IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #167

Status
Not open for further replies.
MOO I think a single man did this. And when he basically sobered up, after killing, he tried to stage with what he had on hand, sticks.
an aborted effort to cover their bodies is suggested in this
That makes absolute sense to me.
He must have been experiencing a level of fatigue at that stage..
decided to leave, that it was unlikely they would be located swiftly.
 
an aborted effort to cover their bodies is suggested in this
That makes absolute sense to me.
He must have been experiencing a level of fatigue at that stage..
decided to leave, that it was unlikely they would be located swiftly.
I wonder about the timing of Derek's call to Libby once he arrived to get them and they weren't waiting on him. Maybe Libby's phone rang and it startled him. He hastily finished up and exited the area in time to be seen walking the road when he was a while later.
 
States 2nd Objection to Defendants Motion to Supress
They didn't even spell check it before submission.
I mean FACES

2. That on September 13'", 2023, the Defendant filed an Amended Motionto Suppressthe evidence seized as a resultofthe search warrant3. Thatthe Defense alleges thatthe searchwarrant is unconstitutional because the issuance ofthe search warrant was aresult ofan improper exparte applicationin thatthe Afliant, SheriffTony Liggett, failedto advise the Judge ofmaterial faces and made false and misleading representations withreckless disregard forthe truth and that withoutthese false and misleading r...


It appears they lack experience.
 
They didn't even spell check it before submission.
I mean FACES

2. That on September 13'", 2023, the Defendant filed an Amended Motionto Suppressthe evidence seized as a resultofthe search warrant3. Thatthe Defense alleges thatthe searchwarrant is unconstitutional because the issuance ofthe search warrant was aresult ofan improper exparte applicationin thatthe Afliant, SheriffTony Liggett, failedto advise the Judge ofmaterial faces and made false and misleading representations withreckless disregard forthe truth and that withoutthese false and misleading r...


It appears they lack experience.

Look at the actual document, it’s fine. The c/p scrambles it because of the format.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7492.jpeg
    IMG_7492.jpeg
    80.9 KB · Views: 35
The prosecution's response to the motion is straightforward and bare bones. Quite the contrast.

They definitely seem to be going with the argument that even if some of the facts in the affidavit were incorrect or omitted, the totality of the evidence would still provide probable cause.

They wisely ignore all of the extraneous Odinist stuff.

However, they don't seem to push back on the defense's argument about what BB says she saw on the bridge, her description of the car at CPS, or how the witness who saw the man on the road described him (muddy, not muddy & bloody, & with a tan jacket), so I guess those parts of the defense's motion are likely correct.

If I had to guess, I suspect the judge will grant a Franks hearing and then uphold the warrant after hearing arguments. But I guess we'll see.
One thing caught my eye, State saying they believed the gun was used in the "abduction and murder". I wonder if either of the girls maybe were hit with the gun to incapacitate them before being killed by the knife?

Also says LE only found CO Dulin's report in Sept 2022. They called RA and his wife on Oct 12th to come in. They came on Oct 13th for a follow-up interview on the report CO Dulin had made back in 2017. The search warrant was issued and carried out that same day. LE must have had a VERY antsy night the 12th, hoping nothing was being destroyed. AJMO
 
Like almost everyone in this thread, I have been obsessed with this case since Feb 2017. I am going to officially list my theory as RA did it, K was somehow the unluckiest pedophile ever, the Odin stuff is spaghetti the defense team is desperately trying to get to stick to the wall in order for the search warrant to be thrown out effectively bc there's stuff on there that will seal the deal IMO. RA was at the scene of the crime, his bullet was there, he confessed to his mom and his wife.

I am very interested to see how this will turn out.
 
I wonder about the timing of Derek's call to Libby once he arrived to get them and they weren't waiting on him. Maybe Libby's phone rang and it startled him. He hastily finished up and exited the area in time to be seen walking the road when he was a while later.
Agree first call rang through, second went straight to voice mail.
 
According to the memorandum, Abby was dressed in Libby’s sweatshirt and jeans. So I don’t think we ought to take a giant leap by suggesting she was dressed in unknown jeans instead, that’s how unfounded rumours get started.

The question is how did the defence arrive at this conclusion considering Abby was wearing a sweatshirt and jeans when she went missing and Libby was not. Not knowing the answer to that, it appears to me they got their facts mixed up.

JMO
I agree with you - they prob got their facts mixed up. But really? If we found out that someone put her in jeans that weren’t her own? I wouldn’t be shocked!! This is only a possibility (very slim at that!) and should NOT be taken as fact.
 
States 2nd Objection to Defendants Motion to Supress
“That the State believes that the affidavit connects generic items to actual items that were possibly used in the crime based on the investigators evidence that they gathered throughout the investigation.” (41, p.7).

What does this mean? What does “generic items to actual items that were possibly used” mean? Can someone explain this to me like I’m 5? Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited:
“That the State believes that the affidavit connects generic items to actual items that were possibly used in the crime based on the investigators evidence that they gathered throughout the investigation.” (41, p.7).

What does this mean? What does “generic items to actual items that were possibly used” mean? Can someone explain this to me like I’m 5? Thank you in advance.
When you get a warrant, you need to be specific about the items you're looking for and how they're connected to the crime. You can't just say "we have probable cause, we're going to search that guy's house for bad things." You have be searching for specific items that you identify in the warrant application and you have to show probable cause that they're in the place you want to search.

This comes from the 4th Amendment's particularity requirement: "...no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In their Motion to Suppress (a different motion than the motion for a Franks hearing), the defense argued that the warrant application for RA's house didn't identify the items they were looking for with enough specificity, they just listed generic items. I guess the state is saying that the warrant itself might only list generic items, but the PCA for the warrant connects the generic items listed to specific items that may have been used in the crime.
 
When you get a warrant, you need to be specific about the items you're looking for and how they're connected to the crime. You can't just say "we have probable cause, we're going to search that guy's house for bad things." You have be searching for specific items that you identify in the warrant application and you have to show probable cause that they're in the place you want to search.

This comes from the 4th Amendment's particularity requirement: "...no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In their Motion to Suppress (a different motion than the motion for a Franks hearing), the defense argued that the warrant application for RA's house didn't identify the items they were looking for with enough specificity, they just listed generic items. I guess the state is saying that the warrant itself might only list generic items, but the PCA for the warrant connects the generic items listed to specific items that may have been used in the crime.
Thank you. What would be an example of a connection between generic items and actual items from the affidavit?

Here is a link to the probable cause affidavit:
 
Last edited:
The prosecution's response to the motion is straightforward and bare bones. Quite the contrast.

They definitely seem to be going with the argument that even if some of the facts in the affidavit were incorrect or omitted, the totality of the evidence would still provide probable cause.

They wisely ignore all of the extraneous Odinist stuff.

However, they don't seem to push back on the defense's argument about what BB says she saw on the bridge, her description of the car at CPS, or how the witness who saw the man on the road described him (muddy, not muddy & bloody, & with a tan jacket), so I guess those parts of the defense's motion are likely correct.

If I had to guess, I suspect the judge will grant a Franks hearing and then uphold the warrant after hearing arguments. But I guess we'll see.

Yes it's a great response IMO.

The fact that RA placed himself on the bridge wearing the same clothes as Bridge Guy at the correct time amounts to probable cause.

The claim about the "generic' things seems much weaker to me. It's clear what knives, guns, clothes etc the state wanted to find - items used in the murder.

The fact that many americans have guns and knives and blue jackets and phones is irrelevant IMO
 
Last edited:
Thank you. What would be an example of a connection between generic items and actual items from the affidavit?

Here is a link to the probable cause affidavit:
That's actually the PCA for the arrest, the relevant one would be the PCA for the search warrant. In that PCA, they say that RA "told investigators that he was wearing blue jeans and a blue or black Carhartt jacket with a hood on that day. He stated he also wore some type of head covering." That could provide particularity to clothes listed in the warrant application. It also mentions that they recovered a .40 caliber bullet from the scene, so that could provide some particularity for the type of gun being sought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
220
Guests online
1,087
Total visitors
1,307

Forum statistics

Threads
587,152
Messages
17,877,077
Members
226,994
Latest member
ProfCluezo
Back
Top