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

[Mellowmelly]

I'm having a hard time thinking he saved any of the clothing he wore. Why do that? He could have several blue jackets. If items were bloody and muddy why not just get rid of them especially after the video came out. He has had years. (Hate that!)

He could have kept them as souvenirs as the will undoubtedly have the girls blood on them.

 

[Elley Mae]

Seems if the gun was used it would have been heard, of the witness statements nothing said about hearing gun fire. I think the gun jammed, he ejected bullet.
They may have made a run for it, who knows but he then used other means, knife?.

Jmo

 

[Lisams83]

This was explained really well by Gemmie in Thread 157, post #789 Hopefully this links to it

Thank you.

 

[Silver_produce0]

What are the odds that a guy who admitted being on the bridge at the time of the murder, wearing the same clothes as the person captured in the victim's video, who owns a gun that matches a bullet found at the seen actually wasn't involved?

AND… he was the driver of the vehicle parked at the abandoned building, which law enforcement asked for information on in the huge PC, and he didn’t come forward to identify himself?

 

[Kell1]

The prosecution is sitting on a fragile case, and they know it , the defense wants it unsealed because its circumstantial at best, they have an unspent round that matched the tool marks from his .40 Caliber firearm that was found between the victims bodies.

Allen has also requested a change of venue.

On the unreleased, portion of the video recovered, from the victims phone, theres one point the word "gun" can be heard, by one of the victims before the infamous "down the hill" audio.

They are not saying however how the girls were killed, (ive stated somewhere before I felt a knife was most likely used, allen was known to carry both) Im assuming that they were not shot, or they would've been able to recover rounds from the victims and match those as well, if that was the case, then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

He put himself in that area, a car matching his vehicles description was seen in the area, Allen owned clothes (Carhartt sweatshirt etc.. similar to the individual seen walking on the bridge that day) other eyewitnesses put a man of that description both in that area and later covered in mud and blood walking along a road leading away from the park area.

The problem is that though its certainly suspicious, and just a little too coincidental, its not the definitive that makes it a slam dunk , thats the uphill they have with this case.

The defense is going to say that "yes he was in that area, and yes be dropped a bullet there, but that doesn't make him responsible for the girls deaths", they are going to try to say that the unspent.40 cal round was dropped accidentally etc.. prior to the crime or something along that line.

The prosecution has to prove that Allen was responsible for the deaths of the girls, what they have is a suspect in the area, evidence near the bodies, and eyewitness accounts ,

So the case, hangs on 1) Allen putting himself in that area 2) Eyewitness accounts of a man that looked like Allen in that area 3) a round found laying on the ground between the victims, that matches, the extractor marking of Allens Sig Sauer.

So the prosecution has to be very careful.

 

[newredtabby]

Throwing something out there because it makes me curious. We now know a 40 caliber bullet was found at the scene and RA owns a 40 caliber gun. I own an HK .40 pistol, so I have done some research on the type of gun. I bought my gun used (because I couldn't afford to buy a new one for $1500). It was part of a group of guns my local gun store had purchased from the Boston PD.

Here's the "curious" part. The 40 caliber round was created specifically as a law enforcement bullet. Something that was a large caliber, but relatively small powder charge to keep from firing threw a suspect and causing collateral damage. It was never a "war" round, or "hunting" round, or a sport shooting "plunking" round (they are very expensive bullets), it was for law enforcement use to stop criminals and not hurt bystanders. So, I know why I bought my 40 cal, but why did RA buy his?

 

[mrjitty]

Agreed his clothes probably are/were quite common in the area but he was the only man witnessed on the trails/monon hight Bridge that day, in the clothes seen in the BG video and he has admitted being there and at the bridge. I can't see him or his defence coming up with an excuse for that.

Agreed

The common clothes thing I could accept if we are talking about an area with a lot of people so there will be people dressed similarly. But here we are talking about a specific outfit, filmed by the victims, and seen by 5 witnesses.

At the end of the day, it doesn't seem credible that the guy the witnesses saw, and that the victim filmed, is not the same guy. To me it is not credible that there were in fact 2 people dressed like bridge guy.

So being dressed the same as Bridge Guy is incriminating, whether a common form of dress or not.

 

[mrjitty]

Because the rational thing to ask is why they didn't do a better job investigating the small list of people who were on the bridge at the time of the murder.

They either ruled him out at the time or just *gestures wildly* did not think people at the scene of the crime were important. Both answers are very bad and will form the basis of two different defenses.

BIB

Won't they just cop to it?

The only explanation i came come up with is that investigators never saw the tip sheet somehow. If they saw it, they would have solved the case surely - because for instance, we know they were interested in the owner of the parked car.

 

[Tealgrove]

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?

Post of the year!!!!

 

[Facinatingtimes]

The prosecution is sitting on a fragile case, and they know it , the defense wants it unsealed because its circumstantial at best, they have an unspent round that matched the tool marks from his .40 Caliber firearm that was found between the victims bodies.

Allen has also requested a change of venue.

On the unreleased, portion of the video recovered, from the victims phone, theres one point the word "gun" can be heard, by one of the victims before the infamous "down the hill" audio.

They are not saying however how the girls were killed, (ive stated somewhere before I felt a knife was most likely used, allen was known to carry both) Im assuming that they were not shot, or they would've been able to recover rounds from the victims and match those as well, if that was the case, then this wouldn't even be a discussion.

He put himself in that area, a car matching his vehicles description was seen in the area, Allen owned clothes (Carhartt sweatshirt etc.. similar to the individual seen walking on the bridge that day) other eyewitnesses put a man of that description both in that area and later covered in mud and blood walking along a road leading away from the park area.

The problem is that though its certainly suspicious, and just a little too coincidental, its not the definitive that makes it a slam dunk , thats the uphill they have with this case.

The defense is going to say that "yes he was in that area, and yes be dropped a bullet there, but that doesn't make him responsible for the girls deaths", they are going to try to say that the unspent.40 cal round was dropped accidentally etc.. prior to the crime or something along that line.

The prosecution has to prove that Allen was responsible for the deaths of the girls, what they have is a suspect in the area, evidence near the bodies, and eyewitness accounts ,

So the case, hangs on 1) Allen putting himself in that area 2) Eyewitness accounts of a man that looked like Allen in that area 3) a round found laying on the ground between the victims, that matches, the extractor marking of Allens Sig Sauer.

So the prosecution has to be very careful.

Or hopefully they have or get more evidence to tie him to the crime that was not stated in the PCA. MOO - maybe they recovered a knife as a result of the RA search warrant at his house and blood/DNA evidence is (by a miracle) found on it. Or in his car. Etc…

 

[mrjitty]

But he admitted he was ON THE BRIDGE wearing those clothes at the time of the murder. So it's not really the clothes, it's that they have video of the kidnapper who was wearing those clothes on the bridge at the time of the murder.

Unless there were two guys on the bridge wearing the same clothes at the same time he's kind of SOL. The PCA made a big deal of the fact that witnesses only saw one person matching that description. It wasn't like a dad convention, where lots of 40-50 year old guys wearing carhart jackets were gathered to watch fish on the bridge as one does.

BIB

This! It doesn't matter how common the clothes were. They are looking for the one guy dressed in those clothes. There were no other guys dressed the same ....

Dude is going down, and he knew it. That's why he wasn't getting a lawyer.

 

[pseudo_hum]

What are the odds that a guy who admitted being on the bridge at the time of the murder, wearing the same clothes as the person captured in the victim's video, who owns a gun that matches a bullet found at the seen actually wasn't involved?

Plus, how did he not see BG? RA only said he saw teenage girls.

 

[oviedo]

I agree the nature of this interview is not completely clear.

What is interesting is he claimed to have his phone with him, accessing data, so presumably this customer record can be dug up, if not the cellular tower data (they may already have it)

And if his phone pinged next to the girls’ phone during the timeframe of the murders that would be impossible to explain away
JMO

 

[cattlekate]

Questions:
1) What is the date of the 2017 “tip narrative” where RA says he was on the trail 1330 - 1530? Was it Feb, Mar, or later?

2) Did RA actually contact LE and volunteer this information and when did he do it? Or was there a sweep of near-by landowners?

3) Did the 2017 “tip narrative” even ask what RA was wearing?

4) How many tips described middle-aged men as it seems there were few people on the trails that day, much less middle-aged men.

5) Did LE even search for locals who had handgun permits after the recording supposedly captured Abby saying “gun” and they harvested an unspent .40 round?

Do handgun owners even need to have permits in Indiana? Why would RA even keep his handgun if he used it?

6) Did LE show photos of “volunteering” RA to the trail witnesses? Exactly how many people volunteered they were in the trails that day?

7) Why did the 2019 presser show the young BG sketch? Libby’s video clearly captured an older person so who and why put this sketch out there for the “new direction?”

I have no doubt RA did it but this has to be the most-incompetent LE investigation and lazy but bold perp in history.

 

[Mellowmelly]

Agreed

The common clothes thing I could accept if we are talking about an area with a lot of people so there will be people dressed similarly. But here we are talking about a specific outfit, filmed by the victims, and seen by 5 witnesses.

At the end of the day, it doesn't seem credible that the guy the witnesses saw, and that the victim filmed, is not the same guy. To me it is not credible that there were in fact 2 people dressed like bridge guy.

So being dressed the same as Bridge Guy is incriminating, whether a common form of dress or not.

Yes and the PC had no mention of any other man being seen there that day. There's no reasonable doubt as the prosecution will likely state.

 

[raja]

So he is on the bridge watching the “fish” as in the “catfished” girls. Hmmmm

 

[The Observer]

Exactly.

I think they will have forced an admission from him on this point, because they could use the girls ID statements against him.

Ditto the woman who saw him on the bridge.

Who remembers what clothes they had on 5 years ago?

I hope we get to see this interview. They basically got him to admit he was Bridge Guy.

Why on earth did he agree to speak to investigators? It's almost as if he wanted to get caught IMO. No wonder he didn't get a lawyer. He knew it was over. Maybe he was relieved?

BBM. Well he has been reminded rather frequently pretty much the entire time with his image out there. Allegedly.

 

[mrjitty]

This case proves my theory that most of the time with these big mystery cases, it's just that the perp got lucky, not because of any sprawling conspiracy.

He wandered past 5 witnesses on his way to do a bad double murder where the victims filmed him. He then went and confessed to being at the crime scene. This is the dumbest killer ever.

But then they lost his confession for 5 years

SMH

 

[Heaven Leigh]

He could have kept them as souvenirs as the will undoubtedly have the girls blood on them.

It seems he possibly kept 1 item from the girls.
I guess I just can't see why he would keep any of his clothing items, but I get what your saying these psychos do it all the time.

 

[asyousay]

The question remains how was he able to do such a horrific crime and then go home and play happy family’s?



How messed up in the head do you have to be to literally murder 2 young girls on your doorstep and be so brazen to do it in broad daylight and be spotted multiple times on the way to committing said crime.


I don’t know if it’s arrogance, Stupidity or he was totally messed up in the head but the fact he was married for 30+ years and had a full time job and seemingly a normal functioning member of society is crazy to me.


Mooo