IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173

[girlhasnoname]

I find it very telling that in order to explain RA as BG we are at the point of hypothesizing that he bought a wig at his work place and put it on to walk past several witnesses without covering his face, despite working with the public daily in the small town, on his way to commit double murder or a kidnapping, and then put on a hat to cover the wig while approaching his victims.
This makes absolutely no sense IMO.

He probably wants a jury trial because he doesn’t think his actions are criminal conversion. DH and Shay Hughes, Indiana defense attorneys, agree and think he has a very good case to be found not guilty.

We've been speculating on a wig for years. For a person who usually wore short, closely cropped hair the majority of the time, this would be an excellent disguise. I mean he did have a few other disguising props on.

Curious, if MW truly doesn't think his actions were in some way criminal in nature, why didn't he tell AB he had taken the pics and planned on sharing them to friends and SM people? Or maybe he did?

He took photos of confidential, protected information from an active, high profile upcoming trial and disseminated them. What purpose would he have for that? For kicks and giggles? No, I believe he was helping spread a narrative and hoping to make some money to boot. That was a lowlife move IMO, releasing exploiting photos of murdered and naked young children and that is against the law whether DH and Shay Hughes think so or not.

ALL IMO

 

[303gmf]

They would soon be of marriageable age!
Does RA, the alleged killer, ever think about it, while he's complaining?

Eeeks!
If A&L happened to be young boys instead of girls would they be “marriageable “ yet?
What century am I in?
Gross

 

[Betty P]

I find it very telling that in order to explain RA as BG we are at the point of hypothesizing that he bought a wig at his work place and put it on to walk past several witnesses without covering his face, despite working with the public daily in the small town, on his way to commit double murder or a kidnapping, and then put on a hat to cover the wig while approaching his victims.
This makes absolutely no sense IMO.

Despite their best intentions, eyewitness accounts can sometimes be inaccurate. I think we've all experienced that at one time or another.

As for locals not realizing the killer was living and working in their midst, that's tragically accurate. Often, people don't want to accept that such monsters live among them.

Libby left the most reliable visual evidence of her killer's appearance and it fits RA. JMO

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Curious, if MW truly doesn't think his actions were in some way criminal in nature, why didn't he tell AB he had taken the pics and planned on sharing them to friends and SM people? Or maybe he did?

SBM There are plenty of reasons he would hide it from AB even if he thought it was legal. One can break a friend’s trust or violate professional standards without breaking the law. And even if he thought it was criminal back when he took the pics, that doesn't tell us why, after all this controversy and tragedy and specific charges have been filed, he would plead not guilty. That plea would be based on the legal standard and the evidence.

He took photos of confidential, protected information from an active, high profile upcoming trial and disseminated them. What purpose would he have for that? For kicks and giggles? No, I believe he was helping spread a narrative and hoping to make some money to boot. That was a lowlife move IMO, releasing exploiting photos of murdered and naked young children and that is against the law whether DH and Shay Hughes think so or not.

What law is it against? He is only charged with conversion, so nothing specific to the nature of the pics or which classifies it as CSAM. Saying that they don’t think the action meets the standards of criminal conversion doesn’t mean that DH or SH don’t think what he did was disgusting and immoral. There are plenty of horribly immoral things that you can do that wouldn’t land you a charge of guilty in a court of law.

 

[girlhasnoname]

SBM There are plenty of reasons he would hide it from AB even if he thought it was legal. One can break a friend’s trust or violate professional standards without breaking the law. And even if he thought it was criminal back when he took the pics, that doesn't tell us why, after all this controversy and tragedy and specific charges have been filed, he would plead not guilty. That plea would be based on the legal standard and the evidence.

What law is it against? He is only charged with conversion, so nothing specific to the nature of the pics or which classifies it as CSAM. Saying that they don’t think the action meets the standards of criminal conversion doesn’t mean that DH or SH don’t think what he did was disgusting and immoral. There are plenty of horribly immoral things that you can do that wouldn’t land you a charge of guilty in a court of law.

I appreciate your opinion, but there is no way that I will ever believe MW did not know that distributing images of a nude, murdered child was not wrong and/or against the law. He was a wanna be lawyer (couldn't pass the bar) and worked for AB for years. I'm not dictating morality or even beginning to try....but I do know what MW did was beyond immoral, it was illegal and exploitive. Maybe that's why he's going to fight this, <modsnip: speculation outside the bounds of known facts/veering off topic>

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

SBM There are plenty of reasons he would hide it from AB even if he thought it was legal. One can break a friend’s trust or violate professional standards without breaking the law. And even if he thought it was criminal back when he took the pics, that doesn't tell us why, after all this controversy and tragedy and specific charges have been filed, he would plead not guilty. That plea would be based on the legal standard and the evidence.

What law is it against? He is only charged with conversion, so nothing specific to the nature of the pics or which classifies it as CSAM. Saying that they don’t think the action meets the standards of criminal conversion doesn’t mean that DH or SH don’t think what he did was disgusting and immoral. There are plenty of horribly immoral things that you can do that wouldn’t land you a charge of guilty in a court of law.

In regards to MW's charges of conversion, do we know if there are more to follow? I believe ISP was still investigating the case at the last hearing of the ExD and JG?

JMO

 

[Jade]

Eeeks!
If A&L happened to be young boys instead of girls would they be “marriageable “ yet?
What century am I in?
Gross

This is a frequently heard expression in Western Europe meaning more broadly all that comes with adulthood.

"Of marriage age" represents a right in which a person is of the age to marry without the consent of a customary system, serfdom, religious elder, parent, or others.

Not the expectation of marriage but the age of freedom of a marriage of their own choosing.

The law referenced is equally to men and women:

[...]
Article 12

Right to marry

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

[...]
Human Rights Act 1998


Marriageable ages a basic right for men and women:

[...]
Child marriage among boys

While boys and girls who marry in childhood do not face the same risks and consequences due to biological and social differences, the practice is nonetheless a rights violation for children of both sexes. Similar to child brides, child grooms are forced to take on adult responsibilities for which they may not be prepared. The union may bring early fatherhood and result in additional economic pressure in the form of providing for the household; it may also constrain the boy’s access to education and opportunities for career advancement.

Child marriage - UNICEF DATA


In this, the 21st Century, laws and rights that protect children from underage and forced marriage are not gross, imo.


all imo

 

[KentuckyMama]

This is a frequently heard expression in Western Europe meaning more broadly all that comes with adulthood.

"Of marriage age" represents a right in which a person is of the age to marry without the consent of a customary system, serfdom, religious elder, parent, or others.

Not the expectation of marriage but the age of freedom of a marriage of their own choosing.

The law referenced is equally to men and women:

[...]
Article 12

Right to marry

Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

[...]
Human Rights Act 1998


Marriageable ages a basic right for men and women:

[...]
Child marriage among boys

While boys and girls who marry in childhood do not face the same risks and consequences due to biological and social differences, the practice is nonetheless a rights violation for children of both sexes. Similar to child brides, child grooms are forced to take on adult responsibilities for which they may not be prepared. The union may bring early fatherhood and result in additional economic pressure in the form of providing for the household; it may also constrain the boy’s access to education and opportunities for career advancement.

Child marriage - UNICEF DATA


In this, the 21st Century, laws and rights that protect children from underage and forced marriage are not gross, imo.


all imo

Thank you for pointing this out. Not every one is from the same country or using English as a first language either. I had heard the phrase before from my cousin and understood its meaning. I knew it wasn't meant as a comment from another century, or being gross. Its always better to try to understand before using insults in response.

 

[KentuckyMama]

I feel like a thread killer! I did not mean to kill the thread. I have never seen this much time pass with no comments. Please come back! We can even talk about the baby goat BG had in his coat or whether he has on a hat or bushy hair. Anything.

 

[IminSyd]

No way you can kill this thread. Lots to contemplate though.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I feel like a thread killer! I did not mean to kill the thread. I have never seen this much time pass with no comments. Please come back! We can even talk about the baby goat BG had in his coat or whether he has on a hat or bushy hair. Anything.

Hah you're no thread killer, there's really not much to talk about at this point IMO. We are awaiting the SCOIN hearing on 1/18. It's a shame that this case has been put on hold even further because of the actions of the ExD and possibly JG. Once a decision is made at that hearing, I expect things will clip along at a decent pace.

I truly hope so for the families and loved ones of Abby and Libby. It's been years. Libby would have turned 21 just the other day, how crazy is it to even think that? Both of these young girls were robbed of so much and in such a horrendous fashion.

RA has been moved, wonder how that's going? I have a feeling it will be a rinse, repeat of Westville, but that's jmo.

RA is BG, of that I have no doubt. I believe he is guilty and will be found so at trial. Maybe then, and only then, can the families and community of Delphi begin to move forward in the healing process. Nothing will ever bring these innocent young ladies back, but they deserve justice and it has been far too long in coming.

MOO

EBM: Spelling

 

[Laughing]

I feel like a thread killer! I did not mean to kill the thread. I have never seen this much time pass with no comments. Please come back! We can even talk about the baby goat BG had in his coat or whether he has on a hat or bushy hair. Anything.

image from Facebook

imho, some of us are just not that interested in the attorney battle, while acknowledging that this phase of the case is critical to justice for Abby & Libby!


image from WHAS11

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I feel like a thread killer! I did not mean to kill the thread. I have never seen this much time pass with no comments. Please come back! We can even talk about the baby goat BG had in his coat or whether he has on a hat or bushy hair. Anything.

No fear of killing this thread, just exhaustion from how this case is proceeding!
Now…about that baby goat….

A new interpretation on “baby goats in coats”.

 

[girlhasnoname]

No fear of killing this thread, just exhaustion from how this case is proceeding!
Now…about that baby goat….

A new interpretation on “baby goats in coats”.

View attachment 470717

Ahhh, totally adorable. We've been on this thread a really looooong time and through it all, I know each of us wants to see justice served for Abby & Libby.

 

[Emma Peel]

Expecting SCOIN-related discussions to resume here after the Jan 18th SCOIN arguments; then again with the SCOIN decision; then again when the parties take next steps based upon SCOIN decision(s)/non-decision(s).

IMO, the only fast-track to trial is if SCOIN grants RA's 2nd Writ motion to reinstate RA's preferred counsel. Looking forward to seeing how Jan 18th questioning and commentary from SCOIN addresses the civil rights/process issues raised in 2nd Writ.

SCOIN's hearing will raise the discussion bar far above the Gull/RA venue (case, character, prejudice) and consider the facts vs. the law - as if this set of facts could theoretically exist in any case, any place, any time in the State of Indiana under the US Constitution.

How refreshing. This case could use a shower. JMHO.

 

[sunshineray]

SBM There are plenty of reasons he would hide it from AB even if he thought it was legal. One can break a friend’s trust or violate professional standards without breaking the law. And even if he thought it was criminal back when he took the pics, that doesn't tell us why, after all this controversy and tragedy and specific charges have been filed, he would plead not guilty. That plea would be based on the legal standard and the evidence.

What law is it against? He is only charged with conversion, so nothing specific to the nature of the pics or which classifies it as CSAM. Saying that they don’t think the action meets the standards of criminal conversion doesn’t mean that DH or SH don’t think what he did was disgusting and immoral. There are plenty of horribly immoral things that you can do that wouldn’t land you a charge of guilty in a court of law.

And once again, crimes against children, against their dignity as the most precious of human beings, are not punished accordingly. AJMO

 

[schooling]

I find it very telling that in order to explain RA as BG we are at the point of hypothesizing that he bought a wig at his work place and put it on to walk past several witnesses without covering his face, despite working with the public daily in the small town, on his way to commit double murder or a kidnapping, and then put on a hat to cover the wig while approaching his victims.
This makes absolutely no sense IMO.

He probably wants a jury trial because he doesn’t think his actions are criminal conversion. DH and Shay Hughes, Indiana defense attorneys, agree and think he has a very good case to be found not guilty.

In my specific circumstances, I’d consider this a strawman argument. Because I (specifically) do not need to make any such argument to consider RA as BG…personally. The video is far too pixelated for me to be trying to interpret information that is not there.

IMO, visually, gathering anything other than build, height, and relative race from the video is honestly a stretch. It’s so pixelated that even the clothing can be interpreted in many different ways.

I will say however that the dumpy person (all offense intended to the murderer) is sure built and waddling a lot like RA.

So IMO, this case isn’t going to hinge on the hair at all. Or the pixelated beyond recognition head, in general. The video’s most important role is going to be establishing the time of the murders. Which the rest of the timeline hinges on to demonstrate opportunity and presence for RA.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

New News:

Judge Gull to Serve As Next Superior Court Chief Judge​

Administrative Judges Complete 2024-25 Court Leadership Team
Fort Wayne, Ind. – Allen Superior Court’s Board of Judges has elected a new Chief Judge, rounding out the leadership team that will guide the Court for the next two years.
Judge Frances C. Gull will serve a two-year term as the Court’s Chief Judge, beginning Jan. 1, 2024. The Chief Judge has certain leadership and administrative responsibilities, including overseeing Board of Judges’ meetings, signing the Court’s annual budget and representing Allen County on the Judicial Conference of Indiana Board of Directors.
She succeeds Judge Jennifer L. DeGroote, who completes a two-year term that began in 2022.
“In Allen County and across Indiana, the Courts have never been busier,” Judge Gull said. “While that makes our daily tasks tougher, the same challenge gives us an opportunity to help people, restore lives and break cycles of substance abuse and crime on an unprecedented scale. With a mix of innovation, compassion and respect for the law, Allen Superior Court is equal to the challenge.”
In addition to the Chief Judge position, Superior Court Judges recently elected divisional Administrative Judges. Those Judges will also serve two-year terms beginning Jan. 1. They are:

• Judge Jennifer L. DeGroote, elected to serve as Administrative Judge of the Court’s Civil Division.
• Judge Frances C. Gull, re- elected to serve as Administrative Judge of the Criminal Division. She has served as Criminal Division Administrative Judge since 2000.
• Judge Lori K. Morgan, elected to serve as Administrative Judge of the Family Relations Division.

Full biographies of Superior Court Judges are available on the Court’s web site.
Allen Superior Court’s Chief Judge and Administrative Judge appointments and terms of service are governed by Indiana Code sections 33-33-2-30 and 33-33-2-31.

 

[Justice101]

I appreciate your opinion, but there is no way that I will ever believe MW did not know that distributing images of a nude, murdered child was not wrong and/or against the law. He was a wanna be lawyer (couldn't pass the bar) and worked for AB for years. I'm not dictating morality or even beginning to try....but I do know what MW did was beyond immoral, it was illegal and exploitive. Maybe that's why he's going to fight this, <modsnip: speculation outside the bounds of known facts/veering off topic>

MOO

Yeh, and even if he didn't know... I always heard ignorance of the law is no excuse

 

[O.Incandenza]

In my specific circumstances, I’d consider this a strawman argument. Because I (specifically) do not need to make any such argument to consider RA as BG…personally. The video is far too pixelated for me to be trying to interpret information that is not there.

IMO, visually, gathering anything other than build, height, and relative race from the video is honestly a stretch. It’s so pixelated that even the clothing can be interpreted in many different ways.

I will say however that the dumpy person (all offense intended to the murderer) is sure built and waddling a lot like RA.

So IMO, this case isn’t going to hinge on the hair at all. Or the pixelated beyond recognition head, in general. The video’s most important role is going to be establishing the time of the murders. Which the rest of the timeline hinges on to demonstrate opportunity and presence for RA.

MOO

Right, that's pretty much how I feel about it. The best I can say about the video and the audio is that they don't exclude RA. And given that he admits to being on the trails that day, that's a lot. It's certainly more than we have for any other suspect.

Does it get me personally to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? No. But in combination with his confessions and some evidence tying him to the crime scene it could. I don't love that the evidence we've heard so far is conflicting eyewitness testimony, confessions and contested science, since those are the three main types of evidence that tend to get people falsely convicted. But having all 3 is certainly better than having just one, and his confessions seem to have occurred in a context that make them less likely to be false.

But I will feel a lot more certain of his guilt if we learn that there's other evidence tying him to the crime scene beyond just the bullet. Given what we've heard of the crime scene, it would be strange if the bullet was the only forensic link.