IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #167

[Bergmann]

The Judge is not going to allow a whole array of other possibilities to be either convicted or cleared during the trial.

That's not was is being suggested.

However the judge will have to decide what degree and scope of questioning that will be allowed as part of the D's strategy at trial. The D have set out in their memo the topic of whether their client has been treated fairly in relation to other viable and investigated suspects by LEO. This will have to be dealt with leading up to or at trial.

The D have used the memo made sure that the judge is aware of these other factors (by way of trying to assert that some of these factors have been concealed from the process either by not being shared with the D or coming to light so the judge would be aware of them.

If not, imagine if the defence introduced the 50,000 tips and poured through them one by one

Again that's not was is being suggested. The named people weren't just called in as tips they were investigated. D will surely want LE to say why they eliminated them and weigh the same standard against their client.

This question is also going to have to be dealt with at some point too -

c. How exactly does EF confess to his sister on the 14 Feb 2017 that he was involved in the death of two girls, near a bridge, naming one as Abigail, and describe aspects that appear to fit the unusual crime scene (which I don't think has become public knowledge until the D memo of 18th Sep 2023?)

Prosecution obviously will want to avoid this being discussed and want the judge to limit the scope of the trial to proving RA = BG = guilty of felony murder.

 

[MistyWaters]

That's not was is being suggested.

However the judge will have to decide what degree and scope of questioning that will be allowed as part of the D's strategy at trial. The D have set out in their memo the topic of whether their client has been treated fairly in relation to other viable and investigated suspects by LEO. This will have to be dealt with leading up to or at trial.

The D have used the memo made sure that the judge is aware of these other factors (by way of trying to assert that some of these factors have been concealed from the process either by not being shared with the D or coming to light so the judge would be aware of them.



Again that's not was is being suggested. The named people weren't just called in as tips they were investigated. D will surely want LE to say why they eliminated them and weigh the same standard against their client.

This question is also going to have to be dealt with at some point too -



Prosecution obviously will want to avoid this being discussed and want the judge to limit the scope of the trial to proving RA = BG = guilty of felony murder.

No point debating on trial strategy, there will be more hearings before that time arrives. It could be a couple of years down the road yet. As for the contents of the memo, this may be the last we hear of it.

 

[MistyWaters]

136 pages requires an additional supplement? lol

10/02/2023	Motion Filed Supplemental Motion for Franks Hearing Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/02/2023

 

[Bergmann]

No point debating on trial strategy

I don't necessarily agree with that. Its a bit like saying no point debating the evidence or no point debating guilt/ innocence.

I get it that some of the topics offered for debate might not be comfortable where folks have made their mind up either way but that doesn't mean they can't be discussed in the round.

It could be a couple of years down the road yet.

Yep totally agree. This is such a complex case whatever anyone's narrative is, I can see plenty more pre-trial posturing and positioning before we actually get to a trial.

 

[Boxer]

Turning attention to one of the big issues raised in the D memo which has a number of facets - the named suspects who were subsequently cleared. This begs a number of questions which will need to be considered.

a. Who are EF, BH, PW and other named actors - ie what kind of people are they, what is their background, do they have criminal records etc

b. Delphi is a very small town ie 3k pop'n. Who are these people connected to by relationship, family ties etc. ie the families of the vitcims, RA, RL etc?

b2. LE has said DNA has been recovered from the scene - in such a small population how hasn't genealogy DNA ruled suspects in or out?

c. How exactly does EF confess to his sister on the 14 Feb 2017 that he was involved in the death of two girls, near a bridge, naming one as Abigail, and describe aspects that appear to fit the unusual crime scene (which I don't think has become public knowledge until the D memo of 18th Sep 2023?)

d. What level of investigation was done on these initial suspects and how thorough was this? What status is the file at - I assume it is sealed and not available for public access?

e. The report by the 3 investigating officers was subsequently rejected and the investigation closed, and EF, BH & PW eliminated as active leads - on what basis did LE choose to do this? Particularly as they had not followed up and identified RA until 2022?

f. Entirely speculative, but I do wonder whether on the basis of what was known about these suspects, the tips received, the outcome of the interviews etc - would there have had sufficient probable cause to serve SWs on any of them at the time? (You would imagine that this is a line of enquiry that D will follow up in cross examination of LE)

MOO Poofy hair is kind of moot, RA corroborated he was on the bridge at that time, and the witness in the middle of their collision course.

 

[Bergmann]

MOO Poofy hair is kind of moot, RA corroborated he was on the bridge at that time, and the witness in the middle of their collision course.

Sorry if I've missed your point, I didn't mention or call for any info on poofy hair in questions a to f?

I did mention poofy hair in a previous post so was that the one you meant to quote?

Poofy hair is not moot if your job is to defend RA.

 

[iamnotagolem]

MOO Poofy hair is kind of moot, RA corroborated he was on the bridge at that time, and the witness in the middle of their collision course.

The poofy hair thing kind of cracked me up when I saw it because to me he was clearly wearing a hat but how many discussions did I read that people legitimately thought BG had "lego hair"? It was just as ridiculous as there being a puppy or goat in his jacket, a sword, rifle, etc down his pant leg and all of the other wild guesses.

 

[FrostedGlass]

MOO Poofy hair is kind of moot, RA corroborated he was on the bridge at that time, and the witness in the middle of their collision course.

If that part of her testimony is moot, then so will her "Comet" sighting be. Won't that cause her timeline to also be tossed? And if they can't find any proof of the CO's timeline of 1:30 -3:30, then that goes away, too?

 

[FrostedGlass]

The poofy hair thing kind of cracked me up when I saw it because to me he was clearly wearing a hat but how many discussions did I read that people legitimately thought BG had "lego hair"? It was just as ridiculous as there being a puppy or goat in his jacket, a sword, rifle, etc down his pant leg and all of the other wild guesses.

But we apparently did see a gun. Well, at least some of us did.

 

[FrostedGlass]

136 pages requires an additional supplement? lol

10/02/2023	Motion Filed Supplemental Motion for Franks Hearing Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/02/2023

I hope Murder Sheet gets that before it disappears behind the curtain of secrecy.

 

[Bergmann]

MOO Poofy hair is kind of moot

Like I said, it's not moot if you are RA or his D team.

Copied from p107-108 of the D memo -

During her March 7, 2017, interview, Betsy Blair was talking with two members of Unified Command: Kevin Hammond and Tony Liggett. At this interview, Betsy Blair told Liggett, face-to-face, that the man she (Betsy Blair) observed on the high bridge fit the following description:

* The man was slender and youthful looking.

* He was more “boyish” looking.

* The man was in his 20s to early 30s.

* His hair seemed “poofy” just as the sketch portrayed.

* He had no facial hair, that she can remember.

Finally, on April 22, 2019, Unified Command released Betsy Blair’s sketch #2 to the general public. In fact, upon its release, Superintendent Doug Carter commented that the man in Blair’s sketch #2 was “responsible for the murders.”

Also, at the time of the release of sketch#2, Doug Carter also stated that sketch #1 had now become “secondary” to the investigation.

 

[MistyWaters]

Like I said, it's not moot if you are RA or his D team.

Copied from p107-108 of the D memo -

During her March 7, 2017, interview, Betsy Blair was talking with two members of Unified Command: Kevin Hammond and Tony Liggett. At this interview, Betsy Blair told Liggett, face-to-face, that the man she (Betsy Blair) observed on the high bridge fit the following description:

* The man was slender and youthful looking.

* He was more “boyish” looking.

* The man was in his 20s to early 30s.

* His hair seemed “poofy” just as the sketch portrayed.

* He had no facial hair, that she can remember.

Finally, on April 22, 2019, Unified Command released Betsy Blair’s sketch #2 to the general public. In fact, upon its release, Superintendent Doug Carter commented that the man in Blair’s sketch #2 was “responsible for the murders.”

Also, at the time of the release of sketch#2, Doug Carter also stated that sketch #1 had now become “secondary” to the investigation.

So what did BB say on Feb 17th, what was suspicious about this character and what was the point of that 2nd interview three weeks later describing what she saw considering she’d already went to LE and the sketch had already been completed?

Delphi murders: Investigators have had newly released suspect sketch for 2 years

Todd Lappin, a retired IMPD homicide detective, said holding back information is often key to solving the mystery.

www.indystar.com

“But this sketch is not new. The sketch released Monday was drawn on Feb. 17, 2017, a few days after the victims' bodies were found. The picture was based on the description of a person who saw something that the person felt needed to be reported, according to the sketch artist.”

 

[Bergmann]

So what did BB say on Feb 17th, what was suspicious about this character and what was the point of that 2nd interview three weeks later describing what she saw considering she’d already went to LE and the sketch had already been completed?

I'm hoping that this is precisely what we get to the bottom of in witness questioning at trial.

It's stated that two years after her description and sketch were created she was unhappy that sketch #1 (Sarah Carburaugh description) was still being used when as far as she was concerned the person she saw absolutely matched the sketch (#2) taken in 2017.

I can't find any reference to BB describing the character she witnesses as being 'suspicious'. IIRC she was responding to questions about who she saw in the c30 mins when she was in the area.

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm hoping that this is precisely what we get to the bottom of in witness questioning at trial.

It's stated that two years after her description and sketch were created she was unhappy that sketch #1 (Sarah Carburaugh description) was still being used when as far as she was concerned the person she saw absolutely matched the sketch (#2) taken in 2017.

I can't find any reference to BB describing the character she witnesses as being 'suspicious'. IIRC she was responding to questions about who she saw in the c30 mins when she was in the area.

BB must have real sharp eyes to describe somebody from 50 feet away other than to say he resembled the man in Libby’s video.

ETA: The defence is stating BB was responsible for the younger guy sketch #2??? Couldn’t have been.

https://www.wane.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/Delphi-Docs-2022.pdf

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm hoping that this is precisely what we get to the bottom of in witness questioning at trial.

It's stated that two years after her description and sketch were created she was unhappy that sketch #1 (Sarah Carburaugh description) was still being used when as far as she was concerned the person she saw absolutely matched the sketch (#2) taken in 2017.

I can't find any reference to BB describing the character she witnesses as being 'suspicious'. IIRC she was responding to questions about who she saw in the c30 mins when she was in the area.

In general witness testimony has been proven notoriously inaccurate, the human memory isn’t perfect. Other than maybe the initial statements taken soon after the murders, if I were a juror I wouldn’t put much weight on what somebody claimed they saw six or more years later.

Forensic evidence is going to make or break this case IMO, in addition to whatever RA stated during his multiple confessions to his wife/mother.

 

[TL4S]

I'm hoping that this is precisely what we get to the bottom of in witness questioning at trial.

It's stated that two years after her description and sketch were created she was unhappy that sketch #1 (Sarah Carburaugh description) was still being used when as far as she was concerned the person she saw absolutely matched the sketch (#2) taken in 2017.

I can't find any reference to BB describing the character she witnesses as being 'suspicious'. IIRC she was responding to questions about who she saw in the c30 mins when she was in the area.

This is where my concern is. How reliable is BB as a witness? We don't know. Just like we don't know how reliable the juveniles or SC are as witnesses, or the two men who gave vehicle descriptions. BB is very important to the timeline, yet both her person and vehicle descriptions are the most different from everyone else's. In fact, her vehicle description is not given in the PCA, and only her description of him being a white male and his clothing were included in the PCA. Any of the details about the Comet, or him being young with poofy hair is missing. That was the information she felt strongly enough about to go back to LE two years later, unhappy with the OBG sketch, and that was the information LE decided was the true description of the killer in 2019.

Fast forward to RA. Okay, fair enough, if LE has strong evidence that overrides BB's witness statements, then maybe they are ready to dismiss her. Only, they need her, to put him on the bridge and the girls on the trail. But instead of speaking to how notoriously unreliable witness memories can be, while still offering BB's descriptions in the PCA, if TL omitted BB's descriptions because they didn't fit RA, then I think it's essential for the D to bring that up. That is the real issue here, IMO.

Of note, in the paragraph about the Oct. 2022 interview with RA in the PCA, TL also omitted anything about RA claiming he left the trail at 1:30. Again, I guess it's up to the judge, who has all the discovery, to decide whether these omissions have an impact on the case. JMO.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Like I said, it's not moot if you are RA or his D team.

Copied from p107-108 of the D memo -

During her March 7, 2017, interview, Betsy Blair was talking with two members of Unified Command: Kevin Hammond and Tony Liggett. At this interview, Betsy Blair told Liggett, face-to-face, that the man she (Betsy Blair) observed on the high bridge fit the following description:

* The man was slender and youthful looking.

* He was more “boyish” looking.

* The man was in his 20s to early 30s.

* His hair seemed “poofy” just as the sketch portrayed.

* He had no facial hair, that she can remember.

Finally, on April 22, 2019, Unified Command released Betsy Blair’s sketch #2 to the general public. In fact, upon its release, Superintendent Doug Carter commented that the man in Blair’s sketch #2 was “responsible for the murders.”

Also, at the time of the release of sketch#2, Doug Carter also stated that sketch #1 had now become “secondary” to the investigation.

The “poofy” hair description is relevant and can and probably will be argued in court with the witness on the stand and under oath.
The “poofy” hair is not relevant as to whether RA was on the bridge because he, himself, puts himself there at the appropriate time.

edit: goof up

 

[MistyWaters]

This is a perfect example of the ‘art of misleading’ in the defence memo. Nowhere is it mentioned Click retired in 2021. Instead it give the impression he’s still involved in the Delphi investigation some capacity, deserving of an update for some reason.

Then the memo goes on to suggest an example of exculpatory evidence is that Odinite evidence was being withheld from the Probable Cause supporting RA‘s SW simply because a couple members of the Task Force were not willing to blab to Click the reason why RA was arrested? Aside from the fact a retired member of a police force has no right to expect that inside information would be shared with him, maybe by then ISP already knew Click was already working with the defence?

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

 

[Bergmann]

This is where my concern is. How reliable is BB as a witness? We don't know. Just like we don't know how reliable the juveniles or SC are as witnesses, or the two men who gave vehicle descriptions. BB is very important to the timeline, yet both her person and vehicle descriptions are the most different from everyone else's. In fact, her vehicle description is not given in the PCA, and only her description of him being a white male and his clothing were included in the PCA. Any of the details about the Comet, or him being young with poofy hair is missing. That was the information she felt strongly enough about to go back to LE two years later, unhappy with the OBG sketch, and that was the information LE decided was the true description of the killer in 2019.

This is the problem isn't it. As quick as you can raise questions about the state's case you get responses telling you 'but witnesses placed him at the scene...'.

Then when you point out inconsistencies and potential inaccuracies that might be exposed about those witness statements the response is 'but you can't trust witnesses...'

Then it's all about the forensics, so you point out that Ligget et al have said under oath they have no DNA or digital forensics placing RA at the crime scene, and then the response is 'but you don't know what else they've got yet...'

Then it's all about the 5 confessions but then you mention what about the EF confession and his uncanny description of the crime scene in 2017 and then its whoosh complete silence... No-one so far wants to go there do they, and try to explain how on earth EF confessed to the same thing on the day those poor girls were found?

I'm not convinced by either side's story right now but there are big questions that its noticeable are conveniently being avoided.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is the problem isn't it. As quick as you can raise questions about the state's case you get responses telling you 'but witnesses placed him at the scene...'.

Then when you point out inconsistencies and potential inaccuracies that might be exposed about those witness statements the response is 'but you can't trust witnesses...'

Then it's all about the forensics, so you point out that Ligget et al have said under oath they have no DNA or digital forensics placing RA at the crime scene, and then the response is 'but you don't know what else they've got yet...'

Then it's all about the 5 confessions but then you mention what about the EF confession and his uncanny description of the crime scene in 2017 and then its whoosh complete silence... No-one so far wants to go there do they, and try to explain how on earth EF confessed to the same thing on the day those poor girls were found?

I'm not convinced by either side's story right now but there are big questions that its noticeable are conveniently being avoided.

The problem is we won’t know what evidence the State has until the trial. Just because we don’t know doesn’t mean there isn’t any, that’s just the way it is. That is unless RA changes his plea to guilty before then.