Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #209

[Megnut]

Abduction at 2:13 pm. Investigators testified that they believe that RA left the crime scene at 3:30. Someone who looked like him was seen on the road at 3:57.

RA spent more than an hour with the girls - which is the typical time that a victim is kept alive after abduction.

"FBI research revealed that 74 percent of children abducted and murdered were killed within the first 3 hours of their disappearance."

https://leb.fbi.gov/spotlights/crimes-against-children-spotlight-child-abduction-rapid-deployment-card-team

Based on his behavior while incarcerated, RA likes having an audience. Deviant.

By my math, he had about 15 minutes under the bridge before the van came along. IMO he had forced them to undress and possibly begin to redress before crossing the creek (where additional clothing was lost). I don't think they were at the second location long enough (based on movement of the phone) for redressing, just shoes perhaps.

I think it's possible that RA accomplished what he set out to do (his own perverse form of SA). He was never going to let them live. He couldn't murder them right there though because of the van. As soon as he got them to a more secluded spot, it's what he did.

He himself confirmed the main points. Being on the bridge, dressed like BG (well, maybe not the same brand), being in the photo (unless it was taken by the girls' camera), doing something with his gun, forcing them DTH, hearing a van and moving away from it, panicking and cutting their necks.

He skips over the stripping part. Somehow that must be worse to his sensibilities than slaughtering two little girls. That part he's keeping to himself.

RA is his own worst enemy. He just testified (through State's witnesses) that he was below the bridge, the exact place BG ordered the girls to go at approximately 2:30 when the van drove by, within minutes of Libby's ceasing to record movement in the very location their bodies would be found.

The Defense is still talking, of course, but IMO RA already rested their case.

JMO

 

[Vern]

He doesn’t look like he’s hustling in the video.

Who BG?

Have you seen that video? I haven't.

 

[Inthedetails]

But was there evidence they were anywhere near MHB at 2:13pm on the 13th of February 2017? That's the line on the sand, for me. If they couldn't have been there, they couldn't have written secret messages with the arrangement of the sticks.

All MOO

Secret messages arranged in the pitch dark.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

It can't be a theory there has to be evidence.

I've never understood this. If there was evidence, why wouldn't they have been arrested?

 

[minor4th]

Can you point me to where witnesses said the man they saw was not the man in the photo - bridge guy?

Not one of the states witnesses identified Richard Allen as the person they saw that day, and I don’t believe any of them have identified the Bridge Guy in the photo/video as the man they saw either. Doesn’t it make you question just a teeny bit why they wouldn’t be able to identify Richard Allen or “Bridge Guy”?

 

[MrsWatson]

There is evidence of other potential perpetrators though.

Who are these others, though? The old guy with the camera? The guy watering his parent's plants who was at work? The other girls on the bridge? The mysterious mailbox guy?

 

[shonyakay]

I just don’t see how anyone can think it’s fair to preclude the defense from presenting evidence of other suspects. That’s insane and puts a guilty verdict, if there is one, in jeopardy.

I really hate to see this.

In order to present a third party defense you have to have admissible evidence i.e. a nexus that connects that person to the crime/crime scene.

The defense doesn't have this so they cannot present a third party defense. Judge Gull gave them another opportunity to present such at this trial (outside the presence of the jury) and once again they don't have the evidence.

 

[MiniMoo]

I just don’t see how anyone can think it’s fair to preclude the defense from presenting evidence of other suspects. That’s insane and puts a guilty verdict, if there is one, in jeopardy.

I really hate to see this.

I am not understanding this decision either as the State opened that door to the Defense.

I wouldn't have gone with the Odinist argument, but third party possibilities is something that surely should have been admissible.

JMO MOO JMT

 

[minor4th]

Where? I've followed the case from day 1 and have never seen the video. It was shown in court, but I wasn't in court.

Please link the video! tia

jmo

It’s the video of BG taking a couple of steps. The one we’ve all seen. I think that is the sum total of the video of BG that was taken.

 

[Inthedetails]

Who are these others, though? The old guy with the camera? The guy watering his parent's plants who was at work? The other girls on the bridge? The mysterious mailbox guy?

Honestly, I'd like to know where Zanny the Nanny was that day.

jmo

 

[minor4th]

Secret messages arranged in the pitch dark.

jmo

That’s not helpful. JMO

 

[katydid23]

How can the judge deny the theory it was comitted by someone not RA, that’s wild. I do think he did it but this is seeming like a witch trial, literally someone not RA committing these murders whether he knew and worked with them to do it or he didn’t and they are completely separate is the only to me plausible explanation that a defense could argue and they’re not even allowed to do that? That’s an injustice to everyone, MOO

She followed the letter of the law. In order to submit testimony about OTHER potential suspects, the defense needs an Offer Of Proof. That consists of some kind of evidence that said persons were in the immediate area, had means/opportunity, to commit the crime.

You cannot just throw anyone's name out in court and accuse them of murder. Usually it is an ex-husband or a neighbour with criminal history that made prior threats, etc. because then there are 'connections' that can be made, logistics and motives, etc.

But the Defense has been trying to accuse a group of people from another town, who had alibis, and were already cleared by investigators. They were being accused of performing a ritual sacrifice on 2 girls. There has NEVER been a human ritual sacrifice by this Odinist club before, reportedly. And there was ZERO admissible evidence that these men were involved, or were even in Delphi that day.

So I don't think it is an 'injustice' that the D are not allowed to publicly accuse these men. They have families and jobs, and their lives could be damaged by false accusations, imo.

 

[SouthEnd]

I've never understood this. If there was evidence, why wouldn't they have been arrested?

Exactly. They would have. IMO you can only presend SODDI in cases where multiple ppl had the means and the opportunity. That's why SODDI is used sparingly. IANAL but I have seen it in cases where a gunfight breaks out in a party, and the DT can say hey, my client did not do the shooting. It was the person next to them. Same with KR's case - they were only able to presend SODDI because the victim was found just outside a house full of people who knew him and theoretically, they had the opportunity. You can't airdrop a suspect out of thin air simply because you don't want your client to be the sole accused.

All MOO

EDIT: spelling

 

[Inthedetails]

It’s the video of BG taking a couple of steps. The one we’ve all seen. I think that is the sum total of the video of BG that was taken.

That is a few screen shots played one after another, not a video. And you certainly cannot tell how fast he crossed the bridge from that, as was asserted upthread.

jmo

 

[shonyakay]

Not one of the states witnesses identified Richard Allen as the person they saw that day, and I don’t believe any of them have identified the Bridge Guy in the photo/video as the man they saw either. Doesn’t it make you question just a teeny bit why they wouldn’t be able to identify Richard Allen or “Bridge Guy”?

They most certainly did. They all say the man they saw is "BG" from the still photo taken from Libby's cellphone video.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Not one of the states witnesses identified Richard Allen as the person they saw that day, and I don’t believe any of them have identified the Bridge Guy in the photo/video as the man they saw either. Doesn’t it make you question just a teeny bit why they wouldn’t be able to identify Richard Allen or “Bridge Guy”?

Not at all. It has been 7.5 years. They were kids walking on a trail, briefly saw a man who fits his description. They didn’t know they were seeing a man who would later be on trial for murder.

They weren’t asked in court to identify RA as BG. Not even on cross. The key to the witnesses is they corroborate the timeline. It fits with the timeline that RA admitted.

jmo

 

[minor4th]

She followed the letter of the law. In order to submit testimony about OTHER potential suspects, the defense needs an Offer Of Proof. That consists of some kind of evidence that said persons were in the immediate area, had means/opportunity, to commit the crime.

You cannot just throw anyone's name out in court and accuse the of murder. Usually it is an ex-husband or a neighbour with criminal history that made prior threats, etc.

But the Defense has been trying to accuse a group of people from another town, who had alibis, and were already cleared by investigators. They were being accused of performing a ritual sacrifice on 2 girls. There has NEVER been a human ritual sacrifice by this Odinist club before, reportedly. And there was ZERO admissible evidence that these men were involved, or were even in Delphi that day.

So I don't think it is an 'injustice' that the D are not allowed to publicly accuse these men. They have families and jobs, and their lives could be damaged by false accusations, imo.

There are specific people who are potential third-party culprits and there is admissible evidence. It is absolutely an injustice. You don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else did it <modsnip>.

 

[SouthEnd]

Not one of the states witnesses identified Richard Allen as the person they saw that day, and I don’t believe any of them have identified the Bridge Guy in the photo/video as the man they saw either. Doesn’t it make you question just a teeny bit why they wouldn’t be able to identify Richard Allen or “Bridge Guy”?

All of them identified BG as the man they saw. SC Delphi murders trial: Witness insists she saw ‘Bridge Guy’ covered in blood and mud

Delphi trial jurors see 'Bridge Guy' video, hear from witnesses who said they saw him

Jurors saw the infamous "Bridge Guy" video and heard from eyewitnesses who claimed they saw the man on the Monon High Bridge trail.

eu.jconline.com

 

[minor4th]

They most certainly did. They all say the man they saw is "BG" from the still photo taken from Libby's cellphone video.

You sure about that? Even the one who said he was wearing a tan jacket? Even the ones who said he was wearing a face mask? Even the one who said he was young, muscular, and beautiful? I have not seen that reported by anyone.

 

[minor4th]

All of them identified BG as the man they saw. SC Delphi murders trial: Witness insists she saw ‘Bridge Guy’ covered in blood and mud

Delphi trial jurors see 'Bridge Guy' video, hear from witnesses who said they saw him

Jurors saw the infamous "Bridge Guy" video and heard from eyewitnesses who claimed they saw the man on the Monon High Bridge trail.

eu.jconline.com

Not all of them - one witness, the least credible of the bunch.