Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #161

Status
Not open for further replies.
he also admitted being spotted by the witnesses who described what BG was wearing = what he was wearing = we have video evidence that makes this a complete circle
...
the defence can try to discredit the video based on the stupid suspects that le brought before...but the clothes remains hard to dismiss
Couldn't the defense play the news video of RL talking to a reporter while he is wearing his blue jacket? (I do not think RL is involved at all in this crime).
 
Couldn't the defense play the news video of RL talking to a reporter while he is wearing his blue jacket? (I do not think RL is involved at all in this crime).

They could but there’s no indication RL admitted to being on the bridge at that time, nor did RA claim to have noticed the presence of a tall male. RL was 6’ and the 3 young girls surely wouldn’t have described him as “not very tall” or “having grey hair, maybe a little brown”. Another girl claimed “her head came up to the man’s shoulder”.

Plus we don’t know what other evidence, assuming there‘s more, which connects RA directly to the crime scene, aside from the unspent bullet. We can’t assume the PCA is a Cliff Notes of trial evidence as it‘s purpose was simply the basis of his arrest.

 
When RA gave his initial statement about seeing the three young girls but not Libby and Abby, I don’t think he realized LE had the ability to nail down a precise timeline through Libby’s video. If you recall from the very beginning, LE never disclosed much of anything with regard to timing, in fact their drop off and pickup time was consistently vague along with what time the SC photos were taken (or any other photos as well?), perhaps as was oft mentioned “to protect the integrity of the investigation”.

If not for the video, who‘s to know the girls weren’t down by the creek and murdered long after RA had already left the area? IMO by making his claim of not seeing them, he intended to move forward the time of murder.


2:07 p.m. Libby posted a photo on her Snapchat account showing Abby walking across the old railroad bridge.
This was the last time anyone heard from the girls.

Between 2:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. The girls had a set time to meet with family members to be picked up. When family showed up to get them they were nowhere to be found. Family began canvasing the area for Libby and Abby but could not locate them.

Right.

This is where he has messed up big time. He has given 3 statements to police, without ever knowing what evidence they held. They will have tripped him up big time in the final interview IMO.

At trial, they are going to have to try to find a way for him to get off the bridge and back down the path, without meeting the victims.
 
I'd agree with the proviso of 'it CAN carry as much weight..' . The issue with circumstantial evidence is more to do with the contestability and the degree with with the defence can insert doubt into its validity, which in turn influences how the jury weigh it.

However direct evidence like DNA that places him at the scene of the crime (for example the girls DNA from blood samples on his jacket etc) is much stronger evidence placing him directly at the scene of the crime, AND is harder for the defence to refute.

If the prosecution don't have direct evidence that absolutely pins him to the crime scene (and I mean where they were murdered versus on the bridge) then the defence can say that the state's case is weak because given the unusual and bloody crime scene the prosecution still can't definitively place RA there and so on.

I know overall big picture there is a weight that comes from the aggregate of other witness testimony etc but I really fear for the certainty of the trial outcome if that is what the prosecution's case rests on - because all of that is certainly open for contesting by the defence.
It seems weird but DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. So are finger prints. Basically, anything that needs interpretation of the circumstances to show how it’s evidence of a thing, is circumstantial evidence. So the fact that a person’s DNA is found in a woman’s sex organs, for example, is not on its own, evidence that the person raped the woman. But if you combine that with, let’s say, the woman’s testimony that the encounter was not consensual, maybe bruising on her, another witness hearing screams, etc., the circumstances show that the DNA is evidence of rape.

I do not know of any jurisdiction in the US in which circumstantial evidence is allowed to be considered lesser than direct evidence. Jury instructions I’ve seen state specifically that both forms of evidence are at the same level.

But you’re right that jurors give weight to evidence based on testimony and argument they hear and it is easier to challenge circumstantial evidence, of course, because unlike eye witness testimony or a confession, it doesn’t, on its own, prove anything. It’s the context that matters.
 
I missed this media piece until now. A lot more evidence is very good news, IMO. I hope they have plenty to establish motive.

Judge Fran Gull cast doubt on Allen's March 23 trial date, saying there is "extraordinary, voluminous evidence" in the case that must be shared with the defense, according to FOX 59

I don't know why I have trouble with this. If RA went to the trails and murdered two girls at random, then he did so knowing witnesses had seen him just prior. He voluntarily placed himself there, acknowledging where he'd parked, and apparently walked along the road muddy and bloody. There's video. There's other witnesses. There's some form of DNA. Etc.

What is this "extraordinary, voluminous evidence"? Why is it described as a complex case, with tentacles?

I'm going to guess that Discovery includes every single tip called in? LE's investigations into every tip and person looked at? Like, does PE's autopsy report get included? LE's trip to visit DN? RL's house search, the entire KAK CASM case?

I don't know the Discovery process, but if this was such a simple, random, opportunistic crime by one lone man on the bridge, why is it so damn complicated?
 
Last edited:
Right.

This is where he has messed up big time. He has given 3 statements to police, without ever knowing what evidence they held. They will have tripped him up big time in the final interview IMO.

At trial, they are going to have to try to find a way for him to get off the bridge and back down the path, without meeting the victims.
I guess they will have to go after the woman who witnessed him sitting on the 1st ledge of the bridge, which prompted her to turn around and walk away, passing the victims as they headed to the bridge. They are going to have to shake her off that version of events.

The same with the Conservation Officer. Unfortunately, that might be easier to do since he may or may not have jotted down some informal notes, which may or may not have been lost and not filed away or logged in anywhere.

So do we have any solid evidence of his alleged 'confession' that he parked at the abandoned office and walked on the bridge at that specific time?

We have the video, which may or may not be proven as him.
And we have the witnesses who claim to have seen him. But can they prove it was specifically RA?
 
I wonder why RA told them he was parked at the old Farm Bureau building. He's lived in Delphi long enough to know where that's located. It seems that it's been in the same spot for 50 years; they just tore down the old one and build the new one in its place. Why would he place himself at the bridge during the crime hours and then lie about where he parked?

Do they have any evidence at all that the car parked at CPS was his? Or the one they saw on the camera was his?
 
I wonder why RA told them he was parked at the old Farm Bureau building. He's lived in Delphi long enough to know where that's located. It seems that it's been in the same spot for 50 years; they just tore down the old one and build the new one in its place. Why would he place himself at the bridge during the crime hours and then lie about where he parked?

Do they have any evidence at all that the car parked at CPS was his? Or the one they saw on the camera was his?

Maybe RA was not familiar with the correct role the building served in the past other than guessing it was connected to a government function? I’m not sure we can say he was lying about where he parked as apparently there was no such thing as a old Farm Bureau building. Surely he was asked during his most recent interview where that building was located?

The RA search warrant was executed on Oct 13th and the PCA is dated October 27th. But it did not mention cell phone tracking at all as two weeks probably was not enough time for LE to have completed investigating that, including a subpoena to the cell phone provider. Same for DNA analysis of anything found at the crime scene, probably not enough time. Also the SW was completed rather quietly, other people with incriminating information in hindsight had no reason to come forward until after his arrest.

These are some examples of why we can’t assume information in the PCA which was enough to authorize his arrest is also a full and complete summery of the prosecution‘s case when it goes to trial. We can’t possibly know what we don’t know yet.
 
Last edited:
I think RA talked to the police mostly because he knew he had been seen on the trail.
What he didn’t know, however, was whether anyone who had seen him could identify him as Rick, who works at CVS. By going to LE himself, he seems less suspicious…what guilty person would put themselves at the crime scene(which is our question too, but he did).
Initially, in 2017, RA only talked about the three teens on the trail. It wasn’t until 2022 that he mentioned being on the bridge, probably after LE told him someone had seen someone dressed like him on the first platform. That scenario and admission by RA by itself makes RA a prime suspect and a darn good one.When that witness turns back up the trail, Abby and Libby are only minutes from RA, by his own admission, but he did not make that admission until he was confronted with the fact that he had been seen.
I think it’s interesting that when LE first put out the picture of BG they only wanted to talk to the guy on the bridge. He wasn’t called a suspect, just maybe he saw something. RA, who admitted almost six years after the crime to being on the bridge and dressed like that, never…in those six years, called LE to tell them that.
We are debating a lot about the worth of the evidence put forth in the PCA. To me, as a whole it’s pretty compelling.
I am positive though that LE has a lot more that we are unaware of yet.
 
I think RA talked to the police mostly because he knew he had been seen on the trail.
What he didn’t know, however, was whether anyone who had seen him could identify him as Rick, who works at CVS. By going to LE himself, he seems less suspicious…what guilty person would put themselves at the crime scene(which is our question too, but he did).
Initially, in 2017, RA only talked about the three teens on the trail. It wasn’t until 2022 that he mentioned being on the bridge, probably after LE told him someone had seen someone dressed like him on the first platform. That scenario and admission by RA by itself makes RA a prime suspect and a darn good one.When that witness turns back up the trail, Abby and Libby are only minutes from RA, by his own admission, but he did not make that admission until he was confronted with the fact that he had been seen.
I think it’s interesting that when LE first put out the picture of BG they only wanted to talk to the guy on the bridge. He wasn’t called a suspect, just maybe he saw something. RA, who admitted almost six years after the crime to being on the bridge and dressed like that, never…in those six years, called LE to tell them that.
We are debating a lot about the worth of the evidence put forth in the PCA. To me, as a whole it’s pretty compelling.
I am positive though that LE has a lot more that we are unaware of yet.
ITA, RA is toast IMO. I'm glad to know he's locked up, who knows if he would have murdered again?

MOO
 
Maybe RA was not familiar with the correct role the building served in the past other than guessing it was connected to a government function? I’m not sure we can say he was lying about where he parked as apparently there was no such thing as a old Farm Bureau building. Surely he was asked during his most recent interview where that building was located?
RSBM When I googled the Farm Bureau building, the only thing that came back was The Farm Bureau Insurance Company located in town, several blocks from CVS. He has lived there long enough to know what it is and its location, imo.

Maybe he wasn't lying; maybe he did park there and someone picked him up?

He said he was in the bridge area until 3:30, so we can assume he went straight to his car? What car was LE asking the public for information on a vehicle parked at that building from noon to five? Did LE ever give an official clarification of their ask date of Feb. 14 for that information instead of the date Feb. 13?
 
RSBM When I googled the Farm Bureau building, the only thing that came back was The Farm Bureau Insurance Company located in town, several blocks from CVS. He has lived there long enough to know what it is and its location, imo.

Maybe he wasn't lying; maybe he did park there and someone picked him up?

He said he was in the bridge area until 3:30, so we can assume he went straight to his car? What car was LE asking the public for information on a vehicle parked at that building from noon to five? Did LE ever give an official clarification of their ask date of Feb. 14 for that information instead of the date Feb. 13?
I think he intentionally lied and called it that just to distance himself from being parked at the CPS building. Remember there was a lot of buzz about anyone seeing cars there.

JMO
 
I think RA talked to the police mostly because he knew he had been seen on the trail.
What he didn’t know, however, was whether anyone who had seen him could identify him as Rick, who works at CVS. By going to LE himself, he seems less suspicious…what guilty person would put themselves at the crime scene(which is our question too, but he did).
Initially, in 2017, RA only talked about the three teens on the trail. It wasn’t until 2022 that he mentioned being on the bridge, probably after LE told him someone had seen someone dressed like him on the first platform. That scenario and admission by RA by itself makes RA a prime suspect and a darn good one.When that witness turns back up the trail, Abby and Libby are only minutes from RA, by his own admission, but he did not make that admission until he was confronted with the fact that he had been seen.
I think it’s interesting that when LE first put out the picture of BG they only wanted to talk to the guy on the bridge. He wasn’t called a suspect, just maybe he saw something. RA, who admitted almost six years after the crime to being on the bridge and dressed like that, never…in those six years, called LE to tell them that.
We are debating a lot about the worth of the evidence put forth in the PCA. To me, as a whole it’s pretty compelling.
I am positive though that LE has a lot more that we are unaware of yet.
You make an excellent point. He had to have seen the news when the photo from Libby’s phone was released, and the request by LE to talk to the man on the bridge. Even if he spoke to the CO right after the murders, why he didn’t come forward again to say ”hey, that was me on the bridge, how can I help?“ An innocent man would have.

Why did he not?
Is his defense going to say it’s not him in the BG pic?
 
RSBM When I googled the Farm Bureau building, the only thing that came back was The Farm Bureau Insurance Company located in town, several blocks from CVS. He has lived there long enough to know what it is and its location, imo.

Maybe he wasn't lying; maybe he did park there and someone picked him up?

He said he was in the bridge area until 3:30, so we can assume he went straight to his car? What car was LE asking the public for information on a vehicle parked at that building from noon to five? Did LE ever give an official clarification of their ask date of Feb. 14 for that information instead of the date Feb. 13?

Notice the reference was to the ”old” Farm Bureau building, as opposed to the present. Yes indeed he has lived there long enough to know and rather than naming a business surely he was asked to confirm the location and where he walked from during his recent interview?

A clarification of the date following the Apr, 2019 PC was issued and widely published. Prior discussion at the time here brought the point forward that a car parked “between the hours” doesn’t necessarily mean it was parked there the entire time as it could refer to any time during that time frame, to which I‘d agree.

Their Multi-Agency Task Force provided the following points of clarification after Monday’s informational news conference:

  • A car was parked in the abandoned CPS building parking lot between the hours of noon and 5:00 p.m. on February 13, 2017
    • We are looking for anyone who could give a description of vehicles that were in the parking lot during the time
 
Notice the reference was to the ”old” Farm Bureau building, as opposed to the present. Yes indeed he has lived there long enough to know and rather than naming a business surely he was asked to confirm the location and where he walked from during his recent interview?

A clarification of the date following the Apr, 2019 PC was issued and widely published. Prior discussion at the time here brought the point forward that a car parked “between the hours” doesn’t necessarily mean it was parked there the entire time as it could refer to any time during that time frame, to which I‘d agree.

Their Multi-Agency Task Force provided the following points of clarification after Monday’s informational news conference:

  • A car was parked in the abandoned CPS building parking lot between the hours of noon and 5:00 p.m. on February 13, 2017
    • We are looking for anyone who could give a description of vehicles that were in the parking lot during the time
We all have our own interpretations and it's all good.
 
You make an excellent point. He had to have seen the news when the photo from Libby’s phone was released, and the request by LE to talk to the man on the bridge. Even if he spoke to the CO right after the murders, why he didn’t come forward again to say ”hey, that was me on the bridge, how can I help?“ An innocent man would have.

Why did he not?
Is his defense going to say it’s not him in the BG pic?

And I would add what are the chances that two guys dressed identically end up on a old railroad bridge at the same time, on the same day…one with murder on his mind and one just your friendly stock following, fish watcher.
 
And I would add what are the chances that two guys dressed identically end up on a old railroad bridge at the same time, on the same day…one with murder on his mind and one just your friendly stock following, fish watcher.

I understand what you mean about probability. But what is so shocking is that this case was not solved within the first week. RA gave his information to a conservation officer and police were obviously interested in anyone who was out on the Monon High Bridge trail on that day around the time the girls went missing and were murdered. Yet by giving them his name he basically gave them every reason to look up his gun registration.

He does not seem like the killer, but maybe the main evidence has yet to be released.

The only thing I can think of is that when the unspent round fell out of his gun, he did not know it fell out of his gun. Is that possible? Could the unspent round fall out of the gun without the suspect knowing it fell out?

In terms of probability, we could go one step further: How many people that admitted they were on the Monon High Bridge trail during that time on that day owned a gun? What is the answer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
2,085
Total visitors
2,268

Forum statistics

Threads
589,946
Messages
17,928,025
Members
228,009
Latest member
chrsrb10
Back
Top