Does he mean from the cemetery?
The same cemetery near where the muddy man was seen walking at 3:57 p.m. and that SC recognized as "BG" from the still photo from Libby's cell phone video?
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #205
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
- Status
Does he mean from the cemetery?
The same cemetery near where the muddy man was seen walking at 3:57 p.m. and that SC recognized as "BG" from the still photo from Libby's cell phone video?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 10,683
- Reaction score
- 89,091
Yes, I was just commenting on the deduction about what that juror's question might signal. That scenario the defense laid out sounded very unlikely and not very reasonable. JMO
rez125
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1,055
Just some thoughts...
More incriminating statements made and even made after RA was told he was free to leave the interview! First at the search with his double, "It doesn't matter. It's over".
Now in the subsquent interview, “I don’t care, kill me, I want to die anyway.” and “You have all the evidence, just arrest me.”
Then he says to a trooper (not sure if this was at the search or interview?) when the trooper told RA he wasn't a bad person, “What kind of good person would kill two girls?”
I'm flabbergasted, all that before he was arrested! It boogles the mind why the man never pled guilty. Was he not listened to by his representation when they were first appointed?
I'd have to consider that may be the case here. That and what we heard from ISP Harshman at the 3 day hearings, RA's family may have played a role in a man wanting to admit his guilt then chosing not to, for fear of losing his family's love. What a travesty that would be. AJMO
I look forward to hearing what else RA has said and written expressing his wishes to plea guilty. It's going to be staggering, 61+ times! Why has his team of lawyers and it seems his family ignored his wanting to do the right thing? I don't understand it and I don't believe the jury will either. Again, AJMO
The "it doesn't matter it's over" was followed up with Holeman asking him why he said that.
RA responded that his neighbours, work colleagues had all been asked about him and everyone in the town knew he was a suspect, thus he said his life was over as the damage had been done.
This was on LL and AB recaps tonight.
I am genuinely curious here, about anyone leaning towards "innocent" here (not just 'not guilty' verdict because I'm on that fence myself), may I ask why? I'm not trying to start a sh* show I promise, I am just really struggling.
I have expected that the state had something "we the public" didn't know. I felt there was probable cause for arrest, good with that. Not happy with how RA was held in custody, and also not happy with how his DT handled things. But, as my Dad used to say HERE WE ARE NOW. lol
So right now, I feel RA could be guilty, leaning that direction based on what I think I know so far, but IMO the P has not sold me on it if I were on the jury. I see the circumstancial evidence in that direction and so far, it is compelling but not BARD, if that makes sense.
But I'm also not sold on innocent. Is anyone else? Can you tell me why RA is innocent? I know that's not the point of the trial, I'm really wondering for myself. If this man is innocent, I want him to be innocent and so sorry and amends and nothing can make this right. And if he's guilty, I want him to be guilty, not just "probably guilty" but absolutely guilty. And definitely not just "not guilty" because the state couldn't prove their case.
Thoughts?
So help me out here, anyone who thinks truly innocent. I really want to know.
I have expected that the state had something "we the public" didn't know. I felt there was probable cause for arrest, good with that. Not happy with how RA was held in custody, and also not happy with how his DT handled things. But, as my Dad used to say HERE WE ARE NOW. lol
So right now, I feel RA could be guilty, leaning that direction based on what I think I know so far, but IMO the P has not sold me on it if I were on the jury. I see the circumstancial evidence in that direction and so far, it is compelling but not BARD, if that makes sense.
But I'm also not sold on innocent. Is anyone else? Can you tell me why RA is innocent? I know that's not the point of the trial, I'm really wondering for myself. If this man is innocent, I want him to be innocent and so sorry and amends and nothing can make this right. And if he's guilty, I want him to be guilty, not just "probably guilty" but absolutely guilty. And definitely not just "not guilty" because the state couldn't prove their case.
Thoughts?
So help me out here, anyone who thinks truly innocent. I really want to know.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 10,683
- Reaction score
- 89,091
Replying to my own post because I forgot to put the link to RA's statements I quoted and it's timed out to edit OP. Here's the link, my apologies.Just some thoughts...
More incriminating statements made and even made after RA was told he was free to leave the interview! First at the search with his double, "It doesn't matter. It's over".
Now in the subsquent interview, “I don’t care, kill me, I want to die anyway.” and “You have all the evidence, just arrest me.”
Then he says to a trooper (not sure if this was at the search or interview?) when the trooper told RA he wasn't a bad person, “What kind of good person would kill two girls?”
I'm flabbergasted, all that before he was arrested! It boogles the mind why the man never pled guilty. Was he not listened to by his representation when they were first appointed?
I'd have to consider that may be the case here. That and what we heard from ISP Harshman at the 3 day hearings, RA's family may have played a role in a man wanting to admit his guilt then chosing not to, for fear of losing his family's love. What a travesty that would be. AJMO
I look forward to hearing what else RA has said and written expressing his wishes to plea guilty. It's going to be staggering, 61+ times! Why has his team of lawyers and it seems his family ignored his wanting to do the right thing? I don't understand it and I don't believe the jury will either. Again, AJMO
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 10,683
- Reaction score
- 89,091
Yes that was also on TMS. I find it an odd answer for an innocent man. I'm sure there were many other searches done during the many years of investigations and those people's lives are not over, they continued. I think it may have been the shame he was facing and that he brought upon his family that he was worrying about. He knew he was guilty and everyone's lives would change because of his actions. Basically, he knew he'd been caught, reckoning day was here. AJMO
rez125
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1,055
Everyone reacts differently I guess.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 10,683
- Reaction score
- 89,091
I think they may need more time, there hasn't been 40 witnesses yet nor 61+ confessions aired.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 10,683
- Reaction score
- 89,091
I'm very much looking forward to hearing what was said in the phone conversations between RA and his family. I think those especially will be thought-provoking. MO
rez125
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1,055
Me too!
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2021
- Messages
- 4,134
- Reaction score
- 30,962
I think, he was very undemonstrative in his expressions and tried to trivialize, because he feared the big horror and disgust by wife and mum. IMO
ETA: I'm curious, whether the two asked questions or if he blabbed without interruption. Because wife and mum didn't want to hear a confession at all, I think, they didn't ask something special. IMO
Last edited:
Bergmann
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2022
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 2,497
There’s a science behind polling and particularly what can be inferred from the sample used, I’d be interested as to what is intended with the result.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2016
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 3,689
I’m not sure we are going to get beyond “probably guilty” based on State’s evidence we have seen so far. I think it’s going to take a leap for the jury to review the many smaller pieces of evidence that all “just about add up” rather than have one big CSI style piece of evidence that tells them guilty BARD.
I’m disappointed in the digital evidence I’ve heard so far and hope there is more on that to come. What can they tell us about the data from RAs lost phone? Surely they can carry out some analysis without the physical phone. And why didn’t they have an expert provide a height estimate of BG. At very least could have ruled out very tall people.
I personally think RA was severely mentally ill at the time he made the confessions. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, but confessing that many times, including some that seem fairly disorganised rings alarm bells for me. I think the jury may see it the same if they are all over the place.
I’m anxious at this point, because I am at probably did it, which means to me a guilty man may walk.
I suspect the issue here is that he was defo mirandised during interview one, and refreshed for interview two with witnesses. So RA might have to testify that he wasn't?
I am not sure why the D is so up and arms about this interview, unless the point was to create a new conspiracy and show the jury that the investigators were mean.
MOO
MiniMoo
Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2016
- Messages
- 777
- Reaction score
- 3,912
The "damage has already been done" speaks volumes to me.
This is the context I was asking about earlier on only no one answered so I thought "it doesn't matter, it's over" wasnt addressed.
Now I know!
In a small community with everyone knowing and likely gossiping - how long do you think a person would hold down a job for, be able to go to their local drinking place without being stared or glared at, be able to go anywhere in public without being stared at or to resume a normal life without being under a cloud of suspicion.
I wouldn't think for very long at all!
But the most important thing is -
"it doesn't matter, it's all over" has nothing to do with being found out or being guilty of anything.
Not as damning as it was yesterday now that context has been applied to it.
Context is so important.
JMO MOO JMT
Agreed on all points. But the states case is almost over. This is pretty much it. Now defense goes.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 42,610
- Reaction score
- 124,281
I wondered about the other woman who was on the trails that day at the same time as Richard Allen. She walked to the bridge, saw RA on the first platform, turned around and walked back to her car. Is that a normal hike ... car, bridge, car?
Was RA following that witness when he turned around to follow the girls back to the bridge? That's from the Grey Hughes video with dot-people. I assume that information is timeline verified - or is it one possibility? RA was following the witness, girls walked past him, he turned around to follow the dot people victims to the bridge.
I wonder whether the female adult witness would have been a victim as soon as she arrived at her car, like Dru Sjodin, but when he saw Libby and Abby, he changed his mind.
I have some questions about what happened. Why was he looking for a victim that day, shortly after visiting his mother in Peru? What happened during that visit?
The crime scene is really messed up. Was he drunk? Did he play beer pong style drinking games? We have two young teen girls under his control from 2:13 - 3:30 pm. The rest was clean up and get back to his car - 3:56 sighting. That's at least an hour and, so far, we've heard that there is no evidence of sexual assault. Maybe the tie-dyed t-shirt had evidence that washed away in the creek.
One of the girls is naked, the other is wearing some of her friends clothing. Complete speculation, but were they playing a game where they were undressed, and then started getting dressed until one was wearing all the clothes and the other is still naked, then they die? It's really bizarre crime scene. The one wearing all the clothes was killed quick and clean. She managed to conceal the very important cell phone. The other one was subjected to a brutal death that started with a non-fatal injury. There was a struggle between the accused and Victim #2. It strikes me as a really dangerous man. Numbers are speculation:
Abby Yellow
Libby Red
Attachments
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2024
- Messages
- 1,174
- Reaction score
- 9,569
Source: Holeman said they started by talking about firearms and past military experience, and if anything was damaged when investigators searched his home. He asked Allen if anyone borrowed his car, clothes, or gun for long periods of time, to which Allen said no. Allen also denied having his firearm on him on Feb. 13, 2017 – the day of the murders. Delphi Murders trial: Day 8 live blog
Okay, this is the first I've heard RA confirm that he had (according to himself) no gun that day. That being the case, his reaction to the bullet discussions he had with LE are bizarre. Okay, so you didn't have the gun. So where was the gun? I'd take it at home? Okay, so why isn't RA asking himself who's at home when he left, who has keys to his home, who might have been invited in when he wasn't home, and so on, and so forth. What room/floor was it on? Any windows left open? Pretty nice day that day. There's none of that. He doesn't even bother thinking it through. Yes, we know what you're going through is quite an inconvenience, RA, but there are two little girls dead. Can't you find it in your heart to think for a little while about any way someone else may have somehow been able to get their hands on that gun, considering you're saying you didn't have it?
(No, because he did have it, jmo.)
Source: Holeman "said he interviewed Allen at the ISP Lafayette Post following . Allen’s wife Kathy came with him. Holeman said, at first, he didn’t plan on arresting Allen at the start of the interview, but read him his Miranda Rights anyway.
I actually believe that, and I know many don't. I think Allen's statements and behavior were sufficiently freakish that they went ahead with an arrest. Holeman's not up there perjuring himself over something like that, jmo, others would have known if he'd really planned on arresting RA.
Okay, this is the first I've heard RA confirm that he had (according to himself) no gun that day. That being the case, his reaction to the bullet discussions he had with LE are bizarre. Okay, so you didn't have the gun. So where was the gun? I'd take it at home? Okay, so why isn't RA asking himself who's at home when he left, who has keys to his home, who might have been invited in when he wasn't home, and so on, and so forth. What room/floor was it on? Any windows left open? Pretty nice day that day. There's none of that. He doesn't even bother thinking it through. Yes, we know what you're going through is quite an inconvenience, RA, but there are two little girls dead. Can't you find it in your heart to think for a little while about any way someone else may have somehow been able to get their hands on that gun, considering you're saying you didn't have it?
(No, because he did have it, jmo.)
Source: Holeman "said he interviewed Allen at the ISP Lafayette Post following . Allen’s wife Kathy came with him. Holeman said, at first, he didn’t plan on arresting Allen at the start of the interview, but read him his Miranda Rights anyway.
I actually believe that, and I know many don't. I think Allen's statements and behavior were sufficiently freakish that they went ahead with an arrest. Holeman's not up there perjuring himself over something like that, jmo, others would have known if he'd really planned on arresting RA.
My 02c here is everyone knows the trade off in police interviews in America. David Simon popularised it in his famous book Homicide and the TV show about murder investigations where it was a running theme of breaking people in the tank. My reason to say this is most every American knows not to talk to police in these situations!
Since Miranda, you have a complete right to silence. And that means you have no real incentive to speak. So police are left with trickery, deception, psychology etc because all suspects should say nothing. In my country, the tradeoff is different. There are advantages to disclosure but LE is required to also disclose. No lying.
AB knows this of course. I agree with her that it's dumb and bad, but it's the rules American courts have decided upon.
Rick should have kept quiet. Instead he said stupid things in 2 interviews which incriminate him. Were the police mean? Sure. Such is life.
Don't talk to police.
MOO
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 77
- Guests online
- 485
- Total visitors
- 562