girlhasnoname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 9,496
- Reaction score
- 120,248
I've only seen the 14th referenced but I cannot remember what article I read it in. I am super curious as to when he self reported as well.
Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #160
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #189
- Latest: photographer4
-
- Status
MistyWaters
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 12,003
- Reaction score
- 67,218
I‘ve only noticed the 14th referenced in this report from crimeonline but nowhere else.
Richard Allen: Accused Delphi Killer Was Near Bridge the Day 2 Girls Died, and Police Knew About it for Years [Report]
Accused Delphi killer Richard Allen allegedly admitted he was near the area the same day Libby German, 13, and Abby Williams, 14, died in Delphi, Indiana, in a brutal double-murder that went unsolved for over five years. According to i-Team 8, Allen admitted to investigators that he was “in the...
Allen reportedly told a conservation officer right after the bodies were found about his whereabouts. Yet, investigators reportedly “forgot about the statement,” i-Team 8 reports, until this year, when they arrested Allen and charged him with murder…”
Last edited:
Spartygirl
Verified Insider - Michael Vanzandt case
- Joined
- May 3, 2016
- Messages
- 4,639
- Reaction score
- 46,016
I live in Michigan, but not too far from the Indiana border and both MI and Indiana are one plate states.
Gemmie
Clam dip nose
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,266
- Reaction score
- 41,242
I haven't been able to find it anywhere else and I've looked a few times. However, the way this is worded isn't real clear to me. It just sounds like the wrong info was accidentally reported in my opinion.I‘ve only noticed the 14th referenced in this report from crimeonline but nowhere else.
“According to i-Team 8, Allen admitted to investigators that he was “in the area” of the Monon High Bridge on February 14, 2017, the day that Libby and Abby were found dead. The girls had an outing on the bridge the day prior but never returned home. Police found their bodies the following day.Richard Allen: Accused Delphi Killer Was Near Bridge the Day 2 Girls Died, and Police Knew About it for Years [Report]
Accused Delphi killer Richard Allen allegedly admitted he was near the area the same day Libby German, 13, and Abby Williams, 14, died in Delphi, Indiana, in a brutal double-murder that went unsolved for over five years. According to i-Team 8, Allen admitted to investigators that he was “in the...www.crimeonline.com
Allen reportedly told a conservation officer right after the bodies were found about his whereabouts. Yet, investigators reportedly “forgot about the statement,” i-Team 8 reports, until this year, when they arrested Allen and charged him with murder…”
Allen admitted to investigators that he was “in the area” of the Monon High Bridge on February 14, 2017, the day that Libby and Abby were found dead.
For me I'm thinking that date could be a typo, or misunderstanding on the part of the reporter (who likely don't pay as close attention to details as Websleuthers do), and it should instead read Feb 13th. That makes more sense to me. Espeically since he's admitted to being on the bridge on 2/13 in the timeframe the murders were committed. Otherwise, to have made it crystal clear that the interview was on 2/14 I'd have said it this way:
"Allen admitted to investigators on February 14, 2017 that he was “in the area” of the Monon High Bridge, the day Libby and Abby went missing". (That's IF he interviewed on the 14th)
It's not the first time I've seen articles botch the details so wouldn't be at all surprised that it could have happened here. Otherwise, you'd think the date of the interview would be able to be found in more MSM, yet it's not. That makes me think it's because the date hasn't been released to the public or to MSM. MOO
Last edited:
taylorss
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2017
- Messages
- 986
- Reaction score
- 7,473
Thanks … thought that might be the case, the date was conspicuously left out of the PCA!
IMO
From @Gemmie (clamdipnose) post. snipped for focus
Some ppl* aware of possible need for self defense routinely carry more than ONE weapon. Although a gun or a knife can be used to kill a person, or even four, but as a weapon of self defense, a gun is not interchangeable w a knife.
imo jmo moo
______________________________________
* Not just violent, gun crazed militant, radical, extremist stereotypes.
Check out some EDC (Every Day Carry) websites/forums. Not just guns & knives. Flashlights, first aid, wallets, backpacks, pens, notebooks, watches, electronic devices, etc. w extensive, detailed tedious, discussions of features, specifics, pro's & con's of any of the above. Kinda, sorta like some of our discussions here, about a crim. case, down to the granular, even molecular level.
@Gemmie Hi, gen'ly agreeing w line of thinking in your post, except --- RA carrying BOTH knife and gun indicates he was planning these crimes on that night.
Some ppl* aware of possible need for self defense routinely carry more than ONE weapon. Although a gun or a knife can be used to kill a person, or even four, but as a weapon of self defense, a gun is not interchangeable w a knife.
imo jmo moo
______________________________________
* Not just violent, gun crazed militant, radical, extremist stereotypes.
Check out some EDC (Every Day Carry) websites/forums. Not just guns & knives. Flashlights, first aid, wallets, backpacks, pens, notebooks, watches, electronic devices, etc. w extensive, detailed tedious, discussions of features, specifics, pro's & con's of any of the above. Kinda, sorta like some of our discussions here, about a crim. case, down to the granular, even molecular level.
MistyWaters
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 12,003
- Reaction score
- 67,218
I agree, the sentence structure is awkward. But the first part of the sentence “According to i-Team 8, Allen admitted to investigators that he was “in the area” of the Monon High Bridge on February 14, 2017 (followed by a comma) the day that Libby and Abby were found dead. It’s true that the bodies were found on the 14th, not on the 13th, so I don’t think that’s a typo.
Second paragraph - “Allen reportedly told a conservation officer right after the bodies were found about his whereabouts.” Once again as the bodies were found on the 14th and according to this he talked to the conservation officer “right after”, that‘s further confirmation the interview occurred on the 14th.
But I agree, we have no way of knowing how crimeonline obtained this information or if their source was factually correct.
MistyWaters
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 12,003
- Reaction score
- 67,218
Yes I fully agree. I can’t even think of anything KAK could possibly sing to. We know RA spoke to a conservation officer and relayed the information as a tip that only LE recently came across. So we also know KAK wasn’t involved in tipping LE onto RA. Even if KAK was privy to Libby and Abby‘s hike to the bridge at a certain time and passed that info to RA, knowledge of their location isn’t proof RA committed murder. Instead the prosecution outlined some of that evidence which placed RA at the crime scene in the PCA, leaving no glaring hole in which KAK could (innocently) place himself.
The only other singing KAK could do, that he was not only involved but somehow was responsible for arranging with RA to commit murder and he was willing to testify as a witness his presence either before, during or after the crime occurred at/near the bridge - that would clearly incriminate KAK, if not equally then as an accomplice. If this were so, wouldn’t it be in RA‘s best interest to rat out KAK instead of the other way around?
The other possibility is because KAK has been discussed so diligently for weeks and months now (and hung out to dry, up, down and sideways, pardon the expression) it’s now become literally incomprehensible to separate him from the criminal acts of RA. But the reality is at this time KAK’s involvement is entirely based on speculation, maybe a dash of wishful thinking, nothing more.
JMO
The high temp on 2/13/17 was 43 degrees. That is 5 degrees above the historical Delphi average for that same day. At late afternoon it was 40 degrees. Some consider those numbers as mild, some do not. I don't think anyone would have been roasting at those temps, and I don't think anything I've seen indicates anyone unusually overdressed or underdressed for the low 40's.
Correcting my post (from ~5 posts upthread), too late to edit there. See CAPS BELOW pls.
MissUnderstood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,380
- Reaction score
- 4,797
I’m more confused about how not one person, not the CO that interviewed him, not the town busy body, not the guy who served him at the local bar, not the mum who picks up a prescription every week, no friend, no family, no one thought that this pic resembled RA. No one called LE and said, ‘hey, that pic on the bridge kinda looks like my neighbour, my cousin, the guy that drinks at my bar, the guy at the CVS’ nothing? No one? Moo
Two phones pinging by the bridge.
Maybe one phone turned off.
MOO officers don’t make tips they make reports through channels. The tip thing goes with “misfiled”
and is an attempt to minimize responsibility.
WingsOverTX
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2022
- Messages
- 2,974
- Reaction score
- 25,994
Confirmation bias?
The helpful guy working in CVS - unless you have an extended out of the ordinary interaction with him - appears to be just as he presents. My interactions with drugstore employees tend to be about me - my errand, product I'm seeking, desire to get out & run my next errand. Something really needs to stand out very positive or very negative about an employee I interact with to make me ask questions.
But that's just me.
I've known two people in my life who were murdered. One by a spouse (65ish woman) & one by an uncle by marriage (10 yo girl). Evil lurks in the heart until opportunity + impulse presents itself?
electricuncalm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 540
Hi neighbor ish, I’m on the other side of the border
I think it adds little in this case as it turns on identity
BG did the abduction and the murders.
It won't be possible to get convicted on the lesser charge but not the murders.
Listening to the MS podcast on the tool mark evidence, I think the most interesting comment was that the prosecution has used this to get the PCA through without revealing their hand (e.g DNA, digital). This may also relate to their efforts to determine any other person's involvement, because they've been able to keep stuff out of the PCA. So it is all about what is not in there.
The reason this tactic works, is at this stage, the evidence is not directly challenged.
But that brings us to the oddity of the accused being 'happy' to sit in jail for months based on 'weak evidence'.
if the accused is innocent, then he knows the tool mark evidence is nonsense and no other evidence can have been found. So why is he not making an urgent bail application on this weak sauce?
The other interesting comment, is that before we get too far, LE need to drop charges to confirm their final version of whom else might have been 'involved'. It can't go to trial with that hanging out there.
The reason this tactic works, is at this stage, the evidence is not directly challenged.
But that brings us to the oddity of the accused being 'happy' to sit in jail for months based on 'weak evidence'.
if the accused is innocent, then he knows the tool mark evidence is nonsense and no other evidence can have been found. So why is he not making an urgent bail application on this weak sauce?
The other interesting comment, is that before we get too far, LE need to drop charges to confirm their final version of whom else might have been 'involved'. It can't go to trial with that hanging out there.
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,350
Murder Sheet – A Defence Perspective on the Bullet
Murder Sheet
A: = Attorney (verified and speaking anonymously)
[Much of this is verbatim but I’ve paraphrased parts. Unnecessary words and phrases have been omitted]
PART 1
Áine Cain asks a practising criminal defence attorney with many years experience, including capital murder cases, if this is strong ballistics evidence and how it’s considered in the criminal defence world. He replies that it’s incredibly weak. What people commonly call ballistics is really toolmark examination. The toolmark that is being made in this process is typically when a bullet goes down the barrel of a pistol there’s rifling inside the barrel. Different manufacturers have different numbers of grooves. Some are right-handed twists, some are left-handed twists. When you see the bullet gets fired, there are ways to narrow it down and that’s what they’re talking about in this case. They’re talking about an ejector. When the trigger is pulled, a firing pin hits the back of the cartridge and the firing pin causes the gunpowder inside the cartridge to explode and the bullet moves forward rapidly and then goes through the barrel and the rifling is grooved into the bullet as it goes through the (ui) of the gun.
When that process happens, the cartridge remains inside the gun. In a modern semi-automatic gun what you have is a piece of metal that strikes the empty cartridge from the side and pushes it out, and that’s what makes it easy to fire quickly. You pull the trigger, the bullet goes out and milliseconds later the ejector hits the side of that cartridge and pushes it out the side of the gun, then the cartridge comes into the chamber and you can pull the trigger again. That ejector is not like the rifling in the barrel. The rifling in the barrel has multiple grooves and you can tell a lot by the number and the direction that’s burned into the bullet. The ejector is just a flat piece of metal. Sometimes it’s round but sometimes it’s flat and it hits the cartridge and it just pushes it out of the way, but it hits it hard enough to make a little mark. It doesn’t have enough characteristics on its surface to make a hard and fast determination whether it came from a particular gun or not.
Now that’s the defence perspective. A prosecutor says, “Oh yeah. We can individualise from this one particular impression”, but I believe personally that that is just completely incorrect because there’s just not enough information. … You can maybe not exclude a gun. You can say, “This gun could have made this mark” but there’s just not enough information to be able to say for sure. … The way that ejectors work, IMO you’re never gonna have enough to say, ”This is the gun to the exclusion of all other guns”. …
ÁC: And that’s even if we’re looking at the ejector mark under a microscope and looking at it up close, is that correct?
A: “Yes. If there’s a defect on the ejector – if there’s a little scratch on the ejector that’s deep enough that it will leave an imprint at its cartridge, well maybe you can say then. … You can see it. There’s a defect in what – the impression that’s gonna be made on the cartridge. But if you had just a standard ejector, it’s just gonna look basically the same as every other ejector.
AC: We understand that RA’s gun was purchased by him in 2001. Do you know that if the gun is a bit older it’s more likely to have a defect or would that be just a luck of the draw thing from the manufacturer?
A: Well, there could be a defect from the manufacturer but if there’s a defect it’s almost certainly something that happened later. It would be something that – maybe improper usage or maybe it jammed several times. Maybe something happened when he was cleaning it. An older gun can have defects just like an older car is gonna have a dent. It didn’t come from the manufacturer that way, just through its life it can attain that defect.
Murder Sheet
A: = Attorney (verified and speaking anonymously)
[Much of this is verbatim but I’ve paraphrased parts. Unnecessary words and phrases have been omitted]
PART 1
Áine Cain asks a practising criminal defence attorney with many years experience, including capital murder cases, if this is strong ballistics evidence and how it’s considered in the criminal defence world. He replies that it’s incredibly weak. What people commonly call ballistics is really toolmark examination. The toolmark that is being made in this process is typically when a bullet goes down the barrel of a pistol there’s rifling inside the barrel. Different manufacturers have different numbers of grooves. Some are right-handed twists, some are left-handed twists. When you see the bullet gets fired, there are ways to narrow it down and that’s what they’re talking about in this case. They’re talking about an ejector. When the trigger is pulled, a firing pin hits the back of the cartridge and the firing pin causes the gunpowder inside the cartridge to explode and the bullet moves forward rapidly and then goes through the barrel and the rifling is grooved into the bullet as it goes through the (ui) of the gun.
When that process happens, the cartridge remains inside the gun. In a modern semi-automatic gun what you have is a piece of metal that strikes the empty cartridge from the side and pushes it out, and that’s what makes it easy to fire quickly. You pull the trigger, the bullet goes out and milliseconds later the ejector hits the side of that cartridge and pushes it out the side of the gun, then the cartridge comes into the chamber and you can pull the trigger again. That ejector is not like the rifling in the barrel. The rifling in the barrel has multiple grooves and you can tell a lot by the number and the direction that’s burned into the bullet. The ejector is just a flat piece of metal. Sometimes it’s round but sometimes it’s flat and it hits the cartridge and it just pushes it out of the way, but it hits it hard enough to make a little mark. It doesn’t have enough characteristics on its surface to make a hard and fast determination whether it came from a particular gun or not.
Now that’s the defence perspective. A prosecutor says, “Oh yeah. We can individualise from this one particular impression”, but I believe personally that that is just completely incorrect because there’s just not enough information. … You can maybe not exclude a gun. You can say, “This gun could have made this mark” but there’s just not enough information to be able to say for sure. … The way that ejectors work, IMO you’re never gonna have enough to say, ”This is the gun to the exclusion of all other guns”. …
ÁC: And that’s even if we’re looking at the ejector mark under a microscope and looking at it up close, is that correct?
A: “Yes. If there’s a defect on the ejector – if there’s a little scratch on the ejector that’s deep enough that it will leave an imprint at its cartridge, well maybe you can say then. … You can see it. There’s a defect in what – the impression that’s gonna be made on the cartridge. But if you had just a standard ejector, it’s just gonna look basically the same as every other ejector.
AC: We understand that RA’s gun was purchased by him in 2001. Do you know that if the gun is a bit older it’s more likely to have a defect or would that be just a luck of the draw thing from the manufacturer?
A: Well, there could be a defect from the manufacturer but if there’s a defect it’s almost certainly something that happened later. It would be something that – maybe improper usage or maybe it jammed several times. Maybe something happened when he was cleaning it. An older gun can have defects just like an older car is gonna have a dent. It didn’t come from the manufacturer that way, just through its life it can attain that defect.
Last edited by a moderator:
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,350
Murder Sheet – A Defence Perspective on the Bullet
Murder Sheet
A: = Attorney (verified and speaking anonymously)
[Much of this is verbatim but I’ve paraphrased parts. Unnecessary words and phrases have been omitted]
PART 2
KG: What if, theoretically, we were able to prove to everyone’s satisfaction that the bullet found at the crime scene could be linked to Allen’s gun? What sort of significance would that have in your mind?
A: In my mind it’s still incredibly weak evidence because there are so many ways that an unspent round can go through a gun and be ejected out. It could be that it jammed at the firing range and (ui) out and it fell and somebody else picked it up. It could be that somebody came over to his house and saw it laying in an ashtray in the living room and just picked it up, played with it and put it in their own pocket. It could be that it fell out of a car somewhere along the way and somebody picked it up (ui) highway and dropped it. People have all kinds of things they put in their pockets – good luck charms. It could even accidentally have been placed there during a struggle. It could have been purposely placed there by somebody who was trying to set RA up. To me, the fact that even if it went through his gun, it’s almost useless information because you don’t have to clear it right there on the spot. It could have been cleared out of that gun back in 2001 or whenever he first bought it. It tells you nothing about how long ago that unspent round was cleared from a gun. It’s meaningless (ui).
AC: … Are there ways to tell how old a bullet is or if it’s been out in the elements for a while?
A: Yeah. I mean it depends on what cartridge, what round you’re looking at, but if it’s been out in water for years, there’s gonna be rust on it, there’s gonna be tarnish. If it’s really, really bright you know it hasn’t been there long. There’s ways of – but there’s nothing that’s really scientific. It’s just an eyeball test. “Yeah, that round’s been there for a while” or “No, it hasn’t”.
…
AC: And as far as courts go, when you’re practising criminal defence – I know it could probably depend on the location, are these kind of ejector marks – do you frequently see them brought up by a prosecution as some sort of evidence in a trial?
A: In 20 years of practice I have never seen it come up, ever. The toolmark examination reports regarding the markings that were left on a bullet that went through a barrel, I’ve seen that often. I’ve never seen injector markings being an issue in a case, ever.
AC: In your expert opinion, what could it mean that they’re using them in this very high profile case?
A: … I don’t know that I’m an expert but I’ve done a lot of this work and what I think is that they’re using this information to get a probable cause finding without having to reveal other information.
AC: … You mentioned that the toolmark identification – technology and things around that – is a little more contested than a lot of civilians may realise. Could you speak more to that? Is it starting to get pushback in courts in America in general?
A: In the jurisdiction where I practise it’s not being contested very much because it’s not used a bunch in the courts where I’m at, but I know that there is a trend towards fighting this kind of information. From the defence perspective there’s a trend in fighting it nationwide. I go to conferences all over and I know that, particularly in the N-E, there’s been some cases where it has been excluded, and we’re talking about the more specific toolmark that is imparted by the barrel is far stronger than the ejector. Toolmarks in the barrel evidence is being contested quite vigorously around the country and other locations with some success.
… the National Academy of Sciences’ report there’s really only one forensic science that has any capability of saying an individual person left this particular piece of evidence, and that is DNA that is large enough to exclude other people, and single source biological samples. … Particularly these toolmark examination things, I think people in the defence community are starting to realise that just because somebody gets on the witness stand and says they’re an expert on something doesn’t make it true. I’ve just seen too many experts in various fields being excluded and having controversies related to their opinions to accept that evidence (ui) at the centre of a case.
…
If it goes to trial, no, I don’t think there’s gonna be any problem finding an expert who can cast doubt on the toolmarks, but if they are hinging their case on this one piece of evidence, they’re in a lot of trouble anyway.
Murder Sheet
A: = Attorney (verified and speaking anonymously)
[Much of this is verbatim but I’ve paraphrased parts. Unnecessary words and phrases have been omitted]
PART 2
KG: What if, theoretically, we were able to prove to everyone’s satisfaction that the bullet found at the crime scene could be linked to Allen’s gun? What sort of significance would that have in your mind?
A: In my mind it’s still incredibly weak evidence because there are so many ways that an unspent round can go through a gun and be ejected out. It could be that it jammed at the firing range and (ui) out and it fell and somebody else picked it up. It could be that somebody came over to his house and saw it laying in an ashtray in the living room and just picked it up, played with it and put it in their own pocket. It could be that it fell out of a car somewhere along the way and somebody picked it up (ui) highway and dropped it. People have all kinds of things they put in their pockets – good luck charms. It could even accidentally have been placed there during a struggle. It could have been purposely placed there by somebody who was trying to set RA up. To me, the fact that even if it went through his gun, it’s almost useless information because you don’t have to clear it right there on the spot. It could have been cleared out of that gun back in 2001 or whenever he first bought it. It tells you nothing about how long ago that unspent round was cleared from a gun. It’s meaningless (ui).
AC: … Are there ways to tell how old a bullet is or if it’s been out in the elements for a while?
A: Yeah. I mean it depends on what cartridge, what round you’re looking at, but if it’s been out in water for years, there’s gonna be rust on it, there’s gonna be tarnish. If it’s really, really bright you know it hasn’t been there long. There’s ways of – but there’s nothing that’s really scientific. It’s just an eyeball test. “Yeah, that round’s been there for a while” or “No, it hasn’t”.
…
AC: And as far as courts go, when you’re practising criminal defence – I know it could probably depend on the location, are these kind of ejector marks – do you frequently see them brought up by a prosecution as some sort of evidence in a trial?
A: In 20 years of practice I have never seen it come up, ever. The toolmark examination reports regarding the markings that were left on a bullet that went through a barrel, I’ve seen that often. I’ve never seen injector markings being an issue in a case, ever.
AC: In your expert opinion, what could it mean that they’re using them in this very high profile case?
A: … I don’t know that I’m an expert but I’ve done a lot of this work and what I think is that they’re using this information to get a probable cause finding without having to reveal other information.
AC: … You mentioned that the toolmark identification – technology and things around that – is a little more contested than a lot of civilians may realise. Could you speak more to that? Is it starting to get pushback in courts in America in general?
A: In the jurisdiction where I practise it’s not being contested very much because it’s not used a bunch in the courts where I’m at, but I know that there is a trend towards fighting this kind of information. From the defence perspective there’s a trend in fighting it nationwide. I go to conferences all over and I know that, particularly in the N-E, there’s been some cases where it has been excluded, and we’re talking about the more specific toolmark that is imparted by the barrel is far stronger than the ejector. Toolmarks in the barrel evidence is being contested quite vigorously around the country and other locations with some success.
… the National Academy of Sciences’ report there’s really only one forensic science that has any capability of saying an individual person left this particular piece of evidence, and that is DNA that is large enough to exclude other people, and single source biological samples. … Particularly these toolmark examination things, I think people in the defence community are starting to realise that just because somebody gets on the witness stand and says they’re an expert on something doesn’t make it true. I’ve just seen too many experts in various fields being excluded and having controversies related to their opinions to accept that evidence (ui) at the centre of a case.
…
If it goes to trial, no, I don’t think there’s gonna be any problem finding an expert who can cast doubt on the toolmarks, but if they are hinging their case on this one piece of evidence, they’re in a lot of trouble anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
JudgeJudi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 10,620
- Reaction score
- 31,350
Murder Sheet – A Defence Perspective on the Bullet
Murder Sheet
A: = Attorney (verified and speaking anonymously)
[Much of this is verbatim but I’ve paraphrased parts. Unnecessary words and phrases have been omitted]
PART 3
AC: I’m curious. If you could speak more to that based on what you’re reading in the PCA.
A: He doesn’t think there’s any claim that witnesses identified him as the person they saw out there that day. It’s interesting that according to the affidavit, no-one has been shown a photographic lineup. In any run-of-the-mill homicide cases he’s dealt with, they’ve been shown multiple photo lineups a lot of times. That is certainly something that has happened but they didn’t talk about it in the affidavit. It raises a question in his mind – if they didn’t do it, why didn’t they do it? And if they did it and didn’t mention it, is it because they’re trying to keep that out of the public eye for some reason or is it because the people identified someone other than RA?
He suspects there’s a lot of other evidence that exists that was left out of the affidavit and that they’re using this particular piece of evidence as the linchpin to get the affidavit to get him into custody. They’re not hiding evidence, they’re just not revealing everything because they’re not required to at this point and there are good reasons for them to do that. It could be that there is another person involved, and as the news reports say, the prosecutor said there are other actors and it could be that they want to get RA in custody so they can put pressure on him to talk about what he knows. Obviously KAK is in custody and his veracity is not strongly established so far on the record and there’s just a lot of smoke around this fire. So many things have happened circumstantially. KAK was removed from the jail, placed into safe police custody and then a search of the Wabash River shortly thereafter. All that sort of thing strongly suggests there’s a connection to all of the activities. I mean for 4 1/2 / 5 years nothing happened and then all of a sudden all of these things start happening. It seems like they’ve got to be connected. So maybe KAK or someone else has said some things about the facts of the case and they want to get RA into custody, not reveal what has been said by KAK or the other person, whoever that might be, and therefore it’s not published in the public, and now they can ask RA questions and see what kind of answers they get so they can compare them. It’s the whole back evidence theory but it’s more directed towards RA than the public at this point. That’s one good reason to hold back that information.
AC: In your experience doing criminal defence, does the fact that there are other names possibly floating out there as well as the fact that you have LE and the prosecutor essentially saying, “We’re looking for other actors. We’re looking for other players. There’s more tentacles to this. Is that problematic from the prosecution standpoint or can that be typical when you maybe only have enough to go after one person to start?
A: If the prosecution or LE are saying there’s someone else and they don’t offer proof about who that other party might be or why it is that they’ve not been arrested and been prosecuted also, that’s trouble for the prosecution. If they’re making those statements publicly and they don’t offer proof about it somehow at a trial, that spells trouble. So to me that suggests they’re not just saying there might be somebody else. They are quite confident there is someone else involved, and what that plan is for prosecuting that person or those people, we don’t know based on what’s available in the public. But if there is someone else, as a defence lawyer and I was representing Rick Allen, I would be all over that. “They think it’s somebody else”. This would be the message I would be sending to a jury – “They think it’s somebody else. They said it from the beginning that there was somebody else involved, but in reality my client wasn’t involved at all. Well they know there was somebody else and yet they didn’t bring anybody else into court. They didn’t offer proof about who this other person was or what connection they may have had to my client”. It is very problematic for them if they are publicly identifying the possibility of another suspect and not prosecuting or linking that other suspect to the defendant who’s going to be on trial.
AC: Right. It’s a very major loose end, I imagine, for putting a narrative together for a jury?
A: Yeah.
Murder Sheet
A: = Attorney (verified and speaking anonymously)
[Much of this is verbatim but I’ve paraphrased parts. Unnecessary words and phrases have been omitted]
PART 3
AC: I’m curious. If you could speak more to that based on what you’re reading in the PCA.
A: He doesn’t think there’s any claim that witnesses identified him as the person they saw out there that day. It’s interesting that according to the affidavit, no-one has been shown a photographic lineup. In any run-of-the-mill homicide cases he’s dealt with, they’ve been shown multiple photo lineups a lot of times. That is certainly something that has happened but they didn’t talk about it in the affidavit. It raises a question in his mind – if they didn’t do it, why didn’t they do it? And if they did it and didn’t mention it, is it because they’re trying to keep that out of the public eye for some reason or is it because the people identified someone other than RA?
He suspects there’s a lot of other evidence that exists that was left out of the affidavit and that they’re using this particular piece of evidence as the linchpin to get the affidavit to get him into custody. They’re not hiding evidence, they’re just not revealing everything because they’re not required to at this point and there are good reasons for them to do that. It could be that there is another person involved, and as the news reports say, the prosecutor said there are other actors and it could be that they want to get RA in custody so they can put pressure on him to talk about what he knows. Obviously KAK is in custody and his veracity is not strongly established so far on the record and there’s just a lot of smoke around this fire. So many things have happened circumstantially. KAK was removed from the jail, placed into safe police custody and then a search of the Wabash River shortly thereafter. All that sort of thing strongly suggests there’s a connection to all of the activities. I mean for 4 1/2 / 5 years nothing happened and then all of a sudden all of these things start happening. It seems like they’ve got to be connected. So maybe KAK or someone else has said some things about the facts of the case and they want to get RA into custody, not reveal what has been said by KAK or the other person, whoever that might be, and therefore it’s not published in the public, and now they can ask RA questions and see what kind of answers they get so they can compare them. It’s the whole back evidence theory but it’s more directed towards RA than the public at this point. That’s one good reason to hold back that information.
AC: In your experience doing criminal defence, does the fact that there are other names possibly floating out there as well as the fact that you have LE and the prosecutor essentially saying, “We’re looking for other actors. We’re looking for other players. There’s more tentacles to this. Is that problematic from the prosecution standpoint or can that be typical when you maybe only have enough to go after one person to start?
A: If the prosecution or LE are saying there’s someone else and they don’t offer proof about who that other party might be or why it is that they’ve not been arrested and been prosecuted also, that’s trouble for the prosecution. If they’re making those statements publicly and they don’t offer proof about it somehow at a trial, that spells trouble. So to me that suggests they’re not just saying there might be somebody else. They are quite confident there is someone else involved, and what that plan is for prosecuting that person or those people, we don’t know based on what’s available in the public. But if there is someone else, as a defence lawyer and I was representing Rick Allen, I would be all over that. “They think it’s somebody else”. This would be the message I would be sending to a jury – “They think it’s somebody else. They said it from the beginning that there was somebody else involved, but in reality my client wasn’t involved at all. Well they know there was somebody else and yet they didn’t bring anybody else into court. They didn’t offer proof about who this other person was or what connection they may have had to my client”. It is very problematic for them if they are publicly identifying the possibility of another suspect and not prosecuting or linking that other suspect to the defendant who’s going to be on trial.
AC: Right. It’s a very major loose end, I imagine, for putting a narrative together for a jury?
A: Yeah.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status