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

 

[shonyakay]

Anyone hear any word on Richard Allen's appeal brief? My understanding is it was supposed to be submitted by midnight on October 21, 2025.

 

[shonyakay]

I haven't been here in a minute and I just browsed back a couple of pages of posts and noticed the talk about BW and his van.

Coincidentally, yesterday, I put together a timeline of BW's statements and testimony. I'll share it below.


On February 17, 2017 just days after the crime BW talked with Officer Shane Burnhart and Indiana State Trooper Brian Kubiak and told them that he got off of work at 2:02 p.m. went straight home and got home around 2:30 p.m.
His testimony at the trial corroborated that statement as well.


Prosecutor Nick McLeland to BW

Q If I were to show you a police report from February 17th of 2017, would that help you remember whether or not you talked to law enforcement on that day?
A If it’s the day that I’m thinking, it’s when they stopped my car going home, I believe that was the 17th, but I’m not sure.
Q If I showed you this document, would it help?
A Maybe.
Q Okay. I want to draw your attention to the date on there; do you see the date?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And then I want to draw your attention – so let me start here: Do you remember talking to law enforcement this day?
A I remember talking to them. I don’t remember this particular guy.
Q Okay. That’s okay. And when you talked to law enforcement that day, you told them that you got off work at 2:02 p.m.; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And you told them you went straight home; is that right?
A That’s correct.
Q And that you got home right around 2:30; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And that you were awakened at around 5:30 by a sheriff’s deputy; is that right?
A That’s correct.
Q Again, this is on February 17th of 2017; correct?
A Yes.


Two days later...


On February 19, 2017
Officer Christopher Gootee with the Hammond Police Department and FBI Special Agent Adam Pohl talked with BW.
Officer Gootee testified that he recalled that BW told him that he went straight home after work.
Special Agent Pohl wrote the report.


The defense claims that Agent Pohl wrote in his report that BW went to check on his ATM machines.


McLeland talks with the court about this...
"I think another concern that I just want to point out in his report (Agent Pohl's), they weren’t talking about the same day as the girls went missing, it’s not clear, so we have concerns about him testifying about what (BW) said the day the girls went missing, that’s the first issue."


Defense Attorney Andrew Baldwin to BW

Q How many, back in 2017, did you have (ATM machines)?
A I don’t know. This says a estimate.
Q Okay.
A Do you want a estimate?
Q Sure.
A Thirty-five.


Q How often would you be attending to your ATM machines in 2017?
A I do something with ATMs every day.
Q Okay. What would you do every day with these ATM machines? What kind of maintenance do they require, if any?
A No maintenance. I look up on the computer to see where they sit money wise.
Q Okay.
A So that – I can sit at home and look on the computer and tell where they’re at.


Q Okay. Would you use your van to service ATMs?
A Usually not.
Q You used your blue Subaru?
A I don’t have a blue Subaru.
Q What did you have back in 2017?
A I had a black Subaru.
Q Black Subaru, okay. Just so the jury understands, where in 2017, in February of 2017, where were the – I think – ‘cause I don’t think this question had been answered – where were the ATMs geographically in February of 2017?
A Central Indiana.


Q What vehicles did you have back then and when would you use them back in 2017?
A To my knowledge, I just had the Subaru and the van, and the only time I used the van was when I was pulling a trailer.
Q So nine out of ten times, you’d be using the Subaru?
A Yes. More than that.


Juror Questions to BW
Q Do you drive under the High Bridge and would you have taken that route on February 13th of 2017?
A I would have and yes.

Q And do you typically go home after work at Subaru before servicing your ATMs?
A Typically, I don’t, no.


The timestamp on the van video is 2:44 a.m. The time is obviously not correct because it is daylight out. There is no corroboration of what the actual time is. The video of the Hoosier Harvest Store camera is 54 minutes fast per the FBI.

 

[IminSyd]

I haven't been here in a minute and I just browsed back a couple of pages of posts and noticed the talk about BW and his van.

Coincidentally, yesterday, I put together a timeline of BW's statements and testimony. I'll share it below.


On February 17, 2017 just days after the crime BW talked with Officer Shane Burnhart and Indiana State Trooper Brian Kubiak and told them that he got off of work at 2:02 p.m. went straight home and got home around 2:30 p.m.
His testimony at the trial corroborated that statement as well.


Prosecutor Nick McLeland to BW

Q If I were to show you a police report from February 17th of 2017, would that help you remember whether or not you talked to law enforcement on that day?
A If it’s the day that I’m thinking, it’s when they stopped my car going home, I believe that was the 17th, but I’m not sure.
Q If I showed you this document, would it help?
A Maybe.
Q Okay. I want to draw your attention to the date on there; do you see the date?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And then I want to draw your attention – so let me start here: Do you remember talking to law enforcement this day?
A I remember talking to them. I don’t remember this particular guy.
Q Okay. That’s okay. And when you talked to law enforcement that day, you told them that you got off work at 2:02 p.m.; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And you told them you went straight home; is that right?
A That’s correct.
Q And that you got home right around 2:30; is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And that you were awakened at around 5:30 by a sheriff’s deputy; is that right?
A That’s correct.
Q Again, this is on February 17th of 2017; correct?
A Yes.


Two days later...


On February 19, 2017
Officer Christopher Gootee with the Hammond Police Department and FBI Special Agent Adam Pohl talked with BW.
Officer Gootee testified that he recalled that BW told him that he went straight home after work.
Special Agent Pohl wrote the report.


The defense claims that Agent Pohl wrote in his report that BW went to check on his ATM machines.


McLeland talks with the court about this...
"I think another concern that I just want to point out in his report (Agent Pohl's), they weren’t talking about the same day as the girls went missing, it’s not clear, so we have concerns about him testifying about what (BW) said the day the girls went missing, that’s the first issue."


Defense Attorney Andrew Baldwin to BW

Q How many, back in 2017, did you have (ATM machines)?
A I don’t know. This says a estimate.
Q Okay.
A Do you want a estimate?
Q Sure.
A Thirty-five.


Q How often would you be attending to your ATM machines in 2017?
A I do something with ATMs every day.
Q Okay. What would you do every day with these ATM machines? What kind of maintenance do they require, if any?
A No maintenance. I look up on the computer to see where they sit money wise.
Q Okay.
A So that – I can sit at home and look on the computer and tell where they’re at.


Q Okay. Would you use your van to service ATMs?
A Usually not.
Q You used your blue Subaru?
A I don’t have a blue Subaru.
Q What did you have back in 2017?
A I had a black Subaru.
Q Black Subaru, okay. Just so the jury understands, where in 2017, in February of 2017, where were the – I think – ‘cause I don’t think this question had been answered – where were the ATMs geographically in February of 2017?
A Central Indiana.


Q What vehicles did you have back then and when would you use them back in 2017?
A To my knowledge, I just had the Subaru and the van, and the only time I used the van was when I was pulling a trailer.
Q So nine out of ten times, you’d be using the Subaru?
A Yes. More than that.


Juror Questions to BW
Q Do you drive under the High Bridge and would you have taken that route on February 13th of 2017?
A I would have and yes.

Q And do you typically go home after work at Subaru before servicing your ATMs?
A Typically, I don’t, no.


The timestamp on the van video is 2:44 a.m. The time is obviously not correct because it is daylight out. There is no corroboration of what the actual time is. The video of the Hoosier Harvest Store camera is 54 minutes fast per the FBI.

Thanks this is helpful. I remember during trial the testimony about RA talking about the van by Dr Walla was huge and then BW agreeing that he had been driving past at the time was massive. But then there was this idea that BW testimony would be disputed by an FBI Agent as BW had given him a different account. I didn’t ever quite understood what happened there, but this is helpful in explaining that a bit.

 

[INfisherman]

Thanks this is helpful. I remember during trial the testimony about RA talking about the van by Dr Walla was huge and then BW agreeing that he had been driving past at the time was massive. But then there was this idea that BW testimony would be disputed by an FBI Agent as BW had given him a different account. I didn’t ever quite understood what happened there, but this is helpful in explaining that a bit.

It’s anyone’s guess what exactly the defense had in mind, as they were hyper focused on going down the tortured while incarcerated & Odinism rabbit holes. During the trial, most of us were reliant upon MSM reports which were based on handwritten notes, as no electronic devices were allowed to be used during the trial.

The defense was obviously trying to impeach BW’s testimony but how they planned on doing that hasn’t been specifically addressed other than what was linked previously. They released 2 videos, I believe, after the verdict (both for their MTCE, IIRC) & the timestamps for both videos were never verified without question - both were flawed compared to the claims the defense made using those pieces of evidence. Many of their post-verdict motions & claims were misrepresented & came from discovery the state had handed over to them. They were trying so hard to try the case with the public involvement & for me, it just fell flat & seemed to highlight their desperation & at some levels incompetence.

MOO

 

[shonyakay]

Thanks this is helpful. I remember during trial the testimony about RA talking about the van by Dr Walla was huge and then BW agreeing that he had been driving past at the time was massive. But then there was this idea that BW testimony would be disputed by an FBI Agent as BW had given him a different account. I didn’t ever quite understood what happened there, but this is helpful in explaining that a bit.

You're welcome.

Officer Gootee testified that he remembers that BW told him that he went straight home after work.

NM says Agent Pohl's report is not clear.

As you can see two days before BW even talked with Agent Pohl and Officer Gootee he told investigators that he left work at 2:02 p.m. went straight home and got home around 2:30 p.m.

BW also testified under penalty of perjury to leaving work at 2:02 p.m. (which was verified), driving straight home, and getting home around 2:30 p.m.

The defense has now pretty much agreed (via the van video) that BW was driving his van down his private driveway within 30 to 36 minutes of the perp ordering Libby and Abby down the hill.

I know Andrew Baldwin and the defense supporters like to say, without any proof whatsoever, that Wala must have known about BW and his van and that she could have planted that into his mind. BW is scheduled to work until 2:30 p.m. How would Wala know BW's work schedule and that he got off of work earlier than his scheduled time that day?
How would Wala know that BW would be driving his van when there was only a 10 % chance BW would be driving his van that day instead of his Subaru? What would Wala (who btw was hired by an independent contractor) who appeared to really care for RA, gain by framing RA?

One other thing I want to mention...

BW testified that he only drives his van when he is pulling a trailer and he testified that he dropped his trailer off earlier that day.

 

[INfisherman]

Anyone hear any word on Richard Allen's appeal brief? My understanding is it was supposed to be submitted by midnight on October 21, 2025.

It’s been a couple of weeks, but the appellate attorneys still had not received all of the court records they have been requesting (exhibits from the request for Franks hearing) which for whatever reason were not part of the trial record. In addition, due to these missing exhibits, they also requested another extension. The state also filed a motion which did not object to the appellate requests. Basically, the state doesn’t wish to address the appeal multiple times due to oversights related to these exhibits.

The COA has yet to rule on these latest motions, as the mycase site has yet to be updated since those last 2 filings.

I’m sure the original defense team has copies of these requested exhibits but the court is the official keeper of trial records, so they are the first source. If these exhibits cannot be located for whatever reason, I would imagine the defense would then be required to resubmit copies of the misplaced exhibits the appellate team is requesting.

JMO, not a lawyer.

ETA It will not surprise me if this drags into next year if they don’t get the appellate team to file their brief before Thanksgiving.

 

[Megnut]

It’s anyone’s guess what exactly the defense had in mind, as they were hyper focused on going down the tortured while incarcerated & Odinism rabbit holes. During the trial, most of us were reliant upon MSM reports which were based on handwritten notes, as no electronic devices were allowed to be used during the trial.

The defense was obviously trying to impeach BW’s testimony but how they planned on doing that hasn’t been specifically addressed other than what was linked previously. They released 2 videos, I believe, after the verdict (both for their MTCE, IIRC) & the timestamps for both videos were never verified without question - both were flawed compared to the claims the defense made using those pieces of evidence. Many of their post-verdict motions & claims were misrepresented & came from discovery the state had handed over to them. They were trying so hard to try the case with the public involvement & for me, it just fell flat & seemed to highlight their desperation & at some levels incompetence.

MOO

I think they WEREN'T going to do  anything. It was about appearances. Remember the slammed-down subpoena? Theatre.

The so-called impeaching was over the ATMs, which the defense wanted badly to seem like physical work on physical machines and locations anywhere but near MHB.

Instead we learn it's something BW did on his own time, and largely by computer.

His original interviews were later clarified. He did no physical servicing of physical ATMs that day.

That 2:44 footage already has an authentication problem. Am/pm. So... if it's 2.44 am (assuming it's not also off by matters of minutes), maybe the defense wound it forward and it's the pm of the day before (I don't know what his normal work schedule was, whether he did or didn't work on Sundays).

The defense was trying to make a mountain out of a molehill air. Trying to suggest that BW was lying, that there's no confession in Ricky's admission.

BW and Ricky are both agreed. BW arrived during the commission of Ricky's crime. Before or after the creek crossing changes nothing. If Ricky forced the girls to wash in and cross the creek, he's not going to admit to that. In fact, didn't he say that's why he didn't R them? Because of the arrival of the van? Regardless BW and Ricky authenticate each other. Plus/minus 2:30.

That's the confession.

Ricky didn't leave at 1:30. Ricky didn't leave at 2:15. Ricky was there, under the bridge, when BW arrived home, directly after work. Ricky was the only man on and under the bridge to be filmed by Libby at 2:13/:14 and was still there when BW arrived home, all within minutes of Libby's phone ceasing movement.

There was no bombshell testimony coming in. And the defense knew it. Nothing to impeach BW or they would have impeached him properly, while they had him on the stand, under oath. They didn't do that because they couldn't do that. There was nothing TO impeach, just additional clarification in his interviews over time.

If you ask me what time I got home and say, I clocked out at 2, ran an errand and got home after 2:30, then I check my phone and can narrow down my arrival to 2:38, the first statement is neither wrong nor a lie. The second statement simply fleshed it out.

2:44, if accurate and authenticated, is just as damning to Ricky as 2:28.

The Defense literally resorted to table thumping (with the subpoena) in a failed attempt to create noise as a distraction to the FACT that Ricky himself put himself under the MHB and in the area where Libby's cell phone stopped moving, under the body of a victim who died where she lay.

It's really too bad for the defense and their invention of an Odinistic ritual flopped. Their own defendant didn't see any of them while he was there.

He was the only man there. Based on witness testimony and corroborated by Ricky himself.

Case closed.

JMO

 

[Justice101]

I think they were going to do anything. It was about appearances. Remember the slammed-down subpoena? Theater.

The so-called impeaching was over the ATMs, which the defense wanted badly to seem like physical work on physical machines and locations anywhere but near MHB.

Instead we learn it's something BW did on his own time, and largely by computer

His original interviews were later clarified. Je did no physical servicing of physical ATMs that day.

That 2:44 footage already has an authentication problem. Am/pm. So... if it's 2.44 am (assuming it's not also off by matters of minutes), maybe the defense wound it forward and it's the pm of the day before (I don't knew what his normal work schedule was, whether he did or didn't work on Sundays).

The defense was trying to make a mountain put of a molehill air. Trying to suggest that BW was lying, that there's no confession in Ricky's admission.

BW and Ricky are both agreed. BW arrived during the commission of Ricky's crime. Before or after the creek crossing changes nothing. If Ricky forced the girls to wash in and cross the creek, he's not going to admit to that. In fact, didn't he say that's why he didn't R them? Regardless BW and Ricky authenticate each other. Plus/minus 2:30.

That's the confession.

Ricky didn't leave at 1:30. Ricky didn't leave at 2:15. Ricky was there, under the bridge, when BW arrived home, directly after work. Ricky was the only man on and under the bridge to be filmed by Libby at 2:13/:14 and was still there when BW arrived home, all within minutes of Libby's phone ceasing movement.

There was no bombshell testimony coming in. And the defense knew it. Nothing yo impeach or they should have impeached BW properly, while they had him on the stand, under oath. They didn't do that because they couldn't do that. There was nothing TO impeach, just additional clarification in his interviews over time.

If you ask me what time I got home and say, I clocked out at 2, ran an errand and got home after 2:30, then I check my phone and can narrow down my arrival to 2:38, the first statement is neither wrong nor a lie. The second statement simply fleshed it out.

2:44, if accurate and authenticated, is just as damning to Ricky as 2:28.

The Defense literally resorted to table thumping (with the subpoena) in a failed attempt to create noise as a distraction to the FACT that Ricky himself put himself under the MHB and in the area where Libby's cell phone stopped moving, under the body of a victim who died where she lay.

It's really too bad for the defense and their invention of an Odinistic ritual. Their own defendant didn't see any of them while he was there.

He was the only man there. Based on witness testimony and corroborated by Ricky himself.

Case closed.

JMO

Excellent post @Megnut !!!!

 

[Emma Peel]

FYI: 55 days (20 + 5 + 30)