GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #219

[mrjitty]

They briefly searched his property; did they even look for evidence after that? He changed his story a couple of times, he lived close to the murder scene, his gun couldn't be ruled out.

I admit I'm confused when it comes to nexus.

It’s worth reading the Indiana case law on nexus. You need some concrete evidence linking the person to the murders. It’s the same issue as with RL. Aside from being the local property owners there is no evidence against either man.

With KAK you have a better argument due to the cat fishing and his admission to police that his dad did it. But the other two guys you have nothing.

It’s my opinion that the defence promoted a misunderstanding of the law here. That speculation could form a nexus.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

MOO
If he was home but can't prove it, that doesn't mean he's guilty. According to court docs, the car believed to be his parked at the old CPS building was not seen after ~2:15. BB claimed to have seen a totally different vehicle there. If his car wasn't there, it's likely that he wasn't either.

I don't recall BB making that statement about RA's car not being parked there after 2:15. I do remember people saying they saw a car parked there, (even phoned in tips) unusually backed in at the furthest location of the building, which stuck out to them when it was relatively empty at the time.

Do you have a link for that, I could have missed it?

moo

 

[FrostedGlass]

It’s worth reading the Indiana case law on nexus. You need some concrete evidence linking the person to the murders. It’s the same issue as with RL. Aside from being the local property owners there is no evidence against either man.

With KAK you have a better argument due to the cat fishing and his admission to police that his dad did it. But the other two guys you have nothing.

It’s my opinion that the defence promoted a misunderstanding of the law here. That speculation could form a nexus.

MOO

I'm still confused. If they had concrete evidence that linked the person to the murders, surely that "nexus" person would have been arrested. I'll go study.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I don't recall BB making that statement about RA's car not being parked there after 2:15. I do remember people saying they saw a car parked there, (even phoned in tips) unusually backed in at the furthest location of the building, which stuck out to them when it was relatively empty at the time.

Do you have a link for that, I could have missed it?

moo

I can dig up the link but to jog your memory... she saw an old one that looked like her dad's car.

ETA: so i jogged my own memory and the last known sighting of a car resembling at the CPS building was at 2:28 pm. The PCA did not give a description by BB. In court, she had problems remembering what she said in 2019 so the D refreshed her memory: "Baldwin handed Blair a statement she made on April 2, 2019. In the statement, she says the car could not have been black.
Blair said she only saw the side of the car and couldn’t tell if it was a hatchback, adding that she even drew the profile of the car for police.
The jury was then shown a defense exhibit — Blair’s drawing of the car.
Prosecutor Stacey Diener said she told Blair that a similar vehicle had been seen around the same time, parked off the road and asked Blair if that changed her recollection. Blair said that she felt certain about the car she saw."

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/08C01-2210-MR-000001.pdf

Delphi Murders trial: Day 16 live blog

Day 16 in the trial of Delphi Murders suspect Richard Allen begins Tuesday at the Carroll County Courthouse in Delphi. Follow our live blog for the latest updates.

wishtv.com

 

[Vern]

MOO
If he was home but can't prove it, that doesn't mean he's guilty. According to court docs, the car believed to be his parked at the old CPS building was not seen after ~2:15. BB claimed to have seen a totally different vehicle there. If his car wasn't there, it's likely that he wasn't either.

If he was home?

He wasn't home. He was at the bridge from 1330-1530 just like he told the CO.

Changed his time? Sure did, after he found out that he was recorded.

The kicker for me, was when we found out that he also lied to his wife about that day. He WAS on the bridge (not "at home", but can't prove it) because we also have additional evidence to that particular fact of him being on the trails (vice just the CO's notes) when he told his wife he was on the trails walking that day and then his wife states, on the interrogation tape, "but Richard, you told me you didn't go onto the bridge that day."

He's a liar. He's guilty.

He wasn't at home and just can't prove it.

He's exactly where he needs to be.

"Pro-justice" has been served. IMO.

 

[sunshineray]

I'm addressing this remark: "prove RA's innocence." For me, innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven. The prosecution failed. I think the verdict would have been different if the judge had not cleared the path to RA. She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?" MOO

The judge "cleared the path to RA"? How? By making sure things that had no nexus of relevant facts were kept out? You can't just willy nilly say, we think Joe Blow did it but we can't prove it. Those kind of things would not be, under the law, admissible. MO

 

[sunshineray]

I'm still confused. If they had concrete evidence that linked the person to the murders, surely that "nexus" person would have been arrested. I'll go study.

They were arrested and convicted. That person is RA.

 

[FrostedGlass]

If he was home?

He wasn't home. He was at the bridge from 1330-1530 just like he told the CO.

Changed his time? Sure did, after he found out that he was recorded.

The kicker for me, was when we found out that he also lied to his wife about that day. He WAS on the bridge (not "at home", but can't prove it) because we also have additional evidence to that particular fact of him being on the trails (vice just the CO's notes) when he told his wife he was on the trails walking that day and then his wife states, on the interrogation tape, "but Richard, you told me you didn't go onto the bridge that day."

He's a liar. He's guilty.

He wasn't at home and just can't prove it.

He's exactly where he needs to be.

"Pro-justice" has been served. IMO.

Considering how many of Nick's witnesses either changed their original statements or had memory lapses, I feel like I should give RA's statements some leeway, too. He might have been drunk when he was interviewed by DD. It sure would have been nice if DD had recorded that interview so there would be no doubt in my mind.

I missed the KA statement portion of the interrogation tape. I didn't know she calls him "Richard."

 

[Boxer]

Considering how many of Nick's witnesses either changed their original statements or had memory lapses, I feel like I should give RA's statements some leeway, too. He might have been drunk when he was interviewed by DD. It sure would have been nice if DD had recorded that interview so there would be no doubt in my mind.

I missed the KA statement portion of the interrogation tape. I didn't know she calls him "Richard."

Harvestore video.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Harvestore video.

No proof that it was him; no driver ID, no plate #, last car seen that resembled his at the CPS was 2:28 pm. AFAIK, it only passed by the cam. MOO

 

[Boxer]

No proof that it was him; no driver ID, no plate #, last car seen that resembled his at the CPS was 2:28 pm. AFAIK, it only passed by the cam. MOO

A car like his at the time he said got there, correlating to his own statement of passing the group of girls on trail is relevant.

 

[sunshineray]

Considering how many of Nick's witnesses either changed their original statements or had memory lapses, I feel like I should give RA's statements some leeway, too. He might have been drunk when he was interviewed by DD. It sure would have been nice if DD had recorded that interview so there would be no doubt in my mind.

I missed the KA statement portion of the interrogation tape. I didn't know she calls him "Richard."

So you think the CO wouldn't have mentioned something like that in their report, talking to an inebriated witness?

What would the significance to her calling him "Richard" instead of "Rick", "Ricky", "Honey" or "You"? Bottom line would be what she said, that he lied to her about being on the bridge that day, wouldn't it?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm addressing this remark: "prove RA's innocence." For me, innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven. The prosecution failed. I think the verdict would have been different if the judge had not cleared the path to RA. She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?" MOO

In a Court of Law RA was presumed innocent, an independent jury of his peers from another County who actually saw and heard the evidence found him Guilty, it really is that simple.

RA did it and hid in plain sight for 5+ years too many. His appeals will be automatic until they run out and he will fade back into obscurity where he belongs.

Good riddance RA...you left untold pain, heartache and grief in your wake. I hope you don't get a minute of true or blissful peace for the next 130 years.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm guessing he might not be the only one with ties to this case who have legal problems. TC's case is still pending and I'll consider him and any others innocent until proven guilty.
MOO

We aren't talking about others who might have legal problems, you specifically referenced the Click Report and we were speaking of TC and his credibility.

Notwithstanding the fact they couldn't place their other suspects in Delphi that day. No Nexus.

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I just want to make clear that I understand and believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
RA has already been proven guilty.
So when I ask for one fact that points to RA’s innocence, that is a valid question.
There is still no response.

 

[FrostedGlass]

So you think the CO wouldn't have mentioned something like that in their report, talking to an inebriated witness?

What would the significance to her calling him "Richard" instead of "Rick", "Ricky", "Honey" or "You"? Bottom line would be what she said, that he lied to her about being on the bridge that day, wouldn't it?

No everyone who has consumed a lot of alcohol acts drunk.

 

[Salah11]

Even after months and months, I still can not comprehend why anybody would support or find it acceptable to be able to drag somebody’s name through the mud in court when there is not a single bit of evidence supporting their involvement in such a crime.

Can anybody explain why this would be considered acceptable in simple terms as im obviously thick?

 

[Boxer]

No everyone who has consumed a lot of alcohol acts drunk.

So he was drunk when met Dan Dulin at the Save-a-Lot, and that explains his making up seeing a group of girls on the trail and standing on a MHB platform?

 

[Arkay]

I'm addressing this remark: "prove RA's innocence." For me, innocence is presumed and guilt must be proven. The prosecution failed. I think the verdict would have been different if the judge had not cleared the path to RA. She gave the jury no other chance to ask: "If it wasn't him, who else could it be?" MOO

I’m sorry, but I’m not following your logic.

IMO what you’re referencing is sort of the “before and after” of the trial.

Before the trial, yes according to our laws, RA was presumed innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Which, obviously, is what happened, so I’m not following your thought that the prosecution “failed.”

RA was entitled to a trial and a defense, which he received. The judge followed the law, the jury had its say, and he is guilty.

Of course the defense is going to want the appeal. That’s within RA’s rights and is a bonus to the defense team, in terms of publicity and payment.

JMO

I just want to make clear that I understand and believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
RA has already been proven guilty.
So when I ask for one fact that points to RA’s innocence, that is a valid question.
There is still no response.

Yep, same.

 

[FrostedGlass]

So he was drunk when met Dan Dulin at the Save-a-Lot, and that explains his making up seeing a group of girls on the trail and standing on a MHB platform?

MOO
I don't know if he was drunk or not. A lot of folks think he had a bad drinking problem so I was just throwing that out there as an idea.

He saw 3 females; one was tall and appeared to be the babysitter. He was on the platform but the time depends on which version is being considered. The man BB saw on the bridge in no way described RA.