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

[MillicentMuses]

I get the thinking behind coming forward in 2017. I wonder the thinking being agreeing to be reinterviewed in 2022 and answering the specific questions that he did. Why would his clothing be relevant if they didn’t suspect him? Why not say you don’t remember what you were wearing 5 years ago? Was the question asked whether that was him in the video? Why answer questions about a gun?

It is so perplexing, it makes me think it’s a sign of innocence. Which would then be a reason to do exactly as he did. And then that circular thought process makes my head spin.

I agree. It’s completely perplexing to me that RA would admit to wearing basically the same clothes as BG in the video. Surely he had seen the still image back in 2017.
And how does one accidentally drop an unspent round from a gun? I have no clue about guns so there might be a simple explanation.

 

[photographer4]

What’s missing:
RA’s lawyers are quick to tell us he went to the police on his own to tell them he www there.
- they don’t say when he did this.

They say he spoke to the Conservation Officer outside a store.
- they don’t say when.

Neither the PCA nor the defence has told us yet what he did immediately before he arrived at the trail or what he did after he left. Did he watch tv all morning or go to work? Who saw him? What was his demeanour? Did he get a call or text then bail? Where did he go after he left the trail? We see him pass the store to get there. Is there video to show he left? If not, why not? What route did he take and where did he go? If he went directly to get his wife from work, or home and neighbours saw him pull in.. that would all be important to know. Did he go to work the next day? Call out sick? What is the before and after and why aren’t we told yet?

I would like to believe police got their man but I could have believed RL was guilty too because of all that was in his warrant doc. In that one they told us what he did before and after the crime. In the matter or RA this is all missing. Why?

 

[GoBuckeyes]

I agree. It’s completely perplexing to me that RA would admit to wearing basically the same clothes as BG in the video. Surely he had seen the still image back in 2017.
And how does one accidentally drop an unspent round from a gun? I have no clue about guns so there might be a simple explanation.

Joseph Scott Morgan, help!!

To my knowledge, and PLEASE someone correct me if you have information, ejecting an unspent round from a magazine leaves no marks that conclusively tie it to a specific magazine or a specific gun. In fact, I have an extra clip for each of my handguns. I've ejected rounds from my extra clips without those clips ever coming in contact with the guns, not with those rounds in it. Exactly when was this round discovered? Was his gun registered? It took how many years to narrow down a suspect list, and they had this bullet?? That makes no sense. Rounds don't just jump unspent out of a clip. No gun shot was heard. And a suppressor, in my very novice opinion, would render a round useless for comparison without having the gun and the suppressor. Even if a comparison could be made, what bloody idiot keeps a murder weapon and puts it back in its usual spot?

Nothing about his behavior is indicative of guilt, behavior in 2017 or 2022. On the other hand, the secrecy insisted upon by the state, contending that minors would be at risk even if the redacted PCA was released, leaves much to be desired. IMOO, evidence in the PCA was so thin, I don't see how the search warrant was secured in the first place. Further, if their PC was so strong, why did they need to wait, what, 10 days after executing the search to arrest him? (Especially when a witness now comes forward to say she saw a man "resembling" RA walking toward a car "resembling" the Ford Focus he owned.) Now that the 5'8"-5'10" suspect is revealed to be a 5'4" male who doesn't look a thing like either sketch, how is it that people suddenly have such a clear recollection that that are certain they saw RA? And RA's memory is the one with which some people take issue? How many times since 2017 did his accusers hear his voice, see his face?

And the more they keep saying it was a good idea to release both sketches and that the case is still very active, the more innocent RA appears. This case has been one Charlie Foxtrot after another. I hope they've got a mountain of evidence; otherwise, Mr. and Mrs. RA are going to own Carroll County. Equally tragic would be the justice delayed for A,L and their families.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

What’s missing:
RA’s lawyers are quick to tell us he went to the police on his own to tell them he www there.
- they don’t say when he did this.

They say he spoke to the Conservation Officer outside a store.
- they don’t say when.

Neither the PCA nor the defence has told us yet what he did immediately before he arrived at the trail or what he did after he left. Did he watch tv all morning or go to work? Who saw him? What was his demeanour? Did he get a call or text then bail? Where did he go after he left the trail? We see him pass the store to get there. Is there video to show he left? If not, why not? What route did he take and where did he go? If he went directly to get his wife from work, or home and neighbours saw him pull in.. that would all be important to know. Did he go to work the next day? Call out sick? What is the before and after and why aren’t we told yet?

I would like to believe police got their man but I could have believed RL was guilty too because of all that was in his warrant doc. In that one they told us what he did before and after the crime. In the matter or RA this is all missing. Why?

We see a vehicle resembling his car. Is his plate clearly visible?

 

[GoBuckeyes]

What’s missing:
RA’s lawyers are quick to tell us he went to the police on his own to tell them he www there.
- they don’t say when he did this.

They say he spoke to the Conservation Officer outside a store.
- they don’t say when.

Neither the PCA nor the defence has told us yet what he did immediately before he arrived at the trail or what he did after he left. Did he watch tv all morning or go to work? Who saw him? What was his demeanour? Did he get a call or text then bail? Where did he go after he left the trail? We see him pass the store to get there. Is there video to show he left? If not, why not? What route did he take and where did he go? If he went directly to get his wife from work, or home and neighbours saw him pull in.. that would all be important to know. Did he go to work the next day? Call out sick? What is the before and after and why aren’t we told yet?

I would like to believe police got their man but I could have believed RL was guilty too because of all that was in his warrant doc. In that one they told us what he did before and after the crime. In the matter or RA this is all missing. Why?

I feel pretty much like I've felt after any announcement with this case...Is that all there is?!

 

[Davemac1]

What’s missing:
RA’s lawyers are quick to tell us he went to the police on his own to tell them he www there.
- they don’t say when he did this.

They say he spoke to the Conservation Officer outside a store.
- they don’t say when.

Neither the PCA nor the defence has told us yet what he did immediately before he arrived at the trail or what he did after he left. Did he watch tv all morning or go to work? Who saw him? What was his demeanour? Did he get a call or text then bail? Where did he go after he left the trail? We see him pass the store to get there. Is there video to show he left? If not, why not? What route did he take and where did he go? If he went directly to get his wife from work, or home and neighbours saw him pull in.. that would all be important to know. Did he go to work the next day? Call out sick? What is the before and after and why aren’t we told yet?

I would like to believe police got their man but I could have believed RL was guilty too because of all that was in his warrant doc. In that one they told us what he did before and after the crime. In the matter or RA this is all missing. Why?

Is this not a matter for trial?

Unsure of the US system but in the UK most of that kind of detail would be saved for court.

 

[Ozoner]

If DNA from either victim was found in RA's car or on RA's clothing, that could be the type of evidence that LE would save for the trial and not include in the PCA. If it wasn't, then why wasn't it, if BG was supposedly covered in blood? Did RA detail his car immediately after the murders?

Working at CVS, it would have been easy for him to get his hands on as much hydrogen peroxide as he wanted, so there's no doubt that he could have gotten all visible blood out of his clothing. I don't know whether he could have gotten rid of all traces of DNA.

 

[O.Incandenza]

If DNA from either victim was found in RA's car or on RA's clothing, that could be the type of evidence that LE would save for the trial and not include in the PCA. If it wasn't, then why wasn't it, if BG was supposedly covered in blood? Did RA detail his car immediately after the murders?

Working at CVS, it would have been easy for him to get his hands on as much hydrogen peroxide as he wanted, so there's no doubt that he could have gotten all visible blood out of his clothing. I don't know whether he could have gotten rid of all traces of DNA.

If they had DNA matches to the victims from RA's car at the time of the arrest, I'm almost sure that they would have included it in the PCA.

The idea that the prosecution routinely withholds big pieces of incriminating evidence from the PCA is kind of a websleuths myth IMO. There's not really any point to that since the defense will get to see all the evidence well before trial anyway. Might as well put it in the PCA to help shape the public narrative of the case.

But in this case, the search and the arrest were so close together that I doubt they had any lab results back from the car or from any other items they found at his house. So it is possible that they'll get some hits there IMO.

I hope they do, because I'm in the camp that isn't super convinced by extraction markings on an unspent bullet. The circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling, but I'd feel better with something else to tie him to the crime scene.

 

[mrjitty]

That reconstruction video highlights the massive problem that is lurking for the defence in the police interview IMO. The PCA alludes to this trainwreck.

Trail walking woman sees a guy resembling Bridge Guy on the bridge from 50 feet, before turning back, and seeing the victims. It will be established at trial, IMO, that she must have seen Bridge guy. Keep in mind each evidential fact does not have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. Remember that Trail woman does not encounter RA on the path, nor does RA report seeing her. This is crucial.

The victims now proceed down the 'flight path' to Bridge Guy. Realistically no one else can be between them, as Trail Woman sweeps the path.

At the same time, RA, rather foolishly, admits to seeing the 3 girls. This puts him on the 'flight path" to be at the bridge, dressed like bridge guy, at approximately the time Trail Woman will see Bridge Guy.

So here are the obvious problems.

1. If RA retraced his steps from the Bridge, how can RA get off the victims "flight path" without seeing them?

2. Where can RA have been if Trail Woman did not see him, but saw the 'real killer'

3. If Trail Woman somehow saw RA and mixed him up with the real killer, where did RA go, in order for Bridge Guy to get on to the Bridge, and the victims to advance down the trail, without RA seeing any of them?

This is where Law Enforcement have tripped him up IMO, most likely by selectively revealing the witnesses info to wreck his story, after he already admits he went on the trail and walked back (reading between the lines IMO).

The defence version will need to be item 3 - that Trail Woman saw RA on the bridge (where else could he be). This is the only way for her to see him, but him not to see her. He must be on the bridge. But now he has to get off it before the victims get there, so real Bridge Guy can get there, appearing from behind the victims direction of travel.

Therefore, the victims will meet him on the trail before when he retraces his steps ----> he must see the victims, unless he somehow went off the trail, or they did.

Admitting to seeing the 3 girls back in 2017 is fatal, because it puts him on the Bridge for Trail woman to see. But she also must have seen Bridge Guy - proving RA is Bridge Guy.

The only way out of this is fanciful stories about how the victims somehow didn't go directly to the bridge, allow RA a moment to slip past.

But my guess is RA has flubbed the interview when confronted with these problems. They will have encouraged him to commit to a version, before selectively revealing their cards, and inviting him to elaborate.

In the PCA, they just say there is no way for him to get out other than as muddy/bloody guy - but the evidential problem is going to be how he evolved his story of getting out.

 

[mrjitty]

I guess the tldr version of my post is that Trail Walking woman saw Bridge Guy, but thanks to the dumb admissions of RA to seeing the 3 girls, the person she saw must have been RA

----> RA and Bridge Guy are the same person.

 

[mrjitty]

Just thinking through this matrix some more:

1. Trail Walking Woman saw Bridge Guy
2. Trail Walking Woman saw RA
3. Trail Walking Woman saw Bridge Guy & RA (they are the same person)

AND possible defence versions

A. RA left the Bridge before Trail Walking Woman arrived
B. RA was on the Bridge when Trail Walking Woman arrived
C. RA arrived at the Bridge after Trail Walking Woman left

Version A is best for the defence, but I don't think is possible based on the other timings - 1.30 pm arrival and seeing the the 3 girls. Version C requires him to mess around after seeing the 3 girls, so likely does not fit with his police interview.

I always come back to the defence needing to run with scenario 2B - it's the only place RA can be.

But the problem is, how does he get out without seeing the girls

He would have maybe got away with this if he hadn't admitted to seeing the girls, because then the defence could have argued the girls saw Bridge Guy

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

To my knowledge, and PLEASE someone correct me if you have information, ejecting an unspent round from a magazine leaves no marks that conclusively tie it to a specific magazine or a specific gun

The markings are not from removing the round from the magazine, they are from chambering the round. It would appear that a round was already chambered when RA drew the slide and ejected the round that was found near the bodies. Perhaps he preferred to carry the gun NOT ready to fire.

 

[spcagrl]

It was a Conservation officer, not any kind of police officer, not much training or special skills
needed/ Become an Indiana Conservation Officer

Er…that’s the basic entry requirements to get into a training program. “Conservation Officer” is a soft name for “Game Warden”. These are fully trained Law Enforcement officers with special training for conservation, fish & Wildlife issues. In most cases they carry firearms. Getting in to training for these jobs is very difficult, the training is arduous, and there are MANY special skills involved in the job. Fish & Wildlife Officers are most decidedly fully trained members of the Law Enforcement Community.

 

[Ozoner]

The markings are not from removing the round from the magazine, they are from chambering the round. It would appear that a round was already chambered when RA drew the slide and ejected the round that was found near the bodies. Perhaps he preferred to carry the gun NOT ready to fire.

Thanks for the information.

So if there's already around in the chamber, and the user "draws the slide," then the bullet that is in the chamber is ejected, and a different round goes into the chamber?

Do you know of any visual aids that would make the process clear? I've never owned a gun, so I'm not clear on where the bullet is being ejected from. Does it pop out the back of the gun, towards the user? I'm wondering how feasible it is that RA could have ejected a round without noticing that he had done so.

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks for the information.

So if there's already around in the chamber, and the user "draws the slide," then the bullet that is in the chamber is ejected, and a different round goes into the chamber?

Do you know of any visual aids that would make the process clear? I've never owned a gun, so I'm not clear on where the bullet is being ejected from. Does it pop out the back of the gun, towards the user? I'm wondering how feasible it is that RA could have ejected a round without noticing that he had done so.

Yes - the ejection is from the side of the gun - so it ejects away from a right hander.

This is not something you do by accident. You work the slide with the intention to eject a faulty round and reload, or to clear the chamber of ammo

 

[LammyTheRobot]

DBM-- duplicate

Off topic and a little light hearted but GDTH reminds me of George W. (This isn’t a political post, I’m neutral as I could be re GW, it just reminded me of the good ol’ days). Lol. Jmo.

Also I wonder if someone asked him for directions and that’s what tripped something in their mind. “Sir could you tell us where Starbucks is?” “Yes, girls, it’s down the hill, take a right and you’re there.”

 

[Lilbirdie]

Dark or poor lighting conditions can affect a person's color recognition, too. Look at "BG" in the photo on the bridge... to me it looks like the left hand side of his jacket (his right side) is dark blue but the right side of the jacket (his left side) looks black. The black side of the jacket is in shadow and the color appears to change and yet we know the whole jacket is just one color... dark blue. (Although, to be fair, that's just how I see it and others may see it differently.)
View attachment 384365

But the jeans are clearly blue. That’s the part that throws me off, when the witness describes him being in all black.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Thanks for the information.

So if there's already around in the chamber, and the user "draws the slide," then the bullet that is in the chamber is ejected, and a different round goes into the chamber?

Do you know of any visual aids that would make the process clear? I've never owned a gun, so I'm not clear on where the bullet is being ejected from. Does it pop out the back of the gun, towards the user? I'm wondering how feasible it is that RA could have ejected a round without noticing that he had done so.

A different bullet loads if a loaded magazine is in place. To clear the gun, the magazine needs to be removed, the slide is pulled back and the round is ejected from the ejector port at the top side of the gun. Then the loaded magazine is re-installed. The gun is now loaded but can't be fired until the slide is pulled back to chamber a round, which is placing a round in position to fire out of the barrel when the trigger is pulled. Look on you tube for some videos.
I'm guessing RA wasn't really experienced or didn't practice consistently, enough to have automatic habits, resulting in the error of ejecting and leaving a round that he may not have seen landing on the ground. Outdoors in the shade with leaves and sticks on the ground, maybe he just didn't find it. Also it's not impossible that it fell from a pocket.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

But the jeans are clearly blue. That’s the part that throws me off, when the witness describes him being in all black.

The witness is not technically describing what she saw or what the person was wearing, she is saying what her memory is telling her. If you accept the fallibility of human recall, this isn't a concern.

 

[gizmobtj]

As we are headed towards a trial and (amazing!) we have some actual evidence to discuss, it's worth beginning some of the well trodden discussions about the nature of circumstantial evidence vs direct evidence.

Main points to my mind.

1. Circumstantial evidence is not weaker than direct evidence. Indeed it is frequently more powerful due to its cumulative weight. i.e. when we have so many pieces of evidence mapping the accused to what we know about Bridge Guy, it becomes hard to deny that RM must in fact be BG. It is not allowed to henpeck the individual points of circumstantial evidence and speculate them away. Rather one must ask what has been proved, and then make any natural and obvious inferences based on the entire web of facts.

2. Forensic, digital and technical evidence are some of the most powerful forms of circumstantial evidence. We can rely on them much more than fallible humans!

3. Video can be used as direct evidence! In this case we have a video directly proving key elements of the actus reus and going to identity. That is big! (But easy overlooked because we knew about it for years). Think how hard this case is without the video - BG is just a person seen at 50 yards, and we wouldn't even know for sure BG was the killer. With video, I would convict him based on the witnesses, his car and the ammunition match on the bullet - even without expert analysis.

Always up for anorak discussions of evidence

But how unique are extraction marks? With a fired bullet, they are just one part of the four things used to make a match on cartridges -- extraction, ejection, firing pen and breech block. So, in the Venn a diagram of firearms examination, we have one, maybe two of the marks. I don't know how unique extraction marks, but we do know firing pen marks are unique on a microscopic level, and the most unique because mass manufacturing has made it hard to distinguish other items. We know Glocks have unique signatures built into the barrell but this is not a Glock and this never went through the barrel. So, put me I'm the yet-to-be convinced column for the bullet evidence.

The Science Behind Firearm and Tool Mark Examination

Peter Diaczuk (see reuse policy). The NIJ-funded study described in "Study Identi

nij.ojp.gov

How Good a Match is It? Putting Statistics into Forensic Firearms Identification

www.nist.gov

The Science Behind Firearm and Tool Mark Examination

Peter Diaczuk (see reuse policy). The NIJ-funded study described in "Study Identi

nij.ojp.gov

https://thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/problems-modern-practice-forensic-firearm-toolmark-analysis/