IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173

[girlhasnoname]

Since the Odinist angle may be fading away, someone pondered if the defense might bring up KAK.
The point of my post was to say why I don't think the defense will be bringing up KAK at the trial, they might not even be allowed to attempt the alternative suspect defense. The defense would have to stick to the actual facts and rules of evidence. I don't think anything you said could be used as evidence showing KAK was involved in the murders.

Are you suggesting that the defense could pursue the KAK angle to help RA?

Not the OP, but the D doesn't have to provide any defense of their client, and even though the exD raised the Odin Defense theory, it does not mean the new D is required to continue with that claim. I think they might be able to imply that KAK was somehow connected.

They could simply say that RA was taking a leisurely stroll and watching fish on the bridge that day and never saw Abby or Libby period. Once he heard of the terrible news, he notified LE immediately and gave a statement.

The State won't be able to go after RA on that unless he takes the stand himself, which I believe will NEVER happen unless there is much more to this whole story than we know.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

It's hard because we've all been following the case for so long, but I try to imagine a juror, without the background knowledge we have, sitting there hearing about L being catfished up to the very day of the murders. If there is legitimate evidence that KAK looked up Marathon gas station in Delphi that morning, researched how long DNA lasts, erased his phone, etc., that might be quite compelling to some jurors. After all, KAK isn't on trial, so the jury doesn't have to be convinced of his involvement in order to wonder about it. But would it even matter?

And what about the Odinists, or RL? Or RA's connections to any of them? Does any of it matter?

This is where I think the P's decision to go with a Felony Murder (or whatever it's called in IN) charge was probably wise, because it really doesn't matter who else the D wants to throw out there as being involved. The P just has to put RA on that bridge at the time of L's video. If they can prove that, BARD, whether by RA's own statements, witnesses, etc., then the involvement of others really has no bearing on this trial. It matters to the family and public, I would suspect, but this trial is about RA alone, kidnapping the girls at the end of the bridge, on video. DNA, the unspent round, any other physical or digital evidence really doesn't have to exist, IMO, if the jurors believe that is, in fact, RA on the bridge. And RA is the only person, that we know of (except possibly one of the Rushville men), who admitted he was on the bridge. It will all come down to evidence proving the timing, IMO.

All JMO...

 

[mrjitty]

I think it was the prosecutors podcast who had a comment that the risk of the SODDI defence is you turn it into the defendant vs the other guy and one has to be guilty. In Mcstay there was some interesting evidence to try and create a SODDI defence out of. Then you can spin the hell out of it in opening to build a narrative about what will be revealed in the trial. The problem was when the prosecution produced a witness who then had all the alibi information they discovered in their investigation and suddenly boom your case is in a mess.

I think that is the risk here. You can try and raise a cult angle to the crime scene or a catfisher. But at the end of the day, a witness is going to get up and talk about the 100s of hours poured into those investigations and why those people were eliminated - unlike the defendant. Meanwhile the defendant put himself at the scene and made admissions.

I suspect they will throw everything at the wall that the judge will allow, because especially they have to explain the admissions.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Regarding his admissions, his lawyer said something to the effect of: the jury will listen and decide for themselves how valid they were.

What if he gave no details at all... just saying "guilty as charged." What did he say to his wife and mother prior to and after the admissions? If I was a juror, that would make a difference.

I wonder if RA's wife will testify.

His attys should run a mock jury trial with him testifying and not testifying. MOO
They absolutely need to get him out of prison.
He'll never be able to testify in the shape he's in. MOO
I'm beginning to think that's the reason they are keeping him there.

 

[Justice101]

Very true, but oh so frustrating. Probably something local LE, ISP and the FBI are kicking themselves over most of all. You know they were desperately trying to find this killer.

I don't blame them, but I wonder if we'll ever really know the whole story of how they ran across RA again after all those years? Will they share that with the public?

MOO

Probably not to the public... because it is probably embarrassing.

But sometimes they share their experiences and lessons learned with other investigators and LE so to try to not repeat it.

 

[Justice101]

I only check this thread occasionally waiting for a trial, but...
I was shocked when I saw the picture of the defendant in Press.

Thin, shackled and wearing a dirty uniform (or was it a t-shirt?)

Looking bewildered, intimidated.

Geez,
I couldn't believe it was the same arrogant and overweight man

Hmmm...
Not good IMO
Let's hope he will stay alive till trial.

JMO

ETA
I found this picture

View attachment 474459

Delphi suspect Richard Allen's lawyers say he's treated like POW

Attorneys for Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen, accused of murdering two Indiana teenage girls in 2017, say he's been treated like a prisoner of war in a motion to move him.

www.dailymail.co.uk

RA looked MUCH BETTER at the last hearing he shuffled into.

Just because he is spiraling into what looks like is depression is not necessarily the jail's fault.

They can't make him wash his face, hands or body and they can't make him not soil his clothes with food.

It might be a sane person's realization that he got caught and will now spend the rest of his life behind bars and not be able to shoot pool or drink a beer or whatever.

It can be an extremely sobering reality to digest.

If he is guilty, then he created this for himself.

 

[Salah11]

Is there any movement on a trial this year?

I have been absent for awhile as I got sick of the fact Abby and Libby seemed to have been forgotten about in all the drama of this case.

God knows how the families feel at this junction of the case it must be quite soul destroying IMO.

 

[Justice101]

Is there any movement on a trial this year?

I have been absent for awhile as I got sick of the fact Abby and Libby seemed to have been forgotten about in all the drama of this case.

God knows how the families feel at this junction of the case it must be quite soul destroying IMO.

It looks like the new defense (almost had to) start over at ground zero.

Early 2025 is my guess

 

[sunshineray]

You made a claim that there are other defendants in prison awaiting trial in response to my explaining how unusual it is for RA to be an "inmate" at a prison. It is not a matter of disagreeing, it's a matter of you asserting something and then not showing a source or finding at least an example to prove your claim.
This has been researched by me and others and no one can find an example that is the same as the circumstances as RA. Safety concerns are for many murderers currently awaiting trial, none are known to be held at a prison. Any coverage of a murder arrest and trial includes the information of where the defendant is being held. While some find it acceptable, some of us are concerned as any interruption of the attorney's ability to see their client, any treatment different than what other defendants' receive is not acceptable and is a risk of affecting the trial.

Prisons are exclusively for convicted felons that have been ordered to serve a sentence in a prison.

Excuse me, you made the claim that there were no murder defendants currently being housed in a prison anywhere. Do you have a link for that? TIA if you do. If not, we will agree to disagree as I believe the odds are strong that RA is not a lone anomaly in that regard. That would be All Just My Opinion (AJMO)

 

[arielilane]

NoSpoonFeeding posted:​

A so called "Odin confession" is certainly something the defense had to explore. Hopefully it's been debunked enough for a jury not to hear it or to disregard it. It's my opinion that the defense will not be bringing up KAK in the trial.

Any real evidence of someone else being involved has to be disclosed.
The defense attorneys know that they would have to call those interrogators to testify, they can't just quote the transcript or have it admitted to evidence. As shown in the interrogation, LE would not be testifying that they had proof of KAK's involvement or proof KAK knew their location that day.
Defense attorneys are well aware of tactics used in interrogations; they would see that KAK is not confronted with anything that proves what is being asked.
That would have been explored in 2017, not more than three years later when they were hoping to find KAK had let someone know something that could give them a lead in an unsolved murder(s).

"KAK had all the elements", I'm guessing that you mean motive, opportunity and means, instead of the elements of a crime.
KAK has never been shown to seek in person sexual violence, and that is what this crime was and that is what RA's motive was.
KAK was never shown to be anywhere near the crime scene and everything in his interrogation shows that LE didn't think he was. That is definitely not him on the bridge and nothing shows LE ever thought it was.

The often-said interrogation-based claim that KAK knew the location of LG that day or was in the area, or that LE claimed it was a fact, is not what the interrogation shows. That interpretation is used to support the theory that KAK must somehow be involved.
MOO

@arielilane says:
I am responding to your (see above) post, which did not quote properly. However, please be advised that the guess about motive, opportunity and means was incorrect. Additionally, you make several statements about KAK, so if you have any links to provide, please do so. TIA

 

[sunshineray]

Since the Odinist angle may be fading away, someone pondered if the defense might bring up KAK.
The point of my post was to say why I don't think the defense will be bringing up KAK at the trial, they might not even be allowed to attempt the alternative suspect defense. The defense would have to stick to the actual facts and rules of evidence. I don't think anything you said could be used as evidence showing KAK was involved in the murders.

Are you suggesting that the defense could pursue the KAK angle to help RA?

I'm saying KAK's actions (and I didn't even mention them all) are interesting. It's also interesting, to me, that as soon as RA is delivered to Wabash, KAK is moved out of there. As far as the defense bringing up KAK to muddy the waters with another possible person involved, nothing brought up in this case would surprise me, at this point. AJMO

 

[Salah11]

It looks like the new defense (almost had to) start over at ground zero.

Early 2025 is my guess

Thank you so likely another a year at the earliest. It’s crazy how long justice takes for the families left behind.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I suspect they would be able to pursue it to some extent based on my experience of the McStay case, but I also agree there are significant problems

He's the perfect suspect, and the catfishing aspect would presumably be admissible. I think the problem with him is usually you try to argue that prosecutors got tunnel vision on the defendant instead of on the real killer. But KAK was investigated so heavily it feels like a bit of a losing argument.

Interestingly in McStay, the defence tactic was simply to lie in their opening arguments about how he was the real killer who was never cleared despite knowing the prosecution held alibi evidence. It seems like this is how the game is played these days.

In the end innuendo might be enough to shift one juror even when you have weak sauce

The defense met the requirements to present that type of defense, it wasn't just presented in the opening statement, that would not have been allowed.
In the McStay case, the alternate suspect was actually investigated as a possible suspect too, and it was known that he also helped himself to the same company money, showing he had the motive and means to also be the killer. Luckily, he did have an alibi, but it wasn't as airtight as it needed to be to prevent the defense from using him. The defense had witnesses to testify to back up their claims and they even used LE to show what they knew about the "other guy".

RA's attorneys can't present KAK as an alternate suspect in opening statements without actually attempting to prove it with evidence/witnesses, which is why I don't think his name will be brought up. LE waited more than 3 years to do a follow-up interrogation of KAK, to repeatedly ask him if there was some way, he let someone else know about LG going to the bridge. They also say they know he didn't do the murders. I don't think RA's attorneys will find any evidence to tie KAK to the crime scene.

Many "suspects" were investigated in this case, so I certainly agree that any claim of tunnel vision, or rush to judgment, would not work.

 

[mrjitty]

The defense met the requirements to present that type of defense, it wasn't just presented in the opening statement, that would not have been allowed.
In the McStay case, the alternate suspect was actually investigated as a possible suspect too, and it was known that he also helped himself to the same company money, showing he had the motive and means to also be the killer. Luckily, he did have an alibi, but it wasn't as airtight as it needed to be to prevent the defense from using him. The defense had witnesses to testify to back up their claims and they even used LE to show what they knew about the "other guy".

RA's attorneys can't present KAK as an alternate suspect in opening statements without actually attempting to prove it with evidence/witnesses, which is why I don't think his name will be brought up. LE waited more than 3 years to do a follow-up interrogation of KAK, to repeatedly ask him if there was some way, he let someone else know about LG going to the bridge. They also say they know he didn't do the murders. I don't think RA's attorneys will find any evidence to tie KAK to the crime scene.

Many "suspects" were investigated in this case, so I certainly agree that any claim of tunnel vision, or rush to judgment, would not work.

I think you misunderstood my post

Of course they have to have actual evidence to present. But the strategy was to wildly exaggerate that evidence in opening then not deliver on it in the hope that a narrative might stick.

Remember in McStay they said they would call the man himself then never did.

I agree with you about the broad problems and I think it’s the same with the Odinis stuff. They have little or even zero admissible evidence linking those suspects to the crime IMO.

 

[dm799]

Probably not to the public... because it is probably embarrassing.

But sometimes they share their experiences and lessons learned with other investigators and LE so to try to not repeat it.

Today is not that day.

I wonder if that day will ever come.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

NoSpoonFeeding posted:​

A so called "Odin confession" is certainly something the defense had to explore. Hopefully it's been debunked enough for a jury not to hear it or to disregard it. It's my opinion that the defense will not be bringing up KAK in the trial.

Any real evidence of someone else being involved has to be disclosed.
The defense attorneys know that they would have to call those interrogators to testify, they can't just quote the transcript or have it admitted to evidence. As shown in the interrogation, LE would not be testifying that they had proof of KAK's involvement or proof KAK knew their location that day.
Defense attorneys are well aware of tactics used in interrogations; they would see that KAK is not confronted with anything that proves what is being asked.
That would have been explored in 2017, not more than three years later when they were hoping to find KAK had let someone know something that could give them a lead in an unsolved murder(s).

"KAK had all the elements", I'm guessing that you mean motive, opportunity and means, instead of the elements of a crime.
KAK has never been shown to seek in person sexual violence, and that is what this crime was and that is what RA's motive was.
KAK was never shown to be anywhere near the crime scene and everything in his interrogation shows that LE didn't think he was. That is definitely not him on the bridge and nothing shows LE ever thought it was.

The often-said interrogation-based claim that KAK knew the location of LG that day or was in the area, or that LE claimed it was a fact, is not what the interrogation shows. That interpretation is used to support the theory that KAK must somehow be involved.
MOO

@arielilane says:
I am responding to your (see above) post, which did not quote properly. However, please be advised that the guess about motive, opportunity and means was incorrect. Additionally, you make several statements about KAK, so if you have any links to provide, please do so. TIA

My entire post was to show why I don't think KAK will be brought up at RA's trial, in response to your post about the same subject.

Sorry, I guessed wrong, I don't know what you meant by KAK has elements. But it still stands that KAK can't be presented as an alternate suspect without MOM, and my argument is that the defense will not have anything that qualifies as admissible evidence to offer him as an alternate suspect.

I don't think LE will be called to the stand to testify, especially about the 2020 interrogation where KAK is told they don't think he is the murderer. (link to transcript below) Absent from the transcript, accusations of being at the crime scene. LE was looking for 2 things, did KAK know about the bridge plans and did he somehow let someone else know.
Asking those questions does not give RA's defense court admissible evidence that KAK is the alternate suspect.

KAK is not the man on the bridge, my opinion only but I think it is widely accepted. The FBI could testify that they estimated the height of the suspect, he was short.

KAK does not have any convictions or even accusations of assault or forcible sexual contact. Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

I agree with the retired FBI agent's opinion.

Retired FBI agent on Kegan Kline transcript: ‘This interview looked to me a little bit like a Hail Mary’​

Retired FBI agent on Kegan Kline transcript: 'This interview looked to me a little bit like a Hail Mary'

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — I-Team 8 continues to dig into the shocking discovery obtained by I-Team 8 surrounding the Delphi murders. It’s a story we first reported Thursday on WISHTV.com and it involves new evidence police might have in the deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German. On Friday, I-Team...

www.wishtv.com

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Tx-statement-Kegan-Kline-10-19-2-FINAL-VERSION-Redacted-1.pdf

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Not the OP, but the D doesn't have to provide any defense of their client, and even though the exD raised the Odin Defense theory, it does not mean the new D is required to continue with that claim. I think they might be able to imply that KAK was somehow connected.

They could simply say that RA was taking a leisurely stroll and watching fish on the bridge that day and never saw Abby or Libby period. Once he heard of the terrible news, he notified LE immediately and gave a statement.

The State won't be able to go after RA on that unless he takes the stand himself, which I believe will NEVER happen unless there is much more to this whole story than we know.

JMO

I do know that a defense is not required, and I am not yet convinced there will be a trial. Just speculating on the possibility. The topic began with someone else posting about the possibility of KAK being mentioned at a trial. The defense cannot just imply that KAK specifically was involved, if they want to go the alternate suspect route, the judge will rule on if they met the requirements to put on that defense. It requires evidence and I don't think the defense could meet the requirements.
The defense cannot testify for RA and give his explanations if he is not going to testify. Juries are told that attorney statements are not evidence, only what is presented at trial is evidence.

 

[zh0r4]

Defense attorney Bob Motta snagged the affidavit of the motion to transfer. We need a copy here.
Can he be confirmed as a credible source?

Motion to Transfer - 1/12/2024
Filed by Scremin
6 pages

Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

2024 1/12: Defense Motion to Transfer Allen

drive.google.com

 

[zh0r4]

We will agree to disagree. I think trying to track down every prison in the United States to confirm or deny that there may be a murder defendant housed there is too daunting a task...as well as calling every jail in the country to see if any murder defendants have ever been moved to a prison facility for safety sake. There is the statute used in moving RA from Westville to Wabash for safety concerns and the first judge did agree with the County in moving him originally to Westville. I think we maybe not know an awful lot about the tensions/dangers that led to that original move.
AJMO

Instead of “tracking down every prison”, do you have a source for 1 single case you had in mind? TIA

 

[mrjitty]

I do know that a defense is not required, and I am not yet convinced there will be a trial. Just speculating on the possibility. The topic began with someone else posting about the possibility of KAK being mentioned at a trial. The defense cannot just imply that KAK specifically was involved, if they want to go the alternate suspect route, the judge will rule on if they met the requirements to put on that defense. It requires evidence and I don't think the defense could meet the requirements.
The defense cannot testify for RA and give his explanations if he is not going to testify. Juries are told that attorney statements are not evidence, only what is presented at trial is evidence.

I think these are good points and get to the evidential difficulties the defence has in this case.

I agree with KAK that beyond the fact that he was an active suspect, the only 'there' is the catfishing. Potentially quite powerful but will it be allowed at trial? IMO the problem is that even if it were admissible, in the end LE investigators would be called who will confirm there is no evidence against him.

I believe the Odinism thing is the same. First, the defence need to actually make an argument for an occult staging, let alone an odinist one. But that linkage to the supposed offenders is tenuous at best. All kinds of people can be investigated as part of a theory of the case but that does not mean there is actual evidence against them. Take the previous suspect with an alibi - IMO there is no actual evidence against him and evidence clearing him. Would that even be allowed at trial? Ditto the hearsay confession.

The stuff about investigators believing in an occult theory might be useful - but you have to call those investigators. And does any of that actually help RA?

In the end it is much easier to write a fanfic theory in the franks memo that to actually evidence this stuff.

But having sat through this stuff before, I do think counsel will tend to rely on sock puppeting theory as it appears US judges allow wide license for that type of thing.