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

[katydid23]

When has the State said in official court proceedings that they waded across the creek?

I guess we have to wait and see. I do believe the phone could have easily gotten wet during the murders. It was on the ground for hours, in the middle of the night. I dropped my phone once when I got out of the car at night. When I went back outside hours later to look for it, but was on the front lawn, and wet from the dew.

It was a bloody crime scene so blood may have seeped into the battery as well. It was said that Abby's clothing was soaked in blood.

There was clothing found floating in the creek, so it is possible they crossed the creek earlier. IMO

 

[photographer4]

They have 61 of them, me thinks at least a few are quite incriminating

Sure. They could be. But I’d still like very much to understand more about them. When he made them, how, to whom etc. I would also like to know more about the inmate companions and what got them this job of sitting outside RA’s cell? I’d like to know what the police said or asked or maybe showed RA during any mtgs with him. I also want to know what if anything the companions were told about RA. Were they asked to say certain things? I can’t just convict RA on the confessions alone yet. I do think he’s somehow involved and should he be found guilty should do max time. I just need a solid easy to follow case that helps eliminate reasonable doubt. It’s interesting to follow but heartbreaking to learn what the kids went through.

 

[katydid23]

​

​

Why Is My iPhone Turning On and Off Repeatedly?​

Typically, this issue can be witnessed when you restart your iPhone. Instead of it booting up to your Home screen, you see the Apple logo again. This may be caused by one or more factors. Here are the most common ones:

1. Your iPhone failed to properly update. One of the most common reasons an iPhone turns on and off by itself is because a software update was unable to install properly. For example, you may have been attempting to install iOS 17, but something interrupted this process. This may be why your iPhone keeps turning on and off.
2. Your iPhone may have a hardware problem. You may be experiencing issues with your iPhone turning off randomly due to a physical problem with your device. For example, you may be experiencing a problem due to water entering your battery. The battery may also simply be unable to hold a charge.
3. An app may be causing issues. Along with hardware issues, software issues may be causing problems as well. There may be an app on your iPhone that is causing significant battery drain.
4. You may be experiencing a malware attack. While unlikely, it is possible that you are the victim of a malware attack. While this typically only occurs when you are doing something nefarious with your iPhone, there is a slim possibility that you received an attack while using your iPhone normally.

6 Ways to Fix iPhone Keeps Turning On and Off

If you find that your iPhone keeps turning on and off, our full guide can give you the reasons why and also show you proper solutions.

www.macobserver.com

OK, so it does not HAVE TO mean the phone got wet, it could also mean any of the above issues.

THE MAIN POINT IS THAT A PHONE CAN TURN ON AND OFF WITHOUT BEING MANUALLY TOUCHED

 

[katydid23]

I guess we have to wait and see. I do believe the phone could have easily gotten wet during the murders. It was on the ground for hours, in the middle of the night. I dropped my phone once when I got out of the car at night. When I went back outside hours later to look for it, but was on the front lawn, and wet from the dew.

It was a bloody crime scene so blood may have seeped into the battery as well. It was said that Abby's clothing was soaked in blood.

There was clothing found floating in the creek, so it is possible they crossed the creek earlier. IMO

And even if you want to deny the scene was wet, with water or dew or blood, there are still OTHER ways a phone can turn on or off, without being manually touched.

 

[katydid23]

How do you know he was the only man there? LE has stated the opposite.

He was the ONLY man right there with them on the bridge, as shown in the video taken by the victim.

 

[katydid23]

Sure. They could be. But I’d still like very much to understand more about them. When he made them, how, to whom etc.

Oh you will. I am pretty sure the state will describe them , some in great detail.

I would also like to know more about the inmate companions and what got them this job of sitting outside RA’s cell?

They were from the trustee pool---the inmates who have gained trust and are on track to be released on good behaviour

I’d like to know what the police said or asked or maybe showed RA during any mtgs with him. I also want to know what if anything the companions were told about RA. Were they asked to say certain things? I can’t just convict RA on the confessions alone yet.

It's not just confessions alone that he will be convicted, imo

I do think he’s somehow involved and should he be found guilty should do max time. I just need a solid easy to follow case that helps eliminate reasonable doubt. It’s interesting to follow but heartbreaking to learn what the kids went through.

If he is somehow involved then it will still be a murder.

 

[nadia90]

Sure. They could be. But I’d still like very much to understand more about them. When he made them, how, to whom etc. I would also like to know more about the inmate companions and what got them this job of sitting outside RA’s cell? I’d like to know what the police said or asked or maybe showed RA during any mtgs with him. I also want to know what if anything the companions were told about RA. Were they asked to say certain things? I can’t just convict RA on the confessions alone yet. I do think he’s somehow involved and should he be found guilty should do max time. I just need a solid easy to follow case that helps eliminate reasonable doubt. It’s interesting to follow but heartbreaking to learn what the kids went through.

Im sure the trial will bring out a lot if he doesn't plea first.

 

[grannygates]

He was the ONLY man right there with them on the bridge, as shown in the video taken by the victim.

The uncertainty comes from the fact that there is another way to approach the bridge so this person could’ve simply walked from the other direction.

Roadway at the far end of the bridge appears on Google Maps and If you search directions to this bridge, it will include this roadway as well.

 

[photographer4]

He was the ONLY man right there with them on the bridge, as shown in the video taken by the victim.

I’d go so far as to say he was the only man visible in the video LG took. Is it possible others were at the other end of the bridge? Were they perhaps surrounded? Did they see things we can’t see and can’t know because they’re not here to tell us? : (

 

[photographer4]

Oh you will. I am pretty sure the state will describe them , some in great detail.


They were from the trustee pool---the inmates who have gained trust and are on track to be released on good behaviour


It's not just confessions alone that he will be convicted, imo

If he is somehow involved then it will still be a murder.

Re inmate companions. I have trust issues with anyone convicted of a crime that has landed them in prison. I don’t have a ton of faith in any of them and that’s without even knowing who they were or what crimes put them away. But I’ll keep as open a mind as I can here.

 

[grannygates]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed in mass cleanup of unapproved source>
I’m not sure if you’ve already seen this filing, but doc has some quotes from transcripts from the interrogation done by Holeman, so you can see the “interrogation method” being used by this investigator. Saying that if RA doesn’t tell him what happened, he’s gonna go down for it. Holeman says he knows that RA is guilty of something and he’s gonna prove it right before he arrests him. It’s pretty interesting seeing the way that this investigator conducts their interrogations.

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf

drive.google.com

 

[ClearAhead]

I’m not sure if you’ve already seen this filing, but doc has some quotes from transcripts from the interrogation done by Holeman, so you can see the “interrogation method” being used by this investigator. Saying that if RA doesn’t tell him what happened, he’s gonna go down for it. Holeman says he knows that RA is guilty of something and he’s gonna prove it right before he arrests him. It’s pretty interesting seeing the way that this investigator conducts their interrogations.

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf

drive.google.com

What’s the point of discussing the content of a motion that was garbaged?

Who’s to say if it’s even truthful given it was withdrawn by the D before it saw the light of day?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Edit: removing an oops

 

[grannygates]

That SODDI the someone else did it, and is a standard fearure of defense in that regard, just fancier with a conspiracy Odinists.

Every defense presents some way someone else could have done it if they are defending a not guilty because I did not do it.
There are also "not guilties"
I am not guilty even though I did it because it was justified, or another is I am not guilty as I was "impaired" defenses - "affluenza" for example, I was too rich and priviliged to know that I was doing wrong.

Anyway there is always a presentation of an alternative.

That's why when Suzanne Morphew's autopsy came back with deer tranquilizer which detectives had stated in his original arrest warrant stated was likely used in her murder his defense attorney Eytan immediately said the police better start looking at ranchers in the area, immediately setting up her alternative.

All to say, presenting alternative is fill in the blanks boilerplate, and the jury needs only to gauge its likelihood next to the case presented against the defendent.

indiana is a mess of police cronyism. I blame their allowing religion into their secular occupation. That causes them to give positions and promotions etc. based on something else than merit.
Hence the called off search, erased tapes, lost interviews etc.

The “Odinist” conspiracy is the original investigation, which the FBI still has record of. The FBI and other agencies outside of the unified command did not destroy all their evidence re: the original investigation once RA was arrested, so that was what was discussed yesterday.

The FBI agent that wrote the search warrant for Ron Logan‘s property also included this theory in her deposition. So it is the real investigation that occurred at the beginning of the crime. It’s not made up. It’s directly from discovery. The 3rd parties are real people, not a religion.

MOO

 

[Boxer]

The “Odinist” conspiracy is the original investigation, which the FBI still has record of. The FBI and other agencies outside of the unified command did not destroy all their evidence re: the original investigation once RA was arrested, so that was what was discussed yesterday.

The FBI agent that wrote the search warrant for Ron Logan‘s property also included this theory in her deposition. So it is the real investigation that occurred at the beginning of the crime. It’s not made up. It’s directly from discovery. The 3rd parties are real people, not a religion.

MOO

Searching through the many lines of the original investigation as it evovles is fertile ground for the fill in the blanks SODDI of the delefese.Personally I give it no weight.
That is my opinion.
I will stick with the BARD bar for of Richard Allen.

 

[Boxer]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed in mass cleanup of unapproved source>
Right, I should say professional detective's use their training to increase their success.

 

[katydid23]

The uncertainty comes from the fact that there is another way to approach the bridge so this person could’ve simply walked from the other direction.

Roadway at the far end of the bridge appears on Google Maps and If you search directions to this bridge, it will include this roadway as well.

View attachment 522310

I’d go so far as to say he was the only man visible in the video LG took. Is it possible others were at the other end of the bridge? Were they perhaps surrounded? Did they see things we can’t see and can’t know because they’re not here to tell us? : (

Even IF there were others waiting for them , that does not make RA innocent. MAYBE he had accomplices that he does not want to admit to.

But that still means RA is GUILTY of murder.

 

[gremlin444]

I gotta say that I am bewildered by Todd Click's theory of what happened: 1) that the girls either met BH's son at the trails and he took them to the Odinist ritual in progress or they stumbled open it, 2) the girls made fun of the ritual, 3) that enraged the participants in the ritual so they killed the girls.

Even ignoring how that doesn't account for Libby's video.....Click's theory boggles my mind. Grown men participating in a sacred (to them) ritual in the woods near a public park during broad daylight become enraged to the point of double homicide by taunting from two young girls??

 

[Inthedetails]

I was just using my own opinion that if I thought that it was possible that anyone else could have committed this crime (using the info from the original investigation) then I would have doubt as to whether RA committed it.

The jury is restricted to considering only the info that is presented in court. (That is why there is a fight to keep some info in or out of the trial.) If they don't know about Some Other Guy, they cannot consider Some Other Guy in their deliberations.

jmo

 

[grannygates]

The jury is restricted to considering only the info that is presented in court. (That is why there is a fight to keep some info in or out of the trial.) If they don't know about Some Other Guy, they cannot consider Some Other Guy in their deliberations.

jmo

I definitely don’t know nearly enough about the laws to say what the judge will or should allow in, But I have a hard time understanding how they wouldn’t be able to talk about an investigation that spanned the first 2.5 years of the case.

It will definitely be interesting to see how the judge rules. Would a judge actually not allow the FBI agents to testify at the trial about their participation in the case?