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

[MassGuy]

So that erroneous information/testimony means nothing to you? The van information was CRITICAL to the jury, per the juror who has spoken out. With that off the table, would they have come to the same verdict?

IMO MOO

I hope they would have come to the same verdict with that off the table. I found numerous other things to be of far greater importance. As far as his confessions go, I put a lot more weight in his explanation for how this all came to be (as opposed to why he claimed to have been distracted at a particular moment in time).

Ignoring all the other evidence/interviews/timeline stuff.

 

[TTF14]

I hope they would have come to the same verdict with that off the table. I found numerous other things to be of far greater importance. As far as his confessions go, I put a lot more weight in his explanation for how this all came to be (as opposed to why he claimed to have been distracted at a particular moment in time).

Ignoring all the other evidence/interviews/timeline stuff.

How about the new information about RL's alleged detailed confession? He even included "box cutter" in his May 2017 alleged confession to an inmate.

Still doesn't matter?

MTCE - Google Drive

drive.google.com

IMO MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Defense filings from January 20, 2025.
Emptied their desk drawers of miscellaneous worthless trash. Instead of throwing it in the garbage can, they decided to file it to the court. Typical for them.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1319313758144823364/1331261349900189727/2025120_Motion_to_Correct_Errorspdf.pdf?ex=6790f93f&is=678fa7bf&hm=95de97b97582de47f6b704cf2585eac4ede0e673bc2e68a7225173f3b0c5b462&

 

[TTF14]

Defense filings from January 20, 2025.
Emptied their desk drawers of miscellaneous worthless trash. Instead of throwing it in the garbage can, they decided to file it to the court. Typical for them.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1319313758144823364/1331261349900189727/2025120_Motion_to_Correct_Errorspdf.pdf?ex=6790f93f&is=678fa7bf&hm=95de97b97582de47f6b704cf2585eac4ede0e673bc2e68a7225173f3b0c5b462&

I couldn't disagree more strongly. There is a lot of MEAT in here. Infuriating, exculpatory MEAT.

Now's the time to take the blinders off.

IMO MOO

 

[tlcya]

It would have been so much easier and much less expensive in time, energy and money, to simply hang this on RL. I fail to understand why investigators and the prosecution would work so hard to send RA to prison if any one of them believed it was actually RL who murdered the girls. He is conveniently dead so we are to believe some johnny come lately incarcerated criminal when he says that RL confessed to killing the girls with a boxcutter? GMAFB. If authorities could have hung the murders on a dead guy that would require no prosecution and result in a nice tidy closed case file they would have. They couldn't because RL didn't do it. RA did.

LE investigated RL hard. They could never put him there, in fact an alibi corroborating his absence from the area was pretty dang solid.

ETA I absolutely agree that it is way past time for some to remove their blinders. I just think we all disagree on who is wearing them and why.

 

[TTF14]

It would have been so much easier and much less expensive in time, energy and money, to simply hang this on RL. I fail to understand why investigators and the prosecution would work so hard to send RA to prison if any one of them believed it was actually RL who murdered the girls. He is conveniently dead so we are to believe some johnny come lately incarcerated criminal when he says that RL confessed to killing the girls with a boxcutter? GMAFB. If authorities could have hung the murders on a dead guy that would require no prosecution and result in a nice tidy closed case file they would have. They couldn't because RL didn't do it. RA did.

LE investigated RL hard. They could never put him there, in fact an alibi corroborating his absence from the area was pretty dang solid.

ETA I absolutely agree that it is way past time for some to remove their blinders. I just think we all disagree on who is wearing them and why.

I have a LOT of trouble believing RL did this....I'm with you there. However, is it even the point? The jury is supposed to be the decider of the facts and they were not allowed to hear about this and many other exculpatory/third party stuff. That is the point here.

As always, JMO.

 

[MassGuy]

How about the new information about RL's alleged detailed confession? He even included "box cutter" in his May 2017 alleged confession to an inmate.

Still doesn't matter?

MTCE - Google Drive

drive.google.com

IMO MOO

Found what you were referring to. No, absolutely not. The evidence does not fit RL, although they did everything they could to investigate him.

Fortunately, Allen put himself on that bridge, and the rest is history.

 

[tlcya]

I have a LOT of trouble believing RL did this....I'm with you there. However, is it even the point? The jury is supposed to be the decider of the facts and they were not allowed to hear about this and many other exculpatory/third party stuff. That is the point here.

As always, JMO.

the jury gets to hear what is allowed and considered probative. A judge makes those determinations. That has always been the case and it didn't become effective just to mess with or frame RA.

Why should a jury get to hear a man who was incarcerated with another now dead individual discuss hearsay about what he CLAIMS that dead man said, even though LE investigated that dead man and no matter how hard they tried, they could not put him where RA placed himself? What exactly is probative about that?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Defense filings from January 20, 2025.
Emptied their desk drawers of miscellaneous worthless trash. Instead of throwing it in the garbage can, they decided to file it to the court. Typical for them.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1319313758144823364/1331261349900189727/2025120_Motion_to_Correct_Errorspdf.pdf?ex=6790f93f&is=678fa7bf&hm=95de97b97582de47f6b704cf2585eac4ede0e673bc2e68a7225173f3b0c5b462&

They are still so unprofessional and grasping at straws that it's laughable, or would be, if it weren't so sad for Abby and Libby. At least the D will always be predictable and unethical if nothing else.

If Allen had been Officially Legally represented during the original safekeeping order and his move to White and then Westville, why wasn't that immediately addressed by Gibson, the 'supposed' Attorney himself???? Or Rozzi and Baldwin when they first came on board? WTH

I suggest they listen to TMS podcast with TL, especially the part where he describes the actual physical setup of the Caroll County Jail (only 34 beds) and how they could not separate RA and didn't have the resources to safeguard him from himself and others. I'll link it here at the 1:10 mark:

The Delphi Murders: First Person: Sheriff Tony Liggett

JMO

 

[TTF14]

the jury gets to hear what is allowed and considered probative. A judge makes those determinations. That has always been the case and it didn't become effective just to mess with or frame RA.

Why should a jury get to hear a man who was incarcerated with another now dead individual discuss hearsay about what he CLAIMS that dead man said, even though LE investigated that dead man and no matter how hard they tried, they could not put him where RA placed himself? What exactly is probative about that?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the whole timeline the State pushed is out the window since the "only thing the killer would know" (the van) wasn't even true. So, probative schmobative!

Can we at least all agree on the notion that we want to actually know the ACTUAL timeline of events?

As always, IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Nothing “hinged” on BW arriving home when he said he he did. I’ve always found that dubious, so it didn’t factor in to my belief that Allen is guilty.

It’s the timeline before that, and everything else.

Yeah, check out page 10 and 11 of their latest Motion to Correct Errors. Linked just above by @StarryStarryNight.

 

[Vern]

I think it's wonderful that opinions are neither "evidence" nor are they "facts'.

And they ain't getting RA off that bridge either. Time to toss away the key.

IMO.

 

[tlcya]

if a video camera can be set at the wrong time (am vs pm) as posited by the defense in their motion linked above, it can be wrong by a few minutes as well. The recording system relies upon humans inputting information upon setup, hence it was set up with time stamp showing 12 am rather than 12 pm by a human. Who could also set the time inaccurately by a matter of a few minutes if say they looked at their watch that was running fast or slow. Thereby setting the time stamp for a time that was off by a few minutes from the actual time, even accounting for the 12 hour difference. Or, perhaps the person responsible for setting up the camera didn't set it for any time at all and the camera is defaulted in that circumstance to simply begin with a 12 am timestamp upon beginning for the first time if no other time is selected.

IMO that is not a fatal error or even one that requires correction. Their client said he was interrupted by a van. The prosecution presented that evidence a van indeed pulled down the road at around the time RA claimed one did. This is not a timeline issue JMO the defense wants to say the video timestamp being off by a couple of minutes is a reason for appeal but seems to have no problem with the fact that the timestamp was actually off by 12 HOURS and a couple of minutes. Got it.

 

[TTF14]

if a video camera can be set at the wrong time (pm vs am) as posited by the defense in their motion linked above, it can be wrong by a few minutes as well. The recording system relies upon humans inputting information upon setup, hence it was set up with time stamp showing 12 am rather than 12 pm by a human. Who could also set the time inaccurately by a matter of a few minutes if say they looked at their watch that was running fast or slow. Thereby setting the time stamp for a time that was off by a few minutes from the actual time, even accounting for the 12 hour difference. Or, perhaps the person responsible for setting up the camera didn't set it for any time at all and the camera is defaulted in that circumstance to simply begin with a 12 am timestamp upon beginning for the first time if no other time is selected.

IMO that is not a fatal error or even one that requires correction. Their client said he was interrupted by a van. The prosecution presented that evidence a van indeed pulled down the road at around the time RA claimed one did. This is not a timeline issue JMO the defense wants to say the video timestamp being off by a couple of minutes is a reason for appeal but seems to have no problem with the fact that the timestamp was actually off by 12 HOURS and a couple of minutes. Got it.

In order for the State's timeline to see make any amount of sense, these types of excuses are what have to be the case. If not, then what?

As always, JMO.

 

[Vern]

Nothing “hinged” on BW arriving home when he said he he did. I’ve always found that dubious, so it didn’t factor in to my belief that Allen is guilty.

It’s the timeline before that, and everything else.

Right. BW testified that he arrive home "about 2:30pm" ... and the defense documents even acknowledge that.

The State also introduced the testimony of Brad Weber that he left work at the Subaru factory in Lafayette, Indiana, at 2:02 p.m. on February 13, 2017, and arrived home in his white cargo van at “about 2:30 p.m.”

LMAO. You know what 2:44pm is? It's just a little after "about 2:30pm" and it's AFTER the girls had already been kidnapped off the bridge and marched down the hill.



I guess this all is just more to prove that they still can't get this despicable murderer off the bridge and that he's locked up exactly where he belongs. Wonder where all the apologies are to BW from those claiming him to be a viable suspect or who have done so in the past --- the defense has actually just reinforced the fact that BW is ruled OUT. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to pipe up an apology on this matter as they've shown to be utterly incapable of such a thing.

Just another document of same old, same old. Nothing to see there.

_Defendant's Motion for Hearing on Motion to Correct Error.pdf

drive.google.com

EDIT: @Niner -- tagging you due to the linked appeal document attached.

All 20/01/2025

_Motion to Preserve Specific Evidence.pdf

drive.google.com

_Motion to Correct Abstract of Judgment.pdf

drive.google.com

_Defendant's Verified Motion to Correct Error.pdf

drive.google.com

_Limited Appearance.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[tlcya]

The state's timeline IMO makes perfect sense. Witnesses put BG in the area at the key time for the girls to be abducted and sent down the hill. Video evidence puts BG on the bridge. RA puts himself on the bridge and confirms seeing the witnesses who saw him in the area.

RA states he heard/saw a van that startled him and caused him to abort whatever else he may have had planned for the girls. RA confessed multiple times to killing the girls. RA's gun matches the rifling on the bullet found between the bodies.

I don't need the state's timeline to be perfect. Apparently the jury, didn't either. A jury who saw and heard evidence every single day for weeks found that evidence sufficient to unanimously determine Richard Allen is guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

#justicedelayedwasnotjusticedenied

 

[Vern]

I hope they would have come to the same verdict with that off the table. I found numerous other things to be of far greater importance. As far as his confessions go, I put a lot more weight in his explanation for how this all came to be (as opposed to why he claimed to have been distracted at a particular moment in time).

Ignoring all the other evidence/interviews/timeline stuff.

Why is it "Off the table"??

BW still came home in a white van which RA was self-admittedly interrupted by. Just changes the place he was with the girls when it passed by.

It sure doesn't change the fact that it happened.

 

[tlcya]

In order to believe RA is innocent one must believe that LE, the state, forensics personnel, prison personnel, state experts and other witnesses lied, and oh yeah the audiotapes containing the voice of RA confessing multiple times should not be believed because - poor little Ricky.

My brain would be exhausted by such mental gymnastics. JMO

 

[Boxer]

Hypothetically speaking:

The State's case/timeline/narrative hinged on Brad Weber's van "interrupting" Richard Allen in his "SA attempt."

This, of course, was not true (in my opinion) and the FBI agent was going to testify that Brad Weber told him differently, in my opinion. Nick McLeland KNEW this (in my opinion) and said he would not agree to the FBI agent testifying to this remotely (despite a life-threatening medical condition making flying dangersou), right there in the year 2024 when that would be oh so easy.

Why'd he say no? Because he would have lost the case and we can't have that! (In my opinion)

So, hypothetically, if it's true (like many of us already believed) that Brad Weber did NOT get home until later, making the State's theory of RA rushing the girls across the creek (LOL) so BW wouldn't see them moot, should RA's conviction be overturned?

Why or why not?

What will the State say in response to this? What could they possibly say to make it right that they appear to have covered up exculpatory evidence (in my opinion)?

As always, MOO, IMO, but here's some documentation: MTCE - Google Drive



But here:

The timeline even without the van is completely convincing proof.
RA tried to change the time he was on the trail. He tried to change it to an earlier time but ended up saying he was on the trail when the same witnesses that saw him near Freedom Bridge (the girls) were making the loop to MHB on the trail, as well as others, and none of them saw RA on trail that earlier time.
Big lie, showing consciousness of guilt.

 

[MassGuy]

Why is it "Off the table"??

BW still came home in a white van which RA was self-admittedly interrupted by. Just changes the place he was with the girls when it passed by.

It sure doesn't change the fact that it happened.

No. I saying if it was off the table, I hope they’d reach the same verdict. Not that it was.

Something doesn’t become false just because the defense claims it is.