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

[sunshineray]

They are now locked into that timeline because it's the time the family reported the girls were dropped off.

Kelsei's phone probably confirmed the actual time of the drop off, MO And then there's the HH video.

 

[sunshineray]

S

I’m not sure who gave them that initial opinion of the F, whether that was the purdue professor or found through the LE reports, but I agree it’s hard to make out what the final shape was intended to be. The BSE said he didn’t see the middle horizontal line so he called it an L. The L shape is definitely present, so the middle line up for debate. I know they did luminal so hopefully that will show more definitively whether it was an upside down L or an F.

To be fair, only the person who actually made the shape will know for sure what it is. Everyone else is kinda just guessing.

This is the Laguz.

Laguz - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Snipped for focus...
"To be fair, only the person who actually made the shape will know for sure what it is. Everyone else is kinda just guessing."

Unfortunately the one who made that mark, Libby, is dead and therefore cannot confirm anything about her struggle to live that happened by that tree. One other person can and maybe did (within the 60+ confessions) confirm what happened by that tree, RA. His explanation or observation would not be a guess. JMO

 

[TTF14]

Kelsei's phone probably confirmed the actual time of the drop off, MO And then there's the HH video.

But they don't match, and we know this from BP's interview with Gray Hughes.

KG's phone records show drop off at 1:38.

HH shows drop off at 1:49 (PCA).

 

[m00c0w]

Like they did with EF.

IMO

As others have pointed out, you have to have probable cause for a search warrant. You cannot just say “he has to be guilty so we think we will find things at his house.” Saying he asked a question about spit, a white truck was seen near the crime scene after searching for the girls started, and we don’t know where he was that day… doesn’t remotely add up to probable cause IMO.

In contrast, RA put himself very near the crime scene at the time of the murders, wearing the same clothes as the then-unidentified primary suspect. Witness statements seem to corroborate his own statement. He admitted to owning a firearm that was consistent with the unspent round found at the crime scene. Police could demonstrate he had the means and opportunity to commit the crime, and fit the description of the suspect captured on video and memorialized in witness testimony. Not just “we don’t know where he was, so maybe he was there.”

In interesting perspective to consider is that if the tip had been filed correctly to begin with, RA could have been investigated days after the murder and the Odinist red herrings would never have even had a chance to come to fruition. It would be a very straightforward case. Instead, we have circles being spun around Odinists that no one can actually materially connect to the crimes, while RA was apparently trying to tell anyone that would listen that he did it.

All my opinion.

 

[sunshineray]

If someone is able to show me how one event of blood transfer to the hand makes that defined shape with straight lines and steady application of blood throughout, I will believe it is possible.

Meanwhile, I now get to say that there are photos online of people within their group painting runes on trees with blood during their ceremonies that are similar in appearance of application as this one.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

I suggest maybe getting some paint and trying it out, that may help. I for one have no problem visualizing it's creation from the testimony that was given by the blood expert. MO

 

[m00c0w]

But they don't match, and we know this from BP's interview with Gray Hughes.

KG's phone records show drop off at 1:38.

HH shows drop off at 1:49 (PCA).

Respectfully (honestly, not trying to sound snarky), that is a misstatement of the context of KG’s phone records. I believe KG said she was on the phone with her boyfriend when they were dropped off. The phone records show the call started at 1:38. Do we have an end time for the call? That is what’s necessary to bracket off the drop-off time. If they talked for 10-15 minutes, which I would think is far from uncommon for teenagers, that easily puts them in the drop-off window suggested by LE.

I may be wrong, and I welcome additional info regarding the call if that is the case.

All my opinion.

 

[TTF14]

As others have pointed out, you have to have probable cause for a search warrant. You cannot just say “he has to be guilty so we think we will find things at his house.” Saying he asked a question about spit, a white truck was seen near the crime scene after searching for the girls started, and we don’t know where he was that day… doesn’t remotely add up to probable cause IMO.

Well, we'll never know since a judge never heard he "asked a question about spit." He asked about HIS spit being on a DEAD CHILD. To me, that adds up!

White trucks are a dime a dozen so I agree with you there, although we know car descriptions didn't matter to those crafting the PCA since they left BB's description of the car she saw completely out of the PCA, and in fact changed what she said to match what RA's car looks like.

IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

I strongly disagree! He'd have to get more of his own blood, and bring a tree and leaves into the courtroom. They can't even fit cameras in there, per JG, so I doubt an expert slinging his own blood around would fly.

IMO

He would have to get some blood, which they have plenty of time to prepare for. They can take the jury out into a forest, perhaps even the crime scene. I’m having a hard time telling if you’re being facetious.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

But they don't match, and we know this from BP's interview with Gray Hughes.

KG's phone records show drop off at 1:38.

HH shows drop off at 1:49 (PCA).

BP interviews with, IIRC, were very early on. It's very possible LE techs were able to confirm it from Kelsei's phone much better than grieving and traumatized family members. MO

 

[sunshineray]

Well, we'll never know since a judge never heard he "asked a question about spit." He asked about HIS spit being on a DEAD CHILD. To me, that adds up!

White trucks are a dime a dozen so I agree with you there, although we know car descriptions didn't matter to those crafting the PCA since they left BB's description of the car she saw completely out of the PCA, and in fact changed what she said to match what RA's car looks like.

IMO MOO

It didn't add up to Murphy. He testified at the herarings that after investigating EF he came to the conclusion (paraphrazing) that EF was playing him, not telling the truth.

 

[m00c0w]

Well, we'll never know since a judge never heard he "asked a question about spit." He asked about HIS spit being on a DEAD CHILD. To me, that adds up!

White trucks are a dime a dozen so I agree with you there, although we know car descriptions didn't matter to those crafting the PCA since they left BB's description of the car she saw completely out of the PCA, and in fact changed what she said to match what RA's car looks like.

IMO MOO

According to the defense documents, after receiving a buccal swab (which is essentially spit), he asked if his spit was found on one of the girls but he could provide an explanation, would he still be in trouble. It seems apparent to me that he was trying to potentially rationalize why his spit was collected and was freaking out about the possibility of somehow being implicated in the crime. That is not the same as admitting he spit on anyone, and also not the same as just asking the question in a vacuum. It would hold more weight, IMO, if his saliva was not just collected and on his mind.

Regardless, the one question does not establish probable cause that evidence of the murder of AW and LG would be found at EF’s house. Even if a white truck was seen at the CPS building after searching had started. Even if they can’t firmly place EF anywhere. Most importantly, they can’t place him near the crime scene. They have to provide evidence he at least participated in the murders, which they had none. They had a question, a random white truck, and a lack of evidence. That’s barely getting over a reasonable suspicion threshold.

All my opinion.

 

[TTF14]

Respectfully (honestly, not trying to sound snarky), that is a misstatement of the context of KG’s phone records. I believe KG said she was on the phone with her boyfriend when they were dropped off. The phone records show the call started at 1:38. Do we have an end time for the call? That is what’s necessary to bracket off the drop-off time. If they talked for 10-15 minutes, which I would think is far from uncommon for teenagers, that easily puts them in the drop-off window suggested by LE.

I may be wrong, and I welcome additional info regarding the call if that is the case.

All my opinion.

You'd have to listen to it all and decide for yourself. My understanding is they said the call came in at 1:38 (I have heard it both ways - he called her and she called him - probably doesn't matter), and since they know when the call came in, and she was talking to him as the girls got out of the car, they said they estimated the girls got out of the car at 1:38 or 1:39 (I believe that exact verbiage was from the Scene of the Crime podcast, of which KG and Gray Hughes were both producers).

Now, if the call came in at 1:38 as they were leaving home and KG was talking to her boyfriend the whole car ride, 1:49 would make sense. But KG has never reported that to be the case. She said they were listening (even singing in some accounts) to the song Heathens and had the windows down.

For me, the only way both can be accurate is if the HH camera was off by about 10 minutes unless KG was sitting there for 10 minutes before pulling out and continuing on her way, past the HH store. She's never said she did this, but that she observed the girls until she could no longer see them (sometimes she said this). That would not have been ten minutes unless they were dilly-dallying around, and she also has never said (that I've heard) that they were.

To me, it seems unlikely she'd just be sitting there watching them walk away for ten minutes when she was probably eager to get to her boyfriend's house.

So again, what makes the most sense in this scenario is that the HH camera was off by ten minutes....but then that would mess up all the other times of other people as well. And we've never heard that the time was off....I think LE would have noted that in the PCA.

So, I dunno.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

It didn't add up to Murphy. He testified at the herarings that after investigating EF he came to the conclusion (paraphrazing) that EF was playing him, not telling the truth.

Let's wait for the actual transcript on that one.

 

[susiQ]

They had an obligation to investigate the confession..

RSBBM
Exactly!!! And that’s not what they did with EF’s confession to his sisters. UC stymied that! I’ll keep asking why? MOO, because it would lead them right to BH and those characters from Rushville don’t have an alibi, regardless whether or not they can be placed at the CS. The white pick-up was a start but sadly appears was not investigated further??
All JMO.

 

[m00c0w]

You'd have to listen to it all and decide for yourself. My understanding is they said the call came in at 1:38 (I have heard it both ways - he called her and she called him - probably doesn't matter), and since they know when the call came in, and she was talking to him as the girls got out of the car, they said they estimated the girls got out of the car at 1:38 or 1:39 (I believe that exact verbiage was from the Scene of the Crime podcast, of which KG and Gray Hughes were both producers).

Now, if the call came in at 1:38 as they were leaving home and KG was talking to her boyfriend the whole car ride, 1:49 would make sense. But KG has never reported that to be the case. She said they were listening (even singing in some accounts) to the song Heathens and had the windows down.

For me, the only way both can be accurate is if the HH camera was off by about 10 minutes unless KG was sitting there for 10 minutes before pulling out and continuing on her way, past the HH store. She's never said she did this, but that she observed the girls until she could no longer see them (sometimes she said this). That would not have been ten minutes unless they were dilly-dallying around, and she also has never said (that I've heard) that they were.

To me, it seems unlikely she'd just be sitting there watching them walk away for ten minutes when she was probably eager to get to her boyfriend's house.

So again, what makes the most sense in this scenario is that the HH camera was off by ten minutes....but then that would mess up all the other times of other people as well. And we've never heard that the time was off....I think LE would have noted that in the PCA.

So, I dunno.

IMO MOO

They could have left at 1:35, sang to one song, rolled the windows down, and received the call at 1:38. They would still not arrive to the trailhead until 1:45. She sat there for 2-3 minutes talking and watching them walk to the trailhead and drove off. That doesn’t seem very outlandish and I don’t think a difference of 2-3 minutes is very substantial towards changing anything with the prosecution’s timeline.

MOO

 

[m00c0w]

RSBBM
Exactly!!! And that’s not what they did with EF’s confession to his sisters. UC stymied that! I’ll keep asking why? MOO, because it would lead them right to BH and those characters from Rushville don’t have an alibi, regardless whether or not they can be placed at the CS. The white pick-up was a start but sadly appears was not investigated further??
All JMO.

Again, you cannot state that your probable cause that someone committed a crime is that you don’t know where they were. That’s just not a thing. Ever. UC did not have an obligation to investigate, because that’s exactly what the task force was doing. Freeing up manpower for UC to conduct other investigatory routes. Ultimately, the task force apparently could not come up with anything that actually connected EF to the murders. Otherwise, we would see this smoking gun evidence from the defense. Instead, we have hearsay testimony, a white truck, and a lack of knowledge about whereabouts. If they were granted a search warrant based on that info, it would get suppressed so fast…

All my opinion.

 

[TTF14]

They could have left at 1:35, sang to one song, rolled the windows down, and received the call at 1:38. They would still not arrive to the trailhead until 1:45. She sat there for 2-3 minutes talking and watching them walk to the trailhead and drove off. That doesn’t seem very outlandish and I don’t think a difference of 2-3 minutes is very substantial towards changing anything with the prosecution’s timeline.

MOO

OK

 

[FrostedGlass]

Is this in reference to suppositions, but not solid evidence?

Saying that someone posted an image on Facebook, for instance, and citing that fact does not actually implicate them in a crime. It does not mean they had the means or opportunity to commit the crime. Saying someone said that someone said someone else told them (person 2) they committed a crime, and citing that deposition, does not implicate that second person in the crime and is hearsay testimony about the third person. That also does not provide reasonable means or opportunity. The list of cited facts goes on in this pattern.

Yes, they have a lot of facts. Yes, they cite those facts. Yes, they are probably true. The issue is those facts don’t reasonably put the individuals in question at or near the crime scene with an opportunity to have committed the murder. Nor do they address key components of the state’s case, like who BG is.

The defense states contradictory things regarding BH that I’ve discussed what is now way upthread. In short, they seem to accept his work alibi which means he can’t be BG, but state he has third party culpability because he looks like BG. However, it would be impossible for him to be BG if the alibi is accepted as true. The other individual mentioned is a foot taller than RA, so probably not him. They don’t really address this one basic premise, and instead try to shift the timeline to the girls being murdered at 4:33am without an explanation for the man on the bridge with a gun that ostensibly kidnapped the girls between 1:30 to 2:30 or so.

The issue with that line of defense is that if they can’t provide a solid defense against RA being the guy on the bridge, felony murder is still on the table. Which is also why I don’t quite understand the handwringing by some commentators about the case being left open and investigators saying they think RA may have had help. Even if he had help, that doesn’t make him less culpable. The state does not have to charge all individuals at once with a crime. In fact, sometimes people are charged and tried and decide to cooperate against their co-conspirators for leniency in sentencing, which results in future charges against those co-conspirators. None of this precludes RA from being the guy on the bridge that kidnapped the girls, and led them down the hill to their ultimate demise.

Unless, of course, the claim becomes “okay, RA kidnapped them but he didn’t have anything to do with their murder, honest!”

All my opinion.

Thanks for the lengthy reply. Since I haven't seen any "solid evidence" from either side, I'll have to go with suppositions.

Almost every document the defense team files gets blown off as (lies, ... pick a description). So, while everything is not solid evidence, IMO many of the statements carry weight due to the citations.

 

[justtrish]

I think you may be missing the point of the defenses argument and really overstating the evidence that was used to arrest RA.

The issue in this case is that these other people have known connections to the victims and the crime scene and they were not completely investigated so we do not know what their involvement is. It could be nothing, it could be something. But we don’t know so how can we be confident in the investigation into RA with so many loose ends and unknowns.

WE might not know, but the police I am confident do. WE don't need to know anything before a trial. What the state has on other individuals really has zero to do with what the state has on RA. This trial is not about everyone else that was tipped in to LE. It's about RA. This is where I get annoyed with the defense just brining anything and everything in as a but what about this... okay but what about your own client who there is evidence against. Even if every other person the defense throws in this is somehow involved, it doesn't also mean their very client RA also isn't involved. If he is, then he's guilty even if others also are involved. I don't believe this to be the case, but even if it is, RA can still be BG and be guilty of taking the girls off the bridge and no matter what else happened after that he is guilty of the crime he's charged with. Nothing the defense is throwing out there makes their client innocent of what the state has charged him with.

 

[m00c0w]

Thanks for the lengthy reply. Since I haven't seen any "solid evidence" from either side, I'll have to go with suppositions.

Almost every document the defense team files gets blown off as (lies, ... pick a description). So, while everything is not solid evidence, IMO many of the statements carry weight due to the citations.

I guess that was more of my point. Things can be true but also irrelevant. Relevancy is the main issue I see with the latest filing. They list a lot of facts, but nothing substantive that actually provides the required nexus to the crime.

I just want it to be clear that I don’t think the defense is necessarily lying, just that they’re not hitting the requisite threshold. It’s a lot of fluff and little substance towards their actual goal.

All my opinion.