Why Was Richard Allen Charged In Delphi Murders?

How reliable is witness testimony, and can it be the sole determinant in a murder case?
In a recent episode of "Hidden Killers," Tony Brueski sat down with Defense Attorney Bob Motta, host of "Defense Diaries," to dissect the controversial Delphi murder case. The conversation revolved around Richard Allen, the man charged with the murders of two young girls, and the evidence—or lack thereof—that led to his arrest.
 
 Bob Motta began by setting the scene, "Richard Allen had put himself at the scene by giving a voluntary statement either the day before or the day of or the day after the girls went missing." Allen wasn't forcibly brought into the police station. Instead, he was one of many community members who approached law enforcement stationed outside a grocery market, offering information about their whereabouts on the day the girls disappeared.
 
 The community's response was overwhelming. "Basically, everybody in the community starts going to law enforcement saying, okay, I was there. This is the time I was there. I didn't see or I saw something or I did see something," Motta explained.
 
 However, the crux of the case against Allen seems to hinge on witness testimonies. Multiple individuals claimed they saw a man walking on the Mononoke bridge, an old train trestle, on the day of the murders. This man's appearance was eerily similar to the infamous "bridge guy" captured in a blurry image from one of the victim's Snapchat accounts. The voice in the background of the video, urging the girls "down the hill," has become a haunting reminder of the tragedy.
 
 Yet, discrepancies in witness testimonies have cast doubt on the case against Allen. Motta pointed out, "There's another witness that says they saw an individual walking away from the bridge and that he was muddy and bloody." However, in the affidavit for Allen's arrest, the description was altered to match the "bridge guy" image. Another witness, named Sarah, contradicted the affidavit's claims, stating the man she saw didn't resemble Allen.
 
 Motta emphasized the gravity of these inconsistencies, "So what they're alleging is that Tony Liggett just flat out lied about 2 of these statements." If proven true during the upcoming Frank's hearing, the implications could be monumental. The judge would have to determine if, without the potentially false testimonies, there remains enough probable cause to warrant the search of Allen's house. If not, all evidence from that search could be dismissed.
 
 The defense's argument doesn't stop at witness testimonies. They've presented a detailed account, spanning over a dozen pages, arguing the improbability of Allen single-handedly committing the murders. This revelation has stirred emotions, with many in the community expressing their displeasure.
 
 Motta also raised concerns about the judge's potential bias, given that the defense's arguments were initially filed unsealed. "So the question becomes, is Judge Gall going to be so irritated by the fact that it's filed unsealed that it's going to cloud her judgment a little bit?" he pondered.
 
 Comparing the Delphi case to other high-profile cases, Motta expressed skepticism about the strength of the evidence against Allen. "This one was much thinner. It was basically [that] they found this guy's report, Richard Allen's report, five years after he gave the statement."
 
 As the Delphi murder case continues to unfold, one can't help but wonder: Are we witnessing a pursuit of justice or a rush to judgment?
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: