IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #167

[girlhasnoname]

Yes, it's frustrating because I do believe LE had good probable cause, probably a great deal more than we see in the PCA, to arrest and charge RA as they did.

EF as a suspect might depend a lot on how accurate his statements were. Per the memo, there might be some mental deficiencies with EF, so a false confession might not be implausible. However, his own sister thought it pertinent to go to LE, and still pursue it a year later, if the memo is accurate. If he had spit and there was clear DNA evidence of that, he'd be in jail right now, IMO. So either the DNA they have isn't as usable as we would like to think, or it didn't happen. Or maybe one of the girls was washed by creek water at some point? IDK...just spitballing (no pun intended). The memo also says RA's DNA was not at the crime scene...

In any case, I remind myself that none of the men listed in the memo have been charged with anything related to the murders. The D would like us to believe that is because the Unified Command simply blew off the Rushville investigation, but who knows the truth.

This Memo by Defense says RA's DNA wasn't at the crime scene, but TL said in interviews that there was fingerprints and DNA recovered.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Wouldn't that be suspicious, too, then? Who would coach him to say that, and why? The real killer? Or are we to believe his sister was throwing him under the bus for the reward money?

Or just plain ole' bragging rights, trying to make himself seem important in this high profile case?

 

[FrostedGlass]

IMO, the discourse over the legal documents is fascinating, because folks can see things so very differently. I think back to when the KAK interview came out and how much strife there was over what everyone believed. It was pointed out, justifiably, how LE can lie so we can't take any of it as fact. In the end, through the hearings, we found out a lot of the CSAM details in that interview were, indeed, accurate. LE and lawyers don't always have to lie when the evidence is right there. But none of us know what is accurate until it's clarified by LE or through the courts, thus the repeated back and forth.

In the Delphi matter, I'm not ready to completely dismiss the entire memorandum because of the Odinist stuff. I'm also not ready to believe every word of it without knowing the evidence. This is the same for the prosecution's documents, like the PCA. For example, after listing specific vehicle descriptions at the CPS lot, NMcL completely omitted the vehicle description given by the one witness who places a man on the bridge moments before the girls got there. Now we know that was likely because her description was so vastly different from the others. He didn't have to include her '65 Comet statement, so he didn't. That's how it works, on both sides, and we all know it.

It's clear there are some that think the bullet and the witness/RA timeline are the clencher. I tend towards this myself. However, bearing in mind I don't have more than a fraction of the evidence, I'm open to what the D has put out there. Maybe not the Odinist stuff, but I can buy that maybe there was a signature left at the scene that hints at Norse beliefs. I think the D maybe took it too far and lessened the value of their argument, but I'm intrigued some of the other details. Like others, I want the system to work and the guilty party or parties to pay for the horror they brought L, A, their families, and the community.

JMO.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Your views are always interesting.

Attorney Shay Hughes aka Hoosier Public Defender put out a couple of X twitter posts about this. The quote below is what he has to say about the omissions. The question I have: Is it OK to include part of a person's testimony that backs his statement but omits that which does not? It will be interesting to hear how the judge views it.

"An affidavit must include all material facts even if they cast doubt on the existence of probable cause. Omissions will invalidate a warrant if 1) the police omitted the facts to make the affidavit misleading or w/ reckless disregard; and 2) if supplemented w/ this info there would not be PC. Will discuss further in the next post."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1707210087029182705

 

[Boxer]

He didn't admit to the CO what he was wearing, so that was unknown until Oct. 2022, when he admitted during his interview with LE. That's what blows my mind. What was his reasoning for doing so then? Because at that point, he'd known about the video for over 5 years.

Maybe he had replaced the blue jacket, unbeknownst to KA, so wasn't worried about it getting collected? Idk.

Agree.

 

[TL4S]

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Your views are always interesting.

Attorney Shay Hughes aka Hoosier Public Defender put out a couple of X twitter posts about this. The quote below is what he has to say about the omissions. The question I have: Is it OK to include part of a person's testimony that backs his statement but omits that which does not? It will be interesting to hear how the judge views it.

"An affidavit must include all material facts even if they cast doubt on the existence of probable cause. Omissions will invalidate a warrant if 1) the police omitted the facts to make the affidavit misleading or w/ reckless disregard; and 2) if supplemented w/ this info there would not be PC. Will discuss further in the next post."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1707210087029182705

Thanks for posting that link! I like his stuff. This is exactly why I don't so readily dismiss the D's entire memorandum.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The way it has been described sounds to me as though it were left rather intentionally. Which would beg the question — why?

For a non Odinist, RA, to try and frame it as an Odinist did it in an effort to completely throw LE off his trail. Or maybe he had some sick fantasy to recreate such a thing and filmed or photographed it for sale on the Dark Web? There are a million reasons why RA did what he did and hopefully at trial we will hear some of them.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I find it interesting that the defense has yet to interview the pathologist that did the medical exams. Seems that would be the starting point right after crime scene if you want to blame the crime on a ritual sacrifice. I am disgusted that pages of the memorandum painted such a horrific scene and yet they didn't want to speak to the individual that performed the medical exams to obtain their expert opinion.

IMO these means the defense isn't interested in pursuing any semblance of the truth.

Agreed, it was sneaky low down Hail Mary exploitation of Libby and Abby and sensationalism in an effort to come up with some alternative theory.

RA admitted he was there at the time, wearing the same clothing, confessed 5 times to his wife and mother on the telephone not in an LE interrogation, a bullet consistent with a firearm that RA posses and has never been loaned out or out of his possession found at the murder scene, there has been evidence found in the SW's that the Defense is desperate to have thrown out.

Not going to happen IMO. RA is BG and although we may not know all of the exact details now, the State has enough evidence to lock a sick, child killer away for life. Which is exactly the way it should be.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

ALL IMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Thanks for posting that link! I like his stuff. This is exactly why I don't so readily dismiss the D's entire memorandum.

I think there also may be a Chain of Custody problem for the magic bullet. In one of the MS podcasts, KG mentioned CoC so briefly that I didn't even think to note which podcast it was. According to the memorandum, Rozzi has no photos of it from that point until it was at the forensic lab. It also states the following:
"Shockingly, in his deposition, Sheriff Liggett admitted that he also has not seen any
photographs of the purported bullet taken once the bullet was pulled from the ground."

Footnote pg 32:
20 On September 8, 2023, the Defense did receive photographs of the bullet at the forensic lab where it was tested.
However, the Defense still has not received photos of the bullets from the crime scene of crime scene technicians
pulling out the bullet from the ground or placing it into an evidence bag, as is standard practice, especially in murder
cases.

In the search warrant return, all 3 parts of it note the chain of custody is on the following page but those pages aren't included for whatever reason. Why they weren't included could be something or nothing. It's very important to see pics of the path that piece of evidence from beginning to end. Prosecution needs to find those pictures. MOO

 

[TL4S]

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Your views are always interesting.

Attorney Shay Hughes aka Hoosier Public Defender put out a couple of X twitter posts about this. The quote below is what he has to say about the omissions. The question I have: Is it OK to include part of a person's testimony that backs his statement but omits that which does not? It will be interesting to hear how the judge views it.

"An affidavit must include all material facts even if they cast doubt on the existence of probable cause. Omissions will invalidate a warrant if 1) the police omitted the facts to make the affidavit misleading or w/ reckless disregard; and 2) if supplemented w/ this info there would not be PC. Will discuss further in the next post."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1707210087029182705

I think it's important for people to discuss these things because I know, for myself, I learn so much from following the investigations and legal proceedings. It's rarely as simple as it appears.

In Delphi, we had NMcL tell the court they have good reason to believe others are involved. The memorandum cites LE sources we aren't privy to as saying they believe more than one person is involved. Sources that say they think it was done by RA alone are disputed by other citings we can't see.

I respect that some are firmly certain on RA's guilt and him as the lone killer. But for me, if I lived in the community, I would want to know, without doubt, that the guilty person or persons were ALL accounted for and off the streets, and with the the information we have right now, I'm simply not as certain as others are that this is a slam dunk. With that said, I'm not convinced that they don't have the right man in custody, it's just that I'd want to see these other questions answered. Jmo.

 

[MistyWaters]

I think it's important for people to discuss these things because I know, for myself, I learn so much from following the investigations and legal proceedings. It's rarely as simple as it appears.

In Delphi, we had NMcL tell the court they have good reason to believe others are involved. The memorandum cites LE sources we aren't privy to as saying they believe more than one person is involved. Sources that say they think it was done by RA alone are disputed by other citings we can't see.

I respect that some are firmly certain on RA's guilt and him as the lone killer. But for me, if I lived in the community, I would want to know, without doubt, that the guilty person or persons were ALL accounted for and off the streets, and with the the information we have right now, I'm simply not as certain as others are that this is a slam dunk. With that said, I'm not convinced that they don't have the right man in custody, it's just that I'd want to see these other questions answered. Jmo.

Good points! At the end of the day it doesn’t matter what any of us here think about this case. If/when RA stands before the court it’ll come down to the opinion of the 12 jurors and even then, often the general public will not entirely agree on the verdict but there’s no better way.

Another thing I’ve learned from following many cases is it’s a great mistake for the general public to assume they know the entire prosecution‘s case before it’s even tried, to rely on partial information to judge if the charges are warranted or decide if LE did good work. The way I see it, it’s okay to not know, remembering that right now we shouldn’t know it all, if we did the purpose of trials would essentially become redundant. I would be quite surprised if this case will be ready to commence Jan/2024.

JMO

 

[pageantmom]

I might be the only one who thinks the bullet may possibly have just been planted there

 

[TL4S]

I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me that the D claims there is no forensic evidence (DNA, fingerprints, footprints, hair, etc.) that links RA to the crime scene. What about THE blue jacket? What about the reddish-brown hair? What about the RL affidavit searching for fibers, animal hair, and bodily fluids? What about DNA testing KAK, TK, TK's dog, EF, PE, and any of the other countless known or unknown individuals? In my view, these things hint that LE has forensic evidence that they are trying to match up with a specific individual. Yet, possibly that evidence doesn't match RA, either?

Of course there could be so much more we don't know about, but this does bother me...

 

[Justice101]

Agreed, it was sneaky low down Hail Mary exploitation of Libby and Abby and sensationalism in an effort to come up with some alternative theory.

RA admitted he was there at the time, wearing the same clothing, confessed 5 times to his wife and mother on the telephone not in an LE interrogation, a bullet consistent with a firearm that RA posses and has never been loaned out or out of his possession found at the murder scene, there has been evidence found in the SW's that the Defense is desperate to have thrown out.

Not going to happen IMO. RA is BG and although we may not know all of the exact details now, the State has enough evidence to lock a sick, child killer away for life. Which is exactly the way it should be.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

ALL IMO

Well said!

They said they got their man.. and they were right.

They are totally grasping for straws and throwing Hail Marys hoping something will help with their client.

However, there is only so much you can do when you are down in the score 52 to 7 with 1 quarter to go.

 

[TL4S]

I might be the only one who thinks the bullet may possibly have just been planted there

Don't even get me started on the bullet.

I've posted several times about it, but BMcD just recently said her sources had told her about the bullet for a long time, but she had never heard a definitive theory from them that the bullet came from the suspect, and that it could have even come from LE. Extractor ballistics, especially on a manually extracted bullet, IMO will only be as strong of evidence as the argument by the expert witness regarding those ballistics. JMO.

I don't necessarily believe it was planted, but could it have come from another source other than RA? I guess we'll see.

mm 20:50
Delphi Murders: Illustrations Detail Defense Claims About Crime Scene

 

[FrostedGlass]

I might be the only one who thinks the bullet may possibly have just been planted there

OR... you might not be.

 

[MistyWaters]

I might be the only one who thinks the bullet may possibly have just been planted there

Planted to frame RA? I’m not quite understanding how that could hypothetically occur. Someone would’ve have to had access to his residence in order to steal a bullet in advance to the crime AND also correctly predicted he was going to speak to LE to place himself on the bridge that day. Without that 2017 interview awaiting to be discovered the framing would’ve been all for naught.

 

[Arkay]

For me it boils down to this—-the purpose of the Defense memorandum is to toss out the search warrant of RA’s home, and all evidence obtained thereby.

Why so frantic to void the SW and the evidence from the search of the home?
If RA is not involved, there can be no damning evidence, right?

If LE came to my home with a SW to find evidence of my culpability in the murder of A and L, they wouldn’t find anything, because I didn’t do it.

That RA and his attorneys didn’t simply shrug it off, announce that LE can go ahead and search all they want because there’s nothing to hide, implies to me, JMO, that they greatly fear the evidence collected from his home.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

For me it boils down to this—-the purpose of the Defense memorandum is to toss out the search warrant of RA’s home, and all evidence obtained thereby.

Why so frantic to void the SW and the evidence from the search of the home?
If RA is not involved, there can be no damning evidence, right?

If LE came to my home with a SW to find evidence of my culpability in the murder of A and L, they wouldn’t find anything, because I didn’t do it.

That RA and his attorneys didn’t simply shrug it off, announce that LE can go ahead and search all they want because there’s nothing to hide, implies to me, JMO, that they greatly fear the evidence collected from his home.

JMO

I very much agree with this. However, regardless of RA's guilt or innocence, if they obtained that SW by misconstruing the evidence, by way of omitting exculpatory statements, then that is something that LE and NMcL need to be called out on, either way. At this point, the judge will be the one to decide what happened there.

I remember early on after the arrest, it was discussed how NMcL had made all these terrible errors on some of the court documents. People were questioning his ability to handle such a high-profile case. They questioned him for wanting the affidavit sealed. They questioned his reasoning for telling the court that others could be involved. Now, suddenly it's an airtight case against RA and the D are the ones who are being questioned.

I'm just feeling somewhat uncertain about the true facts of the case at this point. JMO.

 

[Ravenmoon]

EF is a potential problem, IMO. Per page 96 and 97, his phone was in Rushville from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm, and was unused during that time, on 2/13/17. In 2018, EF told LE he was in Rushville on 2/13/17, but RoAb (so as not to be confused with charged RA), told LE he and EF were in Muncie visiting the hospital, both had their phones, but because hospitals cut cell reception due to equipment, their phones wouldn't show up at the hospital. According to the memo, LE did not believe RoAb or EF were in Muncie on 2/13/17.

Then we have EF admitting putting sticks on A's head like antlers. Even if LE didn't see "antlers" in those sticks, if there were sticks obviously placed around her head at all, possibly this could be seen as an incriminating statement. How would he know about sticks around her head? Lucky guess because they were in the woods? Was he there? Had he seen a picture? He also said he spit on the girls, after LE took his DNA. I think if he had spit on the girls, the DNA would have been usable unless perhaps it had been so diluted with blood, or something like that. But he also made admissions to one sister on Feb. 14, 2017, and the other sister on Oct. 2017. His first sister tipped him in, and the D has requested the P find this exact tip narrative (page 93).

We don't know how accurate any of this is, but what is being stated in this part, by the D, will be obvious to the judge when she reads the attachments, which we do not have access to.

EF is intellectually disabled.
He has the mental capacity of a 6 year old.

 

[Ravenmoon]

<modsnip - personalizing>. And how about it wasn't a sacrifice, just some sick phantasies of a person or a small group of people? It's not black and white, even if you don't believe the cult part, you can still believe other things. If there were what looked like "antlers" in the crime scene photos, then they were there. What they are and if it's a coincidence is the question. And yes, it is weird that somebody mentioned them years ago when only the killer would know what the crime scene looked like (and LE and a few searchers). And that this person gave what seems to be a false alibi for that day too.

Or if they quote what someone said in a deposition, you can believe that, there are receipts, you just don't know if and what they left out and it also doesn't automatically mean that a cult was involved. I don't know why this is so hard to understand, parts of the memo are definitely true (prosecution says so as well), the ones where the court has the attachments, the receipts, other parts could be true but also could be speculation by the defense. You can't just say "oh, they think a cult did it, so everything in the memo must be BS and lies" because there is so much more in those 136 pages that works even without the cult involvment that they allege.

Sticks above someone's head don't make antlers.
It's more likely that they were already on the ground where she was placed or they became tangled in her hair during her murder.

JMO