Strange situation and one that deserves answers. Does LE already know what happened?
Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #159
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
- Status
everybodhi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 4,474
- Reaction score
- 21,496
If he brutally killed those beautiful two young girls (one who resembles his own child) in a public park in broad daylight, took off their clothes, arranged the scene, then called authorities to tell them he was there, he’s worse than a freak.
I'm just learning about this latest development, but I'm having a hard time believing this was all due to a "clerical error". The LE officer (was it local LE, ISP or FBI?) who interviewed him must have known he was a somewhat serious suspect. Wouldn't he have wondered himself why no one discussed him or looked further into his activities, background, etc?
If any of us had interviewed someone who was there at the time, on that date and looked like the guy in the video, I'd sure be paying attention to what the higher ups did to follow up on him. He was a very good suspect. A good LEO wouldn't let him fall through the cracks, JMO.
They're just giving the minimum amount of evidence for the probable cause statement and charges. They don't want to reveal more than that to tip their hand to the defense, or to the defendant, allowing him time to rehearse explanations, give alibis, etc. The information will all come out later in the discovery process and at trial. They have a gag order on this case, don't they?
CNYDarkStar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2021
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 601
Very true. I'm surprised so many here have reacted as though LE had no idea about anything. This is how LE should be conducting themselves.
It was a Conservation Officer who interviewed him. We don't know for sure the date of the interview but it was likely at the very start of the case. I would not say its fair to say that officer should have thought this guy was a suspect.
At that early stage of the case however Allen had clearly made himself a key witness as he placed himself on the trails within the hours of the crime.
The job of that Conservation Officer was really to just take a brief basic statement from Allen, and to take his contact details.
This basic report should have been passed along to higher ups and clearly given Allen had made himself a key witness who was on the trails that day, LE would have sent detectives etc to do a full-on proper interview with Allen, had they seen that report of the interview.
Clearly, for some reason, something went very wrong and the report was not passed on. Or it was missed for a long time.
That Conservation Officer would not have been privy to what the leading investigators knew. In particular, Law enforcement was very tight-lipped about their witnesses for a variety of reasons. Namely safety reasons and to uphold the integrity of the case. So for all he knew that Officer probably thought Allen was a key witness everyone knew about.
That Conservation Officer at the time of the interview was again probably not privy to the video and pic of the guy on the bridge. As it had probably not been released yet.
Nor would he have been privy to the general timeline of the case.
All in all law enforcement in charge of the case for good reasons to prevent leaks etc probably withheld and did not share enough details with officers on the ground like the conservation officer. Hence there was probably a critical failure to share and communicate vital info down the ladder.
Agree.
Caylee Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,706
- Reaction score
- 15,098
Does anyone recall who the Conservation officer turned his report into? TIA.
NeverPersonal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2022
- Messages
- 1,479
- Reaction score
- 10,629
I cannot believe they could've solved this within 24 hrs IMO and just... didn't...
Thanks for that information. It seems a shame to blame it on a "clerical error". Why did they have a Conservation Officer...nevermind. I'm a little speechless on this one. Suffice to say the police made a lot of mistakes on this one. Not fair to blame it on an FBI clerk.
The Observer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 4,145
I'm skipping ahead several pages to post this so please forgive if discussed already.
Chris Todd an Investigative Producer and author obtained the crime scene photos approx 48 hours ago from whistleblowers.
He discussed them on Court TV and states he is going to release them. He alleges both girls were nude at one time.
He believes RL is BG. Claims RA was arrested 7 days after his book 'Forest For The Trees' was released. Alleges him releasing excerpts of his book 3 weeks earlier is not necessarily a 'coincidence' to RA's arrest.
Source: Court TV
if this has violated rules I sincerely apologise
Chris Todd an Investigative Producer and author obtained the crime scene photos approx 48 hours ago from whistleblowers.
He discussed them on Court TV and states he is going to release them. He alleges both girls were nude at one time.
He believes RL is BG. Claims RA was arrested 7 days after his book 'Forest For The Trees' was released. Alleges him releasing excerpts of his book 3 weeks earlier is not necessarily a 'coincidence' to RA's arrest.
Source: Court TV
if this has violated rules I sincerely apologise
Conservation officers, though considered and swore as LE there, are likely into their own thing. My hubby would have made a good one, being out in nature among the outdoors types, checking in on the fishing, not following lots of news and certainly not crime news like this. He did his duty to send it in. He should have done more but was likely just kind of clueless.
I would think at some point the investigators put the photo of Bridge Guy in front of him and asked if this was him? I mean it's pretty much the 1st damn question I would ask him. " Is this you?!" I'm very curious what the answer to that question is? It's literally the most obvious, basic question that this whole case hinges on. His answer to this question determines what happens next.
" Yes, that's me in the photo. I don't know why she took that video? But yeah, I was there that day, wearing those exact same clothes. I was on that bridge and I remember seeing those girls and then I left and walked back to my car, parked by the old CPS building and went home. I didn't see anything else." So far, he states he did not see Abby or Libby on the path that day. So IF that is him, he needs to explain that.
OR
" No, that's not me! I wasn't wearing those clothes on that afternoon. I own similar stuff but that jacket is the wrong color, it has black trim on the back and arms and I don't have a brown hat of any kind or a hip pack." Or any kind of discrepancy AT ALL that shows definitively that there is no way, no how that THAT few seconds of video is me!!! If it's not him, the plot thickens and the police need to tie him into everything....logically, not speculatively.
Really, that is the most important question to be answered. Everything after that needs to answer that question : Yes, that is him, or No it's not.
That determines where this investigation goes next. Forget the whole bullet thing. Forget where he was parked or what he was looking at on his phone. The most important question, knowing what we know happened right after that video was taken, is if BG is Richard Allen?
IS THAT YOU RICKY??
" Yes, that's me in the photo. I don't know why she took that video? But yeah, I was there that day, wearing those exact same clothes. I was on that bridge and I remember seeing those girls and then I left and walked back to my car, parked by the old CPS building and went home. I didn't see anything else." So far, he states he did not see Abby or Libby on the path that day. So IF that is him, he needs to explain that.
OR
" No, that's not me! I wasn't wearing those clothes on that afternoon. I own similar stuff but that jacket is the wrong color, it has black trim on the back and arms and I don't have a brown hat of any kind or a hip pack." Or any kind of discrepancy AT ALL that shows definitively that there is no way, no how that THAT few seconds of video is me!!! If it's not him, the plot thickens and the police need to tie him into everything....logically, not speculatively.
Really, that is the most important question to be answered. Everything after that needs to answer that question : Yes, that is him, or No it's not.
That determines where this investigation goes next. Forget the whole bullet thing. Forget where he was parked or what he was looking at on his phone. The most important question, knowing what we know happened right after that video was taken, is if BG is Richard Allen?
IS THAT YOU RICKY??
GoBuckeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 23,960
But the defendant and his lawyer will get all of the evidence evidence in discovery. It's not like they can pull the wool over their eyes.
I'm talking only about their probable cause. I don't see any. MOO
Agree. Sheriff not stepping up and saying we missed it is more of the same.
gregjrichards
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,478
- Reaction score
- 70,433
I am very disappointed that Court TV had him on and I do not understand why they did. In my opinion it is damaging to the credibility of the channel. They should have commentators on who stick to the facts of cases and have experience in law enforcement or have a legal career working as a Prosecutor or defence attorney. They should not have people on air who make sensationalist, speculative statements and have a lack of consideration for the feelings of the loved ones of victims. Abby and Libby’s families are suffering enough distress and stress without him adding to it. I suspect his motivation for making these claims and threatening to release crime scene photos is making a name for himself and selling his book, rather than ensuring the alleged perpetrator who murdered the girls is held accountable in court for what he has allegedly done.
I doubt he actually has crime scene photos but no crime scene photos should ever be published publicly. The only people who should ever see them are the people sitting in a court room at trial. It would be morally reprehensible and disgusting for anyone to make crime scene photos available for any person to see worldwide. I hope anyone who lacked human decency and compassion and did publish them would face legal consequences for obtaining them and providing to the public, have lawsuits filed against them from the victims loved ones and they would face tremendous public criticism for what they have done.
GoBuckeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 23,960
It also matters when he came forward to report that he had been there during the timeframe in question. I read an early report that claimed he reported his whereabouts to LE that evening at some point. I can't find it. So, I'll say MOO. Does anyone have a link to that detail? TIA
I don't find the clerical error believable either. But I could see the report not being prioritized if he did self report being there, and he reported it the same night or the next day. If same day, they hadn't been found. If the next day after they'd been found, I might have expected that whoever did it would have scratches or similar. It sounds like anyone who saw the bodies will never forget the horror. So, it might seem logical to think that someone involved would have scratches or cuts. And if he didn't, I could see them dismissing him.
GoBuckeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 23,960
I am not currently a regular watcher of Court TV, but I have been in the past. Tricia or mods, please correct my memory if wrong, but Vinnie had tentatively agreed to have some part in WS podcast, YT, or something similar until his career took him in a different direction??
IMOO, Vinnie has an excellent legal mind. I've personally never seen a CT commentator who wasn't a lawyer, but I'm no longer a regular watcher.
IMOO, it's no more damaging to CT than the last 2+ years have been for ALL MSM, and I don't find it the least bit shocking. Is it in poor taste? ABSOLUTELY! Do I think any less of that network? No. I find all MSM pretty reprehensible. JMOO
As far as sticking to the facts? As harsh as it is, those pictures are the epitome of factual for this case. They can't be disputed or debated. They are cold, brutal facts. I have no desire to see them or read about them in detail, if he does have the photos. Rather than suing CT or this author over them, I'd be far more concerned about local, state, or federal LE/FBI leaking like a sieve and taking bribe/blood money in exchange for them!
Media is going to do what it does, and we need good, hard-hitting investigative journalism. (Not claiming that's what this is.) But LE should never, under any circumstances, put up evidence for the highest bidder. I find it a disgrace to LE if this author's claims are true and he has acquired that evidence.
GoBuckeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 4,324
- Reaction score
- 23,960
No, it's not fair, especially when the FBI has stated that all procedures were followed.
My skepticism stems from the way in which this case has been handled from the start. I realize that the Sheriff can't go on record right now and say, "Wow, did we ever step in it on several occasions." That would be a defense attorney's dream. But they also can't keep proclaiming that they've got the doer and that the investigation is still very active. Either you've got your man or you don't. I just wish they would speak plainly for once! It's exasperating. I think this double speak has been gnawing at me for almost 6 years, and I've just had enough.
He's still resolute that it was a good idea to release both sketches. That was confounding by all reasonable measures!! But he won't admit it.
I feel like I gave LE the benefit of the doubt at every turn, absolutely certain that their peculiarities would make sense when an arrest was made. The arrest and resultant decisions and statements have only made me more distrustful that they have this and that they've done the job in a way that will secure a conviction.
everybodhi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 4,474
- Reaction score
- 21,496
I doubt the officer examined his body at the grocery store where the interview allegedly took place.
- Status