GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #216

[getthefax]

Apropos of nothing, I just played today's "Connections" word puzzle. I solved the hardest one first, which had particular relevance to what happened today.

Nice one!

 

[mrjitty]

I don't really understand why people keeping knocking on the odinist door. There was no evidence tying them to the crime. It's crazy that people are so willing to believe that, with no evidence, than circumstantial evidence that ties Richard Allen to the crime.

I also think him wearing purple today at the verdict is kind of gross. One final insult to the girls.

Right. e.g They keep going on about a "mimicked crime scene" Facebook post, where to my knowledge the defence did not even prove the supposed suspect ever posted it, or when it was posted, or what it is a picture of, or who took the photo, or indeed anything at all which would show what they allege.

 

[getthefax]

The clinchers for me where.

-RA seeing his picture in the paper and calling LE to identify it as himself.
This was 3 days after the killings.
An innocent person in a little town would have been in touch with LE the 14th at the latest to say, hey I was there, how can I help. No excuses. he knew the area well and should have been a great help to the search party.

-He confessed he lost 2 bullets. One on the bridge.

-Brad spooking him in the white van.

-RA identifying to LE the girls who ID-ed him.

-The box cutter from his work.

-Trying to confess to his mother with a very heartfelt logical 'I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true".

-LE finding every phone he has ever owned in his house EXCEPT the phone he had in 2017.

Thats just off the top of my head. Its the collective volume.

moo

Agree with these, and I will add KA saying
“ you told me you weren’t on the bridge that day”
- and his cell phone doesn’t appear in the cell tower dumps (the stock ticker phone he said he was using)

It’s really a lot of evidence.

 

[k-mac]

Agree with these, and I will add KA saying
“ you told me you weren’t on the bridge that day”
- and his cell phone doesn’t appear in the cell tower dumps (the stock ticker phone he said he was using)

It’s really a lot of evidence.

yes!
I did indeed mean to add KA saying that.

But yes that was a big tell too, he said he was mucking around on his phone yet there is no data of it.

 

[mrjitty]

Agree with these, and I will add KA saying
“ you told me you weren’t on the bridge that day”
- and his cell phone doesn’t appear in the cell tower dumps (the stock ticker phone he said he was using)

It’s really a lot of evidence.

I said way back in Franks 1 times that this was the obvious sleight of hand concealed in that motion. If there was any exculpatory phone evidence it would have been in there.

The killer was the person who didn't have their phone turned on - and RAs phone data is nowhere in the tower dumps. We know that because if it had been, we would have heard about it in 2023.

What is mysterious to me is why the state did not call the CAST expert to state that. In the HTC video posted by @Tortoise in the last thread, Cecil says that he is not the correct witness to talk about the phone towers.

Perhaps the one last mystery about this case for me, is why that dynamic played out the way it did.

My best guess is the defence does not want to talk about why RAs phone is not in the tower dumps. And for the state, it simply did not help their case beyond noting his phone was not in the dumps.

MOO

 

[Tealgrove]

I hear that sentiment a lot but I can’t think of one high profile child killer who has been harmed in prison. Not since Dahmer. Can anyone?

Paul Bernardo has taken some hits.

Not a child killer but Robert Picton got his comeuppance quite recently and is now dead as a result of prison justice.

 

[snooptroop88]

I think he knew all along he'd have to kill them---they saw his face.

Agreed, I think he fully intended to kill that day, and long, long before he even reached the trail. I don't know what to believe as of yet from his confessions. I don't even think what he gave Wala was 100% complete or accurate, although enough of it was to finally do him in. Was he really telling the truth about SA interrupted and that's why he murdered? Honestly, I doubt it. I definitely believe the part about the van, and I believe the boxcutter because these points can be verified through someone who's not Richard Allen, but as for the rest-- Richard Allen is a murderer, and until he is completely at your mercy, Richard Allen is going to tell you only what Richard Allen wants you to know. Now, he may come to regret telling you about certain pieces of information, but still, at the moment his mouth's moving, he's telling you what he wants you to know. That just happens to change over time.

Will that mouth be moving now that he's finally convicted? I'd say oh yes, and what comes out of it is probably more likely to be truthful. He's got nothing to lose anymore. Still, you're dealing with someone who jmo is showing signs of being a pathological liar. This makes sense because to a large extent, this man's entire life was a lie, he was living a masquerade most of his life. But whether he is or he isn't technically a pathological liar, I wouldn't believe a word out of his mouth unless I could verify it elsewhere. In my opinion, the "why" probably never gets a satisfactory answer because only Richard Allen knows why. We might get some information on the "how." MOO. If he did other murders (and yes, I do suspect he did), LE will need to have some good foundational information going into discussions with him because the RA I've seen imo will not volunteer it, and will probably move heaven and earth even now to conceal it.

 

[KentuckyMama]

Right. e.g They keep going on about a "mimicked crime scene" Facebook post, where to my knowledge the defence did not even prove the supposed suspect ever posted it, or when it was posted, or what it is a picture of, or who took the photo, or indeed anything at all which would show what they allege.

I don't think the defense ever really brought up anything much from the many Frank's memos during the trial, did they? So many wild stories. Very vivid imaginations. I don't remember hearing about any of it during the trial. I will say this....I will be happy to never have to hear about Odinites or faux-dinists ever again. I hope the girls families are feeling some peace tonight.

 

[Seattle1]

GUILTY Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #215'

Nov 11, 2024

https://twitter.com/x/status/1856105941613023501

• Seattle1

• 

So to me that reads like the court reporter doesn't even start creating a transcript until after the defense team files their appeal--which they have up until 30 days after Dec 20? And I would imagine that it takes quite a while to finalize the transcript.

I wonder if they are at least allowed to start working on their transcript files in the meantime, knowing that it's pretty much guaranteed they will file an appeal.

Specific to an appellate transcript, it appears that Indiana has adopted rules governing the time allowed for completing an appellate transcript (from 90 days to 45 days) and the way transcripts are filed (from paper transcripts to digital transcripts). With the introduction of electronic filing, the traditional way of preparing and filing appellate transcripts changed dramatically. I followed many appeals and this definitely varies from state to state where in my experience, it's not unusual for the court reporter to receive multiple extensions to file the transcript. This rule change appears to be a good thing for Indiana. MOO

https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/files/pubs-trial-court-court-reporters.pdf

Frequently Asked Questions

www.in.gov

About the process​

Where do I file my appeal?
All appeals are filed with the Clerk of Courts, located in Room 217 of the Indiana State House. Do not file an appeal at the Court of Appeals.

Can the Court of Appeals choose whether to accept an appeal?
No. The Court of Appeals must accept all appeals sent to it; members do not have an option to decline individual appeals. As a result, the 15 members of the Court of Appeals issue some 2,000 written opinions each year.

What is an “appellant?” What is an “appellee?”
The party asking for the appeal is called the appellant. The responding party—the other side in the case—is called the appellee.

How long will an appeal take?
It usually takes at least six months for all briefs to be filed and the full review process to take place. There is no time limit for Court of Appeals judges to issue a decision in a case, but the Court strives to be timely.

How are cases assigned to judges?
Cases are randomly assigned to each judge. Judges of the Court may not pick and choose their cases.

What is a motions panel? What does it do?
The 15 judges of the Court of Appeals share the duty of sitting on the Court's motions panel at regular intervals. This three-judge panel reviews many of the motions filed with the Court before a case is assigned to a judge. The motions panel determines matters related to jurisdiction and procedure. Only current and senior judges may sit on the motions panel. Three of the Court's staff attorneys aid the motions panel.

 

[Poedelini]

Right. e.g They keep going on about a "mimicked crime scene" Facebook post, where to my knowledge the defence did not even prove the supposed suspect ever posted it, or when it was posted, or what it is a picture of, or who took the photo, or indeed anything at all which would show what they allege.

I can't with the facebook groups anymore. All that is left there are a bunch of delusional people who are stuck in the abyss with their theories. Jmo

 

[sunshineray]

I have a theory that the defence damaged their own case with a poorly thought out, OTT trial strategy that prioritised BOOM motions for public consumption over getting useful evidence admitted at trial.

It is necessary to piece together a bit of background to explain this

In a recent interview with The Prosecutors, KG explained that the defence had been seeking to tap into a conspiracy theory involving the witness P. (link at approx 30 mins). The D called P as a witness at trial. P was on the Bridge with friends after the victims that day and saw and heard nothing.

However according to KG, there existed conspiracies against the person back in the early days of this case. According to MS's discord leaks relating to the Due Process gang, the D investigator tried to work with youtubers to develop this conspiracy using geofence evidence from the discovery which he allegedly showed to the youtubers.

Fast forward to 13 March 2004 and the remarkable "France III - The Geofence" gets filed with this claim

View attachment 544616
Now according to MS, para 9(c) is particularly disturbing as the D was obviously well aware these kids were not the killers. The prosecutor reacted strongly with the result beng that the geofence map got excluded from the case. Indeed as far as I am aware, at the 3 day hearing the D did not even bring a cellular / geofence expert to make their case for inclusion.

So the net result was that a the map which could have been a useful moment at trial for them got excluded because they made wild claims that they couldn't back up at the pre-trial hearing.

Now, I am not a huge fan of the Judge's skimpy ruling on Geofence but I do believe @m00c0w is correct that far from excluding all geofence/warrant/cast/phone evidence as repeatedly claimed by the Bob Motta, Lawyer Lee etc - the Judge actually just said what the law is anyway - the evidence could only come in if relevant and not misleading. And to my knowledge the D never tried to put any of that kind of evidence on the record at trial.

This feels like a huge blunder to me. They could have saved this to simply put this exhibit to the witness at trial, (state would object) or even call their own phone expert.

Instead they tried to do a back door SODDI against a witness who never was the killer based on conspiracies.

Very poor work IMO.

MOO

Much more than poor work...

"According to MS's discord leaks relating to the Due Process gang, the D investigator tried to work with youtubers to develop this conspiracy using geofence evidence from the discovery which he allegedly showed to the youtubers"

A Defense Team investigator and at least one lawyer on the D's books, at the time participating in the Due Process Gang, allegedly shared discovery with youtubers. Now THAT needs looking into, officially speaking. MO

 

[CrocWearer]

I'm in the UK. Here, we don't have televised trials at all so this trial was much like one from home except, in America, you release all the evidence etc early on and here, we (the public) don't get to hear most of it until the actual trial or even after the verdict.

I've been following True Crime & Trials for over 10 years and with this one, the most shocking think to me is the LawTube 'Rick is innocent' gang which IMO began as a 'Folie à deux' and spread to a 'folie de beaucoup'& the 'Odinists did it, we have proof because ... sticks'

I started reading some court document today after Twitter told me 'you'll get it if you read this' and honestly, it read like a rambling conspiracy theorists 'but, but, what if' list. What in the world!

Now, what I really want to know is this,

1, Did Richard Allan have a vasectomy?

2, Was he asked, did he ever take a polygraph test?

3, What was his reaction at hearing the guilty verdicts? If anyone has info on this I'd be very grateful.

I watched Lawyer Lee (who looked like she'd sobbed buckets) say that his wife & mother had cried hearing the verdicts, she didn't mention Allan himself reacting at all but, I want to know because I have a theory!

 

[sunshineray]

I'm in the UK. Here, we don't have televised trials at all so this trial was much like one from home except, in America, you release all the evidence etc early on and here, we (the public) don't get to hear most of it until the actual trial or even after the verdict.

I've been following True Crime & Trials for over 10 years and with this one, the most shocking think to me is the LawTube 'Rick is innocent' gang which IMO began as a 'Folie à deux' and spread to a 'folie de beaucoup'& the 'Odinists did it, we have proof because ... sticks'

I started reading some court document today after Twitter told me 'you'll get it if you read this' and honestly, it read like a rambling conspiracy theorists 'but, but, what if' list. What in the world!

Now, what I really want to know is this,

1, Did Richard Allan have a vasectomy?

2, Was he asked, did he ever take a polygraph test?

3, What was his reaction at hearing the guilty verdicts? If anyone has info on this I'd be very grateful.

I watched Lawyer Lee (who looked like she'd sobbed buckets) say that his wife & mother had cried hearing the verdicts, she didn't mention Allan himself reacting at all but, I want to know because I have a theory!

RA turned round to his crying wife and mother and mouthed, are you ok? It was said his wife was crying but also looked angry. It was said RA showed no expression when the verdict was read. That's what I've heard said about it.

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

Apologies if I’m being thick with this question.

What is the rationale behind the court maintaining the gag order on everyone involved in this trial until after sentencing? My understanding is that in terms of sentencing, this is not a matter which the jury has to decide upon (i.e. decide whether to impose the death penalty or life without parole); it is the judge that imposes the sentence.

I assume that there is more to come out regarding RA and his background, which could not be admitted at trial. If a jury was deciding on his sentence, I could well understand maintaining the gag order so that they were not influenced by background information not admitted at trial when imposing a sentence. But that doesn’t apply if it is the judge imposing the sentence because she presumably has already had full sight of all of the background information about RA and has made a decision that it couldn’t be admitted at trial.

 

[sunshineray]

Apologies if I’m being thick with this question.

What is the rationale behind the court maintaining the gag order on everyone involved in this trial until after sentencing? My understanding is that in terms of sentencing, this is not a matter which the jury has to decide upon (i.e. decide whether to impose the death penalty or life without parole); it is the judge that imposes the sentence.

I assume that there is more to come out regarding RA and his background, which could not be admitted at trial. If a jury was deciding on his sentence, I could well understand maintaining the gag order so that they were not influenced by background information not admitted at trial when imposing a sentence. But that doesn’t apply if it is the judge imposing the sentence because she presumably has already had full sight of all of the background information about RA and has made a decision that it couldn’t be admitted at trial.

It might still apply because there will be victim's family's impact statements and probably mitigating circumstances discussed too by the defense, before the judge hands down his sentence. MO

 

[GoodDayToYouSir]

It might still apply because there will be victim's family's impact statements and probably mitigating circumstances discussed too by the defense, before the judge hands down his sentence. MO

Yes, that makes sense. Thank you

 

[acehard]

However, that is the point being made.
When a witness, like the psychologist,
gives a statement at trial, it is considered evidence. It's their testimony, which is the verbal account of their firsthand knowledge of events. M00

Sure normally I would agree, but her credibility had been shot IMO

 

[Seattle1]

No. I don't think that is right.

In Indiana if the defendant is convicted of murder in a jury trial, the same jury must reconvene to decide on the sentence. However, if the trial was conducted by the judge without a jury or if the defendant pleaded guilty, the judge will solely handle the sentencing phase.

Indiana Law

https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fcodes.findlaw.com%2Fin%2Ftitle-35-criminal-law-and-procedure%2Fin-code-sect-35-50-2-8%2F%23%3A~%3Atext%3D(h)%2520If%2520the%2520person%2520was%2Cunder%2520this%2520subsection%2520is%2520nonsuspendible.&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl2%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4

That section applies if the defendant is under the age of 18. Here, the judge will make the sentencing decision after receiving the presentence investigation report from probation office.

 

[NoeticSoul]

<modsnip - quoted post was remvoed>
The recorded confessions did not at all seem nonsensical to me. RA very clearly provided the who, how, when, where and why of these horrible murders due to his first hand knowledge (of his committing them)! And he did so several times.
moo

 

[acehard]

The recorded confessions did not at all seem nonsensical to me. RA very clearly provided the who, how, when, where and why of these horrible murders due to his first hand knowledge (of his committing them)! And he did so several times.
moo

Those details were not in the recorded calls. Those are from the psychologist MOO