Delphi Murders: Full Panel on Richard Allen's Appeal

This episode of 'Hidden Killers Live' dives deep into the legal appeal of Richard Allen, convicted in the 2017 Delphi murders of Abby Williams and Libby German. Host Tony Bruschi is joined by retired FBI agent Robin Drake and defense attorney Bob Mata to dissect the Indiana Attorney General’s 94-page response to Allen’s appeal, which asserts the conviction was fair and the evidence solid. The panel highlights critical inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, particularly the fact that Allen confessed to shooting the girls—yet they were killed with a blade. The state’s failure to address this contradiction is seen as a glaring omission. The discussion also scrutinizes the state’s reliance on a single unspent round found near the crime scene, the questionable timeline of a van Allen claimed to have seen, and the lack of forensic evidence tying Allen to the crime. The hosts emphasize the psychological implausibility of Allen’s alleged actions, the absence of DNA, and the profound behavioral outliers in his relationship with his wife and family. They argue that the trial was compromised by judicial bias, inadequate defense, and confirmation bias, with the prosecution selectively using evidence while ignoring contradictory facts. The appellate process is now in motion, with a reply brief expected, but the panel expresses skepticism that key issues will be heard due to procedural waivers. They suggest the case may ultimately reach the Indiana Supreme Court or post-conviction review, where newly discovered evidence and claims of ineffective counsel could open the door to a new trial. Despite the emotional toll on the victims’ families, the hosts stress that justice demands truth, not conviction for the wrong person. Key takeaways include: (1) The prosecution’s reliance on a confession with incorrect details undermines its credibility; (2) The van timeline evidence contradicts the state’s narrative and should have been addressed; (3) The lack of DNA and forensic evidence on Allen or the crime scene is a major red flag; (4) Allen’s behavior—especially his deep emotional connection to his family—contradicts the profile of a serial killer; (5) The appellate court may dismiss key issues due to procedural waivers, but the case could still be overturned on post-conviction grounds; (6) The state’s selective use of evidence reflects confirmation bias; (7) A new trial is possible if the Indiana Supreme Court or post-conviction courts examine the merits; (8) The actual killer may be dead, but the system must still seek truth. The overall sentiment is cautiously hopeful but deeply critical of the original trial and prosecution’s conduct.