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

[lonetraveler]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855448184987750518

Oh Wow, I just noticed that RA is in the background. I was distracted by the Deputy Sheriff......

 

[sunspun]

I'm curious what the statistics are about how many guilty people actually say they didn't do it when questioned by LE. I'm going to guess it's really high.

I also find it interesting that when asked if he was the guy in the BG photo, he didn't say no that's not me. He said if that came from the girls phone, it's not me.

I wish we knew exactly what the police said back to him after he said that if that pic was on the girls' phone, then it wasn't him. Maybe we do know, IDK. But seems to me they should've said something back to him about this being a pic of him in the background, not necessarily a pic they took of him specifically on purpose. Why would he need to vehemently deny that he was in this pic, even if it came from their phone? He shouldn't have immediately thought this was incriminating.

You can see he has his head down in the pic, concentrating (or pretending to concentrate) on the rickety planks of the bridge he was walking on. So he wouldn't necessarily have seen 2 girls ahead of him taking selfies etc. (or it was something he could've plausibly denied.)

Nothing wrong with that being a pic of him, even if it came from their phone, if he was just caught in the background of their pic. (I realize they were actually trying to surreptitiously video this creepy guy they thought might be following them, but that didn't necessarily have to be the case, and the cops could've sold it to him as it just being a shot of him they happened to catch in the background of one of the photos they took of themselves on the bridge that day.)

Him denying that it could be him in the pic if it came off their phone, when there's innocent explanation of that, looks guilty to me.

He also kept saying that it couldn't be him because he never met them! ("I never met those girls.") But why didn't the cops say it didn't matter if he ever met them or not? No one's saying he did. He wouldn't have to have met them for them to have found this photo of him on their phone. It doesn't look like a photo of someone they had ever met. If they'd met him and had a photo of him, it would probably be a posed photo of him smiling at the camera, maybe with one or both of the girls in the pic next to him, like you would do if you met some guy and wanted to take a pic of him shortly after. There's no reason for him to say he never met these girls. No one said he did, as in them ever having been introduced to each other or just stopping to make small talk as they passed each other while walking or anything like that. If he had met them and they had a pic of him on their phone, it would be an entirely different kind of pic, not one that looks like he's just someone they caught in the background of a pic they took of themselves.

That should look like just an innocent pic of him in the background which he should not have any reason to deny as he did. He didn't at the time know the police had more to this pic, which was just a still shot of the video in which police say his voice is heard ordering them to go down the hill, where they were later found killed. He didn't yet know anything about all that, but he still had to deny there was any way that could be him if it came off their phone. Incriminating.

I feel like the cops should've pressed him on this aspect.

 

[AugustWest]

Not the OP ( @justtrish ), but:

_Order on Sept 3, 2024.pdf

drive.google.com

I meant a direct link to the defense "claiming that those people really did it and LE covered it up along with prison guards, prosecutors, the judge." I've read that order a time or two. And I don't mean a link to some random "defense surrogate" claiming such.

 

[getthefax]

I meant a direct link to the defense "claiming that those people really did it and LE covered it up along with prison guards, prosecutors, the judge." I've read that order a time or two. And I don't mean a link to some random "defense surrogate" claiming such.

So if LE covered it up, why frame RA now? Case was 5 years old and could literally have just remained unsolved.
I can’t for the life of me think of why they would have even opened a case against RA in the first place if it were some cult killing & they wanted to protect those who were truly guilty…

That story makes no sense to me.

 

[justtrish]

Link?

I edited to add IMO, but

When the defense team fills memos full of their interpretations of things and tells us exactly what they think happens and they also are trying to get their client moved based partly on prison guards wearing Odin patches, and they try to blame the crime on various other suspects that they claim are involved in Odin practices and imply that LE didn't investigate them thoroughly (even though they have files showing they did and they were ruled out) then I'm not sure what other interpretation the defense could be implying. Odins did it, LE didn't arrest them, Odin guards are intimidating RA and he confesses.. trying to say the crime scene has runes and claiming the girls were hung up and the blood drained.. reference for that is their many Frank's memos..

 

[Vaderman]

I wonder what Richard Allen is doing right now.

 

[sassyblue]

I wonder what Richard Allen is doing right now.

Well we know what he is not doing...because he said he would never do that again...

 

[AugustWest]

So if LE covered it up, why frame RA now? Case was 5 years old and could literally have just remained unsolved.
I can’t for the life of me think of why they would have even opened a case against RA in the first place if it were some cult killing & they wanted to protect those who were truly guilty…

That story makes no sense to me.

I have never claimed in all these threads the I feel it this was a case of "framing RA." Nor have I ever claimed that I know he was or was not involved. I feel it was a poor investigation undertaken by a group of people who would have really benefited with outside help, yet they turned it away. This is independent of how I feel about Judge Gull's reasoning for her rulings.

 

[AugustWest]

I edited to add IMO, but

When the defense team fills memos full of their interpretations of things and tells us exactly what they think happens and they also are trying to get their client moved based partly on prison guards wearing Odin patches, and they try to blame the crime on various other suspects that they claim are involved in Odin practices and imply that LE didn't investigate them thoroughly (even though they have files showing they did and they were ruled out) then I'm not sure what other interpretation the defense could be implying. Odins did it, LE didn't arrest them, Odin guards are intimidating RA and he confesses.. trying to say the crime scene has runes and claiming the girls were hung up and the blood drained.. reference for that is their many Frank's memos..

So no link that the defense thinks this is a conspiracy undertaken by the judge, prosecutor and law enforcement. Thanks.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Nothing has convinced me that Richard Allen is the Bridge Guy, also, he did say 20-25 times he didn't do it in that initial interview or interrogation which to me is someone saying they are innocent.

JMO MOO JMT

Respectfully, I wonder what the statistics are of people being interrogated as a potential suspect in a crime who claim they are innocent of that crime during an interrogation? I don't think there's many offenders that walk into LE and say "Yep, you got me I did it" when they're thinking they still have a shot at beating the charges.

RA got away with it hiding in plain sight for 5+ years. He wanted to know what they knew.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm curious what the statistics are about how many guilty people actually say they didn't do it when questioned by LE. I'm going to guess it's really high.

I also find it interesting that when asked if he was the guy in the BG photo, he didn't say no that's not me. He said if that came from the girls phone, it's not me.

Oh my, I almost said the same thing before I read your post JT. I'd guess it's 98%, especially an initial interview. jmo

 

[Vaderman]

Well we know what he is not doing...because he said he would never do that again...

I physically laughed out loud and applauded. Well done. Well done!

 

[girlhasnoname]

Just playing devil’s advocate here… I agree you need to know the time the crime took place in order to know what you need to move away from.

But if RA was the killer, he would know the time the murders took place as soon as they happened. So when he was questioned a couple days later, he knew then what time he needed to move away from in order to distance himself from the scene . He didn’t obtain the knowledge of the date of the crime after his 2017 interview but before his 2022 interviews and then adjust his timings in the 2022 interview.

So it doesn’t make sense to me to say that he has changed his time in 2022 in order to distance himself from the time of the murder. If he had committed the murders, he’d know he needed to distance himself straight away and would have done so in his 2017 interviews.

He knew he'd been seen by the girls on the bridge and possibly BB as well. Better to come clean than get caught in lie right up front. IMO

 

[Tealgrove]

I'm curious what the statistics are about how many guilty people actually say they didn't do it when questioned by LE. I'm going to guess it's really high.

I also find it interesting that when asked if he was the guy in the BG photo, he didn't say no that's not me. He said if that came from the girls phone, it's not me.

In retrospect that’s such an odd thing to say.

Q: Is this you?

A1: Not if it came from the girls’ phone.

Correct Answer if it’s not you: Just plain NO!

But IT IS YOU IF ANYBODY ELSE TOOK THE PICTURE!

Ok got it.

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

It doesn't seem you read what I linked or what I wrote. "To be confronted with the witnesses against him" has been interpreted by past courts to include the right of a defendant to be present when testimony and exhibits are presented to the jury at all times. A defendant has the right to be present at every stage of a trial's proceedings.

The reasoning behind allowing this is so that a defendant cannot later complain that his trial was undertaken by the government in secrecy.

So RA is considered a witness against himself? The watching of his videos and listening to his own words on audio? Why is he allowed to confront the jury in deliberations? Nobody can tamper with or influence the jury during deliberations. There's no more testimony being given, just evidence being reviewed. The jury are not witnesses against him, thery're the jurors. These are not proceedings at trial, they're deliberations after the closings of the trial proceedings.

I'm not saying what you posted is not what it is, I'm saying IMO it's wrong and not something the jury should have to be put through at this stage.
Just how I view it. Jury should be left to itself and able to view any evidence by themselves and as many times as they want...in the jury room. the defendant or the prosecutors should have no influence any more, just the evidence.
AJMO

 

[dalsglen]

I wonder what Richard Allen is doing right now.

I'm currently having a beer and watching the football. Bet he's jealous.

Here's to you Richard, no tantrums now!

 

[iamshadow21]

Oh Wow, I just noticed that RA is in the background. I was distracted by the Deputy Sheriff......

Oh, internet, never change. People will thirst over anything.

 

[MiniMoo]

I'm curious what the statistics are about how many guilty people actually say they didn't do it when questioned by LE. I'm going to guess it's really high.

I also find it interesting that when asked if he was the guy in the BG photo, he didn't say no that's not me. He said if that came from the girls phone, it's not me.

I'm curious about the statistics or even confirmed numbers of wrongful convictions in the USA and worldwide.

How many have claimed they were innocent and yet were wrongfully convicted.

I wonder.

JMO MOO JMT

 

[al66pine]

Jurors Taking Notes?

Can the jurors take notes in their jury books?

@sunshineray
Briefly:
Yup.

Not so briefly:
From Judge Gull's Preliminary Instructions* which she read to the jurors.
"You may take notes during the trial if you wish....
"Your notes should not be disclosed to anyone other than a fellow juror during deliberations...
"Do not take your notes outside of the courtroom or the jury room...."

* The whole enchilada: More about juror note taking on p 10 of 13.

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/24/Jury-instructions-1.pdf

 

[AugustWest]

So RA is considered a witness against himself? The watching of his videos and listening to his own words on audio? Why is he allowed to confront the jury in deliberations? Nobody can tamper with or influence the jury during deliberations.

RSBM

Why are you under the impression that RA is tampering with the jury by being present in a room with them?