IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #167

[Justice101]

In the absence of information, we as humans tend to exaggerate our weaknesses and falsely magnify our fears. Like when your daughter is an hour late home and you get worried thinking she is dying in a ditch somewhere. This probably applies to this case.

So I will assume that the prosecution has more than enough evidence to prove RA guilty of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers.

 

[MistyWaters]

I very much agree with this. However, regardless of RA's guilt or innocence, if they obtained that SW by misconstruing the evidence, by way of omitting exculpatory statements, then that is something that LE and NMcL need to be called out on, either way. At this point, the judge will be the one to decide what happened there.

I remember early on after the arrest, it was discussed how NMcL had made all these terrible errors on some of the court documents. People were questioning his ability to handle such a high-profile case. They questioned him for wanting the affidavit sealed. They questioned his reasoning for telling the court that others could be involved. Now, suddenly it's an airtight case against RA and the D are the ones who are being questioned.

I'm just feeling somewhat uncertain about the true facts of the case at this point. JMO.

I think the integrity of the defence team suffered by filing that earlier motion alleging RA’s stay in Westville as a “prisoner of war” using specific examples of mistreatment (all later disputed) and therefore ruled against by the Judge.

Then we learned just before that motion was filed RA confessed several times to his wife and mother, which was not mentioned at all although they did attempt to excuse that off by raising concerns regarding his mental wellness, assumably disputed by mental health records provided to the defence. I realize the defence team is just doing the job they are paid to do in defence of RA but by relying on unnecessary inflammatory and dramatic tactics, I think it brings their credibility into question as well. They could just as easily make their arguments and concerns heard by relying upon points of law. JMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

I might be the only one who thinks the bullet may possibly have just been planted there

Why and by whom?
The bullet has been there since the beginning.
They planted it just in case 5 plus years later they might be able to frame some random person?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

They have the crime scene photos. I doubt they would make up sticks above Abby's head (again, they are not allowed to lie, plus the judge has the crime scene photos as well). If they were actually placed there, or ended up there by coincidence, nobody knows. But it gets weird when you do see them in the crime scene photos and know that there was a guy years ago who mentioned "antlers" when nobody knew what the crime scene looked like.

<modsnip - personalizing>

The defense has seen the crime scene photos. They see sticks above Abby’s head. They interpret that as “antlers“ placed there to support their pagan cult fairy tale.
Other people have seen the crime scene photos. They see sticks above Abby’s head. They interpret that as “sticks above Abby’s head”.
The defense’s interpretation of what they see in these photos is not fact. It is just their opinion.

 

[iamnotagolem]

Why and by whom?
The bullet has been there since the beginning.
They planted it just in case 5 plus years later they might be able to frame some random person?

Not only that but then forgot for several years whose bullet they planted and who they had planned to frame? Seems illogical.

 

[FrostedGlass]

The defense has seen the crime scene photos. They see sticks above Abby’s head. They interpret that as “antlers“ placed there to support their pagan cult fairy tale.
Other people have seen the crime scene photos. They see sticks above Abby’s head. They interpret that as “sticks above Abby’s head”.
The defense’s interpretation of what they see in these photos is not fact. It is just their opinion.

I believe it was said they were placed in her hair. Isn't it just an opinion either way?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Not only that but then forgot for several years whose bullet they planted and who they had planned to frame? Seems illogical.

Until prosecution produces the chain of custody photos, we have a lot of questions. Like how do we know the bullet that was shown in the ground is the same one as the one the lab sent to RA's atty? (referenced in the memorandum)

 

[TL4S]

The defense has seen the crime scene photos. They see sticks above Abby’s head. They interpret that as “antlers“ placed there to support their pagan cult fairy tale.
Other people have seen the crime scene photos. They see sticks above Abby’s head. They interpret that as “sticks above Abby’s head”.
The defense’s interpretation of what they see in these photos is not fact. It is just their opinion.

The "antlers" part does seem kind of silly, and for the D to point to that as meaning the killing was sacrificial then seems silly (and therefore disrespectful), as well. IMO.

What I would like to know, however, is whether or not LE thinks the killer purposefully placed sticks on or around A's head (rather than them just getting caught in her hair during the attack). We can't make that determination because we haven't seen the CS photos or heard from LE on the matter. We know the CS was odd, and placing sticks around the victim's head definitely would be odd, IMO. But what makes EF's comment so striking to me is that it refers to sticks around her head at all. Him, with his 7 year old mental capacity, might see antlers where an adult mind would not. Someone who practices Odinism might see antlers where a Christian would not. IMO, none of it matters other than whether or not the killer intentionally placed sticks around his victim's head, and then how would EF (or whoever was coaching him) know about that? JMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here's another gun/bullet related question that I hope someone can answer. The search warrant return has 3 parts: the gun/bullet collection, RA's belongings and whatever else and finally the car items. There is a box on the form for witness verification; that box is signed on the second two but not on the first one= the gun bullet.

So is it just some oversight by the witness or was there no witness? See the empty box?

 

[Ravenmoon]

I keep seeing a statement that " We all know lawyers can't lie."

I have provided information from the American Bar Association that while lawyers can't lie, they don't have to tell the truth.

So, with that in mind I see the Defense's request for the SW to be thrown out as the definition of being truthful and also being dishonest.

They obtained information that shows that early on, a possible connection between the murders and occult activity could have been a factor. Several people were looked at. Police did their due diligence. They investigated this angle.

They found nothing to indicate that cult activity occurred.

That's great, because they followed through and could then make the call that they could move on and away from that scenario.

But the defense paints a different picture. They have taken the cult reference and added information that police have said does not play any part in their decision to make an arrest.

They have added details such as blood spatter being painted on a tree by the perpetrator Dipping his fingers into the open wound of a victims neck and painting a Fehu on a tree. Although we have not seen actual photos of the tree there are impressions made from the actual crime scene that we are able to look at. There is NOTHING that remotely looks like a Fehu or an attempt to paint one.

Can't we all see how the defense has taken ONE single portion of the crime scene and sensationalized it to fit a specific narrative that suits them and their pursuit of perpetuating a lie?

This is ONE, I repeat ONE example of how things are legal but are still not honest when it comes to painting a narrative.

I would just remind everyone that this is not just a story, this was the ending of the lives of 2 very young girls who went out for a walk on a snow day.

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/december-2019/

JMO

 

[iamnotagolem]

Here's another gun/bullet related question that I hope someone can answer. The search warrant return has 3 parts: the gun/bullet collection, RA's belongings and whatever else and finally the car items. There is a box on the form for witness verification; that box is signed on the second two but not on the first one= the gun bullet.

So is it just some oversight by the witness or was there no witness? See the empty box?

View attachment 450352

Maybe because it was found inside the P226? Maybe they didn't remove it from the chamber until after they had left the residence?

 

[FrostedGlass]

The horns from Pg 98 of the memorandum:

"The Defense has not viewed one single report that discusses the sticks placed atop Abby’s
hair shaped like horns/antlers being compared with Elvis’s statement to his sister that he shaped
sticks into horns on Abby."

 

[FrostedGlass]

Maybe because it was found inside the P226? Maybe they didn't remove it from the chamber until after they had left the residence?

They took 7 items in that part of the search. Shouldn't someone have been witnessing that process?

 

[iamnotagolem]

They took 7 items in that part of the search. Shouldn't someone have been witnessing that process?

I see what you're referring to now, I misunderstood at first. Do you happen to have a link to the document handy?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I see what you're referring to now, I misunderstood at first. Do you happen to have a link to the document handy?

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf

While you're looking, why are there so few boxes checked?
I have little knowledge of how they collect evidence from old clothing.

 

[iamnotagolem]

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf

While you're looking, why are there so few boxes checked?
I have little knowledge of how they collect evidence from old clothing.

So there are 5 pages, 3 with the "witness to recovery" box and only one has a name in the "witness to recovery" box. I have no idea honestly. I assume general ineptitude. Maybe since there is already an investigating officer & submitting officer, there are two names and they just neglected to put one of the names in the witness box.

 

[Miya]

The defense has seen the crime scene photos. They see sticks above Abby’s head. They interpret that as “antlers“ placed there to support their pagan cult fairy tale.
Other people have seen the crime scene photos. They see sticks above Abby’s head. They interpret that as “sticks above Abby’s head”.
The defense’s interpretation of what they see in these photos is not fact. It is just their opinion.

But there is the guy who knew about the "antlers" years ago. How is that possible?

 

[Miya]

I keep seeing a statement that " We all know lawyers can't lie."

I have provided information from the American Bar Association that while lawyers can't lie, they don't have to tell the truth.

Again, what I am talking about is that they can't lie if there are receipts. If somebody says something in a deposition and they quote that or say that they lied, this has to be true for the simple fact that there are receipts. Being caught lying to the court about what someone said in a deposition would get them in trouble, maybe/probably disbarred.

I never said they can come up with their own theory of what happened and speculate based on some of the evidence or on the fact that at least some in LE still believe RA didn't do it and that the other people were investigated in the beginning. They can also leave things out, even from depositions.

That doesn't mean it's not troubling that someone from LE lied in a deposition. Or that there doesn't seem to be chain of custody for the bullet. There are many things like that in there.

 

[Ravenmoon]

But there is the guy who knew about the "antlers" years ago. How is that possible?

Easy. Available photos .

They were easily available with a quick Google search.
They still exist, but are not as easy to find.

Keep in mind that these were said to be debunked.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Again, what I am talking about is that they can't lie if there are receipts. If somebody says something in a deposition and they quote that or say that they lied, this has to be true for the simple fact that there are receipts. Being caught lying to the court about what someone said in a deposition would get them in trouble, maybe/probably disbarred.

I never said they can come up with their own theory of what happened and speculate based on some of the evidence or on the fact that at least some in LE still believe RA didn't do it and that the other people were investigated in the beginning. They can also leave things out, even from depositions.

That doesn't mean it's not troubling that someone from LE lied in a deposition. Or that there doesn't seem to be chain of custody for the bullet. There are many things like that in there.

Please provide documentation stating that LE has lied.