GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #217

[girlhasnoname]

Are they still saying RA is innocent? I stopped listening after they said that. JMO

Who is still saying RA is innocent?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Are they still saying RA is innocent? I stopped listening after they said that. JMO

Who are “they”?
The Murder Sheet folks certainly never said RA was guilty. They maintain he is very guilty.
Cicero testified for the prosecution.

 

[Betty P]

my gut goes with 2. or a combo of 3. and 2. He orders her to redress and she grabs whatever is nearest to get herself covered up quickly, not wanting to set him off.

Agree.

I'm guessing this was his first sexual attack and murder. If so, he'd be more prone to feeling shocked and upset (not guilty) so "undoing" behavior would be automatic. He may have instinctively felt that letting her get dressed would keep her distracted and stop her from making noise or trying to escape. He was trying to avoid leaving DNA evidence, so probably had her re-dress herself.

Doesn't "undoing" behavior often (not always) occur after the victim is deceased?
JMO. Perhaps this form of undoing was related to a sexual assault?

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=jj_etds

It's odd that, though both girls had been undressed at some point, there was no typical evidence of sexual assault. I believe that did happen, though.

The more I read the paper linked above, the more I wonder about RA's MO, so to speak, for sexual assault. It is odd that one girl was nude, then re-dressed while the other was completely nude. It's almost like 2 different ways of staging. Either that or he became rushed and couldn't re-dress Libby. Instead, the threw the remaining clothing in the creek, right?

He was up to some unusual type of sexual assault with these girls, which is typical for first time killers with a history of sexual assaults. The most common type of "substitute" sexual assault for first time killers is "undoing", usually undressing or dressing the victims. According to data in the linked article, dressing and undressing the girls was possibly a substitute sexual activity.

 

[Betty P]

Who is still saying RA is innocent?

Sorry, I meant the two people who do the Murder Sheet podcast.

 

[Betty P]

Who are “they”?
The Murder Sheet folks certainly never said RA was guilty. They maintain he is very guilty.
Cicero testified for the prosecution.

Perhaps I misunderstood them. That impression was based on some of their comments after the trial/verdict.

 

[Tapeartree]

Agree.

I'm guessing this was his first sexual attack and murder. If so, he'd be more prone to feeling shocked and upset (not guilty) so "undoing" behavior would be automatic. He may have instinctively felt that letting her get dressed would keep her distracted and stop her from making noise or trying to escape. He was trying to avoid leaving DNA evidence, so probably had her re-dress herself.

Doesn't "undoing" behavior often (not always) occur after the victim is deceased?
JMO. Perhaps this form of undoing was related to a sexual assault?

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=jj_etds

It's odd that, though both girls had been undressed at some point, there was no typical evidence of sexual assault. I believe that did happen, though.

The more I read the paper linked above, the more I wonder about RA's MO, so to speak, for sexual assault. It is odd that one girl was nude, then re-dressed while the other was completely nude. It's almost like 2 different ways of staging. Either that or he became rushed and couldn't re-dress Libby. Instead, the threw the remaining clothing in the creek, right?

He was up to some unusual type of sexual assault with these girls, which is typical for first time killers with a history of sexual assaults. The most common type of "substitute" sexual assault for first time killers is "undoing", usually undressing or dressing the victims. According to data in the linked article, dressing and undressing the girls was possibly a substitute sexual activity.

Interesting post. I never heard of "undoing" as a sustitute behavior of SA.

 

[Cedars]

Perhaps I misunderstood them. That impression was based on some of their comments after the trial/verdict.

No, they attended every hearing prior to/including the trial and were extremely critical of the defense team tactics. In particular, they believed RA's confessions were very likely genuine, though he had a right to a fair trial.
.
JMO

 

[flashy09]

Agree.

I'm guessing this was his first sexual attack and murder. If so, he'd be more prone to feeling shocked and upset (not guilty) so "undoing" behavior would be automatic. He may have instinctively felt that letting her get dressed would keep her distracted and stop her from making noise or trying to escape. He was trying to avoid leaving DNA evidence, so probably had her re-dress herself.

Doesn't "undoing" behavior often (not always) occur after the victim is deceased?
JMO. Perhaps this form of undoing was related to a sexual assault?

https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=jj_etds

It's odd that, though both girls had been undressed at some point, there was no typical evidence of sexual assault. I believe that did happen, though.

The more I read the paper linked above, the more I wonder about RA's MO, so to speak, for sexual assault. It is odd that one girl was nude, then re-dressed while the other was completely nude. It's almost like 2 different ways of staging. Either that or he became rushed and couldn't re-dress Libby. Instead, the threw the remaining clothing in the creek, right?

He was up to some unusual type of sexual assault with these girls, which is typical for first time killers with a history of sexual assaults. The most common type of "substitute" sexual assault for first time killers is "undoing", usually undressing or dressing the victims. According to data in the linked article, dressing and undressing the girls was possibly a substitute sexual activity.

I think he had both girls naked when he was spooked by the van. He had gone too far and he couldn't let anyone see them and immediately know something awful was happening. I think RA rushed them across the creek and they grabbed their clothes and Abby lost her clothes in the creek stumbling or maybe they tried to make a run for it. Or maybe he had to physically grab Abby at one point and was nervous about touch DNA/fingerprints so threw them in the creek

I am not sure what then happened in the next hour. Did he make them do things in front of him or were they killed immediately and the time spent panicking and covering up?

But I think when he didn't actually rape them, he focused on it not looking like a sexual crime because he had shame about that. He couldn't let them both dress so he let Abby - probably because she looked younger and/or Libby's larger size clothes were easier for Abby to put on if wet.

 

[Vaderman]

Perhaps I misunderstood them. That impression was based on some of their comments after the trial/verdict.

With all respect, yes, I believe it is a misunderstanding. While I felt TMS tried to be neutral, I believe they made it quite clear in their coverage of the trial that they felt RA was guilty and his conviction and sentencing were both solid and beyond appeal.

 

[Vaderman]

Pat Cicero on Murder Sheet

The Delphi Murders: First Person: Major Pat Cicero: Part One

In this episode, we will interview Major Pat Cicero of the LaPorte County Sheriff's Office. He was a compelling witness in the Delphi murders case. Check out...

murdersheetpodcast.com

The Delphi Murders: First Person: Major Pat Cicero: Part Two

In this episode, we will continue our interview with Major Pat Cicero of the La Porte County Sheriff's Office. He will now speak about his work in the Delphi...

murdersheetpodcast.com

I finished Part 1 of the interview on my drive home from work and really appreciated his input.

I particularly appreciated his clarification on the use of his own blood for testing. I remember there being some consternation regarding this...as if it was an aberration from other forms of testing.

At this point in listening to the interview, I feel as though no matter how or what blood he used in his testing, people would be dissatisfied in his results based on their preconceived opinions on how the crime occurred.

 

[INfisherman]

I finished Part 1 of the interview on my drive home from work and really appreciated his input.

I particularly appreciated his clarification on the use of his own blood for testing. I remember there being some consternation regarding this...as if it was an aberration from other forms of testing.

At this point in listening to the interview, I feel as though no matter how or what blood he used in his testing, people would be dissatisfied in his results based on their preconceived opinions on how the crime occurred.

I think there are going to be many things in this case of which preconceived opinions are going to contribute to dissatisfaction or at the bare minimum just questions for a long, long time. Some of that is just natural to a criminal case, as Holeman mentioned, some of it is due to what has been discussed on social media & people’s love for potential conspiracies or casting people of authority as the dark villains.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Sorry, I meant the two people who do the Murder Sheet podcast.

No worries, I just wanted to be sure who we were talking about.

I believe TMS were open minded in the beginning when Judge Gull first appointed Rozzi and Baldwin, maybe even leaned towards the Defense if you listen to their early Podcasts. They weren't afraid to call Judge Gull out when they disagreed with something she did.

They became more convinced of RA's guilt as the escapades and shenanigans of the Defense Team Odin Theory, Franks, leaked CS photos, and the 61 confessions came out IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

So I started plodding through Bob Motta's interview with Auger for the defence.

Haven't really come across anything earth shattering so far - more a re-litigation of the evidence and arguments at trial.

Of interest to me - there is some discussion of the role of social media in the trial, and the need for Team D to monitor it. I didn't understand the logic of this. Related was the whole business of the white van and whether it had been discussed on social media and therefore was not something that only the killer could have known. The problem with this argument, IMO, is they just had a trial to make these arguments and didn't. Also it seems to rely on an extra conspiracy that somehow Dr W told RA about the van.

Then there is loads of headphone theory. My problem with the argument remains the same. Pre-trial, the D's case appeared to be that the phone was turned off when the girls were abducted and supposedly bundled into a car. This is critical, because otherwise if the phone was on for the car trip, there is no way for the phone to ever go away and get back to the crime scene without digital evidence of that (e.g from tower or apple health). Instead with headphone theory, they now concede the phone was on until around 5.30pm to receive messages, but with headphones in (to be silent). After that, Auger seems to be saying the phone must have been off? (Even though the expert evidence doesn't support that). Auger also seems to say that because the defence wasn't allowed geofencing, somehow they could not show that somehow the phone, with headphones in, was away somewhere else and then somehow can back.

Problem is - the jury actually did hear all this and rejected it, because it is silly.

Second, and Auger says no comment on this - when did the defence ever try to bring in an expert on geofencing? They had a pre-trial hearing where they could have fought for the inclusion of this kind of evidence - e.g the lack of a drive test. Why didn't they do that? Why didn't they seek to call the FBI agent and make Judge rule on it?

So yeah - nothing new so far.

There are some arguable points in there - as you'd expect in any trial. eg should the state have been allowed to say they recognised RA voice. But again - the Jury heard it for themselves and I think that will be hard to appeal on. Jurors formed their own view. Should the judge have allowed that? maybe not IMO.

 

[INfisherman]

So I started plodding through Bob Motta's interview with Auger for the defence.

Haven't really come across anything earth shattering so far - more a re-litigation of the evidence and arguments at trial.

Of interest to me - there is some discussion of the role of social media in the trial, and the need for Team D to monitor it. I didn't understand the logic of this. Related was the whole business of the white van and whether it had been discussed on social media and therefore was not something that only the killer could have known. The problem with this argument, IMO, is they just had a trial to make these arguments and didn't. Also it seems to rely on an extra conspiracy that somehow Dr W told RA about the van.

Then there is loads of headphone theory. My problem with the argument remains the same. Pre-trial, the D's case appeared to be that the phone was turned off when the girls were abducted and supposedly bundled into a car. This is critical, because otherwise if the phone was on for the car trip, there is no way for the phone to ever go away and get back to the crime scene without digital evidence of that (e.g from tower or apple health). Instead with headphone theory, they now concede the phone was on until around 5.30pm to receive messages, but with headphones in (to be silent). After that, Auger seems to be saying the phone must have been off? (Even though the expert evidence doesn't support that). Auger also seems to say that because the defence wasn't allowed geofencing, somehow they could not show that somehow the phone, with headphones in, was away somewhere else and then somehow can back.

Problem is - the jury actually did hear all this and rejected it, because it is silly.

Second, and Auger says no comment on this - when did the defence ever try to bring in an expert on geofencing? They had a pre-trial hearing where they could have fought for the inclusion of this kind of evidence - e.g the lack of a drive test. Why didn't they do that? Why didn't they seek to call the FBI agent and make Judge rule on it?

So yeah - nothing new so far.

There are some arguable points in there - as you'd expect in any trial. eg should the state have been allowed to say they recognised RA voice. But again - the Jury heard it for themselves and I think that will be hard to appeal on. Jurors formed their own view. Should the judge have allowed that? maybe not IMO.

I agree about some of the arguments they could have made during trial but didn’t. I feel the interview focused way too much on the cell phone extraction & issues surrounding it. I really hope LE watches it, as they basically pointed out where the state was weak & needs to improve in that particular area. Sure, they had some good points but in the end they still couldn’t remove RA from the bridge or him passing the first group of girls (each acknowledged one another’s presence via statements & testimony).

A bit of boo-hoping over JG decisions but not as bad as I thought it would be.

I was quite surprised at JA stating they wished they’d have monitored SM closer to hopefully draw more info from that to bring into the case. That’s nothing more than story time, IMO, & has nothing of value other than muddying of the facts even more. Just more potential for smoke & mirrors & tales of fantasy.

I was also a bit appalled they had the nerve to question others naming them as bad actors after sentencing but not surprised one bit. Be better? They can’t help themselves, it’s evidently in their very nature.

At least she admitted they didn’t do a good enough job, I’ll give her that much. About the only 100% honest thing I’ve heard her admit.

MOO

 

[Tricia]

Dear Websleuths Members and Guests,
Remember the days when an obnoxious advertisement seemed to cover every single blank area? Let's not go back to those days. Help keep Websleuths ad-free by subscribing to DNA Solves.
Find out how you can become a subscriber to DNA Solves.com by CLICKING HERE.
If you want to make a single donation go to www.dnasolves.com and pick a case you would like to donate to.
Do not comment on this thread. CLICK HERE to ask questions and to learn more.
Thank you very much.
Tricia Griffith

 

[INfisherman]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed (discussing an unnamed YT channel)

Regarding the evidence as a whole, in general, & not just the DNA or lack there of. There wasn’t one definitive piece of evidence which was overly convincing for a follower to remove all doubt concerning RAs guilt or innocence. Rather, there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence & a fairly tight timeline which needed to be followed & pointed more towards his guilt. LE made some errors & bad calls regarding some things but there were other facts which the defense just couldn’t erase regardless of the balls dropped by LE.

Regardless of all shortcomings on either side, I still have no doubts the right person is sitting back in Westville, no matter how fragile his supporters try to make him out to be.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I agree about some of the arguments they could have made during trial but didn’t. I feel the interview focused way too much on the cell phone extraction & issues surrounding it. I really hope LE watches it, as they basically pointed out where the state was weak & needs to improve in that particular area. Sure, they had some good points but in the end they still couldn’t remove RA from the bridge or him passing the first group of girls (each acknowledged one another’s presence via statements & testimony).

A bit of boo-hoping over JG decisions but not as bad as I thought it would be.

I was quite surprised at JA stating they wished they’d have monitored SM closer to hopefully draw more info from that to bring into the case. That’s nothing more than story time, IMO, & has nothing of value other than muddying of the facts even more. Just more potential for smoke & mirrors & tales of fantasy.

I was also a bit appalled they had the nerve to question others naming them as bad actors after sentencing but not surprised one bit. Be better? They can’t help themselves, it’s evidently in their very nature.

At least she admitted they didn’t do a good enough job, I’ll give her that much. About the only 100% honest thing I’ve heard her admit.

MOO

I do wonder if they ought to have gone for a cleaner narrative in their opening, and tent poled everything off the headphone idea which appears to have been their best evidence, which also somehow was not discovered to the prosecution which is wild to me.

Like Baldwin was tossing everything out there from the hair to the 2nd location, to the bridge guy innocence project - that stuff was never going to fly and confused his argument IMO.

Why not make it simpler. Bridge Guy did it, with accomplices at the crime scene. No unbelievable second location with faraday bags etc.

Of course the problem is always the confessions, but i don't see how the second location is helping with that. Furthermore the whole doctored video / bridge guy innocence project that Motta appeared to be advocating - how is that stuff a starter? Better just to agree BG did it, but you can't tell who he is from the grainy film. IMO that conspiratorial stuff tends to suggest they know RA = BG!

Finally, implying that Dr W somehow introduced the white van idea - again is it any surprise the jury did not believe that?

IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Sorry, I meant the two people who do the Murder Sheet podcast.

No worries, I just wanted to be sure who we were talking about.

I believe TMS were open minded in the beginning when Judge Gull first appointed Rozzi and Baldwin, maybe even leaned towards the Defense if you listen to their early Podcasts. They weren't afraid to call Judge Gull out when they disagreed with something she did.

They became more convinced of RA's guilt as the escapades and shenanigans of the Defense Team Odin Theory, Franks, leaked CS photos, and the 61 confessions came out IMO.

So I started plodding through Bob Motta's interview with Auger for the defence.

Haven't really come across anything earth shattering so far - more a re-litigation of the evidence and arguments at trial.

Of interest to me - there is some discussion of the role of social media in the trial, and the need for Team D to monitor it. I didn't understand the logic of this. Related was the whole business of the white van and whether it had been discussed on social media and therefore was not something that only the killer could have known. The problem with this argument, IMO, is they just had a trial to make these arguments and didn't. Also it seems to rely on an extra conspiracy that somehow Dr W told RA about the van.

Then there is loads of headphone theory. My problem with the argument remains the same. Pre-trial, the D's case appeared to be that the phone was turned off when the girls were abducted and supposedly bundled into a car. This is critical, because otherwise if the phone was on for the car trip, there is no way for the phone to ever go away and get back to the crime scene without digital evidence of that (e.g from tower or apple health). Instead with headphone theory, they now concede the phone was on until around 5.30pm to receive messages, but with headphones in (to be silent). After that, Auger seems to be saying the phone must have been off? (Even though the expert evidence doesn't support that). Auger also seems to say that because the defence wasn't allowed geofencing, somehow they could not show that somehow the phone, with headphones in, was away somewhere else and then somehow can back.

Problem is - the jury actually did hear all this and rejected it, because it is silly.

Second, and Auger says no comment on this - when did the defence ever try to bring in an expert on geofencing? They had a pre-trial hearing where they could have fought for the inclusion of this kind of evidence - e.g the lack of a drive test. Why didn't they do that? Why didn't they seek to call the FBI agent and make Judge rule on it?

So yeah - nothing new so far.

There are some arguable points in there - as you'd expect in any trial. eg should the state have been allowed to say they recognised RA voice. But again - the Jury heard it for themselves and I think that will be hard to appeal on. Jurors formed their own view. Should the judge have allowed that? maybe not IMO.

Thanks for taking one for the team. Libby's phone business was beyond weak, there were reasons it could have pinged at that hour. Battery finally ran out and it made one last attempt to connect before finally powering off, dirt or debris could have gotten lodged in the input port. It did cross a creek and was exposed to a wet and muddy environment.

I think it was appropriate for the jury to see and hear the interviews of RA with LE. It was played, the jury heard and saw it for themselves making their own minds up as to whether RA sounded like BG=Killer as you noted. I don't see any reason why the Judge shouldn't have allowed it. It was one of the things the jury asked to review again during deliberations, so I believe they listened carefully.

Judge Gull did deny the State's Motion to play the video of the meltdown and angry behavior of RA in his cell during the trial. He was said to have threatened the guards and made slashing motions across his neck as stated by Holeman on TMS when they did his interview. That might have been prejudicial, but it shows me RA has major anger and control issues. He's no 'fragile egg' and that could have proven it, but JG ruled on the side of caution IMO.

Did JA talk about her writing or passing notes to one of the Cranks from the DPG or why they were allowed to sit at the Defense row?

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

I do wonder if they ought to have gone for a cleaner narrative in their opening, and tent poled everything off the headphone idea which appears to have been their best evidence, which also somehow was not discovered to the prosecution which is wild to me.

Like Baldwin was tossing everything out there from the hair to the 2nd location, to the bridge guy innocence project - that stuff was never going to fly and confused his argument IMO.

Why not make it simpler. Bridge Guy did it, with accomplices at the crime scene. No unbelievable second location with faraday bags etc.

Of course the problem is always the confessions, but i don't see how the second location is helping with that. Furthermore the whole doctored video / bridge guy innocence project that Motta appeared to be advocating - how is that stuff a starter? Better just to agree BG did it, but you can't tell who he is from the grainy film. IMO that conspiratorial stuff tends to suggest they know RA = BG!

Finally, implying that Dr W somehow introduced the white van idea - again is it any surprise the jury did not believe that?

IMO

I don’t have a clue why they approached the trial the way they did. I was very concerned that they were going to make it a tough trial after their opening but after that, they just seemed to kind of wilt or slow down. I just really had a hard time following their story compared to what NM presented. They seemed very disorganized when it was their turn at bat so to speak.

Hindsight being 20/20, the state could have done more with the phone data IMO just to cover the bases. No clue why they didn’t have someone more well versed looking at the extractions. Cecil seemed a bit in over his head or he simply overlooked the headphone jack info. It just seemed like he could have been more well prepared after 7 years of messing around with the phone & the data. Maybe he was the only option left after Carter told the FBI to move along. Just a weird way of handling that one item IMO. I suppose they had just enough of the right testimony & answers for the jury.

The doctoring of the video is just so far out there I cannot even consider it. That’s what trolling the internet will bring to a trial - stuff like that. BM & his wife just get too hung up on things like that & jamming devices. As if white supremacist ritual murderers are going to have equipment like that just sitting around in case an emergency sacrifice needs to be performed to further the white race. Can an Odinist ever be prepared enough? Even if they did, why then worry about a phone ringing if it’s jammed & cannot receive signals at that point? Oh yeah, let’s insert a pair of headphones too so the incoming call it cannot receive will not be heard. Sorry but while I appreciate creative thinking or questions, some folks just can’t seem to get within the range of reality around small town IN. What’s next, Odinist controlled spy drones with jamming capabilities?

I did see on another site where another person mentioned Auger stating something along the lines of once RA left, he didn’t come back to the CS. I’ll have to go back & listen to that again. I’m sure if she’s asked to clarify, she’ll say she meant the trails & not the CS or that she’s using the state’s storyline rather than implying her client was ever at the CS.

The questions around this case will probably linger for years barring certain individuals stepping forward & telling all, including RA. That won’t happen, if ever, until after appeals are exhausted. I’m not so sure he will ever admit his guilt. He’s just that stubborn & that much of a control freak. Maybe his time in Westville will get him to feeling like talking again.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

Did JA talk about her writing or passing notes to one of the Cranks from the DPG or why they were allowed to sit at the Defense row?

RSBM

Of course not. They didn’t discuss their shady actions, just those of the state’s actors. They were just doing their jobs as defense attorneys.

One other thing that irked me was recalling how JA was unable to watch RAs videos of him in Westville - she had to look away during the trial. She turned around on the interview & stated how she’s known for having a gallows type of humor. Also mentioned how she would run down to the courthouse after school & watch her dad work on rape & murder trials prior to being a teenager. Quite the actress when she needs to be, apparently.