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

[Mirabel091]

Also this:

Delphi murder trial: Libby's blood was likely mixed with her tears, expert says

A pattern on the body of Delphi murder victim Libby German showed her blood was likely mixed with tears, an officer testified.

abc30.com

"The interview began to turn tense when Liggett and Mullin asked to see Allen's phone. Allen asked how long they would need it, and said he used Ting by Verizon for cellphone service. Allen said he didn't think he still had his phone from 2017, and believed his wife recycled it."

 

[IndieCindy]

You have this all tangled up, but the geofence thing has been explained many times here. The defence even called one of the witnesses, who, along with her boyfriend are two of the phones concerned. They already admit to being on the bridge. The defence could have sought to admit cellular evidence for those witnesses but chose not to.

The defence could have sought to admit cellular evidence relating to RAs phone but didn't because there is no evidence for his phone in the tower dumps.

If only the defence had a witness who could have explained why that was?

You do know the state denied the defenses attempt to bring in the phone data right? The judge approved that denial so the defense could not bring up those things the judge ruled could not be discussed. JG had her reasons I suppose? I should have stated I’m not talking about the phones that pinged at the bridge, and I do understand geofencing very well, I actually had to explain it to a lawyer learning about geofencing, and yes, I know from reading the court documents there were many, in fact several phones out at the high bridge that day as Cheyenne stated in court, she saw others out there as well. But what I am talking about are the phones on the LE map that were within 100ft of the actual crime scene. One of those phones belonged to a person mentioned by name in the those court pre-trial documents, and it was not cheyennes phone, nor her boyfriend’s phone nor even Ron Logan’s phone. So I don’t think I’m confused at all by having read that. But if you think I am, That’s ok. For those that do not know, geofencing is a warrantless search of all phones within a certain area and within a certain time. It brings up the phone numbers of all the phones in the search. Then LE must take that list of phone numbers and submit a subpoena for the owners of those phone, from this point LE further narrows down the list to a certain number of viable phones and then submits another subpoena for other private information about the owners of the phone and the private information retrieved off of those devices. This is why the Supreme Court has stated that geofencing warrants are not looked upon in a favorable light because they are basically a warrantless search of the government intrusion into your private data. Warrants are usually issued upon probable cause and you can articulate why there is probable cause (not just suspicion) for the Govt to specifically search you, and specifically for what, and they can articulate your alleged relationship to the crime in a way that it is reasonable to invade your space to search you and seize you and your property. The constitution is clear about warrants, even though everybody likes a good fishing expedition, lol.
I would have liked to know if the defense ever asked if the FBI had a Stingray device they were using that day, because the FBI was already in the area for another case when this happened. If they were using a stingray, ISP could have asked for it and provided it to the prosecution. Then the defense would have gotten it in discovery.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this particular case. I wouldn’t want to be the jury and find out after giving a verdict, about all the valid direct physical evidence that was left out of this case.

 

[INfisherman]

Could you refer me to where the prosecution said they had evidence of him destroying his phone? I looked and couldn’t find it. All I found was the prosecution saying there was missing cell phone data from several people and that they believed it had accidentally been destroyed. That’s where the geofencing would have been helpful to the prosecution, because they could say, “this data shows his cell was right here at this time.” Instead the prosecution fought to leave it out so that the other (confirmed by LE) phones in the same area confirmed to also be there at the exact time the prosecution says the crime occurred would not be mentioned. LE even went so far as to create a map from the geofencing data and tracked the phones. So that is all strange to me. But if you have the link, can you send it to me about him destroying his phone, I would like to read it, thanks.

I don’t recall the prosecution specifically claiming RA destroyed his phone. Sorry, but I’m done for the night searching links. Most IN news stations still have articles concerning the trial (WTHR, WISH, WRTV, FOX59, Carroll County Comet, Indy Star). Just search for Delphi trial.

From memory, RA gave his phone to DD in 2017 at which time DD wrote down the MEID number. After the search warrant at RAs house was served in 2022 that phone from 2017 was not among the many cell phones found (it was a fairly large number of older ohones - in excess of 10 IIRC). RA was asked during an interview at some point what happened to that specific phone & he said something to the effect that it was probably recycled (maybe his wife recycled it). The phone is gone or not recovered so it’s of no consequence any longer. The D could be holding it for all we know or it’s sitting in a safety deposit box somewhere.

Regardless of belief of guilt or innocence, I find it best to look at this evidence as advantage to P or D. RA claimed he was checking stocks on his phone the day of murders while on the bridge & looking around for fish. Fine that’s fact - what he said is no harm in saying that & not outlandish. If the geofencing is allowed & RAs phone doesn’t show up, then he’s lied & you know the P will be all over that. If the data is allowed & it’s inaccurate for location purposes, then it’s not beneficial to anyone & that is more than likely why the state asked for & was granted suppression of the data. The D didn’t really throw too much of a fit about it being excluded because his phone supposedly did not show up (from what I understood - could be mistaken). Also, the P didn’t want the D to turn it against them & use potentially 20 other phones (exaggerated example) as evidence that others were or may have been there so RA gets a pass on the phone data & it’s a win for the D (brings up doubt). It’s more of a strategy move rather than evidence to support the accused’s whereabouts. If a door is opened, regarding evidence, then the other team can jump all over it. That’s the "gamesmanship" of trials. One has to be careful what is allowed for the other side, whether it’s P or D. The other phones, from my understanding, were the witnesses the D called just prior to the end of trial (people on the trails who weren’t called by the P). The D really didn’t use their testimony for much other than asking about some vehicles & if they heard screams. It wasn’t of much importance overall to the D.

That’s what I was referring to regarding BW. If his gun wasn’t omitted, do you really think the D wouldn’t have mentioned it while he was on the stand twice during the trial?

I hope this makes some sense - I wasn’t following the cell data aspect as closely because by the time I’d dug into the case, it was already a non-factor by then. This is all discussed thoroughly throughout the Delphi threads (go to page one of this thread & you will find 215 other threads - use search function to help).

MOO

 

[IndieCindy]

I think people are just assuming he destroyed the phone based on this (and other things):

Source: While Allen said he was looking at his phone’s stock ticker while on the trail, the defense pointed out that no digital data links Allen to the trails.

“That’s what’s interesting. He says he was on the phone but there’s no evidence of that either,” Liggett said on the stand.

When the officers asked to see Allen’s phone in the October interview, he was at first willing, but then Mullin said Allen changed his mind, became agitated and terminated the interview by walking out of the room.

The officers said they drove Allen back to his house and then they went to get a search warrant, returning a few hours later with more officers to search Allen’s home.
================================================
And right, I'd assume he destroyed it as well. Because the more important question to me is why there is no phone showing up on the trail at all for him when he initially made it clear he did have that phone. I don't think LE officers got up and perjured themselves to get this individual thrown into prison, I don't think any physicians either knowingly or inadvertently "suggested" him into prison, either. I think he did a good job on that all on his own. Well, okay, his attorneys helped tremendously, moo.

So you are saying there is no phone evidence that places him at the trails at the time the crime occurred correct? And you are saying there is no evidence that he destroyed his phone correct? Noted.

 

[IndieCindy]

Don’t we all trade our phones in to be reconditioned and resold (aka recycled). I bought a reconditioned (recycled) iPad off of Best Buy. I have always traded my phones in since about 2013, So it’s not odd to me that he didn’t have his phone and I hope no one would assume I “destroyed” my phone I had in 2020 just because I got a new one in 2021. Maybe it’s just me though.

 

[mrjitty]

You do know the state denied the defenses attempt to bring in the phone data right? The judge approved that denial so the defense could not bring up those things the judge ruled could not be discussed. JG had her reasons I suppose? I should have stated I’m not talking about the phones that pinged at the bridge, and I do understand geofencing very well, I actually had to explain it to a lawyer learning about geofencing, and yes, I know from reading the court documents there were many, in fact several phones out at the high bridge that day as Cheyenne stated in court, she saw others out there as well. But what I am talking about are the phones on the LE map that were within 100ft of the actual crime scene. One of those phones belonged to a person mentioned by name in the those court pre-trial documents, and it was not cheyennes phone, nor her boyfriend’s phone nor even Ron Logan’s phone. So I don’t think I’m confused at all by having read that. But if you think I am, That’s ok. For those that do not know, geofencing is a warrantless search of all phones within a certain area and within a certain time. It brings up the phone numbers of all the phones in the search. Then LE must take that list of phone numbers and submit a subpoena for the owners of those phone, from this point LE further narrows down the list to a certain number of viable phones and then submits another subpoena for other private information about the owners of the phone and the private information retrieved off of those devices. This is why the Supreme Court has stated that geofencing warrants are not looked upon in a favorable light because they are basically a warrantless search of the government intrusion into your private data. Warrants are usually issued upon probable cause and you can articulate why there is probable cause (not just suspicion) for the Govt to specifically search you, and specifically for what, and they can articulate your alleged relationship to the crime in a way that it is reasonable to invade your space to search you and seize you and your property. The constitution is clear about warrants, even though everybody likes a good fishing expedition, lol.
I would have liked to know if the defense ever asked if the FBI had a Stingray device they were using that day, because the FBI was already in the area for another case when this happened. If they were using a stingray, ISP could have asked for it and provided it to the prosecution. Then the defense would have gotten it in discovery.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this particular case. I wouldn’t want to be the jury and find out after giving a verdict, about all the valid direct physical evidence that was left out of this case.

As at @m00c0w pointed out previously (please search back his posts);

1. The Judge's order does not exclude all this evidence. Rather it simply requires that such evidence be relevant and not misleading, which is just the general standard in any case. The defence did not make any arguments to admit such evidence at the MIL hearing, or at trial. They could have attempted to lead evidence about the phone number you refer to, but chose not to.

2. The Judge did not make any ruling about any such phone number. IMO it's going to be difficult to raise this issue on appeal when the defence did not raise it at trial, nor make any such argument at the MIL hearing.

3. It's known who all 3 numbers belong to. The defence chose not to make any submission about the identity of this third number, nor presumably try to call this witness. So again it's going to be hard to appeal about arguments not made.

IMO what's being ignored here is the defence did not establish an evidential record on why any of these things should have been included at trial, and why exclusion unfairly prejudiced their client. Most of their argument about this stuff was in an unrelated Franks III.

AFAIK there is nowhere that the defence argued that the Geofence map, or CAST evidence about the numbers should be admissible at trial.

MOO

 

[k-mac]

Don’t we all trade our phones in to be reconditioned and resold (aka recycled). I bought a reconditioned (recycled) iPad off of Best Buy. I have always traded my phones in since about 2013, So it’s not odd to me that he didn’t have his phone and I hope no one would assume I “destroyed” my phone I had in 2020 just because I got a new one in 2021. Maybe it’s just me though.

The point is it was RA normal to keep them.

Just one MISSING.
The phone police WANT.

 

[k-mac]

So you are saying there is no phone evidence that places him at the trails at the time the crime occurred correct? And you are saying there is no evidence that he destroyed his phone correct? Noted.

a phone is not a biological human attachment.
RA did not HAVE to have a phone on his person to be at the trails that day.
It actually adds to the flow that he came prepared. PHONE FREE.
Supports premeditation.

 

[snooptroop88]

So you are saying there is no phone evidence that places him at the trails at the time the crime occurred correct? And you are saying there is no evidence that he destroyed his phone correct? Noted.

Correct. He claimed to have a trackable device on the trail the day two young girls were murdered on said trail, undoubtedly putting him in a far different light than he would been cast in had LE known he was out on said trail with no such trackable device. That was a critical stage in the investigation. It was a detail he volunteered with the stock ticker, it's quite curious it appears not to have been the case.

It's also curious that his "tipping himself in" occurred the day after the release of the Bridge Guy image rather than earlier. He saw young girls out on that trail the same day young girls were missing from and subsequently murdered from that same trail. He said he did not get a good look at those young girls he saw. I've always wondered how he would have known that two of the girls he saw were not the missing girls. Why didn't he make an effort to note it earlier? His attorneys try to paint him as some kind of boy scout, jmo, and that doesn't seem very "boy scout" to me. In the end, he painted the jury a convincing image of himself as a murderer. I buy it, and the jury did as well. His lawyers put forward a trainwreck of a defense and his appeals have zero chance of success, MOO.

JMO, Richard Allen ruined people's lives and took the lives of two little girls who had their entire lives yet to be lived. He's a vicious monster and I hope he goes to prison for the rest of his life.

 

[mrjitty]

You are making assumptions based on your limited knowledge of what is known. There is direct evidence and even better it is time stamped evidence and it has been turned over to the defense. The defense did not know this evidence existed and I doubt the prosecution did either or they would not have allowed Wala to testify.

RSBM

Here is why this stuff is not a serious legal appeal.

You would need to prove

1. That Dr W ever saw the info on the internet about the van, let alone discussed with anyone, let alone with the defendant

2. That Dr W then framed the defendant, whether intentionally or unintentionally by including this detail in the report.

The jury saw and assessed this witness. No appeal court is going to disturb this unless you have hard evidence proving both point 1 and 2.

It is not going to be enough simply to show she might have seen something about the van sometime.

 

[Megnut]

RSBM

Here is why this stuff is not a serious legal appeal.

You would need to prove

1. That Dr W ever saw the info on the internet about the van, let alone discussed with anyone, let alone with the defendant

2. That Dr W then framed the defendant, whether intentionally or unintentionally by including this detail in the report.

The jury saw and assessed this witness. No appeal court is going to disturb this unless you have hard evidence proving both point 1 and 2.

It is not going to be enough simply to show she might have seen something about the van sometime.

Exactly.

And forever, it wasn't just that they're was a van.

Richard Allen knit the narrative. Context. How the proximity and timing of the van impacted him, which was then supported by the data from Libby's phone -- the steps, the elevation change. So, even if on some outside chance Dr. Wala knew about the van, she couldn't possibly have guessed how it would impact Richard Allen's thinking because only Richard Allen knew where HE was standing when the van appeared and what actions he took next because of it.

JMO

 

[k-mac]

Exactly.

And forever, it wasn't just that they're was a van.

Richard Allen knit the narrative. Context. How the proximity and timing of the van impacted him, which was then supported by the data from Libby's phone -- the steps, the elevation change. So, even if on some outside chance Dr. Wala knew about the van, she couldn't possibly have guessed how it would impact Richard Allen's thinking because only Richard Allen knew where HE was standing when the van appeared and what actions he took next because of it.

JMO

Totality.
Everything CAN fit.

When something isn't true, pieces CAN'T fit.
There is no flow on connection.

Everything RA said and done has been supported by outside evidence including 8 witnesses.
Any fact or scenario you want to look at has supporting correlations to back it up.

As Megnut has pointed out in the above post about the white van and how many independent pieces support that one point.
1. RA said he seen a white van and it spooked him (without a prompt or led into saying it)
2. BW came forward as the white van confirms time.
3.Libby phone records the terrain change where RA said he seen the white van.

 

[INfisherman]

As Megnut has pointed out in the above post about the white van and how many independent pieces support that one point.
1. RA said he seen a white van and it spooked him (without a prompt or led into saying it)
2. BW came forward as the white van confirms time.
3.Libby phone records the terrain change where RA said he seen the white van.

RSBM

4. RA ate his own poop & was still found guilty.

ETA Smeared it too.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Don’t we all trade our phones in to be reconditioned and resold (aka recycled). I bought a reconditioned (recycled) iPad off of Best Buy. I have always traded my phones in since about 2013, So it’s not odd to me that he didn’t have his phone and I hope no one would assume I “destroyed” my phone I had in 2020 just because I got a new one in 2021. Maybe it’s just me though.

Then why did RA keep and have 10 old phones EXCEPT that particular one, hmmmm. Can't have it both ways, he keeps all his old phones, he trades in all his old phones.

They recovered many older phones during the SW, EXCEPT the one RA said he was using that day.

I got my Thanksgiving wish and now this convicted child murderer is sitting behind bars where he belongs. Soon, after sentencing, we won't even discussing him any longer IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

RSBM

4. RA ate his own poop & was still found guilty.

Dedication man, total dedication. JMO

 

[INfisherman]

Dedication man, total dedication. JMO

It’s just there for the taking sometimes. I’m up way too late & no joke I thought you posted ‘defecation’. @m00c0w is missing out.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Ah yes, that wonderful time after a guilty verdict when a select few will come out of the woodwork and attempt to convince others how the prosecution and the jury got it all wrong. It happens after every guilty verdict. They want you to rehash every finer point until your fingers bleed....... And for what? I personally think they are attention seekers. Better to spend your efforts in remembering the two innocents whose lives were unnecessarily cut short than to try to reason with the unreasonable.

Oh, and Richard Allen is the bridge guy and was found guilty and hopefully will spend the remainder of his miserable life in obscurity. The End.

I have doubted RA's guilt from the time he was sent to Westville.

We all have a right to state our opinions.
I am not something that comes out of the woodwork.
I am no more of an attention-getter than any other poster here.
My efforts are spent as I see fit.

I can show you 50 cases in Indiana where the juries got it wrong.
I believe they got it wrong this time, too.
Not the end.

 

[Salah11]

I have doubted RA's guilt from the time he was sent to Westville.

We all have a right to state our opinions.
I am not something that comes out of the woodwork.
I am no more of an attention-getter than any other poster here.
My efforts are spent as I see fit.

I can show you 50 cases in Indiana where the juries got it wrong.
I believe they got it wrong this time, too.
Not the end.

So a very small percentage when you look at the numbers.

It doesn’t make it correct but it’s ridiculously tiny number when you consider how many have been jailed.

Moo

 

[Warwick7]

Don’t we all trade our phones in to be reconditioned and resold (aka recycled). I bought a reconditioned (recycled) iPad off of Best Buy. I have always traded my phones in since about 2013, So it’s not odd to me that he didn’t have his phone and I hope no one would assume I “destroyed” my phone I had in 2020 just because I got a new one in 2021. Maybe it’s just me though.

BBM
That might be the case. Because, no, we all don't trade our phones in to be reconditioned and resold, aka recycled.

 

[Mirabel091]

Then why did RA keep and have 10 old phones EXCEPT that particular one, hmmmm. Can't have it both ways, he keeps all his old phones, he trades in all his old phones.

They recovered many older phones during the SW, EXCEPT the one RA said he was using that day.

I got my Thanksgiving wish and now this convicted child murderer is sitting behind bars where he belongs. Soon, after sentencing, we won't even discussing him any longer IMO.

I traded in a used phone for the first time this year. Simply, it was the first one it was worth doing for, my previous phones retained zero value and were not worth passing on to anyone so I shoved them in a drawer. In itself, it's not suspicious to me that someone might change a habit like that.

But added to everything else for RA...