Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Delphi Murders: 3 Damning Statements Richard Allen Wants Tossed

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Richard Allen, the man charged with murdering two teenage girls in Delphi, Indiana, wants his statements to police thrown out. It's his bullet coming out of his gun. That's their issue, and that's why they're trying to get that suppressed. Retired homicide detective Phil Waters is here with three things Allen said that could hurt him at trial. Thanks for joining me for Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy.

Starting point is 00:00:33 Richard Allen said some things in a police interview in October of 2022, right before his arrest, that may not be good for him at his trial. These statements are not those alleged confessions that he made to his wife in jailhouse phone calls following his arrest. In fact, the statements his lawyers don't want the jury to hear are actually denials. Allen is accused of murdering Libby German and Abby Williams on February 13th, 2017. Libby and Abby's bodies were found in a wooded area off the Monon High Trail the following day on Valentine's Day. Next to them, an unspent.40 caliber casing that had been cycled through a gun. Investigators released video of a man seen walking on the trail that day, hoping that someone would recognize him.

Starting point is 00:01:21 Despite that clip being released, it would take years to make an arrest. Richard Allen, who really goes by Rick, so that's what we'll call him, had been questioned back in 2017, months after the murders. Investigators then went back to him in October of 2022 and charged him with murdering Abby and Libby. Days earlier, Allen's lawyers say that two detectives read him his Miranda rights and interviewed him. And after a while during that first interview, things heated up and Allen ended the conversation

Starting point is 00:01:50 saying, it's over. I was perfectly fine. I was cooperating. I was going to give you my phone. And then, you know, when you started reading all these documents, that's it. Here's my thing is I feel like you guys think I'd done this. So I'm done. You don't do what you need to do. It's your job. I understand that, but you better effing leave my reputation out of it. So you do what you need to do. And then, like I said, when you do find this guy, I'll expect the apology. Then detectives seized Alan's car. Nearly two weeks later, Alan went to get his car back and another detective asked to speak with him. Allen's lawyers say the first part of the videotape is missing and Allen wasn't read

Starting point is 00:02:31 his rights during that second interview. But Allen's lawyers say a detective made a note where he said he asked Allen whether he remembered the other detectives reading him his rights and he said yes. Detective Holman said he told Allen he was free to go. Any of these little discrepancies need to be explained in the report. Boom. Whatever caused that. So there are some things that the detective should have noted in the report that would have at least answered those questions that they're talking about. So why was Allen even read his rights in the first place? He wasn't under arrest. Here's Phil Waters on that. So these are both non-custodial interviews. Miranda is not necessary

Starting point is 00:03:13 or required. So why the detectives decided to bring Miranda into a non-custodial interview when it is required in a custodial interview, but this guy is not under arrest, he's not in custody, and he's free to leave. So that gets this whole mess going in the first place. So Phil's saying he doesn't see grounds for the statements being suppressed based on the argument that Allen wasn't read his rights. But Phil sees why the defense wants those statements thrown out. There are exchanges between Rick Allen and the detective that could work against Allen at trial. Here's the first one. The detective, Jerry Holman, starts. I'm going to put the quote up on the

Starting point is 00:03:56 screen. He says, the evidence clearly indicates you are involved in this. Rick Allen, they call him Rick, not Richard all the time, says no. Jerry Holman responds, it effing does. Rick Allen, they call him Rick, not Richard all the time, says no. Jerry Holman responds, it effing does. Rick Allen says, it doesn't. I'm telling you that there is no way that a bullet from my gun was used in these murders. Jerry Holman responds, and I'm telling you that we had this effing round on February 14th, 2017, and it's been secured in an effing laboratory and we've tested other guns. Rick Allen says, you could have taken it from someone somewhere else then because it's not possible. Jerry Holman responds, I did not take it from somewhere else. It was logged in. It was

Starting point is 00:04:36 taken. It was photographed. You think we effing took a round and threw it down by the dead girl's foot? This ain't effing TV. This is realistic. Rick Allen says, I'm telling you, I can't explain something that, and Jerry Holman says, and I'm telling you that effing analysts explain it. You can't get past this. So what's your response to that? Obviously, they're saying a bullet from your gun that had been in your gun was found next to the dead girl's foot. And you're saying that no way, no way, but the gun was found in his house. So that is what these defense attorneys are concerned about in your view. Their concern is, is that he makes an admission that the gun is his, but he's denying that he was ever there when they found that bullet around that timeframe.

Starting point is 00:05:29 That's a problem. That is the key problem for the defense because he's denying a fact that it can't be altered. It's a fact that bullet came out of his gun he admits that it's his gun it admits that it came out of his gun yeah i think there's a mark the extractor markings on this live round or are matched to the weapon itself so he's he's admitted to all this stuff he's just saying i wasn't there so how does that bullet get there and that's when you get the trooper that says you think we threw the thing down there and all that kind of stuff. So yeah, that is a problem. It's the same comparison as a person who's got DNA at a crime scene and they're claiming they were never there, never knew that person, didn't know anything about them, never was around them.

Starting point is 00:06:20 How do you explain it? But sometimes when those denials come across, they are as good as a confession. Another part of this is the fact that Rick Allen denies he's on video. But investigators believe he was the man in the video telling the girls, quote, down the hill. And one of the girls can be heard saying, gun. Jerry Holman, the detective, says, I'm not on video. And Rick says, neither am I. Jerry Holman says, four or five witnesses didn't see me out there. Rick says, me either.

Starting point is 00:06:50 Jerry Holman says, my round out of my gun wasn't six inches away from a dead girl. Rick says, mine either. And Jerry Holman then says, I don't think you're a bad person. Rick Allen then says, what kind of good person kills two people? What about that statement would concern a defense attorney? Well, look, this is just a back and forth in the interview room. And again, the problem that the defense attorneys have is that's raised their radar is that their client is denying a fact.

Starting point is 00:07:28 I mean, it is a fact. It's his gun. And admittedly, his gun. It's a fact that that bullet came out of his gun. It is there in that place. And he's claiming that he doesn't know how it got there. and it doesn't make any difference if it's linked up. He's just claiming, I don't know how it got there. Well, that denial, that's a problem for the defense.

Starting point is 00:07:54 He just says, so how do you explain it otherwise if he wasn't there. So he's making this denial, but in his denial, he's putting himself there because you can't alter the fact that the bullet came out of his gun and it's at that scene. So, yeah, they've got to, that's what they're upset about. That's what they're upset about. There's a next section where Rick Allen says, you're going to pay for what you've done to my wife. You want to F with me, F with me, but you leave my wife out of this. F, leave me out of this. Jerry Holman responds, no, you're involved in this. Your F-ing round is there, Rick. Rick Allen says, no, it's not. So then you have another one of these denials. He's not saying, yeah, I've been out there before.

Starting point is 00:08:51 I've been down in those woods and with my gun, I walk out there sometimes. Maybe my round's there, but it wasn't because I was with these girls. Is that why they're highlighting this as well? Because it is potentially inculpatory. That's an exchange that happens in an interview room. And so if they're trying to say that the detective, the trooper, this and that, their big issue is he's denying the fact that the bullet's there, it's his gun, he's made an admission to that, and there's no way they can explain away his denial. And even if he pops up now and says, oh, yeah, yeah, I do remember I was there, they can't unring that bell. They can't unring the denial. So I understand why they're concerned about this, but in terms of the way that conversation goes,

Starting point is 00:09:55 what's important there is that he is denying it, regardless of the trooper's attitude or the way they're having that exchange. Those things happen in an interview room. Their biggest problem is he continues to deny, and he's adamant about it. He's adamant about denying that he is not the one that put that bullet there. And the fact of the matter is, it's his bullet coming out of his gun. So that's their issue. And that's why they're trying to get that suppressed. Another argument the defense makes, Detective Holman yelled at Rick Allen and cursed at him. He was aggressive in his questioning of Rick Allen. The only thing I can, you know, just as an aside,

Starting point is 00:10:29 and having not seen the actual interview, just getting it off of what you've read, in my view, that little clip, a horrible interview technique. So that's what they're complaining about is the is the the way that this discussion went between Allen and the and the detective so the trooper so I understand what they're concerned about when it comes down to it about this connection but I just don't see all that stuff they're describing really has little to do with nothing. I just, I just, they should be concerned because this attachment, this link to the bullet, to the gun, so forth and so on. So that discussion in there where he admits to the gun being his, and then the trooper's trying to explain to him that, you know, this is, you know, you think we threw it down, you know, this kind of thing.

Starting point is 00:11:27 That's just an exchange in the course of an interview that sometimes takes place. In reading that, it looks to me like the lawyers are saying, he talked mean to our client, and therefore this needs to be suppressed. And I'm sorry, but that's just not grounds for suppression. Now, that's pretty common. There are a lot of cops who will do things like that, and it may not be the best practice. Rick Allen's attorneys also argue that the detectives lied to him. But the U.S. Supreme Court has said that's allowed.

Starting point is 00:12:01 Police can use deception when questioning a suspect. Allen remains in custody ahead of his trial, which is scheduled to begin in May. That's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Delphi Murders: 3 Damning Statements Richard Allen Wants Tossed

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.