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

[al66pine]

Presumed.

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.

@ClearAhead Thx for your response. : )

True, sometimes context is everything.

 

[Willow Knight]

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

Example:

3rd Party claims he was on the trails during the window of time, AND is able to describe others he saw on the trails. Verified by LE.

Only giving one example as I don't want to come off as snide.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Example:

3rd Party claims he was on the trails during the window of time, AND is able to describe others he saw on the trails. Verified by LE.

Only giving one example as I don't want to come off as snide.

Thanks for not being snide. The example you gave would be called a suspect and be cleared or arrested by LE. IMO

 

[Salah11]

There is no proof anybody else was on that bridge at the time in question apart from Ricky which he admitted to.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for not being snide. The example you gave would be called a suspect and be cleared or arrested by LE. IMO

The point is, say you had a suspect who was verified to be at the Bridge at the right time, had lied about his alibi, and was catfishing the victim - that would raise a real possibility that he was the real offender - so then the state would have to establish why that was not the case at trial.

You've gone beyond a mere speculative theory to real evidence that suggests guilt. There is of course the possibility that LE might have cleared the suspect - and they would have to show that at trial.

Those who followed the McStay trial saw this exact dynamic. The defence was allowed to argue a business partner was the real killer, and the state demonstrated the alt suspect could not be the killer because he was in a different state at the time.

IMO the KAK example is a good example of a decision that could go either way. He is linked via criminal / sexual offences to the victim. He made a 'confession' that places him at the scene, and he tips in "the real killer". On the other hand, digital evidence suggests he was at home at the time.

IMO KAK likely would have been allowed if the defence had enthusiastically pursued it. But it was an afterthought for them because KAK is clearly not BG and no jury would ever believe it over RA ....

IMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

The point is, say you had a suspect who was verified to be at the Bridge at the right time, had lied about his alibi, and was catfishing the victim - that would raise a real possibility that he was the real offender - so then the state would have to establish why that was not the case at trial.

You've gone beyond a mere speculative theory to real evidence that suggests guilt. There is of course the possibility that LE might have cleared the suspect - and they would have to show that at trial.

Those who followed the McStay trial saw this exact dynamic. The defence was allowed to argue a business partner was the real killer, and the state demonstrated the alt suspect could not be the killer because he was in a different state at the time.

IMO the KAK example is a good example of a decision that could go either way. He is linked via criminal / sexual offences to the victim. He made a 'confession' that places him at the scene, and he tips in "the real killer". On the other hand, digital evidence suggests he was at home at the time.

IMO KAK likely would have been allowed if the defence had enthusiastically pursued it. But it was an afterthought for them because KAK is clearly not BG and no jury would ever believe it over RA ....

IMO

KAK was in prison on other charges, thoroughly investigated regarding Delphi (wasn''t he?) and as you said, clearly not BG. Nick's case: RA = BG = Killer. Why would the judge let that in?

 

[FrostedGlass]

There is no proof anybody else was on that bridge at the time in question apart from Ricky which he admitted to.

I wonder about this guy and the car Brad Heath testified to seeing parked along the road. I wonder if they ever looked for the owner of that one.
{quotes from the article:
"Living off a secluded country road with only a few neighbors, Liebert said she noticed a man she'd never seen before standing near a mailbox on the morning of Feb. 13, 2017. She never got a good look at him because he soon vanished, she said. Liebert told police about the sighting.
"It just seemed strange," Liebert said. "I pulled into the drive and got out of the car and he was gone.""

Defense calls first 2 witnesses after state rests its case in Delphi murders trial

It's been two years since multiple law enforcement agencies announced Richard Allen's arrest in the Delphi killings. His trial continues Thursday.

www.indystar.com

Brad Heath

Delphi Murders Trial: Day 13 | Judge denies motions related to Odinism, ritualistic killing

Special Judge Fran Gull ruled against a second defense motion to allow testimony related to Odinism, ritualistic killing, and Norse paganism evidence in the trial of Richard Allen.

www.wrtv.com

 

[Megnut]

I can't think of a case where a third-party defense was admitted. What I  have seen is defense attorneys who challenge and/or attack State's witnesses, in order to create a wisp of reasonable doubt. Using their questions to imply that a witness can't be sure about their timeline, exposing a potential motive, trying to introduce maybe an unresolved issue, like in a case where a woman is murdered by a stranger but also, unrelated, had a rocky relationship with her boyfriend. So not a 3rd party defense -- it can't be speculative, unsupported -- two people aren't on trial, in such a case -- but an effective defense attorney can try to shape/manipulate jury impression by how they handle witnesses.

Not having been able to proffer a nexus, this Defense wasn't able to meet the criteria for a 3rd-party defense -- because it was such a stretch, and only meant to CONFUSE, if the judge had IN ERROR, granted it, it would have required a mini trial within the trial just to set it up, and that's just not how it works.

RA would have been better served by a defense team that 1. Kept his disgusting, boorish, violent, sexual behavior in custody OUT of the trial. 2. Tried for a guilty plea to spare a trial or, if possible, asked for concurrent sentences. 3. Spent less time on ludicrous Frank's Motions and public theatre and more time preparing for trial, stretching the timeline to a more believable 4:15 or 5 (than their overnight nonsense) to increase the number of naturally occurring people on the bridge, accusing no one but giving the jury pause.

RA is looking at 130 well-deserved years in prison because he's guilty of the crimes he committed to the BARD satisfaction of the jury of his peers. His attorneys did not help him. His sentence isn't his attorneys' fault but they sure didn't help.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

KAK was in prison on other charges, thoroughly investigated regarding Delphi (wasn''t he?) and as you said, clearly not BG. Nick's case: RA = BG = Killer. Why would the judge let that in?

I am saying KAK comes close to the threshold a Judge might allow, because you have a firm criminal connection to the victims, and a confession of sorts. It could go either way.

Of course as a separate question, the defence might not like it as a strategy, which i think is the case here. I do believe had the defence really wanted this alternate suspect, they would have got it. But as it was, they made some half-hearted submissions, more to get it on the record.

Something that you need to factor in, is choosing the wrong alt can be a shoot your own foot moment. In the McStay case I mentioned, the D hyped the alt to the jury in opening, only for LE to get up and present the evidence the suspect was 1000 miles away at the time. It literally sunk them IMO. I think arguing for KAK would have been a disaster because RA looks like BG and KAK does not. Which is why they didn't pursue it.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

I think Scott Reisch is correct that the D should have played Odinism on the down low - using it only on cross. Instead they went all in and got it struck out pre-trial.

A strategic blunder by them.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I am saying KAK comes close to the threshold a Judge might allow, because you have a firm criminal connection to the victims, and a confession of sorts. It could go either way.

Of course as a separate question, the defence might not like it as a strategy, which i think is the case here. I do believe had the defence really wanted this alternate suspect, they would have got it. But as it was, they made some half-hearted submissions, more to get it on the record.

Something that you need to factor in, is choosing the wrong alt can be a shoot your own foot moment. In the McStay case I mentioned, the D hyped the alt to the jury in opening, only for LE to get up and present the evidence the suspect was 1000 miles away at the time. It literally sunk them IMO. I think arguing for KAK would have been a disaster because RA looks like BG and KAK does not. Which is why they didn't pursue it.

IMO

I guess they thought the Odin report was strong enough for 3rd party. We can make our own judgement calls if/when we finally get to see what's in it. The second set of attys took it seriously, too. IMO

 

[mrjitty]

I guess they thought the Odin report was strong enough for 3rd party. We can make our own judgement calls if/when we finally get to see what's in it. The second set of attys took it seriously, too. IMO

What Odin report do you mean?

The D case for Odinism was basically set out in their final motion after the 3 day hearing. IIRC they ran out of time for closings, so each side filed a document summarising their argument. In my view that D document didn't set out any nexus against the named Odinists.

 

[FrostedGlass]

What Odin report do you mean?

The D case for Odinism was basically set out in their final motion after the 3 day hearing. IIRC they ran out of time for closings, so each side filed a document summarising their argument. In my view that D document didn't set out any nexus against the named Odinists.

Click's report.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think Scott Reisch is correct that the D should have played Odinism on the down low - using it only on cross. Instead they went all in and got it struck out pre-trial.

A strategic blunder by them.

One of many, many. strategic blunders by this incompetent Defense. IMO

 

[tlcya]

What Odin report do you mean?

The D case for Odinism was basically set out in their final motion after the 3 day hearing. IIRC they ran out of time for closings, so each side filed a document summarising their argument. In my view that D document didn't set out any nexus against the named Odinists.

I believe the OP is referring to the report allegedly prepared by Todd Click about Odinistic ritual killing angle.

CINCINNATI (WXIX) - A former Indiana Department of Child Services assessment worker is facing charges after he allegedly falsified documents in five different cases, some of which involved child abuse.

Todd Click, 51, falsified 10 “Management Gateway for Indiana Kids” (MaGIK) documents and forged parent/guardian signatures on at least seven Department of Child Services forms between Dec. 21, 2023, to Feb. 15, 2024, according to a Ripley County affidavit.

Court docs: Indiana child services worker accused of falsifying documents

ETA Mr. Click's Trial date for the above referenced offense is currently set for 05/20/2025 at 9:00 AM in Ripley county Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

 

[Salah11]

Even if you had let KAK in, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s Ricky out on the bridge at the time in question. He still magically does not have an alibi and is the spitting image of BG who confessed 60+ times to various people.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I believe the OP is referring to the report allegedly prepared by Todd Click about Odinistic ritual killing angle.


Court docs: Indiana child services worker accused of falsifying documents

ETA Mr. Click's Trial date for the above referenced offense is currently set for 05/20/2025 at 9:00 AM in Ripley county Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

You're correct; the OP already answered in post #873.

 

[Willow Knight]

KAK was in prison on other charges, thoroughly investigated regarding Delphi (wasn''t he?) and as you said, clearly not BG. Nick's case: RA = BG = Killer. Why would the judge let that in?

All my opinion.

I don't think KAK is BG. Not sure if any others are thinking that, never got that impression.

I do think it is possible child killer richard allen may have had contact with KAK.

It's also feasible child killer richard allen knew of Abby and Libby's plan to be on the trails because of KAK's filthy catfishing account.

richard allen was in Peru that morning! So was KAK's cell phone.

Not sure we will ever know if KAK was aware of allen's plans, I feel LE suspected but never had the evidence to connect KAK with allen.

allen drove to Peru that morning, then drove back home and gathered his kill kit.

Justice for Libby and Abby!!!! These two girls put a child killer away for life. They also help put a filthy child predator away.

 

[Salah11]

All my opinion.

I don't think KAK is BG. Not sure if any others are thinking that, never got that impression.

I do think it is possible child killer richard allen may have had contact with KAK.

It's also feasible child killer richard allen knew of Abby and Libby's plan to be on the trails because of KAK's filthy catfishing account.

richard allen was in Peru that morning! So was KAK's cell phone.

Not sure we will ever know if KAK was aware of allen's plans, I feel LE suspected but never had the evidence to connect KAK with allen.

allen drove to Peru that morning, then drove back home and gathered his kill kit.

Justice for Libby and Abby!!!! These two girls put a child killer away for life. They also help put a filthy child predator away.

I believe if there was a connection, Ricky would have thrown him under the bus to get some leverage.

He confessed so many times, and he never once mentioned somebody else was involved.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

I believe if there was a connection, Ricky would have thrown him under the bus to get some leverage.

He confessed so many times, and he never once mentioned somebody else was involved.

IMO

I think the other way round. KAK would have tried to get a deal on a proffer against Rick. As it is he tried to pin it on his dad.