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

[grannygates]

Are you saying because we, the general public, don't know who some of these guys are, that they must be guilty of the murders, that LE hasn't checked them out? There's a gag order so unless the DT decides to do another memo and name them, while under a gag order (not unheard of, they've done it before) we the public don't get to know their names. Most likely because they've also been cleared by alibis and are innocent men. MO

No you said they all had checked out alibis so I’m still waiting on what the checked out alibis are from you and @Salah11 made reference to a child having an alibi so I wanted to know if they knew generally who the 3rd party guys are because none of them are children.

 

[sunshineray]

W

No you said they all had checked out alibis so I’m still waiting on what the checked out alibis are from you and @Salah11 made reference to a child having an alibi so I wanted to know if they knew generally who the 3rd party guys are because none of them are children.

Why would anyone outside of the investigation and the seers of discovery be privy to that information? You seem to want someone to lay it all out for you to go thru. Don't you trust the DT to do that sufficiently? I could understand that being a concern, they don't seem to be the smartest tools in the shed. AJMO

 

[Salah11]

No you said they all had checked out alibis so I’m still waiting on what the checked out alibis are from you and @Salah11 made reference to a child having an alibi so I wanted to know if they knew generally who the 3rd party guys are because none of them are children.

I was naming BH and his Son LH who I believe dated Abby. Both of them have Alibis and have been cleared to my understanding.

I don’t know the other names as they are not named suspects. BH I know was talked about a lot back in the day which is why I know the name. I did not actively search for it. He must be up there with RL for talked about “other suspects”.

moo

 

[statt#1]

I'm just reading through things here, and I'm wondering if, during the course of an investigation, a potential suspect is looked at by LE, and found to have an iron clad alibi, and/or other information comes to light absolving that potential person of any responsibility for the crime at hand, would LE continue to investigate that individual in relation to the crime being investigated?

And then, there's this idea that, should a particular avenue of investigation prove to be in error, either by further evidence coming to light, or by legal testimony to the fact that avenue of investigation was in error, would LE continue to investigate that avenue in relation to the crime being investigated?

 

[grannygates]

W

Why would anyone outside of the investigation and the seers of discovery be privy to that information? You seem to want someone to lay it all out for you to go thru. Don't you trust the DT to do that sufficiently? I could understand that being a concern, they don't seem to be the smartest tools in the shed. AJMO

You said that they all had checked out alibis so I asked you what the alibis were. I assumed you fact check everything with how critical you are of the truthfulness of the defenses filings. I wasn’t expecting it to be something you made up. We’re not allowed to make up stuff here.

 

[sunshineray]

You said that they all had checked out alibis so I asked you what the alibis were. I assumed you fact check everything with how critical you are of the truthfulness of the defenses filings. I wasn’t expecting it to be something you made up. We’re not allowed to make up stuff here.

I just explained to you, numerous times, we don't get to see that info, we're not LE investigators, we're not seers of discovery, we have no right to that info until or if it's talked about during testimony at trial or more hearings. It's up to the defense, the prosecution and the judge, not us.

 

[grannygates]

I was naming BH and his Son LH who I believe dated Abby. Both of them have Alibis and have been cleared to my understanding.

I don’t know the other names as they are not named suspects. BH I know was talked about a lot back in the day which is why I know the name. I did not actively search for it. He must be up there with RL for talked about “other suspects”.

moo

Thats probably why you made the comment earlier of how you don’t understand why people are giving weight to the original investigation and their subjects. If you don’t know anything about it, of course you don’t understand it. It’s worth the read if you want to know what all the hubbub is about.

 

[sunshineray]

I'm just reading through things here, and I'm wondering if, during the course of an investigation, a potential suspect is looked at by LE, and found to have an iron clad alibi, and/or other information comes to light absolving that potential person of any responsibility for the crime at hand, would LE continue to investigate that individual in relation to the crime being investigated?

And then, there's this idea that, should a particular avenue of investigation prove to be in error, either by further evidence coming to light, or by legal testimony to the fact that avenue of investigation was in error, would LE continue to investigate that avenue in relation to the crime being investigated?

I don't know, because inquiring minds want to know? Just guessing

 

[FrostedGlass]

So one boy was in school with teachers and friends, so his alibi could not get any stronger. Then one was at work with records and work colleagues. So these are iron-clad alibis IMO.


I am so confused because is the whole school now being accused of covering up and lying?!

I'm so confused, too.
Can you please explain this and include links?

Edited to add: I see you clarified your post. The boy has never been in question afaik.

 

[Salah11]

Thats probably why you made the comment earlier of how you don’t understand why people are giving weight to the original investigation and their subjects. If you don’t know anything about it, of course you don’t understand it. It’s worth the read if you want to know what all the hubbub is about.

I do know some of it, but I have given all the weight to the fact that after years, there is still only one suspect charged. Plus with 60+ he has never tried to blame anybody else.

I don’t know if he acted alone as I wasn’t there, but he was definitely involved and played a part, and he definitely led them off that bridge alone. The Audio and Video all point to that.

But if I heard KK was somehow involved tomorrow, it wouldn’t shock me in the slightest.

I still believe he knew Libby was there that afternoon, and she had unwittingly made arrangements to meet a boy who was RA.

MOOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I feel once more like this might I have been written more for the fan base than the Judge.

We just had a evidential hearing where they had their chance to make the case for a BH+PW theory. This motion simply confirms that it's just fanfic that lacks even one single piece of evidence to connect the 2 men with the crime

MOO

I think you might be right about this being written for the fan base.

By now, they likely know how much we enjoy reading legal docs, appeals, whatever. We thank them for the Constitutional Provisions, the Rules, the Treatises, Other Authorities and especially the 24 Cases cited.

 

[grannygates]

I just explained to you, numerous times, we don't get to see that info, we're not LE investigators, we're not seers of discovery, we have no right to that info until or if it's talked about during testimony at trial or more hearings. It's up to the defense, the prosecution and the judge, not us.

The alibi information is easily found in public documents if you wanted to learn about them. I asked you to clarify your claim because it contradicts the publicly known facts about the alibis, which is normal for us on here who want to make sure we aren’t sharing false information.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[sunshineray]

The alibi information is easily found in public documents if you wanted to learn about them. I asked you to clarify your claim because it contradicts the publicly known facts about the alibis, which is normal for us on here who want to make sure we aren’t sharing false information.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

not interested in more fantasy spin by the DT, thank you.

 

[grannygates]

I'm just reading through things here, and I'm wondering if, during the course of an investigation, a potential suspect is looked at by LE, and found to have an iron clad alibi, and/or other information comes to light absolving that potential person of any responsibility for the crime at hand, would LE continue to investigate that individual in relation to the crime being investigated?

And then, there's this idea that, should a particular avenue of investigation prove to be in error, either by further evidence coming to light, or by legal testimony to the fact that avenue of investigation was in error, would LE continue to investigate that avenue in relation to the crime being investigated?

They spent 5 weeks scouring the Wabash River looking for a phone and a knife from KKs confession after they had already confirmed that both KK and TK were at home, actively using their phones all day. With that, they showed that they will still go to great lengths to investigate some people, even if those people have the strongest alibi we have seen in this case to date.

 

[sunshineray]

They spent 5 weeks scouring the Wabash River looking for a phone and a knife from KKs confession after they had already confirmed that both KK and TK were at home, actively using their phones all day. With that, they showed that they will still go to great lengths to investigate some people, even if those people have the strongest alibi we have seen in this case to date.

Is that information, about LE confirming TK/KAK home alibis first before the Wabash search took place, from the new Memorandum the DT just filed?

 

[TTF14]

I don’t have one as I will hear it at trial where there will be a more logical explanation than her phone magically switching back on. IMO

I'm glad we can at least all agree her phone didn't magically just switch back on. So, who turned it on? Was it RA?

Dunno'. One thing more to add to the conspiracy I guess. I love how many thought EF didn't own a vehicle or didn't drive. Wonder how he has a DL? Certainly he didn't drive without one? MOO

I don't think LE was all that concerned about people driving around without valid driver's licenses that day. Well, except RL who was imprisoned for it.

 

[sunshineray]

I think you might be right about this being written for the fan base.

By now, they likely know how much we enjoy reading legal docs, appeals, whatever. We thank them for the Constitutional Provisions, the Rules, the Treatises, Other Authorities and especially the 24 Cases cited.

And they once again bring other people into the mix with no solid evidence just suppositions. MO

So anyone think this new Memo is solely for the purpose of being able to say, ohhh we have to investigate these newly discovered POIs, we can't possible go to trial in October...continuance please.

 

[TTF14]

I am very sure that they will come to trial with all the receipts, timestamps, videos, phone logs, witness testimonies, CAST reports and GPS data needed to verify a minute by minute timeline. IMO

I really hope you are right about this. The jury needs to see Libby's phone records for the entire day, KG's phone records for the entire day, DG's phone records for the entire day, and anyone else who was involved in the girls' transportation. This will provide a very clear timeline that will be indisputable and put this timeline issue to rest. And hopefully Ring/CCTV footage from home to the trails, if any exists. We know there were two ways to get to the trails from the house, so hopefully they took the one that has cameras somewhere along the way.

(And of course RA's phone records for the entire day)

IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Having read the details surrounding the investigation into this person, I believe that a search warrant should have been issued, as did the two FBI agents and the Assistant Police Chief on the task force and they obviously know far more than I do.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

For clarity, all of the details of the investigation haven’t been publicly released. In fact, zero reports have been released. What has been released is a carefully curated collection of paraphrased statements prepared by the defense. Not quite the same.

We don’t actually know much about the entirety of the investigation. Didn’t one of the investigators testify that no one in law enforcement believes this was a case of Odinist ritual sacrifice - something the defense has now stated outright in their latest motion (that they believe it was, in fact, a ritual sacrifice by Odinists)?

JMO

 

[TTF14]

Loads of cases are solved on circumstantial evidence. True. Circumstantial evidence is just as valid as physical evidence.

RA admits he was there between 1.30-3.30pm Debatable. He also said he left at 1:30 on the only known recorded statement. The other one is by memory (and open to misinterpreation).

He admits he was out on the bridge and a witness can place him there moments before the girls cross The witness described a man who looks nothing like RA.

He admits he was dressed similarly as BG True.

He is a dead ringer in size for the video VERY debatable. For instance, I don't think he looks anything like BG.

He has no alibi We don't know this yet.

His gun ejected a bullet at the crime scene We don't know this yet. We haven't heard from ballistics experts about this controversial science.

​

So you only have to look at these and say 2-2=4 This is the second time you have said 2-2=4, when in fact 2+2=4. Am I missing your meaning here or is this a typo?

And unlike the defense I don’t need to twist or ignore the evidence here.


DNA would be nice, but there is still a ton of stuff that points to him being the killer. Even if you say a few could be simply a coincidence, then when you weigh them all together the probability gets higher and higher than that he is the killer.

Moo

I wanted to respond to a lot of the things you said, so I just did so within the block quote.