Questions posed by Mia McHaffey 10
Mia convicted a man on innuendo dumb shit even tho LE found zero physical or digitial evidence connecting him to the crime or the victims.
Including this since Mia thinks everyone is just doing TikTok research.
The projection in response to people simply trying to meet Mia where she's at with a relatable situation that also was not black and white is wild.
Mmk well your "answer" tells me more about your inability to decipher differences in people trying to meet you where you are (possible voluntary inability) to fit your narrative. Mia still hasn't provided a single substantive answer to any of them.
Literally no one has ever asserted that Rick's interrogations were mental torture, or any form of torture. Anyone know where Mia is getting this shit ??
Is that the only not unlikely explanation Mia can think of? Is there a reason she doesn't think it's worth considering other explanations for a rooted hair to end up wrapped around a victim's finger considering the victim ended up horrifically murdered within an hour of that car ride ??
Does Mia not understand the Motion to Correct Error is part of the Record. Exhibits (including video) can be found here, girlie.
Christine owned it and apologized getting it Rong immediately, which is more than anyone can say for Mia.
This is an insane thing for Mia say considering she LOL'd at people calling 13+ months in solitary confinement torture.
Still trying to figure out why Adam's comment didn't populate the cloned thread. Will add it when I find it.
Questions directed to Mia McHaffey 52
Substantive answers and assertions made by Mia McHaffey
Mia McHaffey@Michelle Filoni Maleta: "Yes ma'am." (confirming she was on the jury)
Mia McHaffey(First post, replying to Ashley Banfield's story): "As a juror on this trial, I did not take into account any of the confessions or any of the ballistics. I don't think the disclosure of those things made a difference ultimately in the decision."
"Richard Allen told us he was there that day and what time. He mentioned seeing a group of girls. That group of girls also saw Richard Allen. He was there, they saw each other, that is fact. Then, he said he was on the bridge looking at the fish, but didn't see the girls. There is no way that if he was on the bridge at the time he was there he didn't see the girls. He also said he was wearing a blue jacket, jeans, boots or tennis shoes, and had a hat. In one of his confessions, he mentioned a white van driving down and frightening him during the crime. After investigation, a white van was actually there near the scene at the time of the crime. No one would know that but the killer. No other man with similar clothing or anything was seen by anyone else there that day. The bullet found in his keepsake box had the same exact bullet brand and type. Even though all of those facts wouldn't stand on their own, the presence of all of them makes it unreasonable to believe Richard Allen isn't guilty of the crime."In case Mia fell on her head, here is a comprehensive overview of the facts of this case, according to the Record established by the State.
"That interrogation wasn't close to mental torture lol."Literally no one has ever suggested that it was Srsly where is Mia getting this shit ??
"If you can show me proof that Richard Allen or anyone else was aware of the van before he made that specific confession to Dr. Wala, I'll acknowledge that. I can prove everything I am saying with true, factual information from the record."Only the killer would know view
"My take is that the sketches and Odinist theory specifically wouldn't have changed the outcome. I think they were rightfully not included in trial. BUT, I welcome another trial if it's deemed most constitutional."
"I haven't heard about the drug angle."
"It was not my job to police their investigation, rather make a decision based off of the facts provided to me. I don't think we were led to believe he was the only one. Just that he was the only one there that all of the puzzle pieces fit."You were provided innuendo dumb shit that the state couldn't even substantiate. Wouldn't call them facts but that's just me.
"I don't think someone's interpretation of how someone looked in a split second in a seemingly unimportant situation at the time is enough 'evidence' to cause reasonable doubt. Anything surrounding a sketch is too subjective to hold much weight for me."Described suspect vs. Richard Allen view
"Assuming he was convicted for his jeans is crazy... The guilt comes from him clearly lying about seeing the girls, and he was wearing the same clothing as BG, as reported by him."Neither Dulin's 2017 report nor Allen's Oct. 13 or Oct. 26 interrogation transcripts document him describing his clothing as matching BG's, or establish that investigators concluded he lied about seeing the girls.
"I wasn't aware that his phone date confirmed that he wasn't at the scene. If you could point me to where this information is, I'd be more than happy to look at it."The geofence data was among the evidence excluded from trial. According to the record, Allen's cell phone placed him off the trails before the girls were dropped off. Holeman's word salad deposition is part of the public record.
"His phone probably was left at home. He said he was there so I don't get how this matters or proves anything other than that his phone was not with him."No evidence in the record supports the claim that Allen left his phone at home that day. That inference was not established at trial.
"I have not seen it. But the thing is, anything can be said in a motion, but until there is something on the record, or a video or evidence that I can see, none of that proves anything for me. When it's something this serious, and so many people spew untruths, anything that will change my stance has to be substantive."The state's own discovery evidence includes the neighbor's account of the video timestamp being exactly 12 hours off — which was not surfaced at trial. Dismissing that account would require explaining why the neighbors' disclosure was less credible than other claims accepted without documentation.
"These claims just aren't factually true." (no elaboration provided)That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence girlie.
"I didn't have my phone, watch TV, or see my family for 3.5 weeks."Gull finds Rick Allen is being treated extra special, ackshully.
Jul. 19, 2023 Order view
"#2"
"The presence isn't guilt. The guilt comes from him clearly lying about seeing the girls, and he was wearing the same clothing as BG, as reported by him. I'll acknowledge that it's a common thing for men to wear, but there is zero information pointing to the fact that there was anyone else wearing those clothes other than him. Only the killer would know about the van. Or at the very least, someone that was at the crime scene. It's him being there along with all of the other 'coincidences'. As much as presence doesn't confirm guilt, a various amount of circumstances pointing to his guilt doesn't confirm reasonable doubt. Inferences can be made without meaning there is doubt."None of the specific factual claims in this statement (i.e., Allen lying about seeing the girls, his clothing matching BG's, the van) were established in the record at trial. See the linked evidence and transcripts above.
"In fact, he said he didn't see the girls. Which would have been chronologically impossible if we believe the other claims that he made."The timeline and interrogation transcripts are publicly available. Several facts bearing on this chronology were excluded from trial.
"They had every phone they've ever owned since the 90s, but not that one." (agreeing with commenter's point about Allen's phone inventory)Allen turned over his phone voluntarily in 2017 and was cleared at that time. The phone data is what led investigators to clear him initially. Trading in a phone years after cooperating with an investigation is unremarkable on its own.
2017 phone info sent to ISP, lead *Cleared* view
"His phone was never found."
"Looks like different color jackets to me." (@Jessica Brehon, on whether BG's jacket in the video matched the black Carhartt Allen said he wore in his first interrogation)See comparison above. Per Allen's own statements, he did not own the Carhartt or blue coat until years after the murders. He said he would have been wearing his black jacket or a sweatshirt. Transcript linked above.
Rawn lookin exactly like Bridge Guy view
"I really appreciate the people with opposing views and opinions who were respectful and sympathetic. Whether you believe that Richard Allen is guilty or not, it can also be possible that both sides of this are made up of people who are just trying to do what they think is right...I know I will truly never be the same. Please take these things into consideration before making posts and comments. And most importantly, RIP Abby and Libby."The verdict is a matter of record. The evidentiary record, including what was excluded and what was presented, is also part of the public record, and scrutiny of both is legitimate.
Tough on Crime Stacy view
Conflicting statements and reasoning 9
The van detail is drawn directly from the confession Dr. Wala purports to have documented from Rick. Mia uses it as her single most compelling "only the killer would know" piece of evidence while simultaneously saying confessions played no role in her decision.
She explicitly invokes the bullet match in her evidentiary summary, the same category she told the thread she disregarded.
She treats the the timeline and identification as settled when neither have ever been confirmed.
Both framings are deployed in the same thread within hours. The framing shifts depending on which argument she is countering. In reality, Rick gave his phone to Dulin on Feb. 18, 2017 to look at it inside and out, his phone info was sent to ISP, and Rick was cleared the next day.
She simultaneously excludes confessions from her deliberative framework, uses confession content as definitive proof, and challenges others to disprove that confession content, all within the same exchange.
A skepticism filter is applied to third-party sketch descriptions but not to RA's self-reported recollection. Both are subject memory under imperfect conditions. Rick never described himself as wearing the same clothes as the man in Libby's video.
She repeatedly asserts the ability to rebut specific claims with evidence but declines to produce citations when challenged on individual points.
The drug angle, third-party suspect theories tied to drug trafficking networks connected to the victims' route, was raised during the case and circulated publicly before the trial. If she was close enough to the full evidentiary record to claim the ability to prove every statement she made, professed ignorance of this alternative theory is difficult to reconcile with that level of command.
In the thread she dismisses torture concerns with a "lol." In her podcast interview, she describes the same interrogation as excessive and acknowledges it was temporarily persuasive enough to shift jury votes. The public-facing dismissal and the private reflective account describe the same interrogation footage in fundamentally different terms.
Mia McHaffey was Juror #02 at trial. She is the anonymous juror interviewed by The Delphi Murders: First Person podcast (Murder Sheet); she was referred to as Juror #08 there, which was her voir dire number. The Juror #05 interview below is a separate juror on the same panel.
Written Q&A via email, published by journalist Tim (The Unsolved channel). Juror served Oct 14–Nov 12, 2024.
Allen's confessions preceded Haldol and other psychiatric medications. "Many of his confessions were before those drugs were ever introduced to him at all." The juror viewed the pre-medication timeline as significant and undermining the defense's coercion argument.
From juror notes: Allen's 04-04-2023 confession to suicide companion Monica Walla: "Am I dead? Can I die now? I need to talk to God. Richard Allen doesn't know why he did it. He lost everything." Asks for something he can kill himself with. Says he killed Abby and Libby. Says "poor little girls." States "I'm sorry." Then on 04-05-2023: "Killed Abby and Libby. I'm sorry. Richard Allen says he made sure they were dead. Didn't want them to suffer."
05-03-2023 confession: "Drank beer that day, laid in wait, saw the girls, followed them onto the bridge, said he was doing something with his gun and thinks that's when the bullet fell out." The juror found this the most compelling individual confession alongside the van reference.
Allen stated "the girls died in order for him to find God." He admitted being an alcoholic and "exhibited a bizarre smile." After Haldol was introduced on 5/2/23, he didn't want it, became paranoid, confessed again, and said "I will kill everyone. When I die I will kill everyone."
Allen was "caught lying" about the bridge. He first said he didn't go out on the bridge; when confronted ("You said you walked out onto the first platform"), he responded "Of course I was. I told you that. I told you I was on the bridge." The juror flagged this self-contradiction as deceptive.
Allen initially said he would have been wearing a black Carhartt-like jacket and hoodie. When shown the photo of Bridge Guy, he said he "could have been wearing a blue jacket." The juror noted the shift and also flagged that his 2017 cell phone was never found despite him having "a whole bag full of other old cell phones" at his house.
"When I watched the first interview video and heard Richard Allen speak, the hairs stood up on my arms." In subsequent emails the juror confirmed she believed Allen's voice matched the Bridge Guy audio immediately, with no doubt in her mind.
Allen's behavior during trial: "He fidgeted a lot. Rolled his eyes often. Laughed at times. I noticed his attorney AB coddled him, placed his arm around Richard Allen often."
"In my opinion the defense focused fully on Richard Allen's mental state. How he was treated in prison." The juror did not view this as a credible innocence argument. Defense witness Dr. Dwenger "oversees mental health of prisoners. She never met Richard Allen! Discussed Richard Allen's mental illness." Juror asked Dr. Dwenger whether Allen could be feigning symptoms to avoid general population (due to inmate threats). Dwenger answered: "Yes, it is possible he was feigning his mental health. Richard Allen was examined for delirium and he did not have it."
"Richard Allen described himself as the bridge guy. Witnesses saw Bridge Guy but not Richard Allen because Richard Allen had his identity hidden behind his overdressed coat, hat, and tucking himself. Not one witness saw two persons dressed exactly the same." On supporters claiming no DNA means innocence: "All I have to say is they should have been in the courtroom, because everything they've heard and seen is not the whole picture. There is more that they haven't heard and haven't seen."
Contradicting Mia McHaffey's account (below), this juror stated she believed Sarah Carbaugh's testimony. She shared notes on the subject and indicated she found Carbaugh credible.
"I am sorry for Richard Allen's daughter. I can't imagine the adverse effects. Richard Allen's wife. You tried to keep him quiet on the phone. You knew." The juror believed Kathy Allen had knowledge of her husband's involvement.
Correcting a public misconception: "They said Richard Allen's daughter wasn't there. But she was, she was a witness for the defense." The juror pushed back on claims circulating online that the daughter was absent from the courtroom.
She dismisses the mental health defense as a distraction while simultaneously treating a question about feigned mental illness as a meaningful data point in her reasoning.
Treating a clothing-match inference as a verbal self-identification overstates the directness of the evidence and removes a layer of analytical work the juror claims she was rigorous about.
A juror who emphasizes basing decisions only on evidence presented at trial cannot cleanly attribute a post-trial belief about Kathy Allen to the verdict itself.
Audio interview with hosts Aine and Kevin (Murder Sheet). Mia was identified anonymously as "Juror #08" (her voir dire number). She was one of the initial undecided voters and ultimately voted guilty.
First vote (day two of deliberations): 9 guilty, 3 undecided. After rewatching interview and bridge videos on Saturday: 8 guilty, 4 undecided. Final Monday vote: unanimous guilty. The three-day shift was driven by weekend reflection and Monday open discussion between undecided and decided jurors.
"What we got to first" was establishing that Richard Allen was Bridge Guy. The jury built a physical timeline using sticky notes on the large map exhibit, placing phone activity, sightings, and clothing descriptions in order. Once the clothing self-identification was confirmed, the juror said "you really can't" dispute that Richard Allen is Bridge Guy. From there, she found it "pretty easy to add all of those things together."
The van mention was the standout from the confession evidence. "Looking back, I think, like, who would confess that many times that doesn't actually do that? I can't think of how that would ever happen." The juror gave minimal weight to other confession details, but the van reference stood out as specific and unprompted.
This juror gave no weight to the bullet evidence in reaching her verdict. "I kind of threw out...the whole science of the bullet. It wasn't Oberg as a person at all. I think she was so professional...She believes in her clients." The skepticism arose from the defense's cross-examination and the testimony of defense expert Warren, who evaluated only photographs rather than the physical evidence. "I just can't say that I believe for sure that the evidence is exact."
On the Holeman interview: found it "overdone" and felt Allen's response was consistent with someone who genuinely didn't know how a bullet could have ended up at the scene. "If I was being asked those questions and I didn't know how that got there, how am I going to explain how it did if I don't know?" She viewed Allen as "just too calm" and appearing like he "really didn't know anything to have done" it. The interrogation video caused the vote to dip from 9–3 to 8-4 after Saturday viewing.
This juror said the group decided "as a whole" to "throw out" Sarah Carbaugh's testimony. "Not that she's an unlike[able], she's a hard to believe person. But I think the defense did a good job trying to discount her." The juror applied the standard: "If we didn't believe that, would that change the outcome?" For Carbaugh, the answer was no, so the testimony was set aside.
"Going into it, it wasn't as bad as I expected." The juror had anticipated much more severe footage. Allen appeared "black and blue" in one segment where he had hit his head. In cell videos, a "Little Max" (assistant Max Baker) mixed up which segments showed Allen clothed vs. unclothed, causing some jurors to see content out of order.
One juror raised the question: "If it wasn't Richard Allen, then who could it have possibly been?" This juror pushed back on that framing. "That seems like a wrong question to ask because that's not what this is about. We're not seeing if it could be anyone else. Is there enough evidence showing that it's him specifically?" She tried to keep deliberations focused on the standard of proof, not alternative suspects.
A jury question about how many cars matched Allen's vehicle model existed, and the prosecution had to look it up on the spot. The juror was critical: "I can't believe you wouldn't have thought to do that already." She also noted recurring technology failures with the courtroom monitor as a source of frustration, citing the waste of sequestration time.
Brad Rosie came across as "intimidating" and his questioning felt like "smoke and mirrors." Defense preparation generally appeared "scrambled, confused, not knowing what they're going to do next." Andrew Baldwin was viewed more favorably. Jennifer Ojeda was a standout positive: "She has a little bit of attitude. And I feel like that, from what I would picture like a defense attorney to be, I just, I liked it."
Disregarding evidence and concluding it is scientifically unreliable are two different things. Her reasoning process shows she did consider the bullet; she simply concluded the science was too uncertain to rely on. That is a substantive finding, not a non-consideration.
She claims the timeline drove her verdict but cannot cleanly separate that from the van confession, which she acknowledges carried independent weight. The two framings of her decision-making sit in tension.
She presents her process as methodical skepticism but simultaneously describes a level of emotional distress that raises questions about whether the devil's advocate framing reflects how she actually experienced deliberations, or how she prefers to describe them in retrospect.
Her stated interpretation of the Holeman video would logically support an undecided or not guilty position. She offers no account of what overrode that reading.
These two jurors give directly opposing accounts of how the group treated Carbaugh's testimony, suggesting either different recollections of consensus or that the jury was not fully unified on this point.