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

[justtrish]

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.

I wouldn't expect cameras in a jail to have audio. Maybe I just watch a lot of jail shows, but the purpose of them for correction officers to observe what is happening in all locations of the jail/prison, not to overhear what everyone is saying. Have you seen a room that has lots of screens to observe many areas in a building or facility? They are to see if someone is in a place they shouldn't be, if a fight is breaking out, if an inmate is trying to harm themselves. I wouldn't say it's "convenient", I'd say it's typical of security systems and I'd also say it's expected that jail calls are recorded and I'm pretty sure they even notify the participants in the calls that they are recording them. It's not a secret to anyone that it's going to be recorded.

 

[grannygates]

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.

I keep hearing about letters to the warden and door sheets, so was wondering if it is clarified that the 61 is actually only the telephone calls? Who is he calling? I only heard of one call to the wife when Dr Wala dialed the phone. It will be good to get the transcripts.

 

[katydid23]

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.

What do you suggest we do with murder suspects then, if you don't agree with using 12 jurors to assess the evidence?

Should it be done by judges instead?

 

[photographer4]

In order to attain a hearing for a legal motion, you need to make some strong legal points to reach a certain standard. They failed to do so. You cannot just make blanket accusations and expect to have a hearing set up for you.

None of the Franks Motions rose to that required level. There was nothing put forth that justified a legal hearing. The Judge already explained in previous rulings what the issues were but the D just kept hammering the same issues that have already been repeatedly denied.

The D was unsuccessful in offering any credible evidence that LE was untruthful or distorted any facts. You don't get a hearing without offering potential evidence of those things. And they still have not been able to point to anything credible.

I don't need to watch the D dance around and squirm during a hearing---I'll see that enough when the trial starts.

Unsuccessful in JG"s subjective opinion. I wouldn't mind one bit if they took this higher

 

[photographer4]

And if those witnesses were young girls that are now coming forward to testify? You think the D should rip them to shreds?

I think the D should make every effort to discredit their testimony yes. That is kinda their job to poke holes in the "evidence".

 

[Megnut]

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

Plus... it's entirely possible for a man of shorter stature to wear shoes with lifts. Putting him well within an average height range.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

Plus... it's entirely possible for a man of shorter stature to wear shoes with lifts. Putting him well within an average height range.

JMO

We've seen NO evidence that RA wears "lifts."

 

[ClearAhead]

I keep hearing about letters to the warden and door sheets, so was wondering if it is clarified that the 61 is actually only the telephone calls? Who is he calling? I only heard of one call to the wife when Dr Wala dialed the phone. It will be good to get the transcripts.

The confessions to other people are in addition to the 61. Same story reported in other MSM too, I doubt they all got it wrong.

Indiana State Police investigator says Richard Allen confessed 61 times to Delphi murders

The man accused of killing two Delphi teenagers has confessed more than 60 times to committing the murders, according to an Indiana State Police detective assigned to the case.

www.21alivenews.com

Asked how many incriminating statements Allen has made behind bars, Harshman responded “60-plus direct confessions.” He said some of those confessions included specifics of the Delphi murders that only the actual murderer would know, as well as motivation for the crimes. (The detective did not elaborate with additional details.)

Harshman also testified that the confessions started in March 2023 after Allen started reading a bible in his prison cell and began proclaiming that he had “found God.”

He said many of the confessions came during Allen’s phone calls with his wife and mother, with the early confessions resulting in “initial disbelieve and shock.” Harshman said as time went on and Allen made additional incriminating statements to his family, they responded with “They’re messing with your mind” or “Stop talking about it.”

During much of Harshman’s testimony, Allen shook his head in disagreement while sitting alongside his attorneys.

“We’re talking about 61 [incriminating] statements made over the course of two months,” said Stacy Diener, an attorney representing the Carroll County prosecutor’s office. “His statements were unsolicited.”

 

[tlcya]

Unsuccessful in JG"s subjective opinion. I wouldn't mind one bit if they took this higher

as are yours, mine, the prosecution's, the defense's, and so forth at the end of the day.

For instance, it is the subjective opinion of some that the judge's opinion is subjective.

It is the subjective opinion of others that her opinion is objective.

Hence why we all continue to circle the same debates in varied forms oh the last many months.

 

[grannygates]

I wouldn't expect cameras in a jail to have audio. Maybe I just watch a lot of jail shows, but the purpose of them for correction officers to observe what is happening in all locations of the jail/prison, not to overhear what everyone is saying. Have you seen a room that has lots of screens to observe many areas in a building or facility? They are to see if someone is in a place they shouldn't be, if a fight is breaking out, if an inmate is trying to harm themselves. I wouldn't say it's "convenient", I'd say it's typical of security systems and I'd also say it's expected that jail calls are recorded and I'm pretty sure they even notify the participants in the calls that they are recording them. It's not a secret to anyone that it's going to be recorded.

There are two different types of video recording in this case. There is the video camera that is affixed to the wall in the cell, which I don’t understand why it wouldn’t have audio if the sole purpose of putting him in that cell with that camera was to watch and listen to him for “suicide watch”. There are several television shows/documentaries that use wall affixed cameras and they all have audio.

The one that is absolutely intentional in my opinion is the handheld camcorder that a guard carries and follows him around with, every time he leaves his cell. A handheld video camera absolutely defaults to including audio recording.

I am already suspicious by the request that this man be recorded 24/7, which is apparently IMO not standard protocol, so I find the lack of any sort of audio recording very convenient. I think that the prison doesn’t want to include the audio of everyone else outside of RA.

All in my cynical opinion with having reviewed and compared the discrepancies in all of the documentation surrounding the issues in the prison and the transcripts from the warden and safekeeping hearing, all of the filings surrounding the safekeeping, motion to transfer and the content of the states subpoenas for the mental health records and just googling the prison and learning how it earned its reputation. I’m not buying any of it and that’s just my opinion.

 

[Ravenmoon]

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.

The reference to the minimum of 61 confessions were connected to recorded phone calls and as well as written confessions.

Conveniently lacking audio recording for the videos? I can't even imagine the outcry of injustice if this had been done.

JMO

EBM to add that an officer was tasked with listening to all of RAs phone calls except those with his lawyers.

 

[grannygates]

The reference to the minimum of 61 confessions were connected to recorded phone calls and as well as written confessions.

Conveniently lacking audio recording for the videos? I can't even imagine the outcry of injustice if this had been done.

JMO

Yes I have great concern that the video recordings of the accused being held at the Prison don’t have any audio, because we have no idea what is being said to him or he is saying back during any of those 24/7 video recordings.

I’m not sure what the point of video without audio is if the whole intention was to record him confessing (my opinion)

This is a reoccurring theme in this case. The video survives but the audio is missing, so the video now becomes unusable to the defense.

 

[Megnut]

I think the D should make every effort to discredit their testimony yes. That is kinda their job to poke holes in the "evidence".

Actually they are officers of the Court. It is their job to take that oath seriously. It is possible to defend a defendant without resorting to cheap tricks and outright fabrications. It is possible to represent a defendant assuring he gets his day(s) in court, before a jury of his peers, while holding the State to task.

By all appearances, Judge Gull runs a tidy courtroom and much of what we've seen so far won't reach the jury. The seated jury IMO won't know about failed Frank's motions, SCION rulings, youtubers or podcasts, $12000 roadtrips, Odinism experts, crowdfunding. And that's good for the Defense. It's good for everyone. It will create a smoother trial and ensure that only the proper evidence gets before the jury.

JMO

 

[Salah11]

Is it not curious for the ones who claim he is innocent that he doesn’t have a alibi?

The defense are so desperate that they are willing to blame people who actually do have Albi’s which is rather ironic

We have heard 4 Franks and the Defense have yet to mention that they can place him anyway but the crime scene that day.

 

[ClearAhead]

I think the D should make every effort to discredit their testimony yes. That is kinda their job to poke holes in the "evidence".

Pathetically poor defense if the only way they have of poking holes in evidence is by ripping young witnesses to shreds.

A defense who cannot act with the upmost of integrity won’t be successful in poking holes in anything but their own reputation and that of their client too. The end result is antagonizing a jury.

JMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

I think the D should make every effort to discredit their testimony yes. That is kinda their job to poke holes in the "evidence".

There are ways to discredit witnesses without tearing them to shreds,as you have said.

I would like to know why in the world that would be necessary?

A good attorney with solid information and proof can be tactful and conduct themselves with integrity.

That would be much more impactful IMO.

 

[grannygates]

Is it not curious for the ones who claim he is innocent that he doesn’t have a alibi?

The defense are so desperate that they are willing to blame people who actually do have Albi’s which is rather ironic

We have heard 4 Franks and the Defense have yet to mention that they can place him anyway but the crime scene that day.

If he said he was at home with his phone, the pro-guilt side would just say that he had a burner phone. I really don’t think that it matters what he says, the pro-guilt side wont accept it.

At this point the pro-guilt side is saying that Libby’s phone was turned on by a rooting animal or rigor mortis or drying up water. Anything except for a person actually turning the phone on. Like why couldn’t a person have turned the phone on?

It’s not the defendants job to prove himself innocent - It’s the states job to prove that he is guilty. He doesn’t even have to provide an alibi. The burden is on the State to prove that he was involved or, at this point, even there after 1:30pm and we have not heard any real undisputed evidence that suggests that.

It’s not evidence to just say RA=BG, the state has to actually prove it.

 

[ClearAhead]

Yes I have great concern that the video recordings of the accused being held at the Prison don’t have any audio, because we have no idea what is being said to him or he is saying back during any of those 24/7 video recordings.

I’m not sure what the point of video without audio is if the whole intention was to record him confessing (my opinion)

This is a reoccurring theme in this case. The video survives but the audio is missing, so the video now becomes unusable to the defense.

It’s a reoccurring theme that allegations of wrongdoing are made without heed to the facts. Where is it stated the phonecalls Harshman reviewed did not contain audio?

 

[statt#1]

This is what I was looking to find which strongly indicates we don’t know it all.

From the PCA.
* The video reveals the male subject “walks behind” Abby. He didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere. That he began approaching Abby while she was posing for photos is a strong possibility IMO. This video of him walking behind Abby hasn’t been released to the public but one of the still frames revealed an artifact which many people speculated looked like Abby’s arm. It could very well be.
* Notice it says “the video ends”. But it doesn’t say the audio ends. The term ‘video’ is commonly associated with recorded images.

View attachment 524567

I tell ya what's blaring at me in this....It's that line towards the end there, "The girls then begin to proceed down the hill...." I wonder if THAT is on video?

Where again was RA when all this went down? Oh yeah, nobody knows, because he and his DT haven't bothered to tell us. They've just lobbed accusations at other folks, who have been shown NOT to have been there, and have vigorously attempted through crafty prose to squash evidence.

I don't know if RA is guilty....uh, but it ain't lookin' good for him. Too much we already know, not to mention, what prosecutors know, that we don't know.

I'm a KISSweetheart kind of guy, and this is lookin' like a duck to me. Admission, details of fact known only to the killer, no alibi, confessions galore, mom and wifey can't stand to hear the blood testimony (that's telling right there), placed himself ON THE BRIDGE on THE DAY the girls were killed, DT wants to throw out evidence collected from his home (now why would they want to do THAT), DT wants to throw accusations at Odinists, DT wants to, wants to, wants to. Yeah, Yeah, I know, that's their job....I mean, I get it, I've been around the block a couple times.

I used to say, when I was sitting on a governmental board, I used to say to the Chairman....after much discussion, debate, dialogue, legal advice, back and forth, input from the professionals, ad infinitum...."BRING IT TO A VOTE"

 

[m00c0w]

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.

Mostly because the defense has a history of apparently deliberately twisting and misrepresenting facts to fit their goal, so it’s curious when they don’t actually provide quotes but paraphrase what was said.

You keep stating that an attorney cannot lie in filings… I’m not sure anyone is suggesting they’re outright lying as much as possibly stretching the truth. It is possible that SC described the man as having mud on his clothes and blood on his face and arms. If the defense says “she never said his clothing had blood on it”, that would be factually correct but also incredibly misleading. Similarly, if they stated BB said BG could have been “as young as 20 years old”, that omits the upper age range. If she also said he could have been as old as 40, the defense is not lying but is still being misleading by omitting the full context.

The reality is that we don’t know what the video recordings show. We do know that what the defense wrote lacks context and possibly omits a lot. It’s entirely possible JG watched the recordings, saw things like I described above, and dismissed the motion as a result.

All my opinion.