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

[Justice101]

pagan poopcraft.


@Megnut, get the toenail pliers, please. My turn.

LOL, true

 

[steeltowngirl]

How does the appeal process work? What's next in Delphi murders appeal?​

The Indiana attorney general's office will now be given adequate time to file a rebuttal brief before the Indiana Court of Appeals decides whether to hold a hearing on the issues or make a ruling on only the briefs.

Why appeal says Richard Allen's double murder conviction should be overturned

Richard Allen's court brief rehashes evidence excluded from trial, including a defense strategy claiming their deaths were part of an ancient ritual.

www.indystar.com

Once the Court receives a case on appeal, how long before it hands down a decision?
Although there is no deadline for the Court to reach a decision in each case, the Court strives to resolve appeals expeditiously. In 2024, the average length of time between transmittal of a case to the court and rendering of a decision was two months.

Frequently Asked Questions

www.in.gov

 

[Megnut]

It's good to keep in mind, too, that much of what's contained in the appeal was iiuc presented in the hearing, regarding Gull replacing RA's counsel. The higher court ruled that Gull was fair and impartial, spanked her for firing them with improper form (IMO they DIDN'T say they weren't fire-able).

I don't see this appeal going anywhere. Bad counsel with bad strategy is not appearance IMO.

Yes, LE investigated rituals as a matter of course, in the absence of other leads, but they abandoned that line of investigation after exhausting it.

BW arriving home at 2:44, if accurate, does not impeach BW nor exonerate RA. It cements RA presence, below the bridge, within one half hour of Libby's video. It's damping as hell, whether 2:28 or 2:44. Whether it's what compelled RA to force the girls across the creek or to silence them fatally doesn't change the facts that they are dead, the phone stopped moving at a time where RA was there.

Judge Gull made sure to make absolute sure that RA was of sound mind when he said he wanted his original defense team to continue to represent him.

If they had real grounds for appeal, they wouldn't need 24,000 words to name it.

JMO

 

[Justice101]

I am not worried for a success from the perpetrator. Looks like a nothing burger.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I will admit it. I’m worried.
But if NewsNation is correct, this part of their piece makes me feel a little more optimistic.

“With the brief filed, the appeal court will now examine these arguments, which failed to find footing with the trial court. If swayed by the arguments, the jury’s murder convictions could be overturned. But that would mean the appeal court going against both the jury’s decision and Gull’s decisions — an outcome that seems unlikely as less than 5% of convictions are reversed on direct appeal.”

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/richard-allen-files-appeal-focuses-on-ritualistic-killing-theory-and-inadmissible-evidence/

 

[Kittybunny]

OMG you guys - I was flippin' channels and landed on some CourtTV show called from Victim to Verdict that was about Delphi. What in the defense propaganda did I just watch?? I could only stomach a few minutes of some weird dude saying that since there was no DNA obviously there was reasonable doubt everywhere and maybe one of Ricky's defense attorneys before I had to change channels.

I came here to vent about it and then see that the Appeal was filed and the insanity goes on and on and on...

I'm tired, boss. When can we let these poor girls and their families just rest in peace? Why isn't this over yet? UGHHHHH!

 

[Megnut]

I will admit it. I’m worried.
But if NewsNation is correct, this part of their piece makes me feel a little more optimistic.

“With the brief filed, the appeal court will now examine these arguments, which failed to find footing with the trial court. If swayed by the arguments, the jury’s murder convictions could be overturned. But that would mean the appeal court going against both the jury’s decision and Gull’s decisions — an outcome that seems unlikely as less than 5% of convictions are reversed on direct appeal.”

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/richard-allen-files-appeal-focuses-on-ritualistic-killing-theory-and-inadmissible-evidence/

I wish that the extra scrutiny would level sanctions where sanctions are due.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

OMG you guys - I was flippin' channels and landed on some CourtTV show called from Victim to Verdict that was about Delphi. What in the defense propaganda did I just watch?? I could only stomach a few minutes of some weird dude saying that since there was no DNA obviously there was reasonable doubt everywhere and maybe one of Ricky's defense attorneys before I had to change channels.

I came here to vent about it and then see that the Appeal was filed and the insanity goes on and on and on...

I'm tired, boss. When can we let these poor girls and their families just rest in peace? Why isn't this over yet? UGHHHHH!

Ignore anything on CourtTV which has to do with this case. They’re only interested in stirring up controversy where there is none or shouldn’t be any.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

I am not worried for a success from the perpetrator. Looks like a nothing burger.

Nothing burger with runes on top.

 

[INfisherman]

Nothing burger with runes on top.

Sir, don’t forget your spork.

 

[shonyakay]

Context matters - regarding BB - the following context is missing from the brief.



BB is an older lady.
(Age: 59 at the time of the crime.)


BB wears contact lenses for her eyesight.
Ms. Diener - "And how was your vision back in 2017? Did you have corrective lenses or anything like that?"

BB - "I wear contact lenses and I have them on all the time."

BB saw the man on the bridge and the car in the CPS lot for just a moment in time when she didn't know that what she was seeing would later be significant.



Regarding the man - "Bridge Guy"



As to whether BB was able to see the man's face clearly she testified, "not super clear, because he was about 50 feet away."


"He was out on the bridge on one of the little platforms on the side of the bridge."


BB - "I immediately knew when I saw that photo (Libby's video image) that that was the guy I had seen on the bridge."

Ms. Diener - "And was that within days of this event happening?"

BB - "Yes. It was the same week."

Ms. Diener - "Before Law Enforcement ever spoke to you?"

BB - "Yes."


Libby's video image was released on February 15, 2017. BB helped create a sketch for LE on February 17, 2017.


BB - "When I was asked how old he was, I said 20s or 30s."


Mr. Baldwin - "And you also said that he had brown, poufy hair; is that correct?"

BB - "I described that to the person making the sketch."


BB - "When I was making that description, it was comparing two different sketches, two different images."


BB brought up the sketches on more than one occasion on the stand. Wouldn't that be opening the door to let them in? The Defense never said anything when BB mentioned them on the stand though.


Mr. Baldwin - "He was of average height; correct?"

BB - "That was my best guess."

Mr. Baldwin - "He wasn't short?"

BB - "Didn't seem like it."

Mr. Baldwin - "He had no facial hair?"

BB - "I didn't see any."

Mr. Baldwin - "He was not wearing a hat that you saw?"

BB - "I didn't see one."


Jury Question - "You stated the man on the bridge had brown, poufy hair. Could you have mistaken the hat on the man in the photo as hair due to your distance from him?"

BB - "I could have."


In March 7, 2019
Andrew Baldwin - "You told the police that he was more boyish looking; is that correct?"

BB - "Yes."

Andrew Baldwin - "Thank you. And then, you also said at another point in time he was youthful in appearance - in his appearance."

BB - "Yes."


BB - "I have consistently recognized him as the guy in the photo."



Regarding the vehicle - at the CPS lot.



When questioned what she told LE on February 17, 2017 BB confirmed that she told LE that she noticed the car because it was closer to the building, backed in slightly at an angle, that she found it kind of odd that they would park there, that it was not a bright color, nondescript sedan, not new, not shiny, and nothing really stood out.


BB testified that she saw one vehicle in the CPS lot. She remembered it because "it was not parked how other people park when they go to the trail to walk, it was parked near the empty building and it was turned around so that the front was towards the county road and the back was towards the new highway."


"I don't really remember the color, but I remember talking about what it wasn't, which it wasn't a bright color, I believe I said it wasn't red, it wasn't yellow, but I didn't really know what color it was."


"I did not see the back of the car, I saw the side of it, but it looked like a four-door sedan to me at the time."


"It looked to me like it had sharp angles. It was a - looked like a four-door sedan."


BB confirmed that she was interviewed multiple times and was asked to provide additional details.


"After I thought about it later, it reminded me of a car that my father had had years ago that was a 1965 Ford Comet."


Ms. Diener - "And after some discovery, did I again contact you to tell you that another witness said they saw an older-model vehicle pulled off the road between the corner, the sharp left-hand turn, and the CPS building; do you recall that?"

BB - "Yes."

Ms. Diener - "And I told you it was an older-model vehicle that might be similar to the one you described?"

Mr. Baldwin - Objects

Gull - Overruled

Ms. Diener - "Mrs. Blair, I asked you if it would change your recollection about the vehicle that you saw; is that correct?

BB - "You did."

Ms. Diener - "And did it have any impact on your memory of what happened on February 13 of 2017?"

BB - "I feel certain that that's the shape of the car I saw at the time."


The older-model vehicle Ms. Deiner asked BB about is a vehicle that a man Mr. Heath (Age: Early 60's at the time of the crime) says he saw that day parked between the CPS building and where it starts to curve. He said he saw it in the morning of February 13th at 8:45 a.m. and in the afternoon between 1:43 and 2:06 p.m.

He described it as an older-model vehicle "looked like it was maybe dark-blue faded, it just looked out of place for somebody to park there." He testified that when he recently seen the movie, "The Fugitive", he thought the police car Tommy Lee Jones was driving was pretty close to it. "I always thought it was a late-80's or early-90's. I'm not a car person." "It was a four-door, older vehicle and it just - blocky looking." He clarified that the vehicle was not parked at the CPS building.


On April 2, 2019 (Two years later)
BB said the car could not have been black.

BB drew an outline of the car for LE of the car she says she saw.


It appears that BB's description of the vehicle she saw changed after she was asked about another vehicle.


Two different men saw a car parked at the CPS building before and after BB saw the vehicle she saw at 2:18 p.m.

The man who saw it at 2:10 p.m. described it as a Purple PT Cruiser and he drew a diagram that matched BB description of how it was parked and the general area of where it was parked.