Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #200

[FrostedGlass]

Good questions. One possibility for a keepsake bullet could be if you’re a hunter and it was from the first deer you killed. Some areas hunting is really common and people may go hunting with a parent or grandparent from when they are a child. Or it could be a keepsake from the first time you went shooting. Another possibility is if you are into family history and maybe your father/grandfather/great grandfather/other family member kept the bullet and when they died you inherited it. I don’t know anything about the keepsake bullet of RA’s, but those are a few hypothetical reasons you may have a keepsake bullet that aren’t nefarious.

MOO

Another possibility is it isn't his keepsake bullet, it's his wife's. Being in the National Guard and possibly away from home, he may have taught her how to shoot for safety purposes. Maybe it was her first bullseye.

 

[Simply Southern]

Well that doesn't seem like it's being enforced fairly either. MS are accredited press. A periodical magazine and a Franklin, IN daily newspaper hired them to cover the case. They're being refused media passes and if what you say about the viewing exhibits is true, they would then be denied access to those also. It's unfortunate it's not the same for all. MO

http://"

I'm not sure MS meets the standard of "professional journalists".

Indiana has a handbook defining media credentialing and the Indiana codes page 15.
Full time employment with a media agency, business license, etc.

Moo... I read this rules out paparazzi, you tubers and independent individuals selling/free articles.

I also read several Google articles for press passes for the WH. Seems most government entities have a qualification or credentialing process.

Allg opinion....

 

[justtrish]

It would seem this is something NM can only suggest. Not sure there’s a way to actually prove this to the jury. Time will tell. JMO

I think Libby's phone movements could tell them a part of the story, then if the ground appeared disturbed somewhere along the bank on the bridge side of the water.. then clothing was found near that disturbed area, it could be indicative of something going on at that location. Then if Libby's phone was still for a few minutes and then proceeded across the water.. that would suggest stopping and then moving again. It is also possible one of RA's many confessions includes details like I took them down the hill and did xyz, but then I heard people near the bridge or I heard a car driving on that private drive so I moved them across the water. That would actually be something LE didn't release (thinking something happened on the bridge side of the water) so if RA's confessions include something about that location it might have confirmed what LE already believed. This is all my opinion on possible ways they could know something occurred down the hill before crossing the water.

 

[girlhasnoname]

It would seem this is something NM can only suggest. Not sure there’s a way to actually prove this to the jury. Time will tell. JMO

It would be provable if there is an audio or written confession by RA stating this. MOO

 

[snooptroop88]

The Cicero doc (blood spatter expert) seems to indicate there was no redressing of Abby after all. Maybe there's some nuance on this I'm missing, but the text of it really does strongly suggest no redressing. (warning/graphic p 7, lines 22, 23; pp 16-17; pp 18-19)
And he also notes the branches in his opinion may have been used for purposes of concealment.

_Testimony of Major Patrick Cicero Given at Hearing on Motion in Limine Held August 1, 2024.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[statt#1]

I'll just add that Fight, Flight, Freeze Flee explains this natural/instinctive response. (Edited to correct "Flee" to "Freeze".

I can speak to experience when in directly traumatizing situation overseas with on a two-way firing range, one's body reacts instinctively to the situation. And, what instinctually happens as a reaction is not necessarily what or how one expects and predicts they would react to the immediate situation. And for some, no amount of "training" will train them to "fight", to "flee" or to "freeze" as any particular or life-risk situation the situation warrants. I've witnessed old at the tooth life's work professional soldiers hit the dirt while others, much younger and much less "trained" soldiers fought like heck. And vice versa. I was shocked by how some of them responded and some of them were shocked by how they responded - both good and bad. It is what it is. All you can do is train to "try" to make a response to a situation become instinctive.

Until the moment you've had that gun pointed at YOUR head, you do not know how you'd respond. One might like to think they know and claim they know, but they don't.

Until one has walked a mile in their actual shoes ... so to say.

NO amount of preparation would prepare anyone for that situation ... or their own reaction to that situation.

I does not matter what Libby and Abby did, nor how they responded. They didn't "do" a single thing wrong that day. They did what their instincts had them doing. They didn't request that some random dude walk up to them, threaten them, hold a gun to them and order them down the hill to their deaths. Full stop. They bear zero responsibility for how their bodies and minds reacted or what happened to them. That respnsibility and weight is 100% on the killers shoulders.

I must thank you for your post. Reality reporting from direct experience. I worked with a WW2 vet who, 40 years ago, would speak of the things you've said here...almost to be verbatim. He'd share that some of the toughest men freaked or froze, or simply stood when to crouch was the thing to do, costing them their lives, and then there were the meek, who performed flawlessly under live fire.

It's preposterous for anyone to say how they'd react while staring down the barrel of a Sig .40 caliber at point blank range...my guess is, the majority, dang near all, comply with the person holding the gun.

 

[DoctorRose]

I was just thinking maybe if they both took off their clothes before they crossed the creek it would have been super cold standing there wet after. I wonder if Libby just reflexively handed Abby her clothes.

Edit: the idea of an interruption really makes the whole thing make more sense to me. If he’d told them to undress then suddenly ordered them across the creek Libby could have been carrying her clothes, and they could have even slipped their shoes back on. The interruption could explain the disorder.

 

[shonyakay]

The Cicero doc (blood spatter expert) seems to indicate there was no redressing of Abby after all. Maybe there's some nuance on this I'm missing, but the text of it really does strongly suggest no redressing. (warning/graphic p 7, lines 22, 23; pp 16-17; pp 18-19)
And he also notes the branches in his opinion may have been used for purposes of concealment.

_Testimony of Major Patrick Cicero Given at Hearing on Motion in Limine Held August 1, 2024.pdf

drive.google.com

I hope future testimony will help explain this.

NM also seemed to suggest that Abby wasn't redressed AFTER she died on his cross of Dr. Perlmutter

Q. Do you agree that A.W., her body is right where she died, it was not moved?

Q. But you're assuming she (AW) was redressed after she died.

(Further) Well, if she got dressed before she (AW) died, there wouldn't be any positioning of the body.

 

[justtrish]

The Cicero doc (blood spatter expert) seems to indicate there was no redressing of Abby after all. Maybe there's some nuance on this I'm missing, but the text of it really does strongly suggest no redressing. (warning/graphic p 7, lines 22, 23; pp 16-17; pp 18-19)
And he also notes the branches in his opinion may have been used for purposes of concealment.

_Testimony of Major Patrick Cicero Given at Hearing on Motion in Limine Held August 1, 2024.pdf

drive.google.com

I read this as she wasn't redressed AFTER the fatal wound was inflicted. She was bleeding and there was no blood on areas of the clothing that would be impossible to not get blood on if someone was say trying to put a shirt over her head and neck where she was actively bleeding from.

 

[statt#1]

MOO

Another possibility is it isn't his keepsake bullet, it's his wife's. Being in the National Guard and possibly away from home, he may have taught her how to shoot for safety purposes. Maybe it was her first bullseye.

I think there's confusion here. It's my opinion the round being discussed here, taken in the search, isn't just a bullet, rather, an unfired round...meaning brass case, powder, primer, and bullet, all together, ready to fire. Once fired, the bullet goes downrange. To save a bullet fired as such, one would have to retrieve it, which would be near impossible in open field firing or even at a firing range, but could retrieve a bullet from a 'kill'.

Why that one round was in that keepsake box is anybody's guess at this juncture.

 

[kkdj]

I think this type of inference from the defense is going to backfire for them. It's like they're victim blaming a bit to hint that Libby would have yelled. (Or should have. Or could have.)

That might rub the wrong way for a juror or two.

MOO.

I would bet the girls thought if they made a run for it he would surely shoot them and if they went down the hill as commanded by his words and a gun, they maybe stood a better chance. I don't think they stood a chance in either scenario tho. BG came prepared to kill and that's just what he did.

 

[shonyakay]

I thought I would share this again as to what Cicero and the questioning put to him describes as Abby wearing.

dark-colored sweatshirt / large dark sweatshirt /
outer hoodie sweatshirt (I think these are all the same item)

tank top / pink sleeveless shirt (same item imo)

grey sports bra / grey-colored sports brassiere
(same item imo)

black bra / black regular brassiere
(same item imo)



It is interesting that Cisero didn't mention Abby's pants or shoes. I think it's possible that Abby's pants, shoes, and possibly the gray sweater jacket she was wearing in the High Bridge picture were found on the "Down the Hill" side of the creek.

 

[Betty P]

The Cicero doc (blood spatter expert) seems to indicate there was no redressing of Abby after all. Maybe there's some nuance on this I'm missing, but the text of it really does strongly suggest no redressing. (warning/graphic p 7, lines 22, 23; pp 16-17; pp 18-19)
And he also notes the branches in his opinion may have been used for purposes of concealment.

_Testimony of Major Patrick Cicero Given at Hearing on Motion in Limine Held August 1, 2024.pdf

drive.google.com

Where did that misinformation come from originally? Was it the Franks memo? Just curious.

 

[stormymama]

Thinking out loud.

(I don’t think Abby and Libby were taken elsewhere and brought back to where they were found.)

But say they were. We know they weren’t physically sexually assaulted. It seems like to me had they been kidnapped, taken to a secondary location, killed there or where they were found, there would be evidence of a physical sexual assault or at the very least obvious other physical wounds.

ETA: MOO

 

[shonyakay]

Further, LE in the beginning mentioned there were two crime scenes. Some suggested this could just mean that the bridge could be considered a crime scene because that is where they were kidnapped but maybe there is evidence of a crime that happened on the "Down the Hill" side of the creek.

 

[shonyakay]

Where did that misinformation come from originally? Was it the Franks memo? Just curious.

IIRC I believe Franks memo.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Where did that misinformation come from originally? Was it the Franks memo? Just curious.

DBM: I misunderstood misinformation vs information.

 

[snooptroop88]

Is it a definite right now, is there a consensus between P and D that Abby was indeed wearing some of Libby's articles of clothing? Is there a consensus between the two that there was redressing of Abby? That's what I'm trying to figure out. And I'm not sure it's known yet, but I'm sure it will be soon if it's not.

 

[Simply Southern]

I was thinking something along the same lines...

But in all seriousness, do we all want to start betting how fast the quality of the reporting / court etiquette will start degrading under these conditions? If the press and public attending can't get comfort breaks or clear information, how is their memory going to hold up, and how soon before every outlet starts putting out wildly inaccurate information?

I find a lot of JG's rulings very cut+dry when it comes to following precedent and law, but her handling of the access baffles me.

All MOO

I live in a small town. Our courts do not allow cell phones or cameras in the entire court and administration building. Yea, can't take your phone in the Treasurer's, Country Administrator's office, not even allowed during early voting.

I've attended several criminal trials. The rules are the same...if you leave, no reentry until the next break, no guarantee of repeat seating once you leave the court room, no cameras, recording devices, no IPAP or laptops.

Traffic court is like a revolving door. People leave after appearance, come in late, talk among themselves, attorneys huddle in the corner talking to clients softly. It's very distracting.

I think this is standard procedures in most courts.

Moo...

 

[scapa]

Like many, I have been appalled and haunted by this case for years. Families, friends and community of Abby and Libby waited half a decade for an arrest in the case, then years more for trial.

Now, finally, we're here. I am an inveterate scroll n' roller, but it is difficult to manage in a fast-moving thread with fresh witness testimony and genuine discussion points, and an entire thread-within-a-thread that seems to be focused on the internecine spats between podcasters, etc.

I get that in those wilderness years the spaces where facts weren't had to be kitted out with other discussion. But we're here now, and the hows and whens and whys of the brutal murders of these two remarkable friends must be at the centre, IMO. Maybe there's a place elsewhere to focus on all the other case/ media furniture, so that those of us looking for the usual informed and respectful WS discussion can find it more easily here.

Not sure if "looking forward to..." is the correct terminology for what's likely to come over the next few days and weeks of testimony, but along with many here I am hopeful that the investigation and case will be solid and well laid out, and that there is minimum additional hardship for the families along the way.

Onwards, and hopefully forwards.

YMMV, MOO, IMO, etc