Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #158

[taylorss]

BIB

Won't they just cop to it?

The only explanation i came come up with is that investigators never saw the tip sheet somehow. If they saw it, they would have solved the case surely - because for instance, we know they were interested in the owner of the parked car.

ITA .. the PCA doesn’t actually say that, just kinda skips over that part…….. but if this isn’t the explanation, the people handling this case aren’t even qualified to solve a Nancy Drew mystery
JMO

 

[Jillyg]

IDK if CVS uses specific clothing but I'm going to assume they do.

He probably changed his looks enough to appear different with said uniform than the person they had seen at the trail
Same reason why it's reasonable his wife or daughter didn't ID him.

Sure. But my point is that how are they going to ID him in court? And if they can't, will the judge even admit their testimony? It's supposed to be witnesses against him. It could be argued that they are just witnesses to a random person at the park.

 

[Jillyg]

ITA .. the PCA doesn’t actually say that, just kinda skips over that part…….. but if this isn’t the explanation, the people handling this case aren’t even qualified to solve a Nancy Drew mystery
JMO

Who was in charge? Small town sheriff dept?! In most states? Murderer investigations, esp like this are comducted by state police or state investigators (ex GBI and MBI) etc

 

[Jillyg]

I never go into a CVS.

It's the only pharmacy in town.

 

[AlwaysSonni]

Something is bothering me, apologies if it was covered and I missed it I'm trying to catch up. The charges are for RA killing a person while kidnapping or attempting to kidnap (x2). How did they determine the kidnapping aspect is part of the charges? I understand the PCA doesn't include all evidence but it is supposed to contain enough evidence to justify the charges being brought.

So where's the kidnapping? My only guess is in him directing them down the hill? This seems less like kidnapping per se, but I suppose if they were being taken from one location to another against their will, then that meets the statute?

The charges almost make it sound like his original intention was to take the girls, but something happened/changed and he killed them - on its face at least. Perhaps that's just my ignorance talking.

 

[Algo214]

Sure. But my point is that how are they going to ID him in court? And if they can't, will the judge even admit their testimony? It's supposed to be witnesses against him. It could be argued that they are just witnesses to a random person at the park.

They would've been interviewed again to corroborate their initial statements, between RA going to LE and the search warrant or arrest.

ETA: that new interview with them would NOT be needed to be in the PCA.

 

[Jillyg]

interesting question..seems like a mass case of denial, like not wanting to ruin the status quo...the Mayberry, the religious
construct of the town, the great service at CVS..honestly makes me wonder...well he went "allegedly" to rehab, came back and perhaps changed his appearance in some ways..notice the shaved buzzed head and long goatee. He was taller than BG
according to the report. He was nice and always helpful...so a collective blind eye. Remember also he can look you right in the face and dare you you to suspect him...he has no shame no guilt or remorse...he is the guy picking up the tab for your funeral shots. mOO

The pc mentioned his height?

 

[LeBlack]

He would have got away with this if he threw that gun away

Amazing

MOO

Being cheap always catches people up. Won't throw away that roll of duct tape, paper towels, trash bags, box of gloves (any relatively cheap item that can be linked back to the murder.

Bet he kept the knife and boots, too.

IMO

 

[Elley Mae]

I never go into a CVS.

I don’t either, but iirc its the only pharmacy in town.

 

[taylorss]

Well that probable cause was disappointing. I kept waiting for the "smoking gun" but don't see it. I really hope they have more evidence because I'm not sure how they can make this stick, without reasonable doubt.

There wasn’t much evidence in the PCA of his role in the girls’ actual murder, but they don’t need that - he’s charged with felony murder.

He’s on the record - video & audio - kidnapping them to the spot where they were killed. Felony murder. Done.
IMO

 

[pseudo_hum]

It's the only pharmacy in town.

So what, I never go to a CVS.

 

[Jillyg]

They would've been interviewed again to corroborate their initial statements, between RA going to LE and the search warrant or arrest.

ETA: that new interview with them would NOT be needed to be in the PCA.

But they clearly didn't ID him. Nothing in the PC says anyone ID'ed him. That's going to be a problem.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Why didn't the actual witnesses mentioned in the PC ID him every time they went into CVS?

The defense is going to be ALL OVER that.

I agree that the defense may bring that up, but I’ve bumped into coworkers out walking at the park and didn’t recognize them dressed in different attire than their normal office clothing. Put a hoodie or hat and a big coat on a man that I normally see in a uniform or polo shirt, and I honestly would walk right by him. I just did it this past weekend at a local park.

 

[Jillyg]

I agree that the defense may bring that up, but I’ve bumped into coworkers out walking at the park and didn’t recognize them dressed in different attire than their normal office clothing. Put a hoodie or hat and a big coat on a man that I normally see in a uniform or polo shirt, and I honestly would walk right by him. I just did it this past weekend at a local park.

And he's not going to be dressed as bridge guy at the trial. So how will they ID him then?
That's my point

 

[gritguy]

Something is bothering me, apologies if it was covered and I missed it I'm trying to catch up. The charges are for RA killing a person while kidnapping or attempting to kidnap (x2). How did they determine the kidnapping aspect is part of the charges? I understand the PCA doesn't include all evidence but it is supposed to contain enough evidence to justify the charges being brought.

So where's the kidnapping? My only guess is in him directing them down the hill? This seems less like kidnapping per se, but I suppose if they were being taken from one location to another against their will, then that meets the statute?

The charges almost make it sound like his original intention was to take the girls, but something happened/changed and he killed them - on its face at least. Perhaps that's just my ignorance talking.

Well felony murder needs a predicate felony. The following takes the PCA fact allegations as true (which is of course an assumption). With the girls mentioning gun on the video, then the person directing them down the hill after displaying the gun (statute only requires removing the person from one place to another with threat of force being enough Ind Code 35-42-3-2), and a round found at the scene matching Allen's handgun and their conclusion he was the person in the video, this would tie him in on felony murder whether he did (or whether they can prove he) actually murdered the girls.

 

[layer]

I had to step away from this thread for a while so I'm not all caught up. Did LE ever plainly state that they believe RA is BG?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Why didn't the actual witnesses mentioned in the PC ID him every time they went into CVS?

The defense is going to be ALL OVER that.

Who knows if teenage girls go to the CVS pharmacy that often and even remotely pay attention to the old man <in teen years> behind the counter?

The defense is going to be all over everything, that's a given. It doesn't make it so though.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I agree that the defense may bring that up, but I’ve bumped into coworkers out walking at the park and didn’t recognize them dressed in different attire than their normal office clothing. Put a hoodie or hat and a big coat on a man that I normally see in a uniform or polo shirt, and I honestly would walk right by him. I just did it this past weekend at a local park.

Yes, and considering he would appear in white jacket as a Pharm Tech, bald head as opposed to wearing a cap, long goatee grown out after the murders.

I'm not surprised the witnesses or anyone else didn't identify him.

MOO

 

[GA_Peach]

Sure. But my point is that how are they going to ID him in court? And if they can't, will the judge even admit their testimony? It's supposed to be witnesses against him. It could be argued that they are just witnesses to a random person at the park.

100% agree. It doesn't appear that a single witness actually IDs RA. Instead, they describe BG. But we already know that BG was there because Libby captured him on her phone. And RA, who dressed like BG, placed himself on the bridge, even if he isn't BG. If these witnesses could not and did not ID RA, LE should proceed very carefully. This is where a witness can become a total disaster and sink a prosecution.

As an aside, it's the same for the vehicle. No witness IDed that vehicle as belonging to RA. Instead, LE decided that the smart car could have been RA's Ford Focus.

 

[AlwaysSonni]

Well felony murder needs a predicate felony. The following takes the PCA fact allegations as true (which is of course an assumption). With the girls mentioning gun on the video, then the person directing them down the hill after displaying the gun (statute only requires removing the person from one place to another with threat of force being enough Ind Code 35-42-3-2), and a round found at the scene matching Allen's handgun and their conclusion he was the person in the video, this would tie him in on felony murder whether he did (or whether they can prove he) actually murdered the girls.

Great explanation thanks for the insight! It makes sense the more I think about it I just wanted to be sure it wasn't something I was glossing over.