r/DelphiMurders • u/Southern_Sweet_T • Apr 27 '26

Help me understand!

New to this case and feel like I must be missing a lot of info. How is it possible this Allen guy never committed any other crimes? No history of anything? Nothing violent, not even a bar fight or something? And just escalated to double murder? And then never did it again? This is truly mind blowing to me. I’m sure this guy did it but it’s just so shocking this guy went from zero to double homicide.

And what is the suspected motive? He just always wanted to do it and finally had the opportunity? He snapped?

I’m so very confused.

51 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

200 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/The2ndLocation Apr 30 '26

Except the interrupting van shows up after the girls were already dead (under the state's theory of the crime) now that's a problem for the state in a fair trial where Richard Allen is permitted to introduce evidence of his innocence.

So when the information an accused killer supplies is false it really holds no value as information that only the killer would know.

Tip sarcasm doesn't work for everyone.

12

u/True_Crime_Lancelot Apr 30 '26

1) Did allen state a car passed by and it was a van? he did.

1a) Did a car pass by? It did. Was the car a van? It was.

2)Did Allen state that a van passed by while he was in the process of committing the crime, which, based on Apple Health data, would have been around 2:35 , give and take few minutes? He did.

2a) Did the van pass by close to 2:30 while the crime was ongoing? It did.

3) Did Allen state he was startled , panicked and left? He Did.

3a) According to CSI, did the murderer leave hastily before finishing covering the bodies? He did.

4) Did Allen state that he moved the girls down the hill, where he assaulted them, and then carried them across the creek, where he killed them?

4a) Did Apple Health show that the girls descended the hill, stopped moving for 8 minutes at approximately the distance they would have needed to walk to reach the edge of the flood area—where the only crossing point is—then crossed the creek to the north side, where the movement abruptly ends? It did.

Maybe he is just a ..psychic!
Who wouldn't know the exact details of a crime, that by a share miraculous coincidence he also place himself at the exact crime scene at the exact time the crime was unfolding?

2

u/The2ndLocation Apr 30 '26

Omg, you have followed anything post conviction and it shows. The state entered false testimony into the trial about the time the van arrived. The defense has documents from the FBI that illustrate this point.

It's a Napue and Glossip issue. The Supreme Court was very clear on this issue.

If the van showed up after the murders no one was startled by a van.

Stamp your foot all you want it doesn't make what you are saying true.

Also, sarcasm is not helping it just appears rather childish.

11

u/True_Crime_Lancelot Apr 30 '26

There was no false testimony.
That is what the defense tried to insinuate by bringing in the FBI agent who believed that Weber was lying, only for the defense to later provide evidence after the trial showing that he was not and indeed arrived at home while the perpetrator was at the crime scene.

Why did Allen, the “psychic,” know that a vehicle—a van—passed by the crime scene at the exact time the crime was unfolding? That's the smoking gun. Bang!

3

u/The2ndLocation Apr 30 '26

Oh, geez you haven't followed the appeal. The defense has FBI documents that show that Weber got home much later than stated in court. It wasnt the interview where Weber talked to the FBI about whether he dropped off a trailer before returning home.

No testimony about a FBI's agents "beliefs" was ever offered. It was notes from an interview with Weber kind of like how Dulin's notes were entered into evidence. The judge prohibited this evidence and the defenses objections are part of how this issue is now before the appellate court.

It's cell data from the tower near the Weber home which show his phone first hit that Delphi tower at about 3. The state had these documents too and never corrected his testimony. Under Glossip the prosecutor must correct false testimony or its reversible error. 

10

u/True_Crime_Lancelot Apr 30 '26

Where you got that? Your are confusing things. Weber could have lied about everything —even all the way back to childhood about stealing a chocolate bar—and it still would not change that fact: he is on video arriving while the crime was occurring. But he did not lie. The defense during the trial attempted to suggest that he was nowhere near the crime scene during the crime. He was. Now appeal offers more evidence. His phone connected to the Wi-Fi at 2:50(which could be manual connection).

The defense tried to use the FBI agent to cast doubt on his testimony based on the agent’s belief that Weber arrived much later than he claimed. That's it. Much later than the crime, but they cannot escape the fact that he was there now, because he is on video. It was during the timeframe of the crime. The murderer was still on site during that period. Thus, he would have seen the van—whether at 2:25, 2:35, or 2:45 it's irrelevant.

The smoking gun is not the exact minute the van passed by, which is based solely on Allen’s statements. Weber didnt specified a minute. The smoking gun is that Allen knew a van passed by while the murderer was still at the crime scene. We already know he lied repeatedly. We even have his wife on tape stating that he lied to her for 5 years, among other things.

At best, Allen lied about the exact moment he saw the van—assuming the camera clock wasnt merely drifting—because he did not want Wala to view him as a cold-blooded murderer. Instead, he blamed it on “panic” rather than admitting what he had done.

6

u/The2ndLocation Apr 30 '26

Post trial filings.

The prosecutor argued that the attack was interrupted by Weber's van and that the killer fled across the girls at that point, and that both girls were dead by 2:32pm. Hard to be scared off and flee across the creek if the van arrives after the state argued the girls were already dead.

7

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 01 '26

All those are based on Allen’s words, or Wala’s misunderstanding of his rumblings. What’s your point? That the accused murderer who sexually assaulted two kids before brutally murdering them, is beyond lying to avoid appearing like less of a monster, especially to the only woman that he was talking to for months?

And all of that is based on the assumption that the camera clock, proven to be wrong(12 hours ahead), was reporting the correct time to the minute. All the cameras used in the trial had the wrong time by dozens of minutes. why not this one too, which laready had the wrong time. It’s not rare—in fact, many older security cameras have a similar problem due to time drift.

But It doesn’t make the slightest difference to the fact that Allen, a man who claimed he had nothing to do with the crime and had never been to the south side or the crime scene, knew that while the crime was unfolding a white van passed by and the murderer got startled.

2

u/The2ndLocation May 01 '26

The point is the prosecutor can not allow false testimony. The could not have interupted the killer and the girls causing them to cross the creek before 2:32 pm. There are documents that show that the arrival time of van as testified to in court and relied up in the closing as "information that only the killer would know" was false.

Take it up with the Supreme Court but the Glossip ruling that affirmed Napue just came down about a year ago I seriously doubt they will reverse a year old ruling or even accept to review it. It's reversible error.

Glossip is looking to get released before his new trial.......... It's an amazing case.

10

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 01 '26

The point is the prosecutor can not allow false testimony.

Claim uppon claim.

Claim that prosecutor knew about the camera.

Claim, that the camera is correct.

Claim that Weber said he arrived at 2:30, he didn't mention a specific time.

All claims without evidence or evidence against them

The could not have interupted the killer and the girls causing them to cross the creek before 2:32 pm. There are documents that show that the arrival time of van as testified to in court and relied up in the closing as "information that only the killer would know" was false.

Of course he could. here just 4 possibilities in one minute:

1) camera is wrong, it's called time drift look it up.

(In fact it's almost certain that the camera was time drifting, otherwise it would have the corrrect time in all levels due to internet sync. )

2) killer was interupted while assulting the girls one the north side

3) killer was interupted while killing the girls

4) killer was interupted while corering them up

That he was interupted is the fact, based on that he fled before he finishing what he was doing.

Another miraculous fact the psychic Allen knew about the crime scene.

Take it up with the Supreme Court but the Glossip ruling that affirmed Napue just came down about a year ago I seriously doubt they will reverse a year old ruling or even accept to review it. It's reversible error.

It's only in your imagination that the ruling applies here. It's just a defence claim, and like the overwhelming majority of them are ..Denied!

3

u/The2ndLocation May 01 '26

The prosecutor doesn't need to be aware, personally, he is attributed with all knowledge in the discovery and this was in the discovery and even if it wasn't that would have a Brady violation even if he was unaware of its existence.

I am not talking about a camera. I am talking about a document from the cell tower obtained by the FBI showing that Weber's phone first hit the tower after the state said the victim's were deceased.

Are you using ChatGTP? Because you are not on point all at. I would read the case law and the documents.

At this point the state is stuck with what was argued at trial. Your "what ifs" have no place in the argument. Unless you want the state to change to your theory at a new trial?

If its denied they will just take it to the state Supreme Court, if that's denied they could go to the US Supreme Court which isn't going to reverse their own year old ruling.

5

u/True_Crime_Lancelot May 01 '26

What are you talking about? You don’t even understand what you’re presenting as evidence. The phone didn’t ping at 2:50; it connected to the Wi-Fi. He could have arrived home at 2:30, taken a nap, and manually connected to his Wi-Fi afterward.

The same applies to phone pings, for that matter. Phones ping arent continous. In a area like the crime scene with weak signal it can ping even half an hour appart.

You’re confusing issues in your head. Weber didn’t specify a time of arrival, and the prosecution presented no evidence concerning his arrival time. In fact, it was the defense that offered evidence of his arrival time, placing Weber passing by the crime scene while the crime was unfolding — something Allen correctly confessed to.

  • At 2:30, the crime was unfolding and the murderer was at the crime scene.
  • At 2:45, the crime was unfolding and the murderer was at the crime scene.
  • At 2:50, the crime was unfolding and the murderer was at the crime scene.

It makes no difference what minute Weber passed by, as long as it was while the murderer was still at the crime scene.

3

u/The2ndLocation May 02 '26

What are you calling a "crime scene" in this scenario?

→ More replies (0)