Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #195

[FrostedGlass]

The members of the jury are held to a different standard than we are here at WS. I'm not sure a jury would buy the idea that RA took the girls off the bridge and than leave the rest up in the air. Maybe if there was another person involved, half an explanation might be enough.

IMO, they have laid out their case and they need to prove it. I truly hope they can.

AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Yes, jurors are bound by the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental principle of the American criminal justice system. The presumption of innocence means that the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This places the burden of proof on the government to prove every element of the crime.

does a jury have the presumption of inocence - Google Search

 

[TTF14]

The state is not required to prove the timeline from beginning to end in order to convict RA. Even though they’ll likely present a theory that includes a timeline, the jury will be instructed that the theory is not evidence.

I sure hope they're going to make the jury reasonably assured they have the timeline right. I think the DT will make sure of that. Without a proven timeline, RA's involvement definitely can't be proven.

IMO MOO

 

[ClearAhead]

They can't have it both ways. A timeline is a timeline, and if they're going to use testimony to place RA at a particular location at a certain time to prove he's the killer, that timeline can't just become a theory when it no longer suits them. moo

It’s not both ways. For example he could’ve arrived 10 minutes earlier and left 10 minutes later, yet still be convicted of the crimes he’s been charged with. It’s evidence that RA committed the crimes which the jury will be considering. They won’t be asked to convict on a theory, they’ll be asked to consider and weigh the evidence. MOO

 

[TTF14]

It’s not both ways. For example he could’ve arrived 10 minutes earlier and left 10 minutes later, yet still be convicted of the crimes he’s been charged with. It’s evidence that RA committed the crimes which the jury will be considering. They won’t be asked to convict on a theory, they’ll be asked to consider the evidence. MOO

And the timeline is evidence, and should proven with phone records, meta data, and whatever other digital evidence they have. They need to conclusively place the girls and RA at the same place at the same time. I'm not sure they will be able to do it. The jurors should not just take NM's word for it, and I feel confident the defense feels the same. I don't think they are going to just stipulate to the timeline, and I believe that will be much to the dismay of the State. All just my opinion.

IMO MOO

 

[mrjitty]

It seems to me that the whole case is in such a state of disaster, that in terms of vulnerability upon appeal, I don't know how it could get any worse.

Why is it especially vulnerable on appeal in your view?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

There is not one witness who came forward and said, "I saw RA on the bridge at time X, and he was wearing a navy blue jacket and jeans." That's the problem, one of them. No one said, it was RA. Suddenly, after his arrest, many followers of the case insert RA into the original witness statements. That's not accurate. They each said, I saw a man, a person, someone wearing a blue or black jacket, etc. He worked as a pharmacy tech in a very small town. How could all of these witnesses never recognize him until after the arrest?

A witness says she saw a man standing on the first platform of the Monon High Bridge minutes before the girls got to the bridge. The witness says the man was dressed like the man in Libby’s video.
RA told police he was on the bridge at that time, claiming to be watching the fish. He also told LE he was wearing similar clothes to BG.
The witnesses only corroborate RA’s own words.
<modsnip: snarky>
It does not matter if no one recognized him at CVS for five years because RA tells us he was on the bridge.
<modsnip> RA said he was there.
An inconvenient truth.


Opinion

 

[ClearAhead]

I sure hope they're going to make the jury reasonably assured they have the timeline right. I think the DT will make sure of that. Without a proven timeline, RA's involvement definitely can't be proven.

IMO MOO

As long as it can be proven BARD that RA is the man on the bridge featured in Libby’s video who uttered the command DTH he’s toast. If that can be proven he obviously arrived before and left later.

Alternately, even it was proven he arrived earlier than the murders and left later, that doesn’t prove he kidnapped and/or murdered the girls. This is why proving a timeline is not the be all and end all.

MOO

 

[TTF14]

As long as it can be proven BARD that RA is the man on Libby’s video who uttered the command DTH he’s toast.

rsbm

It will be interesting to see how much emphasis that state places on that or if they are going to stick mostly with the ejected bullet.

I don't think they are going to focus much on proving he's on a video on Libby's phone. JMO

MOO IMO

 

[ClearAhead]

rsbm

It will be interesting to see how much emphasis that state places on that or if they are going to stick mostly with the ejected bullet.

I don't think they are going to focus much on proving he's on a video on Libby's phone. JMO

MOO IMO

Yes it’s impossible to predict. The ejected bullet and some of his confessions? Anything else of value on the video/audio from Libby’s cellphone?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here are my thoughts on the investigative genetic genealogy...like all of us, I'm anxious to find out more about how it was used specifically in this case.

IMO, this is the usual sequence of events that investigators would go through if they collect a sample of DNA from an unknown subject at a crime scene:

1. Develop an STR DNA profile (including the CODIS core loci) from the sample
2. Pursue all viable investigative leads and compare with persons of interest if legally able to do so. Or, compare to CODIS. If no matches result, including from a CODIS search using the STR profile, then:
3. Develop a SNP profile from the collected sample
4. Search one or more third-party SNP public databases to identify potential genetic relatives in the databases (such as GEDMatch, where users opt in)
5. Use possible genealogical relationships to develop a person or persons or interest and transmit these leads to investigators
6. Further investigation to identify a single person of interest; obtain DNA from this person*, develop STR profile, and do a one-to-one comparison to the crime scene DA of the unknown subject
7. Person of interest is either included or excluded.

*Sometimes the next step is instead to collect DNA from close biological relatives of the person of interest in order to perform kinship analysis first before going further.

The purpose of sending a DNA sample to Quantico is that the FBI can now perform this type of analysis, up to and including the genealogical research part. This is still often done by third-party companies, but sometimes bigger LE departments have their own person who does it. Starting the genetic genealogy process for the Delphi case in 2018 would track with the timeline of investigating other leads though STR (CODIS) and striking out, then moving on to SNP.

Whereas lately violent crimes such as homicides and rapes are progressing quickly to the investigative genetic genealogy stage, it was not always this way IMO. In many jurisdictions, LE used to have to show that ALL other leads had been exhausted before pursuing it - in essence, cases had to be "cold" before this step could be approved, as it does involve a privacy concern to people who are completely uninvolved in the crime.

All my own thoughts/opinions

Thank you. I was hoping you would pop in with your insight.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Well if they have witnesses that place his car there after 1:30 then there is already doubt thrown at the truthfulness of his 12-1:30pm narrative.
But where was his phone from 1:30-4pm?

*Defense has stated it wasn’t at the crime scene.

If it showed up on geofencing in that cps parking lot from 1:30-4pm going to be a big problem.

Where was RA’s phone during the time of the crime?

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

I don't think anyone has actually placed his car there. Varying descriptions have been given: smart car, purple PT Cruiser, older model, not dark. Car similar to his passing the HHS cam. No reports so far of a car similar to his being there at any other time than between 2 and 2:30.

 

[justtrish]

There is not one witness who came forward and said, "I saw RA on the bridge at time X, and he was wearing a navy blue jacket and jeans." That's the problem, one of them. No one said, it was RA. Suddenly, after his arrest, many followers of the case insert RA into the original witness statements. That's not accurate. They each said, I saw a man, a person, someone wearing a blue or black jacket, etc. He worked as a pharmacy tech in a very small town. How could all of these witnesses never recognize him until after the arrest?

Many people saw him and gave the same basic general description. Then RA even says he was in fact wearing the clothing the man on the bridge was wearing. They might not have said it's the pharmacy tech at CVS, but not many young girls would interact with a pharmacy tech at CVS. He didn't look at them, he had a hat or hood on, and RA himself even said he might have had something covering his face. So really I don't fault some young girls and a woman who saw him from 50+ feet away for not recognizing that the man they saw, who had his head and possibly his face covered, was the local CVS pharmacy guy.

RA was not on the trail that day to socialize and greet everyone with a smile and a hello. He attempted to hide himself as much as possible, he didn't say hi to the girls he did pass, and the other witness didn't pass him, she walked toward him while he was standing on the bridge, then she turned and walked back the other way. It's not like they stopped to shake his hand and exchange pleasantries.

It's my opinion that if RA did recognize anyone on the trail that day, who could ID him, he wouldn't have abducted and murdered Abby and Libby. He took note of who he passed because he was making sure he didn't know them.

IMO

 

[Megnut]

There is not one witness who came forward and said, "I saw RA on the bridge at time X, and he was wearing a navy blue jacket and jeans." That's the problem, one of them. No one said, it was RA. Suddenly, after his arrest, many followers of the case insert RA into the original witness statements. That's not accurate. They each said, I saw a man, a person, someone wearing a blue or black jacket, etc. He worked as a pharmacy tech in a very small town. How could all of these witnesses never recognize him until after the arrest?

There isn't a 1:1 identification. IMO it's not required.

It's cumulative.

It's consistent.

RA isn't excluded by.

RA may have taken steps to disguise himself. Burrowing his chin into his jacket. What was left was an impression, a memory. Recall. Juveniles who didn't know there'd be a test. BB and BC who saw only from a distance. A video limited by pixels.

I doubt RA ever wandered about town in blue jeans and a blue jacket after that. Might that have jarred a comparison, if he had.

Will RA be convicted on the memory of a single witness? No. I wouldn't expect him to.

In the recent Murdaugh trial, AM supplied a timeline that was blown apart by a video his son took moments before the murder, placing him at the scene.

IMO the State will very carefully synthesize the evidence in this case. Weaving witness' recall, CAST reports and timestamps, alongside RA's statements and confessions.

It will be for the jury, given the totality of the evidence presented, to determine credibility. Including RA's. If they find it reasonable beyond doubt that RA is BG, then the rest follows.

Will it matter if witnesses describe blue or black? Or will they find those descriptions generally consistent? Will they be moved by the digital evidence?

It IS significant that several witnesses place A MAN in the direct vicinity of the bridge just prior to a video capture of the same. Not a group of men, not a tall man. Not a man of distinct heritage. All remarkably consistent.

When held up against DD's notes, RA put himself at that location, at that time, in clothes like that, and he felt safe in doing so IMO because he was confident he had eliminated the two people who could positively identify him. Alas, he didn't know he'd been audio and video recorded.

I am not a juror, won't be called to be one so I don't have to wait until all the evidence and only the allowed evidence has been presented to have an opinion. It is my opinion that the State will be able to show guilt BARD and he'll be convicted accordingly.

The juveniles and the adult witnesses had/have no reason to lie. RA does. IMO he couldn't not see the girls that day.

I base this on more than just similarity (RA=BG) but on digital forensics which IMO will put RA's phone on the bridge, or if not, off the bridge creating a damning black hole.

That is what will sink him.

JMO

 

[shonyakay]

There could be other sightings not revealed yet. The PCA doesn't have to include everything. MO

I also wonder if his neighbors have any insight as to RA's activities around that time.

 

[shonyakay]

Any way one looks at it, if he left in his car at 3:30 he could not have been walking down the road at 3:57 when SC saw a muddy man in a light jacket.

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Franks Hearing.pdf

drive.google.com

IF he left in his car at 3:30 p.m. but the report also mentions he was ON the TRAILS at that time. IF he left the trails at 3:30 p.m. there is no way he drove off at 3:30 p.m. It would take time for him to walk back to his car which would put him in the timeframe of SC's sighting.

 

[statt#1]

RA placed himself on the bridge. No other evidence that I've seen even begins to allude to the idea that someone else was on the bridge. In fact, no evidence exists that has brought the court to consider ANY other player(s) in this case. No LE official, no FBI, no defense attorney, no other investigator has brought forth evidence that shows any other person was involved in these murders. Have numerous folks made allegations? yes. Suppositions? yes. Random speculations and accusations? yes.

But actual evidence that puts some other man on that bridge, or some other actor at these murders, has obviously not been presented, no other suspect has been identified, and no other man has been arrested or lawfully accused. Of course, the opinions expressed here are mine.

 

[shonyakay]

There is not one witness who came forward and said, "I saw RA on the bridge at time X, and he was wearing a navy blue jacket and jeans." That's the problem, one of them. No one said, it was RA. Suddenly, after his arrest, many followers of the case insert RA into the original witness statements. That's not accurate. They each said, I saw a man, a person, someone wearing a blue or black jacket, etc. He worked as a pharmacy tech in a very small town. How could all of these witnesses never recognize him until after the arrest?

Was it verified that RA was in fact a "pharmacy tech" at CVS?

 

[Cedars]

There is not one witness who came forward and said, "I saw RA on the bridge at time X, and he was wearing a navy blue jacket and jeans." That's the problem, one of them. No one said, it was RA. Suddenly, after his arrest, many followers of the case insert RA into the original witness statements. That's not accurate. They each said, I saw a man, a person, someone wearing a blue or black jacket, etc. He worked as a pharmacy tech in a very small town. How could all of these witnesses never recognize him until after the arrest?

However, eye witness statements are very rarely that reliable.

They might say, I thought it was X from the bank, then it turns out X has a perfect alibi. Even if X doesn't have an alibi, police rarely try to convict on merely a human eye-witness. That might lead them to check out a suspect, but they will look for hard evidence: forensic, digital, surveillance, etc

Or, for example, confessions. IIRC, not all of the confessions were during his bad times. He was consistent.

 

[ClearAhead]

Was it verified that RA was in fact a "pharmacy tech" at CVS?

He was licensed as a pharmacy tech at CVS following the murders, although he also worked there as a clerk before that. I always thought it somewhat unusual how the media has not sought out RA’s work history or background to any great degree.

Subpoenas issued for facilities with ties to Delphi suspect Richard Allen

Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland submitted the request for records and documents on April 20, 2023.

www.wthr.com

“Allen was once employed as a licensed pharmacy technician at the CVS in Delphi. He received his Indiana license to be a pharmacist in 2018, and it was still active when he was arrested in October 2022.
Neighbors told 13News at that time they knew Allen worked at the CVS in Delphi, and at one point developed photos for Libby German's family after the killings.”

Who is Richard Allen? Suspect in murders of Libby & Abby is pharmacy tech and longtime Delphi community member

Richard Matthew Allen, the primary suspect in the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German, has lived in the Delphi community for at least 16 years.

www.wrtv.com

“Property records show Richard and Kathy Allen have owned the home, currently valued at $171,800, since 2006.”

 

[ClearAhead]

However, eye witness statements are very rarely that reliable.

They might say, I thought it was X from the bank, then it turns out X has a perfect alibi. Even if X doesn't have an alibi, police rarely try to convict on merely a human eye-witness. That might lead them to check out a suspect, but they will look for hard evidence: forensic, digital, surveillance, etc

Or, for example, confessions. IIRC, not all of the confessions were during his bad times. He was consistent.

I agree, thank goodness that times have changed since all it required to lock one away for life was someone to say “I’m sure it’s him!” without any other evidence.

Although FBers were apparently comparing stranger’s photos to the sketches then sending in mass tips, I really do wonder if there’s a reluctance within a smaller community to tip somebody who they have a passing acquaintance with just based on a vague resemblance. It could be uncomfortable between the two if it becomes known. I would think it’s very normal for local folks to not presume a murderer is amongst them. MOO