Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #190

[Vern]

If an expert is given a task of inspecting/deciphering the evidence or appearance at a crime scene and compiling a report for investigator or court based on their experience, education and professional background. Shouldn’t it be of just that? The crime scene you were tasked with?

The blood spatter expert, as an example, if they are tasked to inspect the F tree and offer suggestion as to how it may have occurred, should he also be considering anyones Facebook posts in his report..? Isn’t investigating or implicating suspects not his job at all..?

Wouldn’t an unwillingness to change your expert opinion of the crime scene and refusing to amend your report fit a specific subject due Facebook posts, etc, be a good thing and like completely standard practice everywhere outside of Carroll County.

All MOO

Wouldn't a supposed 'expert' who flat out testified that she would not change her narrative opinion (of this being an Odinistic Ritual Sacrificial Killing) that she formed before even seeing the crime scene evidence even if the suspect flat out told 'the expert' that they tossed the sticks on a body(ies) only to cover them up be a bad thing?

IMO, we can all expect that the same information will be pulled out via questionning and used by the prosecutors during any future cross-examination of the Defence expert to show her bias to the defence. I don't think any 'impartial' expert worth their salt (or pay cheque) would just blatently ignore what a suspect had to tell them as she testified today she would do.

I wonder what any jury would think of that.

 

[Vern]

Ceremonial box cutter.

Sigh.

When exactly did they search that dumpster?! In 2022? Almost six years after the murders?!

Given the fact that LE actually searched the dumpster at RA's workplace for the box cutter, possibly "years afterwards", I'm wondering if during the one-of-umpteen-confessions by RA (the one where he stated he used a box cutter), he also mentionned when and where he tossed it.

Seems to me that the murder weapon itself was not found at the crime scene based upon the search warrant seeking out cutting instruments etc. That search warrant was carried out between his questionning and his arrest. They obviously knew they were looking for a sharp edged weapon and wouldn't it be serendipidous if the autopsy findings found that the weapon used was 'similar to' or 'was' a boxcutter? That could explain the "information that only the killer would know" bit.

And, it's also possible, IMO, that RA chose to keep this boxcutter as a little trophy of his misdeeds. Washing it off and taking it back to his workplace, because who would ever suspect RA the Pharmacy guy of these heinous murders. And why keep the murder weapon at home 'just in case' someone did actually suspect him? You don't want to get caught with that! Keeps his trophy for years. Possibly using it to slice open the cases of items coming into the store that he's got to restock. Possibly just kept it on his desk to look at every day. His little "reminder". No one would have thought twice about it being there on display. Just a tool of the trade to open stock boxes with.

BUT, after he gets pulled in for the questioning, he definitely knows they're now onto him ... so better toss out that murder weapon he's been keeping in his workplace darnit. They arrest him. He then discloses these deets during his confession. Perhaps akin to "they'll never get the boxcutter I used to kill them though to track this to me because I tossed it into the dumpster at work after they questionned me" kind of deal. LE learns of those deets and heads over in the hopes that it's still there.

The autopsy report itself should be interesting when it comes out at trial. Moreso than the autopsy notes discussed today IMO.

 

[katydid23]

If an expert is given a task of inspecting/deciphering the evidence or appearance at a crime scene and compiling a report for investigator or court based on their experience, education and professional background. Shouldn’t it be of just that? The crime scene you were tasked with?

NO, not if you look at the crime scene, and make statements that cannot be verified as credible.

If she claims that she has deciphered 'many' Odinist Ritual Sacrifice crime scenes previously, shouldn't we learn about those supposed crime scenes? How many has she looked at?
...Respectfully snipped for focus...

 

[iamshadow21]

NO, not if you look at the crime scene, and make statements that cannot be verified as credible.

If she claims that she has deciphered 'many' Odinist Ritual Sacrifice crime scenes previously, shouldn't we learn about those supposed crime scenes? How many has she looked at?

...Respectfully snipped for focus...

Yeah, I was to see some credible references before I put this expert above a psychic or internet random.

If there were 'many' ritual sacrifices happening all over the US, enough for her personally to consult on them, it would be known about in mainstream media.

MOO

 

[grannygates]

Wouldn't a supposed 'expert' who flat out testified that she would not change her narrative opinion (of this being an Odinistic Ritual Sacrificial Killing) that she formed before even seeing the crime scene evidence even if the suspect flat out told 'the expert' that they tossed the sticks on a body(ies) only to cover them up be a bad thing?

IMO, we can all expect that the same information will be pulled out via questionning and used by the prosecutors during any future cross-examination of the Defence expert to show her bias to the defence. I don't think any 'impartial' expert worth their salt (or pay cheque) would just blatently ignore what a suspect had to tell them as she testified today she would do.

I wonder what any jury would think of that.

Why would an expert change their opinion to fit a suspect narrative ? If the blood splatter expert said that the F tree was caused by the thumb and forefinger finger of a hand on the tree and then learned that Richard Allen had no hands, does he say that isn’t true anymore? I don’t get why the expert would change ever their report to fit a suspect ? Ever.

 

[Niner]

So - no next hearing date yet? TIA!

 

[FromGermany1]

So, you think guilt.

I think maybe some regret more so than guilt, especially if that person set out to kill on purpose with one not being an intentional victim.

I don't think a lot of hardcore killers feel guilt because they don't view their victims as real people.

The way both girls were treated before and post death is different so there is a possibility one was collateral damage and the other not.

Not sure collateral damage is the right wording.

JMO

Many members thought of "collateral damage" from early on. If I remember well, mostly Libby was the intended victim and Abby the poor thing, which had to be sacrificed by the killer only for being a witness. For a long time I didn't know, why always Libby should have been the main victim - and now it seems to be true: maybe she was indeed his main victim.
When I read, that RA was glaring at Libby's grandparents in court, I had the feeling, RA wanted to express something to these persons, like for example: You know, why this murder happened! And if not, think about it finally! I'm not as guilty as you think!
Maybe, my imagination runs wild.

 

[MiniMoo]

Can't find Day 3 of the Delphi Hearing on CourtTV so had to resort to Nancy Grace.

According to Susan Hendricks on it - it seems RA saw the crime photos as they were placed across from him and he actually pushed them away and put his head down for a minute.

She was more or less watching him to see what his reactions would be like.

It was also brought up about his voice never being heard even in a whisper and Libby's recording on that fatal day.

I was wondering how accurate is a voice analysis?

That was talked about as well.

It could very well be one way of definitely finding out whether his voice matches the one Libby caught on her cell phone of BG with what sounds like: "Down the hill, guys."

Another thing mentioned was that the girls may have been mutilated.

 

[Romans12]

Many members thought of "collateral damage" from early on. If I remember well, mostly Libby was the intended victim and Abby the poor thing, which had to be sacrificed by the killer only for being a witness. For a long time I didn't know, why always Libby should have been the main victim - and now it seems to be true: maybe she was indeed his main victim.
When I read, that RA was glaring at Libby's grandparents in court, I had the feeling, RA wanted to express something to these persons, like for example: You know, why this murder happened! And if not, think about it finally! I'm not as guilty as you think!
Maybe, my imagination runs wild.

Why do you believe he was glaring at her grandparents? Because someone who was there said he was?

 

[MiniMoo]

Many members thought of "collateral damage" from early on. If I remember well, mostly Libby was the intended victim and Abby the poor thing, which had to be sacrificed by the killer only for being a witness. For a long time I didn't know, why always Libby should have been the main victim - and now it seems to be true: maybe she was indeed his main victim.
When I read, that RA was glaring at Libby's grandparents in court, I had the feeling, RA wanted to express something to these persons, like for example: You know, why this murder happened! And if not, think about it finally! I'm not as guilty as you think!
Maybe, my imagination runs wild.

I saw the video (link posted recently on this thread) with Libby's grandparents interview and it seems they didn't know him at all on a personal level.

Either he has a penetrating stare which is just him naturally or he was trying to intimidate them. I would say it worked if he was after intimidation.

I want to know why he had it in for Libby.

He needs to stop glaring as it won't be good for him if he does that during the trial that is for sure.

JMO

 

[susane7]

I am wondering this too. Has he stopped confessing / when did he stop confessing? Does he believe he's not allowed to say anything, and is he allowed to say anything I guess. No one seems to be asking him. Is the judge allowed to ask him anything? Even just something like "Mr. Allen, is there anything you'd like to say?"

He started to confessing in Abril because he found God and wanted to "clean" his soul. He wanted to find his mother and wife in heaven but he think he will not go for the heaven because what he did to the girls. The family pushed him back and said they don't want listen that, he was confused because they messed with him in the prison blabla. He complained to Dr. Wala that he think his wife don't believe in him. He also asked at his family if they still would love him if he had commited the crime. The family again pushed him back, that it wasn't true. It was like talking with a wall. When he saw his family didn't accept his confessions, the confessions decreased but not fully stopped (I think he still confessed to guards, inmates, Dr. Wala, etc). Sometimes he stopped having contact with his family. In january 2024 he talked with his mother and said he wanted to talk with her and to say the truth. She denied again. He also said to Dr. Wala that between God (save an clean his soul confessing what he did) and the family (since his family didn't accept his confessions), he can't choose God.

That's what I understood from the MS episode. I still have to catch up on what happened yesterday.