Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #178

[layer]

I'm glad she listened to that little feeling that said something isn't right.

I still have the feeling something isn't right.

 

[susiQ]

Odinists/Vinlanders in the US are linked to white supremacy. Sounds like the KKK with a “Viking paint job” to borrow an expression from OP. JMO

 

[layer]

All of us spend a lot of time criticizing the lawyers in this case. I'd be the first to point out the problems all around (and I'm not just talking about little things like the inability to get dates and names right).

I have a suspicion that those who are on the P side are generally ok with the job the P has done so far.
I have a suspicion that those who are on the D side are generally ok with the job the D has done so far.

Again, while there is plenty of room for critique here, I fear that a lot of the lawyer-bashing might be partisan in nature. I just think lawyers (P and D) get a bad rap, very much like cops. Until you're in a desperate jam, or your daughter got butchered.

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. -- Dick the Butcher

JMHO

 

[Boxer]

Did the girls have their first encounter at the bench with him perhaps? They didn't do video or audio then. Maybe, they had a conversation, maybe ambiguous and cheeky. 20 minutes in the girls' timeline were unaccounted for, I remember, we said here on WS. Of course, RA had to say, he didn't see them, if this 20min.-meeting led to the double murder. And of course, the girls filmed him, when he followed them onto the bridge. They recognized by his clothing, that he was the man from the bench, and they noticed (being scared), he had broken the rule, not to enter the bridge, when another person was already walking the bridge.
Maybe, it all began there at the bench?
Speculation, MOO

RA was on the bridge platform, the witness turned around at the bridge and passed the girls midway between the Mears parking area and the bridge as they walked to the bridge.
The bench is back at the Mears parking area.

 

[Boxer]

I still have the feeling something isn't right.

Exactly what is bothering you?

 

[Ravenmoon]

FM page 91
BBM
Concerning EF:
“Mary Jacobs told law enforcement that on February 14, 2017, Elvis was rambling, hyper and borderline incoherent. He was talking about having a “brother” (even though Elvis had no male siblings) and was now part of a “gang.” Elvis told Mary that he had been on a bridge with two girls that were killed. Elvis told her that someone named Abigail was a pain in the *advertiser censored* and a troublemaker. She said Elvis tried to give her (Mary Jacobs) a blue jacket. She told him that she had her own jacket.”

I wonder if they investigated whether or not EF went to work on Feb 14th seeing he was at his sister’s telling her this “story.” Of course, since MJ did not live with EF she would not know about his sleep patterns. I wonder if they asked RAbrs his roommate? Likely not. JMO

FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf - ANDREW J. BALDWIN

pdfhost.io

About EF:

His phone was in Rushville between the hours of 10:30 AM until 7 ish PM ( page 96FM)

February 1st, 2018:




EF is interviewed on video, by Jerry Holeman, and Kevin Murphy. Page 92. During this interview, Elvis agreed to take a mouth swab that would be used for DNA. After being dropped off at home, EF makes statement about spitting on one of the girls. Page 93.

Aug 22, 2018.

Joyce Moffit, EF's other sister, interviewed. Important to note on two other occasions, she denied her brother made any incriminating statements. But, on the third time, she relates statements from EF made during October 2017.


There is nothing that ties EF to the girls or the CS.

One of his sisters repeatedly denied that he confessed anything to her.

She has likely heard tall tales from him in the past.

 

[layer]

Exactly what is bothering you?

Honestly, after 7 years of this - thinking about it, trying to understand it, trying to figure out who carried out these murders, how they did it, why they did it... maybe I figured it would all make sense to me by the time they charged someone. That's how it usually works for me, I never stick around for trials. LE splatters their best evidence everywhere (think of the cop holding up Berkowitz's gun, on the street, at his arrest). Usually that alone is enough to make the accused cop a plea and there isn't any need for the pain and expense of a trial. And I'm out. Either way, we get to know who and how, at least. AFAIK, motive is not required for a conviction, but any rational juror is going to want a reasonable motive.
But here it almost looks like the prosecution is hiding stuff, trying to whip it out at trial for ambush. Now that may a wrong impression, but I feel it. And if there is no secret sauce, that's almost scarier.

I'm old, things don't work like they used to. That alone gives me the feeling something isn't right.

 

[Boxer]

Honestly, after 7 years of this - thinking about it, trying to understand it, trying to figure out who carried out these murders, how they did it, why they did it... maybe I figured it would all make sense to me by the time they charged someone. That's how it usually works for me, I never stick around for trials. LE splatters their best evidence everywhere (think of the cop holding up Berkowitz's gun, on the street, at his arrest). Usually that alone is enough to make the accused cop a plea and there isn't any need for the pain and expense of a trial. And I'm out. Either way, we get to know who and how, at least. AFAIK, motive is not required for a conviction, but any rational juror is going to want a reasonable motive.
But here it almost looks like the prosecution is hiding stuff, trying to whip it out at trial for ambush. Now that may a wrong impression, but I feel it. And if there is no secret sauce, that's almost scarier.

I'm old, things don't work like they used to. That alone gives me the feeling something isn't right.

MOO something isnt right. The Conservation Officer, the Sheriff and the Chief of Police still have their jobs.

 

[Megnut]

Honestly, after 7 years of this - thinking about it, trying to understand it, trying to figure out who carried out these murders, how they did it, why they did it... maybe I figured it would all make sense to me by the time they charged someone. That's how it usually works for me, I never stick around for trials. LE splatters their best evidence everywhere (think of the cop holding up Berkowitz's gun, on the street, at his arrest). Usually that alone is enough to make the accused cop a plea and there isn't any need for the pain and expense of a trial. And I'm out. Either way, we get to know who and how, at least. AFAIK, motive is not required for a conviction, but any rational juror is going to want a reasonable motive.
But here it almost looks like the prosecution is hiding stuff, trying to whip it out at trial for ambush. Now that may a wrong impression, but I feel it. And if there is no secret sauce, that's almost scarier.

I'm old, things don't work like they used to. That alone gives me the feeling something isn't right.

I wonder if he or anyone had occasion to be in the area of the crime scene after dark. And saw it. And bolted.

JMO

 

[susiQ]

MOO something isnt right. The Conservation Officer, the Sheriff and the Chief of Police still have their jobs.

@Boxer I know you and I don’t see this case the same, but I 100% agree with this sentiment, perhaps for different reasons, but that’s okay .

 

[Gardenista]

Honestly, after 7 years of this - thinking about it, trying to understand it, trying to figure out who carried out these murders, how they did it, why they did it... maybe I figured it would all make sense to me by the time they charged someone. That's how it usually works for me, I never stick around for trials. LE splatters their best evidence everywhere (think of the cop holding up Berkowitz's gun, on the street, at his arrest). Usually that alone is enough to make the accused cop a plea and there isn't any need for the pain and expense of a trial. And I'm out. Either way, we get to know who and how, at least. AFAIK, motive is not required for a conviction, but any rational juror is going to want a reasonable motive.
But here it almost looks like the prosecution is hiding stuff, trying to whip it out at trial for ambush. Now that may a wrong impression, but I feel it. And if there is no secret sauce, that's almost scarier.

I'm old, things don't work like they used to. That alone gives me the feeling something isn't right.

Most states keep the details of SA of children pretty much under wraps until it has to be revealed at the trial.

 

[Sillybilly]

This thread is closed.

Please continue discussion at Thread #179.