- 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
1
Posted on 10/24/24 at 10:42 am to Poichess
Is there a good shorter recap anywhere from yesterday?
Posted on 10/24/24 at 12:12 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Is there a good shorter recap anywhere from yesterday?
Burkhart's video is 5hrs long.
this is much shorter
Posted on 10/24/24 at 1:32 pm to POTUS2024
One of the witnesses for the prosecution might end up being a problem. She said she saw Allen on the bridge - in her initial statements she said he looked dirty, like covered in mud partially. But her later statements now say he was covered in mud and blood. Defense counsel made her review transcripts of her early statements and basically caught her in either a lie or exaggeration or whatever. She seems too eager in her testimony. Could be a problem for the prosecution.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 1:41 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
One of the witnesses for the prosecution might end up being a problem. She said she saw Allen on the bridge - in her initial statements she said he looked dirty, like covered in mud partially. But her later statements now say he was covered in mud and blood. Defense counsel made her review transcripts of her early statements and basically caught her in either a lie or exaggeration or whatever. She seems too eager in her testimony. Could be a problem for the prosecution.
What did cross have to say about that?
Posted on 10/24/24 at 2:14 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
One of the witnesses for the prosecution might end up being a problem. She said she saw Allen on the bridge - in her initial statements she said he looked dirty, like covered in mud partially. But her later statements now say he was covered in mud and blood. Defense counsel made her review transcripts of her early statements and basically caught her in either a lie or exaggeration or whatever. She seems too eager in her testimony. Could be a problem for the prosecution.
She was inconsistent unless part of her statements were missing. However, I don't believe she ever identified Allen himself. I think she saw a guy covered in mud and blood, if you believe that part.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 2:31 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
What did cross have to say about that?
They asked her to look at her transcripts, sometimes she did, other times she didn't. She got combative with them at one point saying "Are we going to go over this again?" Defense was like, 'Yep'. At one point she said she was 3ft from Allen as she drove by him, but initial statements she said she was 20ft. Lot of inconsistencies and things got testy, apparently. I think the defense was able to make her look bad, from what I gather.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 2:36 pm to POTUS2024
Just was deep diving today about Larry Gene Bell in SC in the 80s. Then watched this. I think that's enough internet for the day.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 2:48 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
At one point she said she was 3ft from Allen as she drove by him, but initial statements she said she was 20ft. Lot of inconsistencies and things got testy, apparently. I think the defense was able to make her look bad, from what I gather.
She also claims she drove past him about 30mph but got a look at him for 30 seconds.
From what I saw, she is the star in her own movie.
Posted on 10/24/24 at 8:01 pm to bikerack
quote:
From what I saw, she is the star in her own movie.
Exactly
Posted on 10/25/24 at 9:18 am to POTUS2024
Haven't had a chance to look at summaries of yesterday. Anything stunning?
Posted on 10/25/24 at 11:08 am to Gris Gris
quote:
Haven't had a chance to look at summaries of yesterday. Anything stunning?
After scanning through a few summaries, it seems it was a good day for the defense.
They were able to get the investigators to admit that once Allen was their suspect, they pretty much refused to consider any other theory...and got the investigators to agree with defense theories. Nothing was ever found to link Allen to the crime. Timelines don't match up so the lead investigator at the time decided to change it while on the stand. Etc. Etc.
I knew about this case and some of the defense theories but had heard about his confessions and thought he was probably guilty.
I'm way below 50% now for guilty. If I was on the jury, I would be submitting questions like crazy. One of the ones yesterday pointed out that as soon as they identified a possible car of interest (Ford Focus hatchback) and saw Allen drove it, they stopped there. They never ran a DMV search to see who else might drive one.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 11:11 am to Gris Gris
It's interesting that neither the prosecution nor the defense has asked any of the witnesses who claim to have seen "Bridge Man" whether BM is Allen. They either don't know the answer or maybe they do in some cases. Witness testimony doesn't seem terribly strong in tying Allen to the murders.
Reading the latest summary seems to indicate the prosecution's case is not all that strong. At this point, I'm not even sure how much circumstantial evidence there is or if it's strong enough for a conviction. There's no weapon, no DNA evidence, weak witness evidence and that's only placing BM in the area.
I don't know the details of any of the alleged confessions he's made or if those will come in.
Am I missing more here?
Reading the latest summary seems to indicate the prosecution's case is not all that strong. At this point, I'm not even sure how much circumstantial evidence there is or if it's strong enough for a conviction. There's no weapon, no DNA evidence, weak witness evidence and that's only placing BM in the area.
I don't know the details of any of the alleged confessions he's made or if those will come in.
Am I missing more here?
Posted on 10/25/24 at 11:34 am to Gris Gris
Watching a video right now - title is: Sheriff says Allen doesn't match witness descriptions of Bridge Guy. I'll see how it turns out.
eta
An attorney commenting / analyzing the case said that it will be interesting to see what prompted them to charge him when initial interviews with him left LE "clearing" him. I agree, that will be interesting.
Some interesting things: when Allen was interviewed after they did a search warrant, LE told him if things were damaged to fill out a form and it would get fixed and his reply was "doesn't matter, it's all over now". They took a bunch of guns and knives, I don't think that will mean anything but they say it might impact the jury. Also, the guy apparently kept all of his phones, like old phones from the 90s, flip phone types. But he didn't have the one from the time period of the murder, according to this attorney analyst. That is going to sway people, IMO.
Defense came right out and accused a witness of lying (I think he was LE, not sure) in stating a car at the scene was Allen's car.
Sheriff says they would have arrested Allen without the ammunition found at the scene, due to witness statements of Allen there. Defense reads a witness description that is nothing like Allen and points out the description is not a match for Allen, and Sheriff replies, "Neither do the three girls that saw him on the trail." Defense: "Exactly"
Attorney said that some of the conflict between defense and those testifying, particularly LE, was initiated by those on the stand, which is not good for the prosecution.
This WTHR youtube channel has good videos of a reasonable length.
eta
An attorney commenting / analyzing the case said that it will be interesting to see what prompted them to charge him when initial interviews with him left LE "clearing" him. I agree, that will be interesting.
Some interesting things: when Allen was interviewed after they did a search warrant, LE told him if things were damaged to fill out a form and it would get fixed and his reply was "doesn't matter, it's all over now". They took a bunch of guns and knives, I don't think that will mean anything but they say it might impact the jury. Also, the guy apparently kept all of his phones, like old phones from the 90s, flip phone types. But he didn't have the one from the time period of the murder, according to this attorney analyst. That is going to sway people, IMO.
Defense came right out and accused a witness of lying (I think he was LE, not sure) in stating a car at the scene was Allen's car.
Sheriff says they would have arrested Allen without the ammunition found at the scene, due to witness statements of Allen there. Defense reads a witness description that is nothing like Allen and points out the description is not a match for Allen, and Sheriff replies, "Neither do the three girls that saw him on the trail." Defense: "Exactly"
Attorney said that some of the conflict between defense and those testifying, particularly LE, was initiated by those on the stand, which is not good for the prosecution.
This WTHR youtube channel has good videos of a reasonable length.
This post was edited on 10/25/24 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 10/25/24 at 11:41 am to bikerack
quote:
One of the ones yesterday pointed out that as soon as they identified a possible car of interest (Ford Focus hatchback) and saw Allen drove it, they stopped there. They never ran a DMV search to see who else might drive one.
Did they not run searches on vehicle back in 2017 and had they also narrowed it down to a Ford Focus Hatchback or just a possibility?
This was before Allen was in the picture. I thought by 2022 they were looking for additional evidence to tie Allen including his any former cars he may have had at the time (I think he sold it). They thought the Ford he owned at the time could be the vehicle of interest, but I didn’t think they had narrowed it down so specifically to that Ford model early on like was done with the car involved in the Idaho murders.
quote:
They were able to get the investigators to admit that once Allen was their suspect, they pretty much refused to consider any other theory...and got the investigators to agree with defense theories.
Being so long after going over multiple theories and suspects starting back in 2017 before looking at Allen this isn’t that big of deal in reality but may work with a jury member.
This post was edited on 10/25/24 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 10/25/24 at 12:35 pm to POTUS2024
Except for Allen's comments, it didn't seem like a great day for the prosecution.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 12:37 pm to Gris Gris
quote:
Except for Allen's comments, it didn't seem like a great day for the prosecution.
Agreed. Even his comments might have more context to them since they also came after he was interviewed and knew he was a suspect - so he could have been referring to his reputation or something like that. I think the defense will peel that back a bit more. They did it to some degree, according to the analyst on the video I posted (toward the end), but I guess more context will be developed later to hammer that point home.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 12:51 pm to POTUS2024
Unless the prosecution comes up with some very damning evidence, I think they're going to have a difficult time convicting, but that's based on what we've seen so far.
Posted on 10/25/24 at 12:52 pm to POTUS2024
I think that Richard Allen is likely involved but the lack of physical evidence tying him to the crime scene has to be a major concern for the prosecution at this point
Posted on 10/25/24 at 12:55 pm to m57
If I’m on that jury I need evidence plain and simple to send him to prison for eternity
Page 9 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News