Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #186

[Charlot123]

I know and have posted it many times, the December 2018 article where then Sheriff Tobe said DNA was sent to Quantico for DNA testing research. I don't remember a thumbprint ever being mentioned, fingerprints yes. I do feel very confident that if spit DNA was found on one of the girls, especially one that according to the FM had hardly any blood on her person, it would have been checked against everyone under the least bit of investigation, including a mentally challenged man. AJMO

I think it was touch DNA. (We see BG "sort of spitting" on the video, but I wouldn't bet on it.)

They collected DNA from many Delphi men. Even if they did not sample RA, thinking logically, Indiana was formed by six German families who had relocated from Pennsylvania, so the "founder effect" should be strong, and at least, those descendants could be identified. So, maybe, whoever left touch DNA was either nonlocal, or it was a later NPE case, or just a much later migration.

Or, it could be a very rare Y subclade. Thinking of Indiana Western Europeans: you'd except R1b1b, R1a1a, I1, I2, N1C1, something along these lines. What if it is J, E, G groups? Could still be European, even Western European, but a rare family, arriving much later than the main migration to Indiana happened. If they have full DNA, autosomal analysis can tell a lot, but if it is partial...

I think they hit some common roadblock early enough, some peculiarity, and didn't have full DNA to interpret it correctly.

This is why Paul Holes said, "they have a long road ahead of them." JMO.

RA, I assume, was "local enough." I wouldn't bet on him matching that DNA. I think it is that type of DNA when if you know the ownership, it makes perfect sense, but without it, and especially if it is partial, it should indeed look peculiar. I wonder if they looked at the Interpol samples, not because I think this DNA is there (I am positive it is not), but just to see who could have a similar pattern. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

I’m not claiming conspiracy. I’m just saying that if I am to beleive something to be the absolute gospel truth, I would need to see the person actually say the words myself via recorded interview.

Back then, the officers did not all wear body cams. So an informal questioning of a friendly witness was not going to be filmed or recorded. They were just asking him what he saw and remembered.

The officer took notes, like ALL officers do. There is no reason to assume the notes are inaccurate or tampered with. IMO

 

[Charlot123]

Delphi Homicide Investigation

www.in.gov

I am missing the advice to contact the embassy, if the informant is living outside the USA. Found it very special in the original version (but other members found it quite normal).

I wonder, why that may have changed .....

Do you remember the year when it changed?

 

[katydid23]

Please watch this video, even if GH rubs you the wrong way.

The Comet was NOT parked at the old CPS building. It was on the side of the road, 150 yards from the CPS building.

I find that if I turn up the speed by 1.5 at least, then he seems to be talking at a normal pace.

 

[katydid23]

We see things differently again!
As mentioned, I happen to think the ding dong clause - is strategic.
Not like it's going to become some famous legal move or anything.
It's just one of those little pieces you put on the board.
Or maybe it's frosting?

Whatever it turns out to be, I've tagged it for the moment b/c ... this case ... at this moment ... is just so darn ding dong.

IMO.

If their legal strategy involves calling out a judge for thanking their granddaughters FB post about a softball tournament win, or for jokingly calling the DA a ding-dong during a sidebar , then their 'legal strategy' leaves a lot to be desired.
It is funny that it would be considered a strategic chessboard piece.

So far they seem to be taking wild swings about all kinds of nefarious conspiracies but seemingly ignoring very important discussions about the upcoming trial and the very basic damning facts. JMO

 

[katydid23]

The geofence is surrounding the crime scene 100m. It doesn’t include any of the bridge, roads, etc. it’s fairly tight. These 3 phones within that immediately area will have been within eyesight of the crime scene during the time the state says the murders occurred, so either those phones belong to the killers or they will be entirely random people that have nothing to do with the crime, which would mean the states timeline is incorrect IMO

I am assuming the FBI knows who these phones belong to. They are able to track burners to find who is using them.

All MOO.

That is not very convincing. That area is remote, with shrubs and trees and a running creek, etc. Who knows where exactly the 3 were, and if they actually could see the crime scene from where they were walking.

If they were walking along the river bank they may never have seen the actual crime scene from there. BG might have seen people walking and forced the girls to crouch down and stay silent.

These 3 phones do not prove that the timeline is incorrect. People walked all around that area when the search first began and no one saw the bodies until the next day. So it is easy to believe someone may have walked nearby when the girls were held at gunpoint without them being seen. IMO

 

[mrjitty]

If their legal strategy involves calling out a judge for thanking their granddaughters FB post about a softball tournament win, or for jokingly calling the DA a ding-dong during a sidebar , then their 'legal strategy' leaves a lot to be desired.

RSBM

Murdersheet's latest podcast might provide some insight on their motivations IMO

For some time, I've been developing my own theory that defence lawyers in big cases are using an extra-legal approach to mobilise grass roots support. Many of us are following such cases and I think it is possible to see the similarities. I suspect they draw inspiration from each other.

In this approach, one does not simply claim that the prosecution has the wrong man, but that there is a very broad conspiracy against the defendant involving private citizens, law enforcement, the DA and even the Judge. It feels like every big case claims this now.

One makes these wild allegations in a series of motions, and works with surrogates to develop something akin to a fanbase. These fans may even go so far as to try to influence the case from outside the process. e.g by intimidating witnesses. One also leaks to the media and true crime influencers to build narrative.

The MS podcast focusses in on the Karen Read playbook, but links it to what we've seen in Delphi. I do suspect this is what AB was trying to do with MW.

Now of course sometimes, as is perhaps the case in the KR trial, sometimes police do fit up suspects. But it is also highly unlikely that many of these high profile defendants across America are being framed. And as we've seen recently elsewhere such claims can blow up spectacularly leaving defence attorneys with egg on face.

My point to raise this, is not so much to do with guilt/innocence but to raise how ethically and professionally dubious such conduct can be. Especially for families (e.g the fiasco of actual attorneys using the justice hashtag to raise money for the defendant).

My main concern personally, is this strategy has at its heart the object of undermining the justice system via exaggerated wild claims - especially Judges. They take real problems, like discovery violations, and turn them into conspiracies which is not good!

MOO

 

[Betty P]

The geofence is surrounding the crime scene 100m. It doesn’t include any of the bridge, roads, etc. it’s fairly tight. These 3 phones within that immediately area will have been within eyesight of the crime scene during the time the state says the murders occurred, so either those phones belong to the killers or they will be entirely random people that have nothing to do with the crime, which would mean the states timeline is incorrect IMO

I am assuming the FBI knows who these phones belong to. They are able to track burners to find who is using them.

All MOO.

This is all information that will be revealed when the trial begins. The defense documents may or may not be accurate, they’re not required to be truthful. Prior to trial, they can make up all kinds of factoids.

 

[susane7]

What people? Do you have a link?

One of the admin mods of the facebook groups was present in the hearings and later she goes live and talks about everything what happened at the hearings. She is a lovely lady, very attentive and take many many notes. I can't post here. One girl also made a video on youtube and posted that lady talking about the hearing but I can't post here too. But It was confirmed in the 2024 filings when the prosecution says they pretend to call "8 inmates, the Warden, mental health personnel and ISP" to talk about the "confessions"/"incriminating statements".

 

[Emma Peel]

My point to raise this, is not so much to do with guilt/innocence but to raise how ethically and professionally dubious such conduct can be. Especially for families (e.g the fiasco of actual attorneys using the justice hashtag to raise money for the defendant).

My main concern personally, is this strategy has at its heart the object of undermining the justice system via exaggerated wild claims - especially Judges. They take real problems, like discovery violations, and turn them into conspiracies which is not good!

MOO

Agree that Judges are in the position of adapting to and managing quickly changing new media.

Super interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it to this thread.

Reality: Back in the day, Nancy Grace and her ilk had millions of public followers ... same issue/problem existed. 50 years ago the garbage TABLOIDS outnumbered responsible NEWSPAPERS on the news racks. Same issue/problem. Smaller scale.

People like to be entertained. True crime IS entertainment. This isn't new. But EVERY type of media has been scaled by an unregulated SM ecosystem ... it is in different, less manageable form. The Feds probably need to start regulating some of this stuff. (Another discussion.)

In the US the process/the dockets have long been transparent. Don't even need to file a FOIL for a current docket that's not "sealed". BUT very few read original source materials in the good old days; and it's the same these days. Folks look to media short-cuts for that info.

Expanded media choice: Some read/stream/listen to the regulated/responsibly sourced MSM ... or ... they lock in some type of social media - where one might find responsible reporting/journalism/lawpods or ... one can readily find the likes of faux entertainment "opinion news" such as MS' true crime opinion program or various mini-communities where con artists and zootube ghouls compete for hits and contributions. The modern news stand ... still has tabloids outnumbering responsible news ... in digital form.

Counterpoint: The public gets info more and more from new media. Some media is accurate and responsible journalism, so much more is a joke. Defense attorneys did not invent new media. Defense strategy wasn't invented by new media.

Odd POV: MS "reporting" that Defense attorneys have developed/are employing new and questionable ways to influence the public (juries) ... feels more than a little ironic. (Or is it gaslighting?) Did MS "report" their own eco-system and ca-ca-ching ... hello little ad-supported podcast that found its way into Court filings as a source of and party involved in a gag-ordered material leak? Regardless, high profile defense media management ... existed long ago. See OJ, etc..

Serious study: Would be interested to see this issue discussed/reported by experienced msm journalists sourcing members of the Court with high profile criminal case experience throughout the rise of SM and/or law professors studying the topic. If folks come across that sort of responsible reporting, please do share.

 

[Andieinsyd]

I’ve watched a couple of you tube video interviews of jurors recently, one from Lori Vallow trial and one from Todt trial. I am encouraged that they told of careful consideration and deliberations in the jury room and were sceptical of attempts to mislead by either side. So putting some faith in the jurors who will do their best to cut through, follow the evidence and make a fair verdict.

 

[Salah11]

This is all information that will be revealed when the trial begins. The defense documents may or may not be accurate, they’re not required to be truthful. Prior to trial, they can make up all kinds of factoids.

They clearly took this to heart with all these Franks imo

 

[Emma Peel]

I’ve watched a couple of you tube video interviews of jurors recently, one from Lori Vallow trial and one from Todt trial. I am encouraged that they told of careful consideration and deliberations in the jury room and were sceptical of attempts to mislead by either side. So putting some faith in the jurors who will do their best to cut through, follow the evidence and make a fair verdict.

Great point.
I'm also a believer in the process over the BS.
The trial process brings out the facts; clouds clear; the noise fades away.

 

[susane7]

RSBM

Murdersheet's latest podcast might provide some insight on their motivations IMO

For some time, I've been developing my own theory that defence lawyers in big cases are using an extra-legal approach to mobilise grass roots support. Many of us are following such cases and I think it is possible to see the similarities. I suspect they draw inspiration from each other.

In this approach, one does not simply claim that the prosecution has the wrong man, but that there is a very broad conspiracy against the defendant involving private citizens, law enforcement, the DA and even the Judge. It feels like every big case claims this now.

One makes these wild allegations in a series of motions, and works with surrogates to develop something akin to a fanbase. These fans may even go so far as to try to influence the case from outside the process. e.g by intimidating witnesses. One also leaks to the media and true crime influencers to build narrative.

The MS podcast focusses in on the Karen Read playbook, but links it to what we've seen in Delphi. I do suspect this is what AB was trying to do with MW.

Now of course sometimes, as is perhaps the case in the KR trial, sometimes police do fit up suspects. But it is also highly unlikely that many of these high profile defendants across America are being framed. And as we've seen recently elsewhere such claims can blow up spectacularly leaving defence attorneys with egg on face.

My point to raise this, is not so much to do with guilt/innocence but to raise how ethically and professionally dubious such conduct can be. Especially for families (e.g the fiasco of actual attorneys using the justice hashtag to raise money for the defendant).

My main concern personally, is this strategy has at its heart the object of undermining the justice system via exaggerated wild claims - especially Judges. They take real problems, like discovery violations, and turn them into conspiracies which is not good!

MOO

I absolutely agree with that post. It seems a new strategy based in social media that some attorneys use and it seems a ugly way to try to subvert the justice. I think some attorneys become crazy in famous cases.

In my country there are a famous case that the wife of a missing husband reported his disappearance, went to the tv, giving many interviews, crying for him etc and some months later his body was found 120 miles away. After the investigation, she and his lover was charged with the homicide. She and her attorney put the blame in a group of angolans (just a general group, without specific names) and in an interview her attorney said the police missing a hole of the bullet in the bathtub, that the hole was made by the group of angolans and that didn't match with the police theory, and she showed the hole, jewels in a bag, etc. Of course the police had taken pics from the house and from the bathroom before and proved that there wasn't a hole and jewels before. The wife and the lover were convicted and some months laters her attorney was convicted to a 1 year of suspended prison because she had planted evidence.

I am absolutely appalled that an attorney would make that but she did it. She had a reputation to maintain but she did it.

This is just to say that some attorneys seems to seems to be willing to do anything to win a famous case.

 

[Emma Peel]

The actual good and valid points made in the FM were shrouded by the sensationalism and rhetoric. They named people. They placed motive for murder on hatred for an alleged dating relationship of a victim’s mother. So much of the document was so distasteful that it upset a lot of people. And it was speculative. Had they pointed to mistakes in the investigation, addressed known evidence step by step, and provided clear legal basis for the search warrant to be tossed, civil discussions would have been had here as is done on other cases. Defense made it personal and attacked family, LE, and alleged a conspiracy. That’s hardcore for what could have been a simple, clear document requesting a Franks hearing. Heck, they had to issue a follow up document to make the actual legal request. The story they told IS wild. Wilder yet if it were true! But they provided no evidence. Just sticks and social media. It read like fiction, thus many call it that.

It is not ignorance, it’s anger at what many felt was an unprofessional, and frankly, disrespectful document.

jmo

Appreciated this POV as to the persistent anger/grievance against all things D w/ this case.

Just an observation -

The 2nd set of Defense attorneys hand-picked by Gull from her own district (Lebrato/Scremin) disclosed that they agreed with the Franks Memo and were going to resubmit the Franks (with "a few edits") w/motion for a Franks Hearing. Judge Gull on the record told Lebrato/Scremin that if they (new D) reviewed the Franks Memo and wished to move forward with it, she'd schedule a Franks Hearing for them. Upon the original D's return to the Court that door closed. So, at the Court level, the decision to hear the Franks from Lebrato/Scremin, but not from Rozzi/Baldwin, not about the FM is inexplicably inconsistent - that's personal, and IMO, biased. 10 months later, the grievance(s) remain very personal both in the Courtroom and on the threads.

This grievance is now emotional and irrational, IMO. Which doesn't bother me in a social media thread. But it's completely unacceptable in a courtroom. There's appears to be a serious, intractable loss of trust and respect between all these officers of the Court, the Judge included. The trip to the SCOIN seemed to solidify rather than diffuse these conditions. The Contempt Circus exacerbated it.

At this moment in this case, it is what it is. And this is where we are. And I'm curious how RA's fair trial works under these conditions. Not sure the D has capitulated on their recusal demands. Its concerning that these games continue to overshadow Abby and Libby's journey to justice, including an appeal that seems baked in.

JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

She read every one of their motions. It's their job to convince with the motion that a hearing is warranted. They weren't convincing.

Surely, she must read their motions.
But there's absolutely no transparency with the minute decisions and no one knows upon what grounds the hearings were denied. A "denied" is efficient but a decision with deliberative discussion and legal citations provides transparency and clarity.

If the judge would elaborate on her thinking and direction, future motions from both parties would follow suit; things would more quickly move forward. Otherwise, both parties must continue throwing arguments into a void, hoping they've correctly "read between the lines" ... such that the "efficient" "DENIED" ends up being the opposite of efficient.

Bonus: If court's decision record has detailed, legally cited decisions ...that lowers the risk of appeal.
JMHO

 

[steeltowngirl]

The D did NOT call NM a “coke head” in this document. I believe the document (Appendix) was a compilation of RF’s communications with others. The word “coke head” does not exist in this document as far as I can see. If these words were from RF communications, he documented, “Nick drunk at bar. My cousin was there.” (65) And then the next line says, “I know he does blow too.” (66)

So, your assertion that the D called NM a coke head is incorrect. JMO

Oh susiQ, you are technically correct. Touché! Drug and alcohol - related slander on Nick found in possession of defense team emails, and now in public legal domain, notwithstanding.

McLeland: Defense shows ‘Blatant dishonesty’ to Court - Carroll County Comet

Carroll County Prosecutor Nick McLeland says a press release Richard Allen’s attorneys distributed in December 2022 was just a preview of future content and “blatant dishonesty” shown to the court. On October 18, 2022, Allen was charged with two counts of felony murder, murder that occurred...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

jmo

 

[steeltowngirl]

Back then, the officers did not all wear body cams. So an informal questioning of a friendly witness was not going to be filmed or recorded. They were just asking him what he saw and remembered.

The officer took notes, like ALL officers do. There is no reason to assume the notes are inaccurate or tampered with. IMO

Exactly! And noting that the biblical gospel itself was never tape recorded, yet millions of people believe in it.

jmo

 

[steeltowngirl]

Separating facts from feelings.

Facts:
Libby and Abby were murdered
They deserve justice
Any and all participants in their murders should be held accountable
Richard Allen is the prime suspect and will go to trial
Richard Allen deserves a fair trial
If he can be proven guilty, a jury should convict
If there are material defects at trial, and he is convicted, he should, and will appeal
If he cannot be proven guilty, a jury should acquit

My own feelings:
Defense has been unprofessional and disrespectful of the gag order and the courts
Many posters on these threads mock those of us who have actual feelings about the defense’s actions.

I won’t forget.

jmo

 

[Salah11]

Exactly! And noting that the biblical gospel itself was never tape recorded, yet millions of people believe in it.

jmo

Bingo!

it’s just another stick to shout conspiracy imo