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

[Caylee Advocate]

While I personally cannot say what she saw versus what she didn't see, LE has decided that it was important enough to include in their investigation.

I can, however, say that the man on the bridge is the man that forced 2 innocent girls to their death.

I can also say that the timing of the man walking back towards the vehicle at the old CPS building coincides with the timing of the murders. It would be highly coincidental that someone else woth the same jacket, muddy, looking like he had been in an altercation was there at the exact same time.



JMO

BBM. What was the "timing of the murders?"

 

[katydid23]

IMO detailed confessions to family members are not here-say.

EXACTLY. And RA confessed a few times to two of his family members.

 

[Ravenmoon]

BBM. What was the "timing of the murders?"

It was said to be over by 3:30 PM.
Add maybe 15 to minutes to walk from the cs to the hwy.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Which short of locking the conference room, he did do. What reason, if any did he have to suspect his friend might screw him in such epic fashion? Especially if that friend had been a consultant to the lawyer? None.

It makes no difference whether he thought MW might ever do such a thing. That has nothing to do with him being responsible for keeping those sealed documents safely locked down, when he is not in the room.

Doing that has nothing to do with MW---it needed to be done no matter who was walking around his office space.

That said, I would like to know - as a consultant, had MW signed an NDA? What reason was he a consultant in the first place?

Was MW a consultant on any other cases for AB?

MW was ot a consultant at that time. He was no longer an employee and was not even an attorney. I doubt he was a consultant given that he did nit pass the bar.

Yep. When you use that photo to remind me that the man on LG's video was indeed wearing some sort of brown / tan coloured items of clothing then yes, it's far more reasonable! Ok, so witness sees a man exit the area in tan and muddy jacket - what we're not told - and don't even know if she was asked, was the man carrying anything? A bag? Anything in his hands?

If she wasn't asked, why wasn't she asked?
2. If she was asked, what is the answer?
- If she was asked and answered yes he was - then did she go on to describe what he was carrying / had in hand?
3. If she was asked and the answer was no - then what happened to the blue jacket?

B) did police find any evidence at RA's home / in the family vehicles that would somehow tie him to the kids and or the crime scene? What forensic investigations were conducted if any in the home / around the home / upon & inside the vehicles?

Maybe he rolled it up in a little ball and shoved it under his hoodie? Or carried it under his arm as he walked past?

 

[steeltowngirl]

I'm going to post the quote from the FM about the "bloody" (or not bloody depending on which document one wants to believe here) so everyone can see and compare them.

"SC [name of witness redacted by me] saw a man walking on 300 North wearing a jacket. Liggett needed the color of that jacket to match the color of the jacket worn by the man BB [witness name redacted by me] had observed on the high bridge at 2 pm because Liggett is claiming that both men are the same man: Richard Allen. The problem was that SC did not observe the man walking down 300 North wearing a blue jacket. She observed a tan jacket. This meant that SC and BB observed two different men. This created a problem for Liggett’s timeline, so instead of being honest, Liggett chose to represent to Judge Diener that SC observed a man wearing a blue jacket, when in her 2017 interview, SC said it was tan. But that’s not all. Nowhere in SC's 2017 interview does SC use the word “bloody” to describe the clothing that the man was wearing. Nowhere. The so-called “muddy bloody lady” is actually just the “muddy lady,” as SC only used the word muddy to describe the man she observed on 300 North in her 2017 interview. It certainly would help Judge Diener in making his decision if the man walking down the street was wearing a blue jacket and also wearing bloody clothing, as if he had just murdered somebody. However, Liggett just flat out lied. SC mentioned a blue coat and never mentioned blood in her 2017 interview.

link: https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf
p.116-17

wait.. there was a muddy, bloody lady?

 

[iamshadow21]

wait.. there was a muddy, bloody lady?

He means the witness who saw the suspect in that state, not that she, personally, was muddy and/or bloody.

 

[steeltowngirl]

He means the witness who saw the suspect in that state, not that she, personally, was muddy and/or bloody.

Good lord. It’s small wonder the FM is so misunderstood by the keyboard pounders.

 

[iamshadow21]

Good lord. It’s small wonder the FM is so misunderstood by the keyboard pounders.

It's so slapdash, so casually and inconsistently written. At at least one point it gets the girls' names mixed up ... I read it once, and it was too many times. It felt so offensive from start to finish. I've read some dreadful media articles reporting on cases, but this was an actual legal document, and that just disgusted me that it could feel so exploitative. I hated that that was how we learned the details of how the girls were harmed and how they were found. That knowledge had been kept private for over six years, and it should have stayed that way until it was respectfully presented by experts like the medical examiner, in court, at trial.

MOO

 

[photographer4]

If so, why didn't SCOIN find her biased?


Then he was negligent. Just because he didn't think it would happen, it doesn't mean he shouldn't take necessary precaution with SEALED legal documents.

He was responsible for keeping those sensitive crime scene photos of dead naked children SAFE from public view. They should have been locked up if he was not IN THE ROOM with them.

This was essentially a guy off the street---he was not an employee, not an attorney, and was TRESPASSING at the time.

If I had sensitive, sealed legal documents laying about in that conference room, I would absolutely lock them down if I had to step away.

All of the above describes NEGLIGENCE in terms of sealed sensitive legal documents being leaked from one's custody.

He was negligent, lazy and irresponsible. He should abso9lutely be held liable for the leaks. IMO

If this lawyer was holding a cash settlement for you to come and pick up---and he left it in his unlocked, unsupervised war room, and one of his ex employees went in and stole it----would you consider him liable for that loss?

I don’t know why SCION didn’t find her biased. Good question. are we still waiting on written material from SCIoN?

In regards to negligence - I don’t think he was negligent. He was present in the office. The room the material was kept in wasn’t locked - but why would it be if he was there alone? Even if he knew MW planned to stop in, he had been a case consultant so why would AB see a need to hide the material from him? This is why I asked if we know how he came to be a consultant and whether he signed an NDA?

You may recall that back at the beginning of RA’s incarceration the defence filed a motion to have funds provided for a private investigator to assist in RA’s case. The motion outcome was sealed by JG.
So we don’t know if she agreed to this request or not. But if she did, maybe MW was the PI or something on the case? Just a thought. It doesn’t excuse why he did what he did at all but could this be why he was “consulting”? Could this be why he was even in the office in the war room?

I considered that JG disqualified the defense herself and surely would have known if they’d been granted a PI or not. But would she have known who the PI was or had to have preapproved him before he was allowed on the case? Did she make rules for what evidence any possible PI could access or not (again this is all IF she ruled they could have a PI at all). We don’t know. Why? Sealed. Everything is done in secret and then they wonder why everyone is so curious and confused.

Here is a link to help refresh memories: Delphi murder suspect files motion to use public funds to hire a private investigator

Re fictious $ stolen from an office - would I find him liable? The thief? Yes. The lawyer? I don’t know. Your scenario leaves me with more questions than answers (rather like this court case we are discussing), and as such, I can’t really give a complete answer. That said, I appreciate where you are coming from and do see your point as well. I’d expect him to sort out the cash and pay me still, but I don’t have enough info to know if I would find him guilty of negligence or misconduct. His insurance would probably cover the loss for him anyhow, no? So long as I got paid I don’t care whose fault it was.

 

[photographer4]

EXACTLY. And RA confessed a few times to two of his family members.

But it’s not hearsay when RA did it because the confession was recorded and can be heard by LE and anyone else who needs to hear it. The confession by the guy named in the FM is hearsay because it’s only reported second hand to LE by his sisters. There is no way to really assess its veracity or how truthful sisters were when they advised LE of the things their brother said. They could have made it up in whole or in part. He clearly didn’t repeat some of the things he told the sisters to Le and he declined a polygraph via his lawyer (smartly lawyered up).

 

[photographer4]

wait.. there was a muddy, bloody lady?

the version of the FM filing I found - I copied it verbatim using copy paste. So as far as I know, that’s how the lawyers wrote it.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

It was said to be over by 3:30 PM.
Add maybe 15 to minutes to walk from the cs to the hwy.

JMO

Who said it was over by that time? Is there a link stating that, and if so can you please post it? TIA. No hurry as I am off to bed anyway.

 

[iamshadow21]

Who said it was over by that time? Is there a link stating that, and if so can you please post it? TIA. No hurry as I am off to bed anyway.

If the witness who saw someone muddy and bloody saw the killer of Abby and Libby, then it probably was. She was placed in the area by surveillance cameras a little before 4pm. (Source: PCA page four)

MOO

 

[SharonNeedles]

I don’t know why SCION didn’t find her biased. Good question. are we still waiting on written material from SCIoN?

In regards to negligence - I don’t think he was negligent. He was present in the office. The room the material was kept in wasn’t locked - but why would it be if he was there alone? Even if he knew MW planned to stop in, he had been a case consultant so why would AB see a need to hide the material from him? This is why I asked if we know how he came to be a consultant and whether he signed an NDA?

You may recall that back at the beginning of RA’s incarceration the defence filed a motion to have funds provided for a private investigator to assist in RA’s case. The motion outcome was sealed by JG.
So we don’t know if she agreed to this request or not. But if she did, maybe MW was the PI or something on the case? Just a thought. It doesn’t excuse why he did what he did at all but could this be why he was “consulting”? Could this be why he was even in the office in the war room?

I considered that JG disqualified the defense herself and surely would have known if they’d been granted a PI or not. But would she have known who the PI was or had to have preapproved him before he was allowed on the case? Did she make rules for what evidence any possible PI could access or not (again this is all IF she ruled they could have a PI at all). We don’t know. Why? Sealed. Everything is done in secret and then they wonder why everyone is so curious and confused.

Here is a link to help refresh memories: Delphi murder suspect files motion to use public funds to hire a private investigator

Re fictious $ stolen from an office - would I find him liable? The thief? Yes. The lawyer? I don’t know. Your scenario leaves me with more questions than answers (rather like this court case we are discussing), and as such, I can’t really give a complete answer. That said, I appreciate where you are coming from and do see your point as well. I’d expect him to sort out the cash and pay me still, but I don’t have enough info to know if I would find him guilty of negligence or misconduct. His insurance would probably cover the loss for him anyhow, no? So long as I got paid I don’t care whose fault it was.

Serious question, I really don't know: Is bias even a question for SCOIN to consider?

 

[photographer4]

If the witness who saw someone muddy and bloody saw the killer of Abby and Libby, then it probably was. She was placed in the area by surveillance cameras a little before 4pm. (Source: PCA page four)

MOO

It’s fascinating to me that LE says a witness saw a bloody and muddy person leave the scene but the defence says that isn’t what the witness said at all - they assert she said muddy, but did not say bloody.

I sure hope one of the legal sides can prove whether she ever described the person she saw as bloody or not! This would be a huge thing that could really sway a jury towards believing it was RA or not, or even whether the person seen by the witness was involved in this particular crime or not!

 

[Ravenmoon]

Who said it was over by that time? Is there a link stating that, and if so can you please post it? TIA. No hurry as I am off to bed

Funny you should ask.
One source is the Frank's Memorandum.
It's easy to find.
If you find the section titled Crime Scene, it states in bolded snd underlined print that the murders and staging were completed in less than an hour.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Off to bed


https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdfJMO

 

[SharonNeedles]

It’s fascinating to me that LE says a witness saw a bloody and muddy person leave the scene but the defence says that isn’t what the witness said at all - they assert she said muddy, but did not say bloody.

I sure hope one of the legal sides can prove whether she ever described the person she saw as bloody or not! This would be a huge thing that could really sway a jury towards believing it was RA or not, or even whether the person seen by the witness was involved in this particular crime or not!

I'm really going to regret jumping in, but here goes...

There's not going to be a lot of scenarios where you can see bloody while driving by. It's not going to be like a horror movie where the guy's wearing a white shirt with bright red blood splattered everywhere. Don't believe me? Go watch youtube videos of hunters field dressing deer. The killer here is likely going to be visibly muddy, so that's a good enough description. If the witness actually said "bloody" it seems like embellishment to me.

 

[katydid23]

Serious question, I really don't know: Is bias even a question for SCOIN to consider?

They were asked to rule on whether she should be removed from the case. So wouldn't they have to consider if she was biased or not? IDK.

 

[photographer4]

I'm really going to regret jumping in, but here goes...

There's not going to be a lot of scenarios where you can see bloody while driving by. It's not going to be like a horror movie where the guy's wearing a white shirt with bright red blood splattered everywhere. Don't believe me? Go watch youtube videos of hunters field dressing deer. The killer here is likely going to be visibly muddy, so that's a good enough description. If the witness actually said "bloody" it seems like embellishment to me.

I think I’ll pass on watching deer dressing thanks - but I get what you mean! Blood against a blue jacket actually probably wouldn’t show very well at all - the witness said a lighter colour. Who knows.

 

[katydid23]

I don’t know why SCION didn’t find her biased. Good question. are we still waiting on written material from SCIoN?

I don't know why they didn't find her biased either, other than there was no evidence to support that.

Wasn't it unanimous on their part, that she'd not be removed?

Didn't they have a hearing and all of the relevant documents concerning her rulings and communications in the case?

In regards to negligence - I don’t think he was negligent. He was present in the office. The room the material was kept in wasn’t locked - but why would it be if he was there alone?

Was he there alone? If so, who let MW in? Did he have a key? Or was the building unlocked?

Even if he knew MW planned to stop in, he had been a case consultant so why would AB see a need to hide the material from him? This is why I asked if we know how he came to be a consultant and whether he signed an NDA?

If he was legally allowed to view the documents then I believe that would have been said already. By one or both of them.

You may recall that back at the beginning of RA’s incarceration the defence filed a motion to have funds provided for a private investigator to assist in RA’s case. The motion outcome was sealed by JG.
So we don’t know if she agreed to this request or not. But if she did, maybe MW was the PI or something on the case? Just a thought. It doesn’t excuse why he did what he did at all but could this be why he was “consulting”? Could this be why he was even in the office in the war room?

Again, wouldn't MW had said so in his defense? He has already admitted into sneaking into that room, uninvited and wrongly. Why would he say that if he was a hired investigator?

I considered that JG disqualified the defense herself and surely would have known if they’d been granted a PI or not. But would she have known who the PI was or had to have preapproved him before he was allowed on the case? Did she make rules for what evidence any possible PI could access or not (again this is all IF she ruled they could have a PI at all). We don’t know. Why? Sealed. Everything is done in secret and then they wonder why everyone is so curious and confused.

Here is a link to help refresh memories: Delphi murder suspect files motion to use public funds to hire a private investigator

Again, MW never said anything about being hired as the investigator in this case. I think he would have sAid that instead of admitting to sneaking into the office uninvited. JMO

Re fictious $ stolen from an office - would I find him liable? The thief? Yes. The lawyer? I don’t know. Your scenario leaves me with more questions than answers (rather like this court case we are discussing), and as such, I can’t really give a complete answer. That said, I appreciate where you are coming from and do see your point as well. I’d expect him to sort out the cash and pay me still, but I don’t have enough info to know if I would find him guilty of negligence or misconduct. His insurance would probably cover the loss for him anyhow, no? So long as I got paid I don’t care whose fault it was.

What if you didn't get paid because the insurance wouldn't pay because he left the room unlocked and unsupervised? Would you find him negligent yet?