Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181

[Emma Peel]

Didn't they take the height off the official poster at some point? Was it when they had their sights set on RA and knew he did not match "BG" at ALL?

yes, see upthread slightly layer found link and I emphasized layer's find.

 

[Salah11]

I disagree, I think he greatly favors BG. MHO

Right down to the short legs with the scrunched up jeans legs where he has a beer belly and can not get the right length to fit him.

mooo

 

[sunshineray]

FWIW I think we're expecting the P to respond to the 2 latest D motions; the P can respond.
(Not sure if you're thinking the P cannot respond?) JMHO

Why do you think the FM was removed from public filing? Just because?

 

[sunshineray]

We don't know that.

Oh I think if it was there the D would have mentioned that by now. EF has the mind of a child.

 

[mrjitty]

The witness descriptions are flimsy imo. They were frightened teens doing their best to recall. But the important thing is they all saw the same guy at the right time. We have to assume that was BG. We know BG is not tall. Now we need to understand exactly why LE is confident that RA=BG.

An interesting dynamic of the trial might be that the defence effectively concede that the person the 3 girls saw was BG. IMO it is fairly clear that they did see BG, and then walking women sees BG on the bridge and then he is in the video minutes later.

Hopefully we can soon forget about the PCA and focus on the actual trial evidence as you say. I think when you go months and years without a trial, one can easily get too focussed on minute detail in the PCA.

 

[Emma Peel]

I recall one witness did describe him as her height, which was short. Also, the BG photo was released quickly, and likely prior to full height analysis. But I get your point. It’s baffling that science for decades has been able to accurately predict precisely where and exactly when the sun will be eclipsed by the moon, but they can’t get a guy’s height and weight nailed down using modern technology.

I really think FBI experts have this measuring thing down. If we can find the first FBI notices/ posters ... with the height ranges ... that's what the FBI experts determined, IMO.
The FBI threw resources and experts at Delphi; they were not messing around early weeks and months. JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

Not so fast, not letting you cut and run. You pointed out the discrepancies in the posted FBI data. That doesn’t sound to me like you fully accept it.

ETA: I am interested in the most accurate estimate of BG’s height. Not to cherry pick data to suit a narrative that BG= RA. And also not looking to use that data to further discredit LE and prosecution.

Sorry ... and I object!
I did NOT cut and run.

@steeltowngirl, indeed!
I'm in in the WS Union, talk to my rep! I'm entitled to take breaks! LOL!

We're interested in the same thing. I knew it! I can't find the FBI original, ATM, but we can probably agree it's findable. I can tell you I trusted it then. I'll trust it again. That's the calculation.
And, it wasn't anywhere near 5' 6" . Someone will come up with the source. People here are awesome and helpful.

 

[Emma Peel]

We now understand that the LE investigation considered "more than one" perp theory(s). Thus another composite, thus remove the height estimates.

When I read Holeman's interrogation insisting that RA was BG, a thought crossed my mind: "Perhaps Holeman's just pushing RA (insisting he's BG) so that RA will finally give up who BG is?"
It was interesting to see that LE was still holding a "more than one perp" theory at the time of RA's arrest. Holeman also told RA he knew RA was involved in the girls death, and he was going to prove it.

I wonder if Holeman is still thinking about the "more than one perp theory" today. Or has LE given up on that theory, and the entire investigation? Was LE's effort to find additional perps dependent upon RA's cooperation? Or did LE continue to work, to investigate, and send updated "more-than-one-killer" discovery to the D?

Not to forget ... The Defense ... also arrived at a "more than one perp" theory. What is it about the crime scene that leads investigators to favor a more-than-one killer scenario?

We don't know LE's timeline for the murders. With a more-than-one-killer theory, LE could have RA leaving crime scene while the other killer(s) remained? RA could have left prior to
the murders. (I like to remind myself that the youtubers who have carefully illustrated and adopted model timelines with graphics based on ... what? Info they think they understand. Assumptions they make and forget to tell their audience about. Youtubers do not actually know the LE's theory of the case, and the certainly do not know LE's timeline for RA or for the murders. Thank you gag-order.)

The Franks Memo attempted to time the one-man double murder timeline ... it illustrated (belittled) a theory of the case where the timeline based upon BG as solo murderer wouldn't work.
Is the P's theory of the case presented at trial be: RA is the solo murderer?
Or will the P stick with a more-than-one theory?

At trial, it's all cards on the table. In this case, it could be a craps table.

Give me those opening statements. NOW.

JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

An interesting dynamic of the trial might be that the defence effectively concede that the person the 3 girls saw was BG. IMO it is fairly clear that they did see BG, and then walking women sees BG on the bridge and then he is in the video minutes later.

Hopefully we can soon forget about the PCA and focus on the actual trial evidence as you say. I think when you go months and years without a trial, one can easily get too focussed on minute detail in the PCA.

RBBM - to focus.
IMO, youtubers excel at this - focus on minute detail. From which they then build various unsupported PCA-adjacent rabbit holes, or even castle.

I'm counting on being gobsmacked at trial.

 

[katydid23]

I don't think you're understanding that his attorneys are saying he WAS in a custodial agreement because of the actions of Holeman (i.e. "sit tight"), and they provided case law to prove it.

Providing one similar case does not really 'prove' anything does it?

It might be persuasive and it might not, depending upon the 'opposite' case law examples the P will offer and then ultimately depending upon the court's interpretation of the case examples. IMO

That's the point. I'm not saying if they are right or wrong, but this is the point they are trying to make.

 

[Emma Peel]

BBM in the quote.
Holeman sounds like ... in 2022 ... 5 years in ... ISP does not know "what happened out there".

Jerry Holeman: You’re going to drag your ******* wife
and your daughter through this
because you’re too ******* bullheaded
to get out in front of this and admit you
made a mistake. And whatever the
**** happened out there we’ll never
******* know because you’re too big of
a ******* (inaudible).

What "mistake" does Holeman think RA made?

It is sad to think Holeman spoke some truth here:

"And whatever the **** happened out there" ... "we'll never **** know".

 

[katydid23]

...

 

[Falling Down]

Not having analyzed this much, for me it seems like a botched kidnap attempt - to some nearby barn - and it seems likely ppl much younger than RA are involved.

Not saying he isn’t involved but something about this scene doesn’t seem right. If RA did this blatant mad deed on his own, he would have to be psychotic and he doesn’t seem to have been out of it right after the murders.

Also ”guys, down the hill” doesn’t sound commanding but rather relaxed and friendly - like down the hill is where my ponies are that you wanted to see. Like a ruse.

LE have stated he had a gun on them, it's stated within the PCA.

JMO

 

[Niner]

So... just scrolled thru about 100 posts - still no hearing date, eh? TIA!

 

[FrostedGlass]

So... just scrolled thru about 100 posts - still no hearing date, eh? TIA!

No need to scroll when you can just ask. No. YAW.

 

[sunshineray]

BBM in the quote.
Holeman sounds like ... in 2022 ... 5 years in ... ISP does not know "what happened out there".



What "mistake" does Holeman think RA made?

It is sad to think Holeman spoke some truth here:

"And whatever the **** happened out there" ... "we'll never **** know".

Sounds to me, but it's hard to be sure without the context of the whole conversation, like JH was referring to the why it had happened. Everyone wants to know the why...why did a killer kill two sweet young girls in such a brutal fashion, leaving one naked, one fully re-clothed, no physical signs of rape. </3 JMO

 

[Niner]

No need to scroll when you can just ask. No. YAW.

But then I wouldn't know what you all were talking about! LOL!

 

[girlhasnoname]

Isn't that evidence of his innocence? There's no way you eject a round by accident. The killer knew there was a bullet. Unless the bullet is unrelated to the crime.

It can happen, especially if you rack the pistol. It has been covered extensively here way back when the PCA was first released. We had some gun aficionados explain it. I am not one of those myself.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Sounds to me, but it's hard to be sure without the context of the whole conversation, like JH was referring to the why it had happened. Everyone wants to know the why...why did a killer kill two sweet young girls in such a brutal fashion, leaving one naked, one fully re-clothed, no physical signs of rape. </3 JMO

Murders happen thousands of times a year, why does any killer do these things? There is no logic or explanation that a normal brain can comprehend when trying to make sense of brutal crimes like these. I believe it was sexually motivated even though there were no signs of physical SA. He forced them to undress, that is a SA in itself.

I think JH and all of LE, ISP and FBI were deeply emotionally invested in solving this crime partly because they saw the carnage of the CS up close and personal. I'm sure it took a toll on all of them. It has me and I refused to read the salacious details outlined in the FM by the D in that section. That was exploitive and unnecessary from the D and must have been horrendous for the families to read.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

My impression was that Holeman was lowering the boom going for a confession. I doubt they had even tried doing voice analysis at that point, honestly. For trial I'd advise against just throwing everything they have at RA and hoping something sticks. This isn't a civil trial with a preponderance of evidence standard, they should just go for the kill shot. Why distract from your most powerful evidence with sketchy stuff?
In other words, they probably will use it at trial...

No, it's the totality of evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trial. Each piece that we know of (and we don't know all yet) is one brick in the wall. RA has bricked himself in IMO.