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

[somequestions]

Regarding your thoughts about someone coming from the south end. I believe she helped with a sketch.
[snips from the article]
...
The next witness was Theresa Liebert who lives near the murder scene and is a neighbor of Brad Weber, who testified to driving home in a van at around 2:30 p.m. on the day the girls vanished.

Liebert said that she saw a man standing near her mailboxes on the day the girls vanished from the trails. She said she saw this man around 8:30 a.m. and said he walked down 625 North in the general direction of the high bridge.

Liebert told prosecutors she’d never seen this man since and had never seen a photo of the man she saw by the mailboxes.
...

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/delphi-murders-defense-team-calls-first-witnesses-after-prosecution-rests/

Whether or not the person Theresa Liebert saw is involved in the murders is anyone's guess. But the testimony does show two things. First, it is possible for someone to get into the southeast area of the Monon High Bridge area. Second, it also shows that during the course of the trial the jury was given this option to consider about someone potentially approaching Abby and Libby from the southeast side of the bridge.

The opinion that mattered was the jury because they were at the trial and heard all the evidence. They found Richard Allen guilty. I still have some doubt, but the case is over unless he is able to get a new trial on appeal.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Whether or not the person Theresa Liebert saw is involved in the murders is anyone's guess. But the testimony does show two things. First, it is possible for someone to get into the southeast area of the Monon High Bridge area. Second, it also shows that during the course of the trial the jury was given this option to consider about someone potentially approaching Abby and Libby from the southeast side of the bridge.

The opinion that mattered was the jury because they were at the trial and heard all the evidence. They found Richard Allen guilty. I still have some doubt, but the case is over unless he is able to get a new trial on appeal.

MOO
I doubt the jury gave that testimony much thought since the defense was not allowed to present any 3rd party information. Same goes for the picture of the car that was parked along the road (GH video), which was presented to the witness on the stand. It likely meant nothing to the jurors except it was just a car parked along the road.

(NOTE: I edited out my comment about a sketch; no link to back it up)

OTOH, web sleuths are not restricted and it gets easier to make connections.
I have doubts, too.

GH = the other car

 

[tlcya]

This is the one item in the Defense filing that has me curious and is actually "new information".

Everything else is not "new evidence" and was within the discovery materials. Whether or not the Defence legitimately 'missed' it or 'deliberately chose not to present it at trial' really is moot to me. It was there and available for them to use and present, but was not brought forth for whatever reason. Ergo, IMO, it does not meet the legal requirement of "New Evidence" found that would result in a susccessful appeal.

But, that lawyer/legal counsel bit is new ... and interesting. You mention the email chain, but in reading the actual Defence filing on behalf of RA, I notice a couple of things that I find hinky although I'm not sure of the implications under Indiana law (IANAL).

27 October 2022: Probable Cause Affadavit

27 October 2022: Charging Documents Count 1 & Count 2

28 October 2022: Initial Hearing for RA

28 October 2022: Court Order Sealing Public Records Request

So then we have the Defendant's Verified Motion To Correct Errors from 20 January 2025. Within it, the "new" to me info is about the legal representation. But I see issues with parts of that claim:

According to this document, timeline is as follows:
26 October 2022:
- RA is arrested
27 October 2022:
- KA apparently 'hires' Brett Gibson to represent RA (Kathy swears to this via affadavit)
- that evening Gibson emails Sheriffs office & Prosecutor NM (Exhibit 1B)
- Sheriff acknowledges receipt "via telephone" that evening
- Gibson contacts McLelland by telephone
- McLelland arranges for Gibson to visit RA in Carroll County Jail that night (27 October 2022)
- During meeting with RA on 27 October 2022, Gibson advises him NOT to discuss his case over telephone as it would be recorded
- At 10pm Night of October 27th 2022 Attorney Gibson calls KA and advises her that he would not be getting RA out of jail as he was going to be charged with two counts of murder the next day on October 28th 2022

View attachment 560127

So the lawyer was "in town" obviously as he visited Allen in jail the night of October 27th.

BUT, this lawyer is nowhere to be found and is not in court with RA the very next morning when he admittedly already knew, according to the defence's own filing, that RA was to be in court and was being charged with two counts of murder. Where was he??!! Why wasn't he in court with "his client"??

Then we have the court documents from 28 October where RA advised the court that he intends to hire private counsel. (Link: _Order on Initial Hearing.pdf ) Note that he didn't say, "I have hired private counsel (Gibson)" nor did he even bring up his name. Nor, as we know, was this lawyer Gibson, present in the courtroom despite knowing RA had a hearing that day as he himself had told KA on the phone the night before.

On 1 November 2022, Allen writes the court seeking a court appointed attorney due to costs. Within this letter he again reitterates that on 28 October, he told the court he would be seeking his own counsel ... and not that he already HAD counsel in the form of this Attorney Gibson despite the claim in the Defense's recent filing that, "nothing in the letter indicated that he was not already represented":

View attachment 560129

Very interesting. There's more to this "he had a lawyer" line/story than we can see and I suspect we'll get to the actual full and telling details eventually when this makes the docket higher up the line.

I suspect that KA spoke to a lawyer, or had a friend who knew a lawyer etc, that reached out to RA and visited him in jail the night of the 27th October on a limited pro bono basis. But, that lawyer failed to appear the next day in court on behalf of RA ... and RA failed to mention them and actually stated he would find his own lawyer when queried about having counsel.

Because RA possibly refused his hired services on the night of the 27th due to costs?? (Could explain why the lawyer wasn't present in court on the 28th And could also explain RAs turnaround in requesting one be provided to him as he now realized "how expensive it would be") ...

RA nor Kathy didn't pay a retainer so actually hired no lawyer?? A receipt for such a retainer attached as an exhibit to this latest filing would go a long way IMO ...

Yep: there's more details to come on this lawyer bit ... if he was retained and just failed to show up in court on 28th October 2022 despite knowing of RA's (his alleged client's) being charged that very day ... could he face disciplinary action?? IANAL, but I'm pretty certain there's a reason he wasn't there in the courtroom IMO.

wow, nicely explained. I suspect you are right about the limited pro bono visit of the 27th. It is the only way I can explain how KA claims she hired Gibson, who went so far as to go visit RA on the evening of the 27th, advised him to use caution and not discuss the case, but then FAILED to show up to the court date his email indicates he knows is coming the following day.

regardless, these are not failings of the prosecution or errors that need correcting IMO. the events described above were not within their control and judge Gull likely knew nothing of Gibson or his representation or declination to represent RA during that 24 hour period so it sure wasn't an error on her part. JMO

 

[Vern]

I believe the girls crossed the creek as it fits the evidence as testified.

Clothing was found on both sides of the creek and, at autopsy, Abby's shoes were removed and the bottoms of her feet were dirty. Silt found on the bottoms of her shoes was also consistent to the bottom of the creek as per testimony during the trial.

Pictures of her feet with the shoes removed showed dirt on the bottom of her feet, Ohely testifying that it indicated she had her shoes off at some point. He also said mud silt found on the bottom of her shoe was consistent with the soil on the bottom of the river.

 

[INfisherman]

Whether or not the person Theresa Liebert saw is involved in the murders is anyone's guess. But the testimony does show two things. First, it is possible for someone to get into the southeast area of the Monon High Bridge area. Second, it also shows that during the course of the trial the jury was given this option to consider about someone potentially approaching Abby and Libby from the southeast side of the bridge.

The opinion that mattered was the jury because they were at the trial and heard all the evidence. They found Richard Allen guilty. I still have some doubt, but the case is over unless he is able to get a new trial on appeal.

Regarding the SE end, the case was presented as the video was also evidence of a man forcing the girls down the hill. Other state witnesses were allowed to tell the jury what they thought they heard as well as who they thought was saying it, including the ISP officer who reviewed all of RAs confessions. No one testified as to hearing anyone else speak in the video, not that it’s significant to my opinion, but it’s worth noting that’s the testimony heard by the jurors.

While I don’t disagree that it’s possible someone could have approached or had been waiting at the SE end, there is no evidence or testimony of that happening. Regarding TLs account of a man around her mailbox, that was at 8:30A - he’d have to wait around, unseen by anyone else for what, 5 1/2 - 6 hours & never be seen by BW when he came home. I just find that hard to buy into. Had there been other witnesses testify they saw another man prior to or before RA arriving, then I believe there’s a possibility for more doubt to be introduced. That didn’t happen in the trial though.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

I believe the girls crossed the creek as it fits the evidence as testified.

Clothing was found on both sides of the creek and, at autopsy, Abby's shoes were removed and the bottoms of her feet were dirty. Silt found on the bottoms of her shoes was also consistent to the bottom of the creek as per testimony during the trial.

Also, I don’t recall the specific details but some of the clothing on AW was still damp up to a specific area (waist?) when CSI arrived, IIRC. It was indicative of them crossing the creek, as upper body clothing wasn’t mentioned as being damp/wet.

MOO

 

[chaz]

wow, nicely explained. I suspect you are right about the limited pro bono visit of the 27th. It is the only way I can explain how KA claims she hired Gibson, who went so far as to go visit RA on the evening of the 27th, advised him to use caution and not discuss the case, but then FAILED to show up to the court date his email indicates he knows is coming the following day.

regardless, these are not failings of the prosecution or errors that need correcting IMO. the events described above were not within their control and judge Gull likely knew nothing of Gibson or his representation or declination to represent RA during that 24 hour period so it sure wasn't an error on her part. JMO

This might seem a silly question but; is it possible Ra fired Gibson on de night of the 27th or should there be a record of this?

 

[Vern]

...

While I don’t disagree that it’s possible someone could have approached or had been waiting at the SE end, there is no evidence or testimony of that happening. Regarding TLs account of a man around her mailbox, that was at 8:30A - he’d have to wait around, unseen by anyone else for what, 5 1/2 - 6 hours & never be seen by BW when he came home. I just find that hard to buy into. Had there been other witnesses testify they saw another man prior to or before RA arriving, then I believe there’s a possibility for more doubt to be introduced. That didn’t happen in the trial though.

MOO

RSBM,

And yet, the Defence did bring in Liebert into the trial to testify to this "unknown individual". This "3rd party" as it were.

Why, oh why, did they fail to take this angle at creating reasonable doubt towards RA - their client?

They had a chance ... and again failed to capitalize on it.

That sucks for their client.

 

[INfisherman]

wow, nicely explained. I suspect you are right about the limited pro bono visit of the 27th. It is the only way I can explain how KA claims she hired Gibson, who went so far as to go visit RA on the evening of the 27th, advised him to use caution and not discuss the case, but then FAILED to show up to the court date his email indicates he knows is coming the following day.

regardless, these are not failings of the prosecution or errors that need correcting IMO. the events described above were not within their control and judge Gull likely knew nothing of Gibson or his representation or declination to represent RA during that 24 hour period so it sure wasn't an error on her part. JMO

RA tips this off in his letter to the judge requesting a public defender. He says (my paraphrase) he didn’t realize how expensive it would be just to talk to an attorney, which can be assumed to be Gibson.

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

RSBM,

And yet, the Defence did bring in Liebert into the trial to testify to this "unknown individual". This "3rd party" as it were.

Why, oh why, did they fail to take this angle at creating reasonable doubt towards RA - their client?

They had a chance ... and again failed to capitalize on it.

That sucks for their client.

I don’t know for sure but I believe they knew all along they had no chance without the 3rd party people they weren’t allowed to mention so they decided to play for the appeal.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

This might seem a silly question but; is it possible Ra fired Gibson on de night of the 27th or should there be a record of this?

If he did that, why would his defense say he was represented in the MTCE?

 

[Vern]

This might seem a silly question but; is it possible Ra fired Gibson on de night of the 27th or should there be a record of this?

I'm willing to wager, now that we've access to "the receipt" for his payment that is clearly identified as costs for "Pre-arrest Representation", that KA & RA reached out to Gibson for legal advice after RA's first interview with the police and search warrant execution. He sent them an invoice for it. KA paid it on the 27th. RA had been arrested on the 26th, so the payment is for services before that date. She most likely spoke to him again on the 26th or 27th about the arrest and, after she anted up their 5K payment for RA's pre-arrest services that had already been rendered, Gibson attended to Carroll County Jail and provided Ricky that last bit of advice to "keep his lips zipped" pro bono.

With a sleight of hand - just a fleeting glimpse - it does look like KA is paying a retainer to an attorney on the night of the 27th for Ricky,

BUT no lawyer - Defence or Prosecution - is going to itemize their invoice or receipt as "retainer fee" when it was, in fact, a payment for services that had already happened ("Pre-arrest Representation) as indicated on the receipt itself. IMO. Also interesting that when one looks at the email chain for the receipt (at link above), Gibson's subject line calls it a "Payment Receipt" as well and notes it is for "pre-trial representation" in the receipt body .... only the Defence Attornies are calling it a "Retainer" (verbally and in the name they choose to give this document). Not even Kathy calls it a "retainer" in her affadavit. Interesting indeed.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/img_2558-jpeg.560141/

 

[Vern]

I don’t know for sure but I believe they knew all along they had no chance without the 3rd party people they weren’t allowed to mention so they decided to play for the appeal.

JMO

So yet they cannot claim that no 3rd party potentials were allowed into the trial ...

They got this unknown guy into the trial via Liebert ... and failed to do anything with/about it.

 

[Vern]

Also, I don’t recall the specific details but some of the clothing on AW was still damp up to a specific area (waist?) when CSI arrived, IIRC. It was indicative of them crossing the creek, as upper body clothing wasn’t mentioned as being damp/wet.

MOO

It was still wet/damp. All detailed within the same link of my post that you've quoted.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm willing to wager, now that we've access to "the receipt" for his payment that is clearly identified as costs for "Pre-arrest Representation", that KA & RA reached out to Gibson for legal advice after RA's first interview with the police and search warrant execution. He sent them an invoice for it. KA paid it on the 27th. RA had been arrested on the 26th, so the payment is for services before that date. She most likely spoke to him again on the 26th or 27th about the arrest and, after she anted up their 5K payment for RA's pre-arrest services that had already been rendered, Gibson attended to Carroll County Jail and provided Ricky that last bit of advice to "keep his lips zipped" pro bono.

With a sleight of hand - just a fleeting glimpse - it does look like KA is paying a retainer to an attorney on the night of the 27th for Ricky,

BUT no lawyer - Defence or Prosecution - is going to itemize their invoice or receipt as "retainer fee" when it was, in fact, a payment for services that had already happened ("Pre-arrest Representation) as indicated on the receipt itself. IMO. Also interesting that when one looks at the email chain for the receipt (at link above), Gibson's subject line calls it a "Payment Receipt" as well and notes it is for "pre-trial representation" in the receipt body .... only the Defence Attornies are calling it a "Retainer" (verbally and in the name they choose to give this document). Not even Kathy calls it a "retainer" in her affadavit. Interesting indeed.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/img_2558-jpeg.560141/

very interesting and great analysis.

On your notes i fail to see how it is the Judge or the States fault if Ricks attorney decides not to turn up because reasons.

i have no idea how this procedure works but is it not the attorneys responsibility to file into the case?

i have no idea how the procedure for private counsel works

MOO

 

[INfisherman]

very interesting and great analysis.

On your notes i fail to see how it is the Judge or the States fault if Ricks attorney decides not to turn up because reasons.

i have no idea how this procedure works but is it not the attorneys responsibility to file into the case?

i have no idea how the procedure for private counsel works

MOO

Gibson showed up on the 27th & knew RA was going to be charged the next day (I could be mistaken but I believe that is outlined in the emails included with the MTCE). Gibson, if representing RA would/should have been at that hearing on the 28th but he was evidently only retained for consulting purposes or due to potential criminal charges he could have required a minimum $5k retainer/pre-arrest fee. RA apparently discussed fees as indicated in his letter to the judge when he requested a public defender & stated he had no idea how expensive it would be "just to talk to an attorney".

I have a feeling it’s an attempt to misrepresent the actual happenings, as in Rozzi’s emails to Gibson he never directly asks the simplest of questions, "Did you represent RA after 27OCT?" which in my mind would make it quite clear to anyone reading those emails. Also, neither RA nor Gibson included sworn affidavits stating Gibson was representing RA after the 27th. Just an affidavit that KA hired Gibson on the 27th. Seems pretty telling to me what actually went on.

 

[INfisherman]

So yet they cannot claim that no 3rd party potentials were allowed into the trial ...

They got this unknown guy into the trial via Liebert ... and failed to do anything with/about it.

Exactly, and as they did with most if not all of their eyewitnesses they called. The defense danced around 3rd party implications but the testimony given obviously wasn’t compelling enough for the jury.

I believe the timeline was probably the main thing with which the defense struggled - literally nothing they presented put that into question. Going from there, most everything else just doesn’t make sense or doesn’t trump the timeline. Just my opinion & I could be way off base.

 

[Emma Peel]

Hey, I appreciate the courtesy of linking an article that included an expert's opinion of a photograph of mud on a shoe.

I'm interested to learn by what method the forensics conclusively differentiated creek silt from wet soil silt adjacent to the creek.

Alas, the reporting on the exhibits and forensics of this trial has been lacking, understandably IMO. The press had many challenges due to the closed trial and forbidden recordings and cameras, etc..

IMO, the possibility of a north bridge end abduction remains ...
Does that change anything? No.
It's early in the process to think about another theory materializing ... yet there I go.

Waiting on (for public access to trial transcript and exhibits that can be released ... to be released) is frustrating. Call me impatient and nerdy-needy for details.

Thank you again for the link!

JMHO

 

[tlcya]

This might seem a silly question but; is it possible Ra fired Gibson on de night of the 27th or should there be a record of this?

it doesn't sound as if Gibson ever went so far as to officially enter an appearance on behalf of RA so there would probably not be any sort of official or court record of either his hiring or firing.

 

[INfisherman]

Hey, I appreciate the courtesy of linking an article that included an expert's opinion of a photograph of mud on a shoe.

I'm interested to learn by what method the forensics conclusively differentiated creek silt from wet soil silt adjacent to the creek.

Alas, the reporting on the exhibits and forensics of this trial has been lacking, understandably IMO. The press had many challenges due to the closed trial and forbidden recordings and cameras, etc..

IMO, the possibility of a north bridge end abduction remains ...
Does that change anything? No.
It's early in the process to think about another theory materializing ... yet there I go.

Waiting on (for public access to trial transcript and exhibits that can be released ... to be released) is frustrating. Call me impatient and nerdy-needy for details.

Thank you again for the link!

JMHO

Sorry, mistakenly hit post after adding just the quote above.

Highly unlikely a north end abduction occurred, as evidence & testimony at trial clearly outlines the abduction occurred at the SE end where the girls were forced DTH.

Just prior to finding the girls, an investigator with LE went to the SE end of the bridge & testifies as follows:

During the search, Giancola said something stood out to him.

“As I go underneath the bridge alongside a large section of limestone and cinder brick, I saw a wash of leaves downhill showing bare ground,” he said. “It stood out as odd.”

The bare ground was on what has been described as the area where the girls traveled “Down the hill,” after being instructed to do so by a man recorded by Libby on the bridge.

Once the girls were found, ISP CSI Brian Olehy testified as follows, which is evidence the girls crossed the creek:

Olehy said Abby’s clothes were wet. “There was a line of wetness (on the clothes), the waist (of the pants) was wet,” he said. He also noted wetness in the sweatshirt.

Link to above info:

Evidence from ‘Ground Zero’ upsetting for jurors, family - Carroll County Comet

BRIDGE GUY, A BULLET, AND THE BRUTAL MURDER OF TWO GIRLS. Nick McLeland said the case against Richard Allen was about these three things – he wasn’t wrong. Allen is charged with four counts of felony murder in the deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German. The Carroll County teens took advantage...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

If one is to believe a NW end abduction occurred without crossing the creek, then one needs to explain why there is a line of wetness indicative of having waded through a waist deep area of a nearby creek. Also, the Apple health data from LGs phone would also have to be examined in order to show the location & steps matched with movement around that end of the bridge. Most of this has been detailed previously in earlier posts & threads.

MOO

ETA Here is a good place to start for MSM articles of the trial, should you wish to review.

https://fox59.com/delphi-trial/delphi-murders-trial-day-by-day-summary-of-the-proceedings/

Other local outlets which have also provided decent trial coverage would be:

WTHR
WRTV
Carroll County Comet (Delphi newspaper)

I would suggest cross referencing one report versus another because not all include the same amount of info. Using relevant names related to testimony & searching makes pretty quick work of it.