IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

[girlhasnoname]

Has she been threatened as a result of her involvement with this case?

I would venture to guess that she probably has been based on the hate content I've read online. Sad state of affairs when our Judges are afraid of physical or mental retribution for overseeing a trial period.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

BIB - This illustrates what I am getting at - but i appreciate the discussion gets quite abstract.

LE were looking for evidence which rules people in or out. The phone evidence above is equivocal - you can theorise that maybe he was somewhere else. But it doesn't prove he was. Nor does it actually eliminate him.

So returning to trial strategy, i suspect you would get little leeway to introduce this to try and prove Elvis did the murders.

But you might be able to use parts of this stuff to support the idea that investigators had this line open for good reasons and it was never ruled out as a reasonable possibility.

That's my interpretation of what Motta was suggesting anyway. YMMV

Thank you for elaborating. I saw your above comment after I wrote this reply to someone else. I believe this may address your point? Please let me know if I am missing anything or misunderstanding you/your point.

Post in thread 'IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174'
IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

 

[TL4S]

New today. I wonder if this is Scremin and Lebrato.

01/24/2024

Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 01/24/2024

 

[girlhasnoname]

According to the law office website cited below:

“Possible Grounds for A Franks Hearing

A trial court is obligated to conduct a Franks hearing only if the defendant makes a preliminary showing that:
1) The affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement in the warrant affidavit; and,
2) that the allegedly false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause.”

Anyone please correct me if I remember anything wrong or left anything out.

The grounds for the search warrant were:
-RA saying he was at the bridge during a specific timeline.

Which matched the timeline of the murders that he corrected during his Oct 22 interview with LE

-RA’s car being in the parking lot within a certain timeline per eyewitnesses.

Backed in at an obscure spot in an effort to hide his plates or the car from view and video from the store H&H showing a car similar to RA's at that time

-Eyewitnesses seeing him on the bridge at a certain time.

The correct timeline after RA lied about being there from noon to 12:30 originally to the CO

-An unspent bullet casing found a handful of days later in the dirt.

That characteristically was found to match the SS RA admitted to owning and to never loaning out to anyone else

(the video-without the timeline and BG proven as RA, this is secondary IMO; the Down the Hill video occurred around 2:13pm; BB would have seen the car approximately 2:15pm)

Which the timing coincides with RA being there at that time by witness statements and time stamped photos of witnesses

The FM argues (p. 23-25, p. 105-118):
-RA said he was gone by 1-1:30PM in his initial interview, and Liggett misstated him/or intentionally misstated him.

He lied in his first chat with the CO. RA told LE he was at bridge between 1:30 - 3:30 in his follow up interview in Oct 22

-Liggett lied about the eyewitness BB’s description of the car-BB did not say the car looked like RA’s car.

Anyone can mistake the make and model of a car they see for a split second driving by. Most of the vehicle descriptions were called in tips.

-Liggett lied about what the eyewitness on the bridge, BB, said she saw. Who looked nothing like RA, but younger and a different height/appearance.

She was looking from a distance and different angle. We have 4 girls on the bridge who literally passed RA at the specific timeline and they all described him down to his clothes, his height and manner of walking with very little discrepancy.

-Liggett lied about the eyewitness who allegedly saw a man in a bloody blue jacket, SC. SC said she said she told him she saw a man in a tan and muddy jacket.

Perhaps he took off the blue jacket off (working up a sweat during all the activity and blood spatter) and just had his hoodie on at that time. This was after the murders. KA admitted in the Oct 22 interview RA had those types of clothing as well.

-There was no chain of custody for the unspent bullet which was found a month or 2? later.

I've never seen a solid MSM or LE release that there is no chain of custody for the bullet. LE took photos of it in/on the ground, but someone said they hadn't seen photos of it after collection, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

-exculpatory evidence was withheld from the D until August 2023.

I don't think the Defense even had a clue what they did and didn't have in Discovery. They hadn't been through it all they even mentioned that in the FM itself. (as a footnote) What exculpatory evidence other than the Odin Report did LE fail to give the Defense? It's not exculpatory evidence if LE investigated it and found it basically hog wash, or an attempt to portray an Odinisim angle in an effort to try and throw LE off the trail.

Sources:
(p. 23-25, p. 105-118)

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

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

What is A Franks Hearing? | Search Warrant Justification

A law firm dedicated to criminal defense including Frank's Hearings in Southwest Michigan. Offices located in Kalamazoo & Berrien County.

www.hillslawoffice.com

If all of the above isn't grounds for a SW than I truly don't know what would be.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

New today. I wonder if this is Scremin and Lebrato.

01/24/2024

Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 01/24/2024

Agree, I bet they couldn't get that done fast enough LOL.

 

[zh0r4]

Which matched the timeline of the murders that he corrected during his Oct 22 interview with LE

Backed in at an obscure spot in an effort to hide his plates or the car from view and video from the store H&H showing a car similar to RA's at that time

The correct timeline after RA lied about being there from noon to 12:30 originally to the CO

That characteristically was found to match the SS RA admitted to owning and to never loaning out to anyone else

Which the timing coincides with RA being there at that time by witness statements and time stamped photos of witnesses

He lied in his first chat with the CO. RA told LE he was at bridge between 1:30 - 3:30 in his follow up interview in Oct 22

Anyone can mistake the make and model of a car they see for a split second driving by. Most of the vehicle descriptions were called in tips.

She was looking from a distance and different angle. We have 4 girls on the bridge who literally passed RA at the specific timeline and they all described him down to his clothes, his height and manner of walking with very little discrepancy.

Perhaps he took off the blue jacket off (working up a sweat during all the activity and blood spatter) and just had his hoodie on at that time. This was after the murders. KA admitted in the Oct 22 interview RA had those types of clothing as well.

I've never seen a solid MSM or LE release that there is no chain of custody for the bullet. LE took photos of it in/on the ground, but someone said they hadn't seen photos of it after collection, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't think the Defense even had a clue what they did and didn't have in Discovery. They hadn't been through it all they even mentioned that in the FM itself. (as a footnote) What exculpatory evidence other than the Odin Report did LE fail to give the Defense? It's not exculpatory evidence if LE investigated it and found it basically hog wash, or an attempt to portray an Odinisim angle in an effort to try and throw LE off the trail.

If all of the above isn't grounds for a SW than I truly don't know what would be.

MOO

According to the witnesses themselves in follow-up interviews they did not describe what Liggett reported. BB said the car she saw was a Comet. The jacket SC saw was tan not blue. BB’s sketch of who she saw on the bridge omitted at a press release was sketch #2; she contacted LE when they released sketch 1 bc she said it looked nothing like BG. BB said sketch #2 is who she saw and that she told LE that.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Agree, I bet they couldn't get that done fast enough LOL.

Right! B Motta was talking like they may stay on and RA would have 4 appointed lawyers!

 

[TL4S]

Right! B Motta was talking like they may stay on and RA would have 4 appointed lawyers!

When BM was saying that, you could see SH's thoughts about it written all over his face.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Right! B Motta was talking like they may stay on and RA would have 4 appointed lawyers!

I'll have what BM is having please.

 

[TL4S]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1750173621153120614

 

[FrostedGlass]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1750173621153120614

Will they immediately return all the discovery back over to Rozzi and Baldwin?

 

[TL4S]

Will they immediately return all the discovery back over to Rozzi and Baldwin?

I would also like to know how Scremin's motion for transfer will be handled. JG said it was under consideration, but BM said if the SCOIN calls it "nunc pro func," it would be like everything goes back to Oct. 19th, like S and L never existed, so his filing wouldn't exist. Should be interesting to see.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

I would also like to know how Scremin's motion for transfer will be handled. JG said it was under consideration, but BM said if the SCOIN calls it "nunc pro func," it would be like everything goes back to Oct. 19th, like S and L never existed, so his filing wouldn't exist. Should be interesting to see.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

Did he say at what point SCOIN will call it?

 

[TL4S]

Did he say at what point SCOIN will call it?

He was guessing within 2 weeks.

 

[FrostedGlass]

He was guessing within 2 weeks.

So we watch for the Supreme Court opinion?
The last one issued was on Jan 9.

 

[TL4S]

So we watch for the Supreme Court opinion?
The last one issued was on Jan 9.

I guess so. The oral arguments and ruling were Jan. 18, so two weeks would be Feb. 1. Just my thoughts, but I'm betting it will come sooner, since the judges seemed concerned about the delays in this case. I'm also betting AB and BR won't make any motions until they hear the SCOIN's explanation. JMO.

 

[mrjitty]

So we watch for the Supreme Court opinion?
The last one issued was on Jan 9.

Yes because there is a wide range of possibilities as to their reasons.

e.g. on one end they might say hey Judge Gull you failed as to process and substance - stop this nonsense

or they might have ruled hey you have to have a hearing to do this, here are guidelines as to what the law on it is, have at it if you want

Ditto they might say look there are no grounds for removing Judge Gull how ridiculous, or they might have said hey this is close to the line - but you have to do it in the trial court

So the detailed reasons should inform how everyone proceeds

 

[Emma Peel]

I get that. Can you please clarify this part? I took it to mean the FM didn’t intend to point to Odinism, only the appearance of Odinism. They even made a point that RA isn't one.

Hello ... see below.

If they were only pointing to appearances / staging, RA could have done that.

see below.

“insisting ritual sacrifice was the defense's SODDI motive ... when to my reading, the FM made it clear it was only the appearance of a ritual that led FBI down the road of Odenist investigation. JMHO.”

I do get that, but I'm still struggling with understanding an earlier post as to whether or not the FM intended to point towards individuals who practiced Odinism as alternate suspects, and the allegation that LE did not fully investigate that angle.

Yes.

Or, was the FM intended to tell us that LE saw the crime scene as having been staged to look like a ritual, and failed to thoroughly investigate individuals who were named in the FM.

IMO, not either or, but Yes as to both. Why parse this? Why wouldn't it be both?

So - the Odinists staged a crime scene to look like Odinists did it?

That gets more complicated. Goes to motive.
Why would a murderer(s) leave a staged message at the crime scene?
Not going down that rabbit hole. (LOL)

Maybe I need more coffee.

I always need more coffee.

....

IMO, the FM distinguishes between religious paganry ... and the gang-appropriated or white nationalist-appropriated use of Odinistic (norse pagan religious) symbolism/ritual (i.e. the "appearance of ritual") in organized groups and/or gang activity.

(take-away point: odinism = gang related)

Other POI's in this investigation are capable of ritual staging (and they provide Vinlander/Odinist POI's self-documentation). Members of LE investigative team believe that line of investigation remains valid and was dropped prematurely.

(take-away point: shoddy investigation)

Agree that one counter-argument is that anyone (including RA) can stage ritualistic stuff at a crime scene ... but ... does the P really want to go there? It seems to me that the P's better argument here might be that there's no ritual, no ritual-mimicking staging, just branches and leave it at that.

As previously indicated, IMO, the D's FM primary objective is to introduce doubt.
(Others in this conversation have expanded on this point well enough.)

JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

Will they immediately return all the discovery back over to Rozzi and Baldwin?

I figured that S & L wouldn't withdraw until they'd had their materials and updates "exchange" meeting with B & R.

I would think withdrawing for them also means drop dead date for billing.

(It's always about the billing, baby. )

JMHO

 

[photographer4]

We can't claim how strong or weak the State's case is, we don't know their evidence other than the AA and the contents of the SW's. There's a gag order in place and the State hasn't divulged their evidence or theory in some clandestine Memorandum, which really didn't address the Franks Hearing to begin with. The FM was to address the credibility of the SW and did the State have probable cause to search RA's property, which the State had in spades, not for the Defense to put forth their theory/suspects of the case, and certainly NOT to grotesquely, word by word describe the CS details of these young girls.

IMO it was gross sensationalism, exploitation of the Abby and Libby, and a Hail Mary pass to get the public talking about alternate suspects and evil cultists afoot in the IN DOC. I don't understand the utter refusal for people to even consider that RA MIGHT be the killer. He places himself there at the time of the murder, wearing identical clothing, matching BG and his mannerisms to a T (to me) and subsequently confessed several times to family members. If that doesn't give someone pause to even consider RA, then I'm truly dumbfounded. RA hasn't even provided a provable alibi that would knock him out of the running

MOO

I can consider that RA *might* be the killer. I can see the problem he has given he placed himself at the scene, at the time when the kids were seen heading toward the bridge. I can understand that he was wearing a jacket that could match the grainy / blurry video police have. I accept that they could have a fantastic case against him.

What I cannot do though is accept all these points as proof of anything other than he says he was there that day, around that time, in that outfit.

The most damning thing we have (so far) is the assertion by LE and prosecution that an unspent bullet was found between the girls that matches a gun in his home. That MIGHT be very damning indeed IF they can prove its from his gun. I'm hoping that they have some sort of details on HOW that bullet arrived there. Just because its his gun, still wouldn't mean he did the crime. Could someone have taken the unspent bullet and placed it there as part of their staging of the scene? I ask the same thing of "Odin symbols" at the scene - could someone have put those up to try to stage the scene and direct attention away from themselves and onto someone else?

I'm very much hoping they have a lot of concrete evidence to show his guilt here. ANd if someone else was there, or counselled, aided or abetted after the fact? I hope they fry too.