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

[phantomstrider]

Us

How about eye witnesses, RA self confession to being on the bridge at the time Abby & Libby disappeared, being seen parking at the approx time the girls arrived, admitting to being on the bridge, being seen walking along the gravel road bloody and muddy back to his car backed into an abandoned business?

Also, we have RA confessing to owning and wearing clothing similar to BG on that day, which was confiscated at the time of search, his auto was towed for forensic investigation, a weapon he admits to owning, never loaning out, never stolen, never having been in the location of where the girls were found but yet an unspent cartridge lying feet between the poor girls..

I'd say there's a lot more than an unspent bullet cartridge. Plus, what we DON"T know about. I feel good about the States case.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

The defense imo could contest a lot of that evidence including the muddy bloody witness and the gun cartridge. They need something more direct like dna or fingerprints that puts him at the crime scene. The case against Richard Allen is purely circumstantial and isn’t as strong the case against Brian Kohberger for example.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Us

The defense imo could contest a lot of that evidence including the muddy bloody witness and the gun cartridge. They need something more direct like dna or fingerprints that puts him at the crime scene. The case against Richard Allen is purely circumstantial and isn’t as strong the case against Brian Kohberger for example.

Circumstantial evidence carries as much weight as direct evidence in a court of law. It is up to the jury to weigh the values of each.

I personally think they might have some type of DNA connection, which would be great. We don't know all of the evidence in either the RA or BK cases yet, I expect we'll see some big surprises.

MOO

 

[UnapologeticallyAspie]

bug spray & sun screen at the ready, here.

Do you think LE knows who this person is? Do we know who it is?

 

[CNYDarkStar]

I have seen cases where the suspect is convicted by a jury and the evidence comes out later for the public to judge. Even when the evidence is overwhelming as to their guilt, the person will still say they are innocent of the crime. I think this is why it is so sad when someone who truly is innocent ends up in prison.

When the crime first happened, I thought it would be solved quickly. It wasn't.

When the arrest affidavit came out, I thought there would be at least one piece of solid evidence against Richard Allen. There wasn't. The unspent bullet is interesting, but I do not know enough about the research to come to a solid conclusion about what it means.

I know it is very unlikely police arrested the wrong person because the main evidence against Richard Allen has not been released. I guess you have to trust the police and prosecution that he is the right person. But I have my doubts sometimes. Only Richard Allen knows if he is the right person.

The thought has to cross your mind: What if police arrested the wrong person? What if the real killer is still out there?

He isn't.

 

[CNYDarkStar]

RA reportedly told the conservation officer that he was on the trail between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m on 2/13/17 and that he parked at the ‘old Farm Bureau building’.

So… if RA was just being a helpful citizen when he came forward right after the murders, then why didn’t he come forward again when ISP asked for help in 2019?

• A car was parked in the abandoned CPS building parking lot between the hours of noon and 5:00 p.m. on February 13, 2017
  • We are looking for anyone who could give a description of vehicles that were in the parking lot during the time.

Indiana State Police releases clarification points on Delphi murder suspect

DELPHI, Ind. -- The Indiana State Police have released clarification points and number of tips received related to the 2017 murders of Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi.Their Multi-Agency Task Forc

www.abc57.com

He couldn't find his CO friend.

 

[CNYDarkStar]

Idk how much I believe the muddy and bloody witness though I feel like that will be the easiest witness for the defense to argue against.

You're probably right there. Hopefully this witness is very strong, certain and unwavering. But most of all truthful.

 

[CNYDarkStar]

Oh, yes, did he volunteer where he had parked? And why he parked there...

And also, while admitting to being there that day, and during the exact minutes in question, on the very bridge where it began, how did he manage not to see the look-alike who would have had to be on the bridge at the very same time, and how, pray tell, did he manage not to see the girls? Glued to his phone, was he? While the girls passed him on the bridge, unnoticed. While his uncanny doppelganger shared oxygen with him?

Sheesh. At least cough up a bushy haired mountain man or an insatiable mountain lion.

What was his theory of the crime? Must have been just sick to have been right there but failed to prevent the girls from being hurt.

'Sif.

You'd think a person like that would give every interview he could. You know, helping LE narrow down the timeline and all.

He himself placed himself as the only man there.

Didn't see the girls, dintya? They saw you.

Welp.

Or as I prefer to spell it -- LWOP.

JMO

All great points. Fortunately for LE and justice, he didn't think it all the way through.

 

[mrjitty]

Circumstantial evidence carries as much weight as direct evidence in a court of law. It is up to the jury to weigh the values of each.

RSBM - right I don't know why this talking point comes up?

For instance, forensic and DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence!

Also this case has direct evidence! Witnesses!

And in general, circumstantial evidence (e.g. DNA) is regarded as more powerful than direct ...

 

[mrjitty]

MS put up a new podcast yesterday in which attorney Shay Hughes talks about this case:
The Delphi Murders: A Conversation with the Hoosier Public Defender

At the 18mm, he addresses the felony murder charge. In his opinion, it doesn't make sense why they charged it; plain murder is easier to convict. However, the FM charge will make this LWOP or death penalty eligible if they prove aggravating circumstances.

His opinion is that they will likely not seek either. DP is very expensive to try and at RA's age, LWOP makes little sense. If I'm understanding what he said, prosecution still must prove RA murdered them.

We discussed this a lot in detail in previous threads - i forget the user names of the attorneys who posted.

One reason why it might be charged the way it is - they have the kidnapping on camera. Then the girls are found murdered where Bridge Guy took them.

In which case the prosecution need only really prove the identity of Bridge Guy.

The Jury will infer that Bridge Guy murdered the girls, or was directly involved in the murders. I think the defence will also agree "Bridge Guy" did it.

 

[Bergmann]

Circumstantial evidence carries as much weight as direct evidence in a court of law. It is up to the jury to weigh the values of each.

I'd agree with the proviso of 'it CAN carry as much weight..' . The issue with circumstantial evidence is more to do with the contestability and the degree with with the defence can insert doubt into its validity, which in turn influences how the jury weigh it.

However direct evidence like DNA that places him at the scene of the crime (for example the girls DNA from blood samples on his jacket etc) is much stronger evidence placing him directly at the scene of the crime, AND is harder for the defence to refute.

If the prosecution don't have direct evidence that absolutely pins him to the crime scene (and I mean where they were murdered versus on the bridge) then the defence can say that the state's case is weak because given the unusual and bloody crime scene the prosecution still can't definitively place RA there and so on.

I know overall big picture there is a weight that comes from the aggregate of other witness testimony etc but I really fear for the certainty of the trial outcome if that is what the prosecution's case rests on - because all of that is certainly open for contesting by the defence.

 

[Salah11]

Us

The defense imo could contest a lot of that evidence including the muddy bloody witness and the gun cartridge. They need something more direct like dna or fingerprints that puts him at the crime scene. The case against Richard Allen is purely circumstantial and isn’t as strong the case against Brian Kohberger for example.

Even just from the little we know it’s strong circumstantial evidence and we literally know very little.

He has admitted to being on the bridge literally moments before the girls. There is a witness who passes the girls walking to the bridge and she has has literally just turned around after seeing RA on the bridge. We are talking 1/2 mins so if as he claims he didn’t see the young girls how did he miss them?

 

[steeltowngirl]

Even just from the little we know it’s strong circumstantial evidence and we literally know very little.

He has admitted to being on the bridge literally moments before the girls. There is a witness who passes the girls walking to the bridge and she has has literally just turned around after seeing RA on the bridge. We are talking 1/2 mins so if as he claims he didn’t see the young girls how did he miss them?

He was busy looking at the stock tickers on his phone.

Another example of RA explaining away the inexplicable, IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

I'd agree with the proviso of 'it CAN carry as much weight..' . The issue with circumstantial evidence is more to do with the contestability and the degree with with the defence can insert doubt into its validity, which in turn influences how the jury weigh it.

However direct evidence like DNA that places him at the scene of the crime (for example the girls DNA from blood samples on his jacket etc) is much stronger evidence placing him directly at the scene of the crime, AND is harder for the defence to refute.

If the prosecution don't have direct evidence that absolutely pins him to the crime scene (and I mean where they were murdered versus on the bridge) then the defence can say that the state's case is weak because given the unusual and bloody crime scene the prosecution still can't definitively place RA there and so on.

I know overall big picture there is a weight that comes from the aggregate of other witness testimony etc but I really fear for the certainty of the trial outcome if that is what the prosecution's case rests on - because all of that is certainly open for contesting by the defence.

BIB

It seems posters are getting confused between circumstantial and direct evidence, which is understandable as the terms get so loosely used.

Technically Forensic evidence is circumstantial not direct. i.e. it allows you to infer something.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For example, a forensic scientist or forensic engineer may provide results of tests indicating that bullets were fired from a defendant's gun, or that a car was traveling over the speed limit, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the gun or was driving the car.

Wiki

So in this case, the tool marks of the unspent bullet may allow us to infer it was in the defendant's gun, and thus he was the killer.

DNA evidence could be used to prove that the accused was at the crime scene, and thus you can infer he is in the murderer from other evidence - but that is technically circumstantial. Whereas using DNA for a paternity test directly proves whether you are the mother/father or not without inference.

So while I agree DNA evidence is powerful because it can place RA 'directly' at the crime scene - this is an example of circumstantial evidence.

02c

 

[arielilane]

IMO, the Carhartt jacket will be key evidence in this case… ​

​

Probable Cause - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Probable Cause defined and explained with examples. Probable Cause is a reasonable ground to suppose that a charge of criminal conduct is well-founded.

legaldictionary.net

Definition of Probable Cause​

Noun

1. A reasonable ground to suppose that a charge of criminal conduct is well-founded.
2. The right of a police officer to make an arrest, issue a warrant, or search a person or his property.

 

[Salah11]

He was busy looking at the stock tickers on his phone.

Another example of RA explaining away the inexplicable, IMO.

Yep and he can try and deny what he said but a Witness placed him on Platform 1 and he also confirmed he walked out to Platform One so no amount of denial is gonna change those facts IMO

 

[iamnotagolem]

IMO, the Carhartt jacket will be key evidence in this case… ​

​

Probable Cause - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Probable Cause defined and explained with examples. Probable Cause is a reasonable ground to suppose that a charge of criminal conduct is well-founded.

legaldictionary.net

Definition of Probable Cause​

Noun

1. A reasonable ground to suppose that a charge of criminal conduct is well-founded.
2. The right of a police officer to make an arrest, issue a warrant, or search a person or his property.

Only if he still has the same jacket. I have to think he wasn’t that stupid and most likely purchased an identical one and destroyed the old one without his wife’s knowledge.

 

[Salah11]

Only if he still has the same jacket. I have to think he wasn’t that stupid and most likely purchased an identical one and destroyed the old one without his wife’s knowledge.

Yes I know he seems moronic but even he couldn’t of surely of kept the same jacket. Unless he liked the power it gave him to wear the same jacket out and about years after the fact but it would be so risky.

If by some miracle the same coat then it must of Been washed loads and anything of value lost?!

IMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

We discussed this a lot in detail in previous threads - i forget the user names of the attorneys who posted.

One reason why it might be charged the way it is - they have the kidnapping on camera. Then the girls are found murdered where Bridge Guy took them.

In which case the prosecution need only really prove the identity of Bridge Guy.

The Jury will infer that Bridge Guy murdered the girls, or was directly involved in the murders. I think the defence will also agree "Bridge Guy" did it.

I remember parts of those discussions and my take-away was that they only needed to prove that he participated in the crime versus actually committing it. However Shay Hughes only talked about using the (2) Murder charge to make his case eligible for LWOP or DP.

One of the murder cases I follow was charged with (1) Murder but was sentenced to LWOP due to aggravating factors. So apparently a (2) Murder charge is not needed for LWOP? I'll have to double check but I'm thinking that all of the (2) M cases I've followed were sentenced only to years.

As a side note, Shay Hughes was Chadwell's attorney. I'm assuming he knows a lot about this case.

 

[UnapologeticallyAspie]

We discussed this a lot in detail in previous threads - i forget the user names of the attorneys who posted.

One reason why it might be charged the way it is - they have the kidnapping on camera. Then the girls are found murdered where Bridge Guy took them.

In which case the prosecution need only really prove the identity of Bridge Guy.

The Jury will infer that Bridge Guy murdered the girls, or was directly involved in the murders. I think the defence will also agree "Bridge Guy" did it.

IIRC @gitana1 is one of the attorneys that you’re referring to.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I remember parts of those discussions and my take-away was that they only needed to prove that he participated in the crime versus actually committing it. However Shay Hughes only talked about using the (2) Murder charge to make his case eligible for LWOP or DP.

One of the murder cases I follow was charged with (1) Murder but was sentenced to LWOP due to aggravating factors. So apparently a (2) Murder charge is not needed for LWOP? I'll have to double check but I'm thinking that all of the (2) M cases I've followed were sentenced only to years.

As a side note, Shay Hughes was Chadwell's attorney. I'm assuming he knows a lot about this case.

Are all the other murder cases you are checking on from Indiana?
Different states have different ways of defining types of murder and the charges and sentences possible.