Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #203

[photographer4]

Q: what do we expect to happen at court this morning? Who’s up now for the State? Did we hear from holeman yet? Or about RA interrogations? Or are we on to confessions and mental health? Mooo but also ????

 

[TristanP]

Yes. So we have that, and these searches about the case that have been alluded to. I’m sure we’ll be hearing more.

It’s kinda funny how people think RA searching info on the case is some huge piece of evidence for guilt. I would almost guarantee that every person in this thread has more searches and info about Libby & Abby’s case than RA ever did!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

It’s kinda funny how people think RA searching info on the case is some huge piece of evidence for guilt. I would almost guarantee that every person in this thread has more searches and info about Libby & Abby’s case than RA ever did!

We all have good alibis so our search's don't matter. JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

It’s kinda funny how people think RA searching info on the case is some huge piece of evidence for guilt. I would almost guarantee that every person in this thread has more searches and info about Libby & Abby’s case than RA ever did!

Reconcile that with him apparently not knowing where the photo of BG came from, and saying that it could not be him if one of the girls took it.

It sounded like he was seeing it for the first time, and for some reason it mattered who took it in determining if it was him or not.

 

[m00c0w]

I did ask last night but I will ask again: without dna, Ives seemed to think old school police work could solve this case. I linked last night to where he said this so pls search my posts for it as I don’t have it handy right now. Does anyone think we have any idea what he meant when he said this?

Well, that’s kind of exactly what happened. They put together a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to one individual, in spite of no DNA. One person alone fits the timeline, owns the right firearm, dressed the right way, and likely confessed to killing them with a box cutter (which was something not in discovery and police weren’t even investigating as a theory). Based on TL’s testimony earlier today, his phone may even put him at the bridge at the right time, which is possibly why the defense added their little piece about how his phone will “prove” he was gone by 2:15 during the opening statement.

As far as timeline, since we’re talking about it: The prosecution’s timeline seems solid and hasn’t changed. RA’s timeline keeps changing, and the defense are trying to suggest theories that are incompatible with facts as we know them now (such as the ME stating they were killed approximately 41 hours before the autopsy, which greatly excludes most of the defense’s timeline). RA said at first he was there from 1-3. Then 1:30 to 3:30. Then 12-1:30. Then the defense claims he left by 2:15, so we have a fourth timeframe now that also makes it likelier the group of girls did see RA, which then makes the timeline with BB fit…

And that’s not even counting all of the changes to the defense’s theory over time and contradictions that should worry literally anyone concerned about RA’s defense. They are arguing against science and logic that the girls were taken away and killed much later. That’s a losing prospect that does not fit within the realm of reality as we know it.

I look forward to the eventual CAST testimony.

All my opinions.

 

[INfisherman]

Q: has any testimony been given about whether they found anything in his car to tie him to the kids or the crime scene at all? Even after several years I would expect blood transfer to still be lingering. In carpet fibres, along seat belt, maybe IN the seat belt or in the door handle grooves (if any). I just don’t see how a “bloody” guy would get back into his car and NOT have transference! This is moo on the idea that there would still be transfer evidence likely in the car but also a genuine question. If there isn’t, then the State’s case is pretty weak (so far) imo.

BBM

My answer assumes the P timeline up to this point. He’s made his way to 300N & has been seen by SC. He has to get out of those clothes immediately in case anyone else sees him approaching his car - simply walk back to the trunk, open it, remove clothing on upper body, place in plastic bag in trunk (large trash bag), throw on a clean shirt & done. Less chance of pants being a concern due to blood probably only being on the front of lap & pantlegs. Maybe by the time he reaches his car, blood is dried? There is the potential that he changed all of his clothing this way at that isolated area where he was supposedly parked.

I’m no killer but I’ve changed my clothes out in the "open" like that before, sans bloodstains, without taking more than a few minutes. The most difficult to me would be the boots, depending on how high up they were laced, unless slip-on type of some sort.

 

[photographer4]

Well, that’s kind of exactly what happened. They put together a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to one individual, in spite of no DNA. One person alone fits the timeline, owns the right firearm, dressed the right way, and likely confessed to killing them with a box cutter (which was something not in discovery and police weren’t even investigating as a theory). Based on TL’s testimony earlier today, his phone may even put him at the bridge at the right time, which is possibly why the defense added their little piece about how his phone will “prove” he was gone by 2:15 during the opening statement.

As far as timeline, since we’re talking about it: The prosecution’s timeline seems solid and hasn’t changed. RA’s timeline keeps changing, and the defense are trying to suggest theories that are incompatible with facts as we know them now (such as the ME stating they were killed approximately 41 hours before the autopsy, which greatly excludes most of the defense’s timeline). RA said at first he was there from 1-3. Then 1:30 to 3:30. Then 12-1:30. Then the defense claims he left by 2:15, so we have a fourth timeframe now that also makes it likelier the group of girls did see RA, which then makes the timeline with BB fit…

And that’s not even counting all of the changes to the defense’s theory over time and contradictions that should worry literally anyone concerned about RA’s defense. They are arguing against science and logic that the girls were taken away and killed much later. That’s a losing prospect that does not fit within the realm of reality as we know it.

I look forward to the eventual CAST testimony.

All my opinions.

Have we heard from BB yet?

Is she the one who described an older classic car like the one her father had? Not moo. Actual questions. Ty.

 

[MassGuy]

This will never not be infuriating.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1849663703186121065

 

[sunshineray]

Liggett said there’s no digital evidence that links Allen, but Allen was on his phone at that time on the bridge.

Delphi Murders trial: Day 6 live blog

Delphi Murders trial continues with testimony from Dr. Roland Kohr and Sarah Carbaugh. Allen accused of murdering Abby Williams and Libby German.

www.wishtv.com

Not sure if he's referring to cellphone data or RA's self-reporting... but that's definitely an interesting statement to make like that, which doesn't appear to have been challenged by the defense.

So in other words and probably there's much more testimony that we're not hearing first hand, only condensed...

Richard Allen said he was on his phone on the Monon High Bridge and a witness sees a man dressed as Richard Allen says he was dressed on the MH bridge YET there's NO digital evidence that puts him in the area, on the bridge, "watching the fish".

Richard Allen kept more than a dozen old cell phones, YET the one phone he reported to LE, right after the murders, that he had and was using on the Monon High Bridge, while "watching the fish", was not among them.

NO digital evidence, dare I say proof, of Richard Allen on the trails that day. Sounds fishy?

AJMO

 

[technicallymissing]

Thank you. Can you please report what if anything important you hear? Would very much appreciate it. At least a timestamp?

I don’t have the patience to listen to these long podcasts.

The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen on Trial: Day Six: "It Doesn't Matter, It's Over"
So it wasn't during the Steve Mullin cross examination, it was during Tony Liggett's but Murder Sheet did have some jury reaction reports you might find interesting. 1:01:30 of the above episode

Kevin: And then Rozzi began the cross examination and he started talking about "Oh, when all this was going on, the sheriff's election was going on, hmm folks?" And Nick McLeland objected and there was such disgust in his voice when he said: "Is the defense contending that he made an arrest with no evidence to better his position in his election? With no evidence?" And there was such disgust in his voice when he said it. And it just occurred to me when he said it, this defense team for reasons I have never understood, I have never understood this, they have really been assiduously courting YouTubers- and not just any YouTubers, the most irresponsible, untrustworthy YouTubers imaginable. They've made them their base, they've made them their focus group. They love YouTubers. They court these YouTubers so much they actually have a YouTuber sitting in a defense seat.* So, they're not shy about it. But the problem is when you court these particular type of YouTubers, when you make these YouTubers your focus group, you think that the things they respond to is what other people will respond to. But when McLeland indicated his disgust with this notion that this arrest was somehow engineered because of the election, I looked over at the jury and they were responding to McLeland. And also keep in mind, we had just heard Kathy Shank discovered this tip on her late husband's birthday. And now they're saying- I guess she was part of a conspiracy too?
Aine: Oh, we're all part of the conspiracy at this point, Kevin.
Kevin: Because I mean like, if you think this was just cooked up because of the election then she has to be in on it. And I don't think that's an idea that would really go well in front of this jury from what I saw.

*Kevin is referring to Bob Motta here

 

[m00c0w]

When did any of the eyewitnesses say the man they saw was BG? I have not heard even one of them testify to that.

Every single eyewitness called by the state so far did. It was literally everywhere and the subject of headlines for articles about the day’s trial activity…

“I’m going to label him ‘Bridge Guy’ because that’s what I know him by,” she said. She added that she recognized the image later released to the public of the man sought in connection with the girls’ deaths. She saw it on the news.

https://fox59.com/delphi-trial/delphi-murders-combative-testimony-from-another-bridge-guy-witness/

When police then released the photo of the man on the bridge that they took from the video on Libby’s phone, Voorhies first saw it on Facebook.

“I realized that was the man I saw on the trail that did not respond to me when I waved at him,” she testified.

…

When she later saw the photo of “bridge guy” on the news, Wilber thought, “That’s the person we saw on the trail.”

…

Before police called her for another statement, she saw a picture of the “bridge guy” on the news.

“I recognized him as the one I had seen on the trail,” Blair said in court.

https://www.wane.com/top-stories/delphi-native-reflects-on-abby-libbys-legacy-in-town/

 

[photographer4]

BBM

My answer assumes the P timeline up to this point. He’s made his way to 300N & has been seen by SC. He has to get out of those clothes immediately in case anyone else sees him approaching his car - simply walk back to the trunk, open it, remove clothing on upper body, place in plastic bag in trunk (large trash bag), throw on a clean shirt & done. Less chance of pants being a concern due to blood probably only being on the front of lap & pantlegs. Maybe by the time he reaches his car, blood is dried? There is the potential that he changed all of his clothing this way at that isolated area where he was supposedly parked.

I’m no killer but I’ve changed my clothes out in the "open" like that before, sans bloodstains, without taking more than a few minutes. The most difficult to me would be the boots, depending on how high up they were laced, unless slip-on type of some sort.

How do we know he wore boots? Have we had evidence presented to this effect? I may have missed it so actual question. Ty.

2. I don’t like that SC said she focused more on blood in last interview bc police focused more on it that time. I also don’t remember which witness helped with sketches but one said hers was 10/10 the guy she saw - and it was YbG. Was that her? I know the jury won’t get to hear about the sketches and I think that’s a shame given a state witness was very sure in YBG really resembling who she saw. She also said the man was in a tan coat. Then it changed to dark. I didn’t find her very credible. Moo.

3. I really could believe in a change of clothes but I think there would be likely transfer evidence from blood on footwear : hands / clothes etc. I just can’t believe nothing dna has tied to RA yet. That’s moo.

4. Lack of digital evidence to connect him to scene (so far, maybe more to come?) is also weird imo considering how much of our modern lives are lived online. All just moo.

 

[sunshineray]

This will never not be infuriating.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1849663703186121065

I've seen many cases that information has been missfiled or "lost" and then discovered. We humans are not perfect. Doesn't mean the information found isn't valid and valuable. MO

 

[MassGuy]

The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen on Trial: Day Six: "It Doesn't Matter, It's Over"
So it wasn't during the Steve Mullin cross examination, it was during Tony Liggett's but Murder Sheet did have some jury reaction reports. 1:00:13 of the above episode

Kevin: And then Rozzi began the cross examination and he started talking about "Oh, when all this was going on, the sheriff's election was going on, hmm folks?" And Nick McLeland objected and there was such disgust in his voice when he said: "Is the defense contending that he made an arrest with no evidence to better his position in his election? ^^With no evidence^^?" And there was such ^^disgust^^ in his voice when he said it. And it just occurred to me when he said it, this defense team for reasons I have never understood, I have ^^never^^ understood this, they have really been assiduously courting YouTubers- and not just any YouTubers, the most irresponsible, untrustworthy YouTubers imaginable. They've made them their base, they've made them their focus group. They love YouTubers. They court these YouTubers they actually have a YouTuber sitting in a defense seat.* So, they're not shy about it. But the problem is when you court these particular type of YouTubers, when you make these YouTubers your focus group, you think that the things they respond to is what other people will respond to. But when McLeland indicated his disgust with this notion that this arrest was somehow engineered because of the election, I looked over at the jury and they were responding to McLeland. And also keep in mind, we had just heard Kathy Shank discovered this tip on her late husband's birthday. And now they're saying- I guess she was part of a conspiracy theory too?
Aine: Oh, we're all part of the conspiracy theory at this point Kevin.
Kevin: Because I mean like, if you think this was just cooked up because of the election then she has to be in on it. And I don't think that's an idea that would really go well in front of this jury from what I saw.

*Kevin is referring to Bob Motta here

Holy crap, that Kathy Shank story just keeps getting better. Discovering that case breaking report on her late husband's birthday. You couldn't make this up.

 

[INfisherman]

When did any of the eyewitnesses say the man they saw was BG? I have not heard even one of them testify to that.

Then, three witnesses who said they saw “Bridge Guy” on the High Monon Trail the day Libby German and Abby Williams went missing testified.

One witness, Railly Voorheis, said she saw “Bridge Guy” on the trail and told him “hi,” but he didn’t respond. When describing what “Bridge Guy” looked like, she noted he was taller than her. Voorheis told the jury she was 5 feet 7 inches tall. Richard Allen is 5 feet 4 inches tall.

The second witness, Breann Welber, said she made a post to Snapchat when she went to the bridge on Feb. 13, 2017. She said Libby had messaged her on Snapchat sometime before going missing. After the grainy photo of “Bridge Guy” was released to the public, Welber said, “First thing I thought was that is the person I saw on the trail.”

The third was Betsey Blair, who frequently visited the Monon Trail. She did several loops of the trail on Feb. 13, 2017, and said she saw “Bridge Guy,” and later saw two girls on the trail. She said she immediately recognized “Bridge Guy” as the man she saw on the trail.

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

Apologies if that source is incorrect, down where the summary is in the article, pasted above. If you’ve read something different, I’d appreciate the source. If it’s on YT, I’ll kindly pass.

 

[photographer4]

So in other words and probably there's much more testimony that we're not hearing first hand, only condensed...

Richard Allen said he was on his phone on the Monon High Bridge and a witness sees a man dressed as Richard Allen says he was dressed on the MH bridge YET there's NO digital evidence that puts him in the area, on the bridge, "watching the fish".

Richard Allen kept more than a dozen old cell phones, YET the one phone he reported to LE, right after the murders, that he had and was using on the Monon High Bridge, while "watching the fish", was not among them.

NO digital evidence, dare I say proof, of Richard Allen on the trails that day. Sounds fishy?

AJMO

What infuriates me is DD met with RA and asked to see his phone. Which RA handed him - clearly wasn’t worried about anything on it imo. He was such a regular guy DD didn’t even think of him again until 2022 when someone asked him if he had met with him. He didn’t remember what RA looked like or what his hair looked like back when he met him. RA must not have really made much impression on him - nothing concerning anyhow imo. Did DD note what car RA drove that day? To his credit, I read and linked up thread DD is the guy who told LE to go back for the sticks that had been at the scene. I was floored to hear this! How did LE just not bother with them originally?

All moo. Such a weird case!

 

[otto]

Yes, this picture posted by @steeltowngirl and reposted by @Inthedetails is adorable.

I’d guess Libby was maybe 6 or so years old here?

What is deeply upsetting to me is seeing her posing merrily here, and then the hideous dichotomy of how she was posed in death.

I don’t like that this comes to mind; but forlornly, it does.

Justice for you, Libby German. Justice for you, Abby Williams.

Libby, may the video you recorded on your last day put your killer away forever.

View attachment 540369

Arms in victory! The accused spent up to one hour forty minutes (2:13-3:57) with the victims, but there is no evidence of sexual assault (so far). That's victory. The children fought him off, died trying, he walked home a bloody, muddy mess.

 

[sunshineray]

How do we know he wore boots? Have we had evidence presented to this effect? I may have missed it so actual question. Ty.

2. I don’t like that SC said she focused more on blood in last interview bc police focused more on it that time. I also don’t remember which witness helped with sketches but one said hers was 10/10 the guy she saw - and it was YbG. Was that her? I know the jury won’t get to hear about the sketches and I think that’s a shame given a state witness was very sure in YBG really resembling who she saw. She also said the man was in a tan coat. Then it changed to dark. I didn’t find her very credible. Moo.

3. I really could believe in a change of clothes but I think there would be likely transfer evidence from blood on footwear : hands / clothes etc. I just can’t believe nothing dna has tied to RA yet. That’s moo.

4. Lack of digital evidence to connect him to scene (so far, maybe more to come?) is also weird imo considering how much of our modern lives are lived online. All just moo.

"I really could believe in a change of clothes but I think there would be likely transfer evidence from blood on footwear : hands / clothes etc. I just can’t believe nothing dna has tied to RA yet. That’s moo"

Six long years to clean up, that's a very long time as far as transfer blood. No RA DNA at the scene? Seems he was a watcher that day, not so much a toucher, maybe due to being interrupted once and then again hear DG calling out. He had a gun to make orders with. Also, all the clothes in the creek says clean up to me. Maybe he took pictures, on that missing phone, instead of touching?

I think RA's spoken words will very much inform the jury on the How and Why of things, to give them a clear picture. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

What infuriates me is DD met with RA and asked to see his phone. Which RA handed him - clearly wasn’t worried about anything on it imo. He was such a regular guy DD didn’t even think of him again until 2022 when someone asked him if he had met with him. He didn’t remember what RA looked like or what his hair looked like back when he met him. RA must not have really made much impression on him - nothing concerning anyhow imo. Did DD note what car RA drove that day? To his credit, I read and linked up thread DD is the guy who told LE to go back for the sticks that had been at the scene. I was floored to hear this! How did LE just not bother with them originally?

All moo. Such a weird case!

Do you think the phone RA handed DD was the actually phone he brought to the trails? I don't.

Didn't the teen girls, one of them say he walked by them with a purpose, hands in his pockets but RA said, as he walked by them he was paying attention to his stock ticker, phone in hand? Dob't you think those kids especially would have noticed that...oh the guy was on his phone? I do.
AJMO

 

[MassGuy]

What infuriates me is DD met with RA and asked to see his phone. Which RA handed him - clearly wasn’t worried about anything on it imo. He was such a regular guy DD didn’t even think of him again until 2022 when someone asked him if he had met with him. He didn’t remember what RA looked like or what his hair looked like back when he met him. RA must not have really made much impression on him - nothing concerning anyhow imo. Did DD note what car RA drove that day? To his credit, I read and linked up thread DD is the guy who told LE to go back for the sticks that had been at the scene. I was floored to hear this! How did LE just not bother with them originally?

All moo. Such a weird case!

DD was simply obtaining the identifying numbers on his phone, it's not like he would have been scrolling through it. There's no reason to believe Allen took any photos or videos that day anyways.

I know if I interviewed a guy like that, I would certainly be following up to see what came of it. This guy was at a minimum, a great lead, yet as you say, he seems to have forgotten all about him. Had he brought this up again, this would have progressed years ago.