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

[Bergmann]

I don't have time to discuss the full timeline which I've done in previous threads, but if the state shows he entered the trails at 1.30 then they are some way to proving that his 1.30-3.30 pm statement is more accurate than his 12.00-1.30 claim. This leads to an inference he is now lying.

The MS podcast argument was that this starts getting quite problematic for the defence as they have no way to produce a different timeline unless RA testifies.

Agree.

Just because I'm one of those 'show me' type people I would want examination of the CO statement and ensure that the court is clear that RAs original statement was more along the lines of 'yes I can confirm that I was on the trails starting at 1.30pm and I left approx 3.30pm' than say RA just agreeing with a CO statement saying 'so you were are on the trails between 1.30 and 3.30pm...'

That's also why I would like something that demonstrates RAs proximity to the point of kidnap rather than 'he hadn't left the trails yet'. Recognise that from what we've seen so far I'm unlikely to get that!

If RA can't show he was somewhere else at 2.15pm via some means then he is wide open to a less than definitive P timeline.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I would say to that...which is it Mr. Allen..."No" or "I can't recall"? And then a lot more cross examination of a hostile witness would ensue. He'll never take the stand. AJMO

I agree, RA is a coward. He'd be torn to shreds by the Prosecution on cross. He will sit quietly and demurely (maybe chewing on his tablet) at the Defense table acting like a poor innocent victim of some conspiracy and frame up job by local LE, ISP and the FBI.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

1.30pm isn't necessarily the issue is it?

The girls were alleged to have been kidnapped at c 2.15pm. Doesn't the state have to place the perp at the Monon High Bridge at that time? At the very least show that RAs car is still present at/ beyond that time?

I'm hoping that there is some cell tower evidence that can confirm RA entering and exiting the trails at specific times. Maybe something on RAs phone which is contemporaneous with the 2.15pm timing.

Depends what standard of evidence people are looking for.

Witness testimony and RA himself places him on the bridge at approx that time.

 

[mrjitty]

Witness testimony and RA himself places him on the bridge at approx that time.

One of the things the defence would normally want to do is reverse engineer a timeline around the prosecution witness evidence but the trouble is who can testify to it?

RA likely said really dumb stuff in his interview which he will now be tied into, unless he takes the stand.

Overall i think the Murder Sheet public defender did a good summary of why the Jury probably needs to hear from RA on the stand

 

[Bergmann]

Poor old presumption of innocence is taking quite a beating at times!

I really hope that truth as well as justice is served as part of the proceedings and doesn't come out some point afterwards. No-one gains from a protracted decades long appellate process etc.

Open minds now might help get to the truth to prevent this and secure lasting justice.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Poor old presumption of innocence is taking quite a beating at times!

I really hope that truth as well as justice is served as part of the proceedings and doesn't come out some point afterwards. No-one gains from a protracted decades long appellate process etc.

Open minds now might help get to the truth to prevent this and secure lasting justice.

I don't need to have a presumption of innocence as a poster on WS. The jury of RA's peers in this case will need to have open minds and weigh the evidence presented by the Prosecution and the Defense and make a decision on RA's guilt or innocence, as it should be.

I consider myself an open minded individual, and after following this case for years, I have come to the opinion that RA = BG = Guilty. Everyone is entitled to interpret what we know so far whether they believe RA guilty or not.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I don't have time to discuss the full timeline which I've done in previous threads, but if the state shows he entered the trails at 1.30 then they are some way to proving that his 1.30-3.30 pm statement is more accurate than his 12.00-1.30 claim. This leads to an inference he is now lying.

The MS podcast argument was that this starts getting quite problematic for the defence as they have no way to produce a different timeline unless RA testifies.

IIRC a car matching RA's is seen passing the HH store at 1:24 pm.

JMO

 

[303gmf]

Poor old presumption of innocence is taking quite a beating at times!

I really hope that truth as well as justice is served as part of the proceedings and doesn't come out some point afterwards. No-one gains from a protracted decades long appellate process etc.

Open minds now might help get to the truth to prevent this and secure lasting justice.

I don’t remember being required to “presume” anything in my life’s lessons
Facts and evidence of course in a courtroom, yet here and elsewhere many opinions and discussions, suppositions and speculation make the world go round

 

[MistyWaters]

The prosecution have the following evidence establishing a 1.30 pm entrance time

1. The contemporaneous note recording entrance time 1.30pm
2. The witness who took the note
3. The 3 girls see a man resembling RA at 1.30
4. Digital evidence confirms the girls sighting of the man was at approx 1.30
5. RA corroborates seeing the 3 girls - therefore we know who they saw - it was RA
6. Security footage of a car resembling RAs car just before 1.30

How can the defence contest this?

All they have is RAs interview years later claiming a different time which can't physically be correct.

I agree they could run a passive defence where they seek to pick holes in the timeline, but the will always lose on the 1.30pm point IMO and that spells disaster.

As for the CO interview, we don’t know the date when the two spoke. But if it was when the girls were only believed to be missing the CO would’ve had absolutely no reason to inquire about the time of 1:30 to 3:30pm since it would’ve held no significance back then. And what would be the point of RA coming forward to indicate he didn’t see the girls at the bridge at a time prior to their arrival? That makes no sense either.

Plus it would be highly unusual if LE didn’t reaffirm that time in later recorded interviews.

I agree, the timeline is going to prove extremely difficult to overcome. JMO

 

[Poedelini]

Sorry if this is already discussed but did RA and RL knew each other?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Sorry if this is already discussed but did RA and RL knew each other?

RA has stated that he had never been on RL property before when he explained why a bullet from his gun was found at the CS.

MOO

 

[Justice101]

One of the things the defence would normally want to do is reverse engineer a timeline around the prosecution witness evidence but the trouble is who can testify to it?

RA likely said really dumb stuff in his interview which he will now be tied into, unless he takes the stand.

Overall i think the Murder Sheet public defender did a good summary of why the Jury probably needs to hear from RA on the stand

RA is going to be strongly advised NOT to testify. If he testifies then he can and must be cross examined.

He would get made to look like a fool. If he was called as a defense witness then cross-examined.. could he then plead the 5th amendment and not answer any of the prosecutor's questions?

 

[Bergmann]

I agree, the timeline is going to prove extremely difficult to overcome

Once the state has first established the timeline beyond a reasonable doubt.

On what I've seen so far, I have doubts, accepting that others may not.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I don't need to have a presumption of innocence as a poster on WS. The jury of RA's peers in this case will need to have open minds and weigh the evidence presented by the Prosecution and the Defense and make a decision on RA's guilt or innocence, as it should be.

I consider myself an open minded individual, and after following this case for years, I have come to the opinion that RA = BG = Guilty. Everyone is entitled to interpret what we know so far whether they believe RA guilty or not.

MOO

There's so much to talk about in this case and it's nice to be able to do so with open minds. We are all after the truth, aren't we?

What if there's proof that people in trusted positions lied on their depositions or affidavits? What would your reaction be?

 

[Bergmann]

I don't need to have a presumption of innocence as a poster on WS.

I have come to the opinion that RA = BG = Guilty.

All I'm saying is that if you (not 'you' individually, I mean in the general sense) presume guilt then everything you see is framed in the context of that guilt.

For example -

why a bullet from his gun was found at the CS

Where I would say 'a bullet from a gun', or 'a bullet which matches a a number of guns including one owned by RA...'

 

[iamnotagolem]

All I'm saying is that if you (not 'you' individually, I mean in the general sense) presume guilt then everything you see is framed in the context of that guilt.

For example -



Where I would say 'a bullet from a gun', or 'a bullet which matches a a number of guns including one owned by RA...'

If the bullet was the only piece of evidence, then I'd agree, but when you view all of the evidence that we currently know about, it points to guilt.

Admits he was at the crime scene during the time of the murders, admits to passing the witnesses that also saw him, admits to wearing the clothes the killer was caught on camera wearing, confessed to his wife and mother multiple times, car seen on video when he arrived at the trails, and then to also have a gun that matches the bullet from the crime scene.

 

[MistyWaters]

Once the state has first established the timeline beyond a reasonable doubt.

On what I've seen so far, I have doubts, accepting that others may not.

IIRC it was suggested by the defence that the CO asked RA if he was on the bridge between 1:30 and 3:30pm when the girls were abducted. Early on, how would the CO or anyone know when or even if the girls were even abducted considering foul play was not considered prior to the discovery of the bodies? And why on earth would RA answer yes?

IMO RA is not casting doubt on the timeline, he nailed it.

 

[Bergmann]

if you ... presume guilt then everything you see is framed in the context of that guilt.

So it could just as easily be -

Admits he was at the crime scene

Admits he was on the trails. How big is the crime scene now lol. I define the crime scene as the point of kidnap and the place where the girls were found. He did not admit to being there at the CS.

admits to passing the witnesses that also saw him

Saw him on the trail, not the crime scene

admits to wearing the clothes the killer was caught on camera wearing

Not the exact clothes. Clothes that appear to be similar from that short video clip. Blue and black aren't that unusual. The video is tantalising isn't it though to try to make conclusions from - what's BG wearing on his head, does he have something covering his face, does he have a fannypack, or is it a gun holster? Loads of questions. How tall do we conclude BG is?

confessed to his wife and mother multiple times

Oh boy what a gift to P. Suddenly they have some of the most powerful evidence its possible to have to play and steer a court room.

Cannot comment until we have some context as to what preceded this and what else he was mumbling to his wife and mother. This will be very difficult to explain away whether its strictly true or not. D will play up the coercion angle and P will just call BS and want it taken at face value.

If this is true then its huge. If it has been coerced then its huge.

car seen on video when he arrived at the trails

But no similar video timestamp of it leaving. BB says its defintely a '65 Comet parked there.

and then to also have a gun that matches the bullet from the crime scene

'And then to have a gun that is capable of firing that bullet', just like every other .40 firing pistol including those used by LE.

That's before we get to reliability of matching the exact bullet to the exact gun using ejector marks.

So yeah if we presume guilt then everything points towards it. Even the fact that there are a list of things to evaluate, if you presume guilt then you might conclude 'but there's too many things pointing towards RA, they can't all be wrong...'.

I have sympathy with this but I just don't happen to conclude the same with the same certainty. Don't get me wrong I haven't made my mind up either way but I haven't narrowed down to accept what the P is alleging at this point.

I'm just very cynical and there's something off about this whole damn thing that means I can't fully rely on anything that anybody says, and that includes D or P.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Poor old presumption of innocence is taking quite a beating at times!

I really hope that truth as well as justice is served as part of the proceedings and doesn't come out some point afterwards. No-one gains from a protracted decades long appellate process etc.

Open minds now might help get to the truth to prevent this and secure lasting justice.

I would add that reasonable doubt is taking a beating too.
Too many people, in my opinion, are flat out stating that without DNA matching RA, then he must be innocent. No open minds there. Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence.
Let’s go to trial, so we can all see what’s there.

 

[Bergmann]

too many people, in my opinion, are flat out stating that without DNA matching RA, then he must be innocent. No open minds there.

Agree, the case, whether DNA and/ or significant circumstantial evidence, is there to be made in the open court.

The onus is on the P to prove this - and that is where the need for beyond reasonable doubt plays.