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

[MistyWaters]

Is all this information about DNA in the defense memo? How did they acquire this testimony? Is there a transcript of the testimony? Was it given under oath in court, before a judge? I'll believe it when the discussion of DNA evidence is held in court, under oath, with prosecution and defense making argument before the judge.

I agree. I’d also be curious how the question in the deposition was specifically worded. It seems as if the ex-D didn’t bother reviewing discovery in seeking out the details of case against RA. Far simpler to depose various officers and there one has it, have them all take the stand at trial and the case would be concluded in just one day.

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Considering their status is now “former defense”…….not so sure about fighting “tooth and nail“. Maybe they did everything they could think of to get kicked off the case at the same time as appearing blameless and victimized to save face?

They were his counsel of record when they investigated this case, undertook examination of discovery produced to date, made motions to move him, filed the Frank's memo. The only point of this is that they have in fact spent a great deal of time on this case and it's telling. With respect to what happened after JG kicked them off and your point that it's irrelevant bc they were no longer his counsel, I believe it's the exact opposite. It's highly relevant and its impact was even more profound. They had a guaranteed "out" if they wanted it - irrespective of whether JG followed proper procedure and law. They could have walked away unscathed but they didn't. Instead, they agreed to represent him privately, for free, if the judge would not agree to reinstate them as court-appointed counsel. This is a heavy lift with no contributing $ from the state/county for the enormous costs - to defray investigations, experts, court reporters, etc, let alone their own time. And yet, they were willing to undertake it.

But, that's jmo

 

[EllaMinnowP]

YES!
Thank you very much, @Yemelyan!
That’s the one.
So it wasn’t quite as ‘official’ as I had remembered. Some folks in my orbit comment on how great my memory is, but goodness this case gives me headaches!! There’s SO much to remember over too many years!

Edited because I was too excited the first time. ;-)

 

[MistyWaters]

Information the prosecution has that we haven’t seen yet

—cell phone records(questions it could answer: was RA checking the stock ticker or striding, head down, like a man on a mission like witnesses claim; was his phone on; who did he call that day and days before and after; are records even available from 2017)
—DNA(was RA’s at the crime scene; was anyone in RA’s family DNA at the crime scene including pets; was Libby or Abby’s found anywhere in RA’s house or car or clothes)
—testimony from people about RA’s behavior leading up to and after 2/13/17(did RA enter rehab or a mental institution after 2/13/17)
—security camera video(follow RA’s car to and from trails; confirm timeline)
—RA’s history(we know so little about him)
—evidence gleaned from the search warrant( things of the girls; souvenirs from the crime scene; knives)
—computer evidence(photos or video from crime scene; search history; emails)
—work records(was RA off that day; how was his attendance after 2/13/17)

Yes, a couple more -
- the transcript of his confessions to his wife and mother.
- testimony from acquaintances about his behaviour after and what he talked about pertaining to the crime. Did he tell his wife or anyone else that he was at the trails that day?

 

[susiQ]

Then there’s the P’s remarks about the contents of the memo to consider - somewhere between “not entirely truthful”, more recently “blatant lies”.

ETA This is what I don’t understand if the ex-D was really sincere in ‘fighting tooth and nail’ to defend RA’s innocence — what’s the point in filing a Frank’s motion to attempt to invalid the SW and not bothering to ensure the integrity of factual information being presented? IMO that’s an example of grossly negligent by not representing RA‘s best interests.

IANAL, but somehow I think it’s about more than just invalidating the SW. It’s also about having misrepresented evidence to get an AW for RA. JMT

This “grossly negligent by not representing RA’s best interest” is nonsense, imho. Is it somehow in RA’s best interest to be falsely accused??!!

 

[sunshineray]

Thanks for finding that!
It is ambiguous wording by DC (as usual, imo), but it’s not the exact same Q&A that I’m remembering. In the link you’ve provided, DC is more strongly’suggesting’ that they have human DNA than in the conversation that I’m thinking about.

MOO
& thx again for trying to help jog my memory. Now that I’m caught up, I see that several sleuths have already brought up the pet hair possibility.

There was an Jan 2019 article in which Sheriff TL is quoted saying "DNA testing research" had been sent to Quantico right before Christmas 2018.

Break In Indiana Teens' Murder: Cops Give More Evidence To FBI In Hunt For Killer

Carroll County Sheriff Tobe Leazenby told RadarOnline.com exclusively that they were hoping for a break in the case of Indiana teens Abigail Williams and Liberty German’s gruesome murders after they sent new evidence to the FBI headquarters in Quantico.

radaronline.com

 

[Jurisprudence]

Is all this information about DNA in the defense memo?

Yes, but it predates the defense ever being involved in the case. It goes back to 2017 and is referenced in the article links a few times uptimes upthread (DNA is in the title)

How did they acquire this testimony? Is there a transcript of the testimony? Was it given under oath in court, before a judge?

Yes in their August depos. However, that information only generally discusses the absence of RAs DNA at the scene. And the question here in the the last few pages is different. It's RA DNA not being there aside, Where is the DNA you collected in 2017?

I'll believe it when the discussion of DNA evidence is held in court, under oath, with prosecution and defense making argument before the judge.

If his new defense counsel raises it. If they do not, it is still a (good chance of a) win for RA on appeal imo. I think this is what people are missing. Yes, people want to see the person held accountable but they should also want to see the right person held accountable and even if it is believed that RA is the right person it is in the interest of these families that any conviction be obtained the right way because if it's not, they may win the first round, but they stand a good chance of losing the final battle. I don't think people are understanding that part.

jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

They were his counsel of record when they investigated this case, undertook examination of discovery produced to date, made motions to move him, filed the Frank's memo. The only point of this is that they have in fact spent a great deal of time on this case and it's telling. With respect to what happened after JG kicked them off and your point that it's irrelevant bc they were no longer his counsel, I believe it's the exact opposite. It's highly relevant and its impact was even more profound. They had a guaranteed "out" if they wanted it - irrespective of whether JG followed proper procedure and law. They could have walked away unscathed but they didn't. Instead, they agreed to represent him privately, for free, if the judge would not agree to reinstate them as court-appointed counsel. This is a heavy lift with no contributing $ from the state/county for the enormous costs - to defray investigations, experts, court reporters, etc, let alone their own time. And yet, they were willing to undertake it.

But, that's jmo

After the ex-D withdrew amid allegations of gross negligence preferring to avoid a public shaming, their offer of pro bono representation JMO was nothing more than another attention-getting ploy. Surely they were smart enough to know it wouldn’t last beyond that one hearing consisting of their grand entry.

IMO

 

[Betty P]

They were his counsel of record when they investigated this case, undertook examination of discovery produced to date, made motions to move him, filed the Frank's memo. The only point of this is that they have in fact spent a great deal of time on this case and it's telling. With respect to what happened after JG kicked them off and your point that it's irrelevant bc they were no longer his counsel, I believe it's the exact opposite. It's highly relevant and its impact was even more profound. They had a guaranteed "out" if they wanted it - irrespective of whether JG followed proper procedure and law. They could have walked away unscathed but they didn't. Instead, they agreed to represent him privately, for free, if the judge would not agree to reinstate them as court-appointed counsel. This is a heavy lift with no contributing $ from the state/county for the enormous costs - to defray investigations, experts, court reporters, etc, let alone their own time. And yet, they were willing to undertake it.

But, that's jmo

Has a judge ever allowed something like this before? Allowing defense attorneys who were forced to resign from a case to continue representing the defendant, at no charge?

 

[MistyWaters]

You were speaking about what we knew about the magic bullet. I'm saying that we don't know the exact amount of pictures or what they show or not.

During those Depositions the D likes to reference, many times the officers could not recall certain specifics (understandable after all this time). That's not the same as something being absolutely true or absolutely false.

IMO

ETA: Added word for clarity

True, it cannot be assumed that every officer involved in the investigation was fully knowledgeable of all aspects of the case.

 

[susiQ]

I do and beg to differ, respectfully. Saying the prosecution leaked the crime scene photos, when it's been admitted to by a good friend and strategist of AB, can only be labeled as a theory disregarding the facts present...a conspiracy theory. Again AJMO

The funny thing about “conspiracy theories” is that sometimes they turn out to be just conspiracies. There’s a saying out there that goes like this. “Q: What’s the difference between and conspiracy theory and a conspiracy? A: About 6 months!” Naturally, that’s facetious because sometimes it takes years.

Let’s hope we don’t have to wait too long to learn the truth.

 

[zh0r4]

My only thought on that is, their IQ is also in question? On the one hand, I’d love to these meet guys. On the other hand, maybe not!

I was always unsure if EF actually has a mental deficit or if the LEO he told he spit on them was saying that to express his shock EF would tell him that? JMO.

 

[Betty P]

Yes, but it predates the defense ever being involved in the case. It goes back to 2017 and is referenced in the article links a few times uptimes upthread (DNA is in the title)

Yes in their August depos. However, that information only generally discusses the absence of RAs DNA at the scene. And the question here in the the last few pages is different. It's RA DNA not being there aside, Where is the DNA you collected in 2017?


If his new defense counsel raises it. If they do not, it is still a (good chance of a) win for RA on appeal imo. I think this is what people are missing. Yes, people want to see the person held accountable but they should also want to see the right person held accountable and even if it is believed that RA is the right person it is in the interest of these families that any conviction be obtained the right way because if it's not, they may win the first round, but they stand a good chance of losing the final battle. I don't think people are understanding that part.

jmo

I have a feeling the DNA will be fully discussed during the trial. It seems unlikely the prosecution would leave it out. At this point, we don't really know the facts about the DNA and whether it matches or doesn't match RA.

As they say, absence of (DNA) evidence isn't evidence of absence. In an outdoor environment, in the winter and with a likely abnormal method of sexual assault, it's not surprising there isn't much DNA evidence. Yes, everyone wants to see the guilty party convicted. It's not often, however, that a suspect who was in the park that day, whose car was seen on camera coming and going, who looked exactly like the suspect in the victims' video and who later confessed to his wife and mother on the prison phone is just making it up.

I realize the defense doesn't have to name a viable suspect, but anyone with a conscience has to come up with someone else who is a viable alternative to RA.

 

[zh0r4]

And so I notice amidst the ex-D‘s strategy of pointing fingers of guilt in various directions away from their client, they’ve never accounted why RA could not have committed the murders, other than state the time he claimed he was at the trail was due to mistakes or misunderstandings. Interesting that he has no alibi, yet others who they blame do.

JMO

I believe they did with their hypothetical timeline starting on p.32 of the FM. JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

dbm

 

[mrjitty]

Has a judge ever allowed something like this before? Allowing defense attorneys who were forced to resign from a case to continue representing the defendant, at no charge?

According to The Prosecutors podcast there was one other case where this was tried.

Personally I think it's a lot of nonsense, as clearly they were not really going to do the trial pro bono

 

[MistyWaters]

IANAL, but somehow I think it’s about more than just invalidating the SW. It’s also about having misrepresented evidence to get an AW for RA. JMT

This “grossly negligent by not representing RA’s best interest” is nonsense, imho. Is it somehow in RA’s best interest to be falsely accused??!!

Almost a year to go before the recently set trial date, unless something happens before then. It’s up to a jury to decide if RA was falsely accused.

 

[mrjitty]

Under oath in a deposition taken by the defense attorneys with no prosecution attorneys present and no judge. Full transcript of the deposition included in the FM? Thanks, but no thanks. I'll wait until its in court.

I don't trust defense attorneys who allow their friends to make copies of crime scene evidence photos of murdered children for distribution on the internet.

One thing I will say, is they didn't include the key quotes from the depo in the motion, and I am suspicious of that since the Morphew case where defence routinely misrepresented on the record statements. When you get to read the actual source quote, you discover it is not what counsel claimed.

 

[Betty P]

According to The Prosecutors podcast there was one other case where this was tried.

Interesting. It seems it would be very awkward, considering the D attorneys have said such terrible things about the judge.

How would they poll the jurors when it came to the news stories about the release of the crime scene photos of the girls to the public? IANAL, but I don't see how that can work. That said, I see no problem with this trial dragging on for a couple of years. We've seen it before and if that's what it takes, so be it.

If these guys think RA is innocent, they had better come up with a highly viable suspect, pronto. I just don't see it, JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

There was an Jan 2019 article in which Sheriff TL is quoted saying "DNA testing research" had been sent to Quantico right before Christmas 2018.

Break In Indiana Teens' Murder: Cops Give More Evidence To FBI In Hunt For Killer

Carroll County Sheriff Tobe Leazenby told RadarOnline.com exclusively that they were hoping for a break in the case of Indiana teens Abigail Williams and Liberty German’s gruesome murders after they sent new evidence to the FBI headquarters in Quantico.

radaronline.com

I don't see anything in your link about DNA being sent to Quantico almost 2 years after it was collected and after they already announced in 2017 that they sent out for expedited processing - in 2017. Is there another article?

I do see in a comment by the publication a quote from Leazenby that "more" evidence was sent almost 2 years later and that they were doing DNA testing but the quote (if it is accurate) indicates to me at least that it is not the "same" 2017 DNA if in fact the 2017 DNA was even sent the first time. Maybe it was sent for IGG? If so, where is that report?

TIA