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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
grannygates said:
Pg 132 of the franks :

In this report, [mod snip] Dan wrote the
following: “I checked my audio recordings and cannot find one for him. I will keep looking because I am sure I recorded every interaction I had related to my assigned leads”

Also can be confirmed through the exhibit page item 124
pdfhost.io

Exhibits list.pdf.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - Exhibits list.pdf.pdf - Sarah Easter
pdfhost.io
Click to expand...
Oh, the FMs has been proven, in my mind, to not be accurate in many things it's stated. Since it's so unreliable, in my mind, I choose not to consider it suitable to digest anymore. That's all just my opinion
 
grannygates said:
The witnesses saw BG. No one ID’d RA.

There is no audio/video to support DDs note, so it cannot be proven and is not considered a fact. Therefore, we would default to the only recorded proof of RA actually stating what time he left - the video recorded statement saying 1:30pm. The state holds the burden to prove their facts to be true.

This is why audio/video recording statements is so important.

MOO
Click to expand...
Actually, the default would then have to be believing that a Conservation Officer intentionally and purposefully lied and recorded time details etc erroneously into his notebook back in the immediate aftermath of the crime in 2017 when randomly approached by RA in a grocery store parking lot. Thus setting up RA to take the fall way back in 2017 - the fall .... that would only years later would be pulled off the shelf, have the dust blown off the notebook ...

Thankfully, we actually have other evidence and witness' to back up RAs original statement as given to the CO in the immediate aftermath of the crime:

- RA indicated clothing he was wearing
- RA indicated he was there from approx 1330 to 1530
- RA states he was on bridge platform 'watching fish' and was watching 'stock ticker' on his phone
- RA indicates where he had backed in and parked (backed up by footage of similar car passing the Harvester Store on video) and also backed up by
- Three juvenile female witness' that RA admits encountering on the trail give generalized statements of a man they passed by inclusive of clothing (their timing of this can be tracked to verifiable based upon the bench photo they took that day) coming from the direction he stated he came from at the time he originally stated he arrived there;
- a Fourth adult female witness who placed BG, dressed in similar clothing that RA said he was dressed in, on the bridge platform at the timing RA would originally have been on that platform based on his original statement (important note: RA did not know he was seen by this eye witness);
- Fourth female eye witness then turns to leave and encounters Abby and Libby going down the trail towards the bridge where the man dressed in similar clothing to RAs-admitted clothing is/was standing on the bridge (their arrival timing is also verifiable by Harvester Store video);
- Fourth female witness departs the MHB trail and leaves the scene; her departure timing (well after 1330hrs) also being witnessd and verifiable by the Harveter Store video;
- Abby & Libby cross the bridge and have occasion to record a video of a man fast approaching them from behind on the MHB. The timing will be verifiable by video data. Remarkably, the man in the video is wearing the same type of clothing described by the fourth female eye witness and by RA himself.

Only later, after it is learned that the girls recorded the very man who ordered them DTH and to their deaths, and that a female eye witness observed BG on the bridge and on the very platform RA placed himself on wearing the same type of clothing at the same time in his original statement ... does RAs story suddenly change. Ooops.

I'll just say that IMO, the state will be able to show great motivation as to why RA needed to change his story from the original. And, IMO they dont need to "prove" that the CO "didn't lie" at all to "frame up RA" because that is what is being insinuated. They only need to show the reasons why RA needed to modify his own original statement recorded into the notebook of the CO way back in the immediate aftermath of the 2017 murders.

The jury will then get to "weigh" the odds of each scenario:
1) CO lied in 2017 to intentionally set up RA years later despite everything else that collaborates the original timings in the original statement; or
2) That it is RA who lied in attempts to cover his butt and to mitigate the witness' and girls' recording he found about after he had given that original statement.
 
grannygates said:
we’ve been through this a thousand times but the witness testimony was from a group of four girls and RA saw a group of three. The witness saw a twenty year old with brown poofy hair, RA is not that. None of these witness statements match RAs. Was there a group of three girls present from noon-1:30pm? IMO sounds like there could be.
...
Click to expand...
RSBM,

You keep stating this, but that's not the way I read the PCA.

I see three juvenile female witnesses. I see one adult female witness. That makes four female eye witnesses to BG.

No where does the PCA state that all four female eyewitnesses were together. It talks about a group of three of them seeing him ... and the one single female seeing him. So four female eye witnesses who saw him.

 
photographer4 said:
Sure, not total isolation given he had some access to the world beyond his cell. But how long would you be mentally ok with this set up? Also, my issue with the “trustees” as they’re called is that I do not believe they’re trustworthy whatsoever. They’re not in prison for being model citizens imo. While he could call his family and friends - how many of them were / are still willing to take his calls? And after a short while, what would he have in common with them anymore anyhow? What would they even talk about? Their lives outside the prison of course would be very different to his inside the prison, and very hard to relate to anymore. They may also increase feelings of frustration and anger, depression etc. Honestly, if you were in his position, living in the conditions he has been living in, for as long as he has been, guilty or not, how long would you be ok for do you reckon? I’d probably not last a day or two…
Click to expand...
What are you expecting for someone charged with a double murder of middle schoolers? It's not going to be A Hilton Hotel. He is under round the clock protection for his own safety. He has his own tablet to stay in touch with family and friends. If they don't take his calls, that's not the prison's fault.

He had depression for years before his arrest. And he was hospitalised for that depression before his arrest. So I don't think you can blame it all on his incarceration. I think it is more about guilt and regret, than iy is from isolation. IMO
 
Vern said:
LEs often record their interviews into their notebooks. That's been the historical practice.

Back in 2017, body cams, etc were not de rigeur and, I would think, that COs themselves are/were lower on the list to be outfitted with them.
Click to expand...

those of us who came up as recently as the 90s are no doubt suprised to learn file notes are not great contemporaneous evidence?

it was drummed in to me to take copious file notes as a so called ‘letter to the judge’

anything could end up admissible!

MOO
 
Last edited:
Vern said:
Actually, the default would then have to be believing that a Conservation Officer intentionally and purposefully lied and recorded time details etc erroneously into his notebook back in the immediate aftermath of the crime in 2017 when randomly approached by RA in a grocery store parking lot. Thus setting up RA to take the fall way back in 2017 - the fall .... that would only years later would be pulled off the shelf, have the dust blown off the notebook ...

Thankfully, we actually have other evidence and witness' to back up RAs original statement as given to the CO in the immediate aftermath of the crime:

- RA indicated clothing he was wearing
- RA indicated he was there from approx 1330 to 1530
- RA states he was on bridge platform 'watching fish' and was watching 'stock ticker' on his phone
- RA indicates where he had backed in and parked (backed up by footage of similar car passing the Harvester Store on video) and also backed up by
- Three juvenile female witness' that RA admits encountering on the trail give generalized statements of a man they passed by inclusive of clothing (their timing of this can be tracked to verifiable based upon the bench photo they took that day) coming from the direction he stated he came from at the time he originally stated he arrived there;
- a Fourth adult female witness who placed BG, dressed in similar clothing that RA said he was dressed in, on the bridge platform at the timing RA would originally have been on that platform based on his original statement (important note: RA did not know he was seen by this eye witness);
- Fourth female eye witness then turns to leave and encounters Abby and Libby going down the trail towards the bridge where the man dressed in similar clothing to RAs-admitted clothing is/was standing on the bridge (their arrival timing is also verifiable by Harvester Store video);
- Fourth female witness departs the MHB trail and leaves the scene; her departure timing (well after 1330hrs) also being witnessd and verifiable by the Harveter Store video;
- Abby & Libby cross the bridge and have occasion to record a video of a man fast approaching them from behind on the MHB. The timing will be verifiable by video data. Remarkably, the man in the video is wearing the same type of clothing described by the fourth female eye witness and by RA himself.

Only later, after it is learned that the girls recorded the very man who ordered them DTH and to their deaths, and that a female eye witness observed BG on the bridge and on the very platform RA placed himself on wearing the same type of clothing at the same time in his original statement ... does RAs story suddenly change. Ooops.

I'll just say that IMO, the state will be able to show great motivation as to why RA needed to change his story from the original. And, IMO they dont need to "prove" that the CO "didn't lie" at all to "frame up RA" because that is what is being insinuated. They only need to show the reasons why RA needed to modify his own original statement recorded into the notebook of the CO way back in the immediate aftermath of the 2017 murders.

The jury will then get to "weigh" the odds of each scenario:
1) CO lied in 2017 to intentionally set up RA years later despite everything else that collaborates the original timings in the original statement; or
2) That it is RA who lied in attempts to cover his butt and to mitigate the witness' and girls' recording he found about after he had given that original statement.
Click to expand...
The CO accidentally wrote RAs last name as Whiteman, so his report already has known errors.

This LE has a very long track record with losing/erasing videos of interviews. Due to some type of error, video interviews from the entire first 5 days after the murders were completely erased and then the following 70 days is apparently only video and no audio records. They made no record of what interviews they did, no log book, no way of knowing what is missing.

With this track record of missing audio/video, poor evidence organization and errors in reports, it can easily be believed that more unintentional errors can and did occur.

It doesn’t have to be a frame job or intentional. It can just be a mistake. This case is full of them. MOO


pdfhost.io

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
 
Vern said:
RSBM,

You keep stating this, but that's not the way I read the PCA.

I see three juvenile female witnesses. I see one adult female witness. That makes four female eye witnesses to BG.

No where does the PCA state that all four female eyewitnesses were together. It talks about a group of three of them seeing him ... and the one single female seeing him. So four female eye witnesses who saw him.

Click to expand...
The suggestion that is typically offered is that the fourth girl was a minor (being 7, I beleive) so that’s why she wasn’t counted in the group of 3 in the PCA.

The YBG witness isn’t typically grouped with the 3 younger girls.

pdfhost.io

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
 
grannygates said:
The CO accidentally wrote RAs last name as Whiteman, so his report already has known errors.

This LE has a very long track record with losing/erasing videos of interviews. Due to some type of error, video interviews from the entire first 5 days after the murders were completely erased and then the following 70 days is apparently only video and no audio records. They made no record of what interviews they did, no log book, no way of knowing what is missing.

With this track record of missing audio/video, poor evidence organization and errors in reports, it can easily be believed that more unintentional errors can and did occur.

It doesn’t have to be a frame job or intentional. It can just be a mistake. This case is full of them. MOO


pdfhost.io

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
Click to expand...
Feel like a string of Emoji's apply here.
 
The importance of body cams/video or audio documentation specifically for CCSO was discussed at the sheriffs debate when talking about the many lawsuits filed against the sheriffs department every year.

Because they didn’t have body cameras, they weren’t able to prove when allegations against them were false, so they were having to pay out far more lawsuits than they would otherwise be obligated to.

The suggestion to get bodycams was framed that the bodycams help would pay for themselves by documenting this proof for the court to any frivolous suits.

 
grannygates said:
The CO accidentally wrote RAs last name as Whiteman, so his report already has known errors.

This LE has a very long track record with losing/erasing videos of interviews. Due to some type of error, video interviews from the entire first 5 days after the murders were completely erased and then the following 70 days is apparently only video and no audio records. They made no record of what interviews they did, no log book, no way of knowing what is missing.

With this track record of missing audio/video, poor evidence organization and errors in reports, it can easily be believed that more unintentional errors can and did occur.

It doesn’t have to be a frame job or intentional. It can just be a mistake. This case is full of them. MOO


pdfhost.io

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
Click to expand...
Are we certain that RA didn't state his name/addy in such a way as to lead to that confusion?

Do you have a link to where it states that it was the CO who got it wrong and not RA gave it wrong in order to mislead, but be able to claim that he didn't?
 
grannygates said:
The suggestion that is typically offered is that the fourth girl was a minor (being 7, I beleive) so that’s why she wasn’t counted in the group of 3 in the PCA.

The YBG witness isn’t typically grouped with the 3 younger girls.

pdfhost.io

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
Click to expand...
The adult witness is stated as the fourth eye witness in the PCA that I linked.

I'll pass on the already debunked Franks.
 
Vern said:
Are we certain that RA didn't state his name/addy in such a way as to lead to that confusion?

Do you have a link to where it states that it was the CO who got it wrong and not RA gave it wrong in order to mislead, but be able to claim that he didn't?
Click to expand...
I don’t think any document will tell you that level of detail, but the franks speaks to the issues surrounding the PCA and DD tip

pdfhost.io

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
 
Vern said:
The adult witness is stated as the fourth eye witness in the PCA that I linked.

I'll pass on the already debunked Franks.
Click to expand...
Do you know of a specific item in the franks that has been proven to be debunked, incorrect or false ?
 
grannygates said:
I don’t think any document will tell you that level of detail, but the franks speaks to the issues surrounding the PCA and DD tip

pdfhost.io

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
Click to expand...
The Franks has, quite frankly, been debunked by the D-Team's own witness' who tesitifed during the past week.

The PCA talks about a group of 4 eye witnesses. Three Juvenile Girls in a group and one adult female quite seperate from the group of three. I won't link it again as you re responding to my original post which linked it.

If anything, the Franks was attempting to take the details from the PCA where the prosecution details a group of 4 female eye witnesses (3 in a group ad one singularily) and lump them into a single group sighting and ergo not the group that RA passed. It's bunk and it's misleading and it is not what is set out in the PCA IMO.
 
grannygates said:
Do you know of a specific item in the franks that has been proven to be debunked, incorrect or false ?
Click to expand...
Antlers,
Ritualisitic sacrifice;
That group of eye witnesses (4 compared to 3);
The hanging;
No blood at the scene;
That the girls were taken from the area and returned;
Their own Defence "witnesses" saying their comments and statements were taken out of context by the Defence;
etc etc etc
 
Vern said:
The Franks has, quite frankly, been debunked by the D-Team's own witness' who tesitifed during the past week.

The PCA talks about a group of 4 eye witnesses. Three Juvenile Girls in a group and one adult female quite seperate from the group of three. I won't link it again as you re responding to my original post which linked it.

If anything, the Franks was attempting to take the details from the PCA where the prosecution details a group of 4 female eye witnesses (3 in a group ad one singularily) and lump them into a single group sighting and ergo not the group that RA passed. It's bunk and it's misleading and it is not what is set out in the PCA IMO.
Click to expand...
What information specifically was debunked from the Franks? Who said in their testimony that the information they provided was false ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 224 more.
Total: 3,900 (members: 225, guests: 3,675)

Online statistics

Members online
225
Guests online
3,675
Total visitors
3,900
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,477
Messages
18,172,799
Members
232,617
Latest member
Ramsie101
Back
Top