Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #192

[Megnut]

When we look at the photo from Libby's phone it sure looks like BG has something on his head. We here on WS analyzed that photo over and over again about what he had on his head, was it a hat, was it a hood from a hoodie, was it both a hat and a hood over his head, was it a bandanna or did he have something on his face, and on and on. I think it's very possible BG was wearing something on his head that might have made it look like he has puffy hair. She didn't walk past the man on the bridge, she saw him from a distance and turned around to head the other way. I'd say she likely saw the man we all saw on that video Libby took and we sure couldn't agree about what he had on his head and we had a photo to analyze and go over and study. She saw him from a distance and walked the other way.

I'd say something as simple as him being on the bridge lead her to say he's in his 20s. Might have assumed or made a best guess based on thinking he had puffy hair and was out on a scary old RR bridge so must be younger.

The timing of it all means whoever BB saw IS the man on the bridge that encountered Abby and Libby.

Edited because I quoted the wrong post for this reply and I don't know how to add the right one now. UGH I was trying to respond to the statement that BB saw a man with puffy hair in his 20s.

This gave me chills.

Perhaps RA didn't WANT to be seen or remembered by ANYONE that day. He did keep his face shrouded in some way or at least no one had a lock on every single facial feature. Might have kept his chin low and covered, might've had a cap or hood to disguise his hair. Got quite "lucky" (to use a word that's GROTESQUE in the context of the crime to come) that he WASN'T seen by MORE people -- a tragic absence of hikers at a time when AW and LG needed a LEGION of human guardian angels.

Here's where it gets eerie. At some moment -- whether planned, stalked, or spontaneous -- he knew he was going to abduct them... and from that moment, he didn't have to care about them identifying him -- because he was going to make sure they could not. No more care to protect his features. In other words, and I'm struggling to articulate this -- RA intended to murder his final eye witnesses -- and had no idea that LG created a third eye witness. We DON'T know how RA appeared to the others, only what the sketches show, but we HAVE NOT heard from those witnesses from the witness stand. Hood, hat, hoodie, hair, wig that he removed/covered before he pursued them on the bridge.

If only he HAD been photographed or videotaped by those other witnesses! And had AW and LG NOT been his vicgoms that day but someone else, imagine the evidence LG would have been able to provide-- saw him, recorded him, remembered him and had proof.

I don't know what BB will testify to but if RA had a fur rimmed hood or even a hood over a visored cap, the cap alone could account for the SHAPE of poofy hair, seen from a distance where shadows take shape. The IMPRESSION of a shorter individual, not averse to walking the bridge, with the appearance of a mop of poofy hair lends itself to younger vs. older. Moreover, if the age range was hers, she must have been unsure enough that she couldn't pin a more narrrow age range to the man. 20 to 40 IMO is the same as saying "I don't know, he was on the bridge, so probably not THAT old. But I can't say he was 20, but maybe somewhere between 20 and 40".

But back to the chills.

There came a moment where was no longer concerned with being IDed.....

And LG captured it.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

It’s not a notion.
The right to a trial by jury is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.

Still a scary thought imo - to be accused of a crime and then have to HOPE that the 12 members of the jury get it right (this applies imo whether I'm the accused or a loved one or a victim). I'm not a fan of the subjectivity of others opinions.

 

[photographer4]

There was at least one called in tip along with a witness placing that vehicle in an odd location in the very back away from other cars. They both described it at the same location at the CPS building.

<snipped>
Another witness told investigators she noticed an oddly parked vehicle at an old Child Protective Services building. A tip that came in to investigators had also referenced a vehicle parked at that building that “appeared as though it was backed in as to conceal the license plate.” Investigators believe the description of that vehicle matched one of two vehicles that Allen owned in 2017, the affidavit says.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/us/delphi-teen-girls-killing-probable-cause-affidavit/index.html

So did LE figure out who the driver / owner was of the abandoned car along the road near the trail head that is discussed in Grey Hugh's video?

If not, why not?

 

[grannygates]

Neither of us has seen it ( the video)
So, how can we know what she actually said?
Having her full statement is important.

What comes to your mind if you hear that someone looks like they had been in a fight,,?

We don't know the context of the tan jacket either. Also, it's really clear that the man on the bridge did have a brown jacket underneath the blue one.

And, since we are discussing it, what color is mud?
She said he was muddy.


JMO

I was wondering why you felt that the defense only referencing the disputed words from the witness statement in their motion regarding the disputed words was somehow disingenuous or omitting facts.

Again, I don’t feel like it’s appropriate for law-enforcement to fabricate witness statements based on what they think the witness should have said. This is why it is so important that statements are videotaped. Now we have another dispute over what a witness said.

If the witness does not say bloody or blue jacket, law-enforcement should not say that they said bloody and blue jacket. I don’t think that LE should be changing the witnesses words ever.

Luckily this witness statement was video recorded and the video survived the great erasure, so they have proof of it, but now who knows what the other witness statements that were lost/erased, etc. actually said.

 

[katydid23]

It’s in this response that refers to the videotaped statement. It was also used for age range used on the poster for YBG. Also in several Franks memos.

View attachment 524550

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Wayback Machine

That says 18 to 40....I think he was 44 during the murders. So 4 years off. Not a huge error, imo.

 

[photographer4]

Filing a 5th Franks Motion at this point is like beating your head against a wall....time to try a new tactic if you've tried the same thing repeatedly and were given the exact same answer over and over.

Maybe they might try a different strategy now? Maybe they could focus on the upcoming trial and the evidence that they know is going to be presented at trial. Get some expert witnesses onboard to counter the evidence, And not Odinist experts---experts for discounting the bullet, and discounting the confessions, and to testify for his character and his lack of any previous crimes, and experts in eyewitness testimony weaknesses, etc.

Forget about trying to recuse the judge, or throw out the PCA or get the Odinists admitted or suppressing ALL the confessions---- time to deal with the evidence and use legal strategy to defend your client. IMO

I'd like to NOT forget about the possibility of Odinists here - simply because B & R weren't the only lawyers to raise concerns over it! EXCLUSIVE: Richard Allen's former defense attorney doubts he'll get a fair trial

"Rozzi and Baldwin previously asserted in court filings that a group of white nationalist Odinists more likely killed Abigail Williams and Liberty German and that law enforcement failed to follow up on potential Odinist suspects.

“Honestly, when I first heard about it and that these attorneys were going down this road, Lebrato said, “I thought it was hocus pocus. I was wrong. I was a hundred percent wrong. This is a real thing, and it’s a dangerous thing.”"

 

[Salah11]

I was wondering why you felt that the defense only referencing the disputed words from the witness statement in their motion regarding the disputed words was somehow disingenuous or omitting facts.

Again, I don’t feel like it’s appropriate for law-enforcement to fabricate witness statements based on what they think the witness should have said. This is why it is so important that statements are videotaped. Now we have another dispute over what a witness said.

If the witness does not say bloody or blue jacket, law-enforcement should not say that they said bloody and blue jacket. I don’t think that LE should be changing the witnesses words ever.

Luckily this witness statement was video recorded and the video survived the great erasure, so they have proof of it, but now who knows what the other witness statements that were lost/erased, etc. actually said.r

BBM

Well the good news is we have RA own confession which have not been lost or erased

 

[Salah11]

That says 18 to 40....I think he was 44 during the murders. So 4 years off. Not a huge error, imo.

And look at him because he is Fat he looks a lot younger.

Bar owner: Delphi murder suspect sat by wanted poster, spoke about case

Bob Matlock, the owner of the now-closed JC’s Bar an Grill in Delphi, Indiana, said murder suspect Richard Allen, 50, is a married dad-of-two who came to his tavern 3-4 times a week.

nypost.com

In this image I would never guess he was mid 40’s.

 

[Megnut]

I don’t know if it’s normal but I can’t imagine it gained much favor with the Court.
it solidified for me that defense must think the general public is pretty gullible.
All my opinion.

Woah!

Can this be considered factual by any stretch??

This is the Defense really hoping that the court answers with their wording.

I don't want to come off as disrespectful, but can this even be used as a legitimate source of information?


From the document:View attachment 524568Adobe Acrobat

This isn't hard.

This is the document the Defense wanted the judge to sign. They wrote it all up nice, with the Court in/as the first person.

And IF she were a lazy judge, rather than writing up her OWN response, she could have signed theirs. These are my (the Court's) findings.

She didn't sign it. She didn't even respond to it, save to deny the motions, having already ruled against them.

So we could go back and rightly read each line item this way: the Court most certainly DID NOT find...

JMO

 

[katydid23]

If every witness described an exceptionally short man with a goatee, I would think they all saw the same man. The issue is that these witnesses are not describing what RA looks like. Also, the foundation of many of their witness statements is simply the clothing that this person is wearing and no two descriptions match.

One mentions the man as not taller than 5’10”. Richard Allen is shorter than most grown women, and was the same height as the girls, so the most obvious identifying feature of him is his very short stature. Not a single witness said that BG was short, or shorter than them, so that leads me to believe they’re not describing RA.

Describing someone as no taller than 5'10'' is saying he was short. IMO

 

[photographer4]

Abby and Libby are the victims here, NOT RA. Nobody, much less 2 innocent teenage bffs out for a walk and girly chat, deserved the kind of physical and mental gruesome death they endured.

Snipped for focus by me - If RA has been wrongfully accused and lost years of his life to incarceration and this trial, then I"m afraid he will have become yet another victim of this atrocity. THe kids didn't deserve any of this of course - I just hope that the wheels of "justice" get it right.

 

[justtrish]

This gave me chills.

Perhaps RA didn't WANT to be seen or remembered by ANYONE that day. He did keep his face shrouded in some way or at least no one had a lock on every single facial feature. Might have kept his chin low and covered, might've had a cap or hood to disguise his hair. Got quite "lucky" (to use a word that's GROTESQUE in the context of the crime to come) that he WASN'T seen by MORE people -- a tragic absence of hikers at a time when AW and LG needed a LEGION of human guardian angels.

Here's where it gets eerie. At some moment -- whether planned, stalked, or spontaneous -- he knew he was going to abduct them... and from that moment, he didn't have to care about them identifying him -- because he was going to make sure they could not. No more care to protect his features. In other words, and I'm struggling to articulate this -- RA intended to murder his final eye witnesses -- and had no idea that LG created a third eye witness. We DON'T know how RA appeared to the others, only what the sketches show, but we HAVE NOT heard from those witnesses from the witness stand. Hood, hat, hoodie, hair, wig that he removed/covered before he pursued them on the bridge.

If only he HAD been photographed or videotaped by those other witnesses! And had AW and LG NOT been his vicgoms that day but someone else, imagine the evidence LG would have been able to provide-- saw him, recorded him, remembered him and had proof.

I don't know what BB will testify to but if RA had a fur rimmed hood or even a hood over a visored cap, the cap alone could account for the SHAPE of poofy hair, seen from a distance where shadows take shape. The IMPRESSION of a shorter individual, not averse to walking the bridge, with the appearance of a mop of poofy hair lends itself to younger vs. older. Moreover, if the age range was hers, she must have been unsure enough that she couldn't pin a more narrrow age range to the man. 20 to 40 IMO is the same as saying "I don't know, he was on the bridge, so probably not THAT old. But I can't say he was 20, but maybe somewhere between 20 and 40".

But back to the chills.

There came a moment where was no longer concerned with being IDed.....

And LG captured it.

JMO

I suspect he did want to be seen, but he didn't want to be identified. You know so when he went to LE to say he was walking that day and he saw the girls.. he wanted them to say they saw him.. so he could verify he was there like he said just walking. Didn't see anything else, not Abby or Libby and not a random killer lurking about. I think being seen was part of his plan, but being able to be identified was not part of the plan. Weather he saw BB or not and just didn't say he did because she could put him on the bridge at a certain time ?? I don't know. Maybe his back was turned and he didn't see her or he didn't want her to see his face so he didn't turn toward her once he noticed a woman was approaching. Easy enough to keep your back to someone if you are "looking at fish".

I am sure BB replays that moment a lot. Imagine if her plan was to walk across the MHB.. would she then be BG's victim and no Abby and Libby?

 

[grannygates]

BBM

Well the good news is we have RA own confession which have not been lost or erased

Which is an interesting point, since we learned the 24/7 video recordings conveniently don’t have any audio recording (of course) So the only audio recording would be the telephone calls that occurred within the jail. So are there (approximately) 61 telephone calls in that two months? I wasn’t really clear on what proof they are using for those statements. Surely, we’re not just going off of inmate door sheets.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Neither of us has seen it ( the video)
So, how can we know what she actually said?
Having her full statement is important.

What comes to your mind if you hear that someone looks like they had been in a fight,,?

We don't know the context of the tan jacket either. Also, it's really clear that the man on the bridge did have a brown jacket underneath the blue one.

And, since we are discussing it, what color is mud?
She said he was muddy.


JMO

Muddy and looking like he was in a fight. Leaving the scene of a double murder would be enough. And defense did not dispute these statements.

I have little doubt she said he had blood on him. She may even have used the word “bloody” in describing him. But not specifically in regards to his clothes.

The Court had the evidence submitted by defense and reviewed them. The claim of prosecution deception was unfounded.
Just my opinion.

 

[ClearAhead]

Still a scary thought imo - to be accused of a crime and then have to HOPE that the 12 members of the jury get it right (this applies imo whether I'm the accused or a loved one or a victim). I'm not a fan of the subjectivity of others opinions.

Well it could be a lot scarier if what’s claimed about how some 3rd world countries do it is true. Police just take the prisoner out back and shoot him.

 

[ClearAhead]

Which is an interesting point, since we learned the 24/7 video recordings conveniently don’t have any audio recording (of course) So the only audio recording would be the telephone calls that occurred within the jail. So are there (approximately) 61 telephone calls in that two months? I wasn’t really clear on what proof they are using for those statements. Surely, we’re not just going off of inmate door sheets.

https://fox59.com/news/detective-testifies-richard-allen-confessed-more-than-60-times-to-delphi-murders/

Indiana State Police Detective Brian Harshman testified that he has reviewed 650-670 of Allen’s phone calls during his incarceration covering more than 150 hours.

Harshman said Allen has confessed more than 60 times, most often to his wife and mother, who expressed disbelief, concerns about his mental state or changed the subject.

 

[katydid23]

Has the judge ever accused the defense of lying?

Well, she has ruled that their accusations are unfounded. Is that calling them liars? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe 'misleading' or mistaken?

 

[Yemelyan]

So did LE figure out who the driver / owner was of the abandoned car along the road near the trail head that is discussed in Grey Hugh's video?

If not, why not?

I feel like this is one of those "we don't know what we don't know" situations. If they figured out who this vehicle belonged to that was parked on the road, and checked out that person and found no connection, then why would they ever need to tell us, the public, that this part of the investigation did not lead anywhere (at least right now, before trial). The caller described this as an "older model" and even seemed confused on the day (referencing Saturday once).

But IMO the rest of the information that the caller gave was consistent with what we know from the PCA. The vehicle LE was interested in was parked near the CPS building. It was positioned in such a way that its license plate was concealed. It was positioned in such a way that someone working across the street (potentially) did not even notice it there. They do not know what color it is (because, from the PCA, we know that different witnesses recalled varying info about it).

 

[Megnut]

The Defense has been artful in its characterizations. No DNA linking....

Maybe it's not HIS DNA... maybe it's an errant hair from a household member, maybe it's a cat hair or a synthetic strand from a fur hood or a carpet fiber.

Maybe his clothes weren't bloody but his face was.

Maybe LG's phone did ressurect briefly at 4:33, but not because anyone accessed her phone but because an internal process activated it.

Are they lying? They are, at a minumum IMO, skirting the truth, and at the maximum, subverting it. But they're not under oath and their words aren't evidence.

We haven't seen the evidence yet.

And we won't until it's admitted into court by the Court and reported back to us by someone who will have been in the courtroom.

It will look quite different than what we've seen here.

JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

This isn't hard.

This is the document the Defense wanted the judge to sign. They wrote it all up nice, with the Court in/as the first person.

And IF she were a lazy judge, rather than writing up her OWN response, she could have signed theirs. These are my (the Court's) findings.

She didn't sign it. She didn't even respond go it, save to deny the motions, having already ruled against them.

So we could go back and rightly read each line item this way: the Court most certainly DID NOT find...

JMO

Yes my issue is the proposed order improperly cited as source of fact multiple times. Moo