GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #216

[mrjitty]

To add….

IMO, the P simply built a better story, in order, which was easier to understand. The D just came in with guns blazing but they were spinning in circles, shooting wildly & mostly missing their intended targets. I saw some flashes of good ideas here & there, but the complete picture just wasn’t there at all. They just didn’t seem to be organized & I feel that made their story more difficult to follow.

ETA first line, clarity

MOO

Yes KG touched on this yesterday in the prosecutors podcast i posted

In his view, by the end of the trial the defence had largely moved away from the idea the girls were taken by car to a second location - or at least were not stressing that idea - presumably because it can't be reconciled with headphone theory

Headphone theory seems to invalidate their own theory they wanted in at trial - i don't get it personally.

 

[Jw192]

I’m not so sure the TC community became anything, at least not the OG ones. I have a strong suspicion it was more like an infiltration. Those with an agenda became members & at every opportunity pushed their agenda(s), much like their idols, the defense team. They constantly tried to peck away at the judge & even the jury with little quips here & there. It just got to the point, for me at least, that it was predictable, worn out & just pathetic. They were more talented than that.

MOO

I agree. I fear that it's only going to get worse too, not only with sentencing but with the next trial 'they" slither on to solely for the kaching.

Something needs to be done to regulate these people. Not sure what or how, but something.

 

[mrjitty]

Excellent post!! Just wanted to repeat your words -

“Since when did the true crime community become so naive, gullible, and downright disrespectful to not only the law but the victims of murder?! Since when did true crime become entertainment and a conspiracy?!”

And since when did a disgusting, pathetic, violent creature named Richard Allen deserve to become a martyr? To a certain segment it’s as if they’ve sunk so low that there’s no factual basis between inexcusable and explainable.

JMO

I certainly agree with fighting for constitutional rights, but it seems strange to haul water for a child killer by insisting he is innocent when you don't know that at all.

I think the fairness element is by far ABs strongest argument. There is evidence AB was in a state of psychosis, yet the Judge found the D misrepresented his conditions at the safe keeping hearing. That's a good argument! But to go from there to championing his innocence is just odd to me. Yet we've seen that all along e.g when the fundraiser originally said he was factually innocent instead of maintains his innocence. Very very odd and troubling.

 

[INfisherman]

Yes KG touched on this yesterday in the prosecutors podcast i posted

In his view, by the end of the trial the defence had largely moved away from the idea the girls were taken by car to a second location - or at least were not stressing that idea - presumably because it can't be reconciled with headphone theory

Headphone theory seems to invalidate their own theory they wanted in at trial - i don't get it personally.

Ironic - I had no clue. Haven’t watched or listened to any casts since early in the trial & those were my first & last just due to the ease of influence they might have. Just a personal decision & nothing directed towards any specific content creators including the one you mention.

The D had more talent than they used in trial. I’m not sure why the push was so strong to go down the paths they did, not just in the courtroom, but outside as well. Public opinion doesn’t win a sequestered jury. I don’t know bud - the whole approach & involvement of outsiders is just bizarre. Maybe it’s nothing more than a cash grab, an evolution of the ambulance chasers of old.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

I agree. I fear that it's only going to get worse too, not only with sentencing but with the next trial 'they" slither on to solely for the kaching.

Something needs to be done to regulate these people. Not sure what or how, but something.

It matters with whom people choose to associate. If you allow a toe in the door, crowds soon follow.

MOO

 

[MrsWatson]

I agree that the SM creators, lawyers or not, need some perimeters. I can easily think of cases where SM has been used in absolutely the wrong way: Summer Wells, the Idaho case, Gabby Petito, the Sebastian Rogers case right now has a YouTuber in court over her behavior, another content creator was sued successfully for slander or libel (I get those confused).

I don't think just slapping a label on it saying it's for entertainment purposes only is going to cut it anymore. These people do real life damage, including this case.

One of the reasons I appreciate WS is that it's a platform that is based on facts.

 

[Arkay]

I have a theory that the defence damaged their own case with a poorly thought out, OTT trial strategy that prioritised BOOM motions for public consumption over getting useful evidence admitted at trial.

It is necessary to piece together a bit of background to explain this

In a recent interview with The Prosecutors, KG explained that the defence had been seeking to tap into a conspiracy theory involving the witness P. (link at approx 30 mins). The D called P as a witness at trial. P was on the Bridge with friends after the victims that day and saw and heard nothing.

However according to KG, there existed conspiracies against the person back in the early days of this case. According to MS's discord leaks relating to the Due Process gang, the D investigator tried to work with youtubers to develop this conspiracy using geofence evidence from the discovery which he allegedly showed to the youtubers.

Fast forward to 13 March 2004 and the remarkable "France III - The Geofence" gets filed with this claim

View attachment 544616
Now according to MS, para 9(c) is particularly disturbing as the D was obviously well aware these kids were not the killers. The prosecutor reacted strongly with the result beng that the geofence map got excluded from the case. Indeed as far as I am aware, at the 3 day hearing the D did not even bring a cellular / geofence expert to make their case for inclusion.

So the net result was that a the map which could have been a useful moment at trial for them got excluded because they made wild claims that they couldn't back up at the pre-trial hearing.

Now, I am not a huge fan of the Judge's skimpy ruling on Geofence but I do believe @m00c0w is correct that far from excluding all geofence/warrant/cast/phone evidence as repeatedly claimed by the Bob Motta, Lawyer Lee etc - the Judge actually just said what the law is anyway - the evidence could only come in if relevant and not misleading. And to my knowledge the D never tried to put any of that kind of evidence on the record at trial.

This feels like a huge blunder to me. They could have saved this to simply put this exhibit to the witness at trial, (state would object) or even call their own phone expert.

Instead they tried to do a back door SODDI against a witness who never was the killer based on conspiracies.

Very poor work IMO.

MOO

Trial by YouTube.
What a sham.

IMO

 

[INfisherman]

Trial by YouTube.
What a sham.

IMO

100% <fist bump>

MOO

 

[Gigiky]

I agree that the SM creators, lawyers or not, need some perimeters. I can easily think of cases where SM has been used in absolutely the wrong way: Summer Wells, the Idaho case, Gabby Petito, the Sebastian Rogers case right now has a YouTuber in court over her behavior, another content creator was sued successfully for slander or libel (I get those confused).

I don't think just slapping a label on it saying it's for entertainment purposes only is going to cut it anymore. These people do real life damage, including this case.

One of the reasons I appreciate WS is that it's a platform that is based on facts.

Oh I thought it was based on opinion. JMO

 

[m00c0w]

This doesn't surprise many of us here. We have been saying it's wrong for a long time. He was all up in this case and when messages he was a part of became public (due to one participant in the messages bringing the discussions to light) it was VERY clear that he was a mouthpiece for the defense even though there is a gag order. He called the judge a ratchet B and also spoke about the victims family members also. I don't care that he is siding with the defense here and I don't care if he's close with RA or his family. If he's THAT involved then he needs to be part of the gag order.

There is a difference in being a defense attorney that is ensuring your client is represented well and it's another thing to have a win at any and all costs mentality.

He even was ostensibly leaking information about evidence like the “mystery DNA that was never tested” that actually turned about to be KG’s. And that was excused by some because surely he’s not actually that involved with the defense. And even though he’s sitting with the defense as reported by various individuals, that’s probably mischaracterized according to the same prose that were adamant he wasn’t actually affiliated with the defense.

There have been several legal professionals in this case that have set up camp in and changed residency to the ethical gray areas.

On some level, I feel bad for RA because I truly feel he did not get an appropriate defense. He was used for publicity and notoriety and now he will be cast aside. It’s hard to feel too much sympathy, though, because I also feel he’s guilty no matter how much poop he ultimately consumed.

JMO

 

[tlcya]

He even was ostensibly leaking information about evidence like the “mystery DNA that was never tested” that actually turned about to be KG’s. And that was excused by some because surely he’s not actually that involved with the defense. And even though he’s sitting with the defense as reported by various individuals, that’s probably mischaracterized according to the same prose that were adamant he wasn’t actually affiliated with the defense.

There have been several legal professionals in this case that have set up camp in and changed residency to the ethical gray areas.

On some level, I feel bad for RA because I truly feel he did not get an appropriate defense. He was used for publicity and notoriety and now he will be cast aside. It’s hard to feel too much sympathy, though, because I also feel he’s guilty no matter how much poop he ultimately consumed.

JMO

I agree with all you've posted except I highly doubt RA will be cast aside now. There is so much more notoriety left to wring out of him and this case. All those appeals ahead and whatnot doncha know.

 

[bearfossils]

Yes, we've always had some who will disagree with verdicts/laws/the system, going back to the Bundy era, but it's becoming crazy now, imo! Yes, there are miscarriages of justice, no system is perfect, and fortunately those cases are miniscule compared to correct convictions; however, it's at the point now where in every large case/trial, there are people coming screaming INNOCENT regardless of the investigation, evidence, facts, or verdict. It's become a trendy thing to do and is being reinforced by so-called legal professionals who put out a bar so high that nobody would ever be convicted if it were accurate.

TBH, there are always individuals who simply enjoy being contrarians and use high profile cases like this in order to argue incessantly against popular opinion, regardless of what it is. Social media has definitely encouraged people like that because it gives them a forum to play devil’s advocate and an audience. Like you said, worst part of all of that— from strangers on YouTube who think their opinions are truths that need constant airing to retired professionals from the justice system who feel compelled by attention whether it’s good or bad— is that potential jurors and the public at large can develop a warped view of what “reasonable doubt” is and become incredibly cynical about evidence, especially when it’s circumstantial. It’s akin to the CSI effect where laypeople expect a wealth of physical evidence, mostly DNA, and refuse to convict without it, regardless of the rest of the case.

I think a healthy majority of people who serve as jurors are intelligent enough to recognize hucksters like that when they see them, and are able to fairly judge a case based on its merits, but all it takes is one stubborn person to derail the outcome of a trial.

 

[Trebor5591]

Once he is sentenced and officially becomes an inmate and prisoner of the Indiana Department of Corrections, RA is going to be begging for the pre-conviction levels of protection and months of solitary confinement his defense team thought were so horrible. Prison inmates have a social hierarchy. And men who have been convicted of the sexual assault and murder of children are the lowest of low.

Although Allen was convicted of murder, not SA. I imagine Allen will be placed into protective custody when he starts serving his sentence. JMO

 

[Arkay]

I’m not on any social media and therefore am spared from seeing comments, whether supportive or vitriolic.

My guess is that people shouting “we are all Richard Allen” are people who think an innocent man has been railroaded by LE and the justice system, and that it could happen to any of us. Really just a guess.

But IMO it is completely off the wall that this man has fans.

Back in the O.J Simpson days, I could understand it a bit. He was O.J! He ALREADY had millions of fans. It was inconceivable to those people that the beloved football player and actor could’ve killed his wife and Ron Goldman.

But Richard Allen? Fans? People threatening the victims’ families out of misguided affection for this nobody?

Even his defense couldn’t defend him. IMO whatever is going on in the comment sections of social media must be deplorable.

I shudder to imagine what would have been if social media existed in O.J.s day. In fact I think that social media, plus Judge Ito presiding over a circus, played into Judge Gull’s decision to ban live coverage even though she’d favored it in the past. This trial was famous, so maybe a different mindset for her.

JMO

 

[Vaderman]

My internet went out yesterday at the absolute worst time yesterday, at about 1:30 yesterday afternoon. Did I miss anything?

 

[Jw192]

Oh I thought it was based on opinion. JMO

We are free to form our own opinions here obviously but it's encouraged to only follow MSM where it's likely to be more factual and from the source. Like we can all hop on over to FB and read all kinds of rumours about any case, and we can choose to believe them if we want... We can't however bring them over to here and spread them.

I'm not sure how WS vet their approved sources for links on here and there are some I massively disagree with after this trial (Defense Diaries and BM for example) but overall it's generally MSM journo links, and MSM journos have way more regulations and rules to abide by than some super chat grabbing, biased motive driven YouTuber, social media grifter or old Debbie from FB who's aunties cats vet told her binman something so that must be true.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

My internet went out yesterday at the absolute worst time yesterday, at about 1:30 yesterday afternoon. Did I miss anything?

Not that I’m aware. Jury is still stuck on the poop videos.

MOO

 

[Jade]

Oh I thought it was based on opinion. JMO

From the Websleuths Rules for Posting Thread:

[…]

Websleuths is fact based. Rumors and conspiracy theories are not allowed. Do not link to them and do not mention them.

Information stated as fact must be supported by a link to a mainstream media or law enforcement source (or other WS approved source) to substantiate the fact, otherwise the post will be removed, along with all responses to it. If the information is only your opinion, please make that clear in your post so that opinions do not become rumors attributed to Websleuths as the source.

[…]

Rules - Etiquette & Information

 

[m00c0w]

I agree with all you've posted except I highly doubt RA will be cast aside now. There is so much more notoriety left to wring out of him and this case. All those appeals ahead and whatnot doncha know.

I think BK will be the new target for the YouTubers on this case (not that his “innocence project” is new, I just feel the folks stirring up drama here will now focus more on that particular case). I expect there will be some stuff here and there regarding him with the “influencers”, but AB & BR have gotten their utility out of him. I expect we’ll see a couple of routine motions from them, but they’re about to drop RA like Andy drops Woody in Toy Story.

The appeals will also largely be procedural, not much salacious to draw clicks, get attention, and allow one to pause while staring into the camera for a few seconds while making a goofy face like they’ve just made the most astonishing point ever.

JMO

 

[justtrish]

Yes KG touched on this yesterday in the prosecutors podcast i posted

In his view, by the end of the trial the defence had largely moved away from the idea the girls were taken by car to a second location - or at least were not stressing that idea - presumably because it can't be reconciled with headphone theory

Headphone theory seems to invalidate their own theory they wanted in at trial - i don't get it personally.

I think it really shows that they could not remove RA from the bridge. They never stated RA is not BG. They never asked anyone if they recognized RA as the man they saw. They never suggested that RA was not there from 130-330. So if he was there, then they needed to show BG isn't the killer.

They tried to do this by saying the girls were taken elsewhere in the opening and by stressing this mystery hair. It may be true that LE didn't know exactly who that hair belonged to, but if they knew it was a female relative of Libby and Abby had on a sweatshirt belonging to a female relative of Libby, then ?? It just isn't a good look that the defense implied that this could be the "real killer".. doesn't look good to do this to a victim in this case who was also a minor when her sister was killed. They then decided to suggest someone was listening to something on this phone from 5-10pm while searchers were out there. It is not logical to think a killer sat in the woods with the 2 children that 100ish or so people were actively looking for. A phone that didn't move after 2:32, a phone that was UNDER a victim, a phone that was not unlocked and no attempt to unlock was made after 2:32. It just doesn't make any sense, but neither did a ritual killing. It didn't make any sense because BG was RA and that is the only person that was there. They couldn't make anything else make sense because they never could remove their client from being there also.