GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #218

[TTF14]

You're correct, that's why RA went to trial. But he did confess over 60+ times, as accounted for by professionals under oath. Let's do a quick recap who those confessions were made to:

April 3, 2023, call to his wife, Allen stated, “I did it. I killed Abby and Libby.” Despite these admissions, his wife expressed disbelief, responding, “No, you didn’t.”

Similarly, he made confessions to his mother.

Indiana State Police Detective Brian Harshman testified that Allen confessed more than 60 times, often providing specific details about the crimes.

RA confessed to prison staff. Multiple times to multiple jail personnel.

IMO I think phone calls to his family are the next best thing to a sworn-in confession. In RA's words himself.

If he hadn't been taken to Westville without representation and then tortured for months and months on end in solitary, I might agree with you. But, the facts remain as they are and....I just can't take the words of a man experiencing a psychotic break seriously, especially when his confession included information like he "shot them in the back and buried them in a shallow grave." (Because that's not how they died and it's not how their bodies were found).

As always, JMO. Everything I write here is just my opinion.

 

[Vern]

The girls were found on the property of one of the men who confessed. Think of ANY other case where two dead kids were found on a man's property....a man who set up a false alibi before the bodies were found and then confessed.....and tell me you wouldn't at least pay a little attention to that if you knew about it as a juror.

The juror who spoke was clear.....they convicted based on the van evidence. Not the bullet. Not the confessions. The van. And it wasn't even true.

smh

As always, JMO.

IMO, this is blatently "untrue"/"false".

RL's search affadavit and return clearly shows that he did not set up a false alibi. His alibi was that he was at the fish store when the murders happened. And, he was at the fish store as he stated, and at the time he stated, as evidenced by the time and date-stamped receipt found in his home during the warrant execution and as posted on this site numerous times now (way too many times now to debunk the "myths" IMO).

The only part he lied about was how he got there - IE: "who drove there". For which he was charged, convicted and incarcerated. He did not lie about "how" he got there based upon the girls being missing, but because he actually drove himself there and he was prohibited by law from driving. That's why he lied. Pretty simple.

RL is not a suspect; he has been fully cleared.

Please, facts actually matter.

FBI Search Warrant and Affidavit for Search Warrant of Ron Logan’s Property.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[tlcya]

If I am understanding correctly, we should believe EF' sister's hearsay about alleged confession. We should believe rando fellow inmate's hearsay about RL's alleged confession. and we should believe the jury should have been allowed to hear all that hearsay because - the jury should hear everything to arrive at the truth.

but we shouldn't believe the countless confessions the jury could hear for themselves coming from the convicted man's mouth and the jury shouldn't have heard them because - torture, and it was fine that the defense team showed an image of medieval torture rack in their closing. And we shouldn't believe BW about van because inaccurate time stamp on video and the jury was misled by prosecution, even though the defense was fine with the video timestamp being 12 hours off. But those few minutes? Federal case. We shouldn't believe the bullet was consistent with rifling from RA's weapon and the jury shouldn't have been told that because more misleading. We shouldn't believe RA when he placed himself on that bridge because - mean LE. And it was fine that the jury wasn't shown RA threatening to kill guards on video because that was too prejudicial. Seems like the truthers only wanted the jury to hear what the truthers wanted the jury to hear. That isn't everything. Cherry picking works both ways IMO.

I trust the judicial process and the jury that heard all admissible evidence, deliberated, and found dear Richard guilty.

 

[TTF14]

IMO, this is blatently "untrue".

RL's search affadavit and return clearly shows that he did not set up a false alibi. His alibi was that he was at the fish store when the murders happened. And, he was at the fish store as he stated, and at the time he stated, as evidenced by the receipt found in his home during the warrant execution and as posted on this site numerous times now.

The only part he lied about was how he got there - IE: "who drove there". For which he was charged, convicted and incarcerated.

Please, facts actually matter.

FBI Search Warrant and Affidavit for Search Warrant of Ron Logan’s Property.pdf

drive.google.com

Yes, facts actually do matter. Thank you for the correction that the part of his alibi he asked someone to lie about was the ride, not his whereabouts.

If it's true he convinced to a fellow inmate, why do you think he would do that?

What time did Brad Weber get home? Facts matter, especially with regard to this since it's what the jury hung their conviction on, according to the juror who spoke to the MS.

The State's timeline has (finally) been attacked and proven to just.not.work.

As always, everything I write is my opinion.

 

[Bekind89]

If I am understanding correctly, we should believe EF' sister's hearsay about alleged confession. We should believe rando fellow inmate's hearsay about RL's alleged confession. and we should believe the jury should have been allowed to hear all that hearsay because - the jury should hear everything to arrive at the truth.

but we shouldn't believe the countless confessions the jury could hear for themselves coming from the convicted man's mouth and the jury shouldn't have heard them because - torture, and it was fine that the defense team showed an image of medieval torture rack in their closing. And we shouldn't believe BW about van because inaccurate time stamp on video and the jury was misled by prosecution, even though the defense was fine with the video timestamp being 12 hours off. But those few minutes? Federal case. We shouldn't believe the bullet was consistent with rifling from RA's weapon and the jury shouldn't have been told that because more misleading. We shouldn't believe RA when he placed himself on that bridge because - mean LE. And it was fine that the jury wasn't shown RA threatening to kill guards on video because that was too prejudicial. Seems like the truthers only wanted the jury to hear what the truthers wanted the jury to hear. That isn't everything. Cherry picking works both ways IMO.

I trust the judicial process and the jury that heard all admissible evidence, deliberated, and found dear Richard guilty.

Brain bruising, isn't it?

 

[tlcya]

Brain bruising, isn't it?

indeed. I need some aspirin.

 

[Vern]

They tried, remember? They weren't allowed to call the FBI agent because Nick McLeland said no to him being allowed to testify remotely and Judge Gull said yes to Nick.

As always, JMO.

None of which has any bearing on the defense not bringing forth sureveillance video --- especially if they believed it was 'exonerating'.

They didn't because it isn't and wasn't 'exonerating'. IMO.

 

[TTF14]

I trust the judicial process and the jury that heard all admissible evidence, deliberated, and found dear Richard guilty.

RSBM

In some ways, I envy you. I'd sleep better at night if I could just go along with what they say. It'd be way easier to just assume this was a just conviction and Libby and Abby actually got justice. Feeling like there's been a huge miscarriage of justice is stressful and maddening, especially since two children still don't have justice (IMO).

I just can't get past this word - admissible.

I'm so glad to see that loads of legal minds are hearing about this, speaking up, not letting it go....what was admissible in this case did what it was supposed to - keep the jury's eyes on one track and one track only and convict Richard Allen. What was (erroneously) inadmissible would have exonerated him, IMO. For instance, the FBI agent who would have impeached Brad Weber's own testimony if Nick McLeland hadn't refused to let him testify via Zoom. (Why did he do that???)

As always, JMO. Everything I write here is just my opinion.

 

[TTF14]

If I am understanding correctly, we should believe EF' sister's hearsay about alleged confession. We should believe rando fellow inmate's hearsay about RL's alleged confession. and we should believe the jury should have been allowed to hear all that hearsay because - the jury should hear everything to arrive at the truth.

but we shouldn't believe the countless confessions the jury could hear for themselves coming from the convicted man's mouth and the jury shouldn't have heard them because - torture, and it was fine that the defense team showed an image of medieval torture rack in their closing. And we shouldn't believe BW about van because inaccurate time stamp on video and the jury was misled by prosecution, even though the defense was fine with the video timestamp being 12 hours off. But those few minutes? Federal case. We shouldn't believe the bullet was consistent with rifling from RA's weapon and the jury shouldn't have been told that because more misleading. We shouldn't believe RA when he placed himself on that bridge because - mean LE. And it was fine that the jury wasn't shown RA threatening to kill guards on video because that was too prejudicial. Seems like the truthers only wanted the jury to hear what the truthers wanted the jury to hear. That isn't everything. Cherry picking works both ways IMO.

I trust the judicial process and the jury that heard all admissible evidence, deliberated, and found dear Richard guilty.

I don't expect anyone to believe anything. I'd ask you to consider all of these things, though. I understand it's way easier not to.

Why do you think RA said he shot the girls in the back?

JMO, IMO, MOO.

 

[Bekind89]

I don't expect anyone to believe anything. I'd ask you to consider all of these things, though. I understand it's way easier not to.

Why do you think RA said he shot the girls in the back?

JMO, IMO, MOO.

Richard Allen, a defendant in the Delphi Murders trial, said, "I am not crazy. I am only acting like I am crazy" during an interview with police in April 2022.

 

[TTF14]

Richard Allen, a defendant in the Delphi Murders trial, said, "I am not crazy. I am only acting like I am crazy" during an interview with police in April 2022.

Why do you think RA said he shot the girls in the back?

 

[INfisherman]

Richard Allen, a defendant in the Delphi Murders trial, said, "I am not crazy. I am only acting like I am crazy" during an interview with police in April 2022.

Respectfully, I believe that’s what a CO testified he heard RA yelling while on suicide watch in Westville.

"Correction Officer Michael Clemons told jurors he was a “suicide companion” assigned to record everything Allen said while in prison.

According to Clemons, on April 6, 2023, Allen confessed to killing the girls. He quoted Allen as saying, “God I’m so glad no one gave up on me after I killed Abby and Libby.”

“I killed Abby and Libby all by myself, nobody helped me,” Allen is also accused of saying.

Clemons also told jurors that Allen shouted to other inmates, “I’m not crazy, I’m only acting like I’m crazy.”

During cross-examination, Clemons told Allen’s attorneys that he never felt Allen’s crazed behavior was genuine."

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/delphi-murders-warden-correctional-officers-say-allen-made-multiple-confessions-to-killing-abby-libby/

 

[Bekind89]

Why do you think RA said he shot the girls in the back?

Maybe he was acting crazy? Just a thought...

 

[Bekind89]

Respectfully, I believe that’s what a CO testified he heard RA yelling while on suicide watch in Westville.

"Correction Officer Michael Clemons told jurors he was a “suicide companion” assigned to record everything Allen said while in prison.

According to Clemons, on April 6, 2023, Allen confessed to killing the girls. He quoted Allen as saying, “God I’m so glad no one gave up on me after I killed Abby and Libby.”

“I killed Abby and Libby all by myself, nobody helped me,” Allen is also accused of saying.

Clemons also told jurors that Allen shouted to other inmates, “I’m not crazy, I’m only acting like I’m crazy.”

During cross-examination, Clemons told Allen’s attorneys that he never felt Allen’s crazed behavior was genuine."

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/delphi-murders-warden-correctional-officers-say-allen-made-multiple-confessions-to-killing-abby-libby/

Thank you! My apologies for being too lazy and quite frankly exasperated to look it up.

 

[tlcya]

Maybe he was acting crazy? Just a thought...

because all confessions to the murders except those of RA are proof SODDI and should be believed. Silly wabbit

 

[iamshadow21]

Why do you think RA said he shot the girls in the back?

I think he said it for the same reason Franklin Delano Floyd confessed to killing Michael Hughes in half a dozen completely different horrific ways. Not all of them could be true, maybe none of them were, despite there being no doubt he DID kill Michael.

I think Floyd did it to shock, horrify and distress the listener, to manipulate them and enjoy their distress, because he was a sadist, a child killer and a rapist.

I think RA lied about how he killed them for the pure pleasure he got from it. He got to see people's reactions, and he got to fantasise not just about how he actually did it, but about other ways he could have done it.

MOO

 

[Bekind89]

because all confessions to the murders except those of RA are proof SODDI and should be believed. Silly wabbit

My apologies. How could I possibly have not realized...

 

[Bekind89]

I think he said it for the same reason Franklin Delano Floyd confessed to killing Michael Hughes in half a dozen completely different horrific ways. Not all of them could be true, maybe none of them were, despite there being no doubt he DID kill Michael.

I think Floyd did it to shock, horrify and distress the listener, to manipulate them and enjoy their distress, because he was a sadist, a child killer and a rapist.

I think RA lied about how he killed them for the pure pleasure he got from it. He got to see people's reactions, and he got to fantasise not just about how he actually did it, but about other ways he could have done it.

MOO

"I think RA lied about how he killed them for the pure pleasure he got from it. He got to see people's reactions, and he got to fantasise not just about how he actually did it, but about other ways he could have done it."

I agree and I have long believed this to be the case. This is someone who became sexually aroused discussing his own daughter and child SA.

 

[BexLuth0r]

Would it not have been easier for law enforcement to pin everything on RL? A dead man who can't defend himself? That would have been an open and shut case. With far less suffering for the families.

Rather than attempting to frame a man who wasn't on their radar for 5 years?

RL was at a store when the girls were murdered. Not sure how he manages to be in two places at once.

Bottom line is there is one man who put himself on the bridge. One man who was seen by others and one man who's timeline of the day is corroborated by witnesses. And that man has been found guilty.

 

[INfisherman]

Thank you! My apologies for being too lazy and quite frankly exasperated to look it up.

No biggie - much of the details have been rehashed so much that some of us can recall the gist of certain aspects from memory. Just as some know opinions aren’t going to be swayed regardless of the results of appeals or verdicts. Even if RA wins an appeal & his conviction sticks, some people will never believe or trust the court’s decision(s). It will still be someone on the state’s side was biased or wrong.

Certain evidence is seen differently by others, as with many cases. This one just happens to be very public & has lots of circumstantial evidence. Personally, until there’s evidence of RA not passing the group of girls, being on the bridge wearing the BG starter kit, he’s staying put. Nothing the defense has presented changes what happens up to the point the girls are ordered down the hill & that’s what is a major part of why RA is now sitting in Westville. Take BW away & it’s still RA.

MOO