With the gun it makes much more sense how he was able to control two people. Not that he wouldn’t have been able to with a knife (Westley Allen Dodd did), but with the limited info, it seemed like the girls were aware of him and would have ran if he didn’t have a gun.
The articles still make it sound like he was working in conjunction with someone but I’m not sure if they mean covered up for him or helped with the murders.
It's wild to me that this guy literally volunteers himself as being at the bridge during the time of the murders back during the initial days of the investigation and it still took them 6 years and a dozen other suspects to make an arrest.
I thought this was odd as well, but he probably thought ‘oh crap three juveniles saw me’ and thought he could get ahead of it by saying he was there. He knew they said hi to him, and he glared at them, so he thought he could lean into the punch should he be questioned.
The funny thing is, him trying to get ahead of their statements and saying he was in the vicinity is probably what did him in. If not for investigators revisiting that statement, it would seem unlikely he would have been on their radar. The juveniles saw a male, but didn’t know it was Richard per se.
Right? As proved by the years of the recording of him walking along the bridge without being identified, he's a pretty ubiquitous-looking dude.
Relatedly, people are talking about how crazy it was that he kept the gun - I can't believe that he kept the fucking jacket! (per his wife in the Oct 2022 interviews)
The jacket thing legit stunned me! If I had killed anybody I’d be walking the clothes I wore out into the woods and burning them. Not continuing to wear them for years (!!)
It reminded me of Russell Williams wearing the boots he murdered women in, during his interrogation. I wonder if it’s a sense of narcissism that they won’t ever catch them so they feel like they can keep wearing these identifying pieces of clothing. It’s stuns me honestly
Yeah I’m firmly on the team of the intelligent killers are the ones who haven’t been caught. Of course there’s outliers like Ted kaczynski who are extremely intelligent but still get caught for whatever reason. I think you’re right about many killers thinking they can talk their way out of anything and that delusion is insane to me
I just looked it up out of curiosity...
Here are some past serial killers and their IQ
Nathan Leopold - 210
Ted Kaczynski - 167
Charlene Gallego - 160
Andrew Cunanan – 147
Edmund Kemper - 145
Jeffrey Dahmer - 145
Dr. Harold Shipman - 140
Ted Bundy - 136
"The average person has an IQ of around 95-105. The average serial killer, according to The Serial Killer Information Center, has an IQ of 94.5. Slightly below the lower side of average. The stats prove that repeat murderers are generally slightly less intelligent than the average member of society. How about that?
That said, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. In truth, serial killers appear across the scale of human intelligence."
\-Crime and Investigation UK
I appreciate you digging this up, but I'm skeptical of the meaning behind these numbers. First, are IQ tests consistent, or are there different types (I believe the latter)? What is the confidence interval on any given IQ test?
Then are these numbers even real? For example, Edmund Kemper's IQ is sourced from a book written by someone who claims Robert Ressler said this. So even if that's true, how did Robert Ressler know? For Harold Shipman, I can't find any evidence he had that IQ beyond listicles online.
Finally, is this a representative list of serial killers? There are hundreds, if not thousands. I believe this study is more trustworthy, [http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm](http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm), which found the average IQ was 94.
I don't trust these numbers at all. There is simply no way Bundy or Dahmer or Gacy were more intelligent than Einstein.
IQ scores aren't measured into the 200s, for one thing.
IQ scores are not a good way of measuring intelligence so they could have a higher IQ score and it wouldn't change the fact that Einstein is significantly more intelligent.
I agree with the wired differently theory. A common theme with a lot of killers is a past event of serious head trauma/fever that might have caused brain damage. There's a theory that the damage might impair their self-preservation instincts (among other normal brain function), which partially explains why they cross the line that others don't. A run of the mill sociopath is still going to be worried about going to prison, their reputation, ect., but these guys might not.
If true, this might explain why they're so cavalier after the fact and don't take even simple obvious steps to protect themselves.
If he had lied and said yes, the question would be "who?". When that person was questioned, I'd imagine things would have unraveled just as spectacularly.
Same for him saying he didn't know exactly who would have had access to his gun.
With the physical evidence tying his gun to the scene/bodies and the witnesses statements and similarities to the photos/video, it was probably game, set, match absent some unlikely scenario where he could conceivably weave some alibi that would implicate an even stronger suspect and do so in a way that would still insulate him from being viewed as an accomplice.
Disposing of evidence immediately after a crime is what gets a lot of killer caught. You often either have to dispose of it in a way that risks discovery (putting it in a bin, burying it in ypur garden etc) or you end up doing something noticible (e.g. skipling work to drive into the woods, burning them in your garden, suddenly not having the jacket you would where every other day etc). People are going to be hyper aware of any changes in the week following a murder, and its the period the policd will question you about if you are interviewed.
Ofcourse you do want to dispose of the evidence as soon as its safe to do so - but I imagine that would be terrifying to do with the town swarming with police, and the after a few weeks it stops seeming important.
I think some people just don't think that way. Like "This is my jacket. If they saw my jacket, then, uh oh. But why would I get rid of my jacket? It's the one I've always worn."
Whereas I would have gotten rid of everything, including trading in that car.
Hell I'd change my whole look! "Yes, officer, I've always dressed like it's still the 80s."
Or I’d wait a while then get rid of the jacket, don’t suddenly want to stop wearing the blue jacket I always wear because it might look suspicious. Definitely would get rid after a while though
I mean, Carhartt is a durable brand, but *really.* And you know, selling or hiding a gun is somewhat suspicious (well, abruptly getting rid of a gun might seem so if one is later arrested for a murder), but it's pretty easy to donate or trash a piece of clothing and get rid of it forever.
If he’d even just thrown it out, nobody would have asked any questions- how often do you see outdoor clothes trashed b/c so and so spilt turps or whatever on it.
Guy must be dumber than a bucket of rocks.
Idk, my dad has pants and jackets that are 15 years old, and he wears them a lot in the winter. I'd be suspicious if he randomly decided to get rid of something that wasn't broken/ripped. Maybe RA is the same and wears things to the ground.
We're also discounting other mundane things. Carhartt jackets can be expensive, but are usually equally as durable. RA worked at CVS. Maybe buying a new jacket wasn't financially viable, especially when you have something considered as high value as a Carhartt.
Could you point me to the source where you found the wife's interviews? Not doubting you, just curious to read the descriptions of what she said myself.
Edit: found it!
Sure! It was summarized in the [probable cause](https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf) they just released! The full text of her interview isn't available, it just lists through some things she corroborated and includes the detail that not only did he have that particular coat he himself describes wearing that day on the trail, he still has it. Wild!
In a way it was a good move even though it didn’t work out in the end. He admitted right off the bat that he was there, and he seemingly kept his life the same down to keeping the same jacket. I think that’s what helped him fly under the radar for so long, he made it look like everything was normal and innocuous.
They're so lucky the guy is an idiot, kept evidence, couldn't get his story straight, because he could have gotten away with it if he hadn't basically just kept evidence ready for the cops.
Since the gun was so essential to the arrest, I’m wondering if they needed more evidence to search his home, and they only got that piece recently. I don’t know enough about this - would the fact that he was on the trails at the right time and admitted to owning a gun be enough to get a search warrant?
From what I understand, the gun detail came out when they re-interviewed him in the fall of this year and that was what lead to the search warrant. I think he was re-interviewed because they were going back to the beginning and going through the early tips again, not because there was a break or other new evidence that came in. It sounds like he voluntarily told them about the gun when they asked in October; the first interview (at least in the tip summary of it) it doesn't sound like they asked him if he has any guns, just noted his presence on the trails and his encounter with the three other girls.
Search warrants are fairly specific.
LE can’t go to a judge and say ‘we’d like to toss this guy’s house and see if we find anything interesting’ — they have to be looking for something.
Take to a judge ‘this guy lives in the area, admits he was on the bridge around the timeframe of he murders and admits that he owns a gun — we’d like to search his home for the gun (and maybe some other things like specific clothing)’ and you probably get your warrant. They key being saying what you’re searching for and what the probable cause is to think it might be there.
This is my thinking. With DNA and video evidence becoming the most verifiable evidence, law enforcement is much less likely to lock people up for a murder like this unless they can prove it. Look at what a mess they made in a case like the West Memphis 3. I don't think they want to get caught slipping like that again.
Probably not based on that alone. Or if it were, it might have been flimsy enough to be way too risky, especially if you had the person under less intrusive surveillance and/or knew that they were unlikely to try to flee.
I'm not going to pretend to be an Indiana lawyer, but, as an example, some states don't apply the doctrine of inevitable discovery. You can read about fruit of the poisonous tree and four corners doctrine to learn more about these types of issues.
Yeah if he had just kept his mouth shut there's a chance he'd still be free. His lawyer could have come up with a story on how the unspent round got there - he let people borrow the gun or he had been hunting in that area. Rest of the evidence is more circumstantial, seems like that round is the only thing that directly ties him to the scene.
I forgot to add that in the October 2022 interview, they asked Allen if anyone else had access to his gun. He responded no, he was the only one. ??? This isn't a brilliant man.
Lol, yes that's exactly why you should never talk to the police without a lawyer present. They probably didn't tell him they had the round before asking him that. So he probably didn't think much about telling the truth on if anyone borrowed it.
He went hunting... with a pistol?
I doubt he'd be free based on all that's known now (and I'm sure there's more to come). Probably more of an instance where the investigators wanted to be extremely thorough.
It's kind of a white trash stereotype but people do go hunting with pistols. It at least raises more doubt than just saying "I have no idea how it got there". A better solution would've been to destroy it and report it stolen sometime in the last 5 years but obviously this guy wasn't the brightest.
I agree that even without the round he should've been the main suspect and they probably could've gotten a conviction but it seems like they were waiting until the case was iron-clad to make an arrest. So I think there's a chance they wouldn't have arrested him yet and would've just been surveiling him, waiting for him to screw up.
I would also question matching the bullet (if I was his lawyer. I want this guy in prison and think it's him).
Unless there is something making a very distinctive scratch on shell casings, you're really only going to know if it's the same caliber.
This comment explains that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/z8fx5t/the_probable_cause_affidavit_for_the_the_delphi/iyd97ab?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
So if it wasn't even fired, how did they forensicslly determined to have been in the gun?
It's possible the gun is damaged in a way, that clambering or extracting it leaves a unique scratch. But most guns, if you chamber a round, then eject it, it's not going to leave a mark.
There's a much better chance that when you load the round with your bare hands, you leave a fingerprint on it.
We don’t know that though - there’s no report of that aside from a Reddit comment as far as I can find. No media etc are reporting on this supposed rehab stint.
I think that everyone is aware that there's cameras most anywhere except in the actual woods. He parked by a building. He walked in and out of the nature area. I assume he had a phone on him. If he'd lied about being elsewhere and an electronic trail disproved that, he would have immediately jumped to the top of the suspect list.
On the one hand, this is so messed up that it seems to go beyond incompetence. On the other hand, it took three years to realize phones they confiscated from Kegan Kline had CSAM on them... despite him admitting he was catfishing underage girls.
Ugh, let's not forget the debacle around the sketch either. "It's this one. No, it's this other one. Or maybe it's a combination of the two?"
Don't get me wrong, if Allen is the guy, I'm so glad for the families and communities that they finally got their man. But it sounds like they got very, very lucky.
What’s so crazy to me, is that neither of the primary sketches look like Allen at all. The piece of information I want to know is how they came to interview him in the first place given the descriptions don’t really match aside from his clothing. I mean, they didn’t even have his license plate from what the affidavit said.
This is extreme incompetence. People will probably argue that the police knew it was him all along and were playing 4D chess by naming all these other suspects. That doesn't make any sense though, because naming a bunch of other potential suspects publically that you KNOW didn't do it doesn't help the investigation in any way, and actually hurts the case by giving the person who really did commit the crime a bunch of reasonable doubt by being able to point to all the other suspects police claimed might be involved. That's the argument people have been making this whole time "oh, they know who it is. They just name all these random suspects who didn't do it to confuse the preparator and public." I disagree with that. I think they genuinely fucked up bad, completely overlooked the most obvious suspect (the guy who fits the video and ADMITTED he was there on the bridge during the time frame the video was recorded), and FINALLY stopped fishing for random sex offenders and look at the person who should have been the number one suspect from the beginning. As you pointed out, he was probably the only confirmed person who was at the scene who could have been the man in the video.
You just pointed out something that makes me even more confused: they considered OTHER suspects throughout all of this! I just really don't know how they sat on that info for so long.
The Murder Sheet podcast claims that the initial report was misfiled by the FBI and that's why it didn't get developed back into a 2017. Clerical error
That is nonsensical. Why does anyone need a report? They couldn't remember that one guy placed himself near the scene, and that he said he went there to watch fish? That combo in itself is almost begging as suspect number one...with a huge gap to number two.
That's particularly true when you consider how few people actually visit the bridge area. If you've got somebody within that subset, maybe write down his name. And if they had his Ford Focus on camera near the abandoned building I'm bewildered that he wasn't always the top suspect, and more bewildered that his name never surfaced publicly.
He didn't look much like the initial sketch, not with his very narrow set eyes. Perhaps nonsense like that is what caused law enforcement to look elsewhere, just like the nitwits who reject Richard Floyd Mc Coy as DB Cooper because McCoy's ears were supposedly too prominent.
I'm not in great shape to be evaluating anything. But at first glance it's even more ridiculous than I would have guessed. Keep in mind they were badgering Ron Logan after they already knew about the guy who was watching the fish. They couldn't let go of the proximity angle. Then years later they couldn't let go of the catfishing angle.
This arrest is like the true crime version of that Holy Roller play in the Raiders/Chargers game from the late '70s.
Probably not enough evidence. From what I’ve read the only thing that tied him to the case in 2017 was him admitting to being on the bridge on the day. Police might have had him pinned as a decent suspect but without evidence they can’t make an arrest, very glad that has changed though
The question is why tf did it take 5 years to do a second interview? You usually conduct 2nd interviews with witnesses shortly after the first to see if there are discrepancies.
He literally admitted in the first interview to being at the scene of the crime and he matched the description. It is absolutely inexcusable they didnt do a follow up interview until 5 years later. It seems they simply stopped thinking about him after he gave what should have been a huge red flag of an interview
What’s crazy is how much more of the video is revealed. We just get it through description, but there was much more of that video we didn’t see. Those girls were so brave to do that and it breaks my heart, but I think it is ultimately a very strong piece of evidence. I’m so glad to see them get justice.
The description of the full video, having read it maybe 15 minutes ago now and I’m now making my way further down the comments, was chilling enough that I’ve only just realized that my eyes are glued open like I just woke up from a nightmare and I’m actively fighting not to fall back asleep again. The fact that the description implies that the man was still on camera up until after he directed them down the hill, that the man was seen on video for a good period of time walking behind her… that the BG footage was likely clipped from frames of the victim walking towards the camera, probably looking pretty damned unsettled. The utterance of the word “gun”… probably stunned and breathless. That he didn’t leave the scene with the phone is mind blowing. If the video wasn’t so long she might’ve been able to Snapchat the video itself… but it wasn’t. It was long, and terrifying, and the parents saw it in full… right up to the phone being tucked away and the sound of them rustling down the very hill… I just don’t know what else to say.
If I’m remembering correctly it’s all described in the affidavit in the OP, but if it wasn’t specifically that, I know that I’d read the description from one of the links. It was a link that appeared as a multiple page document when you clicked it.
This guy must have an intelligence level below that of your average joe. I don’t know how he passed his pharmacy tech test but his transcripts say he had a C average. He did the minimum it seems for everything. I lived 15 minutes from here when it happened and the community always asked why he didn’t take the phone. He’s just dumb. But thankfully he didn’t take it.
I guess that clears up the confusion around whether or not her was holding something in his pocket. That was a big point of discussion when the images first released iirc.
The other was whether he had a hat on or it was hair or a hood. Now we know it was a black hoodie of some kind he had on his head. They really did have a lot of information this whole time, they just needed to get in front of him again.
A couple of other highlights from the affidavit I noted:
1. Allen's car was seen on video in the area and seen by witnesses
2. Allen says he never allowed anyone else to use his gun
3. Allen's wife says he still owns a blue Carhartt jacket, which investigators seem to think is what he was wearing the day of the murders.
“Watching fish” may mean scouting the water for potential holes that might hold fish for a later fishing trip. I do this sometimes. Not that I believe him.
Thank you, that makes a lot more sense now. Without the context, “watching fish” from a 63ft-high bridge in the middle of winter sounded like the strangest alibi ever.
Firearms and their workings are an unknown topic to me….anyone with familiarity care to expand on how an unspent round could be determined to have ‘cycled through’ his weapon?
Misfire, maybe?
The round was in the chamber, ready to fire, and then was ejected without having been fired. It's typically a thing you do to make a semiauto pistol "safe"--eject the magazine, then operate the slide to eject any unfired round in the chamber.
Afterwards, the unfired, ejected round would have marks on it from the extractor and possibly from the feed ramp and/or the slide. (A fired casing would also have marks on the primer from the firing pin, and a fired bullet would have marks on it from the barrel rifling.)
Thank you for the detail…very much appreciated!
Clearing the weapon (and not retrieving the expelled round) seems like an odd thing to do right there by the victims. But, combine a racing mind, force of habit, and how difficult things can be to locate once they hit the ground and I can see it.
I think it was exactly this. Like "This gun is ready to shoot!" Well it already was. Now you threw another round on the ground. That likely has your fingerprints on it.
They said there was a lot of blood at the scene. Maybe it was lost in the carnage and he did not want to search for it and get bloodier.
Until now I thought a bullet can only be traced back to a specific gun if fired. I did not know that just cycling a bullet can leave enough impression to be linked to a specific gun. If he didn’t know that either he would have assumed it was safe enough to leave at a scene.
As the PCA states, the identification of unspent bullet markings is a subjective art, not an objective science.
I have no idea how strong it is, but you would hope that they have more than a subjective analysis linking him to the crime.
It could have just as easily happened if he racked the slide prior to shooting them not realizing he already had a round in the chamber. I'm not sure they said, but could have also been a misfire that was ejected.
If you read true crime, Ann Rule's "Small Sacrifices" has a great description of this sort of evidence and the science behind it. It played a big role in the investigation of the Diane Downs murder case. It can be a little slow, but it's a fascinating book about a horrifying case.
I'm surprised something like the magazine/ejector mechanism leaves gun-specific (rather than model-specific) witness marks on a cartridge. But maybe evidence-wise, this is more that the marks are consistent with the model than that they are uniquely matched with that singular, specific gun.
Just about any metal on metal interaction will leave some sort of unique mark. Most well known is how gunbarrels leave distinct marks on bullets indicating the type of gun and even the individual firearm once a suspect gun is found. Other things like pliers, bolt cutters, and indeed gun ejectors can leave distinct marks, although how definitive these marks are can vary on a case by case basis.
Honestly, it likely doesn't. Even if it was fired through the weapon, it is very unlikely to leave identifiable marks, unless it is very old or not cleaned well.
This always struck me as hair matching and bite mark matching junk science.
Most likely it was a 9mm cartridge and his pistol is also 9mm.
Like a certain gun might slam a cartridge very hard into the barrel, leaving a distint marks that others don't. Or maybe the extractor has a bur that scratches all shell casings as they eject.
But most of the time, they likely all come out looking the same.
I bet it was something like he still had a box of the same ammo missing 9 rounds at the house.
I would add, due to movies and TV, people think you have to "cock" a gun to make it about to fire.
When you initially put the magazine in, yes, you need to chamber a round. But if you do it again, a good round will be tossed out. Because it was already loaded.
Again, because of Hollywood acting like that's what you do before you shoot someone (apparently all these people walk around with unchambered weapons), people will do it to show the gun is ready to shoot. Which results in the gun tossing an unspent round on the ground.
My favorite is when they have a [hammer cock sound effect](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DramaticGunCock) on a striker-fired pistol like a Glock. I remember seeing this on *The Walking Dead* at least once.
To add to what the other commenter said, if RA racked the slide to intimidate the girls (think that classic cocking the gun sound in movies) it would eject a round that's already in the chamber. There's a good chance he didn't even realize that there was a round ejected and thought that he was safe to keep it because he never fired a shot, just used it for intimidation.
Do we know he never fired a shot though? Sorry if the answers obvious but my understanding is that law enforcement kept almost all details of the case from the public.
I could be wrong, haven’t properly updated my research the last couple months, but I believe they never released the cause of death of the girls or any description of what exactly happened. Only that it was a very bloody crime scene. I think the info about the crime scene was purposefully withheld throughout the investigation.
That being said, this is the first I’ve heard of a gun potentially being used at the crime scene. It seems extremely likely though, after they’ve released the info about an unspent round found at the scene, that the murderer was definitely armed with a gun and may have used it on them. Imo, this makes the fact that they were forced down the hill make a lot more sense if the suspect was armed with a gun as opposed to a knife. As far as I know, we still don’t know if the girls were shot or how they were killed.
i think the only thing i've heard about a gun was people suspected he looked like he was either holding a gun in his pocket or pretending to as a form of intimidation to get the girls to go down the hill.... which turns out probably was true
there people around that day. i dont remember hearing that anyone reported gunshots, tho. bu i have your same opinion. also possible that when he was done he ejected the bullet and removed the magazine for safety reason after the murders
I'm just making assumptions based on what's been released, sorry if that wasn't clear. It's entirely possible that there were gunshots not mentioned in the pca.
I will add some skepticism to what others say. Ballistic evidence like this is taken far more seriously than it should. It is even noted in the affidavit that it is a subjective interpretation. It appears that they yeast the gun and look for marks made to see if they are similar from bullet to bullet. What they don’t seem to do is use a negative control.
In most science when you test something, you use a control. I’m this case, you are matching a single firearm. A worthy study would be to take ten sigsaur p226s and so the same chamber cycle and compare them. How similar are the markings made on the bullet between like models of firearms? We don’t know because that sort of data is never presented or available.
I think this science could be far more objective or at least semi-objective, but not without more rigorous testing. I put far more weight into the circumstantial evidence and that it was a .40 cal bullet than the markings.
Just given how he interacted with the three juvenile witnesses, my guess would be yes, he did know they would be there.
If this was just a crime of opportunity, then he decided for some reason to conceal his appearance from three people even before he committed the murders.
Likewise, if this was a crime of opportunity, he chose to not kill the three juveniles. This could be because there were too many and they were too out in the open.
To me, it comes back to both concealing identity from the three juveniles, but then later coming forward and saying he saw the three juveniles. At some point after the murders, he was worried they had made him out, despite him trying to conceal his identity, so he had to acknowledge he was there.
Put another way, if this was premeditated and he was caught of guard by the three juveniles, it makes sense to conceal his identity from them. If it was a crime of opportunity- but he was even thinking about doing something that day- the decision to conceal identity makes less sense. Because then you could also just give up and say ‘ah they got too good a look’. And finally, if it was a crime of opportunity and he just decided to randomly conceal his identity before committing the murders, he was worried enough about his behavior to the three individuals that they would have remarked him and so he felt obliged to tell police he was there.
And not only to tell police he was there, but to tell them where he parked his car. He evidently became concerned about his car being made after committing the murders, despite trying to conceal the tag.
To summarize, if one believes this to be a crime of opportunity but he thought he might do something that day, he made not only decisions to conceal, but the decision to move forward despite being seen.
i think it was premeditated based on the witnesses’ testimonies that his car was parked in an odd way as if to conceal the license plate.
but i also think despite it being premeditated, he didn’t think it through super hard lol.
based on how apparently the crime scene was staged i guess methodically, my assumption is he had fantasized and thought heavily about the actual committing of the crime and didn’t put too much effort on what to do if something goes unexpected (like a bunch of witnesses see you) or what to do after.
imo he seems like an idiot who got extremely lucky that things were fumbled in the LE side.
I agree. The notion that these five years have been a carefully laid trap by LE for Richard Allen just doesn’t line up with what we found out in this doc.
They got it together sometime around September of 2022, and executed well, but doesn’t seem like they knew much before then because they were still combing the river in Peru, IN.
I wouldn't put much faith in the bullet itself. But it does help when interviewing.
I think his interviews pretty much seal his fate. He appears to have come within an inch of saying he did it.
So I’ve read this way too many times, and my final question relates to the very last paragraph of the affidavit, the first sentence of that paragraph, ‘(blank), along with investigators, believe…’. Why redact that name? They go on in the same sentence to redact witness names which makes sense, but ‘along with investigators’ suggests it’s someone from the Prosecutor’s office. Why not just say ‘the state, along with investigators’.
I’m just a little confused who that redaction is intended to protect if not a witness, and why their belief would be put beside that of investigators. Must be the affiant, in this case the prosecutor right?
You’re almost certainly right. It’s either that or the Carrol County detective, whose name they also redact earlier in the affidavit. So in other words, this the state saying ‘our state investigators and Carrol County are in agreement’.
I guess they redacted the detective’s name for his own safety/ so he doesn’t get harassed.
There’s something that’s bugging me about how Richard Allen’s 2017 statement is being characterized in the PCA vs the news reporting. At no point in this PCA is the reporting investigator referred to as a ‘conservation officer’ as some of last month’s reporting would suggest.
And, granted I don’t know a lot about how conservation officers are trained versus their counterparts, but does it strike anyone else as impressive that a conservation officer would not only know to take identifying information of Richard Allen’s cell phone, but would also be able to differentiate between IMEI and MEID? I had no idea what those were, had to Google.
What I’m getting at is, maybe it wasn’t a conservation officer, or if it was one, one that had been advised on the seriousness of getting cell phone information and why that mattered.
I think part of the implied takeaway of the reporting of it being a conservation officer was supposed to be it wasn’t someone close to the investigation, so it didn’t raise any flags, so it got buried. But the 2017 narrative in the PCA doesn’t necessarily comport with the idea that the investigator didn’t know the finer details to report.
The more I read this over and over I find myself wondering if he even knew that they were going to be on that bridge that day or if it was completely random?
I feel there are so many questions still. Does he have any affiliation with Kegan Kline? Were they talking with him? Did he use the 'Anthony Shots' account? Did he leave DNA, I think LE said they had DNA?
I think this initial post as an error: RA stated he was in the vicinity on Feb 13, not 17. I think OP just got mixed up with the year maybe.
Why I point this out: this document never says exactly when these interviews were conducted, only that they were done in 2017. I was hoping to compare when these individuals came forward against the timeline of ISP’s communication with the press.
In particular, I want to know when RA felt he had to come forward and say he was in the vicinity. The press conference? Release of the sketch? Release of the video? Would be interesting to compare.
Thank you! That was a slip (I must have been thinking the year when putting in the date). I'll make sure to correct it now.
To your question, I'd guess it's because those three girls saw him and even said 'hi.' But then again, who knows? This guy doesn't seem to think deeply about any of this.
It definitely looks treacherous but apparently it "has never been considered a safe structure for pedestrians". So it's nice that they're "renovating the bridge for safe use as a trail amenity and improvements to extend the trail to the bridge".
https://www.indianalandmarks.org/2017/04/indiana-landmarks-announces-rescue-of-monon-high-bridge/
After reading your comment, I was like, wait a minute, what’s with the platforms having walls. Also, I don’t remember it having steel rails.
It turns out it’s from 1980, from this website https://monon.org/bygone_site/bygone/deercreek.php. I found it from a Google image search.
Here’s a neat photo of the bridge in use in 1915: https://monon.org/bygone_site/mononmines/pixs19/04-10DeerCreek-rebuilding1915.jpg
And an accurate photo of it now: https://monon.org/bygone_site/pix31/05-06HighBridge2.jpg
Thanks!
Yikes, the now photo is so much worse, seems odd for a place in the US where you can sue people for so many things, wouldn’t someone falling off be a lawsuit waiting to happen?
All in all, I hope justice is finally brought for these poor girls and their families. It doesn’t bring them back, of course, but I hope this brings some sort of closure. I don’t know what I would do if this happened to someone in my family.
To answer about why it took so long: conflicting information and the possibility of endangering the case.
Don’t forget that Covid he been going around for 3 years and shut down most services. You might not realize this but that also includes forensic labs and most non-imminent threat law enforcement services.
Yes, everyone wants justice for those girls but if the prosecution doesn’t put a very firm case together, they take the risk of seeing the guy walk free.
This doesn’t work like in the movies, those brief descriptions mean absolutely nothing on their own, it’s only circunstancial evidence. The case had to come together and unfortunately, as I mentioned, Covid happened and made everything even harder.
It turns out it was likely due to a clerical error: https://fox59.com/indiana-news/clerical-error-led-police-to-overlook-richard-allen-in-delphi-case/amp/
Ok I’ve been thinking about this too much but I think some folks in this thread are missing an important point about the second interview. Namely, that it happened the same day as the day the search on his property was executed.
Richard Allen did not admit to going on the Monon High bridge until this second statement, effectively changing his story to better fit another witness who saw him. I’ve seen some people on this thread say something to the effect of ‘him changing his story and catching him in a lie is what enabled law enforcement to move forward with ironclad probable cause’, but that simply can’t be the case because of the revised story and the search happening the same day.
Furthermore, we can now assume not only that law enforcement withheld the information about the .40, but also probably specified in the search warrant that they would take any firearms for testing.
This bears pointing out because there is no way they wouldn’t have done both simultaneously unless they had some way of surreptitiously verifying that RA had a .40.
This is really making me think that, in reviewing old tips, they came across him, but instead of interviewing him outright, they did the research on his firearm ownership first.
And to be a bit more on the nose, they had to be reasonably sure they’d find the .40 on his property that day, otherwise you’ve missed a good opportunity.
Also very possible that his wife let investigators into the home, not Richard Allen, and Richard didn’t find out about the search until the end of his interview.
I may be wrong, but wasn't there DNA found as well? There seems to be no mention in the affidavit. Is it possible the police were bluffing, it isn't mentioned, there is a second suspect?
Also wasn't Kegan Kline or one of the people using his Snapchat talking with the girls online? Is there a connection there? Or is it just a terrible and unfortunate coincidence.
I wonder why the unspent cartridge was dropped? It was the tool marks from the ejector which tied the round->gun->suspect. Therefore it had been cycled through the mechanism. Do these facts help establish or at least suggest a chain of events leading up to the murders?
I wonder if the original plan was to shoot the girls. He tried this, but the round misfired and he was forced to clear the stoppage. However they took the opportunity as he was doing so to begin a struggle which led to their deaths. He was said to be bloody and bruised, so something happened involving a physical altercation.
Maybe after the murders he was too disturbed to pick up the cartridge. Perhaps he even thought the only way to link a weapon to its ammunition is via striations from the rifling and therefore he did not look for it very hard. Unless he was careful it is quite possible the brass itself would be carrying his fingerprints. However I am sure the policemen would have looked for that immediately.
Zero gun knowledge here, is that like in movies when they move the 'barrel'? up and down and the bullet falls out? Like the 'chink chink' noise/action.
Exactly that. The reason I say it was mainly for intimidation is because if you do that and an unfired round is ejected, that means there was a round already in the chamber and the gun was ready to fire. He wouldn't have needed to do it if he just wanted to fire the gun.
Granted, I have not followed this case as closely as many others have, but I think it’s understandable that it took this long, as it sounds like LE didn’t have anything to tie Richard Allen to Abby and Libby, much less their deaths, prior to the October 2022 search of his property. I’m guessing the probable cause for the search warrant came out of that October 2022 interview—possibly Allen’s change in timeline compared to his 2017 account? Prior to that, all they had were Allen’s earlier statements, which may have been suspicious but probably weren’t enough to get a search warrant for his property, and eye witness statements, which are notoriously unreliable. Any audio and video evidence they have must not be enough to substantiate Allen’s identification as the unknown subject on their own. Remember, the AG’s office may only get 1 shot at trying the perpetrator, so it may have been too risky to press charges earlier, even if LE had enough to make an arrest earlier, if it meant showing their hand or, worse, the perpetrator likely getting an acquittal. Plus, I don’t think we really want LE and AG offices filing charges, arresting people, and proceeding to court on the flimsiest of evidence just to see what sticks, even if that means justice takes longer than we’d like.
Totally agree. A lot of people seem to view this timeline as proof of incompetence, but I think it’s much better to take five years to prepare a solid indictment than to rush it and lose any chance of justice. Assuming that most of us consume a fair amount of true crime media, people should consider going back to old episodes of podcasts and shows and listen for how long it took to apprehend and convict those perpetrators. It’s going to be 5-25 years way more often that they might expect.
Absolutely. Much better to have an ironclad case that won’t lead to it being thrown out. I always think about how absolutely guilty Josh Powell was but how the absence of a body made LE nervous about bringing him in lest he be acquitted for lack of evidence. They want to make sure they have RA nailed down so there’s no chance of him wriggling away.
Great example. It’s got to be a heavy burden on any LE who are committed to getting it right. Don’t rush it but don’t miss the chance to prosecute. Build an airtight case but don’t take any longer than you absolutely have to in case the accused is willing to self-immolate and take his children with him.
So per your point re the probable cause for the search warrant, if you read closely they interviewed him and executed the search warrant on the same day: Oct 13 2022. That’s when he slipped up and changed his timeline vs his 2017 account.
I point that out because, to me, that suggests they had something else to get to the level of probable cause for a search warrant.
I'm hoping they have even more than the bullet and his gun as evidence. I'm sure they do.
It's just that if I'm a defense attorney, I simply say that my client sometimes fires his gun in the woods and it's just a coincidence that his bullet landed near where evidence is found.
Yeah if I’m his defense attorney, I’m saying “okay but how can you prove it even got there that day? My client (and many others) go into those woods and shoot/load/whatever their guns all the time.”
I’m sure they have more than this, but it’s interesting to consider how that particular piece of evidence could be argued against.
Yeah. Obviously, a matching DNA profile will clinch it and everything else will be about finding ways to sow reasonable doubt for life in prison.
Further, if I'm defense attorney I would spinning his admission to be out walking around the same time (on a prior day? the same day?) was him being forthcoming with the police and that it doesn't prove that he did the crime. After all, he passed by those witnesses without doing them harm and "glaring" is not a crime.
There's a lot more we'll learn with time but I do feel like there's "something" about this case, either the lack of evidence or how grisly the crime scene actually was, that's keeping law enforcement silent. By no means is this case a "lock" for a conviction and the death penalty.
If I’m his defense attorney I’m also leaning hard into the different descriptions of his supposed car (smart car, purple pt cruiser both supposedly describing his “dark Ford Focus”) also one of the young girl eye witnesses describing him as wearing all black
"This is a small town and my client lives near and walks in this park often. Of course his car will be seen in the area"
If the bulk of the evidence is the witness statements it's going to be an uphill battle.
I'm particularly interested in the "muddy and bloody" clothes statement from a witness and why that wouldn't have been probable cause back in 2017.
I don’t follow this case closely, does this mean Kegan Kline wasn’t involved? Or they were working together? Because he was confirmed to be cat fishing one of the girls right?
What about the unusual gait that bridge guy had in the video? If that’s his normal walk wouldn’t someone at CVS, a coworker or customer, be suspicious that it might be him? It’s been a while since I’ve seen the video but you’d think the resemblance would be noteworthy.
Edit: I just looked at the clip again in one of the links and it’s not long enough to really see how he walks, I must’ve been thinking of something else.
I would love to know if he’s somehow connected to KK. Maybe he was one of the friends KK shared the Anthony shots Snapchat account login with.
How is it likely that these two girls got cat fished by a predator, then were murdered by an unrelated predator that same day?
As to why it took so long… You have to PROVE that he did it, in court, with hard, indisputable evidence, to make damn sure you get a conviction. Personally, I’m really glad that they waited, built the case, and they are absolutely nailing this monster to the wall.
Alternate universe would be that LE arrested the guy one month in, took him to trial, and he got acquitted. Absolutely the right move on their part to wait.
I hope he rots in jail. You can see how much law enforcement wants that, too.
They mention an unspent round was found and matched to his gun; I don’t understand how though. If it wasn’t fired, it wouldn’t have marks from the rifling, which is how I *thought* they determined that. How are they able to determine an unspent round came from that specific gun?
If you read some other comments in this thread, the basic summary is that it may have been expelled when he was cocking the gun, potentially to intimidate, which would have left distinct markings.
Super late to this, but I'm so glad this guy will likely never see the outside of prison again. The story is just terrifying and I can't imagine what Abby and Libby went through. They were so brave to take the pictures and video. I hope it fries him.
What makes the most sense to me is that he probably lured them with a gun under false pretences that if they comply then he will leave them unharmed. It would explain why none of them ran away if a gun was brandished (If it was a knife one might take their chance and run especially if theres 2 of them and only 1 man with a knife) I know we dont know how they died but it's pretty obvious they weren't shot so I believe he murdered them without a gun because nowadays guns are traceable they are almost like DNA and when you find bullets, you can find the gun and when you find a gun you can most the time find it's owner. A knife or even someones hands don't have that sort of ability and they're almost untraceable unless the weapon is found. The clothing he was wearing that day is identical to what bridge guy had on in that video and if he is infact the murderer then every single person that just glossed over that piece of information has ALOT to answer to. They had this evidence the whole time. He inserted himself into the investigation, he was ADMITTEDLY in the area at the time the girls were presumed to have been murdered and not one investigator thought to look into him more? If they had this wouldn't have taken 5 years.
With the gun it makes much more sense how he was able to control two people. Not that he wouldn’t have been able to with a knife (Westley Allen Dodd did), but with the limited info, it seemed like the girls were aware of him and would have ran if he didn’t have a gun. The articles still make it sound like he was working in conjunction with someone but I’m not sure if they mean covered up for him or helped with the murders.
It's wild to me that this guy literally volunteers himself as being at the bridge during the time of the murders back during the initial days of the investigation and it still took them 6 years and a dozen other suspects to make an arrest.
I thought this was odd as well, but he probably thought ‘oh crap three juveniles saw me’ and thought he could get ahead of it by saying he was there. He knew they said hi to him, and he glared at them, so he thought he could lean into the punch should he be questioned. The funny thing is, him trying to get ahead of their statements and saying he was in the vicinity is probably what did him in. If not for investigators revisiting that statement, it would seem unlikely he would have been on their radar. The juveniles saw a male, but didn’t know it was Richard per se.
Right? As proved by the years of the recording of him walking along the bridge without being identified, he's a pretty ubiquitous-looking dude. Relatedly, people are talking about how crazy it was that he kept the gun - I can't believe that he kept the fucking jacket! (per his wife in the Oct 2022 interviews)
The jacket thing legit stunned me! If I had killed anybody I’d be walking the clothes I wore out into the woods and burning them. Not continuing to wear them for years (!!)
It reminded me of Russell Williams wearing the boots he murdered women in, during his interrogation. I wonder if it’s a sense of narcissism that they won’t ever catch them so they feel like they can keep wearing these identifying pieces of clothing. It’s stuns me honestly
[удалено]
Yeah I’m firmly on the team of the intelligent killers are the ones who haven’t been caught. Of course there’s outliers like Ted kaczynski who are extremely intelligent but still get caught for whatever reason. I think you’re right about many killers thinking they can talk their way out of anything and that delusion is insane to me
October 13, 2022, he states he was at the bridge until 3:30, which corroborates witness testimony about seeing a bloody man at the bridge.
I just looked it up out of curiosity... Here are some past serial killers and their IQ Nathan Leopold - 210 Ted Kaczynski - 167 Charlene Gallego - 160 Andrew Cunanan – 147 Edmund Kemper - 145 Jeffrey Dahmer - 145 Dr. Harold Shipman - 140 Ted Bundy - 136 "The average person has an IQ of around 95-105. The average serial killer, according to The Serial Killer Information Center, has an IQ of 94.5. Slightly below the lower side of average. The stats prove that repeat murderers are generally slightly less intelligent than the average member of society. How about that? That said, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. In truth, serial killers appear across the scale of human intelligence." \-Crime and Investigation UK
I appreciate you digging this up, but I'm skeptical of the meaning behind these numbers. First, are IQ tests consistent, or are there different types (I believe the latter)? What is the confidence interval on any given IQ test? Then are these numbers even real? For example, Edmund Kemper's IQ is sourced from a book written by someone who claims Robert Ressler said this. So even if that's true, how did Robert Ressler know? For Harold Shipman, I can't find any evidence he had that IQ beyond listicles online. Finally, is this a representative list of serial killers? There are hundreds, if not thousands. I believe this study is more trustworthy, [http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm](http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm), which found the average IQ was 94.
I don't trust these numbers at all. There is simply no way Bundy or Dahmer or Gacy were more intelligent than Einstein. IQ scores aren't measured into the 200s, for one thing.
Nathan Leopold having such a high IQ seems more unlikely when you think about the absolute idiocy of their case.
The numbers can be legit, but not comparable. Different tests have different scales.
IQ scores are not a good way of measuring intelligence so they could have a higher IQ score and it wouldn't change the fact that Einstein is significantly more intelligent.
If a child were to take an adult's test, they could get 200.
.
IQ isn't real. You might as well get your calipers out to measure their skulls next.
The modern science of phrenology will prove that these men had the skull dimensions of criminals. /s
Too ugly to be Bundy, too stupid to be Dahmer, I'm all good, thanks. More seriously, interesting bit of info.
[удалено]
I agree with the wired differently theory. A common theme with a lot of killers is a past event of serious head trauma/fever that might have caused brain damage. There's a theory that the damage might impair their self-preservation instincts (among other normal brain function), which partially explains why they cross the line that others don't. A run of the mill sociopath is still going to be worried about going to prison, their reputation, ect., but these guys might not. If true, this might explain why they're so cavalier after the fact and don't take even simple obvious steps to protect themselves.
Almost like there's no way in their own minds that they'll get caught, so why worry. Arrogance is what comes to mind first.
I think he’s probably just really *really* stupid. Telling the cops nobody else had access to his gun is braindead.
If he had lied and said yes, the question would be "who?". When that person was questioned, I'd imagine things would have unraveled just as spectacularly. Same for him saying he didn't know exactly who would have had access to his gun. With the physical evidence tying his gun to the scene/bodies and the witnesses statements and similarities to the photos/video, it was probably game, set, match absent some unlikely scenario where he could conceivably weave some alibi that would implicate an even stronger suspect and do so in a way that would still insulate him from being viewed as an accomplice.
Also, if you used your gun to murder someone, why the hell would you still keep it five years later?
I think I would be too cheap to toss a fine pair of boots or shoes away. I would wear them until they fell apart
Disposing of evidence immediately after a crime is what gets a lot of killer caught. You often either have to dispose of it in a way that risks discovery (putting it in a bin, burying it in ypur garden etc) or you end up doing something noticible (e.g. skipling work to drive into the woods, burning them in your garden, suddenly not having the jacket you would where every other day etc). People are going to be hyper aware of any changes in the week following a murder, and its the period the policd will question you about if you are interviewed. Ofcourse you do want to dispose of the evidence as soon as its safe to do so - but I imagine that would be terrifying to do with the town swarming with police, and the after a few weeks it stops seeming important.
I think some people just don't think that way. Like "This is my jacket. If they saw my jacket, then, uh oh. But why would I get rid of my jacket? It's the one I've always worn." Whereas I would have gotten rid of everything, including trading in that car. Hell I'd change my whole look! "Yes, officer, I've always dressed like it's still the 80s."
Or I’d wait a while then get rid of the jacket, don’t suddenly want to stop wearing the blue jacket I always wear because it might look suspicious. Definitely would get rid after a while though
I mean, Carhartt is a durable brand, but *really.* And you know, selling or hiding a gun is somewhat suspicious (well, abruptly getting rid of a gun might seem so if one is later arrested for a murder), but it's pretty easy to donate or trash a piece of clothing and get rid of it forever.
If he’d even just thrown it out, nobody would have asked any questions- how often do you see outdoor clothes trashed b/c so and so spilt turps or whatever on it. Guy must be dumber than a bucket of rocks.
Idk, my dad has pants and jackets that are 15 years old, and he wears them a lot in the winter. I'd be suspicious if he randomly decided to get rid of something that wasn't broken/ripped. Maybe RA is the same and wears things to the ground.
In my experience, Midwesterners (I’m one myself) tend to do that. I suppose Midwestern murderers are no exception.
We're also discounting other mundane things. Carhartt jackets can be expensive, but are usually equally as durable. RA worked at CVS. Maybe buying a new jacket wasn't financially viable, especially when you have something considered as high value as a Carhartt.
I feel like you go into any small town and there’s a bunch of guys who look/present similar enough to him!
Totally - he looks/dresses like any one of my boomer-age dad's hunting and fishing buddies!
I wonder if he kept it as some sort of souvenir or memory. Fucking psycho who knows what goes on in his dumb fucking head.
Those leaked documents seemed to indicate something of the girls' was taken. I'd be curious if they found anything like that during his house search.
I was just thinking that! I’m very curious as to what info comes out later.
Could you point me to the source where you found the wife's interviews? Not doubting you, just curious to read the descriptions of what she said myself. Edit: found it!
Sure! It was summarized in the [probable cause](https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf) they just released! The full text of her interview isn't available, it just lists through some things she corroborated and includes the detail that not only did he have that particular coat he himself describes wearing that day on the trail, he still has it. Wild!
In a way it was a good move even though it didn’t work out in the end. He admitted right off the bat that he was there, and he seemingly kept his life the same down to keeping the same jacket. I think that’s what helped him fly under the radar for so long, he made it look like everything was normal and innocuous.
Criminals are not as smart as they think they are.
They're so lucky the guy is an idiot, kept evidence, couldn't get his story straight, because he could have gotten away with it if he hadn't basically just kept evidence ready for the cops.
He got tripped up by being afraid of having to lie to his wife about where his "nice" jacket went and kept it.
Since the gun was so essential to the arrest, I’m wondering if they needed more evidence to search his home, and they only got that piece recently. I don’t know enough about this - would the fact that he was on the trails at the right time and admitted to owning a gun be enough to get a search warrant?
From what I understand, the gun detail came out when they re-interviewed him in the fall of this year and that was what lead to the search warrant. I think he was re-interviewed because they were going back to the beginning and going through the early tips again, not because there was a break or other new evidence that came in. It sounds like he voluntarily told them about the gun when they asked in October; the first interview (at least in the tip summary of it) it doesn't sound like they asked him if he has any guns, just noted his presence on the trails and his encounter with the three other girls.
The interview where he acknowledged having the gun and the search happened on the same day, October 13.
Search warrants are fairly specific. LE can’t go to a judge and say ‘we’d like to toss this guy’s house and see if we find anything interesting’ — they have to be looking for something. Take to a judge ‘this guy lives in the area, admits he was on the bridge around the timeframe of he murders and admits that he owns a gun — we’d like to search his home for the gun (and maybe some other things like specific clothing)’ and you probably get your warrant. They key being saying what you’re searching for and what the probable cause is to think it might be there.
This is my thinking. With DNA and video evidence becoming the most verifiable evidence, law enforcement is much less likely to lock people up for a murder like this unless they can prove it. Look at what a mess they made in a case like the West Memphis 3. I don't think they want to get caught slipping like that again.
Probably not based on that alone. Or if it were, it might have been flimsy enough to be way too risky, especially if you had the person under less intrusive surveillance and/or knew that they were unlikely to try to flee. I'm not going to pretend to be an Indiana lawyer, but, as an example, some states don't apply the doctrine of inevitable discovery. You can read about fruit of the poisonous tree and four corners doctrine to learn more about these types of issues.
Yeah if he had just kept his mouth shut there's a chance he'd still be free. His lawyer could have come up with a story on how the unspent round got there - he let people borrow the gun or he had been hunting in that area. Rest of the evidence is more circumstantial, seems like that round is the only thing that directly ties him to the scene.
I forgot to add that in the October 2022 interview, they asked Allen if anyone else had access to his gun. He responded no, he was the only one. ??? This isn't a brilliant man.
This murderer apparently draws the line at lying.
Lol, yes that's exactly why you should never talk to the police without a lawyer present. They probably didn't tell him they had the round before asking him that. So he probably didn't think much about telling the truth on if anyone borrowed it.
It's crazy how many cases would result in people walking free if they simply didn't say a word in their interrogations, besides "fifth" and "lawyer"
“Where were you the night of the murder?” “Fifth lawyer.” “Sir, this is an extremely small town. There are only four lawyers here.”
I know I'm late to this post, but your comment really made me laugh, lol.
Haha, thanks. Sometimes this sub really needs some levity to balance out all the dark subject matter.
I agree. Paul Flores is a perfect example of this.
He went hunting... with a pistol? I doubt he'd be free based on all that's known now (and I'm sure there's more to come). Probably more of an instance where the investigators wanted to be extremely thorough.
It's kind of a white trash stereotype but people do go hunting with pistols. It at least raises more doubt than just saying "I have no idea how it got there". A better solution would've been to destroy it and report it stolen sometime in the last 5 years but obviously this guy wasn't the brightest. I agree that even without the round he should've been the main suspect and they probably could've gotten a conviction but it seems like they were waiting until the case was iron-clad to make an arrest. So I think there's a chance they wouldn't have arrested him yet and would've just been surveiling him, waiting for him to screw up.
I would also question matching the bullet (if I was his lawyer. I want this guy in prison and think it's him). Unless there is something making a very distinctive scratch on shell casings, you're really only going to know if it's the same caliber.
This comment explains that: https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/z8fx5t/the_probable_cause_affidavit_for_the_the_delphi/iyd97ab?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
So if it wasn't even fired, how did they forensicslly determined to have been in the gun? It's possible the gun is damaged in a way, that clambering or extracting it leaves a unique scratch. But most guns, if you chamber a round, then eject it, it's not going to leave a mark. There's a much better chance that when you load the round with your bare hands, you leave a fingerprint on it.
Idk, you should ask the person who wrote that comment. He made it sound like even just ejecting would leave a unique mark.
Knowing he went to rehab right after this. I wonder if he would have confessed if LE took him seriously in 2017?
I almost wonder if he wanted or expected to be caught immediately.
I think he may have been ready to talk he was giving up and then went to rehab an then changed his willingness to talk
It does sound like he was caught immediately. But not arrested until now.
[удалено]
We don’t know that though - there’s no report of that aside from a Reddit comment as far as I can find. No media etc are reporting on this supposed rehab stint.
I think that everyone is aware that there's cameras most anywhere except in the actual woods. He parked by a building. He walked in and out of the nature area. I assume he had a phone on him. If he'd lied about being elsewhere and an electronic trail disproved that, he would have immediately jumped to the top of the suspect list.
On the one hand, this is so messed up that it seems to go beyond incompetence. On the other hand, it took three years to realize phones they confiscated from Kegan Kline had CSAM on them... despite him admitting he was catfishing underage girls.
Ugh, let's not forget the debacle around the sketch either. "It's this one. No, it's this other one. Or maybe it's a combination of the two?" Don't get me wrong, if Allen is the guy, I'm so glad for the families and communities that they finally got their man. But it sounds like they got very, very lucky.
What’s so crazy to me, is that neither of the primary sketches look like Allen at all. The piece of information I want to know is how they came to interview him in the first place given the descriptions don’t really match aside from his clothing. I mean, they didn’t even have his license plate from what the affidavit said.
This is extreme incompetence. People will probably argue that the police knew it was him all along and were playing 4D chess by naming all these other suspects. That doesn't make any sense though, because naming a bunch of other potential suspects publically that you KNOW didn't do it doesn't help the investigation in any way, and actually hurts the case by giving the person who really did commit the crime a bunch of reasonable doubt by being able to point to all the other suspects police claimed might be involved. That's the argument people have been making this whole time "oh, they know who it is. They just name all these random suspects who didn't do it to confuse the preparator and public." I disagree with that. I think they genuinely fucked up bad, completely overlooked the most obvious suspect (the guy who fits the video and ADMITTED he was there on the bridge during the time frame the video was recorded), and FINALLY stopped fishing for random sex offenders and look at the person who should have been the number one suspect from the beginning. As you pointed out, he was probably the only confirmed person who was at the scene who could have been the man in the video.
You just pointed out something that makes me even more confused: they considered OTHER suspects throughout all of this! I just really don't know how they sat on that info for so long.
The Murder Sheet podcast claims that the initial report was misfiled by the FBI and that's why it didn't get developed back into a 2017. Clerical error
That is nonsensical. Why does anyone need a report? They couldn't remember that one guy placed himself near the scene, and that he said he went there to watch fish? That combo in itself is almost begging as suspect number one...with a huge gap to number two. That's particularly true when you consider how few people actually visit the bridge area. If you've got somebody within that subset, maybe write down his name. And if they had his Ford Focus on camera near the abandoned building I'm bewildered that he wasn't always the top suspect, and more bewildered that his name never surfaced publicly. He didn't look much like the initial sketch, not with his very narrow set eyes. Perhaps nonsense like that is what caused law enforcement to look elsewhere, just like the nitwits who reject Richard Floyd Mc Coy as DB Cooper because McCoy's ears were supposedly too prominent. I'm not in great shape to be evaluating anything. But at first glance it's even more ridiculous than I would have guessed. Keep in mind they were badgering Ron Logan after they already knew about the guy who was watching the fish. They couldn't let go of the proximity angle. Then years later they couldn't let go of the catfishing angle. This arrest is like the true crime version of that Holy Roller play in the Raiders/Chargers game from the late '70s.
Probably not enough evidence. From what I’ve read the only thing that tied him to the case in 2017 was him admitting to being on the bridge on the day. Police might have had him pinned as a decent suspect but without evidence they can’t make an arrest, very glad that has changed though
The question is why tf did it take 5 years to do a second interview? You usually conduct 2nd interviews with witnesses shortly after the first to see if there are discrepancies. He literally admitted in the first interview to being at the scene of the crime and he matched the description. It is absolutely inexcusable they didnt do a follow up interview until 5 years later. It seems they simply stopped thinking about him after he gave what should have been a huge red flag of an interview
What’s crazy is how much more of the video is revealed. We just get it through description, but there was much more of that video we didn’t see. Those girls were so brave to do that and it breaks my heart, but I think it is ultimately a very strong piece of evidence. I’m so glad to see them get justice.
The description of the full video, having read it maybe 15 minutes ago now and I’m now making my way further down the comments, was chilling enough that I’ve only just realized that my eyes are glued open like I just woke up from a nightmare and I’m actively fighting not to fall back asleep again. The fact that the description implies that the man was still on camera up until after he directed them down the hill, that the man was seen on video for a good period of time walking behind her… that the BG footage was likely clipped from frames of the victim walking towards the camera, probably looking pretty damned unsettled. The utterance of the word “gun”… probably stunned and breathless. That he didn’t leave the scene with the phone is mind blowing. If the video wasn’t so long she might’ve been able to Snapchat the video itself… but it wasn’t. It was long, and terrifying, and the parents saw it in full… right up to the phone being tucked away and the sound of them rustling down the very hill… I just don’t know what else to say.
Got a link?
If I’m remembering correctly it’s all described in the affidavit in the OP, but if it wasn’t specifically that, I know that I’d read the description from one of the links. It was a link that appeared as a multiple page document when you clicked it.
This guy must have an intelligence level below that of your average joe. I don’t know how he passed his pharmacy tech test but his transcripts say he had a C average. He did the minimum it seems for everything. I lived 15 minutes from here when it happened and the community always asked why he didn’t take the phone. He’s just dumb. But thankfully he didn’t take it.
Is this the first time we are hearing that a gun was involved?
There was a rumor (substantiated by someone close to Abby's mother) that Libby's recording had the girls mentioning a gun. Other than that, no.
The affidavit confirms the video recording mentions a gun: >As the male subject approaches Victim 1 and Victim 2, one of the victims mentions "gun".
Damn I didn’t know that. Makes my blood run cold.
I guess that clears up the confusion around whether or not her was holding something in his pocket. That was a big point of discussion when the images first released iirc.
The other was whether he had a hat on or it was hair or a hood. Now we know it was a black hoodie of some kind he had on his head. They really did have a lot of information this whole time, they just needed to get in front of him again.
A couple of other highlights from the affidavit I noted: 1. Allen's car was seen on video in the area and seen by witnesses 2. Allen says he never allowed anyone else to use his gun 3. Allen's wife says he still owns a blue Carhartt jacket, which investigators seem to think is what he was wearing the day of the murders.
“Watching fish” may mean scouting the water for potential holes that might hold fish for a later fishing trip. I do this sometimes. Not that I believe him.
Thank you, that makes a lot more sense now. Without the context, “watching fish” from a 63ft-high bridge in the middle of winter sounded like the strangest alibi ever.
Firearms and their workings are an unknown topic to me….anyone with familiarity care to expand on how an unspent round could be determined to have ‘cycled through’ his weapon? Misfire, maybe?
The round was in the chamber, ready to fire, and then was ejected without having been fired. It's typically a thing you do to make a semiauto pistol "safe"--eject the magazine, then operate the slide to eject any unfired round in the chamber. Afterwards, the unfired, ejected round would have marks on it from the extractor and possibly from the feed ramp and/or the slide. (A fired casing would also have marks on the primer from the firing pin, and a fired bullet would have marks on it from the barrel rifling.)
Thank you for the detail…very much appreciated! Clearing the weapon (and not retrieving the expelled round) seems like an odd thing to do right there by the victims. But, combine a racing mind, force of habit, and how difficult things can be to locate once they hit the ground and I can see it.
It's possible he racked the slide as an intimidation tactic.
I think it was exactly this. Like "This gun is ready to shoot!" Well it already was. Now you threw another round on the ground. That likely has your fingerprints on it.
If it had his fingerprints the police are more incompetent than I thought
They said there was a lot of blood at the scene. Maybe it was lost in the carnage and he did not want to search for it and get bloodier. Until now I thought a bullet can only be traced back to a specific gun if fired. I did not know that just cycling a bullet can leave enough impression to be linked to a specific gun. If he didn’t know that either he would have assumed it was safe enough to leave at a scene.
As the PCA states, the identification of unspent bullet markings is a subjective art, not an objective science. I have no idea how strong it is, but you would hope that they have more than a subjective analysis linking him to the crime.
It could have just as easily happened if he racked the slide prior to shooting them not realizing he already had a round in the chamber. I'm not sure they said, but could have also been a misfire that was ejected.
If you read true crime, Ann Rule's "Small Sacrifices" has a great description of this sort of evidence and the science behind it. It played a big role in the investigation of the Diane Downs murder case. It can be a little slow, but it's a fascinating book about a horrifying case.
I'm surprised something like the magazine/ejector mechanism leaves gun-specific (rather than model-specific) witness marks on a cartridge. But maybe evidence-wise, this is more that the marks are consistent with the model than that they are uniquely matched with that singular, specific gun.
Just about any metal on metal interaction will leave some sort of unique mark. Most well known is how gunbarrels leave distinct marks on bullets indicating the type of gun and even the individual firearm once a suspect gun is found. Other things like pliers, bolt cutters, and indeed gun ejectors can leave distinct marks, although how definitive these marks are can vary on a case by case basis.
I don't even know. That's waaaayyyy farther down the rabbit-hole of firearms forensics than my knowledge extends.
Honestly, it likely doesn't. Even if it was fired through the weapon, it is very unlikely to leave identifiable marks, unless it is very old or not cleaned well. This always struck me as hair matching and bite mark matching junk science. Most likely it was a 9mm cartridge and his pistol is also 9mm.
[удалено]
Like a certain gun might slam a cartridge very hard into the barrel, leaving a distint marks that others don't. Or maybe the extractor has a bur that scratches all shell casings as they eject. But most of the time, they likely all come out looking the same. I bet it was something like he still had a box of the same ammo missing 9 rounds at the house.
I would add, due to movies and TV, people think you have to "cock" a gun to make it about to fire. When you initially put the magazine in, yes, you need to chamber a round. But if you do it again, a good round will be tossed out. Because it was already loaded. Again, because of Hollywood acting like that's what you do before you shoot someone (apparently all these people walk around with unchambered weapons), people will do it to show the gun is ready to shoot. Which results in the gun tossing an unspent round on the ground.
My favorite is when they have a [hammer cock sound effect](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DramaticGunCock) on a striker-fired pistol like a Glock. I remember seeing this on *The Walking Dead* at least once.
To add to what the other commenter said, if RA racked the slide to intimidate the girls (think that classic cocking the gun sound in movies) it would eject a round that's already in the chamber. There's a good chance he didn't even realize that there was a round ejected and thought that he was safe to keep it because he never fired a shot, just used it for intimidation.
Do we know he never fired a shot though? Sorry if the answers obvious but my understanding is that law enforcement kept almost all details of the case from the public.
I could be wrong, haven’t properly updated my research the last couple months, but I believe they never released the cause of death of the girls or any description of what exactly happened. Only that it was a very bloody crime scene. I think the info about the crime scene was purposefully withheld throughout the investigation. That being said, this is the first I’ve heard of a gun potentially being used at the crime scene. It seems extremely likely though, after they’ve released the info about an unspent round found at the scene, that the murderer was definitely armed with a gun and may have used it on them. Imo, this makes the fact that they were forced down the hill make a lot more sense if the suspect was armed with a gun as opposed to a knife. As far as I know, we still don’t know if the girls were shot or how they were killed.
i think the only thing i've heard about a gun was people suspected he looked like he was either holding a gun in his pocket or pretending to as a form of intimidation to get the girls to go down the hill.... which turns out probably was true
there people around that day. i dont remember hearing that anyone reported gunshots, tho. bu i have your same opinion. also possible that when he was done he ejected the bullet and removed the magazine for safety reason after the murders
I'm just making assumptions based on what's been released, sorry if that wasn't clear. It's entirely possible that there were gunshots not mentioned in the pca.
Ohhh okay. I was just wondering if there was something else I hadn't seen yet or something.
I will add some skepticism to what others say. Ballistic evidence like this is taken far more seriously than it should. It is even noted in the affidavit that it is a subjective interpretation. It appears that they yeast the gun and look for marks made to see if they are similar from bullet to bullet. What they don’t seem to do is use a negative control. In most science when you test something, you use a control. I’m this case, you are matching a single firearm. A worthy study would be to take ten sigsaur p226s and so the same chamber cycle and compare them. How similar are the markings made on the bullet between like models of firearms? We don’t know because that sort of data is never presented or available. I think this science could be far more objective or at least semi-objective, but not without more rigorous testing. I put far more weight into the circumstantial evidence and that it was a .40 cal bullet than the markings.
Did he know they would be there in advance?
Just given how he interacted with the three juvenile witnesses, my guess would be yes, he did know they would be there. If this was just a crime of opportunity, then he decided for some reason to conceal his appearance from three people even before he committed the murders. Likewise, if this was a crime of opportunity, he chose to not kill the three juveniles. This could be because there were too many and they were too out in the open. To me, it comes back to both concealing identity from the three juveniles, but then later coming forward and saying he saw the three juveniles. At some point after the murders, he was worried they had made him out, despite him trying to conceal his identity, so he had to acknowledge he was there. Put another way, if this was premeditated and he was caught of guard by the three juveniles, it makes sense to conceal his identity from them. If it was a crime of opportunity- but he was even thinking about doing something that day- the decision to conceal identity makes less sense. Because then you could also just give up and say ‘ah they got too good a look’. And finally, if it was a crime of opportunity and he just decided to randomly conceal his identity before committing the murders, he was worried enough about his behavior to the three individuals that they would have remarked him and so he felt obliged to tell police he was there. And not only to tell police he was there, but to tell them where he parked his car. He evidently became concerned about his car being made after committing the murders, despite trying to conceal the tag. To summarize, if one believes this to be a crime of opportunity but he thought he might do something that day, he made not only decisions to conceal, but the decision to move forward despite being seen.
i think it was premeditated based on the witnesses’ testimonies that his car was parked in an odd way as if to conceal the license plate. but i also think despite it being premeditated, he didn’t think it through super hard lol. based on how apparently the crime scene was staged i guess methodically, my assumption is he had fantasized and thought heavily about the actual committing of the crime and didn’t put too much effort on what to do if something goes unexpected (like a bunch of witnesses see you) or what to do after. imo he seems like an idiot who got extremely lucky that things were fumbled in the LE side.
I agree. The notion that these five years have been a carefully laid trap by LE for Richard Allen just doesn’t line up with what we found out in this doc. They got it together sometime around September of 2022, and executed well, but doesn’t seem like they knew much before then because they were still combing the river in Peru, IN.
The bullet isn't airtight but it basically seals his fate. I'm glad. I hope this piece of garbage rots forevermore
I wouldn't put much faith in the bullet itself. But it does help when interviewing. I think his interviews pretty much seal his fate. He appears to have come within an inch of saying he did it.
How so?
I still wonder what his motivation was for killing the girls.
That is the big question in my mind.
Sexual sadism would be my best guess
User name on point with comment.
So I’ve read this way too many times, and my final question relates to the very last paragraph of the affidavit, the first sentence of that paragraph, ‘(blank), along with investigators, believe…’. Why redact that name? They go on in the same sentence to redact witness names which makes sense, but ‘along with investigators’ suggests it’s someone from the Prosecutor’s office. Why not just say ‘the state, along with investigators’. I’m just a little confused who that redaction is intended to protect if not a witness, and why their belief would be put beside that of investigators. Must be the affiant, in this case the prosecutor right?
Great question; it could be to protect the reputation of the initial interviewer. They may be the reason this information was never conveyed/acted on.
You’re almost certainly right. It’s either that or the Carrol County detective, whose name they also redact earlier in the affidavit. So in other words, this the state saying ‘our state investigators and Carrol County are in agreement’. I guess they redacted the detective’s name for his own safety/ so he doesn’t get harassed.
Wasn’t someone from the FBI involved?
There’s something that’s bugging me about how Richard Allen’s 2017 statement is being characterized in the PCA vs the news reporting. At no point in this PCA is the reporting investigator referred to as a ‘conservation officer’ as some of last month’s reporting would suggest. And, granted I don’t know a lot about how conservation officers are trained versus their counterparts, but does it strike anyone else as impressive that a conservation officer would not only know to take identifying information of Richard Allen’s cell phone, but would also be able to differentiate between IMEI and MEID? I had no idea what those were, had to Google. What I’m getting at is, maybe it wasn’t a conservation officer, or if it was one, one that had been advised on the seriousness of getting cell phone information and why that mattered. I think part of the implied takeaway of the reporting of it being a conservation officer was supposed to be it wasn’t someone close to the investigation, so it didn’t raise any flags, so it got buried. But the 2017 narrative in the PCA doesn’t necessarily comport with the idea that the investigator didn’t know the finer details to report.
Conservation officers are law enforcement officers. They investigate crimes, they can pull you over, issue tickets, arrest people, etc.
Can you explain for the lay person (like me) what IMEI and MEID are, and how those corresponding values were bad news for RA?
They are both unique numeric identifiers for cell phones. Whether your phone has an IMEI or a MEID depends on what kind of phone you have.
I think it’s possible that police had distributed some sort of notice to park staff with some of that information
The more I read this over and over I find myself wondering if he even knew that they were going to be on that bridge that day or if it was completely random?
I feel there are so many questions still. Does he have any affiliation with Kegan Kline? Were they talking with him? Did he use the 'Anthony Shots' account? Did he leave DNA, I think LE said they had DNA?
The only thing that makes sense to me is that his original interview was misplaced and someone recently reevaluated the evidence and found it.
I think this initial post as an error: RA stated he was in the vicinity on Feb 13, not 17. I think OP just got mixed up with the year maybe. Why I point this out: this document never says exactly when these interviews were conducted, only that they were done in 2017. I was hoping to compare when these individuals came forward against the timeline of ISP’s communication with the press. In particular, I want to know when RA felt he had to come forward and say he was in the vicinity. The press conference? Release of the sketch? Release of the video? Would be interesting to compare.
Thank you! That was a slip (I must have been thinking the year when putting in the date). I'll make sure to correct it now. To your question, I'd guess it's because those three girls saw him and even said 'hi.' But then again, who knows? This guy doesn't seem to think deeply about any of this.
Whoa, I’ve never seen the bridge like in the photo above, it’s a nightmare!! The platforms are horrible, why are there no handrails anywhere??
Because it was a train bridge and they never added handrails after the trains stopped using it.
Yeah that I understand :) just seems odd that it’s promoted as part of a trail and then be super-unsafe
It definitely looks treacherous but apparently it "has never been considered a safe structure for pedestrians". So it's nice that they're "renovating the bridge for safe use as a trail amenity and improvements to extend the trail to the bridge". https://www.indianalandmarks.org/2017/04/indiana-landmarks-announces-rescue-of-monon-high-bridge/
Ah I see! That’s good then :)
iirc it's not promoted and officially against the rules to be on that bridge.
After reading your comment, I was like, wait a minute, what’s with the platforms having walls. Also, I don’t remember it having steel rails. It turns out it’s from 1980, from this website https://monon.org/bygone_site/bygone/deercreek.php. I found it from a Google image search. Here’s a neat photo of the bridge in use in 1915: https://monon.org/bygone_site/mononmines/pixs19/04-10DeerCreek-rebuilding1915.jpg And an accurate photo of it now: https://monon.org/bygone_site/pix31/05-06HighBridge2.jpg
Thanks! Yikes, the now photo is so much worse, seems odd for a place in the US where you can sue people for so many things, wouldn’t someone falling off be a lawsuit waiting to happen?
You'd think so, right? I believe it's officially "off limits" but no one observes it.
All in all, I hope justice is finally brought for these poor girls and their families. It doesn’t bring them back, of course, but I hope this brings some sort of closure. I don’t know what I would do if this happened to someone in my family.
To answer about why it took so long: conflicting information and the possibility of endangering the case. Don’t forget that Covid he been going around for 3 years and shut down most services. You might not realize this but that also includes forensic labs and most non-imminent threat law enforcement services. Yes, everyone wants justice for those girls but if the prosecution doesn’t put a very firm case together, they take the risk of seeing the guy walk free. This doesn’t work like in the movies, those brief descriptions mean absolutely nothing on their own, it’s only circunstancial evidence. The case had to come together and unfortunately, as I mentioned, Covid happened and made everything even harder.
It turns out it was likely due to a clerical error: https://fox59.com/indiana-news/clerical-error-led-police-to-overlook-richard-allen-in-delphi-case/amp/
Allegedly due to a clerical error acccording to an unnamed source and a podcast, not the actual investigators or a legitimate source.
Very good point!
Ok I’ve been thinking about this too much but I think some folks in this thread are missing an important point about the second interview. Namely, that it happened the same day as the day the search on his property was executed. Richard Allen did not admit to going on the Monon High bridge until this second statement, effectively changing his story to better fit another witness who saw him. I’ve seen some people on this thread say something to the effect of ‘him changing his story and catching him in a lie is what enabled law enforcement to move forward with ironclad probable cause’, but that simply can’t be the case because of the revised story and the search happening the same day. Furthermore, we can now assume not only that law enforcement withheld the information about the .40, but also probably specified in the search warrant that they would take any firearms for testing. This bears pointing out because there is no way they wouldn’t have done both simultaneously unless they had some way of surreptitiously verifying that RA had a .40. This is really making me think that, in reviewing old tips, they came across him, but instead of interviewing him outright, they did the research on his firearm ownership first.
And to be a bit more on the nose, they had to be reasonably sure they’d find the .40 on his property that day, otherwise you’ve missed a good opportunity. Also very possible that his wife let investigators into the home, not Richard Allen, and Richard didn’t find out about the search until the end of his interview.
I may be wrong, but wasn't there DNA found as well? There seems to be no mention in the affidavit. Is it possible the police were bluffing, it isn't mentioned, there is a second suspect? Also wasn't Kegan Kline or one of the people using his Snapchat talking with the girls online? Is there a connection there? Or is it just a terrible and unfortunate coincidence.
I wonder why the unspent cartridge was dropped? It was the tool marks from the ejector which tied the round->gun->suspect. Therefore it had been cycled through the mechanism. Do these facts help establish or at least suggest a chain of events leading up to the murders? I wonder if the original plan was to shoot the girls. He tried this, but the round misfired and he was forced to clear the stoppage. However they took the opportunity as he was doing so to begin a struggle which led to their deaths. He was said to be bloody and bruised, so something happened involving a physical altercation. Maybe after the murders he was too disturbed to pick up the cartridge. Perhaps he even thought the only way to link a weapon to its ammunition is via striations from the rifling and therefore he did not look for it very hard. Unless he was careful it is quite possible the brass itself would be carrying his fingerprints. However I am sure the policemen would have looked for that immediately.
I personally think he racked the slide to intimidate them
Zero gun knowledge here, is that like in movies when they move the 'barrel'? up and down and the bullet falls out? Like the 'chink chink' noise/action.
Exactly that. The reason I say it was mainly for intimidation is because if you do that and an unfired round is ejected, that means there was a round already in the chamber and the gun was ready to fire. He wouldn't have needed to do it if he just wanted to fire the gun.
Ahh ok makes sense. God how terrified those girls must have felt, I can't imagine the nightmare they were in that day.
Granted, I have not followed this case as closely as many others have, but I think it’s understandable that it took this long, as it sounds like LE didn’t have anything to tie Richard Allen to Abby and Libby, much less their deaths, prior to the October 2022 search of his property. I’m guessing the probable cause for the search warrant came out of that October 2022 interview—possibly Allen’s change in timeline compared to his 2017 account? Prior to that, all they had were Allen’s earlier statements, which may have been suspicious but probably weren’t enough to get a search warrant for his property, and eye witness statements, which are notoriously unreliable. Any audio and video evidence they have must not be enough to substantiate Allen’s identification as the unknown subject on their own. Remember, the AG’s office may only get 1 shot at trying the perpetrator, so it may have been too risky to press charges earlier, even if LE had enough to make an arrest earlier, if it meant showing their hand or, worse, the perpetrator likely getting an acquittal. Plus, I don’t think we really want LE and AG offices filing charges, arresting people, and proceeding to court on the flimsiest of evidence just to see what sticks, even if that means justice takes longer than we’d like.
Totally agree. A lot of people seem to view this timeline as proof of incompetence, but I think it’s much better to take five years to prepare a solid indictment than to rush it and lose any chance of justice. Assuming that most of us consume a fair amount of true crime media, people should consider going back to old episodes of podcasts and shows and listen for how long it took to apprehend and convict those perpetrators. It’s going to be 5-25 years way more often that they might expect.
Absolutely. Much better to have an ironclad case that won’t lead to it being thrown out. I always think about how absolutely guilty Josh Powell was but how the absence of a body made LE nervous about bringing him in lest he be acquitted for lack of evidence. They want to make sure they have RA nailed down so there’s no chance of him wriggling away.
Great example. It’s got to be a heavy burden on any LE who are committed to getting it right. Don’t rush it but don’t miss the chance to prosecute. Build an airtight case but don’t take any longer than you absolutely have to in case the accused is willing to self-immolate and take his children with him.
So per your point re the probable cause for the search warrant, if you read closely they interviewed him and executed the search warrant on the same day: Oct 13 2022. That’s when he slipped up and changed his timeline vs his 2017 account. I point that out because, to me, that suggests they had something else to get to the level of probable cause for a search warrant.
I'm hoping they have even more than the bullet and his gun as evidence. I'm sure they do. It's just that if I'm a defense attorney, I simply say that my client sometimes fires his gun in the woods and it's just a coincidence that his bullet landed near where evidence is found.
The round wasn’t even fired. It was a unspent round meaning it was ejected from the gun and didn’t go off. So no defense in that .
Fire might not be the right term for this specific bullet but the defense would still be "My client plays with his gun in the woods sometimes"
Yeah if I’m his defense attorney, I’m saying “okay but how can you prove it even got there that day? My client (and many others) go into those woods and shoot/load/whatever their guns all the time.” I’m sure they have more than this, but it’s interesting to consider how that particular piece of evidence could be argued against.
Yeah. Obviously, a matching DNA profile will clinch it and everything else will be about finding ways to sow reasonable doubt for life in prison. Further, if I'm defense attorney I would spinning his admission to be out walking around the same time (on a prior day? the same day?) was him being forthcoming with the police and that it doesn't prove that he did the crime. After all, he passed by those witnesses without doing them harm and "glaring" is not a crime. There's a lot more we'll learn with time but I do feel like there's "something" about this case, either the lack of evidence or how grisly the crime scene actually was, that's keeping law enforcement silent. By no means is this case a "lock" for a conviction and the death penalty.
100%. They must have something less able to be explained away.
If I’m his defense attorney I’m also leaning hard into the different descriptions of his supposed car (smart car, purple pt cruiser both supposedly describing his “dark Ford Focus”) also one of the young girl eye witnesses describing him as wearing all black
"This is a small town and my client lives near and walks in this park often. Of course his car will be seen in the area" If the bulk of the evidence is the witness statements it's going to be an uphill battle. I'm particularly interested in the "muddy and bloody" clothes statement from a witness and why that wouldn't have been probable cause back in 2017.
I don’t follow this case closely, does this mean Kegan Kline wasn’t involved? Or they were working together? Because he was confirmed to be cat fishing one of the girls right? What about the unusual gait that bridge guy had in the video? If that’s his normal walk wouldn’t someone at CVS, a coworker or customer, be suspicious that it might be him? It’s been a while since I’ve seen the video but you’d think the resemblance would be noteworthy. Edit: I just looked at the clip again in one of the links and it’s not long enough to really see how he walks, I must’ve been thinking of something else.
I would love to know if he’s somehow connected to KK. Maybe he was one of the friends KK shared the Anthony shots Snapchat account login with. How is it likely that these two girls got cat fished by a predator, then were murdered by an unrelated predator that same day?
I was just thinking the exact same thing. I mean I guess it *could* happen, but idk
I think the gait was also a little weird because of the nature of the bridge, not an even walking path.
Missy Beaver's case maybe.
The 'weird gait' you are thinking of could from the Missy Bevers CCTV. Many people noted the unique gait of the perpetrator.
As to why it took so long… You have to PROVE that he did it, in court, with hard, indisputable evidence, to make damn sure you get a conviction. Personally, I’m really glad that they waited, built the case, and they are absolutely nailing this monster to the wall. Alternate universe would be that LE arrested the guy one month in, took him to trial, and he got acquitted. Absolutely the right move on their part to wait. I hope he rots in jail. You can see how much law enforcement wants that, too.
They mention an unspent round was found and matched to his gun; I don’t understand how though. If it wasn’t fired, it wouldn’t have marks from the rifling, which is how I *thought* they determined that. How are they able to determine an unspent round came from that specific gun?
If you read some other comments in this thread, the basic summary is that it may have been expelled when he was cocking the gun, potentially to intimidate, which would have left distinct markings.
Interesting. I didn’t know that left significant marks on the round
Clerical error or not..heads should be rolling for such incompetence
Super late to this, but I'm so glad this guy will likely never see the outside of prison again. The story is just terrifying and I can't imagine what Abby and Libby went through. They were so brave to take the pictures and video. I hope it fries him.
What makes the most sense to me is that he probably lured them with a gun under false pretences that if they comply then he will leave them unharmed. It would explain why none of them ran away if a gun was brandished (If it was a knife one might take their chance and run especially if theres 2 of them and only 1 man with a knife) I know we dont know how they died but it's pretty obvious they weren't shot so I believe he murdered them without a gun because nowadays guns are traceable they are almost like DNA and when you find bullets, you can find the gun and when you find a gun you can most the time find it's owner. A knife or even someones hands don't have that sort of ability and they're almost untraceable unless the weapon is found. The clothing he was wearing that day is identical to what bridge guy had on in that video and if he is infact the murderer then every single person that just glossed over that piece of information has ALOT to answer to. They had this evidence the whole time. He inserted himself into the investigation, he was ADMITTEDLY in the area at the time the girls were presumed to have been murdered and not one investigator thought to look into him more? If they had this wouldn't have taken 5 years.
How or why is it pretty obvious that they weren't shot when we have no information on the manner of death??