Talking Points: How to Speak Up About the Case

Whether you're talking to a friend, journalist, or just posting online, it's important to stay factual, respectful, and clear. Below are key points you can use to start (or guide) conversations about the Richard Allen case, wrongful convictions, and broader justice reform.

General Approach Tips

Stay calm and compassionate, even when others are emotional.
Stick to facts - don’t overstate. The truth is compelling enough.
Focus on process and evidence, not conspiracy or speculation.
Remember the goal: raise awareness, not win arguments.

Core Messages (Start Here)

These are the essential points to get across in any conversation.

1. The case against Richard Allen was built on extremely weak evidence.
No DNA. No fingerprints. No forensic or trace evidence of any kind linked him to the crime scene, victims, or timeline.

2. Allen’s alleged “confessions” were made under extreme psychological duress.
He was held in solitary confinement, medicated with antipsychotics, and in a documented state of mental collapse - a perfect storm for a false confession.

3. The bullet evidence was not scientifically reliable.
The prosecution’s case hinged on an unspent bullet said to match Allen’s gun - but the method used is controversial, and even the state's own expert couldn't initially confirm the match.

4. The judge's conduct during trial was deeply concerning.
Judge Gull repeatedly favored the prosecution, blocked key defense arguments, and imposed the harshest possible sentence without acknowledging the flaws in the case.

5. Many respected legal minds - including leading appellate attorneys in Indiana - believe this may be a wrongful conviction.
Allen’s appeal preparation is underway, and more facts continue to come to light. Justice demands a fair, transparent review.

Talking Points By Topic

On the Evidence

There was no forensic evidence - none - tying Allen to the crime scene.
The bullet was not independently verified. That’s a basic forensic safeguard that wasn’t followed.
Voice "identification" on the recording was done by a police officer, not a forensic expert. That’s not scientific.

On the Confessions

Allen was severely mentally ill at the time, held in isolation, and said things like ‘I think I did it’ - not clear, rational confessions.
Nothing he said in this condition could be considered information only the real killer would know.
His statements weren’t spontaneous or voluntary - they were recorded after months of extreme psychological distress.

On the Trial

The judge blocked the defense from introducing plausible alternative suspects.
The judge didn't allow public funding for defense expert witnesses, but the state had millions of dollars to spend on their case.
The trial leaned heavily on emotion and speculation, not facts and evidence.
This was a conviction without the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard being met.

On Broader Concerns

False confessions are real - they’ve been behind at least 25% of DNA exonerations in the U.S (Innocence Project statistics).
This case fits the classic pattern: a high-profile crime, public pressure to solve it, and tunnel vision.
Justice for the victims means convicting the right person - not just someone.

Common Questions & Responses

Q: But didn’t he confess?
A: The statements weren’t clear confessions - they came from a man in psychological crisis, often confused, medicated, and isolated. Experts say this is exactly how false confessions happen.

Q: Why would a jury convict him if there wasn’t enough evidence?
A: Juries are human. When a case is emotional, and a judge allows unreliable evidence, people can be swayed - especially by so-called “confessions,” even if they're coerced.

Q: Isn’t the case closed now?
A: Not at all. Allen is appealing the verdict, and new information continues to come out. The legal process isn’t over - and public pressure still matters.

Q: What if he really did it? Shouldn’t we just move on?
A: If the evidence doesn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, no one should be convicted. That’s the standard for everyone. We don’t punish people on maybes - we find the truth.

Do's and Don'ts

Do:

Use verifiable facts from trial documents or public recordings.
Say “I don’t know” when appropriate - then refer them to this site.
Focus on fairness, transparency, and due process.

Don't:

Get sidetracked arguing internet theories.
Make personal attacks on victims’ families or jurors.