Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #162

[Yvettea]

I go back to when TL (in the Carroll County Comet) said that people had turned in blue jackets, but not THE blue jacket. IMO, that is one of the more significant statements made in the entire six years. That suggests to me that they have some kind of evidence that will be able to identify the very jacket worn by the killer that day. If RA truly does have the same blue jacket he wore on the trail, like his wife says he does, then if he is the killer, his jacket will become a snitch. Not only that, but RA placed himself on the bridge, in that jacket, on that afternoon. And L's video showcases it front and center at 2:13 as he approaches them.

I know some people think he replaced that jacket with a lookalike, which is always possible. But I'm hopeful. It's a reminder to me that no matter how much we might question the timing issues in the PCA, it was enough for an arrest, and there's likely so much more evidence that will be key in court. JMO.

If LE has evidence as to the very jacket it could clear him also.

ETA: or at least cast doubt on his involvement.

 

[TL4S]

If LE has evidence as to the very jacket it could clear him also.

You're right. Which, if he is innocent, is also a good thing.

 

[TL4S]

The presumption of innocence is at the heart of our justice system, and I appreciate that. So while RA is considered innocent, at this point, I will have to file all of these under "Bad Luck":

• RA, by his own admission, wore the same clothing as BG that day
• RA, by his own admission, was on the trail/bridge at the same time as the kidnapping took place, at 2:13, per L's video
• RA, by his own admission, did not see anyone else on the trail between 1:30 and 3:30, except the three juvenile girls at the FB, and none of the other people on the trail after 2:13 noticed him sitting on the bench, either
• RA just happened to get to the trail within 20 minutes of the girls getting to the trail, and then to the bridge within a few minutes minutes of the girls getting to the bridge, and he also just happened to leave around the time the girls got murdered
• A man, also dressed just like RA, was seen standing on the same platform RA stood on to watch fish, at relatively the same time

 

[mrjitty]

Just to note - he isn't really considered innocent by the state - he just doesn't have to prove his innocence.

The state is saying he is guilty, and I think there is a high level of suspicion based on @TL4S 's 5 bullets!

(Which is why he is in jail right now).

I do wonder if it is not a huge blunder for him to say he was on the trails for so long - was that to cover his car?

It will be very interesting to see what the defence have to say for themselves in relation to the timeline at the prelim!

 

[FrostedGlass]

Interesting MS podcast: Muddy and Bloody

Murder Sheet - The Delphi Murders: "Muddy and Bloody”

In the Delphi murders, police released a redacted probable cause affidavit that included a description of an eyewitness sighting a man who appeared "muddy and bloody" near the Monon High Bridge. The Murder Sheet can confirm that this eyewitness contributed to the sketch first released in July...

podcasts.google.com

 

[JudgeJudi]

Also he has a daughter the same age.

Look at the photo in this article and add 5 more years.

 

[4441]

Look at the photo in this article and add 5 more years.

Yes sorry. When I looked at that pic I thought the girl was the same age. Awful isn’t it. How must she feel and how was her childhood I wonder?

 

[JudgeJudi]

This is a really simple point and I’m sure you’ve all talked about it but I still want to say how incredible it is that no one was able to say that’s Richard Allen on the bridge. If that was your husband/ boyfriend/ relative, and you lived in Delphi, how on Earth do you not say that’s him. Or at the very least- that could be him. Same clothes/voice/ stature. I don’t want to blame police or locals because I don’t know enough about what they were dealing with and I’ve no idea what Delphi is like but I do find it staggering that no one apprehended this man before. Those poor girls. And they did so much to try to identify him too. It’s baffling to me that he went unnoticed.

Lessons need to be learned. Surely you interview everyone around. How many people live in the vicinity? How many are males? How many in the age range? How many look like the man who was actually filmed?! Don’t let anyone just carry on their business. Apprehend and question hundreds - thousands if needs be. Get some specialist interviewers in. Like The Behaviour Panel guys. These girls deserved for him to be caught immediately.

Could I suggest you go to p.1 #11 and watch the video. I requested permission to post this and two mods viewed it and decided to put it on page 1 of every thread thereafter. It shows you where all witnesses were at the relevant times and what they saw.

No-one has been able to positively identify BG from Libby's video despite NASA, Disney and the FBI enhancing it. Only one witness saw him on the bridge but that was before Abby and Libby got there.

Delphi's population is a bit under 3,000. If you reduce that by approx. 1,500 women and 500 children, it leaves about 1,000 males. Many people gave DNA swabs.

As for BG's appearance, locals who have posted here have said his style of clothing is very common for a man that age. He worked as a pharmacy technician at the local CVS pharmacy, the only pharmacy IIRC, so many, many locals see him and yet no-one recognised him as BG. He was a regular patron at a particular tavern and also played pool, and none of those people recognised him either. While at the bar, he often sat just inches away from a police sketch of the wanted killer.

Everyone who knew him said he was quiet, unassuming and pretty much kept to himself.

I'm a great follower of The Behavior Panel. They're four of the world's top body language experts but they don't interview people for their show. They watch interviews and then comment.

Hope this helps.

JJ

 

[TL4S]

Interesting MS podcast: Muddy and Bloody

Murder Sheet - The Delphi Murders: "Muddy and Bloody”

In the Delphi murders, police released a redacted probable cause affidavit that included a description of an eyewitness sighting a man who appeared "muddy and bloody" near the Monon High Bridge. The Murder Sheet can confirm that this eyewitness contributed to the sketch first released in July...

podcasts.google.com

Thank you for the link and it was indeed interesting. Based on MS's commentary, in addition to what JH said at the 2018 CrimeCon, where he describes how the first sketch came about, I have some new thoughts.

If the "muddy and bloody" witness came forward in 5/17 and was able to describe somebody who matched the person other witnesses had seen, plus matched L's video, it would have completed not only the timeframe for the killer's presence near the trail, but it would have been the only sighting of the man after the murders. We don't know how LE verified her sighting, other than her vehicle being captured on the HH camera just before 4pm, but by that time, they seemingly had other witnesses. I think each consecutive witness helped confirm the veracity of the other witnesses' statements, which would have especially helped add weight to witnesses whose statements might have otherwise been questioned, such as juveniles. JMO.

JH's description of how the first sketch came about is in this link:
Delphi Murders CrimeCon Interview Transcript - CrimeLights

 

[Confusion]

Just some random comments that nobody is likely to care about, but I feel like posting anyway.

I thought they started the search where they did because it was near where they were to be picked up (I have no idea if it was or not), and if they had accidentally fallen into the water, they/their bodies would most likely have been carried downstream (east). There could be other reasons, but I'm not sure if it really matters.

I think RA told the CO the information about him being there and when for two reasons. I'm sure he knew that he had been seen by other people, and I don't think he knew about the recording they had yet. I find it ironic (and somewhat funny) if he admitted to being there because he recognized people he saw there, but it wasn't necessary since nobody thought about him enough to even realize who he was.

I also don't think it would a problem for me to talk to LE if I were innocent (and probably even if I was guilty!), they'd probably be begging me to take advantage of my rights and just shut up for a while. Of course, I can't even think of any crime I might be accused of; I almost never leave my apartment, I never drive anymore, I only leave for medical appointments, and I seldom have anyone over to visit. I'd better shut up now so I don't jinx myself...

All MOO

 

[Cedars]

how incredible it is that no one was able to say that’s Richard Allen on the bridge. If that was your husband/ boyfriend/ relative, and you lived in Delphi, how on Earth do you not say that’s him. Or at the very least- that could be him. Same clothes/voice/ stature.

I agree. IMO the 'problem' is the loyalty and trust that powers relationships. Unless you have developed deep distrust about someone in your life, no one will go to police and suggest they check out a friend or family member. It would be a very deep betrayal of your relationship (regardless of the fact that, if they're innocent, surely they'll be cleared). It seems to me it is literally 'unthinkable' to imagine that someone we care about, are on good terms with, could have done such a thing, or, even if it might briefly pass through our awareness, that it is our job to point that person out to police as suspicious. Similarly, how could you function if you believed friends and relatives might be scrutinizing you and will go to police on the smallest detail, to suggest you've committed a horrific crime?

JMO

 

[M. Kay]

Interesting MS podcast: Muddy and Bloody

Discussion about what witnesses reported at the time hasn't been including one I remember. I have no link to take us back.
A lone, young, all-in-black male with a black backpack was reported 'leaving?'. Perhaps he has been explained?
Anyone from early days remember mention of sighting?

 

[Falling Down]

Witness #4's observation of BG on the bridge at 1:52-1:55 is not necessarily important in light of the fact that we already have video evidence from L's phone of BG being on the bridge in the 2:13-2:14 timeframe - though we need to reconcile where BG goes for approx 10 minutes in between those ranges such that BG isn't seen in any of L's multi-directional wide-range photos at 2:03 and 2:07. But we can deduce without Witness #4's testimony that the person BG had to be in the MHB area near the 2:00 range to be in order to be filmed on the south end shortly after 2:00. But was BG actually RA?

It would be more critical if Witness #4 had identified RA specifically as the man she observed, or descriptives matching RA's testimony (any of ... he was very short, a certain wedding ring, he was looking at a phone, he was staring down at the water (fish), he appeared out of breath (which would tie to the very fast pace he arrived in), etc as opposed to just her description that "he matched the man seen in L's released video"

RA has, in combination of CO and LE interviews only admitted to being on the bridge at some point between 1:30 and 3:30 that afternoon - never he has confessed to being there around 2:00.

I understand many are convinced RA and BG are one and the same, but for those who are not totally there yet, it is confusing when the pronoun "he" is used in many posts - does he refer to BG, or RA, or are we to assume "he" means both?

Good post.

I've maintained for some time BG had enough time to A) See the girls after tbey were dropped off, and B) Get to a vehicle, grab other clothing, grab weapons, etc. He could have walked to the parking area by the abandoned CPS building, grabbed whatever, and made it to MHB in 15 minutes.

This analysis is based off of my own walk and observations when I was there in October of 2020.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Thank you for the link and it was indeed interesting. Based on MS's commentary, in addition to what JH said at the 2018 CrimeCon, where he describes how the first sketch came about, I have some new thoughts.

If the "muddy and bloody" witness came forward in 5/17 and was able to describe somebody who matched the person other witnesses had seen, plus matched L's video, it would have completed not only the timeframe for the killer's presence near the trail, but it would have been the only sighting of the man after the murders. We don't know how LE verified her sighting, other than her vehicle being captured on the HH camera just before 4pm, but by that time, they seemingly had other witnesses. I think each consecutive witness helped confirm the veracity of the other witnesses' statements, which would have especially helped add weight to witnesses whose statements might have otherwise been questioned, such as juveniles. JMO.

JH's description of how the first sketch came about is in this link:
Delphi Murders CrimeCon Interview Transcript - CrimeLights

Except they told us to ignore the first sketch, to go with the second young one and that they were not the same person. So how did they clear the muddy/bloody one. Surely they didn't stop until they found him and got an admission from him that he was indeed the one she saw?

Or maybe they didn't confirm it? Is that why DC backtracked and said that odd thing about overlaying the sketches and his face would be underneath (or whatever confusing thing he said)?

 

[Cedars]

Except they told us to ignore the first sketch, to go with the second young one and that they were not the same person. So how did they clear the muddy/bloody one. Surely they didn't stop until they found him and got an admission from him that he was indeed the one she saw?

Or maybe they didn't confirm it? Is that why DC backtracked and said that odd thing about overlaying the sketches and his face would be underneath (or whatever confusing thing he

I didn't follow the 2nd sketch issue closely, it just blew up the forum...however, we've all seen what BG looked like in Libby's video, and I don't believe LE ever said that video was not the perp.

Also, IMO, if muddy/bloody had been located and cleared, I can't see why that witness statement would be included in the probable cause document for RA's arrest.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I didn't follow the 2nd sketch issue closely, it just blew up the forum...however, we've all seen what BG looked like in Libby's video, and I don't believe LE ever said that video was not the perp.

Also, IMO, if muddy/bloody had been located and cleared, I can't see why that witness statement would be included in the probable cause document for RA's arrest.

JMO

I can't see why it was included, either. Either they cleared the first sketch or they didn't. If they didn't, then why did they go with the second sketch?

 

[TL4S]

Except they told us to ignore the first sketch, to go with the second young one and that they were not the same person. So how did they clear the muddy/bloody one. Surely they didn't stop until they found him and got an admission from him that he was indeed the one she saw?

Or maybe they didn't confirm it? Is that why DC backtracked and said that odd thing about overlaying the sketches and his face would be underneath (or whatever confusing thing he said)?

As recently as Nov 2022, DC said this:

I-Team: In 2019, Indiana State Police released a sketch of a man thought to be a suspect in the murder of Abby and Libby. Two years later, investigators released another sketch of a much-younger man. That guy and that guy (referring to side-by-side views of the sketches), and there is a lot of similarities. How did we get from here to here?

Carter: Well, I think you will remember, I have said from the very beginning, since 2017, a sketch is a sketch. It is not a photograph. That is the first time I have seen that, and I have also indicated over time that once we get where we are today, we will be able to look at the similarities and make a photograph, which will be Richard Allen. I think there is a little bit of both, and I don’t regret that strategy by any means.

Indiana police superintendent: Delphi murders' facts will come out at trial

DC has called it a "strategy" before, too. I have formed my own speculations in an attempt to make it all fit, but I've accepted that the true answers to this sketch question will have to wait until trial, if even then.

 

[TL4S]

I can't see why it was included, either. Either they cleared the first sketch or they didn't. If they didn't, then why did they go with the second sketch?

LE has sort of been all over the board in regards to the sketch. Per the recent MS episode, I believe they said AW had stated something in an interview about LE telling her they had cleared the guy in the first sketch, but I do not recall LE ever saying anything like that publicly (I easily could have missed it in the last six years, though).

I just think there is a key detail that we simply don't know about that might help make sense of the sketches. Who knows. Maybe not!

 

[FrostedGlass]

As recently as Nov 2022, DC said this:

I-Team: In 2019, Indiana State Police released a sketch of a man thought to be a suspect in the murder of Abby and Libby. Two years later, investigators released another sketch of a much-younger man. That guy and that guy (referring to side-by-side views of the sketches), and there is a lot of similarities. How did we get from here to here?

Carter: Well, I think you will remember, I have said from the very beginning, since 2017, a sketch is a sketch. It is not a photograph. That is the first time I have seen that, and I have also indicated over time that once we get where we are today, we will be able to look at the similarities and make a photograph, which will be Richard Allen. I think there is a little bit of both, and I don’t regret that strategy by any means.

Indiana police superintendent: Delphi murders' facts will come out at trial

DC has called it a "strategy" before, too. I have formed my own speculations in an attempt to make it all fit, but I've accepted that the true answers to this sketch question will have to wait until trial, if even then.

I'm trying to understand but I can't make the leap from the young BG to the old Muddy/Bloody being the same guy. I'm not sure about his strategy; when I go from sounding kind of smart to saying something really, really stupid, can I claim it's strategy?

 

[scruffydog]

Discussion about what witnesses reported at the time hasn't been including one I remember. I have no link to take us back.
A lone, young, all-in-black male with a black backpack was reported 'leaving?'. Perhaps he has been explained?
Anyone from early days remember mention of sighting?

Interesting...I don't remember the item about the guy in black...but I do remember something it seems like the police said about looking for a backpack..seems like in connection to RL's barn???