IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #163

[Wallendo]

I think RA just felt confident talking to LE in October 22 because he had become complacent in literally getting away with murder for so long. Plus, getting an attorney would have raised more red flags and I believe he thought he could talk his way right out of things.

I don't see an insanity defense working here either. Unlike Stauch, where the State had to prove she was not insane, RA/Defense would have to prove his insanity.

He was able to maintain a long term family relationship, had a stable work history as a licensed Pharmacy Tech, had good social interaction skills according to customer and also people at a local bar where he frequented and played in pool tournaments.

Evil hiding in plain sight IMO.

JMO

<snipped>
Under Indian law, the rationale of insanity as a defence is incorporated in Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is based upon the “Mc’Naughten’s Rule.” The burden of proof is always on the defendant, and it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Law Commission of India in its 42nd report, made an effort to reanalyze Section 84, but no modifications were made.

Insanity as a defence under the Indian Penal Code.

Your references are to the law in India, not Indiana.

 

[TL4S]

And RA's wife works at a dog vet.

Exactly, and it makes me wonder if one of the "odd" elements to the CS was an unusual amount of various animal hair.

My vehicle always has dog hair in it, but my dog has never actually been inside, which means the hair is getting dragged in there off of me. If RA's wife was exposed to multitudes of small animal hairs on a daily basis, then getting into a shared vehicle, and coming home and sitting on their furniture, etc., that would lead to a lot of stray hairs transferring onto places RA would also then be exposed. What if the victims had hairs from a golden retriever, a mastiff, a beagle, a lab, a pit bull, and a dachshund, a persian cat, a siamese, and one angora bunny, none of which belonged to either of them? I know that's being dramatic, but that would be odd, right? Whether or not they can identify the individual animal wouldn't be the point...it's the sheer number of different ones that might be unexpected. JMO.

ETA: Seeing how a lot of blood was lost at the CS, and the FBI assumed the killer would have been bloody, I believe the blood itself would have been a good surface for animal (or human) hair to stick and transfer...

From the FBI:
Hairs, Fibers, Crime, and Evidence, Part 1, by Deedrick (Forensic Science Communications, July 2000)

The hair examination process involves many different steps, the first of which is to determine whether the hair in question originated from an animal or a human being. If the hair originated from an animal, it is possible to further identify it to a particular type of animal. Although certain hairs can be attributed to species, it is not possible to identify hairs to a specific animal to the exclusion of other similar animals. An example of this occurs when dog hairs can be associated to a particular breed but cannot be identified to a specific dog within that breed.

Animal hairs discovered on items of physical evidence can link a suspect or location to a crime of violence. A victim placed in a vehicle or held at a location where animals are routinely found often results in the transfer of animal hairs to the victim’s clothing. Cat or dog hairs can be found on the adhesive portions of ransom and extortion notes prepared by pet owners. The transfer of pet hairs to the victim or crime scene may also occur when the suspect is a pet owner and has animal hairs on his or her clothing when the contact occurs. This is referred to as a secondary transfer of trace material.

When an animal hair is found, it is identified to a particular type of animal and microscopically compared with a known hair sample from either an animal hair reference collection or a specific animal. If the questioned hair exhibits the same microscopic characteristics as the known hairs, it is concluded that the hair is consistent with originating from that animal. It is noted, however, that animal hairs do not possess enough individual microscopic characteristics to be associated with a particular animal to the exclusion of other similar animals.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Your references are to the law in India, not Indiana.

Hah, I have new contacts and they're obviously not working. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Gemmie]

Your references are to the law in India, not Indiana.

Good catch, @Wallendo.

 

[everlearning]

They are calling this the Lost Documentary. Very interesting interviews with the family, LE, and witness. Mods have approved a one-time ok to link to this podcast due to the family involvement. Thanks, @Sillybilly

 

[TL4S]

They are calling this the Lost Documentary. Very interesting interviews with the family, LE, and witness. Mods have approved a one-time ok to link to this podcast due to the family involvement. Thanks, @Sillybilly

I'm glad this video was approved because it has some really interesting information in it, especially in regards to L's SM activity. The video was done in 2019, before the public awareness of a_shots/KAK. JMO.

 

[everlearning]

I'm glad this video was approved because it has some really interesting information in it, especially in regards to L's SM activity. The video was done in 2019, before the public awareness of a_shots/KAK. JMO.

I agree. I'm listening to it again right now. I read some posts on other forums that picked up on little tidbits I missed. Very interesting.

 

[NCnancydee]

I sometimes wonder if DNA was found at the CS but it doesn't match RA hence allegations that he didn't do it alone?

I agree with you, I feel it is very possible he had help carrying out this crime. (JMO/but I do feel that RA is BG)

 

[everlearning]

I'm glad this video was approved because it has some really interesting information in it, especially in regards to L's SM activity. The video was done in 2019, before the public awareness of a_shots/KAK. JMO.

Wonder who the 48 yr old (tall) man is that was commenting on Libby's SM? HS also said that both girls were on SM. Did you catch that?

 

[Oakie]

I have not kept up with this topic for many threads. Was any specific information about the cause of death ever released?

 

[TL4S]

Wonder who the 48 yr old (tall) man is that was commenting on Libby's SM? HS also said that both girls were on SM. Did you catch that?

Yes, the 48 year old commenting on the music video L and A made during their sleepover the night before they died. And there was also the 19 year old supposedly bugging L around Dec/Jan. To me, more than just pointing to other suspects, it shows that L was extraordinarily vulnerable online. It's hinting that several predators had already found her in the months, weeks, days, even hours before their deaths. Local predators. Her location was openly posted. We know she was sharing their location on the bridge in real-time via SC on 2/13. Again, that isn't "signaling" someone that day, which doesn't make sense to me because BG had to have entered the bridge within a couple minutes after that photo. What it hints at to me is that her pattern of behavior was telling people what she was doing and where she was doing it at. Therefore, it would not shock me at all if she shared online or via messaging that they were about to leave their house to go to the bridge, giving anyone watching enough time to get there themselves. JMO.

And as far as A doing SM, it wouldn't surprise me, either. Even if her mother forbade it. But, as we see in L's SC and Musically app, A is exposed through L's SM plenty.

The whole thing infuriates me, tbh. It's difficult for even the most guarded parents to monitor a teen's online activity anymore. Yet for the predators, it's like fishing in a goldfish bowl.

 

[EllaMinnowP]

I have not kept up with this topic for many threads. Was any specific information about the cause of death ever released?

In the video linked upthread by @everlearning, an affidavit is shown and discussed. It says the girls were stabbed.
imo

Screengrab from video at about 42:07

 

[Gemmie]

In the video linked upthread by @everlearning, an affidavit is shown and discussed. It says the girls were stabbed.
imo

Do you have the timestamp of when the affidavit shows they were stabbed? I scanned the vid and only saw the SS I have below. Searching the actual affidavit for the word stabbed comes up with no hits. Just wondering if wounds from a sharp weapon made you think they were stabbed. To me, it's a maybe, not a for sure. They could have had their throats slashed which isn't stabbing. I know, tomato, tomahto. lol



Affidavit here: Court documents released in Delphi murder case: Read the probable cause affidavit here

ETA - Looks like you posted an answer to my Q as I was busy typing my response to your post. So it doesn't say they were "stabbed", it says they were killed by a sharp weapon (which could be throat slashing, not stabbing).

 

[EllaMinnowP]

Do you have the timestamp of when the affidavit shows they were stabbed? I scanned the vid and only saw the SS I have below. Searching the actual affidavit for the word stabbed comes up with no hits. Just wondering if wounds from a sharp weapon made you think they were stabbed. To me, it's a maybe, not a for sure. They could have had their throats slashed which isn't stabbing. I know, tomato, tomahto. lol

View attachment 421874

Affidavit here: Court documents released in Delphi murder case: Read the probable cause affidavit here

It’s definitely the tomato tomato thing here. I did say imo and posted pretty much the same screengrab that you did and added the approximate timestamp of 42:07. Sorry if my use of “stabbed” is too rudimentary. I sure didn’t mean to cause confusion.

 

[Gemmie]

It’s definitely the tomato tomato thing here. I did say imo and posted pretty much the same screengrab that you did and added the approximate timestamp of 42:07. Sorry if my use of “stabbed” is too rudimentary. I sure didn’t mean to cause confusion.

Thanks for responding. I was wondering because I had never seen the word "stabbed" used in the affidavit and wondered if they unredacted parts or something.

So they were likely stabbed, but there are still several other ways to die by 'sharp weapons' that aren't stabbing. I can think of 2. Might be more. It's not a very pleasant topic to ponder too deeply so I get in, and get back out. lol

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Her location was openly posted. We know she was sharing their location on the bridge in real-time via SC on 2/13. Again, that isn't "signaling" someone that day, which doesn't make sense to me because BG had to have entered the bridge within a couple minutes after that photo

This is not true and has never been stated by LE as a fact. The term "Snapchat murders" was only used briefly until it was realized, Snapchat doesn't work that way, a random murderer did not see the bridge photo. Only designated people will see the message and they know from her phone who was in the group. One Snapchat friend saw the picture and called the family that same evening and told them the girls had been on the bridge. The idea that RA was hurrying towards the bridge because he just found out they were there doesn't even work time-wise. He was seen on a bridge platform before the photo was taken. Even in KAK's interrogation, LE doesn't suggest that he saw the Snapchat photo, they are asking if he didn't know about their plans beforehand and somehow let someone else know. MOO




"By default, only your Snapchat friends can contact you on Snapchat. You may see messages from people in your phone's Contacts if they reach out before adding you as a friend on Snapchat."

https://help.snapchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/7012337010836-I-don-t-want-to-be-contacted-by-people-I-m-not-friends-with-on-Snapchat#:~:text=By%20default%2C%20only%20your%20Snapchat,as%20a%20friend%20on%20Snapchat.

 

[EllaMinnowP]

Thanks for responding. I was wondering because I had never seen the word "stabbed" used in the affidavit and wondered if they unredacted parts or something.

So they were likely stabbed, but there are still several other ways to die by 'sharp weapons' that aren't stabbing. I can think of 2. Might be more. It's not a very pleasant topic to ponder too deeply so I get in, and get back out. lol

Rbbm
Agreed.
As I was posting my opinion that they were “stabbed”, I knew it wasn’t verbatim. It is important to share the ambiguous official language, because (ime) there so are many different ways to interpret it.
Coincidentally, the narrator In that video we are referencing talks about her own tendency to draw conclusions based on tidbits of info. With that in mind, along with our convo, the affidavit doesn’t outright state cause of death. It says they “were found dead with wounds…”

 

[TL4S]

This is not true and has never been stated by LE as a fact. The term "Snapchat murders" was only used briefly until it was realized, Snapchat doesn't work that way, a random murderer did not see the bridge photo. Only designated people will see the message and they know from her phone who was in the group. One Snapchat friend saw the picture and called the family that same evening and told them the girls had been on the bridge. The idea that RA was hurrying towards the bridge because he just found out they were there doesn't even work time-wise. He was seen on a bridge platform before the photo was taken. Even in the KAK's interrogation, LE doesn't suggest that he saw the Snapchat photo, they are asking if he didn't know about their plans beforehand and somehow let someone else know. MOO




"By default, only your Snapchat friends can contact you on Snapchat. You may see messages from people in your phone's Contacts if they reach out before adding you as a friend on Snapchat."

https://help.snapchat.com/hc/en-us/articles/7012337010836-I-don-t-want-to-be-contacted-by-people-I-m-not-friends-with-on-Snapchat#:~:text=By%20default%2C%20only%20your%20Snapchat,as%20a%20friend%20on%20Snapchat.

I agree, and I apologize for running my thoughts together like I did, which made it unclear. Either way, I don't think the SC photos of A was a "signal" for anyone, regardless, because BG would have entered the bridge almost immediately afterward.

My concern is that L was visible on numerous SM platforms, so who is to say if a predator might have known they were going to the bridge if she posted it anywhere. I'm just speculating that it would be within L's apparent online behavior to possible put it out there somewhere. Jmo.

 

[everlearning]

Yes, the 48 year old commenting on the music video L and A made during their sleepover the night before they died. And there was also the 19 year old supposedly bugging L around Dec/Jan. To me, more than just pointing to other suspects, it shows that L was extraordinarily vulnerable online. It's hinting that several predators had already found her in the months, weeks, days, even hours before their deaths. Local predators. Her location was openly posted. We know she was sharing their location on the bridge in real-time via SC on 2/13. Again, that isn't "signaling" someone that day, which doesn't make sense to me because BG had to have entered the bridge within a couple minutes after that photo. What it hints at to me is that her pattern of behavior was telling people what she was doing and where she was doing it at. Therefore, it would not shock me at all if she shared online or via messaging that they were about to leave their house to go to the bridge, giving anyone watching enough time to get there themselves. JMO.

And as far as A doing SM, it wouldn't surprise me, either. Even if her mother forbade it. But, as we see in L's SC and Musically app, A is exposed through L's SM plenty.

The whole thing infuriates me, tbh. It's difficult for even the most guarded parents to monitor a teen's online activity anymore. Yet for the predators, it's like fishing in a goldfish bowl.

Yes! With both of my hands raised. I think there is so much more to L's SM that we haven't been told yet. The first LE to speak on the video (I can't remember his name) said something like the reason they didn't share more audio/video was to protect the family. Although he also said that the family asked them to share more. That's really the first time I had heard that reason stated that way.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I'm just speculating that it would be within L's apparent online behavior to possible put it out there somewhere.

My concern is that L was visible on numerous SM platforms,

I think there is so much more to L's SM that we haven't been told yet.

LE has certainly examined and followed up on everything found on the phone. (Only 1 victim had owned/had a phone.)
There may be SM that hasn't been disclosed but if there was evidence of other "catfish" type contact, it's been investigated. Otherwise, the victims' SM activity is really not something I expected to be made public. They deserve privacy even in death.
Since the Snapchat post was openly discussed, why wouldn't any other SM that revealed their plans that day be talked about? I think the victims didn't know days in advance that they would be going to the bridge that day. They know of phone calls and SM contacts/posts, I don't think there is a well-hidden, undiscoverable connection that led to RA knowing they would be there that day. MOO