Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #161

[Gemmie]

Was he coming from the direction of a local gas station?

I posted about why he was seen traveling from east to west, when it was not a direct route for him, in the previous thread.

Found Deceased - IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #160

RA did have one hell of a poker face, I think he might have even gotten a kick out of it. I do think we'll find out that RA spend an enormous amount of time on the internet and was a loner in most aspects of his daily life. He is one of those like Ted Bundy, Scott Peterson, John Wayne Gacy...

www.websleuths.com

 

[Gemmie]

It's not hard for me to understand why the people close to RA didn't recognize him as BG. I just walked through my control room here at work and I think at least 9 out of these 32 men could pass for the photo of Bridge Guy.

Yes, but do those 9 out of these 32 men you work with sound like BG when they speak? If anything, I'd think those very close to him might have had an inkling (wife, daughter, employer, peers) but probably went "Nah... it couldn't be. He's so nice" or something to that effect. No one wants to believe someone they love, like, and/or respect, to do anything as horrendous as to what was done to 2 innocent young girls right in their own backyard of a small community.

 

[Gemmie]

If RA was some catfisher and not some angry SOB with small man Syndrome why on earth would he pick two girls on his doorstep?

Let’s not forget in a community with about 2500 where he had a job serving the community daily.


It literally makes zero sense!!

Sometimes these things just don't make sense to those of us that don't have these sorts of urges. It's my opinion that all reasonable thinking can be tossed out the window when some are clutched tight in the middle of an urge they can't ignore. After all, these sorts of things happen on 'your doorstep' all the time. WAY too often if you ask me.

 

[O.Incandenza]

Except he didn't try to cover his butt from a lengthy sentence when he drove to the transfer station that morning before things went down. He only asked his cousin to lie for him starting between 2:00 - 2:30 when the murders went down. You'd think he'd want to cover his butt each and every time he drove without a license, yet he only did that when things went down on that particular day.

1) He only asked for an alibi before the girls were even found, and during the timeframe when the murders first went down.

2) He drove to the transfer station that morning and didn't feel he needed an alibi for driving without a license before the murders happened.

Lastly, LE thought the creation of an alibi prior to them being found indicates knowledge of that crime.

So to me, his seeking an alibi wasn't about not getting busted for driving without a license, it was about covering his butt when a murder on his property went down. I do not believe he's the killer, but I do think he knew what was going on when it was actually happening. If not, why ask your cousin to lie about a trip to another city during the exact timeframe a murder (and whatever else) transpired? And NOT ask for one for a transfer station run before the murders even took place?

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/logan-warrrant.pdf

Because he doesn't expect the police to be questioning him about his whereabouts 'before things went down''? He asked for the alibi the morning after the girls disappeared. So by then, even if he was innocent, he would have had an idea of when they went missing. He probably didn't expect the police to question him about what he was doing that morning, just where he was when the girls went missing.

 

[O.Incandenza]

MOO don’t believe e they’re is much controversy about the uniqueness of tool
marks on a microscopic level.

MOO generating a controversy is what defense does so they can say “there is controversy.”

Describing the Innocence Project as just defense attorneys trying to generate a controversy is quite misleading IMO. They've done amazing work exposing how unreliable and unscientific some of the evidence that prosecutors have been relying on for years to convict people is (arson evidence, bite mark evidence, etc). Testimony from 'experts' in those fields has gotten a lot of innocent people thrown in prison and likely led to a few being executed.

If they object to this type of tool mark evidence it's worth at least listening to them.

In my unexpert opinion, it seems to me that tool mark evidence can be reliable if the tool marks are unique and reproducible, but could also be used in a misleading way if the marks aren't unique. I don't know that going down to a microscopic level will work in this case. There are presumably 5 years of microscopic changes in RA's gun since the murders, unless he hasn't used it all since 2017. Maybe there is some unique and unchanged mark that his gun produces that hasn't changed, but maybe there isn't.

That's all a separate question from RA's guilt of course. Even if the tool mark evidence just suggests instead of proves that the bullet came from his gun, that might be enough for a jury. Placing him on the bridge gets the prosecution close to home, IMO. But it is very important evidence like this be given it's correct scientific weight and not more, otherwise innocent people in other cases will get convicted because of it.

 

[candlemaker808]

SBMFF

One thing I keep wondering about is why would RMA be seen by a witness, walking bloody and muddy on the North side of W 300 N @ ~3:57, when his car is parked on the South side? He also wasn’t caught on the Harvestore cam which is on the North side. Did he cross back to the South side and walk in the shelter of the trees so as not to be seen by the cam? If so, why even be on the North side at all since it's definitely not a direct route out of the cemetary (has to cross the road twice vs. not having to cross it at all if he took the direct route).

Or did he skirt around Hoosier’s totally trying to avoid being caught on cam? It’s a tad large looking building to skirt around if that's what he did. I doubt he did that because if he was seen by someone, behind the store muddy and bloody, it would raise eyebrows.

So what's up with that? Anyone have any ideas/theories to toss out to mull over?

One time approved vid by MadMcGoo starting at the time referenced above:

This bothers me too. The PCA confirms this witness did indeed pass the Hoosier Harvestore that afternoon, and she describes seeing a muddy and bloodied man dressed like BG. But I assume (and it is an assumption) that she would have given this statement after it was known the girls had been murdered, and possibly even after the image of BG had been released. And the camera at the Harvestore does not pick this individual up. There is a fair bit for the defence to work with there.

That said, I believe the witness, and I believe RA is BG, so I really can’t work out what was going through his head at all in terms of his movements. JMO

 

[Gardenista]

I was really excited about the marks on the bullet, but now I'm not. I never followed the Diane Downs case, but I just read Anne Rule's book about it and then read some other articles. If you don't know about Diane, she was convicted of murdering one of her children and attempting to murder the other two. The info about the gun was in the last chapter. I'm not sure if it was in the original book or if it was in an updated edition.

Anyways, during the investigation, her ex-husband gave LE the serial number of a gun he could not find and LE decided that was the gun she must have used. The gun was never found.

So, LE searched her home and found an unfired bullet with marks on it. They compared it to the marks on the casings from the crime scene, said they matched and an expert testified that they matched at trial.

After the trial, her dad ran a classified ad looking for the gun and offered a reward. The guy who had the gun responded. He'd always had it, so it could not have been used in the murders.

This was a LONG time ago, and maybe the examination methods have improved in that time. If not, it seems like total junk science.

 

[minazoe]

I was really excited about the marks on the bullet, but now I'm not. I never followed the Diane Downs case, but I just read Anne Rule's book about it and then read some other articles. If you don't know about Diane, she was convicted of murdering one of her children and attempting to murder the other two. The info about the gun was in the last chapter. I'm not sure if it was in the original book or if it was in an updated edition.

Anyways, during the investigation, her ex-husband gave LE the serial number of a gun he could not find and LE decided that was the gun she must have used. The gun was never found.

So, LE searched her home and found an unfired bullet with marks on it. They compared it to the marks on the casings from the crime scene, said they matched and an expert testified that they matched at trial.

After the trial, her dad ran a classified ad looking for the gun and offered a reward. The guy who had the gun responded. He'd always had it, so it could not have been used in the murders.

This was a LONG time ago, and maybe the examination methods have improved in that time. If not, it seems like total junk science.

oh god Diane Downs and the crazy car ride and the shooting! I remember her..vicious..that was a great book by Anne R.
she really cracked Diane wide open.

 

[MAHBOOBOO]

Yes, but do those 9 out of these 32 men you work with sound like BG when they speak? If anything, I'd think those very close to him might have had an inkling (wife, daughter, employer, peers) but probably went "Nah... it couldn't be. He's so nice" or something to that effect. No one wants to believe someone they love, like, and/or respect, to do anything as horrendous as to what was done to 2 innocent young girls right in their own backyard of a small community.

I gave it some thought and I think three of the physical matches sound like pretty close voice matches to BG. One even looks like the first sketch and he's given me the heebie-jeebies from the first day I met him in 2016, he's always ogled me. I've talked to some of the other ladies here and apparently I'm not the only one creeped out by him.

But you are right, I heard the voice of a suspect on some crime show once and that voice sounded A LOT like one of my uncles, who is full of love but struggles with alcoholism. And for a split second I considered tipping it in, but the thought of doing that to him was too horrible to consider any further.

 

[Prime8]

Except he didn't try to cover his butt from a lengthy sentence when he drove to the transfer station that morning before things went down. He only asked his cousin to lie for him starting between 2:00 - 2:30 when the murders went down. You'd think he'd want to cover his butt each and every time he drove without a license, yet he only did that when things went down on that particular day.

*Clipped*

But at that point, he was probably only being asked about his movements during the time that the girls were last seen and when LG dad showed up. LE isn't going to be deconstructing RL's entire movements for the entire week when at that time, it was a case of two missing teens.

 

[FromGermany1]

I still struggle directionally so bear with me.

BG was on the bridge when the lady saw him and turned around. As she was leaving, she met the girls as they approached the bridge. What's the sightline on the bridge? Surely it's not quite the entire span.

To me, BG was ahead of them. He didn't need to hide or linger. He needed to hurry.

I think he was still on the platform when the girls reached the bridge. IMO he was waiting for them. IMO he proceeded to the far end of the bridge, ahead of them. And waited. And when they neared the end, he walked toward them as if he was crossing the bridge ultimately to exit the park, only as soon as he passed by the girls on the bridge he turned around, coming now up behind them.

And that's why he wasn't in the photo L took of A. He was ahead of them.

Additionally, I think it's possible he was on his phone when the lady saw him, even if she didn't see or report that detail. He did. A presplain (an explanation revealing foreknowledge and details only know by the perpetrator, an answer before the question).

Phone call or tracking (L).

JMO

IF the BG was ahead of A&L and reached the South end of bridge before them, why did A&L follow him onto the bridge? It was an unwritten rule to not cross the bridge before another visitor would have returned from the South end. Why should the girls have entered the bridge against this rule?

 

[Gemmie]

But you are right, I heard the voice of a suspect on some crime show once and that voice sounded A LOT like one of my uncles, who is full of love but struggles with alcoholism. And for a split second I considered tipping it in, but the thought of doing that to him was too horrible to consider any further.

SBMFF

Yep, that was exactly my point as you noted. People close to a potential murderer (or whatever the crime may be) might have a fleeting thought that it's some person they know, yet don't/won't tip it in. But they should consider this... if that person is innocent it's usually realized by LE and off they go (likely annoyed about being tipped in). But what if it was the other way around and the victim was your family member or close friend? Wouldn't you want the suspect's family and/or friends to tip if in so you can have closure for your loved one?

 

[Megnut]

IF the BG was ahead of A&L and reached the South end of bridge before them, why did A&L follow him onto the bridge? It was an unwritten rule to not cross the bridge before another visitor would have returned from the South end. Why should the girls have entered the bridge against this rule?

In my hypothesis, he may have been clear their sightline, reaching the far end. Where he remained out of sight until they neared the end.

This would have him crossing the bridge once, ahead of the girls, then passing them near the far end, then turning back toward them.

JMO

 

[Boxer]

Describing the Innocence Project as just defense attorneys trying to generate a controversy is quite misleading IMO. They've done amazing work exposing how unreliable and unscientific some of the evidence that prosecutors have been relying on for years to convict people is (arson evidence, bite mark evidence, etc). Testimony from 'experts' in those fields has gotten a lot of innocent people thrown in prison and likely led to a few being executed.

If they object to this type of tool mark evidence it's worth at least listening to them.

In my unexpert opinion, it seems to me that tool mark evidence can be reliable if the tool marks are unique and reproducible, but could also be used in a misleading way if the marks aren't unique. I don't know that going down to a microscopic level will work in this case. There are presumably 5 years of microscopic changes in RA's gun since the murders, unless he hasn't used it all since 2017. Maybe there is some unique and unchanged mark that his gun produces that hasn't changed, but maybe there isn't.

That's all a separate question from RA's guilt of course. Even if the tool mark evidence just suggests instead of proves that the bullet came from his gun, that might be enough for a jury. Placing him on the bridge gets the prosecution close to home, IMO. But it is very important evidence like this be given it's correct scientific weight and not more, otherwise innocent people in other cases will get convicted because of it.

Agree. The expert testimony about evidence needs to be accordance with Rule 702.
I don’t want a repeat of seeing an unprepared prosecution in the Morphew case unable to explain the perfectly valid phone location evidence they had is a wake up of how an aggressive, tangled narrative from he defense can derail presentation of relevant evidence.

The DA has work here to ensure the tool mark evidence is backed up with sufficient sample size.

MOO Of course bad faith expert testimony or flawed tests should be excluded from the case.

 

[Megnut]

SBMFF

One thing I keep wondering about is why would RMA be seen by a witness, walking bloody and muddy on the North side of W 300 N @ ~3:57, when his car is parked on the South side? He also wasn’t caught on the Harvestore cam which is on the North side. Did he cross back to the South side and walk in the shelter of the trees so as not to be seen by the cam? If so, why even be on the North side at all since it's definitely not a direct route out of the cemetary (has to cross the road twice vs. not having to cross it at all if he took the direct route).

Or did he skirt around Hoosier’s totally trying to avoid being caught on cam? It’s a tad large looking building to skirt around if that's what he did. I doubt he did that because if he was seen by someone, behind the store muddy and bloody, it would raise eyebrows.

So what's up with that? Anyone have any ideas/theories to toss out to mull over?

One time approved vid by MadMcGoo starting at the time referenced above:

Hmmm... having watched this video, I think it's confirmed for me that BG did not follow the girls onto the bridge but was, in fact, ahead of them. Otherwise he'd have been in the photo L took of A. So unless he verily ran the length of the bridge to catch up to them before they reached the end, I'm convinced he was well ahead of them, setting his trap.

Contradicting my own self now, if BG lacks the fear mechanism by which most people recoil from dangerous situations, he might be among the rare few who lack all manner of inhibition. Without fear of risk, maybe he did sprint across the bridge. Still, he would've had to leave the platform on the front, leave the trail and hide long enough for the girls to pass by, before following them onto the bridge, unaware he was nearly photographed (and eventually videographed).

Did the girls first encounter RA before the bridge?

Did they first encounter him on the bridge? Where on the bridge? Front or back end?

Did the girls know about the one-group-on-the-bridge-at-a-time etiquette?

Did L film him because of an initial encounter? Did he glare at them? Avoid greeting them? Give off a ceep vibe?

Did L film him because he violated the rule, stepping onto the bridge while they were on it (coming toward them from the far end)?

Did L film him because she was worried? Curious? Afraid?

Did L film him because of how he navigated the bridge? Too fast? Too exaggerated?

Crazy that RA places himself on the bridge for much of the crime window!

If he were a witness and not the suspect no one would have been in a better position to see what happened below the bridge than him.

But alas, no one was on the bridge when L and A were marched down the hill.

JMO

 

[Gemmie]

In my hypothesis, he may have been clear their sightline, reaching the far end. Where he remained out of sight until they neared the end.

This would have him crossing the bridge once, ahead of the girls, then passing them near the far end, then turning back toward them.

JMO

I'm not sure I'm following you so you might be saying exactly what the guy in the vid outlined in the one-off Vid timeline made from RMA's affidavit that MadMcGoo approved a while back. Posting it here in case others haven't seen it.

Some of this is the host's interpretation as he pieces together the timeline as we know it. It's a great vid to watch as he goes through the timeline because it helps you see who was where when. The part I transcribed below starts around 5:30

5:30 – Witness #4 saw RMA on 1st platform @ ~1:55pm. She turned around and headed back toward her car, encountering A&L on path ~2pm.

6:06 – RMA started walking back, possibly following Witness #4. #4 is now past A&L headed back to car.

6:20 – A&L run into RMA a couple of min later on trail @ 2:02. (My note: They'd have had to pass him)

6:38 – LG takes pic of bridge @ 2:05

6:55 – RMA (seeing no one around & that #4 is gone) turns back toward Monon.

7:05 – L takes pic of A @ platform 3 looking back (I think toward the way RMA was now coming from). (Guy is guessing that RMA is out of the picture and approaching the bridge)

7:20 – A&L reach end of bridge @ ~2:13 (right side, or east).

7:25 – RMA is catching up with them and filmed at 2:13 (start of 43 sec vid). G, DTH.

Full Timeline of Richard Allen's Affidavit

 

[Boxer]

Hmmm... having watched this video, I think it's confirmed for me that BG did not follow the girls onto the bridge but was, in fact, ahead of them. Otherwise he'd have been in the photo L took of A. So unless he verily ran the length of the bridge to catch up to them before they reached the end, I'm convinced he was well ahead of them, setting his trap.

Contradicting my own self now, if BG lacks the fear mechanism by which most people recoil from dangerous situations, he might be among the rare few who lack all manner of inhibition. Without fear of risk, maybe he did sprint across the bridge. Still, he would've had to leave the platform on the front, leave the trail and hide long enough for the girls to pass by, before following them onto the bridge, unaware he was nearly photographed (and eventually videographed).

Did the girls first encounter RA before the bridge?

Did they first encounter him on the bridge? Where on the bridge? Front or back end?

Did the girls know about the one-group-on-the-bridge-at-a-time etiquette?

Did L film him because of an initial encounter? Did he glare at them? Avoid greeting them? Give off a ceep vibe?

Did L film him because he violated the rule, stepping onto the bridge while they were on it (coming toward them from the far end)?

Did L film him because she was worried? Curious? Afraid?

Did L film him because of how he navigated the bridge? Too fast? Too exaggerated?

Crazy that RA places himself on the bridge for much of the crime window!

If he were a witness and not the suspect no one would have been in a better position to see what happened below the bridge than him.

But alas, no one was on the bridge when L and A were marched down the hill.

JMO

Right
2:07 empty bridge picture.
2:13 video capture rushing toward Abby 50 ft from end.

Total walk across bridge estimated at 5 minutes.

Literally a photo either of one minute before the monster began walking the bridge from the north end, or he passed them and turns around on the south end.

MOO feel he was walking back to Mears lot passed the girls and decided they were walking into an empty place, engaged his predatory impulses, and it spiraled from thee.

 

[FromGermany1]

In my hypothesis, he may have been clear their sightline, reaching the far end. Where he remained out of sight until they neared the end.

This would have him crossing the bridge once, ahead of the girls, then passing them near the far end, then turning back toward them.

JMO

Did he have time to cross the bridge without the girls A&L seeing him?

 

[Megnut]

Anybody know, from the platform where the lady saw BG/RA, what's the view?

 

[Gemmie]

Anybody know, from the platform where the lady saw BG/RA, what's the view?

Fish.