- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Delphi, IN Murders Trial Thread
Posted on 10/31/24 at 11:58 am to baldona
Posted on 10/31/24 at 11:58 am to baldona
quote:
Once again, there's no witness's to the actual crime. What you are saying is irrelevant for all intents and purposes. There's no evidence of anyone at the crime scene including Allen.
If it's irrelevant, why is it a central component in the prosecution's case?
quote:
You are trying to make a major assumption that this other person was more likely to be the one that did the crime, even though there's no evidence anyone else was both actually even on the trail nor at the crime scene. Its ludicrous.
You have continually mischaracterized my positions because you are working from confirmation bias and appear to be emotional about this case.
0
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:03 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:
She is such a shitbird.
ETA: It's absurd that she was allowed to preside over the case after attempting to get the defense attorneys thrown off of the case and having to be overruled.
I think this judge has done a great job at building a record for the defense to appeal if Allen is convicted. She has been very one-sided.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:04 pm to Epic Cajun
I just listened to a short summary on the Carroll County Comet's FB page from a reporter who is in the courtroom.
Trooper Harshman listened to hours and hours of RA's recorded calls. He identified the voice of the man on the bridge recorded on Libby's phone as RA's voice. He's not a voice analyst, but having listened to RA for so many hours makes it stronger than it might be, IMO.
The reporter also pointed out that the missing piece of the puzzle of what only the killer would have known is the van. RA talked about the van in March '23, but investigators only got knowledge of Weber's van and it was only made public in August of '24, so RA couldn't have known about the van when he talked about is scaring him. Assuming this to be factual, that may well be the nail in the coffin if prosecutors bring it home in a big way. That's impressive to me.
Trooper Harshman listened to hours and hours of RA's recorded calls. He identified the voice of the man on the bridge recorded on Libby's phone as RA's voice. He's not a voice analyst, but having listened to RA for so many hours makes it stronger than it might be, IMO.
The reporter also pointed out that the missing piece of the puzzle of what only the killer would have known is the van. RA talked about the van in March '23, but investigators only got knowledge of Weber's van and it was only made public in August of '24, so RA couldn't have known about the van when he talked about is scaring him. Assuming this to be factual, that may well be the nail in the coffin if prosecutors bring it home in a big way. That's impressive to me.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:17 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Assuming this to be factual, that may well be the nail in the coffin if prosecutors bring it home in a big way.
Agreed. I know the defense stated that Weber previously told investigators that he didn't go straight home, I wonder what the confusion there is all about.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:37 pm to POTUS2024
These Burkhart videos are just stupidly long but I tried to get through the latest one and pick out some things to share.
BLUF: Looks like prosecution will rest soon, maybe tomorrow (or does that mean today?). Defense has damaged the credibility of everything the prosecution has thrown out there and it appears they may have some aces up their sleeve, to be unveiled soon. White van could be huge. The treatment of Allen in the prison may result in litigation for civil rights abuses.
Here are my notes:
Defense denied by judge to present a 'third party culprit' theory and Burkhart expects the defense to try that again, to preserve the record for appeal if guilty. Lot of complaints about the judge and a perception that she is too friendly to the prosecution. With all the things the Defense got witnesses to admit to, their 'third party culprit' theory may be easy to make, with or without the judge's intervention.
What does the Defense have up its sleeve? Burkhart thinks we got a glimpse of that in Wednesday's proceedings. It relates to the confession and Allen saying he saw a white van.
Psychologist credibility was attacked by the Defense. She is a 'true crime' junky and she was visiting the bridge, talking to people, watching podcasts and other stuff about the murders, and she apparently told Allen about these things during their visits. Opens the possibility of her giving information to Allen and presents conflicts of interest for her.
Psychologist did her notes and documentation different for Allen than she normally does them. Could be an issue later, but probably not unless her conduct is really brought into question.
Psychologist reported Allen saying he killed the girls, but also that he killed his family. He said at times he would kill himself, kill everyone, start WWIII, and at other times that he didn't want to die and wouldn't kill himself. She said killing the girls was a legit statement and killing the family was not. Seems a bit like cherry picking.
Psychologist says she helped get him visits with his wife but he went 5 months with no visits from his wife. Not because she didn't want to visit but because he wasn't allowed to have visitors. This seems like a red flag according to Burkhart, invoking concerns about isolation, solitary confinement type of environment, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. This is easy to feed into a theory of false confession. Lot of literature on the effects of solitary, how false confessions come about, and so on.
Seems the psych decided Allen was faking some mental illness based on reports from the guards and not from her personal observations / assessment. This was a bit murky, but I gathered that the psych definitely was not making her claim based on any sort of thorough analysis. That's bad.
Judge interrupted Defense in the middle of cross examination to break for lunch. I will be curious to see what happens if this case has to be appealed. She has been hostile to the defense and accommodating to the prosecution, it seems.
There was a time when Allen said he felt he was being treated worse than those already convicted. And he gave some of the indicators of suicide planning such as giving stuff away. His condition deteriorated to the point he was given psychotropic meds, involuntarily.
During cross examination, psych said maybe Allen's mental illness was real and not being faked, viewed in hindsight. That is bad. I wish we had some insight into how the jury received that statement. Burkhart then mentions that litigation could be possible in lieu of Allen's treatment at the prison and says she thinks that type of conduct was already held as an 8th amendment violation by federal courts. She says this can be an issue for qualified immunity. Guilty or not, she thinks there will be litigation on this issue. I agree with her.
LE pulled some DMV records to show how many cars in the local area are like Allen's, but video doesn't allow you to really pinpoint this. It was about 15 or so nearby, but when that was broadened just a bit, that grew to over 60, iirc. Defense was like, "why didn't you just submit the broader search results?", I guess this was to frame the prosecution / LE presentation of evidence as a deliberate manipulation and to make them look like less than an honest broker.
A Mr. Weber gave testimony and Burkhart described him as looking like he could have been in the cast of Deliverance. She said he had 'meth mouth'. He drove the white van that is part of Allen's confession.
Defense begins to question the veracity of Weber and his van being at the bridge area on the day the girls were killed. It appears he was out of town the week prior. He was issued a subpoena while on the stand, by the Defense. Don't know what it was for, but my guess is that it will relate to attacking the story of Weber and the location of the van. This has enormous potential for impacting this case.
I could be wrong but I think the presentation of the Defense is going to be worth paying attention to - they either have the goods to blow apart the prosecution's case or have been doing a great job of making us believe they do.
BLUF: Looks like prosecution will rest soon, maybe tomorrow (or does that mean today?). Defense has damaged the credibility of everything the prosecution has thrown out there and it appears they may have some aces up their sleeve, to be unveiled soon. White van could be huge. The treatment of Allen in the prison may result in litigation for civil rights abuses.
Here are my notes:
Defense denied by judge to present a 'third party culprit' theory and Burkhart expects the defense to try that again, to preserve the record for appeal if guilty. Lot of complaints about the judge and a perception that she is too friendly to the prosecution. With all the things the Defense got witnesses to admit to, their 'third party culprit' theory may be easy to make, with or without the judge's intervention.
What does the Defense have up its sleeve? Burkhart thinks we got a glimpse of that in Wednesday's proceedings. It relates to the confession and Allen saying he saw a white van.
Psychologist credibility was attacked by the Defense. She is a 'true crime' junky and she was visiting the bridge, talking to people, watching podcasts and other stuff about the murders, and she apparently told Allen about these things during their visits. Opens the possibility of her giving information to Allen and presents conflicts of interest for her.
Psychologist did her notes and documentation different for Allen than she normally does them. Could be an issue later, but probably not unless her conduct is really brought into question.
Psychologist reported Allen saying he killed the girls, but also that he killed his family. He said at times he would kill himself, kill everyone, start WWIII, and at other times that he didn't want to die and wouldn't kill himself. She said killing the girls was a legit statement and killing the family was not. Seems a bit like cherry picking.
Psychologist says she helped get him visits with his wife but he went 5 months with no visits from his wife. Not because she didn't want to visit but because he wasn't allowed to have visitors. This seems like a red flag according to Burkhart, invoking concerns about isolation, solitary confinement type of environment, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. This is easy to feed into a theory of false confession. Lot of literature on the effects of solitary, how false confessions come about, and so on.
Seems the psych decided Allen was faking some mental illness based on reports from the guards and not from her personal observations / assessment. This was a bit murky, but I gathered that the psych definitely was not making her claim based on any sort of thorough analysis. That's bad.
Judge interrupted Defense in the middle of cross examination to break for lunch. I will be curious to see what happens if this case has to be appealed. She has been hostile to the defense and accommodating to the prosecution, it seems.
There was a time when Allen said he felt he was being treated worse than those already convicted. And he gave some of the indicators of suicide planning such as giving stuff away. His condition deteriorated to the point he was given psychotropic meds, involuntarily.
During cross examination, psych said maybe Allen's mental illness was real and not being faked, viewed in hindsight. That is bad. I wish we had some insight into how the jury received that statement. Burkhart then mentions that litigation could be possible in lieu of Allen's treatment at the prison and says she thinks that type of conduct was already held as an 8th amendment violation by federal courts. She says this can be an issue for qualified immunity. Guilty or not, she thinks there will be litigation on this issue. I agree with her.
LE pulled some DMV records to show how many cars in the local area are like Allen's, but video doesn't allow you to really pinpoint this. It was about 15 or so nearby, but when that was broadened just a bit, that grew to over 60, iirc. Defense was like, "why didn't you just submit the broader search results?", I guess this was to frame the prosecution / LE presentation of evidence as a deliberate manipulation and to make them look like less than an honest broker.
A Mr. Weber gave testimony and Burkhart described him as looking like he could have been in the cast of Deliverance. She said he had 'meth mouth'. He drove the white van that is part of Allen's confession.
Defense begins to question the veracity of Weber and his van being at the bridge area on the day the girls were killed. It appears he was out of town the week prior. He was issued a subpoena while on the stand, by the Defense. Don't know what it was for, but my guess is that it will relate to attacking the story of Weber and the location of the van. This has enormous potential for impacting this case.
I could be wrong but I think the presentation of the Defense is going to be worth paying attention to - they either have the goods to blow apart the prosecution's case or have been doing a great job of making us believe they do.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:45 pm to WestSideTiger
It was 40 degrees that day.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:46 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
RA talked about the van in March '23, but investigators only got knowledge of Weber's van and it was only made public in August of '24
I'd like to know the date when Allen got all the discovery materials and see if the Defense will probe into what the psychologist was telling Allen. Also, the Defense seems to have something planned regarding that van. I don't know if it'll just be an attempt to smear and impeach Weber or if it'll be a factual refutation.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:47 pm to POTUS2024
Did she talk about when investigators became aware of Weber and the van? See my post above regarding the timing.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:50 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Weber and the van
What is the significance of this? I have been following this but not too closely. Who is Weber and whats up with the van?
Posted on 10/31/24 at 12:58 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Gris Gris
Thanks.
By the way, you copied/pasted a large portion of that twice. Just FYI (if you want to edit).
This post was edited on 10/31/24 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 10/31/24 at 1:01 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Did she talk about when investigators became aware of Weber and the van? See my post above regarding the timing.
Good question. I don't think she did - I'm guessing the Defense is going to let us know.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 1:19 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
Also, the Defense seems to have something planned regarding that van. I don't know if it'll just be an attempt to smear and impeach Weber or if it'll be a factual refutation.
From what I’ve seen in his first interview with the investigators Weber said he got home later that evening, but changed his story in subsequent interviews.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 1:27 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
By the way, you copied/pasted a large portion of that twice. Just FYI (if you want to edit).
Well, crap. That page jumps a bit due to ads popping up. I'll just leave and folks will get over it or go to the link, but thanks!
Posted on 10/31/24 at 1:54 pm to GuidoVestieri
quote:
It was 40 degrees that day.
If so I would consider that chilly to cold but I’m also from Louisiana.
The conversation basically was concerning the possibility of someone else wearing exactly what RA was wearing that day. I think it was pretty layered. Guessing a shirt, some kind of garment with a hoodie, a jacket and he said he always carries a hat in his pocket which he appeared to be wearing. It’s a minor point but still doubtful anyone else would have that exact outfit on.
And I didn’t just make it up. It came from testimony regarding weather.
quote:
When she was shown a picture of “Bridge Man” again in court, she reiterated that he “was the man I waved at on the trail.” A second witness, Breann Wilber, testified that a man she identified as “Bridge Guy” crept up on her while she was also on the trail that day. Both women noted that the suspect was overdressed for the unseasonably warm weather, WRTV reported.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 1:55 pm to WestSideTiger
Latest update:
May 17, 2023 call from Richard Allen to his mother, Janis
In the call, Allen asked his mother if his wife, Kathy, told her that he did it. His mother said, "We're not going to discuss this."
Allen later said to his mother, "I'm just worried you guys aren't going to love me because I said I did it."
Allen's mother told him he wasn't in a good place then, and "we'll always love you, no matter what."
Allen then confessed to the crime again.
Allen's mom said, "Rick, don't talk like this. I think they're messing with you ... I just know you don't have it in you to do something like that."
Allen then said, "Mom, why would I tell you I did it if I didn't?"
During redirect, McLeland asked Harshman if he had ever seen Allen violent.
Harshman said video from the Cass County Jail shows Allen screaming loudly, irately, pounding on the doors of the cell and telling the guards he's going to f****** kill them.
The defense objected to mentioning this video because they said it was not revealed in discovery or shared with them.
Gull issued a break to allow the defense to watch the video.
May 17, 2023 call from Richard Allen to his mother, Janis
In the call, Allen asked his mother if his wife, Kathy, told her that he did it. His mother said, "We're not going to discuss this."
Allen later said to his mother, "I'm just worried you guys aren't going to love me because I said I did it."
Allen's mother told him he wasn't in a good place then, and "we'll always love you, no matter what."
Allen then confessed to the crime again.
Allen's mom said, "Rick, don't talk like this. I think they're messing with you ... I just know you don't have it in you to do something like that."
Allen then said, "Mom, why would I tell you I did it if I didn't?"
During redirect, McLeland asked Harshman if he had ever seen Allen violent.
Harshman said video from the Cass County Jail shows Allen screaming loudly, irately, pounding on the doors of the cell and telling the guards he's going to f****** kill them.
The defense objected to mentioning this video because they said it was not revealed in discovery or shared with them.
Gull issued a break to allow the defense to watch the video.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 2:13 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Allen then confessed to the crime again.
Allen's mom said, "Rick, don't talk like this. I think they're messing with you ... I just know you don't have it in you to do something like that."
Allen then said, "Mom, why would I tell you I did it if I didn't?"
This is a big one unless I am missing some context including how the stuff with his mom was said.
Goes from fearing she will not love him, and when the mom says she will always love him he confesses to her. He then doubles down when she doubts him.
This post was edited on 10/31/24 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 10/31/24 at 2:17 pm to dallastigers
I had some doubt about the prosecution's case against and whether they could get a conviction, but this is strong for me. The defense was doing well and they still have their case to put on, but the only attack I see that they can make is that his prison conditions caused him to confess. I'm not buying that.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 3:14 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
prison conditions caused him to confess. I'm not buying that.
It's more than reasonable to think those prison conditions gravely affected him. Dude had no visits for 5 months. Constant observation. In a maximum security prison. Already had mental health issues. As I said before, I expect litigation here over his treatment.
Went back to get more details on the white van issue.
In this segment, cued up from Burkhart's video, she gets into the white van a bit more.
She mentions that cross of the psych brought out things and Burkhart says "he already had his discovery when he's making these statements" meaning he had the investigative materials before making his confessions. Plus psych is telling him about what she's seeing on podcasts etc.
Day of murders was Feb 13.
Owner / driver of the white van is Weber. He lives at the end of a private drive that goes under the bridge.
Feb 2017, he worked at Subaru and his shift was from 6am to 2:30pm. Day of Feb 13 he clocked in at 5:41am and clocked out at 2:02pm. Testified that he went straight home and it takes him about 20-25 minutes.
Bridge Guy video is at 2:13pm. So white van is really important.
Defense tells Weber "you were out of town the week before Feb 13". Prosecution objects based on scope. Defense says his question will reveal why this will be important. They have a sidebar. Lengthy. I guess judge said "you can't go on", I'm inferring that from how Burkhart describes the sequence of events. After, Defense says, "you did not drive straight home on Feb 13 did you?" Weber says "that's not correct" and Defense says "you told LE on Feb 18 that you went to work on ATM machines" and Weber says "it's not true" and is angry. Then Weber said "I dropped off a trailer" and Defense says "That was earlier in the day" then walks up and hands him the subpoena.
Whatever the 'scope' issue was - it's coming back when the Defense presents its case.
So, investigators had to know of the white van no later than Feb 18. But I don't know how they became aware of it.
Did Weber mention the trailer because it's true that he didn't go straight home and he used the trailer as a cover story?
A commenter on Burkhart's video said that the white van was mentioned in various chats, like on Facebook, and that the psych was following these discussions. There's your opening for the psych to have fed details to Allen.
I can only guess that Weber's subpoena is either for information or testimony - will he be a witness for the defense, or is the defense wanting information from him?
My guess is the Defense already has the info they need and want him to testify and that it's going to blow apart the idea that he was there at that time.
If you want to put on your tin foil hat - this is a good time to do it.
This post was edited on 10/31/24 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 10/31/24 at 4:03 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
My guess is the Defense already has the info they need and want him to testify and that it's going to blow apart the idea that he was there at that time.
I wouldn't think the defense would ask him questions to which they don't know the answers already. That's dangerous.
Interesting that she says LE knew about van guy on in February when the other reporter said LE didn't know about him until August of this year.
The prosecution has rested.
Posted on 10/31/24 at 4:42 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Harshman said video from the Cass County Jail shows Allen screaming loudly, irately, pounding on the doors of the cell and telling the guards he's going to f****** kill them. The defense objected to mentioning this video because they said it was not revealed in discovery or shared with them. Gull issued a break to allow the defense to watch the video.
This video was not allowed in after a lengthy recess.
Page 17 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News