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

[Miya]

Miya,
I am sorry I don’t have the memorandum to reference in this response. I am on my phone and it is downloaded elsewhere. My understanding of events is that in defense memorandum states two separate things. 1) Liggett stated during deposition on August 8th that a Purdue Professor did not believe the sticks left at the crime scene were Odinist symbols. 2) Defense states that September 6th Prosecutor NMCL was unable to identify who the Purdue Professor was.
Now once the memorandum came out, State Trooper did find and re-interview the Purdue Professor on September 19th, and then provide the interview to defense on September 27th on a hard drive.
The initial interview of the Purdue Professor was also done by Holeman in the months after the murders and the conclusion at that time was it was not related to Odinist or any other cult worship.
New interview basically states several things but mostly that the patterns look like “somebody” trying to replicate runes.
Holeman, Liggett and NMCL are all different people with different roles.
If they wanted to HIDE the Professor’s testimony then they did a horrible job by tracking him down and getting a new interview.

Of course they were hiding him, the even claimed it would be impossible to find him and nobody has any idea who he is. In the new filing today defense says they got an email on September 6 from the prosecutor who said that they still haven't found him even with contacting the FBI and the university and that they may not be able to identify him. September 18 defense files the memo and just a few days later they "find" the Professor and Holeman interviews him? No doubt they were trying to hide him but had to do something once they knew the defense knew about him and is starting to ask questions.

I don't know if RA did it or was involved, what I do know though is that the weird memo, that most people ridicule, is starting to make more and more sense. The defense is poking at things, making them public, because they know something is rotten in Denmark. The investigators made a lot of mistakes and still do and it's horrible because either they have the wrong man, or have the right one but there are more that are still (and maybe forever) free or somebody else did it.

If the investigation wasn't so full of problems, we wouldn't have that memo, we wouldn't have what I'm sure the defense can and will use in court for reasonable doubt and we would be sure that they have the right guy. It's tragic.

 

[DeDee]

"Allen’s attorneys claimed State Trooper Jerry Holeman said in the months after the girls' murders that the Purdue professor told him it was "not Odinism or any type of cult worshipping or any type of group that would have conducted the crime," and officials abandoned the pagan cult angle."


If that is true, then it stands to reason that the Odinists theory was dropped specifically because the Lead Investigator, Jerry Holeman, said a P Professor told him that the murders weren't an act of a cult worshipping group.

 

[Miya]

"Allen’s attorneys claimed State Trooper Jerry Holeman said in the months after the girls' murders that the Purdue professor told him it was "not Odinism or any type of cult worshipping or any type of group that would have conducted the crime," and officials abandoned the pagan cult angle."


If that is true, then it stands to reason that the Odinists theory was dropped specifically because the Lead Investigator, Jerry Holeman, said a P Professor told him that the murders weren't an act of a cult worshipping group.

Well, they couldn't find the Professor until a couple of days ago - and see the posts above, after the memo that mentioned the "missing" Professor, they all of a sudden remembered his name, found him and interviewed him again and he pretty much said the opposite of what they claim he said back in 2017.

 

[DeDee]

Well, they couldn't find the Professor until a couple of days ago - and see the posts above, after the memo that mentioned the "missing" Professor, they all of a sudden remembered his name, found him and interviewed him again and he pretty much said the opposite of what they claim he said back in 2017.

Oh, I read the wthr article about the Professor, too. The D is sticking to their story. A Harvard colleague agrees with the Professor from Purdue.

The defense claims there is a taped statement from [Professor] that includes the following:

• That the professor stated after seeing the pattern of the sticks that "it was given" someone was trying to replicate a Germanic runic script.
• That the professor consulted with a colleague from Harvard who agreed with the Purdue professor.
• That he "could certainly imagine that this was somebody's idea that when you do human sacrifice you carve runes ... there are some poetic sources that would sort of support that idea that somebody might have come across ... that scenario seems entirely plausible to me."

 

[Miya]

Oh, I read the wthr article about the Professor, too. The D is sticking to their story. A Harvard colleague agrees with the Professor from Purdue.

The defense claims there is a taped statement from [Professor] that includes the following:

• That the professor stated after seeing the pattern of the sticks that "it was given" someone was trying to replicate a Germanic runic script.
• That the professor consulted with a colleague from Harvard who agreed with the Purdue professor.
• That he "could certainly imagine that this was somebody's idea that when you do human sacrifice you carve runes ... there are some poetic sources that would sort of support that idea that somebody might have come across ... that scenario seems entirely plausible to me."

I can't access the article (probably because Europe), I read the actual filing, but yes, that's what it says and yes, Holeman interviewed the Professor recently (would have to look for the exact date again, too tired right now, but it was in September, the 23rd maybe?) after they found him out of the blue while the prosecutor said just a couple of days earlier that they might never identify him. And a couple of days later that interview was given to the defense but only with the name of the Professor on it, nothing that made it clear who this person is.

That interview is the "taped statement", so claiming the Professor whose name was lost somewhere in the files or something, stated in 2017 that there is nothing ritualistic going on is a lie. They had every reason to hide him and the defense won't let them do that. And yes, there was even a second expert involved. People can laugh at them, but they are uncovering some pretty serious stuff about the investigation and some of the investigators involved. Someone here said after the memo came out, that they are like whistleblowers, and I think it gets more and more obvious that that's part of it (even if just a by-product of their defense).

 

[Boxer]

Oh, I read the wthr article about the Professor, too. The D is sticking to their story. A Harvard colleague agrees with the Professor from Purdue.

The defense claims there is a taped statement from [Professor] that includes the following:

• That the professor stated after seeing the pattern of the sticks that "it was given" someone was trying to replicate a Germanic runic script.
• That the professor consulted with a colleague from Harvard who agreed with the Purdue professor.
• That he "could certainly imagine that this was somebody's idea that when you do human sacrifice you carve runes ... there are some poetic sources that would sort of support that idea that somebody might have come across ... that scenario seems entirely plausible to me."

MOO its clear a panicked retail superviosry pharm tech could want to replicate some runes to stage a crime.

 

[Charlot123]

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

That makes two of us.

 

[Charlot123]

Do we have a list of abbreviations? Who is EF? TBH, at this moment I am having flashbacks of JBC times.

 

[Charlot123]

Of course they were hiding him, the even claimed it would be impossible to find him and nobody has any idea who he is. In the new filing today defense says they got an email on September 6 from the prosecutor who said that they still haven't found him even with contacting the FBI and the university and that they may not be able to identify him. September 18 defense files the memo and just a few days later they "find" the Professor and Holeman interviews him? No doubt they were trying to hide him but had to do something once they knew the defense knew about him and is starting to ask questions.

I don't know if RA did it or was involved, what I do know though is that the weird memo, that most people ridicule, is starting to make more and more sense. The defense is poking at things, making them public, because they know something is rotten in Denmark. The investigators made a lot of mistakes and still do and it's horrible because either they have the wrong man, or have the right one but there are more that are still (and maybe forever) free or somebody else did it.

If the investigation wasn't so full of problems, we wouldn't have that memo, we wouldn't have what I'm sure the defense can and will use in court for reasonable doubt and we would be sure that they have the right guy. It's tragic.

You know what's the most rotten in (this) Denmark? That FBI or state BI are not involved. That's incredibly strange and probably, wasteful.

 

[Charlot123]

Absolve? No.
Pulling it off and being responsible? No.

The defense memo page 78, footnotes #16 and 17 refer to EF as a mentally infirm man with the capacity of a 7 year old.

In my experience, a 7 year old would not be able to pull off this entire crime in order to impress BH.

This is taking on the same tone as the Murdaugh case with oompa loompas being responsible for the Murdaugh killings.

AJMO


JMO

Well, there might be an IQ of a 7-year old, and the social capacity of a 7-year old. If his academic IQ is that of a 7-year old, probably, not. (Although haven't we all seen brilliant people with deep dyslexia who presented like 7-year-olds in class, until diagnosed and treated?)

But a person with normal IQ and social capacity of a 7-year old, potentially, could pull it.

JMO. (I am totally lost, TBH.) This case is the example of information overload.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Of course they were hiding him, the even claimed it would be impossible to find him and nobody has any idea who he is. In the new filing today defense says they got an email on September 6 from the prosecutor who said that they still haven't found him even with contacting the FBI and the university and that they may not be able to identify him. September 18 defense files the memo and just a few days later they "find" the Professor and Holeman interviews him? No doubt they were trying to hide him but had to do something once they knew the defense knew about him and is starting to ask questions.

I don't know if RA did it or was involved, what I do know though is that the weird memo, that most people ridicule, is starting to make more and more sense. The defense is poking at things, making them public, because they know something is rotten in Denmark. The investigators made a lot of mistakes and still do and it's horrible because either they have the wrong man, or have the right one but there are more that are still (and maybe forever) free or somebody else did it.

If the investigation wasn't so full of problems, we wouldn't have that memo, we wouldn't have what I'm sure the defense can and will use in court for reasonable doubt and we would be sure that they have the right guy. It's tragic.

Everything stated by the defense in the previous memo and in this memo are their interpretation and opinion of what was said in any interview or deposition cited by them. It cannot be read as fact.
It can be super eye opening, and shocking, and fascinating, and tons more interesting than a boring drug store employee, but it is not fact.
Of course a crazy bunch of pagans did it. Normal people, acting normal, never are crazy killers. Except for Ted Bundy, Wayne Gacy, BTK, LISK, etc.

 

[Charlot123]

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

There is something about the "antlers" that reminds me of the very beginning. Do you remember how the person who saw them first noticed deers, and than he looked lower, and saw the girls?

Could it be so that he saw the antlers? I remember all early descriptions, Abby was posed like a doll, i assume, not lying on the ground, so maybe he saw real antlers, thinking, a deer, but they were on her head? These deers prompt something, and I don't know what.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

That makes two of us.

Three.

 

[zh0r4]

Do we have a list of abbreviations? Who is EF? TBH, at this moment I am having flashbacks of JBC times

I am unsure if posting the names of people in the D memo is allowed on this thread. I’ll link the memo below (which contains this info) and PM you a list of abbreviations.

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

 

[sunshineray]

What is the CO report please?

The Conservation Officer's report on his meeting/interview with RA. It was, according to the defense's memorandum, submitted by the CO but then missfiled using RA's street name as his last name. Found I believe in September 2022.

 

[sunshineray]

That makes two of us.

Planted by whom?

 

[Bergmann]

How do you know it hasn’t been examined properly? No matter how many times that gets repeated does not make it true. None of us here have access to investigative files.

To be clear, I didn't say it hasn't been examined properly, just that in the course of getting justice it should be shown to have been examined properly.

Please don't inadvertently conflate the motives of the D with mine. I wholeheartedly agree that D are using this and many other as yet unproven topics to sow doubt and confusion, although I don't agree with some of their methods (shock) and conclusions (ritualistic killing), I do stand by their right to try everything in their power to defend their client the accused.

My motives differ from the Ds. As previously stated I personally don't believe it is possible to form a reliable conclusion of not just guilt or innocence (without considerable presumption) at this stage. I would like this whole sorry episode to be concluded with the truth of what actually happened and justice served on the perpetrators.

Truth for me is not just whichever narrative D or P that the jury choose in court, because as many will know and provide examples, that can sometimes deviate considerably from what actually happened. For me, I want the conviction to be on the highest standard of evidence and robustness (I recognise that this isn't always possible because reasons). That is because I feel that a robust indisputable conviction allows everyone to hopefully find closure and begin to move on, without endless appeals, motions, 'new evidence' , things that come to light later down the line and so on. None of that is good for the families and doesn't provide lasting justice.

I hold the same exacting standard for both the D and the P. They can allege all they wish to at this stage but what I want to be convinced by is that the investigation was thorough, there are no significant loose ends that haven't been appropriately closed (I know investigations have any number of leads and they can't all be tied up, but LE and P do have to demonstrate they followed the right path to the person they have charged and did not narrow down inappropriately too soon etc). All this strengthens, not weakens a P case, and is in support of getting a lasting permanent conviction if proven.

In short TL;DR lol, asking lots of questions of D and of P, and being prepared to keep an open mind now will IMO be a safer and more secure route to lasting justice for Abby and Libby.

 

[Bergmann]

He confessed on tape, so the jury will get to hear it. It's not your jail house confession to some narc.

Personally I think this wrecks his defence. Indeed it is hard to overstate what a disaster it is

Totally agree.

It almost doesn't matter to some extent what evidence P do or don't have. Play the confession tape in the court room and that's incredibly powerful and difficult to come back from.

As I said in my post that you responded to, and in post #579 above, a confession based conviction without appropriate supporting evidence to a high enough standard won't necessarily get to the truth and doesn't close off the door to lots of appeals and long running legal challenges post conviction which isn't the ideal scenario. If it was RA, he confessed, there is corroborating evidence that supports this then that's a much better place to be able to move on from.

 

[sunshineray]

Of course they were hiding him, the even claimed it would be impossible to find him and nobody has any idea who he is. In the new filing today defense says they got an email on September 6 from the prosecutor who said that they still haven't found him even with contacting the FBI and the university and that they may not be able to identify him. September 18 defense files the memo and just a few days later they "find" the Professor and Holeman interviews him? No doubt they were trying to hide him but had to do something once they knew the defense knew about him and is starting to ask questions.

I don't know if RA did it or was involved, what I do know though is that the weird memo, that most people ridicule, is starting to make more and more sense. The defense is poking at things, making them public, because they know something is rotten in Denmark. The investigators made a lot of mistakes and still do and it's horrible because either they have the wrong man, or have the right one but there are more that are still (and maybe forever) free or somebody else did it.

If the investigation wasn't so full of problems, we wouldn't have that memo, we wouldn't have what I'm sure the defense can and will use in court for reasonable doubt and we would be sure that they have the right guy. It's tragic.

The prosecutor did say in court the reason, the main reason probably, that they wanted the documents to remain sealed is they thought there were probably others involved. In my mind that doesn't negate that RA, the man they arrested, is involved.

It can be both situations here and the investigation that has arrested one man can be in flux regarding possible others. Can't let the now publically known specter(s) of the maybes be the hindrance in bringing the case against RA, the known.

This is all strictly speaking within the eyes of the prosecution. The defense are always allowed their theories to defend their client but the people deserve their day in court when prosecutors say we have enough to bring someone to trial.
AJMO

 

[mrjitty]

Planted by whom?

And to frame whom?

Usually a piece of evidence is planted to frame a specific person