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

[spiritkiss]

So he said he was on the bridge watching the fish?
Cat fishing?

 

[twall]

---

snip-

Work will continue on the Monon High Bridge next. The plan is to add decking and railing to allow people to view the scenery.

Work on a major trail project in Delphi is wrapping up

Phase three of the next level trail project is almost finished.

www.wlfi.com

I believe the project is complete as there are recent videos on YouTube that show the bridge re-done. Not going to post as not sure if approved but easy to find.

 

[mrjitty]

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

Details are going to matter - remember what is in the AA is just a prosecution narrative.

At trial these matters will be subject to competing evidence. RA may even give evidence himself about his movements.

 

[Salah11]

Details are going to matter - remember what is in the AA is just a prosecution narrative.

At trial these matters will be subject to competing evidence. RA may even give evidence himself about his movements.

I don’t think I have watched more than 1 trial ever and that person didn’t take the stand as they knew it would sink them.


If RA took the stand and has now changed his story won’t the jury just think well he is lying to now cover his bum?

 

[MistyWaters]

I don’t think I have watched more than 1 trial ever and that person didn’t take the stand as they knew it would sink them.


If RA took the stand and has now changed his story won’t the jury just think well he is lying to now cover his bum?

I’m still holding out for possibility once the defence receives all the discovery a plea deal to avoid the death penalty will be struck. No good defence would ever allow that to happen before they’ve received the full complete discovery material, which we know hasn’t happened yet. JMO

 

[phantomstrider]

I don’t think I have watched more than 1 trial ever and that person didn’t take the stand as they knew it would sink them.


If RA took the stand and has now changed his story won’t the jury just think well he is lying to now cover his bum?

He might argue try to argue it is was a false confession given under pressure.

 

[Yvettea]

He might argue try to argue it is was a false confession given under pressure.

He hasn’t given a confession.

 

[Laughing]

He hasn’t given a confession.

Not the OP, but seems that RA spoke to a member of LE and "confessed" that he was at the bridge at the time of the double murder.

I don't see pressure, though imho.

 

[TheVisual]

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

Or BW?

 

[phantomstrider]

He hasn’t given a confession.

I meant he might try to argue those were false statements given under pressure

 

[mrjitty]

I don’t think I have watched more than 1 trial ever and that person didn’t take the stand as they knew it would sink them.


If RA took the stand and has now changed his story won’t the jury just think well he is lying to now cover his bum?

The main point is that for AA purposes the prosecution can introduce their evidence in a summary format from one affiant. At trial, it is all subject to proof AND the defence now has the opportunity to see all the evidence against the accused and shape a version that can explain the evidence.

This leaves open several possibilities

1. The accused can argue that evidence is inadmissable. This is unlikely to be successful in terms of the interview at the police station (likely recorded with relevent warnings) but might be sucessful in respect of the informal interviews

2. Accused can dispute the content or meaning of his admissions - e.g in respect of the meeting outside the supermarket - were there contemporaneous notes?

3. Accused can seek to talk his way round the evidence against him now he knows what it is. So in other words, perhaps he can explain how he never saw the 2 victims because he was otherwise distracted or due to carefully constructed timings etc?

Obviously inconsistency across his versions will be a problem - hence the need to attack those interviews

IMO

 

[MissUnderstood]

if RA was just out for a leisurely stroll to watch fish and check the stock market why did he drive a d park at an abandoned building when he only lives a few minutes away from the trails? That seems strange too me. Was he meant to be somewhere else and couldn’t leave his car at home? I take my dog to the dog park which is about the same distance and driving there would seem counter productive if my goal was exercise and fresh air! Might just be me though lol

 

[Justice101]

if RA was just out for a leisurely stroll to watch fish and check the stock market why did he drive a d park at an abandoned building when he only lives a few minutes away from the trails? That seems strange too me. Was he meant to be somewhere else and couldn’t leave his car at home? I take my dog to the dog park which is about the same distance and driving there would seem counter productive if my goal was exercise and fresh air! Might just be me though lol

of course we all know why because he didn't do either of those things. the bridge is too tall to see even large carp at that height.. and I'll bet he didn't have his phone even on due to worry about being tracked later.

 

[CNYDarkStar]

I meant he might try to argue those were false statements given under pressure

What statements? Is there more information out there other than what he told the CO?

 

[CNYDarkStar]

The main point is that for AA purposes the prosecution can introduce their evidence in a summary format from one affiant. At trial, it is all subject to proof AND the defence now has the opportunity to see all the evidence against the accused and shape a version that can explain the evidence.

This leaves open several possibilities

1. The accused can argue that evidence is inadmissable. This is unlikely to be successful in terms of the interview at the police station (likely recorded with relevent warnings) but might be sucessful in respect of the informal interviews

2. Accused can dispute the content or meaning of his admissions - e.g in respect of the meeting outside the supermarket - were there contemporaneous notes?

3. Accused can seek to talk his way round the evidence against him now he knows what it is. So in other words, perhaps he can explain how he never saw the 2 victims because he was otherwise distracted or due to carefully constructed timings etc?

Obviously inconsistency across his versions will be a problem - hence the need to attack those interviews

IMO

I fail to see any wiggle room with his statements. None that would make any bit of rational sense anyway.

 

[mrjitty]

I fail to see any wiggle room with his statements. None that would make any bit of rational sense anyway.

I get this might seem overly technical - but we have not seen his statements.

e.g the Oct 13 "interview' on the day of the search - where was this interview? Outside RAs house? Was it recorded?

e.g the tip narrative - I am assuming this is notes from the officer - how contemporaneous/accurate were they?

What appears in the PCA is a narrative summary of what the state intends to prove - but we don't know how much wiggle room there is. Hopefully everything was recorded!

 

[CNYDarkStar]

I get this might seem overly technical - but we have not seen his statements.

e.g the Oct 13 "interview' on the day of the search - where was this interview? Outside RAs house? Was it recorded?

e.g the tip narrative - I am assuming this is notes from the officer - how contemporaneous/accurate were they?

What appears in the PCA is a narrative summary of what the state intends to prove - but we don't know how much wiggle room there is. Hopefully everything was recorded!

True. I'm simply referring to the information given to the CO he saw at the store. Some are calling it a "witness statement" others a "tip". Either way, there is no way for him to spin it or change it or anything without making it look worse/guilty etc.

 

[PawneeDew]

I was really excited about the marks on the bullet, but now I'm not. I never followed the Diane Downs case, but I just read Anne Rule's book about it and then read some other articles. If you don't know about Diane, she was convicted of murdering one of her children and attempting to murder the other two. The info about the gun was in the last chapter. I'm not sure if it was in the original book or if it was in an updated edition.

Anyways, during the investigation, her ex-husband gave LE the serial number of a gun he could not find and LE decided that was the gun she must have used. The gun was never found.

So, LE searched her home and found an unfired bullet with marks on it. They compared it to the marks on the casings from the crime scene, said they matched and an expert testified that they matched at trial.

After the trial, her dad ran a classified ad looking for the gun and offered a reward. The guy who had the gun responded. He'd always had it, so it could not have been used in the murders.

This was a LONG time ago, and maybe the examination methods have improved in that time. If not, it seems like total junk science.

Oh, wow. I didn't know that about Diane Down's case...

 

[Prime8]

This was a LONG time ago, and maybe the examination methods have improved in that time. If not, it seems like total junk science.

I think it's important to note the difference between what's considered a scientific fact and what is considered an opinion by an expert. Part of some evidence being considered "junk science" is the misuse of expert opinions in drawing conclusions. Example: Expert 1 says that the markings on the casings match. Expert 2 says that the markings on the casings match and therefore only the suspect could be the killer. That's a lot of what needs to be cleaned up when presenting this type of evidence - drawing conclusions can sometimes be the junk, not the actual comparison.

 

[Falling Down]

if RA was just out for a leisurely stroll to watch fish and check the stock market why did he drive a d park at an abandoned building when he only lives a few minutes away from the trails? That seems strange too me. Was he meant to be somewhere else and couldn’t leave his car at home? I take my dog to the dog park which is about the same distance and driving there would seem counter productive if my goal was exercise and fresh air! Might just be me though lol

From the house to the main trail by the Freedom Bridge he would have had to cut through town, the highway is a barrier of sorts. That would be a lot of effort to pull off what he did, plus he was carrying a gun and some items.