Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #191

[ClearAhead]

I think it is possible the Judge doesn't allow the Odinist theory with specific names but just the general theory. I don't know if that way the defense will continue with the theory. If Judge Gull allow the confessions it is possible the defense will sit with his client to say it doesn't look good for him, if he want to go to trial, etc. If he wants, they can change theory, can attack the bullet, the investigation, etc. I think the Judge will alow KK theory. If the odinist theory isn't allowed, I think the defense will use that to ask for a continuance. I don't think they are ready for trial.

I really do hope she makes her decision very soon. It’s not as if the D just came up with their alternate imaginary scenarios overnight.

I’m going to be surprised if the Judge allows any theories to be presented, Odinist or KK. Neither have any known connection to RA nor can be placed at the scene of the crime so neither pose a viable alternative to get RA off the hook. Facts, not speculation, will prevail IMO.

I don’t expect there will be any deviation from the standard course of events during criminal trial procedure - the onus being on the Prosecution to prove BARD that RA is guilty of the murders by presenting their evidence to the jury, while the D attempts to refute the evidence trying to create doubt over whether or not the State has the goods. It’s really not very complicated at all even if the D has busied themselves with playing a game of smoke and mirrors.

MOO and JMO

 

[TheVisual]

—RA put himself on the bridge that day minutes before the girls arrived.

—A WITNESS can testify she saw him there. She corroborates his own statement.

—The TIME the witness saw him on the bridge that day is corroborated via security camera that recorded the time she arrived and the time she left.

—the time the girls arrived at the trails is also verified by security video.

This is in the PCA which is a document containing information that was sworn to as true under penalty of perjury. That is unlike the Franks Motion which is made up misleading fiction. I guarantee you the defense attorneys are not going to swear to the FM’s truthfulness under penalty of perjury.

People are trying to deflect attention away from this fact, but you can’t wish this away. RA, the killer, put himself on that bridge and no one has been able to take him off. Witnesses, timestamps, security cameras, corroborate his own words.
The defense’s brief attempt to question the timeline would require time portals. I expect to hear about that soon.

RA’s own words, witnesses, timestamps, security videos, confessions, and crime scene testimony that we heard in day 3 of the hearings is all that is needed to convict him. Don’t even need the unspent bullet in my opinion.

Opinion

What security camera? What video? This still does not say that RA is BG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Inthedetails]

Absolutely !!!
Along with all the other BS stuff they have tried to do.
We want a speedy trial, but wait.. we aren't ready
Trying to get rid of Judge G= another delay, not once but several times

I'm half expecting the routine to be:

Delay with wild stories, delay with requests to remove judge, delay with this, delay with that, delay, delay....and then a change of plea to guilty.

JMO

 

[Willow Knight]

Here's one of the 99% individual issues I mentioned in my last post. Yes, BH has an alibi-- But is it truly verified? How hard did LE, some of whom are his fellow lodge members, how hard did they really look?

Below are five statements clarifying BH was truly investigated. In fact the words " a complex criminal investigation "

Snipped to comply with 10% rule and clarity, taken from States Response 2nd Motion
*** Finally, Brad Holder is not a 3rd party suspect and there is no evidence tying Brad Holder to the murder of the victims in this case.

*** Despite the Defense’s claims, there is no evidence, either physical evidence or witness statements, that connect Brad Holder to the murders or to the crime scene. There exists no nexus connecting Brad Holder to the crimes.

*** Brad Holder is not a 3rd party suspect. There is no evidence that ties him to the murder of the victims in this case. The evidence ties Richard Allen to the murder of the victims in this case.

***d. That Lieutenant Jerry Holeman did not lie in his August 10, 2023 deposition when he answered the question “Was Brad Holder a suspect?” with, “Not really, no”. Lieutenant Holeman went on to state on the following page that Brad Holder wasn’t really a suspect because the police had encountered him through Holder’s son, who was a friend of the victims and was interviewed and the investigation revealed he was at work at the time of the murders.

***l. That Brad Holder is a key 3rd party suspect is false. Again, there is no evidence tying Brad Holder to the crime. The Defense cannot meet its burden to even allege that he is a 3rd party suspect.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[Spartygirl]

So one thing I’m still intrigued about is the photo Libby took of Abby on the bridge.

Is the photo so blurry that we just can’t see him at the beginning of the bridge or did he want to give them enough chance to get further along the bridge and then trap them so he hid?

It seems like from the audio when he did start to cross he did it at pace as I believe Abby asks if the man is still behind them.

ETA - I find it fascinating he avoided being seen in that first snap and I want to know how he knew to stay out of eye line.

moo

It took my friend 6 minutes to cross the bridge, carefully.

I however, took about 2 steps on it, saw the rotted boards and missing boards and turned around and got the heck off of it.

SOURCE - I was there

If BG=RA has been there before, and I believe he was as there is a photo of his daughter sitting on the bridge, then he may have crossed it once before OR many times before.

He was on a mission, and per the young witnesses, he ignored them and was walking with a purpose.

His purpose was to find Libby & Abby.

If girls were approached by RA=BG and told DTH around 2:13- - subtract 6 minutes = 2:07 when the snapchat photo of Abby was taken. JMO

https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/unsealed-document-delphi/

 

[katydid23]

EF put himself at the scene. Specifically, at the scene when and where the kids died as opposed to just on the bridge. Moo.

ETA: adding a link to the franks motion so people know who I’m talking about when I say EF.

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

EF didn't have any way to actually be there at the scene. He lived pretty far away from Delphi, did not own a car, And I am not sure if he could even drive. He allegedly had the mental age of a young child. So even IF he verbally put himself there, he couldn't have physically gotten himself there on his own. And there is no evidence anyone else gave him a ride or went with him. IMO

 

[Boxer]

Yep, I agree. The phone data has to show something. It’s usually such a big component in proving cases so it’s odd IMO that it hasn’t been mentioned.

Also an antenna from what I believe is either a walkie talkie or a dog remote for a dog collar. Look closely at the picture. Also if you check on here back in the very early days of the image thread, a view of BG by Michael Gartley, an image specialist (image page 13 #252) you can see on the middle picture BG's leg has a dog lead for two dogs. When you copy it the whole image must walk otherwise if the image is still you won't see it. Might be a clue for or against RA.

MOO the pixelation is too great for a thin objects.

 

[Boxer]

What security camera? What video? This still does not say that RA is BG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Harvestore video.
Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. MOO The crime does not have to have been captured on camera for a conviction.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

What security camera? What video? This still does not say that RA is BG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Security camera on the HoosierHarvest store across from the Mears parking lot.
THIS doesn’t have to say RA is BG.
Richard Allen said it himself when he put himself with words out of his own mouth on that bridge at the time the girls were approaching.
In my opinion the only way people are not seeing and understanding this is by purposely looking the other way.
RA put himself on that bridge and he’s still there. Nobody has taken him off.

Opinion

 

[photographer4]

EF didn't have any way to actually be there at the scene. He lived pretty far away from Delphi, did not own a car, And I am not sure if he could even drive. He allegedly had the mental age of a young child. So even IF he verbally put himself there, he couldn't have physically gotten himself there on his own. And there is no evidence anyone else gave him a ride or went with him. IMO

While I believe you're probably right, he probably wasn't there - it still seems something LE really needed to fully investigate. I'm not sure that they did (I'm probably not caught up enough on everything to say that with certainty).

 

[photographer4]

The lady who saw the man leaving the area who was "muddy / bloody" (depending on which version of documents one wants to go with. I wonder what else was going on for her as she drove past that may have had her attention? I wonder if perhaps she was so focused on whomever she saw that she maybe missed other things going on at the time? EG: other car(s) or persons? Here is a link to help explain what I'm on about: Inattentional blindness - Wikipedia

 

[Tealgrove]

It took my friend 6 minutes to cross the bridge, carefully.

I however, took about 2 steps on it, saw the rotted boards and missing boards and turned around and got the heck off of it.

SOURCE - I was there

If BG=RA has been there before, and I believe he was as there is a photo of his daughter sitting on the bridge, then he may have crossed it once before OR many times before.

He was on a mission, and per the young witnesses, he ignored them and was walking with a purpose.

His purpose was to find Libby & Abby.

If girls were approached by RA=BG and told DTH around 2:13- - subtract 6 minutes = 2:07 when the snapchat photo of Abby was taken. JMO

https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime/unsealed-document-delphi/

I was there also. Took one look and said NOPE can’t do it.

 

[MiniMoo]

The lady who saw the man leaving the area who was "muddy / bloody" (depending on which version of documents one wants to go with. I wonder what else was going on for her as she drove past that may have had her attention? I wonder if perhaps she was so focused on whomever she saw that she maybe missed other things going on at the time? EG: other car(s) or persons? Here is a link to help explain what I'm on about: Inattentional blindness - Wikipedia

If you saw someone "muddy and bloody" would you have slowed down or pulled over to ask if that person needed help or was okay? Or... if it did cross your mind that maybe there had been a fight at least looked to see if that person was being followed or not - so out of danger.

She was probably flying by and didn't give it too much thought until the news came out about Abby and Libby.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

If you saw someone "muddy and bloody" would you have slowed down or pulled over to ask if that person needed help or was okay? Or... if it did cross your mind that maybe there had been a fight at least looked to see if that person was being followed or not - so out of danger.

She was probably flying by and didn't give it too much thought until the news came out about Abby and Libby.

As a woman and as a survivor I would say “no”, I would not have stopped.
To infer from her not stopping that she was “flying by” is a giant stretch.
Please explain why this witness would have been inclined to call the police before she was aware of the murders.

 

[statt#1]

I have this notion that investigators have taken a look at every vehicle that passed that HoosierHarvest store cam the day of the murders.

 

[Tealgrove]

I have this notion that investigators have taken a look at every vehicle that passed that HoosierHarvest store cam the day of the murders.

Ummm ya! I’m sure they have @statt#1 !

 

[statt#1]

If you saw someone "muddy and bloody" would you have slowed down or pulled over to ask if that person needed help or was okay? Or... if it did cross your mind that maybe there had been a fight at least looked to see if that person was being followed or not - so out of danger.

She was probably flying by and didn't give it too much thought until the news came out about Abby and Libby.

I'm 6'1" and weigh in at 170 pounds. Back at the time of these murders, I weighed in closer to 205. I'll tell ya, in this day and age, I ain't stoppin' for a bloodied and muddied dude walkin' down the road. No way. No how. I'm calling 911, getting connected to LE, and askin' 'em if they'd be interested in doing a welfare check on the dude

I also don't really think this witness was 'flying by', simply by virtue of the road there, the turn by the freedom bridge, etc.

 

[grannygates]

If you saw someone "muddy and bloody" would you have slowed down or pulled over to ask if that person needed help or was okay? Or... if it did cross your mind that maybe there had been a fight at least looked to see if that person was being followed or not - so out of danger.

She was probably flying by and didn't give it too much thought until the news came out about Abby and Libby.

I’m from a town smaller than Delphi and I’m super nosy, so I’m always asking people if they’re alright or need me to call someone and people do it to me too. But I don’t know the culture in Delphi enough to say whether they do this too.

I know people that would drive on by and people who would immediately call the police to report it just in case it means something later.

I feel like most people would at minimum tell another person, either call or text their friend or partner and tell them about a weird muddy bloody guy they saw walking down the road. I know I would!

MOO

 

[MiniMoo]

As a woman and as a survivor I would say “no”, I would not have stopped.
To infer from her not stopping that she was “flying by” is a giant stretch.
Please explain why this witness would have been inclined to call the police before she was aware of the murders.

Small town everyone knows each other and what if the person was hurt.

If a person has blood on them and a fight is thought to be behind it - is that not a good reason enough for anyone to call the police.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

The states entire theory of the case. These topics are the more technical legal side of it so you have to look at it through that lens.

We have some wonderful lawyers on here who have been very generous with their time to answer questions and explain a lot of these more technical legal components of the case so I would follow their guidance and explanations.

MOO

Here is the list of "verified" in quite a few areas of expertise. Over the years I know I have retained quite a few of them. Too bad they work for free on here, I could never pay them off for the advice and answers to my many questions.

List of Verified Professionals and Verified Insiders

Websleuths has posters from all walks of life with a broad spectrum of expertise and/or some who may have special inside knowledge about a case. We like to ensure that anyone posting as a professional in a specific area truly is what/who they claim to be. This is not a new rule and has always...

www.websleuths.com