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

[ClearAhead]

Karen Read is a different trial, not RAs. I don't understand why it keeps getting brought up in here.

Different players all together, different jurisdictions and, IIRC, some actual evidence poitning to nefarious LE actions etc.

I've yet to see anything of the sort here in this case. Rather in this case, everyone and everybody is apparently conspiring ... without a shred of evidence to back up these grand isinuations and allegations.

Yet, we have seen the receipts on the Defence's part to manipulate of obfusgate the actual evidence and events of Feb 13th.

I agree, there no good basis for comparison and the only reason it’s keeps getting mentioned is wishful thinking for a hung jury. JMO

 

[Salah11]

What doesn’t ? Sorry, I don’t know which part of my comment you’re referring to.

The part I clearly bolded

 

[photographer4]

I don’t think you can count the differences of opinion among a group of girls who are by all accounts looking at one man as evidence that two or more men were present. Three or four girls agree on place, time, and number of men (one) for a single encounter. Details of the encounter and his clothing do NOT match from one girl to the next, which points up why eyewitness testimony isn’t the gold standard of evidence in the first place. But that’s what you’re basing your “reasonable doubt” upon.

Nobody saw two men in the critical there and then. Even RA didn’t see his posited doppelgänger, an understandable omission if he didn’t yet know he’d been filmed when he talked to DD. You only need one man to account for all the sightings if that one man is RA.

If the doppleganger were at the OTHER side of the bridge where I don’t think RA has claimed he went that day, then I do not think he’d have seen / heard him, do you? I do think it is *possible* there was a man who was *not* RA at the other side of the bridge. It is *possible* that he was there before the kids crossed, and *possible* he saw them coming and decided he was taking them. I think it is *possible* that the scene where the kids were found is a place he’d been to before and knew well. I also think it’s *possible* that he knew the kids would be there due to following social media or maybe being texted directly for all we know. Maybe a friend of a friend mentioned it to him (EG: KK was supposed to meet LG that day but she didn’t show up according to him - what if he told one of his scuzzy associates and they got to her before someone else did??). Why would someone else be wearing a blue jacket? IF catfish told LG they’d be wearing a blue jacket that might be one reason.

The ONLY thing so far that gives me pause about RA in this moment? The bullet. I don’t understand the “science” behind that yet. I don’t know when it was found at the scene because as I recall, there has been some sort of controversy about this and the chain of command that I would like explained. It seems the science of the bullet cycling may also be controversial. So for me, right now, not sold.

 

[grannygates]

The part I clearly bolded

Oh. That part was hidden and you didn’t mention bolding it so I didn’t see it. What else do you think they’re using to form the timeline ?

 

[photographer4]

Have we seen a picture of him in 2017? His hairline is impressive for a 50 something yr old right now. I think 7 yrs ago he absolutely could have had plenty of hair. Remember the statement about "may appear younger than his true age?" From afar, his 5'4 or 5'5 height and a full head of hair (if seen during a time that he had removed his hat) could give the impression of a much younger man, like the second sketch.

I thought about this too but then there was some court or legal doc that said he always wore his hair as it is now - short. I think it was confirmed by KA. But even if it wasn’t confirmed by her, photos of him from the past would surely be easy to find and show the same thing - to my knowledge, RA never had “puffy” hair. MOOO because I don’T have links.

 

[Vern]

If I was on a jury and they presented me with a group of 4, whittled down to 3, I would be wondering if there was an actual group of 3 that was on the trails between 12-1:30 when the accused said they were on the trails. That would also help confirm or deny the timing as well. MOO

IIRC, didn't it come out earlier that 1 of the 4 was a very young child? This could be the difference in there being 3 statements, but the group of 4 girls on the trail.

 

[photographer4]

I often wonder why RA chose to approach a random CO about a major crime that had occured to give his statement instead of contacting the investigating LE after the girls were found murdered despite their publication of numbers to reach them and where they were located right in his small hometown etc.

Hiding in plain sight.

Again I ask though: who decided that DD should be involved at all? He’s not a police man, he’s a Conservation Officer. How is this job the same as a police officer? What training if any did he have to conduct interviews in any criminal case, let alone a high profile double murder???

Was DD assigned to go talk to RA specifically or did he just happen upon RA doing a canvas? Did he get assigned to canvas or take it upon himself to go talk to possible witnesses???

Did RA contact DD himself or did he call police and someone told him he would meet with DD at X day and time and place??

How many other interviews did DD do in regards to this case? What was his role? Must have been important since he appears in the press conference video that someone posted a screenshot of upthread….?

MOOOOO no links so just MOOOOO.

 

[Salah11]

Oh. That part was hidden and you didn’t mention bolding it so I didn’t see it. What else do you think they’re using to form the timeline ?

Sorry I didn’t realise it had been hidden

The fact he also admits he was there. Just because he has chosen to change his narrative after the video dropped, and he realises there is visual proof of what he was about to do doesn’t change the original statement he gave.

Nobody is going to believe that video drops and then suddenly he was already gone by 1.30pm. Thats rather Suspicious that suddenly he is distancing himself from the bridge and the time the girls were killed. IMHO

 

[sunshineray]

But what we’re NOT told is why did DD meet with RA to get the statement in the first place? Why did police not seem interested in talking to a guy who WAS AT THE DAMN BRIDGE at the right time?? Who decided this was smart? Let’s just completely minimize some guy who says he was at the bridge and never talk to him ourselves????

So how did this happen? Who decided that DD should meet with RA? Like did he just randomly go there to canvas employees of the plaza at work? Did he happen across RA - just by asking, “hey was anyone at the bridge? Did anyone see / hear anything?” And then RA was like “well, yeah, I was there” so now they go out to chat????

OR did RA call LE and they sent DD to meet him?? If RA is guilty, this is egregious - this could have been solved so much sooner and given the family some peace so may years ago!!

Maybe RA called DD personally?

 

[WildHuncher]

If the doppleganger were at the OTHER side of the bridge where I don’t think RA has claimed he went that day, then I do not think he’d have seen / heard him, do you? I do think it is *possible* there was a man who was *not* RA at the other side of the bridge. It is *possible* that he was there before the kids crossed, and *possible* he saw them coming and decided he was taking them. I think it is *possible* that the scene where the kids were found is a place he’d been to before and knew well. I also think it’s *possible* that he knew the kids would be there due to following social media or maybe being texted directly for all we know. Maybe a friend of a friend mentioned it to him (EG: KK was supposed to meet LG that day but she didn’t show up according to him - what if he told one of his scuzzy associates and they got to her before someone else did??). Why would someone else be wearing a blue jacket? IF catfish told LG they’d be wearing a blue jacket that might be one reason.

The ONLY thing so far that gives me pause about RA in this moment? The bullet. I don’t understand the “science” behind that yet. I don’t know when it was found at the scene because as I recall, there has been some sort of controversy about this and the chain of command that I would like explained. It seems the science of the bullet cycling may also be controversial. So for me, right now, not sold.

BG, identified by LE as the killer, is seen on video on the bridge, hence his name “bridge guy.” He is approaching them from the north across the bridge. I don’t see that in your “possible” soup. They would more likely have noted and filmed him approaching from the south out of the woods up the hill.

 

[grannygates]

Sorry I didn’t realise it had been hidden

The fact he also admits he was there. Just because he has chosen to change his narrative after the video dropped, and he realises there is visual proof of what he was about to do doesn’t change the original statement he gave.

Nobody is going to believe that video drops and then suddenly he was already gone by 1.30pm. Thats rather Suspicious that suddenly he is distancing himself from the bridge and the time the girls were killed. IMHO

Oh sorry I think we crossed lines a bit. I was referring to the LEs decision for forming the timeline for the murders was IMO based on the YBG/OBG witnesses, not anything to do with RA.

 

[photographer4]

Maybe RA called DD personally?

Ok, let’s assume he did that - then I guess I wonder, how professional was DD in going to see him vs having RA call LE directly to report directly to them? That is sketchy if this went down this way imo.

 

[sunshineray]

I don’t think you can count the differences of opinion among a group of girls who are by all accounts looking at one man as evidence that two or more men were present. Three or four girls agree on place, time, and number of men (one) for a single encounter. Details of the encounter and his clothing do NOT match from one girl to the next, which points up why eyewitness testimony isn’t the gold standard of evidence in the first place. But that’s what you’re basing your “reasonable doubt” upon.

Nobody saw two men in the critical there and then. Even RA didn’t see his posited doppelgänger, an understandable omission if he didn’t yet know he’d been filmed when he talked to DD. You only need one man to account for all the sightings if that one man is RA.

And IIRC one of those witness described what BG was wearing almost exactly before his picture was published. It was either one of those girls or BB but I think it was one of the girls

 

[photographer4]

BG, identified by LE as the killer, is seen on video on the bridge, hence his name “bridge guy.” He is approaching them from the north across the bridge. I don’t see that in your “possible” soup. They would more likely have noted and filmed him approaching from the south out of the woods up the hill.

If dude was *already* on the dead end side where DTH was spoken, then it’s possible imo that RA isn’t BG. It is *possible* that some dude at the dead end DTH side met the kids there - went out a ways, passing them on the bridge and then doubled back. That might explain why they film his approach from the side they started on imo.

We also have had LE try to tell us “this is BG” (sketch one and video, no wait, “THIS is BG!” (Sketch two released 2019) and they’re NOT the same person… no wait, they are the same person! They’re a combination of the same person! (We’ve discussed this many times before, so I’m not digging up the link for this again).

It is possible there was one guy who was seen and per police themselves, it is possible there were two different men who witnesses saw. Add TL who is mentioned in Franks 1 who saw the man who when sketched out officer Purdy said looked like EF and now maybe even three diff people who could have been the killer imo.

Look, I am only saying, if the state is sure of their man, their case better be super airtight and easy to follow because some jurors might be like me and others here who can’t be swayed based ONLY on what we have now… for me, RA is still not guilty BARD. I’d like him to be if he is, but so far, there just ain’t enough to make me agree to hang him for it.

 

[Salah11]

Unless he is the unluckiest man on the planet, then he is guilty.

All the tiny bits of the puzzle add up to one man being responsible for this crime.

No alibi that we know of and can be placed on the bridge moments before the girls cross.

IMO

 

[Megnut]

Q: can a juror not base reasonable doubt on whatever stands out to them as well, reasonably doubtful?

So if the witnesses have described BG differently, which they have (some say puffy hair, some say not), some say blue jacket, one says tan and so on and so forth…. (Franks motions)…. Then can they not just say not guilty based on this and this alone? I imagine they’ll have a lot of discussions about the merits of this or that testimony/ evidence. Given how we bicker amongst ourselves here about these very same topics, I could easily see a jury ending up hung or coming back not guilty. At this point, imo, there just is something missing that would make me get off the fence to the guilty side.

I wonder if what is missing is something the State hasn’t revealed yet? Something from the search warrant? If they don’t have a lot more, I wonder if what they do have is enough to get the conviction. I don’t know how to do a formal poll here, so I’m wondering, if we can reasonably do this:

Cast your votes: based only what is known so far -
GUILTY
NOT GUILTY
?

ME: NOT GUILTY BARD. Yet.

Rbbm

In a word, IMO, no. No, they cannot. They will be instructed to consider the totality of the evidence.

No trial removes all doubt. And in any trial, one could point-clunterpoint every bit of evidence. But, just because someone could argue the opposition (the proverbial devil's advocate), doesn't mean it rises to the level of reasonable.

Therer's a reason too that our standard for criminal conviction is BARD. It's a high bar, but even there it is subjective, and they'd the task of a jury. What constitutes reasonable doubt, what constitutes beyond it.

A trial doesn't answer every question, tie up every loop hole, and yet, juries reach the BARD threshold routinely.

In this case, for example, and pretending it's an all or nothing proposition, not verifiable in other ways, the jury is deliberating. No evidence, no testimony on HOW RA would've have left the park, just the generalized assumption that he must have, there's just no cctv. (His phone records one way or another will tell on him IMO but this isn't the point of my current argument.) The jury can find RA guilty BARD even if there's NEVER an explanation for how he left. In no node cases, the State doesn'teven have to establish HOW a person died, they can present evidence THAT a person died and get a legitimate conviction.

We are presently in a vacuum. We haven't seen the State's case. The totality of it IMO will look like a slow motion video as RA's movements and deeds are laid bare.

Sure, there might be a lot of middle-aged men in the Midwest who dress and walk and talk like RA, but they'd only one with a big glaring gap where the others have actual alibis (because they were where they were).

Only one was on the bridge and can't get himself off it.

JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

Again I ask though: who decided that DD should be involved at all? He’s not a police man, he’s a Conservation Officer. How is this job the same as a police officer? What training if any did he have to conduct interviews in any criminal case, let alone a high profile double murder???

Was DD assigned to go talk to RA specifically or did he just happen upon RA doing a canvas? Did he get assigned to canvas or take it upon himself to go talk to possible witnesses???

Did RA contact DD himself or did he call police and someone told him he would meet with DD at X day and time and place??

How many other interviews did DD do in regards to this case? What was his role? Must have been important since he appears in the press conference video that someone posted a screenshot of upthread….?

MOOOOO no links so just MOOOOO.

Yes parts of the job is the same as a police officer. It would seem to be CO’s were pulled in to support LE right from the beginning, when Libby and Abby were initially reported missing on the Delphi Historic Trail System.

Become an Indiana Conservation Officer

Learn what it takes and how to become an Indiana Conservation Officer

www.in.gov

What training do Indiana Conservation Officer recruits undergo?

After receiving close scrutiny during the hiring process, potential officers must undergo a DNR- sponsored six-week recruit school. Upon graduation from the DNR-sponsored recruit school, officer ca...

faqs.in.gov

WHAT TRAINING DO INDIANA CONSERVATION OFFICER RECRUITS UNDERGO?​

• 8 months ago
• Updated

Follow
After receiving close scrutiny during the hiring process, potential officers must undergo a DNR- sponsored six-week recruit school. Upon graduation from the DNR-sponsored recruit school, officer candidates must complete training and graduate from the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy before becoming a probationary officer for one year.

 

[Ravenmoon]

The basis for the original FM was the argument that A & L were sacrificed for an Odinist ritual. They wrote about a Fehu that was painted on a tree with LGs blood.

This was debunked by a blood splatter expert. The truth is that the mark left on the tree was actually made by a 14 year old girl trying to steady herself while literally taking her last breaths.

The phone stopped counting steps after 18 minutes from the time that we hear " guys, down the hill". This is likely the timing of the end of 2 young lives.

With the 3 days of testimonies and hearings, I personally feel that the Defense has nothing to back up the claims of an Odinist ritual.

There was no Fehu. The girls died right where they were found, and very likely within 30 minutes of their abduction. They were not killed elsewhere.

Delphi had about 2100 people living there at the time of the murders.

53 percent were between the ages of 18 and 64. So, let's estimate this number at around 1080 people. About half of those people are male. So, maybe 540 men in Delphi at the time of the murders. Approximately 80 percent are white. So, now we are left with approximately 430 men are left.



Census profile: Delphi, IN


Out of the 430( ish) men, how many stood between 5' 5' and 5'9"?

How many of those men were familiar with the Monon High Bridge) ?
How many of them also had the mobility and wherewithal to walk across the bridge,?

Of the remaining number of those men, how many of them were at the bridge on February 13th, 2017 between 1:30 and 3:30 PM?

How many of them were seen walking to the bridge, witnessed by 3 young girls, with a purpose?

How many of those people wore the same clothes that BG wore?

If there are ANY, where are their phones?

If anyone is actually left, how many of them have a Sigsauer with the same consistent ejection markings as the bullet at the crime scene?
Last, but not least, how many of those remaining have confessed to the murders IN DETAIL SIXTY ONE times???

Man,RA sure is unlucky.







https://murdersheetpodcast.com/

 

[grannygates]

Someone being arrested doesn’t mean they’re guilty, or there wouldnt be a “not guilty” option for a jury. RA simply being arrested doesn’t prove he did anything. The evidence is supposed to prove the states case per their theory. Simply believing that a person is guilty because they were arrested isn’t “innocent until proven guilty”. It’s siding with the prosecution just because they’re the prosecution.

The states case is currently contradictory eyewitness statements, somehow matching an unspent round matched to a fired cartridge casing(?) and a series of potentially incriminating statements made after months of solitary confinement at a maximum security prison. Add in the hidden/missing/destroyed evidence and what do we really know about the totality of the investigation. What else is missing?

None of the known evidence says RA did anything, especially beyond a reasonable doubt. So right now I believe that RA is the unluckiest person ever to come forward to provide a witness statement and get thrown in prison without a trial for a crime without any real evidence connecting him to the crime scene or the victims.

MOO

 

[justtrish]

Q: can a juror not base reasonable doubt on whatever stands out to them as well, reasonably doubtful?

So if the witnesses have described BG differently, which they have (some say puffy hair, some say not), some say blue jacket, one says tan and so on and so forth…. (Franks motions)…. Then can they not just say not guilty based on this and this alone? I imagine they’ll have a lot of discussions about the merits of this or that testimony/ evidence. Given how we bicker amongst ourselves here about these very same topics, I could easily see a jury ending up hung or coming back not guilty. At this point, imo, there just is something missing that would make me get off the fence to the guilty side.

I wonder if what is missing is something the State hasn’t revealed yet? Something from the search warrant? If they don’t have a lot more, I wonder if what they do have is enough to get the conviction. I don’t know how to do a formal poll here, so I’m wondering, if we can reasonably do this:

Cast your votes: based only what is known so far -
GUILTY
NOT GUILTY
?

ME: NOT GUILTY BARD. Yet.

I think LE had this timeline long before they had RA. They had asked for anyone who was there to share with them and it seems that is what happened. The girls seeing a man at a certain time was one piece. Then when BB sees a man on the bridge and after putting it together with time stamps from photos and the video camera it could be linked that the guy that the girls saw very well could be the man on the bridge. Not specifically because of the clothing, but due to the timeline. Man walking with a purpose over here.. then walking to the other bridge it lines up with the right time that BB saw a man on the bridge. Later they have a video from Libby that shows a man on the bridge coming at them. We know BB left (her car on video) at exactly the time Libby is recording a man. So while it isn't 100% that the guy that was near Freedom bridge is the same guy that BB saw and then the same one that Libby recorded, it could be or I'd say it can't be ruled out.. the timeline fits.

THEN when the note is found in 2022 from RA telling DD he was there and he sees the girls walking near Freedom bridge and he admits to walking from there toward MHB and then out to the first platform and looking at fish. BB saw the man on the platform.. So no it isn't something that seals the deal, but I'd say it all lines up and when a timeline LE puts together based on several witnesses and then the actual perp gave a statement that puts him in the exact places others saw him, it does raise my eyebrows.

Add to this RA saying he was wearing the exact outfit BG is videoed in. Sure many men might wear similar clothing.. but what other man admits to being on the bridge at that time in that outfit? Another piece of the puzzle.

This isn't just about one specific thing like the girls seeing a man or BB seeing a guy on the bridge. It's all of it AND RA giving a statement about what he did and where he was and without the girls knowing that they put him in the exact places he admits he was that day.