Legally Brunette: The Delphi Murders

When two girls are murdered in a small Indiana town, police are shocked to find a grainy video of the killer on one of their phones…

After 5 years, investigators finally “solved” the case, but did they have all the evidence? Did the convicted killer actually do it or is there a much darker conspiracy at play?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi, guys, welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I'll
be your host Emily Simpson with my co host Shane Shane.
Just Shane, we are. I'm actually very excited about this
episode today. We are doing the Delphi murders which occurred
back in twenty seventeen and a rural town in Indiana, which,
if you guys remember, I'm from Ohio, so it feels

(00:22):
very Midwest to me, very homie like.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
I understand, these are your people.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
These are my people, these are my people. However, I
did not know that much about this case before taking
a deep dive into it to be able to record
this podcast today, because you know, I love to research.
I drive my producer nuts. I well, you drive me nuts,
I drive you nuts. But I drive her nuts too
because I text her constantly. I'm probably by far the

(00:47):
most annoying podcast client she has. Anyway, once I started
to dive into this case, it kind of reminded me
of Car and Read and I'll tell you why. We'll
get into it more as we go through this case.
But upon the cursory review of this case, it seems

(01:09):
kind of simple. Whereas you have a murder, you have
a double homicide. You have two young girls that were
killed when they're out walking on a trail. It takes
several years for police, they find the killer, supposedly allegedly.
He goes to trial and he's convicted.

Speaker 3 (01:23):
You mean, if you look at the basic structure of it,
it's like murder, right, you know, capture suspect, conviction, one
hundred and sixty years in jail.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
Right, Oh, sorry, right, I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
Give him that thirty years. But then this case, once
I took a deep dive into it, I was like,
this is very very complex. There are layers. There is
this whole dark side that's going to that we're going
to talk about later. I feel like maybe there's some
conspiracies going on that are way more complex than meets

(01:56):
the eye. And that's really reminded me of Karen Reid,
because remember when we first talked about Karen Reid, and
I just gave you the facts of the case, it
was like they were out drinking, she got drunk, she
dropped him off, they find his body in the snow.
It seems simplistic, like, of course she just hit. She
seemed guilty, right, she looks guilty. She seems guilty and
then you'd take a deep dive into it, and it's like,

(02:17):
there's all this question my question, conspiracy resulted more questions, right,
and I feel the same way about this case. But anyway,
let's just do a brief synopsis of what happened in
this case. So on February thirteenth of twenty seventeen, best
friends Liberty who goes by Libby German, she was fourteen
at the time, and Abigail, who goes by Abby Williams,

(02:39):
was thirteen. They went for a walk along the Monan
High Bridge trail in Delphi, Indiana. Now I know that
they had the day off of school and that I'm
not sure which girl, but an older sister dropped them off.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
The girl's bodies were discovered the next day in a
wooded area, which is close by the place where they
were last seen or where they disappeared. A major development
came when investigators revealed that Libby had recorded video and
audio on her phone of a man approaching the girls
on the bridge, including his voice saying, quote, guys down
the hill. That recording became central to the investigation. However,

(03:14):
for over five years, the case remained unsolved, despite national
attention public tips and multiple sketches released by police of
the alleged perpetrator. In October of twenty twenty two, authorities
arrested Richard Allen, who was age fifty at the time.
He was a Delphi resident who worked at a local
CVS and had no prior criminal record. Prosecutors alleged that

(03:37):
Allan acted alone, though his defense attorneys claimed that he
is being framed. Law enforcements mishandling of this investigation has
caused many people to believe that Richard Allen is not
the perpetrator and that the actual murderer or murderers are
still walking free. Now, if you want to dive deeper
into this, this is what I watched. There's actually two

(03:58):
documentaries on Hulu. There's one called Capturing Their Killer, The
Girls on the High Bridge, and there's another one called
Down the Hill the Delphi Murders. I watched both of
those on Hulu. Both on Hulu. I watched both of those.
But you know, I also read there's a Frank's motion
that the defense attorney filed, which is one hundred and
thirty six pages, and I also read that as well.

(04:19):
Also watched a lot of YouTube videos and I also
like read it, so I took a deep dive on this.
But anyway, let's get into it and discuss, and let's
just start with the timeline of events. First of all,
Libby and Abby go missing after being dropped off near
the Moan and High Bridge in Delphi. This is on
February thirteenth. They were there for about two hours.

Speaker 2 (04:40):
They were dropped off to hang out at the bridge
and they were alone.

Speaker 1 (04:43):
So they were dropped off alone to go for a walk.
I think their timeframe was two hours. And then I
believe it was the dad of Libby, which is the
one that was picking them up, and he went to
pick them up. I think it was like three point
thirty was the timeframe. I think they were dropped off
around one thirty and they didn't meet him at the
meeting point. So then they start searching. They start calling,

(05:04):
they start calling friends. Nobody can find them. It starts
going into the evening. The police get involved. They're searching.
The next day, on February fourteenth, this is twenty seventeen,
their bodies are discovered in a wooded area close to
the trail that they were walking on. It's important to
note now the crime scene is very important. The girls

(05:25):
were found in a wooded area, so Libby didn't have
any clothes when she was found. Abby had clothes on,
but they were not her clothes.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
They were Libby's clothes, and they were close to each other.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
And they were close. They were positioned close to each other.
They also whenever they were abducted and by whomever they
were abducted by, they went down, They go off the trail,
they go down, and they also end up walking across
a creek to another embankment, which means that their clothing
would have been wet. He would have been wet.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
These footprints are How did they know this?

Speaker 1 (06:00):
I believe because their clothing was wet and they're on
the other side of the creek. They had to cross
a creek.

Speaker 3 (06:04):
Okay, So their bodies are found based on the position
of the clothing. Obviously someone had to go that way, Okay, So.

Speaker 1 (06:09):
Both of their clothing was removed. However, the corner the
medical examiners said that they couldn't find any evidence of
sexual assault. Now I don't know if there wasn't the
intent for there to be an essay and that it
just didn't happen. Because this is in the middle of
the day. I mean, we're not talking about nighttime. We're
talking about I mean, the girls were obviously pulled over

(06:31):
to a side of this wooded area that didn't have people.
But we're talking about in the middle of the day.
We're talking about like one point thirty in the afternoon. Yeah,
So I don't know if the perpetrator or perpetrators was
spooked for some reason. Anyway, that's how the bodies were found.
It's also interesting to note that the bodies were found
positioned in a very unique way. The girls both had

(06:56):
branches laying on top of their bodies, but the branches
were laid on top of their bodies, not in a
haphazard way where someone was just trying to cover the bodies.
The branches were positioned in a very deliberate and distinct
way that actually made markings.

Speaker 3 (07:12):
Like like like surrounding her on top of her.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
Like an effort to cover her.

Speaker 1 (07:20):
Though no, not in an effort to cover her. It
wasn't an attempt to take branches and leaves and cover
them to like hide the crime scene. It was a
very deliberate and distinct pattern that these branches are laid
on top of I haven't seen I've seen a recreation,
is it?

Speaker 3 (07:37):
So I was just wondering, is it like a design?
Is it like like crisscross? Is it just three branches? Okay,
so it's like a chalk out line of the two bodies,
and yeah, it's like crisscross pattern, but it's done kind
of almost like a star shape or kind of a

(07:57):
sparkly look.

Speaker 1 (07:59):
So then Abby also has tree branches that are placed
above her head that also look somewhat like a crown
the tree next to them, so Libby is laying closest
to the tree. And then the tree also has a
marking on the tree made in blood that looks like
an f So Abby was dressed in Libby's clothes while
Libby was completely naked. Bloodstains were visible on the girls

(08:19):
on the ground and nearby the trees. Both girls had
suffered lacerations to their throats. Abby's body was three to
five feet away from Libby's. Libby's left arm was raised
above her head while her right arm was at her side.
Abby was lying on her back with her right knee
bent slightly and her right foot under her left leg.
Some of the branches were large, and a large tree

(08:41):
limb was left noted on Libby's left shoulder. Also, I
read that one of the branches had a very clean
end that looked like it had been removed with some
type of clockers or something like a saw or something.
So again that goes to some type of the one
of the tree branches. I don't know, but if you

(09:02):
think about it, or it seems as if someone brought
the clippers.

Speaker 3 (09:07):
Yeah, but then they only needs on one branch, which
is odd. You can't disagree with me on that one.

Speaker 1 (09:12):
No, that is odd. I don't know why one of
the branches.

Speaker 2 (09:14):
If they're all done and oh yeah, he brought clippers.

Speaker 1 (09:17):
And again maybe that goes to also one girl's dress
and one girl isn't. I don't know if someone whoever
did this got spooked in some way, because again this
is in the middle of the day, and maybe there
were they were going to do more with the branches
or whatever. Anyway, Also, the police have been criticized for
the way they handled this crime scene. There is no

(09:38):
DNA that was found at the crime scene.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
Wait, did we discuss the manner in which they died.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
They had their throats cut. They don't know exactly with
what they I've heard or I've seen them, possibly a
box cutter or maybe some type of knife, but something.

Speaker 2 (09:51):
Were killed in the same way.

Speaker 1 (09:52):
Both were killed with some sharp object to lacerations to
their throat. Libby's phone is found at the scene underneath
abbey and also allegedly I don't know, I say allegedly
because I don't know how I feel about this bullet,
but there was an unspent bullet found between the two

(10:12):
girls and the ground. Now when I say unspent bullet,
what does that mean?

Speaker 2 (10:16):
Unused?

Speaker 1 (10:17):
Right? Unused? It wasn't fired. It wasn't fired. It was
And some people think or that possibly he used the gun,
because the question is if he, if he used a
knife to cut their throat, how did he or whoever
abduct them off of the trail and get them so
far away without the threat.

Speaker 3 (10:36):
Well, it could be just a knife. I mean, they're
little girls. Yeah, just a knife would be scary enough.

Speaker 1 (10:41):
Some people think the bullet was left there because he
maybe had a gun that he brandished.

Speaker 3 (10:46):
Wait, is only one bullet was found, one bullet, unspent,
spent and they were not killed by a gun.

Speaker 1 (10:54):
No data was also extracted from Libby's phone. And this
is interesting too because I don't even know where this
piece of evidence can come in, because this doesn't make
sense to me either. But the data was extracted from
Libby's phone that was found at the scene. Her phone

(11:15):
was found underneath abbey and it shows and the data
that her headphones or some headphones were plugged into her
phone at five forty five pm and then unplugged at
ten thirty two pm that evening. Oh wow, But her
phone was found at the scene, so I don't know.
I also I also read a little bit that maybe

(11:35):
possibly it could have been dirt that got into there
that activated the phone. I don't know, but I found
that very interesting that the forensics on that cell phone
show headphones plugged in at five pointy five and unplugged
at ten thirty two pm that night. So the next day,
on February fifteenth, twenty seventeen, investigators release a grainy image

(11:57):
from Libby's phone showing a man walking on the bridge
behind the girls. There's also audio of that same man
ordering the girls, saying guys down the hill, and that
is later made public. Now here's the thing. When they
introduced that image of the man walking on the bridge.
I bet they thought that immediately people would call and

(12:18):
be like, I know that person that.

Speaker 2 (12:19):
You can't tell anything from that image.

Speaker 1 (12:21):
I know, And I think that's interesting because I'm telling you,
if someone took a grainy image of you walking on
a trail, I don't care how grainy it is, I
would be able to tell if that was you or not.

Speaker 2 (12:30):
You would yeah, I.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
Feel like you have just a distinct shape.

Speaker 2 (12:36):
My charming personality would just beam through the image.

Speaker 1 (12:39):
No, I just to me, even though the image is
a little is grainy, you can you.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
Can't tell anything from that image.

Speaker 1 (12:46):
You cannot discern any facial feet, okay you're at all.

Speaker 2 (12:49):
Maybe someone that knows this person really well.

Speaker 3 (12:53):
Might be able to because you kind of have that
memory right where you can identify people. But I'm not
going to look at it and then look at a
real person and be able to say that's him.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
Yeah, But I don't know. I felt like the police
when they introduced that image. I bet they felt as
if someone was going to come forward and be like, oh, yeah,
that would be the point of releasing the image, right,
But the fact that.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
No one came about is that what you're gonna say.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
Yeah, because it just when you look at it, you
cannot make out any facial features at all. He also
has on like a blue car heart jacket and jeans,
and everyone in the Midwest, where's car hearts and jeans.
It's like if someone released a photo of someone with
bared shorts and rainbow sandals here in county?

Speaker 2 (13:39):
Have you seen this man?

Speaker 1 (13:40):
It's like, that's what everyone looks like here, all right.
Some of the initial suspects, first of all, was a
man named Ron Logan. He actually owned the property where
Libby and Abbey's bodies were found. The FBI later obtained
a search warrant for his property, this is in March
of twenty seventeen, citing inconsistencies in his own and he

(14:01):
had a prior criminal history, including d UI convictions, but
they did not connect him to the murders. Also, in
one of these documentaries I watched, I don't remember which one,
but there's an interview with an ex girlfriend of his,
and she basically says that he was violent, that he
raped her multiple times, that he was a violent man,
and that he had an interest in young girls and

(14:25):
he liked branches.

Speaker 3 (14:26):
What's the ex girlfriend of course she's gonna mean it's
a little biased, but.

Speaker 1 (14:30):
Of course is biased.

Speaker 2 (14:31):
But that doesn't mean he's a murderer, It doesn't.

Speaker 1 (14:34):
But it means that he has a propensity for violence.
And I don't know.

Speaker 3 (14:40):
Anyway, Yeah, it doesn't look good, that's for sure. Definitely
a person of interest, right, So to.

Speaker 1 (14:47):
Me, Ron Logan would have been more of a viable
suspect than Richard Allen. But Ron Logan they ended up,
I don't know, have.

Speaker 3 (14:59):
Them on his own property though, Well, it's a huge
piece of property.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
It doesn't matter. I wouldn't want to oil on my property.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (15:06):
Again, I tend to eliminate crime scenes from my property.

Speaker 1 (15:09):
You don't, Yeah, it's a policy I have.

Speaker 2 (15:13):
So.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
Then, in February twenty fifth of twenty seventeen, authorities executed
a search warrant for a fake social media profile called
Anthony's Shot that was used to solicit underage girls online
around the time of the murders. Investigators eventually identified this
guy's name was Keegan Anthony Klein, who admitted to police
that he used fake social media accounts to contact underage girls.

(15:35):
He said he would often find them on Instagram before
moving conversations over to Snapchat. Authorities later confirmed that one
of his online profiles had interacted with Libby Jerman right
before her death. Despite that connection, police did not find
evidence that he was a suspected murderer. I saw interviews
with him too. I don't think he's a murderer. I
think he's just he's a sick a pedophile. He's just

(15:58):
a pedophile and he's.

Speaker 2 (15:59):
In Wow, he's criminal. He's not related to this, right,
He's a criminal.

Speaker 1 (16:03):
He's a pedophile. He had done images of underage girls.
He was contacting underage girls. But he seemed more like
an introvert hermit, not the type that was out, you know,
committing crimes, so they moved on from him.

Speaker 2 (16:18):
He is a keyboard criminal. Right.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
In April twenty seventeen, Ron Logan, the owner of the
property where Libby and Abby were found, was sentenced to
four years in prison for a probation violation, which was
not in connection to the Delphi murders. He pleaded guilty
to a felony charge of being an habitual traffic violator
after admitting to driving with a suspended license and consuming alcohol.
Both were violations of his probation so then Ron Logan

(16:43):
ends up dying from COVID. So this is July seventeenth
to twenty seventeen. Police released their first sketch of the
suspected killer. They said the suspect had reddish brown hair,
stands between five foot six and five foot ten, and
weighs between one point eighty and two twenty pounds. That's
a huge yeah, and appears to be around forty to
fifty years of age if you look. I don't know

(17:04):
if you've ever seen the sketch. This is the first
sketch that they.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
That they offered, and it looks like, well, let's describe.
It looks like a stocky guy. It's only a headshot.
It looks like he could be stocky.

Speaker 1 (17:16):
He looks just like if you were gonna say, draw
someone from the Midwest.

Speaker 2 (17:22):
I feel like he could be anybody.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
He could be anybody.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
He's like anyone America.

Speaker 1 (17:28):
Yeah, he just seems Middle America, Midwest Indiana to me.
And that is a big range between five foot six
and five foot ten, And I don't know. So that
was the first sketch.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
Then, wait, what was that first sketch based on? Was
that based on the crappy video.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
You know that is based upon an eyewitness account that
allegedly saw this man walking on the bridge. And then
in April twenty second of twenty nineteen, two years later,
the police offer a new composite sketch of the suspect,
saying it's more act accurately represents the person wanted for
the murders, and that the man in this sketch is
clean shaven and appears to be around twenty to thirty

(18:07):
years of age. And this is completely different, completely looks
like Matthew Perry. It's completely different, completely different. In addition,
they was not wearing a hat, No, it was he
not wearing a hat. Well, I don't know. So in addition,
they released video and extended audio from Libby's phone recording.

Speaker 3 (18:25):
Was it based on the same witnesses, They're like, oh wait,
I remember he.

Speaker 2 (18:29):
Did shave and he didn't wear a hat.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
It's I mean, it's different. There were some girls at
the end of the there were some girls on the
bridge that were eyewitnesses that gave an account of a man.
I think that was the first one. There was another
woman that was also present that gave an eyewitness account
of this younger man.

Speaker 3 (18:49):
So well, granted there's people on the bridge, although you
were saying a person like that looked like this that
was on the bridge.

Speaker 1 (18:56):
Yeah. The problem is is that it looks to me
like a lot of police incompetency. If you go back
to the crime scene, there's no DNA found at the
crime scene. The sticks that were placed on the bodies,
they didn't test any of those branches for DNA.

Speaker 2 (19:11):
They didn't know, they didn't. Oh, did they do any
DNA testing on anything?

Speaker 1 (19:17):
Well, on the girls, but there was no DNA found
on the girls and there was no sexual assault found,
so there was no seamen that they could test.

Speaker 3 (19:24):
So generally speaking, they were just murdered and then configured
in that way with their clothing and.

Speaker 1 (19:29):
Twigs, right, and then there was no DNA left behind
or why could there be no DNA left behind?

Speaker 2 (19:35):
That's a lot of activity.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
It is a lot of activity, and that's my question.
I also read somewhere or maybe I saw it in
one of the documentaries that there when they initially found
the girl's bodies, because there was a lot of people
looking for them, that there were a lot of people
trampling through this crime scene and walking through it. I
don't know if people picked up the branches and threw
them to the side because they.

Speaker 3 (19:56):
Get in similar to was it the Careen Reid one
where you think in small town was a Karen Reader
whatever one we did where it was small town. We
figured it's like low budget, they're not really taking it
very seriously and securing the premises, preserving evidence, looking into
it all. This is sloppy so far, Yes, this is
very sad.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
So in January twenty twenty two, Ron Logan, who was
still a suspect, in the public size because you have
to realize this case became so huge. It became very
popular on social media and there were a lot of
online sluss This is why this case got so much
publicity is because people became very invested.

Speaker 2 (20:32):
Why were they very invested in it?

Speaker 1 (20:33):
Well, one, they're invested because you're talking about two young
girls that were murdered. You're talking about two young girls
that were murdered, and they didn't find anyone quickly.

Speaker 3 (20:41):
I feel like in a situation thinking it was also
like this history of this place, probably there's no murders
like this, so it's out of nowhere, it's unfounded. And
then it's kind of gruesome. It's they're slit their throats
and then like never to be seen again kind of thing.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
Like the suspect, right, and it's taking a long time
to solve. So all these online sluics become very investigated
it also are very They become very investigated, not investigating, invested, invested,
not investigated, very invested in it. Also, you have to
realize when they when they released the image of bridge Guy,
that just sent the Internet into a flurry because everybody

(21:18):
was analyzing.

Speaker 2 (21:19):
The actual image of the actual image.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
The actual image of bridge Guy sent the Internet into
a just a flurry. Everybody was sharing it, talking about it,
you know, the audio, people were analyzing it. It's just it.
So so many people around the globe have become invested
in this case. Then let's get to Richard Allen, who

(21:45):
has actually been convicted of killing the girls.

Speaker 2 (21:47):
But let's spoiler.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
Let's back up. Let's spoiler alert. Let's back up and
figure out how he came into the picture. First of all,
Richard Allen's name never came up for years in this investigation.
No one gave a tip. No one said he did it,
no one said he's suspicious, no one said look into him.
His name is never on anyone's radar. His name comes
up later, like five years later, because he was at

(22:12):
the trail that day when the girls were abducted.

Speaker 3 (22:15):
So from twenty seventeen to I think twenty twenty two,
so it is five years to twenty twenty five years,
no leads, no, nothing.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
Nothing that has to do with Richard Allen.

Speaker 2 (22:25):
Well, nothing has to do with any suspect, right.

Speaker 1 (22:27):
Well other than this they're releasing.

Speaker 3 (22:29):
Yeah, but I mean yeah, no other name has popped up, right,
just Richard, and not till five years later, right.

Speaker 1 (22:35):
So what happened was five years later there was a
volunteer I guess at the police department going through the
Delphi murder case and she comes across Richard Allen who
called and gave and gave a tip that he was
there that day because he went home after being on
the trail. His wife was talking about these two girls

(22:56):
that were missing. He said, oh, I was there today,
and she said said, oh, well you should call the
police and offer to help. So he did. He called
the police and said, hey, I was there that day
if you want to ask me any questions, and apparently
he met with they called it a conservation officer. I
don't know exactly what that con the conservation officer. He

(23:17):
goes and he meets with Richard Allen and they have
a brief conversation. He says he was there that day
and he's really just offering his help. They write down
this information. It gets filed away, It gets filed away
in the wrong place.

Speaker 2 (23:37):
Okay, wait a minute, I just looked up what conservation
officer is?

Speaker 1 (23:40):
What is it?

Speaker 2 (23:40):
So? What what is it that this conservation he went
out to meet with Richard.

Speaker 1 (23:47):
Richard Allen called the police and gave a tip about himself.
He said, I was there that day on the trail
if you want to ask me any questions.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
So let me read.

Speaker 3 (23:57):
What a conservation officer is is a lawn enforcement officer
who focuses on protecting natural resources, wildlife and the environment.
Why would you send someone out like that to investigate
a murder?

Speaker 2 (24:08):
So, see, it was important. I looked it up, I know.

Speaker 1 (24:10):
But here's what I think. I think because they had
so many tips, get I get it that they probably
outsourced a lot of those tips to other.

Speaker 2 (24:18):
Areas and what other sloppy behavior and investigation was done.

Speaker 1 (24:21):
So anyway, back to his tip.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
Like, we spent the parking meter lady to investigate the
photographs of the crime and collect samples.

Speaker 1 (24:30):
Right, that's why there's no DNA. Yes, okay, So we're
at the conservation officer. Okay, again, he leaves a tip.
The tip gets filed away, and it gets filed away
in the wrong place.

Speaker 2 (24:51):
Then, as is typical with conservation officers.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
I don't know who filed it. Anyway, it's filed in
the wrong area.

Speaker 2 (24:56):
The probably didn't want to waste the paper writing it down.
It's probably what it was.

Speaker 1 (25:00):
Five years later, there is a volunteer at the police
department who is going through the Delphi case and is
going through the files. She finds this tip. It's filed
in the wrong place. Richard Allen called gave a tip
about himself, puts himself at the scene of the crime.
She takes it to whoever the investigator or whatever and says, hey,
this guy said this was all looked into.

Speaker 2 (25:20):
It was just a number at that time.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
Right, Okay, So they call him and they bring him in.
So this is October thirteenth of twenty twenty two. This
is his first interview.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
Five and a half years later.

Speaker 1 (25:34):
So out of nowhere, it is revealed to the public
that Richard Allen, a Delphi resident working for a local CVS,
is taken into custody. His first interview is on October thirteenth.
Now I watched this first interview, interrogation, whatever you want
to call it. You can tell the man comes in
because he's just there to answer question.

Speaker 2 (25:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (25:51):
Now, he's not really a suspect, he's just he's just
a witness volunteering his time to answer questions.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
They're interviewing him, and the beginning is jovial, right, It's like,
how you doing. He's there, He's like, how can I
help you? Let me answer?

Speaker 2 (26:04):
Sorry, we've been a little busy.

Speaker 1 (26:08):
Right then that you can tell it starts to shift
because they start to ask him if he you know,
they show him the bridge guy photo and say like
do you have a coat like this? Do you? And
then you can tell like something switches where he's like,
well wait, I'm not here to just yea answer. Now
you're you're treating me like a suspect. And you can

(26:28):
tell his behavior, his demeanor changes, And I will tell
you this is just a gut feeling. I find him
completely believable. I think he's there to just answer questions
and to help. And then when he realizes that they
think he's a suspect and they're asking him about what
he's defensive. He wasn't defensive. He was just well, I mean,
he comes a little change.

Speaker 2 (26:47):
How did it change? You mean? He was just more
protective of his yea, he was.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
Like, wait a minute. You know, you guys think I'm
a suspect, Like I didn't do it. It has nothing
to do with me, you know. And I believed him.
I found him to be able. I thought his body
language was believable. He didn't seem deceitful, he didn't seem
like he was trying.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
To based on your years of experiences.

Speaker 1 (27:07):
All my years of FBI training and forensic files, rhysic files,
that is my analysis anyway from what I said, is
this my opinion? That was my takeaway from that. Also
what drives me nuts. And let me just tell you this.
If you're listening, if you are being interviewed by police,
ask for an attorney. You do not have to know.

Speaker 3 (27:28):
You say, am I being detained against my will? If
they say yes, then you say I want an attorney.
If they say no, then you say Okay, goodbye.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
He kept saying, either arrest me or let me go home.
But that is not the key.

Speaker 2 (27:43):
You folks, your You can't even say your your rights
for an ane attorney. You can't even say I think
I should talk to an attorney. No, you have to
be known as I want my attorney right.

Speaker 1 (27:57):
And let me tell you something. Any time that you're
being questioned.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
At least, are not your friends.

Speaker 1 (28:02):
They are not your friend. I don't care how nice
they are. I don't care if they bring you a
coke and a sandwich. They are not your friend. Asked
for an attorney, have an attorney president.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
They're there to investigate and find a criminal.

Speaker 1 (28:11):
I felt badly that this guy went through a lengthy
interrogation with police with no attorney present twice. Then they
bring him back on October twenty sixth, and this is
the second interrogation. This is after I believe they've issued
a search warrant and they've found a gun in his house,
and they matched the gun in his house to the bullet.
But they match it with those just the striations on

(28:33):
the bullet, unspent the unspent bullet. I don't know how
I feel about that. I know that there's some friends,
some science involved in that. I would call it maybe
a pseudo.

Speaker 2 (28:43):
Sign, probably not as strong as a fired bullet that
then went through the chamber and has lots of distinctive markings, right,
it had that you can then replicate with another firing
of a bullet to match it exactly.

Speaker 1 (28:58):
This is an unspent bullet, had some markings on it
that allegedly matched a gun that they found in his house.
He had guns and knives. To me, it seems weak
at best. And the second interrogation on October twenty sixth,
again he doesn't have an attorney present, and they're showing
him the photos of the bullets and how it matches,

(29:21):
and he just looks completely defeated. He's like, I didn't
do this. I don't know what. Tell you, arrest me whatever.
At this point, he's fifty and he's a family man,
and he has a kid, and he has a wife,
and he's honest.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
Family man isn't really a sign.

Speaker 1 (29:35):
No, it doesn't, because the Long Beach killer was a family.

Speaker 2 (29:41):
No, I'm just telling you he's single. He must be guilty.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
No, I'm just telling you information about him.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
All that's fair.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
What I find interesting though, and compelling to me is
that he has no criminal history at all. None.

Speaker 3 (29:55):
Well, I'll tell you what, because I did read a
little bit on this. He worked at CVS right for
like a long time I think, and they blasted this
photo everywhere, and you told me it was everywhere. Everyone's
talking about it's small town, but it's national or whatever,
and no one was able to point to the guy
that works at probably the only CBS in that town.

Speaker 2 (30:16):
Yeah, there's only Insie, it's him, right, No one that
to me is telling.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
Well, you know what else is telling. Richard Allen is
five foot four and when you read the eyewitness accounts,
I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (30:30):
But then there's a five to eight to what'd you
say earlier?

Speaker 1 (30:33):
Five like five eight to five ten or something, but
or five six to five ten.

Speaker 2 (30:37):
Five four is significantly very short.

Speaker 1 (30:40):
How tall are you, Shane?

Speaker 2 (30:42):
Not five four?

Speaker 1 (30:43):
How tall are you?

Speaker 2 (30:43):
Sha? Tower over five four? Shane? My license says I'm
five to seven. Okay, leave it at.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
That, all right? Shane sends it as five to seven.
I would say that if I were describing you, or
someone was describing.

Speaker 2 (30:56):
Five four stands out, they would say you were short, right,
not tall? Right. Okay.

Speaker 1 (31:07):
Again, I feel like if someone was described.

Speaker 2 (31:09):
Because there's tall, there's average, there's not tall, and then
there's short.

Speaker 1 (31:16):
Okay, Richard Allen is short.

Speaker 2 (31:18):
Five for short is like anyone would describe that.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
As short exactly, And when these eyewitness accounts describing they
don't say extremely short. I'm sorry, but five four is
extremely noticeably short, right, that would be to me that
would be the first characteristic that you would notice that
you would say.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (31:36):
Police also found a blue car Heart jacket in Richard's
home that seemed to match Bridge Guy's jacket and thought
his appearance voice matched what Libby had recorded that day. Again,
we talked about this. I bet you could go into
ninety percent of homes in Indiana and they would find.

Speaker 3 (31:51):
That's what the defense should do, a cart find out
what the sales is at the car Heart store.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
Because to me, that was just your basic Midwest February
timeframe out outfit. Anyway. Okay, So they arrest him, take
him into custody. This is also interesting to note when
they arrest Richard Allen and they take him into custody
before his trial, he is not put into a county
jail like you would normally, be you're innocent until proven guilty,

(32:18):
you would be put He was put into a prison,
and he was put in solitary confinement, and this is
before he was convicted. I believe the reasoning was, or
at least the reason they said was because they it
was for his own safety. But I don't know if
I believe that so wild.

Speaker 3 (32:40):
It could have been overcrowding. That would have made more sense,
although still not okay, But.

Speaker 1 (32:45):
I don't know. I think there's probably I don't know.
I just I got really deep into this and I
feel like maybe they.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
Were they get to it. Yeah, it was definitely driving crazy.

Speaker 1 (32:56):
So throughout twenty twenty three, while incarcerated, Richard Allen admits
to killing Libyan Abbey multiple times, but family members and
his defense team argue that these statements cannot be trusted
as his mental state was quickly deteriorating. All right, let's
talk about these confessions. First of all, he's in solitary
confinement in a maximum security prison. He's naked a lot,

(33:21):
he takes his clothes off, and he eats his own feces,
and he's also confessing I did not read that isad.
The man is in his own.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
Yes, it doesn't matter whose it is.

Speaker 1 (33:34):
Well, I was just clarifying.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
Yeah, so, well that shows he's not of normal mind exactly.

Speaker 1 (33:41):
So these confessions, and I put confessions in quotations, confessions
air quotes are coming while I think, we're watching a
man deteriorate and break down. And if you see him
during this stage, he looks like a completely different man
than he did when he was first interviewed. He's lost

(34:04):
a ton of weight, he looks broken, he looks so
he Also, when we're talking about confessions, he also confessed
to killing his grandchildren, and he doesn't have grand grandchildren.
And he also confessed to killing other doesn't know left
from right exactly.

Speaker 2 (34:20):
So the confessions, that's a good tip if you want
to try to like destroy your credibility to say I
killed my own grandchildren when you have none. Yeah, they'd
be like, you're on her. I clearly didn't know what
I was talking about.

Speaker 1 (34:36):
Well, they also claim that he knew details of the
crime that released that weren't released. However, the psychologist that
was working with him was a huge true crime fan
and she was obsessed with the case, and so she
was always on chat rooms and read it and everywhere
reading about this case. And so it's very plausible that

(35:00):
she was having conversations with him about information that was
out there. And I think one thing in particular was
there was a white van, and that he talks about
how he was spooked while he was murdering them because
there was a white van that he saw. I guess
that was also public information, and maybe it came from her,
Maybe it was somewhere out there.

Speaker 2 (35:22):
I don't know who cares. That's dumb.

Speaker 3 (35:25):
It matters when it's like how they were killed, or
maybe maybe, for instance, there was something underneath the body
and that wasn't released to the public on purpose, by design,
and then he could he could say that, but like
a white van, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (35:42):
Well, the white van was used to establish a timeframe,
but I don't know.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
This is not strong for me to say.

Speaker 1 (35:48):
I just feel like with these confessions and a lot
of people say, why would someone confess false confessions? Happen?

Speaker 2 (35:54):
Oh? Yeah, a lot, And I'll tell you.

Speaker 1 (35:55):
I looked up a statistic. In twenty twenty four, the
National Register of Exonerations found that one hundred and forty
one people were exonerated from wrongful convictions with thirteen percent
of those from false confessions. And also, I don't know
if you remember, but I also work a lot with
the Innocence Project. A couple of years ago, I did.
I met with one of the people that I've met

(36:17):
through there named Terrelle Swift, who was incarcerated for twenty
years for a crime he did not commit because he
confessed to the crime. I know it happens, yeah, and
he was young, he was a teenager.

Speaker 2 (36:27):
I mean, you're sitting in an interrogation room for like
sometimes like twelve hours.

Speaker 1 (36:32):
Yeah, he was interrogating ridiculous. He had no attorney present,
no parents present. They interrogated him for hours and hours.
He signed a false confession and then.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
That and I'm sorry, but you have all these people
in uniform he did it, and then threatening you making
And then they say they can lie, which I think
is horrific. They can lie and say, oh, we found DNA.
Then you're thinking, oh, crap, did I was I there?
Did I do something? Maybe I should confess? Because they
always act like they're your buddy. They're always acting like,

(37:02):
c mot, I know you're a good person, you just
did a bad thing. They always said that, right, it's like, no,
bad people do bad things, right.

Speaker 1 (37:09):
Well, my takeaway from Richard Allen in these confessions is
that this man, in my opinion, from what I've looked
through and read, is not the killer. He's put in
solitary confinement, he's taken away from his wife and his daughter.
He didn't do this, and he's had a mental breakdown.

Speaker 2 (37:27):
And how long was he in confinement before he was
found guilty because he wasn't released on bail, right, it's
two years.

Speaker 1 (37:35):
Yeah. So Richard's defense attorneys file a Frank's memo to
support their request for a Frank's hearing. So his defense
asks for a Frank's motion, which is basically they were
asking the judge to set aside the search warrant because
they said it's really the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

(37:56):
They were saying that when the investigators filled out the
search warrant that they omitted information that they should have
given to the judge to consider before.

Speaker 2 (38:06):
Signing all secured the warrant.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
So they're saying that this right, that was a good
way to say it, that this search warrant was falsely
secured by omitting evidence and not allowing the judge to
know that there were other theories of who could have
murdered these two girls, and therefore the search warrant was
invalid and therefore everything found because of the search warrant

(38:29):
should be thrown out. Right, So I pulled up.

Speaker 3 (38:33):
That's the fruit of the poisonous right is then anything
derived of it? Generally there are exceptions to it, but
we'll forget that for now.

Speaker 2 (38:40):
But anything derived of that warrant is now inadmissible in
court exactly.

Speaker 1 (38:45):
And what they would want to do is they would
want the bullet to be admissible because that's really the
only piece of evidence they have against this guy. So
if they can show the search warrant was invalid because
information was omitted, then the gun would not be allowed
to be brought in his evidence. And then you can't
match it to the bull which is really the only
piece of evidence they have against this guy.

Speaker 2 (39:03):
They have no day photo and a.

Speaker 1 (39:05):
Grainy photo that maybe kind of looks my account. It's
terrible evidence, it's awful of it.

Speaker 2 (39:09):
It doesn't even if he did do it, if you
had a crystal ball that said it was Richard. Yeah,
there's still not enough evidence.

Speaker 1 (39:16):
There's not no not in my mind, if I sat
on that jury, I would have never convicted the man.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
No.

Speaker 1 (39:30):
So this Frank's motion had a memorandum attached to it.
That's one hundred and thirty six pages. I read the
whole thing and it was the most interesting thing I've
ever read. If you are a true crime fan, I
suggest you go google it. You can find it. It'll
pop right up. You can read it. It reads like
a novel. It doesn't read like a legal document. It
reads like a true crime.

Speaker 2 (39:49):
Can they search for it? What would they search for?

Speaker 1 (39:51):
You just put Dolphine murders and put Frank's motion Frank.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
Like the name Frank.

Speaker 1 (39:54):
Yeah, like the name Frank, and it will pop right up.
It's one hundred and thirty six pages. It was drafted
by the fence. It's in response to the search the
search warrant. It talks about how there's information omitted as
far as eyewitness accounts and things like that. I won't
go into that deeply. You can look into that because
I really want to talk about the Odin report, which
is the most interesting thing I've ever wait.

Speaker 2 (40:16):
So, what was what was the judgment on the Frank Oh,
it's denied.

Speaker 1 (40:21):
Just denied, denied, which is like right, So in this
Frank's memo, and there's other things that has to do
with eyewitness accounts and how the there was information omitted
from eyewitness accounts and things like that. I'm not going
to go into that. I really want to focus on
this Odin report. So allegedly or apparently or no, this

(40:43):
is actually true. While when the police found the crime scene,
there were some police officers that thought immediately that this
crime scene had evidence or looked as if it was
a ritualistic killing.

Speaker 2 (40:56):
Well, it's definitely not.

Speaker 3 (40:58):
Slot It's not like just violent killing and then run
away because the way it was placed, right, Yeah, you know,
this reminds me of a story when I worked at Target.

Speaker 2 (41:06):
I don't know if you want to hear it.

Speaker 1 (41:07):
Not right now, let's go into the oldness.

Speaker 2 (41:09):
It was methodical, okay.

Speaker 1 (41:10):
So in the discovery that the defense gets from the prosecution,
there is an Odin report in there that is twelve
pages long that these three police officers investigated. Apparently, there
is a group of people in this area, in the
Delphi area, in this area called Odiness, and they worship

(41:32):
It's like there, it's like a pagan god. Called Odin
and they do ritualistic type of things that have to
do with nature. And also, I don't know, allegedly there
maybe is some sacrifices, because they do interview one of
the guys that's supposedly one of these oldness and he
claims that it has more to do with just worshiping nature. However,

(41:55):
he does post things on his Facebook that are like,
you know, like a naked man hanging from a tree
with his throat cut. So that seems normal, that seems suspicious.
So anyway, this twelve page Oden report was drafted by
the police and was investigated by the police, and it

(42:15):
has to do with the sticks and branches being arranged
in run like patterns. Now, the word of thing is ruin.
It's r U n E, and it has to do
with the alphabet. It's like a Nordic And so now
we go back to the sticks placed on their bodies
were placed in a deliberate manner that mimic these runes,

(42:37):
and the f on the tree is a run. And
also the way that the branches were laid on the
girls resemble different runs.

Speaker 2 (42:47):
Did you see these runes to compare yourself? I don't know.
I did.

Speaker 1 (42:50):
I looked them up. They did.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
Yeah, do we know if Richard worships trees? And that's a.

Speaker 1 (42:58):
That's a good question. There is. There's no link to
Richard Allen being an Odinist or worshiping this being a
part of this pagan group.

Speaker 3 (43:08):
Of probably no one in the town of Delphi that
is there are, Yes, there are, and they can.

Speaker 2 (43:14):
They can be a witness that he's not part of it.

Speaker 1 (43:17):
Well, I don't know if they would do that, because
I think they would like him to be part of it.

Speaker 2 (43:21):
Why would they like him to be a part of it?

Speaker 1 (43:22):
Because maybe they were the murderers.

Speaker 2 (43:24):
Oh yeah, okay, yeah, So.

Speaker 1 (43:27):
Maybe Richard Allen is a scapegoat. Maybe because Richard Allen
is being guarded in prison by two security guards that
wear Odin patches on their on their uniforms that say
in Odin we trust.

Speaker 2 (43:43):
Really, yes, this isn't like a theory. This is real.

Speaker 1 (43:47):
This is real.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
That's crazy.

Speaker 1 (43:48):
I never heard of this, I know, That's what I'm
telling you. This case kills me. It is so I
just went down a deep, dark rabbit hole, and I
am convinced that Richard Allen is a scapegoat and that
there is a deeper, darker underbelly going on that this
murders don't have anything to do with Richard Allen, that
he just called and left a tip. And now this

(44:10):
man is spending all his time in prison. And I
could be wrong. I will always admit that I could
be wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong.

Speaker 2 (44:16):
You don't admit you're wrong.

Speaker 1 (44:18):
I mean, I don't really ever admit to being wrong.
But I don't feel like I'm wrong. But I could
be wrong. But again.

Speaker 2 (44:25):
That's documented that Odin we trust, and.

Speaker 1 (44:28):
They have patches on their uniforms that say in Odin
we trust, and any time.

Speaker 2 (44:33):
I don't think they're aw to wear patches.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
Well, they were removed once the defense saw the defense
team saw them, then they were the next time they
went to meet with their client, they had removed them
from their uniforms. But when the defense would go and
try and meet with Richard Allen, they were always there.
They were always present, and they were recording their conversations.

Speaker 2 (44:56):
Have these Odin worshippers ever been known to commit these
violent crimes or anything history like that, Well, they.

Speaker 1 (45:01):
Claim no, because they interviewed They interviewed one of them
on one of the documentaries, and he actually found him
to be believable. I have to say that they interviewed
him and he said that they worship nature and that
the they arrange branches in those patterns. But it's you know,
to worship nature and trees and things like that. All
I know is, let's just let's just think about this

(45:22):
for a second. This is also in this Frank's motion memorandum.
How does a five foot four man get two girls
off of a bridge across a creek? Then he has
to murder one of them? But what is the other
one has to be tied up or something while he's
murdering one of them. How do you how?

Speaker 2 (45:42):
Okay?

Speaker 3 (45:42):
This goes back to my original answer. I don't think
it's that hard. I think you can intimidate young girls,
and sadly, I don't think it's that difficult. There will
there be are there exceptions that will there be some
girls that might run and scream or hey, yes, and
good for them, But it's understandable, very easily into it.
It would be very scary for a man to do
that to you. And I wouldn't blame any girl one

(46:06):
bit for being so scared and just complying.

Speaker 1 (46:10):
I get that, and I understand what you're saying about compliance.
But the time frame in which these girls was killed
was very short. It's like an hour and seventeen minutes.

Speaker 3 (46:17):
It doesn't matter. I don't know, I don't I just
strongly disagree with that. I think a man could be
so intimidating, easily intimidate to doesn't matter, doesn't.

Speaker 1 (46:28):
Matter, I don't know. I just don't think he acted alone.
And I don't think it was him.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
I don't think he acted at all. I don't think
he acted at all.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
I think I think it was I feel like it
was more than one perpetrator.

Speaker 2 (46:39):
Yeah, no, it could very well be. I was just saying.

Speaker 3 (46:42):
I'm not saying therefore it's Richard. I'm just saying I
don't think that's far fresh. I never really question how
did they intimidate? How did they get them to comply?

Speaker 2 (46:51):
Because it's it's scary someone points in a knife at you,
you're gonnak.

Speaker 1 (46:54):
I get it again. I'm not saying that he can't
intimidate him. I'm talking about the time frame is a
very short. Also, he goes home and he sees his
wife later and tells her that he's at the bridge,
and never does his wife say his clothes or muddy
or wet, or he doesn't have any blood on him?

Speaker 2 (47:09):
I mean where the branch clippers?

Speaker 1 (47:11):
Yeah, like, none of that makes any sense to me?

Speaker 2 (47:14):
I agree, all right?

Speaker 3 (47:15):
And to me back to me where it's like they
blast this photo everywhere and they don't no one knows.
It's like your local CBS technician, right, Does that makes
sense to me?

Speaker 1 (47:24):
All right? This memo also identifies a very specific odinous
affiliated individual named Brad Holder. Brad Holder had a son
who had a relationship with Abby, so right there you
have a connection. Holder also posted ruine cymbals online identical
to those at the scene, raising suspicions of involvement. Let

(47:45):
me tell you some of the things that he posted,
because I just found all of this way too coincidental.
So again, his son dated Libby. He posted a painting
on Facebook that showed the same leg positioning that one
of the girls had. It had a mark on the tree,
and it had a throat cut. This was on April seventeenth,
twenty seventeen, which was only fifty days after the murder,

(48:06):
before any any details of the murders was released. His
name was Bradholder. They named him and this memory. He
also posted a photo of a hand marked with a
RUN symbol, which was the exact room found on Abby's body.

Speaker 3 (48:22):
Yeah, but this is although it's weird behavior, it's like, well,
after the fact, he's just posting stuff about the crime.

Speaker 1 (48:28):
Except I don't think they didn't release Yeah, but they
didn't release photos of the crime, and they didn't release
that there was any information about these rooms.

Speaker 2 (48:36):
You miss You didn't say that. Oh that's different, Okay, No.

Speaker 1 (48:39):
One knew that there was any that they were investigating
any kind of odinist connection at all. That was all
very hush hush. He also posted a photo that showed
two girls lying on the ground in the forest with
tree limbs arranged on their bodies and their hands positioned
similarly similarly to the two girls that were murdered. There's

(48:59):
also a photo of an f made from sticks on
the tree. He also posted a meme of some quote
that talked about how friends help you move bodies.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
I don't know, good friends bury the body.

Speaker 1 (49:13):
Yeah. To me, all of these things seem highly suspicious.
I know they were investigated. I know that the police
claim or that they had solid alibis.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
Yeah, but who were they investigated by, because you're telling
me those cops run around, correction officers run around with
and oden. We trust patches and they're the ones investigate.

Speaker 3 (49:34):
And then what they send, like a conservation officer to
go investigate, you know, I mean.

Speaker 2 (49:39):
Who knows what else they're sending exactly.

Speaker 1 (49:42):
It all just seems very coincidental to a crime. I
don't know, it just seems to me. Also, there was
a report supposedly this is why the police claimed they
dropped the investigation into this odinous, ritualistic type of killing.
They said it was because they submitted all this evidence
to a professor at Purdue who looked at the crime

(50:04):
scene and then wrote some report that said that it
wasn't a ritualistic killing. But they can't remember the professor's
name and they can't find the report. But that's why
they claim they dropped. They dropped the investigation into these oldness.

Speaker 2 (50:18):
You know what else shows its sloppy police work.

Speaker 3 (50:21):
They misfiled the name and phone number of a guy
that calls and says I was there, right, and then
they misfile it or whatever.

Speaker 2 (50:29):
That's sloppy. Everything's sloppy about this case?

Speaker 1 (50:33):
Well, is it? The question is is it sloppy on
purpose or is it sloppy because they're because they don't
know what they're doing and they're sloppy. That's the question.
Is there more? Is there is this more of like
a Karen t a conspiracy where this guy is the scapegoat.
He works at CBS, he doesn't ask for an attorney,
he doesn't seem very sophisticated. To me, he's easily made
into a scapegoat. He doesn't have a very strong mental

(50:55):
mind to fight back because he's now he's in solitary
confinement and he's losing his mind. He's confess he's guarded
by Odinus. I mean, it seems to me that there
is way more going on behind the scenes than it's
just this five foot four man that worked in CVS
that just has no criminal record that one day decided
that he was going to.

Speaker 3 (51:14):
Kill and then never again for the next five years,
so they never found any other crimes.

Speaker 1 (51:18):
It makes no sense to me, zero, all Right, So
the jury convicts Richard Allen on all counts, including murder
while committing or attempting kidnapping. The judge sentences Alan to
the maximum penalty one hundred and thirty years in prison.
The victims' families give an emotional impact statement at the sentencing.

(51:39):
You know the thing that also, I just have a question,
and I have a theory, but what is yours? The
families seem very hell bent on Richard Allen being.

Speaker 2 (51:48):
The families of the victims.

Speaker 1 (51:49):
Yeah, I don't know. From my position sitting outside here
doing all this research, hearing all these things, going deep,
taking a deep dive into this, I think I would
be like, I don't know if we had the right guy.
But then again, I'm not suffering grief.

Speaker 3 (52:04):
Yeah, And you can understand that some people might be
in a position where they need to channel that anger
and that hurt somewhere and find someone.

Speaker 1 (52:12):
And if that's the guy and the police say that's
the guy, and that's the guy sitting in court.

Speaker 3 (52:17):
In front of me, you can't fault someone for thinking
it's him, right, I mean you got to fault the
investigation and the justice system and.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
Law enforcement, all of them for doing it so poorly.

Speaker 1 (52:28):
So less than three months after his sentencing, Richard Allen
appeals his conviction. His legal team is seeking to overturn
the verdict by challenging both the timeline of events presented
a child and the handling of the evidence. His appeal
raises questions about whether prosecutors relied on inaccurate testimony, specifically
Alan's lawyer's point to phone data suggesting that a key
state witness may have arrived home later than he testified,

(52:51):
undermining that timeline used to argue Alan force the girls
across the creek. They also argue that other evidence pointing
toward possible alternate suspects was improper excluded at trial. That's
because this whole third party culpability that it had to
do that it's a ritual sacrifice, and then these oldness
are responsible for it was excluded. They were not allowed
to present any of that at court. In court none, Wow,

(53:16):
so you know you're sitting I mean I if I
was sitting on the jury, I wouldn't have convicted him.
But if you are living in this town of Delphi, you're.

Speaker 3 (53:25):
I don't think there's been many crimes have gone over
where you would a convict him. I really don't pick
Emily for a jury.

Speaker 1 (53:31):
No, because I because I feel like I do I
have very I have because I take reasonable doubt, very
no doubt for you. Well, I don't know. Family members
of the victims have expressed a disappointment over the appeal,
with Abby's grandfather urging Richard Allen to accept the jury's decision.
Libby's grandmother said the repeated filings and disputes continue to

(53:53):
cause the family pain, though they remained hopeful that justice
will hold. Look, the guy is entitled to an appeals
process and he has to go. Actually, I really feel
like his case is a good case for the Innocence Project,
just because I feel strongly that I don't know if
they have the right guy. That's just where I'm at
with that. But obviously he has to go through all
of the appeals first before he would be eligible for

(54:13):
anything that has to do with the Innocence Project. So wow.
So anyway, that is where we were at in the
del Fi murders.

Speaker 2 (54:22):
He was sentenced, Yeah, he was sentenced un thirty years.

Speaker 3 (54:25):
Yes, and he's been in jail at least since twenty
two right since they detained him. Right, Holy cow, that guy,
based on the sentencing, is never getting out.

Speaker 1 (54:35):
Maybe his defense is able to bring in other evidence
in the appeal. I don't know. We'll see what happens.
Obviously will follow the case because I'm obsessed with it,
and now I have to move on.

Speaker 2 (54:46):
To a is being appealed in all that, right, like
it's still in the system.

Speaker 1 (54:50):
Yeah, anyway, what are your guys' thoughts on it? I mean,
read the Frank's motion if you have, you know, a
spare day to read one hundred thirty six page motion.

Speaker 2 (55:01):
He said, it's like a novel, So you're reading a case.

Speaker 1 (55:03):
Interesting, it's not a lot illegally is. It really reads
like a true crime novel. So if you're a true
crime you know, if you're a chunky chunky, you'll enjoy
reading it. And tell me your thoughts on it. Tell
me your thoughts on this whole odists alternate theory that.

Speaker 2 (55:22):
People out there that can explain to.

Speaker 1 (55:24):
Us if there's anyone that practices.

Speaker 2 (55:27):
Nothing wrong with that, but maybe they can shed some
light on this crime.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
Right, and then let me know what you think about
Richard Allen. Do you think he's guilty? Do you think
it's not innocent?

Speaker 2 (55:37):
It's not guilty, not guilty?

Speaker 1 (55:39):
Do you mean he's guilty or not guilty?

Speaker 3 (55:41):
Meaning by way of law he has not found guilty.
It does not mean he is innocent exactly.

Speaker 1 (55:47):
And when I say that, that's what I mean. I'm
saying there's the possibility that he could be guilty, but
from what I have read and been presented and what
I think, I would say he's not guilty because there
isn't enough evidence to convict him to this man has
been the rest of his life in prison. Anyway. Thank
you so much for listening to Legally Brunette again. Don't
forget to move over and subscribe to us. Thanks for listening, guys.

Speaker 2 (56:09):
Thank you