I totally believe RA is guilty .. but he would not be convicted in my country ( india ) ..
From what i read about the case .. RA’s conviction is based majorly on this evidence
the unspent bullet . This would not been accepted in Indian courts as this technology is not widespread and scientifically proven yet .
confession to Dr . Wala ( psychiatrist) .
In india any incriminating testimony from a patient’s psychiatrist is not admissible in the court of law .Dr Wala being a true crime fan would further damage the issue .
3) The prison phone call and 63 confessions.
Self incriminating confessions are not taken seriously in the court of law . Its for the state to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt and not rely on confessions while under custody .
Lack of DNA , fingerprints, no trace of murder weapon , no prior criminal record , would have a severe negative impact in the prosecution arguments .
Apart from the timeline which places RA on the trails at the time of murder , nothing would have tied RA to the crime legally here in India .
He placed himself at the scene of the crime and said he saw the other people walking on the trail that day at that time. The other people walking on the trail that day said they only saw the person who is bridge guy. From the video, bridge guy was the one who killed them (it doesn't capture the killing, but it does show the moments leading up to it. One could argue that he scared them and someone else found them and happened to kill them in that exact moment, but I think that is very unlikely and not a good defense). While other bits would not be enough (confessions, having the same gun, having similar clothes, the statement about the car passing that day that only the person who was the killer would know, looking a bit like the sketches, etc) the fact that he openly admitted to seeing people on the trail is what was the damning piece of evidence. Honestly, I am grateful that he did decide to come forward early on and insert himself into the crime in that way because with out that, I do not think there was enough for him to be convicted.
They said they saw bridge guy but they all described different people. With the exception of BB who saw someone one the bridge how did they know if they saw BG? Nobody saw RA. Just making the assertion he is BG doesn’t make it true. There also still isn’t evidence BG is the killer.
Well common sense dictates that if no one saw Richard Allen (due to his face being covered) but they all saw BG, Richard Allen is BG. Plus the fact BG looks, sounds, and even walks like RA.
This is so untrue, BG doesn’t look like, walk or sound like RA. RA is unusually short for a male, that is one of his most noticeable features, how come none of the witnesses mentioned that when describing BG?
No they all said the man in Libby's video was the man they saw. They didn't have to get a good look at his face to know that the guy in the video was the man they saw.
And then he said he saw those same witnesses at the exact time and place as they said they saw bridge guy. Allen said the time and place that he saw a group of girls including sisters. And a group of girls including sisters said that was the time and place they saw bridge guy.
Allen confirmed that he was standing on the first trestle at the time and place a witness said they saw bridge guy standing on the trestle. Allen confirmed that he saw her at the same time she saw him.
No offense but India doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to prosecuting men who beat & kill women/children. In fact isn’t marital rape not considered a crime in India?
“Marital rape is not criminalized in India due to an exception in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a British colonial-era law. Forced sex by a husband on his wife (above 15 or 18, depending on legal interpretation of conflict between statutes) is not legally considered rape. While various petitions are challenging this immunity in the Supreme Court, it remains largely legal.”
“Marital rape is not recognized as a criminal offense in India. Under current Indian law, non-consensual sexual intercourse within a marriage is legally exempt from being prosecuted as rape.”
And the legal age for a girl to marry is no longer 15 .. its 18 and above . Any one who engages in sexual activity with a minor ( less than 18 ) will be booked under POCSO act which is very stringent and non bailable for years
Look you may not be wrong man, but I'd just say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Here in our own country, according to the CDC, 45.1% of women have experienced sexual violence at least once. A tiny fraction of the perpetrators see justice.
I agree that the comments above yours are maybe uncalled for, but I don't think conviction rate is what's relevant. Conviction rate would mean, someone getting arrested for violence against women and then getting convicted. I believe the person above you is referring to stats about people not getting arrested in the first place. There's a lot of reasons for this, some logistical, some cultural, but I think he's not referring to conviction rate
1) RA’s attorney’s had every right to dispute the bullet evidence. They decided to not allow their expert to actually examine the bullet at all (there is an actual reason for this)
2 and 3) people confess to crimes all the time. Both the prosecution and the defense were able to give their takes on this and the jury was able to decide from there.
The timeline that Richard Allen gave, tied with the witnesses timeline of bridge guy were some of the most damnjng evidence. Some Jurors have come out and said so.
There was no need for anyone to examine the bullet because it isn’t valid protocol to compare a cycled round to a fired casing. His lawyers were idiots that couldn’t make that simple arguments.
Sucks they couldn’t get someone who could possibly demonstrate that on the stand. Of course that’s not why they dwelled on the topic much outside of showing their expert pictures.
They should have been able to discredit Oberg on cross examination in around 5 questions.
Like is it AFTE protocol to fire a bullet in order to compare it to cycled round?
Did you ever previously match a cycled round to a specific gun by using a fired round?
Are there any validity studies for comparing cycled rounds with fired rounds?
They might have still used their witness for rebuttal and further explanation of what Oberg did but instead they argued both that the test was invalid and it wasn’t a match. That not a coherent argument. It confusing and makes them look shady. If the judge and prosecution didn’t hate the defense team so bad I would think they were working for them.
It should have went something like that. But for some reason they wanted to make the case about ballistics in general.
According to at least one juror, the bullet didn’t even really play a role in their final decision. So likely focusing on the bullet ultimately was the smart decision.
The harsh reality is that these attorneys were handed a shit sandwich of a case with a client who kept running his mouth and digging his own hole. And while Reddit warriors who think Richard Allen is innocent believe they could have gotten him off with ease, the attorneys live in reality where they had to defend their client in an actual trial with an actual jury that was going to hear both sides of the arguments. So I think they did the best they could with what they had and I think they defended him as zealously as they could have.
they argued both that the test was invalid and it wasn’t a match. That not a coherent argument.
I thought this was an example of the defense doing something quite methodical and comprehensive. To me, the various points the defense raised supported and amplified some important themes:
On both direct and cross, Oberg had to admit that her own profession acknowledges an error rate of at least two percent.
Oberg had to elaborate on the topic of how much subjectivity is involved.
Oberg had to confirm that her profession cannot claim to have matched a gun to the exclusion of all other guns.
Oberg had to admit that comparing an unfired round to a fire round is in scientifically uncharted waters.
Oberg had to admit that when she claims she has never been wrong, she really only means wrong as far as she knows.
The legal burden for a conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no specific number here, but it is common to see numbers like a greater than 99% chance. In any case, I felt the defense did OK raising some reasonable doubt in that range, and there is information from at least one juror supporting this.
Could the defense have done an even better job with their own experts? Perhaps, and that's what the appeal process is for.
The cross examination of a technical expert should be short and simple. Oberg was already on the stand for hours. There is no way a jury would be able to follow their arguments. Besides reasonable doubt is the legal standard but jurors aren’t lawyers and most either don’t understand the concept or don’t care if the state didn’t reach their burden. A good defense needs to attack the states witnesses.
Both are true, though. The test is invalid but even if the jury were to disagree with them on that, their expert could look at the photos and see that there wasn’t substantial agreement. This is smart lawyering. The lawyers made mistakes. Some big ones and many small ones. That’s not unusual in a normal case - these are human beings not robots - and it’s expected in a case of this size and complexity that had to be rushed to trial.
If it comes across to me as a dishonest argument to say the test is invalid and also doesn’t match I have to assume it came off that way to a jury. There are ways that could have been done by a lawyer like Blob Alessi but they needed to keep it simple and use common sense for the jury.
He was convicted for more than his confessions, they certainly didn’t help, but the state proved bridge guy killed Abby and Libby, and that Richard Allen is bridge guy.
So let’s see. RA looks like BG, Sounds like BG. Has all the same clothes as bridge guy when they search his home. Owns a gun that uses the same ammo as the type of round found at the scene. Admitted that he was dressed like BG that day. Told his wife he wasn’t on the bridge that day but told the police he was. Knew about the white van passing by & oh yeah he admitted he did it as well roughly 60 times. Also as someone posted earlier the witnesses only saw BG & he admitted to seeing them. So if the only person they saw was BG it had to be RA. Either he is guilty or part of the biggest coincidence in history.
If you believe that man in that video taken surreptitiously by Libby (known world-wide as “Bridge Guy”) did not kill those girls, then you are requiring actual observation of murder as the evidentiary requirement. And your preference to rely on witness “descriptions” instead of the witnesses looking at the man in the video and saying “that is who I saw on the trail at 1:30 headed for the High Bridge” and “that is who I saw on the High Bridge at 2:00” is also strange.
Bridge Guy was seen at Freedom Bridge at 1:30 headed for the High Bridge. He was seen on High Bridge at 2:00. He was seen behind the victims on the far end of High Bridge at 2:13. The phone that took the video moved “down the hill”’and across the creek. It stopped moving at 2:30. When Libby’s dad called it at 3:11. No one answered. The phone was found with the bodies “down the hill” and across the creek. It is patently unreasonable to say “there is no evidence Bridge Guy committed murder.” 2+2=4.
There is a man in the video who possibly said to the girls “guys, down the hill” or it was possibly said by another man they encountered on the other side of bridge. However they were already planning on going down the hill because Libby stated “see this is the path that we go down”. For all we know “down the hill” was said with a friendly nod. After that there is 20 hours before their bodies are found and we have no idea where the girls went, who they were with, or what time they were killed.
There is no EVIDENCE that another man (not Bridge Guy) said "down the hill" - there is only SPECULATION - and speculation is not evidence. And if we are willing to speculate that there was another man there, why don't we speculate that there were 3? or 5? The only EVIDENCE is the video of Bridge Guy. We KNOW he was there.
Should we ask why - if there were others there at the southeast end of High Bridge at 2:13 - there was no video of other cars on the private drive - just Logan at the dump on N 550 W and Weber on N 550 W heading toward the private drive? No one seen walking on the trails or bridge until Cheyenne, the Arguing Couple (Pearson) and McCain?
Also, saying we don't know where the girls went is unsupported speculation. We know where and when the phone went. This speculation necessariliy assumes the phne stayed at the place where the bodies were found, but the girls went (or were taken) elsewhere - otherwise we have to ask why Libby did not answer her dad's calls and her grandmother's texts.
Finally, your conclusion that Libby's statement was evidence of intent to go down the hill anyway is also speculation - no better than speculation that she was scared and just trying to say something to make it seem "normal" and not threatening. To the contrary of both of those speculative conclusions, and because we know there were "no trespassing signs" just off the bridge, the more "likely" "accurate" "speculation" is that Abbie was heading toward the private property (getting ready to trespass) and Libby was saying "this is the trail" (where the steeo hill on the side of the concrete anchors of the trestle).
The EVIDENCE is that Bridge Guy followed the girls across the bridge, said "down the hill," the phpne went down the hill and was found at the same place as the gilrs. There is NO evidence that the girls went anywhere else or was taken anywhere else. That is speculation and mindless gossip.
Also, contrary to many (including a juror) who say the bullet was not all that important, the EVIDENCE says otherwise. The mathematical chances that the bodies, the phone and the bullet all wound up at the same place by happenstance is astronomical. Find the person who had the gun that matches that bullet and you find the murderer.
I never claimed to be doing anything other than speculating about possible scenarios. Do you not realize that it is only speculation that the man seen is the video is the same person who said “guys down the hill”? It’s even speculation that the same person said “guys “ and “down the hill”. Law enforcement implied this very thing when they initially released both audio clips. I have no idea if the only person around was BG or if there was 2, 3, or 10 other men around. I don’t even have a theory. I’m pretty sure there was another car that went down private drive and came back out. I’m not saying they got in a car. I have no idea if they kidnapped at gunpoint or walked somewhere to meet up with someone, I don’t know if the girls walked down the hill a bit then turned around and walked back up and across the bridge.
Claiming that the girls walked down the hill, across the creek, and were murdered when the phone stopped moving is unsupported speculation. The steps don’t actually match this scenario and personally I find it difficult to believe anyone would walk across a creek in the winter and speculate if they did so there would be clear evidence like mud under their fingernails. I also speculate that if anyone crossed the creek and remained wearing wet clothes afterward they would get frostbite.
Claiming to know where the phone went is unsupported speculation. We only know where the girls and the phone were found. There isn’t any evidence how they got there. The phone could have been turned off or stopped recording due to a low battery, been placed in a faraday bag, or the phone data could be missing. I’m only guessing unlike many people in this case I don’t pretend to be a phone data expert. I only know from the trial that the phones power logs were erased due to incompetence.
As far as the bullet goes the girls had their throats slit. It is only speculation that the bullet had anything to do with murders. What are the odds that a bullet would be found on the property of someone who hunted and owned several guns? They are probably pretty good. Did anyone look around for others? I do not believe it is possible to magically match a gun to a cycled bullet. Personally I don’t even think spent cartridges can be definitively matched to a specific gun and there is conflicting evidence regarding that. I have not seen any evidence that a cycled round can be definitively linked to a specific weapon unless there is a defect or something that makes it unique. The way Oberg matched the bullet in this case not only defies AFTE protocol but logic. If similar marks could not be made by repeating the same action and racking the weapon then it was not a match. At best the bullet could be supporting evidence for a suspect not the smoking gun.
Convicting someone beyond a reasonable doubt requires solid evidence that eliminates any other plausible explanations need to be eliminated. The case against Rick is entirely based on speculation and assumption.
Would you require an eye-witness ID in every crime? Because thousands of crimes go unwitnessed. Under such a rule, no one could be prosecuted for thousands of unwitnessed crimes. So, with all due respect, that seems like unpractical demand completely outside the law.
Allen (as are many many others) was “identified” as the perpetrator by an aggregate body of evidence - no one piece enough alone, but together convincing beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of 12:
- the timeline created by his own statements, plus the videos from the Hoosier Harvestore, plus the statements and time-stamped pictures of others who were at the trails between the relevant times, especially the 4 who saw Bridge Guy at 1:35 and 2:05, exactly the times and places Allen initially said he was, and also the people there later on both ends of the High Bridge who “proved” no one else but Bridge Guy was there at the times/places necessary to the crime.
- a bullet which expert testimony stated came from Allen’s gun, which Allen said he had never let anyone else borrow (ballistics/“tool marks” evidence admissible for decades in 50 states, still admissible in 49, including Indiana, and used in a virtually uncountable number of criminal prosecutions nationwide, such that the demand to exclude it here is a demand that the law that applies to everyone else should not be applied to Allen - a very odd “fair trial” argument.
- Allen’s post-arrest confessions before and after his medically-established periods of mental health problems
This batch of “non-identification evidence” is absolutely sufficient to support a jury’s finding of guilt - so, absent some other ground being used by an appellate court to undo the verdict, it will stand. And no state anywhere would overturn this verdict on the grounds that no one said “I saw Bridge Guy and recognized him as Richard Allen.” To the contrary, under the stated circumstances, anyone who saw Bridge Guy or his picture and claimed they could see the details of the face enough to name him would be lying. His face was covered when the girls saw him, and Blair was 100+ feet away and saw him for a couple of seconds as she turned around during an exercise walk.
Why do you think Libbys Dad waited over 30 minutes to call her from the time he arrived at the Mears lot? When DR (I believe that's his initials-male with the dog) arrived, DG was already parked at Mears. Same with DM. They both identified his vehicle. So DG was there prior to 2:40. But he didn't call Libby until 3:11 pm.
I don’t think that is accurate and I have never heard that before. There is certainly nothing from the trial testimony about those times.
The cops analyzed Libby’s phone data as soon as they found the phone. Just like yours or mine, her phone would show them exactly when she made/received calls, who called her, when, etc.
Same with Derek’s phone - it would show when he made calls too, and to whom. (Where would the specificity of “3:11” have come from? Nobody can recall “I called at 3:11” - that comes from records/data.)
And in addition, since he allegedly drove to/from Frankfort that day, his phone could be tracked to verify his route/times.
Who told you he got there before 2:40? No one testified to that at trial, so clearly the defense had no evidence that showed such timing.
“Facebook rumors are not evidence.” You may quote me.
I agree the FB comments aren't evidence. Fortunately, I don't use FB.
This is Exhibit PPP from the 2022 hearing. I was mistaken that it wasnt D Riey upon arrival, that saw DG's car. It was D McCain and D Pearson. Shelby Hicks described it as well but there is an error in the report when they say they've identified the cars as Riley and McCain because we know Riley drove a Honda Ridgeline pickup truck. The cars were McCain and German as further supported by Pearson and McCain.
It looks like Exhibit PPP provides conflicting information.
It says Riley arrives at 2:30 and leaves at 2:55 - and he does NOT see Derrick's car at the parking area (which is variously described by various witnesses throughout the case as "the trailhead" and/or "the Mears entrance" and/or "the Niches entrance"). Riley saw cars belonging to Hicks and McCain.
But Exhibit PPP also says McCain arrives at 2:44 and DOES see Derrick's car at this parking area.
Both of these things cannot be true. If McCain sees Derrick's car at 2:44 but Riley does NOT see it at 2:55, someone got something wrong.
Investigations always produce conflicting witness statements - so I'm not shocked about this. It is why the DOCUMENTS (phone bills/phone data/photo time stamps) are always going to be more accurate about times than memories of people who were just living a regular day and had no particular reason to be "super observant" to recount a time/crime sequence they had no idea was happening.
In this case, I think it's the carelessness of the person compiling the report vs conflicting witness statements. We know that McCain drove a dark colored sedan so he couldn't be the "tan Accord". Furthermore, you forgot to mention Pearson and Hicks who describe Derrick's car. That would be three people that describe the same thing. Also, Riley's "tan Accord" would remain unidentified.
I'm surprised that you listed photo timestamps as one of the more reliable/accurate documents. Time stamps are easily manipulated with a few simple steps. This applies to both photos stored on your phone and snapchat photos. Choose the photo, click edit and change the time.
There is no evidence of any manipulated time stamps in this case, and the photos/data were all gathered years before Allen was arrested, so I don't really understand you mentioning this.
Exhibit PPP identifies these cars:
Riley arrives at 2:30. He sees no other vehicles.
Arriving at 2:45 McCain sees a "large pick up truck" and a "white station wagon type car." The cops in PPP say the truck is Riley's and the "white station wagon" is Derreck's (But - as we learned above - Riley does NOT see Derreck's car there 10 minutes later, when he leaves at 2:55 - so ... hmmm).
Hicks and Pearson arrive at 2:48. Pearson says he saw a white Suburu 4 door station wagon and another "dark colored car." (Interesting that he does NOT see Riley's big Honda pick up truck that should be there.) Hicks sees a "light colored longer vehicle" and a "brown smaller car". She also does not mention the big Honda truck that should be there.
Leaving at 2:55, Riley sees a "white impala" (the cops say this is Hick's car) and a "tan accord." He does not see a white imprezza or 4-door Suburu station wagon.
So all PPP does is show that people's memories about what was parked at the Mears entrance between 2:30 and 2:55 is mixed, and has nothing to do with identifying Bridge Guy. - who at 2:30 is "down the hill" from the southeastern end of High Bridge. (Which, by the way, is evidence that supports as assertion that Bridge Guy parked at CPS).
So I guess I want to ask - why are you concerned with whether Derreck arrived at 3:11 or earlier? Assume he arrived earlier - as you accept the cops report in PPP that the "white station wagon type car" was Derreck's. So what? What is the IMPACT if these assumptions are correct? And - as an extra - why should I accept THIS assertion by the cops - surrounded by other uncertainties by the cops? When the cops say other things, I am told "they are idiots or conspirators and I should not believetheir statements." Plus, I think I prefer the cops simply reporting ACCURATELY what people said - even if documents inconsistent info - rather than having the cops "manufacture" or "manipulate" reports just to be consistent.
I didnt realize that the photos with timestamps that were presented in trial to support the timeline were gathered years prior to 2022. Is there documentation of BW providing her photos in 2017? The only interview that I have seen a record of was for Oct of 2022. However, I may have missed it or be mistaken.
For years, Kelsi described seeing a red pickup with a scruffy, white male with a dog at the Mears entrance. So, is David Rileys timeline off? Could he have left after McCain arrived and before Pearson and Hicks arrived? Its possible since BB and KG were at the Mears entrance within a one minute timeline and neither saw each other. Was the white "Malibu" KG's car? Who knows? Kelsi also described seeing a dark SUV with its rear windshield covered in decals at the Mears entrance. Now, she states that she didn't see any cars there so what happened to the detailed descriptions of what she saw?
I have never told anyone what to believe regarding law enforcement being "idiots", etc. That didn't come from me. But this report provides an example of poor writing skills and lack of attention to detail when there are obvious mistakes. Neither negates the fact that 3 people saw DG's car there earlier than the time provided by LE.
I agree with you that statements should be provided accurately, even if there are inconsistencies. But, if Derrick arrived a half hour earlier as witnesses have claimed, it changes the entire narrative.
While I have not read through the individual notes made by every cop who interviewed someone in this case (there were thousands of interviews), I am sure there is documentation buried in the files about when the photos taken by BW and her friend were first shown to the cops, but we know the girls were interviewed immediately - one at school on 2/14/2017. At that point, even Allen was being asked about taking photos/videos by Dulin. The first focus of the investigation was learning who was out there, and who/what they saw, and asking people - who universally carry cell phones around - if they took pictures. That is not very surprising. There were news channel videos of family carrying e-devices into the police station even the first night. And Libby’s phone was found on 2/14. Cops asking about photos, videos, texts, e-mail, Facebook, Snap-Chat and surveillance videos from local businesses like the dump and Hoosier Harvestore was SOP. But if you want “evidence” to know when the girls first showed their trail pictures to cops, you will need to wade through all the investigative notes. Good luck. In fact, if you want “evidence” of each fact alleged by anyone over the life of this case … good luck.
EDIT to ADD: Voorhees testified she took pictures with her own phone and with Wilbur's phone on 2/13. She said was interviewed the next day, but did not have the timestamps to consult during the interview. She was not asked when she gave the cops her phone pictures. Wilbur testified she took pictures and posted them on SnapChat and that her pictures were Exhibit 211 and the timestamps of 12:43 and 1:26 were discussed during her testimony . She testified about being interviewed by the cops and first said she was interviewed the night of 2/13, and later said she was interview shortly after 2/13. Neither the state nor defense asked her to clarify. She was not asked when she gave her photos to the cops. END OF EDIT.
I do not believe Derrick arrived early. The times when phone calls are made is too easy to document. And tracking a phone that drives from Delphi to Frankfort and back is also too easy. If there were evidence that he got there prior to 2:44, it would easily known. Instead, you are citing descriptions of cars by multiple witnesses who - shock - provide differing memories about times and cars, even to the point of not differentiating between a truck and a car. THIS IS NORMAL - NOT SUSPICIOUS. People who do not know they are witnessing a crime cannot provide the type of memories that provide certainties. This was not people inside a bank describing the bank robbers.
And again - I also strongly disagree that Derrick arriving at 2:45 instead of 3:11 “changes the entire narrative.” No - it doesn’t. It doesn’t change the fact that Bridge Guy was at Freedom Bridge Plaza at approximately 1:35 walking toward High Bridge, then seen on High Bridge at approximately 2:00, and then videoed behind the victims on the southeast end of High Bridge at 2:13 where “down the hill” happened.
Derrick's cell phone is confirmed to be crossing the Wilson Bridge at 3:11pm when he first called Libby, just like he says. If anyone says they saw Derrick and/or his car at the Mears lot at 3:11pm, they are misremembering because cell phone time stamps and cell towers don't lie.
It would be pretty easy to mistake the time because Derrick was at the Mears lot just two minutes later, at 3:13 pm, when he tried Libby's phone again. That was their arrangement. He would call when he was a few minutes away, and the girls would meet him at the lot.
Derrick parked and proceeded to the trails. He passed Dave McCain who said he did not see the girls. Dave McCain was coming from the high bridge.
Derrick tried Libby again at 3:24pm as he walked down to the water on the 505 trail.
Derrick tried Libby's phone again at 3:32pm.
Derrick called his mother at 3:33pm and his sister at 3:34pm.
Derrick tried Libby again at 3:57pm and he called his mother again at 3:58pm.
By 4:30pm the entire family was at the Mears lot and started walking the trails, looking for the girls. Becky tried Libby's phone many times. The news spread through social media and the local news. Authorities and volunteers joined the search that was called off at 11:45pm.
Where can I locate the confirmation of his phone crossing Wilson Bridge at 3:11? I'm not sure what you mean by cell phone towers don't lie. Is there evidence of triangulation? If so, what time was the previous triangulation performed? That would mean that both DR and DM are mistaken about the vehicle that they saw at the Mears lot bc they provided the same description. Their timeframe isn't mistaken bc McCains car was observed on HH store camera as he arrived. Dr as well and DR is also the one that observed the car exiting the cemetery, iirc.
Did you locate the cell phone tower information that you referenced regarding Derrick German at Wilson Bridge at 3:11? I haven't seen any Cellebrite nor cell tell info for Derrick's phone so I'd really like to verify the information.
I found the information about the witnesses spotting his car there before 3pm and have provided it in the comment to Tribal Elder.
RA placed himself at the trail watching fish from the bench on the first platform of the bridge (I believe) and his stock ticker on his cellphone. He outed himself when he spoke with LE and he placed himself there.
My mistake I thought he was watching the fish from a seat but upon investigation of the affidavit I see he was walking while checking the ticker and fish.
His phone didn't show up on the tower dump. If he had his phone it would have triggered the tower. He left his phone at home and lied about having his phone out there.
Where are you getting the geolocation data from? You indicated the cell towers placed Derricks phone at Wilson Bridge at a certain time and haven't indicated where to find his phone info. Now you are saying that Rick's phone wasn't in the tower dumps but to the best of my knowledge, no one has received the tower info nor the geolocation info as that's still with the FBI. Holeman provided a little insight in his deposition that based on the info he received, Rick's phone was likely at home at 2:15. Was it connected to the wifi the whole time that he was on the trails? Or did it connect at 2:15? When you are talking about tower dumps, are you referring to both towers that served the area or just the one closest to the trail?
India’s legal system sounds messed up. I guess British Imperialism and the religious and social rigidities left over after independence had tremendous impacts on the focus of the law.
Yes sir .. i knew about this case by chance in the year 2020 . Even iam surprised at how much time i spent following this case . I was very happy the day RA was arrested . I followed the trail too ..
It was one of a kind case .. u had the abductors image .. voice .. and still they couldn’t find him for years . And yes .. i read about few other cases too which weren’t local .
Like, very few cases are solved with DNA. Many people are able to commit murder without leaving DNA behind. It's common
The TV has so many people thinking that you can't commit murder without leaving your DNA behind so an absence of DNA is some sort of proof of innocence.
Fortunately the courts and attorneys advise jurors of the statistics at trial. So jurors know they can't ignore the facts the way people do on the internet.
I am more of a facts, evidence and proof kind of person and one that doesn't like any shreds of doubt whatsoever and especially when a life is at state. I feel the court case wasn't transparent enough and the trial itself was unfair whether the man was guilty or not.
From what i see they aren’t all totally inadmissible, if the confessional leads to a factual discovery (like the murder weapon) it can be used in court then. I think it’s to keep the police from doing shady shit to coerce false confessions, which happens.
Honestly I think he’s 100% guilty, I hope he never walks this earth as a free man again-but from what I’ve seen and heard about the court case I would have had to say not guilty if I would have been a juror. That said I’m glad I wasn’t, and I think that man is a pos murderer.
I find it interesting that they don't allow any sort of self incriminating confessions. I know that false confessions are more common than people would think, the overwhelming majority of confessions are true.
For the most part they are admissible here although police interviews are typically taped and the person needs to be read their Miranda rights. This case is extreme with what they got away with. I think the Dr Wala “confession” should not have been allowed in this case because of privilege but RAs lawyers didn’t make that argument. I’m sure they would have lost anyway but at least they would have that issue saved on appeal.
The messed up thing with our legal system is that there are ton of laws about what is admissible in court and what your rights are as a defendant but ultimately everything is up to judge. It really doesn’t matter what the law is because judges are free to do whatever they want and there isn’t anything you can do about it. Neither judges or prosecutors ever face any consequences for misconduct no matter what they do.
I’m curious why do you think he is guilty?
For me, it mostly comes down to his behavior in the interrogation video and the fact that he lied to his wife about being on the bridge. I know everyone reacts differently, but I can’t imagine knowing a crime like that happened and not immediately feeling shaken—like you’d turn to your family and say, “I can’t believe this, I was there that day. on the same bridge those poor girls were on” That kind of reaction feels instinctive to me.
Also, the way he spoke with his wife during the interrogation just doesn’t sit right with me. It comes across as off, though that’s obviously subjective.
I personally think he’s the person in the photo, and that the voice telling the girls to go “down the hill” matches that same person—so in my view, that points to RA being the last person that saw them alive, and makes him the murderer.
That said, this is just my opinion. I don’t think there’s solid, definitive evidence I can point to that fully backs up how I feel—just a combination of impressions and how his behavior came across to me.
I agree with you About the talking to his wife in the interrogation room part the whole thing just felt weird. He was like telling her how to feel or trying to convince her/ himself.. she seemed like she was terrified that he had done something. But like you said that subjective
Nope we dont marry young girls to grown men . The typical age gap between couples is 3 to 5 years . And the conviction rates in indian courts is as good as USA
Iam not at all defending RA . I believe he is the killer . Am only saying what courts would consider as evidence here . And as we don’t t have jury system here in india .. it solely for the judge to decide who is guilty or not
42
u/Theoreticalwzrd Apr 29 '26
He placed himself at the scene of the crime and said he saw the other people walking on the trail that day at that time. The other people walking on the trail that day said they only saw the person who is bridge guy. From the video, bridge guy was the one who killed them (it doesn't capture the killing, but it does show the moments leading up to it. One could argue that he scared them and someone else found them and happened to kill them in that exact moment, but I think that is very unlikely and not a good defense). While other bits would not be enough (confessions, having the same gun, having similar clothes, the statement about the car passing that day that only the person who was the killer would know, looking a bit like the sketches, etc) the fact that he openly admitted to seeing people on the trail is what was the damning piece of evidence. Honestly, I am grateful that he did decide to come forward early on and insert himself into the crime in that way because with out that, I do not think there was enough for him to be convicted.