Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #183

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
March 2017:

“We are using every capable process that we have from a scientific perspective as everyone would expect us to, and we will continue to do that until there is nothing left to do. does that include DNA? It does. We have not ruled out the possibility that it is a local person. Every time we clear somebody it gets us closer."FBI putting together profile of suspect accused of killing Delphi teens
 
I think I understand the pings better. To understand what the defense is trying to say, we need to pay attention to when it was NOT pinging, not when it was. I found this explanation on a message board: "In order for you to be able to receive an incoming call, the phone has to occasionally send an "I am here" message to a nearby cell tower. This is presumably what is being referred to as a ping."

So the phone was sending "I am here" messages for a while....then not at all and Blocher said the phone was out of the area or disabled. Then, all of a sudden in the early morning, the phone started saying "I am here" again.

So, why did the phone stop saying "I am here" for a long time, and then start back up again? Someone, an alive human, would have had to be there at the crime scene in the early morning, to turn it on and start saying "I am here" again.

This excerpt from the motion (below) seems to me like the phone was saying "I am here" every 15 minutes, then it stopped. But do we really know that since they are saying they don't have all the information yet?

Maybe if the State turns over the rest of the pings, we'll see that the phone actually was pinging the whole time?

For the State's timeline/version to make sense, the phone would have had to have been pinging (every 15 minutes or when a call/text came in?) from the time they were dropped off until the bodies were found or the battery died, whichever came first. Unless the tower was malfunctioning/turned off/taking a nap?

So, the question is, why did the phone stop pinging at all?

1714510961373.png
 
Megnut said:
IMO there will be CAST data at trial, geolocation or somesuch showing that the phone didn't move, that no human interfaced with it and that changes to the phone occurred in tandem with verifiable activity on other phones. Sent messages and outgoing calls corresponding to unread messages and unanswered phone calls.
Click to expand...

RSBM

Is that the kind of data they used in the Murdaugh trial that tells if the phone is turned and tipped and whatnot? I hope they do that! But I doubt they will. They wer not anticipating this coming out.

MOO IMO
 
justtrish said:
I think this letter is good and firm. It isn't preventing the defense from presenting their case, it's giving them a warning that delays with witnesses won't be tolerated. Game playing won't be tolerated. This jury is sequestered and this trial has to have a limit. The D said they need a few weeks to present their case. She is letting them know that their witnesses need to be ready, no delays due to scheduling. They requested this speedy trial so any timing issues they might have could now be their own fault. If they want to claim a third party is involved they need to present that before with proof or it isn't going to fly. So what is going to take them many weeks to present?

I think it's a clear message that they wanted this speedy trial, they knew the amount of time allowed and there have been no objections by any attorney on the time being too short for them to present their case. She even notes that the original trial for Jan 2024 had a similar time allotted and no objections. If there was an issue they could have brought that up before now.
Click to expand...
The letter appears to fail to assure the D that they will have adequate time to rebut the prosecution’s case. I don’t think they have the goods to do this, but it is important that they be allowed the time to try.

I STILL think RA = BG = the kidnapper and probably the killer. The P can prove this without conducting a judicial lynching. They should avoid descending to the level already evidenced by the D team.
 
TTF14 said:
I think I understand the pings better. To understand what the defense is trying to say, we need to pay attention to when it was NOT pinging, not when it was. I found this explanation on a message board: "In order for you to be able to receive an incoming call, the phone has to occasionally send an "I am here" message to a nearby cell tower. This is presumably what is being referred to as a ping."

So the phone was sending "I am here" messages for a while....then not at all and Blocher said the phone was out of the area or disabled. Then, all of a sudden in the early morning, the phone started saying "I am here" again.

So, why did the phone stop saying "I am here" for a long time, and then start back up again? Someone, an alive human, would have had to be there at the crime scene in the early morning, to turn it on and start saying "I am here" again.

This excerpt from the motion (below) seems to me like the phone was saying "I am here" every 15 minutes, then it stopped. But do we really know that since they are saying they don't have all the information yet?

Maybe if the State turns over the rest of the pings, we'll see that the phone actually was pinging the whole time?

For the State's timeline/version to make sense, the phone would have had to have been pinging (every 15 minutes or when a call/text came in?) from the time they were dropped off until the bodies were found or the battery died, whichever came first. Unless the tower was malfunctioning/turned off/taking a nap?

So, the question is, why did the phone stop pinging at all?

View attachment 500522
Click to expand...
IMO it was not human action on Libby's end that caused the phone to wake up, ping, say 'I am here'.

I believe it probably did ping off different towers overnight because phones constantly search for the best/strongest connection.

IMO it never stopped pinging (until the battery died). There was no starting, stopping, starting. Full misrepresentation in the memo.

JMO
 
I just had a vision of a nice organized crime scene.
Got the girls ushered off all alone, outside the park.
Got the girls disrobed.
Got your sticks ready to do whatever insanity you plan to do.
Avoided leaving fingerprints or DNA.
But again, that bed of leaves.
If Libby set or tossed the phone into those leaves it could be invisible.
Suddenly DG is calling looking for Libby on a phone the killer didn't know existed and possibly can't even see.
So long, nice organized crime scene.
 
TTF14 said:
I think I understand the pings better. To understand what the defense is trying to say, we need to pay attention to when it was NOT pinging, not when it was. I found this explanation on a message board: "In order for you to be able to receive an incoming call, the phone has to occasionally send an "I am here" message to a nearby cell tower. This is presumably what is being referred to as a ping."

So the phone was sending "I am here" messages for a while....then not at all and Blocher said the phone was out of the area or disabled. Then, all of a sudden in the early morning, the phone started saying "I am here" again.

So, why did the phone stop saying "I am here" for a long time, and then start back up again? Someone, an alive human, would have had to be there at the crime scene in the early morning, to turn it on and start saying "I am here" again.

This excerpt from the motion (below) seems to me like the phone was saying "I am here" every 15 minutes, then it stopped. But do we really know that since they are saying they don't have all the information yet?

Maybe if the State turns over the rest of the pings, we'll see that the phone actually was pinging the whole time?

For the State's timeline/version to make sense, the phone would have had to have been pinging (every 15 minutes or when a call/text came in?) from the time they were dropped off until the bodies were found or the battery died, whichever came first. Unless the tower was malfunctioning/turned off/taking a nap?

So, the question is, why did the phone stop pinging at all?

View attachment 500522
Click to expand...
Did the phone stop pinging or is the D just saying they don't have the additional pings from the 13th and 14th?
 
WildHuncher said:
The letter appears to fail to assure the D that they will have adequate time to rebut the prosecution’s case. I don’t think they have the goods to do this, but it is important that they be allowed the time to try.

I STILL think RA = BG = the kidnapper and probably the killer. The P can prove this without conducting a judicial lynching. They should avoid descending to the level already evidenced by the D team.
Click to expand...

She's probably used to a defense team that doesn't present much of a case because the defendants are usually guilty. "I am unsure what exactly the defense intends to present." - JG

IMO MOO
 
Megnut said:
IMO it was not human action on Libby's end that caused the phone to wake up, ping, say 'I am here'.

I believe it probably did ping off different towers overnight because phones constantly search for the best/strongest connection.

IMO it never stopped pinging (until the battery died). There was no starting, stopping, starting. Full misrepresentation in the memo.

JMO
Click to expand...

Very possible! But, what would you think if the State didn't turn over the "all night pings" because they don't exist? What if there were no pings? What would you think could be the reason other than the phone being off? And a dead person can't turn their own phone off and back on.

IMO MOO
 
justtrish said:
Did the phone stop pinging or is the D just saying they don't have the additional pings from the 13th and 14th?
Click to expand...
Stake my reputation, they have the CAST report which supercedes the pings! The CAST report will show user input, auto input, incoming, outgoing, read/not read and it will show which sector of which towers the phone was handshaking.

This is a spurious attempt at argument by the Defense.

JMO but I feel strongly about it
 
WildHuncher said:
The letter appears to fail to assure the D that they will have adequate time to rebut the prosecution’s case. I don’t think they have the goods to do this, but it is important that they be allowed the time to try.

I STILL think RA = BG = the kidnapper and probably the killer. The P can prove this without conducting a judicial lynching. They should avoid descending to the level already evidenced by the D team.
Click to expand...
We are 2 weeks from the trial starting and I think if the defense needed more time than was allotted they would have filed a request for that before now. It is not the judges job to ask them is it? They have known the trial was set for 3 weeks in Jan 2024 and then it was off.. then they request the speedy trial and agreed to the dates the judge set. The judge states in this letter that neither side (no attorney) has requested more time or raised a concern about the allotted time she set for this trial. I don't think it's failing to assume them of that, it's reminding them this is the time limit and nobody has objected. When a jury is sequestered they have hotels, food, and all that to consider. If more time was going to be needed by either side, then the time to ask for that is way before 2 weeks from the trial start date.
 
justtrish said:
Another thought about this phone issue..

Did her phone have a low battery setting it went to at say 15% battery left? Maybe at that point it didn't "ping" until it died.
Click to expand...

Maybe? I wondered too about Do Not Disturb. Did she have her phone set to be on DND at certain times? I have it on my phone from like 11-7. I don't know if that affects pings or not.

IMO MOO
 
(Excerpt)
12. On November 9, 2023, the prosecution provided Mr. Allen’s counsel with
evidence of 44 pings generated by AT&T to locate L.G.’s phone (hereinafter
“pings”).
...
15. More importantly is Sgt. Blocher’s statement that his interpretation of the
information which they were receiving from AT&T indicated that the cell
phone was no longer in the area or no longer in working condition.
...
and 4:33 a.m. on February 14, 2017, at which time there
was a successful ping to the phone.

Defedants 4th Franks Motion

drive.google.com drive.google.com
 
TTF14 said:
She's probably used to a defense team that doesn't present much of a case because the defendants are usually guilty. "I am unsure what exactly the defense intends to present." - JG

IMO MOO
Click to expand...
The Defense has tried now with four versions of Frank's motions to introduce theories into their defense and so far with little success as they haven't been able to show relevance, haven't been able to substantiate their claims, etc.

In that vacuum, the judge is saying she doesn't know the substance of their defense. Their SODDI lacks specificity, their expert is questionable, and therefore, she herself cannot guess, estimate or predict how long the Defense will need to present their defense. Some Defense attorneys don't. They rest when the State rests. She is reminding them that she won't tolerate scheduling snafus and is putting both sides on notice that she's holding them to limits of which neither side previously objected.

Does anybody know what the defense will be? The Defense, included?

JMO
 
Last edited:
justtrish said:
We are 2 weeks from the trial starting and I think if the defense needed more time than was allotted they would have filed a request for that before now. It is not the judges job to ask them is it? They have known the trial was set for 3 weeks in Jan 2024 and then it was off.. then they request the speedy trial and agreed to the dates the judge set. The judge states in this letter that neither side (no attorney) has requested more time or raised a concern about the allotted time she set for this trial. I don't think it's failing to assume them of that, it's reminding them this is the time limit and nobody has objected. When a jury is sequestered they have hotels, food, and all that to consider. If more time was going to be needed by either side, then the time to ask for that is way before 2 weeks from the trial start date.
Click to expand...
You know what would have kept either side from having these issues? A hearing to determine what evidence can and can't be introduced at trial. I know, novel idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 2,406 (members: 157, guests: 2,249)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
2,249
Total visitors
2,406
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,305
Messages
18,002,477
Members
229,363
Latest member
Essmat Arafa
Back
Top