GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #220

[Emma Peel]

‘Offering up’ seems like such odd verbiage to me! IMO

off topic but ...
oh my gosh, you're an oystercatcher!!
love it. love your name.
we lost our little sea tree to Helene ... but our oystercatchers returned.

 

[INfisherman]

Great example/observations. The Defense needed an expert on that security video. All they had was Andy. Will the trial court's decision re disallowing the essential FBI Agent Pohl's remote expert testimony on that security video be an issue raised in the appellant brief? Was Agent Pohl's expert testimony for the Defense critical in order to counter BW's testimony? Would the Court of Appeals find that a remote appearance for Pohl should have been granted? (I only brought it up b/c of the missing Exhibits related to that video ... only to say perhaps that's one area we'll see briefed.)

What? Agent Pohl isn’t an expert on security video. He took BW’s original statement regarding what he did after getting off work the day of the murders. Weber testified differently at trial compared to what Agent Pohl had reported. Initially BW told Pohl he serviced his ATMs after work. BW later changed that statement when he was reinterviewed, after the FBI was sent packing, & after looking at his timesheet records, said he did not service his ATMs but went straight home after work. That’s what he stuck with at trial when he testified.

The defense had this knowledge 2 months prior to trial (regarding Agent Pohl’s inability to travel - by air IIRC) but waited until 3-4 weeks prior before subpoenaing him.

NM objected to using Pohl’s testimony citing it was improper impeachment & JG agreed.

I believe the only ground the appeal could have regarding Agent Pohl would be if JG was incorrect regarding whether or not the defense was trying to improperly impeach BW. I don’t recall seeing that as part of their MTCE so I’m guessing not, if my memory is serving me correctly.

Please refer to source below:

The Defense had hoped to call FBI Special Agent Pohl to testify. Pohl is currently on assignment in Texas and unable to travel due to a medical issue. The Defense filed a motion for Pohl to testify through Zoom. The testimony would be used to rebut Weber’s previous testimony that he drove straight home, Baldwin said.

“When did you subpoena him,” Gull asked.

The Defense said three to four weeks ago.

“You had evidence in August and issued a subpoena three to four weeks ago?” Gull asked.

McLeland objected to the request, saying if the Defense wanted to impeach Weber, they needed to do it properly through Weber’s testimony, not someone else. He said it was improper impeachment as they did not show Weber the report at the time of his testimony.

“You have to confront him with his prior statement and ask if they didn’t say that,” Gull said, denying the motion.

Weber is expected to be called as a witness for the Defense on Monday.

Judge says no to Odinism, Norse Pagan religion, ritualistic killing - Carroll County Comet

Richard Allen’s defense team may have experienced a tough blow Friday. Judge Fran Gull denied the Defense’s motions to include Odinism, Norse Pagan religion, ritualist killings, and third-party suspects associated with those topics after court Nov. 1. The Defense argued the State “opened the...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

 

[Tricia]

LK...We’re 38 Guardians Away — Can You Help Us Reach Our Goal?

To become a Websleuths Guardian and support the site, it’s just $3 a month — that’s less than a cup of coffee!

We have a goal for October: 50 new Guardian members.
So far, we’ve welcomed 12 amazing people — which means (after consulting my math book, calculator, and trusty pencil with eraser ) we still need 38 more Guardians to reach our goal!

Thanks to our incredible partnership with Othram, we’ve been able to eliminate those soul-sucking ads and keep our servers strong and stable. Without Othram’s help, Websleuths simply wouldn’t be here today.

Now, we need you.
By becoming a Websleuths Guardian for only $3 a month (10 cents a day!), you’ll help keep Websleuths ad-free, thriving, and focused on what matters — digging into cases (without drama, rumors, and mayhem) and supporting victims.

As a Guardian, you’ll also enjoy exclusive perks like:

• Monthly Zoom calls with mods and fellow Guardians
• Extra post-editing time
• Fun new emojis
• And even more community rewards coming soon!

[CLICK HERE] to become a Guardian today and help protect our unique true crime community.

Thank you so much for your support,
Tricia Griffith
Manager, Websleuths.com

 

[steeltowngirl]

Has anyone brought to the thread the phone call between RA and his Dad on same day - just before this call with his mom/wife? Looking back a bit - looks like maybe no?

The phone calls, same day, with RA's Mom and Kathy were played for the Jury. The Judge decided that the call with his Dad just before the calls to his Mom and Kathy did not need to be heard along with the other calls.

Here's the court transcript at the sidebar which contains the Judge's ruling that RA's call with Dad would not be heard as a series of calls with Dad (stepfather), Mom, and Kathy.

After the sidebar transcript is the call from RA to his Dad (that was not let in to be heard by Jury along with the other family calls).


View attachment 619751
View attachment 619752

View attachment 619753

View attachment 619754



AND ... HERE'S the prison call from RA to his Dad ... (Call to Dad happened before the calls that were played for the Jury)


View attachment 619745



View attachment 619747

View attachment 619749

View attachment 619746

I’ve taken a couple of days after reading the transcript to objectively think over the conversation between RA and his stepdad.

Here’s my take, FWIW. I can see how some might interpret his words as him telling MA that he’s being tortured and likely to say anything, including a false confession. But I don’t see it that way. To me, RA is having a man-to-man discussion with his dad. He’s alerting him that he will be admitting the truth to KA and his mother. When he says that they “know he would never do something like he’s been accused of”, he’s describing their denial. The man they have known would never commit murder. They know him as a husband and a son. And he may have been an okay one, at that. But KA and his mom can’t see him as a murderer, and RA knows that. There is another side to RA that they don’t know, one he can barely come to grips with himself. But it’s also who he is. He’s saying his goodbyes to his family, and trying to prepare them for facing the truth.

One more item of note in his conversation. He says his mom and wife ‘know’ he wouldn’t do it.

There’s something he doesn’t say:
“I know I am innocent.”

JMO

 

[Boxer]

Such a tiresome argument from his defense team. It wasn't an element of the crime -- that the jury needed to find him guilty of being spooked and forcing the girls across the creek when he heard the van. The element of the crime.is something more like "on or about February 13, Richard Allen did cause the deaths...." Toward this end, the jury weighs testimony and evidence. Rick did not testify so who knows if he was lying or telling the truth about when he heard the van in relation to what he was doing and when or why he forced the creek crossing.

What IS significant is that Ricky witnessed BW's van and puts himself down below the MHB. We have been saying for years that Ricky put himself on the bridge and no one could get him off, but he actually gets himself off the bridge and puts himself under the bridge at the very time one of two little girls dies a top the other little girl's phone, a phone which never again moves.

I don't even know that the Defense's assertion is correct (that BW drove by at 2:44 -- or that it was his only pass) but I don't see how it reverses a verdict!

The facts remain.

Ricky was on the bridge. With the victims. He ordered them down the hill at gunpoint. 2:13-2:14pm
He forced them to undress.
At some point he heard BW's arrive.
At some point he forced the girls across the creek.
Both girls sustained vicious injuries which resulted in deaths that weren't immediate.
Libby's phone stopped moving at 2:32, was found under Abby.

The Defense motion, even if verifiable, changes nothing.

JMO

The only report of the time he saw van is from him. That he saw a van is the damning part. What he was exactly doing when it passed is likely why he fudged on the time.

 

[IminSyd]

I’m reading Dr Waḻa’s testimony (per trial transcript and being questioned by Ms. Diener for the State). I’m reading a copy posted by Tom Webster, link here Tom Webster - Delphi trial transcripts vol 17 starting page 72. Based on this, I think it’s possible he did see the van from the other side of the creek (having already crossed over).

Q What did he tell you?
A So he said he wanted to confess to his crimes and went on to tell his story.
He reported seeing his parents the morning of the crime. He stated he was
supposed to go eat with them, but opted to get himself a six-pack. He reported
drinking three beers and then finishing the rest later. He stated, “I bundled up.”
Once on the trail, he stated, “I laid in wait.” He reported seeing the girls and
following them to the bridge. He mentioned doing something with his gun and
stated, “I think that’s where the bullet fell out.” And then he said, “I ordered
them down the hill.” He stated his intention was to rape the girls and mentioned
he thought they were older than their biological ages. He said he saw a van,
which scared him and caused him not to follow through on raping the girls. He
said they crossed a creek and then he cut their necks. He indicated wanting to
make sure they were dead. He reported covering their bodies with tree branches.
He said he exited the area by keeping off the trail as to not be seen. He said he
returned to his vehicle, which he parked by a nearby building. He stated he
managed to continue living his life after time passed by and he hadn’t been
caught.

 

[sunshineray]

@sunshineray,

OT but I feel important to mention. Please don’t mistake my brevity for disrespect, rudeness or being argumentative, etc.. I’m simply replying in a hurry as I am currently in AL fishing with my dad & friends. Time online is at a minimum because I’m rarely in the rental house except for a few hours a day. All the respect in the world intended - hopefully you’d know that by now but I wanted to be clear with my intentions just in case.

No worries at all, hope your fishing went well and enjoyable