Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #162

[Boxer]

So no presumption of innocence then? Until actually proven guilty? Sending someone like RA to prison for life or the DP based on what we know from the PCA demonstrates one of the flaws in jury trial where the accused is guilty before he gets to court.

Not saying he's innocent, but at this stage pre-trial I prefer to maintain presumption of innocence and let the evidence at trial do the convicting. Sorry if that sounds naïve.

He has the presumption of innocence in court.
An arrest warrant means that the DA feels there is the evidence of guilt.
A defendant has a right to the presumption of innocence in court meaning that the prosecutor must prove by evidence the defendants guilt. The defendant need prove nothing.
However if the prosecutor has evidence that lead to the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (recently learned this is called: BARD) the defense attempts to discredit the evidence.

 

[Falling Down]

One of our members inquired about where I live in the previous thread. Yes I live in Fort Wayne, I've served on two juries back in New York. I seem to be a magnet for jury duty, after moving here I got a summons for federal jury duty in South Bend, and a summons for Allen Cty. As much as I feel justice has to be served justly in this case, I don't want to get a summons for this one.

My hunch is the jury pool will be huge, if the case goes to trial.

 

[Megnut]

The problem with trying to figure it out is that we don't have key pieces of information. We know BG, presumably RA, was seen on the first platform (N end) before the witness turned around, went "halfway" back to the lot, and saw the girls. Although we don't have an exact time she saw him, based on other events we do know, it seems like maybe 1:50-1:55ish, imo. I put the girls to the bridge around 2pm. Jmo.

Did BG cross to the south end of the bridge and stay out of sight during the 2:05 photo, then do the U-turn? Or did he disappear into the woods while the girls walked by on the north side of the bridge? Did they pass him on the trail or bridge? We just don't know.

Personally, I suspect they were filming, taking photos, etc. during the time they were on the trail and getting onto the bridge, so BG, watching, stayed hidden. After the A photo at 2:07, L put her phone away, so he stepped onto the bridge. Maybe L didn't make it obvious she was using her camera at 2:13. Speculation.

This gave me a visual --

After the lady saw him, if he exited the bridge (as if to follow her), he could have met the girls on the path, passing them. Maybe he said something or said nothing or stared or didn't stare.... and on he went, away from them. And the girls carried on. Continued onto the bridge, took the snapchat photo. Meanwhile, he would've been able to see that no one was coming toward the bridge, turned back, confident that he alone would come up behind them. Which IMO is just exactly what he did. Perhaps L began videoing because she wanted to show others, see if anybody knew who he was, creep factor high. I suspect something registered on her face, or Abby sensed his presence, as he came up behind her.

IMO all the elements of kidnapping follow. No different than if he directed them to get In a trunk, had they then been found murdered in one.

I remain so sad for the loss of precious young lives who should be embarking now on adulthood.

JMO

 

[Trebor5591]

No im in the U.K. But really you wouldn’t talk to the police if they were looking for a child murderer? Surely they could ask every man to voluntarily come in for questioning? Maybe I’m naive then.

I would say, yes, IMO you are. Naïve, that is. Not meaning it personally, just agreeing with you.

 

[MistyWaters]

Almost the same moment this photo was released speculation began that the fragment on the left was Abby’s sleeve or sweater. Who knows, maybe it was? LE would’ve had no reason to release a pic of suspect following closely behind one of the victims, they just were seeking to ID him. I notice the entire left side of the pic is often sliced off when published in various media reports more recently.

source -

Their granddaughter and her friend were killed 4 years ago. This is how they want you to help catch the killer | CNN

In early 2017, the rural community of Delphi, Indiana, was exactly as you might envision a small town -- a main street, a few local restaurants, and the close-knit homes of 14-year-old Liberty German and her good friend, 13-year-old Abigail Williams.

www.cnn.com

 

[TL4S]

Almost the same moment this photo was released speculation began that the fragment on the left was Abby’s sleeve or sweater. Who knows, maybe it was? LE would’ve had no reason to release a pic of suspect following closely behind one of the victims. I notice the entire left side of the pic is often sliced off when published in various media reports more recently.

source -

Their granddaughter and her friend were killed 4 years ago. This is how they want you to help catch the killer | CNN

In early 2017, the rural community of Delphi, Indiana, was exactly as you might envision a small town -- a main street, a few local restaurants, and the close-knit homes of 14-year-old Liberty German and her good friend, 13-year-old Abigail Williams.

www.cnn.com

I get the same impression from the PCA:

The video recovered from Victim 2's phone shows Victim 1 walking southeast on the Monon High Bridge while a male subject wearing a dark jacket walks behind her.

 

[MistyWaters]

I get the same impression from the PCA:

The video recovered from Victim 2's phone shows Victim 1 walking southeast on the Monon High Bridge while a male subject wearing a dark jacket walks behind her.

Wow, thank you for quoting that! I knew I read something somewhere which jogged my mind about the pic and here you‘ve found it.

 

[Cryptic]

Thanks for posting this response @Cryptic.

I had asked about gun registry upthread, as I was thinking about the unspent bullet. Since they had the bullet back in 2017, I wondered if that meant they also already knew the make of the gun, and if any attempt was made to locate people in the area who owned that model of gun.

If it was forensically possible to track the bullet to a particular model of gun, the "not a registry registry" would include all purchasers who had bought that model of weapon from gun stores, pawn shops, sporting goods stores, and from what I have seen, a very significant majority of gun show vendors. Vendors offering "private sales" at gun shows have become rare.

The "not a registry registry" would not have purchases from non FFL holding individuals, or "got it from grandpa" type situations.

Technically, the "not a registry registry" only records purchases from FFL holders. I cant remember if FFL holders need to record weapons that they purchase into the "not a registry registry".

The un-offical registry would not have re-sales of guns in private transactions. Thus, a person could either truthfully or falsely claim that: "Yes I purchased that model of weapon- but I later sold it to an unknown person in a private transaction".

Given the strong likliehood of other signifcant evidence, I dont know if a jury would be impressed by such a claim. But such an occurance is possible.

 

[AC4RD]

What I’m not seeing in recent posts about how it might have all come about us any mention of KAK. I know he has a separate thread, but it’s interesting to see him fade from the conversation. I think think it would be so bizarre if he turns out not to be involved. What do you think, Ken (or is it Kent, sorry)?

For a very long time I thought KAK was unquestionably involved, because it seemed far too great a chance that a pudgy predator was trying to entrap a young woman, who was later stalked and harmed by a separate predator we didn't know about. It just seemed like too big a deal to be a coincidence. To me. Then.

And I would still not disagree with anybody who feels that KAK is involved--I suspect there's a *LOT* of information we don't have that will come out at trial, and it's entirely possible that there's a connection that nobody but cops and prosecutors know about.

My own guess has changed over time; I think it's very likely RA is BG, as most of us appear to think. But so far I haven't seen anything, no actual evidence, that suggests to me that KAK is connected to the Bridge Guy Murders. He might be; there might even be an international child-stealing consortium, and KAK and RA are both members who were working together under the direction of some supervillains in a gloomy old castle in Thuringia or Moravia.

If we hear that KAK and RA were friends, that KAK spent an hour every week at the drugstore talking to RA back in the "cold and allergy products" aisle, or that they often went bowling together--then I'll reconsider that KAK might be involved in the BG Murders. I certainly don't think it's impossible--but at this point with no evidence to the contrary, it seems to me to be even unlikelier, as a possibility, than the idea that poor LG was in contact with not one but TWO monsters.

I've changed my mind on a number of points about the L&A murders over time. About the only point on which I am absolutely 100% certain is that I don't know enough to be certain of anything about L&A's murders. Right now I tend to think KAK isn't connected, but I won't be surprised if I'm wrong about that, once we know more. We'll see, right? --ken

 

[EOA]

I will start by saying that I (IMO) lean towards RA being guilty based on what evidence has been released so far and speculating, as others are, there is some degree of more/better evidence being withheld at this juncture.

Having said that - in catching up with the last threads and pages, it seems to me, again MOO, that in our eagerness to arrest somebody in this case, multiple other posters have credited RA with statements that he has not actually stated. Likewise, certain other information has been posted, supposedly per the PCA but which is not actually in the PCA. I can't seem to quote or reply to anything back from an earlier thread so apologize for that. Realizing opinions may differ I will suggest the following:

1. Incorrect post = [RA places himself at the crime scene & within minutes of the crime in statements to LE]...however....
Correct post per the PCA =

in 2017 per tip to CO, RA states he was "on the trail" (which per alltrails.com is 1.6 miles long and connecting to other trails) between 1:30 and 3:30 on 2/13/17. In that statement he mentions the encounter with the juveniles near the Freedom Bridge west of High Bridge and also that at some point in that 2-hour timeframe he walked from Freedom to High Bridge. In that informal interview he does not say he was on the bridge. He does mention other information about other parked cars near High Bridge and what he was preoccupied with, which to my knowledge has not been verified or disproven but could be important to his case.

in 2022 per formal interview with LE, RA again states he was "on the trail" on 2/13/17 (no specific time is stated this interview). He reiterates the Freedom Bridge encounter and this time states he walked onto the bridge as far as the first platform. [Witness 4 states he was about 50 feet onto the 1200 foot bridge when she allegedly saw him]. RA concludes by saying he walked back, sat on a bench, and left. The lack of specific times here is quizzical as we don't know whether he's implying he was on the first platform around 3:00 before heading out, or that he was on the platform at 1:55 then took well over an hour to walk, sit, & leave by the 3:30 stated in the CO tip?

Now there would be 2 crime scenes here - the abduction scene and the murder scene (as well as theoretically all ground between the two). RA does not actually admit to being within 3+ football fields of the abduction scene. He never states what time he believed he was on platform 1. He specifically states he has never been on the property where the girls were found. Thus as much as we may like to think RA has incriminated himself, I feel it is a stretch if not totally incorrect to pose the lead-in premise at top.

2. Incorrect post = [the timeline is verified and condemning toward RA being BG].... however.....
per the PCA =

The timeline is very challenging to reconcile based on the times listed per the PCA of various photos, business cameras, etc. If you watch very closely the Gray Hughes animated video as I have watched over and over again, you get an appreciation for the difficulty making all of the components work together. It certainly requires all of the parties moving at strange paces plus changing paces. RA covers the ground from where Mears lot joins the trail to the High Bridge in 1.5 minutes wearing jeans and boots to have been on the platform by when Witness 4 says. She (we don't know how dressed) covered the same ground in 5.5 minutes and the girls in activewear and sneakers took 9.5 minutes. Witness 4 could only have been 1 minute behind BG at the Mears lot yet apparently didn't see him until she got to the bridge. Witness 4 must've also only been 60-80 seconds ahead of A&L based on KG's dropoff per PCA and when Witness 4 parked per PCA. With a 60-80 second head start #4 covered 3x as much territory as the girls given #4 had already went all the way to MHB and halfway back while the girls where only halfway en route to MHB. From the Freedom Bridge encounter projected at 1:41 based on several PCA factors, RA went from Freedom Bridge to Platform #1 in around 6 minutes, the same distance it took the Juveniles 57 minutes to cover. Yet after a 1:41 encounter the Juveniles had to take off in a sprint to be seen crossing over Old 25 Hwy four minutes later when Witness 4 drove underneath. Combined with the fact that A&L's photos taken in both directions at 2:01 or 2:03 then again at 2:07 show no evidence of BG, it's overall a difficult timeline to put together.

3. Incorrect post = [we have video of the (RA's) abduction].... however....
per the PCA =

No such thing is mentioned (unless this poster is privy to the unreleased parts of L's recording). PCA states the video taken from L's phone shows an encounter with a male walking behind A. As the male approaches, one of the girls mentions "gun". IMO this is that A or L sees a concealed gun on the male and is trying to inform the other girl... because if the gun were already pointed at the girls there would've been no need to say "gun" (except for the improbable purpose of getting it stated on the phone recording). Interestingly the PCA does state that video AND audio in fact exists of the "down the hill" command although obviously we've only heard the audio of that command as just a snippet of the walking approach and still photo released to date are the only video publicly available of BG. Also interesting word analysis (perhaps overanalysis?!) on the first two full paragraphs on page 2 of 8 is that they basically say much of the same thing yet with some different wording. The earlier paragraph describes the encounter with a male (not an approaching male) then says THE male ordered the girls "down the hill" which implies two things - that the male doing the ordering is the same one they encountered, and by using the word ordering it is different than them asking for instructions or suggesting that they'd meet a_shots at the bottom of the hill. If there is in fact video of that command which we've not seen, it should be evident whether this was coercion at gunpoint or not. The later paragraph repeats the recorded encounter, introduces the word "gun" but then says A male tells (not orders) the girls "guys down the hill" which might leave the door open for a second male coming onto the bridge from the south end and some realted uncertainty whether the video of approaching male is the same person as the male heard on audio. The later paragraph says the video (though not necessarily the audio) ends as A&L begin to proceed down the hill (curiously does not state that any male accompanied them in proceeding down the hill). The earlier paragraph states there is no outgoing (again though not necessarily incoming) communications found on L's phone after 2:13. It seems reasonable to think the two paragraphs might've been written by two different people?

In any event, we as in Websleuths typical posters do not have this video as described. Secondly to the original point, while we may like to connect the dots that RA is in fact BG, the audio/video we have has been available for years and no one with certainty yet has been able to identify RA as BG. Certainly it is more believable that BG committed these crimes than it is that RA did. It would be nice if a witness could've picked RA from a lineup or that more incriminating DNA, fingerprints, etc have been gathered. Without saying, RA has not confessed to being BG even though yes clothing, timing, and so forth are described similarly.

4. We are quick to believe each and everything that the one person Witness #4 says (without knowing anything about her) that fits in with condemning RA, yet quick to discredit the parts that are questionable.

I will certainly say that PCA Page 1 paragraph 3 states that all witness hearsay statements are "considered reliable and credible and can be corroborated with the totality of circumstances" but then PCA goes on to how I would say not necessarily paint Witness #4 in such a favorable light. There is no date of when investigators talked to this witness, whether it was 2017, 2022 or in-between. Of course we don't know who she is or what her background is but what we can glean from the PCA would be:
-- her interview states she "observed a male 50 feet away on the bridge matching the one from L's video". This would imply of course that she didn't have this interview until sometime after L's video was released, which was at miniumum, days after the bodies were discovered. It also could likely imply she didn't come forward right away placing herself near the scene when the girls were missing or first discovered deceased even though she was almost as near to the crime scene as was RA (though she wouldn't be confused for BG).
-- despite saying the man she observed matched L's video, she goes on to describe clothing that is not wholly consistent with what BG was wearing per L's video - she vaguely describes only blue jeans and a blue jean jacket, no description of light jeans or dark jacket, no description of the jacket's material, and no mention of the unique head or waist accessories, and no mention of unique height. She certainly doesn't identify the man seen as RA, which one earlier poster from Thread #161 had stated.
-- she describes seeing 4 juvenile witnesses crossing the bridge over Old Hwy 25 as she drove underneath, even though both RA's account and the juveniles' accounts confirm there were only 3.
-- the times and places she states haven't been and can't be confirmed by anyone (other than partially with Store cameras) but it's these times and places that are forcing an awkwardness in the timelines mentioned above - almost such that it would connect some dots better if she were actually incorrect or off a bit on some of these details.
-- Now I have no idea how close by she lives or the frequency of her trail visits, but I find it perplexing that she drove to the trails yet had so little time of exercise before driving back out. I do quite a bit of exercising in a small town - if I'm doing a shorter workout I normally start and end at home as much like Delphi it's safe with sidewalks and streets that aren't busy. On some occasions I'll drive to a park or somewhere out in a more rural area, but if I do that it's for a longer (60 minutes+?) time of exercise. We know with Witness #4 she was photo'd still driving in towards the parking area at 1:46 and again photo'd driving out after leaving the parking area at 2:14. Considering the time from the parking area to the Store camera each way, that only leaves approx 25 minutes out of the car, not even counting the possibility of changing into walking shoes, checking your phone, or doing a bit of stretching before starting. As stated above, if we totally believe her timeline, she'd have coincidentally been one minute behind BG heading towards the MHB (yet didn't see him down the long straightaway) and no more than 60-80 seconds ahead of A&L heading towards MHB (yet didn't hear KG's car pull up for dropoff). She's inserted herself in the middle of 3 parties within 3 minutes of each other when strangely later there doesn't appear to be a single person on the whole trail for a half hour or so. In any event, given that she'd have needed to get from Mears lot to MHB in 5.5 minutes in order to observe BG on MHB, it would've taken her the same to return - she could've been back to her car, done with her workout, in like 11 minutes unless she kept walking past her car or did a second "out and back" (not likely as she may have spotted BG again). Twice in the PCA she mentions "her walk" which should imply she was not running or moving at a pace too inconsistent with others nearby.

5. Incorrect Post = [BG must be RA because RA places himself in the area and no other males were witnessed in the area] Similarly, [BG/RA would had to have seen/passed the girls based on Witness 4's recollection] .... however ....

This would be true, or at least more believable, if the south end of the bridge were truly a dead-end - namely that the only way one could get to the MHB south end was via from the one exact same trailhead and one must enter the bridge from the north end. However as we know the girls/BG exited the scene from the south end, it's IMO very likely going to be hammered at by the defense that, despite being private property with an embankment to climb, any number of others could've entered onto the bridge's south end from the 'wrong way' "up the hill". A persuasive argument here could nullify much of Witness #4's observations, leaving no other witnesses available. That a perpetrator would enter from the wrong end would be even more likely if such an abduction/murder scene were pre-planned for that site, as the perpetrator would want to visit the site beforehand to make sure all was ready or as expected and there were no unplanned hikers/visitors/neighbors/animals/flooding/excess mud/trees down to obstruct, etc there, and walk the route beforehand they would anticipate using later. Also if by chance they knew the girls were coming to that spot at that time. And of course entering from the wrong end would steer clear of potential witnesses along the normally more populated trail route. I do understand wanting to sequence it out such that BG/RA must be lying in that he didn't see the girls, but IMO I think it's a certain degree of leap to get a jury to believe something must've happened a certain way if there's viable options that it could've happened a different way.

All MOO - comments welcomed, whether agree or disagree!

 

[TL4S]

The timeline is very challenging to reconcile based on the times listed per the PCA of various photos, business cameras, etc. It certainly requires all of the parties moving at strange paces plus changing paces

RSBM. I thoroughly agree with these snipped statements, especially the bolded line. I've been wrestling with this very thing trying to work out the timeline specifically between 1:46 and 2:13pm. I've accepted that the movement times we likely know the best are the girls pulling into Mear's lot at 1:49 and taking the first bridge picture at or before 2:05.

The witness went past Hoosier Harvestore at 1:46, which puts her to Mear's lot only a couple minutes before the girls. If the walk between the lot and the bridge generally takes 5 - 6 min, it puts her seeing the girls somewhere around 1:55. With the girls maybe taking a minute or two with KG before getting out, that timing seems appropriate to still get them part way across the bridge by or before 2:05. Imo.

Here's where assumptions kick in, because the witness isn't seen leaving for another 15 min or so. Did she walk more trail towards Freedom Bridge, sit on a bench, sit in her car for a bit? We don't know, but it's potentially important if she remained on the trail without seeing the man on the bridge ever come back. Jmo.

Following the estimated times I wrote above, it makes sense the woman saw the man on the bridge around 1:52ish. Imo, it is an awfully tight timeline for the girls and the man on the bridge to not have seen each other. This is where I'm hoping there is more digital evidence from L's phone, prior to the 2:13 video. And if RA was the man the witness saw on the platform, which jives with his account of fish watching, perhaps his phone will offer some kind of digital evidence too. He claims to have not seen the girls.

The question is, where was the man on the bridge between being seen on the bridge platform around 1:52, and 1:58 - 2, when the girls likely got the the bridge? Where was he between when the girls took the bridge photos a few minutes later (where no man is visible) and 2:13? Can prosecution prove RA's whereabouts during those times? Can they prove it was RA the witness saw on the bridge? Will the defense have a reasonable explanation for his whereabouts? If he was the man on the bridge platform, can defense explain why he did not see the girls? Then what's the likelihood someone dressed like him entered the scene without RA or witness 4 ever seeing him?

 

[Bergmann]

Timing -
He is on bridge platform 1.
Witness turns around seeing him walk west toward Mears lot.
Girls dropped off 1:49.
Witness passes girls at 1:55.

Walk from Mears lot to bridge 5-6 minutes.
Bridge becomes visible from path 3 minutes from Mears lot.

Even waking slowly they are at the bend in the trail by 1:55, which open up to total visibility up the trail and down the bridge.

MOO he was seen at the bridge platform at 1:53- Nit reasonable he did not see the girls , nor that some other actor stepped in.

And you'd be prepared to convict and sentence him based on that? Beyond all reasonable doubt?

 

[Bergmann]

He had his presumption of innocence for 5 years.

The justice system doesn't work that way. It is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and in front of a jury of his peers.

 

[Bergmann]

And furthermore, the girls filmed him

The girls filmed BG. It has yet to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that RA is BG.

I admit is doesn't look good from what we know, but as yet we do not know the unknowns in this case.

Again I'm not pleading his innocence or trying to make a case for him, but surprised by the certainty with which some people are convinced/adamant that he is guilty before trial. We must always be open to the idea that he might be innocent right up until the point it is proven otherwise (IMO).

 

[mrjitty]

The girls filmed BG. It has yet to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that RA is BG.

I admit is doesn't look good from what we know, but as yet we do not know the unknowns in this case.

Again I'm not pleading his innocence or trying to make a case for him, but surprised by the certainty with which some people are convinced/adamant that he is guilty before trial. We must always be open to the idea that he might be innocent right up until the point it is proven otherwise (IMO).

I am not sure I really agree with this. Presumption of innocence speaks to the burden of proof at trial - i.e it is intrinsic to trial procedure. The state (i.e, the prosecutor) is saying "this man is guilty". They will continue to say that even if a not guilty verdict is rendered (e.g for technical reasons, or some doubt). The state does not issue a statement post trial saying "maybe we were wrong".

As a citizen I routinely make judgements and risk assessments over criminal or potential criminal conduct - especially as many crimes or potential crimes are not charged

An example that has frequently arisen in my experience is local corruption where no one is every charged, but the facts are reasonably apparent. It doesn't make sense for me to presume the involved are innocent. In fact, I assume they aren't!

 

[mrjitty]

RSBM. I thoroughly agree with these snipped statements, especially the bolded line. I've been wrestling with this very thing trying to work out the timeline specifically between 1:46 and 2:13pm. I've accepted that the movement times we likely know the best are the girls pulling into Mear's lot at 1:49 and taking the first bridge picture at or before 2:05.

The witness went past Hoosier Harvestore at 1:46, which puts her to Mear's lot only a couple minutes before the girls. If the walk between the lot and the bridge generally takes 5 - 6 min, it puts her seeing the girls somewhere around 1:55. With the girls maybe taking a minute or two with KG before getting out, that timing seems appropriate to still get them part way across the bridge by or before 2:05. Imo.

Here's where assumptions kick in, because the witness isn't seen leaving for another 15 min or so. Did she walk more trail towards Freedom Bridge, sit on a bench, sit in her car for a bit? We don't know, but it's potentially important if she remained on the trail without seeing the man on the bridge ever come back. Jmo.

Following the estimated times I wrote above, it makes sense the woman saw the man on the bridge around 1:52ish. Imo, it is an awfully tight timeline for the girls and the man on the bridge to not have seen each other. This is where I'm hoping there is more digital evidence from L's phone, prior to the 2:13 video. And if RA was the man the witness saw on the platform, which jives with his account of fish watching, perhaps his phone will offer some kind of digital evidence too. He claims to have not seen the girls.

The question is, where was the man on the bridge between being seen on the bridge platform around 1:52, and 1:58 - 2, when the girls likely got the the bridge? Where was he between when the girls took the bridge photos a few minutes later (where no man is visible) and 2:13? Can prosecution prove RA's whereabouts during those times? Can they prove it was RA the witness saw on the bridge? Will the defense have a reasonable explanation for his whereabouts? If he was the man on the bridge platform, can defense explain why he did not see the girls? Then what's the likelihood someone dressed like him entered the scene without RA or witness 4 ever seeing him?

Thanks for this analysis.

i think it will be clear at trial, that there is no way for RA to get off the bridge without seeing the victims or the female witness, unless he took a route off trail. This is where his interviews are likely fatal to the defence.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I will start by saying that I (IMO) lean towards RA being guilty based on what evidence has been released so far and speculating, as others are, there is some degree of more/better evidence being withheld at this juncture.

Having said that - in catching up with the last threads and pages, it seems to me, again MOO, that in our eagerness to arrest somebody in this case, multiple other posters have credited RA with statements that he has not actually stated. Likewise, certain other information has been posted, supposedly per the PCA but which is not actually in the PCA. I can't seem to quote or reply to anything back from an earlier thread so apologize for that. Realizing opinions may differ I will suggest the following:

1. Incorrect post = [RA places himself at the crime scene & within minutes of the crime in statements to LE]...however....
Correct post per the PCA =

in 2017 per tip to CO, RA states he was "on the trail" (which per alltrails.com is 1.6 miles long and connecting to other trails) between 1:30 and 3:30 on 2/13/17. In that statement he mentions the encounter with the juveniles near the Freedom Bridge west of High Bridge and also that at some point in that 2-hour timeframe he walked from Freedom to High Bridge. In that informal interview he does not say he was on the bridge. He does mention other information about other parked cars near High Bridge and what he was preoccupied with, which to my knowledge has not been verified or disproven but could be important to his case.

in 2022 per formal interview with LE, RA again states he was "on the trail" on 2/13/17 (no specific time is stated this interview). He reiterates the Freedom Bridge encounter and this time states he walked onto the bridge as far as the first platform. [Witness 4 states he was about 50 feet onto the 1200 foot bridge when she allegedly saw him]. RA concludes by saying he walked back, sat on a bench, and left. The lack of specific times here is quizzical as we don't know whether he's implying he was on the first platform around 3:00 before heading out, or that he was on the platform at 1:55 then took well over an hour to walk, sit, & leave by the 3:30 stated in the CO tip?

Now there would be 2 crime scenes here - the abduction scene and the murder scene (as well as theoretically all ground between the two). RA does not actually admit to being within 3+ football fields of the abduction scene. He never states what time he believed he was on platform 1. He specifically states he has never been on the property where the girls were found. Thus as much as we may like to think RA has incriminated himself, I feel it is a stretch if not totally incorrect to pose the lead-in premise at top.

2. Incorrect post = [the timeline is verified and condemning toward RA being BG].... however.....
per the PCA =

The timeline is very challenging to reconcile based on the times listed per the PCA of various photos, business cameras, etc. If you watch very closely the Gray Hughes animated video as I have watched over and over again, you get an appreciation for the difficulty making all of the components work together. It certainly requires all of the parties moving at strange paces plus changing paces. RA covers the ground from where Mears lot joins the trail to the High Bridge in 1.5 minutes wearing jeans and boots to have been on the platform by when Witness 4 says. She (we don't know how dressed) covered the same ground in 5.5 minutes and the girls in activewear and sneakers took 9.5 minutes. Witness 4 could only have been 1 minute behind BG at the Mears lot yet apparently didn't see him until she got to the bridge. Witness 4 must've also only been 60-80 seconds ahead of A&L based on KG's dropoff per PCA and when Witness 4 parked per PCA. With a 60-80 second head start #4 covered 3x as much territory as the girls given #4 had already went all the way to MHB and halfway back while the girls where only halfway en route to MHB. From the Freedom Bridge encounter projected at 1:41 based on several PCA factors, RA went from Freedom Bridge to Platform #1 in around 6 minutes, the same distance it took the Juveniles 57 minutes to cover. Yet after a 1:41 encounter the Juveniles had to take off in a sprint to be seen crossing over Old 25 Hwy four minutes later when Witness 4 drove underneath. Combined with the fact that A&L's photos taken in both directions at 2:01 or 2:03 then again at 2:07 show no evidence of BG, it's overall a difficult timeline to put together.

3. Incorrect post = [we have video of the (RA's) abduction].... however....
per the PCA =

No such thing is mentioned (unless this poster is privy to the unreleased parts of L's recording). PCA states the video taken from L's phone shows an encounter with a male walking behind A. As the male approaches, one of the girls mentions "gun". IMO this is that A or L sees a concealed gun on the male and is trying to inform the other girl... because if the gun were already pointed at the girls there would've been no need to say "gun" (except for the improbable purpose of getting it stated on the phone recording). Interestingly the PCA does state that video AND audio in fact exists of the "down the hill" command although obviously we've only heard the audio of that command as just a snippet of the walking approach and still photo released to date are the only video publicly available of BG. Also interesting word analysis (perhaps overanalysis?!) on the first two full paragraphs on page 2 of 8 is that they basically say much of the same thing yet with some different wording. The earlier paragraph describes the encounter with a male (not an approaching male) then says THE male ordered the girls "down the hill" which implies two things - that the male doing the ordering is the same one they encountered, and by using the word ordering it is different than them asking for instructions or suggesting that they'd meet a_shots at the bottom of the hill. If there is in fact video of that command which we've not seen, it should be evident whether this was coercion at gunpoint or not. The later paragraph repeats the recorded encounter, introduces the word "gun" but then says A male tells (not orders) the girls "guys down the hill" which might leave the door open for a second male coming onto the bridge from the south end and some realted uncertainty whether the video of approaching male is the same person as the male heard on audio. The later paragraph says the video (though not necessarily the audio) ends as A&L begin to proceed down the hill (curiously does not state that any male accompanied them in proceeding down the hill). The earlier paragraph states there is no outgoing (again though not necessarily incoming) communications found on L's phone after 2:13. It seems reasonable to think the two paragraphs might've been written by two different people?

In any event, we as in Websleuths typical posters do not have this video as described. Secondly to the original point, while we may like to connect the dots that RA is in fact BG, the audio/video we have has been available for years and no one with certainty yet has been able to identify RA as BG. Certainly it is more believable that BG committed these crimes than it is that RA did. It would be nice if a witness could've picked RA from a lineup or that more incriminating DNA, fingerprints, etc have been gathered. Without saying, RA has not confessed to being BG even though yes clothing, timing, and so forth are described similarly.

4. We are quick to believe each and everything that the one person Witness #4 says (without knowing anything about her) that fits in with condemning RA, yet quick to discredit the parts that are questionable.

I will certainly say that PCA Page 1 paragraph 3 states that all witness hearsay statements are "considered reliable and credible and can be corroborated with the totality of circumstances" but then PCA goes on to how I would say not necessarily paint Witness #4 in such a favorable light. There is no date of when investigators talked to this witness, whether it was 2017, 2022 or in-between. Of course we don't know who she is or what her background is but what we can glean from the PCA would be:
-- her interview states she "observed a male 50 feet away on the bridge matching the one from L's video". This would imply of course that she didn't have this interview until sometime after L's video was released, which was at miniumum, days after the bodies were discovered. It also could likely imply she didn't come forward right away placing herself near the scene when the girls were missing or first discovered deceased even though she was almost as near to the crime scene as was RA (though she wouldn't be confused for BG).
-- despite saying the man she observed matched L's video, she goes on to describe clothing that is not wholly consistent with what BG was wearing per L's video - she vaguely describes only blue jeans and a blue jean jacket, no description of light jeans or dark jacket, no description of the jacket's material, and no mention of the unique head or waist accessories, and no mention of unique height. She certainly doesn't identify the man seen as RA, which one earlier poster from Thread #161 had stated.
-- she describes seeing 4 juvenile witnesses crossing the bridge over Old Hwy 25 as she drove underneath, even though both RA's account and the juveniles' accounts confirm there were only 3.
-- the times and places she states haven't been and can't be confirmed by anyone (other than partially with Store cameras) but it's these times and places that are forcing an awkwardness in the timelines mentioned above - almost such that it would connect some dots better if she were actually incorrect or off a bit on some of these details.
-- Now I have no idea how close by she lives or the frequency of her trail visits, but I find it perplexing that she drove to the trails yet had so little time of exercise before driving back out. I do quite a bit of exercising in a small town - if I'm doing a shorter workout I normally start and end at home as much like Delphi it's safe with sidewalks and streets that aren't busy. On some occasions I'll drive to a park or somewhere out in a more rural area, but if I do that it's for a longer (60 minutes+?) time of exercise. We know with Witness #4 she was photo'd still driving in towards the parking area at 1:46 and again photo'd driving out after leaving the parking area at 2:14. Considering the time from the parking area to the Store camera each way, that only leaves approx 25 minutes out of the car, not even counting the possibility of changing into walking shoes, checking your phone, or doing a bit of stretching before starting. As stated above, if we totally believe her timeline, she'd have coincidentally been one minute behind BG heading towards the MHB (yet didn't see him down the long straightaway) and no more than 60-80 seconds ahead of A&L heading towards MHB (yet didn't hear KG's car pull up for dropoff). She's inserted herself in the middle of 3 parties within 3 minutes of each other when strangely later there doesn't appear to be a single person on the whole trail for a half hour or so. In any event, given that she'd have needed to get from Mears lot to MHB in 5.5 minutes in order to observe BG on MHB, it would've taken her the same to return - she could've been back to her car, done with her workout, in like 11 minutes unless she kept walking past her car or did a second "out and back" (not likely as she may have spotted BG again). Twice in the PCA she mentions "her walk" which should imply she was not running or moving at a pace too inconsistent with others nearby.

5. Incorrect Post = [BG must be RA because RA places himself in the area and no other males were witnessed in the area] Similarly, [BG/RA would had to have seen/passed the girls based on Witness 4's recollection] .... however ....

This would be true, or at least more believable, if the south end of the bridge were truly a dead-end - namely that the only way one could get to the MHB south end was via from the one exact same trailhead and one must enter the bridge from the north end. However as we know the girls/BG exited the scene from the south end, it's IMO very likely going to be hammered at by the defense that, despite being private property with an embankment to climb, any number of others could've entered onto the bridge's south end from the 'wrong way' "up the hill". A persuasive argument here could nullify much of Witness #4's observations, leaving no other witnesses available. That a perpetrator would enter from the wrong end would be even more likely if such an abduction/murder scene were pre-planned for that site, as the perpetrator would want to visit the site beforehand to make sure all was ready or as expected and there were no unplanned hikers/visitors/neighbors/animals/flooding/excess mud/trees down to obstruct, etc there, and walk the route beforehand they would anticipate using later. Also if by chance they knew the girls were coming to that spot at that time. And of course entering from the wrong end would steer clear of potential witnesses along the normally more populated trail route. I do understand wanting to sequence it out such that BG/RA must be lying in that he didn't see the girls, but IMO I think it's a certain degree of leap to get a jury to believe something must've happened a certain way if there's viable options that it could've happened a different way.

All MOO - comments welcomed, whether agree or disagree!

Well done, very well-thought-out post. I offer one counterpoint to the part I have bolded.

We here, and the general public who followed the case, may have been eager to have an arrest. But it took 5.5 years for LE to make that arrest.

I take comfort and have faith in the arrest of RA, in part because there was not a rush by LE. Many POI’s came and went. Despite what we have heard in a few media reports, I don’t believe they were shuffling papers and simply happened back upon RA.

They have more evidence that will be brought to light at trial.

jmo

 

[Boxer]

And you'd be prepared to convict and sentence him based on that? Beyond all reasonable doubt?

Do you dismiss his presence at the onset of the crime? MOO his lie is form of confession.

I am not ready to convict, what he has to say to the evidence needs to be heard in court.

 

[Boxer]

RSBM. I thoroughly agree with these snipped statements, especially the bolded line. I've been wrestling with this very thing trying to work out the timeline specifically between 1:46 and 2:13pm. I've accepted that the movement times we likely know the best are the girls pulling into Mear's lot at 1:49 and taking the first bridge picture at or before 2:05.

The witness went past Hoosier Harvestore at 1:46, which puts her to Mear's lot only a couple minutes before the girls. If the walk between the lot and the bridge generally takes 5 - 6 min, it puts her seeing the girls somewhere around 1:55. With the girls maybe taking a minute or two with KG before getting out, that timing seems appropriate to still get them part way across the bridge by or before 2:05. Imo.

Here's where assumptions kick in, because the witness isn't seen leaving for another 15 min or so. Did she walk more trail towards Freedom Bridge, sit on a bench, sit in her car for a bit? We don't know, but it's potentially important if she remained on the trail without seeing the man on the bridge ever come back. Jmo.

Following the estimated times I wrote above, it makes sense the woman saw the man on the bridge around 1:52ish. Imo, it is an awfully tight timeline for the girls and the man on the bridge to not have seen each other. This is where I'm hoping there is more digital evidence from L's phone, prior to the 2:13 video. And if RA was the man the witness saw on the platform, which jives with his account of fish watching, perhaps his phone will offer some kind of digital evidence too. He claims to have not seen the girls.

The question is, where was the man on the bridge between being seen on the bridge platform around 1:52, and 1:58 - 2, when the girls likely got the the bridge? Where was he between when the girls took the bridge photos a few minutes later (where no man is visible) and 2:13? Can prosecution prove RA's whereabouts during those times? Can they prove it was RA the witness saw on the bridge? Will the defense have a reasonable explanation for his whereabouts? If he was the man on the bridge platform, can defense explain why he did not see the girls? Then what's the likelihood someone dressed like him entered the scene without RA or witness 4 ever seeing him?

He walked from FB to MHB, and went on platform 1, he was seen on platform 1, this fixes the time he was on platform 1.
This puts him on a collision course with Abby and Libby who were MOO 2 or less minutes from the MHB abutment, or in terms of location, just turning the bend on the trail at 1:55.

 

[Bergmann]

Do you dismiss his presence at the onset of the crime? MOO his lie is form of confession.

I am not ready to convict, what he has to say to the evidence needs to be heard in court.

Who's presence?

BG yes - we have a video which indicates that he initiates the kidnap leading to the murder.

RA - he is suspected but not proven, and certainly not BARD