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

[Ravenmoon]

I've lost track of initials - is DG the father of LG? Or can someone pls give me a hint as to who DG might be? Was this maybe a typo and maybe meant to have been DC?

Darn. My sincere apologies.
That should say DC for Doug Carter!

 

[photographer4]

I think Libby's video is powerful evidence which is why the DT wants so desperately to suppress it. But seeing him right there, alone with them, moments before they are never heard from again is very important evidence. And if it is true that one of the girls is heard saying 'GUN' during the audio portion, that will be very damning. IMO

I do agree it is very important to the case! I guess I'm just over here hoping that the State can show how they arrived at some random BG = RA, BARD and here is why.

 

[Megnut]

The D, in identifying the video, called it the one with Abby and supposed suspect (my paraphrase). Some of us l9ng suspected that the Abby had been clipped out of the video, which is why it was so truncated. IMO LE wanted to show the public as clear and close up an image as they could get without showing how close he was, including how fast he was gaining on them.

IMO RA's phone alone will convict him. If he had it with him like he said, it'll show exactly where he was and for how long. If there was evidence that he and his phone left at 1:30, we wouldn't be here and the D would have provided that as an actual defense.

If RA's phone isn't at the bridge at the time in question, how was he looking at a stock ticker?

RA likely used his phone at SOME point that day. In keeping with predictable habits and any anomalies. Was it powered off or in airplane mode or resting idle at certain points? Why? Anything RA could account for? Explain? Explain away?

If there's a suspicious black hole, what times bracket it? What time did he last operate it, what time did he resume? Who, when, where was his last confirmed location (at home, at work, at a store) and who, when, where was he seen again? Was his absence noted by anyone? Or was he, for instance, off of work that day and family out of town? Who would notice if RA disappeared for an hour and a half on a Monday afternoon? Anyone?

The totality of circumstantial evidence will tell a story.

Not every man who wears jeans and a blue jacket was at MHB thst day. Just one.

Not every man said he was looking at a specific site on his phone at MHB that day. If he can't produce a phone that confirms that, why not?

Many men might have the same kind of gun and similar bullets. But not every man. And so far, none (other than the one) whom LE can place at MHB.

The man seen walking, muddy, looking like he'd been in a fight, that either consistent with RA's confirmed timeline or it's not. By which I mean that if RA left at 3:30 and his phone data supported that, either with him or once he reunited with it and it was located back at his home, with all indication that he was back with it, then is it likely he was the man seen walking away? It's actually not impossible. He lived close enough that he could have gone home and returned before being seen, only difference being not the first time but the second time he left there.

The murder weapon, if it has now been revealed, did he have a habit of carrying one? Standard? Hooking? Does his confession bring greater clarity to the autopsy, the nature if the injuries? Does it match up with, say, freshly sawn twigs and branches? Is that PROOF he did it? If true, it's consistent. And it adds to the swelling tide of circumstantial evidence which, when added to the State's entire case, which we have yet to see in full, will leave scant room for reasonable alternatives.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

He did go into an institution for some mental health issues in 2019. So it seems it did weigh on him.

Well, until we know he's convicted, I'd say we know he went into an institution in 2019, so something was weighing on him - the what could be not related to this case we just don't know yet. I do wonder if he ever talked in his sleep and if so, what sort of things he may have said then or now???

 

[photographer4]

Darn. My sincere apologies.
That should say DC for Doug Carter!

Ahhh! I thought so but I wanted to ask to be sure! Ty!

 

[Inthedetails]

I do agree it is very important to the case! I guess I'm just over here hoping that the State can show how they arrived at some random BG = RA, BARD and here is why.

We know a fraction of what LE knows. I am expecting to hear evidence at the trial that we currently know nothing about.

jmo

 

[katydid23]

Well, until we know he's convicted, I'd say we know he went into an institution in 2019, so something was weighing on him - the what could be not related to this case we just don't know yet. I do wonder if he ever talked in his sleep and if so, what sort of things he may have said then or now???

Right, but I was replying to your post where you said:

"Didn't seem to bother him before he was accused of the crime at all. I wonder how he lived with himself and his guilt for all the years he walked about free if he did do this crime? ..."

So I replied that he did have an emotional meltdown of some kind, enough to be institutionalised, so you can't really say that it never bothered him and he seemed guilt free. Just sayin....

 

[Ravenmoon]

I would hope that if there was actually identifying information on that video, that the law-enforcement would’ve released it to the public to help people narrow down the search for the suspect. I think that they just straight up don’t want people to convict a person based on maybe possible looking similar to an man in the background of a video. I’m sorry I’m being very repetitive but IMO it’s not evidence of being involved in the crime. MOO

It's okay to be repetitive. I know that some people simply don't think that RA is the killer. I just don't understand why. I am not being confrontational if it comes out that way. It just shocks me.

I hear people wanting the proof of video, DNA, etc. But, circumstancal evidence is still extremely powerful and I feel like TV and movies have made people forget that!

A case CAN be won and many still are won on circumstancal evidence.

This case has so much of that evidence that I personally feel that there is enough beyond a reasonable doubt.

The video just could prove to be the electronic evidence that people are holding out for.

Something tells me that it probably is

JMO

 

[acehard]

Right, but I was replying to your post where you said:

"Didn't seem to bother him before he was accused of the crime at all. I wonder how he lived with himself and his guilt for all the years he walked about free if he did do this crime? ..."

So I replied that he did have an emotional meltdown of some kind, enough to be institutionalised, so you can't really say that it never bothered him and he seemed guilt free. Just sayin....

Yeah but wasn't he the one who gave the funeral photos to the family at the store and didn't take payment? He was right in their face!

 

[grannygates]

It's okay to be repetitive. I know that some people simply don't think that RA is the killer. I just don't understand why. I am not being confrontational if it comes out that way. It just shocks me.

I hear people wanting the proof of video, DNA, etc. But, circumstancal evidence is still extremely powerful and I feel like TV and movies have made people forget that!

A case CAN be won and many still are won on circumstancal evidence.

This case has so much of that evidence that I personally feel that there is enough beyond a reasonable doubt.

The video just could prove to be the electronic evidence that people are holding out for.

Something tells me that it probably is

JMO

That’s totally OK! We are all here to discuss the case and share our opinions so I totally understand and appreciate that there are people that will have a different opinion than me. I absolutely reserve the right to be wrong LOL

It’s nice to see others thoughtful opinions on different aspects of the case and filings because it can give more food for thought and a lot more to talk about.

I’m an “on the fencer”. I just know that I personally need far more than what is publicly available in order to form any sort of opinion. There are too many coincidences for it not to be on purpose. There’s also soooo many unknowns, I can’t hitch my wagon to any one theory at this point!

MOO

 

[statt#1]

So, I am curious about the video.
It is supposed to be 43 seconds long ( I think)
We have only been allowed to see about 2 seconds, at most.
The defense doesn't want the video to be presented to the jury.
Is there something on the video, perhaps BG's hand, a view of the gun, etc. And whatever tha could be, is directly associated with Richard Allen.
Maybe his hand has a scar or a finger once broken that shows predominantly... maybe the gun has something unique?

If that is possible, would it change anyone's mind about him being on the bridge with the girls?

If it's not anything like that, does anyone have a theory about why we haven't seen it, or why the defense doesn't want the jury to see it?

Excellent questioning! What's on that little vid clip that LE has held so tight, never showing the public.....that the defense doesn't want the public, or a jury, to see?

 

[photographer4]

We know a fraction of what LE knows. I am expecting to hear evidence at the trial that we currently know nothing about.

jmo

I imagine we will hear a bunch we do not know. I wonder what we might find out? I still think there has to be some link to CSAM and the catfish thing because if not, these two kids are possibly the unluckiest kids I've ever heard of -to be catfished randomly and then meet their murderer randomly on a pleasant winter day along a trail.

 

[photographer4]

Right, but I was replying to your post where you said:

"Didn't seem to bother him before he was accused of the crime at all. I wonder how he lived with himself and his guilt for all the years he walked about free if he did do this crime? ..."

So I replied that he did have an emotional meltdown of some kind, enough to be institutionalised, so you can't really say that it never bothered him and he seemed guilt free. Just sayin....

Ahh I see what you mean. To me though, until he is convicted, we can't be sure the issue of LG and AW bothered him at all ever. If he did not do the crime, then this would be unrelated to the crime imo. I'm sure we'll find out all sorts of things as we head to and get into trial.

 

[Inthedetails]

I imagine we will hear a bunch we do not know. I wonder what we might find out? I still think there has to be some link to CSAM and the catfish thing because if not, these two kids are possibly the unluckiest kids I've ever heard of -to be catfished randomly and then meet their murderer randomly on a pleasant winter day along a trail.

I don't know what we will learn, but it's still a vivid memory in my mind of being totally surprised at the Murdaugh trial with Paul's cellphone info. That was a very well-known case, but the public was clueless about the strong evidence the prosecution had.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

That’s totally OK! We are all here to discuss the case and share our opinions so I totally understand and appreciate that there are people that will have a different opinion than me. I absolutely reserve the right to be wrong LOL

It’s nice to see others thoughtful opinions on different aspects of the case and filings because it can give more food for thought and a lot more to talk about.

I’m an “on the fencer”. I just know that I personally need far more than what is publicly available in order to form any sort of opinion. There are too many coincidences for it not to be on purpose. There’s also soooo many unknowns, I can’t hitch my wagon to any one theory at this point!

MOO

I understand following different theories, but once the prosecutor goes ahead with charges that lead to a trial, it's time, imo, to put weight on the theory the prosecution has determined strong enough to convict the right perp.

jmopinion

 

[photographer4]

I don't know what we were learn, but it's still a vivid memory of being totally surprised at the Murdaugh trial with Paul's cellphone info. That was a very well-known case, but the public was clueless about the strong evidence the prosecution had.

jmo

Not familiar with that case. Actually, this case may be the first one I've really followed so intently. Most of the ones I follow have gone with some sort of plea deal or the victims have yet to be located.

 

[sunshineray]

Which expert isn’t being paid? Is Nick volunteering or is he also being paid ?

If the measurement of trust is calculated based on whether the person is being paid to appear in court, then I suppose we should give the highest level of trust to the defense attorneys who are the only people we are aware of that have offered to work for free, pro bono, volunteering all of their services, manhours and expertise for this case.

MOO

But they didn't forgo being paid, just made the grand gesture to play well in the media, MO. And the D spent 12 grand on a trip to Georgia for a picture (don't know why that couldn't have been transferred in an email?) NMcL is paid by public taxes as a Prosecutor for Carroll County, he has more cases than RA's to try, of course he gets a paycheck.

 

[grannygates]

I understand following different theories, but once the prosecutor goes ahead with charges that lead to a trial, it's time, imo, to put weight on the theory the prosecution has determined strong enough to convict the right perp.

jmopinion

Oh. I don’t think that the prosecution always gets it right or else we would never have a not guilty verdict.

I also need a case to be actually proven. I do believe in innocent before proven guilty. We have the probable cause affidavit and all the court filings and none of their theory makes any sense to me as of yet nor does it appear to be backed by any real evidence. IMOMOO

 

[grannygates]

Not familiar with that case. Actually, this case may be the first one I've really followed so intently. Most of the ones I follow have gone with some sort of plea deal or the victims have yet to be located.

Oh my gosh you sure picked a real doozy ! This one is by far the most technically legal case (if that explains anything lol) that I have followed so I am learning a ton along with you!

 

[Boxer]

Has RA denied being the man in the photo on the bridge?

By the way, the BG thin fabric coach tyoe jacket being a Carhartt was always a inconsistency for me.
No matter where I looked, Carhartts were clearly made of thick material.
But recently I saw they do make or did make the kind BG was wearing, with snaps closing the front and slash pockets made of thin weight rain proof type fabric.
I think the investigators blurred out theCarhartt logo on the BG photo they released to identify false tips and to preserve something they knew, which was not known the public.