Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #202

[Melted]

100%. If they were tied, especially using some kind of tape, there would have been plenty of residue left behind and marks on the bodies. MOO

Can you cite a source that shows that If they were tied up there would 100% be plenty of residue and marks left behind on the bodies?

Thanks in advance!

 

[MassGuy]

Rulings on motions.

Delphi Murders Trial: Day 5 live blog

Wednesday is day 5 of testimonies in the Delphi Murders trial begins at the Carroll County courthouse. Follow our live blog for updates.

www.wishtv.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

I've been there many times and it depends on the season. Also you can see fish in the creek from the bridge as long as the water is clear. JMO

Thank you for confirming the fact that fish can be seen from the bridge.

 

[mrjitty]

I think she did well considering Baldwin was peppering her with on the 1st statement you said muddy and bloody x number of times. On the second you said only bloody x number of times and on the third blah, blah, blah.

I loved that she a logical explanation as to why his jacket looked tan, because it was covered in mud. His jeans were light denim and she could see blood stains.

There was a struggle across the creek and climbing up that next muddy spot. I think that is why RA chose to walk back to his car down N300, he could have stayed out of sight most of the way.

He looked bloody and muddy, like he'd been in a fight just as SC stated. Which he was, because he had just murdered Abby and Libby.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

All that really matters is the broad strokes. The guy was muddy and bloody, and on foot. That means the murders already happened, and his car was not parked on that access road close at hamd.

 

[twall]

Should they have taken the sticks right away? Yes. Would it have helped catch the killer? Almost certainly not.

Some small town police department accidentally recording over a couple interviews that were also hand recorded? Not a big deal.

Witnesses not agreeing? Standard.

Every case I’ve followed has had some massive mistakes. Whether it be law enforcement not discovering a body right under their nose, missing obvious blood evidence and allowing residents to remain in a property for days after a murder (seen this multiple times), failure to follow up major leads right away, etc.

The major mistake here was not only the misfiling of that interview with Allen, but the failure to discover it until years had passed. That sent them on a wild goose chase, and likely allowed evidence to be lost to time.

That mistake, large as it was, does not mean that everything should be looked through that lens. This task force looked at countless suspects, and did their due diligence.

They encountered a crime that by its very nature, is the hardest to solve. It was committed by a stranger, occurred outdoors, no one actually saw it happen, and the killer left no DNA.

They were reliant upon witnesses who recognized the man they saw as BG, but could not aid in his identification.

They could develop a timeline, but not a name.

Until they saw something they should have seen all along, followed up, and were gifted the probable cause via Allen, they needed to finally help unmask BG.

I look at this and I of course see issues. I’ve seen them before, and I’ll see them again. Nothing raises this to the level of “Keystone Cops” though.

“Omg, they didn’t do a rape kit.”

“They lied about the video.”

“They didn’t take more photographs so now chain of custody is in doubt.”

“They didn’t see the bodies that night, so they must have been moved”.

“They needed someone to pin this on so they chose Allen.”

Naw.

I never said LE didn't do their due diligence. Was just having flashbacks to WM3, that's all. I still don't know if WM3 are guilty or not and probably never will. I hope I dont have the same conclusion in this case. JMO

 

[justtrish]

I agree it’s definitely preferred that the prosecution offers a motive in theory but it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove motive BARD as it would often call for speculation.

https://www.cataldolawoffices.com/blog/2024/05/does-the-state-have-to-prove-motive-in-a-murder-trial/

Have you ever heard the phrase, “no motive, no crime?” It’s a popular phrase that sums up the idea that a prosecutor can’t prove a homicide case when they can’t establish a motive for the defendant to act.

It’s also untrue. While motive is very important in crime drama shows and movies, establishing motive is not required for a conviction.

I think it's best they don't speak on motive until RA himself speaks on it in his confessions. We have been told he does talk about why so why would they try to explain it when RA himself is going to do that later.

 

[mrjitty]

This falls at random, as they say here.

If RA was gone long before SC saw muddy, bloody guy, why does the D care if he was muddy and bloody or just plain muddy? It wasn’t RA.

If it was RA, when, how, and why did he innocently get muddy but not bloody? Why did he never mention it?

The problem of muddy / bloody guy being seen on foot just after a brutal bloody double murder occurred is it scuppers their 2nd location theory.

I agree they could just say nothing matters because RA left at 1.30 - but I suspect we are going to discover the evidence is against that idea. They know RAs admission to seeing the 3 juveniles puts him on the bridge at the critical time.

MOO

 

[MassGuy]

I never said LE didn't do their due diligence. Was just having flashbacks to WM3, that's all. I still don't know if WM3 are guilty or not and probably never will. I hope I dont have the same conclusion in this case. JMO

Oh that wasn’t directed at you. It just gave me an opening to go after what I’ve seen elsewhere.

 

[mrjitty]

It puzzling how the P got her sighting right, but the D insisted she did not say bloody.

Richard Allen PCA source:

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

View attachment 540022

Extremely puzzling!

 

[SouthEnd]

Can you cite a source that shows that If they were tied up there would 100% be plenty of residue and marks left behind on the bodies?

Thanks in advance!

I said moo but if anyone has had blood drawn, have they used that little medical tape on you? How much sticky residue was left?

Medical tape is designed to leave behind the least amount of residue and irritation.

As to the marks on the skin, counter instructions on duct tape explains it could cause rash or irritation on skin.

As for rope, how do we know ppl have been bound if there is no rope post mortem?

Friction burns.

Friction Burns: Epidemiology and Prevention - PMC

This epidemiological study deals with 60 patients with friction burns between January 2004 and January 2006. The age group most affected was that between 21 and 30 years, with male predominance. Road traffic accidents were the commonest cause of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Additionally, if the bindings stayed on for specific amounts of time post mortem, the livor mortis will reveal the markings (blood pooling/skin depressions).

All of it from MOO and following true crime for a few decades.

 

[Iphi]

I think the gun alone accomplishes the same.

Yes but I’ve been racking my brains how and why Abby would be wearing Libby s clothes. I don’t believe it’s easy to dress a dead body.

 

[Spartygirl]

Probably a family member of Libby's. This was at 3:57 p.m.

Or another trail/bridge walker.
There were others out there that day also.
JMO

 

[Arkay]

Abby showed no signs of blunt force trauma or restraint wounds

The quote above is from the autopsy report posted by seattle1. No restraint wounds at least on Abby.

The lack of defensive wounds added now with the faint mark of possible duct tape on the mouth as well as the fibers pulled off of the bodies leads me to believe they were tied up.

JMO

I disagree, melted, due to the autopsy report.

If they were tied up their bodies would almost certainly show obvious signs of that.

A faint mark on her mouth but nothing else, makes that incredibly unlikely.

100%. If they were tied, especially using some kind of tape, there would have been plenty of residue left behind and marks on the bodies. MOO

Agreeing with MassGuy and southend.

The autopsy report again says “ no” to restraint wounds on Abby and mentions nothing that I saw about residue, except for possibly the mouth, and maybe I missed it but I can’t recall seeing anything about fibers on their bodies.

IMO

 

[joe jones]

reading early reports from autopsy, pathologist testified it would have taken between 4-10 minutes before they died, would have lapsed into unconsciousness before then, Libby died faster than Abby due to severity of her injuries,
Alongside the crime scene photos knowing how the girls suffered during the murders must be almost impossible to bear, but having trial watched for many years the strength of victims of murder families is once again extraordinary, they show up and endure the horrific pain to bear witness and do their final thing they can do as parents, siblings, grandparents etc.

 

[ClearAhead]

Should they have taken the sticks right away? Yes. Would it have helped catch the killer? Almost certainly not.

Some small town police department accidentally recording over a couple interviews that were also hand recorded? Not a big deal.

Witnesses not agreeing? Standard.

Every case I’ve followed has had some massive mistakes. Whether it be law enforcement not discovering a body right under their nose, missing obvious blood evidence and allowing residents to remain in a property for days after a murder (seen this multiple times), failure to follow up major leads right away, etc.

The major mistake here was not only the misfiling of that interview with Allen, but the failure to discover it until years had passed. That sent them on a wild goose chase, and likely allowed evidence to be lost to time.

That mistake, large as it was, does not mean that everything should be looked through that lens. This task force looked at countless suspects, and did their due diligence.

They encountered a crime that by its very nature, is the hardest to solve. It was committed by a stranger, occurred outdoors, no one actually saw it happen, and the killer left no DNA.

They were reliant upon witnesses who recognized the man they saw as BG, but could not aid in his identification.

They could develop a timeline, but not a name.

Until they saw something they should have seen all along, followed up, and were gifted the probable cause via Allen, they needed to finally help unmask BG.

I look at this and I of course see issues. I’ve seen them before, and I’ll see them again. Nothing raises this to the level of “Keystone Cops” though.

“Omg, they didn’t do a rape kit.”

“They lied about the video.”

“They didn’t take more photographs so now chain of custody is in doubt.”

“They didn’t see the bodies that night, so they must have been moved”.

“They needed someone to pin this on so they chose Allen.”

Naw.

This is a really great summary!

By the time this trial is near the end I think the various mistakes and mixups on the P side will appear minor in the eyes of the jury compared to the overdo of the D who seem to be accusing or insinuating that every one of the P’s witnesses are either mistaken, wrong or lying.

JMO

 

[Vern]

The bloody man witness was always a mess, we didn’t even know who was changing her mind, her or what LE was writing down and how many times. But everyone was desperate to put him there at 4 so here we are.

Nah.

If she were being framed up by someone coercing her into "changing her mind" (you have alleged exactly that above with the "who"; not to mention the allegation of her comitting perjury that comes with it)

She would have given a timing of 1530hrs ... which would have aligned with what Richard Allen himself advised Officer Dulin he was on the trails until.

No coercion. No-one changing her mind.

Just more spin IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

I am always much more of a fan of the small strands of detail which build the circumstantial rope than "bombshell" evidence. According to Murdersheet reporting there were 3 critical details yesterday

1 Libby texted one of the 3 juvenile girls minutes after they left the trail.to ask them if they already left. This is another timing that locks the 3 girls into the timeline and puts Bridge Guy on the trails to the brdge. IMO these 3 girls are the most important direct evidence in the case. Not because of exactly how they describe BG, but because of when they see him.

2. Mullin testified as to when the victims drove past the harvest store to arrive at the car park. Another critical point which locks them on to the trail after BB was already sighting Bridge Guy

3. BB had a Fitbit! This is a real godsend and locks her right in. Forget the conspiracies that the girls arrived much earlier.

This timeline looks rock solid.

 

[tlcya]

Should they have taken the sticks right away? Yes. Would it have helped catch the killer? Almost certainly not.

Some small town police department accidentally recording over a couple interviews that were also hand recorded? Not a big deal.

Witnesses not agreeing? Standard.

Every case I’ve followed has had some massive mistakes. Whether it be law enforcement not discovering a body right under their nose, missing obvious blood evidence and allowing residents to remain in a property for days after a murder (seen this multiple times), failure to follow up major leads right away, etc.

The major mistake here was not only the misfiling of that interview with Allen, but the failure to discover it until years had passed. That sent them on a wild goose chase, and likely allowed evidence to be lost to time.

That mistake, large as it was, does not mean that everything should be looked through that lens. This task force looked at countless suspects, and did their due diligence.

They encountered a crime that by its very nature, is the hardest to solve. It was committed by a stranger, occurred outdoors, no one actually saw it happen, and the killer left no DNA.

They were reliant upon witnesses who recognized the man they saw as BG, but could not aid in his identification.

They could develop a timeline, but not a name.

Until they saw something they should have seen all along, followed up, and were gifted the probable cause via Allen, they needed to finally help unmask BG.

I look at this and I of course see issues. I’ve seen them before, and I’ll see them again. Nothing raises this to the level of “Keystone Cops” though.

“Omg, they didn’t do a rape kit.”

“They lied about the video.”

“They didn’t take more photographs so now chain of custody is in doubt.”

“They didn’t see the bodies that night, so they must have been moved”.

“They needed someone to pin this on so they chose Allen.”

Naw.

I wish I could love this twice

 

[photographer4]

Yes but I’ve been racking my brains how and why Abby would be wearing Libby s clothes. I don’t believe it’s easy to dress a dead body.

I was just wondering - if AW was wearing LG's clothes right - did LE ever locate AW's clothing? Her jeans? The pink top? The whatever warm jacket or sweater she was given by KG?

 

[joe jones]

This is a really great summary!

By the time this trial is near the end I think the various mistakes and mixups on the P side will appear minor in the eyes of the jury compared to the overdo of the D who seem to be accusing or insinuating that every one of the P’s witnesses are either mistaken or wrong.

JMO

Tis their job, they should question absolutely everything, a man's life is on the line, even if he gets LWOP his life is over, I think a rigorous defence is an absolute necessity when it is the state that wants to lock you up and throw away the key