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

[LammyTheRobot]

Here's what I have an issue with. He parks his car to hide his license plate but then walks a mile or so on a public road covered in blood and mud back to his car when there was plenty of cover to walk back to his car under. Heck, he could have walked home under cover considering how close he lived to the trail.

Then this careful criminal who hides his license plate, volunteers to put himself at the crime scene, KEEPS the same clothes! Keeps the gun, he keeps the car he drove home with that theoretically would be covered in blood. He stays in the area for years, interacts with the victim's family. We'll find out about his internet searches and any links to weird stuff on his computers and phones. Oh and he has no criminal record of anything consequential.

Add to this there are 2 different sketches, witnesses who could not get a good look at the person's face, the mysterious man in black* possibly), a witness who was driving ID'ing a man covered in blood and mud. There is a ton of reasonable doubt here in a lot of these 'facts'. I really hope they have more.

I'm starting to pick up some Steven Avery vibes here.

I agree.

 

[Spartygirl]

Here's what I find interesting about the parking spot. RA,even if he parked in a manner which hid his license plate and was oddly close to the building, willingly chose to park in a public and visible location.

Personally, and contrary to what I thought early on in this case, I believe RA came to the trails fully planning to find L and A at the bridge that afternoon. I also believe the bridge was a somewhat impulsive decision on the girls' part, but RA was watching L's SM and found out shortly before they left, that they were going. We know it's likely RA was familiar with the trails and the bridge, where to park, etc. I do not think he planned this well in advance, though, or had the CS location in his mind, because otherwise he could have parked in the cemetery, or the south private drive, and had his car better hidden. But I don't think he necessarily knew he could get to that particular spot by walking directly behind the cemetery, or get to the south end of the bridge via that private drive. I think he got to the bridge and basically winged it. I've always thought more likely happened in the woods directly down the hill, before crossing the creek.

I agree with everything you said except the last sentence.
LE have stated the girls were killed where found so that has always been in my mind.

He could have parked at the cemetery, and I actually went to the cemetery when we were there and could not see my vehicle from the road while parked in the back corner by RL property.
I have adamantly stated and believed that BG left through the cemetery and walked back to his vehicle, wherever it was parked, or lived close by and walked home, IF his vehicle was not already parked there.

We did however, Park at the same CPS building and walked the same path to the trails/bridge that the affidavit is saying was his path to the bridge so I am familiar with that scenario.

I agree and I do think he knew the girls were going there by following them on SM.

 

[Pitsleuth]

Here's what I have an issue with. He parks his car to hide his license plate but then walks a mile or so on a public road covered in blood and mud back to his car when there was plenty of cover to walk back to his car under. Heck, he could have walked home under cover considering how close he lived to the trail.

Then this careful criminal who hides his license plate, volunteers to put himself at the crime scene, KEEPS the same clothes! Keeps the gun, he keeps the car he drove home with that theoretically would be covered in blood. He stays in the area for years, interacts with the victim's family. We'll find out about his internet searches and any links to weird stuff on his computers and phones. Oh and he has no criminal record of anything consequential.

Add to this there are 2 different sketches, witnesses who could not get a good look at the person's face, the mysterious man in black* possibly), a witness who was driving ID'ing a man covered in blood and mud. There is a ton of reasonable doubt here in a lot of these 'facts'. I really hope they have more.

I'm starting to pick up some Steven Avery vibes here.

Good, because Stephen Avery was guilty as sin and is right where he belongs. You cannot just watch that incredibly biased documentary and determine his guilt or innocence. MOO
But back to the perp at hand… I will be be very interested to hear more details about RA’s past, internet searches, and theories as to why that particular day and those particular girls. IMO, those details (if they add up and make sense) can sway a jury as much as physical evidence.

 

[Quim The Extraordinaire]

I think this makes a lot of sense - if he did speak to the CO while it was still Feb 13, that suggests answers to a lot of questions as you outline here! I really like the point that he didn’t know yet there’d be attention on the bridge.

The only catch … in 10/2022, he surely knew everything’s that been released in this case. And when talking to LE he still didn’t try to hide anything…. EG he could’ve said he didn’t remember what he’d been wearing that day five years ago, but instead he described his BG outfit. ??!!??!? What gives here
JMO

JMO.

Absolutely! I’d have to go back to a previous thread to credit this.

Someone posted interesting insights into the criminal mindset when ingratiating oneself — being helpful — with LE.

Being truthful establishes trust and credibility. It’s easier to recount and remember the truth. Ingratiating oneself also helps to establish and control the narrative.

Besides, RA knew he had been seen. Better to volunteer that he was there but distance himself from the crime than be identified.

In this case, RA’s approach had worked for almost six years! He doesn’t know anything about any clerical error. Maybe he sweated it out when Libby’s recordings came out, but nothing happened,

And now he and his lawyers can say what they’re saying — no one who was guilty of such a heinous crime would have volunteered such incriminating info early on. The argument is that being so helpful means that RA must be innocent.

That was RA’s motivation in coming forward initially and then in maintaining the “a guilty person would never admit to any of this” approach.

JMO.

 

[Spartygirl]

One major question I've always had about this case is why in the hell the killer made the girls, and himself, cross the creek. JH told us all the reenactments are inaccurate.

What if RA made the girls go DTH, and right there in the woods below the bridge, made them undress and whatever else. IDK. Likely, L's phone was not in her hand, but somewhere on the ground. If, by chance, they were still there at 3:11 when L's dad called her phone (or even just anyone called), maybe the phone ringing, and possibly L saying her dad was looking for them, freaked RA out and he was worried he'd get caught, so he ordered them to toss their clothes near the water, cross the creek, killed them and tried to hide them, then tried to sneak out through the woods, up to the road, maybe through the fields, all to avoid the trail and L's dad.

BBM
I think the girls made a run for it down by the creek which is how it happened that the murders took place across the creek.

 

[Gemmie]

Ok so what about flannel shirt guy? Libby’s father spoke to him as he looked for the kids at the trail. If you need to be sure I’d suggest googling flannel shirt guy - it was talked about a lot here on WS and I’m not sure how to link back to closed threads.

If you've found a post in a closed thread you'd like to refer back to... one way is to select the Share this post icon (sideways V). Hover till you can see the URL, then copy and paste it here in the current thread.

 

[Spartygirl]

Apologize if this has already been stated in the last 18 pages which I'm trying to catch up on but...

I looked up last the night the stock market activity for February 13, 2017
Dow Jones Close 2/13/17 Stock Market Closing Prices
Apparently the Dow Jones/markets set an all-time high that day (though way surpassed since). Common knowledge that people check their portfolios on days when market is up way more often than when market is down. He may not have owned individual stocks but he/wife could have maintained a market-indexed Union pension plan account or similar. Aside from owning a middle-class house outright, and owning a gun(s) that wasn't cheap, could be clues that perhaps the family asset wealth was fairly high if they also had some Investments. All that to say there would be some validity that he was interested in the stock ticker that day if all-time highs were reached and their account values were increasing to unbeforeseen balances - and that years later he would remember doing that on that day while walking between bridges. (No way he was looking at his phone while in the midst of crossing the dilapidated High Bridge, but on the way there, maybe so.)

Offset of course by the premise that if you were on your way to commit a double-murder which could result in the death penalty, what would it really matter if your investment balance was increasing but you couldn't use the $$ for anything?

Forensics will be able to verify or not that "stock reviewing" statement.

 

[Fargo]

This is a big part of what is giving me pause. These witness accounts are contradictory (blue clothes vs. black clothes, etc.), and if it comes to putting these witnesses on the stand, I don't think that it will go well for the prosecution. Was the man depicted in YBG sketch the same person as original BG? If they were different, there couldn't have been only one person. If they are the same person, why do the sketches look so different? And as I have mentioned, it doesn't appear that any of the witnesses IDed RA. Add in the confusion about the car (Ford Focus vs. small SUV vs. smart car), and I wonder how many of the things alleged in the PCA would be convincing to a potential jury.

I understand that the PCA is not meant to prove the prosecution's case. I think that LE did what it had to do with the PCA, but I hope that they have significantly more evidence that what was used in the PCA. And if the PCA is representative of the quality of evidence that they have, I will be nervous. I want the man responsible for this heinous crime behind bars forever.

I think the 3 juvenile witnesses are moot at this point. RA admits he was on the trails from 1330 to 1530, he admits he passed the 3 juveniles near the Freedom Bridge, and he admits to walking out onto the High Bridge. There's really no need to call those 3 because RA already admits to their testimony.

The two witnesses who are important are (1) the woman who saw RA on the bridge platform. She describes a white male wearing blue jeans and a blue jean jacket. She saw no other adult males. Neither did RA. When she turned around and walked away from the High Bridge she passed Abby and Libby walking in the direction of the man already on the bridge. (2) The other witness who is important is the one who saw a man, muddy and bloody, walking west on 300 North at 3:57 pm. That witness also describes a white male, wearing jeans and a blue colored jacket. The descriptions given by these two witnesses is the same, so there is no conflict there.

Other witnesses of importance are those on the trails after 2:13 pm, when Abby and Libby were forced off the bridge. Those witnesses were interviewed and none saw RA or Abby and Libby at all. RA claims he was on the trails until 3:30 pm but not a soul saw him at the trails after 2:13 pm. He vanished the same time they did.

The car identification is a little trickier, I admit. RA says he parked at the old Farm Bureau building and the PCA does not describe this any further beyond stating there is and never was a Farm Bureau building. The assumption is that he meant the old CPS building since his car was seen on video headed that direction at 1:27 pm and he says he arrived at 1:30 pm. Maybe he parked at CPS, maybe he didn't, but his car was extremely close to there when he parked. And there was indeed a car parked there. None of the witnesses got the make/model correct so all I can conclude is there was a car there without absolute certainty it was RA's car. But even if it wasn't RA's car his was parked very, very nearby somewhere and the muddy, bloody man was walking in that direction. I think the video of his car driving west on 300 North at 1:27 pm is the stronger evidence.

I think it will be fine if the prosecutor is careful not to call conflicting witnesses whose testimony adds no value to the timeline and only introduces conflicting statements. I suppose the defense could call the juveniles as hostile witnesses to muddy the waters, but what would be the point? RA admits he saw them and passed them, so that happened. RA verified it himself. As a juror, I wouldn't need to hear anything from the juveniles at all.

The prosecutor just needs to be careful and not call witnesses the defense can use to throw doubt into the case. My opinion only.

 

[LammyTheRobot]

I can't think of another case where so much info has actually leaked.
The unfired bullet being found at the crime scene was out there for a long time. So was the detail no gun had been fired.
It was also actually said Police were looking for a sig sauer p229 which was just slightly incorrect as it was the sig sauer p226 that Allen owned. But maybe that was just a typo or mix up by the person who got the info.

I feel like this has become a philosophy or critical reasoning test from hell for us sleuthers. Will this case ever end? Is RA the last suspect? Can I cancel Netflix and Amazon Prime now that all I seem to watch or read in my spare time is THIS CASE!

Schrodinger’s murder investigation right here.

 

[Quim The Extraordinaire]

My understanding, I dont think the conversation happened the same day the girls disappeared. No one knew at that time on 2/13, what had happened. They were considered missing (by the family), but nothing in the media at that point. So when RA spoke to the CO it may have been soon after that date but not on the same date.

JMO

The search ramped up quickly once the missing report was made and was covered that evening by local and regional MSM. The Down the Hill tv special shows clips of Abby’s mother and Libby’s grandfather being interviewed on 02-13-17.

The first A&L WS Thread began when they were still missing.

It was big news in Delphi.

JMO.

 

[Gemmie]

Forensics will be able to verify or not that "stock reviewing" statement.

They'll probably find that he was searching for "How long does DNA last" instead.

</end sarcasm and KAK reference)

 

[LammyTheRobot]

I think the 3 juvenile witnesses are moot at this point. RA admits he was on the trails from 1330 to 1530, he admits he passed the 3 juveniles near the Freedom Bridge, and he admits to walking out onto the High Bridge. There's really no need to call those 3 because RA already admits to their testimony.

The two witnesses who are important are (1) the woman who saw RA on the bridge platform. She describes a white male wearing blue jeans and a blue jean jacket. She saw no other adult males. Neither did RA. When she turned around and walked away from the High Bridge she passed Abby and Libby walking in the direction of the man already on the bridge. (2) The other witness who is important is the one who saw a man, muddy and bloody, walking west on 300 North at 3:57 pm. That witness also describes a white male, wearing jeans and a blue colored jacket. The descriptions given by these two witnesses is the same, so there is no conflict there.

Other witnesses of importance are those on the trails after 2:13 pm, when Abby and Libby were forced off the bridge. Those witnesses were interviewed and none saw RA or Abby and Libby at all. RA claims he was on the trails until 3:30 pm but not a soul saw him at the trails after 2:13 pm. He vanished the same time they did.

The car identification is a little trickier, I admit. RA says he parked at the old Farm Bureau building and the PCA does not describe this any further beyond stating there is and never was a Farm Bureau building. The assumption is that he meant the old CPS building since his car was seen on video headed that direction at 1:27 pm and he says he arrived at 1:30 pm. Maybe he parked at CPS, maybe he didn't, but his car was extremely close to there when he parked. And there was indeed a car parked there. None of the witnesses got the make/model correct so all I can conclude is there was a car there without absolute certainty it was RA's car. But even if it wasn't RA's car his was parked very, very nearby somewhere and the muddy, bloody man was walking in that direction. I think the video of his car driving west on 300 North at 1:27 pm is the stronger evidence.

I think it will be fine if the prosecutor is careful not to call conflicting witnesses whose testimony adds no value to the timeline and only introduces conflicting statements. I suppose the defense could call the juveniles as hostile witnesses to muddy the waters, but what would be the point? RA admits he saw them and passed them, so that happened. RA verified it himself. As a juror, I wouldn't need to hear anything from the juveniles at all.

The prosecutor just needs to be careful and not call witnesses the defense can use to throw doubt into the case. My opinion only.

Defense should absolutely call the witness who stated the man was in black. “What colour clothing was the man wearing?” “Black.” Shows picture of BG and RA’s description of clothing that day. Why miss an opportunity to bring in reasonable doubt if that’s your job?

 

[LammyTheRobot]

They'll probably find that he was searching for "How long does DNA last" instead.

</end sarcasm and KAK reference)

In the fog that is this case, it wouldn’t surprise me if the police extract digital evidence that he sold some shares the next day. Then we’d all be like…

JMO.

 

[mooseandcoffee]

I wonder what Carter said upon finding out that the fbi of all people messed up.

We still don't know what evidence may or may not have been discovered in his home or car. Obviously it would have been better for everyone if the error hadn't occurred....but hopefully it just delayed justice and didn't impede it.

 

[mooseandcoffee]

Defense should absolutely call the witness who stated the man was in black. “What colour clothing was the man wearing?” “Black.” Shows picture of BG and RA’s description of clothing that day. Why miss an opportunity to bring in reasonable doubt if that’s your job?

They will, no doubt. However, I'm sure there could also be experts testifying how some details like clothing color are mis-reported by eyewitnesses.

 

[Spartygirl]

Robert Ives said he thought this case could have been solved decades ago with the evidence they had at the scene - I wonder if he was talking about the bullet? I wonder if that is *all* that could have been matched decades ago?

He could have been talking about the bullet
He also mentioned "Signatures"
Staging the bodies
Taking souvenirs

I think it could have been a multiple of things.
JMO

 

[JosieMae]

JMO.

The MurderSheet podcast and MSM reported that RA approached a state conservation officer (CO) to volunteer information that he had been on Monon High Bridge during the timeframe of the murders but had not seen the girls. This is the 2017 RA narrative report that was reportedly misfiled due to a clerical error.

My hypothesis is that RA volunteered this information late on Feb. 13, 2017.

Supporting considerations are:
—The girls were missing then and their bodies had not been found. The investigation was a Missing Persons investigation, not a Homicide Investigation.
—The state CO would have been part of the search party organized for the girls. The state CO likely took any number of reports from people who had been in the area with a focus on any sightings of girls that could have been Abby and Libby.
—RA did not realize when he volunteered this info that Libby had recorded audio and video.
—RA was hyper aware that he had been seen and was providing himself with a helpful cover story for being in the area.
—Since RA did not know about the audio/video, he thought that the focus would be on the area the girls’ bodies were found — so he thought putting himself on the Bridge actually distanced him from the crime scene. OOPS
—In the PC Affadavit, the state CO writes that potential follow-up re the 2017 RA narrative would be to ID the three juveniles that RA reported seeing. That makes sense only if the investigation was still a Missing Person investigation (really a search party) when the report was taken, since the goal would be to determine whether two of the girls could have been Abby & Libby.
—Once the investigation became a Homicide Investigation, the state CO was no longer involved (outside of purview).
—Sounds like the state CO filed the report properly and the clerical error occurred in transitioning that report for inclusion in the Homicide Investigation “case file” (aka database).
—LE would have laser-focused on RA … if they had seen the 2017 RA Narrative. Once the 2017 RA Narrative was “re-discovered,” it seems LE moved with deliberate speed to interview RA and his spouse, serve a search warrant on his house and vehicle (and no doubt other assets), and arrest him.

This was the missing puzzle piece connecting RA to BG.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t more to the puzzle.

Would be interested in your thoughts.

JMO.

My thoughts are ... your conclusions are GENIUS!

 

[Spartygirl]

I just watched this GH video. This was chilling. It seems that he was spotted on the platform by a witness, then was walking towards the area where the kids were dropped off. Did he see them and suddenly decide YES. Those two?? Because then it seems he followed them back out on to the bridge and carried out the crime before making his way back to the car at CPS.

This GH video was very chilling to watch.. and it was a short one, so I was able to watch it all.

I think he knew Libby & Abby were going to be there and he was watching and waiting for them.

 

[Fargo]

Defense should absolutely call the witness who stated the man was in black. “What colour clothing was the man wearing?” “Black.” Shows picture of BG and RA’s description of clothing that day. Why miss an opportunity to bring in reasonable doubt if that’s your job?

Granted. But these 3 juveniles collectively saw only one man. They may describe his clothing somewhat differently but they did not see one man wearing jeans and a blue jacket and later a different man wearing black. They all saw only one adult man. At the same time. And that one man acknowledges that he saw the 3 juveniles at the same time and location they saw him.

The defense could try it I suppose, to attempt to interject this "man in black", but the man in black was not on the bridge. The man in jeans and a blue jacket was on the bridge moments before Abby and Libby reached it, which RA admits. And RA saw no man in black in the vicinity either. Nor did anyone else. My opinion only.

 

[mooseandcoffee]

Which could also be used as yet another inveterate piece of "circumstantial evidence".

Also this to consider, if it hasn't been mentioned... does Indiana require a front license plate? I believe some states do not.

It doesn't