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

[Vern]

This (unspoken) "guilty until proven innocent" (and even then, probably still guilty) mindset has got to stop. It's so dangerous. As a people, I think we're smarter than this.

IMO MOO

Just wait for the mindset that will follow if he is found guilty.

It will all be just one big, giant conspiracy theory (also so dangerous) to frame him up despite whatever the actual evidence shown at trial is, and that the jurors will see and hear to render their decision will show IMO.

 

[TTF14]

Just wait for the mindset that will follow if he is found guilty.

It will all be just one big, giant conspiracy theory (also so dangerous) to frame him up despite whatever the actual evidence shown at trial is, and that the jurors will see and hear to render their decision will show IMO.

I have a lot of faith the jurors will be intelligent people able to make the right decision.

ETA: As long as they truly believe, as they should, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Vern]

<modsnip> There’s no mention about matching the animal hairs in RAs SW. I don’t think we see anything about searching for matching animal hair in court docs after RLs SW, do we ?

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped> We will find out if it's actual evidence/true or not at the trial.

So, what about all the other points on that partial list of evidence that contributes to the preponderance of such?

 

[Vern]

I've never followed a case where the State was so opposed to digital evidence (except for perhaps Karen Read - JM's digital evidence in particular). It's wild.

IMO MOO

It is; and, it's very unlike this case.

 

[JnRyan]

Wait what? If RA isn't BG, then, why wouldn't RA, in order to save himself from a potential guilty verdict, come forward and be a witness for the prosecution? Sounds ludicrous to me, but hey, if RA's NOT BG, then he surely must have seen the real BG when he was at the trails and on the bridge that day? (unless of course, the real BG hid from RA, but didn't hide from the other witnesses?) I mean, I'm trying to sort out the argument that RA is NOT BG, and if he's NOT BG then all the witnesses saw somebody else?

And even though it sounds convoluted to me, all the witnesses that claim to have seen RA, the girls, the lady at the end of the bridge, well, then they didn't see RA, they saw someone else, and that someone else is yet unidentified, however, RA seemingly didn't see someone else, or A&L, as he hasn't testified to such, yet admits his presence on the bridge, and admits having seen the girls who were witnesses?

This whole business is confusing me

And to add to the confusion, we have a witness - OR witnesses - that saw someone entirely different leading to the obviously younger sketch in 2019. Of course that wasn't confusing enough so ISP's Doug Carter says a week or so later that the killer is a combination of the two sketches, basically invalidating BOTH sketches.

That adds to the confusion for me.

 

[Vern]

I have a lot of faith the jurors will be intelligent people able to make the right decision.

ETA: As long as they truly believe, as they should, innocent until proven guilty.

Me too; I also have every faith and hope that they will be reasonable in their deliberations and considerations.

 

[grannygates]

<modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped> We will find out if it's actual evidence/true or not at the trial.

So, what about all the other points on that partial list of evidence that contributes to the preponderance of such?

<modsnip>

But in my opinion, I need proof beyond what you have listed. None of those items prove to me that RA was involved or even on the trails after 1:30.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

The girls are on audio discussing going that way to avoid the approaching BG. I don't think they'd have said that if someone was there. MO

 

[sunshineray]

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.

There's a hat he's seen wearing in the playing pool video at the bar, a skull cap variety that has seams sown at the top criss-cross. It's brown and the seams makes it look kind of "puffy". Easily confused with hair from a distance.
AJMO

 

[Salah11]

<modsnip>

But in my opinion, I need proof beyond what you have listed. None of those items prove to me that RA was involved or even on the trails after 1:30.

BBM

So then you think RA lied in his first statement when he said he was out there at that time?

Mr Allen in 2017 was on the trails between 1.30-15.30

This also supports the witnesses who saw him that afternoon.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[TTF14]

BBM

So then you think RA lied in his first statement when he said he was out there at that time?


This also supports the witnesses who saw him that afternoon.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

There will be no way to corroborate this during the trial since DD "lost" his recording. Jurors will have to decide what to believe - the statement of a man who lost the recording, yet just a few days later stood on the stage at a presser, where "BG's" pic was shown, and didn't recognize him? Or, RA's own recorded (presumably?) statement about when he was there.

And the witness statements all vastly differ so who knows who they saw. I'd expect a jury to discard all of that testimony completely as being unreliable, as we know eyewitness statements can be.

IMO

 

[katydid23]

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

IMO The eyewitnesses statements not matching wouldn’t be such a big deal if they weren’t being used to form the entire case.

 

[TTF14]

IMO The eyewitnesses statements not matching wouldn’t be such a big deal if they weren’t being used to form the entire case.

I agree!

 

[Vern]

IMO The eyewitnesses statements not matching wouldn’t be such a big deal if they weren’t being used to form the entire case.

Thank goodness then that they are not the only evidence being used as part of the case.

(I mean, they've got his confessions, RAs own statements, bullet, his gun, whatever they seized during the search warrant etc etc) ...

 

[katydid23]

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.

How does someone lurking at ' the other side of the bridge' have any effect upon what happened between BG and the two girls standing RIGHT NEXT to him? Seconds into the video Libby took, we hear the voice of a man saying 'Guys, Down the Hill'......someone on the other side of the bridge had no way to be heArd on that video seconds later.

BG is the voice on the video, not some other figment of someone's imagination....IMO

 

[Megnut]

The State does want digital evidence admitted. Their expert will testify to the CAST report.

What the State wants to prevent is the Defense confusing the jury with irrelevant, misleading, misrepresented material.

Huge difference.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

BBM

So then you think RA lied in his first statement when he said he was out there at that time?


This also supports the witnesses who saw him that afternoon.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

The witnesses saw BG. No one ID’d RA.

There is no audio/video to support DDs note, so it cannot be proven and is not considered a fact. Therefore, we would default to the only recorded proof of RA actually stating what time he left - the video recorded statement saying 1:30pm. The state holds the burden to prove their facts to be true.

This is why audio/video recording statements is so important.

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

<modsnip>

But in my opinion, I need proof beyond what you have listed. None of those items prove to me that RA was involved or even on the trails after 1:30.

RA put himself on the bridge at that time.
Why is that never enough?
RA admitted to being there before the supposed “torture” he received in prison.
Let’s talk about cat hair and Odinists and cell phones and anything except the FACT that RA said he was on the bridge at the time Libby and Abby were approaching the bridge.

 

[grannygates]

RA put himself on the bridge at that time.
Why is that never enough?
RA admitted to being there before the supposed “torture” he received in prison.
Let’s talk about cat hair and Odinists and cell phones and anything except the FACT that RA said he was on the bridge at the time Libby and Abby were approaching the bridge.

RA said on video that he left at 1:30 so I don’t know why it’s constantly being suggested that he put himself on the bridge at the same time as BG or the girls? That was never said by anyone including LE. There is no proof of that anywhere.

BB saw a 20 year old with poofy brown hair, YBG.

DD’s note isn’t a fact and cannot be proven as the audio is “missing”. A reoccurring theme in this case.

This is another example of the “guilty until proven innocent” surrounding this case.

MOO

 

[ClearAhead]

The witnesses saw BG. No one ID’d RA.

There is no audio/video to support DDs note, so it cannot be proven and is not considered a fact. Therefore, we would default to the only recorded proof of RA actually stating what time he left - the video recorded statement saying 1:30pm. The state holds the burden to prove their facts to be true.

This is why audio/video recording statements is so important.

MOO

I’m sure you know we here on Websleuths are not tasked with determining what is fact and what is not, as much as we might like to believe our opinions are important.

What video recorded statement of RA saying 1:30pm are you referring to?