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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paragraph 10 ponders the question “who has the burden of proof and what exactly is the legal standard at a suppression hear”? Then they refer to paragraphs 6 - 10 in the Motion for Franks Hearing previously filed.

Looks to me as if they’ve realized they’re running in meaningless circles of chronic confusion, but don‘t want to outrightly admit it. If anyone thinks they’re clarifying anything, please chime in.

This is the Franks motion, previously filed.
Appears to be an attempt to look more legal-y.

And little else.

Jmo
 
Paragraph 10 ponders the question “who has the burden of proof and what exactly is the legal standard at a suppression hear”? Then they refer to paragraphs 6 - 10 in the Motion for Franks Hearing previously filed.

Looks to me as if they’ve realized they’re running in meaningless circles of chronic confusion, but don‘t want to outrightly admit it. If anyone thinks they’re clarifying anything, please chime in.

This is the Franks motion, previously filed.
Sounds to me like they are getting out in front of the prosecution; countering any objections P may be thinking of filing. Tying docs 1 and 2 together via 3. But I'm NAL so what do I know?
 
Appears to be an attempt to look more legal-y.

And little else.

Jmo
Essentially. They seem to have realized that they left most of the actual legal standards and analysis out of the 136 page memo. If you combine this memo with the 10 or so pages in Part III of the original memo, you have a reasonably normal motion for a Franks hearing. And then you have the other 100+ pages...
 
Sounds to me like they are getting out in front of the prosecution; countering any objections P may be thinking of filing. Tying docs 1 and 2 together via 3. But I'm NAL so what do I know?

I don’t think they got in front of anything, they already had 136 or more pages to do that. Instead it looks like they’re cornered. What the defence needs is indisputable proof Sheriff Liggett lied when obtaining the SW (ie an affidavit spelling out exactly what) and all they have is ex-LE Click who’s since doing a back-track as well. Everything they put forth is either total speculation or insinuation. The judge can’t be expected to figure out what point the defence is trying to make.

As far as this particular motion is concerned I think the defence is hooped.
 
This is the problem isn't it. As quick as you can raise questions about the state's case you get responses telling you 'but witnesses placed him at the scene...'.

Then when you point out inconsistencies and potential inaccuracies that might be exposed about those witness statements the response is 'but you can't trust witnesses...'

Then it's all about the forensics, so you point out that Ligget et al have said under oath they have no DNA or digital forensics placing RA at the crime scene, and then the response is 'but you don't know what else they've got yet...'

Then it's all about the 5 confessions but then you mention what about the EF confession and his uncanny description of the crime scene in 2017 and then its whoosh complete silence... No-one so far wants to go there do they, and try to explain how on earth EF confessed to the same thing on the day those poor girls were found?

I'm not convinced by either side's story right now but there are big questions that its noticeable are conveniently being avoided.
He placed himself at the scene.
 
New Murder Sheet podcast on the Supplemental Motion filed today

 
Then it's all about the 5 confessions but then you mention what about the EF confession and his uncanny description of the crime scene in 2017 and then its whoosh complete silence... No-one so far wants to go there do they, and try to explain how on earth EF confessed to the same thing on the day those poor girls were found?
^RSBM

Have we seen a verified LE document with a full description of the crime scene? I was of the understanding that it is still under seal, along with the medical examiner‘s report.

We do have the defense‘s recent document, which includes details I have seen in social media for years. Some of those details may be true; searchers may have talked. LE may have said things to friends or family that they shouldn’t have. Perhaps some of what has been said has not been true, and simply a result of the rumor mill.

Do we really know what the crime scene looked like? How do we know that EF’s description was uncanny, or even accurate?
 
New Murder Sheet podcast on the Supplemental Motion filed today


Did you listen to it? Lots of chatter but I didn’t think the comments were all that encouraging toward the defence.

Some points pertaining to the Frank’s Hearing -
- by the accusations that Sheriff Liggett provided false info, he is essentially being accused of perjury (for which additional proof must be established, rather than simply taking a disposition from him).
- there’s no assurance a Franks Hearing will be granted by the Judge, and if there is, it only means Judge is willing to hear both sides, not that the defence arguments are deemed as valid.
- for unknown reasons defence referred to a case/ruling from another state in their supplement, but had been recently criticized for doing so in another case, judge prefers precedent to be formed by Indiana courts.
 
Turning attention to one of the big issues raised in the D memo which has a number of facets - the named suspects who were subsequently cleared. This begs a number of questions which will need to be considered.

a. Who are EF, BH, PW and other named actors - ie what kind of people are they, what is their background, do they have criminal records etc

b. Delphi is a very small town ie 3k pop'n. Who are these people connected to by relationship, family ties etc. ie the families of the vitcims, RA, RL etc?

b2. LE has said DNA has been recovered from the scene - in such a small population how hasn't genealogy DNA ruled suspects in or out?

c. How exactly does EF confess to his sister on the 14 Feb 2017 that he was involved in the death of two girls, near a bridge, naming one as Abigail, and describe aspects that appear to fit the unusual crime scene (which I don't think has become public knowledge until the D memo of 18th Sep 2023?)

d. What level of investigation was done on these initial suspects and how thorough was this? What status is the file at - I assume it is sealed and not available for public access?

e. The report by the 3 investigating officers was subsequently rejected and the investigation closed, and EF, BH & PW eliminated as active leads - on what basis did LE choose to do this? Particularly as they had not followed up and identified RA until 2022?

f. Entirely speculative, but I do wonder whether on the basis of what was known about these suspects, the tips received, the outcome of the interviews etc - would there have had sufficient probable cause to serve SWs on any of them at the time? (You would imagine that this is a line of enquiry that D will follow up in cross examination of LE)
Great questions.
 
The problem is we won’t know what evidence the State has until the trial. Just because we don’t know doesn’t mean there isn’t any, that’s just the way it is. That is unless RA changes his plea to guilty before then.
Also, just because we don’t know what evidence the state has doesn’t mean there is any.
 
I don't think he did describe the crime scene on 2/14. Like you said, he talked about the "brother," the bridge, and the girls. If this is even true, it would be interesting to know whether he was acting worked up and talking about this before, or after the bodies were found.

The "brother" and a "gang"!

Defense memo page 71:

Who is EF, this man that was mimicking BH’s Facebook posts from 126
miles away? You will soon learn that he is a man that has admitted to both of his sisters that he
was involved in the murders; a man that told his sister that because of his involvement he was now
part of a “gang” and had a “brother”
; a man who, after providing his DNA, asked police that if he
could explain why his spit might be on one of the girls would he still be in trouble, and then
admitted to a sister that he did, in fact, spit on one of the girls; and perhaps most incriminating, a
man who provided intimate details about the crime scene…the type of detail that only those that
were at the crime scene could possess.
 
EF is not on trial and LE know why he wasn’t charged. I feel a little bit sad that a man with the mentality of a 7-year old keeps getting mentioned. Were you also expecting each of the 50000 tips to all be read out, LE to tell the jury how they ruled each of them out?

Isnt that how it used to be in the “old days”? Case closed! A mentally challenged suspect who couldn’t defend himself and didn’t understand what was happening would be found guilty. Ironic the defence is now winding back the clock.
EF discussed being at the scene with 2 different sisters, MJ and JM. EF told MJ on 2/14/2017 he was at the scene, and 2-3 weeks later MJ learned of the Delphi homicide and “put two and two together.” This is when she, with her husband, drove to Delphi to give a statement to LE. MJ was finally interviewed January 2018. MJ passed a polygraph administered by state police February 1, 2018. EF was then interviewed by LE February 27, 2018, which was videotaped; defense was allegedly not given this interview until September 8, 2023 (defense memo, p. 91-92).

During the interview with EF, Holeman and Murphy were present and EF consented to a DNA swab. When Murphy dropped EF off at home after the interview, EF turned around before entering his house, and walked back towards Murphy’s squad car to pose a question to Murphy:

“What would happen if his (EF’s) spit is found on one of the girls, but he (EF) has an explanation? Would he still be in trouble? EF then walked back into his trailer. Upon hearing that troubling but incriminating comment, Trooper Murphy immediately called Unified Command and communicated with Detective Jay Harper.” (defense memo, p. 92-93)

For a third time, EF’s other sister JM was interviewed August 22, 2018, and this time, she reluctantly told LE about a convo she had with EF in October 2017, when she was living with EF after her bf passed away. According to JM, EF stated:

“I am in a lot of trouble. I am going away for a long time. I was on that trail and that bridge with those girls when they were murdered. There were two other people there with me when it happened. I spit on one of the girls (after they were killed).” (defense memo, p.93)

Should we take EF’s statements in 2017 and 2018 that he was at the scene of the crime less important than RA’s statement that he was on the bridge the same day in 2022?

JMO EF’s mental impairment given this information is a straw man. There appears to be much more pertinent information regarding EF than his IQ. MOO
 
Last edited:
Can you tell me if he claimed to have participated in the murders when he told his sister all of this?

If memory serves correctly, he said he was on the bridge with the 2 girls that were killed. He mentioned that he now had a brother.

I don't recall anything from the memo about him describing the crime scene at that point.
I believe the information you are asking about is on page 91-93 of the defense memo. His statement was that he was there when it happened (at the crime scene), 2 other people were there, and he spit on one of the girls.

On page 91 (in bold) is “I am now part of a gang and have a brother.” It doesn’t say EF said that exact sentence but that EF said to his sister MJ something about now having a brother (although he has no siblings) and how he was now part of a gang.
 
EF discussed being at the scene with 2 different sisters, MJ and JM. EF told MJ on 2/14/2017 he was at the scene, and 2-3 weeks later MJ learned of the Delphi homicide and “put two and two together.” This is when she, with her husband, drove to Delphi to give a statement to LE. MJ was finally interviewed January 2018. MJ passed a polygraph administered by state police February 1, 2018. EF was then interviewed by LE February 27, 2018, which was videotaped; defense was allegedly not given this interview until September 8, 2023 (defense memo, p. 91-92).

During the interview with EF, Holeman and Murphy were present and EF consented to a DNA swab. When Murphy dropped EF off at home after the interview, EF turned around before entering his house, and walked back towards Murphy’s squad car to pose a question to Murphy:

“What would happen if his (EF’s) spit is found on one of the girls, but he (EF) has an explanation? Would he still be in trouble? EF then walked back into his trailer. Upon hearing that troubling but incriminating comment, Trooper Murphy immediately called Unified Command and communicated with Detective Jay Harper.” (defense memo, p. 92-93)

For a third time, EF’s other sister JM was interviewed August 22, 2018, and this time, she reluctantly told LE about a convo she had with EF in October 2017, when she was living with EF after her bf passed away. According to JM, EF stated:

“I am in a lot of trouble. I am going away for a long time. I was on that trail and that bridge with those girls when they were murdered. There were two other people there with me when it happened. I spit on one of the girls (after they were killed).” (defense memo, p.93)

Should we take EF’s statements in 2017 and 2018 that he was at the scene of the crime less important than RA’s statement that he was on the bridge the same day in 2022?

JMO EF’s mental impairment given this information is a straw man. There appears to be much more pertinent information regarding EF than his IQ. MOO

I’d have to wonder why you’re so fixated on EF without knowing anything more than the snippets contained in the defence memo. You missed the part about his ”shady alibi” proving he wouldn’t have been in Delphi on the day of the murders. It’s quite obvious the only reason it’s “shady” is because the defence doesn’t want him to have one.

Are you expecting LE to jump in here, justifying why no further investigation of EF took place and repeating what he said when he later denied he was involved? That’s not going to happen. Hopefully he also told LE who it was who trying to set him up to be a fall guy, to collect the reward, so he can be protected from all those who do not have his best interests at heart.

EF is not on trial here at websleuths and the fact that we don’t know the whole story is okay, just like we don’t know what the transcripts say when RA confessed those several times to his wife and mother.
 
Last edited:
I believe the information you are asking about is on page 91-93 of the defense memo. His statement was that he was there when it happened (at the crime scene), 2 other people were there, and he spit on one of the girls.

On page 91 (in bold) is “I am now part of a gang and have a brother.” It doesn’t say EF said that exact sentence but that EF said to his sister MJ something about now having a brother (although he has no siblings) and how he was now part of a gang.

And nobody cared enough about a man with the mental ability of a 7 year old to try to find out more details in order to determine if he was indeed involved with a gang? If so, that’s despicable.

Instead his statements get repeated by his sisters and used as fodder for defence attorneys in a double homicide case? That’s just as despicable. Obviously he‘s unable to either protect or defend himself and in my opinion it’s extremely thoughtless and even a tad dangerous that the defence is casting these allegations given his personal situation.
 
Last edited:
During the interview with EF, Holeman and Murphy were present and EF consented to a DNA swab. When Murphy dropped EF off at home after the interview, EF turned around before entering his house, and walked back towards Murphy’s squad car to pose a question to Murphy:

“What would happen if his (EF’s) spit is found on one of the girls, but he (EF) has an explanation? Would he still be in trouble? EF then walked back into his trailer. Upon hearing that troubling but incriminating comment, Trooper Murphy immediately called Unified Command and communicated with Detective Jay Harper.” (defense memo, p. 92-93)
So, if I’m understanding your point correctly, EF did in fact submit a DNA sample, while being anxious because he spit on one of the girls and he may get “in trouble?”

He sure WOULD get in trouble if his spit was on one of the girls, as identified through a DNA match to him.

So why wasn’t he arrested, then?

IMO his spit on one of the girls would certainly be solid proof that he was at least at the crime scene. Whether RA was there or not there, let’s say, still why wouldn’t EF be awaiting trial right now?

We haven’t heard that RA left his DNA at the scene, but there is other evidence against him. And I believe the evidence collected at RA’s home is what precipitated his lawyers’ frantic attempt to undo the search warrant.

If EF left his spit on one of the girls, and submitted to a DNA test, again I cannot fathom why he hasn’t been arrested.

Which makes me doubt his story altogether.

JMO
 
Last edited:
I’d have to wonder why you’re so fixated on EF without knowing anything more than the snippets contained in the defence memo. You missed the part about his ”shady alibi” proving he wouldn’t have been in Delphi on the day of the murders. It’s quite obvious the only reason it’s “shady” is because the defence doesn’t want him to have one.

Are you expecting LE to jump in here, justifying why no further investigation of EF took place and repeating what he said when he later denied he was involved? That’s not going to happen. Hopefully he also told LE who it was who trying to set him up to be a fall guy, to collect the reward, so he can be protected from all those who do not have his best interests at heart.

EF is not on trial here at websleuths and the fact that we don’t know the whole story is okay, just like we don’t know what the transcripts say when RA confessed those several times to his wife and mother.
The reason EF’s alibi is labeled as shady is:

(1) Due to its contradiction to RA’s recollection of where he was with EF on the same date; According to RA (per August 29, 2018 interview): EF, RA, and NS were at a hospital in Muncie visiting a sick friend on February 13, 2017. RA stated he and EF had their phone with them. When LE told RA they could then pull phone records to verify their whereabouts, RA stated “hospitals cut cell reception on phones because they interfere with hospital equipment so their phones would probably not show they were at the hospital in Muncie.”

(2) Inactivity on EF’s phone for a total of 9 hours on February 13, 2018. EF states in his interview on June 20, 2018 that he was at his house in Rushville. EF stated in his interview February 27, 2018 @ the 14:02:30 mark that he “usually keeps his phone on him.” His phone was at his house in Rushville from 10:30 AM until 7:30 PM on February 13, 2017. The same phone records show EF did not use his phone at all for these 9 hours.

Therefore the defense theorizes it is possible RA lied about where they were and that it is possible EF left his phone at his house in Rushville, although he was elsewhere. (p. 95-97, defense memo).

Speaking of interviews and recordings, do you have a link of RA’s confessions/audio of his confessions? I don’t doubt he confessed (whether guilty or under alleged duress), I would simply like all of the information. I’m late to the thread. Thank you in advance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
2,339
Total visitors
2,465

Forum statistics

Threads
581,339
Messages
17,771,548
Members
225,126
Latest member
Shaun Sheep
Back
Top