Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #206

[statt#1]

I always thought it was the State's job to prove the suspect guilty BARD. The D doesn't have to prove anything - they just get to poke holes in the State's theory... MOO

I believe this to be true in theory, however, in the confines of the mind of a juror, or jurors, it very well may not be. I can easily imagine a juror's thoughts swirling around the idea that the defense simply didn't prove RA wasn't BG....they might not say it, but they surely can believe it. As in....speculation....well, there's only one guy that was presented as being on the trails, no other witnesses brought forth by defense to show there were any other guys hanging around, Richard Allen says he was on the trails, hence, defense hasn't shown ME (the fictitious juror) proof anyone else could have possibly murdered these girls.

Supposed to be that way? Maybe not. Possible that it is at times, for this ole country boy....yep. Known to anyone that it was the process of thought within the mind of a juror....nope.

 

[m00c0w]

Lots of circumstantial evidence here (and thats not a bad thing) but I really really wish there was something direct like DNA. Timeline seems pretty solid and I do believe there is merit in bullet science but many see it as junk. I really want the right person to be held accountable for this and I want no room for acquittal/appeals.

DNA is not direct evidence, and even with DNA you still see the same types of folks trying to concoct conspiracy theories about how the DNA was planted or contaminated or whatever. The Moscow case is ground zero for examples of this.

JMO

 

[SouthEnd]

Did anyone relay what he actually called the Detective? That may have caused the laughter.

Rhymes with 'bass'-hole...

IMO

 

[justtrish]

If I were asked what I was wearing 5 years ago on a specific day, there is No way I would remember. Even the shoes. No way.

Isn't it the slightest bit weird to anyone else that he had a better than vague recollection of what he had on??

I always thought that was weird.

Good thing Libby took that video of him to refresh his memory

 

[SouthEnd]

“Tunnel vision” over a period of a couple of weeks after 5.5 years of investigating other people. That’s a strange way of describing it.

Why did they decided to go with this random guy versus anyone else that would have looked far better to prosecute?

Probably because that’s where the evidence pointed…

JMO

Tunnel vision is not what I'd call it; I'd say it is the new focus of the investigation, given the evidence that was unearthed.

MOO

 

[shonyakay]

Rhymes with 'bass'-hole...

IMO

Thanks. It may have just been the way he said it then.

 

[m00c0w]

Good thing Libby took that video of him to refresh his memory

No, see, if one of the girls took the video, it’s not him.

 

[Betty P]

Is he really though? I want to hear what the D has to say when they're up! Mooo.

By his own admission, RA put himself on the bridge, looking at fish.

 

[arielilane]

How far did investigators go when searching his car?
Waiting for a comprehensive history of everything there is to link RA to the crime.
Is the unspent bullet the only item, thus far? Thank you in advance.

https://fox59.com/delphi-trial/arrest-me-or-take-me-home-jury-watches-video-richard-allens-first-interview/

Mullin told Allen they wanted to search his home so they could rule him out.

“I had nothing to do with it,” Allen responded. “I don’t want to be any more involved in it than I have to be.”

Mullin said they wanted to check his car for any biological fluids.

“Then we can say we looked at Rick, we looked at his car. We didn’t find anything in his car,” Liggett explained.

 

[Ursamajr]

DNA is not direct evidence, and even with DNA you still see the same types of folks trying to concoct conspiracy theories about how the DNA was planted or contaminated or whatever. The Moscow case is ground zero for examples of this.

JMO

I'm pretty sure DNA is considered direct evidence but yes, I agree there is always room for conspiracy theories if one is inclined.

 

[detectivewannab]

I think if you’re coming at it from a the prosecution hasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt RA did it, and not that’s he’s necessarily innocent just unproven you’d point out

-One witness identified a bloody and muddy man wearing different clothes than RA
-One witness said they saw a younger guy out there that day around the time of the murders

Those two things alone I don’t think it would be unreasonable for a juror to think there could have been at least three men walking around during that time, and who knows maybe there were some not seen

-The bullet was from a Sauer 226, but they can’t confirm it is from RA’s 226, how many other people own that model of gun, when they first bring this evidence about the bullet up you’re thinking it’s the smoking gun but then let down when it could be someone else’s gun

-LE fumbled the investigation and could have followed up right away on RA and potentially missed out on collecting crucial evidence such as his phone

-Prosecution has not shown that bridge guy committed the murders, there is a non zero chance that bridge guy is just somebody who happened to be in this grainy video and someone else besides bridge guy committed the crimes, there is no dna no nothing at the crime scene to analyze and link bridge guy to the murderer

I’m not going to say there isn’t circumstantial evidence against RA, but jurors don’t get to constantly analyze, talk through, speculate like the public does

A glass of water can be half empty or half full. Prosecution is doing the best they can with a cases with LE not solving it for 5 years and many mistakes. IMO the defense need to stop grandstanding. It's not believable. They are doing RA harm.

 

[SouthEnd]

Thanks. It may have just been the way he said it then.

From what I understand it was 'Thanks, rhymes-with-Bass-hole' - which tbh, after all the terrible things the court got to see, might have offered a sudden moment of levity.

...IMO

 

[detectivewannab]

I think it’s probably so that even if the jury thinks RA is BG then they are trying to create doubt with “BG is not the killer” - moo IANAL

They are acting like a kid that's been caught in a lie. Story just gets bigger.

 

[justtrish]

I think it’s probably so that even if the jury thinks RA is BG then they are trying to create doubt with “BG is not the killer” - moo IANAL

Yes the I've seen this before in other cases..

our client is not BG, but if he is he didn't do it.

In the Rhoden murders during George Wagner's trial they said something like even if he participated, he didn't shoot anyone.. sorta loses the effectiveness when they claim one thing all along then say but if he did go along that night, he didn't shoot so he isn't guilty.. not exactly even if he went along and didn't shoot he is still guilty. It reeked of desperation.

 

[justtrish]

No, see, if one of the girls took the video, it’s not him.

Interesting isn't it.

 

[SouthEnd]

I'm pretty sure DNA is considered direct evidence but yes, I agree there is always room for conspiracy theories if one is inclined.

All evidence that requires interpretation is circumstantial. Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert | Relevancy of Evidence

Direct is video or testimony of someone being seen at the moment of committing the crime.

 

[Betty P]

“I’ve been across the high bridge when it was in better shape,” he told them.
[snip]
Allen said he was no “angel of a person,” adding that he was “like everyone else.”
[snip]
“I’ve never met them [the girls],” Allen said.

He then revealed that he was “going to shoot” himself that night.

“It’s not like I killed two girls and now I’ve got psychological problems,” he said.
https://fox59.com/delphi-trial/arrest-me-or-take-me-home-jury-watches-video-richard-allens-first-interview/

I really wish we could watch these ourselves. I want to know if by "that" night he means the night of February 13th.

ETA I also note he indicates his familiarity with the bridge and has been across it in the past, when it was in "better" shape. Doesn't want LE looking at his internet history because he is "no angel of a person"

The "no angel of a person" seems like a red flag, JMO. His internet history as he mentioned, in relation to the murders, seems to hint that his online activity goes beyond the "usual" activity to something that leans more towards something else. JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

https://fox59.com/delphi-trial/arrest-me-or-take-me-home-jury-watches-video-richard-allens-first-interview/

He told the investigators he was wearing blue jeans and a Carhartt jacket that day. He had a black one and a blue one at the time but believed he wore the black one. He also said he was wearing a “skull cap.”

Yes, he said he was wearing his blue jeans and his black Carhartt jacket.

 

[Jamie737]

Tough to check stocks when your phone isn’t on though.

He didn’t show up in that tower dump.

That is PRECISELY the point. This is the one point of verification he has. And it doesn’t exist. The house of cards falls.

 

[AugustWest]

the D efforts to establish the innocence of Bridge Guy are bizarre to me.

MOO

Respectfully snipped

The answer to this question lies within these words:

Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally removes another person, by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force, from one place to another commits kidnapping.

2024 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 42. Offenses Against the Person :: Chapter 3. Kidnapping and Confinement :: 35-42-3-2. Kidnapping

Justia Free Databases of U.S. Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

If BG didn't "remove another person" then one of the elements of kidnapping is not met.