Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

[steeltowngirl]

I’m kind of in a rabbit hole digging into when LE went back to the crime scene. I am feeling more encouraged about due diligence by this 2/27/17 article.

“The crime scene tape is still up and marks the circular plot of land where the girls bodies were found. For two weeks police have combed every inch of the woods from the Monon High Bridge where the girls were last seen to the spot where they were found. Investigators are using several resources at the large outdoor scene.”

Police continue to search woods for evidence in Delphi double homicide

DELPHI, Ind. – Every day that passes without an arrest, investigators continue to sweep for new clues that could be the missing piece that helps solve the double murder of 13-year-old Abby Wi…

fox59.com

 

[AugustWest]

In my opinion they should have charged MW with possession and distribution of child exploitation material under Indianas *advertiser censored* statutes. The fact that one of the subjects was naked and under 16 should have triggered felony charges.
Conversion seems like a watered down weak charge in comparison to the injury that was caused in this matter. His affidavit along with this motion to dismiss still skirt around whether he was permitted access by AB, this is not accidental.

Mere possession of images isn't enough to qualify as criminal. There is an intent requirement to the crime; there must be an "intent to satisfy the sexual desires" also.

See: 2022 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 42. Offenses Against the Person :: Chapter 4. Sex Crimes :: 35-42-4-4. Child Exploitation; Possession of Child *advertiser censored*; Exemptions; Defenses

 

[mrjitty]

I've never been that convinced MW committed a crime.

 

[mrjitty]

If I were on the jury, I'd like to have these points clarified and proven firmly:
- WHEN did they find the bullet between the kids? Which day, what time and who found it? (photographs pls?).
- WHEN was it collected as evidence? By whom? (Photographs pls).
BM claimed that police didn't collect the bullet until days later - that they went back AFTER the scene was cleared - if that was the case, why didn't the defense harp on this glaring issue in their filings to date?? (or did they and we don't know it yet)?

BIB

This is always the right question to ask. All this carping arises out of an oblique reference in an unrelated motion. Why did they raise it that way?

One suspects the later recovered of the bullet will be something they have to argue at trial.

 

[mrjitty]

If I were on the jury, I'd like to have these points clarified and proven firmly:
- WHEN did they find the bullet between the kids? Which day, what time and who found it? (photographs pls?).
- WHEN was it collected as evidence? By whom? (Photographs pls).
BM claimed that police didn't collect the bullet until days later - that they went back AFTER the scene was cleared - if that was the case, why didn't the defense harp on this glaring issue in their filings to date?? (or did they and we don't know it yet)?

This will all be covered at trial IMO. The bullet will have to be admitted into evidence by the relevant officer.

 

[FromGermany1]

In my opinion they should have charged MW with possession and distribution of child exploitation material under Indianas *advertiser censored* statutes. The fact that one of the subjects was naked and under 16 should have triggered felony charges.
Conversion seems like a watered down weak charge in comparison to the injury that was caused in this matter. His affidavit along with this motion to dismiss still skirt around whether he was permitted access by AB, this is not accidental.

"Took photos only, but didn't touch" - could also be applied in different certain areas, but would be ok just as little, IMO.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Mere possession of images isn't enough to qualify as criminal. There is an intent requirement to the crime; there must be an "intent to satisfy the sexual desires" also.

See: 2022 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 42. Offenses Against the Person :: Chapter 4. Sex Crimes :: 35-42-4-4. Child Exploitation; Possession of Child *advertiser censored*; Exemptions; Defenses

intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desires of any person;

This is in the language but it doesn’t clarify whom
It has to arouse. The individual that produced/staged it ( which we can assume it did), that filmed it or photographed it or the person that distributed or received the material.
I think it’s common knowledge that this has a sexual component to it.
Also the term “any person” is used so it seems as long as one person was aroused during the act then it would be enough to constitute CSAM.

 

[WildHuncher]

Seems like splitting hairs, but legally I have of course no idea.

Two things seem true at the same time, alas! What MW is accused of doing is utterly wrong and criminal on the face of it. Loathsome, even.

But his brief for dismissal looks (IMHO) very prettily pettifoggered. (IANAL)

 

[sunshineray]

Mere possession of images isn't enough to qualify as criminal. There is an intent requirement to the crime; there must be an "intent to satisfy the sexual desires" also.

See: 2022 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 42. Offenses Against the Person :: Chapter 4. Sex Crimes :: 35-42-4-4. Child Exploitation; Possession of Child *advertiser censored*; Exemptions; Defenses

So you're saying a person can be in possession but as long as they don't #1 share the images and #2 they have no visceral pleasure from possessing them, they haven't committed a crime? That's not how it is in my state. Mere possession gets you arrested...and no matter how you came into possession.

That said, MW did share them and there was a satisfaction obtained from doing it. This just seems to be yet another case of children's rights being overlooked by the law that supposedly is there to protect them, their dignity in life and it seems also in death. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

"Took photos only, but didn't touch" - could also be applied in different certain areas, but would be ok just as little, IMO.

Did he touch the phone screen, time and time again, while the photos were on them? Did he zoom in on those photos on the screen using his fingers? I guess he "touched" the photos.

 

[sunshineray]

intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desires of any person;

This is in the language but it doesn’t clarify whom
It has to arouse. The individual that produced/staged it ( which we can assume it did), that filmed it or photographed it or the person that distributed or received the material.
I think it’s common knowledge that this has a sexual component to it.
Also the term “any person” is used so it seems as long as one person was aroused during the act then it would be enough to constitute CSAM.

We could get really crass and go into the psychology of the words "sexual arousal". Some may be aroused just by something going their way, just by the act of obtaining sometime. So if the law wants to be accurate maybe this type of benefit to one's psyche should be included. AJMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

Since MW and his case of conversion is a topic, I think it's important to remember that someone in the chain of recipients killed themselves.

I don't know if that means anything in the legal sense, but it certainly tells me that simply being an innocent recipient or disseminating photos of 2 murdered girls, one nude, is downplaying the intention.


JMO

 

[somequestions]

If I were on the jury, I'd like to have these points clarified and proven firmly:
- WHEN did they find the bullet between the kids? Which day, what time and who found it? (photographs pls?).
- WHEN was it collected as evidence? By whom? (Photographs pls).
BM claimed that police didn't collect the bullet until days later - that they went back AFTER the scene was cleared - if that was the case, why didn't the defense harp on this glaring issue in their filings to date?? (or did they and we don't know it yet)?

I would like to see the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video where it is claimed according to the PCA that at 1:27pm, a vehicle resembling Richard Allen's 2016 Ford Focus is driving towards the old CPS building.

It is interesting that Richard Allen remembered to avoid being seen by the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance cameras if he was the person seen as muddy and bloody walking along 300 N back towards the old CPS building, but forgot about the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance video when it came to his vehicle driving by. Even if he had kept on walking along 300 N, the Hoosier Harveststore surveillance camera would only have gotten a side profile of him.

My complete guess is that Richard Allen did not drive the 2016 Ford Focus hatchback when he went to speak with the conservation officer. That would at least make sense.

 

[AugustWest]

@Cyber sleuth @sunshineray (and everyone else reading)

I'm not trying to troll here or make anyone upset, I'm simply relaying information and the reasoning behind why such a charge is highly unlikely, and probably wouldn't escape a motion for summary judgment. It would be hard, if not impossible, to prove MW published the images with the required intent.

 

[zh0r4]

9:00 am hearing is for contempt, what is the 2:00 pm hearing in regards to?

Possibly surprise DQ the D, round 2? JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

@Cyber sleuth @sunshineray (and everyone else reading)

I'm not trying to troll here or make anyone upset, I'm simply relaying information and the reasoning behind why such a charge is highly unlikely, and probably wouldn't escape a motion for summary judgment. It would be hard, if not impossible, to prove MW published the images with the required intent.

Thank you for trying to help us understand the legalities in this case.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I'm not trying to troll here or make anyone upset, I'm simply relaying information and the reasoning behind why such a charge is highly unlikely, and probably wouldn't escape a motion for summary judgment. It would be hard, if not impossible, to prove MW published the images with the required intent.

Thank you. The statute is lengthy and confusing. I understand and appreciate your insight. It’s just so frustrating that this happened and it seems there is little legal recourse.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

So you're saying a person can be in possession but as long as they don't #1 share the images and #2 they have no visceral pleasure from possessing them, they haven't committed a crime? That's not how it is in my state. Mere possession gets you arrested...and no matter how you came into possession.

That said, MW did share them and there was a satisfaction obtained from doing it. This just seems to be yet another case of children's rights being overlooked by the law that supposedly is there to protect them, their dignity in life and it seems also in death. AJMO

Your state has got it right.
Now I see why CSAM is so prevalent in Indiana, they almost seem to be promoting and encouraging it.
Their law describes all these potential lewd images of children and then decides it’s OK for someone to not only possess these images but to share them with others as long as neither of the parties get any sexual pleasure from them. Unbelievable.
My question would be…what other reason would an individual(not talking official museum university study whatever type stuff) have for possessing these images? Are they just collecting them like baseball cards? Does the pervert tell LE, with a straight face, that they don’t look at the pictures or videos to get an extra thrill and LE has to believe them per Indiana law?
Children have zero chance in Indiana. I’m a bit surprised it’s a crime to murder them.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

@Cyber sleuth @sunshineray (and everyone else reading)

I'm not trying to troll here or make anyone upset, I'm simply relaying information and the reasoning behind why such a charge is highly unlikely, and probably wouldn't escape a motion for summary judgment. It would be hard, if not impossible, to prove MW published the images with the required intent.

I appreciate the information.
It reveals how inadequate and sad Indiana law is concerning children.

 

[AugustWest]

Your state has got it right.
Now I see why CSAM is so prevalent in Indiana, they almost seem to be promoting and encouraging it.
Their law describes all these potential lewd images of children and then decides it’s OK for someone to not only possess these images but to share them with others as long as neither of the parties get any sexual pleasure from them. Unbelievable.
My question would be…what other reason would an individual(not talking official museum university study whatever type stuff) have for possessing these images? Are they just collecting them like baseball cards? Does the pervert tell LE, with a straight face, that they don’t look at the pictures or videos to get an extra thrill and LE has to believe them per Indiana law?
Children have zero chance in Indiana. I’m a bit surprised it’s a crime to murder them.

@StarryStarryNight

In answer to your question, those states which word their statutes this way contemplate situations such as this:

• Mom takes picture of kid in bath (used to be popular for some odd reason)
• Mom sends this picture to Uncle Cletus because it is "cute"
• Unbeknownst to Mom, Uncle Cletus is a massive pedo and derives pleasure from pic.
• Is Mom a CSAM pedo now also?

This isn't really analogous to this situation, but the reasoning is the same. Mom wasn't sending pic as "sexual content" therefore not CSAM possession/distribution.

The laws are changing regarding some of these issues. I expect a lot of changes, especially now that AI fake images are becoming prevalent (which Indiana already contemplates in their statutes).