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

[Bergmann]

5 years of investigation has revealed the catfishing accounts and connection, the shared dropbox and passwords and accounts, a widespread CSAM ring, and IMO, that is going to yield means and motive to the sick opportunity one twisted individual took advantage of on 2/13/2017.

But isn't that all part of the KAK investigation? How is this going to be deemed relevant and admissible unless a link between that case and this one is proven beyond the mere speculation we have seen so far?

I may be alone in this but I'm glad RA wasn't arrested back in 2017. The sum of evidence might've been his admission to being there, the video of GDTH, the bullet and blasted little else. A man with no criminal record, a random double murder. He might have walked.

But if we exclude the KAK link which I think we have to for now at least, isn't that situation and sum of known evidence precisely where we are now?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Good post. You said you welcomed comments so I'll just say that I don't find the Witness #4 as problematic as you do. Just to play devil's advocate here - you say it's not a favorable light for her for the affidavit to say that the man she saw on a platform on the bridge was consistent with the man in Libby's video. I'd suggest that the way that part of the PCA is worded does not necessarily mean that she told officers "my observation is consistent with the video" and that she had already seen the video or photos from the video. It could also mean that whatever she told them (could have even been on the 14th) was later judged by officers to be consistent with what the video ultimately showed. In addition, the photo of BG was released on February 15th, just one day after the bodies were found. So while your interpretation could be correct, it doesn't necessarily mean she took days to come forward.


As to why she drove there and took such a short walk, again, I don't find that terribly strange - maybe she's elderly, rehabbing from an injury, or was just taking a pet for a short walk. Just because she went there to walk or exercise does not necessarily mean it was vigorous exercise or supposed to take a long time. So I think we run the danger of reading too much into that part of the PCA and finding it suspicious without knowing the full details.

I agree that her saying she saw 4 juveniles at the Freedom Bridge is going to get hammered by the defense and call into question her observations overall.

I've seen some debate along the way but the PCA redactions seem to back what she said. Here's a snip; I think it's 3 juveniles, the picture taker and the dog walker.

 

[Bergmann]

BBM. Do the homework. A succinct computer-animated timeline is available on YouTube. (I can't link the well-known channel due to forum protocol. The video is about 9 minutes long,)

The evidence, based on eyewitness accounts, is quite convincing.

Seen that. It would need to be very expertly presented in a simple enough fashion to have the kind of influence that I think you're suggesting on the jury. Its not exactly 'slam dunk' to my mind.

At the moment I can see RA's defence being, 'no, that wasn't me, you have to prove it', and then attacking the credibility of the eye witness testimony, which wasn't tested through line ups at the time, and casting doubt on how they can be sure it was RA 5 years down the line.

 

[Megnut]

But isn't that all part of the KAK investigation? How is this going to be deemed relevant and admissible unless a link between that case and this one is proven beyond the mere speculation we have seen so far?



But if we exclude the KAK link which I think we have to for now at least, isn't that situation and sum of known evidence precisely where we are now?

Fair.

But in truth, we don't know what else has been tested and matched. Maybe a matching unspent cartridge with the same chamber markings. Maybe a human/pet hair match. DNA on a jacket. DNA in his car. Maybe more witnesses and tips have led to all kinds of supporting discovery. Maybe there's an entire digital connection, separate from what we've seen to date. Ongoing investigation. If one other girl had credible information about contact with him, virtually or otherwise...

We haven't seen it all.

JMO

 

[Bergmann]

Fair.

But in truth, we don't know what else has been tested and matched. Maybe a matching unspent cartridge with the same chamber markings. Maybe a human/pet hair match. DNA on a jacket. DNA in his car. Maybe more witnesses and tips have led to all kinds of supporting discovery. Maybe there's an entire digital connection, separate from what we've seen to date. Ongoing investigation. If one other girl had credible information about contact with him, virtually or otherwise...

We haven't seen it all.

JMO

Agree/ hope we haven't seen it all in terms of full weight of evidence.

I've been hoping for something more than the initial list you outlined as I can see without any further evidence that the defence has plenty of scope to build reasonable doubt.

 

[Marzipan]

But isn't that all part of the KAK investigation? How is this going to be deemed relevant and admissible unless a link between that case and this one is proven beyond the mere speculation we have seen so far?



But if we exclude the KAK link which I think we have to for now at least, isn't that situation and sum of known evidence precisely where we are now?

I think that even if KAK isn’t linked, the way everything played out is going to bring justice for many catfishing and CSAM victims and prevent more victimizing. It sure doesn’t make it okay that it took so long to arrest someone— it’s terrible for the families and who knows what else did or could have happened if RA is a guilty man who remained free all these years. But although I’m not a religious person, I can see that a twist of fate here may have helped many more girls. My thoughts/opinions/wonderings only.

 

[M. Kay]

I am not interested in whether he (says he) saw them. He had reason to lie. (A lie that will ultimately betray him IMO.) I am interested in where he was when the girls saw him.

This post is well thought through, so just adding that the girls first saw 'him' before the bridge, as mentioned by Abby's mother, (on the phone recording). A. asked "is that creepy guy still following us?" (After over 5 years it's hard for us to recall all that
has come to light; we want the light at the end of the tunnel.)

 

[Boxer]

I've seen some debate along the way but the PCA redactions seem to back what she said. Here's a snip; I think it's 3 juveniles, the picture taker and the dog walker.

View attachment 398775

IIRC the witness that saw RA,
said she saw the theee girls crossing i25 on the FB as she drove to Mears Lot entrance.
Her walk was from the Mears lot to MHB then down to FB and back, a 3.2 mile walk.

 

[FrostedGlass]

IIRC the witness that saw RA,
said she saw the theee girls crossing i25 on the FB as she drove to Mears Lot entrance.
Her walk was from the Mears lot to MHB then down to FB and back, a 3.2 mile walk.

Now I'm confused; are you talking about the dog walker? Somehow I got the idea that the woman who said she saw RA on the bridge had a dog with her. Is that wrong?

"advised she saw 4 juvenile females walking on the bridge over Old State Road 25 as she was driving underneath on her way to park." PCA page 3

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Richard-Allen-Probable-Cause-Redacted.pdf

 

[Boxer]

Now I'm confused; are you talking about the dog walker?

"advised she saw 4 juvenile females walking on the bridge over Old State Road 25 as she was driving underneath on her way to park." PCA page 3

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Richard-Allen-Probable-Cause-Redacted.pdf

Sorry, no. I don’t actually know about the dog walker, i was talking about the walking witness.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Sorry, no. I don’t actually know about the dog walker, i was talking about the walking witness.

Yes, that's the one I'm talking about, too. But somewhere I got the idea she had a dog. If not, forget I ever said that because it's a figment of my imagination.

 

[Boxer]

Yes, that's the one I'm talking about, too. But somewhere I got the idea she had a dog. If not, forget I ever said that because it's a figment of my imagination.

There was talking a witness with a dog.
Don’t see it in the PCA but maybe not a necessary detail.

The witness who saw RA on the bridge came in for a 3.2 mile RT walk.
As she drove apparently from the West to the Mears Lot she saw three girls crossing the Freedom Bridge.
She parked at Mears Lot a few minutes before KG got there and made a loop of Mears to MHB down to FB then back up to Mears.

 

[somequestions]

The part of the probable cause affidavit that surprised me said: Richard Allen voluntarily came to the Indiana State police post on October 26th, 2022. Yet according to the probable cause affidavit, the police executed a search warrant on his home on October 13th, 2022. Did he talk to the police on October 26th without a lawyer too?

This has got to be one of the most extraordinary examples of helping the police I have ever seen(if he is the murderer).

 

[girlhasnoname]

Agree/ hope we haven't seen it all in terms of full weight of evidence.

I've been hoping for something more than the initial list you outlined as I can see without any further evidence that the defence has plenty of scope to build reasonable doubt.

Just as the State has plenty more scope to prove RBAD IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

3. Incorrect post = [we have video of the (RA's) abduction].... however....
per the PCA =

Snipping this for focus - and not responding to your detailed comments as I don't particularly hold views on those - but i think you misrepresent my posts somewhat (if it is me you are responding to)

The point is the video, as seen, and as described in the video, will establish a felony (abduction) murder BARD because

1. One of the girls sees a gun (which can arguably also be seen in the video)
2. The command is issued
3. The video shows the girls following the command
4. The girls were found murdered in this direction
5. An unspent casing+bullet was found at the scene

The jury, properly directed, will make the natural and obvious inferences that a) the girls were abducted, b) by the man in the video c) to the crime scene, and d) a gun was used for compliance and e) the man in the video was involved in the subsequent murders

In other words, yes, on any reasonable view, we have video of the abduction, whether or not anyone else was involved.

 

[mrjitty]

As Libby’s cellphone didn’t reveal a precise location when the girls were still considered missing, I doubt RAs would‘ve either. I‘m guessing “cell traffic” refers to tower dumps. But a cell tower dump does not reveal the name of the user of the cell phone, LE would still require a warrant to obtain owner information from the actual service provider. Doubtful any judge would authorize what could have been thousands of blanket warrants lacking any specific probable cause, given privacy concerns.
arrest.

I looked into this in a bit of detail and it's actually a complicated issue that varies state to state and also the law has changed over time.

Short version though - it has been reasonably possible for LE to get 'tower dumps" of all connections to a particular tower for a time range - e.g. the tower(s) close to the crime scene and that data has not been regarded as personal info in the past but rather is business information of the telco provider.

By contrast probable cause is required to pull all records for a particular person

So whether LE had tower dumps, i can't say, but i am guessing yes.

 

[mrjitty]

His phone location is one of the big unknowns here, he had a phone - was it his own phone?
If so why was he not interviewed earlier?
The previous DA stated they had all cell traffic subpoenaed for a five mile radius around Delphi, possibly it was a burner phone they could not trace.
Either way, establishing he was on the trail links him to the phone he was using, and that phone likely yielded location data.

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?

 

[mrjitty]

I've seen some debate along the way but the PCA redactions seem to back what she said. Here's a snip; I think it's 3 juveniles, the picture taker and the dog walker.

View attachment 398775

Is that not the names of the 3 juveniles redacted?

 

[mrjitty]

The part of the probable cause affidavit that surprised me said: Richard Allen voluntarily came to the Indiana State police post on October 26th, 2022. Yet according to the probable cause affidavit, the police executed a search warrant on his home on October 13th, 2022. Did he talk to the police on October 26th without a lawyer too?

This has got to be one of the most extraordinary examples of helping the police I have ever seen(if he is the murderer).

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?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Is that not the names of the 3 juveniles redacted?

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.