Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181

[AugustWest]

What appeal are they preparing for? They have said their client is innocent and there is no evidence against him. Do they not expect an acquittal at trial?

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Must cover all the bases.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I guess the old saying about **a tiger never changes its stripes**
does mean something after all. This old motion sorta' seems to be a repetitive way of "interviewing".

Richard-Allen-Verified-Emergency-Motion-for-Continuance.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[TTF14]

What appeal are they preparing for? They have said their client is innocent and there is no evidence against him. Do they not expect an acquittal at trial?

They know they aren't going to get a fair trial with this judge. She's probably going to disallow way more than she's going to allow in this trial. So, they have to prepare for an appeal based on what they suspect she will do (based on her own track record in this case). This is my opinion of their strategy. I could be way off.

I've said this before, but I'll say again...I do think RA was involved in some way, but I do not think he killed Abby and Libby. I think this needs to go to trial to get testimony out under oath so the rest of the evil doers involved get prosecuted. Why the State/LE have been so shady (or just negligent?)....I guess time will tell.

 

[steeltowngirl]

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf
Reading the paragraph where RA says "I'm done". I think this is a matter of convenience. Could be my imagination but I picture this as whatever was on his phone he had to create a distraction. He is worried about his reputation and even accuses the cop of groping him. This is the kind of scene you cause to get up and leave. IMO

Also wondering what documents they had.. phone data?

SBM:

“It’s over. I was perfectly fine. I was cooperating.
I was going to give you my phone and then, you know, when you
started reading all these documents – that’s at the – here’s my thing
is. I feel like you guys think I done this. So, I’m done."

SBM:
"leave my reputation out if it. So you do what you need to do, and then,
like I said, when you do find this guy, I’ll expect the apology.” Rick
then described how police were trying to ruin his reputation by
accusing him of the murders in public, even groping him as they
patted him down in the street.

I don’t understand this groping on the street stuff. I thought he went voluntarily to the Oct. 13, 2022 interview and they took him into an interrogation room. Where and when was he patted down on the street? Did they pull him over and ask him to come in?

 

[EOA]

Deep Dive back into the PCA
While the PCA isn't the only important document, it is the one that that got the ball rolling so to speak in terms of an arrest. As trial speedily approaches, it's helpful to refresh memories as to what was said, what was not, and how things may be viewed a little differently now that we've seen subsequent filings.

I've re-typed the section of the PCA below dealing with RA's initial interview with Dan Dulin - Conservation Officer, numbering each sentence [ ] then providing MOO commentary at bottom. Based on the last sentence dealing with "Follow-Up" I believe MOO this interview was conducted the morning of Feb 14, 2017 at a time period the girls were still considered Missing (perhaps an hour or so within the bodies being found). Full transparency - I am undecided on RA's guilt but have shifted a tad towards at least some guilt in the last week.

Probable Cause Affidavit, page 4 of 8
"[1] Investigators reviewing prior tips encountered a tip narrative from an officer who interviewed Richard M. Allen in 2017. [2] That narrative stated:
[3] Mr. Allen was on trail between 1330-1530. [4] He parked at the old Farm Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. [5] While at the Freedom Bridge he saw three females. [6] He noted one was taller and had brown or black hair. [7] He did not remember description nor did he speak with them. [8] He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. [9] He did not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked. [10] He stated there were vehicles parked at the High Bridge trail head, however did not pay attention to them. [11] He did not take any photos or videos.

[12] His cell phone did not list an IMEI but did have the following:
[13] MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495
MEIDHEX-9900247025797
[14] Potential follow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area of Freedom Bridge?"
MOO
[overall] - I waffle on whether the account above was the full and exact wording that DD recorded - or whether the above per PCA was only a part of DD's notes and perhaps paraphrased by the P above. The problems are:
--If full and exact it's a downright horrible interview: the subject's full name, address, nor phone number are recorded, there is no date/time/place of the interview recorded, nor are the circumstances logged (e.g. he was tipped in, he volunteered based on LE general callout, etc) which resulted in this meeting. Plus things mentioned individually below.
--If partial and/or paraphrased - we're left with a cherry-pick version that suits the P but leaves out helpful notes toward the D. (just like the D's criticized FM)
[1] - this was written by the P, not DD. It claims a recent re-discovery of a prior tip. No mention of any newly discovered evidence from 2017-22, nor any new tips. Why would the P have not been more specific than saying only "in 2017" - Whether this was the day after (2/14) or was November 2017 seems to be a substantial difference and would've taken only a few more characters to give a lot more clarity.
[2] - this seems straightforward (That stated that what we're reading is a full and verbatim version. The Search Warrant affidavit is worded slightly different but with about the same straightforward meaning (As follows I would've expected words like "included" or "alluded to" if this was a partial or paraphrased version.
[3] just goes into "Mr.Allen" as though every reader including LE and the tipline knows who this is talking about. Could the D in desperation say this isn't even the right Mr. Allen without a full name, home address, or any other identifying information. "He was on the trail" - to me that is a confirming response to a question "Were you on the trail?" and Interviewee answers Yes. "Between 1330-1530" - again to me this seems most like a confirming response to a question "Was it between 1:30 and 3:30?" and Interviewee again answers Yes, About that time, Part of that time, or similar. The better more comprehensive questions would've been "what time did you first enter the trail(s), what time did you last exit the trail(s), and how many/which trail parts were you on at what times to the best of your memory? While the P later in the P specifically states RA was present from 1:30 to 3:30, I think it's ambiguous based on these Notes that's what RA actually said. It's interesting that the 2019 Press Conference, DC encourages folks to tip in any info on vehicles parked at the CPS bldg between noon and 5pm. No one reads this "between" language as meaning cars that arrived at noon and departed at 5:00, but it's the same "between" language used with RA, not a from/to format, even though that wouldn't have taken much more effort to record with a lot more clarification. RA's later time range of 1200-130 is not a conflict to him earlier saying Yes to 130-330 if it is literally read "between"
[4] Quite strange that DD notes where RA claims to have parked but does not record the color/age/make/model of the vehicle in question! DD either thinks he knows what RA is talking about in regards to old Farm Bureau building (even though nothing named that apparently existed) or for whatever reason doesn't press RA to provide more detail as to where that is. (causing LE to make some unconfirmed presumptions later). DD also doesn't inquire the arrival/departure of the car, which could be different than the time on the trails depending on how far off the trails RA had parked before entering onto the trails at the 130-330 comment. I.e. perhaps RA parked at 1:00 and walked the backroads for 1/2 hour before coming onto the trail system...
[5] At the Freedom Bridge [not exactly east of the Freedom bridge as per the Girls' version but probably close enough) RA says he saw 3 females. In later filings we find out the group claiming to see a man was actually a group of 4. And RA doesn't say here that he passed them (which the group of 4 does state), just that he saw 3 females. It's confusing whether DD asked for their ages or not. In the Follow-Up section DD later calls them "girls" but this section only says females - and apparently no inquiry as to how far away did RA see these females.
[6] Surely this could've been confirmed via school/medical records, maybe even photos - but I don't recall seeing it ever confirmed, or not, that this description that one of the females "was taller" would be accurate as to this group is the same one who claims to see a man elsewhere in the PCA. Again it would've been helpful with a bit more detail as to whether RA was implying taller in general for females, taller than the others in the group whether 3 or 4, or taller than him. Some of us speculated way back that it may have been a 17-yr old babysitter walking with toddlers or pre-teens - but nonetheless this seems like an investigative gap unless I missed something. If there was a taller one, did the taller one actually have dark hair?
[7] it's odd if you're trying to scribble down things fast, like it seems hurriedly in other places, that you'd take the time to write down "he did not remember description" when the previous sentence RA provides a height and hair color description of one of them. Though recording him not speaking to them is reasonable.
[8] "He did not see anybody" is helpful to know, and implies that if BB truly saw him, he was unaware of that or lying here. We covered way back near the beginning that on 2/13/17 the Dow Jones Index passed a previous all-time high so I've always found MOO it perfectly reasonable that he as an innocent man could've been interested in a stock ticker as many people want to see how much money they're making on a day the market is up. As a guilty man about to kill 2 people, it seems like your mind would be elsewhere than a stock ticker?? Again it was helpful to see that noted as it does pin down the factor of phone usage and identification.
[9] RA states there were other vehicle(S) parked at the High Bridge trail head. I believe this would be the same lot known as 'across from Mears' but can't say that positively. If we're to go with LE's timeline, BB pulls up only 3-4 minutes after RA would've crossed this parking area and she said she was the only car in the lot. Hard to believe plural vehicles pulled out in that short time, so someone's lying or their recollection is off. Did LE ever identify any cars in/out of this parking area within minutes of BB's arrival? Perhaps the timeline is not quite dead-on accurate either.
[11-13] good inquiries
[14] I gather that DD wondered if 2 of the 3 girls at Freedom Bridge were A&L.. however since A&L were reasonably the same height, the 3rd female would had to have been the "abductor" or last one to see them. (just still missing at this time is the assumption). However DD does not ask the pertinent questions such as: Would you have recognized Abby, Libby, or both from prior contact if you'd gotten a close look at them? or Did 2 of those 3 girls appear to be 13-14 years old or were they much younger or much older than that?
[overall] These important things IMO were missing from this interview?
--DD asking why was RA at the trails in the first place (for documentation)
--DD asking which return route did RA take to get back to his vehicle? and given it would only take 15-ish minutes at a decent pace to walk from Freedom to MHB, what did he do the remainder of the time there? obviously he'd been here and gone in no more than 35 minutes if he'd only walked out and back.
--how did this tip (reportedly) get mis-filed under "Whiteman" (RA's home address) when, if this is the full and complete version of notes, the word Whiteman never appears above.
--is noteworthy that in this conversation RA does not describe his clothing worn, nor was he apparently asked. At this juncture it would've been safer for RA to have disclosed that, before the video became known, than when he
apparently did disclose his attire 5 years later after the video had long been out there.
-- also noteworthy that RA did not disclose he went to Platform 1 or onto the bridge at all during this interview. For LE to have matched RA's 2022 claim of fish watching to BB's interview claimed sighting, either BB's interview was earlier and LE was waiting for someone to claim they went to the first platform on that day, or BB's interview (like RA's was also) was 5 years after the occurrence when memories are less reliable.

Again, the latter part is all MOO. If I have the time, I'd like to cover several other parts of the PCA similarly.
Thoughts?

 

[snooptroop88]

23.To make matters more suspicious, Holeman claims in his November 1, 2022, report (memorializing his October 26 interrogation of Rick Allen) the following: “I asked Mr. Allen if he remembered the other detectives reading him his Miranda rights and he said yes. I told him he was free to go at anytime and that the door was unlocked."

That doesn't make anything "more suspicious" for anyone except the D, which wants it desperately to be "more suspicious" because they're frantically trying to get some unidentified piece of info suppressed.

h. When Jerry Holeman would leave the room, he told Rick Allen to “sit tight” (at the 9:25 and 45:20 marks) or “hang on one second” (at the 16:40 mark). In other words, Jerry Holeman told Rick Allen that he (Allen) could not leave.

"Sit tight" would lead someone to think he's locked in? Really? "Hang on one second" leads a person to think they're being locked in without being able to leave? Okay.

o. Rick Allen asked Holeman to stop the interview. Rick said “I’m done” early into the interrogation at the 12:05 mark, but Holeman continued his interrogation.

This is what the D says is happening around this 12:05 time: i. At the 7:10 mark, Jerry Holeman told Rick Allen that
“We have experts that say that’s you on the bridge and that’s your voice on the video.” ii.At the 15:25 mark, Holeman told Rick Allen that “Experts are saying that’s you on the video” and “Experts are saying you said “Down the Hill”.

RA may have somehow waived his right to silence at that point, and this can be done in a number of ways, none that "stand out" all that much, it can be something we'd have to see the whole transcript to know. I have no doubt that (since the D wrote what I'm reading) we'd need more information. Did RA ever at any point say he wanted an attorney during either of these interviews? This client, MOO, will only accept the trial was "fair" if he's acquitted. Right, there are fair ones where people go to jail, just putting that out there.

 

[TTF14]

h. When Jerry Holeman would leave the room, he told Rick Allen to “sit tight” (at the 9:25 and 45:20 marks) or “hang on one second” (at the 16:40 mark). In other words, Jerry Holeman told Rick Allen that he (Allen) could not leave."

"Sit tight" would lead someone to think he's locked in? Really? "Hang on one second" leads a person to think they're being locked in without being able to leave? Okay.

RSBM

This, and many other things, was included to correlate to the case law they used where similar (or exact) things happened.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Deep Dive back into the PCA
While the PCA isn't the only important document, it is the one that that got the ball rolling so to speak in terms of an arrest. As trial speedily approaches, it's helpful to refresh memories as to what was said, what was not, and how things may be viewed a little differently now that we've seen subsequent filings.

I've re-typed the section of the PCA below dealing with RA's initial interview with Dan Dulin - Conservation Officer, numbering each sentence [ ] then providing MOO commentary at bottom. Based on the last sentence dealing with "Follow-Up" I believe MOO this interview was conducted the morning of Feb 14, 2017 at a time period the girls were still considered Missing (perhaps an hour or so within the bodies being found). Full transparency - I am undecided on RA's guilt but have shifted a tad towards at least some guilt in the last week.

Probable Cause Affidavit, page 4 of 8
"[1] Investigators reviewing prior tips encountered a tip narrative from an officer who interviewed Richard M. Allen in 2017. [2] That narrative stated:
[3] Mr. Allen was on trail between 1330-1530. [4] He parked at the old Farm Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. [5] While at the Freedom Bridge he saw three females. [6] He noted one was taller and had brown or black hair. [7] He did not remember description nor did he speak with them. [8] He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. [9] He did not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked. [10] He stated there were vehicles parked at the High Bridge trail head, however did not pay attention to them. [11] He did not take any photos or videos.

[12] His cell phone did not list an IMEI but did have the following:
[13] MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495
MEIDHEX-9900247025797
[14] Potential follow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area of Freedom Bridge?"
MOO
[overall] - I waffle on whether the account above was the full and exact wording that DD recorded - or whether the above per PCA was only a part of DD's notes and perhaps paraphrased by the P above. The problems are:
--If full and exact it's a downright horrible interview: the subject's full name, address, nor phone number are recorded, there is no date/time/place of the interview recorded, nor are the circumstances logged (e.g. he was tipped in, he volunteered based on LE general callout, etc) which resulted in this meeting. Plus things mentioned individually below.
--If partial and/or paraphrased - we're left with a cherry-pick version that suits the P but leaves out helpful notes toward the D. (just like the D's criticized FM)
[1] - this was written by the P, not DD. It claims a recent re-discovery of a prior tip. No mention of any newly discovered evidence from 2017-22, nor any new tips. Why would the P have not been more specific than saying only "in 2017" - Whether this was the day after (2/14) or was November 2017 seems to be a substantial difference and would've taken only a few more characters to give a lot more clarity.
[2] - this seems straightforward (That stated that what we're reading is a full and verbatim version. The Search Warrant affidavit is worded slightly different but with about the same straightforward meaning (As follows I would've expected words like "included" or "alluded to" if this was a partial or paraphrased version.
[3] just goes into "Mr.Allen" as though every reader including LE and the tipline knows who this is talking about. Could the D in desperation say this isn't even the right Mr. Allen without a full name, home address, or any other identifying information. "He was on the trail" - to me that is a confirming response to a question "Were you on the trail?" and Interviewee answers Yes. "Between 1330-1530" - again to me this seems most like a confirming response to a question "Was it between 1:30 and 3:30?" and Interviewee again answers Yes, About that time, Part of that time, or similar. The better more comprehensive questions would've been "what time did you first enter the trail(s), what time did you last exit the trail(s), and how many/which trail parts were you on at what times to the best of your memory? While the P later in the P specifically states RA was present from 1:30 to 3:30, I think it's ambiguous based on these Notes that's what RA actually said. It's interesting that the 2019 Press Conference, DC encourages folks to tip in any info on vehicles parked at the CPS bldg between noon and 5pm. No one reads this "between" language as meaning cars that arrived at noon and departed at 5:00, but it's the same "between" language used with RA, not a from/to format, even though that wouldn't have taken much more effort to record with a lot more clarification. RA's later time range of 1200-130 is not a conflict to him earlier saying Yes to 130-330 if it is literally read "between"
[4] Quite strange that DD notes where RA claims to have parked but does not record the color/age/make/model of the vehicle in question! DD either thinks he knows what RA is talking about in regards to old Farm Bureau building (even though nothing named that apparently existed) or for whatever reason doesn't press RA to provide more detail as to where that is. (causing LE to make some unconfirmed presumptions later). DD also doesn't inquire the arrival/departure of the car, which could be different than the time on the trails depending on how far off the trails RA had parked before entering onto the trails at the 130-330 comment. I.e. perhaps RA parked at 1:00 and walked the backroads for 1/2 hour before coming onto the trail system...
[5] At the Freedom Bridge [not exactly east of the Freedom bridge as per the Girls' version but probably close enough) RA says he saw 3 females. In later filings we find out the group claiming to see a man was actually a group of 4. And RA doesn't say here that he passed them (which the group of 4 does state), just that he saw 3 females. It's confusing whether DD asked for their ages or not. In the Follow-Up section DD later calls them "girls" but this section only says females - and apparently no inquiry as to how far away did RA see these females.
[6] Surely this could've been confirmed via school/medical records, maybe even photos - but I don't recall seeing it ever confirmed, or not, that this description that one of the females "was taller" would be accurate as to this group is the same one who claims to see a man elsewhere in the PCA. Again it would've been helpful with a bit more detail as to whether RA was implying taller in general for females, taller than the others in the group whether 3 or 4, or taller than him. Some of us speculated way back that it may have been a 17-yr old babysitter walking with toddlers or pre-teens - but nonetheless this seems like an investigative gap unless I missed something. If there was a taller one, did the taller one actually have dark hair?
[7] it's odd if you're trying to scribble down things fast, like it seems hurriedly in other places, that you'd take the time to write down "he did not remember description" when the previous sentence RA provides a height and hair color description of one of them. Though recording him not speaking to them is reasonable.
[8] "He did not see anybody" is helpful to know, and implies that if BB truly saw him, he was unaware of that or lying here. We covered way back near the beginning that on 2/13/17 the Dow Jones Index passed a previous all-time high so I've always found MOO it perfectly reasonable that he as an innocent man could've been interested in a stock ticker as many people want to see how much money they're making on a day the market is up. As a guilty man about to kill 2 people, it seems like your mind would be elsewhere than a stock ticker?? Again it was helpful to see that noted as it does pin down the factor of phone usage and identification.
[9] RA states there were other vehicle(S) parked at the High Bridge trail head. I believe this would be the same lot known as 'across from Mears' but can't say that positively. If we're to go with LE's timeline, BB pulls up only 3-4 minutes after RA would've crossed this parking area and she said she was the only car in the lot. Hard to believe plural vehicles pulled out in that short time, so someone's lying or their recollection is off. Did LE ever identify any cars in/out of this parking area within minutes of BB's arrival? Perhaps the timeline is not quite dead-on accurate either.
[11-13] good inquiries
[14] I gather that DD wondered if 2 of the 3 girls at Freedom Bridge were A&L.. however since A&L were reasonably the same height, the 3rd female would had to have been the "abductor" or last one to see them. (just still missing at this time is the assumption). However DD does not ask the pertinent questions such as: Would you have recognized Abby, Libby, or both from prior contact if you'd gotten a close look at them? or Did 2 of those 3 girls appear to be 13-14 years old or were they much younger or much older than that?
[overall] These important things IMO were missing from this interview?
--DD asking why was RA at the trails in the first place (for documentation)
--DD asking which return route did RA take to get back to his vehicle? and given it would only take 15-ish minutes at a decent pace to walk from Freedom to MHB, what did he do the remainder of the time there? obviously he'd been here and gone in no more than 35 minutes if he'd only walked out and back.
--how did this tip (reportedly) get mis-filed under "Whiteman" (RA's home address) when, if this is the full and complete version of notes, the word Whiteman never appears above.
--is noteworthy that in this conversation RA does not describe his clothing worn, nor was he apparently asked. At this juncture it would've been safer for RA to have disclosed that, before the video became known, than when he
apparently did disclose his attire 5 years later after the video had long been out there.
-- also noteworthy that RA did not disclose he went to Platform 1 or onto the bridge at all during this interview. For LE to have matched RA's 2022 claim of fish watching to BB's interview claimed sighting, either BB's interview was earlier and LE was waiting for someone to claim they went to the first platform on that day, or BB's interview (like RA's was also) was 5 years after the occurrence when memories are less reliable.

Again, the latter part is all MOO. If I have the time, I'd like to cover several other parts of the PCA similarly.
Thoughts?

Excellent analysis. Very good points to consider.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Deep Dive back into the PCA
While the PCA isn't the only important document, it is the one that that got the ball rolling so to speak in terms of an arrest. As trial speedily approaches, it's helpful to refresh memories as to what was said, what was not, and how things may be viewed a little differently now that we've seen subsequent filings.

I've re-typed the section of the PCA below dealing with RA's initial interview with Dan Dulin - Conservation Officer, numbering each sentence [ ] then providing MOO commentary at bottom. Based on the last sentence dealing with "Follow-Up" I believe MOO this interview was conducted the morning of Feb 14, 2017 at a time period the girls were still considered Missing (perhaps an hour or so within the bodies being found). Full transparency - I am undecided on RA's guilt but have shifted a tad towards at least some guilt in the last week.

Probable Cause Affidavit, page 4 of 8
"[1] Investigators reviewing prior tips encountered a tip narrative from an officer who interviewed Richard M. Allen in 2017. [2] That narrative stated:
[3] Mr. Allen was on trail between 1330-1530. [4] He parked at the old Farm Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. [5] While at the Freedom Bridge he saw three females. [6] He noted one was taller and had brown or black hair. [7] He did not remember description nor did he speak with them. [8] He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. [9] He did not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked. [10] He stated there were vehicles parked at the High Bridge trail head, however did not pay attention to them. [11] He did not take any photos or videos.

[12] His cell phone did not list an IMEI but did have the following:
[13] MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495
MEIDHEX-9900247025797
[14] Potential follow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area of Freedom Bridge?"
MOO
[overall] - I waffle on whether the account above was the full and exact wording that DD recorded - or whether the above per PCA was only a part of DD's notes and perhaps paraphrased by the P above. The problems are:
--If full and exact it's a downright horrible interview: the subject's full name, address, nor phone number are recorded, there is no date/time/place of the interview recorded, nor are the circumstances logged (e.g. he was tipped in, he volunteered based on LE general callout, etc) which resulted in this meeting. Plus things mentioned individually below.
--If partial and/or paraphrased - we're left with a cherry-pick version that suits the P but leaves out helpful notes toward the D. (just like the D's criticized FM)
[1] - this was written by the P, not DD. It claims a recent re-discovery of a prior tip. No mention of any newly discovered evidence from 2017-22, nor any new tips. Why would the P have not been more specific than saying only "in 2017" - Whether this was the day after (2/14) or was November 2017 seems to be a substantial difference and would've taken only a few more characters to give a lot more clarity.
[2] - this seems straightforward (That stated that what we're reading is a full and verbatim version. The Search Warrant affidavit is worded slightly different but with about the same straightforward meaning (As follows I would've expected words like "included" or "alluded to" if this was a partial or paraphrased version.
[3] just goes into "Mr.Allen" as though every reader including LE and the tipline knows who this is talking about. Could the D in desperation say this isn't even the right Mr. Allen without a full name, home address, or any other identifying information. "He was on the trail" - to me that is a confirming response to a question "Were you on the trail?" and Interviewee answers Yes. "Between 1330-1530" - again to me this seems most like a confirming response to a question "Was it between 1:30 and 3:30?" and Interviewee again answers Yes, About that time, Part of that time, or similar. The better more comprehensive questions would've been "what time did you first enter the trail(s), what time did you last exit the trail(s), and how many/which trail parts were you on at what times to the best of your memory? While the P later in the P specifically states RA was present from 1:30 to 3:30, I think it's ambiguous based on these Notes that's what RA actually said. It's interesting that the 2019 Press Conference, DC encourages folks to tip in any info on vehicles parked at the CPS bldg between noon and 5pm. No one reads this "between" language as meaning cars that arrived at noon and departed at 5:00, but it's the same "between" language used with RA, not a from/to format, even though that wouldn't have taken much more effort to record with a lot more clarification. RA's later time range of 1200-130 is not a conflict to him earlier saying Yes to 130-330 if it is literally read "between"
[4] Quite strange that DD notes where RA claims to have parked but does not record the color/age/make/model of the vehicle in question! DD either thinks he knows what RA is talking about in regards to old Farm Bureau building (even though nothing named that apparently existed) or for whatever reason doesn't press RA to provide more detail as to where that is. (causing LE to make some unconfirmed presumptions later). DD also doesn't inquire the arrival/departure of the car, which could be different than the time on the trails depending on how far off the trails RA had parked before entering onto the trails at the 130-330 comment. I.e. perhaps RA parked at 1:00 and walked the backroads for 1/2 hour before coming onto the trail system...
[5] At the Freedom Bridge [not exactly east of the Freedom bridge as per the Girls' version but probably close enough) RA says he saw 3 females. In later filings we find out the group claiming to see a man was actually a group of 4. And RA doesn't say here that he passed them (which the group of 4 does state), just that he saw 3 females. It's confusing whether DD asked for their ages or not. In the Follow-Up section DD later calls them "girls" but this section only says females - and apparently no inquiry as to how far away did RA see these females.
[6] Surely this could've been confirmed via school/medical records, maybe even photos - but I don't recall seeing it ever confirmed, or not, that this description that one of the females "was taller" would be accurate as to this group is the same one who claims to see a man elsewhere in the PCA. Again it would've been helpful with a bit more detail as to whether RA was implying taller in general for females, taller than the others in the group whether 3 or 4, or taller than him. Some of us speculated way back that it may have been a 17-yr old babysitter walking with toddlers or pre-teens - but nonetheless this seems like an investigative gap unless I missed something. If there was a taller one, did the taller one actually have dark hair?
[7] it's odd if you're trying to scribble down things fast, like it seems hurriedly in other places, that you'd take the time to write down "he did not remember description" when the previous sentence RA provides a height and hair color description of one of them. Though recording him not speaking to them is reasonable.
[8] "He did not see anybody" is helpful to know, and implies that if BB truly saw him, he was unaware of that or lying here. We covered way back near the beginning that on 2/13/17 the Dow Jones Index passed a previous all-time high so I've always found MOO it perfectly reasonable that he as an innocent man could've been interested in a stock ticker as many people want to see how much money they're making on a day the market is up. As a guilty man about to kill 2 people, it seems like your mind would be elsewhere than a stock ticker?? Again it was helpful to see that noted as it does pin down the factor of phone usage and identification.
[9] RA states there were other vehicle(S) parked at the High Bridge trail head. I believe this would be the same lot known as 'across from Mears' but can't say that positively. If we're to go with LE's timeline, BB pulls up only 3-4 minutes after RA would've crossed this parking area and she said she was the only car in the lot. Hard to believe plural vehicles pulled out in that short time, so someone's lying or their recollection is off. Did LE ever identify any cars in/out of this parking area within minutes of BB's arrival? Perhaps the timeline is not quite dead-on accurate either.
[11-13] good inquiries
[14] I gather that DD wondered if 2 of the 3 girls at Freedom Bridge were A&L.. however since A&L were reasonably the same height, the 3rd female would had to have been the "abductor" or last one to see them. (just still missing at this time is the assumption). However DD does not ask the pertinent questions such as: Would you have recognized Abby, Libby, or both from prior contact if you'd gotten a close look at them? or Did 2 of those 3 girls appear to be 13-14 years old or were they much younger or much older than that?
[overall] These important things IMO were missing from this interview?
--DD asking why was RA at the trails in the first place (for documentation)
--DD asking which return route did RA take to get back to his vehicle? and given it would only take 15-ish minutes at a decent pace to walk from Freedom to MHB, what did he do the remainder of the time there? obviously he'd been here and gone in no more than 35 minutes if he'd only walked out and back.
--how did this tip (reportedly) get mis-filed under "Whiteman" (RA's home address) when, if this is the full and complete version of notes, the word Whiteman never appears above.
--is noteworthy that in this conversation RA does not describe his clothing worn, nor was he apparently asked. At this juncture it would've been safer for RA to have disclosed that, before the video became known, than when he
apparently did disclose his attire 5 years later after the video had long been out there.
-- also noteworthy that RA did not disclose he went to Platform 1 or onto the bridge at all during this interview. For LE to have matched RA's 2022 claim of fish watching to BB's interview claimed sighting, either BB's interview was earlier and LE was waiting for someone to claim they went to the first platform on that day, or BB's interview (like RA's was also) was 5 years after the occurrence when memories are less reliable.

Again, the latter part is all MOO. If I have the time, I'd like to cover several other parts of the PCA similarly.
Thoughts?

Good stuff here. I want to dig in, but work tomorrow and need some sleep soon. For point 1, the document today listed a date on Oct 26, 2017. Was the DD interview Oct 26, 2017?

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf

drive.google.com

 

[layer]

Again, the latter part is all MOO. If I have the time, I'd like to cover several other parts of the PCA similarly.
Thoughts?

Looks like you put a tremendous effort into this, much appreciated.
More, please!

 

[Cyber sleuth]

23.To make matters more suspicious, Holeman claims in his November 1, 2022, report (memorializing his October 26 interrogation of Rick Allen) the following: “I asked Mr. Allen if he remembered the other detectives reading him his Miranda rights and he said yes. I told him he was free to go at anytime and that the door was unlocked."

That doesn't make anything "more suspicious" for anyone except the D, which wants it desperately to be "more suspicious" because they're frantically trying to get some unidentified piece of info suppressed.

h. When Jerry Holeman would leave the room, he told Rick Allen to “sit tight” (at the 9:25 and 45:20 marks) or “hang on one second” (at the 16:40 mark). In other words, Jerry Holeman told Rick Allen that he (Allen) could not leave.

"Sit tight" would lead someone to think he's locked in? Really? "Hang on one second" leads a person to think they're being locked in without being able to leave? Okay.

o. Rick Allen asked Holeman to stop the interview. Rick said “I’m done” early into the interrogation at the 12:05 mark, but Holeman continued his interrogation.

This is what the D says is happening around this 12:05 time: i. At the 7:10 mark, Jerry Holeman told Rick Allen that
“We have experts that say that’s you on the bridge and that’s your voice on the video.” ii.At the 15:25 mark, Holeman told Rick Allen that “Experts are saying that’s you on the video” and “Experts are saying you said “Down the Hill”.

RA may have somehow waived his right to silence at that point, and this can be done in a number of ways, none that "stand out" all that much, it can be something we'd have to see the whole transcript to know. I have no doubt that (since the D wrote what I'm reading) we'd need more information. Did RA ever at any point say he wanted an attorney during either of these interviews? This client, MOO, will only accept the trial was "fair" if he's acquitted. Right, there are fair ones where people go to jail, just putting that out there.

I believe if he had stated he wasn’t going to speak until he had the advisement of his attorney- defense would have included that. Jmo
Why didn’t RA ask for an attorney. That makes me wonder, he didn’t seem like he was aiding and assisting. He seemed to recognize his fish were being fried. IMO
He had managed to buy and pay for his home in full in 10 short years in Delphi working at a small town cvs. It wasn’t because he was broke. IMO
It also wasn’t because he was dumb. IMO he seems cunning. So why?

 

[layer]

It also wasn’t because he was dumb. IMO he seems cunning. So why?

A logical explanation is that he didn't ask for a lawyer because he knew he was innocent. I have started to think that no one needs a good lawyer more than the innocent,,,

 

[steeltowngirl]

They know they aren't going to get a fair trial with this judge. She's probably going to disallow way more than she's going to allow in this trial. So, they have to prepare for an appeal based on what they suspect she will do (based on her own track record in this case). This is my opinion of their strategy. I could be way off.

I've said this before, but I'll say again...I do think RA was involved in some way, but I do not think he killed Abby and Libby. I think this needs to go to trial to get testimony out under oath so the rest of the evil doers involved get prosecuted. Why the State/LE have been so shady (or just negligent?)....I guess time will tell.

If RA was involved, he is guilty as charged in the murders. Yet he may still be acquitted at trial and that’s it. It’s done. He could then shout from the rooftops about his involvement and it wouldn’t matter, due to double jeopardy. Prosecution gets only one bite of the apple. I agree, time will tell. And time is almost up. 28 days.

jmo

 

[TTF14]

Good stuff here. I want to dig in, but work tomorrow and need some sleep soon. For point 1, the document today listed a date on Oct 26, 2017. Was the DD interview Oct 26, 2017?
View attachment 497446

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf

drive.google.com

Typo. Should have been 2022. Both sides need better proofreading of their filings.

 

[snooptroop88]

I believe if he had stated he wasn’t going to speak until he had the advisement of his attorney- defense would have included that. Jmo
Why didn’t RA ask for an attorney. That makes me wonder, he didn’t seem like he was aiding and assisting. He seemed to recognize his fish were being fried.
He had managed to buy and pay for his home in full in 10 short years in Delphi working at a small town cvs. It wasn’t because he was broke. IMO
It also wasn’t because he was dumb. IMO he seems cunning. So why?

Totally agreed. Guess on this: I think RA is BG. I don't necessarily think this is his first murder. He thought he'd gotten away with it (again?) once he gave the info to the conservation officer way back when. But now, after others were being questioned and were being brought in, let go, now RA's being brought in. He fears escalation and is moving heaven and earth to make it stop, make the whole "process" stop moving forward before it's too late. My guess is that it now is too late, and he knows it. He knew that once his "situation" moved further forward in terms of the process, the attention to detail would only grow more intense, and any chances that his framework of lies might stand up to scrutiny would be gone. He was comfortable after the conservation officer, once that "blew over," he needed for it to be over. He's anything but dumb. I'll be happy if I'm wrong for his sake if he's innocent. I do think he did it, though, and he's terrifying not just in his viciousness, but his guile. MOO. Early on John Kelly noted in a profile of BG, I believe, this is a "chameleon." I think he's right.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

'You're going down for this' Allen defense claims police were abusive during interview

Attorneys for the man accused in the Delphi killings filed a motion Monday to suppress Richard Allen's second statement to police.

www.wishtv.com

 

[EOA]

Good stuff here. I want to dig in, but work tomorrow and need some sleep soon. For point 1, the document today listed a date on Oct 26, 2017. Was the DD interview Oct 26, 2017?
View attachment 497446

2024 4/15 suppress 2nd statement .pdf

drive.google.com

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a reference to a 10/26/17 interview. TTF thinks it’s a typo on the year. ????

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Just a little insight in case this ever comes in to play. Hopefully it doesn't but wouldn't surprise me.



Non-custodial search = pat-down, looking for obvious things which can harm the officer during the contact.

Post-arrest search = more thorough, but now looking for the above AND any items of evidentiary value and also sometimes information which can help further an investigation.

Booking search = the “Full Monty”, so to speak. Literally and figuratively. This search is for all of the above, plus to prevent intrusion of ANY forbidden items into the facility. It is also used to fully identify the arrestee and to determine their current mental, medical and substance conditions.

 

[katydid23]

A false confession can't occur during an episode of psychosis?

A real confession can't occur during a psychotic episode?

Could a guilt ridden killer confess to his crimes but get some of the details wrong due to the psychosis?

 

[TL4S]

Deep Dive back into the PCA
While the PCA isn't the only important document, it is the one that that got the ball rolling so to speak in terms of an arrest. As trial speedily approaches, it's helpful to refresh memories as to what was said, what was not, and how things may be viewed a little differently now that we've seen subsequent filings.

I've re-typed the section of the PCA below dealing with RA's initial interview with Dan Dulin - Conservation Officer, numbering each sentence [ ] then providing MOO commentary at bottom. Based on the last sentence dealing with "Follow-Up" I believe MOO this interview was conducted the morning of Feb 14, 2017 at a time period the girls were still considered Missing (perhaps an hour or so within the bodies being found). Full transparency - I am undecided on RA's guilt but have shifted a tad towards at least some guilt in the last week.

Probable Cause Affidavit, page 4 of 8
"[1] Investigators reviewing prior tips encountered a tip narrative from an officer who interviewed Richard M. Allen in 2017. [2] That narrative stated:
[3] Mr. Allen was on trail between 1330-1530. [4] He parked at the old Farm Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. [5] While at the Freedom Bridge he saw three females. [6] He noted one was taller and had brown or black hair. [7] He did not remember description nor did he speak with them. [8] He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. [9] He did not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked. [10] He stated there were vehicles parked at the High Bridge trail head, however did not pay attention to them. [11] He did not take any photos or videos.

[12] His cell phone did not list an IMEI but did have the following:
[13] MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495
MEIDHEX-9900247025797
[14] Potential follow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area of Freedom Bridge?"
MOO
[overall] - I waffle on whether the account above was the full and exact wording that DD recorded - or whether the above per PCA was only a part of DD's notes and perhaps paraphrased by the P above. The problems are:
--If full and exact it's a downright horrible interview: the subject's full name, address, nor phone number are recorded, there is no date/time/place of the interview recorded, nor are the circumstances logged (e.g. he was tipped in, he volunteered based on LE general callout, etc) which resulted in this meeting. Plus things mentioned individually below.
--If partial and/or paraphrased - we're left with a cherry-pick version that suits the P but leaves out helpful notes toward the D. (just like the D's criticized FM)
[1] - this was written by the P, not DD. It claims a recent re-discovery of a prior tip. No mention of any newly discovered evidence from 2017-22, nor any new tips. Why would the P have not been more specific than saying only "in 2017" - Whether this was the day after (2/14) or was November 2017 seems to be a substantial difference and would've taken only a few more characters to give a lot more clarity.
[2] - this seems straightforward (That stated that what we're reading is a full and verbatim version. The Search Warrant affidavit is worded slightly different but with about the same straightforward meaning (As follows I would've expected words like "included" or "alluded to" if this was a partial or paraphrased version.
[3] just goes into "Mr.Allen" as though every reader including LE and the tipline knows who this is talking about. Could the D in desperation say this isn't even the right Mr. Allen without a full name, home address, or any other identifying information. "He was on the trail" - to me that is a confirming response to a question "Were you on the trail?" and Interviewee answers Yes. "Between 1330-1530" - again to me this seems most like a confirming response to a question "Was it between 1:30 and 3:30?" and Interviewee again answers Yes, About that time, Part of that time, or similar. The better more comprehensive questions would've been "what time did you first enter the trail(s), what time did you last exit the trail(s), and how many/which trail parts were you on at what times to the best of your memory? While the P later in the P specifically states RA was present from 1:30 to 3:30, I think it's ambiguous based on these Notes that's what RA actually said. It's interesting that the 2019 Press Conference, DC encourages folks to tip in any info on vehicles parked at the CPS bldg between noon and 5pm. No one reads this "between" language as meaning cars that arrived at noon and departed at 5:00, but it's the same "between" language used with RA, not a from/to format, even though that wouldn't have taken much more effort to record with a lot more clarification. RA's later time range of 1200-130 is not a conflict to him earlier saying Yes to 130-330 if it is literally read "between"
[4] Quite strange that DD notes where RA claims to have parked but does not record the color/age/make/model of the vehicle in question! DD either thinks he knows what RA is talking about in regards to old Farm Bureau building (even though nothing named that apparently existed) or for whatever reason doesn't press RA to provide more detail as to where that is. (causing LE to make some unconfirmed presumptions later). DD also doesn't inquire the arrival/departure of the car, which could be different than the time on the trails depending on how far off the trails RA had parked before entering onto the trails at the 130-330 comment. I.e. perhaps RA parked at 1:00 and walked the backroads for 1/2 hour before coming onto the trail system...
[5] At the Freedom Bridge [not exactly east of the Freedom bridge as per the Girls' version but probably close enough) RA says he saw 3 females. In later filings we find out the group claiming to see a man was actually a group of 4. And RA doesn't say here that he passed them (which the group of 4 does state), just that he saw 3 females. It's confusing whether DD asked for their ages or not. In the Follow-Up section DD later calls them "girls" but this section only says females - and apparently no inquiry as to how far away did RA see these females.
[6] Surely this could've been confirmed via school/medical records, maybe even photos - but I don't recall seeing it ever confirmed, or not, that this description that one of the females "was taller" would be accurate as to this group is the same one who claims to see a man elsewhere in the PCA. Again it would've been helpful with a bit more detail as to whether RA was implying taller in general for females, taller than the others in the group whether 3 or 4, or taller than him. Some of us speculated way back that it may have been a 17-yr old babysitter walking with toddlers or pre-teens - but nonetheless this seems like an investigative gap unless I missed something. If there was a taller one, did the taller one actually have dark hair?
[7] it's odd if you're trying to scribble down things fast, like it seems hurriedly in other places, that you'd take the time to write down "he did not remember description" when the previous sentence RA provides a height and hair color description of one of them. Though recording him not speaking to them is reasonable.
[8] "He did not see anybody" is helpful to know, and implies that if BB truly saw him, he was unaware of that or lying here. We covered way back near the beginning that on 2/13/17 the Dow Jones Index passed a previous all-time high so I've always found MOO it perfectly reasonable that he as an innocent man could've been interested in a stock ticker as many people want to see how much money they're making on a day the market is up. As a guilty man about to kill 2 people, it seems like your mind would be elsewhere than a stock ticker?? Again it was helpful to see that noted as it does pin down the factor of phone usage and identification.
[9] RA states there were other vehicle(S) parked at the High Bridge trail head. I believe this would be the same lot known as 'across from Mears' but can't say that positively. If we're to go with LE's timeline, BB pulls up only 3-4 minutes after RA would've crossed this parking area and she said she was the only car in the lot. Hard to believe plural vehicles pulled out in that short time, so someone's lying or their recollection is off. Did LE ever identify any cars in/out of this parking area within minutes of BB's arrival? Perhaps the timeline is not quite dead-on accurate either.
[11-13] good inquiries
[14] I gather that DD wondered if 2 of the 3 girls at Freedom Bridge were A&L.. however since A&L were reasonably the same height, the 3rd female would had to have been the "abductor" or last one to see them. (just still missing at this time is the assumption). However DD does not ask the pertinent questions such as: Would you have recognized Abby, Libby, or both from prior contact if you'd gotten a close look at them? or Did 2 of those 3 girls appear to be 13-14 years old or were they much younger or much older than that?
[overall] These important things IMO were missing from this interview?
--DD asking why was RA at the trails in the first place (for documentation)
--DD asking which return route did RA take to get back to his vehicle? and given it would only take 15-ish minutes at a decent pace to walk from Freedom to MHB, what did he do the remainder of the time there? obviously he'd been here and gone in no more than 35 minutes if he'd only walked out and back.
--how did this tip (reportedly) get mis-filed under "Whiteman" (RA's home address) when, if this is the full and complete version of notes, the word Whiteman never appears above.
--is noteworthy that in this conversation RA does not describe his clothing worn, nor was he apparently asked. At this juncture it would've been safer for RA to have disclosed that, before the video became known, than when he
apparently did disclose his attire 5 years later after the video had long been out there.
-- also noteworthy that RA did not disclose he went to Platform 1 or onto the bridge at all during this interview. For LE to have matched RA's 2022 claim of fish watching to BB's interview claimed sighting, either BB's interview was earlier and LE was waiting for someone to claim they went to the first platform on that day, or BB's interview (like RA's was also) was 5 years after the occurrence when memories are less reliable.

Again, the latter part is all MOO. If I have the time, I'd like to cover several other parts of the PCA similarly.
Thoughts?

You always have wonderful insights. You make some really worthy points to ponder.

I've long wondered about how questions were formatted, both in the DD interview, and subsequent interviews. It's very important for context, yet we have not seen any questions written verbatim in court docs, so I've never been comfortable relying on the answers. You mentioned the time at the trail question from DD (between 1:30-3:30), but how about the clothing in the 2022 interview? Was it, "What were you wearing?" "A blue jacket and jeans." Or was it more like, "It was 40 degrees that day. Did you wear a jacket?" "Probably." "What color?" "I don't know. I have a blue one and a black one." "Did you have something covering your face?" "I might have. It was 5 years ago. I'm not sure." It matters. Jmo.

Was one of the "other cars in the MHB lot" a '65 Comet?

Is there witness data from noon to 1:30? Were there other groups of girls?

Early on, did anyone bother to check if RA's phone number was on the geofence, since he reported using it, so they could establish him as a possible witness, suspect, or to help nail down a timeline?

Didn't the narrative of DD's interview also state it was "unfounded"? Who came to that conclusion and why?