Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #197

[Vaderman]

What does everyone think at this point? Random crime or targeted?

I lean more towards targeted. Too small of an area for him not to have at least seen the girls. One heckuva coincidence for there to be a catfishing/predatory issue going on with on of the victims. Add in that he was described as walking with a purpose and came prepared with [at the very least] a gun and a knife, I think this was planned.

 

[TTF14]

It will be interesting to see how wide the D dare open the door to RA’s mental health as it may have had a direct bearing not only on the confessions but also direct involvement in the act of murder. We don’t know the full extent of his prior mental health issues but it didn’t just begin with his incarceration or drug treatment in prison. MOO

Jurors will hear Delphi murder suspect's statements allegedly admitting to the killings

Richard Allen supposedly told people while he's been in pretrial detention that he killed Libby German and Abby Williams on Feb. 13, 2017.

www.jconline.com

“The Court is not persuaded that the detention caused the defendant to make incriminating statements. While the defendant does suffer from major depressive disorder and anxiety, those are not serious mental illnesses that prevent the defendant from making voluntary statements.”

We actually don't know that for a fact. The court ruled that way, but it is still just opinion. Going crazy in solitary confinement and/or when given drugs that aren't appropriate is an actual thing. Myriad studies have been done about it, so it's not just a fabrication the defense team came up with. I'm not saying the defense team is right or that it's fact coming from them either, but I think the jury will understand it's possible for RA to have only started exhibiting signs of psychosis/mental illness due to his conditions in the prison he, IMO, never should have been in in the first place.

As always, JMO.

 

[Andieinsyd]

At the beginning, I thought this was a crime of opportunity.

Later, I thought it was targeted and BG/RA knew the girls would be there.

Now, I'm waffling between the two. (I do think RA = BG, that part I don't question.)

What does everyone think at this point? Random crime or targeted?

I think opportunistic and random. AFAIK RA frequented the trails and was looking for opportunity, and then found it that day

 

[Inthedetails]

I lean more towards targeted. Too small of an area for him not to have at least seen the girls. One heckuva coincidence for there to be a catfishing/predatory issue going on with on of the victims. Add in that he was described as walking with a purpose and came prepared with [at the very least] a gun and a knife, I think this was planned.

That is my main theory as well.

But I also wonder if he randomly took the opportunity when he saw it, thinking he would assault one in the woods. Maybe she fought and/or maybe he had second thoughts and couldn't go through with the assault. But, he was in it so far he had to get rid of them.

jmo

 

[mrjitty]

I think the attack was predatory - the location was selected - but the victims were simply those unfortunate enough to be there that day at that time.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Just thinking about how the defense will have to approach this:

Attack the science of the tool mark analysis on the unspent round. If that round can definitively be linked to his gun, then it's game over. I think they'll be able to cast some doubt here.

Cast doubt on the man in the bridge video being Allen. No one is going to believe that person is not the killer, so they have to somehow discredit the fact that it's him in the video (an expert to say he's too tall or short or whatever, to match that guy).

Explain away those dozens of confessions (stress, psychotic episode, etc).

Perhaps attempt to show that Allen had already left when the murders happened (he's already admitted to being there).

I imagine they'll cast aspersions on other potential suspects, but that's really useless unless you can explain away those other things.

I'm super curious to know if the searches of the home turned up anything that links him to the victims (trophy or DNA). I do think we'll learn things that really firms up the fact that this has to be the guy.

Anyone got anything else to add, or shoot down?

IMO The judge, if it's within her power, will not allow the D to cast doubt. The P uses this often:
The probative value of ___'s testimony would be substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. Ind. R. Evid. 403.

I believe the timeline will come into play and maybe Dr. Roland Kohr will be called to testify.
The D may try to impeach DD and ex-warden Galipeau.
The D will force the issue of RA's car being parked at the said place during stated hours.
The D will hammer on RA's imprisonment in Westville and Wabash.
The D may have surprises that we don't know about yet.

Of course, we have to consider what this judge will allow them to do.

 

[tlcya]

in addition to this trial, and Sarah Boone's, the trial for Leilani Simon for the murder of her toddler, Quinton is in jury selection right now. So three trials happening next week that I will be attempting to follow. I am glad I have Monday off lol.

If I had planned things better I would have taken a week off work just to be able to give my full attention to them

 

[TTF14]

IMO The judge, if it's within her power, will not allow the D to cast doubt. The P uses this often:
The probative value of ___'s testimony would be substantially outweighed by a danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. Ind. R. Evid. 403.

I believe the timeline will come into play and maybe Dr. Roland Kohr will be called to testify.
The D may try to impeach DD and ex-warden Galipeau.
The D will force the issue of RA's car being parked at the said place during stated hours.
The D will hammer on RA's imprisonment in Westville and Wabash.
The D may have surprises that we don't know about yet.

Of course, we have to consider what this judge will allow them to do.

I agree, especially the part I bolded.

I dislike the "may confuse the jury" reason/argument for disallowing evidence. It's just too subjective, in my opinion. It confuses me, as a trial watcher, but I think the jury should be given the opportunity to at least hear it and decide for themselves if they are confused.

As always, JMO.

 

[sunshineray]

Totally agree. There are decent, unbiased, educated people reporting on this case who aren't doing it just for clicks and money. People like Lawyer Lee <modsnip>

I do not think LL is anywhere near as unbiased as the MS couple. JMO

 

[sunshineray]

This courtroom is so tiny, so everyone is still so unsure of how many reporters will even be allowed in. I just hope there are some good, balanced ones who do get in and do decent reporting. And not just reporters, but attorneys who are interested in the procedural goings-on of the case since there's been so much controversy about that aspect of it. Some of us are really interested to hear that take on it as well. I really wish it was going to be livestreamed so we wouldn't have to rely on the telephone game. IMO MOO JMO

That's exactly why MS is a great couple, an attorney, a journalist and they're honest and unbiased. They report what they hear and see accurately. I sure hope they get in every day!

 

[susane7]

At the beginning, I thought this was a crime of opportunity.

Later, I thought it was targeted and BG/RA knew the girls would be there.

Now, I'm waffling between the two. (I do think RA = BG, that part I don't question.)

What does everyone think at this point? Random crime or targeted?

Random since day one and still random IMO. Only a lonely man with a sick fantasy and with a pre-planned crime in mind in that location but random victims.

 

[Inthedetails]

Random since day one and still random IMO. Only a lonely man with a sick fantasy and with a pre-planned crime in mind in that location but random victims.

Do you think he scouted that area frequently, waiting for the right victim(s) to come along? Or just that day felt the urge to attack?

jmo

 

[sunshineray]

Just thinking about how the defense will have to approach this:

Attack the science of the tool mark analysis on the unspent round. If that round can definitively be linked to his gun, then it's game over. I think they'll be able to cast some doubt here.

Cast doubt on the man in the bridge video being Allen. No one is going to believe that person is not the killer, so they have to somehow discredit the fact that it's him in the video (an expert to say he's too tall or short or whatever, to match that guy).

Explain away those dozens of confessions (stress, psychotic episode, etc).

Perhaps attempt to show that Allen had already left when the murders happened (he's already admitted to being there).

I imagine they'll cast aspersions on other potential suspects, but that's really useless unless you can explain away those other things.

I'm super curious to know if the searches of the home turned up anything that links him to the victims (trophy or DNA). I do think we'll learn things that really firms up the fact that this has to be the guy.

Anyone got anything else to add, or shoot down?

I think the progression of RA's confessions and hearing the words from his own mouth will be the most powerful to the jury. I don't see the defense being able to overcome that, tied into everything else with details, powerful stuff. JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

I think the attack was predatory - the location was selected - but the victims were simply those unfortunate enough to be there that day at that time.

I agree.

I think the perpetrator went there, armed, looking for a victim. If it hadn't been Abby and Libby that day, it would have been someone else at some point. The perpetrator had a fantasy, and he made it real. I don't think he knew ahead of time who his victim would be.

MOO

 

[Spartygirl]

At the beginning, I thought this was a crime of opportunity.

Later, I thought it was targeted and BG/RA knew the girls would be there.

Now, I'm waffling between the two. (I do think RA = BG, that part I don't question.)

What does everyone think at this point? Random crime or targeted?

Targeted--
RA=BG knew Libby & Abby would be there and that is why he was there.
JMO

 

[TTF14]

Targeted--
RA=BG knew Libby & Abby would be there and that is why he was there.
JMO

Do you have a theory about how he knew they would be there?

 

[susane7]

Do you think he scouted that area frequently, waiting for the right victim(s) to come along? Or just that day felt the urge to attack?

jmo

We don't know much about RA (BG IMO) but I think this type of crime fits more in that he scouted that area frequently, tought it was a good location to commit a crime and waiting for the right victims and opportunity.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

MOO
I'm not sure if it will the the P or the D who opens that door. I haven't seen any indication that he was violent in the past. That will speak in his favor, as will the fact that he sought treatment.

How will the jury see this? That depends on if any of the chosen ones have experienced/knows anyone who has problems with depression or side effects of drugs.

Regardless of the fact the Court is not persuaded that the detention caused the defendant to make incriminating statements, I think the D has a good chance to show it did. Something sure happened while he was in there.

Major Depression

Depression is a serious mood disorder. It touches every part of your life and is caused by a chemical imbalance in your brain. Treatment involves medicine and counseling.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

Here's a point from the link:
"While each person may experience symptoms differently, these are the most common symptoms of depression:

• Ongoing feelings of worthlessness or feelings of undue guilt"

I don’t know of any mental illness that causes someone to be able to describe unrevealed details of a crime or crime scene that they did not participate in, two weeks prior to that person ever seeing any discovery about the crime.
Sworn testimony from the three-day hearing confirms this.

 

[TTF14]

I don’t know of any mental illness that causes someone to be able to describe unrevealed details of a crime or crime scene that they did not participate in, two weeks prior to that person ever seeing any discovery about the crime.
Sworn testimony from the three-day hearing confirms this.

Do you have a link for that please? I wasn't aware this was proven (that he provided details of the crime scene two weeks before receiving the Discovery). Thank you.

 

[Inthedetails]

That's exactly why MS is a great couple, an attorney, a journalist and they're honest and unbiased. They report what they hear and see accurately. I sure hope they get in every day!

If the trial were broadcast, I think it would DECREASE the circus atmosphere as people would be content watching from home. Courtroom management would be easier if cameras were allowed, imo.

jmo