Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - #153 *ARREST - Richard Allen*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have literally never ever EVER in my 37 years of life ever heard of a prosecutor asking for the public's opinion on whether a probable cause affidavit should be sealed or not. That is very interesting. I wonder what the thought process is behind that.
 
MesquiteO21 said:
I have literally never ever EVER in my 37 years of life ever heard of a prosecutor asking for the public's opinion on whether a probable cause affidavit should be sealed or not. That is very interesting. I wonder what the thought process is behind that.
Click to expand...
It's not the prosecutor's decision, it's Indiana law. The hearing is a required element of having the documents/records sealed.
 
MesquiteO21 said:
I have literally never ever EVER in my 37 years of life ever heard of a prosecutor asking for the public's opinion on whether a probable cause affidavit should be sealed or not. That is very interesting. I wonder what the thought process is behind that.
Click to expand...
When was this asked ? So does this mean if the public want it unsealed they will unsealed it ?
 
Mellowmelly said:
When was this asked ? So does this mean if the public want it unsealed they will unsealed it ?
Click to expand...
i just read a small thing about it and the way it was worded seemed like he would be asking for the public's input. apparently it's due to Indiana law. I'll need to go read more up about this
 
MesquiteO21 said:
i just read a small thing about it and the way it was worded seemed like he would be asking for the public's input. apparently it's due to Indiana law. I'll need to go read more up about this
Click to expand...

Rule 6 is the rule the records are being sealed under, according to the hearing order that was issued earlier today.
 
Figuring said:
The statute his charges are under:

35-42-1-1(2): Murder:

(2) kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit arson, burglary, child molesting, consumer product tampering, criminal deviate conduct (under IC § 35-42-4-2 before its repeal), kidnapping, rape, robbery, human trafficking, promotion of human labor trafficking, promotion of human sexual trafficking, promotion of child sexual trafficking, promotion of sexual trafficking of a younger child, child sexual trafficking, or carjacking (before its repeal);"

Edit to add source: 2017 Indiana Code :: TITLE 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: ARTICLE 42. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON :: CHAPTER 1. Homicide :: 35-42-1-1. Murder

Please note he is charged under clause 2 of this statute.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. So he's actually charged with what's usually called felony murder, not the default murder charge. I wonder what the reason is for that? Now I would really like to see the complaint/information.

It also doesn't look like there are any other charges right now. No tampering with a body, no sexual assault.
 
Mellowmelly said:
To have a trial date already, they are pretty certain he's their man. This is great!
Click to expand...

Those are tentative dates. I expect the defense to put up a bunch of motions and there will be a lot of additional hearings and back-and-forth between the lawyers and the court. I’d be surprised if the actual trial starts in less than a year.

After more thinking, it’s possible RA has no connection to the Klines. There is no shortage of disgusting men out there capable of doing horrible things to girls. It could be he just happened to be there, he said or did something that creeped the girls out and they said something about it. He overheard, decided was a challenge to his misogynistic ego (“how dare these girls ‘disrespect’ me, a MAN!”) and he decided he wanted to “put them in their place” and it resulted in murder. He probably appeared calm to other people and didn’t mind the wanted poster sketches because in his creepy mind he thought he was justified in getting rid of them.
 
Last edited:
Poedelini said:
Im jumping in here without any knowledge what has been discussed before.

The thing that is on my mind alot, he lived there all that time. Did not feel the need to move or even felt treathened enough to act on it, even after the sound bit and the sketches. Is it because he was that cocky about it? Or did he liked the closeness of this horrible crime. Did he felt comfortable because this was maybe not his first kill?

Just my thought process. Sorry for any grammar mistakes.
Click to expand...
I've been wondering also if the perpetrator committed murders previous to these two. Especially now that we know that he was about 45 at the time, it's hard to imagine that he started his criminal behavior with those crimes.
 
O.Incandenza said:
Very interesting. So he's actually charged with what's usually called felony murder, not the default murder charge. I wonder what the reason is for that? Now I would really like to see the complaint/information.

It also doesn't look like there are any other charges right now. No tampering with a body, no sexual assault.
Click to expand...
I thought that was interesting too. I'm wondering if he didn't set out to murder them, but that happened as a result of what he was doing or from trying to control the situation. I've always thought that felony murder lacked the intent to kill, even though a killing resulted from the other crime(s) being committed. But if he was the one to kill them, I don't understand why it wouldn't be straight up murder. I typically see felony murder used against an accomplice to a felony who didn't actually pull the trigger during the crimes in Indiana cases. I need to go back and read the statute.

I'm editing to add that section (1) of the statute, which references straight up killing someone, requires knowledge and intent. So apparently they don't feel they have that? I have questions....
 
O.Incandenza said:
Very interesting. So he's actually charged with what's usually called felony murder, not the default murder charge. I wonder what the reason is for that? Now I would really like to see the complaint/information.

It also doesn't look like there are any other charges right now. No tampering with a body, no sexual assault.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure. If I read it correctly, what he's charged with doesn't have to but can include rape??
 
KBlackRabbit said:
Those are tentative dates. I expect the defense to put up a bunch of motions and there will be a lot of additional hearings and back-and-forth between the lawyers and the court. I’d be surprised if the actual trial starts in less than a year.

After more thinking, it’s possible RA has no connection to the Klines. There is no shortage of disgusting men out there capable of doing horrible things to girls. It could be he just happened to be there, he said or did something that creeped the girls out and they said something about it. He overheard, decided was a challenge to his fragile ego (“how dare these girls ‘disrespect’ me, a MAN!”) and he decided he wanted to “put them in their place” and it resulted in murder.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying, I think I'm just being optimistic. I suppose there will be numerous hearings considering he's pleading not guilty. I also think he most likely acted alone and it was a chance encounter with the girls.
 
DoABarrelRoll said:
I thought that, too, at first, but when you click on each individual result, the name listed is either "Richard Matthew Allen" or "Richard M Allen." I suppose it's possible it could still be a different RMA, but it seems to all be him.
Click to expand...
If you click on defendants name, it will show their address and description. The other Richards are from Terre Haute and Bloomington. They are also 5' 8". He is listed as 5' 4". I'm only seeing 3 traffic tickets and the murder charges for the suspect.
 
chocolatechance said:
I thought that was interesting too. I'm wondering if he didn't set out to murder them, but that happened as a result of what he was doing or from trying to control the situation. I've always thought that felony murder lacked the intent to kill, even though a killing resulted from the other crime(s) being committed. But if he was the one to kill them, I don't understand why it wouldn't be straight up murder. I typically see felony murder used against an accomplice to a felony who didn't actually pull the trigger during the crimes in Indiana cases. I need to go back and read the statute.
Click to expand...
As you say, the advantage of charging with felony murder is that you don't have to prove the intent to commit the murder, just the intent to commit the other felony. It just strikes me as odd in this case because from what we've heard about the crime scene, there shouldn't be much issue with proving intent to commit murder.

As @Alethea pointed out, the most obvious felony to base it off in this case is kidnapping since we pretty much have that on tape. I'm just not sure why the prosecutor didn't just charge him with kidnapping and murder, and instead chose to use a felony murder charge.

It's worth pointing out that this is a charge I'd expect for an accomplice in a kidnapping that suddenly turned into murder. In that case, the non-killer would get charged with felony murder and the actual killer would get charged with murder. However, LE is acting very much like RA is the actual killer, so I don't think that's the reason here. So I am curious as to what the reason is.
 
Last edited:
O.Incandenza said:
As you say, the advantage of charging with felony murder is that you don't have to prove the intent to commit the murder, just the intent to commit the other felony. It just strikes me as odd in this case because from what we've heard about the crime scene, there shouldn't be much issue with proving intent to commit murder.

As @Alethea pointed out, the most obvious felony to base it off in this case is kidnapping since we pretty much have that on tape. I'm just not sure why the prosecutor didn't just charge him with kidnapping and murder, and instead chose to use a felony murder charge.

It's worth pointing out that this is a charge I'd expect for an accomplice in a kidnapping that suddenly turned into murder. In that case, the non-murderer would get charged with felony murder and the actual killer would get charged with murder. However, LE is acting very much like RA is the actual killer, so I don't think that's the reason here. So I am curious as to what the reason is.
Click to expand...
If found guilty of felony murder, would he get less of a sentence than being charged with murder ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 139 more.
Total: 409 (members: 140, guests: 269)

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
269
Total visitors
409
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,644
Messages
18,256,321
Members
234,711
Latest member
Gaddy72
Back
Top