Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #161

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes - we have the abduction on video.

Then the girls are found murdered nearby. Any jury is going to infer Bridge Guy forced them there with the gun, and murdered them. This much will not be contested at trial IMO.

The defence will agree Bridge Guy did all the bad things. They will just argue RA is not BG
I'd like to know how you have seen the abduction video when no one else here has seen it. If there is a video that shows an abduction by him then the trial will be very short , if there is one at all.
 
According to video recovered from one of the victim's phones, Abby or Libby mentioned "gun" as a man approached them, the probable cause affidavit said.

A .40-caliber unspent round was found less than 2 feet away from one of the girls' bodies, and that unspent round went through a gun that Allen owns, according to the probable cause affidavit.

Garrett explained that an "unspent bullet is one that has the casing and the projectile still together." To get that, he said one of two things happens: 1.) Someone tries to fire the gun but it's a faulty bullet and it doesn't fire, or 2.) The gun jammed, which Garrett said is common.

During a search of Allen's home on Oct. 13, 2022, officers found knives and guns, including a "Sig Sauer, Model P226, .40-caliber pistol," the probable cause affidavit said.

Indiana State Police's analysis of Allen's gun "determined the unspent round located within two feet" of one of the victims "had been cycled through Richard M. Allen's Sig Sauer Model P226," the probable cause affidavit said.

 
another says we see him on video abducting the girls and others seem to be saying there is more video. Is this presumption, known facts or deducing from what is already available?
Early in the case, the mother of one victim spoke to interviewer about what she was shown, so "more video" may come from that. This interview was online five years ago. Being careful of TOS and "family", she described to the end of bridge, not further.
 
Early in the case, the mother of one victim spoke to interviewer about what she was shown, so "more video" may come from that. This interview was online five years ago. Being careful of TOS and "family", she described to the end of bridge, not further.
That may be but others are posting as if "we" know the abduction is seen on video. I'm not aware of any video that shows an abduction or anything other than the 2 seconds walking on the bridge.
 
IMO the video is proof to BARD standard that Bridge Guy abducted the victims, with a gun, and directed them to where they were found murdered.

Others may hold a different view, but I don't expect this aspect to be contested at trial.
 
I don't think it's too hopeful to think that there are more pictures or videos on Libby's phone that will be useful to the prosecution - or if it is, I share that hope:

Q. No matter how distant, do you have the man walking on the bridge, videoed by Libby, on any other video?

A. This is close to an evidentiary information question and I prefer not to respond.

Q. Why have no other photos from Libby’s phone been released to the public?

A. This is close to an evidentiary information question and I prefer not to respond.


Source: County Sheriff answers double homicide questions from readers - Carroll County Comet

I think we will find out at trial that there are more photos from her phone that help build out the timeline that RA placed himself into.

I agree that there will be other photos establishing the timeline.

Girls that age would be doing selfies all along the way to the bridge too.

I think the mention of the creepy guy (if that is a fact that was recorded), with a time stamp, will be very beneficial to the case.

Again, not trying to beat a dead horse, but RA placing himself at the bridge at the time of the murders is going to be a massive problem to explain away to a jury. No other man seen at the time by any of the 4 witnesses (3 juv. girls + woman) is the straw that broke the camels back in this case.

Also, there will likely be some other kind of physical evidence from either the CS or the search of his house/car.
 
His cover up lie points to a spur of the moment act of violence.
He knew he had his phone on him. What did he do with it? He may have thought he needed to explain his location. But not too exactly just being in the area.
But no one, nor he could have anticipated the colossal error of missing him altogether.
You bring up a good point. Did RA have his phone on him, turned on, while he was murdering the two girls? Perhaps this will be additional evidence that will be revealed in the next hearing...JMO
 
Last edited:
I agree that there will be other photos establishing the timeline.

Girls that age would be doing selfies all along the way to the bridge too.

I think the mention of the creepy guy (if that is a fact that was recorded), with a time stamp, will be very beneficial to the case.

Again, not trying to beat a dead horse, but RA placing himself at the bridge at the time of the murders is going to be a massive problem to explain away to a jury. No other man seen at the time by any of the 4 witnesses (3 juv. girls + woman) is the straw that broke the camels back in this case.

Also, there will likely be some other kind of physical evidence from either the CS or the search of his house/car.
I'll bet that RA's defense will be that Ron Logan killed the girls and RA was just an innocent man who happened to be nearby. JMO
 
You bring up a good point. Did RA have his phone on him, turned on, while he was murdering the two girls? Perhaps this will be additional evidence that will be revealed in the next hearing...JMO
My speculation

This was a planned abduction.

Phone turned off.

Burner/shared phone for tracking.

3 young people saw him.

The lady saw him.

We know Libby and Abby saw him.

He wasn't worried about Abby and Libby identifying him, he had a terminal plan for that IMO.

I think he dismissed the young people.

I think the lady was a problem. I do think he made sure she was committed to leaving so he could proceed, but I think their encounter was mutually recorded. By which I mean-- I think they locked eyes.

I personally think he was on the bridge, for the vantage point (watching for his planned arrival, also taking a census of parkgoers) and I believe he was on the phone. On A phone.

Which IMO is why he copped early to being on the bridge, on a phone. He knew he'd been seen, knew he couldn't walk that back.

Moo he was on a phone not associated with himself ....

If he gave his contact info the the CO, IMO he gave his cellphone #, the cellphone IMO he didn't have with him that day. He was hardly hoomh to provide his burner number! (Again, it's MY speculation that he was using a different phone that day, one synced with Libby's (or Abby's), without her knowledge.

Later, if LE did a tower dump, guess what number wouldn't show up! RA's. That phone was probably watching TV at his house.

And IMO just like that, LE might've moved Top RA into the 'unfounded' pile. Based on his cellphone number, he wasn't there at the time of the crime. Probably figured he was mistaken about the time he was there, therefore had no info to add to the search.

I suspect we will learn at trial that there was, however, A phone number in use that day, one which LE was unable to pair.

While RA continued to hide in plain sight, falsely alibied by his cellphone, parked nowhere near the bridge.

Lucky break.

Hoping his luck has run our.

JMO
 
First, when I write that I do not think that Richard Allen is the murderer, I am only saying IF he is the murderer.
This is based on the evidence currently released to date in the probable cause affidavit. Maybe the really strong evidence against Richard Allen has yet to be released to the public.

If the girls arrived at 1:49 pm to the trail, then it is even more puzzling. I cannot understand why someone who plans to abduct two girls would wait until they are across the bridge to abduct the girls if his plan is to have them cross the creek. And I do not think Abigail Williams and Liberty German thought they would be faster than a bullet by trying to run into the water across the creek. Maybe you cannot get to the crime scene by not crossing the bridge? Maybe that is the answer.

Maybe he did not see the girls until he was on or near the bridge? Then he decided to abduct them? I might think that if it were not for the pictures and video the girls left as evidence. How close does someone have to be to feel uneasy about their presence? How far does someone have to stand away staring at you in order to think something is not right. These are subjective questions.

This is my opinion only. I do not have any proof. If you want proof, ask law enforcement. But IF Richard Allen is the murderer, I think it is strange he waited until Abigail Williams and Liberty German crossed the bridge before he decided to abduct them off the Monon High Bridge.
 
In my head:

RA & KAK meet @ RL's house, because RL has agreed to let them use his house for RA & KAK to assault or "hook up with some girls/girl". RL probably accepts some money for this, but has no interest in joining. RA leaves RL's house and goes and parks where he does. Hence why RA took an unexpected route to the trails.

He forces the girls from where he finds them straight across the river toward RL's house. Something goes wrong. RA tries to shoot the girls but his gun jams because a) the pistol probably got wet crossing the river, pistols don't like that, and b) RA seems like the kind of guy that would buy a gun @ Academy, take it to the range the next day for target practice, never clean the gun or go to the range again and just completely neglect the gun. Hence, the likelihood for a jam and unspent cartridge. He freaks out and kills them right there. Then he freaks out and runs off toward the cemetery without thoroughly checking to see if he left anything behind.

This also could explain why KAK said he was "Supposed to meet LG at the trails but she never showed up".

RL finds out something has gone very wrong, so he leaves and prepares his alibi.

No idea why RA would walk on the other side of the highway on the back to his car though.
 
Last edited:
First, when I write that I do not think that Richard Allen is the murderer, I am only saying IF he is the murderer.
This is based on the evidence currently released to date in the probable cause affidavit. Maybe the really strong evidence against Richard Allen has yet to be released to the public.

If the girls arrived at 1:49 pm to the trail, then it is even more puzzling. I cannot understand why someone who plans to abduct two girls would wait until they are across the bridge to abduct the girls if his plan is to have them cross the creek. And I do not think Abigail Williams and Liberty German thought they would be faster than a bullet by trying to run into the water across the creek. Maybe you cannot get to the crime scene by not crossing the bridge? Maybe that is the answer.

Maybe he did not see the girls until he was on or near the bridge? Then he decided to abduct them? I might think that if it were not for the pictures and video the girls left as evidence. How close does someone have to be to feel uneasy about their presence? How far does someone have to stand away staring at you in order to think something is not right. These are subjective questions.

This is my opinion only. I do not have any proof. If you want proof, ask law enforcement. But IF Richard Allen is the murderer, I think it is strange he waited until Abigail Williams and Liberty German crossed the bridge before he decided to abduct them off the Monon High Bridge.
I'm with you on this. I have a really hard time thinking that a killer would plan to abduct two girls and cross a creek with them when it wasn't absolutely necessary.

Some of the reasons I've seen suggested as to the creek crossing:
- To get the girls out of view
- The girls tried to flee
- It was about power and control
- The location below the cemetery was planned
- He was trying to abduct them to a vehicle

While all of these possibilities are perfectly plausible, I don't feel right about any of them. If the killer did indeed park at the CPS lot, for instance, that rules out several of these, imo. To me, it seems more like a "cause and effect" scenario. There was a cause during the events, and the effect was them crossing the creek. JMO. My personal feeling is the cause was a sudden fear by the killer of getting seen, which I think might have been triggered by knowing L's father was coming. If anyone was likely to cross the bridge and/or go down below the bridge, it was a father searching for his daughter. A lot of things could have happened in the woods below the south end of the bridge. It's just one other possibility, but what if L did tell the killer that her dad was calling, or coming to pick them up right then? He could have told them to gather their clothes and led them across the creek to quickly distance himself and them from the trail/bridge area. That way he avoids the trail and park all together on his way out, now that he knows L's dad would be there, plus the girls wouldn't be found so easily. I've mentioned this before, but it still makes the most sense to me, although I'm willing to admit it might be WAY off.
 
I'm with you on this. I have a really hard time thinking that a killer would plan to abduct two girls and cross a creek with them when it wasn't absolutely necessary.

Some of the reasons I've seen suggested as to the creek crossing:
- To get the girls out of view
- The girls tried to flee
- It was about power and control
- The location below the cemetery was planned
- He was trying to abduct them to a vehicle

While all of these possibilities are perfectly plausible, I don't feel right about any of them. If the killer did indeed park at the CPS lot, for instance, that rules out several of these, imo. To me, it seems more like a "cause and effect" scenario. There was a cause during the events, and the effect was them crossing the creek. JMO. My personal feeling is the cause was a sudden fear by the killer of getting seen, which I think might have been triggered by knowing L's father was coming. If anyone was likely to cross the bridge and/or go down below the bridge, it was a father searching for his daughter. A lot of things could have happened in the woods below the south end of the bridge. It's just one other possibility, but what if L did tell the killer that her dad was calling, or coming to pick them up right then? He could have told them to gather their clothes and led them across the creek to quickly distance himself and them from the trail/bridge area. That way he avoids the trail and park all together on his way out, now that he knows L's dad would be there, plus the girls wouldn't be found so easily. I've mentioned this before, but it still makes the most sense to me, although I'm willing to admit it might be WAY off.
IMO

He went across the creek because they ran. And Libby lost her shoe in the episode.
 
IMO

He went across the creek because they ran. And Libby lost her shoe in the episode.
Believe me, I want them to have run. :( While it's still possible L lost her shoe while fleeing, I feel like now that it's been confirmed there was likely a gun involved, I think it's less probable that they tried to run. Until I knew about all their clothing being found in the creek, I thought the shoe might have been found singularly by the searchers, but now I sort of wonder if it might have been seen along with the other clothing wherever it all was snagged along the edge of the creek. This was rumored from very early on, but now the affidavits pretty much support those rumors, IMO.

I mill over the reason why the girls clothing was found in the creek instead of on land. The girls were 50 feet from the bank (moved to some extent, per the RL affidavit), so they weren't that far from the creek, but how did their clothing end up in the water? Did the killer toss them in there? Did he make the girls?
 
My speculation

This was a planned abduction.

Phone turned off.

Burner/shared phone for tracking.

3 young people saw him.

The lady saw him.

We know Libby and Abby saw him.

He wasn't worried about Abby and Libby identifying him, he had a terminal plan for that IMO.

I think he dismissed the young people.

I think the lady was a problem. I do think he made sure she was committed to leaving so he could proceed, but I think their encounter was mutually recorded. By which I mean-- I think they locked eyes.

I personally think he was on the bridge, for the vantage point (watching for his planned arrival, also taking a census of parkgoers) and I believe he was on the phone. On A phone.

Which IMO is why he copped early to being on the bridge, on a phone. He knew he'd been seen, knew he couldn't walk that back.

Moo he was on a phone not associated with himself ....

If he gave his contact info the the CO, IMO he gave his cellphone #, the cellphone IMO he didn't have with him that day. He was hardly hoomh to provide his burner number! (Again, it's MY speculation that he was using a different phone that day, one synced with Libby's (or Abby's), without her knowledge.

Later, if LE did a tower dump, guess what number wouldn't show up! RA's. That phone was probably watching TV at his house.

And IMO just like that, LE might've moved Top RA into the 'unfounded' pile. Based on his cellphone number, he wasn't there at the time of the crime. Probably figured he was mistaken about the time he was there, therefore had no info to add to the search.

I suspect we will learn at trial that there was, however, A phone number in use that day, one which LE was unable to pair.

While RA continued to hide in plain sight, falsely alibied by his cellphone, parked nowhere near the bridge.

Lucky break.

Hoping his luck has run our.

JMO

Very well stated!

thanks!
 
My speculation

This was a planned abduction.

Phone turned off.

Burner/shared phone for tracking.

3 young people saw him.

The lady saw him.

We know Libby and Abby saw him.

He wasn't worried about Abby and Libby identifying him, he had a terminal plan for that IMO.

I think he dismissed the young people.

I think the lady was a problem. I do think he made sure she was committed to leaving so he could proceed, but I think their encounter was mutually recorded. By which I mean-- I think they locked eyes.

I personally think he was on the bridge, for the vantage point (watching for his planned arrival, also taking a census of parkgoers) and I believe he was on the phone. On A phone.

Which IMO is why he copped early to being on the bridge, on a phone. He knew he'd been seen, knew he couldn't walk that back.

Moo he was on a phone not associated with himself ....

If he gave his contact info the the CO, IMO he gave his cellphone #, the cellphone IMO he didn't have with him that day. He was hardly hoomh to provide his burner number! (Again, it's MY speculation that he was using a different phone that day, one synced with Libby's (or Abby's), without her knowledge.

Later, if LE did a tower dump, guess what number wouldn't show up! RA's. That phone was probably watching TV at his house.

And IMO just like that, LE might've moved Top RA into the 'unfounded' pile. Based on his cellphone number, he wasn't there at the time of the crime. Probably figured he was mistaken about the time he was there, therefore had no info to add to the search.

I suspect we will learn at trial that there was, however, A phone number in use that day, one which LE was unable to pair.

While RA continued to hide in plain sight, falsely alibied by his cellphone, parked nowhere near the bridge.

Lucky break.

Hoping his luck has run our.

JMO

Your scenario that you've posed here could easily go along with what Sgt. Riley said about it being possible that the person who committed this crime had already been interviewed and "apparently gave the investigating officers the information they were looking for." Meaning, maybe he gave info that apparently seemed to check out and only came to light as being false later on. Perhaps when other info was uncovered.

Source: ISP on Delphi killer: 'Somebody may have already interviewed him'
 
Your scenario that you've posed here could easily go along with what Sgt. Riley said about it being possible that the person who committed this crime had already been interviewed and "apparently gave the investigating officers the information they were looking for." Meaning, maybe he gave info that apparently seemed to check out and only came to light as being false later on. Perhaps when other info was uncovered.

Source: ISP on Delphi killer: 'Somebody may have already interviewed him'
Agree. It seems they knew they lost a suspect somewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
2,324
Total visitors
2,501

Forum statistics

Threads
589,947
Messages
17,928,048
Members
228,010
Latest member
idrainuk
Back
Top