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

[zh0r4]

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.

Thank you for clarifying. So how would we know that tan jacket guy and BG are the same guy? SC was driving on the other side of the road, how could she have a good enough look to verify it was BG when the video is so grainy and BB said sketch #2, which looks nothing like RA, is who she saw on the bridge?

 

[photographer4]

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.

Right so I wonder, did LE ever look to see how many '65 (or surrounding years before and after) comets are registered to drivers out there or even just to classic car clubs? What steps, if any, did they take to be SURE it couldn't have been a comet that she saw? How did they get from Comet to whatever RA's family vehicles were?

 

[Ravenmoon]

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!

We can agree on this for sure!

 

[Ravenmoon]

Thank you for clarifying. So how would we know that tan jacket guy and BG are the same guy? SC was driving on the other side of the road, how could she have a good enough look to verify it was BG when the video is so grainy and BB said sketch #2, which looks nothing like RA, is who she saw on the bridge?

While I personally cannot say what she saw versus what she didn't see, LE has decided that it was important enough to include in their investigation.

I can, however, say that the man on the bridge is the man that forced 2 innocent girls to their death.

I can also say that the timing of the man walking back towards the vehicle at the old CPS building coincides with the timing of the murders. It would be highly coincidental that someone else woth the same jacket, muddy, looking like he had been in an altercation was there at the exact same time.



JMO

 

[TL4S]

Ever since RA's arrest, there has been an understandable want for trial, conviction, and justice for the girls. That's fair. A lot of folks are already convinced of RA's guilt and dislike the defense team and their tactics. I get it, and I've had my own moments.

But here's where I'm at right now. Justice for A and L, and their legacy in this regard, would be sadly misplaced if their murderer's trial was the beginning to the end of proper legal proceedings in Indiana. JMO.

The SCOIN saw it fit to hear oral arguments on an original action. That's significant, IMO. If what AB did deserves sanctions, then let it be so. If "insubordination" is not grounds for DQing, then let not a judge play that hand. If there are documents to be available to the public, let it be on the docket. If a motion for a hearing meets standards, let one be held. If an in-custody defendant cannot properly assist with his own defense due to his housing situation, amend that. In the end, let the evidence speak for itself and do things right, on all sides. JMO.

There are a lot of moving parts to the system, and they all need to work properly. If that takes time, it takes time. IMO, A and L's case has brought a lot of people together, taught us more and more about the law, and has shone a light on some issues within the system that might need to do better. Seems a more favorable legacy, IMO.

 

[Chelly]

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.
View attachment 477430
Source:
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

@zh0r4 Thanks for correcting. As we know, BB did not say she saw a Comet parked in that lot. She said she saw a vehicle resembling a 1965 Comet.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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?

I don't believe the FM Memorandum and prefer to take my facts from the PCA: (This was the redacted version)

Investigators spoke with , who stated that she was traveling East on 300 North on February 13",2022 and observed a male subject walking west,- on the North side of 300 North, away from the Manon High Bridge. She advised that the male subject was wearing a blue colored jacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. She further statetd, that It appeared he had gotten into a fight. Investigators were able to determine from watching the video from the Hoosier Harvest store that was traveling on 300 North at approximately 3:57 pm.

 

[Chelly]

I don't believe the FM Memorandum and prefer to take my facts from the PCA: (This was the redacted version)I

Investigators spoke with , who stated that she was traveling East on 300 North on February 13",2022 and observed a male subject walking west,- on the North side of 300 North, away from the Manon High Bridge. She advised that the male subject was wearing a blue colored jacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. She further statetd, that It appeared he had gotten into a fight. Investigators were able to determine from watching the video from the Hoosier Harvest store that was traveling on 300 North at approximately 3:57 pm.

Agree! The Devil (and the Facts) are in the details.

 

[TL4S]

I don't believe the FM Memorandum and prefer to take my facts from the PCA: (This was the redacted version)

Investigators spoke with , who stated that she was traveling East on 300 North on February 13",2022 and observed a male subject walking west,- on the North side of 300 North, away from the Manon High Bridge. She advised that the male subject was wearing a blue colored jacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. She further statetd, that It appeared he had gotten into a fight. Investigators were able to determine from watching the video from the Hoosier Harvest store that was traveling on 300 North at approximately 3:57 pm.

I don't know if I should believe either the FM or the PCA.

 

[photographer4]

Ever since RA's arrest, there has been an understandable want for trial, conviction, and justice for the girls. That's fair. A lot of folks are already convinced of RA's guilt and dislike the defense team and their tactics. I get it, and I've had my own moments.

But here's where I'm at right now. Justice for A and L, and their legacy in this regard, would be sadly misplaced if their murderer's trial was the beginning to the end of proper legal proceedings in Indiana. JMO.

The SCOIN saw it fit to hear oral arguments on an original action. That's significant, IMO. If what AB did deserves sanctions, then let it be so. If "insubordination" is not grounds for DQing, then let not a judge play that hand. If there are documents to be available to the public, let it be on the docket. If a motion for a hearing meets standards, let one be held. If an in-custody defendant cannot properly assist with his own defense due to his housing situation, amend that. In the end, let the evidence speak for itself and do things right, on all sides. JMO.

There are a lot of moving parts to the system, and they all need to work properly. If that takes time, it takes time. IMO, A and L's case has brought a lot of people together, taught us more and more about the law, and has shone a light on some issues within the system that might need to do better. Seems a more favorable legacy, IMO.

I cannot love this post enough! If they had to die, and leave a legacy, then I hope that it is a favorable one that leads to positive changes in the justice system.

 

[photographer4]

I don't believe the FM Memorandum and prefer to take my facts from the PCA: (This was the redacted version)

Investigators spoke with , who stated that she was traveling East on 300 North on February 13",2022 and observed a male subject walking west,- on the North side of 300 North, away from the Manon High Bridge. She advised that the male subject was wearing a blue colored jacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. She further statetd, that It appeared he had gotten into a fight. Investigators were able to determine from watching the video from the Hoosier Harvest store that was traveling on 300 North at approximately 3:57 pm.

I think the facts of the PCA are in dispute in the FM. They cannot both be accurate. What I noticed in the FM footnotes though was that they included a flash drive of the interview given by the witness to the police officer. In that footnote, which I'll quote below, they point out that she saw a man in a lighter colored jacket, but despite having just gone on about her NOT seeing a bloody man, they do not indicate anything further about that in the footnote.
"167. Find attached a flash drive containing Sarah Carbaugh’s June 7, 2017, interview with Tony Liggett. It is markedas Exhibit 115. Carbaugh describes that the man she observed was wearing a tan color coat/lighter colored coat atthe 5:07:30 mark."

From the link: https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf
(p. 116).

So if JG ruled that no hearing is going to happen regarding the FM, then did she review the flash drive / witness statements and determine which version is correct?

 

[photographer4]

I don't believe the FM Memorandum and prefer to take my facts from the PCA: (This was the redacted version)

Investigators spoke with , who stated that she was traveling East on 300 North on February 13",2022 and observed a male subject walking west,- on the North side of 300 North, away from the Manon High Bridge. She advised that the male subject was wearing a blue colored jacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. She further statetd, that It appeared he had gotten into a fight. Investigators were able to determine from watching the video from the Hoosier Harvest store that was traveling on 300 North at approximately 3:57 pm.

I'm going to post the quote from the FM about the "bloody" (or not bloody depending on which document one wants to believe here) so everyone can see and compare them.

"SC [name of witness redacted by me] saw a man walking on 300 North wearing a jacket. Liggett needed the color of that jacket to match the color of the jacket worn by the man BB [witness name redacted by me] had observed on the high bridge at 2 pm because Liggett is claiming that both men are the same man: Richard Allen. The problem was that SC did not observe the man walking down 300 North wearing a blue jacket. She observed a tan jacket. This meant that SC and BB observed two different men. This created a problem for Liggett’s timeline, so instead of being honest, Liggett chose to represent to Judge Diener that SC observed a man wearing a blue jacket, when in her 2017 interview, SC said it was tan. But that’s not all. Nowhere in SC's 2017 interview does SC use the word “bloody” to describe the clothing that the man was wearing. Nowhere. The so-called “muddy bloody lady” is actually just the “muddy lady,” as SC only used the word muddy to describe the man she observed on 300 North in her 2017 interview. It certainly would help Judge Diener in making his decision if the man walking down the street was wearing a blue jacket and also wearing bloody clothing, as if he had just murdered somebody. However, Liggett just flat out lied. SC mentioned a blue coat and never mentioned blood in her 2017 interview.

link: https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf
p.116-17

 

[zh0r4]

I don't believe the FM Memorandum and prefer to take my facts from the PCA: (This was the redacted version)

Investigators spoke with , who stated that she was traveling East on 300 North on February 13",2022 and observed a male subject walking west,- on the North side of 300 North, away from the Manon High Bridge. She advised that the male subject was wearing a blue colored jacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. She further statetd, that It appeared he had gotten into a fight. Investigators were able to determine from watching the video from the Hoosier Harvest store that was traveling on 300 North at approximately 3:57 pm.

Do you know which page of the PCA this was on? I assume this is talking about the witness who was driving? TIA, I am attempting to organize all of these files.

 

[iamshadow21]

Do you know which page of the PCA this was on? I assume this is talking about the witness who was driving? TIA, I am attempting to organize all of these files.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwifwcHEuPeDAxWIiK8BHR0RB0QQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw31hsNIFFcRYpS-2z1FHwFw

Page four.

 

[zh0r4]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwifwcHEuPeDAxWIiK8BHR0RB0QQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw31hsNIFFcRYpS-2z1FHwFw

Page four.

Thank you! I noticed this witness is a male? Did they bring this witness up in the FM?

 

[iamshadow21]

Thank you! I noticed this witness is a male? Did they bring this witness up in the FM?

I honestly can't remember. I read the Franks motion once, months ago. That was enough for me. I can try and have a look, but if you're more familiar with the FM, you're probably going to find it faster than me.

 

[iamshadow21]

Thank you! I noticed this witness is a male? Did they bring this witness up in the FM?

I don't know where you're getting male from, it says 'she' after the first censored portion of that section.

 

[zh0r4]

I don't know where you're getting male from, it says 'she' after the first censored portion of that section.

p. 3-4

Source:

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

 

[iamshadow21]

p. 3-4
View attachment 477508
Source:

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

The muddy and bloody witness is below that, different witness. I made that mistake for a moment, too, I corrected it.

 

[katydid23]

I'm not painting the judge as anything other than what she appears to be: biased against the Defense Counsel.

If so, why didn't SCOIN find her biased?

In regards to the leaks, I cannot hold AB liable for that. He was IN his office, he had no reason to think that someone he had a seemingly decent relationship with was going to enter the "war room" (as it were) and illegal access / take photos of crime scene evidence which he would then disseminate amongst others.

Then he was negligent. Just because he didn't think it would happen, it doesn't mean he shouldn't take necessary precaution with SEALED legal documents.

He was responsible for keeping those sensitive crime scene photos of dead naked children SAFE from public view. They should have been locked up if he was not IN THE ROOM with them.

How on earth was he supposed to predict that event? I could see him having a problem if he were NOT in the office and this random guy off the street gained access to his office and did that.

This was essentially a guy off the street---he was not an employee, not an attorney, and was TRESPASSING at the time.

But think about your own offices - if you have a conference room, do you lock that whilst you're in say your cubicle next door?

If I had sensitive, sealed legal documents laying about in that conference room, I would absolutely lock them down if I had to step away.

Or whilst you run to the restroom? Probably not. Especially if you're just taking a quick call or sending a fast email. Even less likely if you're not expecting a visitor, or if the visitor you expect is a trusted friend.

All of the above describes NEGLIGENCE in terms of sealed sensitive legal documents being leaked from one's custody.

He was negligent, lazy and irresponsible. He should abso9lutely be held liable for the leaks. IMO

If this lawyer was holding a cash settlement for you to come and pick up---and he left it in his unlocked, unsupervised war room, and one of his ex employees went in and stole it----would you consider him liable for that loss?