IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

[girlhasnoname]

Those are some GLARING issues highlighted by the FM regarding what the witness said about a man in a TAN (not blue / black) jacket which was MUDDY (not bloody??). GLARING. How the heck does that even happen?

RA took off the blue jacket? A tan hoodie underneath a zipped up jacket wouldn't be nearly as bloody. The witness actually said the man she saw walking on 300N looked "bloody and muddy like he'd been in a fight" according to the AA.

MOO

 

[Detective Willy]

IMO RA committed these crimes and most of the other discussions are a sideshow about legal technicalities.

The fact appears to be that he murdered 2 innocent girls for no reason and he deserves everything that he has received and is yet to come.

He was on the bridge on or around the same time as the girls were, he looks like the male on the video, bullets have been matched to his gun and he has confessed at least 5 times.

Prayers to Abby and Libby's families that justice is swift and he never sees the light of day again as a free man.

 

[photographer4]

View attachment 477407


Red arrow points to tan hoodie under the blue jacket.

Sometimes people layer clothing.
Removing the outer layer is pretty simple.
In this case, removing the blue jacket because of the blood seems reasonable.

Muddy from crossing the creek seems reasonable also, doesn't it?

Yep. When you use that photo to remind me that the man on LG's video was indeed wearing some sort of brown / tan coloured items of clothing then yes, its far more reasonable! Ok, so witness sees a man exit the area in tan and muddy jacket - what we're not told - and don't even know if she was asked, was the man carrying anything? A bag? Anything in his hands?

If she wasn't asked, why wasn't she asked?
2. If she was asked, what is the answer?
- If she was asked and answered yes he was - then did she go on to describe what he was carrying / had in hand?
3. If she was asked and the answer was no - then what happened to the blue jacket?

B) did police find any evidence at RA's home / in the family vehicles that would somehow tie him to the kids and or the crime scene? What forensic investigations were conducted if any in the home / around the home / upon & inside the vehicles?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Denied without a hearing and thus far, without benefit of a written explanation of the ruling.

Every Motion filed in Court does not demand or require a hearing. The explanation Judge G gave of her ruling seemed sufficient to me although it may not be the details we want.

Maybe R&B will file a Motion to have a hearing on the hearing Judge G didn't have on her ruling? IDK, I'm personally waiting on R&B to whip out their signed STM, date it and file it any second now. I hope. Everybody says they're ready to go.

MOO

 

[Chelly]

According to the witnesses themselves in follow-up interviews they did not describe what Liggett reported. BB said the car she saw was a Comet. The jacket SC saw was tan not blue. BB’s sketch of who she saw on the bridge omitted at a press release was sketch #2; she contacted LE when they released sketch 1 bc she said it looked nothing like BG. BB said sketch #2 is who she saw and that she told LE that.

@zh0r4 I am very confused by your statement that "BB said the car she saw was a Comet." Are you sure she said it was a Comet?

Mercury Comet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ravenmoon]

Yep. When you use that photo to remind me that the man on LG's video was indeed wearing some sort of brown / tan coloured items of clothing then yes, its far more reasonable! Ok, so witness sees a man exit the area in tan and muddy jacket - what we're not told - and don't even know if she was asked, was the man carrying anything? A bag? Anything in his hands?

If she wasn't asked, why wasn't she asked?
2. If she was asked, what is the answer?
- If she was asked and answered yes he was - then did she go on to describe what he was carryi

ng / had in hand?
3. If she was asked and the answer was no - then what happened to the blue jacket?

B) did police find any evidence at RA's home / in the family vehicles that would somehow tie him to the kids and or the crime scene? What forensic investigations were conducted if any in the home / around the home / upon & inside the vehicles?

AFAIK, wether or not he was carrying anything has not been addressed.

We have to remember that the witness was driving by and probably only had him in her visual briefly.

1)

We don't know if she was asked.

2)

We don't know.
3)

We don't know.

We can hypothesize that he shoved the jacket inside the hoodie or wrapped around his waist. Still, we don't know.

B)

We know that several articles of clothing matching that of the clothing worn by the man in the video were seized .
We also know that certain samples and cuttings were removed and seized from his vehicle/s.

LE were seen digging in RAs yard and also inside of a shed on the property.


JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Yep. When you use that photo to remind me that the man on LG's video was indeed wearing some sort of brown / tan coloured items of clothing then yes, its far more reasonable! Ok, so witness sees a man exit the area in tan and muddy jacket - what we're not told - and don't even know if she was asked, was the man carrying anything? A bag? Anything in his hands?

If she wasn't asked, why wasn't she asked?
2. If she was asked, what is the answer?
- If she was asked and answered yes he was - then did she go on to describe what he was carrying / had in hand?
3. If she was asked and the answer was no - then what happened to the blue jacket?

B) did police find any evidence at RA's home / in the family vehicles that would somehow tie him to the kids and or the crime scene? What forensic investigations were conducted if any in the home / around the home / upon & inside the vehicles?

Here's a link to the Fox version of FG's doc dump.
Beginning page 115, the items they took during the search are listed.
The only clothing item I see on there that is brown is a cap with a bill.
They took his blue Carhartt jacket from his home.
There's a "lab exam" box on the right, showing which items were examined.

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/06/DelphiDocumentsCombined.pdf

 

[Salah11]

Yep. When you use that photo to remind me that the man on LG's video was indeed wearing some sort of brown / tan coloured items of clothing then yes, its far more reasonable! Ok, so witness sees a man exit the area in tan and muddy jacket - what we're not told - and don't even know if she was asked, was the man carrying anything? A bag? Anything in his hands?

If she wasn't asked, why wasn't she asked?
2. If she was asked, what is the answer?
- If she was asked and answered yes he was - then did she go on to describe what he was carrying / had in hand?
3. If she was asked and the answer was no - then what happened to the blue jacket?

B) did police find any evidence at RA's home / in the family vehicles that would somehow tie him to the kids and or the crime scene? What forensic investigations were conducted if any in the home / around the home / upon & inside the vehicles?

What would you expect to find after 5 years was it before a arrest? We are not talking days or weeks here.

So Car evidence likely evaporated in that amount of time for example.

moo

 

[FromGermany1]

Judge worried for family's safety after sealing court docs in Delphi murders recused from case​

Snipped from article:​

​

Filing to move Allen to state custody​

On Nov. 2, the Carroll County sheriff filed a request to have Allen moved to the custody of the Indiana Department of Correction. The judge approved that request on Nov. 3, noting: "that Defendant is an inmate awaiting trial and is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents substantial threat to the safety of others." The judge clarified the danger was to Allen from the public. It is not related to any of Allen's actions since being taken into custody.

IF he is convicted some day in the future, will they further have a problem to find the appropriate prison for him? Or will they shuffle him from prison to prison to prison, if the inmates or guards don't like him?

 

[zh0r4]

View attachment 477407


Red arrow points to tan hoodie under the blue jacket.

Sometimes people layer clothing.
Removing the outer layer is pretty simple.
In this case, removing the blue jacket because of the blood seems reasonable.

Muddy from crossing the creek seems reasonable also, doesn't it?

SC is not the witness who saw BG, it was the witness who saw a man with a tan, muddy jacket walking on the other side of the street when she was driving.

 

[zh0r4]

BB - is she the one who had noted that her father had a car just like the one she reported having seen?

Yes that is her. She said her father had a car just like the one she saw (the comet), and that’s why she knew what type of car it was.

 

[zh0r4]

@zh0r4 I am very confused by your statement that "BB said the car she saw was a Comet." Are you sure she said it was a Comet?

Mercury Comet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No, a Ford. Here’s the specific quote and page (p. 113 in the FM)

“However, at 2:15 pm when Betsy Blair passed the old CPS building Betsy Blair did not see a black Ford Focus parked at the old CPS lot. The car that Betsy Blair observed as she passed the old CPS building at 2:15 pm looked nothing like a black Ford Focus. According to Liggett's own report, Betsy Blair observed one car parked in the CPS lot at 2:15, and that car resembled a "1965 Ford Comet 162 that her father once owned. 63 The shape had "sharper angles."|64 Again, to whom did Betsy Blair provide this description of a 1965 Ford Comet-looking, angular in appearance vehicle? None other than Liggett himself. 65 Liggett was fully aware that the car that Betsy Blair described as being backed into a spot at the old CPS building looked nothing like Richard Allen's black Ford Focus, but Liggett concealed that information from Judge Diener.

It should also be noted, that if Richad Allen left at 1:30 pm, then the person that Betsy Blair observed on the high bridge at roughly 2:00 pm was NOT Richard Allen. This would explain why the person that Betsy Blair observed on the high bridge looked nothing like Richard Allen because it wasn't Richard Allen. It was a 20-year-old kid with brown poofy hair. Concealing Betsy Blair's description of the vehicle at the old CPS building from Judge Diener may have temporarily plugged a hole in the dam of Liggett's problematic timeline when Diener reviewed the affidavit on October 13, 2022. But Liggett's concealment has now been exposed.”

Footnotes:

“162 Defense counsel recognizes that in 1965, Ford did not make a Comet, Mercury did. But these were the words of Betsy Blair who knew what the Comet looked like, but erroneously thought that Ford produced the Comet.
163 Liggett's report previously entered as Exhibit 105, paragraphs 4 and 6 on page 1.
164 Betsy even provided a sketch of the side profile of the car that she observed at the CPS lot at 2:15 pm, featuring the angles that the car possessed. Blair's sketch of the side profile of the car is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit
113. The sketch definitely looks nothing like the side profile of Richard Allen's Ford Focus. A photo of a Ford Focus similar to the one owned by Richard Allen in 2017 is also attached and marked as Exhibit 114. 165”

EDIT: to add footnotes that clarify defense is aware Ford didn’t make the Comet.

Source:
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

 

[photographer4]

RA took off the blue jacket? A tan hoodie underneath a zipped up jacket wouldn't be nearly as bloody. The witness actually said the man she saw walking on 300N looked "bloody and muddy like he'd been in a fight" according to the AA.

MOO

Well, if we're to believe the FM (which I've linked to here: https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf), then actually the witness did NOT say that the man she saw was muddy and bloody at all. See pages 24 & 25, wherein they have written that:

"Nowhere did _______ (I have x'd out the name of the witness in question myself) claim in 2017 that the man she observed was wearing a blue coat.
Nowhere did _______ (I have x'd out the name of witness in question myself) claim in 2017 that the man she observed was wearing bloody clothes....."

And perhaps THAT is why we need a FM hearing. If the witness did NOT say that the man she saw was bloody, then why is that was LE asserted in their information?

 

[photographer4]

IMO RA committed these crimes and most of the other discussions are a sideshow about legal technicalities.

The fact appears to be that he murdered 2 innocent girls for no reason and he deserves everything that he has received and is yet to come.

He was on the bridge on or around the same time as the girls were, he looks like the male on the video, bullets have been matched to his gun and he has confessed at least 5 times.

Prayers to Abby and Libby's families that justice is swift and he never sees the light of day again as a free man.

But it isn't proven fact at all yet. Its being presented as such by the prosecution - because that is their job - to make you believe RA did it, as confidently as they can. At this point, its suggested fact at best.

 

[photographer4]

@zh0r4 I am very confused by your statement that "BB said the car she saw was a Comet." Are you sure she said it was a Comet?

Mercury Comet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Per the FM, which I've linked here: https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf -- on page 113, the Defense asserts that she did say she saw a car that resembled a '65 comet.

 

[Ravenmoon]

SC is not the witness who saw BG, it was the witness who saw a man with a tan, muddy jacket walking on the other side of the street when she was driving.

P
Okay.
I never said it was either/ or?
My post was to point out the hoodie under the jacket.
I was responding to Photogrpher 4.

 

[photographer4]

AFAIK, wether or not he was carrying anything has not been addressed.

We have to remember that the witness was driving by and probably only had him in her visual briefly.

1)

We don't know if she was asked.

2)

We don't know.
3)

We don't know.

We can hypothesize that he shoved the jacket inside the hoodie or wrapped around his waist. Still, we don't know.

B)

We know that several articles of clothing matching that of the clothing worn by the man in the video were seized .
We also know that certain samples and cuttings were removed and seized from his vehicle/s.

LE were seen digging in RAs yard and also inside of a shed on the property.


JMO

We can also assert reasonably though that most men have various hoodies and jackets in various colors and sizes in their homes. So the fact that some were found and seized doesn't indicate that they found anything of evidentiary value in / on those seized items of clothing.
We don't know what they were looking for in the shed / on the property, or if they found it (yet).
We don't know what if any evidence may have been found (if any at all) in the cuttings from his vehicles.

These are points I certainly hope we learn more about! Its going to be hard for RA to deny he's their man if there was a spec of DNA from either of the kids in his vehicle or at his proeprty!

 

[Ward Thisperer]

I would venture to guess that she probably has been based on the hate content I've read online. Sad state of affairs when our Judges are afraid of physical or mental retribution for overseeing a trial period.

MOO

“Mental retribution” meaning criticism of an elected official? If she doesn’t like that part of the job description perhaps she should find a new job. And if she doesn’t like receiving hate when on a difficult case I guess that explains why she was never a defense attorney.

Which matched the timeline of the murders that he corrected during his Oct 22 interview with LE

Backed in at an obscure spot in an effort to hide his plates or the car from view and video from the store H&H showing a car similar to RA's at that time

based on the word of LE. We have no word but “appears to match”. No statement that it matches the license plate. No statement that it matches a unique feature. No clue how clear the video is from HH.
Here’s an example of a vehicle identification in Dan Markel’s murder in the PCA for Katie Magbanua.

Notice how we aren’t asked to rely on the affiant’s subjective judgement that the vehicle “appeared” in some unnamed way to “match”?

The correct timeline after RA lied about being there from noon to 12:30 originally to the CO

You have it backwards. Dulin’s tip narrative says RA says he was there from 1:30-3:30. In RAs interview he says 12-1:30.

That characteristically was found to match the SS RA admitted to owning and to never loaning out to anyone else

(found to match using a methodology that can have error rates of over 50%)

Which the timing coincides with RA being there at that time by witness statements and time stamped photos of witnesses

He lied in his first chat with the CO. RA told LE he was at bridge between 1:30 - 3:30 in his follow up interview in Oct 22

Again you have this backwards. Dulin reported 1:30-3:30. RA told investigators in the interview 12-1:30 and TL left this out of the affidavit completely despite it contradicting the original note (which we have no audio or body cam recording of)

Anyone can mistake the make and model of a car they see for a split second driving by. Most of the vehicle descriptions were called in tips.

This witness BB wasn’t driving by. She was on the trails and walked past this car. She was extremely specific about the car she saw being nothing like RAs (which was left out of the SWA) and she was within 50 ft of a man near the bridge and identified a sketch that looked nothing like RA (which was left out of the SWA)

She was looking from a distance and different angle. We have 4 girls on the bridge who literally passed RA at the specific timeline and they all described him down to his clothes, his height and manner of walking with very little discrepancy.

RAs manner of walking is never outlined in the SWA as matching BG. Only 3 juvenile females’ statements are reported in the SWA.

Perhaps he took off the blue jacket off (working up a sweat during all the activity and blood spatter) and just had his hoodie on at that time. This was after the murders. KA admitted in the Oct 22 interview RA had those types of clothing as well.

I also own a blue jacket and a hoodie… I hope no one tells TL.

I've never seen a solid MSM or LE release that there is no chain of custody for the bullet. LE took photos of it in/on the ground, but someone said they hadn't seen photos of it after collection, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I don't think the Defense even had a clue what they did and didn't have in Discovery. They hadn't been through it all they even mentioned that in the FM itself. (as a footnote) What exculpatory evidence other than the Odin Report did LE fail to give the Defense? It's not exculpatory evidence if LE investigated it and found it basically hog wash, or an attempt to portray an Odinisim angle in an effort to try and throw LE off the trail.

How about the Purdue report? Of course if you refuse to believe anything the defense says and believe everything LE says, you won’t find that very convincing either.

 

[Ravenmoon]

But it isn't proven fact at all yet. Its being presented as such by the prosecution - because that is their job - to make you believe RA did it, as confidently as they can. At this point, its suggested fact at best.

It is NOT the prosecutions job to convince anyone other than the jury that RA is the murderer.

 

[photographer4]

What would you expect to find after 5 years was it before a arrest? We are not talking days or weeks here.

So Car evidence likely evaporated in that amount of time for example.

moo

Ohhhh, I'd suggest that DNA evidence can last way longer than people might think, and can be harder to get rid of than you might imagine. Droplets not visible to the naked eye that light up under luminol and with a UV light - little bits of fiber that transfer from clothing to car seats / carpets. Specs of dirt transferred from the scene to the interior of that car... ohhh I think if they found anything in the vehicle(s) or at his property that can link him to one or both kids, that man's goose is quite cooked.