Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #161

[Salah11]

All makes sense.

Still just as witness on the trail that 2/13/17 he should have risen to the top of every investigative checklist along with the 3 girls, FSG, the couple under the bridge and the lady who walked the trail between the bridges

It’s not clear when RA contacted the police about being on the trail. 2/14/2017 seems to be suggested and that would be the right time for him to call.The FBI took over the tip line on 2/23/2017.

Before the gag order the defense attorney says RA called police and agreed to meet a conservation officer in front of a grocery store.

MOO, after calling in and saying he was on the trail the afternoon of 2/13/17 meeting with anyone but the detectives is also odd from the start.

It raises major questions over the entire handling of the case and I’m sure that will be important at Trial.

Because with something so simple not following up what else have they botched is the question of the day.

Moo

 

[buyerninety]

There seems to be uncertainty as to why police
would continue to refer to RA's statement to the
Conservation Officer as 'tips'. Possibly because it
could be reasonably challenged that when RA
agreed to attend an interview and was
interrogated by a law enforcement officer... that
officer failed to miranderize RA. The possible
implications thereby aren't too hard to understand.

 

[Boxer]

It raises major questions over the entire handling of the case and I’m sure that will be important at Trial.

Because with something so simple not following up what else have they botched is the question of the day.

Moo

Unfortunately.

 

[mrjitty]

I think “tip narrative” relates directly to the information offered by RA that he was on the trails that day at the same time but didn’t see the girls. Who received the tip or how it was received isn’t really what’s most significant, it’s the information about what RA saw (or didn’t see) that LE would be most interested in. This is why I believe he talked to the CO when the girls were still considered missing. ”The tip” only becomes unusual if it’s viewed as a tip by the CO on RA but thats contrary to encountering “a tip narrative from an officer”.

Early on IIRC police officers from other police departments assisted in recording tips. Due to the vast number of tips received in general, the FBI offered up their Pyramid system. Regardless of the source of the tip, an officer interview with someone, or a tip taken by phone by email, because of the sheer volume only an automated system could cross-reference all that information. But the danger of reliance on generated data is it’s only as reliable as the input.

Right now we can only speculated why RA’s tip was overlooked for so long but it’s not out of this world to me that it was entered incorrectly at the time it was initially received. I recall earlier RA’s tip was mentioned to be “unfounded” and perhaps that was a just tick box checked in error, as opposed to the appropriate one like “urgent - follow up required”. If this is so, I’d be curious how many unfounded tips there were, falling somewhere between space aliens took them or they were sighted at a Walmart parking lot in California. But only this time did a review of all tips going back to the beginning include the category of “unfounded”. JMO

Some of the most damaging evidence against RA (that we know about) is his admissions across his 3 "interviews"

The defence is no doubt going to try to get some or all of this content ruled inadmissible.

So it will be quite significant how this 'tip' was gathered. It seems there is at least a contemporaneous written note of his cell phone device ID - such note could well be critical.

In any event, admissibility is why the circumstances of the tip could be quite critical

 

[mrjitty]

There seems to be uncertainty as to why police
would continue to refer to RA's statement to the
Conservation Officer as 'tips'. Possibly because it
could be reasonably challenged that when RA
agreed to attend an interview and was
interrogated by a law enforcement officer... that
officer failed to miranderize RA. The possible
implications thereby aren't too hard to understand.

It seems unlikely that RA would have been a suspect at the time.

My guess is the defence wants to say that the meeting happened in an informal manner, because the accused is a straight up community guy who wanted to make sure police had this info. Then he never thought to mention it ever again as he was not involved, and somehow over 5 years it was never a thing despite this being a huge mystery.

One problem is going to be how the defence intends to dispute the content of the meeting, if the accused does not give evidence. Or maybe the accused said something a bit different later.

 

[Salah11]

It seems unlikely that RA would have been a suspect at the time.

My guess is the defence wants to say that the meeting happened in an informal manner, because the accused is a straight up community guy who wanted to make sure police had this info. Then he never thought to mention it ever again as he was not involved, and somehow over 5 years it was never a thing despite this being a huge mystery.

One problem is going to be how the defence intends to dispute the content of the meeting, if the accused does not give evidence. Or maybe the accused said something a bit different later.

If this had been flagged straight away he would of been a prime suspect off the bat.

There is no doubt he is BG and he places himself on the bridge literally mIns before the girls.

He obviously only went to the CO because he was known in the community and he must of thought somebody had recognised him.


That’s the red flag here and I wonder if it will be raised or if it’s just me thinking this.

If he was that worried about being spotted why would he commit such a horrific crime in such a small community where he was employed. To me it again points to a spur of the moment crime and then he freaked out and thought if he comes forward then LE would think it was purely coincidental. But the video and audio changed that because he was clearly BG.


Mooo

 

[MistyWaters]

If this had been flagged straight away he would of been a prime suspect off the bat.

There is no doubt he is BG and he places himself on the bridge literally mIns before the girls.

He obviously only went to the CO because he was known in the community and he must of thought somebody had recognised him.


That’s the red flag here and I wonder if it will be raised or if it’s just me thinking this.

If he was that worried about being spotted why would he commit such a horrific crime in such a small community where he was employed. To me it again points to a spur of the moment crime and then he freaked out and thought if he comes forward then LE would think it was purely coincidental. But the video and audio changed that because he was clearly BG.


Mooo

That’s what I think as well and when RA gave his statement the clip from Libby’s video had not yet been released. Without that critical piece of evidence RA wouldn’t have known early on that LE was aware the initial encounter occurred on the bridge at a specific time. Meanwhile RA was probably mainly concerned about seeing the three girls and not knowing if they recognized him, he risked incriminating himself by remaining silent.

At face value, without Libby’s video, his claim to have not seen Libby and Abby on the bridge could’ve potentially moved the timeline forward to create an entirely different sequence of events whereby the girls were already off the bridge down by the creek bank when the killer initially came upon them.

In that ‘down by the river’ scenario I can see why RL would’ve made an ideal fallguy as it was his land. Early on I recall an unsourced rumour floating around, something about RL having chased off somebody down there in the past for trespassing. The unspoken insinuation of course was RL was the murderer because he got fed up with trespassers. Now I admit I’m really curious to know the source of that rumour. Maybe it was RA?

JMO

 

[chaz]

That’s what I think as well and when RA gave his statement the clip from Libby’s video had not yet been released. Without that critical piece of evidence RA wouldn’t have known early on that LE was aware the initial encounter occurred on the bridge at a specific time. Meanwhile RA was probably mainly concerned about seeing the three girls and not knowing if they recognized him, he risked incriminating himself by remaining silent.

At face value, without Libby’s video, his claim to have not seen Libby and Abby on the bridge could’ve potentially moved the timeline forward to create an entirely different sequence of events whereby the girls were already off the bridge down by the creek bank when the killer initially came upon them.

In that ‘down by the river’ scenario I can see why RL would’ve made an ideal fallguy as it was his land. Early on I recall an unsourced rumour floating around, something about RL having chased off somebody down there in the past for trespassing. The unspoken insinuation of course was RL was the murderer because he got fed up with trespassers. Now I admit I’m really curious to know the source of that rumour. Maybe it was RA?

JMO

I believe the rumors came from this police report in the Carrol County Comet:

Police Calls - Carroll County Comet

Police reports are gathered from available records on file at local police departments. This information is a matter of public record and does not imply quilt or innocence. Information for fire reports is also gathered from reports on file with local fire departments. Sheriff’s Dept. April 23...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

"April 26, 9:49 p.m. – Burglary, 5858W. 300N., Delphi. Ron Logan reported finding a person in his barn who was not authorized to be there. The unidentified person fled the barn prior to police arrival. The suspect was not located. Liggett investigated."

 

[minazoe]

In my most whackadoodle meanderings, I cannot find a reasonable explanation for the bullet or his time frame for being on the bridge in identical clothing to that of BG... I don't think any logical person can find a way for all of these pieces to connect eachother in a small span of time. The timing and the virtual confession are solid. mOO

 

[MistyWaters]

I believe the rumors came from this police report in the Carrol County Comet:

Police Calls - Carroll County Comet

Police reports are gathered from available records on file at local police departments. This information is a matter of public record and does not imply quilt or innocence. Information for fire reports is also gathered from reports on file with local fire departments. Sheriff’s Dept. April 23...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

"April 26, 9:49 p.m. – Burglary, 5858W. 300N., Delphi. Ron Logan reported finding a person in his barn who was not authorized to be there. The unidentified person fled the barn prior to police arrival. The suspect was not located. Liggett investigated."

No that’s not what I was recalling, it was about an encounter with other hikers. That police report is from 2014.

 

[mrjitty]

If this had been flagged straight away he would of been a prime suspect off the bat.

RSBM

Yes - but I don't think he would need to be read his Miranda rights before giving the tip. He wasn't in custody.

Maybe we have a lawyer here who can advise on admissibility of statements by the suspect pre-trial

 

[Yvettea]

RA voluntarily offered the information that he was on the bridge and in the area from 1:30 to 3:30. Also that he was parked at an abandoned building in the area. He was not considered a suspect at the time… obviously. This constitutes a tip IMO and would not require reading of Miranda rights. What was done in subsequent interviews could be a problem, again IMO. But not the initial conversation at the supermarket.

The question of why he was not immediately considered a POI (after the conversation) or how the tip was misplaced for so long is a separate issue MOO.

 

[mrjitty]

RA voluntarily offered the information that he was on the bridge and in the area from 1:30 to 3:30. Also that he was parked at an abandoned building in the area. He was not considered a suspect at the time… obviously. This constitutes a tip IMO and would not require reading of Miranda rights. What was done in subsequent interviews could be a problem, again IMO. But not the initial conversation at the supermarket.

The question of why he was not immediately considered a POI (after the conversation) or how the tip was misplaced for so long is a separate issue MOO.

The prosecution has to prove what was said outside the supermarket. I think that will be the contest and thus what contemporaneous note was taken and it’s admissibility.

 

[Salah11]

The prosecution has to prove what was said outside the supermarket. I think that will be the contest and thus what contemporaneous note was taken and it’s admissibility.

RA though when questioned admitted to being on the bridge so why would he deny what was said with the CO as he has never denied being on that bridge.




On October 13th, 2022 Richard Alen was interviewed again by investigators. He advised he was on the trails on February 134, 2017. He stated. he saw juvenile girls on the trails east of Freedom Bridge and that he went onto theMonon High Bridge. Richard Allen further stated he went out onto the Monon High
Bridge to watch fish. Later in his statement, he said he walked out to the first platform on the bridge

 

[CNYDarkStar]

It raises major questions over the entire handling of the case and I’m sure that will be important at Trial.

Because with something so simple not following up what else have they botched is the question of the day.

Moo

It raises no questions for me. This is not unusual and I'm not aware of any case in which an overlooked "tip" resulted in the "wrong" verdict. It just stinks that it took this long.

 

[CNYDarkStar]

RSBM

Yes - but I don't think he would need to be read his Miranda rights before giving the tip. He wasn't in custody.

Maybe we have a lawyer here who can advise on admissibility of statements by the suspect pre-trial

Miranda rights have nothing to do with someone freely and willingly giving information or "tips".

 

[CNYDarkStar]

RA voluntarily offered the information that he was on the bridge and in the area from 1:30 to 3:30. Also that he was parked at an abandoned building in the area. He was not considered a suspect at the time… obviously. This constitutes a tip IMO and would not require reading of Miranda rights. What was done in subsequent interviews could be a problem, again IMO. But not the initial conversation at the supermarket.

The question of why he was not immediately considered a POI (after the conversation) or how the tip was misplaced for so long is a separate issue MOO.

Agreed. These kinds of things happen quite often - "I spoke with the kid who was at the school that day and he was put on the back burner." or, " oh yea, I talked to the ex-wife, she was out of town" - which is why many cases go cold until someone takes another look and catches something.

The POI part is being presumed, that he was not. We simply don't know if that's the case.

 

[Yvettea]

The prosecution has to prove what was said outside the supermarket. I think that will be the contest and thus what contemporaneous note was taken and it’s admissibility.

What needed to happen? Should he have been called back in and repeated the information in an interview room where he was videotaped? When would they need to read him Miranda rights?

He has been interviewed recently and I thought I understood he repeated the information so what is missing?

 

[Salah11]

It raises no questions for me. This is not unusual and I'm not aware of any case in which an overlooked "tip" resulted in the "wrong" verdict. It just stinks that it took this long.

All the mistakes add up though and anywhere his team can score points they will.

It will be interesting to hear what happens in court next week about the gaging order in place.

 

[CNYDarkStar]

All the mistakes add up though and anywhere his team can score points they will.

It will be interesting to hear what happens in court next week about the gaging order in place.

All what mistakes? You must know a lot more about this.