Overview Constitutional Basis Although the Fourth Amendment states that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause", it does not specify what "probable cause" actually means. The Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the meaning of the term on several occasions, while recognizing that probable cause is a concept that is imprecise, fluid and very dependent on context. In Illinois v. Gates, the Court favored a flexible approach, viewing probable cause as a "practical, non-technical" standard that calls upon the "factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men [...] act".1 Courts often adopt a broader, more flexible view of probable cause when the alleged offenses are serious. Application to Arrests . Probable CauseThen I guess my next question would be, why was everyone so up in arms about the arrest PCA being released, scoffing about constitutional rights, with various media sources unifying against the court, but they aren't doing that with these other possibly sealed documents, of which we don't even know their status? It's probably blatantly obvious and I'm just not understanding. It wouldn't be the first time.
Not thinking there was an exchange. I do believe he was moving along that wooded bridge rather quickly towards them. ( I only know that would scare me a bit.) Especially since they didn't have any where to go, but back the way they came from or in his direction. I believe she was smart, and her radar went off.
After 5 years, I think it's hard to accuse them of tunnel vision on this one.
There has been no confirmation of sexual abuse, which is what I was responding to. I know that there were clothes in the creek as well, but that could mean a lot of things. (like a single jacket in the creek is different than everything)
Why would a reputable source go to them? It makes no sense.BBM
Sometimes
I think I am going to start a spreadsheet with the DM and cases and their validity regarding their articles.
Seems like some cases they report on, most things in articles are true, but not all.
In other cases, hardly anything is true, but a little bit is true.
But usually if there is a receipt, they try to verify it through a credit card company or video of some kind.
I"m not as bothered by the sketch, I guess. It was based off of witnesses trying to remember and then communicate what someone looked like. In the Down the Hill podcast, LE says over and over that they are just meant to jog the memory of someone who might know the guy and are never meant to be like photographs.
Can a sketch of a young person in his 20ties jog a memory of someone about a middle aged man (over 20 years older)??
Agree, it isn't as though there was a large crowd at the Monon Bridge that day. He was spotted in the area, admits to being in the area. The witness who spotted a man meeting his description walking along the road with bloody clothes is also substantive evidence.
That wouldn't matter if the card was given to someone to go and make the purchase for them either innocently, or in RL's case, to try to establish an alibi for a particular time period. I say that because I haven't had to hand over my credit card and driver's license, not had the clerk check my sig on the back for I don't know how many decades now. They used to do that but not anymore.
It's not my belief that RL murdered the girls, but I haven't crossed him off my list of having something to do with the whole mess. LE has said this case is complex and has tentacles. Tentacles makes me think of additional people involved. And if he was completely innocent here, why did he ask his cousin to lie for him saying he had picked RL up between 2:00-2:30 (which just so happens to coincide quite neatly with the timing this all went down). Even LE think that establishing an alibi prior to a crime being found is pretty much guilty.
www.websleuths.com
It's not my belief that RL murdered the girls, but I haven't crossed him off my list of having something to do with the whole mess. LE has said this case is complex and has tentacles. Tentacles makes me think of additional people involved. And if he was completely innocent here, why did he ask his cousin to lie for him saying he had picked RL up between 2:00-2:30 (which just so happens to coincide quite neatly with the timing this all went down). Even LE think that establishing an alibi prior to a crime being found is pretty much guilty.
I spelled all that out with SS's and link so it's easier for me to simply link to my old post.
Found Deceased - IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #160
I'm not FrostedGlass but the answer is yes. Pg 4 of RL's PCA. https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/logan-warrrant.pdf 5:21....after the murders. Did he go there for a quick alibi? Imo.
And given that we don’t know of anyone reporting hearing gunshots, it’s unlikely anyone could have subdued or murdered them or decorated the scene or whatever without leaving traces of himself on people he denied seeing. My understanding is they don’t really have to prove anyone killed them by any particular means, or was ever at the place they died, for felony murder; they only have to prove they died after their freedom of movement was feloniously hindered on the bridge (or whatever felony they pick). If that’s the case, and I’m on the jury, and they can demonstrate that, he’s cooked, without ever explaining to me what he did after saying “down the hill.” I would consider those details intriguing but immaterial to my vote, and I would feel the same about charges that they died after their ambush was facilitated by deception by someone never at the scene in his life.
