IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #163

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another transport order (I've included the other two):

06/09/2023Transport Order Entered
Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Order Signed: 06/09/2023
06/09/2023Motion For Transport Order
Motion for Transport Order
Filed By: Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp: 06/09/2023
06/10/2023Automated ENotice Issued to Parties
Transport Order Entered ---- 6/9/2023 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland
06/12/2023Transport Order Entered
Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Order Signed: 06/12/2023
06/15/2023Hearing
Session: 06/15/2023 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Session: 06/16/2023 8:30 AM, Rescheduled
 
Boxer said:
4 witnesses.
3 girls near FB
1 Walking witness at MHB

RAs own narrative of walking to the bridge.

Timeline is beyond tight, girls on way to bridge passed by witness who just saw RA on bridge.

MOO Lying that he did not see girls walking back own the trail to Mears lot to sit on a bench.

Cycled round from RAs gun at CS.

MO This is why the investigation was kept completely confidential, they had a witness- a witness that would be at terrible risk of being murdered by the unidentified killer from the community if their identity was publicly known.
Click to expand...
As stated previously, I do lean to RA being the perpetrator more likely than not. I do not however see a great deal of value in the 4 witness statements. First, the 3 juveniles are inconsistent enough in multiple facets of how they describe "the male they encountered" to cast overall doubt. Secondly, the woman walking alone has obviously already seen L's video by the time she provides her account to LE as she states the person she saw on bridge matched the appearance of he in L's video. None of the 4 specifically identify Richard Allen, or... the guy who works at CVS, or ____ Allen's husband, or _____ Allen's father, etc. The 4 people's accounts may corroborate the person we call BG, but we already have much stronger physical evidence (via L's photo/video) of what BG was wearing and looked like, and that yes BG would've been both en route to the bridge (the juveniles' account) and that BG was likely on the bridge within minutes of the encounter w/girls (Woman's account). The only unique value to the these witness statements is that they may confirm the specific route BG took in arriving at the bridge thus possibly where he parked, plus that he entered the bridge from the commonly-used access point and walked the entire length as opposed to entering from the side/access point they all later exited. In the end though, the dots being connected that RA is BG remain lacking, other than RA volunteering info that places him within 1/4 mile of the encounter scene (though he denied ever being to the actual murder scene) and in a reasonably similar timeframe as the crime occurred. Is the fact that no one else was seen nearby at the right time, or the supposition that "who else could it be" enough to convict of double-murder via this negative confirmation?

MOO I personally think the unspent casing is by far the strongest piece of evidence tying RA to being the perpetrator from a common-sense standpoint. Unfortunately, as many on this site agree, there are likely many experts who can be found to testify that leans toward junk science and is not reliable from a purely legal standpoint.

The Timeline I would describe as plausible, but I wouldn't MOO say beyond tight. All of us, including the video producer himself Gray Hughes who've watched his video, admit quite a few challenges in reconciling the various surveillance camera/phone evidence to the paces that certain individuals had to be moving at. This was discussed in great detail a few months back, but at times the key players have to be traveling at a snail's pace from point A to B, while at other times a near-sprint is required. It doesn't seem as tidy as we would like.

It's very possible you're correct that RA might be lying in parts of his statements to LE/CO. He may actually be lying in all of his statements?? However it's a challenge to reconcile why he'd come forward at all, especially early on when he didn't have to if he was going to provide a mixed bag of truths and lies. It's easy for us to believe he told the truth when it fits with our believed narrative and was lying when it doesn't fit.

Again all JMO
 
EOA said:
As stated previously, I do lean to RA being the perpetrator more likely than not. I do not however see a great deal of value in the 4 witness statements. First, the 3 juveniles are inconsistent enough in multiple facets of how they describe "the male they encountered" to cast overall doubt. Secondly, the woman walking alone has obviously already seen L's video by the time she provides her account to LE as she states the person she saw on bridge matched the appearance of he in L's video. None of the 4 specifically identify Richard Allen, or... the guy who works at CVS, or ____ Allen's husband, or _____ Allen's father, etc. The 4 people's accounts may corroborate the person we call BG, but we already have much stronger physical evidence (via L's photo/video) of what BG was wearing and looked like, and that yes BG would've been both en route to the bridge (the juveniles' account) and that BG was likely on the bridge within minutes of the encounter w/girls (Woman's account). The only unique value to the these witness statements is that they may confirm the specific route BG took in arriving at the bridge thus possibly where he parked, plus that he entered the bridge from the commonly-used access point and walked the entire length as opposed to entering from the side/access point they all later exited. In the end though, the dots being connected that RA is BG remain lacking, other than RA volunteering info that places him within 1/4 mile of the encounter scene (though he denied ever being to the actual murder scene) and in a reasonably similar timeframe as the crime occurred. Is the fact that no one else was seen nearby at the right time, or the supposition that "who else could it be" enough to convict of double-murder via this negative confirmation?

MOO I personally think the unspent casing is by far the strongest piece of evidence tying RA to being the perpetrator from a common-sense standpoint. Unfortunately, as many on this site agree, there are likely many experts who can be found to testify that leans toward junk science and is not reliable from a purely legal standpoint.

The Timeline I would describe as plausible, but I wouldn't MOO say beyond tight. All of us, including the video producer himself Gray Hughes who've watched his video, admit quite a few challenges in reconciling the various surveillance camera/phone evidence to the paces that certain individuals had to be moving at. This was discussed in great detail a few months back, but at times the key players have to be traveling at a snail's pace from point A to B, while at other times a near-sprint is required. It doesn't seem as tidy as we would like.

It's very possible you're correct that RA might be lying in parts of his statements to LE/CO. He may actually be lying in all of his statements?? However it's a challenge to reconcile why he'd come forward at all, especially early on when he didn't have to if he was going to provide a mixed bag of truths and lies. It's easy for us to believe he told the truth when it fits with our believed narrative and was lying when it doesn't fit.

Again all JMO
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of your post, but there's one sticking point, imo. In 2017, RA told the CO that he saw three juveniles by the Freedom Bridge. How could he have lied about that so early on before anyone knew about those three juveniles being there, and what would his purpose be to? So he and the three juveniles corroborated each other's stories, imo, even if the juveniles' recollection of him varied somewhat. They didn't see anyone else there, and neither did RA, according to their claims, so it seems to me that their accounts cannot be disputed. Jmo.

I can, however, see where the woman who saw him on the bridge could be problematic, especially if RA comes back like he was coerced into saying he was on the bridge platform in his 2022 interview with LE. He hadn't even admitted to being on the bridge itself back in 2017.
 
Last edited:
EOA said:
As stated previously, I do lean to RA being the perpetrator more likely than not. I do not however see a great deal of value in the 4 witness statements. First, the 3 juveniles are inconsistent enough in multiple facets of how they describe "the male they encountered" to cast overall doubt. Secondly, the woman walking alone has obviously already seen L's video by the time she provides her account to LE as she states the person she saw on bridge matched the appearance of he in L's video. None of the 4 specifically identify Richard Allen, or... the guy who works at CVS, or ____ Allen's husband, or _____ Allen's father, etc. The 4 people's accounts may corroborate the person we call BG, but we already have much stronger physical evidence (via L's photo/video) of what BG was wearing and looked like, and that yes BG would've been both en route to the bridge (the juveniles' account) and that BG was likely on the bridge within minutes of the encounter w/girls (Woman's account). The only unique value to the these witness statements is that they may confirm the specific route BG took in arriving at the bridge thus possibly where he parked, plus that he entered the bridge from the commonly-used access point and walked the entire length as opposed to entering from the side/access point they all later exited. In the end though, the dots being connected that RA is BG remain lacking, other than RA volunteering info that places him within 1/4 mile of the encounter scene (though he denied ever being to the actual murder scene) and in a reasonably similar timeframe as the crime occurred. Is the fact that no one else was seen nearby at the right time, or the supposition that "who else could it be" enough to convict of double-murder via this negative confirmation?

MOO I personally think the unspent casing is by far the strongest piece of evidence tying RA to being the perpetrator from a common-sense standpoint. Unfortunately, as many on this site agree, there are likely many experts who can be found to testify that leans toward junk science and is not reliable from a purely legal standpoint.

The Timeline I would describe as plausible, but I wouldn't MOO say beyond tight. All of us, including the video producer himself Gray Hughes who've watched his video, admit quite a few challenges in reconciling the various surveillance camera/phone evidence to the paces that certain individuals had to be moving at. This was discussed in great detail a few months back, but at times the key players have to be traveling at a snail's pace from point A to B, while at other times a near-sprint is required. It doesn't seem as tidy as we would like.

It's very possible you're correct that RA might be lying in parts of his statements to LE/CO. He may actually be lying in all of his statements?? However it's a challenge to reconcile why he'd come forward at all, especially early on when he didn't have to if he was going to provide a mixed bag of truths and lies. It's easy for us to believe he told the truth when it fits with our believed narrative and was lying when it doesn't fit.

Again all JMO
Click to expand...
RA corroborated the 3 girls account of passing him on the trail.

The video of BG on Bridge was released late on 2/17, (three days after finding the bodies.) MOO the walking witness would have been interviewed before this.

Please be specific about timeline issues you feel exist, IMO timelines match and make sense.

Walking witness turned around at bridge after seeing RA and passed the girls pretty much immediately. RA said he left Platform 1 and walked back down the trail to sit on a bench, making it impossible for him to not to pass them on the trail.
 
somequestions said:
I understand the probability of why people think it was Richard Allen that murdered Abigail Williams and Liberty German. In terms of where the witness saw Richard Allen at the Monon High Bridge to the exclusion of anyone else and the fact that he cannot explain what he was doing for an hour and a half after that is concerning.

If there had been something conclusive in the PCA, whether that be finding the murder weapon with one of the girl's DNA on it or finding his DNA on one of the girls or finding the bloody clothes then I would be convinced he is probably the killer. Maybe they were able to forensically match his voice to the voice on the "Down the hill" recording?

Even proving simple details would help. Is LE sure the height of the man they arrested, Richard Allen, is the same height as the person in Liberty German's phone video?

I guess the evidence in this case is all one big secret and once the trial happens and the information is revealed all the pieces will fall into place proving it was Richard Allen. But I wonder whether or not LE have lots and lots of evidence against Richard Allen or just an unspent cartridge ejected from his gun and some witness statements.
Click to expand...
The witness in this case saw a man the police were sure was from the community, but was unidentified. The public knowledge this witness even existed would put the witness in grave danger.
 
Last edited:
somequestions said:
I understand the probability of why people think it was Richard Allen that murdered Abigail Williams and Liberty German. In terms of where the witness saw Richard Allen at the Monon High Bridge to the exclusion of anyone else and the fact that he cannot explain what he was doing for an hour and a half after that is concerning.

If there had been something conclusive in the PCA, whether that be finding the murder weapon with one of the girl's DNA on it or finding his DNA on one of the girls or finding the bloody clothes then I would be convinced he is probably the killer. Maybe they were able to forensically match his voice to the voice on the "Down the hill" recording?

Even proving simple details would help. Is LE sure the height of the man they arrested, Richard Allen, is the same height as the person in Liberty German's phone video?

I guess the evidence in this case is all one big secret and once the trial happens and the information is revealed all the pieces will fall into place proving it was Richard Allen. But I wonder whether or not LE have lots and lots of evidence against Richard Allen or just an unspent cartridge ejected from his gun and some witness statements.
Click to expand...
Science is good for evidence such as DNA but there is no expert who could convince me that a certain person is the owner of the voice heard saying, "Guyz. Down the hill."

Plenty local men have been asked to repeat the phrase, including Ron Logan. I could not be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law, who the voice belongs to.

I'd like to read the returns of the search warrants from RAs home and vehicles. If there's s/t other than a firearm that may match markings on the bullet from the CS, then that's serious stuff. In a DP case, I'm not sure a scientist could convince me RAs gun made those bullet's markings. I'd want to fire the weapon with the same ammo for results.

If this was RAs one and only thrill kill, he should have been more careful but I'm glad he made errors such as walking down the road muddy and bloody during the middle of the day since it's likely he's the killer of A&L.

When BG says, "Guys!" I often wondered if he was hollering to some buddy or two who was beyond them or waiting down on the road. "Guys. Down the hill!" To the girls, he ordered down the hill but he was yelling it at his buddies: "Hey, guys" I'm sending them "Down the hill."

JMO
 
I do not see how any of the witness statements proves that Richard Allen is the person who abducted the girls off the Monon High Bridge if no one saw him approach Abigail Williams and Liberty German, pull a gun, and tell the girls to go down the hill. The only physical evidence (as of this moment that has been released) that places Richard Allen at the scene of the crime is the unspent cartridge from his gun.

Things may change in the future once more evidence is released. As of today though, that is how things stand in this case.
 
somequestions said:
I do not see how any of the witness statements proves that Richard Allen is the person who abducted the girls off the Monon High Bridge if no one saw him approach Abigail Williams and Liberty German, pull a gun, and tell the girls to go down the hill. The only physical evidence (as of this moment that has been released) that places Richard Allen at the scene of the crime is the unspent cartridge from his gun.

Things may change in the future once more evidence is released. As of today though, that is how things stand in this case.
Click to expand...
MOO
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
DeDee said:
When BG says, "Guys!" I often wondered if he was hollering to some buddy or two who was beyond them or waiting down on the road. "Guys. Down the hill!" To the girls, he ordered down the hill but he was yelling it at his buddies: "Hey, guys" I'm sending them "Down the hill."
JMO
Click to expand...
The way I think of "Down the Hill" is that there is more to the video at the end of the bridge, before getting down the hill, according to Abby's mom in her backyard interview shown on TV. She chose not to see, or hear the rest, understandably; her vulnerability in this is so haunting. I agree that RA "delivered". Hoping there is a plea, sparing family and community reliving this in court.
 
somequestions said:
I do not see how any of the witness statements proves that Richard Allen is the person who abducted the girls off the Monon High Bridge if no one saw him approach Abigail Williams and Liberty German, pull a gun, and tell the girls to go down the hill. The only physical evidence (as of this moment that has been released) that places Richard Allen at the scene of the crime is the unspent cartridge from his gun.

Things may change in the future once more evidence is released. As of today though, that is how things stand in this case.
Click to expand...

right seeing he did see the girls and they saw him, where did he go after that?
 
mrjitty said:
right seeing he did see the girls and they saw him, where did he go after that?
Click to expand...
I do not know where he went. Do you? According to him, he sat on a bench.

I agree having a better explanation would be helpful for where he was, but the only thing that proves(at this time) that he was with Abigail Williams and Liberty German is the unspent ejected cartridge from his gun. He may very well be the murderer, but it has not been proven(at this time). Investigators must have some other evidence that places him with Abigail Williams and Liberty German on the day they died. If they don't, then it will be up to what a jury thinks.
 
06/13/2023Motion In Limine Filed
Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics
Filed By: Allen, Richard M.
06/13/2023Order Issued
Courthouse will open at 8:00 a.m. All entrances will be closed, except for the handicapped entrance on the north side of the building. The remaining entrances will be locked with no access to the public. All members of the public, including members of the media, are subject to screening by metal detectors. All bags in possession of those entering the building are subject to search. NO weapons of any kind are permitted in the building, except for on-duty law enforcement officers providing security to the Courthouse and the parties. Cellular telephones are permitted in the building, but must be powered OFF and unused at all times while in the building or the Courtrooms. Violations are subject to seizure and destruction of the cellular telephone. No electronic equipment or devices are permitted in the Carroll Circuit Court. Media personnel are permitted to attend the Court session. NO cameras, electronics, lap tops or recording equipment of any kind is permitted on the Second Floor and the Third Floor of the Courthouse nor inside the Circuit Courtroom. All such equipment is limited to the First Floor of the Courthouse. The Court requests the media be mindful that other County offices are conducting business in the building unrelated to this case. Media and members of the public are ordered to conduct themselves in such a fashion as to limit disruption to the offices, personnel, and patrons of those offices. The Media are free to use the public areas outside the Courthouse as long as they do not obstruct traffic in the streets and sidewalks surrounding the Courthouse. Seating in the Carroll Circuit Court is limited. The first row of public seats behind the bar separating the well of the courtroom from the public is unavailable for seating. The Sheriff of Carroll County or his designee will ensure that the victim representatives are seated. The remaining seating is available until full. No one, other than Court Security, will be permitted to stand in the Courtroom. All spectators must remain seated until the conclusion of the hearing and the parties have left the Courtroom. No food or beverages are permitted inside the Carroll Circuit Court. Water will be permitted for the parties in the well of the Courtroom. All members of the public and the media are required to follow directives of the Sheriff of Carroll County, Courthouse Security and Courtroom Security. NO court-produced recording will be made available to the public or media. The audio record made pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 5 may not be copied or used for purposes other than perpetuating the record. At the conclusion of the scheduled hearing on public pending Motions before the Court, the Court will conduct an ex parte hearing with the Defendant and defense counsel on the Ex Parte Motion. The State of Indiana and the public are excluded from this portion of the hearing and will be asked to leave the Courtroom. Court Security will remain and are ordered to keep that portion of the proceeding confidential. The Court anticipates that all members of the public and the media will conduct themselves in an appropriate fashion. Any violation of this Order and any conduct the Court finds disruptive of the proceedings may result in an order of temporary or permanent exclusion from the Courtroom and/or Courthouse and is punishable as contempt of Court.
Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Order Signed: 06/12/2023
06/13/2023Petition Filed
Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record filed.
Filed By: State of Indiana
06/13/2023Objection Filed
State's Objection to Defendant's Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure of Defendant's Mental Health Records filed.
Filed By: State of Indiana
06/13/2023Petition Filed
Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record filed.
Filed By: State of Indiana
06/13/2023Objection Filed
State's Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
Filed By: State of Indiana
06/15/2023Hearing
Session: 06/15/2023 10:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Session: 06/16/2023 8:30 AM, Rescheduled
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 3,052 (members: 74, guests: 2,978)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
2,978
Total visitors
3,052
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,240
Messages
18,153,734
Members
231,682
Latest member
Sleutherine
Back
Top