Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #210

[IzzyBlanche]

On Oct. 17, 2022, he searched ABC News for an article about the Delphi murders. That would have been four days after investigators initially questioned him about the case.

On May 27, 2020, he searched for a story about rebuilding the Monon High Bridge. In May 2021, he searched for shooting ranges.

Allen also searched multiple times about the Delphi case, according to the records. On Aug. 4 and Aug. 5, 2022, he did five searches for “Delphi murders update.” That’s just a couple months before he found himself at the center of the case.

Between January 2022 and April 2022, Allen did a general search for “Delphi” 11 times. Also in April 2022, he searched “should I die now?”

What Google searches from Richard Allen reveal

DELPHI, Ind. – As the prosecution rested its case against Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen, prosecutors submitted one final exhibit to the court. The state had asked the court to admit Allen’s …

fox59.com

Thank you. Good to know.

I don't find these probative of anything. JMO

 

[shonyakay]

There are mistakes in the PCA.

What mistakes exactly? Can you please elaborate?

 

[snarast]

Beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not beyond a doubt 100%.

There is ALWAYS a sliver of a doubt. Maybe BG forced them off the hill and then a serial killer hiding under the bridge pulled a gun on BG and took the girls for himself? Cannot 100% prove that could not have happened. But I go with common sense first. What is most likely?

Libby took a video of the creepy guy that was following them and scared them. He forced them off the bridge at gunpoint. What is the LOGICAL answer? To me the most logical and probable answer is that he finished what he started. IMO

The only chance RA=BG didn’t kill the girls is that masterhackers manipulated Libby’s phone - changed timestamps and whatnot in a manner so meticulous even the FBI didn’t notice.

Is it likely? Absolutely not. Why would developers of that order be involved in this awful crime?

IMO

 

[shonyakay]

Who cares if people talked about a van? Who cares if people talked about a white van? Who cares if vans are listed in the discovery?

Abby and Libby were kidnapped from the bridge at 2:14 p.m. RA says his intent was to SA. Clothing began being removed as evidence of clothing found in the creek on the "Down the Hill" side of the creek. In the process of this going on, RA says he saw a van drive by.

The time that Brian Weber would have arrived home after leaving his job would be about 2:27 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. He would have driven down that private drive right by the "Down the Hill" side of the creek.

So it's not just the fact that RA claimed a van or white van drove by but it's also the timing it would have driven by, which happens to be between 13 to 15 minutes after "BG" orders the girls' down the hill.

Guilty.

 

[INfisherman]

The only chance RA=BG didn’t kill the girls is that masterhackers manipulated Libby’s phone - changed timestamps and whatnot in a manner so meticulous even the FBI didn’t notice.

Is it likely? Absolutely not. Why would developers of that order be involved in this awful crime?

IMO

Whatever the "excuse", it’s probably going to be quite outlandish I’d expect. Probably somewhere along the lines of a person coming from the SE area who no one saw & didn’t look odd enough for LG to video & was hidden where searchers didn’t canvas & managed to avoid all known trail cams.

JMO

 

[cherrybier]

Oh wow part of the bridge has been completely restored/updated. I didn't realise how long the whole bridge was.

LL is doing a walk through.

Water very clear and shallow you can see the bottom.

 

[minor4th]

Dr. Wala corroborated what RA had already said himself, to his family and many others.

Not exactly. Dr Wala claimed RA made much more detailed confessions to her, compared with what he said to family.

 

[minor4th]

Why would SCOIN need to rule about anything during this trial, it has a very capable and unbiased judge, just like they've already ruled. Appeals that may reach them if RA is convicted and it goes first to the Appellate court are of no issue to them right now. That'd be jumping the gun.
AJMO

SCOIN has made rulings. For instance, they ruled that Gull removed the defense attorneys without authority - and reinstated the defense team, despite Gull trying to get rid of them.

 

[minor4th]

Allen also searched multiple times about the Delphi case, according to the records. On Aug. 4 and Aug. 5, 2022, he did five searches for “Delphi murders update.” That’s just a couple months before he found himself at the center of the case.

Probably everyone in Delphi made searches about the Delphi murders updates.

 

[cherrybier]

I still don't understand why a defendant can't defend themselves with their theory of what happened.

Far fetched or not the jury will be the ones to decide that, that's what they're there for.

What am I missing?

 

[cherrybier]

Indiana State Prison looks much better than where RA was held.

The death row inmates in solitary can have a pet.

 

[MiniMoo]

I still don't understand why a defendant can't defend themselves with their theory of what happened.

Far fetched or not the jury will be the ones to decide that, that's what they're there for.

What am I missing?

I reckon RA should have shown them the place he parked that day or possible places just so we know what old building he was talking about exactly.

JMO MOO JMT

 

[katydid23]

I still don't understand why a defendant can't defend themselves with their theory of what happened.

Far fetched or not the jury will be the ones to decide that, that's what they're there for.

What am I missing?

There is a legal standard required in order to submit your theory of what happened into evidence. You cannot just make allegations against someone, publicly accusing them of murder, unless there is at least a slight possibility it could be true.

If the suspect you are accusing, has no alibi, has some nexus to the crime, and could be shown to be in the area at the time of the murder, you can use them as your SODDI defense. Go for it.

But if it is too far fetched, AS IN the suspect has a solid alibi, could not have been at the crime scene at the key time, has no connection whatsoever, then it cannot be brought to the jury for deliberation. It is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Betty P]

I absolutely believe RA’s confessions are real.

I think the context is extremely important.

For one thing, if after reading the Bible and coming to believe in Jesus, he may have felt that while he thought he’d gotten away with it for those five years, he suddenly believed that of course God knew what he’d done.

So now he needed to cleanse his conscience in some way. God knew what he’d done, the Bible says to confess your sins, and he HAD to find out if KA and his mother would forgive him and love him if they knew who he really was.

He clearly loves his wife and mother and it’s urgent to him that he was granted absolution by them. He appeared very lucid in these conversations. He was as clear as could be and was trying to let them know the truth.

KA and his mother said they loved him but absolutely refused to hear that he was in fact guilty.

IMO, their resistance to letting him detail his confession caused him to shut that down, give up convincing them, and take the road they offered….stop confessing, don’t take a plea, and go to trial.

I’m sure he also loves his daughter but we’ve not heard from her at all. IMO that suggests she’d made up her mind about his guilt and therefore has not come to trial nor publicly defended him.

All JMO and speculation

I agree with everything you say. I just don’t understand why his defense team didn’t persuade him to take a plea deal and get it over with.

Why put everyone involved through the emotional pain of a trial with elaborate conspiracy theories? How did it get so far as to make a jury needlessly sit through days of gruesome, horrific evidence?

I suppose it means that RA, while loving and devoted to his God and wife and mother still doesn’t give a darn about his young victims and their families.

That’s my conclusion. He not only killed them, he still feels no empathy for them. He’s only regretful of the inconvenience it caused himself and his family. Given the chance to do it again, he would. JMO

 

[INfisherman]

@minor4th

Could the D be simply "going through the motions" during this trial knowing JG just isn’t going to allow their "Big O" theory in hopes of being able to use it in the court of appeals? I ask due to my own ignorance regarding specifics of the appeal process. Surely it’s not a guarantee & not that simple is it? TIA

ETA correct punctuation

 

[Betty P]

Oh wow part of the bridge has been completely restored/updated. I didn't realise how long the whole bridge was.

LL is doing a walk through.

Water very clear and shallow you can see the bottom.

I watched for a couple minutes before turning it off.

Does this woman think that because Defense claims LE didn’t look for a killer behind a barn across a nearby field that RA should be found not guilty? She believes this even though RA admits to the murders and is on video abducting the victims just prior to murdering them?

Who are these people? Where do they come up with this nonsense? JMO

 

[INfisherman]

I reckon RA should have shown them the place he parked that day or possible places just so we know what old building he was talking about exactly.

JMO MOO JMT

Genuine question. Do you not know (on a map) where it’s alleged he parked or something entirely different?

 

[FromGermany1]

I found the Delphi searches interesting because he had feigned ignorance when confronted with the image of BG. He said that if the girls took the photo it could't have been him. Anyone and everyone knows the origins of that photo, and he should easily be able to determine if an image is of him or not, as he's seen it a million times. "No, it's not me," would have been far more reasonable.

But these searches are super interesting (mentioned this in the last thread):

"On Oct. 2, 2022, less than two weeks before he was initially questioned in the case, Allen searched for the “65+ best kidnapping and hostage movies ever made.” Other searches from the same day included “man held hostage by teen” and “movie about a man being held against his will.”

I believe he's searching for a specific movie, as I used very similar search terms when I was trying to look up this movie a few years ago. It's called "Hard Candy." In it, a 14 year old girl pulls one of those "To Catch a Predator" tactics online, and meets a guy she suspects to be a sexual predator who preys on teen girls. She drugs his drink and ties him up and proceeds to psychologically torture him for information (even going as far as to perform a fake castration).

https://www.newsnationnow.com/crime...ocialflow&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

I find it very remarkable, that RA had interest in this topic, but I don't understand the timing of his searches. If he had looked it up in 2017 before February, I would find it sensationally important.
It is not the first time, the thought of "catching a predator" comes up. MOO

 

[INfisherman]

I watched for a couple minutes before turning it off.

Does this woman think that because Defense claims LE didn’t look for a killer behind a barn across a nearby field that RA should be found not guilty? She believes this even though RA admits to the murders and is on video abducting the victims just prior to murdering them?

Who are these people? Where do they come up with this nonsense? JMO

I know, I know - it’s what gets people hooked. Just like reality TV - nobody wants to watch people living in a house. They have to be confrontational, argue & scheme. Same sort of thing with narrative trial coverage.

JMO

ETA spelling

 

[iamshadow21]

I still don't understand why a defendant can't defend themselves with their theory of what happened.

Far fetched or not the jury will be the ones to decide that, that's what they're there for.

What am I missing?

His defense involves his team naming multiple people in open court and saying they did it. All those people have alibis that checked out and no connection to the crime.

Yes, he's entitled to defend himself, but the legal system in this case is set up to protect those people who have no connection to this crime from unfounded accusations.

The defense was asked to provide actual proof of connections in a multiple day hearing and they couldn't. Nothing has changed since then, so their pet approach is still off the table.

MOO