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

[everybodhi]

Unless they aren't the same clothes and RA knows it. He could easily have gotten rid of the actual clothes and given LE something similar. Clothes that have no evidence on them at all because they weren't ever at the crime scene. I don't know RA and have no idea his level of intelligence, but saying "These are the clothes I wore that day" does not mean they really are. He easily could have switched them out. And should have. RA's attorneys may have specifically mentioned the clothing because they already know there is no evidence on them and want to make that point early. My opinions only.

Yes, if he’s guilty those aren’t the clothes, (as if an innocent person could pull up the jeans and the particular carhartt jacket they wore one day almost 6 years ago anyway). The way he was dressed is practically a recreational uniform for men all over the US. I know guys with several jackets like that and jeans, forget about it.
It’s too late for that anyway, blood dna from early 2017 in his car, washing machine, home etc is probably long gone or degraded past the point of recognition.

 

[everybodhi]

BBM

It just makes no sense that a guilty man would be so forthcoming, non-evasive, etc. IMOO

However, its not nearly as conclusive as matching the marks left on a spent round. I can't recall any case where this type evidence has been used. Can you?

That still is not conclusive, as in when a firing pin strikes and the round is shot through the barrel.

I can't buy that he was worried about unchambering a round, after he'd just killed, with sharp force injuries, a 13 and 14 year-old, dragged them some distance, posed their bodies, and stole an article or more of clothing. I can't get there. Sure, maybe he usually preferred to carry without a round. But then, why chamber a round to begin with? (If someone draws a weapon on me, I won't be debating whether or not it's ready to fire with a trigger pull. I'd be convinced.) If he chambered it, would be really be so concerned about THAT in that moment? Why would he waste a split second to do anything other than getting out of there?

We know that interviews/interrogations with law enforcement often claim evidence that they don’t have, it happens everyday.

Imagine this, over and over the way they do: “Rick, several people saw you and identified you including what you were wearing”.
He wouldn’t know the witnesses didn’t recognize him from CVS or pick him from a line up.
The only defense to being positively identified would be to argue, “yes it was me but I was just checking the stock market and lookin’ at the fishies”.

As far as the round, we don’t know what went on at the scene in the woods with those girls but there may have been a struggle.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

The concern is that that witness will need to identify RA as the man she saw, and she couldn't even recall blue over black, when the jeans weren't even dark blue.

MOO There is nothing in the PCA showing that anyone is able to identify RA as the man they saw, and it doesn't appear that anyone was able to pick him out in a photo lineup, as the person they saw. The witness will describe a build and possible clothing, not specifically identify RA as the person they saw. The case certainly won't be decided on if a witness got the clothing color wrong. Prosecutors are adept at explaining human memory inconsistencies. MOO

Secondly, the poster I responded to said:

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

Which was a response to a discussion about interpretations of color and lighting conditions.

 

[EOA]

Hopefully helpful, but below is a summarized version as best as I can discern from the RA PCA to compare consistency and detail. I'll call the juvenile females J1, J2, J3 or J? when it's unclear who is speaking during the interview(s). To be consistent with Gray H's video, will call the adult Sue who turned around at the bridge, and the final witness I'll call MB1 (for muddy-bloody). It is not stated in the PCA whether the juveniles heard each other's version or provided independent accounts though consistent references to "they" suggest all 3 were interviewed together which could be another clue (see below) that one or two of the juveniles were very young. On the flipside the paragraph begins with "Interviews" were conducted with 3 juveniles, which could suggest separate talks with each of the 3, or it could suggest the group of 3 were contacted a plurality of occasions.

Location/Position
J1, J2, & J3 all seemed to be lumped together as "they" in advising a) they all were on the MHB trail 2/3/17, b) they all were heading toward the Freedom Bridge (which commonly implies away from the High Bridge portion) to go home (which would seem to indicate they were related to each other, all lived at the same place, or in the event one (which could be the taller one RA describes) was a babysitter for the 2 younger ones, all 3 were headed back to somebody's home. They don't say headed to the car or to the parking lot - it is reported as home which may suggest they lived very nearby. c) they all agree they encountered a male who had passed the Freedom Bridge and was on the way toward the High Bridge.

RA '17 narrative - was on the trail (not dated which IMO suggests this narrative was given the same day the described events occurred [which would've been 2/13], and that since a time was noted), walked to the Freedom Bridge then onward to the High Bridge. Though clear that he says he saw three females while there at the Freedom Bridge. the second statement is a bit unclear as he states... "He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. He did not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked." MOO I believe him saying he did not see anybody is directed toward the journey between bridges and not necessarily on the High Bridge itself, as I just feel like walking the rickety High Bridge requires an attentive focus and he would not have been distracted and on a phone while specifically on the bridge.

RA '22 narrative - was on the trails on 2/13/17, saw juvenile girls (no number of girls noted), on trails east of the Freedom Bridge, then onward to the High Bridge as far as the first platform (there were six platforms evenly staggered), then walked back, sat on a bench, then left. (there is no time approximation provided as to how long each of these separate things lasted)

Summary - largely consistent, only discrepancy from RA '17 to RA '22 moves the meeting east of the Freedom Bridge instead of while at the Freedom Bridge, but the '22 version is a match to J1/J2/J3's description somewhat away from the actual bridge.

Descriptions of the Other parties
J1 - male was kind of creepy, wearing blue jeans and a really light blue jacket which was a duck canvas type, hair was gray maybe a little brown, did not really show his face
J2 - advised she said Hi to the male but he just glared at them, dressed in all black with something covering his mouth (MOO the eyes to glare were visible, but she would not have been able to see if male greeted back or murmered anything if mouth was not visible), said not very tall but then - no taller than 5'10 (which isn't short), and with bigger build, had hands in pockets and was wearing black jeans, a black jacket, and a black hoodie
J3 - man wearing a blue or black windbreaker jacket with a collar (MOO this would be like nylon material and inconsistent with canvas material but others may disagree), hood was up from clothing underneath jacket, baggy jeans, and taller than her (MOO by around 14 inches IF...) as her head came up to his shoulder. (MOO I might place this witness as a 4'4 third-grader other than she later said...) he was walking with a purpose like he knew where he was going. (MOO which doesn't sound like an observation of a 9-year old), she agrees with J1 that male's head was kept down, and she agrees with J2 that male's hands were in pockets. She agrees (assumedly with J2) that someone said Hi to the man and claims nothing was said back (though does not mention a face covering that might've muffled a greeting or couldn't read lips.), did not get a good look at his face.

RA in '17 - says little about this encounter, except that he did not speak to them nor remember any description other than it was noted that one was taller (assumedly than both of the others), and that the taller one (possibly older? JMO if it was that noticeable) had brown or black hair (which MOO only eliminates a small % of the local population) He does mention he observed more than one vehicle parked at the High Bridge trailhead (which would've presumedly lead to others being in the vicinity) but could not describe any of the vehicles, nor were any photos or videos of anything taken. MOO he was wanting to place himself on the scene as a cover but was cautious not to say much that could get him in trouble later.. most notably in '17 does not appear, per what's recorded, to describe in any way the clothing we was wearing that day. Perhaps the CO didn't ask but it would've seemed pertinent for CO to ask and/or RA to offer his wardrobe such that if others came forward with descriptions of people on the trails they'd know how to identify and perhaps ignore this proactive "kind citizen".

RA in '22 - recalls a bit more detail and this time does describe his clothing - as a blue or black Carhartt jacket with a hood (MOO did he own one of each color at that time?), blue jeans, and maybe some type of head covering. Except for any description of footwear, nor any mention of something around his waist, he comes very close to describing the man in the pics and video previously made public and displayed all over town. This time he seems more clear that he saw no one anywhere that day except for the 3 girls at Freedom Bridge.

Summary - largely NOT consistent... knowing the ages of these witnesses and knowing how long after the encounter this interview(s) took place (the PCA interestingly doesn't date it as it somewhat does the RA interviews) would help immensely as to the degree of reliability to expect. But given the 2 most prominent pieces of clothing on BG per L's video were his NAVY BLUE jacket and LIGHT BLUE jeans, none of these 3 juveniles hits a full match - J1 reports a "really light" blue jacket, J2 reports black jeans amongst all black clothing, while J3 gets closest but unless we knew her height back then, she seems to describe him as someone substantially taller than her, which RA is very rarely described as far taller than anyone. The 3rd most prominent item BG was wearing in L's video was the thing around his waist, which 0 of the 3 girls recalled noticing. To top it off, it appears from one statement that J? states in same interview that man they encountered "matched the description of the photograph taken from L's video" which means when providing their descriptions it seems they already a confirmation bias picture in their mind suggesting what they should've seen and still didn't come up with a match. JMO - I DON'T SEE HOW THESE GIRLS WOULD BE HELPFUL WITNESSES TO THE PROSECUTION in terms of establishing this man was without a doubt BG... or that BG is RA.

Sue - describes seeing 4 juveniles (not 3, but common belief is that it's the same J ones above) crossing the Old SR bridge above her as she drove underneath approaching her parking spot to hike. Walking toward the high bridge, she states seeing a man near the High Bridge but again it's stated as "matching the one from L's video" so she kind of already knew what she was supposed to be seeing, saw him wearing blue jeans and a blue jean jacket (which is not the same in material nor color as a canvas, windbreaker, or navy jacket). Advised she turned around at the bridge (implying she never set foot on the bridge). Advised the male was on the first platform (consistent with RA's stated position) though she approximated that distance as 50 feet from her (which MOO but perhaps someone else can verify, the first platform is considerably farther away than the start of the bridge than 50 feet. 50 feet would've been very close and she should've gotten a great look at his face & clothing from that distance IMO. JMO - NOT SURE THIS WITNESS LIKEWISE IS MUCH HELP TO REALLY EITHER PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE, IN ESTABLISHING, OR NOT, THAT THE MAN DESCRIBED IS BG... or that BG is RA.

MB1 - states she was traveling eastbound (MOO assumes that to be driving) and crossed paths with a male walking westbound, described him wearing a blue jacket and blue jeans, and was muddy and bloody. Suggested the idea of him being in a fight but didn't necessarily disclose how that conclusion was reached. No other detail mentioned if all mud and blood was on dark clothing or might also have been on light pants or skin?? Apparently this witness wasn't concerned enough to stop and offer assistance nor report to 911. JMO - IT WOULDN'T HARM THE PROSECUTION TO BRING THIS WITNESS FORWARD TO HELP ESTABLISH THIS MAN AS BG AND/OR A MURDERER, BUT THIS WOULD NEED TO BE PAIRED WITH STRONGER EVIDENCE ELSEWHERE TO WITHOUT A DOUBT CONVINCE THAT THIS MAN WAS RA.

Last PS - it was only in the '17 interview that RA provides a time that he was present at the bridge, saying 1330 to 1530, or 1:30 through 3:30. JMO as he describes in '22 his activities at the bridge that day from walking approx 1.1 miles from side road building to start of bridge (say 25 minutes), walked (MOO) 150 feet onto bridge to platform (1 minute), perhaps "watched fish" 10 minutes tops IMO (there's no rail to lean on, he didn't bring a lawn chair to sit down, etc), walked back the 150 feet, (1 minute), sat on bench - MOO give him 15 minutes tops for this, then the 25-minute repeat of hike back to car/side road bldg, this only cumulates to 77 minutes. Assuming the 1:30 arrival is solid based on '17 interview and confirmed with Harvestore video, that would present him leaving much earlier, like 3:00 max but possibly pre-2:50, than MB1's nearly 4:00 sighting. If there's any alibi, video, or other unreleased evidence LE has that suggests RA had driven out of the trail area by around 2:50, that would give LE a tough reconciliation with L's video that sets a solid time of abduction at 2:13.

OVERALL THAT ANY or ALL of THESE WITNESSES IMPACT A TRIAL - MOO - "Preponderance" = Maybe, "Without a Doubt" = no way, too weak, too inconsistent, too many places that Defense can insert uncertainties. As others have said DNA, finger/foot prints, finding items only the killer would have, etc are probably needed to get to the required guilty level. His own admissions are the much better evidence of placing him somewhat near the CS than any of these witness sightings, but even he yet hasn't gone as far as saying he was ever near the South End abduction site, ever near the downhill CS, or obviously admitted he is BG.
Thanks for enduring this long post

 

[wary]

I agree.

But my presumption, which I believe is not contradicted by the PCA or anything shared by LE, is that LE had almost all the information in the PCA in 2017 within days of the crime, and they did not have probable cause for a search or arrest or they would have done so. (I do not believe they missed or forgot the information provided by RA and witnesses that were provided in the first days following the crime.) Obviously they had the bullet, and the recording in which one of the girls said "gun", plus RA's admission he was on the bridge and most likely a very good idea that he might have been BG.

So last month, following the second interview, it's reasonable to think he said something revealing that could provide probable cause to search his property or his cell phone records, the probable cause they did not have for 5 years. That may have been as simple as whether he even owned a gun, especially if he finally told them he owned the Sig with the same bullets as the one found at the crime scene. That would add enough to finally have probable cause for the search. And upon finding his gun and matching it to the bullet at the crime scene, they would finally have probable cause for an arrest, consistent with what I gleaned from reading the arrest warrant.

(I do not believe LE withholds evidence from an arrest warrant trying to have just enough for an arrest. They explain all the evidence they have that could contribute to probable cause for the arrest. Anything they did not include in the PCA was probably just too weak to bother with, not super strong evidence they want to hide.)

Some of the above could be wrong, but if it is correct then the bullet is THE key piece of evidence that justifies the probable cause for the arrest which they presumably did not have for five years. It seems to be the only thing that puts him at the scene of the crime.

Otherwise all they had was suggestive evidence that he was on the bridge. Walking on the bridge is not a crime. Seeming creepy or intimidating is not a crime. Saying "Down the hill" is not a crime unless there was also a threat or provable attempt to force them to do so. The girls saying "gun" makes it seem like they were saying he had a gun, but it's not a slam dunk like if they said "do what he says he's pointing a gun at us" - just for argument sake they could have seen a bulge in his jacket or just worried he had a gun because of his tone. If there was clear evidence of a crime on the bridge (kidnapping) and probable cause that RA was BG, they could have easily gotten a search warrant that we know they did not get (or failed to get) for five more years.

So my question is, just how big of a coincidence is it that a bullet was found at the crime scene? Are the woods in Indiana full of bullets? When I go hiking I hear gun shots all the time, and many people I meet have guns and ammunition. I don't assume anything about whether a bullet near the crime scene is just a coincidence because they are everywhere, or highly unusual like finding murder victims thus clearly something the murderer left behind.

The rest of the case against RA is compelling but circumstantial, not so strong that LE stopped investigating others. They switched to focusing on RL and later KAK as prime suspects. You could argue of course that they were just being thorough by investigating everyone, but the RL warrant says LE believes RL was the murderer, not that he was the second best suspect.

The bullet, I contend, is the difference. So it is critical to know how unusual it is to find a bullet anywhere in that part of the country, how unusual it is to match RA's gun, how strong the forensics are that match the bullet to the specific gun. It would be fairly easy to scour a square mile of the park away from the crime scene and determine that no other bullets were scattered randomly on the ground. Or if I were on the defense I might go out and see if I could find hundreds of them no where near crime scene. With so much riding on that bullet (imo), I'd want to know everything about it.

For those who believe the bullet was just another contributing factor to the probable cause, it would be interesting to know whether a search warrant or an arrest warrant for RA was attempted and rejected by a judge prior to the bullet/gun connection to RA. I suspect that failed attempts at warrants are never public, but maybe they are public records or fair discovery once a successful warrant clears? Does a lawyer on this forum know the answer?

Does it matter to anyone but me that it wasn’t a bullet?

MOO

 

[LucyOso]

Does it matter to anyone but me that it wasn’t a bullet?

MOO

Can you clarify that statement? Curious. I am daft at times.

 

[wary]

Can you clarify that statement? Curious. I am daft at times.

Well, a bullet is the little piece of metal that goes flying through the air when a gun is fired.

My understanding is that what was found at the scene of the murders was an unspent round. That’s a casing that encloses a bullet and the gunpowder, primer, everything that’s needed to fire a shot.

When someone says that a bullet was found, it implies that he fired a shot, (and I believe that there’s no evidence that he did.)

When LE says that they found an ‘unspent round,’ there’s no implication that a shot was fired.

MOO

 

[EOA]

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.

Even if Trail Woman is established as completely credible (and I think that's questionable) the Defense can suggest that the High Bridge is accessible from both ends even though the large majority step on at the North End and turn around at the South End to return. It's within the realm of possibility that the killer walked up the hill from the eventual CS and entered onto the bridge from "wrong" end at nearly the same time A & L arrived at the South End (because of a pre-planned meeting, coincedence, or whatever). Under that scenario the girls would have to have moved past RA southbound while RA was on the first platform (per him) but the possibility of him intently looking down from the platform at the fish below, being back on his phone, or even dozing off for a brief time would allow for the possibility that A & L snuck past him and he didn't notice, or couldn't recall noticing.

 

[LucyOso]

Well, a bullet is the little piece of metal that goes flying through the air when a gun is fired.

My understanding is that what was found at the scene of the murders was an unspent round. That’s a casing that encloses a bullet and the gunpowder, primer, everything that’s needed to fire a shot.

When someone says that a bullet was found, it implies that he fired a shot, (and I believe that there’s no evidence that he did.)

When LE says that they found an ‘unspent round,’ there’s no implication that a shot was fired.

MOO

I am very familiar with firearms, but thank you for dumbing it down in an interesting way. I was trying to understand the context of your quote. Obviously terms aren't interchangeable, but also could be viewed as semantics for layman. My understanding now is different. You were asking if it matters to anyone but you that the technical term is incorrect.

And my understanding has also been that this was not fired from a gun. It was an unspent round. I have not seen any reports/indication shots were fired that day. It could have even been in his pocket from a different time and fell out during the situation.

 

[wary]

I am very familiar with firearms, but thank you for dumbing it down in an interesting way. I was trying to understand the context of your quote. Obviously terms aren't interchangeable, but also could be viewed as semantics for layman. My understanding now is different. You were asking if it matters to anyone but you that the technical term is incorrect.

And my understanding has also been that this was not fired from a gun. It was an unspent round. I have not seen any reports/indication shots were fired that day. It could have even been in his pocket from a different time and fell out during the situation.

Thank you! I agree with you—haven’t heard any indication that shots were fired that day. But I’ve seen quite a few people who assumed that the presence of a ‘bullet’ on the scene would mean that a shot was fired. So I think that calling the ‘round’ a ‘bullet’ helps lead to unnecessary confusion

And the presence of an ‘unspent round’ is interesting. Why was it there? Are there any other cases where that’s happened, and been relevant?

My theory for quite some time was that the killer used a gun to threaten them, and then something more silent to kill them.

MOO

 

[LucyOso]

Thank you! I agree with you—haven’t heard any indication that shots were fired that day. But I’ve seen quite a few people who assumed that the presence of a ‘bullet’ on the scene would mean that a shot was fired. So I think that calling the ‘round’ a ‘bullet’ helps lead to unnecessary confusion

And the presence of an ‘unspent round’ is interesting. Why was it there? Are there any other cases where that’s happened, and been relevant?

My theory for quite some time was that the killer used a gun to threaten them, and then something more silent to kill them.

MOO

I agree. I think with the witnesses, someone would have mentioned gunshots. The gun was used to intimidate. And that round could have fallen out of his pocket or something. Or he left it for some reason...

 

[stormymama]

The probable cause doc, it contains the notes of the interview RA had with the officer in 2017

"He did not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone"

Thank you. I somehow completely missed that!

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

That still is not conclusive, as in when a firing pin strikes and the round is shot through the barrel.

I can't buy that he was worried about unchambering a round, after he'd just killed, with sharp force injuries, a 13 and 14 year-old, dragged them some distance, posed their bodies, and stole an article or more of clothing. I can't get there. Sure, maybe he usually preferred to carry without a round. But then, why chamber a round to begin with?

I never offered an opinion on whether marking from the ejected round "were conclusive", I was answering a question on how the marks got on the round. I have no idea how the round got there, if he indeed did eject it while at the scene, it was accidental or on purpose. Perhaps, he wanted to carry it without a round chambered. I have no idea.
Or he had a previously ejected round on his person and it ended up on the ground. If he doesn't ever confess it will remain a mystery. MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Good afternoon. It’s not known at this time how the notes about RA’s meeting with the Conservation Officer have been excluded from this investigation up until now. (Is excluded too strong a word)? We do know the FBI refuses to take all the blame
in what has been a multi-agency investigation.

It’s not entirely clear to me that RA met someone in front of the grocery store. This information comes only from the defense. MOO

My problem with them doing this, is it could be part of their defence. But also they likely have evidential issues because i highly doubt RA can take the stand given his train wreck pre-trial admissions.

So they are trying to establish his narrative outside the court room - a big no no

 

[mrjitty]

Yes I think the Conservation Officer will be a witness and the details of contact with RA will be known.

Yes - these admissions will be a critical matter of evidence!

 

[mrjitty]

RL and KAK were never charged, so they never met the same level of proof needed for that. Also, there were massive amounts of searchers combing through the woods, and then LE searched it for investigative purposes after the bodies were found. Why would we assume that they didn't look for other cartridges?

Right - it was the scene of a double murder - forensics will have been all over it.

 

[m00c0w]

It just makes no sense that a guilty man would be so forthcoming, non-evasive, etc. IMOO

I mean, this type of thinking may be why he was overlooked for 5 years. If a bunch of people saw you out there and you’re not sure what they actually saw or if they could identify you, it’s in your best interest to get your story there first so you look cooperative and helpful.

However, it’s not nearly as conclusive as matching the marks left on a spent round. I can't recall any case where this type evidence has been used. Can you?

I’m not familiar with every case in the US involving firearms, no.

That still is not conclusive, as in when a firing pin strikes and the round is shot through the barrel.

I can't buy that he was worried about unchambering a round, after he'd just killed, with sharp force injuries, a 13 and 14 year-old, dragged them some distance, posed their bodies, and stole an article or more of clothing. I can't get there. Sure, maybe he usually preferred to carry without a round. But then, why chamber a round to begin with? (If someone draws a weapon on me, I won't be debating whether or not it's ready to fire with a trigger pull. I'd be convinced.) If he chambered it, would be really be so concerned about THAT in that moment? Why would he waste a split second to do anything other than getting out of there?

We don’t know when a round was ejected. They can fly a decent distance. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he racked the slide as an intimidation technique, round flew away and got lost in the leaves, and he couldn’t find it in the panic to get the scene cleaned up and leave. It would be nearly impossible to find if lost in a chaotic situation, especially if it was a brass casing. He probably had no idea it could actually be linked back to his firearm and decided to hedge his bets rather than be caught at the scene with the bodies.

Based on RA’s own admissions that corroborate witness statements, the timing is far too tight for it to be anyone but him. Line that up with the clothes, the matching round, the fact he was parked at the CPS building and didn’t leave until well after the murders (after not being seen again on the trail)… IMO, with the totality of circumstances we’re approaching beyond a reasonable doubt just from the probable cause affidavit.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

boom I did my crash course in Indiana bar rules, Professional Conduct Rule 3.6(c):

“Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client.”

The recent publicity since the unsealing of the PCA definitely had a prejudicial effect, and thus under this rule RA’s lawyer was absolutely within his right to make the statement he did yesterday, IMO.

(Just in case anyone takes me literally I didn’t actually do any course in IN bar rules, I just read the rules. Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct)

Even accepting your reasoning that the defence press release is justified (which I don't), your argument makes clear that the judge was correct to gag both parties to stop them discussing trial evidence in the media.

Such evidence needs to be led subject to the rules of evidence and with cross examination. It is not OK for the defence to be briefing the accused version outside the court room once the judicial process commenced - just as it would not be appropriate for the prosecution to start briefing its version of this meeting.

This meeting is a critical element of the trial!

Hence the judge has politely reminded prosecution and defence of their obligations to the court.

 

[mrjitty]

Even if Trail Woman is established as completely credible (and I think that's questionable) the Defense can suggest that the High Bridge is accessible from both ends even though the large majority step on at the North End and turn around at the South End to return. It's within the realm of possibility that the killer walked up the hill from the eventual CS and entered onto the bridge from "wrong" end at nearly the same time A & L arrived at the South End (because of a pre-planned meeting, coincedence, or whatever). Under that scenario the girls would have to have moved past RA southbound while RA was on the first platform (per him) but the possibility of him intently looking down from the platform at the fish below, being back on his phone, or even dozing off for a brief time would allow for the possibility that A & L snuck past him and he didn't notice, or couldn't recall noticing.

OK - but remember I opened my post saying the following (my emphasis).

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

While counsel push the boundaries when it comes to speculation, they are simply not allowed to sock puppet a version for the accused which is not in evidence. They are stuck with what he said in his interview.

So while I agree Bridge Guy could have come from the other end of the bridge, there is simply no way for the girls to get past RA on the trail, without them or him leaving the trail, based on his own version

The problem for RA, is he didn't know what the other moving parts were, so he wasn't able to invent a version to fit with them. And I guarantee you, following selective reveals, he will have tailored or altered his account.

It is much too late in the day to speculate that RA was asleep, or left the trail for a comfort break or whatever.

He'll need to testify to that.

 

[JudgeJudi]

As stated on p.7 of the CPA, RA said that he saw juvenile girls on the trails east of Freedom Bridge and that he went onto the High Bridge. Later in his statement he said he walked out to the first platform on the bridge and then walked back, sat on a bench on the trail and then left.

This video was filmed by Julie Melville who has also made videos for Gray Hughes. Underneath the video she states, “I walked as fast as I could without running and put myself in the mind of BG, like I was on a mission and a time constraint to get to the south side of Monon High Bridge. I highly doubt BG did it any faster. I started where first eyewitness saw BG entering trail ‘walking fast’ like he was on a mission”. It took her 10:27.