Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #191

[justtrish]

Exactly. Witness sightings are not be all end all, and IMO they shouldn't be. But they are evidence, and the fact that they naturally vary, as one would expect (I would challenge everyone to try to describe perfectly the single 'maybe slightly weird' dude you see in a hike) they will be taken into consideration by the jury alongside all other admisable pieces of evidence.

I'd say it's also evidence of a single man walking from the direction of the girls at freedom bridge (time verified by a photo one of them took) and then walking to the MHB where he was seen by BB before she turned and walked back to her car and then passed Abby and Libby. BB arriving, Abby and Libby arriving, and BB leaving are all time verified also. So it's very very likely that the group of girls near Freedom bridge saw BG, then BB saw BG, then Abby and Libby encountered BG at almost the exact time BB is time verified leaving in her car. We know RA says he saw the girls near Freedom Bridge, then he says he was on the MHB looking at fish. He says he didn't see Abby and Libby.. nobody sees this same man on the trail after Abby and Libby disappear. So if RA isn't BG, then why didn't anyone else see him after BB saw him? Why didn't he see Abby and Libby as he was leaving? Why didn't RA see the actual BG if he isn't the BG?

 

[TTF14]

Why didn't RA see the actual BG if he isn't the BG?

That is a great question. With all of the different descriptions the minors gave, it certainly seems like there were other men out there that day besides RA. Did RA see the other men? If not, I wonder why.

IMO MOO

 

[grannygates]

If I was on a jury and they presented me with a group of 4, whittled down to 3, I would be wondering if there was an actual group of 3 that was on the trails between 12-1:30 when the accused said they were on the trails. That would also help confirm or deny the timing as well. MOO

 

[SouthEnd]

I'd say it's also evidence of a single man walking from the direction of the girls at freedom bridge (time verified by a photo one of them took) and then walking to the MHB where he was seen by BB before she turned and walked back to her car and then passed Abby and Libby. BB arriving, Abby and Libby arriving, and BB leaving are all time verified also. So it's very very likely that the group of girls near Freedom bridge saw BG, then BB saw BG, then Abby and Libby encountered BG at almost the exact time BB is time verified leaving in her car. We know RA says he saw the girls near Freedom Bridge, then he says he was on the MHB looking at fish. He says he didn't see Abby and Libby.. nobody sees this same man on the trail after Abby and Libby disappear. So if RA isn't BG, then why didn't anyone else see him after BB saw him? Why didn't he see Abby and Libby as he was leaving? Why didn't RA see the actual BG if he isn't the BG?

Logically this all makes sense to me. In the greater balance of things, this is points for the prosecution, no questions asked. Currently, the DT would need BB to somehow say on stand that the BG actually looked like BH in order to turn this ship around - that's why I would personally go with a much difference defence strategy, but that's a different matter altogether.

The only reason I can't put too much credit on eyewitness testimony, and I would personally need corroborating evidence to BARD someone, is because of a) Leo Schofield (‘Bone Valley’s’ Leo Schofield released from a Florida prison) - humans are not the most reliable witnesses. That man was convicted and served decades based on damning eyewitness testimony that ended up being... hot air. b) Personal experience. I got mugged and when the LE was asking me I actually blurted out that the person looked like (insert name), a childhood friend of mine. Did they? I have no freaking clue. I frankly couldn't recall their face, but something about their forearm led my brain to make that connection. So human brains? Fickle, IMO

 

[statt#1]

Wait what? If RA isn't BG, then, why wouldn't RA, in order to save himself from a potential guilty verdict, come forward and be a witness for the prosecution? Sounds ludicrous to me, but hey, if RA's NOT BG, then he surely must have seen the real BG when he was at the trails and on the bridge that day? (unless of course, the real BG hid from RA, but didn't hide from the other witnesses?) I mean, I'm trying to sort out the argument that RA is NOT BG, and if he's NOT BG then all the witnesses saw somebody else?

And even though it sounds convoluted to me, all the witnesses that claim to have seen RA, the girls, the lady at the end of the bridge, well, then they didn't see RA, they saw someone else, and that someone else is yet unidentified, however, RA seemingly didn't see someone else, or A&L, as he hasn't testified to such, yet admits his presence on the bridge, and admits having seen the girls who were witnesses?

This whole business is confusing me

 

[SouthEnd]

Wait what? If RA isn't BG, then, why wouldn't RA, in order to save himself from a potential guilty verdict, come forward and be a witness for the prosecution? Sounds ludicrous to me, but hey, if RA's NOT BG, then he surely must have seen the real BG when he was at the trails and on the bridge that day? (unless of course, the real BG hid from RA, but didn't hide from the other witnesses?) I mean, I'm trying to sort out the argument that RA is NOT BG, and if he's NOT BG then all the witnesses saw somebody else?

And even though it sounds convoluted to me, all the witnesses that claim to have seen RA, the girls, the lady at the end of the bridge, well, then they didn't see RA, they saw someone else, and that someone else is yet unidentified, however, RA seemingly didn't see someone else, or A&L, as he hasn't testified to such, yet admits his presence on the bridge, and admits having seen the girls who were witnesses?

This whole business is confusing me

You've nailed it. There's only two paths to RA not being BG:
1) RA was never on that bridge or at least he wasn't at the bridge after 1:30. He is the victim of the unluckiest mistake of all time, DD writing the times wrong in order to ? ? Implicate him, but also never following the lead? And additionally having no evidence that has been put forward of him doing anything after 1:30 on the 13th. IMO it's unlikely. Not beyond the realm of possibilities but unlikely and possibly disprovable come trial.


2) RA was at the area between 1:30 and 3:30. However some of the sightings were of someone else. For this to be possible RA must have missed seeing both the male and the girls. Also the unknown male must have slipped through the cracks and not have had a phone on him otherwise he would be on the radar of the LE and the evidence would have been turned over to the DT. What are the chances of two men being in that area that went unidentified for so long? (my understanding is that the LE only managed to verify the presence of maybe 10 ppl there between 1:30 and 3:30) The chances get lower because there was almost immediate mobilisation of ppl searching and LE.


Now again I'm not saying it is 10000% impossible. That's why my defence strategy would be to prove it is possible for an unknown to slip in and out unnoticed. I'm only saying it is very unlikely that RA is not BG with the current data, IMO

 

[photographer4]

It wouldn’t have been possible to do a police lineup for the witnesses in 2017. There was no suspect.

There would have been a chance to do one just as they arrested him though - or right before hand, if they had a photo of him? I am asking, not sure how that is supposed to work

 

[photographer4]

Even if he’s only some sort of guilty in this case, if convicted, he will be sentenced as completely guilty.

It’s like pregnancy - there’s no ‘sort of’.
You are, or you aren’t.

jmo

As he should be. Any amount of guilt in this matter should earn him life without parole.

 

[photographer4]

If I was the Prosecution/State, I would be presenting evidence of phones, cars, security cameras, to help the jury reach the conclusion that the only male present there was RA.
I would be asking the witnesses specifically if RA (hopefully photos of him back in the day) was definitely NOT the person they saw.

If I was the Defence, I would be trying to find a local to testify that there is x, y, z ways of getting to the bridge without passing by any security cameras, and without needing GPS/a phone that would be picked up. (Not present alt suspects, because then it would be very easy to just ask the witnesses, did this alt suspect look anything like the person you saw? No? Ok then. -> Jury shakes head)

All MO

What if witness says, why yes actually, they did? Then what?

 

[SouthEnd]

What if witness says, why yes actually, they did? Then what?

I would be surprised if the LE didn't present BH's photos to the witnesses in preparation for the trial, and if they positively identified him, they will have shared the info with the DT otherwise Brady violation.

If not, this will be a moment for everyone to remember!! (still, if BH's alibi holds on other fronts, it will perhaps not sway the jury, that's why I think eyewitness testimony is of lower evidentiary value in general)

All MOO

 

[TTF14]

I would be surprised if the LE didn't present BH's photos to the witnesses in preparation for the trial, and if they positively identified him, they will have shared the info with the DT otherwise Brady violation.

If not, this will be a moment for everyone to remember!! (still, if BH's alibi holds on other fronts, it will perhaps not sway the jury, that's why I think eyewitness testimony is of lower evidentiary value in general)

All MOO

I would bet my entire life savings that they did not do that. Just my opinion.

IMO MOO

 

[SouthEnd]

I would bet my entire life savings that they did not do that. Just my opinion.

IMO MOO

Ooof if the State is not prepared to counter the one defence strategy the DT has been telegraphing for a year (!) now, then they are just handing them the case, I don't even know what to say. Again, I believe in human incompetence but oof. That would be a grotesque oversight. IMO

 

[grannygates]

Would the defense be allowed to depose the eyewitnesses from the PCA? Im wondering mostly about the YBG and OBG witnesses.

 

[SouthEnd]

Would the defense be allowed to depose the eyewitnesses from the PCA? Im wondering mostly about the YBG and OBG witnesses.

IMO if the State is going to use their testimony they will bring them on the stand, and the DT will be allowed to question them.

 

[Arkay]

I think it will be perceived positively when the recollect of the young people who saw the killer varies somewhat because it’s proof they haven’t colluded. If one thought she saw someone younger with poffy hair that does not discount the statements of the others. It’s quite normal for a group people to remember vastly differently, especially when at the time they had no way of knowing their recall would later become significant. MOO

Exactly. Witness sightings are not be all end all, and IMO they shouldn't be. But they are evidence, and the fact that they naturally vary, as one would expect (I would challenge everyone to try to describe perfectly the single 'maybe slightly weird' dude you see in a hike) they will be taken into consideration by the jury alongside all other admisable pieces of evidence.

Oh, definitely agree.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, particularly before the fact…before the murders are known, and the eyewitnesses had no particular reason at the time to studiously observe this random man on the bridge.

That’s why I’ve never been much disturbed by the two different sketches. While sketches may or may not be helpful, the VIDEO is undeniable.

Does the video say “hello, my name is RA and I’m on the way to kill those two girls I just saw?” No, it doesn’t. It does, however, provide the framework for what the BG looks like, the one who either uttered (as I believe) or overhead someone right next to him, as the voice is audible, says “G, DTH.”

I’ve posted before, and so have thousands of other posts, that while the video cannot definitively identify RA as BG, it does provide valuable evidence as to BG’s physical appearance and apparel.

That evidence, coinciding with RA’s confirmation that he was on the bridge at the approximate time as the girls, IMO makes it much more likely that RA=BG=murderer.

I also agree and posted way back yonder that if BG is an innocent passerby, but clearly was in audio range of a man whose voice we hear RIGHT THERE ordering the girls down the bridge, then an innocent BG should’ve and would’ve raced to tell LE what he’d heard once the murders were discovered. But that didn’t happen…so…

That, plus my very strong feeling that an innocent man would not try to prohibit evidence being gathered from his home, lead me to this conclusion.

All JMO

 

[MiniMoo]

Oh, definitely agree.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, particularly before the fact…before the murders are known, and the eyewitnesses had no particular reason at the time to studiously observe this random man on the bridge.

That’s why I’ve never been much disturbed by the two different sketches. While sketches may or may not be helpful, the VIDEO is undeniable.

Does the video say “hello, my name is RA and I’m on the way to kill those two girls I just saw?” No, it doesn’t. It does, however, provide the framework for what the BG looks like, the one who either uttered (as I believe) or overhead someone right next to him, as the voice is audible, says “G, DTH.”

I’ve posted before, and so have thousands of other posts, that while the video cannot definitively identify RA as BG, it does provide valuable evidence as to BG’s physical appearance and apparel.

That evidence, coinciding with RA’s confirmation that he was on the bridge at the approximate time as the girls, IMO makes it much more likely that RA=BG=murderer.

That, plus my very strong feeling that an innocent man would not try to prohibit evidence being gathered from his home, lead me to this conclusion.

All JMO

Neither of those sketches are a strong likeliness - you could have both images surrounding him and it still wouldn't be obvious.

There is no way I would have gone in to CVS and pointed him out with either drawing.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

Neither of those sketches are a strong likeliness - you could have both images surrounding him and it still wouldn't be obvious.

There is no way I would have gone in to CVS and pointed him out with either drawing.

JMO

Agree. I also think the "image known as BG" looks nothing like RA (or an actual human being at all). IMO MOO

 

[WildHuncher]

That is a great question. With all of the different descriptions the minors gave, it certainly seems like there were other men out there that day besides RA. Did RA see the other men? If not, I wonder why.

IMO MOO

Did anybody see more than one man? Big leap there.

 

[SouthEnd]

Neither of those sketches are a strong likeliness - you could have both images surrounding him and it still wouldn't be obvious.

There is no way I would have gone in to CVS and pointed him out with either drawing.

JMO

Hand drawn police sketches are *notoriously* inaccurate. Various sources give you different percentages of accuracy but omg. It is bad, as low as less than 10% of sketches are identifiable as the person they were trying to depict. The psychology of police sketches — and why they're usually wrong

I have participated in a workshop where we got to try out the computer generated composites a few years back and actually, the majority of the group of non-trained participants were able to produce some amazingly similar composites. A shame it is not standard practice in the US yet (as far as I know).

Anyone remember the golden state killer sketches? Exactly. I wouldn't put too much weight on how much they match the person. At least one of them reasonably close to BG. IMO.

 

[TTF14]

Did anybody see more than one man? Big leap there.

I think it’s a bigger leap to assume that all of the differing descriptions were of the same man. IMO MOO

ETA: That’s just how I would feel and think as a juror.