IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

[Jurisprudence]

The Franks memo is not fact. It is the opinion and speculation of the ex-dense team.

It is the theory of their case as told by using facts from investigation and discovery. This is indeed the defense they would have put forward.

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

Thanks for the correction. He’s in his 50’s and has the mind of a child. Got it!

YW
I'd imagined a much younger person as well.
But understanding his age, and the age of his sisters - to me - feels relevant.
It's a good thing that he can confide in his sisters; together the family did the right thing.
His expression that he was accepted into a gang and he had a brother ... kind of heartbreaking.

Rushville, where he lives, is 2 hrs and 20 min drive from Delphi.
He had a great deal of crime scene information for someone that did not live in Delphi.
I presume should EF remain in the D's theory as an alternate suspect, the P is prepared to explain why/how he's been eliminated as a suspect.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I appreciate the link.

I still can't see why L&A would specifically targeted.

My mind can't sign on to a group of people waiting in the woods for 2 young white kids to fall into their trap. The group would also realize that people would likely be in the park throughout the day.

If A& L were targeted personally, that's even more farfetched. They would have had to anticipate the girls would become vulnerable on the end of the bridge and no one else would be witness to it.

I just can't apply the theory of Odinists gangs being responsible.

JMO

The only thing in my mind that may tie the murders into being a beforehand targeting would be catfisher KAK. That still raises hackles with me that he was communicating with LG on the day they were murdered. anthony_shots also messaged with a friend of LG after the fact saying (paraphrasing) Oh wow I was suppose to met up with her that day and she never showed.

All that has never been explained fully by LE. Maybe at trial it will be?

 

[Ravenmoon]

The only thing in my mind that may tie the murders into being a beforehand targeting would be catfisher KAK. That still raises hackles with me that he was communicating with LG on the day they were murdered. anthony_shots also messaged with a friend of LG after the fact saying (paraphrasing) Oh wow I was suppose to met up with her that day and she never showed.

All that has never been explained fully by LE. Maybe at trial it will be?

Agreed.


I , too, still think that the catfish theory could be relevant to this case

EBM
JMO

 

[sunshineray]

It is the theory of their case as told by using facts from investigation and discovery. This is indeed the defense they would have put forward.

jmo

Oh but it incorporated so much more than just the facts from the investigation and discovery. It's also certainly possible the D would have paired down and tweaked their theory before and during trial. It happens all the time. AJMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Regardless of what bias anyone has about the ex-defense, depositions are a part of the legal process. It’s insulting to insinuate any lawyer would falsify depositions in legal documents and risk their entire career with no proof that falsification occurred & based solely on personal bias. JMHO.

I didn’t say anybody falsified anything.
I said, though you are seeing citation for certain things and documents and depositions, you are not reading them. You are reading the ex-defense’s interpretation, their opinion, and their speculation of what has been said and how it totally supports their theory.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

It is the theory of their case as told by using facts from investigation and discovery. This is indeed the defense they would have put forward.

jmo

We haven’t seen any of the information from the investigation or discovery. We‘ve just read the ex-defense’s description of it.
Let them explain it all at trial, where the prosecution can cross-examine the defense’s witnesses, and rebut any experts.
We see this exactly opposite. I’m not going to convince you, and you’re not going to convince me…and that’s OK. I propose we call a truce and stop banging our heads against the wall about it.

 

[Jurisprudence]

One cannot say we haven't seen the evidence, and state in the same breath, as fact, that it is opinion. It's nonsensical. Attorneys need to be verified because facts are important and a memo that cites to discovery, sources depos, and is submitted to the court under oath exposes these lawyers to nothing but a world of hurt if they lied and they are very well aware of this.

jmo

 

[zh0r4]

The Franks memo is not fact,

RSBM x2 (idk if I’m suppose to RSBM twice or can say x2? Feel free to correct me ofc)

I didn’t say anybody falsified anything.

I interpreted it this way because contextually, saying something is not fact is synonymous with falsified. It is fine if that’s how you feel, I don’t report anyone & respect different opinions. Ijs contextually, not fact = falsified.

Source:

non-factual - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.m.wiktionary.org

Thesaurus.com - The world's favorite online thesaurus!

Thesaurus.com is the world’s largest and most trusted online thesaurus for 25+ years. Join millions of people and grow your mastery of the English language.

www.thesaurus.com

 

[mrjitty]

One cannot say we haven't seen the evidence, and state in the same breath, as fact, that it is opinion. It's nonsensical. Attorneys need to be verified because facts are important and a memo that cites to discovery, sources depos, and is submitted to the court under oath exposes these lawyers to nothing but a world of hurt if they lied and they are very well aware of this.

jmo

In the morphew case the Defense routinely made allegations in motions that weren’t supported by the claimed sources

Ditto at trial in McStay

In my experience the defence counsel has a lot of latitude to ‘interpret’ or even author wild speculation

I an especially suspicious that the key quotes from liggets depo which would be key to a successful motion were not set out but instead there was space for 99 pages of irrelevant material.

So yeah based on other cases I suspect liggets depo won’t be as clear cut as advertised

 

[mrjitty]

It’s worth remembering that the defence can’t simply demand that a wide pool of investigative suspects be proved cleared at trial.

The judge isn’t going to allow the introduction of wild speculation. The defence will have to introduce an evidentiary foundation to raise alternate suspects as a real issue at trial.

This could prove difficult. Eg EFs ‘confession’ is likely not admissible.

iMO The kind of wild speculation embarked upon in the franks memo is unlikely to be allowed at trial. Otherwise trials would take months as defence introduced every potential suspect under the sun.

 

[mrjitty]

Regardless of what bias anyone has about the ex-defense, depositions are a part of the legal process. It’s insulting to insinuate any lawyer would falsify depositions in legal documents and risk their entire career with no proof that falsification occurred & based solely on personal bias. JMHO.

The defence claimed a rope at the crime scene suggested the victim had been hung from her feet to bleed out despite that being obvious nonsense.

While I don’t think they would falsify anything I do this defence counsel intentionally included untruthful claims.

 

[mrjitty]

RSBM
The proof of EF being cleared is probably in the discovery defense had received prior to the Frank’s memo and had not yet read or was in the discovery that was dropped off after they filed the Frank’s.
We will have to wait until trial to hear the evidence that supports that RA is correctly accused.

Proof that EF was cleared is not required. He is not on trial.

Defence would need to introduce sufficient ADMISSIBLE evidence raising him as a reasonable possibility.

02c

 

[mrjitty]

I agree, mostly. If you've followed any big trials in the last few years, you'll see more and more that defense attorneys try to use social media to promote false information about the state's case prior to trial.

The most fair and accurate venue for presenting evidence and arguments about a terrible crime is in the court room. There a judge presides, makes sure rules are followed. The process allows for everything to be discussed in a factual manner, with both sides represented and expert testimony.

Today, defense attorneys like to release as many details as possible via social media, using it to distort facts and spread rumors and conspiracy theories. Prosecution teams are held to much stricter rules and know its better to wait until they can argue their case in the unbiased environment of a courtroom. For that reason, judges need to keep much of the details about the crime under a gag order until its time to present both sides in court. It's the only way to guarantee a fair trial.

In the old days, the news media was the primary source of information and most (not all) adhered to ethical guidelines. Today, any fool can spin rumors and CT on YouTube or other social media.

JMO

Can we rule out the possibility that the leak of the crime scene photos by an ad hoc member of the Defense team was intentional in furtherance of that strategy?

As far as I can see the dynamic duo continue to promote conspiracies now around the judge

 

[zh0r4]

The defence claimed a rope at the crime scene suggested the victim had been hung from her feet to bleed out despite that being obvious nonsense.

While I don’t think they would falsify anything I do this defence counsel intentionally included untruthful claims.

Source for where the defense said there was a rope at the crime scene? I am unaware of them saying there was a rope at the CS. I just reread the CS section of the FM and a rope wasn’t mentioned. TIA

 

[iamshadow21]

Source for where the defense said there was a rope at the crime scene? I am unaware of them saying there was a rope at the CS. I just reread the CS section of the FM and a rope wasn’t mentioned. TIA

Pages 39-40. I just searched the doc for the word rope and it came right up. Word search is your friend.

 

[TL4S]

I'm curious why the ex-D decided to go with this Odinist theory to begin with. It's wild to me that Odinism was an actual line of investigation even, on any level.

The ex-D decided to go with a third-party-did-it argument, but skipped the usual suspects: KAK, RL, etc. Whoever they chose to use to introduce reasonable doubt had to be someone they felt the State couldn't throw back in their face at trial with easily explained evidence to the contrary. Jmo. Maybe TC really does believe one, or some, of the men he and the other Rushville group investigated, and the task force too quickly dismissed it. IDK.

I guess in my mind, the ritual sacrifice part is where they went wrong, maybe trying to force some of their interpreted evidence to fit. It just seems to me maybe they didn't need to do that to make those guys work. The fact that they are Odinist didn't even seem the most sus aspect about any of them, imo.

But maybe this is the avenue the ex-D took to introduce them, and through the Franks motion, because it can't be as easily proven that the task force investigated them as thoroughly as they did KAK, RL, etc. Just a thought.

And please, I'm not supporting the Odinist claims or giving sympathy to anyone here, I'm simply curious about the strategy.

 

[iamshadow21]

I'm curious why the ex-D decided to go with this Odinist theory to begin with. It's wild to me that Odinism was an actual line of investigation even, on any level.

The ex-D decided to go with a third-party-did-it argument, but skipped the usual suspects: KAK, RL, etc. Whoever they chose to use to introduce reasonable doubt had to be someone they felt the State couldn't throw back in their face at trial with easily explained evidence to the contrary. Jmo. Maybe TC really does believe one, or some, of the men he and the other Rushville group investigated, and the task force too quickly dismissed it. IDK.

I guess in my mind, the ritual sacrifice part is where they went wrong, maybe trying to force some of their interpreted evidence to fit. It just seems to me maybe they didn't need to do that to make those guys work. The fact that they are Odinist didn't even seem the most sus aspect about any of them, imo.

But maybe this is the avenue the ex-D took to introduce them, and through the Franks motion, because it can't be as easily proven that the task force investigated them as thoroughly as they did KAK, RL, etc. Just a thought.

And please, I'm not supporting the Odinist claims or giving sympathy to anyone here, I'm simply curious about the strategy.

Dead cat strategy - Wikipedia

They were dealing with a lot of bad facts - RA resembled Bridge Guy, talked the day after the fact with an officer about being at the bridge, and confessed at least five times to his wife and mother.

The Franks motion happens, and suddenly, all anybody is talking about is conspiracy theories, Odinism, and poor RA being framed.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

I'm curious why the ex-D decided to go with this Odinist theory to begin with. It's wild to me that Odinism was an actual line of investigation even, on any level.

The ex-D decided to go with a third-party-did-it argument, but skipped the usual suspects: KAK, RL, etc. Whoever they chose to use to introduce reasonable doubt had to be someone they felt the State couldn't throw back in their face at trial with easily explained evidence to the contrary. Jmo. Maybe TC really does believe one, or some, of the men he and the other Rushville group investigated, and the task force too quickly dismissed it. IDK.

I guess in my mind, the ritual sacrifice part is where they went wrong, maybe trying to force some of their interpreted evidence to fit. It just seems to me maybe they didn't need to do that to make those guys work. The fact that they are Odinist didn't even seem the most sus aspect about any of them, imo.

But maybe this is the avenue the ex-D took to introduce them, and through the Franks motion, because it can't be as easily proven that the task force investigated them as thoroughly as they did KAK, RL, etc. Just a thought.

And please, I'm not supporting the Odinist claims or giving sympathy to anyone here, I'm simply curious about the strategy.

In his MS interview, TC said he agreed with the D about who potentially killed the girls, but he also said no one in LE believed the murders were a ritualistic sacrifice. I interpreted this as-he agrees there were multiple perps (not RA).
RSBM

The fact that they are Odinist didn't even seem the most sus aspect about any of them, imo.

I agree 100%.

because it can't be as easily proven that the task force investigated them as thoroughly as they did KAK, RL, etc. Just a thought.

^I think this is a great theory re: why. Although, I am surprised they didn’t mention RL tbh. Especially after the FBIs SW (that Murder Sheet released). IMO I don’t understand how he was cleared.

I do find it interesting Murphy and Ferency were working @ the FBI’s JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force). Is this because suspicion of multiple perps and/or the potential involvement of some type of group? I’ve never noticed a situation where the JTTF was on a simple homicide case. Or maybe they were just called Agents and it wasn’t specified? Idk.

JMO.

Sources re: RL Search Warrant
https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/logan-warrrant.pdf
(IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #169)

Search warrant: Delphi killer took souvenir, may have ‘staged’ murder scene

 

[TL4S]

Dead cat strategy - Wikipedia

They were dealing with a lot of bad facts - RA resembled Bridge Guy, talked the day after the fact with an officer about being at the bridge, and confessed at least five times to his wife and mother.

The Franks motion happens, and suddenly, all anybody is talking about is conspiracy theories, Odinism, and poor RA being framed.

MOO

Yeah, I do think if nothing else it was an effective distraction for awhile, but KAK was a better one, imo. In fact, the ISP spent 5 weeks searching the Wabash River, related to Delphi, on a known liar's word (according to some sources), immediately before RA's arrest. Why not stay the course with the public's suspicions of a possible CSAM connection already?

*Sidenote: If RA is guilty, I kind of think there will be some kind of violent and/or sexual material found on his devices, CSAM or otherwise, which is why the ex-D isn't going that route...jmo.

But while the memo served as a distraction, it also was a real filing in regards to the Franks issue (whether we like the memo or not), so I'm still curious if there is any validity to those claims. I'm not ready to believe the ex-D misconstrued absolutely everything. I haven't even seen any of the evidence.

I recall years of scathing discussions here about the dishonest, self-serving, silent, egotistical, completely inept LE working this case. But now, because we hate the ex-D even more, we doubt their claims of LE doing the very same type of things many were accusing them of doing pre-arrest. I've said it before, but it's like standing on the north and south pole at the same time. I find it impossible.