GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #215

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of the above. The risk of compromising or destroying evidence when performing the tests.

The state sent a set of hairs to the FBI. The FBI identified three hairs not consistent with either girl. No additional testing was performed at that point—Bozinovski said it was because she hoped newer technology down the road would provide answers. Given that analysis often destroys or compromises the original material, the lab decided to delay further testing.

I don’t recall reading that part in the OP. Did she say that, and if so, I thought if RA is found not guilty, he can’t be charged again for the same crime not matter “new evidence” comes up.
 
I agree; it gets really old reading of how LE "focussed" on just one guy too .... RA. Quite a silly insinuation by some that these 214 Websleuths threads themselves prove wrong.

They've investigated and ruled out many people in this crime.

That didn't happen for RA because he is Bridge Guy.

IMO.
Exactly! Thank you. They investigated for 5 years and finally got him.
 
Bbm.

What was the motive?

I didn't hear the Pros outline a motive unless I missed it?

from: Prison psychologist discusses Richard Allen’s alleged confessions on Day 11 of Delphi murders trial


[...]

Wala told the court that Allen discussed his case with her in a session on April 5, 2023. She said during that session he said, “I killed Abby and Libby. I’m sorry.” She said he then became tearful, said he committed the murders alone, and said his intentions were sexual in nature.

[...]

  • He said he planned on a sexual assault but saw a van, “got scared” and decided not to, crossed the creek and “cut necks” before covering the bodies with branches.
Pretty safe bet to say SA was the motive.
 
Last edited:
Do you have a link for this by a MSM source?

TIA

"He then shows defense attorney Jennifer Auger a verse in his Bible. Auger later handed a blue sticky note to a podcaster, who is also an attorney, who was sitting in the general seats of the courtroom."

 
I wonder where we'd be today if RA was successful in the complete crime he intended to commit.

Let's say the BW, who would have no reason to think his choices that day would feature I'm a criminal trial someday, let's say he worked late that day, never interrupted a SA in process, what evidence would have been left behind? Libby's video. Libby's steps. No elevation change. No creek. Would RA have commit SA, leaving his DNA behind? Would either girl have been dressed/redressed? Would their bodies have been found right there, DTH? Would there be any attempt at concealment? Would the chambered cartridge leave with RA or land there? Would he have used a blade/boxcutter? Or would he have shot them in the back before booking it back to his car, neither muddy nor bloody, just a guy, walking with his hands in his pockets?

Why the scene at all? A brazen abduction midday, hallmark SA and yet evidence suggests to physical SA. Why do that?

RA answers the question.

He would have. But he was interrupted. And from that point forward it was panic, it was chaos.

And sure enough, right there, right before a signicant elevation change, a commercial vehicle travels down along the hill, roughly 12 minutes after the moment of abduction...

The evidence dovetail with RA's confessions.

FWIW I'm unfamiliar with any ritual sacrifice that requires two victims, made to cross a creek half-dressed before succumbing to messy deaths.

But then again, I haven't spent much time in the middle ages.

JMO
 
EDITED: thanks for letting me know. :)
It's in this article. There's quite a few new info insights, at least it was to me, some quotes.

 
Bbm.

What was the motive?

I didn't hear the Pros outline a motive unless I missed it?
The Prosecution doesn’t need/are not required to discuss nor prove motive at trial.

Based on RA’s own words, his motive was SA. That is if you believe he wasn’t psychotic when he said it, which personally I do not believe that he was.

IMHOO

ETA-clarity
 
Last edited:
Which imo was the reason the jury wanted to see that interrogation tape again before he was arrested….to see his demeanor, how he answered questions, and to hear his voice.
I agree. I too went back and read everything I could about the interrogation tape.

After reading as much as I could get my hands on, I am more determined now of his guilt than I was before. M00
 
"He then shows defense attorney Jennifer Auger a verse in his Bible. Auger later handed a blue sticky note to a podcaster, who is also an attorney, who was sitting in the general seats of the courtroom."


"According to pool media reports, Allen can be heard saying he loves the coffee he is drinking. He then shows defense attorney Jennifer Auger a verse in his Bible. Auger later handed a blue sticky note to a podcaster, who is also an attorney, who was sitting in the general seats of the courtroom."

Might have been another coffee order moo.
 
I know that I am getting ahead of things, but was just curious if the judge sentences a defendant after a verdict or later in Indiana…

https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/cri...g a conviction,unless extended for good cause.

Rule 5.1. Advisements After Sentencing

Upon entering a conviction, the court must sentence a defendant within thirty days of the plea or the finding or verdict of guilty, unless extended for good cause.
 
"He then shows defense attorney Jennifer Auger a verse in his Bible. Auger later handed a blue sticky note to a podcaster, who is also an attorney, who was sitting in the general seats of the courtroom."

RA might have needed a spork or a tissue to wipe something off. Any number of things.

JMO
 
I know that I am getting ahead of things, but was just curious if the judge sentences a defendant after a verdict or later in Indiana…

https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/criminal/#:~:text=(A) Upon entering a conviction,unless extended for good cause.

Rule 5.1. Advisements After Sentencing

Upon entering a conviction, the court must sentence a defendant within thirty days of the plea or the finding or verdict of guilty, unless extended for good cause.

There's usually a sentencing phase and another hearing where victim impact statements can be heard by the court. And statements by a defendant's family as well.

IANAL but I believe that hearing is when sentencing would take place. Moo.
 
"According to pool media reports, Allen can be heard saying he loves the coffee he is drinking. He then shows defense attorney Jennifer Auger a verse in his Bible. Auger later handed a blue sticky note to a podcaster, who is also an attorney, who was sitting in the general seats of the courtroom."

Might have been another coffee order moo.
Totally moo, but this feels like the ultimate slap in the face to Abby, Libby, and their families. Like a little kid “ooh, MY coffee is yummy, I’m so happy I get to enjoy this wonderful drink while you’re sitting there crying over your dead kids. See, I’m not an evil man, reading my bible and smiling at my attorney. Give me head pats and tell me I’m a good boy.” It’s infuriating to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
57
Guests online
3,825
Total visitors
3,882

Forum statistics

Threads
621,478
Messages
18,433,628
Members
239,639
Latest member
TammyMinni
Back
Top