GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #216

Status
Not open for further replies.
Therefore, he was satisfied, in his mind, he was walking OFF the bridge toward BB. And not walking TOWARD to far end, never even considered it!

IMO he knew he wasn’t leaving the bridge from the north side because that part of the bridge goes over the river and trees wouldn’t be seen in the background of the photo. Not that he could fathom that Abby or Libby took the picture. Apparently he stayed remarkably calm when he talked to DD since he didn’t raise his alarm, or so it seems from the misfiled lead sheet. MOO
 
I am wondering if this black item emerging from the bottom of the brown hoodie is a gun holster. Looks like one to me.

View attachment 545702
Looking at the BG video again it appears that the black item could actually just be a shadow from the brown hoodie. So you can just disregard my assumption about a gun holster atm.
 
I was at my local CVS this morning and as I was browsing around saw that they actually sell box cutters. I checked their website and it was the same one that I saw:

1731874269084.png

I wonder if this was in fact the murder weapon.

 
Fascinating. It does seem odd that he never confirmed where he actually parked in his '22 interview. It also seems odd that he did not simply park at the Mears carpark seeing he drove right past it.

I had also not appreciated he parked behind the old building
I don't think he wanted to park at Mears carpark because everyone else seemed to do that. He needed to not be scene.

He parked in backwards. As a witness said "it felt like he was hiding his back plates." Which tells me he didn't go there to kill himself. He hid his plates to do something illegal. M00

M00 on why he never confirmed where he actually parked in his '22 interview, was because the next question would be "why"..... "No one parks there it's too far away, why did you park there?"
 
I don't think he wanted to park at Mears carpark because everyone else seemed to do that. He needed to not be scene.

He parked in backwards. As a witness said "it felt like he was hiding his back plates." Which tells me he didn't go there to kill himself. He hid his plates to do something illegal. M00

M00 on why he never confirmed where he actually parked in his '22 interview, was because the next question would be "why"..... "No one parks there it's too far away, why did you park there?

I think this was a premeditated sexual assault (victim(s) unknown) when RA planned this before he arrived at the trails. I have always thought this. I don't think this was premeditated murder well in advance per se unless he thought that nothing was going to get in his way of committing this crime and if he had to resort to killing so be it.
 
Criminals always know what they know and don't know what they don't know.

He knows he was there, knows that's him in the photo. We know the juveniles took photos and BB may have too, iirc. Entirely possible that RA saw them with their phones.

I don't think he ever saw Libby's phone. The photo she took of Abby didn't contain RA so he was too far away to see a phone. If Libby started to record a video of Abby crossing the final leg of of the bridge, RA would suddenly have come into view, she moves the phone down, it continues to record, RA never sees it.

So.... this is RA telling on himself. He sees in the photo he's on the bridge. It "couldn't be" the second time he was on the bridge because there was no one besides the girls around and they're dead so "it had to be" from his first time on the bridge, to his thinking. Therefore, he would have (wrongly) reasoned, it was BB who took the photo. His brain must have locked in on that. So, in that way, in his head, he was walking toward BB (hence he could day he never went past the first platform, never crossed the bridge, never went out over the bridge-bridge because he was "certain" there were NO (living) WITNESSES who could place him on the bridge. Therefore, he was satisfied, in his mind, he was walking OFF the bridge toward BB. And not walking TOWARD to far end, never even considered it! This shows the limits of his reasoning! Knowing what he knows -- about who could have seen him where -- he did NOT try to identify where he was on the bridge and work from there; rather, he started with WHO he could have seen him. That leaves BB. Never challenged his own thought process IMO, was confident that photo was taken the first time he was on the bridge, believing NO ONE (alive) new about his second crossing. This much then is true: he walked out to the first platform and no further, walked back toward BB enough to see she was leaving, did or didn't see sit on a bench, conveniently committed seeing Abby and Libby and letting them pass by him so he could follow them.

His actual brain freeze came out during that interview just prior to his arrest -- whoa. Thst not me if it came from the girls' camera because (subtext) no one was supposed to know I crossed the bridge. It's only me if it's from my 1st platform walk. Doh.

He walked right into it.

JMO
omg this is good! BBM

I never gave thought that he was so confident that photo was taken the first time he was on the bridge, believing NO ONE (alive) new about his second crossing. Wow!!!
 
M00 on why he never confirmed where he actually parked in his '22 interview, was because the next question would be "why"..... "No one parks there it's too far away, why did you park there?"

I think RA didn't want to say exactly where he parked to Liggett and Mullin in 2022 because LE had been asking the public for help in 2019 in relation to a driver of a car parked at the abandoned CPS building the day of the murders'.
 
i do wonder why RA did not testify

Respectfully, there is nothing he could have said on the stand to get him out of what he said when he tipped himself in the day after the discovery of the bodies and what he stated to Dan Dulin two days after that.

Edited: It was actually two days after the discovery of the girls' as it was February 16, 2017 when RA first tipped himself in. Which happened to be a day after the release of the still shot of "BG" from Libby's cellphone video.
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, there is nothing he could have said on the stand to get him out of what he said when he tipped himself in the day after the discovery of the bodies and what he stated to Dan Dulin two days after that.

Edited: It was actually two days after the discovery of the girls' as it was February 16, 2017 when RA first tipped himself in. Which happened to be a day after the release of the still shot of "BG" from Libby's cellphone video.
But I do wonder if it would have helped him if he took the stand and talked to the jury about his 'false' confessions. If he could have convinced them that he was having delusions about being guilty because he read Discovery, etc?
 
On February 15, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. is when LE released the still frame picture of BG and asked the public's help in identifying the man. They just want to talk to him no mention of him being a suspect.

On February 16, 2017 is when they set up a tip line and RA gives his tip.

On February 18, 2017 RA talks to DD.

On February 19, 2017 LE say they consider the man in the picture a suspect in the crimes.

It's so frustrating how this case could have been solved within a week of the crime had someone not misfiled/cleared the tip and instead LE followed up with RA. SMH.
 
On February 15, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. is when LE released the still frame picture of BG and asked the public's help in identifying the man. They just want to talk to him no mention of him being a suspect.

On February 16, 2017 is when they set up a tip line and RA gives his tip.

On February 18, 2017 RA talks to DD.

On February 19, 2017 LE say they consider the man in the picture a suspect in the crimes.

It's so frustrating how this case could have been solved within a week of the crime had someone not misfiled/cleared the tip and instead LE followed up with RA. SMH.

Also on February 20, 2017 the Police say they're conducting a "statewide manhunt" for the man seen in the photo and urge Hoosiers to call in tips.
 
Would that check list apply if he was outside of the lead agency tasked with following up tips/leads and not investigating a crime scene? I honestly don’t know- DD corrected the name mistake and turned his notes to the investigators after the brief interview- I’m confused how it was marked cleared and misfiled again under the wrong name of the original tip sheet-

None of this impacts my beliefs around guilt or if RA=BG - jury found him guilty- that’s settled at this point

but it really is mind boggling that RA said he was on the bridge and saw 3 girls at the time of the murders - DD gave this information to investigators within days of the murder- and not only was it not followed up on, it was marked cleared by someone other than DD and misfiled by someone other than DD - I don’t know what DD’s mandate or scope was -

I have a hard time blaming him and with the oops, stuff happens, humans make mistakes, type explanations of LE investigators making that level of multiple errors that early in the investigation-

As I see it had investigators done their job early there mightn’t have been 5 more years of time, money, resources spent while generating thousands of leads and tips and boxes and boxes of files for later - hopefully lessons were learned- all my own opinion
I'm coming in late to this, but wanted to offer a possible scenario.

I recall it being mentioned that DD added a follow up question that said: Who are the 3 girls?

RA claimed those were the only people he saw on the trail. I don't think he told DD what he was wearing, that came at the interview once the tip sheet was found in 2022. So I wonder if someone reviewing the tip sheets saw that question for follow up and they knew who the 3 girls were so they then marked the tip "cleared" because that was the follow up noted.

If that tip was marked cleared by accident due to knowing who the 3 girls were very early on, then it's possible that whoever marked it cleared didn't have an idea of what the timeline was for Abby and Libby and it never even occured to them that RA could be the killer. It was viewed for follow up to locate the 3 girls and since they came forward right away, there was nothing to follow up on.

Not saying someone shouldn't have been double and triple checking these tips, but with 1000s coming in, I am not sure what process they had to go over and back over and so on. I do not think it was intentional and it really is unfortunate.
 
Personally of all the things that RA did that I find incriminating, this isn’t one of them- I don’t like police cars in my driveway, neighbors gossip -

I don’t like going downtown to police headquarters, people want to know what you’re doing down (or what you did…or what your family member did…)

Fostering justice involved teens provided ample experiences of both- and I handled as much by phone as possible - at one point a realtor who was showing a house across the street, fudged a bit and told the family it was “fine” because we had LE in the family and it really was a safe neighborhood after the questioned the marked car in our driveway…

Thinking about it, I’d probably want to meet in a neutral location, especially in a smaller town, and it would look like a friendly encounter vs tabloid fodder …

I think at times our beliefs about guilt become the lenses through which we see everything, and in hindsight everything points to our conclusions- and some actions which might be actually normal/ typical for lots of people, regardless of guilt of a crime, are interpreted as signs of guilt … moo

You totally have the legal right to do so, but you have to realise that LE will raise an eyebrow that you do not want to come in and will not allow them into your home is step 1 push back.
RED FLAG. They WILL look at your harder... and listen extra carefully.
Singularly and with no crime committed this will not get you into trouble.

its the collective REDFLAGS of pushback, lies, avoidance.
Starting with.... 'neutral' meeting location with LE.

MOO
 
WRT mis-filing, wouldn't it make sense for all LE to earmark any tips, interviews with witnesses, etc. who were near the crime scene or in contact with victims, etc? Mark those as high priority, regardless of whether they are "cleared". Sort through them and revisit them regularly. No LE investigation should consider filing away a witness statement from someone who was at or very close to the crime scene around the time when the crime was committed.
100%
this is my bugbare about it.

RA DD meeting shouldhave been at the top of the white board.
NO..IF...BUTS ...MAYBES.

The chain of command get out of jail free card is lame.

Lead detective needs demotion about this.IMO
But DD should have been riding his tail about RA and insisting follow up from this extremely important detail.

damn maddening. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
596
Total visitors
693

Forum statistics

Threads
625,725
Messages
18,508,672
Members
240,836
Latest member
Freud
Back
Top