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

[Emma Peel]

Here is a screen cap of the jacket taken during the search of RA's home. Notice they give descriptions of clothing taken = hooded sweatshirt, 1/4 zip sweatshirt. There is no other description of the blue Carhartt coat (no hood).
RA told investigators he was wearing either a blue or black Carhartt coat with a hood.

Also notice none of the boxes on the right are checked. I assume this means there was no lab exam performed on them.

So what does that mean?

View attachment 477669

I'm sure I don't know what it means.
size 8 shoe
34*29 jeans
... Do we know his actual measured height from arrest info ... or just estimates of height attempted by sleuthers, etc.?

 

[Emma Peel]

duplicate, so deleted by me.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm sure I don't know what it means.
size 8 shoe
34*29 jeans
... Do we know his actual measured height from arrest info ... or just estimates of height attempted by sleuthers, etc.?

I think one of his speeding tickets gave his height, which was debated by those who guesstimated the size of the cement blocks he was standing against.

 

[FrostedGlass]

So I'm wondering if they did some sort of pre-testing the clothing for blood.
If they didn't find any, they likely would not have sent them on to be tested by the lab?

His muddy and bloody coat should have had some kind of remaining stains on it if he did the murders. Shouldn't it?
He obviously had no tan coat or they would have taken it, too. No tan sweatshirt, either.
There should have been something worthy of exam in his brown cap but nothing is noted on the return.

For me, this all backs up the D claim that there was nothing linking him to the crime scene, according to LE.
Do we have any science about years old bloody clothing?

 

[steeltowngirl]

So I'm wondering if they did some sort of pre-testing the clothing for blood.
If they didn't find any, they likely would not have sent them on to be tested by the lab?

His muddy and bloody coat should have had some kind of remaining stains on it if he did the murders. Shouldn't it?
He obviously had no tan coat or they would have taken it, too. No tan sweatshirt, either.
There should have been something worthy of exam in his brown cap but nothing is noted on the return.

For me, this all backs up the D claim that there was nothing linking him to the crime scene, according to LE.
Do we have any science about years old bloody clothing?

If RA did it, we don’t know that LE obtained the jacket he wore during the crime. They took a jacket. He may have had more than one jacket. I do.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I'm sure I don't know what it means.
size 8 shoe
34*29 jeans
... Do we know his actual measured height from arrest info ... or just estimates of height attempted by sleuthers, etc.?

IDOC 273819.
Height 55 - I assume is 5’5” if it is accurate.

Offender Details

 

[photographer4]

I don't know why they didn't find her biased either, other than there was no evidence to support that.

Wasn't it unanimous on their part, that she'd not be removed?

Didn't they have a hearing and all of the relevant documents concerning her rulings and communications in the case?


Was he there alone? If so, who let MW in? Did he have a key? Or was the building unlocked?


If he was legally allowed to view the documents then I believe that would have been said already. By one or both of them.

Again, wouldn't MW had said so in his defense? He has already admitted into sneaking into that room, uninvited and wrongly. Why would he say that if he was a hired investigator?


Again, MW never said anything about being hired as the investigator in this case. I think he would have sAid that instead of admitting to sneaking into the office uninvited. JMO

What if you didn't get paid because the insurance wouldn't pay because he left the room unlocked and unsupervised? Would you find him negligent yet?

I don’t think he was charged with trespassing though, was he? I haven’t followed his matter as closely so if he was pls let me know.

Honest question here: R&B said he was a consultant. If that in itself wasn’t allowed would we have heard that by now?

The issue doesn’t seem to be whether he was allowed in the room or to view the info, so much as that he took photos and disseminated them in contravention of a court order that sealed them.

In regards to your fictional $ theft question - I’m afraid I don’t have enough information to find the lawyer guilty or not of negligence. Besides which, the money in your situation can eventually be replaced. The photos in the real case can’t be unseen.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

There are rare exceptions that Defendants are remanded to DOC to await trial.

JMO

This shouldn't be one of them.

 

[FrostedGlass]

If RA did it, we don’t know that LE obtained the jacket he wore during the crime. They took a jacket. He may have had more than one jacket. I do.

I have several, too. They are not the same color, same style and the same manufacturer.

As for that matter, we don't even know he was wearing his blue one that day.
He said he could have been wearing his black one.

 

[Emma Peel]

IDOC 273819.
Height 55 - I assume is 5’5” if it is accurate.

Offender Details

or 55 inches? which = 4.6 ft.
(I'm sure this has been well-vetted here - sorry to ask this Q so late.)

 

[steeltowngirl]

I have several, too. They are not the same color, same style and the same manufacturer.

As for that matter, we don't even know he was wearing his blue one that day.
He said he could have been wearing his black one.

We do know that BG was wearing a blue jacket. I doubt RA took selfies at the trail to prove what he was wearing. Also doubt he would be quick to call his jacket blue during his Oct 2022 interview with LE prior to his arrest, since by then he (and the world) knew about Libby’s cell phone pic of BG.

Either RA is BG, or he’s not.
That is what matters, and it is up to Nick McL to prove.

 

[girlhasnoname]

This shouldn't be one of them.

We don't know that for a fact IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I have several, too. They are not the same color, same style and the same manufacturer.

As for that matter, we don't even know he was wearing his blue one that day.
He said he could have been wearing his black one.

On Page 5 of 8 of the original PCA:

His exact words from the PCA "RA said he was wearing blue jeans and a blue or black Carhartt Jacket with a hood. He advised he may have been wearing some type of head covering as well".

 

[photographer4]

Agreed.

One thing its worth keeping in mind I guess, is that none of the PCAs or Franks etc will be evidence at trial. The trial starts from the bottom up with witness testimony. Of course their original statements will be important as well.

I think at this time, whats more important to me is the broad brushes of evidence we know about.

1. At least 3 pieces of evidence have RA arriving at 1.30 - he now says he left by 1.30 - IMO this is a huge problem for the defence

2. He puts himself on the bridge. That is a big issue re woman trail walker - because if she didn't see RA - where the hell was he? This is IMO the much more important factor than witness descriptions. The broad brush of the timelines has the girls approaching the bridge while RA is still out there (this implies he changed his story at point 1 exactly because this conclusion is inexorable IMO).

3. Clothing is similar to Bridge Guy. Sure lots of people dress that way, but it is significant that if he was there at the right time and had the right clothes.

4. His car was parked as alleged - and there was a car there at the relevant times. The description of the car is problematic sure.

of course the defence want to argue about all these small details, but IMO it is the big picture that is really bad. But it is hard to assess because we simply do not know what the witnesses will say.

I do think RA changed his story at some point along the way as to when he arrived and left and that his clothing was similar to that of the man in LG's video (so glad she was able to capture that!!). Overall, it isn't looking good for RA - they're going to have a very hard time convincing people he is NOT the BG / killer.

 

[photographer4]

RSBM / BBM

This is why I wish we had detailed findings and reasons from Judge Gull. One possible explanation to all this is Ligget summarised a number of different statements and interviews into a quote for the SW PCA that was perhaps not strictly accurate but also not false when you weigh it all up.

Like what was it about his appearance that made him look like he had gotten into a fight?

I can certainly believe the defence might have done some selective quoting of sloppy drafting.

I wish we had a detailed finding and reasoning as well! Both statements about muddy and bloody (or not bloody, depending on which filing one wants to believe) cannot be accurate. Which was accurate and how did JG determine which one was accurate? Is it possible that the witness said at one time the man she saw was "bloody" then failed to mention that in another interview and thus the D has opted to omit that point from their filing?

 

[photographer4]

Basically MW was employed as an office manager for AB for a few years. He studied law but failed to pass the bar exam. MW said on a MS interview that AB liked to bounce ideas of lots of people, he liked 'group think'. You can find the episode on TMS podcast, although I can't recall the specific title of the one MW appeared on.

A lawyer speaking to others about the facts of an upcoming case?? There is a thing called Attorney/Client privilege. MW was not an employee of AB's at the time he stole the photos and docs, so I do believe AB will be reprimanded, negligence, misconduct, or something. He won't skate out of this blunder without something on his record IMO.

MOO

Ahhh well, that might make more sense then - I don't listen to *any* podcasts at all on any topic, so I wouldn't have heard the MS one you've mentioned.

I was just thinking *maybe* he was the PI that the D *might* have gotten funding for from JG. We wouldn't know if he'd been hired as their PI as the rulings on the ex-parte filings were sealed by JG at the outset.

And if she DID authorize a PI, that tidbit is *still* under seal, so I don't think MW can reveal that to the public, can he? Nor can R&B - not without being in violation of yet another seal of secrecy.

He wasn't charged with B and E, or trespass that I know of (was he?). It doesn't seem that he was there illegally, or in that specific room illegally? I don't know. I'd like more information on it to be honest. But I do think that AB is going to get a slap for his role in the leaks for sure.

 

[photographer4]

Yes my opinion is that there was questionable misquoting of interviews. It still irks me that they failed to interview the medical examiner before penning such a wildly detailed act of murder.
Injuries to the girl’s could indicate whether done by one or more individuals. Am experienced medical examiner could have given a more thorough description of what happened yet defense wanted to stay ignorant of his expert opinion.

Which side (or was it both)? Failed to interview the ME?!

 

[FrostedGlass]

On Page 5 of 8 of the original PCA:

His exact words from the PCA "RA said he was wearing blue jeans and a blue or black Carhartt Jacket with a hood. He advised he may have been wearing some type of head covering as well".

Thanks for the exact quote.
"a blue or black Carhartt Jacket with a hood" = how to interpret that.

1. he owned a blue jacket and also a black jacket with a hood
2. he owned a blue jacket and a black jacket and both had a hood
3. he owned a Carhartt jacket with a hood but couldn't remember if it was blue or black
*****
4. he owned multiple blue jackets and LE don't have the right one.
5. LE has his only blue jacket and it has no blood stains.

This whole case boggles my mind (Personalizing)

 

[photographer4]

Here is a screen cap of the jacket taken during the search of RA's home. Notice they give descriptions of clothing taken = hooded sweatshirt, 1/4 zip sweatshirt. There is no other description of the blue Carhartt coat (no hood).
RA told investigators he was wearing either a blue or black Carhartt coat with a hood.

Also notice none of the boxes on the right are checked. I assume this means there was no lab exam performed on them.

So what does that mean?

View attachment 477669

Just wondering - the screenshot - was it taken from a document that shows what they took in the execution of the SW? If so, nothing would have been tested anywhere yet for evidence if it was just a running list of what they seized. Do we know the date on it? Are any other items checked off as lab tested?

 

[photographer4]

Thanks for the exact quote.
"a blue or black Carhartt Jacket with a hood" = how to interpret that.

1. he owned a blue jacket and also a black jacket with a hood
2. he owned a blue jacket and a black jacket and both had a hood
3. he owned a Carhartt jacket with a hood but couldn't remember if it was blue or black
*****
4. he owned multiple blue jackets and LE don't have the right one.
5. LE has his only blue jacket and it has no blood stains.

This whole case boggles my mind (Personalizing)

Or... they have the right jacket but he ditched the hood (was it detachable would be a good question to have asked / for us to have the answer to).