VERDICT WATCH Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #213

[INfisherman]

my experience following trials is the Defence often tries to sell a story in opening which they don’t deliver on, then hope the jury don’t notice by the time of closing.

Do they typically show up with shovels as large as this team had?

JMO

 

[cherrybier]

my experience following trials is the Defence often tries to sell a story in opening which they don’t deliver on, then hope the jury don’t notice by the time of closing.

Exactly what the state did in my opinion.

But I think this jury will notice.

Moo.

 

[acehard]

The defence opening and closing didn't really match. Is this common? Or are they meant to stay along the same argument?

They were still waiting on motions that were denied mid trial, which is why they closed so early. MOO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

So looking just at the evidence I have heard about at trial, I feel strongly that RA is factually guilty of murdering Libby and Abby. However, I’m not sure if the evidence proves this BARD. I truly feel for the jury because I suspect some may feel the same way.

For me the confession to psychologist Wala is that final piece of evidence I was looking for, it just really brought the crime together, including motive. From bundling up and then lying in wait, to drawing the gun on the bridge and forcing girls down the hill. Starting a SA against them, being interrupted by a van and panicking and forcing them across the hill explains the disorganised crime scene, unusual states of being dressed and undressed. I did always think RA was experiencing psychosis while incarcerated but I don’t think that negates this very detailed confession, which completely aligns with what the state believe happened.

However, the absence of any forensic type evidence apart from the bullet is a big problem I think. In my mind, a pharmacy tech would be someone who could pull this off, but still a big hurdle for the jury to have to get over. Also the descriptions of BG by witnesses didn’t seem to really match RA. Again, I can get over this myself, but acknowledge it could be another pretty significant hurdle for someone only seeing the evidence presented in court.

So we wait, thoughts with Libby and Abby’s families.

Just based on what I’ve read, I would struggle to convict:

- the bullet casing. I feel like I would need to hear all of this evidence in detail but (and I say this as someone who is not a gun owner and has no knowledge about firearms), what the defence said about needing to compare apples with apples (ie the cycled round with another cycled round from RA’s gun) rather than comparing apples with oranges (the cycled round with a fired round from RA’s gun) makes a great deal of sense to me.

- the eyewitnesses: RA says he was on the trail in similar clothing to BG. The witnesses describe seeing someone who they say was BG but their descriptions are very different from each other and some of the descriptions do not appear to match the photo of BG and definitely do not match RA. I am well aware of the limitations of eyewitness testimony, as memory is a strange thing. But the problem that presents to me is that the state wants us to accept that all the witnesses saw the same person, who is BG, who is RA. In order to do that, it seems that you have to ignore the parts of the eyewitness testimony which do not match up with BG/RA and chalk it up to the inadequacy and inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, while at the same time accepting the bits which do match up and deem them reliable . But as a juror, how are you supposed to know which bits of the eyewitness description you are supposed to take as fact and which bits you should ignore / change to suit BG/RA?

- I don’t feel like we can really pinpoint a great deal about what the BG in Libby’s video looks like based on the poor quality of the image. I can tell that it is a man who appears to be a bit overweight. I can’t tell if he is young or old. I can’t tell if he has facial hair or not. I can’t tell if that is puffy brown hair or a hat on his head.

- I don’t feel as though the prosecution has convinced me that it isn’t possible or likely for there to have been RA and someone else who is BG out there that day. From what I understand, we cannot say who was in or out of the area at one time on the relevant day. It’s not like an airport terminal where there are security cameras and everyone has to get their passport scanned so that at any one time, if you had to, you could identify who was in the terminal.

Now if, for example (and I’m using an extreme description here to illustrate the point), the person on the bridge captured on Libby’s phone was a 6 foot, size 0, supermodel type female with waist length platinum blonde hair who was dressed as a circus ringmaster in a bright red coat with tails and a top hat , and a person who looked and dressed like that had admitted to being on the trail around that time, I suspect I would find it quite easy to conclude that they were the same person . This is because the chances of there being two separate people who look and dress like that in that area of rural Indiana are very small. But from what I have read on various subs, RA looks like pretty much every middle-age man in Indiana. So does BG. So the likelihood of there being 2 people out there that day who look and dress like that seems much higher .

- the confessions: I find the evidence around this to be perhaps the most unsatisfactory of all. The jury is being asked to decide whether the confessions are the truth or whether they are the product of psychosis. To assist them, they have heard from 2 prosecution experts: Dr Wala (who says that she thought at the time that RA was faking it but now in hindsight, she is not certain), and Dr Martin , who says RA was psychotic . The defence has put up their own expert who says RA was psychotic when he was confessing.
These are people whose job it is to identify and treat mental illness, which includes identifying when someone is faking. if these experts whose job it is can’t agree on whether or not RA was psychotic (and indeed the prosecution’s witnesses disagree among themselves on this point), it makes it a tall order for jurors who (with the exception of one I think) are not experts and do not have training in this field.

- the substance of the confessions. I don’t find the box cutter detail compelling. As I understand it, the sequence of events is that the forensic pathologist did the autopsies in 2017 and said the weapon was a serrated blade. So no mention of a box cutter. RA then confessed to using a box cutter in 2023. Then, on the stand in October 2024, the forensic pathologist said that he thought a box cutter had been used. I may have missed it, but I wish the forensic pathologist had been asked point blank on the stand whether , after RA had mentioned the box cutter, this had been passed on to the forensic pathologist by the police or the prosecutor. Perhaps this is unfair, but I do question why/how the pathologist did not cite the box cutter as the weapon in 2017. He has carried out apparently 8000 autopsies in his career as well as witnessing others so I would have expected him to have seen the wounds made by a box cutter on human flesh in the past such that he could have identified the box cutter as the weapon in this case. As far as the white van detail, that all depends on whether you can be sure that there was in fact a white van there at the time. And on that point , BW seems to have given contradictory statements, so I don’t know how much weight can be given to him.


I don’t know if RA is factually guilty or innocent . My fear is that if he is , stronger evidence of this was lost/ allowed to elude the police because of the many mistakes made early on in the investigation . And equally, if he is factually innocent, perhaps evidence which would have clearly excluded him as a suspect was lost due to the missteps in the investigation .

So because of the police’s incompetence , either a guilty man ends getting away with the murder of 2 children, or if he is innocent and is found not guilty by the jury, an innocent man is forever linked to this crime and will always be seen as a paedophile and child killer by certain people .

Abby and Libby deserved so much in life, and this was brutally taken away from them. In death, they deserved a rigorous , professional investigation into their murders and for all those involved to conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards.

What they got instead was this mess. And that makes me very angry and sad.

JMO etc..

 

[Salah11]

Hopefully there is a guilty verdict today. It’s not a complicated case imo

He admits he was out there and dressed like the killer and he has confessed 50+ times.

 

[Davemac1]

So looking just at the evidence I have heard about at trial, I feel strongly that RA is factually guilty of murdering Libby and Abby. However, I’m not sure if the evidence proves this BARD. I truly feel for the jury because I suspect some may feel the same way.

For me the confession to psychologist Wala is that final piece of evidence I was looking for, it just really brought the crime together, including motive. From bundling up and then lying in wait, to drawing the gun on the bridge and forcing girls down the hill. Starting a SA against them, being interrupted by a van and panicking and forcing them across the creek explains the disorganised crime scene, unusual states of being dressed and undressed. I did always think RA was experiencing psychosis while incarcerated but I don’t think that negates this very detailed confession, which completely aligns with what the state believe happened.

However, the absence of any forensic type evidence apart from the bullet is a big problem I think. In my mind, a pharmacy tech would be someone who could pull this off, but still a big hurdle for the jury to have to get over. Also the descriptions of BG by witnesses didn’t seem to really match RA. Again, I can get over this myself, but acknowledge it could be another pretty significant hurdle for someone only seeing the evidence presented in court.

So we wait, thoughts with Libby and Abby’s families.

I inderstand. But please try and remember that there was a time many moons ago (approximately 40 years to be precise!) That cases were taken to court and tried without the availability of DNA forensics.
People were still tried and found guilty or not on the strength of available evidence.
And I think that's where we are here.
Sometimes you are just not going to find any DNA trace. You can say Allen's DNA wasn't found at the scene, but remember neither was anyone else's.
Somebody did what they did to those poor young people and the Jury will have to use all the evidence presented to decipher if the man the state bought to trial was that person.
They cannot imo, have any notion that the trial is a failure purely because no DNA was found at the scene.

 

[cherrybier]

LL feels very strongly that the geofencing and 3rd party stuff not being allowed in will be a big issue for the state on appeal (if RA is convicted).

It's deplorable the D was hamstrung at various points throughout this trial imo.

I think they did a stellar job with what they were allowed to argue.

 

[BexLuth0r]

LL feels very strongly that the geofencing and 3rd party stuff not being allowed in will be a big issue for the state on appeal (if RA is convicted).

It's deplorable the D was hamstrung at various points throughout this trial imo.

I think they did a stellar job with what they were allowed to argue.

I understand that the defence wanted SODDI. But, if there is no proof that any of the SODDI were in the area (and I believe they were investigated?), they aren't legally allowed to present that case, is that correct? Which I guess makes sense, otherwise they could just pretend anyone was there and killed someone with no proof?
The bullet and RA's own statement put him there so I guess that leaves enough Probable Cause to arrest him?
Is that the main reason the geofencing and 3rd party stuff wasn't allowed in? Apologies I've followed the case bit by bit and missed the geofencing/3PS issue.

 

[Davemac1]

- the eyewitnesses: RA says he was on the trail in similar clothing to BG. The witnesses describe seeing someone who they say was BG but their descriptions are very different from each other and some of the descriptions do not appear to match the photo of BG and definitely do not match RA. I am well aware of the limitations of eyewitness testimony, as memory is a strange thing. But the problem that presents to me is that the state wants us to accept that all the witnesses saw the same person, who is BG, who is RA. In order to do that, it seems that you have to ignore the parts of the eyewitness testimony which do not match up with BG/RA and chalk it up to the inadequacy and inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, while at the same time accepting the bits which do match up and deem them reliable . But as a juror, how are you supposed to know which bits of the eyewitness description you are supposed to take as fact and which bits you should ignore / change to suit BG/RA?

I'm putting little weight on any facial descriptions the witnesses described. They should really have said that they didn't have a good enough view to offer a description. But I get they probably felt pressure to offer something because of the enormity of the event.
One of the group of girls was friends with Liberty and must've been racking her brains to remember the slightest of detail and the burden of responsility to offer what she saw must have been huge.
I also think Betsy Blair wasn't in a position to offer finer details of a person's facial features. She was a fair distance away.
But identifying what someone is wearing is far simpler than trying to detail any facial features. Take the video of Bridge guy as a case in point. I think we can all pretty easily describe what he is wearing. But describing facial features is all but impossible.

 

[INfisherman]

I understand that the defence wanted SODDI. But, if there is no proof that any of the SODDI were in the area (and I believe they were investigated?), they aren't legally allowed to present that case, is that correct? Which I guess makes sense, otherwise they could just pretend anyone was there and killed someone with no proof?
The bullet and RA's own statement put him there so I guess that leaves enough Probable Cause to arrest him?
Is that the main reason the geofencing and 3rd party stuff wasn't allowed in? Apologies I've followed the case bit by bit and missed the geofencing/3PS issue.

State didn’t want geofencing because it could have opened the door for the D to introduce the Thor nonsense. It may have proven RA wasn’t on his phone but wasn’t worth the risk of opening the doors to the clown show. It’s just strategy & both sides have their wants & avoidances.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Neither the daughter or step-sister gave character evidence. Whether or not they were abused by RA is a fact question and used as impeachment evidence to discredit the notion that he did.

You don't think the truth or lie that RA molested his sister and/or daughter would be testimony that goes towards his character? You can classify it how ever you want but it's still, in the end, character testimony. MO

 

[FrostedGlass]

"Jurors were shown photos of the girls dead bodies, and they also say the photo of Libby German's cell phone covered in water and dirt."


I guess there goes the complaint that no one checked to see if the phone was wet or dirty and could have debris in the jack port. OBVIOUSLY it could have and did, imo.

"cell phone covered in water and dirt"
How can that be? That description sounds like it was more than just wet. Was the ground so wet under Abby's body that it covered the phone? If so, then how is it possible there were no drag marks from Libby's body being dragged from one spot to the other?

 

[INfisherman]

"cell phone covered in water and dirt"
How can that be? That description sounds like it was more than just wet. Was the ground so wet under Abby's body that it covered the phone? If so, then how is it possible there were no drag marks from Libby's body being dragged from one spot to the other?

Would you consider condensation as covered in water? Descriptions of clothing didn’t seem to indicate there was water standing.

ETA had it been standing water, we could probably deduce the description would more than likely have been covered in water & mud rather than water & dirt. Without seeing the photos, we’re left with this, unfortunately.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I've heard the defense's closing statement was a big crash and burn. A lot of nothing about important things and in-depth on minuscule details that real mattered not in the big picture...not making much hay at all.

Then it was bizzaro land at the end with drawings of medieval tortures trying to make comparisons to RA's conditions in prison. Hummm, ok.

The big finale picture/drawing being a huge snake wrapped around a man squeezing the life out of him. Supposely representing everyman being overcome by the "government", the snake...if this jury was to convict RA. Yeah sounded like quite the show! I wonder if AB had the decency to cringe inside at the ridiculousness being presented by his co-council?

I've never felt more certain that JG had it so right in DQ-ing the two, no matter this jury's verdict. Unfortunately she kindly wanted to help them save face instead of airing it all out right then and there, on the record. All the above AJMO

Murder Sheet

The Murder Sheet is a weekly true crime podcast hosted by journalist Áine Cain and attorney Kevin Greenlee. We take a journalistic approach to covering true crime. We have broken national news on major cases, like the Delphi murders and the Burger Chef murders. We also cover plenty of other...

art19.com

 

[sunshineray]

"cell phone covered in water and dirt"
How can that be? That description sounds like it was more than just wet. Was the ground so wet under Abby's body that it covered the phone? If so, then how is it possible there were no drag marks from Libby's body being dragged from one spot to the other?

Their clothes were soaked crossing the creek.
In the three day hearings the blood expert did mention drag marks.

 

[FrostedGlass]

No chance of anyone driving on private drive to "Interrupt" his assault again.
More obscure location, hidden on other side of creek.

Further away from the trails and the bridge, that is why.

IMO
It took took longer for the killer to take those girls across the creek and up the bank than it did for the van to drive to the house.

If the killer was scared by seeing the van, it would have been really brazen to take naked girls to the creek where they could clearly be seen crossing.

 

[Mitch1]

There could be other reasons for the way he was placing them. For example, maybe he was a setting them the way one builds a fire. He might have thought that burning the evidence would help him get away with it. He knew someone was going to be looking for them really soon so maybe he was trying to create some chaos and destroy evidence :?

But then he maybe heard her Dad calling out their names so he dropped that idea and took off?

Yeah, that scene from all the reports doesn’t at all look like someone had placed the sticks with the idea of setting a fire

 

[Mitch1]

Why would he think a false confession ,which would lead to life in prison, would make things better for his wife?

He doesn’t, IMO it sounds like someone in a completely hopeless place in completely hopeless circumstances and has just completely given up and in that moment just signaling to his wife to start accepting he isn’t getting out and maybe move on

 

[sunshineray]

Not sure about that scenario/person but we could be seeing some civil action by RA against the DOC...

Moo.

There should be civil action taken by the families against AB for allowing the crime scene photos leak, just straight up gross negligence on his part, IMO. And it's possible by the 5 men publically called murderers with not one shred of admissible evidence, Also JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

I haven’t seen a reply to this, yet, but have the same question.
Did you learn anything else about it?

I didn’t see an answer here as to why the jury might call the defendant back in during deliberations. I can only guess that it’s a standard part of jury instructions.

All I can cite is what Google told me, and given RA didn’t testify, he would have nothing to add.

“Jury might call the defendant back in during deliberations if they have a specific question about a piece of evidence related to the defendant's actions or testimony that they need clarified to reach a verdict, essentially wanting to directly ask the defendant for additional information to fully understand the case.”

jmo