Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179

[sunshineray]

I don’t know, if he’s technically representing Rozzi and Baldwin?

Bit of a tricky situation, bordering on unethical. MO

 

[Megnut]

The latest motion filed by Mcleland was a bit confusing, I have a lot of questions about the technology.

First, I’d like to ask how is it both true that the defense was incorrect about (3) other phones found during the alleged time of the murders in the area the murders took place, that no other phones were found in the area by any expert-then the next sentence say those people were cleared???

Who is there to clear if no one else’s phones were there??

Maybe someone can help sort this out for me? TIA.

“The Defense's conclusion that three devices were found in or near the murder scene location at the time of the murders and what geofencing data means is an inaccurate evaluation or interpretation that is not supported by an analysis by someone with specialized training or knowledge in geofencing data. The Defense's conclusion fail to consider the estimated range of those devices in the AT&T records or how the pinpoint data was collected. Further, although phones may have a pinpoint on a map that is in the area of the crime scene, the actual phone could be several thousand meters away. No geolocation expert assisting in the investigation concluded that cell phones were in or around the crime scene when the murders occurred. The Defense further fails to state that the owners of those phones were interviewed and cleared by investigators. This was certainly Sheriff Liggett's understanding when he signed the affidavit of probable cause.”

Pic related, page 4.

View attachment 495158
Also, is there no mention/citation from these expert assessments? It is says assisted, or certain agents that may be called as witnesses, but nothing about any reports? I’m so confused.

Source: page 4
States Response to Defense’s 3rd Motion for Frank’s Hearing

State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion

drive.google.com

I feel this is defensespeak.

Three phones. We know Libby had one phone. RA said he had A phone. If there was one additional phone among the three, that's three phones.

RA has since been interviewed and not eliminated. And the other two are dead.

It feels like the Defense is trying to fashion SODDI out of twigs and thin air.

JMO

 

[Salah11]

Sadly, I'm afraid those days are gone. If they ever existed.
Maybe I just read too much on here

I just meant for Delphi as this case has put their small community on the map for all the wrong reasons. I am positive they will be thankful a double child killer is off the streets and not playing happy families in the community pretending to be an upstanding citizen.

Moo

 

[zh0r4]

I think the State are referring to this statement from third Franks;
Third Franks
10. Said geofencing evidence was so important to somebody involved in the investigation that they created a map and plotted the movements ofthese persons, including movements that show that at least one ofthese persons was within 60-100 yards of the crime scene at a time while the murders would have been committed according to law enforcement's timelines. The phones, once again, had no connection to Richard Allen.

I think the State point out that the D have jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the geo data places the phones in or around the crime scene, when in fact they may be a long way away from the crime scene.
MOO

But the owners of what phones were cleared? If there were no phones in the area, why would they need to clear any owners of any phones?

Geofence and geolocation are not the same thing, and at times it’s unclear which we are talking about. It seems they are being used interchangeably, or it isn’t being clarified which. Why are no reports cited? A geolocation report is mentioned, why not cite it?

Does that mean a geofencing report exists at all or did they only have a geolocation report?

 

[Gardenista]

I think the State are referring to this statement from third Franks;
Third Franks
10. Said geofencing evidence was so important to somebody involved in the investigation that they created a map and plotted the movements ofthese persons, including movements that show that at least one ofthese persons was within 60-100 yards of the crime scene at a time while the murders would have been committed according to law enforcement's timelines. The phones, once again, had no connection to Richard Allen.

I think the State point out that the D have jumped to an incorrect conclusion that the geo data places the phones in or around the crime scene, when in fact they may be a long way away from the crime scene.
MOO

That's the way I took it too. The phones were not close to the crime scene like the defense said, and despite this, LE got in touch with them and cleared them.

 

[FromGermany1]

But the owners of what phones were cleared? If there were no phones in the area, why would they need to clear any owners of any phones?

Geofence and geolocation are not the same thing, and at times it’s unclear which we are talking about. It seems they are being used interchangeably, or it isn’t being clarified which. Why are no reports cited? A geolocation report is mentioned, why not cite it?

Does that mean a geofencing report exists at all or did they only have a geolocation report?

IF they were burner phones (and nobody had been cleared because of that), I would guess: RA, RL and EF.

 

[zh0r4]

IF they were burner phones (and nobody had been cleared because of that), I would guess: RA, RL and EF.

According to the FBI affidavit for RL posted by Murder Sheet, maybe RL. But why wouldn’t the defense name him in the 3rd Frank’s motion if RL was one of them?

If one was EF, surely they would name him, since they named him already in the Frank’s memo?

It wasn’t a phone of RA’s, according to page 2 of the 3rd Franks.


Source: 3rd Franks Memo, page 2

Third Franks Notice & Request For Franks Hearing

drive.google.com

 

[sunshineray]

I feel this is defensespeak.

Three phones. We know Libby had one phone. RA said he had A phone. If there was one additional phone among the three, that's three phones.

RA has since been interviewed and not eliminated. And the other two are dead.

It feels like the Defense is trying to fashion SODDI out of twigs and thin air.

JMO

The PCA for RL mentions his phone was in the area also. Not sure of the timeline on that but it's a possible third. Plus DG was out and about looking for the girls and we know a girl with a camera taking pictures was also on the bridge after the girls were abducted. There were lots of people around the area that day...FSG is another possible that we know of...as well as the "couple" he saw beneath the bridge.

 

[sunshineray]

But the owners of what phones were cleared? If there were no phones in the area, why would they need to clear any owners of any phones?

Geofence and geolocation are not the same thing, and at times it’s unclear which we are talking about. It seems they are being used interchangeably, or it isn’t being clarified which. Why are no reports cited? A geolocation report is mentioned, why not cite it?

Does that mean a geofencing report exists at all or did they only have a geolocation report?

Prosecution is not citing because it's protected information at the moment. Gag order. I'm sure it will all be aired at trial.

 

[Megnut]

The PCA for RL mentions his phone was in the area also. Not sure of the timeline on that but it's a possible third. Plus DG was out and about looking for the girls and we know a girl with a camera taking pictures was also on the bridge after the girls were abducted. There were lots of people around the area that day...FSG is another possible that we know of...as well as the "couple" he saw beneath the bridge.

Raises a chilling curiosity.

Searchers arrived relatively quickly. With personal phones. There's no evidence to suggest that the murders were occurring after 5 pm so any phones at that point could belong to searchers. How eerie to see how close some might have come to the crime scene without realizing it.

FWIW I think the Defense is purposefully mixing terms to confuse.

JMO

 

[FromGermany1]

The PCA for RL mentions his phone was in the area also. Not sure of the timeline on that but it's a possible third. Plus DG was out and about looking for the girls and we know a girl with a camera taking pictures was also on the bridge after the girls were abducted. There were lots of people around the area that day...FSG is another possible that we know of...as well as the "couple" he saw beneath the bridge.

bbm
Of him I thought also.

 

[Salah11]

Poor RL dead for over 2 years and still a scapegoat for this crime. Another victim of this awful crime.

IMO

 

[FromGermany1]

Poor RL dead for over 2 years and still a scapegoat for this crime. Another victim of this awful crime.

IMO

Will we ever know, if he is "poor" and "a victim"? R.I.P. - but why did he need an alibi so urgently (rhetorically asked).

 

[Megnut]

Will we ever know, if he is "poor" and "a victim"? R.I.P. - but why did he need an alibi so urgently (rhetorically asked).

Perhaps he occasioned upon the scene and hightailed it. Afraid of the implication.

Would RL have had any reason to be with EF that day?

I still wonder if there wasn't a second location prepared. With gravely ill intent. Multiple players, remote location, darkweb/dropbox connectivity.

And maybe it wasn't so easy to abduct two girls in broad daylight and RA failed to deliver. Tried to incriminate the others with staging.

Tentacles.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Will we ever know, if he is "poor" and "a victim"? R.I.P. - but why did he need an alibi so urgently (rhetorically asked).

IMO the FBI interviewed him, had his electronic devices and knew what time he was on the road to the fish store.

 

[Salah11]

Will we ever know, if he is "poor" and "a victim"? R.I.P. - but why did he need an alibi so urgently (rhetorically asked).

He is a victim as he isn’t a person of interest and hasn’t been charged with a crime. So slandering a dead man’s name to me is wrong. It’s not like he is here defend himself either. Each to their own though

Moo

 

[vinayd]

Is there evidence that RA was using burner phone(s) ?

Can’t say formally just my opinion. The phone DD had in his report said RAs phone didn’t have an IMEI. I assumed that meant it was a burner as most phones have those?…


https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/u...3915-FFC47C07-5DAF-414E-9879-66EEBA100263.pdf

 

[girlhasnoname]

If anyone is interested, Murdersheet has a deep dive in the whole crowd funding and expert controversy. I would recommend even those who do not like MS, listen to it. (maybe at 2x speed)

Highlights:

• Detailed interview with 2 subject matter attorney experts about the ethics of crowdfunding - very interesting backgrounder.
• Analysis of what Gull has/hasn't approved. It's their view that Gull wants the defence to follow an invoice process for expert expenses. This may have been misrepresented in the fundraiser as to Gull not approving experts.
• The fundraiser is not very specific at all what you are giving money for, or how it will be administered - see the interview with the ethics experts above, about how detailed this can/should be.
• Their personal disgust with the fundraiser being promoted by defence surrogates on the Abby&Libby hashtag - which the family has reacted to.

What I am wondering about, is a month from trial, it seems quite late in the day to be at the engagement phase with critical experts? Perhaps those with trial experience can kick in here?

Murder Sheet: The Delphi Murders: Crowdfunding on Apple Podcasts

Show Murder Sheet, Ep The Delphi Murders: Crowdfunding - Apr 4, 2024

podcasts.apple.com

The fact that these surrogates for RA, the accused murderer of their daughters, granddaughters, etc, are using the #Justice4Abby&Libby hashtag on their gimmie money fund goes so far beyond human decency. Suffice to say it's sickening and a slap in the face to the families who created and promoted this hashtag for over 7 years, but not surprising. When I think I've seen a new all time low, they lower it.

This is not a game to be won at any cost, it should be a respectful quest for justice through trial of the murdered 2 innocent young girls, Abbigal Williams and Liberty German. They are the true victims here, yet they've been pushed aside like they never existed. It is unbelievably sad to me.

JMO

 

[Salah11]

The fact that these surrogates for RA, the accused murderer of their daughters, granddaughters, etc, are using the #Justice4Abby&Libby hashtag on their gimmie money fund goes so far beyond human decency. Suffice to say it's sickening and a slap in the face to the families who created and promoted this hashtag for over 7 years, but not surprising. When I think I've seen a new all time low, they lower it.

This is not a game to be won at any cost, it should be a respectful quest for justice through trial of the murdered 2 innocent young girls, Abbigal Williams and Liberty German. They are the true victims here, yet they've been pushed aside like they never existed. It is unbelievably sad to me.

JMO

Fantastic post and spot on

 

[Werlan]

The latest motion filed by Mcleland was a bit confusing, I have a lot of questions about the technology.

First, I’d like to ask how is it both true that the defense was incorrect about (3) other phones found during the alleged time of the murders in the area the murders took place, that no other phones were found in the area by any expert-then the next sentence say those people were cleared???

Who is there to clear if no one else’s phones were there??

Maybe someone can help sort this out for me? TIA.

“The Defense's conclusion that three devices were found in or near the murder scene location at the time of the murders and what geofencing data means is an inaccurate evaluation or interpretation that is not supported by an analysis by someone with specialized training or knowledge in geofencing data. The Defense's conclusion fail to consider the estimated range of those devices in the AT&T records or how the pinpoint data was collected. Further, although phones may have a pinpoint on a map that is in the area of the crime scene, the actual phone could be several thousand meters away. No geolocation expert assisting in the investigation concluded that cell phones were in or around the crime scene when the murders occurred. The Defense further fails to state that the owners of those phones were interviewed and cleared by investigators. This was certainly Sheriff Liggett's understanding when he signed the affidavit of probable cause.”

Pic related, page 4.

View attachment 495158
Also, is there no mention/citation from these expert assessments? It is says assisted, or certain agents that may be called as witnesses, but nothing about any reports? I’m so confused.

Source: page 4
States Response to Defense’s 3rd Motion for Frank’s Hearing

State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion

drive.google.com

here more

This does raise questions as to how thoroughly and objectively the defense arguments were considered. The lack of reference to expert assessments and reports raises doubts in my mind as to the correctness of the conclusions.