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

[Miya]

Let's not forget there was a large reward in this case, which may lend to false confessions or tips in to police.

A false confession wouldn't make much sense, you wouldn't get the reward for confessing. False tips, yes, possible. But in this case it still doesn't explain the antlers (nobody knew about that, not even that family member) and what seems to be a false alibi. Oh, and the spit question to the policeman.

 

[Miya]

Doesn’t EF have mental impairment and assessed to function at the level of a 7 year old ? If so, how would he know about DNA from spit? There’s a very high risk that he was coached to say things. JMO

It's not that simple, as an adult, even if you have a low IQ or something like that, you still hear and learn things and can understand them, so knowing a little bit about DNA wouldn't surprise me.

I knowI keep repeating myself, there is still the alibi question where he claimed to be at a hospital with this other person and the other person, who, as far as I understand it, doesn't have a learning disability, also said they were at the hospital, while LE doesn't think they were.

 

[Megnut]

Wouldn't that be suspicious, too, then? Who would coach him to say that, and why? The real killer? Or are we to believe his sister was throwing him under the bus for the reward money?

Someone who hoped to buy his silence through fear and self-incrimination and probably didn't expect him to go straightaway to his sister to ask the question.

Jmo

 

[Miya]

Someone who hoped to buy his silence through fear and self-incrimination and probably didn't expect him to go straightaway to his sister to ask the question.

Jmo

Ok, if we believe RA did it, are there any connections between this guy and RA? Do they know each other? Or the other possibilty is somebody else did it who knows him?

 

[MistyWaters]

A false confession wouldn't make much sense, you wouldn't get the reward for confessing. False tips, yes, possible. But in this case it still doesn't explain the antlers (nobody knew about that, not even that family member) and what seems to be a false alibi. Oh, and the spit question to the policeman.

Who’s saying antlers were placed on Abby‘s head?

 

[tlcya]

defense motion says branches/sticks had been placed on or above at least one victim's head to resemble antlers. We have never heard from LE, family, prosecutors or anyone that I know if this is truth or simply more SPDI "scary pagans did it" fantasy concocted by defense attorney. MOO

 

[Miya]

Who’s saying antlers were placed on Abby‘s head?

<modsnip - personalizing>

The antlers or horns, that the memo says where there, are something that only someone who was at the crime scene could have known.

 

[EOA]

Last of the word plays for now:

3) DELPHI, Ind. (Court TV) — In the wake of an explosive memorandum submitted to the court by attorneys representing Richard Allen, the man accused of murdering two teenagers, the prosecution has fired back, claiming allegations made by the defense are “not completely true.”

Well, "not completely true" certainly doesn't equate to "completely false", in fact while that may be an attempt to discredit any or almost all of the Defense's memorandum, it actually could be an acknowledgement that 20%, 50% or even 99% of the memorandum is true. MOO if even only 10% is true it could be a gamechanger depending on which 10%. I actually would've expected much stronger language than colorful, unprofessional, "not completely true" unless in fact much of it is verifiable.

4) We've often heard "RA placed himself at the scene" which of course sounds very condemning to him. However that's sort of a loaded statement IMO. Yes RA says he was on the trails on the day of 2/13/17, (I do believe per above he concedes around the 1:30 timeframe) and even says he was on the first platform of the MHB at some juncture as well as sitting awhile on a trail bench after exiting the bridge (we haven't seen any time specifics from him on these portions IMO). However the timeline in this case is so narrow that only if he stated he was on the bridge between like 1:53 and maybe 2:01 would that presence be incriminating... both from witness BB's standpoint and a meeting A&L standpoint, which I don't recall him being that specific about when he was there. We know he wasn't in sight of any of L's pics facing both directions after the girls' arrival at MHB.

Also, really "at the scene" was not the first platform of the bridge as no crime was committed there. The abduction scene was 400 yards away from the first platform (& he never to my knowledge has admitted to crossing the whole length of the bridge). Since BG, A, & L exited the bridge from the opposite end, we must admit it's possible BG entered the bridge from that same opposite end, thus it's not mandatory that the abductor ever had to have passed by the first platform. And of course the other crime scene was where the girls were killed or found, but RA specifically said in interview he had never been on that property before (despite some evidence existing to the contrary). The matching clothes descriptions should be trouble for RA that he indeed did go farther than just platform #1, but IMO what he's admitted is best described as "near the abduction scene" or "on a path toward the abduction scene" at a time within the range of when criminal events likely occurred.

5) In regards to the PCA language regarding the various people's cars being sighted:
a) SC (who saw muddy guy) - "Investigators were able to determine from watching the video from HH that SC was traveling on CR300N at approximately 3:57pm."
b) BB (older witness) - "Video from the HH captured BB's vehicle traveling eastbound at 1:46pm..." as well as "Her vehicle is seen on HH video leaving westbound at 2:14pm"..
c) KG (sister of L) - "Video from the HH shows at 1:49pm a white car matching KG's vehicle"..traveling away from Mears..

however in regards to RA the language is more vague??
d) (per search warrant affidavit p.10) "Upon review of video collected from HH on 2/13/17, investigators were able to locate a vehicle that appears to match RA's 2016 Ford Focus on the video at 1:27 [no direction given] AND ALSO
e) (per PCA p.5) "Investigators observed a vehicle that resembled RA's 2016 Ford Focus on the HH video at 1:27pm traveling westbound on CR300N

in a), b), & c), LE seems pretty certain they've matched the cars in question to the driver, but in d) & e) they used the language "appears to match" and "resemble" which seems less certain. Also, there is no bombshell evidence that even if this was RA's car they believe appears and resembles, as to where he was going. Yes, the CPS building was in that direction, but since they (to our knowledge) don't pick up this same vehicle on any other camera anytime else that day going in an opposite direction, can one be certain this was the car that went to park at CPS, as opposed to this was RA leaving the trails, or RA moving his car from one spot to another?

I have always found it odd that it was never definitively announced where RA parked that day. His initial CO conversation said it was "the old Farm Bureau building" which later was dismissed since no such building was operating or had been known to in awhile. At some other juncture, he stated "on the side of some old building". IMO it seems odd that can't be pinned down a bit more, as though RA didn't want to say exactly where he parked as though it may have been somewhere private property that he wasn't supposed to be on, or perhaps there were suspiciously 2 parking spots?

 

[MistyWaters]

<modsnip -personalizing>

The antlers or horns, that the memo says where there, are something that only someone who was at the crime scene could have known.

Even TC disputed the murders involved ritual sacrifice and the prosecution alleged not all the information contained in the defence’s memorandum is correct. In view of that it may prove difficult to gain consensus that the source of “antlers on Libby” being discussed is credible.

We know EF says he placed antlers and spit on Abby, but it seems we must then assume her body was found with antlers and spit and believe what was written in the memo, when in fact we don’t know.

 

[Pitsleuth]

Who’s saying antlers were placed on Abby‘s head?

Exactly. (Apparently we need to say it louder for people in the back...) JUST BECAUSE THE DEFENSE SAYS THEY WERE ANTLERS DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE ANTLERS.

 

[M. Kay]

defense motion says branches/sticks had been placed on or above at least one victim's head to resemble antlers. We have never heard from LE, family, prosecutors or anyone that I know if this is truth or simply more SPDI "scary pagans did it" fantasy concocted by defense attorney. MOO

Thanks to 'ticya' and 'MistyWaters' for clarification. During the recent uptick, including defense motion, keeping 'up' has been challenging. Much of the defense is so unreliable that I admit to scrolling past those details, preferring WS friends to update with facts which are enhanced from their views that I trust.

 

[Miya]

Exactly. (Apparently we need to say it louder for people in the back...) JUST BECAUSE THE DEFENSE SAYS THEY WERE ANTLERS DOESN'T MEAN THEY WERE ANTLERS.

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>

 

[MistyWaters]

<snipped to reply>

I have always found it odd that it was never definitively announced where RA parked that day. His initial CO conversation said it was "the old Farm Bureau building" which later was dismissed since no such building was operating or had been known to in awhile. At some other juncture, he stated "on the side of some old building". IMO it seems odd that can't be pinned down a bit more, as though RA didn't want to say exactly where he parked as though it may have been somewhere private property that he wasn't supposed to be on, or perhaps there were suspiciously 2 parking spots?

Excellent point. You’ve echoed the thoughts I’ve had for quite some time. I think it’s a really high risk strategy for prosecution to attempt to tie what might or might not have been RA’s car and parking spot into the equation, based on what appears to be weak information. But maybe the prosecution have other evidence or possibly this theory will only be suggested as an unproven hypothesis.

But another factor, that parking location effectively negates a targeted, premeditated murder of Libby and Abby on the bridge. If the crime has been preplanned in advance, parking at any of the three closer locations would’ve made far more sense (drop off spot, cemetery or dead end road under the bridge) since for the accused, where to park to make the quickest getaway and not be seen is always an important component of any preplanning, especially by a local person familiar with the area.

Although I haven’t measured the distance, I’ve also wondered if parking at the old CPS building was just as far as it would’ve been for him to simply walk from his home?

All my opinions….

 

[MistyWaters]

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>

<modsnip - quoted post, response snipped>
Yes it is the defence memo which says antlers were found on Abby’s head.

So full circle, we are back to a ritualistic sacrifice because one of the parents was involved in an interracial relationship and evil odinist guards made RA confess to his wife? If we are to believe the defence memo, it’s all interconnected!

 

[Miya]

<modsnip - quoted post, response snipped> Yes it is the defence memo which says antlers were found on Abby’s head.

So full circle, we are back to a ritualistic sacrifice because one of the parents was involved in an interracial relationship and evil odinist guards made RA confess to his wife? If we are to believe the defence memo, it’s all interconnected!

<modsnip - personalizing> And how about it wasn't a sacrifice, just some sick phantasies of a person or a small group of people? It's not black and white, even if you don't believe the cult part, you can still believe other things. If there were what looked like "antlers" in the crime scene photos, then they were there. What they are and if it's a coincidence is the question. And yes, it is weird that somebody mentioned them years ago when only the killer would know what the crime scene looked like (and LE and a few searchers). And that this person gave what seems to be a false alibi for that day too.

Or if they quote what someone said in a deposition, you can believe that, there are receipts, you just don't know if and what they left out and it also doesn't automatically mean that a cult was involved. I don't know why this is so hard to understand, parts of the memo are definitely true (prosecution says so as well), the ones where the court has the attachments, the receipts, other parts could be true but also could be speculation by the defense. You can't just say "oh, they think a cult did it, so everything in the memo must be BS and lies" because there is so much more in those 136 pages that works even without the cult involvment that they allege.

 

[iamnotagolem]

A false confession wouldn't make much sense, you wouldn't get the reward for confessing. False tips, yes, possible. But in this case it still doesn't explain the antlers (nobody knew about that, not even that family member) and what seems to be a false alibi. Oh, and the spit question to the policeman.

The people who found the bodies saw the branches on the bodies and certainly told at least a few people because those details have been discussed for years on other platforms.

A false confession with his sister tipping him in, maybe she needed money and he was convinced to do it. I'm not saying that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.

You had asked why someone would give details and a false confession if they weren't involved. I was just offering up some motives.

 

[Miya]

The people who found the bodies saw the branches on the bodies and certainly told at least a few people because those details have been discussed for years on other platforms.

A false confession with his sister tipping him in, maybe she needed money and he was convinced to do it. I'm not saying that's the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.

You had asked why someone would give details and a false confession if they weren't involved. I was just offering up some motives.

Yes, but there would still be the "spit and antler guy" and his false alibi claiming that he was with someone else at a hospital that day who also gave that alibi. That has nothing to do with confessions to his sister or rumors about antlers ...

 

[EOA]

Excellent point. You’ve echoed the thoughts I’ve had for quite some time. I think it’s a really high risk strategy for prosecution to attempt to tie what might or might not have been RA’s car and parking spot into the equation, based on what appears to be weak information. But maybe the prosecution have other evidence or possibly this theory will only be suggested as an unproven hypothesis.

But another factor, that parking location effectively negates a targeted, premeditated murder of Libby and Abby on the bridge. If the crime has been preplanned in advance, parking at any of the three closer locations would’ve made far more sense (drop off spot, cemetery or dead end road under the bridge) since for the accused, where to park to make the quickest getaway and not be seen is always an important component of any preplanning, especially by a local person familiar with the area.

Although I haven’t measured the distance, I’ve also wondered if parking at the old CPS building was just as far as it would’ve been for him to simply walk from his home?

All my opinions….

Yes really high risk strategy considering LE says he owned 2 vehicles at the time, could've used someone else's vehicle, and as you said.. this wouldn't seem to be the Plan A parking spot if anything was premeditated. Not to mention it's not known for sure which direction he'd have been coming/going. It's as though LE needs a vehicle approaching a parking spot at a certain time to pin him into a timeframe - and they located a vehicle at about the time they wanted that looks somewhat like one of his vehicles (which a lot of darker midsize sedans would resemble).

If RA were to have some sudden epiphany that he drove his F100 that day after running an errand on the other side of town such that he approached the trails from the other end at more like 12:something, it seems that LE would have a hard time proving otherwise - if evidence is lacking such that they can't pin down that was him in his vehicle approaching at that time in that direction, and that he stopped in that CPS lot.

IMO it's plausible, and this is not to start rumors - just MO speculation, that he could've earlier parked closer to the crime scene and had been there (perhaps alone or with another(s) prepping things and/or bringing in supplies - who knows maybe carrying in smooth-cut branches of certain sizes, rope, other clothing, towels, gloves, anything really.... then when done moved his vehicle to the CPS lot around 1:27 thinking he'd be himself returning back over the bridge. But something went awry.

 

[Kudzuu]

In response to the conversation about the staging of A &L's bodies: I keep hearing Superintendent Carter being really emotional at the press conference where he spoke directly to the killer whom he said was hiding in plain sight....I paraphrase: I guarantee what they are experiencing now is not how you left them.

It made my blood run cold. I watched The Shack after Carter said the killer almost certainly watched it. I looked for a Christian spiritual connection but maybe the connection was more sinister .

All speculation on my part.

We now know they were staged and other distressing details. Then we didn't. I thought perhaps the killer had a come to Jesus moment with his actions similar to the movie. But perhaps Carter was so emotional because the evil done that day did not alter the afterlife of A & L. They experienced evil but they were in a better place.

A religious man, Carter would have been horrified at any attempt to make the girls evil or impure.

This case is baffling. RA just seems too mundane or normal or something.

MOO

 

[iamnotagolem]

I find it hard to believe LE didn't follow up on alibis. At the time that they were investigating the individuals named in the memo as Odinists, they didn't know about RA. So it's not like they just brushed off those suspects because they finally had RA, they were still completely in the dark. Just because the defense says they had weak alibis doesn't make it true. I mean they spent how much focus on BH only to admit that he had a pretty solid alibi.