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

[snooptroop88]

So aside from the knife, I see they have an unspent bullet from his gun at the CS and the defense tried to have that information suppressed. That's worrisome from the other side of things. If the defense lacked enough confidence to go head-to-head on the scientific validity of that-- it's not inspiring confidence in the defense, either, to put it mildly. Right, I know the fact that they tried to have it suppressed will be hidden from the jury (pretty sure that's how that works), but it's not hidden now. Glad they're allowing that evidence in. And they have a witness who said they saw RA "bloody" and "muddy." I did know he'd said he was out on the trails that day, but I didn't know much more. I now see why the prosecution is aggressively attacking this "Odinism" angle. It's one thing if they don't have all this other evidence. But they do. By raising this "Odinist" specter, you are kind of casting this massive shadow over all this other evidence. While yes, I wonder on that "guys" comment, there's a bullet that is supposed to have a signature to RA's gun there. That's pretty huge.

 

[TL4S]

Thank you for noting this because I know literally "zero" about this RA guy, pretty much nothing. I was following the case fairly closely for a while and then kind of moved away from it. It's a horrifying case.

Honestly, none of us here know much about RA, either, even if we've followed this case closely. He had lived in the general area all his life, had no criminal record to speak of, served time in the military, had been married to his wife since after high school, has a grown daughter, had worked at CVS for quite awhile and moved up, had been described as helpful and friendly (even by the sheriff), played pool, and was 45 years old at the time of the murders. Anything else we might have heard about him and his behavior is rumor, and even that has been minimal.

He quite literally came out of nowhere, and if he's guilty, he's the definition of "hiding in plain sight."

Jmo.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

The BG photo was released to the public on Feb 19th IIRC.

ISP wants to identify this man from Delphi trail

Indiana State Police are hoping someone can help them identify the man in this photo who was walking on the Delphi Historic Trail around the time Abigail Williams and Liberty German were there on Monday.

www.wrtv.com

 

[sunshineray]

I'd believe this more than I would that RA acted entirely alone here. That he just *happened* to be there and then decided today was the day he'd become a child killer.

What if he did act alone during the actual murders but had an accomplice or two that set the situation up for him...maybe to obtain photographic or video product to distribute? With the KAK anthony_shots connection, IMO, it's certainly a possibility. KAK's dropbox...talk about potential tentacles.

Two things that really bother me, Libby communicating with anthoy_shots that day and that KAK catfish saying to Libby's friend soon after the fact, he was supposed to met up with her that day.

Add in Libby's phone needing a factory reset and KAK, after his search warrant interview (was there also a polygraph given to him that day?) going home and wiping clean a phone he'd squirreled away, that warrant searchers didn't find, and then he turns it into investigators a couple days later.

AJMO but again...tentacles? I'd love to know what/who that dropbox revealed...if anything or anyone.

 

[sunshineray]

Honestly, none of us here know much about RA, either, even if we've followed this case closely. He had lived in the general area all his life, had no criminal record to speak of, served time in the military, had been married to his wife since after high school, has a grown daughter, had worked at CVS for quite awhile and moved up, had been described as helpful and friendly (even by the sheriff), played pool, and was 45 years old at the time of the murders. Anything else we might have heard about him and his behavior is rumor, and even that has been minimal.

He quite literally came out of nowhere, and if he's guilty, he's the definition of "hiding in plain sight."

Jmo.

What military branch did he serve? Do you know for how long? Just curious

 

[zh0r4]

So aside from the knife, I see they have an unspent bullet from his gun at the CS and the defense tried to have that information suppressed. That's worrisome from the other side of things. If the defense lacked enough confidence to go head-to-head on the scientific validity of that-- it's not inspiring confidence in the defense, either, to put it mildly. Right, I know the fact that they tried to have it suppressed will be hidden from the jury (pretty sure that's how that works), but it's not hidden now. Glad they're allowing that evidence in. And they have a witness who said they saw RA "bloody" and "muddy." I did know he'd said he was out on the trails that day, but I didn't know much more. I now see why the prosecution is aggressively attacking this "Odinism" angle. It's one thing if they don't have all this other evidence. But they do. By raising this "Odinist" specter, you are kind of casting this massive shadow over all this other evidence. While yes, I wonder on that "guys" comment, there's a bullet that is supposed to have a signature to RA's gun there. That's pretty huge.

To note, the FM says RA said he was gone by 1-1:30pm, which would mean he was gone by the time the girls were dropped off and would have been gone during the time of the murders. LE couldn’t provide the interview where they allege otherwise from my understanding. This is one of the many reasons they drafted the FM to contest the SWA, as they are claiming RA never stated he was there during the time of the murders.

Additionally, even spent bullets are not a solid piece of evidence. Ballistics is not a solid science. An unspent bullet alone has never convicted anyone in a U.S. court, and there may be a few where a spent bullet was a main piece of evidence, but there were other additional pieces of evidence.

JMO.

 

[sunshineray]

To note, the FM says RA said he was gone by 1-1:30pm, which would mean he was gone by the time the girls were dropped off and would have been gone during the time of the murders. LE couldn’t provide the interview where they allege otherwise from my understanding. This is one of the many reasons they drafted the FM to contest the SWA, as they are claiming RA never stated he was there during the time of the murders.

Additionally, even spent bullets are not a solid piece of evidence. Ballistics is not a solid science. An unspent bullet alone has never convicted anyone in a U.S. court, and there may be a few where a spent bullet was a main piece of evidence, but there were other additional pieces of evidence.

JMO.

What do you mean? LE couldn't produce the interview? Do you mean the October 22nd interview with LE or do you mean the CO's interview?

 

[mrjitty]

What do you mean? LE couldn't produce the interview? Do you mean the October 22nd interview with LE or do you mean the CO's interview?

The CO interview should be regarded as a contemporaneous note IMO (assuming it was not recorded).

It's power is that it is a written note of what was said at the time, and the CO had no reason to be making anything up or 'spinning'. Defence will look to challenge it's accuracy IMO.

We haven't seen any attack on it's admissibility so far so there seems no reason to doubt it's authenticity.

Obviously it is a problem for the defence that RA's own statement about seeing the 3 females corroborates the tine in the CO noted. So i will be very interested what he said in his oct 22 interview.

 

[mrjitty]

We know Liggett was provided a tip narrative from ORION DIN-000074-01 to review. It was from Dan Dulin.
Given the sophistication of the program, I can't make sense of this long lost tip.
Did DD lose the tip for all those years and then he finally found it and entered it into Orion?

(Snips from the link below about ORION)
ORION also has new automated features. When a phone tip is entered into the system, ORION can actively process that raw data and “push” leads and intelligence to investigators. For example, if a phone tip is received in the L.A. office about a person in Boston who could be a suspect in a nationwide terrorism case, that information is entered into ORION, reviewed in L.A., and instantly routed electronically to Boston agents for action.

ORION also performs automatic searching of new information entered into the system to locate potentially matching persons, locations, vehicles, events, and organizations. These potential matches are shown to ORION users and help investigators “connect the dots” in a case where many FBI offices or law enforcement agencies are involved.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2008/september/orion_092208

I was more getting at the way a record can be a needle lost in the haystack. For example (and this is just a hypothetical), I believe his last name is recorded in the wrong field on the tip. So this sort of data entry error could mean that the person who follows up from the digital record could not find any such person, so marks the tip as invalid. Not saying that did happen - but these kinds of basic errors can bury a key piece of information.

 

[sunshineray]

The CO interview should be regarded as a contemporaneous note IMO (assuming it was not recorded).

It's power is that it is a written note of what was said at the time, and the CO had no reason to be making anything up or 'spinning'. Defence will look to challenge it's accuracy IMO.

We haven't seen any attack on it's admissibility so far so there seems no reason to doubt it's authenticity.

Obviously it is a problem for the defence that RA's own statement about seeing the 3 females corroborates the tine in the CO noted. So i will be very interested what he said in his oct 22 interview.

I agree, the CO had no reason to write down anything but what the interviewee told him. If it's a problem for the defense they can cross examine him on the stand.

 

[zh0r4]

What do you mean? LE couldn't produce the interview? Do you mean the October 22nd interview with LE or do you mean the CO's interview?

The October 13, 2022 interview when RA said he was gone by 1:30pm was videotaped and they have it (p. 109, p. 112 FM). My understanding is that the first interview when he came forward to give a tip, there is no record of, and I believe this is the interview they claim his time was different. The main section about the timeline discrepancies is p. 105-118 (FM).

JMO.

 

[sunshineray]

I was more getting at the way a record can be a needle lost in the haystack. For example (and this is just a hypothetical), I believe his last name is recorded in the wrong field on the tip. So this sort of data entry error could mean that the person who follows up from the digital record could not find any such person, so marks the tip as invalid. Not saying that did happen - but these kinds of basic errors can bury a key piece of information.

I think it was his last name was recorded as his street name, IIRC?

 

[zh0r4]

What military branch did he serve? Do you know for how long? Just curious

The National Guard. (p. 108, FM, footnote 155)

 

[mrjitty]

@FrostedGlass

I wanted to restate my approach on Franks and cross referencing of exhibits.

My approach has become Don't Trust / Verify.

This is because, in my experience of following cases such as Pistorius, McStay, and particularly Morphew, I found that Counsel tend to reproduce the full quote when it matches their argument but sometimes when giving only a broad cite, it is because they want to misrepresent what was said, or narrowly construe it.

I certainly sympathise with the argument that the defense is unlikely to say the following at 119, if the word "bloody" was ever used in 2017

But that’s not all. Nowhere in Sarah Carbaugh’s 2017 interview does Sarah Carbaugh 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 Carbaugh only used the word muddy to describe the man sheobserved on 300 North in her 2017 interview. It certainly would help Judge Diener in making hisdecision if the man walking down the street was wearing a blue jacket and also wearing bloodyclothing, as if he had just murdered somebody. However, Liggett just flat out lied. Sarah Carbaugh never mentioned a blue coat and never mentioned blood in her 2017 interview.

But by the same token, it seems odd that Ligget + likely the prosecutor cut that from whole cloth? What gives me pause:

Ligget never actually said the man seen by SC had bloody clothes. Something the defense claim was critical to his affidavit but he never said it! But SC did say the man appeared to have been in a fight - a phrasing the defence conspicuously does not address. Did she clarify that? In a different interview?

An interview was done of Sarah Carbaugh in 2017. She states that she was travelingEast on 300 North and observed a male subject walking west, on the North side of300 North, away <sic> Monon High Bridge. She stated that he was wearing a blue colored jacket and blue jeans and was muddy and bloody. She further stated that it appeared that he had gotten in a fight. Investigators determined from the video that she was on 300 North at 1557 hours

For all I know, Ligget did misrepresent this, but i certainly don't think we can assume without the full context. Fellow fans of Iris Eytan in the Morphew case will understand what I am getting at.

I am not trying to sway you one way or or the other on what to believe here - merely explaining why I would like to read all SCs interviews and Liggets depo before deciding.

 

[zh0r4]

The CO interview should be regarded as a contemporaneous note IMO (assuming it was not recorded).

It's power is that it is a written note of what was said at the time, and the CO had no reason to be making anything up or 'spinning'. Defence will look to challenge it's accuracy IMO.

We haven't seen any attack on it's admissibility so far so there seems no reason to doubt it's authenticity.

Obviously it is a problem for the defence that RA's own statement about seeing the 3 females corroborates the tine in the CO noted. So i will be very interested what he said in his oct 22 interview.

Was there another article where it says RA said he saw the 3 girls? In this Nov 2022 article (linked below):

bbm

“Richard Allen, the man arrested in the 2017 double murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German near Delphi, told a state conservation officer he was in the area on the day of the killings, but his report may have been considered unfounded, a police source tells I-Team 8.

Allen, a 50-year-old resident of Delphi, went to the conservation officer right after the teens’ murders on Feb. 13, 2017, and said he was on the Monon High Bridge that afternoon but didn’t see the two girls, the source says.”

Source: Investigators have known for years that the Delphi suspect was on the Monon High Bridge the day Abby and Libby were killed

DELPHI, Ind. (WISH) — Richard Allen, the man arrested in the 2017 double murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German near Delphi, told a state conservation officer he was in the area on the day of the killings, but his report may have been considered unfounded, a police source tells I-Team 8...

www.wishtv.com

 

[sunshineray]

The October 13, 2022 interview when RA said he was gone by 1:30pm was videotaped and they have it (p. 109, p. 112 FM). My understanding is that the first interview when he came forward to give a tip, there is no record of, and I believe this is the interview they claim his time was different. The main section about the timeline discrepancies is p. 105-118 (FM).

JMO.

There's a record of it, it's even listed in discovery documents. It was an in the field interview of a man, RA, who called to set up the interview, to report his being on the trails the day the girl's were reported missing. IIRC they met for the interview outside a grocery store and RA talked with the CO who took real time wtitten notes of the interview. The CO then wrote out a report and filed it with the investigation. How are you considering that as there's no record?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I was more getting at the way a record can be a needle lost in the haystack. For example (and this is just a hypothetical), I believe his last name is recorded in the wrong field on the tip. So this sort of data entry error could mean that the person who follows up from the digital record could not find any such person, so marks the tip as invalid. Not saying that did happen - but these kinds of basic errors can bury a key piece of information.

Thanks for the reply. I understand how needles get lost but I can't land solidly on how this particular one did.
Liggett obviously was able to connect RA from the tip narrative, once it came from Orion (or maybe not).

That leaves me with a bunch of questions. Did it sit in Orion for all those years? When did DD input it, if he was the one who did? SMH. I need to go back and re-read Liggett's explanation of how this came about.

Have we ever seen an actual ORION document?
I'm putting this one on my wish list: ORION DIN-000074-01

 

[mrjitty]

There's a record of it, it's even listed in discovery documents. It was an in the field interview of a man, RA, who called to set up the interview, to report his being on the trails the day the girl's were reported missing. IIRC they met for the interview outside a grocery store and RA talked with the CO who took real time wtitten notes of the interview. The CO then wrote out a report and filed it with the investigation. How are you considering that as there's no record?

This is why RA should never have done his '22 interview.

I'd love to know what he said about his phone use in '22 compared to the CO interview.

 

[Deathsgrandaughter]

We also don't know if "guys" was said as part of "down the hill" or if there were other words between guys and down the hill. I have wondered if "guys" was not to the girls but to others there.

I am of the opinion that the whole phrase was addressed to the girl: IIRC I heard an interview with Abby's mother, in which she discussed the quote, having heard more of the audio than the public have been allowed. She said that there was a brief pause between the word "Guys" and (what I hear as) "G'down the hill" In that pause the girls reacted, saying "Hmm?"
ETA - was a Gray Hughes interview, some time ago.

 

[FrostedGlass]

@FrostedGlass

I wanted to restate my approach on Franks and cross referencing of exhibits.

My approach has become Don't Trust / Verify.

This is because, in my experience of following cases such as Pistorius, McStay, and particularly Morphew, I found that Counsel tend to reproduce the full quote when it matches their argument but sometimes when giving only a broad cite, it is because they want to misrepresent what was said, or narrowly construe it.

I certainly sympathise with the argument that the defense is unlikely to say the following at 119, if the word "bloody" was ever used in 2017



But by the same token, it seems odd that Ligget + likely the prosecutor cut that from whole cloth? What gives me pause:

Ligget never actually said the man seen by SC had bloody clothes. Something the defense claim was critical to his affidavit but he never said it! But SC did say the man appeared to have been in a fight - a phrasing the defence conspicuously does not address. Did she clarify that? In a different interview?



For all I know, Ligget did misrepresent this, but i certainly don't think we can assume without the full context. Fellow fans of Iris Eytan in the Morphew case will understand what I am getting at.

I am not trying to sway you one way or or the other on what to believe here - merely explaining why I would like to read all SCs interviews and Liggets depo before deciding.

I'll start at the end of your post: I'm open to being swayed.

The muddy/bloody issue is pretty clear in my mind.
From the RL affidavit, we know this (don't we?):

Because of the nature of the victim's wounds it is nearly certain the perpetrator of the crime would have gotten blood on his person/clothing.

So, when (IF) he was described by SC as being muddy (and bloody), I'm thinking she meant his clothing was that way also.
I'm pretty sure all LE involved are aware of RL's affidavit. IMO, regardless of Liggett omitting the word "clothing", the judge would have taken it that way. If Liggett personally added in the word 'bloody', that's a problem.

I'd love to read SC's interview.
I'm really curious how a jacket goes from tan/muddy to blue/muddy/bloody.

All MOO