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

Status
Not open for further replies.
the only thing that ties him to the crime is that bullet. I dont know much about extraction marks but I've heard that ballistic evidence is exact science. Also how do they prove that bullet was not there before the murder tool place?
was there no fingerprints on the bullet? no dna on the girls or the bullet? i hope they have more.

what made them finally hone in on the guy? after all this years? they hade the bullet for 5 years
 
This was the first comment my husband made when I updated him on the latest news — first of all, that is NOT a cheap gun.

Also, slightly O/T, but my dad named his dog Sig and I’m truly hating this new association. I guess it was bound to happen eventually.
Aw that’s a cute name for a dog though. Better than Glocky. But Shotgun would also be a cute gun-related name for a dog I think.
 
RA is 5’7” which was established in numerous comments right here using his booking photo to determine (his height).
Can you show me? The photo I posted is clearly of someone about 5’4 — noticeably short. It certainly doesn’t look like someone 5’7.

It’s troubling that they’re not showing his height, something that usually is very easy to find on mugshots or in booking information.
A84453A3-004B-456A-ACA0-A2DBC70B6577.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Oh my goodness....
I've been too wrapped up in the wagner case to know this has all been released...from the UK too so timing doesn't make it easy to to catch up.

I don't understand why this took so long.
Also don't understand the unspent round and that it cycled through RAs gun.
Could someone explain that to me please....i don't have a lot of knowledge regarding guns because we only have them for hunting here.
I get that they match them when they find a spent bullet but don't understand how they match unspent bullets. Hope that makes.
This was explained really well by Gemmie in Thread 157, post #789 Hopefully this links to it
 
the only thing that ties him to the crime is that bullet. I dont know much about extraction marks but I've heard that ballistic evidence is exact science. Also how do they prove that bullet was not there before the murder tool place?
was there no fingerprints on the bullet? no dna on the girls or the bullet? i hope they have more.

what made them finally hone in on the guy? after all this years? they hade the bullet for 5 years


From my understanding they decided to go back though the case and he obviously popped up straight away as a red flag.

ETA

I am also sure they have a foot print and the fact he placed himself on the bridge , dressed exactly
like BG at the same time as the girls and his car was also caught on camera.
 
I have a question:

I deduced from the affidavit that LE (because of the wording) gathered information by a cell tower data drop and that’s how they figured out who all was there at the times they were looking for because it pretty much says that.

Then the PCA just states RA “was interviewed” by an officer in 2017 and admitted to being there and seeing the juveniles that saw him.

From what I read and unless I totally missed it, the PCA doesn’t explain how the police interview was initiated: I assumed they contacted him from the cell phone data drop and identified him that way... But others have said RA voluntarily went in for an interview on his own and he was responsible for the initial LE meeting/contact?

So my question is: Do we know if he went in unsolicited to speak with LE or did LE initiate the initial interview in 2017?

Thanks :)
I don't think we know for a fact whether or not RA voluntarily went in on his own. The PCA states:page4image645558864
 
just read the probable cause. seems pretty weak. if i was in the jury i would vote not guilty and i have been obsessed with this case for 5 years, let alone a neutral jury.
I want this guy to go down as much as the rest of you do providing he is the killer but I can see so far if this is all the defense saw why they said they were not impressed
 
the only thing that ties him to the crime is that bullet. I dont know much about extraction marks but I've heard that ballistic evidence is exact science. Also how do they prove that bullet was not there before the murder tool place?
was there no fingerprints on the bullet? no dna on the girls or the bullet? i hope they have more.

what made them finally hone in on the guy? after all this years? they hade the bullet for 5 years
Allen himself has stated on record he did not loan the gun to anyone. Nor was he able to explain why the bullet would be found there.
Him being on record saying those things doesn't give him much of an out.
If he had been smarter and had some kind of story that he had hunted there a week before the murders etc He could have raised some doubt.
We know the killer used a gun to control the girls, so in some type of struggle etc its easy to see how a bullet may have been lost.
They do have partial DNA on one of the girls jackets so who knows if they will be able to match that to Allen now they have him.
 
I don't think we know for a fact whether or not RA voluntarily went in on his own. The PCA states:View attachment 383761

I agree the nature of this interview is not completely clear.

What is interesting is he claimed to have his phone with him, accessing data, so presumably this customer record can be dug up, if not the cellular tower data (they may already have it)
 
Add:
- his admissions to parking his car at the side of "Old Farm Bureau";
- his admission to being present on the trails from 1330-1530;
- his admissions that the clothing he wore that day match the suspects description of clothing;
- the witnesses' statements;
- the video that the PCA states has him "seen and heard" saying "guys, down the hill";
- the fact that the adult female witness who observed him on platform 1 then turned to leave and she passed Abby & Libby heading toward the bridge yet he claims never to have seen the girls;
- the fact that in the Oct 13th, 2022 interview he now changes his narrative to state that he was on the platform "watching the fish" and then "left the trails";
a. Woman who saw him on the platform had to walk back to her car after she turned about and video has her car leaving the area at 2:14pm after passing A&L on the trail, so if he actually left then too, he would have HAD TO pass A&L (in both interviews he conveniently denies ever seeing/interacting with the two victims however);
b. This means he is also switching up his timings from his original "I was there from 1330-1530" to now leaving at some point very shortly after 2:14pm (right after the woman witness saw him on the platfom). Why the sudden change in story and departure timings from the bridge? (IMO because the girls' have snaphat etc of them on the bridge at a time the woman witness has clearly placed him in the immediate vicinty of the bridge). I also think, in his first interview, it's possible that he did not realize that the woman observed him standing on the platform and so he didn't "need cover his butt" for that originally to explain away "why" he was at the scene and physically on the bridge mere minutes before the girls were abducted. He did have to explain the teenagers sighting of him as he knew he was seen by them so offered it up;
c. I think, in Interview 2 on 13 October 22, RA learns about the woman witness placing him on the platform at the given time and ergo "the fish story" and the change in his timing to now "then I left the trails (IE: Before the murders happened)" vice the "I was there until 1530hrs". He has denied seeing the girls - an impossibilty if he actully left the trails to head back to his car right after the woman saw him as he would have HAD to pass the girls on the way out (they gotcha RA!);
- His denials of ever having loaned his gun to anyone or let anyone use it;
- His denial of ever having been present on RL's private property; and
- The subjective ballistics detailing markings from his personal Sig-Sauer ejector matching those found on the round at the crime scene.



But, but, but ... the markings are only "subjective" thus a good defence attorney would have a field day:
I'm willing to bet science will also show:
- neither one of the victims' fingerprints on it (so neither of the girls picked it up and dropped it there);
- that the round was not subjected to prolonged exposure to the elements (so he didn't just 'lose' it on an earlier trip to the RL private proprty that he self-admittedly never stepped foot on)
- that there are no fingerprints on that round ... or just his.

So, while subjective it may be, the actual odds of all of the above occuring, combined with the ballistics of a .40 cal Sig-Sauer matching the round extraction markings to the gun he just happens to own are not impossible, they all combine to make it very, very highly improbable that anyone else committed this crime.

That makes his arrest very reasonable and, I'm willing to wager that once all the other evidence also comes to light at trial, likewise a conviction beyond any 'resonable' doubt. They've got evidence, ballistics and he is classicly 'changing his story' to explain away evidence as he learns it (the timing change after learning of the woman witness placing him on the bridge platform).

They've got this guy two ways to Sunday.



-
Ah, the fish story! I've been on that platform. You can't see any fish from there. Look at the breaking news video that was shot the day after. The water is almost knee deep and too cloudy. If he really wanted to watch fish, he would have taken the south trail to the bank of the creek. This guy really doesn't know when to shut up. Birdwatching would have been a more believable story, not that it would have cleared him.
 
Now that we know where his vehicle was parked, I think it seems likely we can rule out intent to extract them out of there by the vehicle. His direction of travel seems wrong for that. Because he passed the woman on the way in, he knew he couldn't have walked them out that way, even if that had been his intent.
So either he went into this thing with murderous intent, of whatever encounter was intended went wrong.
 
I think people are misunderstanding the PCA in that RA didn't describe what he was wearing until he was interviewed again on Oct 13th, 2022: Second Paragraph on page 5 of 8 of the PCA:

He told investigators he was wearing blue jeans and a blue or black Carhart jacket with a hood. He advised he may have been wearing some type of head covering as well.

Remember it was an unusually warm day that Feb 13th. Why would he even be wearing a face or head covering? Because he was trying to conceal his identity. The same with walking with his head down as he passed the juvenile witnesses.

MOO
 
We can see now how defence counsel did a good low key job of establishing the 'weak PCA" narrative.

From my perspective, this is an utter disaster. No wonder he was in no hurry for a bond hearing.

I am right in seeing Indiana criminal procedure does not include a preliminary hearing?
 
It is. I really assumed the person would have wanted to get away asap after the murders but that doesn’t seem to be the case after reading this PCA.
The spot of the murders was probably the safest spot for him to be. You can barely see it from the middle of the bridge. He had just murdered two young girls. His emotions would be way out of whack. He had a place to chill.
 
I think people are misunderstanding the PCA in that RA didn't describe what he was wearing until he was interviewed again on Oct 13th, 2022: Second Paragraph on page 5 of 8 of the PCA:

He told investigators he was wearing blue jeans and a blue or black Carhart jacket with a hood. He advised he may have been wearing some type of head covering as well.

Remember it was an unusually warm day that Feb 13th. Why would he even be wearing a face or head covering? Because he was trying to conceal his identity. The same with walking with his head down as he passed the juvenile witnesses.

MOO

Exactly.

I think they will have forced an admission from him on this point, because they could use the girls ID statements against him.

Ditto the woman who saw him on the bridge.

Who remembers what clothes they had on 5 years ago?

I hope we get to see this interview. They basically got him to admit he was Bridge Guy.

Why on earth did he agree to speak to investigators? It's almost as if he wanted to get caught IMO. No wonder he didn't get a lawyer. He knew it was over. Maybe he was relieved?
 
We can see now how defence counsel did a good low key job of establishing the 'weak PCA" narrative.

From my perspective, this is an utter disaster. No wonder he was in no hurry for a bond hearing.

I am right in seeing Indiana criminal procedure does not include a preliminary hearing?
They have PH:
Indiana Code 12-26-5-10. Preliminary hearing; introduction of physician’s statement; probable cause finding; discharge; detention pending final hearing » LawServer

Indiana Code 12-26-5-10. Preliminary hearing; introduction of physician’s statement; probable cause finding; discharge; detention pending final hearing​

Current as of: 2022 | Check for updates | Other versions
Sec. 10. (a) A physician’s statement may be introduced into evidence at the preliminary hearing held under section 9(a)(2) of this chapter without the presence of the physician.

(b) A finding of probable cause may not be entered at a preliminary hearing unless there is oral testimony:

Terms Used In Indiana Code 12-26-5-10​

  • Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
  • Preliminary hearing: A hearing where the judge decides whether there is enough evidence to make the defendant have a trial.
  • Probable cause: A reasonable ground for belief that the offender violated a specific law.
  • Testify: Answer questions in court.
  • Testimony: Evidence presented orally by witnesses during trials or before grand juries.
(1) subject to cross-examination; and

(2) of at least one (1) witness who:
(A) has personally observed the behavior of the individual; and
(B) will testify to facts supporting a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the individual is in need of temporary or regular commitment.
(c) At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, if the court does not find probable cause, the individual shall be immediately discharged.
(d) If the court finds at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing probable cause to believe that the individual needs temporary or regular commitment, the court shall order the detention of the individual in an appropriate facility pending a final hearing.
[Pre-1992 Revision Citation: 16-14-9.1-7(e) part.]
As added by P.L.2-1992, SEC.20.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
950
Total visitors
1,116

Forum statistics

Threads
589,935
Messages
17,927,879
Members
228,005
Latest member
vigilandy
Back
Top