GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #218

What would the FBI agent have testified to that would have changed the timeline about the white van? Would it have proved BW did not arrive home at around 2:30pm?

I agree that the information about the white van matters. I have not gotten to listen to the Murder Sheet podcast, but if the juror said the white van timeline and Richard Allen's confession about the white van mattered when it came to the decision, that might help the defense.

That Murder Sheet podcast episode could be very useful evidence. They have a juror on tape saying the white van testimony mattered when it came to reaching a decision.
I see this just meaning RA was still mixing lies with truth in what he told Wala & confessed to & it simply means he was closer to if not already across the creek with the girls. He heard or saw that van. This just means he had 14 minutes less than we initially thought when he was across the creek.

JMO
 
I think I understand what the discussion is regarding the white van. According to Lawyer Lee, last night or sometime today the defense filed a motion to correct errors.

In that motion, there is actually some video evidence from a neighbor's surveillance camera showing BW's white van arrived at the drive(road) leading into his home, but not until nearly 2:45pm. Why is this important? During the trial, Liberty German's phone evidence was that her phone stopped moving at 2:32pm. This new surveillance camera evidence suggests Richard Allen had already taken Abby and Libby across the creek before BW got home. BW's testimony may be correct about arriving home "around" 2:30pm, but it goes against the timing and movement of Liberty German's phone.

The main question is how reliable is the time on the neighbor's surveillance camera?

 
I think I understand what the discussion is regarding the white van. According to Lawyer Lee, last night or sometime today the defense filed a motion to correct errors.

In that motion, there is actually some video evidence from a neighbor's surveillance camera showing BW's white van arrived at the drive(road) leading into his home, but not until nearly 2:45pm. Why is this important? During the trial, Liberty German's phone evidence was that her phone stopped moving at 2:32pm. This new surveillance camera evidence suggests Richard Allen had already taken Abby and Libby across the creek before BW got home. BW's testimony may be correct about arriving home "around" 2:30pm, but it goes against the timing and movement of Liberty German's phone.

The main question is how reliable is the time on the neighbor's surveillance camera?

You & I discussed this when we were pondering the route taken back to the car. I believe we were around the 80-90 minute timeframe RA had across the creek. Take 10-20 minutes away. Could he still manage everything? I say yes he could (60-70 minutes left).

This is more distraction away from RA passing RV & her group of girls, RA acknowledging he saw the same group, RA being dressed like BG, being on the bridge & RA didn’t report seeing any other males while on the bridge. No one saw him leave the trails other than SC & that was on 300N, east of the Mears entrance, down by the graveyard.

MOO

ETA spelling errors
 
Last edited:
So IMO what we have here is the kind of decent work product one ought to have expected from the defence earlier in this case. The problem is that it's so late in the day. My hottakes and highly unsubstantiated opinions:

1. The security camera footage is just a baffling argument to me. You have one job at trial! This is not new evidence and the D obviously could have exhibited it to contradict BW's timeline by 15 mins. Could that have been crucial? Maybe? IDK. But the defence chose not to because reasons, or negligently missed this evidence. So now they claim the P had to lead it when they chose not to? yeah no.

I don't see this working because it simply is not new and the defence made a tactical decision. Maybe they felt that because this actually proved BW was arriving during the murders and not an hour later this was bad for them? Remember their cross strategy was more to show that he was arriving much later - having supposedly checked his ATMs. So if it contradicts anyone's version, it is theirs.

2. Jail house snitch. Maybe they are successful on the normal appeal on the 3rd party question but not on this route IMO. No Court is going to upend the jury verdict on the basis of this.

3. Safekeeper hearing. IMO this is their best argument, and I have no idea the strength of it. The following issues suggest themselves

First - does the state actually need a hearing to make this administrative decision on where he is detained? IDK but I have raised this before ...

Two - the defence always knew he was unrepresented for this hearing, such as it was. So why did they wait until now to do anything about it? Especially why did they not immediately act on this issue in Nov 22? I guess I struggle with the idea that you can wait till after the trial to suddenly realise he had this other attorney who wasn't noticed. Should this not have been raised to attack the confessions pre-trial? Again feels like "you had one job" territory.

Three - Even if this is an issue given the first two points (it seems not great to me), do you get a new trial as your remedy? My guess is not because the jury heard these confessions and ruled on them, and the van suggests they were not fake.

On the other hand, and i think this is not insignificant, i do have an ear for Rozzi's argument that this is a slippy slope. I think it is valid argument that the state might resort to chucking people in solitary to try to get confessions and skimp on procedure. That is dumb and bad. But I do wonder if the D can get a remedy here because there was a defended hearing about the safekeeping at the end of the day, and it was them that didn't file anything for months while he sat in jail confessing.

As Gull ruled on the safekeeping, obviously she won't have much of an ear for this. Would an appeal court give them a new trial? My hunch is no, but you never know!

MOO
 
So IMO what we have here is the kind of decent work product one ought to have expected from the defence earlier in this case. The problem is that it's so late in the day. My hottakes and highly unsubstantiated opinions:

1. The security camera footage is just a baffling argument to me. You have one job at trial! This is not new evidence and the D obviously could have exhibited it to contradict BW's timeline by 15 mins. Could that have been crucial? Maybe? IDK. But the defence chose not to because reasons, or negligently missed this evidence. So now they claim the P had to lead it when they chose not to? yeah no.

I don't see this working because it simply is not new and the defence made a tactical decision. Maybe they felt that because this actually proved BW was arriving during the murders and not an hour later this was bad for them? Remember their cross strategy was more to show that he was arriving much later - having supposedly checked his ATMs. So if it contradicts anyone's version, it is theirs.

2. Jail house snitch. Maybe they are successful on the normal appeal on the 3rd party question but not on this route IMO. No Court is going to upend the jury verdict on the basis of this.

3. Safekeeper hearing. IMO this is their best argument, and I have no idea the strength of it. The following issues suggest themselves

First - does the state actually need a hearing to make this administrative decision on where he is detained? IDK but I have raised this before ...

Two - the defence always knew he was unrepresented for this hearing, such as it was. So why did they wait until now to do anything about it? Especially why did they not immediately act on this issue in Nov 22? I guess I struggle with the idea that you can wait till after the trial to suddenly realise he had this other attorney who wasn't noticed. Should this not have been raised to attack the confessions pre-trial? Again feels like "you had one job" territory.

Three - Even if this is an issue given the first two points (it seems not great to me), do you get a new trial as your remedy? My guess is not because the jury heard these confessions and ruled on them, and the van suggests they were not fake.

On the other hand, and i think this is not insignificant, i do have an ear for Rozzi's argument that this is a slippy slope. I think it is valid argument that the state might resort to chucking people in solitary to try to get confessions and skimp on procedure. That is dumb and bad. But I do wonder if the D can get a remedy here because there was a defended hearing about the safekeeping at the end of the day, and it was them that didn't file anything for months while he sat in jail confessing.

As Gull ruled on the safekeeping, obviously she won't have much of an ear for this. Would an appeal court give them a new trial? My hunch is no, but you never know!

MOO
Why did the attorney KA allegedly hired skip the initial hearing? Why is there nothing in the MTC from him other than an email - nothing sworn & nothing sworn by their client, just KA stating she paid him money? Something smells like another illusion & not just this claim.

The rest seems to go against what they argued at trial. <shrugs>

What kind of legal professional puts evidence on YouTube? Really? "Ah, JG, just refer to what we posted on Facebook & Instagram - it’s all there. Please, don’t forget to hit that like & subscribe while you’re there, please."

Seems to me like they were not prepared for this trial. Most of this could have been mentioned in the trial or beforehand but they’re doing it now?

MOO
 
If i had to guess, I think the reason they did not run the security footage is it confirms the van happened much earlier than what they tried to argue.

In other words, you end up trying to finely slice 15 mins, but the elephant in the room is the van was there, which is what RA said in his confession.

Attorney's make these kinds of decisions in trials.
 
If i had to guess, I think the reason they did not run the security footage is it confirms the van happened much earlier than what they tried to argue.

In other words, you end up trying to finely slice 15 mins, but the elephant in the room is the van was there, which is what RA said in his confession.

Attorney's make these kinds of decisions in trials.
Well, from where I sit, there’s not quite the argument as to where BW was. During trial it seemed as if the defense wanted him running all over Carroll County checking ATMs. Now he’s getting home within 15 minutes (that we know - timestamp off 12hrs exactly or more). Just doesn’t make sense - RA had ~90+ minutes to get across the creek, do the evil & be on 300N by ~4:00. 15-20 minutes doesn’t make a huge difference especially when you consider the state never really nailed down the events during those ~90 minutes. Maybe the defense is inadvertently trying to correct their errors in judgement? LOL

Evidently Rozzi is now steering the ship as the Odinists seem to be AWOL. Must have been proven to be looting & pillaging elsewhere on 13FE17. Bet they come galloping once the appellate court is involved.

MOO
 
Murder Sheet part 2 interview with NM:

Murder Sheet Motion To Correct Errors:

Murder Sheet interviews Carroll County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Stacey Diener, part 1:
 
That’s not exactly how it played out. The defense was trying to improperly impeach Weber’s testimony using another witness rather than using Weber’s own testimony & showing him the evidence which contradicts the testimony. Also, it was revealed that the defense had evidence since August & waited until around 2-3 weeks prior to the start of the trial before they attempted to subpoena agent Pohl to testify.

The Defense had hoped to call FBI Special Agent Pohl to testify. Pohl is currently on assignment in Texas and unable to travel due to a medical issue. The Defense filed a motion for Pohl to testify through Zoom. The testimony would be used to rebut Weber’s previous testimony that he drove straight home, Baldwin said.

“When did you subpoena him,” Gull asked.

The Defense said three to four weeks ago.

“You had evidence in August and issued a subpoena three to four weeks ago?” Gull asked.

McLeland objected to the request, saying if the Defense wanted to impeach Weber, they needed to do it properly through Weber’s testimony, not someone else. He said it was improper impeachment as they did not show Weber the report at the time of his testimony.


“You have to confront him with his prior statement and ask if they didn’t say that,” Gull said, denying the motion.

Baldwin and Rossi play with fire all the time. Being late to file for a witness before a trial is more game.
 
So IMO what we have here is the kind of decent work product one ought to have expected from the defence earlier in this case. The problem is that it's so late in the day. My hottakes and highly unsubstantiated opinions:

1. The security camera footage is just a baffling argument to me. You have one job at trial! This is not new evidence and the D obviously could have exhibited it to contradict BW's timeline by 15 mins. Could that have been crucial? Maybe? IDK. But the defence chose not to because reasons, or negligently missed this evidence. So now they claim the P had to lead it when they chose not to? yeah no.

I don't see this working because it simply is not new and the defence made a tactical decision. Maybe they felt that because this actually proved BW was arriving during the murders and not an hour later this was bad for them? Remember their cross strategy was more to show that he was arriving much later - having supposedly checked his ATMs. So if it contradicts anyone's version, it is theirs.

2. Jail house snitch. Maybe they are successful on the normal appeal on the 3rd party question but not on this route IMO. No Court is going to upend the jury verdict on the basis of this.

3. Safekeeper hearing. IMO this is their best argument, and I have no idea the strength of it. The following issues suggest themselves

First - does the state actually need a hearing to make this administrative decision on where he is detained? IDK but I have raised this before ...

Two - the defence always knew he was unrepresented for this hearing, such as it was. So why did they wait until now to do anything about it? Especially why did they not immediately act on this issue in Nov 22? I guess I struggle with the idea that you can wait till after the trial to suddenly realise he had this other attorney who wasn't noticed. Should this not have been raised to attack the confessions pre-trial? Again feels like "you had one job" territory.

Three - Even if this is an issue given the first two points (it seems not great to me), do you get a new trial as your remedy? My guess is not because the jury heard these confessions and ruled on them, and the van suggests they were not fake.

On the other hand, and i think this is not insignificant, i do have an ear for Rozzi's argument that this is a slippy slope. I think it is valid argument that the state might resort to chucking people in solitary to try to get confessions and skimp on procedure. That is dumb and bad. But I do wonder if the D can get a remedy here because there was a defended hearing about the safekeeping at the end of the day, and it was them that didn't file anything for months while he sat in jail confessing.

As Gull ruled on the safekeeping, obviously she won't have much of an ear for this. Would an appeal court give them a new trial? My hunch is no, but you never know!

MOO
"to because reasons"

MOO reason is, that the plan for guilty defendents is always to win in appeal.

A defense attorney not using relevant evidence they have during trial to hold it for an appeal MOO should be a violation.
 
I think I understand what the discussion is regarding the white van. According to Lawyer Lee, last night or sometime today the defense filed a motion to correct errors.

In that motion, there is actually some video evidence from a neighbor's surveillance camera showing BW's white van arrived at the drive(road) leading into his home, but not until nearly 2:45pm. Why is this important? During the trial, Liberty German's phone evidence was that her phone stopped moving at 2:32pm. This new surveillance camera evidence suggests Richard Allen had already taken Abby and Libby across the creek before BW got home. BW's testimony may be correct about arriving home "around" 2:30pm, but it goes against the timing and movement of Liberty German's phone.

The main question is how reliable is the time on the neighbor's surveillance camera?


And I believe it was in Nick's closing, he said Abby took the phone and hid it under her body and that's why there was no activity after 2:32 (until someone handled it later by plugging headphones into it of course).

Nick locked himself into "everything was over by 2:32."

So why did Brad Weber, the State's witness who tied it all together, not get home until 15 minutes after that?

As always, just my opinion.
 
All we can really say is neither side felt this evidence was helpful to show to the jury

The state, presumably because it might suggest he arrives some mins to late, even though it confirms the big picture that he wasn't away checking ATMs etc

The defence presumably because the time the Van is on the video might be wrong by an unknown amount or perhaps it's just that Rick did hear that van before 12.32, but the van is only captured on the images at the later time. That is of course quite possible.

What i feel overall is that by the same argument as in this motion, the D was clearly arguing at trial for a version they knew was incorrect. In other words they suggested BW was late home because he was out checking ATMs - when they knew all along he was home no later than 2.45ish

You can't get a new trial because you decided not to show the jury some evidence for tactical reasons. That isn't "an error" IMO.
 
Well, from where I sit, there’s not quite the argument as to where BW was. During trial it seemed as if the defense wanted him running all over Carroll County checking ATMs. Now he’s getting home within 15 minutes (that we know - timestamp off 12hrs exactly or more).

RSBM - that is exactly what I am saying. They were arguing for a timeline they knew was not correct. They knew BW was in fact not checking any ATMs.

They made this bed so it is strange to now complain that you forgot to lead the ZOMG evidence.
 

DNASolves

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
1,279
Total visitors
1,396

Forum statistics

Threads
616,402
Messages
18,350,063
Members
237,053
Latest member
Sleepy Turtle
Back
Top