IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #167

[zh0r4]

Can you tell me if he claimed to have participated in the murders when he told his sister all of this?

If memory serves correctly, he said he was on the bridge with the 2 girls that were killed. He mentioned that he now had a brother.

I don't recall anything from the memo about him describing the crime scene at that point.

To add, from page 97 of the defense memo (per EF’s sister MJ’s polygraph examination that she passed on February 1, 2018):

“EF told MJ that Abby is a little troublemaker, that he placed leaves on her and used sticks to give her horns.”

The defense then cites Exhibit 98, a close up photo of sticks above Abby’s head at the crime scene marked as confidential.

 

[Bbgiraffe]

I am a really skeptical person so I am still not convinced that the crime scene is actually purposely staged to represent runes or odinisim with the sticks. But I know we will never see photos of the actual crime scene to judge for ourselves whether the arrangement of sticks seems intentional or like a coincidence.

 

[Bergmann]

Sigh, the whole point of raising EF, BH et al is not to try them on WS or anywhere else, it is to point out that if you were tasked with defending RA then you probably have two key strategies;

1 - prove he wasn't there/ couldn't have been there - therefore the attention to detail on the witness statements and highlighting inconsistencies and perhaps things that the state have chosen selectively to ignore where they don't line up. This includes then trying to get the SW tossed (almost no chance IMO). Also the focus on Ligget et al 'no DNA linking RA to crime scene...'

2 - show that there are better candidates for this crime, interrogate the extent to which they were properly investigated, and ask LE to justify why they were eliminated, especially so close to the time of the murders. Were all those things about them, BHs social media, EFs confession etc just strange coincidence occurring so close to the date of the murders, and what did the investigation offer up that was or wasn't followed up

This is just the D doing their job, I don't understand why some are choosing to be offended. Unless you're so convinced from what is in the public domain so far that RA is guilty (which IMO is premature and flawed but YMMV hence debating and weighing what is being said).

However the defence aren't helping themselves with a long unwieldy document that sprays a lot of bullets but isn't focused properly on a target (which you have to assume is Liggett). It goes into way too much detail about the crime itself and how it could (couldn't in their view) have been perpetrated and names alternate suspects - I'm not convinced that is either respectful/ decent, or indeed going to potentially cause legal issues down the line in solving this crime.

What the D memo does do is go a long way to explaining why the prosecution NmcL might have wanted all the documents sealed so that he could control the pre-trial narrative and have the accused damned before trial with little room for doubt (MOO). Again I don't blame him, if there's any basis for a lot of the things in the D memo (go look at the footnotes and references before you toss the whole thing out) then if I was prosecuting then I'd want that stuff nowhere near the ears of a potential jury pool.

Both sides are doing their jobs and deploying all the 'dark arts'* of the legal profession that are available to them as D and as P (*I come from a line of legal professionals so this is how I've always had it described to me by people who have dueled in and out of court). So selectivity and twisting of words is just the tip of the iceberg, as is use of media to shape the mood at this stage.

 

[TL4S]

Dbm

 

[Bergmann]

He placed himself at the scene.

Which scene? With regards to the bridge he did indeed, he also changed his story between what was quoted from his original interview and then when later questioned in 2022. The precise facts about his location, when and where need a lot more examination and validation.

Actual crime scene we have yet to hear info tying him to (but this is not required for the felony murder charge).

 

[FrostedGlass]

Which scene? With regards to the bridge he did indeed, he also changed his story between what was quoted from his original interview and then when later questioned in 2022. The precise facts about his location, when and where need a lot more examination and validation.

Actual crime scene we have yet to hear info tying him to (but this is not required for the felony murder charge).

If a recording of the original interview can't be found and no evidence that he signed anything, would P even use it?

 

[Bergmann]

If a recording of the original interview can't be found and no evidence that he signed anything, would P even use it?

They would have to try. It is that interview where RA is alleged to have agreed that he was on the bridge/ trail between 1.30 -3.30pm IIRC.

If no video/ audio, or signed statement to that effect is produced then it's he says-she says which won't suit the underpinning of the P timeline.

He later in 2022 said he had left approx 1.30pm but certainly before 2pm which creates a P problem with the BB witness statement and also her not identifying RA's Black Focus but another vehicle instead at the time she was there till (c 2.15pm).

 

[steeltowngirl]

Sigh, the whole point of raising EF, BH et al is not to try them on WS or anywhere else, it is to point out that if you were tasked with defending RA then you probably have two key strategies;

1 - prove he wasn't there/ couldn't have been there - therefore the attention to detail on the witness statements and highlighting inconsistencies and perhaps things that the state have chosen selectively to ignore where they don't line up. This includes then trying to get the SW tossed (almost no chance IMO). Also the focus on Ligget et al 'no DNA linking RA to crime scene...'

2 - show that there are better candidates for this crime, interrogate the extent to which they were properly investigated, and ask LE to justify why they were eliminated, especially so close to the time of the murders. Were all those things about them, BHs social media, EFs confession etc just strange coincidence occurring so close to the date of the murders, and what did the investigation offer up that was or wasn't followed up

This is just the D doing their job, I don't understand why some are choosing to be offended. Unless you're so convinced from what is in the public domain so far that RA is guilty (which IMO is premature and flawed but YMMV hence debating and weighing what is being said).

However the defence aren't helping themselves with a long unwieldy document that sprays a lot of bullets but isn't focused properly on a target (which you have to assume is Liggett). It goes into way too much detail about the crime itself and how it could (couldn't in their view) have been perpetrated and names alternate suspects - I'm not convinced that is either respectful/ decent, or indeed going to potentially cause legal issues down the line in solving this crime.

What the D memo does do is go a long way to explaining why the prosecution NmcL might have wanted all the documents sealed so that he could control the pre-trial narrative and have the accused damned before trial with little room for doubt (MOO). Again I don't blame him, if there's any basis for a lot of the things in the D memo (go look at the footnotes and references before you toss the whole thing out) then if I was prosecuting then I'd want that stuff nowhere near the ears of a potential jury pool.

Both sides are doing their jobs and deploying all the 'dark arts'* of the legal profession that are available to them as D and as P (*I come from a line of legal professionals so this is how I've always had it described to me by people who have dueled in and out of court). So selectivity and twisting of words is just the tip of the iceberg, as is use of media to shape the mood at this stage.

^Good post.

IMO, Defense is testing the waters with the memorandum. They are bringing to light the mistakes that were made in the investigation. They are highlighting nuggets of phrases we’ve heard over the past 6 years: ‘signatures’, ‘unusual crime scene’, ‘stuff of nightmares’, ‘others may be involved.’ None of this is new. The memorandum just brings it all to life with proposed names and graphic descriptions.

Is the explosive narrative that the defense is presenting enough to provide a jury with reasonable doubt? That is the lingering question, and can’t be answered until all of the evidence against RA is known.

Does the narrative exonerate RA from being the man we know as Bridge Guy? IMO, no. As you note in your Point #1 - the key is proving RA was there and that he ordered the girls ‘down the hill.’ Prove that, and RA should be found guilty of felony murder.

I am beginning to wonder if defense is reaching for a plea deal of some sort. Hypothetically, if RA is BG, and he ordered the girls down the hill to others who murdered them, AND he were willing to name them to LE, would they offer him a deal? I think it’s very unlikely, yet defense may be illustrating that the alternative to a deal could be that RA goes to trial and is acquitted.

It will be interesting to see the next move in the chess game between prosecution and defense.

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Also, just because we don’t know what evidence the state has doesn’t mean there is any.

And it also doesn't mean there isn't any.

 

[Bergmann]

Hypothetically, if RA is BG, and he ordered the girls down the hill to others who murdered them, AND he were willing to name them to LE, would they offer him a deal? I think it’s very unlikely, yet defense may be illustrating that the alternative to a deal could be that RA goes to trial and is acquitted.

The other notable feature of the D memo is to be at pains to say there are no links tying RA to Odinists or other groups. I noticed this on reading and can see why D were placing emphasis on this - precisely to distance RA from the notion that he kidnapped and then passed on the victims.

This plays into the hypothetical scenario that you outline in your post. Why would and where is it mentioned or proved that RA has any relationship or links to BH, EF, PW, et al? Back to the small town pop'n etc, everyone likely knows everyone but whether they have actual links is different - that's why I asked who in town is known to or has links to who including victims, their families/ acquantainces etc, its all basic LE fact gathering.

Its troubled me from the start, the idea that RA who from the outside at least appears to be a normal family guy, why would he be hanging out with the likes of these other guys who seem 'less than reputable'. Full disclosure - I can't say that the idea that RA is suddenly going out one day and committing quite horrific and brutal murders, seemingly with no precedent of prior behaviour, just doesn't make sense (I mean it might if there's other crimes/ behaviours we don't know about but that's just speculation to fill the gap). That's why I need to be fully convinced by weighing all of the evidence, and in any case justice needs to be served but then so does the truth to truly bring closure to this whole horrible episode. Sorry I know speculation on character and motive has probably been covered ad nauseum previously in one of the many many threads since RAs arrest, I'm not seeking a rewind but just stating my overall skepticism, curiosity and desire for the whole truth not just bits of it that suit either D or P on a case by case basis.

 

[duckcat]

Sorry, but I just don’t understand how people are reading the actual entire memorandum and are not outraged at the corruption occurring? Are people reading it entirely? Reading it in good faith is not believing conspiracies. The lowlife conspiracists are on the other side of this case. Why are people so interested in protecting corrupt, lying, cops and the coverup of violent racist gang members? The memorandum is long because there are many layers of criminality occurring here.

Let’s ignore the suppressed evidence and the lying about the knowledge of the Odinism report. Let’s ignore the fact that Leazenby was blatantly protecting BH for some reason (is it odd that BH, a suspect named by agents but cleared by CCSO 3 days after the girls were found, is Facebook friends with Leazenby’s wife?)

Let’s just talk about the timeline itself, something very concrete that Leazenby is lying about:

RA did not put himself at the scene of the crime. He states he parked a black ford focus at the CPS building and then left at 1:30pm.
Leazenby blatantly lies to Judge Diener and says that RA put himself there till 4pm.

Despite this, Leazenby crafts on a timeline between 2-4pm for when the murder takes place that depends entirely on the eyewitness accounts of two women.

BB sees a man on the bridge around 2pm, and gave a description of a young boyish male, age 20s, with poufy hair on the bridge. Leazenby uses her account and the 2:16pm DTH video to cite this person as BG. BB’s sketch isn’t released to the public till 2 years after the crime, because BB returned to investigators, concerned that the original sketch released wasnt the man she saw. Despite this, Leazenby lies to Judge Diener and uses this account to cite RA as this man that BB saw, thus the BG, just prior to encountering L+A.

SC sees a man walking on the road towards the CPS building around 4pm. She sees a man wearing a tan coat covered in mud (not blood) who matches the description of another man seen on walking on the trail that day, and then she sees a 1960s Comet styled car at the CPS building that is not the color black. It’s not a black ford focus because RA had already left. Leazenby lies to Judge Diener and cites this as RA and his ford focus leaving after the murder, based on what SC saw.

So not only is Leazenby crafting a narrative based entirely on eyewitness accounts that look nothing like RA or BG or RA’s car, he is also crafting the timeline for the murder based on this. It’s completely made out of thin air. He’s not just cherry picking witness statements, he’s changing their words and making up a timeline based on random eyewitness accounts that have nothing to do with the man see in the BG video.

You can’t have it both ways, if he is trying to pin murder based on eyewitness accounts, then both sides need to agree that the accounts are reliable and use them accurately.

At this point, there isn’t even a reliable timeframe for when the murders took place. It seems like the autopsy reports aren’t even providing this either, because the defense seems to be making some educated guesses about that.

Leazenby was hoping that the outrage over this terrible crime would be enough that everyone wants to throw the book at the first guy named and not give due diligence. He assumed that public defenders wouldn’t spend the time or effort to properly defend their client. The real story of what happened over the 7 years is starting to trickle out and it’s abhorrent, and it explains why this case has been such a confusing sh*tshow.

I don’t know whether or not RA was involved, but regardless of his involvement, there has been a cover up going on since day 1 and it is quite clear. This isn’t a conspiracy about rituals and satanic panic, this is a small town community where crime, cosplaying Nordic-belief gangs, and politics are all wrapped up into each other.

 

[FromGermany1]

So, if I’m understanding your point correctly, EF did in fact submit a DNA sample, while being anxious because he spit on one of the girls and he may get “in trouble?”

He sure WOULD get in trouble if his spit was on one of the girls, as identified through a DNA match to him.

So why wasn’t he arrested, then?

IMO his spit on one of the girls would certainly be solid proof that he was at least at the crime scene. Whether RA was there or not there, let’s say, still why wouldn’t EF be awaiting trial right now?

We haven’t heard that RA left his DNA at the scene, but there is other evidence against him. And I believe the evidence collected at RA’s home is what precipitated his lawyers’ frantic attempt to undo the search warrant.

If EF left his spit on one of the girls, and submitted to a DNA test, again I cannot fathom why he hasn’t been arrested.

Which makes me doubt his story altogether.

JMO

I'm the one, who always comes along with the mysterious things like the special shoes, the white thing beneath BG's chin, which seems to reach under his jacket down to the seam and there looking out, pulled by BG's right hand, AND from time to time I come along with the "biological evidence", LE had found at the crime scene within the first days of investigation. It was mentioned in one news article, then canceled/deleted. I know it, as if it had been yesterday. It can't have been a mistake by the journalist, IMO, it must have been something, which shouldn't become known.

Was the biological evidence the spit of EF?

 

[girlhasnoname]

The Defense really toned down the sensationalism in their motion this time hah. I found these points to be very interesting, sounds to me like the Defense realizes they screwed up:

<snipped, B&UBM>

1. However, Defendant Allen (what happened to our boy Rick?) realizes he did not articulate in detail, the actual burden of proof associated with said preliminary showing;

2. To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross examine. There must be allegation of deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof.

10. Franks holds that the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard must be shown by the Defendant by preponderance of evidence.

Yeah, the Defense's big, tacky mouths wrote a check that their butts can't cover.

MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Leazenby was hoping that the outrage over this terrible crime would be enough that everyone wants to throw the book at the first guy named and not give due diligence.

No.

If that were true, they could have stopped at RL. Or DN. Or grabbed any of the other POIs that made more sense, based on their record.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Sorry, but I just don’t understand how people are reading the actual entire memorandum and are not outraged at the corruption occurring? Are people reading it entirely? Reading it in good faith is not believing conspiracies. The lowlife conspiracists are on the other side of this case. Why are people so interested in protecting corrupt, lying, cops and the coverup of violent racist gang members? The memorandum is long because there are many layers of criminality occurring here.

Let’s ignore the suppressed evidence and the lying about the knowledge of the Odinism report. Let’s ignore the fact that Leazenby was blatantly protecting BH for some reason (is it odd that BH, a suspect named by agents but cleared by CCSO 3 days after the girls were found, is Facebook friends with Leazenby’s wife?)

Let’s just talk about the timeline itself, something very concrete that Leazenby is lying about:

RA did not put himself at the scene of the crime. He states he parked a black ford focus at the CPS building and then left at 1:30pm.
Leazenby blatantly lies to Judge Diener and says that RA put himself there till 4pm.

Despite this, Leazenby crafts on a timeline between 2-4pm for when the murder takes place that depends entirely on the eyewitness accounts of two women.

BB sees a man on the bridge around 2pm, and gave a description of a young boyish male, age 20s, with poufy hair on the bridge. Leazenby uses her account and the 2:16pm DTH video to cite this person as BG. BB’s sketch isn’t released to the public till 2 years after the crime, because BB returned to investigators, concerned that the original sketch released wasnt the man she saw. Despite this, Leazenby lies to Judge Diener and uses this account to cite RA as this man that BB saw, thus the BG, just prior to encountering L+A.

SC sees a man walking on the road towards the CPS building around 4pm. She sees a man wearing a tan coat covered in mud (not blood) who matches the description of another man seen on walking on the trail that day, and then she sees a 1960s Comet styled car at the CPS building that is not the color black. It’s not a black ford focus because RA had already left. Leazenby lies to Judge Diener and cites this as RA and his ford focus leaving after the murder, based on what SC saw.

So not only is Leazenby crafting a narrative based entirely on eyewitness accounts that look nothing like RA or BG or RA’s car, he is also crafting the timeline for the murder based on this. It’s completely made out of thin air. He’s not just cherry picking witness statements, he’s changing their words and making up a timeline based on random eyewitness accounts that have nothing to do with the man see in the BG video.

You can’t have it both ways, if he is trying to pin murder based on eyewitness accounts, then both sides need to agree that the accounts are reliable and use them accurately.

At this point, there isn’t even a reliable timeframe for when the murders took place. It seems like the autopsy reports aren’t even providing this either, because the defense seems to be making some educated guesses about that.

Leazenby was hoping that the outrage over this terrible crime would be enough that everyone wants to throw the book at the first guy named and not give due diligence. He assumed that public defenders wouldn’t spend the time or effort to properly defend their client. The real story of what happened over the 7 years is starting to trickle out and it’s abhorrent, and it explains why this case has been such a confusing sh*tshow.

I don’t know whether or not RA was involved, but regardless of his involvement, there has been a cover up going on since day 1 and it is quite clear. This isn’t a conspiracy about rituals and satanic panic, this is a small town community where crime, cosplaying Nordic-belief gangs, and politics are all wrapped up into each other.

Only corrupt, lying cops and conspiracy as accused by the Defense in their efforts to free their client. Nothing in the Memorandum has been verified 100% to the public only what the Defense is saying others have said, or their conclusions. You'd have to believe the local LE, ISP and FBI all colluded to hide this info. or frame RA. No way IMO.

RA was there on the Monon High Bridge by his own self admission on 2 occasions (2017 & 2022) and has confessed to the killings 5 times over the phone in calls to his wife and mother, not being coerced and influenced to admit such things during an interrogation.

There are reliable time frames of when the murders occurred by Libby's Snapchat photo of Abby and the recording of BG aka RA.

I don't think LE was involved in a coverup so much as they were trying to keep the highly grotesque manner and clues in which these young girls were killed as quiet as possible. Did they do a perfect job in this investigation? No, but I do think they did the best they could and have finally gotten their man.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

 

[Bergmann]

The Defense really toned down the sensationalism in their motion this time hah. I found these points to be very interesting, sounds to me like the Defense realizes they screwed up:

<snipped, B&UBM>

1. However, Defendant Allen (what happened to our boy Rick?) realizes he did not articulate in detail, the actual burden of proof associated with said preliminary showing;

2. To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross examine. There must be allegation of deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof.

10. Franks holds that the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard must be shown by the Defendant by preponderance of evidence.

Yeah, the Defense's big, tacky mouths wrote a check that their butts can't cover.

MOO

My take is that they did realise or had it pointed out to them, that if they wanted a Franks Hearing that they were going to have to explain (given that massive memo lol) and justify the standard of submission required to grant the hearing and explain why they feel they had met that standard.

Easily done when you're down in the detail and then forget to get back to the point that you were trying to make in the first place! But yeah funny that they had to scurry back and submit the supplement!

 

[girlhasnoname]

My take is that they did realise or had it pointed out to them, that if they wanted a Franks Hearing that they were going to have to explain (given that massive memo lol) and justify the standard of submission required to grant the hearing and explain why they feel they had met that standard.

Easily done when you're down in the detail and then forget to get back to the point that you were trying to make in the first place! But yeah funny that they had to scurry back and submit the supplement!

You say down in the detail, I say unrelated, unnecessary, sensationalism.

I'd bet the Judge ordered this supplement.

JMO

 

[IminSyd]

My take is that they did realise or had it pointed out to them, that if they wanted a Franks Hearing that they were going to have to explain (given that massive memo lol) and justify the standard of submission required to grant the hearing and explain why they feel they had met that standard.

Easily done when you're down in the detail and then forget to get back to the point that you were trying to make in the first place! But yeah funny that they had to scurry back and submit the supplement!

I really can’t work out if the defence’s strategy to date is clever, terrible or somewhere in between.

 

[Megnut]

I really can’t work out if the defence’s strategy to date is clever, terrible or somewhere in between.

And apparently neither can they.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

^Good post.

IMO, Defense is testing the waters with the memorandum. They are bringing to light the mistakes that were made in the investigation. They are highlighting nuggets of phrases we’ve heard over the past 6 years: ‘signatures’, ‘unusual crime scene’, ‘stuff of nightmares’, ‘others may be involved.’ None of this is new. The memorandum just brings it all to life with proposed names and graphic descriptions.

Is the explosive narrative that the defense is presenting enough to provide a jury with reasonable doubt? That is the lingering question, and can’t be answered until all of the evidence against RA is known.

Does the narrative exonerate RA from being the man we know as Bridge Guy? IMO, no. As you note in your Point #1 - the key is proving RA was there and that he ordered the girls ‘down the hill.’ Prove that, and RA should be found guilty of felony murder.

I am beginning to wonder if defense is reaching for a plea deal of some sort. Hypothetically, if RA is BG, and he ordered the girls down the hill to others who murdered them, AND he were willing to name them to LE, would they offer him a deal? I think it’s very unlikely, yet defense may be illustrating that the alternative to a deal could be that RA goes to trial and is acquitted.

It will be interesting to see the next move in the chess game between prosecution and defense.

jmo

That part of your post I bolded has been nagging at me. Didn't Ives also say the scene wasn't like you would imagine? He was right about that. I don't remember who said that about nightmares but it sure took my mind to dark places. I'm truly hoping we've heard it all when it comes to the time of death and the crime scene.

The way D laid it all out, (except for maybe signatures), including POIs, lends credibility to what they are saying in the memorandum and the phrases you listed.