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

[photographer4]

That confirmation blew the minds of every person who has ever worked corrections. I’m still in disbelief. What is happening at that prison that guards want to show affiliation with prison gangs.. MOO

It made me wonder actually, were all affiliations (religious, political, social etc) permissible as uniform additions or was it just this particular thing that was allowed? I can’t believe it wasn’t a problem until the D pointed it out!! What is the point of a uniform if in fact one may alter it as they wish to make it well, non-uniform?

 

[Boxer]

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.

Not really. Sounds like he was walking. Noting the man and then calling in after the girls were missing or gound.

 

[photographer4]

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 wouldn’t stop to ask anything no. But I would contact LE to report it that moment vs however long she waited to contact LE. I would have worried the person may have been injured or perhaps mentally unwell / drugged up and in need of a wellness check and or medical attention. I wouldn’t remain in the area either as I would worry for my own personal safety.

 

[photographer4]

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

Is it possible some vehicles didn’t pass that store / cam at all that day but were still at the trail or in the general area? Eg: is it possible to access it from the other direction? If so, do we know, are there other cams that would have or should have been checked by Le?

 

[sunshineray]

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

The PCA's are not written to air out and argue the whole case. They're an investigative tool to further investigating a suspect. LE doesn't write every detail of why they think a person is suspected of the crime(s), only enough probable cause to convince a judge to sign the search warrant. If it doesn't satisfy the judge he tells them, nope you need more.

There was no need for the defense to include a lot of what they did in that first FM especially. It has nothing to do with the reasons why LE considered RA a suspect. It was an inappropriate (and I think disingenuous attempt to air their SODDI defense of RA to the public while under a gag order. Let's get everyone on SM talking about Odinist sacrificial murders...something to try and get into evidence at a trial, a SODDI defense, not put into a filing to vacate a search warrant. AJMO

 

[MiniMoo]

I wouldn’t stop to ask anything no. But I would contact LE to report it that moment vs however long she waited to contact LE. I would have worried the person may have been injured or perhaps mentally unwell / drugged up and in need of a wellness check and or medical attention. I wouldn’t remain in the area either as I would worry for my own personal safety.

Fair enough.

I would have thought injury of some kind with the blood and would have probably turned back or slowed down to check as long as it seemed safe.

 

[photographer4]

Not really. Sounds like he was walking. Noting the man and then calling in after the girls were missing or gound.

I don’t know but someone here may: when did this witness contact Le to advise them of the person she saw? If she didn’t call in that night or the day after when the kids were found dead, then when did she call? I wonder if there was a delay, how was she certain of which day she saw the person? I’d be interested to know if Le asked her what made her certain she saw the guy at X time (I don’t remember what time she gave) and how was she sure it was the 13th vs any other day?

I’m hoping that she called and said she believed she saw a guy on the 13th and that police didn’t suggest this date to her with a leading question. Eg: big diff between:
Witness - hi, I saw a guy leaving the area in the 13th.
Cop: ok what can you tell me about what you saw?
W: he was blah blah blah…
C: ok you said you saw him on the 13th?
W: yea
C: and you’re sure?
W: yea
C: what makes you sure it was the 13th?
W: I was coming home from work, and I just got a gift for vday for my man as I was to see him on the 14th for lunch…

And
W: I saw a guy around the time the kids were found dead
C: ok? Did you see him on the 13th or 14th
W: yeah I think it was on the 13th maybe?
C: ok. So you saw him on the 13th….

In this example she isn’t sure when she saw him. He suggests two options and she goes with one of them.

C: so you’re sure it was the 13?
W: I think so.

And he doesn’t ask how she is sure or she gives a wobbly answer? I think it’s cannon fodder for the defence depending on what they asked, how long after etc… and what she answered and how.

Note: the above is only an example of the diff ways the witness may have been questioned. These are not facts nor based on facts.

 

[photographer4]

Fair enough.

I would have thought injury of some kind with the blood and would have probably turned back or slowed down to check as long as it seemed safe.

I’m not from the area but no way I am stopping or turning around for some sketchy dude who may be bloody and muddy who emerged from the woods. But I would have called Le right away - what if he’d had an accident and needed help? Or he had just assaulted some poor soul and that soul needed help?

 

[sunshineray]

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?

Historically BH considers himself an outlier. He is an Odinist, after all, and reportedly runs with some pretty tough guys.

Outliers often consider themselves anti-mainstream authority. As such, they often think about & find ways to circumvent said authorities. I'm sure he'd already considered the option of having a fellow co-worker punch in his time card for him; even non-nefarious clock punchers know this. Whether he did so in this particular instance or whether he didn't is immaterial imo.

The fact remains that it would be totally in character for him to do so, and LE did not fully investigate this possibility.

Sounded to me, at the recent hearings, from his ex-wife's testimony, that BH was turned onto Odinism/Heathenism by her but he was still holding onto his Christianity (his from childhood religion). So he was pribably noy so anti-mainstream as you propose. We also don't know what BH considers himself, historically. We've never heard frim him directly. Generalizing him as someone who cheats his employer then seems very unfair.

Why would you think BH's alibi hasn't been truly verified by LE? I believe, IIRC, three (there's possible more involved in checking) LE testified they could not put BH at the crime, at the time. Is that not enough verification?
AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

I don’t know but someone here may: when did this witness contact Le to advise them of the person she saw? If she didn’t call in that night or the day after when the kids were found dead, then when did she call? I wonder if there was a delay, how was she certain of which day she saw the person? I’d be interested to know if Le asked her what made her certain she saw the guy at X time (I don’t remember what time she gave) and how was she sure it was the 13th vs any other day?

I’m hoping that she called and said she believed she saw a guy on the 13th and that police didn’t suggest this date to her with a leading question. Eg: big diff between:
Witness - hi, I saw a guy leaving the area in the 13th.
Cop: ok what can you tell me about what you saw?
W: he was blah blah blah…
C: ok you said you saw him on the 13th?
W: yea
C: and you’re sure?
W: yea
C: what makes you sure it was the 13th?
W: I was coming home from work, and I just got a gift for vday for my man as I was to see him on the 14th for lunch…

And
W: I saw a guy around the time the kids were found dead
C: ok? Did you see him on the 13th or 14th
W: yeah I think it was on the 13th maybe?
C: ok. So you saw him on the 13th….

In this example she isn’t sure when she saw him. He suggests two options and she goes with one of them.

C: so you’re sure it was the 13?
W: I think so.

And he doesn’t ask how she is sure or she gives a wobbly answer? I think it’s cannon fodder for the defence depending on what they asked, how long after etc… and what she answered and how.

Note: the above is only an example of the diff ways the witness may have been questioned. These are not facts nor based on facts.

This will all will come out at trial when the actual witness testifies.

 

[MiniMoo]

I don’t know but someone here may: when did this witness contact Le to advise them of the person she saw? If she didn’t call in that night or the day after when the kids were found dead, then when did she call? I wonder if there was a delay, how was she certain of which day she saw the person? I’d be interested to know if Le asked her what made her certain she saw the guy at X time (I don’t remember what time she gave) and how was she sure it was the 13th vs any other day?

I’m hoping that she called and said she believed she saw a guy on the 13th and that police didn’t suggest this date to her with a leading question. Eg: big diff between:
Witness - hi, I saw a guy leaving the area in the 13th.
Cop: ok what can you tell me about what you saw?
W: he was blah blah blah…
C: ok you said you saw him on the 13th?
W: yea
C: and you’re sure?
W: yea
C: what makes you sure it was the 13th?
W: I was coming home from work, and I just got a gift for vday for my man as I was to see him on the 14th for lunch…

And
W: I saw a guy around the time the kids were found dead
C: ok? Did you see him on the 13th or 14th
W: yeah I think it was on the 13th maybe?
C: ok. So you saw him on the 13th….

In this example she isn’t sure when she saw him. He suggests two options and she goes with one of them.

C: so you’re sure it was the 13?
W: I think so.

And he doesn’t ask how she is sure or she gives a wobbly answer? I think it’s cannon fodder for the defence depending on what they asked, how long after etc… and what she answered and how.

Note: the above is only an example of the diff ways the witness may have been questioned. These are not facts nor based on facts.

I'd be concerned about leading questions as well.