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

[mrjitty]

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

There are some specific evidentiary rules here that are relevant. An attorney like @O.Incandenza can clarify better than me - but just from general principles, party admissions by the defendant are not hearsay in the first place. So RA is a completely different kettle of fish.

Re the Elvis 'confession', statements against interest are an exception to the hearsay rule but the thing about him (and Holder) is they are available as witnesses so I would think they have to be called as the primary witnesses and the hearsay exception can't be used to prove the truth of the out of court statement.

As a poster noted a few pages back, the defence can make these claims in the Franks to the judge, but it is a completely different question if the D would be allowed to do it in front of the jury.

 

[mrjitty]

Every Motion filed in Court does not demand or require a hearing. The explanation Judge G gave of her ruling seemed sufficient to me although it may not be the details we want.

Maybe R&B will file a Motion to have a hearing on the hearing Judge G didn't have on her ruling? IDK, I'm personally waiting on R&B to whip out their signed STM, date it and file it any second now. I hope. Everybody says they're ready to go.

MOO

I'd expect a narrative summarising the competing claims and legal issues, then handling of the evidence - like what did the Judge find about whether Ligget made intentional misrepresentations? Then identify the legal standards and apply the legal test to her findings. Then the result.

Judge Gull doesn't even really identify why precisely the motion failed. Like why was it that Ligget didn't make false statements at the end of the day? Was it just sloppy and lacked the intention? Were the D claims overstated?

The Judge can be expected to write up the findings with precision IMO

 

[somequestions]

I could see it possibly being Richard Allen who committed this crime if he went all the way to the other side of the bridge and got off before Liberty German took her picture of the full empty bridge. Then he waited while Abby and Libby crossed the bridge. At some point he came back up onto the bridge and passed them again as if he was going back down the trail only to turn around on the bridge when he realized no one was around. At this point, Liberty German turned her phone camera towards him to capture the phone video everyone has seen. That at least makes sense.

What does not make sense is the Hoosier Harvest Store surveillance camera on 300 N. This surveillance camera caught Richard Allen's car driving by before it parked at the old CPS building. But for some reason it does not catch anyone walking along 300 N back towards Richard Allen's car. The theory is that Richard Allen knew about the Hoosier Harvest Store surveillance camera and walked back into the woods to walk along the trail to avoid the camera. This is how he got past the camera to get back to his car to leave the area without being seen.

I thought maybe Richard Allen, after committing the crime, decided to walk back across the creek and back across the Monon High Bridge down the entire trail to get back to his car? But this does not make sense because if the crime took place shortly after 2:13 pm and if we estimate the total amount of time, the walking by the killer and the girls, the crossing the creek, and the crime itself only took as little as a half hour, then by the time Richard Allen walked back wouldn't he start to potentially run into witnesses like Liberty German's father, the flannel shirt guy, and others who had arrived and were walking towards the Monon High Bridge by then? I think half hour is a very quick amount of time too.

I wonder if Richard Allen bought a new pair of shoes after the murders? Water and mud probably would not make the shoes very good to keep wearing.

The timeline surrounding this case does not make a lot of sense.

 

[mrjitty]

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

We will soon find out!

It's worth noting that Wieneke and Leeman did not assert Judge Gull was actually biased. Rather they said there was a risk of apparent bias. From their brief in support at p18

A new judge should also be appointed to avoid the appearance of bias that will otherwise permeate these proceedings. “A judge shall disqualify . . . herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned,

The people who might have this perception is the public

For many Hoosiers this case marks the first time they have followed the workings of an Indiana court. Yet for all rulings going forward, the public will question the judge’s impartiality. To restore the public’s trust in the integrity of the judicial process in this high-profile case, a new special judge should be appointed.

We will soon find out why they did not grant that. Perhaps they felt the motion for recusal must first be consindered by the trial court. But in any event, Wieneke tried to argue this was a structural 'twofer' and SCOIN did not agree.

 

[scruffydog]

In my opinion, the whole Odonism angle is embarrassingly ridiculous. Talk about grasping at straws!!

 

[Salah11]

In my opinion, the whole Odonism angle is embarrassingly ridiculous. Talk about grasping at straws!!

Spot on!!

I am amazed they have even tried to go down this route and it won’t end well for their Client in court IMO

 

[mrjitty]

I don't know if I should believe either the FM or the PCA.

Agreed.

One thing its worth keeping in mind I guess, is that none of the PCAs or Franks etc will be evidence at trial. The trial starts from the bottom up with witness testimony. Of course their original statements will be important as well.

I think at this time, whats more important to me is the broad brushes of evidence we know about.

1. At least 3 pieces of evidence have RA arriving at 1.30 - he now says he left by 1.30 - IMO this is a huge problem for the defence

2. He puts himself on the bridge. That is a big issue re woman trail walker - because if she didn't see RA - where the hell was he? This is IMO the much more important factor than witness descriptions. The broad brush of the timelines has the girls approaching the bridge while RA is still out there (this implies he changed his story at point 1 exactly because this conclusion is inexorable IMO).

3. Clothing is similar to Bridge Guy. Sure lots of people dress that way, but it is significant that if he was there at the right time and had the right clothes.

4. His car was parked as alleged - and there was a car there at the relevant times. The description of the car is problematic sure.

of course the defence want to argue about all these small details, but IMO it is the big picture that is really bad. But it is hard to assess because we simply do not know what the witnesses will say.

 

[mrjitty]

Spot on!!

I am amazed they have even tried to go down this route and it won’t end well for their Client in court IMO

It already didn't end well IMO

 

[Salah11]

Ohhhh, I'd suggest that DNA evidence can last way longer than people might think, and can be harder to get rid of than you might imagine. Droplets not visible to the naked eye that light up under luminol and with a UV light - little bits of fiber that transfer from clothing to car seats / carpets. Specs of dirt transferred from the scene to the interior of that car... ohhh I think if they found anything in the vehicle(s) or at his property that can link him to one or both kids, that man's goose is quite cooked.

Fingers crossed

 

[mrjitty]

She further stated, that It appeared he had gotten into a fight.

RSBM / BBM

This is why I wish we had detailed findings and reasons from Judge Gull. One possible explanation to all this is Ligget summarised a number of different statements and interviews into a quote for the SW PCA that was perhaps not strictly accurate but also not false when you weigh it all up.

Like what was it about his appearance that made him look like he had gotten into a fight?

I can certainly believe the defence might have done some selective quoting of sloppy drafting.

 

[TL4S]

RSBM / BBM

This is why I wish we had detailed findings and reasons from Judge Gull. One possible explanation to all this is Ligget summarised a number of different statements and interviews into a quote for the SW PCA that was perhaps not strictly accurate but also not false when you weigh it all up.

Like what was it about his appearance that made him look like he had gotten into a fight?

I can certainly believe the defence might have done some selective quoting of sloppy drafting.

S Hughes made an interesting comment about the drafting of PCAs. He said in some areas, it's common for the prosecutor to assist LE in writing the PCAs, and when that happens, the document is held to a higher standard for things like omissions, etc. He said it wasn't clear if McL helped TLi write that PCA, so I'm curious.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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. 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?

Basically MW was employed as an office manager for AB for a few years. He studied law but failed to pass the bar exam. MW said on a MS interview that AB liked to bounce ideas of lots of people, he liked 'group think'. You can find the episode on TMS podcast, although I can't recall the specific title of the one MW appeared on.

A lawyer speaking to others about the facts of an upcoming case?? There is a thing called Attorney/Client privilege. MW was not an employee of AB's at the time he stole the photos and docs, so I do believe AB will be reprimanded, negligence, misconduct, or something. He won't skate out of this blunder without something on his record IMO.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

RSBM / BBM

This is why I wish we had detailed findings and reasons from Judge Gull. One possible explanation to all this is Ligget summarised a number of different statements and interviews into a quote for the SW PCA that was perhaps not strictly accurate but also not false when you weigh it all up.

Like what was it about his appearance that made him look like he had gotten into a fight?

I can certainly believe the defence might have done some selective quoting of sloppy drafting.

I think the State held back a lot of information, they didn't need to disclose every single thing in their PCA as you know.

I bet we'll hear from the witness why she said "muddy, bloody and looked like he (RA) had been into a fight".

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

“Mental retribution” meaning criticism of an elected official? If she doesn’t like that part of the job description perhaps she should find a new job. And if she doesn’t like receiving hate when on a difficult case I guess that explains why she was never a defense attorney.

Mental retribution doesn't mean just criticism, it means threats of harm, doxing of one's family, you know the things that Deiner cited when he recused himself for safety concerns.

based on the word of LE. We have no word but “appears to match”. No statement that it matches the license plate. No statement that it matches a unique feature. No clue how clear the video is from HH.
Here’s an example of a vehicle identification in Dan Markel’s murder in the PCA for Katie Magbanua.
View attachment 477429
Notice how we aren’t asked to rely on the affiant’s subjective judgement that the vehicle “appeared” in some unnamed way to “match”?

I'm sure there will be more info revealed at trial. The PCA doesn't require the State to proffer their entire theory or evidence of the case. I bet we'll see videos from HH.

You have it backwards. Dulin’s tip narrative says RA says he was there from 1:30-3:30. In RAs interview he says 12-1:30.

You are correct, in 2017 RA said 1:30-3:30 and in Oct 2022 he also said 1:30-3:30 according the PCA

(found to match using a methodology that can have error rates of over 50%)

It's still allowed in trial in IN. I believe both sides will have their own experts to prove or disprove. The jury will determine how much weight, if any, to give to the shell casing.

Again you have this backwards. Dulin reported 1:30-3:30. RA told investigators in the interview 12-1:30 and TL left this out of the affidavit completely despite it contradicting the original note (which we have no audio or body cam recording of)

In the PCA RA stated he arrived at approx 1:30 and left at approx 3:30. I would put money on that interview being at least tape recorded and we'll hear it at trial.

This witness BB wasn’t driving by. She was on the trails and walked past this car. She was extremely specific about the car she saw being nothing like RAs (which was left out of the SWA) and she was within 50 ft of a man near the bridge and identified a sketch that looked nothing like RA (which was left out of the SWA)

RAs manner of walking is never outlined in the SWA as matching BG. Only 3 juvenile females’ statements are reported in the SWA.

The PCA states the juvenile witnesses as saying RA/BG was walking with a purpose, head down, did not respond when one of the girls said hello. Is the PCA part of the SW application?

I also own a blue jacket and a hoodie… I hope no one tells TL.

I own a blue jacket and a hoodie as well, but taken in totality of all the other pieces of the evidence it makes sense.

How about the Purdue report? Of course if you refuse to believe anything the defense says and believe everything LE says, you won’t find that very convincing either.

I believe LE definitely looked at an Odinist angle mainly because of the staging at the CS. They hired someone knowledgeable to look into it (Odin Report) so obviously they did some due diligence. For reasons unknown to us now, they dismissed the theory. That doesn't mean they didn't investigate it and found it unsubstantiated. The SW does not have to include every suspect or theory they've investigated and dismissed from the date of the murders in 2017 until the time of an arrest Oct 2022.

It had to show probable cause that RA was a good suspect and I believe they showed that in spades.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Thank you for clarifying. So how would we know that tan jacket guy and BG are the same guy? SC was driving on the other side of the road, how could she have a good enough look to verify it was BG when the video is so grainy and BB said sketch #2, which looks nothing like RA, is who she saw on the bridge?

She passed RA/BG while he walking on CRNorth in person not on video. It isn't a main, well traveled road (the reason BG/RA chose that route to return to his car I believe) she could have had plenty of time to see him as they passed.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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

If you need a good chuckle just read the footnotes alone. They're basically admitting that's what they're saying, but it might not be correct due to blah, blah, blah. Quite the document, that.

JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

If you need a good chuckle just read the footnotes alone. They're basically admitting that's what they're saying, but it might not be correct due to blah, blah, blah. Quite the document, that.

JMO

Yes my opinion is that there was questionable misquoting of interviews. It still irks me that they failed to interview the medical examiner before penning such a wildly detailed act of murder.
Injuries to the girl’s could indicate whether done by one or more individuals. Am experienced medical examiner could have given a more thorough description of what happened yet defense wanted to stay ignorant of his expert opinion.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes my opinion is that there was questionable misquoting of interviews. It still irks me that they failed to interview the medical examiner before penning such a wildly detailed act of murder.
Injuries to the girl’s could indicate whether done by one or more individuals. Am experienced medical examiner could have given a more thorough description of what happened yet defense wanted to stay ignorant of his expert opinion.

Agreed, and the fact they released the level of details and supposition, especially the step by step explanation of how the murderer redressed Abby was completely uncalled for and cruel IMO.

 

[Justice101]

Spot on!!

I am amazed they have even tried to go down this route and it won’t end well for their Client in court IMO

Yeh, strong claims require strong proof.. which there is none

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here is a screen cap of the jacket taken during the search of RA's home. Notice they give descriptions of clothing taken = hooded sweatshirt, 1/4 zip sweatshirt. There is no other description of the blue Carhartt coat (no hood).
RA told investigators he was wearing either a blue or black Carhartt coat with a hood.

Also notice none of the boxes on the right are checked. I assume this means there was no lab exam performed on them.

So what does that mean?