Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #162

[FrostedGlass]

Sorry if this has already been posted. From RA's case; his hearing is still 02/17.

01/27/2023

Order Issued Confidential Order entered Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

 

[mrjitty]

One would think if that was the case, it would be written like this: three juveniles, Jane, Ann and Judy. So there would be 3 redactions, not 2. Maybe the LE that made out the PCA just left out a space. Since one of the witnesses claimed to see 4 juveniles, it make sense to me that maybe one of them was a little bit older but looked young.

The other thing I'm thinking is maybe they didn't want to name the juveniles in the PCA, knowing it would be public.

IMO that whole section is talking about what the 3 juvenile girls saw, and runs through their evidence. it is their 3 names that are redacted. You can tell because it keeps referring back to what the group did. I agree the way it is redacted is confusing.

 

[FrostedGlass]

IMO that whole section is talking about what the 3 juvenile girls saw, and runs through their evidence. it is their 3 names that are redacted. You can tell because it keeps referring back to what the group did. I agree the way it is redacted is confusing.

So do we agree that the woman who claimed to have seen RA on the bridge platform was the same one who claimed to have seen 4 juveniles? Was she mistaken when she said there were 4?

 

[mrjitty]

So do we agree that the woman who claimed to have seen RA on the bridge platform was the same one who claimed to have seen 4 juveniles? Was she mistaken when she said there were 4?

The section on the 3 juveniles concludes

The girls advised after encountering the male they continued their walk across Freedom Bridge and the old railroad bridge over OldState Road 25.

So I believe that section is all their evidence, and it is their three names redacted.

The picture taker is one of the 3 Juveniles IMO.

I don't know of any dog walker.

And yes - I think she may have seen "the 3 juveniles" but remembered 4

 

[Boxer]

This is what puzzles me, as I can't reconcile it in my head.

Lets say there was one burner phone in the tower dump that they couldn't trace. Was it the case that they couldn't get tower dumps for it on other days, to map the movements of this user? (lack of PC)

More like there were multiple phones they couldn't trace, and thus they just lacked PC to pull all records for all the town over many weeks to drill down?

MOO they had the numbers, if there was a burner that couldn’t be traced that seems enough PC to keep investigating.

 

[Justice101]

OK, we have the following evidence:
1) RA placing himself near the bridge on the same date and approximate hours. (direct evidence)
2) Eyewitnesses see RA on the trail at the time. (direct evidence)
3) Eyewitness seeing man dressed the same but muddy and bloody on road heading back to his car. (direct evidence)
3) Unspent bullet with similar markings of gun found at RA's residence. (circumstantial evidence)

What is your guess as to the other evidence that the prosecution either has or will have by time of trial or discovery?

 

[Boxer]

So do we agree that the woman who claimed to have seen RA on the bridge platform was the same one who claimed to have seen 4 juveniles? Was she mistaken when she said there were 4?

She saw a random group of girls crossing the bridge that goes over i25, on her way to a quick walk on the trail.
It’s basically very astute to have noticed and remembered them at all.

 

[FrostedGlass]

The section on the 3 juveniles concludes



So I believe that section is all their evidence, and it is their three names redacted.

The picture taker is one of the 3 Juveniles IMO.

I don't know of any dog walker.

And yes - I think she may have seen "the 3 juveniles" but remembered 4

Thank you, I appreciate your reply. We've looked closely at other redacted documenns, going so far as to measure them to try to fit a name inside them. But I'll go along with the notion it's just an oddity in this PC. I'll also agree that it's possible for witness 4 to have remembered something that wasn't there; I did it with the dog.

I've gone over what all the witnesses said again; one said he didn't show his face, one said he had something covering his mouth, one said she didn't get a good look at him but she believed him to be a white male. and the 4th one only described his clothing. So where did the drawings of BG come from? Are to assume there are other witnesses we know nothing about?

 

[pseudo_hum]

So do we agree that the woman who claimed to have seen RA on the bridge platform was the same one who claimed to have seen 4 juveniles? Was she mistaken when she said there were 4?

As I remember she saw them while driving under the highway bridge (FB), perhaps another a person was on the bridge at the same time? And she thought they were together?

 

[Boxer]

Thank you, I appreciate your reply. We've looked closely at other redacted documenns, going so far as to measure them to try to fit a name inside them. But I'll go along with the notion it's just an oddity in this PC. I'll also agree that it's possible for witness 4 to have remembered something that wasn't there; I did it with the dog.

I've gone over what all the witnesses said again; one said he didn't show his face, one said he had something covering his mouth, one said she didn't get a good look at him but she believed him to be a white male. and the 4th one only described his clothing. So where did the drawings of BG come from? Are to assume there are other witnesses we know nothing about?

He said he saw the girls on the trail so it’s him. A drawing would be generated, but hard to say if the girls remembered a lot of physical detail, they seem to mostly remember his vibe. But in any case they saw RA.

 

[somequestions]

I don't think we know the answer to this. Nor the status of the statement he seems to have given to officers on the 13th - was that just an informal chat? is it on video?

I think my point was that when police show up to execute a search warrant on your home due to your potential involvement in one of the most publicized double murder mysteries ever, wouldn't that be the time you would stop talking to police?

Only Richard Allen knows if he is the murderer. Maybe he is a very unique and confident criminal? I understand it is highly unlikely in a case like this that police would arrest the wrong person. But it would have been better to have something in the probable cause affidavit that made people think with certainty police have the right person. Until the case finishes the judicial process, we will probably not find out what other evidence police have that makes them think they have the right person.

When I first heard about an arrest in this case, I thought it was solved. Now I am not so sure.

 

[MistyWaters]

OK, we have the following evidence:
1) RA placing himself near the bridge on the same date and approximate hours. (direct evidence)
2) Eyewitnesses see RA on the trail at the time. (direct evidence)
3) Eyewitness seeing man dressed the same but muddy and bloody on road heading back to his car. (direct evidence)
3) Unspent bullet with similar markings of gun found at RA's residence. (circumstantial evidence)

What is your guess as to the other evidence that the prosecution either has or will have by time of trial or discovery?

No witness immediately reported to LE the identity of the man they saw was without a doubt RA - his association is solely based on inference and presumption - we assume it must’ve been him, so that is not direct evidence IMO. Same as Libby’s video of a man on a bridge who was not immediately identified as RA.

Equally contrary to RA’s identity is the two descriptions which LE literally insisted was their suspect. To put such heavy certainty on a suspect having such a true likeness to a sketch was a big mistake by LE IMO and it will be interesting to see how the prosecution backtracks their way out of that.

What other additional evidence the prosecution presents will have to prove as significant to a conviction as the defence‘s attempt to create reasonable doubt over the timeline, if that’s the best evidence the prosecution has to place him at the crime scene.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

He said he saw the girls on the trail so it’s him. A drawing would be generated, but hard to say if the girls remembered a lot of physical detail, they seem to mostly remember his vibe. But in any case they saw RA.

You know, this is something that really nags at me about these murders. Assuming RA is BG and the abductor/murderer, he committed the crimes fully knowing that those three juvenile girls had seen his face, and would be able to place him on the trail heading toward the direction of the bridge shortly before the crimes. Whether the murders were planned or opportunistic, the girls described him as on a mission, and clearly the fact that someone had seen him was not a deterrent. It's crazy to me.

In regards to the phone issue, he offered the phone details up to the CO, so I think there was a reason for that. A hopeful alibi, perhaps. If the crimes were planned, maybe he really did look at a stock ticker, but then at some point turned the phone off, or hid it somewhere (maybe around the bench he later claims to have been sitting on), thinking if LE ever looked at his phone data, they'd see he was elsewhere on the trail. He didn't necessarily know how precise cell tower pings were. Although, this is probably unlikely because he would have later had to retrieve the phone, so who knows. JMO. Maybe knowing the three girls had seen him prompted him to do this with his phone. IDK...

If he only had a burner phone, though, I don't think he would have told the CO he was using a phone at all. Especially if he knew LE might get his phone data. Phone records would contradict his story, in that case. However, if he did have a burner phone (maybe besides his regular phone) then my question would be why even have a burner phone? I would be concerned that it might suggest he was contacting other people, monitoring SM or otherwise communicating with the girls, and/or using a recording function. What other purpose would there be to have one along that day?

 

[MistyWaters]

You know, this is something that really nags at me about these murders. Assuming RA is BG and the abductor/murderer, he committed the crimes fully knowing that those three juvenile girls had seen his face, and would be able to place him on the trail heading toward the direction of the bridge shortly before the crimes. Whether the murders were planned or opportunistic, the girls described him as on a mission, and clearly the fact that someone had seen him was not a deterrent. It's crazy to me.

In regards to the phone issue, he offered the phone details up to the CO, so I think there was a reason for that. A hopeful alibi, perhaps. If the crimes were planned, maybe he really did look at a stock ticker, but then at some point turned the phone off, or hid it somewhere (maybe around the bench he later claims to have been sitting on), thinking if LE ever looked at his phone data, they'd see he was elsewhere on the trail. He didn't necessarily know how precise cell tower pings were. Although, this is probably unlikely because he would have later had to retrieve the phone, so who knows. JMO. Maybe knowing the three girls had seen him prompted him to do this with his phone. IDK...

If he only had a burner phone, though, I don't think he would have told the CO he was using a phone at all. Especially if he knew LE might get his phone data. Phone records would contradict his story, in that case. However, if he did have a burner phone (maybe besides his regular phone) then my question would be why even have a burner phone? I would be concerned that it might suggest he was contacting other people, monitoring SM or otherwise communicating with the girls, and/or using a recording function. What other purpose would there be to have one along that day?

Good point, if RA had with him a burner phone why admit it?

The topic of a burner phone comes up in virtually every crime. To my understanding, burner phones are used to make untraceable phone calls, why drug dealers and users are mostly associated with them. Doubtful Libby reset her phone a 2nd time that same day, at least it’s not been mentioned and anyway if she was talking on her cellphone with anybody suspicious, her cellphone service provider would reveal unknown numbers. Usage of burner phones is sometimes presumed to be totally untraceable but according to this article the function is very limited and burner phones cannot be used for apps.

What is A Burner Phone & Why Do People Use Them?

You’ve seen and heard about burner phones in movies and TV shows, but what are they and how are they different from normal phones?

www.knowyourmobile.com

“The ability to use and discard them is what makes them so attractive to criminals, prisoners, and anyone that wants to stay off the grid. The only downside to a burner phone is that they’re very limited with respect to features.

You cannot run apps on them, nor do they have an internet connection. They’re basically feature phones, the kind of cellphones that most people used in the 1990s, before the rise of smartphones.”

 

[TL4S]

Good point, if RA had with him a burner phone why admit it?

The topic of a burner phone comes up in virtually every crime. To my understanding, burner phones are used to make untraceable phone calls, why drug dealers and users are mostly associated with them. Doubtful Libby reset her phone a 2nd time that same day, at least it’s not been mentioned and anyway if she was talking on her cellphone with anybody suspicious, her cellphone service provider would reveal unknown numbers. Usage of burner phones is sometimes presumed to be totally untraceable but according to this article the function is very limited and burner phones cannot be used for apps.

What is A Burner Phone & Why Do People Use Them?

You’ve seen and heard about burner phones in movies and TV shows, but what are they and how are they different from normal phones?

www.knowyourmobile.com

“The ability to use and discard them is what makes them so attractive to criminals, prisoners, and anyone that wants to stay off the grid. The only downside to a burner phone is that they’re very limited with respect to features.

You cannot run apps on them, nor do they have an internet connection. They’re basically feature phones, the kind of cellphones that most people used in the 1990s, before the rise of smartphones.”

Thanks for this information. I didn't realize those phones didn't have internet. I've never bought into the idea of the killer having a burner phone, although I can see it better fitting into a scenario where the killer wanted to take photos or something, I suppose (I've heard they can have cameras). And with the RL affidavit showing the FBI mention memorializing photos as a possibility, I'm more apt to consider it. It's also possible, if he had one, that he used it to communicate with "other actors," if there are any.

But the CO took RA's regular cell phone information down. Maybe RA didn't know the CO would do that when he told him he'd been on the trail and used his phone, but I still think he did have his regular phone then, and used it, or he wouldn't have mentioned it to the CO. There was really no point in giving that detail, otherwise. By now, LE likely knows whether he used it or not, anyway.

Now, if we find out RA did have a burner on him that day, even if he also had his regular phone, it will look suspicious as hell. JMO.

 

[Marzipan]

I think my point was that when police show up to execute a search warrant on your home due to your potential involvement in one of the most publicized double murder mysteries ever, wouldn't that be the time you would stop talking to police?

Only Richard Allen knows if he is the murderer. Maybe he is a very unique and confident criminal? I understand it is highly unlikely in a case like this that police would arrest the wrong person. But it would have been better to have something in the probable cause affidavit that made people think with certainty police have the right person. Until the case finishes the judicial process, we will probably not find out what other evidence police have that makes them think they have the right person.

When I first heard about an arrest in this case, I thought it was solved. Now I am not so sure.

If he really wants to be helpful, I hope he will take the stand at trial!

 

[Niner]

If he really wants to be helpful, I hope he will take the stand at trial!

Or take a plea deal... & wavier of any appeals.

 

[FrostedGlass]

You know, this is something that really nags at me about these murders. Assuming RA is BG and the abductor/murderer, he committed the crimes fully knowing that those three juvenile girls had seen his face, and would be able to place him on the trail heading toward the direction of the bridge shortly before the crimes. Whether the murders were planned or opportunistic, the girls described him as on a mission, and clearly the fact that someone had seen him was not a deterrent. It's crazy to me.

In regards to the phone issue, he offered the phone details up to the CO, so I think there was a reason for that. A hopeful alibi, perhaps. If the crimes were planned, maybe he really did look at a stock ticker, but then at some point turned the phone off, or hid it somewhere (maybe around the bench he later claims to have been sitting on), thinking if LE ever looked at his phone data, they'd see he was elsewhere on the trail. He didn't necessarily know how precise cell tower pings were. Although, this is probably unlikely because he would have later had to retrieve the phone, so who knows. JMO. Maybe knowing the three girls had seen him prompted him to do this with his phone. IDK...

If he only had a burner phone, though, I don't think he would have told the CO he was using a phone at all. Especially if he knew LE might get his phone data. Phone records would contradict his story, in that case. However, if he did have a burner phone (maybe besides his regular phone) then my question would be why even have a burner phone? I would be concerned that it might suggest he was contacting other people, monitoring SM or otherwise communicating with the girls, and/or using a recording function. What other purpose would there be to have one along that day?

One has to wonder if he was so stupid that his actions bordered on crazy or was he criminally savvy enough to cover some of his tracks in such a high profile case. It's odd behavior for someone who has never committed a criminal act in his entire adult life(to our knowledge).

He has talked 3 times to LE without the benefit of an attorney. Have the investigators been able to trick him into divulging the answers that only the murderer would know? Did they dig up the family's pet cat and find its DNA matched DNA at the crime scene? Does he have an alibi for any time between 1:30 and 3:30 on Feb 13?
So many questions and no answers.

 

[MistyWaters]

I’m in a melancholy mode reflecting back over time, how speculation has driven this case to be essentially solved several times.

Initially it was RL, his blue jacket, walking with hands in his pockets, maybe the arrest for parole violation was simply to buy time for building murder charges against him? Back in the day discussion was very heated, some were so utterly convinced it was him, had the PC for the search been released the threads here would’ve been burning red hot!

Next came DN and alleged proof came from various direction that it must be him, this went on it seemed for the longest while. Surely he was camping out under the bridge, discovered the girls and no doubt the murder was committed with an axe?

JBC was next on the conviction list as his self-incriminating FB posts were as much an irrefutable confession there could ever be. Trial by FB, no other evidenced required.

And then not to overlook DC’s frequent biblical references? Was he deliberately leaking subtle clues that a leading suspect was closely associated to religion?

Then of course KAK, IMO a nobody who thrived on the negative attention he gained through the possibility he was directly or indirectly connected to the crime, maybe even helpfully fed LE information leading to the arrest of RA? Which IMO serves to detract from the despicable CSAM acts he allegedly committed and subsequently was charged with.

Now there’s finally been an arrest but the question is will it result in a successful conviction? Who’s got the crystal ball? RA‘s name never appeared on the suspect-of-the-day list, which could be a learning experience in that we never know - and still don’t know - all that LE knows (or should know, had it not been for a bungled data filing situation). But still, I can’t recall any not guilty verdicts because LE took too long to identify the defendant as a suspect. Now it’s a waiting game…the trial will be many months, possibly years down the road.

Collectively our WS speculation track record hasn’t been bang on, probably a good thing it didn’t result in any wrongful convictions. lol

 

[Prime8]

One has to wonder if he was so stupid that his actions bordered on crazy or was he criminally savvy enough to cover some of his tracks in such a high profile case. It's odd behavior for someone who has never committed a criminal act in his entire adult life(to our knowledge).

He has talked 3 times to LE without the benefit of an attorney. Have the investigators been able to trick him into divulging the answers that only the murderer would know? Did they dig up the family's pet cat and find its DNA matched DNA at the crime scene? Does he have an alibi for any time between 1:30 and 3:30 on Feb 13?
So many questions and no answers.

After hearing about BK who was arrested for the Idaho killings, I don't think it will surprise me anymore the mistakes that violent criminals make. He had an undergraduate degree in cloud-based forensics and was a PhD student and still brought his phone with him and then conveniently turned it off during the times of the murders (which looks even worse). You would think at least that guy could get it right. I believe people make silly mistakes, probably based on the excitement of the moment and the a lot of stalking probably happened prior to the crime so there wasn't a lot of pre-planning immediately prior to the crime in terms of logistic.