Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #158

Status
Not open for further replies.

CurtMarcucci

Verified Private Investigator
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
71
Reaction score
1,009
This witness statement has me curious . I cant picture her being able to make out mud and blood on his clothes as she drives past . I doubt this makes it into court unless they find the clothes.
That road is not very wide and is gravel. I've been on it myself. You are driving slow and it is difficult for two cars to pass. She would have been looking at this guy the whole time she was approaching him.
 

CurtMarcucci

Verified Private Investigator
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
71
Reaction score
1,009
There’s not really anywhere to run to on the other side of the bridge but undoubtedly refusing to go to a secondary location would have been a better choice. They were so young…
Correct, there is nowhere to run at that end of the bridge. The hill they went down was very steep and the other side is worse. My opinion, they thought compliance might allow them to live.
 

CurtMarcucci

Verified Private Investigator
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
71
Reaction score
1,009
If I were RA's defense attorney I'd be spending every waking moment looking for firearms forensics experts and other Sig Sauers to debunk or just cast reasonable doubt on whether that unspent cartridge has enough distinctive markings to tie it to the gun.
That is exactly what they will try, and good luck with it. The gun was owned by him for 16 years at the time of the murders and I'll guess fired quite a few times. That will cause wear and tear over time which will cause unique markings at the microscopic level.
 

NugHunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2022
Messages
49
Reaction score
689
U
If I were RA's defense attorney I'd be spending every waking moment looking for firearms forensics experts and other Sig Sauers to debunk or just cast reasonable doubt on whether that unspent cartridge has enough distinctive markings to tie it to the gun.
RA's lawyers will need to spend even more waking moments on trying to explain the matching boot prints,dna, fingerprints and as the released PC dox stated " other items seized from his residence...".
The 40c bullit was most likely the most important clue in solving the case it but it will probably wind up being the least damaging evidence used against him at trial.
 

O.Incandenza

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
385
Reaction score
6,621
I can't believe we got lectured about The Shack with FBI billboards across the country and no one thought to ask all of the middle aged men on the bridge at 2:15pm if they had guns at home to potentially match to the bullet at the scene?
Yeah, this is just sort of mind blowing. It seems like there was exactly one guy on the trails that day who matched the man in the video, and he came forward the next day and told them he was there, and yet they never got around to interviewing him until 2022 when someone (thank god for that someone) went back and looked at the case file.

And when they finally interviewed him, he told them that he was wearing the exact same things as BG and that he parked at the CPS building. And somehow he hadn't gotten rid of the gun yet.

It seems like LE solved this in spite of themselves and only because the perp decided to be as helpful as humanly possible. And even then, it doesn't sound like they have the strongest case in the world yet. "The interpretation of identification is subjective in nature" is not a phrase I want preceding the one test that ties my defendant to the crime scene. At least RA helpfully ruled out all the other explanations as to why a bullet of his would be there. But I hope they do a better job preparing their expert witnesses than they did investigating this case.

Also, not a great look for the DA to be arguing for sealing the PCA on totally spurious grounds. It's a bizarre thing to do when the judge can just read the PCA and see you're full of crap.
 

5W's

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
1,780
Reaction score
6,726
photographer4 Post # 667 last thread
Really interesting because the RL warrant I referenced at the link above actually does not say the audio was captured at the south end at all. What it says is the “…development of this suspect was made by a 43 second video taken on LG’s phone where the suspect follows the victims as they walk along Monon High Bridge Trail. Near the end of the video the suspect speaks to the victims. It sounds as though he is directing them to leave the trail they were on and enter the woods below.”

I suspect that LG made a Live Photo of AW on the bridge and that’s why the clip of the man walking is so short. There isn’t more of it to show us. I imagine maybe then she put the phone in pocket or wherever and the audio may be a different clip / even an actual video or audio recording vs just a Live Photo that may have been taken a bit later on.

Totally only a theory. Nothing is fact aside the quote from the RL warrant above. mOOOo

IMO the 43 second clip and the audio are one (as you mentioned) and not taken afterwards (audio) because I've only seen it together so I assumed the clip and audio have been taken together thus when released by LE. ASFAIK there isn't another version, although I could be wrong, but maybe I'm correct because a different release to the public would confuse something so serious. Although your reasoning about the feature of Live Photo could be the reason it is so short.
 

FromGermany1

Formerly FromGermany
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
1,579
Reaction score
13,073
You know, something tells me dinner conversations were like this... and often.

Hi honey, what did you do today?

I took a hike on Monon trail bridge and watched the fish. It's very meditative.

And I'm being serious. I can't imagine he didn't go back often.
.... and exactly there at my chosen fish-observation spot I took a nice photo of my daughter one year after a double murder. I let her sit down in her fine, light dress on the cold (dirty) ground, because standing there on railroad ties could have looked like mocking one of the murder victims from 2017. So now I have a photo of my dearest daughter at one of my favorite fish-observation spots. :( He wouldn't have said.
 

Davemac1

Active Member
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
157
I wonder what was the basis for the search warrant?

Can it be that he put himself in by admitting to wearing the clothes of Bridge Guy?

That admission seems to be the most devastating evidence against him, because it links him to the video. Taken with the bullet, there are actually two pieces of physical evidence that put him in for the murders. The video and the bullet.

Bonkers.
Quite.
So at trial, they re read Allen's statement regarding his attire on the day. They then show the video on screen. Trial ends
 

cuecard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
369
Reaction score
4,376
Putting feelings of how LE has handled this case aside, I think we need to remember that the purpose of this PCA is just to provide evidence that there is probable cause to charge someone - in this case RA - with a crime. The PCA isn't the entire case, at least I hope it isn't. What is given to the defense will likely be far more lengthy and in depth and then the trial is where the case will be presented in its entirety.

Marks on a gun cartridge/casing is good evidence. How an unspent round from RA's gun, and only RA's gun, ended up between the bodies of two murder victims is already a big problem for his defense. RA admitted that it is his gun, has owned it long term and hasn't given it to anyone else. The likelihood of it appearing at the scene by the hand of anyone other than RA is very, very thin and he admits as such as the PCA states he "Never allowed anyone to use or borrow the Sig Sauer Model P226 firearm." He admitted to being on the bridge on the day of the crime in the right time frame and matches the physicals of the person on Libby's video (God love her for having her wits about her to do this). This is all substantial probable cause for an arrest and charging of murder imo.

It doesn't explain why LE didn't want this PCA released and the cynic in me is saying it is perhaps to cover their own backs as they likely know this doesn't reflect well at all. I am also interested to see how it plays out regarding any other person/people involved as the PCA made zero reference or insinuation to that imo.
 

Vern

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
9,621
That is exactly what they will try, and good luck with it. The gun was owned by him for 16 years at the time of the murders and I'll guess fired quite a few times. That will cause wear and tear over time which will cause unique markings at the microscopic level.
Add:
- his admissions to parking his car at the side of "Old Farm Bureau";
- his admission to being present on the trails from 1330-1530;
- his admissions that the clothing he wore that day match the suspects description of clothing;
- the witnesses' statements;
- the video that the PCA states has him "seen and heard" saying "guys, down the hill";
- the fact that the adult female witness who observed him on platform 1 then turned to leave and she passed Abby & Libby heading toward the bridge yet he claims never to have seen the girls;
- the fact that in the Oct 13th, 2022 interview he now changes his narrative to state that he was on the platform "watching the fish" and then "left the trails";
a. Woman who saw him on the platform had to walk back to her car after she turned about and video has her car leaving the area at 2:14pm after passing A&L on the trail, so if he actually left then too, he would have HAD TO pass A&L (in both interviews he conveniently denies ever seeing/interacting with the two victims however);
b. This means he is also switching up his timings from his original "I was there from 1330-1530" to now leaving at some point very shortly after 2:14pm (right after the woman witness saw him on the platfom). Why the sudden change in story and departure timings from the bridge? (IMO because the girls' have snaphat etc of them on the bridge at a time the woman witness has clearly placed him in the immediate vicinty of the bridge). I also think, in his first interview, it's possible that he did not realize that the woman observed him standing on the platform and so he didn't "need cover his butt" for that originally to explain away "why" he was at the scene and physically on the bridge mere minutes before the girls were abducted. He did have to explain the teenagers sighting of him as he knew he was seen by them so offered it up;
c. I think, in Interview 2 on 13 October 22, RA learns about the woman witness placing him on the platform at the given time and ergo "the fish story" and the change in his timing to now "then I left the trails (IE: Before the murders happened)" vice the "I was there until 1530hrs". He has denied seeing the girls - an impossibilty if he actully left the trails to head back to his car right after the woman saw him as he would have HAD to pass the girls on the way out (they gotcha RA!);
- His denials of ever having loaned his gun to anyone or let anyone use it;
- His denial of ever having been present on RL's private property; and
- The subjective ballistics detailing markings from his personal Sig-Sauer ejector matching those found on the round at the crime scene.



But, but, but ... the markings are only "subjective" thus a good defence attorney would have a field day:
I'm willing to bet science will also show:
- neither one of the victims' fingerprints on it (so neither of the girls picked it up and dropped it there);
- that the round was not subjected to prolonged exposure to the elements (so he didn't just 'lose' it on an earlier trip to the RL private proprty that he self-admittedly never stepped foot on)
- that there are no fingerprints on that round ... or just his.

So, while subjective it may be, the actual odds of all of the above occuring, combined with the ballistics of a .40 cal Sig-Sauer matching the round extraction markings to the gun he just happens to own are not impossible, they all combine to make it very, very highly improbable that anyone else committed this crime.

That makes his arrest very reasonable and, I'm willing to wager that once all the other evidence also comes to light at trial, likewise a conviction beyond any 'resonable' doubt. They've got evidence, ballistics and he is classicly 'changing his story' to explain away evidence as he learns it (the timing change after learning of the woman witness placing him on the bridge platform).

They've got this guy two ways to Sunday.



-
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
7,974
Reaction score
57,128
That is exactly what they will try, and good luck with it. The gun was owned by him for 16 years at the time of the murders and I'll guess fired quite a few times. That will cause wear and tear over time which will cause unique markings at the microscopic level.

He would have got away with this if he threw that gun away

Amazing
 

Davemac1

Active Member
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
18
Reaction score
157
I said many moons ago, why didn't police to a full reconstruction of known events that day with witness statements and all possible sightings and broadcast it to the nation?
The UK used to have a show on prime time TV called Crimewatch that did that very thing and it had a very high success rate in solving crimes.
It pulls everything together. Things like the car would have been made public with any details that witnesses had provided. A map showing the known movements around the trails of the suspicious character matching the suspects description based on witness statements. If they knew there was a gun involved, then the possible make and model would have been made public. It would have made police put everything together, which clearly doesn't seem to have happened here as well as jogging the memory of many others in the local community?
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
7,974
Reaction score
57,128
b. This means he is also switching up his timings from his original "I was there from 1330-1530" to now leaving at some point very shortly after 2:14pm (right after the woman witness saw him on the platfom). Why the sudden change in story and departure timings from the bridge? (IMO because the girls' have snaphat etc of them on the bridge at a time the woman witness has clearly placed him in the immediate vicinty of the bridge). I also think, in his first interview, it's possible that he did not realize that the woman observed him standing on the platform and so he didn't "need cover his butt" for that originally to explain away "why" he was at the scene and physically on the bridge mere minutes before the girls were abducted. He did have to explain the teenagers sighting of him as he knew he was seen by them so offered it up;

RSBM
Yes - the LE interview he did is a disaster for the defence.

I bet they let him tell his original story, then tripped him up in classic style. e.g. I guarantee he was forced to admit the clothing because they bluffed him about the 3 girls description of him.

So, while subjective it may be, the actual odds of all of the above occuring, combined with the ballistics of a .40 cal Sig-Sauer matching the round extraction markings to the gun he just happens to own are not impossible, they all combine to make it very, very highly improbable that anyone else committed this crime.

+1

It is so important that we don't speculate away individual pieces of circumstantial evidence, but that we follow the evidence and draw the natural and obvious inferences from the web of facts that are proven.

The fact that the casing has extraction marks almost certainly means it was ejected at the scene by the killer. That I believe is beyond contention, and a jury will accept that. Speculating why doesn't matter.

So the only question is, what are the chances that he, the guy who admits to being on the bridge in the same clothes as BG, just happens to have a matching or near matching gun?

As much as the defence will try to wiggle on the hook, i see that as being a heavy lift, given the other facts.
 

jdglove

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
64
Reaction score
979
It seems that almost everything in the PCA document is information they had back in 2017.

It was presumably too weak to charge him then. And presumably it was too weak to obtain a search warrant until recently. Something changed during the October interview.

I would guess they had the bullet from the crime scene, it was not the murder weapon, or even fired, and they had no reasonable cause to search RA's property for a weapon matching the bullet.

Then on October 13th they re-interviewed him (and/or his wife) and got him to admit he owned a gun, possibly even one of the same bullet type. That might have tipped the scales enough to obtain the search warrant. To obtain a search warrant you have to specify what you are looking for, where you will look, and explain why it is reasonable to expect to find evidence there that is linked to the crime.

Then the search turned up the gun. Then they matched the gun to the bullet forensically. That would be the first evidence they had that circumstantially placed him at the scene of the crime, not just on the bridge or walking away.

That would seem to explain why they could not arrest him in 2017 and why the PCA is just barely different now, and just barely enough to arrest him now.

I disagree with those who presume they had a bunch more evidence at the time they arrested him. And the statements from his defense attorney suggest they have not yet revealed more evidence such as murder weapon, DNA, clothing, blood, etc.

However, it remains possible that further searches after his arrest could uncover more direct evidence. They will want more evidence to assure a conviction.
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
7,974
Reaction score
57,128
I felt that the "missed the tip" leak was too incredible for a case of this magnitude which had already had a reset. I felt maybe he had given a brief account to the officer and then perhaps dodged saying anything more. Lacking any way to connect him, the investigation moved on to other suspects

But it seems it is the only explanation to account for all this. Just the ID for the car alone. if they'd talked to him they would have known it was his car.

Can it be that this tip sheet was somehow misfiled and never looked at again? Did the person who took the tip simply never twig that it wasn't followed up on?

I don't want to make excuses, but in the my time of handling a lot of paper, I am aware how easy a mistake can happen - e.g if you accidentally file a piece of paper along with other papers, in the wrong file - you will never find it again. Maybe somehow in the process of the filing of this tip sheet for review, it was misfiled somehow? I can't believe actual investigators ever got to read it.

I guess they will be able to dodge accounting for this for another year or so, given a prosecution in progress
 

Havingacrisis

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2022
Messages
16
Reaction score
233
Even with the probable cause affidavit being released, I still think the person in Liberty German's phone video is not Richard Allen. It does not look like him to me.

But I cannot deny the evidence in this case. The facts are the facts, and the ballistic evidence is good evidence.

After I saw Liberty German's phone video back in February 2017, I even thought I had seen this bridge guy. I thought he was a truck driver. This case inadvertently has made me feel like the little boy that cried wolf. I was so sure I had seen this bridge guy up close in person that I contacted law enforcement five times with a description. At least this case got solved.


I just don’t see how anybody can say it doesn’t look like him. Same build, face shape matches, the bunched up trousers over short legs.. even looks like similar facial hair growth

To me it’s a certain match with all other info
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top