IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #166

[TL4S]

.

The problem I have is even if I ignore the stupidity of this Cult being guilty there is some important questions that need addressing like then not collecting Evidence and going back weeks later like that raises massive questions on the incompetence of LE. If they can get something like that wrong what else did they miss?

Yes! LE not collecting sticks and branches that had been placed on the bodies by the killer is very concerning. It doesn't matter why he did it, only that he had handled them, imo.

Meanwhile, as everyone is going back and forth about the Odinites, nobody is talking about BMcD's bombshell that her sources (who had also told her about the sticks) had long ago told her about the bullet, and that they didn't have a solid theory about it, that they thought it could have even come from LE.

 

[kittythehare]

.

Yes! LE not collecting sticks and branches that had been placed on the bodies by the killer is very concerning. It doesn't matter why he did it, only that he had handled them, imo.

Meanwhile, as everyone is going back and forth about the Odinites, nobody is talking about BMcD's bombshell that her sources (who had also told her about the sticks) had long ago told her about the bullet, and that they didn't have a solid theory about it, that they thought it could have even come from LE.

I'm pretty sure they took crime scene photos.

 

[TL4S]

I'm pretty sure they took crime scene photos.

Yes, but if the killer had handled those sticks, what's to say there wasn't forensic evidence left behind? Even DNA? And according to BMcD, by the time LE was collecting them, they weren't even sure if they had the right sticks. By then, RL had even done interviews down there, so more contamination. Jmo.

 

[Charlot123]

Wow. Scary.
Did the cult in your town murder people?

If they are serious about their beliefs...cult or not, it is a religion.

Name a religion that didn't kill. And the larger the religion, the grander the scale, but even small ones probably killed someone, locally. You know, the usual: power, money, land. I am less convinced about human sacrifices, but Libby liked to take photos, maybe someone got angry about it?

 

[mrjitty]

Having been through the McStay and Morhpew cases where the defence actively misled the court, I am extremely sceptical about taking any of this motion at face value.

Frankly the Odinist stuff makes laughable allegations that make no sense on the face of the document - especially the idea that the prison guards are in on it. But let's look at the more obvious misdirections that we know already

* Trigger warnings *

1. The idea of SODDI is the prosecutor got tunnel vision and ignored another potential offender(s). This needs to raise doubt. i.e. it can't just be generic - it needs to be specific evidence raising suspicion against an alternate offender. This document does not show any such evidence. It's just conspiracy theories around something police actually investigated. That investigation is not evidence of SODDI. Indeed the evidence discovered ruled out the offender primafacie!

2. Ditto the FBI profile stuff. This does not implicate any particular offender. Indeed it could apply against RA for all we know!

3. The first interview. Contrary to what the defence alleges, the officer noted the name and street address correctly, but at some stage a transpositional error was made. IMO this is what led to the tip never being followed up. This does not mean the notes are incorrect/unreliable! Indeed the 1.30pm arrival time is verified by the camera image of RA's car, AND his own evidence of meeting the 3 girls, corroborated by the girls. This evidence shows RA in fact lied to officers in his October 22 interview.

4. Based on the accused's own evidence, we can infer it was most likely his car was still parked at CPS. We know he actually entered the trail around 1.30pm based on 3 evidence points. We know witness BB enters the trails sometime after 1.46 and 'sweeps' the trail for us. So where was RA if not on the bridge? There is no way for RA to leave the trails without seeing BB or the victims. I raise this once again to show how the defence is simply misleading about Liggett & BBs evidence because clearly witness BB did in fact leave the trails before RA on any reasonable view. ETA the defendant implicity confessed in prison to being there!

5. The defence does not substantiate that Abby must have been redressed in Libby's sweateshirt and jeans post mortem, except for the blood claims. But is it very likely that if she were redressed by the killer, after two bloody murders, the clothes would be clean? Were abby murdered naked, there will be spray on her skin presumably. What does the autopsy say about this? They don't say. I am certainly not taking this at face value.

6. The lack of blood on Abby's feet or hands - this is obviously extremely unusual. Was she restrained and lying face down then? Because were she free and naked there would certainly be a lot of blood on her body, feet and hands.

The problem with the defence version is obvious - the blood would have to be all over Abby whether she was clothed or not, unless it were prevented in some way. IMO her hands must have been restrained at least - and presumably she was pinned down.

7. The idea in para 66 that Abby was hung like a slain animal to bleed out is obvious nonsense. If she had, her hair would be full of blood which would be totally obvious. the rope marks would also be on her feet. The defence is simply introducing wild speculation at this point based on no evidence.

I could go on ....

In any event, I await the prosecution response to the Frank's aspects. The rest will no doubt wait for trial.

 

[kittythehare]

Yes, but if the killer had handled those sticks, what's to say there wasn't forensic evidence left behind? Even DNA? And according to BMcD, by the time LE was collecting them, they weren't even sure if they had the right sticks. By then, RL had even done interviews down there, so more contamination. Jmo.

It is what it is.
I honestly doubt the few sticks which may or may not have symbolic meaning in relation to one of millions of cults or groups or antigovs or fundamentalists or general psychos are going to make or break this case.

My mind cannot get past the guy just going full rabid feral and ballistic while killing the children.
Was he drugged or drinking at the time?How come it apparently only happened once, ever, in his lifetime, apparently? Surely he has walked past many girls in lonely places in the intervening years.
Yet- nothing, that we know of?

Was he paranoid and imagined they were laughing at him?
Is that what set him off?
was this an act of rage and only rage is my question?

 

[kittythehare]

Having been through the McStay and Morhpew cases where the defence actively misled the court, I am extremely sceptical about taking any of this motion at face value.

Frankly the Odinist stuff makes laughable allegations that make no sense on the face of the document - especially the idea that the prison guards are in on it. But let's look at the more obvious misdirections that we know already

* Trigger warnings *

1. The idea of SODDI is the prosecutor got tunnel vision and ignored another potential offender(s). This needs to raise doubt. i.e. it can't just be generic - it needs to be specific evidence raising suspicion against an alternate offender. This document does not show any such evidence. It's just conspiracy theories around something police actually investigated. That investigation is not evidence of SODDI. Indeed the evidence discovered ruled out the offender primafacie!

2. Ditto the FBI profile stuff. This does not implicate any particular offender. Indeed it could apply against RA for all we know!

3. The first interview. Contrary to what the defence alleges, the officer noted the name and street address correctly, but at some stage a transpositional error was made. IMO this is what led to the tip never being followed up. This does not mean the notes are incorrect/unreliable! Indeed the 1.30pm arrival time is verified by the camera image of RA's car, AND his own evidence of meeting the 3 girls, corroborated by the girls. This evidence shows RA in fact lied to officers in his October 22 interview.

4. Based on the accused's own evidence, we can infer it was most likely his car was still parked at CPS. We know he actually entered the trail around 1.30pm based on 3 evidence points. We know witness BB enters the trails sometime after 1.46 and 'sweeps' the trail for us. So where was RA if not on the bridge? There is no way for RA to leave the trails without seeing BB or the victims. I raise this once again to show how the defence is simply misleading about Liggett & BBs evidence because clearly witness BB did in fact leave the trails before RA on any reasonable view. ETA the defendant implicity confessed in prison to being there!

5. The defence does not substantiate that Abby must have been redressed in Libby's sweateshirt and jeans post mortem, except for the blood claims. But is it very likely that if she were redressed by the killer, after two bloody murders, the clothes would be clean? Were abby murdered naked, there will be spray on her skin presumably. What does the autopsy say about this? They don't say. I am certainly not taking this at face value.

6. The lack of blood on Abby's feet or hands - this is obviously extremely unusual. Was she restrained and lying face down then? Because were she free and naked there would certainly be a lot of blood on her body, feet and hands.

The problem with the defence version is obvious - the blood would have to be all over Abby whether she was clothed or not, unless it were prevented in some way. IMO her hands must have been restrained at least - and presumably she was pinned down.

7. The idea in para 66 that Abby was hung like a slain animal to bleed out is obvious nonsense. If she had, her hair would be full of blood which would be totally obvious. the rope marks would also be on her feet. The defence is simply introducing wild speculation at this point based on no evidence.

I could go on ....

In any event, I await the prosecution response to the Frank's aspects. The rest will no doubt wait for trial.

Thanks for doing that.

 

[TL4S]

Having been through the McStay and Morhpew cases where the defence actively misled the court, I am extremely sceptical about taking any of this motion at face value.

Frankly the Odinist stuff makes laughable allegations that make no sense on the face of the document - especially the idea that the prison guards are in on it. But let's look at the more obvious misdirections that we know already

* Trigger warnings *

1. The idea of SODDI is the prosecutor got tunnel vision and ignored another potential offender(s). This needs to raise doubt. i.e. it can't just be generic - it needs to be specific evidence raising suspicion against an alternate offender. This document does not show any such evidence. It's just conspiracy theories around something police actually investigated. That investigation is not evidence of SODDI. Indeed the evidence discovered ruled out the offender primafacie!

2. Ditto the FBI profile stuff. This does not implicate any particular offender. Indeed it could apply against RA for all we know!

3. The first interview. Contrary to what the defence alleges, the officer noted the name and street address correctly, but at some stage a transpositional error was made. IMO this is what led to the tip never being followed up. This does not mean the notes are incorrect/unreliable! Indeed the 1.30pm arrival time is verified by the camera image of RA's car, AND his own evidence of meeting the 3 girls, corroborated by the girls. This evidence shows RA in fact lied to officers in his October 22 interview.

4. Based on the accused's own evidence, we can infer it was most likely his car was still parked at CPS. We know he actually entered the trail around 1.30pm based on 3 evidence points. We know witness BB enters the trails sometime after 1.46 and 'sweeps' the trail for us. So where was RA if not on the bridge? There is no way for RA to leave the trails without seeing BB or the victims. I raise this once again to show how the defence is simply misleading about Liggett & BBs evidence because clearly witness BB did in fact leave the trails before RA on any reasonable view. ETA the defendant implicity confessed in prison to being there!

5. The defence does not substantiate that Abby must have been redressed in Libby's sweateshirt and jeans post mortem, except for the blood claims. But is it very likely that if she were redressed by the killer, after two bloody murders, the clothes would be clean? Were abby murdered naked, there will be spray on her skin presumably. What does the autopsy say about this? They don't say. I am certainly not taking this at face value.

6. The lack of blood on Abby's feet or hands - this is obviously extremely unusual. Was she restrained and lying face down then? Because were she free and naked there would certainly be a lot of blood on her body, feet and hands.

The problem with the defence version is obvious - the blood would have to be all over Abby whether she was clothed or not, unless it were prevented in some way. IMO her hands must have been restrained at least - and presumably she was pinned down.

7. The idea in para 66 that Abby was hung like a slain animal to bleed out is obvious nonsense. If she had, her hair would be full of blood which would be totally obvious. the rope marks would also be on her feet. The defence is simply introducing wild speculation at this point based on no evidence.

I could go on ....

In any event, I await the prosecution response to the Frank's aspects. The rest will no doubt wait for trial.

There's nothing in that document as to where A's blood was. It's curious.

Not having blood on her hands could be that she was hit and knocked down, dazed, whatever, or restrained, as you said. If she died slowly, as was in the document, she clearly wasn't able to put her hands to her wounds for some reason.

I'm not buying the redressing part. Although, there's no mention of underwear, and we know a pair was missing, so if they were hers, that might be why the assumption she was undressed at some point. Idk.

 

[mrjitty]

And why did the D get the clothing information wrong? L was not wearing jeans, correct? There was no mention of underwear, or if the second bra was L's or if they both were A's (if she was doing a layering thing). A was already wearing jeans and a sweatshirt in the infamous last bridge photo. What is the evidence that A was ever undressed? And why was one of L's shoes under A but the other visible to a searcher, possibly in the water?

This is why I don't take any of their claims at face value.

 

[pageantmom]

Wow. Scary.
Did the cult in your town murder people?

Not that I know of. Animals, yes. People getting sick too. But not actual murder, not that I know of anyway. But we had a murder of a teen boy that was always rumored to have their involvement however that was publicly said to be more drug trafficking related than cult related.

 

[mrjitty]

There's nothing in that document as to where A's blood was. It's curious.

Not having blood on her hands could be that she was hit and knocked down, dazed, whatever, or restrained, as you said. If she died slowly, as was in the document, she clearly wasn't able to put her hands to her wounds for some reason.

I'm not buying the redressing part. Although, there's no mention of underwear, and we know a pair was missing, so if they were hers, that might be why the assumption she was undressed at some point. Idk.

Right.

if you get your throat cut in this way, the blood sprays, flows and drips whether you are wearing clothes or not. If she didn't have clothes on, then the blood must be under the clothes.

lack of blood on her feet tends to indicate she was not standing. lack of blood on her hands means she was restrained. what little is included in this highly misleading document seems to indicate there was soaking around the neck, and i an presuming in her hair etc.

My wild speculation based on this document is that she was restrained from behind, lying down.

My guess is one of the girls, the second to die, was tied up.

My guess is that far from being carefully kept clean, and the focus of the attack, Abby was simply perfunctorily murdered because she was not the focus.

 

[TL4S]

It is what it is.
I honestly doubt the few sticks which may or may not have symbolic meaning in relation to one of millions of cults or groups or antigovs or fundamentalists or general psychos are going to make or break this case.

My mind cannot get past the guy just going full rabid feral and ballistic while killing the children.
Was he drugged or drinking at the time?How come it apparently only happened once, ever, in his lifetime, apparently? Surely he has walked past many girls in lonely places in the intervening years.
Yet- nothing, that we know of?

Was he paranoid and imagined they were laughing at him?
Is that what set him off?
was this an act of rage and only rage is my question?

To me, it doesn't matter at all if the sticks were paced at ransom or symbolically, they could have contained forensic evidence and it was a mistake not to take them, imo. What is worse yet, according to the document, is that LE DID see reason to collect them once the Odinism crap became theorized. So they needed them only if they were symbolic? I don't understand that thinking. They probably collected every piece of trash in the area, in hopes for DNA, but didn't collect the very thing the killer HAD to have touched?

And, like you, I'm very curious about what set this guy off. It's scary!

 

[mrjitty]

I think he wore gloves.

They would have hoped to get DNA off the girls for sure, and he must have wrestled them.

 

[Salah11]

To me, it doesn't matter at all if the sticks were paced at ransom or symbolically, they could have contained forensic evidence and it was a mistake not to take them, imo. What is worse yet, according to the document, is that LE DID see reason to collect them once the Odinism crap became theorized. So they needed them only if they were symbolic? I don't understand that thinking. They probably collected every piece of trash in the area, in hopes for DNA, but didn't collect the very thing the killer HAD to have touched?

And, like you, I'm very curious about what set this guy off. It's scary!

Yes don’t you collect anything from a crime scene so how could they leave behind sticks and twigs it’s just farcical. God knows what else was missed if this was the level of incompetence on display.

The defense are going to have a field day with stuff like this to show the courts they couldn’t even do the simplest of things right so how can anybody trust they have the right man.


MOOO

 

[Imnothere]

Thank you to whoever posted the illustrations of what the CS potentially looked like.

Seeing it drawn out like this, I'm very surprised that the sticks were not immediately bagged for evidence. And the tree not cut down to keep the blood on the bark.

 

[TL4S]

My guess is that far from being carefully kept clean, and the focus of the attack, Abby was simply perfunctorily murdered because she was not the focus

Agreed. I feel like the D was trying to make it appear that A was the focus, like her body was treated specially, cleaned, dressed, her arms closed over herself. But in fact, it suggests the opposite to me. I think she was taken down quickly and violently (I'm sorry to say it), then killed on the ground where she lay.

L was killed by a different tree than the one she was found by, but her arm could have been stretched above her head because the killer dragged her by that arm and just dropped it when he had moved her next to A.

The thing is, the FBI agent in the RL affidavit did not say they were posed. I know there's debate over the wording, but it wasn't her first affidavit. She said "moved and staged." I take that to mean made to look like something else, or trying to hide the bodies, etc.

My next question is how did A end up on top of L's shoe and phone? In this scenario, it had to mean L at least had her shoes off and on the ground by then. Maybe the killer didn't have to restrain anyone. L not having any shoes on would have made running away difficult while he killed A. Jmo.

 

[helpfulcharlie]

Just as a weird side note, I discovered only recently during an unrelated rabbit-hole dive that there are active Odin-worshiping cults all over the world, including, of all places, Nigeria.

Enugu police arrest eight for robbery, cultism, recover weapons

The Enugu State Police Command on Tuesday said it has arrested eight people for alleged kidnapping, possession of firearms, armed robbery

punchng.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm still curious about if the killer was aware of L's dad calling her at 3:11, 3:14, and so on. IIRC, the document put TOD between 2:30 and 3:30, and the muddy (maybe bloody) guy on 300 RD at 3:57, so it seems possible he knew about the calls. Of course, the phone could have been on silent, and not seen lighting up if upside down or underneath the shoe or A at the time.

I'm also curious why not more has ever been said, by either side, about the creek crossing. It had to have happened. A's clothing was described as clean with little blood or dirt, but were they wet or not (L's were apparently in the creek?)? Did I miss this information? I feel like I missed something also about the creek depth? Which leads to another item I'm curious about...

How risky is putting all the crime scene details out there if the investigation is still open? This alone could bring the crackpots out, confessing to the killings. Or, will these details, in the end, show that RA was the crackpot at the time of his admissions, because they don't match the details?

And why did the D get the clothing information wrong? L was not wearing jeans, correct? There was no mention of underwear, or if the second bra was L's or if they both were A's (if she was doing a layering thing). A was already wearing jeans and a sweatshirt in the infamous last bridge photo. What is the evidence that A was ever undressed? And why was one of L's shoes under A but the other visible to a searcher, possibly in the water?

Just some things mulling around in my head. And JMO.

We know the creek depth varied from waist deep to pretty shallow but we have no evidence of where they crossed or if they even did cross.

Regarding the creek depth, here's the memorandum footnote, pg 33. I want to clarify that the memorandum I was working from was pulled down sometime yesterday. The one I'm working from now has a link to the waterdata site but it doesn't work for me. I've added a working link so people can see it:

24 Find attached exhibit 26 which is the U.S. Geological survey depth rating of Deer Creek near Delphi Indiana taken from a measuring station near the crime scene on February 13, 2017, at 2:15 pm. This document can be found on the following link:

Deer Creek Near Delphi, IN

Monitoring location 03329700 is associated with a Stream in Carroll County, Indiana. Current conditions of DCP battery voltage, Discharge, and Gage height are available. Water data back to 1943 are available online.

waterdata.usgs.gov

 

[Inthedetails]

When is the Franks hearing scheduled?

tia

 

[mrjitty]

Agreed. I feel like the D was trying to make it appear that A was the focus, like her body was treated specially, cleaned, dressed, her arms closed over herself. But in fact, it suggests the opposite to me. I think she was taken down quickly and violently (I'm sorry to say it), then killed on the ground where she lay.

L was killed by a different tree than the one she was found by, but her arm could have been stretched above her head because the killer dragged her by that arm and just dropped it when he had moved her next to A.

The thing is, the FBI agent in the RL affidavit did not say they were posed. I know there's debate over the wording, but it wasn't her first affidavit. She said "moved and staged." I take that to mean made to look like something else, or trying to hide the bodies, etc.

My next question is how did A end up on top of L's shoe and phone? In this scenario, it had to mean L at least had her shoes off and on the ground by then. Maybe the killer didn't have to restrain anyone. L not having any shoes on would have made running away difficult while he killed A. Jmo.

A must have been restrained or her hands would be bloody. So either he tied one up, or he murdered L first who was quickly incapacitated. Otherwise one of them would have run off, started screaming etc