Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - #154 *Richard Allen Arrested*

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've heard reference to a full 43 second unedited "Guys.... down the hill" clip. I know this is a longshot but has anyone heard it and can they share a link to it if so? TIA.

1667501299784.png


 
Just my thoughts, I can’t imagine how some in LE there are feeling after finding out their suspect was literally under their nose.

And now for towns folk to realize they to had brushes with him af cvs or bar/restaurant, shooting pool.

Jmo
I’m imagining being a parent who had daughters over at his house with his daughter. Yikes.
 
"The public's blood lust for information before it exists is extremely dangerous."
Shots fired at arm chair detectives and web sleuths.

There IS a PIO available to assist the Judge with media:

The Chief Public Information Officer (PIO) is​


https://www.in.gov/courts/supreme/files/order-supreme-broadcast-coverage.pdf

“The public is best served when accurate information about cases and court procedure is made readily available. The Supreme Court encourages press coverage of the judicial branch as an avenue for the general public to learn about the courts.
The Supreme Court's Office of Communication, Education and Outreach is responsible for:
  • Answering media questions and distributing press releases
  • Assisting trial court judges with media management on high-profile cases. “ (More ….)
And she already addressed the judge about this and told him to get his crap together basically. IMO
 
If RA is convicted of this, he would face a mandatory minimum sentence of 45 to 65 years for each offense as outlined in the Indiana Penal Code. Indiana does not appear to have different variants of murder (murder one, murder two, etc.) and from what I've read, the prosecution decides if they are seeking the death penalty and the jury recommends the sentence.

If a jury is going to recommend death, that verdict must be unanimous. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, then the judge imposes the sentence during the penalty phase. However, if the jury does not recommend death, then it's highly likely the judge would impose life without parole.

Judges used to be able to override the sentence the jury recommended but that was abolished in 2002 so like the Nikolas Cruz case in Florida, if the jury recommends LWOP, the judge cannot override it.

The three possible levels of sentence for a murder conviction in Indiana are:
  1. 45 to 65 years imprisonment and up to a $10,000 fine
  2. Life without parole
  3. Death
However, Indiana death row only currently has 8 people on death row and has not executed an inmate since 2009 so capital convictions are rare. A few of the criteria that allow a jury to consider a death sentence that might apply in this case are:
  • The murder was especially heinous, depraved or involved torture
  • The defendant committed the murder after lying in wait (i.e. - BG waiting for A&L on the bridge)
  • The offense was committed during the commission of or attempt of sexual assault or related crimes
 

Attachments

  • Indiana Penal Code.png
    Indiana Penal Code.png
    190.4 KB · Views: 6
No LE did not. Humans and internet did it. And we had horrible podcasters who IMHO were committable and should have not been anywhere near YouTube slapping “murderer” across people’s faces. These “public pois” managed to have a life later, kudos for them, but how was it at that time? Some lost a lot, position, prestige, families, got divorced. Maybe not everything they did was perfect, but these were human behaviors, and - they are not murderers.

But, LE said that no one was cleared yet. After all, they were right, given who it ended being, but after LE investigate and go to trial, they have to publicly clear everyone else. As it stands now, even their own policemen, even Delphi management, for lack of a better term, were constantly discussed by the public.

Guess what - these people who were so much discussed don’t look like RA at all. Some, oddly, slightly resemble one another. That photo of BG was really pixelated and did not represent anyone. You could truly slap any white guy on it and get your BG…

I disagree, I think too much is being made of persons “cleared”. It’s generally understood that when a person or persons are charged they become a suspect, the case proceeds to trial and the Court finds them innocent or guilty, case is closed and at that point everyone else who wasn’t charged becomes “cleared”. No announcement is necessary.

It’s been mentioned many times here that LE don’t have the power to “clear” anyone (ie. announce them to be Not Guilty). That’s the role of the legal system, the way I see it. JMO
 
I still wonder if RA being too helpful was something that turned LE's radar back to him as the investigation went on. There have been a number of cases before where the ultimate perp either attends vigils for the victims, passes out fliers, etc. or tries a number of means to stay close to the investigation or story.

Speculating but I wonder if he said something or a series of somethings that as LE learned more and started to discover more about the a_s profile, etc. they thought "hey that Allen guy said/did [X] a while go" and that strikes as an odd coincidence. All it takes with that is one crack and the floodgates open. I've read cases where perps have sunk themselves by being "very helpful" to LE.
I think the bar may have been a great place to hear the town’s gossip. And maybe get drunk, too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit to add: bar
 
So is it unusual that he still hasn’t got a lawyer?

I guess his family are frantically trying to get him one as it’s like he has that much control behind bars and shows money isn’t a issue. Moo
 
I've heard reference to a full 43 second unedited "Guys.... down the hill" clip. I know this is a longshot but has anyone heard it and can they share a link to it if so? TIA.

View attachment 377748

I believe only the victims close family have been allowed to hear it.
 
It's my opinion that this statement is absolutely fair and accurate.

Honestly, the most interesting part of the entire order, for me, exists in this very sentence: "The public's blood lust for information before it exists is extremely dangerous."
I wonder how much actually harassment he is getting and how much of it he is reading online.
If it's direct harrasment that is dangerous, then he should call the cops.
I think the fbi could take jurisdiction over a threat to a local/ state judge... at least the ones that occur online.

But you can't demonize the whole public. That's insanity IMO.

I think He's about to get a lot of blow back for this stunt from his own state government and colleagues.
 
Question for those in the US. How does getting a lawyer/attorney work over there? Here in the UK we have something called the cab-rank rule which means barristers (criminal lawyers) must take a case if they are available to do so and have the expertise required. They can't discriminate on their belief of guilt, the nature of the case etc.
 
So is it unusual that he still hasn’t got a lawyer?

I guess his family are frantically trying to get him one as it’s like he has that much control behind bars and shows money isn’t a issue. Moo
I'm surprised that he hasn't retained a lawyer and reading the wording on todays order, it looks like the court still thinks that RA is unrepresented.

I am worried about this case and about the safety of RA, his family, LE and court staff. I am starting to think that perhaps RA won't make it to trial.
 
According to that court document filed today, he hasn't.
I read that. He probably has not OFFICIALLY retained one. As I said, I believe he has had what might be called an unofficial "conversation" with a professional in the field of law by now even if he hasn't yet signed on the dotted line. This just an opinion
 
This x 1,000. Superb post.

The amount of nonsense I've listened to on this case from wannabes masquerading as true crime reporters exceeds any other case in recent memory. It's one thing to say OK this guy matches some of the things you'd think BG would be but so many would just make loose and shoddy connections and say "I know he did it!"

Thankfully many of these fools don't have much of an audience but I even heard true crime podcasts I respect give a few of the loons airtime to spout their absurd theories.

Gray Hughes is an example of one who never did and stuck to the facts and as much as I can only tolerate his live broadcasts so much because of the constant interruptions and going off track barking at trolls, his adherence to known evidence and factual information is second to none so the man has my respect. Good person who does it for the right reasons even if his show typically isn't my thing.

Gray Hughes has much improved since the beginning.

It is true, he has logic and many of his ideas are interesting, not to say, brilliant. For example, trying to gage the height of BG given the time (the height of the sun - the shadow) and simple geometry. He came very close.

Another good idea, when he tried to buy some satellite images of the area on that day to look at cars. Not his fault it did not work (I suspect RA went on feet), but criminology-wise, it was a good thought.

My main issue with him is how long his shows are. (Gray Hughes, no one can follow a show for 3 hours! Break it into two a day, more ads for you, perhaps. Also, trolls create free advertisement for you, in your shoes I’d feed your trolls, not bark at them).

Maybe Gray should take a second person who is also logical, but a little bit less boring? Someone with slightly better sense of humor. He and Ives could work well. Both have innate capacity not to say nonsense, it is a gift.

Wanted to add - Gray is not a freak, no matter how he defines himself. His shows are way less freakish than some ISP PCs, he formulates phrases well and unambiguously, and except for his interaction with his own followers, nothing else was ever off.
 
Last edited:
Question for those in the US. How does getting a lawyer/attorney work over there? Here in the UK we have something called the cab-rank rule which means barristers (criminal lawyers) must take a case if they are available to do so and have the expertise required. They can't discriminate on their belief of guilt, the nature of the case etc.
Actually, its not quite as you described. Defendants in the UK need a solicitor first. Usually, first contact is at the Police station where accredited lawyers (solicitors) are on hand to assist anyone who is questioned. The solicitors then instruct Barristers if specialist advice is required, or the matter goes before court and the solicitor does not have rights of higher audience. For example, a solicitor can represent a defendant in a magistrates court, but cannot defend a client in crown court unless they have rights of higher audience.
 
So is it unusual that he still hasn’t got a lawyer?

I guess his family are frantically trying to get him one as it’s like he has that much control behind bars and shows money isn’t a issue. Moo
Perhaps he is "proceeding pro se" a la Darrell Brooks.;)
 
This is not some dude who “disappeared” his wife, nor some pretty jealous gal. This accused is the person who kidnapped and killed two teenage girls, as the police says, barbarically. This group, pedophile killers, is so much despised, I doubt any of our famous ones would risk. This might totally kill the lawyer’s reputation.

Despite the barbaric nature of charges against a client, that doesn't stop defense attorneys from representing the accused. Yes, it could kill the lawyer's representation... or it could be career-making. Negative press is still press. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
603
Total visitors
780

Forum statistics

Threads
625,736
Messages
18,509,040
Members
240,841
Latest member
noahguy
Back
Top