilty child killer got to live freely for 5+ years afterwards.
2) None, not one.
3) Inhumane without an ounce of empathy, gleefully malevolent IMO.
4) See 3 above x 10 - Bet Rozzi and Baldwin might have cared if it would have been one of their
daughters. (If they have any, IDK)

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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.

Absolutely, RA remembered one of the girls being taller than the others and having dark hair and he admitting wearing the same clothing. Correct and pretty specific for a Monday afternoon I'd say.

They girls saw him and he admitted that he passed them at the same point on the Freedom Trail.

Why is this even still questioned? Desperation? <shrug>

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

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.

1. Two young sweet and lively girls will never grow up to be wonderful and loving women. Their family and friends will always mourn them, every day of their lives.

2. None

3&4. I cannot adequately comment on these because of language restraints...which is probably for the best. So I will just say they're lower than low.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Two good cases to read are Sterling and Joyner - which demonstrate both sides of the line

I gave snippets of them here:

M

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181'

Apr 18, 2024

I've started to look into the case law about admissibility of SODDI evidence and it is very interesting - there are a number of authorities on point including Sterling vs State of Indiana. Short version, Sterling had not been allowed to introduce an alternate suspect at trial, despite that suspect actually being indicted for the attempted murder of the deceased some years earlier!

Sterling’s proposed theory of defense relating to another suspect stems from an instance involving Tommy Warren. In 2003, Dewayne was charged with the attempted murder of Warren...

• mrjitty

• 
• 

Thanks, I'll check them out. I heard about Joyner but Sterling is new to me.
I tried to dig up some stats on how many judges allow 3rd party stuff and came up empty.
The fence I'm on is this: If it's solid nexus (DNA or whatever), then the State would have already looked into/taken care of it. If it's not solid, then it's just a defense theory that won't stick. I wonder how wide a judge's discretion is.

 

[ClearAhead]

Thanks, I'll check them out. I heard about Joyner but Sterling is new to me.
I tried to dig up some stats on how many judges allow 3rd party stuff and came up empty.
The fence I'm on is this: If it's solid nexus (DNA or whatever), then the State would have already looked into/taken care of it. If it's not solid, then it's just a defense theory that won't stick. I wonder how wide a judge's discretion is.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say the bar should be set exactly the same for the criteria of admissible evidence presented to the jury by the P as whatever the D intend to present to implicate a third party?

It strikes me as a serious double standard that many who believe RA was wrongfully convicted also believe his D should’ve been allowed to get him off the hook by presenting inadmissible evidence that implicated 3rd parties (not insinuating this is your position). JMO

 

[katydid23]

I was trying to verify pacing based on the newly released bridge guy 43 second video. However, I do not know how fast or slow anyone walked across the Monon High Bridge that day.

The video does provide some clues about pacing. First, Abigail Williams when she is nervously walking across the bridge with someone behind her walked about as fast as bridge guy did. He barely made any gain on her based on the video. It took bridge guy an extra 16-17 seconds to get off the bridge after Abby if you calculate it from the location Abby was standing when Libby first started the video.

No one knows how long it took Libby to cross the bridge or get from platform 6 to the end. However, it is my opinion that when the video starts Liberty German had just finished crossing the bridge. The reason is when she is pointing the camera at the ground at the start of the video it is literally right at the edge of the end of the bridge and the stone path. She had not yet gone down the small slope to stand alongside the hill that she talked about later in the video. Also, Abby's comment about "Don't leave me up here" also suggests Libby had not actually completely gone down the small slope to stand next to the hill yet. I think Abby made that comment because she thought Libby might go down the hill without her when Libby started to show the hill area on camera.

What the timing of the pictures and this video shows me is that if you take Liberty German's 2:05 pm picture as the starting point and Liberty German's 2:13:52 phone video as the ending point that the girls were not nervous about bridge guy's (Richard Allen's) presence on the bridge until bridge guy got to around platform 5. Then both girls hurriedly sped up to get to the end from that point on.

Does their speed of travel have anything to do with the Guilt or Innocence factor? Does it impact the case in any way?

I'm just curious what the point is in trying to determine 'how fast' the victims were walking across the bridge. If it is determined they were walking slower than we thought, or faster, what would that mean?

 

[katydid23]

IMO the timeline is important to the prosecution. In order for BB to see the girls on her way back, they had to be behind her. If they arrived at 1:40, they would have been 6 minutes ahead of her.

We don't know that. Kids don't just hike in a straight line or do things logically. They might not have been '6 minutes ahead' on the trail because they might have sat on a bench for 5 minutes or stood on the trail and looked for 4 leaf clovers. We have no idea what that potential 9 minute gap would or could actually mean. IMO

Did TMS discuss what route she took in her court testimony?

 

[al66pine]

"Presumed Guilty"

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.”

@ClearAhead An interesting quote. Thx for posting.
“The only time that you can be presumed guilty under the law is AFTER you have been found guilty at a trial.”
The law firm website* stmt plays on the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty."

The truncated phrase "presumed innocent" implicitly encompasses the possibility that a def't. may be convicted at trial in the future.

The word "presume" commonly looks to the future, to suppose or believe that something will be true on the basis of probability, because it is likely but not certain.

After a conviction, including "presumed" in the phrase "presumed guilty" does not seem logical, imo, because def't already has been tried and found guilty of crime(s). Past tense.

jmo

____________________________________________________
*

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

 

[StarryStarryNight]

1. Two young sweet and lively girls will never grow up to be wonderful and loving women. Their family and friends will always mourn them, every day of their lives.

2. None

3&4. I cannot adequately comment on these because of language restraints...which is probably for the best. So I will just say they're lower than low.

Yes. All the injustice was done to Libby and Abby and their families.
<Modsnip: discuss the case and not the opinions or posts of other members>

 

[ClearAhead]

"Presumed Guilty"

@ClearAhead An interesting quote. Thx for posting.
“The only time that you can be presumed guilty under the law is AFTER you have been found guilty at a trial.”
The law firm website* stmt plays on the phrase "presumed innocent until proven guilty."

The truncated phrase "presumed innocent" implicitly encompasses the possibility that a def't. may be convicted at trial in the future.

The word "presume" commonly looks to the future, to suppose or believe that something will be true on the basis of probability, because it is likely but not certain.

After a conviction, including "presumed" in the phrase "presumed guilty" does not seem logical, imo, because def't already has been tried and found guilty of crime(s). Past tense.

jmo

____________________________________________________
*

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

Very true, there’s various definitions and synonyms of “presumed” guilty including assumed and implied so suppose it depends on the context. Better to keep it simple, following a finding of guilt the defendant is no longer presumed innocent. It appears all that’s up for debate is where the line is drawn in the finding of guilt beyond reasonable and UNreasonable doubt.

 

[Boxer]

The defense didn

Very true, there’s various definitions and synonyms of “presumed” guilty including assumed and implied so suppose it depends on the context. Better to keep it simple, following a finding of guilt the defendant is no longer presumed innocent. It appears all that’s up for debate is where the line is drawn in the finding of guilt beyond reasonable and UNreasonable doubt.

Legally found guilty, which authorizes the action of enforcing depriving the citizen of their freedom.