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

[Salah11]

It must be nice to have the luxury of being able to avoid seeing what RA inflicted on Abby and Libby that day. Unfortunately, the victims' families don’t have such luxuries when it comes to being able to avoid the awful truth about what happened that day

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Scanning this now - it seems that this Cicero guy was not at the actual crime scene in 2017 when the kids were found or in the days after? It seems like he joined sometime in around Feb 12, 2024? So he is only looking at photos and making his assessment / analysis? How accurate is this likely to be given he was never at the actual crime scene?

Whether Cicero looked at things right after the murders or used information and photos much later, his testimony will be his opinion based on years of experience. The photos and info aren’t seven years old.
Kenny Kinsey, the crime scene expert for the state in the Murdaugh trial, was a rock star. He brought everything into focus. He didn’t start working the case until almost two years after the murders.

 

[photographer4]

Testimony about his confessions came out in the hearings. Det. Harshman and/or Dr. Wala's testimony transcripts should contain that information.

I read Harshman's testimony just this morning actually. One thing I noted: in line 3 on Cross Examination, he stated he had not been aware of these patches. Then in line 11 / 12 admits that there was some talk of somebody having patches. He also stated that he got text messages when RA had made a call - but then tried later to say that he did not think anything was funneled to him pretty quickly even though he received a text as soon as RA had made a call (lines 12-16 of Cross)... I also noticed he did not definitely say that RA made statements only the killer would know - he said "I believe that's correct, yes" (line 6-14 of the cross). He apparently didn't have his notes with him so there were also things he said he couldn't recall, or wasn't certain of (paraphrasing here). I just wondered, why didn't he bring his notes to court?

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[katydid23]

If the D have done exactly this - accused people of murder, who are not on trial, and the Defense has faced no legal consequences to date over this, then it would appear, yes, it is legally acceptable to do exactly this in the way that they did.

Yes, but my point is that it's morally wrong if they have no solid evidence, just hearsay. And they publicly accuse them of killing little girls. IMO

 

[photographer4]

Whether Cicero looked at things right after the murders or used information and photos much later, his testimony will be his opinion based on years of experience. The photos and info aren’t seven years old.
Kenny Kinsey, the crime scene expert for the state in the Murdaugh trial, was a rock star. He brought everything into focus. He didn’t start working the case until almost two years after the murders.

I'm not even almost familiar with that investigator or the crime you've referenced so I cannot speak to that. I do however wonder why Cicero wasn't brough in until Feb 2024 - when the case was originally set to go to trial in May 2024 - ?? Do we know this?

 

[shonyakay]

I read Harshman's testimony just this morning actually. One thing I noted: in line 3 on Cross Examination, he stated he had not been aware of these patches. Then in line 11 / 12 admits that there was some talk of somebody having patches. He also stated that he got text messages when RA had made a call - but then tried later to say that he did not think anything was funneled to him pretty quickly even though he received a text as soon as RA had made a call (lines 12-16 of Cross)... I also noticed he did not definitely say that RA made statements only the killer would know - he said "I believe that's correct, yes" (line 6-14 of the cross). He apparently didn't have his notes with him so there were also things he said he couldn't recall, or wasn't certain of (paraphrasing here).

Maybe he is saving his notes for trial? I really don't know.

Edited: To delete two duplicate posts in my post of OP.

 

[katydid23]

Why wouldn't they? I would actually do this out of respect for the family. I think this was very classy of them regardless of whether they were advised to do so by the lawyers or opted to of their volition.

If they believe their loved one is wrongfully accused of a violent crime, I'd think they'd want to see what the actual accusations are. But I do see how horrible it could be to have to endure that testimony.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Why wouldn't they? I would actually do this out of respect for the family. I think this was very classy of them regardless of whether they were advised to do so by the lawyers or opted to of their volition.

Respect for the families in my opinion would be stepping aside and allowing her husband to publicly confess to brutally killing their children. To put their THEIR needs and feelings above her own.
There has been zero respect for Libby or Abby or their families by this defense team or anyone connected with RA.

Opinion

 

[photographer4]

All RS&BBM,

Interesting choice of words on the Defence's part no?? "there was no dna found in the search warrant to connect RA to murders".

They have been very, very careful from the outset to qualify their remarks with "to the crime scene" as well.

Many posters on here have pointed out that specific qualifier does NOT rule out that DNA linking him to the crime may have been found somewhere else though. Like in his house, or in his car, or in a hairband that was seized during the search warrant perhaps??

It also doesn't have to be his DNA that was found ... perhaps a long hair strand that didn't belong to either Abby or Libby was found at the crime scene (kind of like Giglo -- perhaps a female from his household?? Ergo the FGG??). Perhaps a hairband that contained DNA from A or L at his place (which is "not at the crime scene" <--- very tricky that)?

There's numerous options for this possibility that would account for the "to the crime scene" being specifically used by the Defence Team which absolutely is not equal to "there is no DNA to tie him to the crime."

IMO, I think there is hair involved and I state that because of the item (hairbands) seized during RA's search warrant and because "hair" and "animal hair samples" were also included as being "sought" in previous search warrants executed on other now ruled out persons as part of the investigation of the murder of these girls. One specific SW being that of a now cleared and deceased ndividual whose SW is out there to be read (I am not linking it as this man was cleared and I'm quite certain it is included in the form in previous posts from the onset of this investigation).

I considered some of your points as well when I was linking this doc. If the hairband had been worn by LG or AW at the scene, its possible it was washed once or many times since the time of the crime - not sure if that would have eradicated DNA or not? It will be interesting to see at trial if any crime scene evidence was found on / in that hair band they retrieved from his home. I agree, this could have been all semantics in how they worded this document. But without more information, its a good start at reasonable doubt on its own imo.

 

[ClearAhead]

Red added by me for focus: I am interested to know which of the allegations made by the Defense the State views as untrue, and which are truthful. I hope we find out at the trial.

Of the 134 pages of the FM, what is not NOT based on speculation, conjecture, rumors or hearsay? Yet the FM was the guiding light for the D throughout, including the three-day hearings. It might be interesting if the D ever disclose who wrote that ridiculous novella.

BBM

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/judge-rules-on-admissibility-of-defenses-alternative-theories-in-delphi-murders/

“The case law is quite clear that the nexus must not be based on speculation, conjecture, rumors, or hearsay, but rather on admissible evidence” Gull wrote in her order. She added that the defense had “failed to produce admissible evidence” demonstrating such a nexus during hearings.

 

[Vern]

I considered some of your points as well when I was linking this doc. If the hairband had been worn by LG or AW at the scene, its possible it was washed once or many times since the time of the crime - not sure if that would have eradicated DNA or not? It will be interesting to see at trial if any crime scene evidence was found on / in that hair band they retrieved from his home. I agree, this could have been all semantics in how they worded this document. But without more information, its a good start at reasonable doubt on its own imo.

IMO, I'm not seeing any reasonable doubt. Zilch.

There's a reason those items were being specificly sought in the search warrants that were executed on at least two individuals investigated as part of this case.

Combine that with the FGG etc ... maybe it's just me. But that kind of 'stuff' actually gets done on purpose and to do FGG one does need DNA. There's DNA IMO no matter how one wants to slice it.

I'm very intrigued to find out who it belongs to and whether it was left at the scene or whether it was found in his residence. IMO, I suspect that "hair" and "animal hair" was found at the scene of the crime because the search warrant "seeks" it in their searches. They would be asking for it because they have something to compare it to IMO. And, the other household members were away from the home when the crime occurred so they are off the list of 'suspect'. They are alibied while RA is still on that bridge.

#Justice for Abby & Libby.

 

[TTF14]

Richard Allen stated he was worried about his family seeing the pictures/evidence of his crimes and right before this evidence is introduced Andrew Baldwin speaks with RA's mother and wife and they leave the courtroom. You can't make a link?

Could someone please link to where RA said he was worried about his family seeing pics of his crimes?

Thank you.

 

[katydid23]

I read Harshman's testimony just this morning actually. One thing I noted: in line 3 on Cross Examination, he stated he had not been aware of these patches. Then in line 11 / 12 admits that there was some talk of somebody having patches.

He also said the patches were 'not in his lane.' He was not interested in the patches or no patches question as it had nothing to do with the confessions.

He also stated that he got text messages when RA had made a call - but then tried later to say that he did not think anything was funneled to him pretty quickly even though he received a text as soon as RA had made a call (lines 12-16 of Cross)...

Ok...

I also noticed he did not definitely say that RA made statements only the killer would know - he said "I believe that's correct, yes" (line 6-14 of the cross).

That's common wordage used in a trial. He didn't have his notes in front of him, so safest answer is always 'I believe so'

He apparently didn't have his notes with him so there were also things he said he couldn't recall, or wasn't certain of (paraphrasing here). I just wondered, why didn't he bring his notes to court?

This was a prelim hearing--not the actual trial. They do not want to have the major legal battles in the prelims. Best to save those for the jurors to see.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

View attachment 529898

 

[sunshineray]

No - I have no actual information what what his "confessions" were exactly? The only link I could possibly make in the absence of more info is that RA possibly HAS seen gory crime scene photos and could have been worried for his loved ones to see them - the whole once you see them, you cannot unsee them kinda thing, and I imagine they're horrific for anyone to see. I would want my loved ones not to see them as well, regardless of my guilt or innocence.

Lines 2 to 14 on page 11 of Detective Harshman's testimony at the hearings, he says RA spoke direct confessions with specificity more than 60+ times. That's valid information.

The man also listened to all 600+ phones calls made by RA and watched a multitude of videos, read texts and sheets of comments guards and companion inmates noted. I think he may be the most knowledgable on the subject of RA's confessions and their credibility. Of course that's just my opinion.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/delphi-3-day-hearing-dectective-brian-harshman-testimony-pdf.529492/

 

[sripey]

Could someone please link to where RA said he was worried about his family seeing pics of his crimes?

Thank you.

Adobe Acrobat

Page 14, lines 6 - 10.

 

[katydid23]

Interesting article from the past:

Delphi suspect wanting 'intimate privacy' in prison with wife is 'astonishing': Prosecutor

Prosecutors in the Delphi murder case responded to allegations from Richard Allen's attorney's, calling his notion of a right to privacy with his wife "astonishing."

lawandcrime.com

 

[ClearAhead]

Adobe Acrobat

Page 14, lines 6 - 10.

Q. In fact, he indicated that he didn’t want them to see what he had done; is that correct.

A. That’s correct.

 

[TTF14]

Adobe Acrobat

Page 14, lines 6 - 10.

Thank you.

Leading questions are allowed in pre-trial hearings I take it?

 

[TTF14]

Q. In fact, he indicated that he didn’t want them to see what he had done; is that correct.

A. That’s correct.

First question didn't get the desired response, but this leading question did.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

Interesting article from the past:

Delphi suspect wanting 'intimate privacy' in prison with wife is 'astonishing': Prosecutor

Prosecutors in the Delphi murder case responded to allegations from Richard Allen's attorney's, calling his notion of a right to privacy with his wife "astonishing."

lawandcrime.com

That's quite a click-baity headline. He wanted to be able to talk to his wife in private, not engage in "physical intimacy." Having never been held in maximum security prison (as a presumed innocent man) before, RA likely had no clue that was a no-no.

IMO MOO