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

[Justice101]

THANK YOU for this! I knew I read this but could never find it again.

"...“I can see the jeans are darker on the leg bottom and the waistband was still wet,” he said."

That's why in my timeline I wrote they were stripped from the waist down before crossing the creek. M00, after that he "picked" Libby and made her take everything off. In turn he made Abby get dressed (w/whatever was in front of her. She also had shoes on but no socks).

M00 is he had every intention of raping one of them in that spot. Then he was spooked. He grabbed them and they grabbed left over clothes and headed across the creek. M00 I think Libby dropped some on purpose.

This is what drives me bonkers. Where is the rebuttal on why the clothes may not have a wet line/dry line?

There would be no clear line where the wet was versus the dry for 2 reasons:
1) Creek water sloshed up and down as you cross, surface splatter moist but not wet.
2) Water "wicks" in any clothing so it seeps its way infiltrating the dry area. Put a Tshirt with a stain in a full sink and hang it over. The water gradually wicks somewhat into the fabric.

Sorry, I am just passing time waiting for a verdict

 

[MassGuy]

Thank you . So even if (for example ) dna testing advances and they retested and found RA’s DNA inside of the girls (ie new evidence), he couldn’t be retried ?

Here in the UK, it is a high bar, but a person can be retried if there is new and compelling evidence .

I recall the famous case of Mel Ignatow, who was found not guilty of murdering his girlfriend. Months after the verdict, a guy laying carpet in the house where he used to live found a plastic bag containing amongst other things, rolls of undeveloped film. When authorities developed the film, they found photos of the victim being tortured and murdered.

All they could get him in at that point was perjury, as he had lied in grand jury testimony.

So no matter what, Allen can never be retried, no matter how compelling any new evidence is.

Hopefully this is a moot point.

 

[scapa]

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..

Excellent post, carefully thought-through and sums up the unsettledness that many might feel about the presentation of the case. Not, in my case, concerning the basic equation that BG = RA, and that RA murdered A and L, but the degree to which that equation was forcefully argued and defended to the BARD standard. I'm essentially discounting the D here because I'm not sure they made meaningful headway more than a handful of times. This was the state's case to win or lose, IMO.

As many have noted though, this seems a clued-up, painstaking jury that isn't afraid to ask difficult questions and probe for answers to them, so I have faith that they'll arrive at a verdict or hang in order to send the case back for renovated re-filing.

I'm not sure it will come to that, but my track record at predicting outcomes in the US legal system is pretty awful.

 

[Peppery]

This is what drives me bonkers. Where is the rebuttal on why the clothes may not have a wet line/dry line?

There would be no clear line where the wet was versus the dry for 2 reasons:
1) Watch sloshed up and down as you cross, surface splatter moist but not wet.
2) Water "wicks" in any clothing so it seeps its way infiltrating the dry area. Put a Tshirt with a stain in a full sink and hang it over. The water gradually wicks somewhat into the fabric.

My guess is they stumbled and fell, water was splashing all over. Shoes were off, the bottom of the creek isn’t smooth and they were terrified. They weren’t wading across, they were running for their lives. Moo

 

[tlcya]

I hope for guilty on all counts. I suspect we will see guilty on some but not all. JMO

 

[arielilane]

Posted 2 hours ago
https://x.com/kithanleytv
@kithanleytv

#Delphi: it was 36 degrees earlier this morning, the Carroll County EMS stopped by to bring the public and media hot packs. So appreciated. Thank you, Delphi.





#Delphi: community members made signs decorated in blue and purple — Abby and Libby’s favorite colors. They’re handing them out to residents to display around the courthouse in remembrance of the girls.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1854879383602839723

 

[CCJD]

I created a poll for verdict predictions

Thread 'Will RA be found Guilty in the Delphi Murders?'

Nov 8, 2024

Will RA be found Guilty in the Delphi Murders?

• DS2021
• Replies: 0
• Forum: On-Trial

Just a suggestion: add an option for a hung jury.

Edited to add: Thank you, @DS2021

 

[girlhasnoname]

Character evidence is also inadmissible, with few exceptions.

It was brought into the Murdaugh trial recently. Glad to see that family annihilator got convicted. JMO

 

[Peppery]

Other than refreshing the thread every 10 seconds, is there a way to be notified when the verdict comes in?

 

[INfisherman]

Lots of leaves on the ground to mask it though too but I rely on the expert who interupted the scene photos. He took into consideration everything we'll never get to see and wouldn't want to see. It is a round and round isn't it.

True - plus one would hope leaves would eventually be moved or cleared to examine the ground more thoroughly, once the leaves were observed for any potential evidentiary value.

I’m no expert at tracking but I’ve followed enough deer tracks through gardens, fields & into the woods to know there’s on occasion little bits of info to be gleaned on the ground beneath.

It does seem that way with some folks - always the same topics, same, poor, beaten dead horses.

JMO

 

[Appletreefarm35]

I do have to wonder how we would feel if this case was livestreamed so we could see full testimony rather than the game of telephone currently being played. As it is we get a rephrased & regurgitated summary of the high points at best. It sounds as though many of the expert witnesses gave very thorough testimony & all we get are some bullet points. Written journalism often doesn't capture mood/intonation/body language well. Just my musings this morning.

 

[girlhasnoname]

After choosing a foreperson, it quickly moved onto a first vote to see where everybody was at. Then it was a matter of getting a flipchart, reviewing our individual notes, and writing up all the points that had convinced those who were convinced, for those few who wanted more time before deciding. A second vote had a unanimous verdict of guilty. The worst part for me was knowing my guilty vote would result in a very long prison sentence for at least one of the two defendants and they would miss out on the life they could have had. It helps knowing that 11 other people all agree, but I can't express how much of a heavy responsibility it still is. Nothing like weighing up a case on a forum. We slept on it because it was the end of the day anyway, and returned our verdicts the next morning. I cried during the delivery of our verdicts because it was such an intense moment.

An almost exactly same process for me as well. It is still emotional today when I dwell on it, that's why I admire the jurors who have these exceedingly tough cases. Someone's freedom in your hands is not something taken lightly. JMO

 

[Justice101]

Looks like the poll here is trending 85% guilty, 15% not guilty.

That sounds about right.

No trial is perfect. Real life is not like a well written murder mystery.

There are always questions and inconsistencies.. on both sides... that might sway you slightly one way or the other at the time.

As a scientist, I would love to have seen the following to take my 80% sure he is guilty to 100%:
- Take 100 random Sig Sauer 40 caliber guns and cycle the identical cartridges thru each and show a close up comparison of each to the cartridge found at the crime scene. How much variation is normal and what do the patterns look like? If the one from RA's gun is uniquely a perfect match, versus the other 100... EVEN TO A JUROR... then that would be very important to know

 

[Vern]

Even if he confesses, even if his DNA is found, even if a video shows him actually committing the crime, if he is found not guilty by this jury, he cannot be charged for these charges again.

I think he could be hit with a wrongful death lawsuit in civil court by the families like OJ Simpson was, but I doubt that would happen as RA has no assets to take.

This is it.

jmo

There would still be those claiming he's innocent because they can't see his lips moving in the potential video you mention above --- of that you can be certain.

IMO.

 

[CDB]

@Bergmann
Thank you for taking the time sharing your organized, detailed, point by point summary of the State's case.

I also am very concerned that the State's case is weak.

I've stated here a number of times (pre-trial) my main concern was that the State's timeline seemed inconsistent with the evidence as we knew it before trial. I've watched closely for the State to bring new facts that support the State's narrow timeline more clearly. Via trial testimony eye-witness, digital and biological forensics were presented but nothing that reinforced the State's very narrow TOD and timeline assumptions for their theory as to BG/RA, IMO. In fact, the State's evidence supports a broad timeline/ToD, long beyond the State's theory of ToD, IMO. I'm concerned that the State was not able to decidedly narrow the ToD timeline with digital or biological forensic reports. I'm also concerned as to the forensic errors and lost opportunities brought forward through the testimony. How many errors are too many errors? I don't know, but ... IMO, errors with evidence bring doubt to the evidence.

None of the State's timeline eye-witnesses used for the PCA described RA, nor his car; the Harvest store camera capture was not definitively RA's car. These witnesses (who's timelines are known) should tighten the BG timeline ... assuming they all saw the same BG. But ... I'm afraid there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt here. The witnesses did not see the same BG. And so, for these reasons above, I am very concerned as to this tight State timeline being consistent with RA's timeline.

I understand why the State is confident that BG=the killer. I just have never been sure that BG=anyone in particular b/c of the poor video/audio quality. And I've stated here (pre-trial) that, IMO, there'd be no video/audio capture on L's phone presented that definitively ID'd BG as ANYONE in particular. Nothing presented by the State at trial that changed my position there, IMO rather my concerns were reinforced as State witness testimony reviewed the forensic review(s) of L's phone and the many oversights in that endeavor. This is based on hard technical evidence, leaving a hard (solid) concern.

For me, the spent cartridge testimony for the State made less sense than I expected. Comparing an unspent cartridge bullet to a fired bullet and argue that's how we match a bullet that's NOT been fired to a gun - IMO - is anti-scientific method. I can't consider that testimony as serious b/c - IMO - forensics must be based upon scientific method ... at the very least. Further, the gun of another POI-now-witness ... was not eliminated by this expert or any expert. For me, it's a cartridge full of doubt.

Testimony made it clear that RA's custody in prison under supermax punitive conditions as "safekeeping" is an anomaly in the US justice system, confirming another concern I've expressed. RA did not belong in super-max for 13 months; no state witness confirmed that RA was malingering; rather RA's psychosis was diagnosed and confirmed by State medical experts (one with an admitted ethics issue); that psychosis was treated during the time of his many versions of confessions. IMO, Any confession under psychosis conditions is in doubt.

As always, my heartfelt support to the brave and suffering families of these precious kids. Thanks to WS-ers for being so lovely and giving me a home to share thinking on the State's case for the past year or so. It would be much more frustrating not to be able to share in the frustration iykwim. And ... it's frustrating to acknowledge to myself that there's still too much doubt - even after the state has rested. It seems nothing much changed after hearing all facts and testimony etc brought by the State. sigh. We all deeply want justice for the girls.

Sending supportive encouragement to this jury as they being their deliberations; they have heard a mountain of argument and in the course they've been through a great deal of painful evidence ... and now they have a very difficult job ahead ... IMO

JMHO

Thank you for taking the time to lay out your perspective in a logical and thorough way. I should also thank many others who are doing similarly.

Clearly, I have arrived at a different conclusion than you, and I can understand why as I read your post. I see how your position can be supported, especially now I have decided to go back and research some of the pre-trail information while the jury is deliberating.

Unless we are in the courtroom, or even possibly on the jury (since many exhibits were only shown to the jury,) it is impossible for us to have the fine details that will clarify the differences between our positions.

This trial more than any other I can recall has been frustrating because of a lack of specificity in the details. Not the details from either the Prosecution or the Defense, but the trial details. We are not getting the complete words that witnesses are saying. We are not getting the complete questioning the lawyers are using and we are certainly not seeing the body language from within the court.

So I want to thank you and all the others for your counter views and the thought and effort you have made to present them within the logic of your position. It is within the variety of the rainbow that we get the vibrancy of life.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Guilty on all counts - directly after lunch. Imo.

I like your thinking.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

I still have to wonder why they didn’t get a properly signed confession- if he wanted to confess to it, why didn’t he just do that and plead guilty- not saying the confessions they have are de facto wrong- but did they try and get a proper signed confession/statement? Maybe I’m missing something/ Sorry if it’s been discussed already - I got very behind on this thread

 

[scapa]

Coming on here today to read that CS photos of Abby and Libby are doing the rounds on FB broke my heart. I hope whoever is revictimising them never gets a full night of good sleep again. Vile.

Justice for Abby & Libby soon.

I don't feel hopeful. Sometimes a brave girl can do everything she can, sometimes they can be as aware as they can, as smart as they can, but a bad person wins.

And sometimes that person walks free because people love a good, salacious conspiracy story.

I don't think the LE did the best possible job in the whole entire world. They did the best they could for the experience and manpower they had.

I don't know what the DT's excuse. Dragging in hair and people who couldn't have been involved. I understand how this is an adversarial system I understand creating doubt and vigorous defence, but what about morals? What about a code of conduct? Is there anything that is sacred?

Absolutely disgusted this morning. I hope against hope the jury proves me wrong and reason prevails.

All MOO.

Oh no!

Somehow missed this info but absolutely despicable. Unsurprised, but still disgusted. Cruelty and the internet lulz never far from this case, sadly.

 

[tlcya]

I still have to wonder why they didn’t get a properly signed confession- if he wanted to confess to it, why didn’t he just do that and plead guilty- not saying the confessions they have are de facto wrong- but did they try and get a proper signed confession/statement? Maybe I’m missing something/ Sorry if it’s been discussed already - I got very behind on this thread

because nobody was trying to elicit a confession. To do so after he had legal representation would have been a violation of his rights. So he was basically spontaneously confessing and by law, those hearing these confessions were barred from asking for specifics or more information, or requesting that he write it down and sign, or anything except taking note of what they were hearing/seeing.

 

[Deleted member 296739]

because nobody was trying to elicit a confession. To do so after he had legal representation would have been a violation of his rights. So he was basically spontaneously confessing and by law, those hearing these confessions were barred from asking for specifics or more information, or requesting that he write it down and sign, or anything except taking note of what they were hearing/seeing.

Ok thank you for that explanation -