Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #159

[TL4S]

I think it's too late to close the barn door and we aren't going to now influence/impact the case for the prosecution or defense with anything said here. For years it's been passionately argued that various people are responsible for the murders. Some have given lists of "evidence" as to why each should be the suspect. And some are now maintaining that RA had assistance from RL, KK, and/or TK. Podcasters have claimed to have inside sources and that LE was building a case (only) against KK/TK, and arrest was coming soon after the river search. I don't think any of this will affect a trial, even if the defense uses the argument that they just couldn't pin it on the real suspects.

Maybe not, but it isn't just us websleuthers and podcasters saying it. NMcL denied answering a question about the Ks involvement based on them being "part of the investigation," as well as stating to the judge that they think there are other actors involved in the murders. The MS's source has given a lot of information that ended up being right, so I'm not going to ignore it completely when they say LE is still looking for a KAK connection, or other persons involved. I don't have to believe it, either, but ruling it out at this point seems premature when it appears LE has not. JMO. Defense will do what they will with all of it.

 

[mooseandcoffee]

the defense is probably in this forum

I doubt it. What do they gain by looking at our "insights?"

 

[sian morris]

Well, we do know that L's father called her at 3:11, got to the trail parking at 3:14, and after not getting a hold of her, entered the trails to look for them. Originally, I figured the killer to be gone before L's father's call at 3:11, but after the PCA, my impression is the killer was with them longer than that, so now I have been curious if L's phone ringing at 3:11 maybe prompted her to tell him that her dad was there looking for them. She could have hoped that would spook him off. IMO, if this did happen, he likely killed them soon after that call.

It makes sense to me because then the killer would have had reason to avoid the entire trail and park area, knowing a father was there looking for his daughter and her friend, and maybe going to the bridge, or off trail to do so. The killer could have exited out the cemetery, or any point from the woods east (as far as RL's) or west (as far as west of Hoosier Harvestore, but that would have taken him awfully close to the trails) and crossed to the north side of the street to avoid the parking lot across from Mears (where L's father was parked), and all the buildings between that lot and the CPS lot. We don't know if he was seen on the Harvestore cameras, but it certainly wasn't listed in the PCA.

I don't know if I'm making it very clear, but I feel like the killer wanted greatly to avoid the entire trail area, including the woods that run along the trails, because he knew L's father (or other people in general) could spot him. But in order to get back to his car, he had to do something. Would he just walk the road? IDK...I think the field behind Harvestore makes the most sense, but even that would have brought attention to him...some guy walking through the field. My best guess, though.

'and crossed to the north side of the street to avoid the parking lot across from Mears (where L's father was parked)'. How would RA know where L's father had parked?

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Maybe not, but it isn't just us websleuthers and podcasters saying it.

Maybe not, as in it's not too late to close the barn door?

The whole point was everything is being talked about everywhere and has been for years on WS, especially suspects leading away from RA. There is no reason to be concerned that the defense may or may not be reading what is posted on WS, which is what the previous post was about. We are not giving the defense any information or ideas that help them defend RA in court. They are accomplished attorneys and know they can't use hearsay as "evidence" any more than the prosecutor can.

 

[MistyWaters]

I didn't say that phones with IMEI cannot be tracked. I'm saying I think they can be tracked by using the IMEI number and that may be why his does not have one. He possibly removed it?

It was also being said that it determined whether you are using Verizon or AT&T. I believe that's only partially true because mine unlocked, it has IMEI but I can use either = GSM or CDMA

I don’t think we can draw a conclusion that he removed the IMEI in order to be untrackable. The phone did have MEID.

“On the other hand, an IMEI or MEID is only used for phones or other communication devices. Depending on the carrier, your device will have either an IMEI or MEID. These two numbers are different from a serial number. They are used at an international or global level, not just by manufacturers. Both types of numbers can help network providers track down a device that has been stolen or lost.”

How to find phones model number, serial number or IMEI number

FAQ for Samsung Mobile. Find more about How to find phones model number, serial number or IMEI number with Samsung Support.

www.samsung.com

 

[TL4S]

'and crossed to the north side of the street to avoid the parking lot across from Mears (where L's father was parked)'. How would RA know where L's father had parked?

I only meant avoiding that lot all together. Same with all the buildings. I can't imagine what he was thinking...

 

[Boxer]

IMOO of course his attys know he’s guilty. They appear to be intelligent men & experienced defense attys. Anyone who passed the LSAT can look at the plain uncomplicated facts here & add 2 plus 2 to get 4.

It’s often said that the overwhelming majority of people charged with crimes are guilty. Defense attys know this too & generally are much more focused on whether their clients’ rights are upheld than whether their clients committed the crime.

These attys seem like real pros…. at least the older guy who’s done most of the talking. They’re doing a great job of storming the castle with sob stories about poor ol’ good-buddy Rick the innocent man. Then the hearing ends, the cameras shut off, and poor ol’ Rick goes back to lockup for THREE MONTHS before he even gets a bail hearing (?!!?)

JMO!

Evident proof, presumption great

 

[asyousay]

I think it would be highly unlikely that somebody just happened to dress like RA that day and happened to be the other end of the bridge waiting to murder two girls.

He also coincidentally had the same build and sounded like RA. He also managed to borrow RA gun and take a bullet without him noticing to frame him.

 

[TL4S]

Maybe not, as in it's not too late to close the barn door?

The whole point was everything is being talked about everywhere and has been for years on WS, especially suspects leading away from RA. There is no reason to be concerned that the defense may or may not be reading what is posted on WS, which is what the previous post was about. We are not giving the defense any information or ideas that help them defend RA in court. They are accomplished attorneys and know they can't use hearsay as "evidence" any more than the prosecutor can.

Yes, I agree with you. We don't need to worry about that.

 

[pepper 34]

I’m a little confused by his route back to his car (assuming BG left through the cemetery). The muddy/bloody man was spotted on W 300 N, and from looking at online maps he absolutely would be - that stretch of land is almost ludicrously open.

And yet to reach his car, he also had to have passed the parking spot where the girls were dropped off, and then the camera at Hoosiers, and there is no evidence he was spotted or recorded at either location. Did he move into the tree line at/before those points?

This question has probably already been answered, but is there a reason he couldn’t have stayed in the trees all the way from the crime scene back to his car?

IMO he was trying to get back to his car in the fastest possible time. If he knew the girls had been dropped off at the park (and I think he did) then he had to logically know that someone was going to arrive to pick the girls up. That person or persons is/are going to search the park first... going to go right straight to the bridge first, imo. There is a walking path along the ridge of the woods below the cemetery but it takes a person straight to the bridge and a choice of taking the drop off path or the main path out of the park and someone looking for the girls isn't going to just walk by saying, "Hello" this time. He's going to be questioned: "Have you seen 2 girls?" He can't take the chance of being stopped and questioned! He can't cross the river and try to cross over that railway bridge because he, of all people knows that's a trap. If he starts crossing the bridge, someone might be coming across the bridge from the other direction. Even if he manages to cross there, he still needs to walk the 3/4 mile of trail to the trailhead and could run into people that way. He can head south at the end of the bridge but, looking at the overhead of the park, you'll see that he now has made his trip to his car almost impossible to do in any kind of timely manner... it's the worst choice of all if LE is called quickly. He can't afford to be seen inside that park all muddied up and bloody. He has no way of knowing if whoever might come to pick the girls up won't call 911 immediately. He walks along the road trying to disassociate himself from the park... he is a guy who might not be noticed or paid any attention to at all by any drivers... for those who might see him, they probably won't stop and question him... they might assume he fell off a dirt bike... or got into a fist fight... or got kicked off by a horse... or had an accident with some farming equipment and is walking to a farm along that road. He took his chances in other words. The woman who claimed to see him didn't stop... didn't question him... remember that most people who would see him have no idea 2 girls are missing and murdered. He probably had his head down and looked to the right or faked walking away from the road due to an oncoming vehicle... remember the young girl witness on the trail who said she "was trying to see his face" yet she couldn't. She was mere feet from him. He's wearing a hoodie and cars might drive by quickly. Yes, he just took his chances... had to get to his car before LE was called. He probably turned his head away from any cameras that probably wouldn't have been able to give a good visual ID anyway.
And, there is always the possibility he went that way because HIS ride was late but he hadn't given up on the idea that his ride would come along. If that was so, his ride would not find him if he was in the park. For all we know, someone picked him up before he had to walk too far anyway. I'm sure, if there is an accomplice, they would be able to communicate by phone when it was time to be picked up.
This is all just my speculation and opinion.
edit to clarify

 

[pepper 34]

Well, we do know that L's father called her at 3:11, got to the trail parking at 3:14, and after not getting a hold of her, entered the trails to look for them. Originally, I figured the killer to be gone before L's father's call at 3:11, but after the PCA, my impression is the killer was with them longer than that, so now I have been curious if L's phone ringing at 3:11 maybe prompted her to tell him that her dad was there looking for them. She could have hoped that would spook him off. IMO, if this did happen, he likely killed them soon after that call.

It makes sense to me because then the killer would have had reason to avoid the entire trail and park area, knowing a father was there looking for his daughter and her friend, and maybe going to the bridge, or off trail to do so. The killer could have exited out the cemetery, or any point from the woods east (as far as RL's) or west (as far as west of Hoosier Harvestore, but that would have taken him awfully close to the trails) and crossed to the north side of the street to avoid the parking lot across from Mears (where L's father was parked), and all the buildings between that lot and the CPS lot. We don't know if he was seen on the Harvestore cameras, but it certainly wasn't listed in the PCA.

I don't know if I'm making it very clear, but I feel like the killer wanted greatly to avoid the entire trail area, including the woods that run along the trails, because he knew L's father (or other people in general) could spot him. But in order to get back to his car, he had to do something. Would he just walk the road? IDK...I think the field behind Harvestore makes the most sense, but even that would have brought attention to him...some guy walking through the field. My best guess, though.

Your guess is right about BG leaving the girls later than you originally thought according to Gray Hughes's timeline and I'll post it here again in case you haven't seen it. L's father actually made contact with L @ 3:11 and couldn't contact @ 3:14? Are you sure? I thought he couldn't contact L's phone at all. Does anyone know for sure? It's hard to keep track of all the many details; at least for me it is. I liked your theory of why BG chose to walk along the road because it's very close to my own reasoning on that question. I posted my comment on that question before I read your comment
Here is the quick video again showing actions and times of appearance, etc of witnesses, BG and A and L.

 

[TL4S]

Your guess is right about BG leaving the girls later than you originally thought according to Gray Hughes's timeline and I'll post it here again in case you haven't seen it. L's father actually made contact with L @ 3:11 and couldn't contact @ 3:14? Are you sure? I thought he couldn't contact L's phone at all. Does anyone know for sure? It's hard to keep track of all the many details; at least for me it is. I liked your theory of why BG chose to walk along the road because it's very close to my own reasoning on that question. I posted my comment on that question before I read your comment
Here is the quick video again showing actions and times of appearance, etc of witnesses, BG and A and L.

Right, no answer at 3:11. I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear on that. I felt like my whole post was about as clear as mud. But I think the call went through at 3:11, so if L had her ringer on, it might have been heard. That really bothers me if he was still with them.

And thanks for the link. It's a very sad video, palpable and painfully long time with the girls.

 

[pepper 34]

Right, no answer at 3:11. I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear on that. I felt like my whole post was about as clear as mud. But I think the call went through at 3:11, so if L had her ringer on, it might have been heard. That really bothers me if he was still with them.

And thanks for the link. It's a very sad video, palpable and painfully long time with the girls.

No, your post was clear... I really couldn't remember if the call connected or not. Somehow I think the phone could not have been heard or, if it was, BG was unable to find it. Otherwise, I think he would have taken it with him when he left the park. That was my thought, too, about how long the girls were forced to be with him. If the phone call went through at 3:11 then I can only hope that those 2 girls were already gone. That sounds like a terrible thing to say but not when you really think about it.

 

[taylorss]

'and crossed to the north side of the street to avoid the parking lot across from Mears (where L's father was parked)'. How would RA know where L's father had parked?

In a town of 3k people (& one pharmacy) wouldn’t be surprised if RA knew the families well enough to spot him
Just speculating IMO

 

[Caylee Advocate]

OT.
Hahaha. I’m going to blow your mind, it’s duct tape.

Who knew... LOL


"The term “duck tape” today refers to a specific brand of duct tape. Duck Brand® duct tape takes its name from the original name of duct tape. This name came from two factors. First, the tape was originally made from an army green cotton duck fabric."

 

[RedArcher]

No, your post was clear... I really couldn't remember if the call connected or not. Somehow I think the phone could not have been heard or, if it was, BG was unable to find it. Otherwise, I think he would have taken it with him when he left the park. That was my thought, too, about how long the girls were forced to be with him. If the phone call went through at 3:11 then I can only hope that those 2 girls were already gone. That sounds like a terrible thing to say but not when you really think about it.

My thought has been that he would not have taken the phone due to the thought of being tracked by it ( tracking apps, cell tower pings, etc.) as well as if it was ringing during his get away, giving away his location. I do believe if he had known the evidence that was on the phone, he would have tried to get rid of it or destroy it somehow.

 

[somequestions]

If you were to take a Carhartt jacket similar to the one Richard Allen owned and put a gun in the same pocket and took a picture from the same distance as the one of the man on the bridge, would they look similar? The blue jacket the person on the bridge is wearing seems like it has thinner material so it is easier to see the outline of a gun from a distance. I do not know anything about Carhartt jackets.

I cannot explain away the fact that a bullet from Richard Allen's gun was found at the scene of the crime. But it is still hard to believe he is the killer.

I have a question that might not be relevant, but I wanted to know: Since the crime happened the day before Valentine's Day 2017, did Richard Allen buy his wife a Valentine's Day card?

 

[EOA]

So I am 60-40 that RA is guilty based on evidence we've seen so far. Obviously any other good evidence being withheld currently by LE could shift that upwards of 60. But several things are still nagging and I'd need to get those dots connected before saying "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". One of these is...how were the girls (1 or both) subdued?

Will preface by saying that I've never been involved personally in any kidnapping or anything remotely similar to this event, so I can't say for sure that I as a 13-year old at gunpoint by a creepy fellow on the spur of that moment I would've acted the same as I'm speculating now as a 57-year old sitting at my desk with ample time to think of options. But I go with the following opinions:

-- I would have complied at gunpoint alongside a friend to go down the hill, for fear of being shot and holding the perp as somewhat trustworthy that if we complied we'd end up ok.
-- I would have complied at gunpoint alongside a friend to wade across the creek, for fear of being shot and still holding the perp less but still mildly trustworthy same as above that if we complied we'd end up ok.
-- I may have complied at gunpoint alongside a friend, but slightly less than #1 & 2 above if perp threatened to shoot us unless we took a certain pill to perhaps 'calm the nerves' so long as he remained convincingly reassuring nothing bad would happen if we continued to comply.
-- I definitely would have started to waver if at gunpoint he told me to tie up my friend such that she couldn't move, but still if I had my freedom maybe might've complied.
-- However I think that's as far as I would've gone. I don't think I'd have willingly allowed him to tie me up because the gunpoint/being shot part doesn't seem overly threatening any longer once we're both vulnerably tied up.

Here I'd add (and again nobody can say now what they'd thought of at the time, or wished later they'd have said or done, but....I think as a tech-savvy teen I'd have appealed, at some juncture as the situation deteriorated, to the perp (and she L?) may well have tried it we don't know) that..."Remember when I was filming up there on the bridge, I got great close-ups of you on my phone, and audio of you speaking, and video of you coming up on us. I made it look like I was taking shots of A and the views from the bridge but I got you red-handed. If you do anything bad to us you'll be caught - it doesn't matter if you take my phone (appealing to the less-tech-savvy old person), those pics and videos are already auto-uploaded to my Instagram page and LE can get all that evidence from the Cloud". Back to above...

-- I am challenged to believe BG (without an accomplice could've subdued L one-handed with his weak-hand. (if he's right-handed assume his gun was in his right hand at the time) I think MOO that L could've out-run him, out-maneuvered him climbing a hill, and/or would've put up a fight such that BG would've only been successful needing to use both hands and his full-strength. Unless:

-- Other past posters have alluded to it but, per point 3 at top, could BG have drugged them with what he thought was a type of tranquilizer or anesthesia so that they would not be able to effectively fight off whatever his purposes were, and they begrudgingly at gunpoint consumed what he gave them? (thereby never getting to above points 4 & 5) But then to BG's surprise they convulsed or stopped breathing and he shockingly realized he'd mistakenly killed them. [and if the mind imagines farther, what if killed them via a drug that only someone who worked at a pharmacy might have access to]. Knowing if he leaves them as is, the autopsy results could point squarely toward someone with direct knowledge of drugs and since he was likely the only CVS employee seen at bridge that day.... Then in haste he decides to frame/pose the killings as a shooting and racks his slide accordingly (ejecting the unspent round) but then realizes the effect of forensic evidence, so goes to Plan C with another object, trying to divert the attention away from the autopsy to the wounds, markings, blood, etc. with an undiscoverable weapon or a gloved strangulation of 1/both. Admittedly this all JMO or a version that connects some dots. It does flow with the LE statement of "no visible signs of struggle at the CS" which of course the victims would have passed prior to any physical contact. The scene also flows with Ives' statement of a lot of evidence at the crime scene as well as DC's statement of "complex with tentacles" given an autopsy report of drugs yet beatings and which did they die from?? By the time the bodies were found there may have been DNA on the bullet but tested as saliva from an animal (deer?) or animal hair fibers or animal bite marks from a more predator-type animal overnight that further seemed to lend evidence but actually complicated the CS. Again, all just theory/MOO.

 

[TeaTime]

He admitted he had a phone, checking the stock market while walking the trail He admitted he went the the first platform because he knows he was seen there. The trail begins at the car park west of Hoosier Highway at the beginning of the pedestrian bridge.

 

[UnapologeticallyAspie]

If you were to take a Carhartt jacket similar to the one Richard Allen owned and put a gun in the same pocket and took a picture from the same distance as the one of the man on the bridge, would they look similar? The blue jacket the person on the bridge is wearing seems like it has thinner material so it is easier to see the outline of a gun from a distance. I do not know anything about Carhartt jackets.

I cannot explain away the fact that a bullet from Richard Allen's gun was found at the scene of the crime. But it is still hard to believe he is the killer.

I have a question that might not be relevant, but I wanted to know: Since the crime happened the day before Valentine's Day 2017, did Richard Allen buy his wife a Valentine's Day card?

You only have a question, and not some questions?