Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
StarryStarryNight said:
The only thing all this proves to me is that the defense does not give a rat’s rear about their client RA.
In the last year RA has confessed dozens of times, most of which we only recently found out about.
RA confessed to his wife and mother in recorded phone calls. His lawyers even admitted to that in court.
RA continued to confess to most any animate being he saw. This is true too, evidenced by the defense team filing to have two of the approximately two and a half dozen confessions suppressed.
Could it be, that RA is screaming a scream his attorneys are choosing to ignore. That RA is confessing to so many because his own attorneys won’t do what he wants and plea guilty. They are too busy playing their fun little games to do what’s best for RA, his family, Libby, Abby, their families, and Delphi. I hope I’m wrong but it sure feels like they are perpetuating this for no valid reason.
Not just my thoughts, but also my opinion.
Click to expand...

The first thing I thought when I read that was: "Who in their right mind would do such a crazy thing!!"
 
FrostedGlass said:
You read something better than I did. I missed that completely. :)
Click to expand...
“Allen told investigators he arrived on the trails around 12 p.m. and left around 1:30 p.m. According to the timeline set by investigators, the killings likely happened between 1:30 p.m. and 4 p.m., meaning Allen would’ve left, according to his recollection.”

Attorneys for Richard Allen want client moved, lay out alternative theory of ‘ritualistic’ murder

“Rozzi asked for either a 15-day defense presentation of evidence after the prosecution would rest or a dismissal of the Speedy Trial order.”

Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen's defense says trial needs to be longer
 
steeltowngirl said:
“Allen told investigators he arrived on the trails around 12 p.m. and left around 1:30 p.m. According to the timeline set by investigators, the killings likely happened between 1:30 p.m. and 4 p.m., meaning Allen would’ve left, according to his recollection.”

Attorneys for Richard Allen want client moved, lay out alternative theory of ‘ritualistic’ murder

“Rozzi asked for either a 15-day defense presentation of evidence after the prosecution would rest or a dismissal of the Speedy Trial order.”

Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen's defense says trial needs to be longer
Click to expand...
Thanks. It's been a long day. That went right over my head.

Maybe Nick's evidence will blow them right out of the water on the first day and RA will jump up, screaming to the world: "I'M GUILTY!!!"

It could happen...
 
FrostedGlass said:
Thanks. It's been a long day. That went right over my head.

Maybe Nick's evidence will blow them right out of the water on the first day and RA will jump up, screaming to the world: "I'M GUILTY!!!"

It could happen...
Click to expand...
Well, maybe a group of Odinists will march into the courtroom and shout “WE did it!” Nothing would surprise me with this case anymore. :oops:
 
sunshineray said:
Yes I found this also but no information on how many inmates it houses or pics of the inside. If it has rec area, cafeteria style eating? Are there in house doctors and mental health people? It would not be good if RA was unsafe from others or himself if he had another meltdown.

I did find two mentions of three inmates dying there. Two passed in one week, I believe in 2022, had to be hospitalized for sudden illness but died. Another in 2023, self-inflicted injury in shower area.
Click to expand...


www.jconline.com

Decision coming for Tippecanoe Co. Jail: Choosing between warehousing offenders and treating them

A decision coming in 2020: Does Tippecanoe County warehouse people by expanding the jail or provide treatment for underlying reasons commonly believed to be behind crime?
www.jconline.com
 
steeltowngirl said:
Why does defense need at least 15 days to affirm that RA left the trails by 1:30 pm on 2/13/17?
Click to expand...
Because its not true.
He arrived, parked went to the trail. He then crossed paths with 4 girls who were headed back to Delphi via Freedom Bridge.
One of the girls had taken a picture of a bench on the trail just before they passed RA as he headed to MHB, the photo is time stamped 1:26.
RA said he saw the girls, so RAs time of arrival is fixed.
 
Willow Knight said:
The 3/4 girls stated what time they were leaving, Richard Allen gave the time of his arrival. The girls and RA agree they saw each other. It is the time and location they all passed. That person is the one many refer to as BG. I understand where you are going with this. Perfect question, IMO. It has not been proven in a court of law that BG is the killer. I feel comfortable believing RA is BG. However you are correct is has not been proven BG is the killer. Make sense?

Edit to add the following snip from your link.

She advised that was when they encountered the man Who matched the description of the photogruph taken from Victim 2's video.”
Click to expand...
Though an easy assumption to make based on the P’s crafty wording of the PCA, IMO it is inaccurate to say “the girls and RA agree they saw each other.”

Per the PCA, 3 of a group of 4 girls (not 3 girls only as earlier presumed) represent they passed “a man” near Freedom Bridge. One of the girls, after having already seen L’s video, notes similarity with the man in L’s video - assumedly BG. But no solid proof yet that RA = BG.

RA says in the PCA that he “saw” (not passed) a group of 3 girls (not 4, or not 3-4) “at” (not near) Freedom Bridge. He doesn’t state how close he was to these girls, only that he didn’t stop nor did he speak with them. He does opine that one was taller (IMO vague as in taller than what or who?) and had a dark hair color.

It’s important IMO to note that, while the group of 4 girls can be roughly timestamped due to BB’s sighting of them on the overpass as she drove under (probably about 1:42 or 1:43), the info on the other timestamp of the bench photo (at 1:26) did not present until 3 years later in 2020 (per the Search Warrant Affadavit) when LE re-interviewed BW who was the 1 of 4 girls who took the pics. She is the only person IIRC of the group who remembers 3 yrs later that they took the bench photo then shortly thereafter encountered the man.

Admittedly if we wholeheartedly go with the P’s full timeline which requires this encounter to have occurred later than 1:26 but prior to 1:42, and we’re 100% sure that DD’s notation of 1330-1530 means 1:30 arrival and 3:30 departure vs just on trails sometime btween 1:30-3:30…then MOO yes we’d conclude the group of girls & RA are describing the same encounter. However if anyone is open to consider that RA could’ve come through earlier or that the group of girls could’ve come through later, there’s enough variance in both parties’ descriptors to leave doubt that these parties saw each other. RA could’ve seen different girls and the group of 4 surely passed some man, possibly even BG, but not necessarily RA. I’m thinking specifically about RA states seeing 3 not 4 people, and the girls describing someone who was no more than 5’10 as opposed to very short, with varying color clothing and no one noticing the unique waist item, him being on the phone, the heavy layering of clothing, a gun, or the noteworthy hat?? ***Has RA’s version ever been confirmed that indeed one of this group of girls truly was taller and had dark hair?

All JMO
 
Last edited:
snooptroop88 said:
JMO, but it was anything but dumb for RA to go and speak with the conservation officer. He knew people on that bridge spotted him, he knew it for a fact. The really dumb thing for him to do in that situation would have been not to approach anyone at all. As it was, there were a host of parties he could have approached to try and cover himself to the extent possible. He could have contacted ISP, sheriff, FBI, municipal police. But he went to the conservation officer, who is armed, yes, but as far as I know, conservation officers have weapons more for wildlife control. This isn't some slight against the authority of a conservation officer, I'm not saying this because a conservation officer is somehow not as significant as these other parties. But who would a murderer probably rather approach to discuss his whereabouts at the time of the crime in an effort to deceive/conceal? A sheriff, a police officer, an FBI agent, or a conservation officer? My guess would be a conservation officer because a murder investigation isn't part of a conservation officer's anticipated duties. To me, it would be riskier for him with the tip line than the conservation officer. If the murderer is trying to avoid giving info to people who actually work actively in homicide investigations as part of their job, the conservation officer really may have seemed the safest option for him by far, MOO. He had to step forward to someone in light of the fact that he'd been seen at all. Otherwise, we'd all be sitting here now or in the future viewing his refusal to step forward early on as a red flag, which it would have been. Even if he'd spoken to no one, his luck in evading LE couldn't have lasted forever.
Click to expand...
IMO many people believe RA’s meeting with DD occurred the morning of 2/14/17 before the bodies were found. If true, it was not a Murder investigation yet but only a Missing Persons investigation at that point. The way DD at the end of his notes seems to question if A&L might’ve possibly been part of the group RA encountered gives some credibility to this meeting very early on, before many details were known, as does LE’s early plea for anyone on the trails on 2/13 between 1:30 and 3:30 to come forward - which RA may voluntarily have.

Strangely for such a key piece of evidence, nothing in what we see in the PCA, SWA, or any filings pertaining to the DD/RA meeting provides a date or time - only that the meeting occurred “in 2017”
 
EOA said:
Though an easy assumption to make based on the P’s crafty wording of the PCA, IMO it is inaccurate to say “the girls and RA agree they saw each other.”

Per the PCA, 3 of a group of 4 girls (not 3 girls only as earlier presumed) represent they passed “a man” near Freedom Bridge. One of the girls, after having already seen L’s video, notes similarity with the man in L’s video - assumedly BG. But no solid proof yet that RA = BG.

RA says in the PCA that he “saw” (not passed) a group of 3 girls (not 4, or not 3-4) “at” (not near) Freedom Bridge. He doesn’t state how close he was to these girls, only that he didn’t stop nor did he speak with them. He does opine that one was taller (IMO vague as in taller than what or who?) and had a dark hair color.

It’s important IMO to note that, while the group of 4 girls can be roughly timestamped due to BB’s sighting of them on the overpass as she drove under (probably about 1:42 or 1:43), the info on the other timestamp of the bench photo (at 1:26) did not present until 3 years later in 2020 (per the Search Warrant Affadavit) when LE re-interviewed BW who was the 1 of 4 girls who took the pics. She is the only person IIRC of the group who remembers 3 yrs later that they took the bench photo then shortly thereafter encountered the man.

Admittedly if we wholeheartedly go with the P’s full timeline which requires this encounter to have occurred later than 1:26 but prior to 1:42, and we’re 100% sure that DD’s notation of 1330-1530 means 1:30 arrival and 3:30 departure vs just on trails sometime btween 1:30-3:30…then MOO yes we’d conclude the group of girls & RA are describing the same encounter. However if anyone is open to consider that RA could’ve cone through earlier or that the group of girls could’ve come through later, there’s enough variance in both parties’ descriptors to leave doubt that these parties saw each other. RA could’ve seen different girls and the group of 4 surely passed some man, possibly even BG, but not necessarily RA. I’m thinking specifically about RA states seeing 3 not 4 people, and the girls describing someone who was no more than 5’10 as opposed to very short, with varying color clothing and no one noticing the unique waist item, him being on the phone, the heavy layering of clothing, a gun, or the noteworthy hat?? ***Has RA’s version ever been confirmed that indeed one of this group of girls truly was taller and had dark hair?

All JMO
Click to expand...
Totally agreed on all of this, but that means there would have been another group of girls earlier that RA would have encountered. If these girls stepped forward, I would think by now we'd know that. And with all the media pressure for people on the trails that day to step forward with info, I tend to strongly, strongly doubt another group of young girls would have all sat silent through that, probably with parents also knowing their girls were out on the trail that day and sitting silently through it. With RA changing the timeline as he did, it looks far more likely he's lying through his teeth, JMO.

And what about the stock ticker? If he was looking at that, he's got a phone, there's a clock on it. And the closer the date of the CO interview to the date of that horrifying date on the trail, the less likely it would be there would be so much confusion on the time, he'd have just been there recently. Also finding it difficult to believe RA approached the CO without even making an effort to get the right time for his presence there. And also, ok, RA is not a cop. If he was so concerned about the girls' wellbeing, why not actually go to the trail with the CO/LE, or make more of an effort to supply more detail? Non-LE folks know that things they might not view as important can often turn out to be incredibly important. It just overall seems like the interview might have been someone trying to "clear himself" rather than show genuine interest in figuring out what had happened to the victims.
 
Last edited:
snooptroop88 said:
Totally agreed on all of this, but that means there would have been another group of girls earlier that RA would have encountered. If these girls stepped forward, I would think by now we'd know that. And with all the media pressure for people on the trails that day to step forward with info, I tend to strongly, strongly doubt another group of young girls would have all sat silent through that, probably with parents also knowing their girls were out on the trail that day and sitting silently through it. With RA changing the timeline as he did, it looks far more likely he's lying through his teeth, JMO.

And what about the stock ticker? If he was looking at that, he's got a phone, there's a clock on it. And the closer the date of the CO interview to the date of that horrifying date on the trail, the less likely it would be there would be so much confusion on the time, he'd have just been there recently. Also finding it difficult to believe RA approached the CO without even making an effort to get the right time for his presence there. And also, ok, RA is not a cop. If he was so concerned about the girls' wellbeing, why not actually go to the trail with the CO/LE, or make more of an effort to supply more detail? Non-LE folks know that things they might not view as important can often turn out to be incredibly important. It just overall seems like the interview might have been someone trying to "clear himself" rather than show genuine interest in figuring out what had happened to the victims.
Click to expand...
But did RA ever produce a phone to corroborate his being on the trails that day, checking his stick ticker? Bet that phone he "had" is long gone,...funny that since his home produced so many phones, as noted in the search warrant AJMO.
 
My wild speculation is that the defence believes that it's 3rd party evidence will be ruled inadmissible - or at least the crucial parts of it. Therefore it needs time to pursue an interlocutory appeal of any pre-trial ruling by Gull. As that issue might well decide the case. This is why they also may file to recuse her before that hearing can happen.

My personal belief is the scope of the confessions has changed the game.

Even if they play it straight with a more generic SODDI (it wasn't me!) based around experts and psychosis it might well be the case that you are still left with factual issues around the confessions that the expert can't explain away.

So maybe they feel like they need enough suspicion around a definite alternate suspect to have a real chance - centred around Click probably

For all the talk about Gull not giving hearings, she has given hearings on most major issues IMO (notable exception is the Franks).

I suspect she might well allow Click to testify, even if she doesn't allow all the Odinist stuff.

One issue for the defence is they already told Judge Gull all about their Odinist theory in massive detail and four different motions. At least on that issue, she does know what their case is.

This is all my personal opinion. I have no idea what the defence really think.
 
This Defense is NOT READY, period. I've said it since Oct after the SCOIN rulings. Their appellate attorney stood up there and told the panel of SCOIN Judges that R&B were indeed ready to go to trial in Jan at the first scheduled trial date. That was part of the ploy to get R&B reinstated, so they could get this case back on track and moving forward, which was very important in the decision making process of the SCOIN IMO.

The D hadn't even gone through all the discovery the State had provided up to that point yet IIRC. And as far as late Discovery trickling in, that is going to happen pretty much until any trial starts. TC is a prime example of that. The D has touted him as a major player against LE, ISP and the FBI and their purported tunnel vision.

TC and his certified letter to the P detailing his intensive FB mining and notice of a distinct connection to the murders, Odins and other POI's. Of course the State will dig into his background and personnel files. He's retired LE that insists on reinserting himself into this investigation. He deserves to be looked at under a microscope and his testimony refuted.

Does TC really know more than all the LE, ISP, and FBI investigators combined? I don't believe so. Let it go, enjoy your retirement and turn over any confidential documents you obviously have btw.

As far as "Old war horse" that was in no way a compliment to Judge Gull anymore than Wicked Witch of the West. It's the word games that the D and their internet jockeys have played to try and discredit Judge Gull since Oct. when they chose to withdraw from the case in chambers rather than go into a Courtroom a few hours later and fight for their client RA. Remember him? It's all been about R&B, they've done their client no favors and continue to bury themselves into the land of improbable and unreasonable since then.

EBM: Spelling

JMO
 
Last edited:
mrjitty said:
My wild speculation is that the defence believes that it's 3rd party evidence will be ruled inadmissible - or at least the crucial parts of it. Therefore it needs time to pursue an interlocutory appeal of any pre-trial ruling by Gull. As that issue might well decide the case. This is why they also may file to recuse her before that hearing can happen.

My personal belief is the scope of the confessions has changed the game.

Even if they play it straight with a more generic SODDI (it wasn't me!) based around experts and psychosis it might well be the case that you are still left with factual issues around the confessions that the expert can't explain away.

So maybe they feel like they need enough suspicion around a definite alternate suspect to have a real chance - centred around Click probably

For all the talk about Gull not giving hearings, she has given hearings on most major issues IMO (notable exception is the Franks).

I suspect she might well allow Click to testify, even if she doesn't allow all the Odinist stuff.

One issue for the defence is they already told Judge Gull all about their Odinist theory in massive detail and four different motions. At least on that issue, she does know what their case is.

This is all my personal opinion. I have no idea what the defence really think.
Click to expand...
The issue of confessions and psych issues were known to all parties prior to the first FM.

I'll also note that the popular belief that there are "30 confessions or statements against interest by RA" is based upon a Defense filing that used numbers in the context of witness count ... which is not the same as a confession incident count. We remain in the dark as to context; were these incidents within one week of obvious psychosis, or consistent over time?

Appreciate your view that there's likely an appellate strategy at play here. Many are of the mind that the Defense has no technical strategy behind moving off a speedy trial schedule other than "the sloppy incompetent defense is not ready for trial". What we heard at the last hearing was that the Defense is bringing a 2-week alternate theory including (Auger-prepped) FBI-related evidence/witnesses. The Defense's ask was for trial days time, they did not ask for a trial continuance; it was offered by the Court as the only calendar option for extended trial days. (But I'd not disagree that speedy trial vs more time is a strategic choice of the D's.)

I also wonder if the Defense will also seek an interlocutory-appeal a negative decision on their motion to suppress all confessions ... bring it back to the Diener safekeeping decision with no hearing/no counsel for RA. The D has already advised the Court a recusal motion is being readied. Chicken/egg on interlocutory vs SCOIN appeal.

JMHO
 
Last edited:
steeltowngirl said:
Well, maybe a group of Odinists will march into the courtroom and shout “WE did it!” Nothing would surprise me with this case anymore. :oops:
Click to expand...

Something is wrong with me. I continue to be surprised.

We want more discovery. We're getting too much discovery.
We want a speedy trial. We need more time.
We will go pro bono. We want to be paid.
Our client is mentally ill, he is eating discovery. Our client is fine, doesn't need to be on watch.
We don't need a gag order. We want to speak with you tubers.
We have years of experience. We left CS photos on a table with no lock on door.
Our client is innocent. We want his confessions thrown out.

:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 179 more.
Total: 447 (members: 180, guests: 267)

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
267
Total visitors
447
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,863
Messages
18,246,621
Members
234,472
Latest member
Crime Girl
Back
Top