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

[mrjitty]

I think the most sensible thing the Murder Sheet guys have said is let's wait for the prosecution response to these Franks allegations before worrying too much.

While the Liggett allegations are concerning, in least in one aspect they are wildly misleading (the time).

On careful reading, my guess is we will find the witness BB has more than one interview. Especially I am almost certain she will have been asked if it could have been RAs car she has seen. If not back in the day when they first for a photo of it, certainly in 2022. Ditto if it could have been RA she saw on the bridge.

So perhaps the PCA misleads by omission, but I would be highly surprised if Liggett outright lied.

 

[Inthedetails]

MOO I am sure RA told them to Go Down the Hill, and they ended up dead.

^^ This^^

Filing the motion was a ritual by a legal cult and the document is a rune predicting the evidence against RA is strong.

jmo

 

[sandy_80]

I’m concerned that the nice neat timeline and the witnesses all describing someone resembling RA has been put into question.

Notably it seems that BB who saw the man on the high bridge (and was behind the YBG sketch) says she saw someone around 20yo with brown pouffy hair and also described quite a different car to RAs focus (previous poster posted the car comparison shots).

And the person who saw the muddy bloody person actually described someone wearing a tan coloured jacket Who wasn’t actually bloody according to the Defense. So the sightings closer to the crime in time don’t necessarily match RA. And RA is now saying he left at 1:30pm.

This concerns me more than the Odinism stuff at this point. And if these details being omitted do succeed in invalidating the search there may not be a lot of strong evidence against RA left. Mainly the Confessions? Unless his wife has decided to testify perhaps.

witnessses are always unreliable..also he was semi covered anyway..its not like they saw his face ..note that both of thses witnesses alleged the male in the video is the male they saw...each memory plays different tricks

Those 2 sketches have been the bane of this investigation IMO. The first BG was said to have been taken from the video footage and I believe it is a dead ringer for RA.

If BB was truly the source for the second sketch, I don't know how to explain that other than he had taken off his cap while walking back to his car and she only got a quick glance of his face? IDK

RA did have reddish brown hair/short cropped beard before the murders in pictures from FB, he shaved his hair closely cropped, mostly bald, and let the beard grow out way long and go gray (I think he was coloring his hair/beard) after the murders I believe in an attempt to help disguise his resemblance to BG.

I still think RA is BG, whether he had an accomplice waiting at the scene I'm torn. I believe he knew Abby & Libby would be there that day and this was preplanned, how else would he know they were randomly out of school that day?

From KK or some other form of catfishing them on FB/SnapChat/Twitter, perv or whatever he knew they would be there.

I totally see your points, that's what has made this case so frustrating over the years.


MOO

the first sketch according to the new doc comes from witness S..THE ONE who saw him after the murders ..contrary to what we always beieved.. i guess the teens could have contributed also
this BB saw him only from a distance..must mistook the hat for curly hair ! she might have vision problems..who knows
the witnesses will not play a vital role in the trial I think

 

[TL4S]

I was just talking to my husband at dinner tonight about the information in the defense document about the guards at Westville because his brother is incarcerated there. I Googled for images of the patches the defense said the guards were wearing. The 3 triangles (Valknut) came up and I clicked on the Wiki page and read this sentence to my husband "The valknut is a symbol consisting of three interlocked triangles. It appears on a variety of objects from the archaeological record of the ancient Germanic peoples." Then I said "Hmmmmm...Libby's last name is German." Then I come here and read your post so had to point it out!

Valknut - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've been wondering, @twall, if you have heard anything before about guards wearing those patches?

 

[TL4S]

If I'm understanding things correctly, in 2017, BB gave her description of the guy on the bridge, resulting in the YBG sketch. The OBG sketch was a composite made from multiple sources, according to JH at Crimecon 2018. So LE decided the OBG sketch was likely the better representation from August 2017 to April 2019. LE then interviewed BB two more times in 2019 (per the memorandum), and again, BB described the same person as YBG. I'm guessing this was right before the change in direction PC, maybe? That's also when LE finally decided to request tips on a vehicle parked at the CPS lot, although they gave no description. I know a lot of folks just want this sketch discussion to go away, and that it won't matter, so I'm sorry for continuing on. I'm just fascinated that such an important witness not only described a very different looking man, but also a very different car. JMO. And in 2019, LE decided to run with it.

 

[twall]

I've been wondering, @twall, if you have heard anything before about guards wearing those patches?

No, I have not. My bil is not in a maximum security unit, he is in minimum as he is doing time for dui's and being a habitual offender. And I will not ask him about it on the phone or in mail correspondence.

 

[rosesfromangels]

I can absolutely stand corrected, but I have never heard of any law enforcement personnel wearing anything that wasn't approved. They are super strict with their uniforms, how they are worn and so forth. If you have ever known a LE person, they take great care with their uniforms to insure they are creased, spit and polished; similar to military. I am having a hard time believing the "patch" story, but open to be proved wrong.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Salah11]

Let’s not forget for all the defense is crying foul that the witness they are now claiming is on there side… Placed RA on that first platform which to my knowledge RA confused to as well.

I believe that’s the same witness and I’m not getting them confused.


IMO

 

[10ofRods]

Sort of, but not really. You can be charged with felony murder if you kill someone during the commission of a felony. But you can also be charged with felony murder if you commit a felony and someone is killed or dies during it even if you didn't personally kill them and had no intent that they die.

For example, here's an Indiana felony murder case where the defendant was convicted because he kidnapped someone to help his friend escape custody and during the escape his friend was shot and killed by police. He didn't shoot his friend, he didn't intend for his friend to die, but he was still guilty of felony murder because his friend died during the commission of a felony that he took part in.

So RA would still be guilty of felony murder if he kidnapped L&A and someone else killed them.

And many people believe it is still murder. That’s why legislators enacted it. And why it is as much murder as any other form of murder. Homicide is an overall category. Felony murder equals 1st degree murder where I live and in many other places.

You can argue that the law is wrong but right now, in Indiana, it is murder in this case I believe the defendant both kidnapped and murdered and use a weapon in the commission of both

Ergo, felony murder.

 

[Boxer]

witnessses are always unreliable..also he was semi covered anyway..its not like they saw his face ..note that both of thses witnesses alleged the male in the video is the male they saw...each memory plays different tricks

the first sketch according to the new doc comes from witness S..THE ONE who saw him after the murders ..contrary to what we always beieved.. i guess the teens could have contributed also
this BB saw him only from a distance..must mistook the hat for curly hair ! she might have vision problems..who knows
the witnesses will not play a vital role in the trial I think

RA confirmed he passed the teens on the trail. He confirmed he walked to Platform One where the winess saw him. The witness then turned around and immediately passed Abby and Libby who were walking to the bridge.

 

[FrostedGlass]

RA confirmed he passed the teens on the trail. He confirmed he walked to Platform One where the winess saw him. The witness then turned around and immediately passed Abby and Libby who were walking to the bridge.

If you keep an open mind to what the memorandum says, he left around 1:30. The witness didn't see him, she saw someone else. Someone young, with poofy hair.

I wish we knew more about the couple FSG saw. Were they together from the time they arrived until they left?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I don't believe in human sacrifices, because in people who practice them, one would expect to see the trend opposite to what happened in real history.

People practicing pagan rituals today, essentially, go backwards. Historically, paganism would progress to monotheism as tribes merged into nations, and human sacrifices would be replaced by animal sacrifices and then by the smoke. So if modern pagans ever get so nutty as to decide to sacrifice humans, one would expect a progression from small animals to larger animals to humans. If these accused odinites, even one of them, had a habit of butchering/sacrificing animals, or cruelty to animals, I'd believe he could eventually transition to people. If not, it would be hard to convince me.

I am very unsure that it was RA, but I am not convinced in odinites either. Also, at least now we know how the scene looked like. But we are missing an important element, the character of wounds. What if this is a crazy guy whose hero is not Ted Bundy or Israel Keyes, but Jack the Ripper? Or what if he is similar to that mad medical student, Villafuerte? I do not quite believe ISP got their villain.

I do believe ISP has the right guy. If he were innocent, he would have hired and attorney and presented himself to the LE involved in early days to clear himself. He knew he was there, he knew it was him being plastered all over the billboards and internet- why would he not take a direct legal path to come forward? My opinion is because he knew there was a chance he would be charged. He was flying under the radar and it was working so why fix what wasn't broken. I think he preplanned it and made sure not to leave DNA but he did not count on two errors; being filmed and leaving behind evidence. I think he did take into consideration that he would be seen on the bridge which is why he dressed to conceal his identity as much as possible he just didn't take into account he would be filmed. I do wonder if he lived in paranoia for 5 years, afraid that he was being watched, fearful of disposing evidence or even throwing away items with his DNA.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

If you keep an open mind to what the memorandum says, he left around 1:30. The witness didn't see him, she saw someone else. Someone young, with poofy hair.

I wish we knew more about the couple FSG saw. Were they together from the time they arrived until they left?

I think the defense is muddying the waters and confusing eye witnesses here. I think the younger guy with fluffy hair that was shown in sketch #2 released later in the investigation was an individual seen near the trails the morning of the murders. I believe this was the young man spotted near the mailboxes by the couple on the private drive. I think half the memorandum is BS.

 

[TL4S]

I think the defense is muddying the waters and confusing eye witnesses here. I think the younger guy with fluffy hair that was shown in sketch #2 released later in the investigation was an individual seen near the trails the morning of the murders. I believe this was the young man spotted near the mailboxes by the couple on the private drive. I think half the memorandum is BS.

Could be a possibility. They did, after all, confuse the girls clothing and which girl the phone was under (PCA and memorandum say opposites).

 

[Salah11]

If you keep an open mind to what the memorandum says, he left around 1:30. The witness didn't see him, she saw someone else. Someone young, with poofy hair.

I wish we knew more about the couple FSG saw. Were they together from the time they arrived until they left?

Sorry the man charged with the crime was seen moments before the girls arrived on that bridge. He has placed himself there so it doesn’t get any better than that.


You can not escape the facts he was spotted on Platform 1 and he admitted himself he was stood on Platform 1 and the girls were moments from the bridge.


So unless he decided to jump off the bridge and go for a swim odds on he would have met them in passing.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Could be a possibility. They did, after all, confuse the girls clothing and which girl the phone was under (PCA and memorandum day opposites).

and perhaps the configuration of blood on tree.

 

[Charlot123]

Back in April 2019, when the YBG sketch came out and we found out it had been drawn only a few days after the murder, one of my initial questions was if maybe the reason LE didn't go with the younger sketch first was because the source of that sketch was unreliable for some reason, like a child, a known drug addict, something like that.

Looking at it now, I feel like BB's descriptions of both the vehicle and the man on the bridge are the outliers. A smaller SUV-type dark vehicle was seen in the CPS lot at 2:10 and again at 2:28. A similar vehicle was seen driving west past HH at 1:27, which LE says was likely RA's Ford Focus. All of those descriptions can be argued to be the same car, IMO. But then suddenly you have a not black '65 Comet right in the middle of those other descriptions, at 2:14. BB's description of the vehicle doesn't match the others.

Then you have three juveniles with only slightly varying descriptions of the man they saw. The one who claimed to see his face described more of a middle-aged man with gray hair. The other described the same clothing as the man in the bridge video. BB, meanwhile, described a young slender man with poofy brown hair. Doesn't match.

It seems to me that BB was, perhaps, not as reliable with her descriptions when in comparison to the other witnesses. I can see LE leaving her non-matching statements out of the PCA, because they really only used her to support the timeline AND put a man on scene only minutes before L and A arrived at the bridge.

That still doesn't explain why LE decided to change to her sketch in 2019. But since RA's arrest, the sketches have been vaguely hinted at being one in the same man by DC. JMO. I have trouble with that.

And why, for so long, through both sketches, did LE have reddish-brown hair in the suspect description? That doesn't match what any of the witnesses said, ASAIK. I always thought there might have been hair left at the CS, but it doesn't make sense. JMO.

What is important, though, is that none of the witnesses recognized the people they met. Which in itself is interesting.

About the cars. I assume they all are telling the truth in the type of car they saw. So we have three modern cars, and one outlier.

Where I live, a person driving a ‘65 Comet could be usually a collector (the car is 11-15 K + expensive gas, + repair parts hard to find + inspection). Or, it is a very old person. I don’t know how different the situation could be at MW, but I suspect that the driver of the Comet 65 was either older, or if the witness saw a young man next to it, than he borrowed that car from an old relative? Otherwise, psychologically it makes no sense to me. A very poor person? Can’t afford the gas, maintenance and inspection of a ‘65 car. A person who collects, repairs and sells old cars? I knew such a man, but they are rare. (An expensive hobby, btw. A very bright person. And rich if he sells all his 12 cars.) A very old guy whose youth fell on the time of big malls and outdoor movie theaters? Yes. It would be a young baby boomer. They’d drive these cars because, their youth, you know. They found an old lady in California in 2010 who drove her comet since she bought it new. At 92, she retired from driving because of poor eyesight. The Comet had about 600 K miles on it.

What is the car situation at Midwest?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

What is important, though, is that none of the witnesses recognized the people they met. Which in itself is interesting.

About the cars. I assume they all are telling the truth in the type of car they saw. So we have three modern cars, and one outlier.

Where I live, a person driving a ‘65 Comet could be usually a collector (the car is 11-15 K + expensive gas, + repair parts hard to find + inspection). Or, it is a very old person. I don’t know how different the situation could be at MW, but I suspect that the driver of the Comet 65 was either older, or if the witness saw a young man next to it, than he borrowed that car from an old relative? Otherwise, psychologically it makes no sense to me. A very poor person? Can’t afford the gas, maintenance and inspection of a ‘65 car. A person who collects, repairs and sells old cars? I knew such a man, but they are rare. (An expensive hobby, btw. A very bright person. And rich if he sells all his 12 cars.) A very old guy whose youth fell on the time of big malls and outdoor movie theaters? Yes. It would be a young baby boomer. They’d drive these cars because, their youth, you know. They found an old lady in California in 2010 who drove her comet since she bought it new. At 92, she retired from driving because of poor eyesight. The Comet had about 600 K miles on it.

What is the car situation at Midwest?

I am thinking if someone local owned that car that everyone would know who it belonged to.

 

[photographer4]

I think they just put that there because they know it's ridiculous that the killer had a chain saw going down there

We don't have the detail but if we are talking a branch diameter of 5cm or so at most, you can cut that by hand in a few seconds easily. If its something much bigger requiring an electric chainsaw then it would make a lot of noise so I think we can safely assume none of this ever happened in the way they are suggesting

What I will suggest from trawling over Whoever Fights Monsters - the FBI profiler book - abduction cases normally have 2-3 crime scenes. The abduction scene, the place where the attack happens, then the disposal ground. In this case the location of the attack and the disposal site are effectively the same place.

In these cases, the place where the attack happens is usually carefully selected by the killer as a place he can carry out his plan without danger of being disturbed.

I would bet the killer spent significant time at the location. This was all planned. IMO it is the victims who were random.

my 02c

Thanks for this book idea - I've just picked up a copy and will read it later tonight.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Sorry the man charged with the crime was seen moments before the girls arrived on that bridge. He has placed himself there so it doesn’t get any better than that.


You can not escape the facts he was spotted on Platform 1 and he admitted himself he was stood on Platform 1 and the girls were moments from the bridge.


So unless he decided to jump off the bridge and go for a swim odds on he would have met them in passing.

Lol.. Prosecution has not convinced me that they have the right man. So, at this moment in time, I'm considering his side of the story: he got there around noon, he walked out onto the platform to see the fish and left around 1:30.

If I was on the jury, I would not send him to prison for the rest of his life based on the mess of witness sightings and a note of some sort from the CO which gave the wrong name and a recording of the convo had not been found at the time of the memo.

I'm waiting for the trial to decide on his "confessions." I can't count the number of times I heard LE talk about holding info close to weed out false confessions; I want to be sure his is not one of them.

I'll be glad to change my mind when prosecution provides solid evidence. Our opinions don't agree but that's OK.
My opinion only based on the memorandum.