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

[Bergmann]

Can you find a copy of the Motion For Discovery Deadline?
Isn't it interesting how much of the info can be something or nothing?

DELETED

I hope that link is okay, if not happy to delete and find another source.

The specific reddit thread isn't the usual 'house of tin foil conspiracy theorists' but its purpose is to capture the filings and offer mostly professional legal opinions on the process and approach of both D & P.

Warning: If you're of the opinion that P are righteous saints and D are disrespectful evil escaped clowns then you might not want to read the comments thread below that filing!

 

[FrostedGlass]

@Bergmann I don't think they are an approved MSM source. I haven't been able to find another source; if you can that would be great!

 

[FrostedGlass]

Don't even get me started on the bullet.

I've posted several times about it, but BMcD just recently said her sources had told her about the bullet for a long time, but she had never heard a definitive theory from them that the bullet came from the suspect, and that it could have even come from LE. Extractor ballistics, especially on a manually extracted bullet, IMO will only be as strong of evidence as the argument by the expert witness regarding those ballistics. JMO.

I don't necessarily believe it was planted, but could it have come from another source other than RA? I guess we'll see.

mm 20:50
Delphi Murders: Illustrations Detail Defense Claims About Crime Scene

The part I bolded.. I wonder why that is. On its face, it looks pretty clear that the murderer dropped it there. Was there something about it that they couldn't make the connection? What could that be?

 

[iamnotagolem]

Welp, I'm gonna have to read or hear those direct words from JH before I believe what the Defense wrote in that Memo.

I most definitely believe the State has evidence tying RA to the scene.

JMO

I still have a sneaking suspicion that the words were carefully chosen there, just because of the differentiating between "crime scene" and "murders". See bolded below.

Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene.187 No data extracted from Richard Allen’s phone connects him to the murders.188 No data extracted from Libby’s phone connected Richard the murders.189 There is no evidence that Richard Allen is or was connected to any other suspects in the case.190 There is no evidence found on social media that connects Richard Allen to the murders.191 There is no evidence extracted from Richard Allen’s computers that connects him to the murders.192 There is no fingerprint evidence that connects Richard Allen to the murders.193

 

[mrjitty]

I still have a sneaking suspicion that the words were carefully chosen there, just because of the differentiating between "crime scene" and "murders". See bolded below.

Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene.187 No data extracted from Richard Allen’s phone connects him to the murders.188 No data extracted from Libby’s phone connected Richard the murders.189 There is no evidence that Richard Allen is or was connected to any other suspects in the case.190 There is no evidence found on social media that connects Richard Allen to the murders.191 There is no evidence extracted from Richard Allen’s computers that connects him to the murders.192 There is no fingerprint evidence that connects Richard Allen to the murders.193

Yep.

Exactly why we have to be careful - because things were found at his house which allegedly connect him to the murders. e.g. the gun

The only important thing here is the Franks hearing. The rest is noise where the defence want to build a conspiracy about a coverup.

 

[iamshadow21]

I still have a sneaking suspicion that the words were carefully chosen there, just because of the differentiating between "crime scene" and "murders". See bolded below.

Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene.187 No data extracted from Richard Allen’s phone connects him to the murders.188 No data extracted from Libby’s phone connected Richard the murders.189 There is no evidence that Richard Allen is or was connected to any other suspects in the case.190 There is no evidence found on social media that connects Richard Allen to the murders.191 There is no evidence extracted from Richard Allen’s computers that connects him to the murders.192 There is no fingerprint evidence that connects Richard Allen to the murders.193

188 really makes me roll my eyes, because we have him on freaking video from Libby's phone. The video is data. That is a connection, whether the defense likes it or not.

MOO

 

[iamnotagolem]

188 really makes me roll my eyes, because we have him on freaking video from Libby's phone. The video is data. That is a connection, whether the defense likes it or not.

MOO

Which is why I'm so certain they were very careful in choosing their wording, because we know there is phone data linking him to the crime scene, but they chose to say murders.

 

[FromGermany1]

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

But when was it planted, if? From where did they (LE) get the bullet?? And whom had LE in mind to make this person responsible with the bullet (or even the contrary: NOT responsible)? Officially they didn't know about RA for years, so they couldn't have intentionally framed him. It doesn't make sense, IMO.

 

[TL4S]

I still have a sneaking suspicion that the words were carefully chosen there, just because of the differentiating between "crime scene" and "murders". See bolded below.

Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene.187 No data extracted from Richard Allen’s phone connects him to the murders.188 No data extracted from Libby’s phone connected Richard the murders.189 There is no evidence that Richard Allen is or was connected to any other suspects in the case.190 There is no evidence found on social media that connects Richard Allen to the murders.191 There is no evidence extracted from Richard Allen’s computers that connects him to the murders.192 There is no fingerprint evidence that connects Richard Allen to the murders.193

Yes, when I read that paragraph, my initial thought was...okay, so there's no RA DNA. That, in and of itself, does not sway me either way, since we don't know if there's usable DNA.

But, considering LE has said the crime scene started at the bridge (DC even once said it started at the trail head), then one could, theoretically, wonder if RA's phone, L's phone (bridge and other video), SM/computer, and fingerprints might actually place him at the crime scene, but nothing with the murders themselves, if that makes sense. The D might just be using those words because officially, RA WAS at the overall crime scene (the trail and the bridge). But, IMO, while the D has called RA an innocent man, I feel like with those specific words in the paragraph you listed, they have left the door ajar for a possible argument that RA was there, but he was not the one with the knife in his hand. I know that doesn't affect the type of charges he carries (like Felony Murder), but perhaps this is to preserve a little space for a plea deal? IDK.

Maybe it isn't the prison guards or Odinists RA is worried about hurting his wife (if this is even true), but rather the other people involved that he's scared to rat out on because they are still walking free. I'm only putting the thought out there. JMO.

ETA: I'm under the impression that this Odinist stuff is all coming from the D, not RA.

 

[Bergmann]

For the defence the incentives tend to be the opposite. There is every inventive to speculate conspiracies theories via exposition, even where the facts are not in evidence. And it is not uncommon for overwhelmed judges to fall for these deceptions or flights of fantasy.

I think I get your point that you're trying to make here. There's enough examples that spring to mind of what I think is termed 'defence lawyering' in a none too affectionate light. This includes a combination of wishful thinking, baseless assertions, and usually filing documents which are superficially light on content, say a few pages that look rushed.

My take on the D memo is that it is easy to just dismiss and characterise it as crazy Odinist fantasy. And I have some sympathy with that based on how it is written, the complicated and often confusing narrative, the hyperbole used, and trying to direct the reader towards a conclusion of a 'ritualistic killing' which of course sounds waaaay too far fetched.

However, and this is what is going to give the Judge a problem in any attempt to casually dismiss it, and a real headache in NMcL in writing his rebuttal - if you read it with both eyes and can set aside the problems I outlined above, the D do raise and land some valid legal points. And they reference and receipt these. This makes it much harder to just dismiss (legally at least).

That is why the D remembered themselves and sent the supplementary document which basically said - 'look at all these Frank's hearing granted in other cases which had nothing like the depth or supporting legally trace-able detail we have provided you in this case'. Basically 'if you deny a hearing then that is going to potentially look bad in front of your peers and is going to open up potential post conviction problems which is going to be squarely on you'.

I don't care whether anyone already thinks RA is guilty or whatever, this is a matter of law and precedent. I also think it is good lawyering from D (on this occasion at least!).

 

[sunshineray]

IMO, the one unspent bullet is weird. I don’t necessarily think it was planted, but I’m not convinced ballistics can prove the specific gun an unspent bullet hypothetically fell out of. I’m not a ballistics expert, JMO

I agree that the bullet ejecting markings is new ballistics that will need to be backed up with good science explanation. There's no way though that a bullet found at the 2017 scene was planted to match a gun not known until 2022. I don't think that could possibly be what was being referenced as far as evidence being planted?

I don't rightly know what was being referenced earlier in the thread as being planted...or like another has asked, by whom?

 

[steeltowngirl]

I still have a sneaking suspicion that the words were carefully chosen there, just because of the differentiating between "crime scene" and "murders". See bolded below.

Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene.187 No data extracted from Richard Allen’s phone connects him to the murders.188 No data extracted from Libby’s phone connected Richard the murders.189 There is no evidence that Richard Allen is or was connected to any other suspects in the case.190 There is no evidence found on social media that connects Richard Allen to the murders.191 There is no evidence extracted from Richard Allen’s computers that connects him to the murders.192 There is no fingerprint evidence that connects Richard Allen to the murders.193

Quite possible, since they do have DNA. Holeman said so back in 2017.

Police tell us they have conducted hundreds of interviews, followed up on thousands of leads and served dozens of search warrants to find clues that the killer may have left behind, including DNA.

“At every crime scene, you are going to have DNA. We are still working on identifying all of the DNA that we have there,” said Sgt. Holeman.

Lead detective in Delphi murders confirms police have more audio from phone, DNA evidence

DELPHI, Ind. – Six months into the search for the killer of Abby Williams and Libby German, we are learning new information about the evidence police are using to track down the suspect. “It takes …

fox59.com

 

[sunshineray]

Even more head scratching is the defense's theory that Odinist cult of 2 members decides to include invite 3 new recruits to come to Delphi in the middle of the day for a ritualist human sacrifice. You know as indoctrination to the cult.

The more I read the memorandum and subsequent filings by defense the more I believe the odinist bait was only peppered into initial discovery because LE and prosecution knew it was a big old nothing burger. Defense would automatically think it was evidence being withheld and plan their whole defense around this crazy theory. Now Prosecution can spring the trap because defense is boxed in on their theory. JMO

Now that's an interesting take on things, food for thought.

 

[Megnut]

RA may have kept his DNA from the crime scene but he might've brought DNA from the crime scene home with him.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I have a counter-question. What action would make a bullet nest in such a place, smack between two girls who were not shot, but stabbed?

Chambering a round to intimidate a child into disrobing or doing whatever they were being told to do? Adrenaline is high, focus is narrowed and the bullet already chambered ejects but is not registered in the mind of the gun holder?

I don't think that bullet was planted. Makes absolutely no sense, IMO, if it was collected in 2017 only to be matched in 2020 to a gun found in the possession (his home) of a murder suspect. Whether the ejecting markings are as unique as the firings ones is yet to be proven in court.

There's also audio, according to prosecution, of a gun being cocked on Libby's recording. If correctly verified in court, that means the girls abductor had a gun.

AJMO

 

[friendlysleuther]

I have a counter-question. What action would make a bullet nest in such a place, smack between two girls who were not shot, but stabbed?

The absolutely only thing I can think of would be if he were to *advertiser censored* the gun back, with a bullet in the chamber.
As if it was being unloaded.

If you were unloading a handgun, you'd
1.Take the magazine out
2.Check for bullet in the chamber, by pulling the slide back.
*If there was a bullet in the chamber, it would 'pop' out after pulling the slide back.

I can't think of ANY other reasoning as to how an UNSPENT bullet would be found.
ESPECIALLY since it has been 'linked' to a specific gun.

**It's not like the bullet misfired- If this were the case, the bullet WOULD be 'spent'.

 

[Megnut]

Chambering a round to intimidate a child into disrobing or doing whatever they were being told to do? Adrenaline is high, focus is narrowed and the bullet already chambered ejects but is not registered in the mind of the gun holder?

I don't think that bullet was planted. Makes absolutely no sense, IMO, if it was collected in 2017 only to be matched in 2020 to a gun found in the possession (his home) of a murder suspect. Whether the ejecting markings are as unique as the firings ones is yet to be proven in court.

There's also audio, according to prosecution, of a gun being cocked on Libby's recording. If correctly verified in court, that means the girls abductor had a gun.

AJMO

The absolutely only thing I can think of would be if he were to *advertiser censored* the gun back, with a bullet in the chamber.
As if it was being unloaded.

If you were unloading a handgun, you'd
1.Take the magazine out
2.Check for bullet in the chamber, by pulling the slide back.
*If there was a bullet in the chamber, it would 'pop' out after pulling the slide back.

I can't think of ANY other reasoning as to how an UNSPENT bullet would be found.
ESPECIALLY since it has been 'linked' to a specific gun.

**It's not like the bullet misfired- If this were the case, the bullet WOULD be 'spent'.

Taken together, it's possible he racked the slide twice. One bullet landed on the ground, the other he found.

If the unspent but cycled bullet matches the bullet (perhaps also cycled but unspent, from the same gun on the same day), that might not be a smoking gun. But it very well could be a smoking bullet. Matching striations. Strong circumstsntial evidence further linking the crime and the defendant.

JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Chambering a round to intimidate a child into disrobing or doing whatever they were being told to do? Adrenaline is high, focus is narrowed and the bullet already chambered ejects but is not registered in the mind of the gun holder?

I don't think that bullet was planted. Makes absolutely no sense, IMO, if it was collected in 2017 only to be matched in 2020 to a gun found in the possession (his home) of a murder suspect. Whether the ejecting markings are as unique as the firings ones is yet to be proven in court.

There's also audio, according to prosecution, of a gun being cocked on Libby's recording. If correctly verified in court, that means the girls abductor had a gun.

AJMO

Your post is brilliantly logical.

There is little doubt he had a gun, per the audio clip. As you said, he probably used the gun as intimidation. He stabbed the girls because knives make no noise to alert other people nearby and probably stabbing them was important to his sick fantasy.

For the bullet to have been planted would require;

1) the killer to randomly choose RA as the person they wanted to frame.(if RA wasn’t chosen randomly then that would imply RA knew the killer)
2) prior to Feb 2017, the killer would have to break into RA’s house, take RA’s Sig Sauer and some ammo, rack the gun to cycle a bullet through, pocket the bullet and return the gun back to where it’s kept.
3) drop the bullet between Libby and Abby after killing them
4) by doing all this, the killer must whole-heartedly:
a—believe that identifying unspent bullets by ejector marks is reliable science so it can be linked to RA
b—that LE will find the bullet at the crime scene and think it is significant evidence

I would add that someone in LE would not be who planted the bullet. No way that person would sit for 6 years waiting for LE to stumble upon RA to find the planted bullet. In fact, I don’t think a non-LE killer wouldn’t wait that long either.

 

[Bergmann]

Your post is brilliantly logical.

There is little doubt he had a gun, per the audio clip. As you said, he probably used the gun as intimidation. He stabbed the girls because knives make no noise to alert other people nearby and probably stabbing them was important to his sick fantasy.

For the bullet to have been planted would require;

1) the killer to randomly choose RA as the person they wanted to frame.(if RA wasn’t chosen randomly then that would imply RA knew the killer)
2) prior to Feb 2017, the killer would have to break into RA’s house, take RA’s Sig Sauer and some ammo, rack the gun to cycle a bullet through, pocket the bullet and return the gun back to where it’s kept.
3) drop the bullet between Libby and Abby after killing them
4) by doing all this, the killer must whole-heartedly:
a—believe that identifying unspent bullets by ejector marks is reliable science so it can be linked to RA
b—that LE will find the bullet at the crime scene and think it is significant evidence

I would add that someone in LE would not be who planted the bullet. No way that person would sit for 6 years waiting for LE to stumble upon RA to find the planted bullet. In fact, I don’t think a non-LE killer wouldn’t wait that long either.

Full disclosure - I'm not convinced by the bullet evidence in any way shape or form as a reliable method of connecting a suspect, I regard as do many States now, ballistics as unreliable evidence, and ejector tooling marks have little to no precedent and are even less reliable.

But more than that I 100% just don't believe it was planted and so no speculation required. You have to ask by whom, when and for what purpose that fits the timeline of the crime and the investigation, all of which doesn't really lead anywhere convincing IMO.

If people want to point towards bad faith, foul play then I think there's much better examples of that in this case than the notion of planting a bullet.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Full disclosure - I'm not convinced by the bullet evidence in any way shape or form as a reliable method of connecting a suspect, I regard as do many States now, ballistics as unreliable evidence, and ejector tooling marks have little to no precedent and are even less reliable.

But more than that I 100% just don't believe it was planted and so no speculation required. You have to ask by whom, when and for what purpose that fits the timeline of the crime and the investigation, all of which doesn't really lead anywhere convincing IMO.

If people want to point towards bad faith, foul play then I think there's much better examples of that in this case than the notion of planting a bullet.

Leaving no stone unturned: if he was there with others, someone might have seen him eject the bullet, picked it up and later tossed it between the bodies. Cast suspicion on the owner of the bullet. That's not my theory but it's possible (not probable IMO) that could have happened.

Without proof at the moment, I'm trying to figure how a bullet A, which could be used in other kinds of guns, became RA's problem. Do bullets have identifying manufacturing marks on them? Is there any way they could connect bullet A to the others in the magazines?