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

[zh0r4]

^BBM

I’ve heard this said a few times. Sorry to do this to you, but do you have a link for this statement?: “LE said they have no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.”

Liggett and Holeman both testified in depositions Aug 8 2023 and Aug 9 2023 there is no DNA tying RA to the crime scene. Pic related below.

“Tony Liggett has testified under oath that there is no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.” (Liggett depo. p.80, lines 1-3; defense memo p. 129)

“Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.” (Holeman depo. p. 40, lines 14-19; defense memo p.129)

 

[zh0r4]

Even more head scratching is the defense's theory that Odinist cult of 2 members decides to include invite 3 new recruits to come to Delphi in the middle of the day for a ritualist human sacrifice. You know as indoctrination to the cult.

The more I read the memorandum and subsequent filings by defense the more I believe the odinist bait was only peppered into initial discovery because LE and prosecution knew it was a big old nothing burger. Defense would automatically think it was evidence being withheld and plan their whole defense around this crazy theory. Now Prosecution can spring the trap because defense is boxed in on their theory. JMO

According to the D memo, the 3 I believe you are referring to weren’t going to be accepted into the group/weren’t wanted.

 

[steeltowngirl]

The court has the deposition, so making things up that aren't in there and were never said wouldn't make any sense.

You have been a member here a long time, so I’m sure you have seen cases where defense attorneys made statements that were not true. I know I have. It will be the prosecution‘s job to prove their case. I am waiting to see what they have.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Liggett and Holeman both testified in depositions Aug 8 2023 and Aug 9 2023 there is no DNA tying RA to the crime scene. Pic related below.

“Tony Liggett has testified under oath that there is no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.” (Liggett depo. p.80, lines 1-3; defense memo p. 129)

“Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.” (Holeman depo. p. 40, lines 14-19; defense memo p.129)

Again, I await testimony from TL and JH, and all court-admissible evidence, including the referenced deposition. Not quite ready to take the defense memorandum and its footnotes on good faith.

 

[Miya]

You have been a member here a long time, so I’m sure you have seen cases where defense attorneys made statements that were not true. I know I have. It will be the prosecution‘s job to prove their case. I am waiting to see what they have.

There were depositions. Under oath. The court has the depositions. So lying about what somebody said in a deposition doesn't make any sense. Judge just has to read through the deposition or look at the page given in the footnote. The lawyers would probably get in a lot of trouble as well if they made up things that were said in a deposition under oath. They also couldn't claim during a trial that a witness said something in the deposition when they didn't. If the jury sees stuff like that happen several times from the defense and how they are lying, they won't trust the defense at all, which means the defense would do a lot of damage to their client. Doesn't make any sense.

 

[steeltowngirl]

There were depositions. Under oath. The court has the depositions. So lying about what somebody said in a deposition doesn't make any sense. Judge just has to read through the deposition or look at the page given in the footnote. The lawyers would probably get in a lot of trouble as well if they made up things that were said in a deposition under oath. They also couldn't claim during a trial that a witness said something in the deposition when they didn't. If the jury sees stuff like that happen several times from the defense and how they are lying, they won't trust the defense at all, which means the defense would do a lot of damage to their client. Doesn't make any sense.

Doesn’t make sense. Yet here we are.

I haven’t seen the depositions, only footnotes about depositions. The jury will be the fact-finders, only from the evidence which is legally admissible. They (and we) will see what is admitted.

I hope the defense doesn’t cause damage. RA deserves a fair trial. There will be no justice for Libby and Abby until the right person(s) responsible for their murders are brought to trial, and convicted by a fair and impartial jury.

 

[friendlysleuther]

On page 129:

Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene.187 No data extracted from Richard Allen’s phone connects him to the murders.188 No data extracted from Libby’s phone connected Richard the murders.189 There is no evidence that Richard Allen is or was connected to any other suspects in the case.190 There is no evidence found on social media that connects Richard Allen to the murders.191 There is no evidence extracted from Richard Allen’s computers that connects him to the murders.192 There is no fingerprint evidence that connects Richard Allen to the murders.193

How can they say this when they also said that they haven't received all of the evidence that the Prosecution has?

 

[friendlysleuther]

I mean it is LITERALLY their job…..

Yeah, it's their job to sway the chosen jury. NOT to sway any potential jurors, thus making it hard to find an unbiased jury, causing an unfair trial.

 

[mrjitty]

The court has the deposition, so making things up that aren't in there and were never said wouldn't make any sense.

RSBM

That said, having been through a couple of major US trial processes (McStay & Morphew) I would say defence lawyers routinely misconstrue or misrepresent evidence in efforts to overwhelm the judge who may not always check primary sources. I've seen this especially with selective quoting, or simple assumption of facts which are not actually proven.

In the recent memo, the defence already did this on a couple of occasions we all noted, so frankly i would not be so quick to assume claims they made are so clear cut.

No idea if they are correct in this instance but just saying.

 

[mrjitty]

There were depositions. Under oath. The court has the depositions. So lying about what somebody said in a deposition doesn't make any sense. Judge just has to read through the deposition or look at the page given in the footnote. The lawyers would probably get in a lot of trouble as well if they made up things that were said in a deposition under oath. They also couldn't claim during a trial that a witness said something in the deposition when they didn't. If the jury sees stuff like that happen several times from the defense and how they are lying, they won't trust the defense at all, which means the defense would do a lot of damage to their client. Doesn't make any sense.

I think we should put aside actual trial procedure as this is pre-trial procedure.

IMO there is actually significant scope for the defence to speculate wildly about things not in evidence and pretend there is a vast conspiracy to cover up the truth about "the real killers"

I don't know why Judges allow this, but they seem to. Virtually every case pretends the corrupt sheriff and DA are in cahoots to frame an innocent man.

 

[Bergmann]

Welp, I'm gonna have to read or hear those direct words from JH before I believe what the Defense wrote in that Memo.

I most definitely believe the State has evidence tying RA to the scene.

JMO

I keep urging people to read the footnotes! If the words are not faithfully reproduced from the depositions cited then Ligget, Holeman and the P will be able to refute these. The J could decide the whole thing is bad faith if they can prove that the D is lying (you know the way the D is trying to do with the P SW...)

This was also taken from the same page -

Tony Liggett has testified under oath that there is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene 184

Liggett further has testified that he is unaware of anything that links Richard to the crime through his phone, computers or electronics 185

Liggett has further testified that he is unaware of any evidence that links Richard Allen to any weird religious cult group 186

Footnotes -

184 Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 1-3.

185 Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 9-12.

186 Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 13-25

187 Holeman depo. p. 40, lines 14-19.

188 Holeman depo. p. 48, lines 20-25 and p. 49, lines 1-4.

189 Holeman depo. p. 50, lines 13-16.

190 Holeman depo. p. 51, lines 6-8.

191 Holeman depo. p. 53, lines 1-13.

192 Holeman depo. p. 57, lines 19-25 and p. 58, lines 1-4.

193 Holeman depo. p. 58, lines 1-20

 

[mrjitty]

Again, I await testimony from TL and JH, and all court-admissible evidence, including the referenced deposition. Not quite ready to take the defense memorandum and its footnotes on good faith.

I'll never forget when Advocate Roux, a high end criminal defence barrister in the Pistorius case, referenced an exhibit while cross examining a witness which 'proved' the time of a phone call. Yet when I checked back the cross referencing of the exhibit I discovered the exhibit was merely the witnesses own notes rather than actual telecom exhibits.

In other words he pulled a fast one in front of the Judge because no one thought to check what he was actually referencing.

Since that time, I never believe what defence claims exhibits show.

 

[Bergmann]

How can they say this when they also said that they haven't received all of the evidence that the Prosecution has?

The D is not saying that there is no evidence linking RA to the crime scene.

The D is saying they have depositions from Liggett and from Holeman where they state there is no evidence linking RA to the crime scene.

As has been debated above, we don't know yet if LE and P accept these citations as true and faithful or whether D is being selective etc with the source material.

No matter, at court the J will have to decide whether the depositions are admissible and carefully monitor how they are used and quoted.

 

[Bergmann]

I never believe what defence claims exhibits show.

I never believe what defence or prosecution claim exhibits show.

I don't know (well I can speculate) why people would automatically choose to believe what either side in these cases say.

 

[mrjitty]

I never believe what defence or prosecution claim exhibits show.

I don't know (well I can speculate) why people would automatically choose to believe what either side in these cases say.

IMO it is asymmetrical.

The prosecution generally understands that its case will be carefully evaluated and it carries the burden of proof - e.g. probable cause. So it advances a theory of the case to meet that standard. That does not mean its theory is always correct, and it will contain inferences, but in general there is no point being deceptive in court.

For the defence the incentives tend to be the opposite. There is every inventive to speculate conspiracies theories via exposition, even where the facts are not in evidence. And it is not uncommon for overwhelmed judges to fall for these deceptions or flights of fantasy.

Personally I prefer to wait for the coverage of the hearing, than sweat on these filings. The truth tends to emerge from all the documents and court argument.

Remember the defence has recently claimed that their client falsely confessed to the crime due to the evil machinations of Odinist prison guards.

 

[Charlot123]

Planted by whom?

I have a counter-question. What action would make a bullet nest in such a place, smack between two girls who were not shot, but stabbed?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I have a counter-question. What action would make a bullet nest in such a place, smack between two girls who were not shot, but stabbed?

The second part to your question might be: "Where is the chain of custody for it and all the other items that were taken in the search warrant?" Those pages were not included in the judge's document dump. One would wonder how that could happen. I really want to see how the unspent bullet got from being in the ground to being in the lab. So does the defense. Pg 31 of the memorandum

Chain of Custody:
[3] The chain of custody needs to document every transmission from the moment the evidence is collected, from one person to another, to establish that nobody else could have accessed or possessed that evidence without authorization.

Chain of Custody - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Bergmann]

Listening to the MS podacast last night - The Delphi Murders: Motion for Discovery Deadline and Defendant's Additional Franks Notice

Need to trawl through it again but I'm sure I heard them mention that P intend to interview BH, JM, PW, RA (Rod Abrams) again/ or have done so again recently? Need to listen again to try to identify the source of what they were saying.

[Edit: found it approx 15.10 in, they are referring to D requesting audio files of interviews P conducted with the above in August 2023 - so not prompted by the recent D motion then but clearly knew about the D depositions of listed actors]

Interesting (or not depending on your point of view!).

If you're P its probably sensible to talk to them again if only just to try to understand what they have said to D under deposition, so there are no surprises later on, and check the interviewees have been consistent since they were spoken to in 2017.

If you're D then you might suspect some kind of, ahem, potential 'witness preparation' and coaching and so on.

So it's maybe something or maybe nothing depending on which perspective you might be coming from.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Listening to the MS podacast last night - The Delphi Murders: Motion for Discovery Deadline and Defendant's Additional Franks Notice

Need to trawl through it again but I'm sure I heard them mention that P intend to interview BH, JM, PW again/ or have done so again recently? Need to listen again to try to identify the source of what they were saying.

Interesting (or not depending on your point of view!).

If you're P its probably sensible to talk to them again if only just to try to understand what they have said to D under deposition, so there are no surprises later on, and check the interviewees have been consistent since they were spoken to in 2017.

If you're D then you might suspect some kind of, ahem, potential 'witness preparation' and coaching and so on.

So it's maybe something or maybe nothing depending on which perspective you might be coming from.

Can you find a copy of the Motion For Discovery Deadline?
Isn't it interesting how much of the info can be something or nothing?

 

[sandy_80]

The D is not saying that there is no evidence linking RA to the crime scene.

The D is saying they have depositions from Liggett and from Holeman where they state there is no evidence linking RA to the crime scene.

As has been debated above, we don't know yet if LE and P accept these citations as true and faithful or whether D is being selective etc with the source material.

No matter, at court the J will have to decide whether the depositions are admissible and carefully monitor how they are used and quoted.

he looks like BG , he sounds like BG , he was dressed as BG , he confesses to being BG, but he is not BG kinda of logic
libby and abby caught their killer..there is no use going in circles