Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184

[Emma Peel]

It would though be quite the bombshell if the FBI themselves decided Odinists in the Delphi, IN area warranted their own investigation! That would be shocking to find out, IMO. I do agree, it doesn't seem relevant.

Again, parsing FBI vs FBI-trained ISP as to reliability of a witness is just not a thing. IMO, the D is deposing FBI investigators; that's Auger's wheelhouse. The late-discovery submissions from the P are largely FBI records from early days of the investigation. The Defense considers a number of these late-submitted FBI records to be exculpatory. Maybe we'll get a better idea of relevance at the next scheduled 3-day hearing. I'm not one that thinks the D's exculpatory strategy relies upon the O-Theory alone. JMHO.

 

[zh0r4]

First Clink acknowledges he’s only assisting the team, but later it’s as if he expects the two FBI agents on the task force to report to him. His lack of full involvement and full knowledge of results is probably why he’s being deliberately evasive regarding his participation in the task force investigation. In other words IMO he’s full of hot air. I can bet he’ll never see a witness stand during this case, if he does it’s further proof for RA that his D is sorely inadequate.

Volume 1, Page 9
View attachment 502764

This is a misconstrued interpretation re: the clarification of information between Click/Ferency/Murphy & the Unified Command.

Click is saying he checked with them to see if any progress was made re: clarification of information re: authorization of a search warrant for the suspect in question; they (Murphy & Ferency) were also unable to gain clarification re: whether a search warrant could be authorized via Unified Command, (and theoretically if the answer had been NO, why not?). This means there was no further clarification/communication re: this issue (authorization of a search warrant for a legitimate suspect) which they all felt was important (correctly, as all leads should be followed/etc).

JMO

It’s really disheartening to see this much doubt in good LE, and even the FBI. MOO.

 

[somequestions]

I think being the local drug store but more than just a pharmacy, the local CVS would get lots of customers young and old. Maybe RA thought somebody might have recognized me on the trials/parking area?

I thought about this too. Since the original press conference with the picture of bridge guy was on February 22, 2017, nine days after the murders, I can only speculate why he did not call the tip line instead.

Maybe Richard Allen has mental problems in light of his prison behavior? I cannot explain it.

The part I thought was strange is that he did not call the tip line so he would not have to be seen in person. If he had done that, then he could have at least said he let investigators know he was there on the Monon High Bridge trail that day, even if the police came to talk him later. One speculation I can come up with is that Richard Allen must have went to talk to the conservation officer before February 22, 2017, because if the local police, sheriff's office, state police, and the FBI were having a press conference announcing they were looking for someone who fit the description of the person in the photo, then Richard Allen must be a dumb criminal to go talk to the conservation officer after February 22, 2017.

Edit: I do know that Richard Allen met the conservation officer outside of the CVS at a grocery store next to where he worked, so maybe he did call and was not expecting to be seen, but it is still a big risk in my opinion. It had to be before February 22, 2017. That is the only way it seems to make any sense.

It is true though that prisons are full of dumb criminals. Sometimes there is not a good reason to explain why someone does something.

 

[zh0r4]

Richard Allen stated he passed 3/4 girls when he arrived. Richard Allen told the investigator what time he arrived and the 3/4 girls AND Richard Allen confirm his arrival time. These girls never stated they saw two men dressed as twins.

Richard Allen state he walked then stood on the first platform, watching fish.

A witness only saw one person on the first platform, not two people dressed as twins.

Has it been confirmed that any of the eyewitnesses specifically identified RA?

From the PCA:

bbm

“Interviews were conducted with 3 juveniles, and They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Trail on February 13th, 2017. They advised they were walking on the trail toward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered a male walking from Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. described the male as "kind of creepy" and advised he was wearing "like blue jeans a like really light blue jacket and he his hair was gray maybe a little brown and he did not really show his face." She advised the jacket was a duck canvas type jacket.

() advised she said "Hi" to the male but he just glared at them. She recalled him being in all black and had something covering his mouth. She described him as "not very tall" with a bigger build. She said he was not bigger than 5'10".

() advised he was wearing a black hoodie, black jeans, and black boots. She stated he had his hands in his pockets. showed investigators photograpks she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. The photographs included a photo of the Monon High Bridge taken at 12:43 p.m., and another one taken at 1:26 p.m. of the bench East of the Freedom Bridge. advised after she took the photo of the bench they started walking back toward Freedom Bridge. She advised that was when they encountered the man Who matched the description of the photogruph taken from Victim 2's video.”



My understanding from the PCA is: eyewitnesses saw = BG ; BG = the killer.

I feel I’m missing some steps-where are the steps that confirm:

1. BG is the killer & 2. RA is BG?

Also, is the PCA implying 3 eyewitnesses walking together had different descriptions of what BG was wearing? 2 of 3 eyewitnesses said BG was covering his face or his face was obscured-the eyewitness that said he was wearing light blue & one of the 2 witnesses that said BG was dressed in all black. Why did one eyewitness not mention black while the other 2 said all black?

Source:
https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

 

[zh0r4]

I’m not saying he was a bad cop. Please understand that. I think he just may have gotten overzealous and tunnel visioned and perhaps his ego got in the way of him taking a step back and applying logic and reason. IMO
Unfortunately I think he was used by defense to push their narrative and will be tossed aside like yesterday’s bird cage liner. JMO
And I hate that for him.
Perhaps if he had picked up the phone and spoken to the lead investigator in good faith his concerns would have been quelled and he would have never been entangled with defense.
Perhaps not, all I know now is that I am having a hard time with him not testifying that he was in employment by defense yet had access to defense discovery. It’s not a good look for a witness under oath JMO

It is not a good look to have any LE testifying for the defense due to serious concerns in an investigation. In fact, I can’t recall one case-at least during my lifetime-where I’ve seen this happen.

Subsequently, P is filing for potential suppression of FBI geofencing data and Click’s testimony? Why would any prosecutor want to censor either? Serious question, because I’ve never seen it. If you have a solid case, you’d theoretically welcome any testimony-especially from LE. The order of these things breeds more doubt in my mind.

AJMO.

 

[somequestions]

Has it been confirmed that any of the eyewitnesses specifically identified RA?

From the PCA:

bbm

“Interviews were conducted with 3 juveniles, and They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Trail on February 13th, 2017. They advised they were walking on the trail toward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered a male walking from Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. described the male as "kind of creepy" and advised he was wearing "like blue jeans a like really light blue jacket and he his hair was gray maybe a little brown and he did not really show his face." She advised the jacket was a duck canvas type jacket.

() advised she said "Hi" to the male but he just glared at them. She recalled him being in all black and had something covering his mouth. She described him as "not very tall" with a bigger build. She said he was not bigger than 5'10".

() advised he was wearing a black hoodie, black jeans, and black boots. She stated he had his hands in his pockets. showed investigators photograpks she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. The photographs included a photo of the Monon High Bridge taken at 12:43 p.m., and another one taken at 1:26 p.m. of the bench East of the Freedom Bridge. advised after she took the photo of the bench they started walking back toward Freedom Bridge. She advised that was when they encountered the man Who matched the description of the photogruph taken from Victim 2's video.”

View attachment 503129

My understanding from the PCA is: eyewitnesses saw = BG ; BG = the killer.

I feel I’m missing some steps-where are the steps that confirm:

1. BG is the killer & 2. RA is BG?

Also, is the PCA implying 3 eyewitnesses walking together had different descriptions of what BG was wearing? 2 of 3 eyewitnesses said BG was covering his face-the eyewitness that said he was wearing light blue & one of the 2 witnesses that said BG was dressed in all black. Why did one eyewitness not mention black while the other 2 said all black?

Source:
https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

As you have probably already heard, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

We have no idea what evidence the prosecution has against Richard Allen so I can only assume LE arrested the right person if they have very strong evidence they are keeping secret until trial. However, at this time it seems like the only evidence the state has against Richard Allen is an unspent cartridge they can prove through subjective tool analysis was cycled through his gun and confessions that they got from him after he was arrested. That is it that we know of at this time.

All this other talk of eyewitnesses I do not think will hold up in court against cross examination. It is a public trail. If the defense is smart, they will ask every single eyewitness:

Did you see the defendant with Abigail Williams and Liberty German?
Did you see the defendant with any two females that day on the Monon High Bridge trail?

No further questions.

 

[Jade]

Has it been confirmed that any of the eyewitnesses specifically identified RA?

From the PCA:

bbm

“Interviews were conducted with 3 juveniles, and They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Trail on February 13th, 2017. They advised they were walking on the trail toward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered a male walking from Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. described the male as "kind of creepy" and advised he was wearing "like blue jeans a like really light blue jacket and he his hair was gray maybe a little brown and he did not really show his face." She advised the jacket was a duck canvas type jacket.

() advised she said "Hi" to the male but he just glared at them. She recalled him being in all black and had something covering his mouth. She described him as "not very tall" with a bigger build. She said he was not bigger than 5'10".

() advised he was wearing a black hoodie, black jeans, and black boots. She stated he had his hands in his pockets. showed investigators photograpks she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. The photographs included a photo of the Monon High Bridge taken at 12:43 p.m., and another one taken at 1:26 p.m. of the bench East of the Freedom Bridge. advised after she took the photo of the bench they started walking back toward Freedom Bridge. She advised that was when they encountered the man Who matched the description of the photogruph taken from Victim 2's video.”

View attachment 503129

My understanding from the PCA is: eyewitnesses saw = BG ; BG = the killer.

I feel I’m missing some steps-where are the steps that confirm:

1. BG is the killer & 2. RA is BG?

Also, is the PCA implying 3 eyewitnesses walking together had different descriptions of what BG was wearing? 2 of 3 eyewitnesses said BG was covering his face or his face was obscured-the eyewitness that said he was wearing light blue & one of the 2 witnesses that said BG was dressed in all black. Why did one eyewitness not mention black while the other 2 said all black?

Source:
https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

The interviewed are telling of A Man they saw on the trails.

Even if they saw a man on the bridge that day they are just saying that they saw A Man on the bridge not that they saw Richard Allen or BG.

As far as we’ve heard no one has specifically said yes I know who Richard Allen is personally and saw him on the bridge with the girls who I also know.

There are no other direct WITNESSES to the murders other than Abigail and Liberty.

The others who were in the trails cannot prove or disprove RA = BG nor is it theirs to do.

RA admitted to being at the park and the bridge.

The interviewed statements can corroborate RA’s story or cast doubt on it with their recollection of where and when they saw the man.

The man that Richard Allen does not deny is himself.

Once in court the possible witness interviewed of interest would be the women seeing a man apparently feeing the scene of the crime and may be asked to point out if she sees that man in the room, imo.


All imo

 

[Willow Knight]

Has it been confirmed that any of the eyewitnesses specifically identified RA?

From the PCA:

bbm

“Interviews were conducted with 3 juveniles, and They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Trail on February 13th, 2017. They advised they were walking on the trail toward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered a male walking from Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. described the male as "kind of creepy" and advised he was wearing "like blue jeans a like really light blue jacket and he his hair was gray maybe a little brown and he did not really show his face." She advised the jacket was a duck canvas type jacket.

() advised she said "Hi" to the male but he just glared at them. She recalled him being in all black and had something covering his mouth. She described him as "not very tall" with a bigger build. She said he was not bigger than 5'10".

() advised he was wearing a black hoodie, black jeans, and black boots. She stated he had his hands in his pockets. showed investigators photograpks she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. The photographs included a photo of the Monon High Bridge taken at 12:43 p.m., and another one taken at 1:26 p.m. of the bench East of the Freedom Bridge. advised after she took the photo of the bench they started walking back toward Freedom Bridge. Monica Wala

View attachment 503129

My understanding from the PCA is: eyewitnesses saw = BG ; BG = the killer.

I feel I’m missing some steps-where are the steps that confirm:

1. BG is the killer & 2. RA is BG?

Also, is the PCA implying 3 eyewitnesses walking together had different descriptions of what BG was wearing? 2 of 3 eyewitnesses said BG was covering his face or his face was obscured-the eyewitness that said he was wearing light blue & one of the 2 witnesses that said BG was dressed in all black. Why did one eyewitness not mention black while the other 2 said all black?

Source:
https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

The 3/4 girls stated what time they were leaving, Richard Allen gave the time of his arrival. The girls and RA agree they saw each other. It is the time and location they all passed. That person is the one many refer to as BG. I understand where you are going with this. Perfect question, IMO. It has not been proven in a court of law that BG is the killer. I feel comfortable believing RA is BG. However you are correct is has not been proven BG is the killer. Make sense?

Edit to add the following snip from your link.

She advised that was when they encountered the man Who matched the description of the photogruph taken from Victim 2's video.”

 

[Emma Peel]

As you have probably already heard, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

We have no idea what evidence the prosecution has against Richard Allen so I can only assume LE arrested the right person if they have very strong evidence they are keeping secret until trial. However, at this time it seems like the only evidence the state has against Richard Allen is an unspent cartridge they can prove through subjective tool analysis was cycled through his gun and confessions that they got from him after he was arrested. That is it that we know of at this time.

All this other talk of eyewitnesses I do not think will hold up in court against cross examination. It is a public trail. If the defense is smart, they will ask every single eyewitness:

Did you see the defendant with Abigail Williams and Liberty German?
Did you see the defendant with any two females that day on the Monon High Bridge trail?

No further questions.

Which witnesses saw Libby and Abby (on their own) walking the trails that day?

 

[Caylee Advocate]

ISP: Person in first Delphi sketch is not a person of interest in Libby & Abby's murders

Indiana State Police are now saying the new sketch of the Delphi suspect is their current person of interest and the first sketch - released two years ago - is not a person of interest at this time.

www.wrtv.com

Indiana State Police also issued the following clarification about the two sketches:

• They are not the same person
• The person depicted in the originally released sketch is not presently a person of interest in this investigation
• The sketch released on April 22nd is representative of the face of the person captured in the video on Liberty German’s cell phone as he was walking on the high bridge
• The person in the sketch released April 22nd is described as having a youthful appearance, but could fall in the age range from his 20’s to late 30’s
• This person’s appearance could look different today if he has grown a mustache, beard or let his hair grow longer or cut his hair shorter than depicted in the sketch

 

[Ravenmoon]

Which witnesses saw Libby and Abby (on their own) walking the trails that day?

Betsy B.

 

[Boxer]

As you have probably already heard, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

We have no idea what evidence the prosecution has against Richard Allen so I can only assume LE arrested the right person if they have very strong evidence they are keeping secret until trial. However, at this time it seems like the only evidence the state has against Richard Allen is an unspent cartridge they can prove through subjective tool analysis was cycled through his gun and confessions that they got from him after he was arrested. That is it that we know of at this time.

All this other talk of eyewitnesses I do not think will hold up in court against cross examination. It is a public trail. If the defense is smart, they will ask every single eyewitness:

Did you see the defendant with Abigail Williams and Liberty German?
Did you see the defendant with any two females that day on the Monon High Bridge trail?

No further questions.

RA confirmed he saw the girls on the trail as he walked to the MHB. It fixes his time of arrival.

 

[ClearAhead]

It is not a good look to have any LE testifying for the defense due to serious concerns in an investigation. In fact, I can’t recall one case-at least during my lifetime-where I’ve seen this happen.

Subsequently, P is filing for potential suppression of FBI geofencing data and Click’s testimony? Why would any prosecutor want to censor either? Serious question, because I’ve never seen it. If you have a solid case, you’d theoretically welcome any testimony-especially from LE. The order of these things breeds more doubt in my mind.

AJMO.

Click wasn’t directly involved in the task force investigation so his opinion isn’t a prevailing factor IMO.

I don’t recall if Detective Kevin Murphy has ever been mentioned. Wouldn’t it be an interesting twist if he testified for the P, Click for the D? That wouldn’t surprise me. Too many loose ends for Click’s conclusion to be fully convincing, for example specifics about alibis.

JMO

Delphi investigators: Defense 'twisting facts for sensationalism' over cult sacrifice claims

Richard Allen's public defenders have accused a white nationalist Odinist group of killing the girls in a ritualistic sacrifice.

www.courttv.com

“No one in law enforcement believes Abby and Libby were killed in a ritual sacrifice. That is the defense twisting facts for sensationalism.”

“At the time of the murders, Detective Greg Ferency was a detective with the Terre Haute Police Department assigned to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. Detective Kevin Murphy, of Indiana State Police, was also a member of that task force. Todd Click was an officer with Rushville Police. On July 7, 2021, Ferency, 50, was shot and killed outside the FBI building in Terre Haute. Shane Meehan is charged in that case.”

 

[sunshineray]

Again, parsing FBI vs FBI-trained ISP as to reliability of a witness is just not a thing. IMO, the D is deposing FBI investigators; that's Auger's wheelhouse. The late-discovery submissions from the P are largely FBI records from early days of the investigation. The Defense considers a number of these late-submitted FBI records to be exculpatory. Maybe we'll get a better idea of relevance at the next scheduled 3-day hearing. I'm not one that thinks the D's exculpatory strategy relies upon the O-Theory alone. JMHO.

I was not parsing them. I was asking because it sounded like you were saying the FBI had initiated an investigation into Odinists, in that area of Indiana, specifically because of Libby and Abby's murders. That would have been something very new to me as I'd never heard that stated before. Apologies if I misunderstood your syntax.

 

[sunshineray]

I thought about this too. Since the original press conference with the picture of bridge guy was on February 22, 2017, nine days after the murders, I can only speculate why he did not call the tip line instead.

Maybe Richard Allen has mental problems in light of his prison behavior? I cannot explain it.

The part I thought was strange is that he did not call the tip line so he would not have to be seen in person. If he had done that, then he could have at least said he let investigators know he was there on the Monon High Bridge trail that day, even if the police came to talk him later. One speculation I can come up with is that Richard Allen must have went to talk to the conservation officer before February 22, 2017, because if the local police, sheriff's office, state police, and the FBI were having a press conference announcing they were looking for someone who fit the description of the person in the photo, then Richard Allen must be a dumb criminal to go talk to the conservation officer after February 22, 2017.

Edit: I do know that Richard Allen met the conservation officer outside of the CVS at a grocery store next to where he worked, so maybe he did call and was not expecting to be seen, but it is still a big risk in my opinion. It had to be before February 22, 2017. That is the only way it seems to make any sense.

It is true though that prisons are full of dumb criminals. Sometimes there is not a good reason to explain why someone does something.

I think he thought he'd cover himself because someone might have recognised him from his work. CVS sells lots of items young teenage girls would shop for. That girl saying "Hi" to him and her friends was probably just the right amount, nagging doubt about that. Then add to that BB. Now you've got an adult that saw him too (There may be others, we don't know) RA didn't know he was videoed yet. I think if he had known, he'd would never have come forward. JMO.

 

[sunshineray]

The 3/4 girls stated what time they were leaving, Richard Allen gave the time of his arrival. The girls and RA agree they saw each other. It is the time and location they all passed. That person is the one many refer to as BG. I understand where you are going with this. Perfect question, IMO. It has not been proven in a court of law that BG is the killer. I feel comfortable believing RA is BG. However you are correct is has not been proven BG is the killer. Make sense?

Edit to add the following snip from your link.

She advised that was when they encountered the man Who matched the description of the photogruph taken from Victim 2's video.”

Agree and like to add, it has been proven that BG abducted Libby and Abby and most likely at gunpoint. Libby's video has done that. We've only seen or heard at the most, 4 seconds out of 43.

 

[sunshineray]

Betsy B.

And Kelsei...for the timeline, those two are very important entries.

 

[snooptroop88]

JMO, but it was anything but dumb for RA to go and speak with the conservation officer. He knew people on that bridge spotted him, he knew it for a fact. The really dumb thing for him to do in that situation would have been not to approach anyone at all. As it was, there were a host of parties he could have approached to try and cover himself to the extent possible. He could have contacted ISP, sheriff, FBI, municipal police. But he went to the conservation officer, who is armed, yes, but as far as I know, conservation officers have weapons more for wildlife control. This isn't some slight against the authority of a conservation officer, I'm not saying this because a conservation officer is somehow not as significant as these other parties. But who would a murderer probably rather approach to discuss his whereabouts at the time of the crime in an effort to deceive/conceal? A sheriff, a police officer, an FBI agent, or a conservation officer? My guess would be a conservation officer because a murder investigation isn't part of a conservation officer's anticipated duties. To me, it would be riskier for him with the tip line than the conservation officer. If the murderer is trying to avoid giving info to people who actually work actively in homicide investigations as part of their job, the conservation officer really may have seemed the safest option for him by far, MOO. He had to step forward to someone in light of the fact that he'd been seen at all. Otherwise, we'd all be sitting here now or in the future viewing his refusal to step forward early on as a red flag, which it would have been. Even if he'd spoken to no one, his luck in evading LE couldn't have lasted forever.

 

[somequestions]

The PCA in this case does not make sense sometimes. It is difficult to understand the timeline.

For example, the witness who saw Richard Allen on platform 1 of the Monon High Bridge is strange. According to the PCA her car was observed passing the Hoosier Harveststore camera at 1:46pm. Why does the PCA not say that Kelsi saw another car in the parking lot verifying the witness story? Does it say this somewhere in the PCA? I wonder how long it took the girls to get their things together before Kelsi left them to drive away? Yet the PCA says a car matching that of the one that dropped off the girls is seen leaving driving away by passing the Hoosier Harveststore camera at 1:49pm.

It looks like by car it is only maybe 30 seconds from the Hoosier Harveststore camera to the Mears parking lot?

What really matters is the confessions by Richard Allen. If they contain any information that only the killer would know, then I think he will be convicted. I suppose it is a good thing he came forward or the case might not have been solved.

 

[sunshineray]

JMO, but it was anything but dumb for RA to go and speak with the conservation officer. He knew people on that bridge spotted him, he knew it for a fact. The really dumb thing for him to do in that situation would have been not to approach anyone at all. As it was, there were a host of parties he could have approached to try and cover himself to the extent possible. He could have contacted ISP, sheriff, FBI, municipal police. But he went to the conservation officer, who is armed, yes, but as far as I know, conservation officers have weapons more for wildlife control. This isn't some slight against the authority of a conservation officer, I'm not saying this because a conservation officer is somehow not as significant as these other parties. But who would a murderer probably rather approach to discuss his whereabouts at the time of the crime in an effort to deceive/conceal? A sheriff, a police officer, an FBI agent, or a conservation officer? My guess would be a conservation officer because a murder investigation isn't part of a conservation officer's anticipated duties. To me, it would be riskier for him with the tip line than the conservation officer. If the murderer is trying to avoid giving info to people who actually work actively in homicide investigations as part of their job, the conservation officer really may have seemed the safest option for him by far, MOO. He had to step forward to someone in light of the fact that he'd been seen at all. Otherwise, we'd all be sitting here now or in the future viewing his refusal to step forward early on as a red flag, which it would have been. Even if he'd spoken to no one, his luck in evading LE couldn't have lasted forever.

I'm still confuse as to how that all shook out. Did RA contact this CO specifically to interview with or was this CO assigned RA by the officers handling who went where and talked to whom? Do we know RA called DD, have I just forgotten?