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

[TTF14]

So what does that mean in reality? Does it mean there was a 20 yr old guy with goofy hair on the bridge that no one else is remembering or talking about?

I said poofy, not goofy.

 

[SouthEnd]

RA looks nothing like a 20 something young man with poofy hair and never did. That's not even "generally aligns."

IMO MOO

There are two options:

1) A random 20 something year old showed up but only long enough for one witness to see them, and no person could ever place them in the area ever again. They could be the perp or, most likely since that assumed person looks nothing like the BG, was a random person that never came forwards.

OR

2) After years of the original description and sketch produced no results, the LE started thinking that they got the first sketch completely wrong. They lost their nerve or simply wanted to try a new avenue. So they went with the second sketch, that didn't match the 3 witnesses sighting, and took the lower end of the 18-40 yo estimation of the BB (I believe) eyewitness, hoping against hope that this one might actually produce results.

What the BB eyewitness has seen will only be abundantly clear during the trial, but IMO her description had more things in common with the three girls description, but the LE decided to go with the biggest differences when the first line of inquiry didn't produce any results.

Again, all of it is MOO

 

[katydid23]

I said poofy, not goofy.

Autocorrect---sorry

 

[TTF14]

There are two options:

1) A random 20 something year old showed up but only long enough for one witness to see them, and no person could ever place them in the area ever again. They could be the perp or, most likely since that assumed person looks nothing like the BG, was a random person that never came forwards.

Maybe the poofy-haired 20 something owns one of the phones NM desperately wants to keep out of the trial via the geofence report.

 

[katydid23]

Maybe the poofy-haired 20 something owns one of the phones NM desperately wants to keep out of the trial via the geofence report.

If so, they found him already. IMO

 

[TTF14]

If so, they found him already. IMO

I agree.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Maybe the poofy-haired 20 something owns one of the phones NM desperately wants to keep out of the trial via the geofence report.

Why would he desperately want to keep anyone's phone out of the trial that could be involved in the crime?

 

[Caylee Advocate]

The photo was by a bench on the trail, (probably a group photo?) not a photo of RA. The important thing about that photo was the time stamp, not the subject matter. The witness said they passed RA right after the photo was taken, the group on their way out of the trails, he on his way in, going towards the bridge. That's my understanding of that photo

 

[TTF14]

Why would he desperately want to keep anyone's phone out of the trial that could be involved in the crime?

I don't know. And I'm not saying that. It seems like he wants to keep any and all information out that points to reasonable doubt, which to me seems like he's not that confident in the evidence he has against RA.



IMO MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

I don't know. And I'm not saying that. It seems like he wants to keep any and all information out that points to reasonable doubt, which to me seems like he's not that confident in the evidence he has against RA.

IMO MOO

It's exactly what you said.
From your statement, I thought you could have a theory.

 

[TTF14]

It's exactly what you said.
From your statement, I thought you could have a theory.

No....it's not exactly what I said. I didn't even use the word "crime."

 

[m00c0w]

RA looks nothing like a 20 something young man with poofy hair and never did. That's not even "generally aligns."

IMO MOO

Do you have the complete quote from BB that this is her complete description? She stated the man in Libby's video is the man she saw, according to the prosecution. She also stated, according to the defense, that he could have been in his early 30s. RA, to me, could pass for a guy in his 30s in 2017. RA, to me, also looks a whole lot like the guy in the video. As far as "poofy hair", we don't know if that's all she said on the matter or if that's all the defense chose to include because it was the most "exculpatory".

Again, she isn't claiming she saw a 6' linebacker, nor a man dressed as one of Santa's elves, nor something radically different from the other witnesses. She's claiming she saw a male, 20s to 30s, with brown poofy hair (or at least something brown and poofy on his head) that is also the male in the video taken by Libby. The totality of circumstances would lead one to believe she saw the same male everyone else saw, and the same male that put himself on the bridge during that timeframe wearing the same clothes she described.

All my opinion.

 

[Ravenmoon]

No....it's not exactly what I said. I didn't even use the word "crime."

Okay, minus the word crime,
You said that "Maybe the poofy-haired 20 something owns one of the phones NM desperately wants to keep out of the trial via the geofence report."
I apologize for using the wrong extra word.

 

[TTF14]

Do you have the complete quote from BB that this is her complete description?

No. Only what was relayed in the Franks motion memorandum. Her exact wording would be in the document that's mentioned in the footnotes/citations, but that document is not public.

 

[photographer4]

Exactly. The witness could have said, (this is my own supposition as an example) The man looked muddy and his jeans were kind of wet looking. He looked like he'd been in a fight, he was looking disheveled and a bit bloody.

So is that then a lie for LE to say she described him as "muddy and bloody"? The interview with her could have lasted who knows how long. She may have said bloody at the begin of it and included muddy towards the end?

She obviously eventually thought, I need to tell the police what I saw. Was that after she saw the picture LE released? Maybe it was and the witness knew they had to come forth as she saw that man the police were looking to talk to?

My point is we won't know until we hear the witness's full testimony. AJMO

I believe Ms. Muddy and Bloody (I’m sorry, no disrespect, I cannot recall her name or initials) waited many months before contacting LE at all about what she had seen. For reasons I do not yet quite understand, the Franks Motion 1 (linked below) says she met with LE on June 17, 2017 - MONTHS after the murder. And also, it appears there are issues with what she says she saw vs what lady who saw him on the bridge saw: Adobe Acrobat

 

[m00c0w]

I believe Ms. Muddy and Bloody (I’m sorry, no disrespect, I cannot recall her name or initials) waited many months before contacting LE at all about what she had seen. For reasons I do not yet quite understand, the Franks Motion 1 (linked below) says she met with LE on June 17, 2017 - MONTHS after the murder. And also, it appears there are issues with what she says she saw vs what lady who saw him on the bridge saw: Adobe Acrobat

Do you believe she was contemplating how best to implicate Richard Allen during that time?

 

[m00c0w]

I find it interesting that in the first Franks motion (which was denied), the defense keeps saying SC did not say the man was bloody in her 2017 interview. They are very careful to narrow the scope down to "her 2017 interview" for these claims. I wonder if there was a subsequent interview where she stated he was bloody. TL omitted the date of her interview in the probable cause affidavit for the arrest warrant application, so it seems like he may have combined two or more interviews while only citing the 2017 interview in the search warrant application affidavit.

https://www.wane.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/Delphi-Docs-2022.pdf

FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf - ANDREW J. BALDWIN

pdfhost.io

 

[Vern]

Yes, because the issue at hand is that the PCA says muddy and bloody and blue jacket. The defense is showing that the witness did not say “bloody” ever in that statement and also said the man was wearing a tan jacket.

So, yes, they are cherry picking the actual words that refer to the particular statements that are in dispute.

They’ve also submitted the video tape with the filing so that the court is able to watch the videotape in full.

They sure are stating that the witness nevere said the word "bloody". That one, single, solitary word is also in quotes in the proposed wording by th D-Team in their document.

Did she instead state something akin to: "I passed a man who was covered in mud and blood".

They chose a single word to highlight and quote. But that does not mean the witness did not state that she saw a man with blood and mud on him. Indeed a good paraphrase of the above proposed statement for a PCA would be, "she descibed passing a man who was muddy and bloody". Which she did. Perhaps she also stated that he was carrying a dark blue jacket and wearing a lighter coloured one. I just find it really suspect that they highlight one word to concentrate on ... because she did not actually use the "quoted word" in her description, but then, the PCA doesn't have her word(s) in quotes, only the D-Team does and then only the one word at that.

The Judge knows more than you and I do. She has denied their motion so I suspect that what they chose to concentrate on, and to quote, doesn't accurately paint the picture of what the witness actually put forth with her statement. Kind of like their writings that state there was no blood at the crime scene which we now know to be absolutely false. Just because the D-Team writes it, doesn't make it an acurate or factual depicition of the evidence.

 

[SouthEnd]

Maybe the poofy-haired 20 something owns one of the phones NM desperately wants to keep out of the trial via the geofence report.

Why would NM want to keep any potential co-conspirators out of the trial, if they are not 100% cleared?

Until Nov 2022 the LE was talking about RA potentially not working alone. They were, IMO, borderline-obsessed with the idea of multiple perps. Which IMO means they would very likely be poised to have reasons to search really hard for any poofy or non-poofy haired ppl in the area and if there was a touch of evidence, arrest them.

IMO everything I've seen since first following the case follows the theory that the LE would have preferred it to be a CSAM ring or a multiple-perps conspiracy.

I am personally impressed that they were able to let go of their preconceived notions and follow what seems to be the evidence.

All IMO

 

[grannygates]

Why would he desperately want to keep anyone's phone out of the trial that could be involved in the crime?

Why does he want to keep out the geofencing ?