IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #172

[Ravenmoon]

Someone up thread brought whether or not RA has an alibi for February 13th, 2017.
I believe that his original alibi was that he was on the trail from 1:30-3:30 PM.

"Liggett was provided a tip narrative from DNR Lieutenant Dan Dulin to review. It was reported that Allen approached Dulin to report that he had been on the trails in Feb. 13, 2017. Allen told Dulin he parked his vehicle at the “old Farm Bureau building” (believed to be the former Department of Child Services building, which was empty) and he walked to the new Freedom Bridge. Allen said he was there between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. on Feb. 13. "

Let's not forget that RA has stated that DD took notes in their interview.

Pretty sure that RA'S "alibi"puts him exactly where he was.

JMO

Special Judge releases public documents in the double homicide case - Carroll County Comet.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I just did a search of the defense memorandum for the word ‘alibi’. The word is used many times, but each instance is used to refute the alibis of the Odinist crowd. I could not find any mention of an alibi for RA.

Does anyone recall seeing where an alibi for RA has been offered?

RA was in his mind, assisting LE. He was very clear that he was on the trail. And, an independent witness was very clear that his car was gone by the time of the incident. That same witness had a very different description of the man she saw exiting the trail.

I don't think he even tried to put forward an alibi. If I am wrong someone will correct me. But if I just committed double murder I don't think I'm strolling into the station to say "Hey, just wanna let you know,

1. I was there that day, around that time in fact, too
2. Oh I own a blue coat (even though witness said tan) and
3. Sure, I have knives and guns! Of course, I do!"

Doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how dumb I am, I don't see myself doing that.

jmo

 

[Ravenmoon]

RA was in his mind, assisting LE. He was very clear that he was on the trail. And, an independent witness was very clear that his car was gone by the time of the incident. That same witness had a very different description of the man she saw exiting the trail.

I don't think he even tried to put forward an alibi. If I am wrong someone will correct me. But if I just committed double murder I don't think I'm strolling into station to say

1. Oh yeah I was there that day
2. Oh I own a blue coat (even though witness said tan) and
3. Sure, I have knives and guns! Of course, I do!

Doesn't make sense to me. I don't care how dumb I am, I don't myself doing that.

jmo

Tan jacket can be seen underneath the blue jacket.

EBM to add that on page 3 of the Delphi documents( Affidavit for the Search Warrant) BB states that she witnessed a man that was consistent with the person caught on LGs phone.

Can you point out where a witness claimed his car was gone?

If we are talking about BB, her statement was that she spotted a car parked in a strange manner at the old CPS building when she was leaving.

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Aside from Allen's confession to his wife while on the phone in jail, I think there are likely three strong pieces of physical evidence tying Allen to the murder--stronger than the bullet with tools marks that supposedly matches Allen's pistol. 1) His location per his cell phone pings, 2) his voice, and 3) his size

sbm

And it's more than possible all 3 can/will lead to exonerating evidence

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

p. 21-22 of the FM. Typically a judge would put a stop to this nonsense (filming him with his attorneys). Also the warden testified it wasn’t against the rules for COs to wear patches. Why remove them at all? It’s not against the rules so why remove them?

Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

bbm

Good point.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I find it hard to draw conclusions as to truth and falsity on all this when it is just the word of the defense vs the word of the warden. Things like “he is afforded very little if any rec time” being countered with “wrong, he gets 5 hours per week!” rings hollow to me. Being in his cell 23-24 hours per day, with a total rec time of less than 1 hour a day, in my view can certainly be called “very little” time for a presumed innocent man. Same with showering 3x per week vs 2x per week and getting his clothes washed 3x per week. I don’t see those as so different in that it shows a falsehood on the part of the defense. To me those are despicable conditions for someone not convicted of a crime. JMHO and I will say I don’t know much about how a jail setting would compare.

Also on your last example of false D claims, according to the Warden’s affidavit, he was not allowed to have face to face visits. Was it stated elsewhere that at that time he had been able to have face to face visits?

Warden John Galipeau Affidavit.pdf

drive.google.com

I didn't expect him to submit an affidavit that stated "Of course, he's being abused by my guards but we'll stop that now though"

jmo

There was not even a hearing on this correct? No opportunity for him to be examined under oath by RA's attys? I believe she confirms in the in-chambers transcript that she came to that decision based only on his affidavit, so...

 

[girlhasnoname]

I just did a search of the defense memorandum for the word ‘alibi’. The word is used many times, but each instance is used to refute the alibis of the Odinist crowd. I could not find any mention of an alibi for RA.

Does anyone recall seeing where an alibi for RA has been offered?

Thanks for bringing that to my mind STG

There hasn't ever been one offered that I am aware of in MSM. You'd think that might be one of the first things an innocent man might do. My client couldn't possibly have committed this horrific crime because:

He was at the local pub during the time of the murders 1:30 pm on
He was at work during the the time of the murders 1:30 pm on
He was with witnesses x,y,z during the time of the murders 1:30 pm on

We know he was on the MHB at the time of the murders by his own admission, so it isn't surprising to me that we haven't heard a verifiable alibi from RA. If he had one, he sure wouldn't be sitting in Westville all this time. B&R would have ole' Rick outta their post haste.

I truly believe the State has the right Defendant and I look forward to the day there can be a trial, with a conviction by a jury of his peers, and the chance for the families of these girls to get answers and begin to move forward. It's been a long 6+ year road for them and the missteps by a lot of the parties involved are unheard of.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

Someone up thread brought whether or not RA has an alibi for February 13th, 2017.
I believe that his original alibi was that he was on the trail from 1:30-3:30 PM.

"Liggett was provided a tip narrative from DNR Lieutenant Dan Dulin to review. It was reported that Allen approached Dulin to report that he had been on the trails in Feb. 13, 2017. Allen told Dulin he parked his vehicle at the “old Farm Bureau building” (believed to be the former Department of Child Services building, which was empty) and he walked to the new Freedom Bridge. Allen said he was there between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. on Feb. 13. "

Let's not forget that RA has stated that DD took notes in their interview.

Pretty sure that RA'S "alibi"puts him exactly where he was.

JMO

Special Judge releases public documents in the double homicide case - Carroll County Comet.

“In trying to provide Liggett and Mullin a timeline of when he (Richard Allen) was at the trail, Richard stated he arrived at the trail around noon. Later in the interview, RA told Liggett and Mullin he probably left the trail around 1:30pm.”

-D memo, p. 109, citation 157 & 158. Citation 157: Exhibit 110 RA tells Liggett and prosecutor investigator Mullins from the prosecutor’s office that he had arrived around noon at the 10:57:40 mark. Citation 158: Exhibit 110 at the 11:53:43 mark.


Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

 

[Ravenmoon]

“In trying to provide Liggett and Mullin a timeline of when he (Richard Allen) was at the trail, Richard stated he arrived at the trail around noon. Later in the interview, RA told Liggett and Mullin he probably left the trail around 1:30pm.”

-D memo, p. 109, citation 157 & 158. Citation 157: Exhibit 110 RA tells Liggett and prosecutor investigator Mullins from the prosecutor’s office that he had arrived around noon at the 10:57:40 mark. Citation 158: Exhibit 110 at the 11:53:43 mark.

View attachment 463780
Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

This is dated October 2022
His original statement was February 2017 to Dan Dulin.
He clearly knew to change those times.
Most of our memories don't get better over the course of time...

Betting that his memory was much fresher in February 2017.

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

This is dated October 2022
His original statement was February 2017 to Dan Dulin.
He clearly knew to change those times.
Most of our memories don't get better over the course of time...

Betting that his memory was much fresher in February 2017.View attachment 463783

JMO

You just gave fantastic support as to why the witness whose description was different and RA's lack of vehicle present is more reliable than the latter - it was provided contemporaneously with the events. And, imo, you're right. Contemporaneous impressions are more reliable.

jmo

 

[Ravenmoon]

You just gave fantastic support as to why the witness whose description was different and RA's lack of vehicle present is more reliable than the latter - it was provided contemporaneously with the events.

jmo

I. Have. No. Idea. What. You. Are. Saying.

The documents I am talking about came from 2017.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I. Have. No. Idea. What. You. Are. Saying.

sbm
Witness 1, BB, gave account 4 days after the events (pp. 105, 106)
Witness 2, SC, gave account 4 months after the events (page 106) - By this time they knew what guy in the pic on LG's phone looked like, and they knew that the first witness' sketch didn't match the guy on the phone, so make of that what you will jmo

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

delphi-murders-arrest-made-in-2017-killing-of-libby-german-and-abby-williams

 

[zh0r4]

sbm
Witness 1, BB, gave account 4 days after the events (pp. 105, 106)
Witness 2, SC, gave account 4 months after the events (page 106)

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

p. 105

Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

 

[zh0r4]

sbm
Witness 1, BB, gave account 4 days after the events (pp. 105, 106)
Witness 2, SC, gave account 4 months after the events (page 106) - By this time they knew what guy in the pic on LG's phone looked like, and they knew that the first witness' sketch didn't match the guy on the phone, so make of that what you will jmo

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

p. 106

Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

 

[FrostedGlass]

@zh0r4 On May 17, the xD filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to make the guards stop recording RA's meetings with them. A month later, the judge issued this order:

06/22/2023

Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel, Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas McLeland. Court is informed by Counsel that the hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress needs to be continued to be reset once defense counsel files its notice of omissions/inaccuracies. Hearing conducted on defendant's Motion to Reconsider Safekeeping Order. Evidence and arguments of counsel taken under advisement. Defendant's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Department of Correction Use of Cameras and Request for Preliminary Injunction to pend as the Department of Correction has stopped remote filming attorney meetings with defendant. Court grants defendant's Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure of Defendant's Mental Health Records under separate order. Ex Parte Motions heard and concluded. Counsel will submit Ex Parte pleading under seal for the Court to consider. Court will issue a separate, detailed order on the sealed pleadings which will be unsealed by agreement of Counsel. Jury trial ordered set January 8-26, 2024, with jury selection to be conducted in Allen County, Indiana, and trial to be conducted in Carroll County, Indiana. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 06/20/2023

 

[zh0r4]

@zh0r4 On May 17, the xD filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to make the guards stop recording RA's meetings with them. A month later, the judge issued this order:

06/22/2023

Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel, Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas McLeland. Court is informed by Counsel that the hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress needs to be continued to be reset once defense counsel files its notice of omissions/inaccuracies. Hearing conducted on defendant's Motion to Reconsider Safekeeping Order. Evidence and arguments of counsel taken under advisement. Defendant's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Department of Correction Use of Cameras and Request for Preliminary Injunction to pend as the Department of Correction has stopped remote filming attorney meetings with defendant. Court grants defendant's Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure of Defendant's Mental Health Records under separate order. Ex Parte Motions heard and concluded. Counsel will submit Ex Parte pleading under seal for the Court to consider. Court will issue a separate, detailed order on the sealed pleadings which will be unsealed by agreement of Counsel. Jury trial ordered set January 8-26, 2024, with jury selection to be conducted in Allen County, Indiana, and trial to be conducted in Carroll County, Indiana. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 06/20/2023

“To pend”? Instead of granted?

 

[Jurisprudence]

p. 105
View attachment 463801
Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

And, 4 months later it was well known what the guy in the pic on LG's phone looked like, and they knew that BB's witness sketch made 4 days after the crimes didn't match the guy on the phone, but 4 months later a later sketch suddenly did. So make of that what you will. It proves nothing, but it does raise questions.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

“To pend”? Instead of granted?

I suppose, since they had already stopped. Warden didn't want to have to go before the judge to explain his order, apparently. IMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

p. 105
View attachment 463801
Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

Okay. But this is from the Frank's motion, correct?

Well...I guess it's impossible to stop discussing the exD. Hoping that next week will be the week

 

[schooling]

p. 105
View attachment 463801
Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

And IMO that’s clearly not the person in the video….

This is why pre-ponderous of eye witness testimony carries a lot more weight than one person.

My Psych 105 teacher had someone run into the lecture hall and snatch her purse in front of a 400 person auditorium. Everyone thought it was real. A few gave chase. She then asked the class to describe the person. TAs and ATAs collected responses. Some were read aloud others volunteered their answers. The descriptions of the person wildly varied. Height. Clothing. Sex. Whether they were wearing a face covering or not. Hat or no hat. Even though this was a notable and noticeable event (unlike that specific time near the bridge before the crimes were committed) No one could agree on anything. After they brought the person back in it was pretty clear who was right and who got it completely wrong.

In this case, we had descriptions come in BEFORE the video was released and most that ended up matching the video of the perp. That’s EXTRAORDINARY. IMO.

So IMO the outlier (as presented/underlined/highlighted by you) raises a question or two but nothing that passes the threshold of a reasonable doubt, if I was in that juror chair. It’s all about that video for me. THATS the guy.

MOO