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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The whole trial might be a lot of hype about nothing.

If any of the confessions are that Richard Allen said he is the person in Liberty German's phone video, he is almost certainly going to be found guilty. If any of the confessions are that Richard Allen said he told the girls to go "down the hill", he is probably going to be found guilty. If any of the confessions contain information about the crime scene never released to the public, he is probably going to be found guilty.

I do not like the fact that the confessions came after he was arrested, but LE would still have gotten the right person. The part that would surprise me at trial is if the state has a really strong case against Richard Allen without the confessions. I do not think they do. Richard Allen may have given police the information necessary to make the arrest and also the proof needed at trial for a conviction.

I know we have to wait for trial to find out info. Hopefully they open another courtroom with a video feed so more people can watch this trial unfold and report on it.

I want to know what other pictures and video Libby took of Abby looking back towards the north side of the bridge.
What if he confessed/incriminating statements to one or more people before he was arrested? Now THAT would be some blockbuster evidence, IMO. Can't wait for trial!!
 
I strongly disagree with you. She could live stream and not have to worry about disruptive people.
All it takes is one looking for their 5 minutes of fame on a live national broadcast, in the presence of the jury, for a mistrial...more money and time down the drain. I would put nothing past the defense and their actors. JMO
 
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.
If it was a fauxpas to put RA in prison instead of jail, why did authorities decide for it in a big double murder case, which shocked the whole nation??
 
All it takes is one looking for their 5 minutes of fame on a live national broadcast, in the presence of the jury, for a mistrial...more money and time down the drain. I would put nothing past the defense and their actors. JMO
I’m not sure how not live-streaming prevents possible courtroom outbursts that the jury would see anyway. Live-streaming happens in high profile cases all the time, even controversial ones like this one. I’ve never seen a mistrial because of it. JMO but I doubt that’s the reason she isn’t allowing it. If RA is convicted this case will be in appeals for years so that’s a bigger cost worry I think. In my opinion.
If it was a fauxpas to put RA in prison instead of jail, why did authorities decide for it in a big double murder case, which shocked the whole nation??

Good question. Why?
 
I strongly disagree with you. She could live stream and not have to worry about disruptive people.
The courtroom is already set up with the required equipment (as you linked above) and there have been thousands of cases that have been live streamed through Covid and we continue to see them being streamed every single day, without any error. There is no logical reason why this cannot be live streamed, even audio-only like Lori Vallow.

This is a decision being made to hide this trial in the shadows and create as little record as possible IMO.

I believe after the victims family, defense, allotted media seats, the public will have 20 seats at the trial? I'm not sure how that will be doled out, but I'm not feeling great about the likelihood that a trusted notetaker will be able to get a seat and relay to the general public the actual testimony from an unbiased ear.

MSM has proven to be useless in relaying any real facts about this case. I don't understand the pathetic response of being denied access and transparency in the courtroom for reporting on this case. Are they worried of ruffling some feathers?

all my own opinion.
 
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.
I think walking with a purpose could also possibly mean someone walking while being upset and/or angry. Someone posted here that RA frequented these trails. Was he angry about something that day? Feeling neglected? This was the Day before Valentine's day. That may have nothing to do with anything but it possibly could.

I'm waiting for trial to hear if there are other elements of premeditation. The car backed in could be one. The carrying of a gun and box cutter could be others.

Just my two cents.
 
And why was it done so quickly.. before the defendant could even be appointed counsel?

Defendant Allen refused his right to a Court Appointed PD during his arraignment and said he was going to hire his own attorney. That is why he didn't have representation.

Of course he later wrote his letter that has been posted on here many times throwing himself on the mercy of the Court because he 'didn't realize how expensive it was and could he please be given a Court Appointed Public Defender'.

MOO
 
Welcome to WS @70DaysofSilence

I disagree with your suggestion that the ruling this trial won't be streamed is part of some willful and conscious effort to create as little record as possible. Record will be kept by court reporter. Every word, every exhibit, every sidebar will be recorded. A record will most certainly exist. THAT is the important record, the one that will be useful in an appeal should RA file one after a conviction.

This inquiring mind of mine would very much like to watch this trial. But what I want isn't important in the least.

I don't think Judge Gull gives a rat's hindquarters what we the public think about her or her decisions. As she shouldn't. I disagree with her ruling not to allow camera in the courtroom. But it is her courtroom and her prerogative.
 
Last edited:
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?
Just my opinion, but I believe it was a crime of opportunity with the possibility of premeditation by the perp without having selected his victim(s) just yet.

There does appear to be elements that could possibly be interpreted as premeditation but we won't know for sure until trial. I hope RA mentions whether this crime was premeditated or not in his confessions.

I think it's possbile RA planned to do something in advance, headed to the trails not knowing who would be his victim(s), and Abby and Libby just happened to be who he chose. They were young and headed to the bridge where they could be trapped.

Just curious, if the prosecution could prove this was a premeditated crime would that change his charges?
 
The courtroom is already set up with the required equipment (as you linked above) and there have been thousands of cases that have been live streamed through Covid and we continue to see them being streamed every single day, without any error. There is no logical reason why this cannot be live streamed, even audio-only like Lori Vallow.

This is a decision being made to hide this trial in the shadows and create as little record as possible IMO.

I believe after the victims family, defense, allotted media seats, the public will have 20 seats at the trial? I'm not sure how that will be doled out, but I'm not feeling great about the likelihood that a trusted notetaker will be able to get a seat and relay to the general public the actual testimony from an unbiased ear.

MSM has proven to be useless in relaying any real facts about this case. I don't understand the pathetic response of being denied access and transparency in the courtroom for reporting on this case. Are they worried of ruffling some feathers?

all my own opinion.
In Indiana, the Judge has the right to have a trial televised or not. Judge Gull agreed to have a hearing televised and her orders about filming were not followed.

Add in the theatrics of SM and Internet Cranks and I can understand why she would not want to take a chance. It's too bad for us that they had to ruin it for everyone.

MSM and credentialed Journalists will be more likely to present an unbiased account than the YTers, Xers or PodCasters following this case IMO. Everything is not always a conspiracy, it just is what it is. <shrug>

MOO
 
Defendant Allen refused his right to a Court Appointed PD during his arraignment and said he was going to hire his own attorney. That is why he didn't have representation.

Of course he later wrote his letter that has been posted on here many times throwing himself on the mercy of the Court because he 'didn't realize how expensive it was and could he please be given a Court Appointed Public Defender'.

MOO
They should have waited until he could retain representation before holding a hearing where he is placed under a safekeeping order that somehow created a lawless zone where basic human rights would no longer apply to him and have him shipped off to a solitary confinement section of a maximum security prison. Did he have any idea that would be the outcome of this hearing? I'm approaching at this from the angle that the defendant should be seen as innocent until proven guilty in the court of law and should not be punished and imprisoned prior to an actual conviction.

Of course, this has been discussed at great lengths, as has ever other facet of this case, but that doesn't make it somehow okay. It's irresponsible to have a defendant appear in court pro se when they have no clue what is going on.

all my own opinion
 
Defendant Allen refused his right to a Court Appointed PD during his arraignment and said he was going to hire his own attorney. That is why he didn't have representation.

Of course he later wrote his letter that has been posted on here many times throwing himself on the mercy of the Court because he 'didn't realize how expensive it was and could he please be given a Court Appointed Public Defender'.

MOO
Since he had assets, it would be expected of him to hire an attorney if he was able. Even with being transferred from place to place in the first few days after arrest, he sought out advice in a timely and asked for a public defender well within the days Indiana gives to seek council.
 
In Indiana, the Judge has the right to have a trial televised or not. Judge Gull agreed to have a hearing televised and her orders about filming were not followed.

Add in the theatrics of SM and Internet Cranks and I can understand why she would not want to take a chance. It's too bad for us that they had to ruin it for everyone.

MSM and credentialed Journalists will be more likely to present an unbiased account than the YTers, Xers or PodCasters following this case IMO. Everything is not always a conspiracy, it just is what it is. <shrug>

MOO
What did the camera operators do in that October hearing that went against her orders?
 
They should have waited until he could retain representation before holding a hearing where he is placed under a safekeeping order that somehow created a lawless zone where basic human rights would no longer apply to him and have him shipped off to a solitary confinement section of a maximum security prison. Did he have any idea that would be the outcome of this hearing? I'm approaching at this from the angle that the defendant should be seen as innocent until proven guilty in the court of law and should not be punished and imprisoned prior to an actual conviction.

Of course, this has been discussed at great lengths, as has ever other facet of this case, but that doesn't make it somehow okay. It's irresponsible to have a defendant appear in court pro se when they have no clue what is going on.

all my own opinion
I wonder if he’d had counsel what would have happened? Would the shipping off to prison and solitary been thwarted because he had someone to speak for his rights? We will never know. I hope it doesn’t happen to any other presumed innocent person.

As always, JMO.
 
Judge Gull said it was the media pool who didn’t follow the rules but didn’t say how/why. Based on her most recent decorum order, we can infer that she doesn’t consider “internet cranks” media now, so it’s likely she didn’t then. I interpret her words to mean the mainstream media did something they were not supposed to. Maybe it was as simple as having too many extension cords or something. None of us knows.

As always, JMO.
 
What did the camera operators do in that October hearing that went against her orders?
In September, ISP relayed to media that they had heard someone showed up to a Delphi murders court hearing wearing something akin to “Google Glasses” to record the hearing.
[snip]
Stewart, an independent reporter and content creator, has attended several Delphi court hearings. She plans to go to the trial proper beginning October 14th, and also raised concerns about transparency in the court proceedings.
INTERVIEW: The Delphi "Electronic Eyeglasses" Situation, Court Transparency Concerns Raised
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
201
Total visitors
313

Forum statistics

Threads
609,325
Messages
18,252,640
Members
234,624
Latest member
XtraGuacPlz
Back
Top