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

[Dhighsmith]

If there was any funny business with the shoes, the defense would have mentioned that.

This reminds me of the Berreth case when a reporter indirectly tweeted that Kelsey “loved her dog,” when her mom said on the stand that she “loved her God.”

So naturally we had 20 pages of comments regarding this missing dog, what breed it was, its whereabouts during the crime, and where that dog was now.

JMO, as I posted last night, I suspect a typo or grammatical error by journalist in the “pair” of shoes. Unfortunately, article was picked up by other news media outlets publishing the same misstatement/grammatical error.

 

[Arkay]

This killer would have to remove the girls from the scene, and pointlessly/insanely bring them back to an area that couldn't possibly be more dangerous to him. He'd have to park his car, and carry them one by one through an area where he'd have every expectation of bumping into searchers.

Still very far behind but agree with this, as has been discussed many a time here.

Whether anyone here believes the culprit to be RA or doesn’t believe it’s RA, the fact remains that no one ever came forward earlier and confessed to the crime.

Therefore we can infer that the culprit did not wish to be caught.

IMO that rules out that any murderer, after having potentially taken the girls elsewhere, would ever ever ever bring the girls back to where he had killed them.

Not unless he wanted to get caught, as he clearly did not.

The logistics make it highly incredible, and also puts the killer in the bullseye while people would’ve been searching near the bridge.

If the murderer drove or otherwise transported the girls elsewhere, why wouldn’t he bury them or hide them anywhere else? Miles away or out of state?

He kept his mouth shut all these years, why would he have made it much easier to find the girls?

Again, illogical IMO

 

[MassGuy]

I don’t think that was the point at all. They certainly knew it wasn’t a fur ball, lol! The point being, this hair, even though determined to be female, was NEVER tested. Just one more thing not done. LE can’t just assume it belongs to one of the girls, or sister or mother or grandmother. How did they know that these murders were not committed by a man and a woman? JMO

What wasn't the point? I said that if the hair was unidentified, they'd say so. What they would not do is blindly speculate to the identity of the contributor, as it weakens the effect of mentioning the hair in the first place. An unidentified hair would mean that it wasn't tested, and belongs to someone who could be the "real killer." They could not make that argument however, because the hair has obviously been tested.

Honest question: How do you think they were able to determine that it was female hair, and has a familial connection to Libby, even though it was found in Abby's hands?

Obviously it was tested, and people are somehow falling for what the defense is trying to do.

As we learned in the LISK case, foreign hair can play a major role even if it doesn't belong to a killer.

 

[iamshadow21]

I don’t think that was the point at all. They certainly knew it wasn’t a fur ball, lol! The point being, this hair, even though determined to be female, was NEVER tested. Just one more thing not done. LE can’t just assume it belongs to one of the girls, or sister or mother or grandmother. How did they know that these murders were not committed by a man and a woman? JMO

Female hair and male hair aren't visibly different. You can't put a hair under a microscope and tell. There's no way of telling biological sex without testing.

It was tested.

MOO

 

[MiniMoo]

JMO, as I posted last night, I suspect a typo or grammatical error by journalist in the “pair” of shoes. Unfortunately, article was picked up by other news media outlets publishing the same misstatement/grammatical error.

To my understanding there has been reference to issues hearing anything in the court at times so maybe by Monday that will be sorted.

This could be why this situation with shoe or shoes isn't clear right now.

JMO MOO JMT

 

[TTF14]

If Bob is helping them out then he should be part of the gag order then. If he isn't helping them out, he shouldn't be getting info from the defense and then sharing it or being their mouthpiece to float info online. That is the issue I have. Those messages from the Due Process Gang where he's calling Judge Gull a ratchet B%$CH and speaking horribly about the victims family members, and discussing potential jury tampering. In on that chat was another attorney who represented RA's lawyers in their fight to stay on his case. It is so unprofessional and if he's working with the defense in any way he shouldn't be talking about this case on his podcast or anywhere else online.

I would think after the leaked photos and the unfortunate death of someone involved in that, then the mess with being removed and then back in as RA's defense team, they would not associate with those that are doing shady things so they don't give off any appearance of inappropriate behavior.

Anyone who actually watches him knows just how often he has repeatedly said he doesn't work for the defense and has no inside knowledge.

As a private citizen who happens to practice law (in another state), he's entitled to his opinion about this case and its players just like the rest of us. I hope a lot of my private comments about things related to this case don't make their way into a public forum.

As always, JMO.

 

[Dhighsmith]

I don’t think that was the point at all. They certainly knew it wasn’t a fur ball, lol! The point being, this hair, even though determined to be female, was NEVER tested. Just one more thing not done. LE can’t just assume it belongs to one of the girls, or sister or mother or grandmother. How did they know that these murders were not committed by a man and a woman? JMO

To better understand the issue, when you state the hair was never tested, do you mean more specifically hair was not tested for determining DNA match?

 

[Seattle1]

"We also are not permitted to get up and leave the room, unless she says court is having a break. That happens about every 1.5 hours."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1848048362932859194

I've not followed an Indiana criminal case before to confirm if criminal trials are generally streamed live but I can confirm that IN statute prohibits recording or archiving video hearings authorized live streamed (by SC Order), and accessible by the public (such as WebEx).

There are several states that have never allowed cameras in their courtrooms with an exception for the Court to consider allowing a camera for an arraignment or advisement only, but allowed remote video hearings (via Webex) for the first time pursuant to an emergency SC Order during Covid. It's possible Indiana may be one of these states, I don't know.

If true, or live streaming decided on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Court, then I trust that Motion was long ago held, with arguments for and against.

While I understand and appreciate the growing pains here, I hope this isn't going to become 6 weeks of whining. Federal trial reporters and watchers have dealt with such restrictions forever. MOO

IN Court Streams - IN Court Streams

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[TTF14]

I've not followed an Indiana criminal case before to confirm if criminal trials are generally streamed live but I can confirm that IN statute prohibits recording or archiving video hearings authorized live streamed (by SC Order), and accessible by the public (such as WebEx).

There are several states that have never allowed cameras in their courtrooms with an exception for the Court to consider allowing a camera for an arraignment or advisement only, but allowed remote video hearings (via Webex) for the first time pursuant to an emergency SC Order during Covid. It's possible Indiana may be one of these states, I don't know.

If true, or live streaming decided on a case by case basis, at the discretion of the Court, then I trust that Motion was long ago held, with arguments for and against.

While I understand and appreciate the growing pains here, I hope this isn't going to become 6 weeks of whining. Federal trial reporters and watchers have dealt with such restrictions forever. MOO

IN Court Streams - IN Court Streams

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

BBM - but times change and evolve with the progression of technology and society.

Part of the angst is due to the fact that Judge Gull was/is a proponent for livestreaming trials. Just not this one.

Broadcast pilot project allows cameras in court

times.courts.in.gov

From the article: "the Supreme Court granted an exception at the request of two Judicial Conference committees: Community Relations and Court Security. The committees selected judges based on court jurisdiction, location, and judicial interest in the pilot project. Judges Fran Gull, Marianne Vorhees, Bruce Parent, Sean Persin, and Leslie Shively answered the call to open their courtrooms to local news media. The judges worked closely with press to address logistical and decorum needs."

As always, JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I don't see how this statement made by the defense helps their client much unless there's evidence showing that this female relative is connected to their murder.

I doubt the jury will be distracted by this attempt to obfuscate the hair evidence. JMO.

New details revealed in Delphi girls' double murder as opening arguments begin

Richard Allen is accused of killing Abby Williams, 13, and Libby German, 14, on an Indiana trail in 2017.

abcnews.go.com

BBM

IMO this type of misleading hurts RA’s case. How many times will a juror accept being misled before becoming skeptical of all statements from this defense team that are without tested proof.
I think it was a bad start.
JMO

 

[susiQ]

To better understand the issue, when you state the hair was never tested, do you mean more specifically hair was not tested for determining DNA match?

Yes.

 

[Warwick7]

I have a question that hopefully has nothing to do with shoes. I can't seem to imagine it in my head.

The killer was interrupted before he could "have his way" per testimony that is documented on this thread. But he had time to dress Abby in Libby's clothing and kill her? Seems to me that would take a while.

So what interruption could be possible to allow the extra time to kill and stage the scene?

My personal opinion, is he didn't dress Abby. (My feeling are based on Abby having her underwear on. So if sh didnt that changes my thoughts).

When they got down to the bottom, where a witness said the dirt and rocks were roughed up, I think he demanded both to undress. Either there was a terrible scuffle or he looked at both of them and told Abby put her clothes back on. (Wouldn't surprise me if Libby put up a fight).

Possibly he marched them that way across the water. They say the water was rather high. Maybe Libby dropped one shoes and shirt and etc. in the water.

If he commanded Abby to put the pants and sweatshirt on--- it far more difficult for Libby to get clothes back. He could have told Libby to toss them on the ground to Abby (her clothes have the phone in them).

Abby slips her shoes and socks off, puts LG's clothes on....but her throat is slit right away she falls on Libbys shoe and phone. I don't think he ever wanted her. He used her to control Libby.

Did Libby then run? Had he caught up with her, slit her throat, and she transferred blood to a tree she was next to?

He then drags her back to where Abby is. And I think he grabbed leaves and branches to cover them up.

Did he take underwear or a sock with him as a memento? I believe he did.

 

[Tricia]

I'm closing this thread down for a few hours. The alerts are out of control. I will be timing people out and possibly banning some as well.

 

[Tricia]

Hi Everyone,
Let's agree that Judge Gull runs a very tight and limited courtroom.
There is no video, no audio, and limited seating for media. I don't like it either. However, we keep discussing this over and over and over. Nothing is going to change. We will have to rely on our mainstream media sources to tell us what is going on. At some point, we can get transcripts. Until then, let's just deal the best we can with the situation and stop complaining about the judge. It causes arguments and takes away from the case at hand.
Thank you,
Tricia

 

[Tricia]

I take it back. The thread is opened back up now. No need to close it for hours. That was me talking before I took my blood pressure meds. LOL .
Okay. Let's stop discussing what's wrong with the judge in this case. It distracts from the case itself.
Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 229974]

This is an excellent example of how words have powerful meaning. The word 'buried' here. A person could think it was someone who took a shovel, dug a hole, put the bullet in the hole, and covered it up. Or maybe it was 'driven' in to the ground by some force.

Since I've spent countless hours in the deciduous forests of the United States, I can say that there is almost under all circumstances quite a thick layer of leaf litter on top of the 'ground'.

So, my best guess is, the bullet was found 'buried' amongst the leaves.

Good point, nobody rakes the leaves in the woods.

 

[Deleted member 229974]

I think it's very clear it was familial female DNA. The defense even admitted that.

If it had been unknown, the P would have continued with the Genealogy testing to find out whose it was. But once they learned it was a close female relative, it was a dead end. They have a video of the person with a gun who ordered them down the hill. It wasn't Libby's female cousin or Auntie.

How did the defense determine it to be familial female hair?

 

[SouthEnd]

How did the defense determine it to be familial female hair?

P shared discovery I'd guess? IMO

 

[katydid23]

For clarification:

Does this mean the Defense may not have known anything about the hair?

Jury selection was only last week.

JMT MOO JMT

They've known all about it since discovery. And they've known it's not the killer's hair all that time.

The only reason they brought it up is to create an uproar, taking it seem there was as big bombshell against the prosecution's case.

It was just a hoax, orchestrated by the D with the help of BM and other social media platforms. They will be doing the same thing for the rest of the trial.

 

[Arkay]

They've known all about it since discovery. And they've known it's not the killer's hair all that time.

The only reason they brought it up is to create an uproar, taking it seem there was as big bombshell against the prosecution's case.

It was just a hoax, orchestrated by the D with the help of BM and other social media platforms. They will be doing the same thing for the rest of the trial.

Oh absolutely agree with you, @katydid23

It was designed to be a headline for those who only read the headlines and not the content…they buried the lede anyway, as is said in the media business.

I do not believe that anyone on the D actually considered that a female relative of Libby’s was the secret killer, nor did BM believe that.

It was a ploy..a twofold ploy…

A) to instill doubt about RA’s guilt

B) to attract viewers to BM’s site.

My opinion is that by twisting the facts into a titillating headline, he’s demeaned himself as both a lawyer and an amateur media figure.

I give no credence to him whatsoever.

JMO