Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #177

Status
Not open for further replies.
One note, I believe he said he was on his stock ticker during his interview with DD in Feb 2017. The watching fish comment was his later interview. I've always wondered if LE told him they had someone who saw him on the platform of the bridge, which is why he then said that about the fish...

This is one of the key pieces of evidence, imo. To overlay it with RA's phone data could be significant, unless the phone data is strong the other way. Jmo.

One thing that certainly happened is when they had probable cause against RA for the search, they also had PC to get his phone records - or at least by the time he was arrested.

IMO they certainly have RAs phone activity for an extended period around the murders, though what actually could be recovered years later might not be everything, and might also depend on what kind of device he had, and what he backed up to cloud etc.

My theory, which of course could be wrong, is that RA's phone data does not corroborate him on the trails either as per the defence case, or as per the prosecution case.

IMO if it corroborated the defence case, it would be in the Franks for sure. He would also never have been arrested IMO.

As usual this is what the defence is not mentioning, when they claim this geofence data is exculpatory.
 
I think the judge issued a transport order about a month ago for him to be at the hearing on Monday.
Or maybe not.
So many court filings, it hard to remember them all.
Wow, that would surprise me if he comes to his attorney's contempt hearing. But then again, they are his attorneys.
 
03/15/2024Order Issued
Ex parte e-mail communication dated March 11, 2024, from Anthony Greeno ordered copied and sent to counsel of record and the Clerk of Carroll Circuit Court.
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Order Signed:
03/14/2024
03/15/2024Order Issued
The Court has received ex parte e-mail from an Anthony Greeno (e-mail address: truecrimeinvestigatesofficial@gmail.com) on March 12, 2024, which contains graphic images, the Court will not file tihs e-mail, as the images are unsuitable for public inclusion in this file.
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Order Signed:
03/14/2024
 
03/15/2024Order Issued
Ex parte e-mail communication dated March 11, 2024, from Anthony Greeno ordered copied and sent to counsel of record and the Clerk of Carroll Circuit Court.
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Order Signed:
03/14/2024
03/15/2024Order Issued
The Court has received ex parte e-mail from an Anthony Greeno (e-mail address: truecrimeinvestigatesofficial@gmail.com) on March 12, 2024, which contains graphic images, the Court will not file tihs e-mail, as the images are unsuitable for public inclusion in this file.
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Order Signed:
03/14/2024
So does this mean Greeno still had the crime scene photos on his email? He didn't delete them long ago? Was he sending them via email to show the email's original sender?
 
Wow, that would surprise me if he comes to his attorney's contempt hearing. But then again, they are his attorneys.
And, it's filed under his case number and on his docket. The contemp motion says State V Richard Allen. This is what Ausbrook argued was incorrect and should be given a different case number separate from RA's, but JG denied that. I don't understand it at all.
 
And, it's filed under his case number and on his docket. The contemp motion says State V Richard Allen. This is what Ausbrook argued was incorrect and should be given a different case number separate from RA's, but JG denied that. I don't understand it at all.
I suppose he should be privy to all that his attorneys have been up to, he may not know?
 
One thing that certainly happened is when they had probable cause against RA for the search, they also had PC to get his phone records - or at least by the time he was arrested.
Data from 2/2017 would have been almost 6 years old when the warrant was issued in 10/2022. I'm not sure we should expect any data from RA's phone by then. Google has automatic deletion of all GPS Location History data older than 18 months. For tower dump and call data, the limits vary by providor. I wonder what providor RA used.

1634930279896-retentionperiods.png

That, and much more interesting info on CAST can be found here.
 
Data from 2/2017 would have been almost 6 years old when the warrant was issued in 10/2022. I'm not sure we should expect any data from RA's phone by then. Google has automatic deletion of all GPS Location History data older than 18 months. For tower dump and call data, the limits vary by providor. I wonder what providor RA used.

1634930279896-retentionperiods.png

That, and much more interesting info on CAST can be found here.
I can't remember if GSM or CMDA was an issue back in 2017. Or if it's even relevant.

Below is a list of most of his phones taken during the search.
Samsung Galaxy A 42 5G, Sept. 2020 GSM
Pixel 3a XL
Nokia 7705 Twist, September 2009.
Older phones: Audiovox, Nokia and Motorola
Motorola Verizon Smart Phone,
LG Verizon side slide smart phone
LG Verizon smart phone
3 Motorola and 1 LG Flip phones
 
The speculation it was found after crime scene was unsecured is rumor.
Defense has addressed the bullet evidence by attacking the number of pictures taken and the ballistic evidence.
Thanks on this! I saw an interview and it was being explored as fact that the bullet was found at a time after the area was (for some reason) unsecured for a period. And agreed this wouldn't seem to make sense because it's stated over and over again it was found between the victims.
 
Last edited:
One thing that certainly happened is when they had probable cause against RA for the search, they also had PC to get his phone records - or at least by the time he was arrested.

IMO they certainly have RAs phone activity for an extended period around the murders, though what actually could be recovered years later might not be everything, and might also depend on what kind of device he had, and what he backed up to cloud etc.

My theory, which of course could be wrong, is that RA's phone data does not corroborate him on the trails either as per the defence case, or as per the prosecution case.

IMO if it corroborated the defence case, it would be in the Franks for sure. He would also never have been arrested IMO
.

As usual this is what the defence is not mentioning, when they claim this geofence data is exculpatory.
Agreed. I really think the reality of the phone situation isn't going to back him up, and he himself will once again be the one that has introduced the contradiction into the conversation. He's the one who said initially he had the phone, and it would make sense that he would have it. And seriously, I have thought for a while, too, that in the end, there will be no phone on RA, and that's going to be really interesting if it's the case. (All speculation, obviously.)
 
Thanks on this! I saw an interview and it was being explored as fact that the bullet was found at a time after the area was (for some reason) unsecured for a period. And agreed this wouldn't seem to make sense because it's stated over and over again it was found between the victims.
It was Barbara MacDonald, the co-host of the Down The Hill podcast, on Court TV. I'm following it closely.

 
It was Barbara MacDonald, the co-host of the Down The Hill podcast, on Court TV. I'm following it closely.

Yes! Just watched the video. (Still listening to it, actually, this is longer than the little blips I picked up before.) That's exactly what I had heard, too.

So which is it? Was it found after the point when the CS was unsecured? That's a big deal.
 
Last edited:
Alrighty then. The smell of mendacity reeks.


They were told to stop working on the case shortly after this part. I wonder if they located that guy.

Among the recent evidence related to Odinism the defense said it has received is search warrants signed by judges in Marion County for phone and internet records of at least one unknown person who admitted to killing the girls.

The attorneys said this person provided details about the crime scene that were unknown to the general public at the time.

“Such as the fact that he used knife in way consistent with the manner of death and also claiming that he used gun but never fired it,” Allen’s team wrote.
 
They were told to stop working on the case shortly after this part. I wonder if they located that guy.
This one, right? Source:

"Allen’s defense claimed another person with ties to Odinism also confessed to a relative that he had been involved in the murders and even spat on one of the girls at the crime scene. That person’s alibi allegedly did not hold up, and the relative later passed a polygraph test when questioned about what he had told her about his involvement, according to the filing. That person was also cleared.

Allen’s attorneys claim he’s being used as a scapegoat, as his arrest came right before an election."
 
This one, right? Source:

"Allen’s defense claimed another person with ties to Odinism also confessed to a relative that he had been involved in the murders and even spat on one of the girls at the crime scene. That person’s alibi allegedly did not hold up, and the relative later passed a polygraph test when questioned about what he had told her about his involvement, according to the filing. That person was also cleared.

Allen’s attorneys claim he’s being used as a scapegoat, as his arrest came right before an election."
I don't think so.
My quote is from the article Caylee Advocate posted and talks about an unknown person.
I take that as not being the one you're talking about.

 
I don't think so.
My quote is from the article Caylee Advocate posted and talks about an unknown person.
I take that as not being the one you're talking about.


I see what you mean. That article is dated after this other individual (the one that notably mentions the-- spitting??) had already been dealt with, at least they knew who he was. So agreed, was this other person ever traced? So now, I'll also be waiting on this, as well as the cellular data.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
228
Guests online
3,397
Total visitors
3,625

Forum statistics

Threads
595,705
Messages
18,031,519
Members
229,752
Latest member
HelenFlower1
Back
Top