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

[Salah11]

Right. He puts himself on the platform. Even if YBG really existed, RA always has the same problem that he says he didn't see the girls or BB or indeed YBG.

The defence answered a question in the memorandum which to my mind is fatal at trial.

I wondered how the defence was going to account for the fact that RA had to be ahead of BB on the trail, yet he did not see the victims who are inbound. Would the defence admit that RA was the guy BB saw on the bridge? or would they claim it was someone else? IMO the best course of action was to admit that she must have in fact have seen RA, because otherwise where the hell else could he be? And then claim that somehow the victims must have left the trail at some stage, so he could return back down the trail without seeing them.

The problem is, RA has scuppered all that by saying something very stupid to police in recorded interviews. i.e that he left the trails at 1.30pm which is a very foolish lie. But I thought this might happen because police had every opportunity to trip him up in that interview.

Because that was recorded, there is now no chance for the defence to manufacture a version with the perfect timings which he can testify to at trial after hearing all the witness testimony.

Whoops.

Yes unless he jumped off the bridge then I don’t see how he could not of seen the girls walking towards the bridge if he left straight away.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

His car was seen passing the HH store on video at approx. 1:44 pm (arriving IIRC).

It was 1.27pm - from the PCA

Investigators discovered RichardAllen owned two vehicles in 2017 a 2016 black Ford Focus and a

2006 gray Ford 500. Investigators observed a vehicle that resembledAllen's 2016 Ford Focus on the

Hoosier Harvestore video at 1:27p.m traveling westbound on CR 300 North infront ofthe Hoosier

Harvestore, which coincided with his statement that he arrived around 1:30p.rn. at the trails.

Investigators note witnesses described the vehicle parked at theformer ChildProtective Services Building

as a PT Cruiser; small SIIV, or "Smart" car. Investigators believe those descriptions are similar in nature

to a 2016 Ford Focus.

 

[mrjitty]

Yes unless he jumped off the bridge then I don’t see how he could not of seen the girls walking towards the bridge if he left straight away.

IMO

Right. He was incredibly stupid to give the interview.

Had he not done that, he could have added some new ideas like maybe he jumped off the trail to go pee, or he was engrossed in his thoughts so it's possible he passed other people he just can't remember because it is so long ago - and he said that in his brief tip interview but the incompetent officer didn't write that down

etc etc etc

He has hemmed himself in to the dumbest timeline

 

[mrjitty]

This is what buries the defendant's version

[one of the 3 girls] showed investigators photographs she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. The photographs included a photo of the Manon High Bridge taken at 12:43 p.m., and another one taken at 1:26 pm of the bench East of the Freedom Bridge. [girl] advised after she-took the photo of the bench they started walking back toward Freedom Bridge. She advised that was when they encountered the man who matched the description of the photograph taken from Victim 2's video.

Bolded for emphasis. This creates the digital time stamp of when RA arrived

 

[O.Incandenza]

RSBM - this simply isn't possible though

RA and the 3 girls corroborate each others' sightings. Four sets of testimony. He was walking towards the MH Bridge, and they away from it. In order for him to leave by 1.30pm he would have had to have been walking in the same direction as them.

There is no way around this point for the defence, because RA says he saw the girls and corroborates them. In order for his timing to be correct, it would require that the girls were leaving at midday but we know from other data points this is not correct. In other words, he did enter the trails at 1.30, not leave at 1.30.

One possible complication that's worth pointing out is that I believe there were actually 4 girls in that group. Only 3 of them were interviewed as witnesses, probably because the 4th was too young. You can see that in BB's statement in the PCA where she says that she saw '4 juvenile females.' Also the search warrant affidavit says "Through the investigation there were interviews done with 3 of the 4 girls that were on the trials that day."

So I imagine the defense will argue that RA saw a different group of 3 girls when he was on the trails earlier, while BB and the juvenile girls mentioned in the affidavit all saw a different man, as evidenced by BB's description of YBG.

 

[TL4S]

Yeah, the defense memorandum makes it very clear that the YBG sketch came from BB, the witness who saw a man on the bridge right before Libby & Abby arrived. They cite the Facial Identification Reference Sheet that contains her description of the man on the bridge (20 years old, brown curly hair, medium build), as well her comments about the accuracy of the YBG sketch (10 out of 10 for accuracy). (pp. 105-106)

She apparently gave that description 4 days after the murders. She then went back to the police in 2019 because she was upset that they had been using the OBG sketch instead. She said that sketch was wrong and didn't resemble the man she saw at all. That presumably led to the eventual release of the YBG sketch.

Yes. And yet, even in her insistence, we would have to dismiss her description entirely to make RA be the man she saw.

I'm in full agreement with the discussion that RA put himself on the bridge, the timing of the three girls, the HH footage, etc. It's convincing and seemingly indisputable, imo.

But I'll be curious to hear LE explain why they suddenly found BB's sketch pertinent enough in 2019 that they STILL have it on their ISP and FBI Delphi pages. A 20-something with poofy brown hair... the spitting image of RA. It's frustrating. I know there are answers, and I hope we will know them eventually. DC told us we would.

 

[TL4S]

One possible complication that's worth pointing out is that I believe there were actually 4 girls in that group. Only 3 of them were interviewed as witnesses, probably because the 4th was too young. You can see that in BB's statement in the PCA where she says that she saw '4 juvenile females.' Also the search warrant affidavit says "Through the investigation there were interviews done with 3 of the 4 girls that were on the trials that day."

So I imagine the defense will argue that RA saw a different group of 3 girls when he was on the trails earlier, while BB and the juvenile girls mentioned in the affidavit all saw a different man, as evidenced by BB's description of YBG.

This is exactly what I've been thinking and wondering if they have witness statements from the trail between noon and 1:30.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Right. He was incredibly stupid to give the interview.

Had he not done that, he could have added some new ideas like maybe he jumped off the trail to go pee, or he was engrossed in his thoughts so it's possible he passed other people he just can't remember because it is so long ago - and he said that in his brief tip interview but the incompetent officer didn't write that down

etc etc etc

He has hemmed himself in to the dumbest timeline

Ok, that right there was kind of funny. Because I was going to say something about that but knew I'd be thrown in with the cult conspiracy nuts. But wth ... If he left at 1:30, being the beer drinker that he was, it's possible that on his way out, he decided to come back to pee and that's when he passed them.

 

[Salah11]

I don’t believe he had been drinking that day. He was very aware of his surroundings and was driving and I’m still not convinced he didn’t know they was heading there.

It’s not like he spent hours out there waiting for victims. He was there minutes before the girls arrived and it all just seems so coincidental IMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

Ok, that right there was kind of funny. Because I was going to say something about that but knew I'd be thrown in with the cult conspiracy nuts. But wth ... If he left at 1:30, being the beer drinker that he was, it's possible that on his way out, he decided to come back to pee and that's when he passed them.

BUT... How is it, under that scenario, that he failed to encounter the "young bridge guy", BB or Abby and Libby?

 

[O.Incandenza]

This is exactly what I've been thinking and wondering if they have witness statements from the trail between noon and 1:30.

The video of the cars will also be crucial. The PCA says that 'Investigators observed a vehicle that resembled Allen's 2016 Ford Focus on the Hoosier Harvestore video at 1 :27 p.m traveling westbound on CR 300 North in front of the Hoosier Harvestore.' So it depends on how good that video is and whether any other cars consistent with his vehicles went by earlier.

 

[TL4S]

Ok, that right there was kind of funny. Because I was going to say something about that but knew I'd be thrown in with the cult conspiracy nuts. But wth ... If he left at 1:30, being the beer drinker that he was, it's possible that on his way out, he decided to come back to pee and that's when he passed them.

If BB still remains confident that she saw a younger man with poofy hair and a '65 Comet, then I'm doubtful she would be a helpful witness for the prosecution. Jmo.

So then what?

If there isn't any evidence linking RA to the scene or the girls (per the memorandum), will the juvenile witnesses who might have seen him 45 minutes earlier be believable enough?

BMcD's source told her about the bullet long ago and they weren't even sure it didn't belong to LE. And the only recorded interview with RA he said he left at 1:30.

Forget the Odinist stuff. Forget the fanfiction writing style. RA very well might be the guy, and there IS evidence to suggest that, imo, but I don't have a problem wondering about some of these things. It's crucial to get it right. Jmo.

 

[DeDee]

KAK - Peru

RMA - Peru

20 years ago, RA received a seat belt infraction while in Miami Co where Peru is located

Richard Allen resided in Peru, IN

Has the Defense's accused suspect ever resided or worked in Peru?

 

[mrjitty]

Ok, that right there was kind of funny. Because I was going to say something about that but knew I'd be thrown in with the cult conspiracy nuts. But wth ... If he left at 1:30, being the beer drinker that he was, it's possible that on his way out, he decided to come back to pee and that's when he passed them.

Right he should have not talked to law enforcement and said this at trial after they had all the discovery.

Basically he could have done the pistorius play where you reverse engineer your version to fit around all the witnesses.

But it’s too late now.

 

[10ofRods]

Sure, not arguing that. I wasn't implying that felony murder is better or something. I was just pointing out that it applies to a much broader set of circumstances than just the person charged killing someone during the commission of a felony. And for a one person killing it would be more usual to just charge the person with murder with intent and then with additional charges of kidnapping. So the prosecutors in this case had to have had a reason to choose felony murder as the charge. One theory is that they had co-conspirators in mind that they just hadn't indicted yet. But IMO that gets less and less plausible the longer we go without additional indictments.

And the crime scene details help explain, to me at least, why they made that choice. It's bizarre and complicated enough that it might raise the possibility of accomplices in jurors' minds. But the prosecution doesn't have to worry about that with a felony murder charge.

I think it depends on jurisdiction. I am more familiar with the Inter-Mountain West and the coastal West of the US, but it’s definitely a way for the State to have a first degree murder conviction without having to show intent. The circumstances do not have to be “broader” than most typical murders. I don’t know the legal literature well enough to say whether it’s “more usual” to “just charge” the person with first degree murder - but I do know that the legal bar of intent is hard to prove, so that, where I live and in the cases I know about where the felony murder rule was applied (and there are many just in my one California county), it makes the State’s case much easier.

I do not regard use of the felony murder rule as any sign that the State thinks there’s a “conspiracy” (which would be a different charge). I could be wrong. Maybe conspiracy charges will eventually be filed (but I doubt it),

I think that if you read the more recent annals of criminal law, that prosecutors are learning that the felony murder rule is exactly the way to prosecute kidnappings that become murder, home invasions that become murder, carjackings that become murder, and so on. There are not a whole lot of these cases. We have a huge number of missing/never found people who were likely abducted and then left to die or murdered.

And your last sentence is exactly true and will set up the rules of procedure by which the Judge assesses evidence. As for the crime scene, I believe we mostly don’t know that much about it. The Defense is certainly giving us one view. Indeed, if it is really some kind of cult - the felony murder rule is even more apt, isn’t it?

IMO

 

[O.Incandenza]

I think it depends on jurisdiction. I am more familiar with the Inter-Mountain West and the coastal West of the US, but it’s definitely a way for the State to have a first degree murder conviction without having to show intent. The circumstances do not have to be “broader” than most typical murders. I don’t know the legal literature well enough to say whether it’s “more usual” to “just charge” the person with first degree murder - but I do know that the legal bar of intent is hard to prove, so that, where I live and in the cases I know about where the felony murder rule was applied (and there are many just in my one California county), it makes the State’s case much easier.

I do not regard use of the felony murder rule as any sign that the State thinks there’s a “conspiracy” (which would be a different charge). I could be wrong. Maybe conspiracy charges will eventually be filed (but I doubt it),

I think that if you read the more recent annals of criminal law, that prosecutors are learning that the felony murder rule is exactly the way to prosecute kidnappings that become murder, home invasions that become murder, carjackings that become murder, and so on. There are not a whole lot of these cases. We have a huge number of missing/never found people who were likely abducted and then left to die or murdered.

And your last sentence is exactly true and will set up the rules of procedure by which the Judge assesses evidence. As for the crime scene, I believe we mostly don’t know that much about it. The Defense is certainly giving us one view. Indeed, if it is really some kind of cult - the felony murder rule is even more apt, isn’t it?

IMO

Yep. Basically if there are any potential issues with proving intent (I don't think there would be in this case) or any question of someone else having actually done the killing, then felony murder makes the most sense as the charge.

 

[Springrain]

The following is JMO:

There is,was and has NEVER been any cult influence in these murders.

The sticks were simply an abandoned effort to cover the bodies. They were randomly placed.
The F on the tree was not an F, let alone Fehu. It was blood spatter.

The crime was carried out because of a fantasy that was perverse and disgusting.

Just because there may NOT have been penetration, it doesn't mean that the motivation wasn't sexual or that some type of sexual activity did not occur. This entire thing was sexual.

This was one man's work put into motion because he is an abomination.



There is no reasonable way to believe that several men met up on the off chance that a couple of unsuspecting kids would show up and walk on the bridge right into their trap. Oh, plus their cult would have to be magic because there were not, apparently, many sets of footprints.

I agree with this 1000% JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Right he should have not talked to law enforcement and said this at trial after they had all the discovery.

Basically he could have done the pistorius play where you reverse engineer your version to fit around all the witnesses.

But it’s too late now.

Yes adaption. IMO He didn't realize they had found a bullet at the CS and that the search warrant was going to tie it to a gun he owned. He hadn't been prepared for that or he would have made an adaption to his story to explain why his bullet may have found its way to the CS. It leads me to believe he didn't realize it was left at the CS.

 

[Sillybilly]

Yeah, the defense memorandum makes it very clear that the YBG sketch came from BB, the witness who saw a man on the bridge right before Libby & Abby arrived. They cite the Facial Identification Reference Sheet that contains her description of the man on the bridge (20 years old, brown curly hair, medium build), as well her comments about the accuracy of the YBG sketch (10 out of 10 for accuracy). (pp. 105-106)

She apparently gave that description 4 days after the murders. She then went back to the police in 2019 because she was upset that they had been using the OBG sketch instead. She said that sketch was wrong and didn't resemble the man she saw at all. That presumably led to the eventual release of the YBG sketch.

Other than what defence has put out in regard to the YBG sketch ^^, is there anything else to substantiate the claim about BB being the source for that sketch? (Somewhere else .. can't find it now .. someone posted that it was RA or possibly RA who gave that description ???)

This may have been discussed a long time ago, but is it just me that see's a resemblance between the YBG sketch and the young fellow whose pics were uploaded to the anthony shots site.? I'm not going to link to the young man's photos, but they are readily available in google images. This is in NO WAY to make insinuations about the young fellow, just thinking someone who may have been on the anthony shots site may have provided that description as a red herring.

 

[Ravenmoon]

This release has to be 100 percent devastating for the friends and families of the girls.

I can't help feel that one of the girls families are almost tormented in particular. The defense continuously brings up how one girl suffered and also called out her mother as a race traitor. How vile is this defense team?

Is there an implication that this Mom was involved with this Odinist group?

I want to know why. Or am I reading too much into a terribly written document?