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

[somequestions]

Sure, you can theorize all you wish. You can say aliens did it if you wish. Without evidence, it doesn’t mean much in court, obviously. The defense tried this tactic with their eyewitnesses & it had zero impact on the jurors. The initial vote was 9 guilty & 3 undecided (no decision - doesn’t equate to not guilty).

IIRC, BB returned & never saw anyone else after she passed the girls. So how did RA leave the bridge, never see this 2nd man AND no one else see RA leaving the trails? Why would LG not record a video of this 2nd overdressed man the first time he passed them then do it when he came back?

In addition to @iamshadow21 ‘s reply above, no one else can get RA off the bridge.

So this mystery man, he crosses the creek TWICE & goes back towards where BW lives not knowing if anyone along 625 is coming or going & is seen by no one as people are coming home from work & is never observed on the security camera that caught BWs van? I hope he bought a lottery ticket as no one reported parked cars or wet people walking around the southern end of the trails & there’s more homes there than along 300N, IIRC.

I respect that you’re asking questions such as these but I do not believe jurors do this nor do I believe they are expected to do so. They go with what is given to them & decide if that is enough to convince all 12 of them of guilt or innocence. I feel if a jury were to consider whether the rest of the world could have in some unlikely manner been involved in the crime of which they’re deliberating, they’d all end up as hung juries & our streets would be full of some really bad folks.

JMO

I do not agree at all.

I think I would want to be sure. I have only commented that Richard Allen might not be guilty in this particular case, not in other cases with other defendants. Maybe in the future some more evidence will come out that will change my mind.

I would hope that any jury member would stand by what they think during a deliberation based on how each of them interprets the evidence. I do not think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt Richard Allen is the killer. Richard Allen might be the murderer, but they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I might have gone along with a guilty verdict once the van information and testimony was offered at trial. I would not be happy when I found out later there was video surveillance evidence showing the van arrived later than when the prosecution said the phone stopped moving and was found underneath Abigail Williams body.

 

[somequestions]

IMO this theory falls apart because it is the Bridge Guy in Libby’s video who tells them to go down the hill. We know that Bridge Guy is Richard Allen, as proved in court.

If Libby had the wherewithal to tape the man who told them to go down the hill, why didn’t she tape this “someone else” at 2:13? She still had possession of her phone. Who’s this someone else?

There’s only Richard Allen spotted on the bridge. On video, by his own admission, and by witness testimony.

As far as I’m concerned, this case is done and dusted.

JMO

I think he could have gone on platform 1 and then left the Monon High Bridge. This could be why he admits to being on platform 1, but denies being the person in the 2:13pm Liberty German phone video.

In my opinion, the video is too grainy to make a positive identification of Richard Allen. The toolmark evidence of the unspent cartridge was not convincing enough after reading testimony from the trial. Maybe someday they can get him to give a full and factual confession starting with the question, "Are you the person in the still picture/video from Liberty German's 2:13 pm phone video?" I cannot understand why the prosecution would not have presented this type of confession at trial if Richard Allen admitted to it.

I agree the case is over, and the jury has made their decision.

 

[Vern]

...
Moreover, if he understood himself to be RA's private defense attorney and there was a super secret hearing of which he wasn't advised, what attorney would let that be? No fiery response to the Court? Didn't happen. Because it didn't happen.
...

RS&BBM,

I agree. Time to stick a spork into the "super secret" hearing that Gibson did not know about conspiracy. Gibson knew, at the latest, that RA was heading into court on the 28th which the Defence filing itself clearly indicates at page 4 of reference:



If, and that's a HUGE if, Gibson was in fact representing RA on the 28th, there's zero excuse for him not being present - he was clearly in town - after taking 5K off them as a "retainer" (and not the documented Pre-Arrest Representation receipt) or at least having one of his firm partners there in his stead.

 

[Vern]

I do not agree at all.

I think I would want to be sure. I have only commented that Richard Allen might not be guilty in this particular case, not others. Maybe in the future some more evidence will come out that will change my mind.

I would hope that any jury member would stand by what they think during a deliberation based on how each of them interprets the evidence. I do not think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt Richard Allen is the killer. Richard Allen might be the murderer, but they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I might have gone along with a guilty verdict once the van information and testimony was offered at trial. I would not be happy when I found out later there was video surveillance evidence showing the van arrived later than when the prosecution said the phone stopped moving and was found underneath Abigail Williams body.

And, I imagine if I were the defendant, I'd be even more po'd that my defence attornies didn't jump all over that at trial (if the video timing indeed holds to be accurate) because such info isn't 'new evidence' rather it's something my own team missed in their vigour to blame it on ruled out SODDIs. That's their job to do and they only had one job. Apparently failed miserably.

IMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

One good thing I think I finally know is the answer to this statement about the reenactments:

[snips]
And armchair detectives are even taking their interest in the case a step further by creating YouTube reenactments of the crime.

“[The videos] help us know that people don’t know [the true details], because the facts haven’t been released,” Holeman says. “People watch the news and think they are picking up on things, but it’s false. Nothing out there is accurate, which only leads to more false tips.”

Why Police Have Not Released Details on the Murders of Libby German and Abby Williams from Delphi, Indiana

Since the 2017 murder of Indiana teens Libby German and Abby Williams, local authorities have not released any information about the cause or time of death of either victim, leading to rumors and speculation. We spoke with Indiana State Police First Sgt. Jerry Holeman about why the police are...

www.aetv.com

 

[tlcya]

RS&BBM,

I agree. Time to stick a spork into the "super secret" hearing that Gibson did not know about conspiracy. Gibson knew, at the latest, that RA was heading into court on the 28th which the Defence filing itself clearly indicates at page 4 of reference:

View attachment 560781

If, and that's a HUGE if, Gibson was in fact representing RA on the 28th, there's zero excuse for him not being present - he was clearly in town - after taking 5K off them as a "retainer" (and not the documented Pre-Arrest Representation receipt) or at least having one of his firm partners there in his stead.

and his own comments to KA indicated Gibson KNEW that RA would be charged tomorrow (the 28th)

IC 35-33-7-4 Arrest under warrant; jurisdiction; time of initial hearing
Sec. 4. A person arrested in accordance with the provisions of a warrant shall be taken promptly for an initial hearing before the court issuing the warrant or before a judicial officer having jurisdiction over the defendant.
Indiana General Assembly

Gibson knew Allen was arrested and held in custody under a fictitious name on the 27. He visited him at the jail that evening. He emailed KA to tell her he would not be able to get RA out of jail as he was being charged with murder tomorrow (28th) and murder is not a bondable offense in Indiana.

I.C. 35-33-8-2 Murder is not bailable when the proof is evident or the presumption is strong. In all other cases, offenses are bailable.

But for me, Megnut made the best point so far today. Where is Mr. Gibson's sworn affidavit stating a. he was going to be representing RA on the murder charges and b. that he was not informed of where and when the arraignment would occur and that is the reason he was not in attendance? Also telling to me that defense counsel only asked him two questions when preparing for this MTCE. They and Gibson's responses were as follows:


what is not asked and which would seem most obvious to ask is the following:

Who made you aware that RA was being charged with Murder?

Did that individual make you aware that an arraignment was scheduled for October 28th for those charges?

Neither was asked. I believe there is a very specific reason they weren't. The answers would not support the narrative being presented in the MTCE

as always My own opinion.

 

[Emma Peel]

FWIW, I never called it anthing except "a receipt".

FWIW, it's a long way since 27 October. Funny thing is that no copy of any "emergent representation or full retainer agreement" is attached as an exhibit. Nor are any of the monthly 'billings' detailing services rendered during the 30 day cycle (in the past 3 months thay've had). IE: it's missing any "normal stuff of the trade" which would clearly carry more weight than an official document which clearly labels the payment as being for "Pre-arrest Representation" (with zero notation from Gibson nor the defense that it may be labelled incorrectly in their filing).

IMO.

Respectfully, I'm not following:

Counsel-client correspondence, including engagement and billing documents are privileged. Why break privilege? IMO, the receipt and Kathy's affidavit are more than adequate to confirm Allen had engaged private counsel and McLeland and Leanzeby knew this on October 27th.

What would be Attny Gibson, Attny Rozzi, and/or Kathy's motive to misrepresent Gibson's engagement date? How would that help to motion #1?

sbm - #1 Motion header regarding Safekeeping from the MTCE
2025_MTCE.pdf

1. In violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, Mr. Allen was deprived
of counsel at the safekeeping “proceeding” of November 3, 2022; that
“proceeding” was a critical stage at which Mr. Allen was entitled to be
represented by counsel; and, under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984),
and its progeny, the Court must presume Mr. Allen was prejudiced by being
unrepresented during that proceeding.

The receipt and other exhibits together confirm Allen retained counsel as of 10/27 and the State had that knowledge on 10/27. The motion's narrative describes McCleland contacting Gibson 10/27 to assist Gibson with a Oct 27th personal visit w/ RA (under alias) in jail.

JMHO

 

[tlcya]

It is clear that KA paid Gibson a retainer and that he visited RA on the evening of October 27 and advised/counseled him. What is NOT clear to many of us is did Gibson know about the hearing? If so, why did he not attend? If not, why not?

Defense has provided emails and a receipt for the retainer as exhibits to attempt to illustrate Gibson was retained to represent RA for the murder charges and was willfully left out of a secret hearing. What I think bothers many of us is they haven't provided an affidavit from Gibson stating yes, I was indeed RA's counsel for the murder charges, and NO I was not informed of the hearing. Instead we are meant to INFER it. WHY?

Defense clearly know how to reach Gibson, hence their emailed two questions posed to him and answered. and yet they haven't produced something as simple as a sworn affidavit from him? There is a reason for that. See Rozzi's sworn affidavit Ex 1C which states:


It says I've tried to get an affidavit which says what is said in his email with me where I asked him the two questions but haven't been able to get one. Rozzi doesn't suggest in his own affidavit that he ever even contemplated requesting an affidavit from Gibson swearing that Gibson was not informed of the hearing of the 28th. And I don't think it's because attorney Gibson has refused to provide an affidavit IMO, it is because his affidavit would NOT say what the defense wants it to. JMO attorney Gibson is not going to perjure himself. Period.

Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if attorney Gibson makes a statement soon about how his role in this case has been misrepresented, much like the defense misrepresented Todd Click's stance "Secondly, no one in law enforcement believes Abby and Libby were killed in a ritual sacrifice. That is the defense twisting facts" (see Murder Sheet podcast)

 

[FromGermany1]

Is it usual, that an inmate (alleged double murderer) is hold on an alias in prison and not even staff knows, that he is in their care? What was feared in case R. Allen? Liberation of prisoners? Bomb attack?

 

[FrostedGlass]

It changes nothing - for some it’s evidence of "tentacles" as some like to put it. It’s simply more meat in place of what’s actually a simple story.

JMO

That "tentacles" thing came from Carter and it seems to have just caught on. In the end, it's simply a case of a lustful, drunk little man out to sexually molest two teens and things go south. Nothing complex at all about that. IMO

November 17, 2022
“This case is unlike any that I’ve seen in an almost 40-year career,” Superintendent Carter tells WIBC’s Hammer & Nigel, “there are so many different tentacles to this. It’s very complex.”

ISP superintendent talks about Delphi murder suspect, "police sources" - 95.3 MNC

Richard Allen, Kegan Kline, public documents and “police sources” – Superintendent Doug Carter with Indiana State Police covered it all when discussing the 2017 Delphi murders investigation Tuesday. “This case is unlike any that I’ve seen in an almost 40-year career,” Superintendent Carter tells...

www.953mnc.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

I was looking for something when I came across this quote below. This article also contains a copy of the Nov. 3,2023 Court Order for Safe Keeping.
[snip]
"Allen was arrested October 26 at the Indiana State Police Post in Lafayette, one week after investigators searched his home outside Delphi for evidence linking him to the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German below the Monon High Bridge along the banks of Deer Creek on Feb. 13, 2017.

Two days later, Allen’s initial hearing was held behind closed doors without public notice."

Judge approves state protective custody for Delphi suspect citing ‘public’s blood lust’

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — Utilizing phrases such as, “blood lust,” “toxic,” and, “imminent danger,” Carroll County Circuit Judge Benjamin Diener ordered the Carroll County Sheriff to hand over custody…

fox59.com

 

[Emma Peel]

I was looking for something when I came across this quote below. This article also contains a copy of the Nov. 3,2023 Court Order for Safe Keeping.
[snip]
"Allen was arrested October 26 at the Indiana State Police Post in Lafayette, one week after investigators searched his home outside Delphi for evidence linking him to the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German below the Monon High Bridge along the banks of Deer Creek on Feb. 13, 2017.

Two days later, Allen’s initial hearing was held behind closed doors without public notice."

Judge approves state protective custody for Delphi suspect citing ‘public’s blood lust’

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — Utilizing phrases such as, “blood lust,” “toxic,” and, “imminent danger,” Carroll County Circuit Judge Benjamin Diener ordered the Carroll County Sheriff to hand over custody…

fox59.com

merci.
from the article you've linked:

(where the Court grants the State's safekeeping motion exparte.) JMHO

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — Utilizing phrases such as, “blood lust,” “toxic,” and, “imminent danger,” Carroll County Circuit Judge Benjamin Diener ordered the Carroll County Sheriff to hand over custody of accused Delphi killer Richard Allen to the Indiana Department of Correction for his own safety.

“The Court…FINDS the Defendant…is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others,” Diener wrote in an order that was posted this morning, referring to, “a toxic and harmful insistence on ‘public information’ about Defendant and this case.”

“The public’s blood lust for information, before it exists, is extremely dangerous. ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS administering this action do not feel safe and are not protected,” the order states.


Delphi murder suspect once processed photos for victim’s family for free, grandmother says
The same day Diener made this order, the judge recused himself from the case.

IIRC,
Sealing the PCA away from the public may have contributed just a bit to the "toxic insistence on 'public information'". JMHO

 

[INfisherman]

I do not agree at all.

I think I would want to be sure. I have only commented that Richard Allen might not be guilty in this particular case, not in other cases with other defendants. Maybe in the future some more evidence will come out that will change my mind.

I would hope that any jury member would stand by what they think during a deliberation based on how each of them interprets the evidence. I do not think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt Richard Allen is the killer. Richard Allen might be the murderer, but they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I might have gone along with a guilty verdict once the van information and testimony was offered at trial. I would not be happy when I found out later there was video surveillance evidence showing the van arrived later than when the prosecution said the phone stopped moving and was found underneath Abigail Williams body.

That’s fine with me, we don’t have to agree.

I understand you weren’t speaking of other cases or other defendants & I believe you overlook or miss my point. I was applying your assertions about doubting guilt to juries & verdicts in other murder trials. Is that not reasonable based on what you’re implying with this murder case? You mention several times that what a known liar says or confesses as having great importance on your reasons for doubting guilt. Why do the words of a known liar carry such weight? Is that very reasonable? It doesn’t seem to be to me, but at the same time I suppose that makes neither of us right or wrong & just consider those questions as rhetorical as it serves no purpose to answer them since you’ve made your opinion clear after much discussion.

I disagree with your theories lacking evidence or credible testimony & feel the state presented enough of both to show RA was the only man there & was the person who committed the murders. The defense with their "new evidence" which they pulled from the pile of discovery only bolsters that BW arrived home "around 2:30" and by their own words, no other vehicles seen for quite some time before or after the van entering the frame. Also no muddy or bloody guys seen in that footage, which is around the SE area where evidently there could have been half the Odinists &/or meth drug kingpins in Carroll county lying in wait, like RA was at the other end. 12 minutes does nothing to change RAs whereabouts or deeds. The phone movement is not indicative of an exact time of death nor was it ever presented as such at trial. As I recall it was around the time the girls were killed as NM was careful not to give a specific choreography of how the events or murders specifically played out after DTH.

Doesn’t matter - the legal arguments are over, the verdict was decided & the convicted murderer is where he belongs & will likely remain.

Take care.

 

[INfisherman]

That "tentacles" thing came from Carter and it seems to have just caught on. In the end, it's simply a case of a lustful, drunk little man out to sexually molest two teens and things go south. Nothing complex at all about that. IMO

November 17, 2022
“This case is unlike any that I’ve seen in an almost 40-year career,” Superintendent Carter tells WIBC’s Hammer & Nigel, “there are so many different tentacles to this. It’s very complex.”

ISP superintendent talks about Delphi murder suspect, "police sources" - 95.3 MNC

Richard Allen, Kegan Kline, public documents and “police sources” – Superintendent Doug Carter with Indiana State Police covered it all when discussing the 2017 Delphi murders investigation Tuesday. “This case is unlike any that I’ve seen in an almost 40-year career,” Superintendent Carter tells...

www.953mnc.com

I’m very well aware of that. "He started it" type of excuses does little to draw my attention to considering what users of such words have to say. Comes off as sour grapes. Drop the constant jabbing at people & talk like an adult & maybe more people will take those folks a little more seriously. Then again, it’s hard to take anyone too seriously who jumps all over things the 3 clowns present as evidence related to this trial, particularly years after having received it in discovery or not even approaching it in the trial.

MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I’m very well aware of that. "He started it" type of excuses does little to draw my attention to considering what users of such words have to say. Comes off as sour grapes. Drop the constant jabbing at people & talk like an adult & maybe more people will take those folks a little more seriously. Then again, it’s hard to take anyone too seriously who jumps all over things the 3 clowns present as evidence related to this trial, particularly years after having received it in discovery or not even approaching it in the trial.

MOO

Sorry, I didn't know you knew where it came from. Ack! my time wasted looking up where the "tentacles" came from.

I totally agree with the constant jabbing thing. 3 clowns... sigh...

 

[INfisherman]

Sorry, I didn't know you knew where it came from. Ack! my time wasted looking up where the "tentacles" came from.

I totally agree with the constant jabbing thing. 3 clowns... sigh...

Yeah, a bit hypocritical of me wasn’t it? I will admit to that, if it’s worth a hoot.

Still doesn’t change my opinion of them, sorry. I wish I could do it but won’t happen until they change their tactics & with whom they choose to associate & how they show their appreciation towards their folks behind the scenes.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

It is clear that KA paid Gibson a retainer and that he visited RA on the evening of October 27 and advised/counseled him. What is NOT clear to many of us is did Gibson know about the hearing? If so, why did he not attend? If not, why not?

Defense has provided emails and a receipt for the retainer as exhibits to attempt to illustrate Gibson was retained to represent RA for the murder charges and was willfully left out of a secret hearing. What I think bothers many of us is they haven't provided an affidavit from Gibson stating yes, I was indeed RA's counsel for the murder charges, and NO I was not informed of the hearing. Instead we are meant to INFER it. WHY?

Defense clearly know how to reach Gibson, hence their emailed two questions posed to him and answered. and yet they haven't produced something as simple as a sworn affidavit from him? There is a reason for that. See Rozzi's sworn affidavit Ex 1C which states:

View attachment 560794
It says I've tried to get an affidavit which says what is said in his email with me where I asked him the two questions but haven't been able to get one. Rozzi doesn't suggest in his own affidavit that he ever even contemplated requesting an affidavit from Gibson swearing that Gibson was not informed of the hearing of the 28th. And I don't think it's because attorney Gibson has refused to provide an affidavit IMO, it is because his affidavit would NOT say what the defense wants it to. JMO attorney Gibson is not going to perjure himself. Period.

Frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if attorney Gibson makes a statement soon about how his role in this case has been misrepresented, much like the defense misrepresented Todd Click's stance "Secondly, no one in law enforcement believes Abby and Libby were killed in a ritual sacrifice. That is the defense twisting facts" (see Murder Sheet podcast)

In the Motion #1, RA argues Defendants' right to be heard with regard to a safekeeping decision.
Why would his right be different if Defendant has a private attorney ... or not?

How is the information you feel is missing even relevant to the Motion re Safekeeping?

JMHO

 

[flashy09]

I do not agree at all.

I think I would want to be sure. I have only commented that Richard Allen might not be guilty in this particular case, not in other cases with other defendants. Maybe in the future some more evidence will come out that will change my mind.

I would hope that any jury member would stand by what they think during a deliberation based on how each of them interprets the evidence. I do not think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt Richard Allen is the killer. Richard Allen might be the murderer, but they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I might have gone along with a guilty verdict once the van information and testimony was offered at trial. I would not be happy when I found out later there was video surveillance evidence showing the van arrived later than when the prosecution said the phone stopped moving and was found underneath Abigail Williams body.

If the video shows the van came after the phone was across the creek and dormant I don't think that means much at all in terms of RA guilt.
To me, it shows he was trying to use the van as the reason he forced the girls across the creek to privacy and killed them - because he is ashamed to admit certain cold blooded things to his loved ones. The van never made sense as the reason for murder. No rape, have to kill, but if raped they could go?
He saw the van, it probably did make him nervous, and it makes a great "scapecoat" for his actions. Not able to rape (which may be a frustration to him) = van fault. Killing girls = van fault.

 

[INfisherman]

If the video shows the van came after the phone was across the creek and dormant I don't think that means much at all in terms of RA guilt.
To me, it shows he was trying to use the van as the reason he forced the girls across the creek to privacy and killed them - because he is ashamed to admit certain cold blooded things to his loved ones. The van never made sense as the reason for murder. No rape, have to kill, but if raped they could go?
He saw the van, it probably did make him nervous, and it makes a great "scapecoat" for his actions. Not able to rape (which may be a frustration to him) = van fault. Killing girls = van fault.

Yeah, that does minimize his intentions & things he’s kept hidden. Mixture of lies & truth.

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Has nothing been learned. This is just like the Franks Motion(s), the prison POW memorandum, every other document and motion filed by this defense team, that contains lies and misleading information. Half truths and left out information along with footnotes filled with lies. How can anyone at this point believe anything, including this most recent laugher just put out. Are we to believe suddenly they have changed their ways?
I don’t understand people who defend the latest drivel from the defense and try to excuse it by adding that they believe RA is “guilty or at least involved”. My question would be then, why are some folks encouraging the defense team to attempt to free a convicted child murderer that they profess to believe is “guilty or at least involved”. Are they OK with this guy who they admit is guilty, but is freed by defense shenanigans, living on their street?
The inability to recognize and admit the shameful behavior of the defense team, I will never understand.
I thought it was over.

Still my opinion