It's difficult to pick one sentence, out of context, in the middle of an interview that is several hours long and analyze it ... and draw a correct conclusion.2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf
In my view, the most interesting thing about this document is where Rick says:
"You're gonna pay for what you've done to my wife. You want to with me, with me but you leave my wife out of this. . Leave me out of this." (p. 11).
In that statement, it seems that RA feels a need to appear big and strong and protective. He sounds awfully upset that LE have now involved his wife and tells them to mess with him, but not with her. What would ever make it ok for them to mess with him at all if he were completely innocent? Just wondering out loud here. Wouldn't an innocent man be screaming about being innocent? Wouldn't he be trying to explain why witnesses saw him on the bridge (he says they didn't see him in the exchange just above the quoted section). Its only my opinion, but something is off with RA's statement here.
It really does feel like we're extended family. Sometimes I wonder if this thing will ever be over. For the loved ones the pain may subside over time, but the terrible absence will never be over.I've got the majority of this horrible information memorized after all this time. I will be glad when justice comes to Abby & Libby and this case is over. It's been very emotional for me.
I am going off memory so this might not be exact, but close. I'm also going on what I think could have happened.. not saying it's fact, but what I can see happening based on what we do know about the timeline.I'm having trouble digesting the timeline. From the moment Libby started filming BG to the moment DG showed up looking for the girls seems like a fairly small window for the killer to lead the the girls down the hill and across the creek, undress them, do whatever he had in mind when undressing them (ugh), murder them, drip blood spots all over Libby, redress Abby in Libby's clothes, make the symbol on the tree, arrange sticks over the bodies, clean himself up enough to walk out, and make his way out of the area without being seen by the very people already out looking for the girls. It almost seems impossible, yet here we are.
The extraneous creative writing does provide context it’s just worthless.
RA was in a tiny room! The door was shut!!!
RA was in the room with a person bigger AND with a power differential, a State Trooper!
Holeman cursed! He barked!
But RA shows he is nasty and up for a fight.
They lie that RA said to “stop the interview”. Getting lost in their imaginative "context" they convolute a snippet from an earlier topic point for reuse with a new meaning.
The sentence with "its over" is adjacent to RA realizing that he wasn’t there to help with the investigation after all.
RA is saying his cooperating is over. That is the topic at that point not the interview. imo
“It’s over. I was perfectly fine. I was cooperating.
I was going to give you my phone and then, you know, when you
started reading all these documents – that’s at the – here’s my thing
is.
[…]
Rick Allen asked Holeman to stop the interview. Rick said “I’m
done” early into the interrogation at the 12:05 mark, but
Holeman continued his interrogation.
2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf
Where’s the words “stop the interview”?
[..]
8. However, at the end of the interview (that turned into an aggressive
interrogation) Rick made it clear that he no longer wanted to talk to
law enforcement.
[...]
No direct quotes showing RA “made it clear he no longer wanted to talk to law enforcement”? Did RA really use the words law enforcement?
With no direct quotes to back up making it “clear” is it in the words of the Defense nowhere in the video?
This exchange is interesting:
Jerry Holeman: I don’t think you’re a bad person.
Rick: What kind of good person kills two
Ok Rick.
all imo
It's the beginning of this interview lost, 70 days of interviews lost, RA's DD interview lost. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be a problem. Jmo.This is why they provided the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling in State v. E.R.
To provide a case with very similar issues where the SCOIN ruled in favor of the defendant and said their Constitutional rights were violated.
Generally speaking, it's normal to see someone questioned in small room with an intimidating officer. Nothing new. But, there may have been parts of this that violated his rights and the law, so they provided a case that set a precedent in 2019.
The law is the law. And anyone who doesn't find it EXTREMELY sus that the first part of this interview was "lost" or never recorded has their head in the clouds (or has a way-too-healthy trust of all LE), IMO MOO IMO MOO.
I also just noticed that this State v. E.R. case had AB as an attorney...This is why they provided the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling in State v. E.R.
To provide a case with very similar issues where the SCOIN ruled in favor of the defendant and said their Constitutional rights were violated.
Generally speaking, it's normal to see someone questioned in small room with an intimidating officer. Nothing new. But, there may have been parts of this that violated his rights and the law, so they provided a case that set a precedent in 2019.
The law is the law. And anyone who doesn't find it EXTREMELY sus that the first part of this interview was "lost" or never recorded has their head in the clouds (or has a way-too-healthy trust of all LE), IMO MOO IMO MOO.
It's the beginning of this interview lost, 70 days of interviews lost, RA's DD interview lost. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be a problem. Jmo.
I also just noticed that this State v. E.R. case had AB as an attorney...
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/in-supreme-court/2002727.html
Here, two police officers interrogated E.R. in a secured area at a police station, without providing him Miranda warnings. When the State tried to use statements E.R. made during the interrogation as evidence against him in a criminal trial, he moved to suppress them as inadmissible. The trial court granted the motion.I also just noticed that this State v. E.R. case had AB as an attorney...
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/in-supreme-court/2002727.html
This is why they provided the Indiana Supreme Court's ruling in State v. E.R.
To provide a case with very similar issues where the SCOIN ruled in favor of the defendant and said their Constitutional rights were violated.
Generally speaking, it's normal to see someone questioned in small room with an intimidating officer. Nothing new. But, there may have been parts of this that violated his rights and the law, so they provided a case that set a precedent in 2019.
The law is the law. And anyone who doesn't find it EXTREMELY sus that the first part of this interview was "lost" or never recorded has their head in the clouds (or has a way-too-healthy trust of all LE), IMO MOO IMO MOO.
The kind of thing that a prosecution case will want to address at trial and which might never be answered in a guilty plea. Might never be answered in any case.I'm having trouble digesting the timeline. From the moment Libby started filming BG to the moment DG showed up looking for the girls seems like a fairly small window for the killer to lead the the girls down the hill and across the creek, undress them, do whatever he had in mind when undressing them (ugh), murder them, drip blood spots all over Libby, redress Abby in Libby's clothes, make the symbol on the tree, arrange sticks over the bodies, clean himself up enough to walk out, and make his way out of the area without being seen by the very people already out looking for the girls. It almost seems impossible, yet here we are.
I'm sorry, that just strikes me as a very compressed timeline. I wonder if anyone has ever bothered just to wallk that out. From the end of Monon High Bridge to the CS, then through the available exit paths back to where everybody seems sure RA parked. The state would want to use a route that includes it's eyewitnesses presumably.The kind of thing that a prosecution case will want to address at trial and which might never be answered in a guilty plea. Might never be answered in any case.
Great point!Yes, I find accused murdering perverts sus more than I do LE.
The kind of thing that a prosecution case will want to address at trial and which might never be answered in a guilty plea. Might never be answered in any case.
This and the Idaho timelines really get in the way. No matter what happened bodies were left behind. So someone had the gumption to get it done. We will have to wait and see if it was RA alone. I don't know how he didn't manage to blame any one else in all his confessing.I'm sorry, that just strikes me as a very compressed timeline. I wonder if anyone has ever bothered just to wallk that out. From the end of Monon High Bridge to the CS, then through the available exit paths back to where everybody seems sure RA parked. The state would want to use a route that includes it's eyewitnesses presumably.
That walk alone seems like it's going to eat up a pretty good chunk of that 75 minutes. And RA doesn't look overly fit to me.