Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Four girls are seeing one man, who is by 3 of them described as if there were two different men, and the one man only sees three girls and doesn't know of the fourth. Though everyone passed each other.

I will get it later, one day in the future, hopefully. o_O
 
Yes, I've always thought the black and white design worn with the jacket was a scarf. moo

So, you think this person could be described as wearing all black?

View attachment 495428
Credit: Daily Mail
The light from the photo and angles are going to be different from what they saw, though, possibly. Jacket definitely could look black, jmo. Based on this image with the jeans, no way, however-- that's based just on the image, though. There are a lot of denim shades. They do look very light blue here, but some denims are darker than others. Could these BG jeans look lighter depending on the light and angles? I would think maybe? Even in the image, look how dark the patches of jeans are where shadows are cast over them.

I've always thought BG had a fleshy covered scarf covering his face. And I don't think the color/shade of that scarf's any accident because you'd have to really, really look at it carefully to even know if he actually has a scarf on his face. I know I had to really look at it before I decided (jmo) he has a fleshy/tannish scarf covering his face.

He'd try to hide the scarf, too, undoubtedly. If someone passed, he'd probably try to hide his entire face. Who'd be wearing a scarf on a day like that?
 
Four girls are seeing one man, who is by 3 of them described as if there were two different men, and the one man only sees three girls and doesn't know of the fourth. Though everyone passed each other.

I will get it later, one day in the future, hopefully. o_O
Except the 4th one was apparently not interviewed. For whatever reason.
 
I can understand how it can happen. It seems odd but after following numerous cases here since 2008, one main thing I have learned is that even the smartest, most careful killer forgets something. There is ALWAYS that one or two tiny things that screw up the perfect crime.

Imagine how intense that period of time is for them. Sooooooooooo much going on---the intensity of the actual murder, the adrenaline and the fear and then the overload of thoughts about what needs to be urgently handled---it is all happening so fast, even for a skilled serial killer, there is so much to remember, so much to do, in so little time.

EVERYTHING has to go right. No false moves, no sloppy mistakes.

In Moscow, Idaho, it was perhaps that one silly knife sheath with the DNA on the snap. The killer left a perfectly clean, untraceable crime scene behind. Except that one stupid sheath...

So many times it comes down to one tiny sloppy mistake... Jodi Arias left the camera full of pictures of the murder on it in the washing machine when she was hurriedly washing the bloody sheets...

Yep. e.g the McStay murders, the killer buried the bodies, returned to the highway, and thinking he was safe, turned his phone back on. All fine, until the bodies were found, and you could plot his appearance on the tower that commanded the grave site and the highway. A lot of these mistakes are psychologically easy to make.
 
This is what I think as well, he (or they)-- someone was incredibly meticulous. (BG to me-- BG does not look meticulous.) That's why I just for the life of me do not understand how the phone with a recorded image of the murderer was left at the CS.

I suspect he was disturbed/spooked, didn't finish the staging and couldn't find the phone. He was likely exhausted by this point.
 
I honestly don't he saw her filming him. He had to watch where he was going or risk hitting a space in the bridge and taking a tumble. By the time he was close enough to concentrate on the girl's Libby may have dropped her hand and tucked her phone away so the killer never thought he needed to deal with it. We may never know exactly how her phone wound up <psbm>...and then she was murdered with her phone under her. JMO
It's not pleasant to consider how it began. BG followed them. I think he watched from among the trees when Libby was at platform one taking the first picture of only the long, lone MHB.

Then, at 2:07, he must see that LG is snapping a photo of Abby but he isn't seen on the HB. Did Libby need a minute to stop and download it to Snapchat? IDK how that app works.
By 2:13, she films BG as he nears Abby
because her *grey sleeve is caught in the frame
.

Hence, it's likely he knew Libby was using her camera at least for the first photo of the length of the bridge. He waited. He may have noticed Libby snapping the image of Abby at 2:07 for snapchat, too, because BG's not visible on the bridge, att.
* The image of BG I just posted was purposefully cropped of her grey sleeve from the image.
 
FWIW I think it's an exercise in extraction to pull two male figures from witnesses' descriptions, which everyone knows can vary greatly. We don't know what was recalled organically, what questions were asked.

For example, all MOO

Do you remember what he was wearing?

No.

We're his clothes dark or light?

Dark?

Dark like blue or black?

Black.

A child might not have a solid mental picture to draw from but might have an ingrained proclivity to please. Wants to answer, wants to help, wants to give the answer the questioner is looking for.

It's most convincing to me that they all saw a man at the same time, one who was wearing dark clothes, whose behavior was such that they remembered him.

JMO
 
As for the discrepancy between the blue jacket worn by BG in the video and the light jacket worn by muddy guy, it's not complicated.

Reversible jacket.

The defense is trying hard to capitalize on/exploit any angle to create a second mystery man on the bridge. The two sketches provide them a springboard for that... but the greatest case against a SODDI BG is RA himself. According to him, HE never passed by a younger man with poofy hair or a man in black or a man in a tan jacket or even a doppelganger outfitted exactly as himself.

He was the only male there.... between 1:50 and 2:10 .... on track to be on the bridge... at precisely the moments Libby was filming....

JMO
 
You might want to read the defense Reply filed yesterday for the Turco update; the D reported their interview with Turco last week of March. Holeman - was parsing in error at best. Turco denied Holeman’s representation of Turco’s views.

You’re right though. The D could get another expert.

I did read it but I don't see that it rebuts the substance from Turco in the prosecution's response. The defence claim that Holeman miscategorised the report in his summary - which to me is a question of opinion. But in the actual trial, it will matter what the witness himself will testify, and what his report said. And apparently he does not believe it is self evident these were runes, and prefers Holeman's summary. So it doesn't seem like calling this witness is a great idea.

One suspects that by writing their own summary, the intent was in fact to misrepresent the report.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2024-04-06 at 13.28.43.png
    Screenshot 2024-04-06 at 13.28.43.png
    580.8 KB · Views: 11
This is what I think as well, he (or they)-- someone was incredibly meticulous. (BG to me-- BG does not look meticulous.) That's why I just for the life of me do not understand how the phone with a recorded image of the murderer was left at the CS.
It's hard to say what the killer was thinking at that moment, but I always suspected he didn't really give the phone much thought. I think he was peripherally aware of the phone, and had likely seen L using it on the trail/bridge, but phones are so ubiquitous now that it's something he could have almost tuned out, if that makes sense. Even if he was worried about his own phone being off/left at home, it probably never crossed his mind that there could be evidence of his presence on L's phone (good on her for getting that video). JMO.

The P says the phone was under L, the D says it was under A, along with a shoe, so I'm not sure which it is, but the fact that it was under either one of them, while the rest of the clothing ended up in the creek, suggests to me that he might have just quickly gathered all visible clothing and tossed it, perhaps grabbing a sock/underwear as a trophy (or they were just lost in the creek). JMO.

I've seen it suggested that perhaps the killer was going to start a fire. It's a very interesting idea, although for as far away as he was parked, especially since he was on foot, I have trouble with that. If a fire was the plan, why not move them closer together, along with the clothing, and build sticks over the entire thing, especially if the idea was simply to destroy evidence? I don't care if he was just covering them, building a fire, or laying out freaking runes...it's weird. And why put the clothing in the creek instead of covering them with leaves/sticks, too (I know, I know...DNA)? The mindset of the killer, in that moment, was significant, IMO, not only for the horrible acts he did on two innocent girls, but in how he carried it all out. If RA is this killer, I truly hope he will share with a forensic psychologist, to help better understand what brings a person to that. :(
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the correction! The fields are simular in that they deal with the brain and the nervous system. Neuropsychological seems to center around a brain's illness or injury affecting the body's neurology while neurophysiology is how the condition of the nervous system itself affects the brain's functioning. Pretty closely related and mostly likely borrowing from the other in many diagnosing.

If RA's calling a neuropsychologist to testify as to his condition, does that mean he's being diagnosed as having brain illness or damage...so he's incompetent? Do you think that's what is going to be put forth? It's quite late in the game discovery isn't it. And the exam is very recent.
Here's the explanation for why the exam was just filed, It appears the judge got the ball rolling and then denied any further funding.

This is from the Motion for Parity:
(snip)
Since being reinstated in this case, the State of Indiana
has served up additional discovery to the Defense in the form of multiple interviews
conducted by law enforcement with Westville prisoners and correctional officers. In
these interviews, law enforcement investigators have inquired about the
interviewees’ opinions regarding Defendant Allen’s state of mental health,
practically seeking clinical diagnostic opinions from these lay witnesses. Defense
counsel retained a clinical psychologist to evaluate Allen and review health records
and video relevant to Allen’s confinement conditions. This Court previously
authorized funds for the defense to retain the expert. However, those funds are now
depleted, and additional services are still needed.

This Court authorized payment for the two-hour visit defense counsel had
scheduled with the expert but denied the request for additional funding, finding
that the “unsupported request is denied as an unreasonable expenditure of county
funds.”


Defense counsel also requested funding to hire a confession expert to educate
counsel and possibly the jury on the impacts solitary confinement has on
individuals accused of crimes, particularly in relation to the voluntariness of a

confession made in those conditions. Through the process of conducting discovery,
Defense counsel has learned that Defendant Allen’s pre-trial detention in the
segregation unit at Westville, may be the first time an innocent man has been
confined in such a setting in the history of the institution and possibly this State.
Moreover, Allen’s detention is the direct result of the Carroll County Sheriff’s
request for a safekeeping order. He, the requesting Sheriff, created this
circumstance. It is indisputable that the issue of the impact of Allen’s unique and
unprecedented pre-trial detention circumstances on his overall mental health is
germane to his defense. Despite this, the Court declined defense counsel’s request
for additional funding as being “unsupported.”


17. Defense counsel made other requests for funding as well. Counsel
requested funding for the services of an independent forensic pathologist to review
and consult with the defense on issues related to the crime scene, the pathology of
the victims, and the cause, manner, and timing of death. This Court declined the
request as being “unsupported.”

Here's some info on Dr. Westcott. I'm assuming this is the right one.
Personal Bio
Dr. Polly Westcott has been practicing in Indiana since 2004. She is a clinical psychologist with post-doctoral training in neuropsychology and forensics. She works with children, adults, and families from a cognitive behavioral therapeutic perspective, including using biofeedback to treat mood disorders, adjusting to life transitions, posttraumatic stress, and various medical conditions. Employing her neuropsychology background, she conducts neuropsychological assessments and works to help caregivers, families, and patients with brain-based disorders cope and strategize to improve their functioning. She is a nationally known legal consultant for criminal and civil cases involving brain-based and psychological disorders.
 
To further complicate matters...

APR 22, 2019
During Monday's press conference, ISP also requested the public's help to identify the driver of a vehicle that was parked nearby <>.

Carter says a vehicle was parked at the old CPS/DCS Welfare building in Delphi on the east side of County Road 300 North, next to the Hoosier Heartland Highway between noon and 5 p.m. February 14, 2017. No details about that vehicle were released, including make and model, color or license plate number.
Delphi Murders: ISP says new audio, video and sketch shows Libby & Abby’s killer

That's what Carter said about the date so that's what all the MSM wrote.
When you think about that, it’s utterly ridiculous, at least to me. TWO years later DC is asking people to identify a driver?! I can’t identify the man I saw in the parking lot at a restaurant yesterday! Geesh.

I recall the 2019 PC, and thinking, “they are on the right track now,” they have something to follow. New investigation. I felt positive about the case. That didn’t last too long before I started having some serious questions. More word salad from DC in the coming year.

I’d like to know when they finally “came upon RA” and that tip which wasn’t a “tipping in” at all. Just a guy who talked to a CO to tell him he was at the trails that day, like so many others. No interview, just some notes. I think they were desperate for an arrest and RA was someone they could pin it on, regardless of the lack of meaningful evidence. So, they manipulated the time, the words of witnesses, made assumptions and passed them off as legit evidence by failing to include any exculpatory evidence and getting the judge to sign the PCA. This case has turned into a travesty of justice, both for Abby and Libby and RA. Some dark forces down there in Delphi that need to be exposed. Convicting an innocent man is justice for no one, not A & L, not RA and not for the public at large.
All JMHO.
 
It's hard to say what the killer was thinking at that moment, but I always suspected he didn't really give the phone much thought. I think he was peripherally aware of the phone, and had likely seen L using it on the trail/bridge, but phones are so ubiquitous now that it's something he could have almost tuned out, if that makes sense. Even if he was worried about his own phone being off/left at home, it probably never crossed his mind that there could be evidence of his presence on L's phone (good on her for getting that video). JMO.

The P says the phone was under L, the D says it was under A, along with a shoe, so I'm not sure which it is, but the fact that it was under either one of them, while the rest of the clothing ended up in the creek, suggests to me that he might have just quickly gathered all visible clothing and tossed it, perhaps grabbing a sock/underwear as a trophy (or they were just lost in the creek). JMO.

I've seen it suggested that perhaps the killer was going to start a fire. It's a very interesting idea, although for as far away as he was parked, especially since he was on foot, I have trouble with that. If a fire was the plan, why not move them closer together, along with the clothing, and build sticks over the entire thing, especially if the idea was simply to destroy evidence? I don't care if he was just covering them, building a fire, or laying out freaking runes...it's weird. And why put the clothing in the creek instead of covering them with leaves/sticks, too (I know, I know...DNA)? The mindset of the killer, in that moment, was significant, IMO, not only for the horrible acts he did on two innocent girls, but in how he carried it all out. If RA is this killer, I truly hope he will share with a forensic psychologist, to help better understand what brings a person to that. :(
Since A was re-dressed in L's clothing, the shoe and phone left under her body almost had to be intentional. IMO
Do you remember if the phone was on the shoe or under it?

I'm doubtful of the fire plan. I just can't see how anyone would think that would work.
 
I believe that they have the right person in custody. Things line up and fit properly .
The Defense will have the opportunity to defend their client and poke holes in the States case.
It isn't so much being Pro State as it is Pro Abby and Libby.
I wonder if they have the right person in custody. Things don't line up and fit properly .
The Prosecution will have the opportunity to try to dispel my doubt.
It isn't so much being Pro Defense as it is Pro Abby and Libby.
They deserve the truth, wherever it lies.
 
I wonder if they have the right person in custody. Things don't line up and fit properly .
The Prosecution will have the opportunity to try to dispel my doubt.
It isn't so much being Pro Defense as it is Pro Abby and Libby.
They deserve the truth, wherever it lies.

Things line up pretty well hence him going to trial next month. The whole “Odinists” did it is farcical and is not going to over well in front of a jury imo

I still think they will walk away or change strategy as they are also not naive enough to believe this will get their client off.

Moooooo
 
Since A was re-dressed in L's clothing, the shoe and phone left under her body almost had to be intentional. IMO
Do you remember if the phone was on the shoe or under it?

I'm doubtful of the fire plan. I just can't see how anyone would think that would work.
The fire plan makes no sense to me, unless it was part of the purported ritual. Again, I just can't see him taking out a billboard: CRIME SCENE! MURDERED GIRLS HERE!
I feel like BG was leading them somewhere but was surprised by the speed with which DG showed up searching. Watching RL lead reporters through the gate at the back of the cemetery, it looks like it's very, very near the place where the bodies were found. Could be a coincidence.
 
Since A was re-dressed in L's clothing, the shoe and phone left under her body almost had to be intentional. IMO
Do you remember if the phone was on the shoe or under it?

I'm doubtful of the fire plan. I just can't see how anyone would think that would work.
The scenario that runs through my mind is that all their belongings were on the ground at one point, including the phone. Whichever girls was laying on the phone could have landed on top of it when killed, or was dragged over it when moved, and after it was all over, the killer gathered up the clothing he could see and dumped it all in the creek, maybe not even noticing there was a shoe/phone under one of the girls. I'm just totally guessing. If he did intentionally put a shoe/phone under one of them, then that's another strange oddity, IMO. Whichever he did, it would give a clue to the killer's mindset, IMO.

And I don't recall for sure, but I think the phone was under the shoe. I could well be wrong, though.
 
The D does have Professor Turco. They also have a Harvard Professor who agreed with Professor Turco's professional opinion. How much of the SODDI the Judge will allow is key to presenting the theory to the jury.

Turcos opinion was based on sketches or a diagram of the sticks only.
He has stated that there has never been a sacrifice of children by practicing Odinists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
1,985
Total visitors
2,127

Forum statistics

Threads
602,361
Messages
18,139,687
Members
231,368
Latest member
Elle C
Back
Top