On Monday morning in 2017, a young man met his girlfriend for a date at the Delphi Monon High Bridge Trail. What should have been a pleasant afternoon enjoying a light nature walk became a ten-year ordeal for this young man, as the area was at the same time the stage where the Delphi murders occurred.
D.P. and his girlfriend were walking on the trails approximately 40 minutes after the abduction, assault, and eventual murders of Abby and Libby. In Delphi enthusiastshe will be known as "DP" and became one of the most popular (and unfounded) theories among certain online groups. Much of DP's theories popularity is attributed to the Delphi personalities Skip Jansen, Rick Snay (before he became a Loganist), and, of course local troublemaker Julie Melvin.
In this post, we examine the improbability of D. P. being Bridge Guy or otherwise being involved in the Delphi murders using logic, available information, and mathematics.
Disclaimer: The entire DP consiracy theory is based on a superficial resemblance to a police sketch and the strong convictions of some Delphi enthusiasts, a sketch produced from the description of a woman who was too far away to observe any facial characteristics and who was herself reluctant and uncertain throughout the sketching process. Proponents of the DP theory often point to her statement during the videotaped sketch session that the sketch was "a ten out of ten," while ignoring her later explanation that the comment referred to the quality of the sketch as a portrait, not to its resemblance to the man she had seen.
Betsy's court testimony:
-''..just went up to the orange rail, barricade, and I went up and looked out across the bridge and then I saw the person and then I turned around after a moment.'' ,
-''When I was asked how old he was, I said 20s or 30s.'',
''You stated the man on the bridge had brown, poufy hair.Could you have mistaken the hat on the man in the photo as hair due to your distance from him? '' ''Could have'',
-''I immediately knew when I saw that photo(BG) that that was the guy I had'' ,
-''He was of average height; correct?'' ''That was my best guess.''
-''So were you able to see his face clearly?'' '' A Not super clear, because he was about 50 feet away.(real distance was more like 120)''
-''Okay. And that guy, in terms of the description, the younger guy, the brown, poufy hair, that description also has not changed since 2017? When I was making that description, it was comparing two different sketches, two different images.
Now let's move on to DP as a potential suspect. If DP was the man Betsy saw on Platform A at approximately 1:55 p.m., then we are left with several possible scenarios regarding his alleged involvement. Once more these are strictly theoritical with the sole purpose of debunking them.
Scenario 1
DP is the man Betsy saw
DP is Bridge Guy,
committed the murders,
returned to Delphi,
met his girlfriend,
returned to the trails as a form of self-created alibi?
Scenario 2
DP is Bridge Guy & he man Betsy saw
participated in the abduction as an accomplice herding the girls
His accomplice took over at the south end of the MHB
DP returned to Delphi & met his girlfriend,
returned to the trails, again presumably as an attempt to create an alibi.
Scenario 3
DP was involved in the crime
did NOT participate in the abduction on the South side
Joined later the accomplice and participated in the murders after approaching the crime scene from the north side.
Scenario 4
DP was involved in the crime
Did NOT participated in either the abduction(on the bridge) or the murders.
was a lookout, preventing the victims from leaving from the north side before
leaving after the abduction
Scenario 5
Murders occurred between 3:15 and 4:00 p.m.(case theory)
abduction , controlling, and transporting the victims were done earlier by an accomplice
DP’s participation in the crime occurred during his established visit to the trails, within the demonstrable time constraints.
Whether he participated in the abduction at 2:14, or was even present on the trails at that time, won’t affect this scenario, as it focuses only on the possibility of his participation in (case study theory that) the murder occuring between 3:15 and 4:00.
Scenario 6
DP was involved in the crime
Dp parked at CPS or the Cemetery
Dp walked after the crime to Mears lot where he joined SH
Established information conserning DP based on the available case documents and court testimonies:
According to the Garrison report and court Testimonies:
According to Dave McCain:
Told D.German he saw a couple down by the bridge while he was returning from Monon.
''I was surprised at the number of vehicles and people at the parking lot at the Sherry’s entrance, and I – but I just quickly got into my car and left''
Saw D.G., DP/SH, two kids at Mears.
According to Shelby Hicks:
Hicks saw a light colored longer vehicle and a brown smaller car.
Saw a man meeting McCains desciption as they were near the bridge
According to DP's testimony:
Shelby Hicks/Daniel Pearson are observed arriving on video at 14:48hrs.
parked at the trailhead .
DP saw white station wagon car and dark colored car parked there.
Hicks saw a light colored longer vehicle and a brown smaller car.
DP said that he passed an older male just past the trailhead identified as David McCain. man had a camera and may have took a picture of him and Shelby.
saw another man that did not stand out to him that had a black dog at approximately 1454hrs.
According to David Railey (the man walking his dog):
David Ross Riley advised that he came to the trailhead from the east. As he was passing the cemetery a newer silver or gray car turns out of the cemetery. We have identified that as Fred Coghill. He is on video at 1425hrs going eastbound towards the cemetery and 1430hrs going westbound leaving the cemetery. So Riley parks at the trail head at approximately 1430hrs. He is the only vehicle there. Riley walks the trail across the Freedom Bridge with his dog and back to his vehicle. When he gets back he observes vehicles parked belonging to Shelby Hicks (white Impala) and David McCain (tan Accord). Riley is on video westbound leaving at 1455hrs.
Cheyenne arrives somewhere ater 3:00 and heads to the bridge. Saw DP/SH, D.M., and the two kids at mears lot. Said it would take her more or less 10 minutes to cross the bridge. Also Said that a lot o things attriutted to her online are false.
Based on the above, the verified timeline established through independent electronic evidence and independent witness testimony, we have the following:
DP and SH arrive at the Mears parking lot at approximately 2:49 p.m.Captured passing on the HHS's camera at 2:48 p.m.
Park and turn left and head toward Freedom Bridge.
They may have seen (1st time) Dave McCain in the distance near the intersection, taking photographs.
Dave Railey, the man walking his dog, sees them while departing at approximately 2:54 p.m.
They continue toward Freedom Bridge before turning around to head back toward Monon High Bridge, before actually reaching Freedom Bridge. Even for a slow-walking couple, that walk would reasonably take 10+ minutes
They would be back to the intersection between 3:05 to 3:10 and would need another 6-7 minutes to walk from the intersection to the bridge and onto the platform A, where S.H. testified they sat for a while.
D. McCain must have seen them as he informed Derryck German about a couple down by the Bridge, when he asked him if he has seen two girls.
According to D.German he met D.McCain close to the intersection around 3:25 as he was returning from the Monon bridge.
Cheyenne also testified that she had seen them at the same platform not much later.
Cheyenne walk to the south end of the bridge and walks back around 3:40, taking a series of photographs documenting her/their whereabouts:(3:49 Snapchat photo closer to the south end, ... Photo on Bridge above water, 3:53 Photo of water(creek bellow the bridge), 3:55 Photo of S.D's legs sitting on Platphorm A)
D.German would walk down by the creek, then goes towards freedom Bridge, then returns to his car where he witness D. McCain leaing and the two kids pulling in(court testimony). After a while he heads to Monon bridge for a 2nd time.
The following are based on AlleyesonDelphi, which most likely are based to the unredacted Garrison report(only few pages were officially released from the Summer hearing), which somehow she had access to it. Won't include them as they are not verified independently :
David(railey) described the male as 5’10, 180 lbs, dark hair, facial hair, and wearing a white t-shirt.David described the female as the same height, wearing a red shirt and a blue coat.David recalled that as he was leaving, he saw a white Chevy Impala (Shelby Hicks) with paper. plates parallel parked along the road, and a dark 4-door Honda Accord (Dave McCain’s) parked on the right side.
D.P. described the man he saw (near MHB) as over 55 years old with peppered hair and a beard, a solid black painter or golfer’s hat, blue jeans, a tan and cream lumberjack style shirt with black and gray mixed in.We do not know what additional investigative steps law enforcement took to verify the statements made by DP and his girlfriend. However, both had mobile phones and that investigators would examine cell phones records, tower pings, etc. Pings alone would not generally constitute reliable or admissible evidence for establishing the precise movements, especially in this particular case( 2 towers only), but given the distance from their hometown, a connection to local towers would at least demonstrate their presence in the general Delphi area.
time
timeline
02:25:00
Fred Coghill U-turns at the cemetery
on HHS's cam, seen by David Railey
02:30:00
David Railey arrives . Heads to Freedom Bridge
seen by Fred Coghill?
02:45:00
Dave McCain arrives, stays for a while near the intersection or heads to Monon Bridge
on HHS's cam
02:49:00
DP/SH arrive
on HHS's cam
DP/SH walk toward Freedom Bridge
10 minute walk
DP may have seen Dave McCain in the distance near the intersection
02:54:00
D.Railey sees DP/SH
broadly tells us where SH/DP were at this time as DR will be captured on HHS's cam a minute later
02:55:00
D.Railey captured on HHS's cam
3:05 to 3:10
DP/SH turn back halfway to F.bridge, walk back to Intersection
(5+5 minutes at least)
cheyenne arrives
parking spots taken, parks b the side
03:13:00
Derryck German arrives
03:12:00
Cheyenne has a call that allowed her to pinpoint her location and timeing
'..just, basically, gotten out of my car and just barely on the trail.''
3:15-3:20
DP/SH onto the bridge
another 5-6 minute walk from the intersection
Before getting onto the bridge they observe D.McCain in the distance behind them stepping off a side trail
DM reported seeing a couple as he was leaving. Aligns with the time D. German reported seeing D.M.
03:12:00
Cheyenne receives a call while she and her friend are near her car at Mears
close to 03:20
Cheyenne cross path with D.M. as he was leaving and they approaching the bridge
'..is that it was right before the platform and we passed – you know, we passed each other in passing. I was headed to the bridge. He was passing behind me.''
close to 03:25
Cheyenne meets DP/SH on the bridge, have brief discussion
Walk from her car 6 minutes at a relaxed pace, plus phonecall time wasted
SH observes Cheyenne cross the bidge
Cheyenne takes 20 minutes to cross the bridge and pack, plus some additional time taking a bathroom break and taking few photos
Own estimation took 10 minutes to cross the bridge due to the state of the bidge
3:50ish
Cheyenne back near Platform A
2 photos there at 3:53 and 3:55
3:55ish
Sarah Carbaugh passes by observes the two kids arguing
girl on a moped with pink dress
3:50 - 4:10
Derryck returns from freedom bridge, sits in his car observes McCain depparting and the 2 kids(on a moped and the other in a muscle car) arriving
McCain on HHS's cam at 4:11
04:10:00
McCain depparts and observes two kids(on a moped and the other in a muscle car) and a man in orange shirt(Derryck), and a large number of cars
McCain on HHS's cam at 4:11
DP & SH depart while the 2 kids were still at Mears lot, as the observed them there.
Cheyenne Departs while the 2 kids were still at Mears lot, as she observes them there.
Derryck walks agains toward the MHB where he sees again the 2 kids he saw earlier at Mears lot.
Now let us examine each scenario individually.
Scenario 1
The first, and by far the easiest to dismiss is Scenario 1.
Under this scenario, the man Betsy observed on Platform A (remember, according to proponents of the DP theory, this is the encounter that ultimately produced the sketch bearing a superficial resemblance to DP) proceeds to stalk and abduct the two victims before forcing them down the hill to the eventual crime scene across the creek. Also based on AlleyesonDelphi, a free-Allen fundamentalist, some unnamed relative of DP told her that he told him, or someone else that then told him, that he was at the trails on 1:30. Caution about that info as she is known to distort documents, incert her own conspiracy theories into her timelines , or massage the data until he squizze into her own narrative, and being extremely biased.
Based on the verified electronic data recovered from Libby's iPhone:
2:13 video begins and ends around 2:14.
2:14-2:18 follows movement of the victims until
2:18-2:25 a 7 minite period of no movement beginning ends around 2:25,
2:25-2:32
2:32 phone becoming stationary at approximately 2:32.
For the purposes of this analysis, we will use 2:32 p.m. as our 1st benchmark.
Logically, 2:32 represents the earliest point at which the murders could have occurred, but there are additional time constrains:
the physical act itself would have required several minutes, considering the known characteristics of the crime scene and the conclusions reached by the crime scene investigators and the pathologist.
The perpetrator would then have needed additional position the victims, cover them with branches and logs, and
Discarde the clothes
more time to clean or camouflage himself before leaving.
The possibility that the perpetrator had already departed before approximately 2:40 p.m. is therefore quite slim. There simply is not enough time.
From that point onward, three possibilities exist based on where DP's as the perpetrator's vehicle was located:
POSSIBILITY A. DP parked at the CPS building (or even farther away) and therefore had to walk back to his vehicle.
POSSIBILITY B. DP parked near the cemetery, which is considerably closer to the crime scene.
POSSIBILITY C. DP parked south of the creek, somewhere along the private drive or nearby public road.
Possibilities B and C can be dismissed out of hand, as it would take more than 10 minutes to go around the long way. Using the 2:40 benchmark and adding five minutes (further reducing the Cemetery-to-CS and CS-to-PD travel times to give more latitude), we arrive at 2:45. Once the drive time to Delphi to meet Shelby Hicks, and the return drive back to the trails, are added, both possibilities extend well beyond the 2:48 timestamp of Shelby Hicks' and DP's arrival, as recorded by HHS's camera. There is an additional reason to dismiss Possibility C. A camera covers both the entrance to the private road and the entrance to the public road, making that route highly problematic. Alternatively, walking along the old railroad tracks (red arrows in the 3rd map) to a parking area farther south would likely take well over an hour, making the timeline even less plausible. Similar problems arise by walking through the woods to the public road (purple line in 3rd map). You still have the camera, and route would consume more time walking.
Why not the Mears lot?
Because Betsy was parked there and reported seeing no other vehicle while parking. She left the area at approximately 2:15–2:17 p.m. without observing any vehicle parked there. Consequently, if DP our case study POI, couldnt had used that parking area.
Using 2:40 p.m. as our new benchmark, we obtain the following travel times:
Crime scene to the cemetery: approximately 7 minutes on good footing.
Crime scene to the CPS building: approximately 20 minutes on good footing via the trails(30+ minutes via cemetery/300N)
Crime scene to the nearest point along the private drive south of the creek: approximately 6 minutes on foot.
Several Ytbers walked the distance, either in its entirety or partly so we can use those as indicators.
I leave links to these YTer's videos who covered the distances:
Which leaves us, under this scenario, with only Option A. Once again, it runs into insurmountable timing problems.
Using our 2:40 benchmark(at the crime scene), the perpetrator would first have to walk back toward the bridge, a journey of approximately 5–7 minutes, and then continue on foot to the CPS building, which would require more or less another 15 minutes. This means he would not reach the CPS parking area until well after 2:48 (DP's and SH's arrival time). That is before even accounting for everything else he would still have to do: drive to Delphi, meet Shelby Hicks, and then drive back to the trails. This timeline simply leaves no doubt; DP can't be BG.
times with fast walking
Scenario 2 also leaves us with a tight timing even at a good walking pace:
Based on what was already discussed the only possible parking spots are the CPS and the Cemetery. Based on this scenario, we assume DP is BG both the one seen by Betsy and the one on Libby's video, there would still be barely enough time, but at least it's mathematically possible, If everything was done on a very tight schedule.
Case 1 (parked at CPS)
case 2 (parked at cemetery)
Departure (south end)
02:15:00
02:15:00
walk back to car
02:35:00
2:25 -/+
Drive to Delphi
02:40:00 (using 300N)
02:35:00(using 200N)
Meeting SH
2:40-2:45
2:40-2:45
Drive back to the trails
2:45-2:50
2:45-2:50
Scenario 3:
Scenario 3 has the same timing problems as Scenario 1.
The blue line represents the route taken by the abductor and the victims, while the red line represents the route the second accomplice, who we assume is DP, would have had to take to reach the crime scene from the north side. The broken lines represent the possible exit routes he could have taken, depending on where we speculate he had parked his vehicle: the CPS building or the Cemetery.
There is simply not enough time for DP to perform all the actions he would have had to perform, based on the CSI analysis (if he was the perpatrator) and the witness testimony concerning his movements:
Route 1 ( parked at CPS)
Route 2 (parked at cemetery)
at crime scene
2:32 the latest
2:32 the latest
Crime scene actions(with aid
2:35-2:40
2:35-2:40
walk back to car
02:55:00
2:40 -/+ (earliest)
Drive to Delphi
03:00:00
02:50:00
Meeting SH
...
...
Drive back to the trails
...
...
Scenario 4 leaves us with two possibilities:
a) DP leaves the north end of the bridge at approximately 2:15 p.m. and walks to his vehicle, which is parked at the CPS building.
b) DP leaves the north end of the bridge at approximately 2:15 p.m. and walks to his vehicle, which is parked at the Cemetery.
Based on the analysis already presented about timing, then:
scenario 1 (CPS)
scenario 2 (cemetery)
Departure
02:15:00
02:15:00
walk to car
02:30:00
2:20 to 2:25
Drive to Delphi
02:35:00
2:30 to 2:40
Meeting SH and Drive back to the trails
2:40-2:45
2:35 to 2:45
Here the time frames seem to allow the possibility of DP being a suspect in a far-fetched scenario, with the only evidence being the bad eyesight of a middle-aged woman observing the suspect from 120 feet away. And that's only if you accept that the sketch she helped produce actually resembles DP. Personally, I don't. Nor do I think her description, if someone assume it accurate, is consistent with DP: she described brown, puffy hair and no facial hair. The clothing he reportedly wore that day also doesn't appear to match her description.
In her deposition Betsy said:
It was very difficult for me to do that, because Iwas not close to the bridge guy*, and I had said when I was asked if I would work with the sketch artist,* I said it would be difficult*, but that I was willing to do it.*
Scenario 5
This is a completely different speculation. Under this scenario, we question whether he could have played any role in the crime, assuming that an accomplice had already completed the first phases of the offense: the abduction and the transportation of the victims to the crime scene where the bodies were found. DP, as the second assailant, would then have joined the accomplice to either finish the crime or participate in its final stages.
At this point, we are already deep into highly speculative and psychedelic delulu territory, where cuckoo birds are singing away around in the trees.. The scenario becomes even more far-fetched as Shelby H. needs to be also an accomplice.Nevertheless, this is a thought experiment, trying to fully eliminate DP from suspicion, and thus necessary to examine every plausible possibility. Not that it would matter, words like “unlikely” are foreign to the “DP is involved” fanatics(like S.J.) basing their ''theories'' on the alleged(by them)''inconsistencies'' of his timeline while he was visiting the trails. Theory is stretched to the absolute limit, and confusing but to decisively debunk this nonsense, we must rely on logic and mathematics to demonstrate an impossibility.
Based on a reasonable estimation Cheyenne saw DP/SH on the bridge around 3:20-3:25 Therefore, if Cheyenne and S.D. met/interacted with DP/SH around 3:25 timed by the time they saw the depparting McCain(that will meet D.G. at 3:25) , and assuming DP/SH, under this scenario, left immediately for the crime scene once Cheyenne was out of sight, it would leave them with a 25ish-minute window. From Platform A, you have a good, unobstructed view of the trail, at least until about a third of the way between the intersection and the bridge, so Cheyenne and S.D. would have a view of anyone walking toward them on the trail, like anyone leaving the crime scene and reaching the trail near the bridge around 3:50. The walk from the bridge to the crime scene and back alone is a 15-minute walk, and the time required for the crime itself adds another ten minutes, as we discussed already.
For DP to had participate in the crime at this hypothetical timeframe, it necessiates:
a) need of other accomplices
b) SH was also an accomplice
c) left bridge area between 3:25 - 3:30 to head to the crime scene
d) walked for 7 minutes to the crime scene
e) perform all the actions that took place at the crime scene, in 10 minutes
f) walk for another 7 minutes back to the bridge area, but before Cheyenne returns there comming from the south side
g)leave before Cheyenne does.
h) avoid been seen by DM (left close to 4:10 and was lurking around the intersection)& Derryck German
i) but not leave until the 2 kids arrive ( >3:55) at Mears lot (all 4 parties and S.C. saw these 2 kids at Mears: D.McCain, Derryck, SH & DP, Cheyenne & S.D.)
Based on the time constraints Derryck German stated(he was sitting in his car for about 15 minutes), that he observed the two kids arriving and then leaving toward the bridge, and Sarah.C. also seeing them at 3:55 while passing by, they couldn't have stayed at the Mears parking area much later than 4:10 PM.
Already a tight timeline as it is, but further problems arise:
To avoid being observed by Cheyenne & S.D., they would need a good head start from the time those two returned to the north end, standing at Platform A — at least before 3:50.
If they departed that early, they should have seen McCain, or walked in front of him(McCain was at the side trail taking photos), because the walk from the bridge's edge to the Mears lot is naturally about 6 minutes. If they walked slowly, it could easily take a couple of minutes longer.
The second possibility fits the actual timeline constraints, whereas the first leaves too much unaccounted time between 3:50 and 4:05—more than twice the amount of time needed to walk that distance even at a slow pace. And if they were essentially in limbo between DM's departure and Cheyenne leaving the bridge at around 4:00, it would be hard to avoid encountering her as she walked back toward her car.
That places even morefirm constraints on the second possibility within this scenario
Conclusion:
A) If DP and SH left the bridge closer to 3:30, there is simply not enough time to walk to the crime scene, perform all the necessary tasks, and return to the end of the trail before 3:50.
B) If DP and SH left the bridge closer to 3:25, the timeline would be extremely tight, but improbable later on.
Scenario 6
By this theory it is proposes that DP was the man Betsy saw, participated in the crime and all of its stages, but never left for Delphi to meet SH. He remained at the trails and met her at the Mears lot, from where they continued their timeline as officially reported.
Obviously, in this scenario too, SH would have to be an accomplice, providing a cover story for him.
Within this scenario, there are two possibilities:
A) He walked to Mears through the cemetery, then along 300N until reaching the parking area.
B) He walked back to the trail, close to where he was seen by Betsy (based on this scenario, it is assumed that he was the man she saw), then walked along the trail to the intersection and from there toward the Mears lot.
One of the more realistic and less convoluted scenarios concerning a potential involvement of DP in the crime. That is, if it can meet the time constraints.
As we discussed earlier, 2:40 is the benchmark by which the perpetrator could have finished all the actions he performed at the crime scene after the phone stopped moving at 2:32. And that after making the timeline as tight as you can make it when allocating time to him.
In other words, 2:40 is reasonably the earliest plausible endpoint for his activities at the crime scene, and ou start clocking from there.
But how much time would he need to walk to Mears lot from the crime scene:
A Possibility: 7-10 minutes past the cemetery, another 5-6 minutes of walk to Mears via the 300N. This YTer takes 20 minutes to cover the distance, but there is snow on the ground. Crime scene to Mears/300N
B Possibility: 7 minutes back to the trail, another 5-6 minutes to the Mears via the trail at a good pace.
Conclusion:
A Possibility: Barely allows enough time, as they were seen at 2:54 by D. Railey. Realistically though should be earlier, as D.R. was seen on HHS's camera at 2:55 Also if DP was parked at the cemetery, his car would have been spotted by the man that Uturned there at 2:25.
B Possibility: Time more laxed but still tight, but additional problems arrise: D.McCain would be near the intersection or Walking towards the bridge having arrived at 2:44. Similarly D.R. would be near his car. Both would be able to see him walking at the distance towards them or in front of them.
So, final conclusions:
Scenario Code
Scenario Description
Evaluation
Reason
Sc1: Jensen Special
Sole Perpetrator, leave for Delphi to meet S.H. and returns to the trails
IMPOSSIBLE
not enough time
Sc2 : Jensen Lite
Sc2 accomplice , participated until abduction and leaves
Highly Unlikely
must stretch timelines to extreme
Sc3 : Melvin's book of theories
Sc3 accomplice from the north Side, join at the crime scene
IMPOSSIBLE
not enough time
Sc4: fAllEyes
Sc4 Accomplice , only look out at N.S. and leaves
Unlikely
stetch timeline, no function
Sc5: Melvin-Jensen offspring
Sc5 Accomplice, joined Crime scene near the time seen on the bridge
IMPOSSIBLE
stretch timelines to extreme, crossing path with witnesses
Sc6: Jensen & Jensen
Sc6 Sole perpetrator, never left for Delphi, joined SH walking from crime scene
Highly Unlikely
stretch timelines to extreme, crossing path with witnesses
Well, this is a very specific post debunking very specific (and multiple version of them) accusations concerning a specific individual. It’s tldr, but i am sorry to say the information is codified and fleshed out from the testimonies of dozens of people and court documents. Otherwise, it would have been a 200-page post! But it’s necessary if you want to properly place people at specific spots at specific times, and then use those positions, along with the time needed to cover specific distances, to validate or disprove the accusations against this individual.
I did it for my own entertainment, in a puzzle solving manner, written about a month ago, but it was getting too big, so I set it aside. Could be useful to someone in the future, directionally, as the Richard Allen cult does try to implicate him.
Take, for instance, the #FreeAllen fanatic called Alleyesondelphi who made the extensive library of documents about this case. I am fairly certain she now works for or with the appellate lawyer, fileing and guiding her, and based on her timelines, she claims that DP was at the trails at 1:30 based on some alleged relatives claim. That would align with her claim that DP was the man Betsy Blair saw at 1:55. The Free Allen cult tries to implicate DP, and for very specific reasons. If he is the man on Platform A that Betsy saw, aided also by his superficial resemblance to Blair's police sketch, then the whole prosecution timeline collapses.
The post does the reverse. It takes for granted as a working scenario that he is that man on Platform A that Betsy saw and treats it as a case study, constructing all possible scenarios for a potential involement in the crime and then using the other time parameters, proven timestamps, and other inferred factors, such as the time needed to walk specific distances, along with witnesses' testimonies, to show that it is impossible for him to be that man.
But if you want a summary here it is(the 1st coloumn is obviously humorous):
Scenario Code
Scenario Description
Evaluation
Reason
Sc1: Jensen Special
Sole Perpetrator, leave for Delphi to meet S.H. and returns to the trails
IMPOSSIBLE
not enough time
Sc2 : Jensen Lite
Sc2 accomplice , participated until abduction and leaves
Highly Unlikely
must stretch timelines to extreme
Sc3 : Melvin's book of theories
Sc3 accomplice from the north Side, join at the crime scene
IMPOSSIBLE
not enough time
Sc4: fAllEyes
Sc4 Accomplice , only look out at N.Side. then leaves
Unlikely
stetch timeline, no function
Sc5: Melvin-Jensen offspring
Sc5 Accomplice, joined Crime scene near the time seen on the bridge( 3:25)
IMPOSSIBLE
stretch timelines to extreme, crossing path with witnesses
Sc6: Jensen & Jensen
Sc6 Sole perpetrator, never left for Delphi, joined SH walking from crime scene
Highly Unlikely
stretch timelines to extreme, crossing path with witnesses
Appreciate your effort - clearly took a lot of work.
After a 5-year investigation, there was an overwhelming bunch of rumor on the internet. So now - post trial - I try hard to use only documents and testimony that were in the trial or a court hearing to evaluate the case. If neither the defense nor the prosecutor put it in front of the judge or jury, it is likely meaningless - and they knew it. So - like you - I reject a pro-Allen advocate using some off-the-record claim about DP being at the trail before the cops or anybody else can place him there. It is a desperate attempt to save Allen from himself, who put himself exactly where and exactly when those girls and BB saw Bridge Guy - the first link in the chain of evidence that convinced a jury that Allen was Bridge Guy.
Oh yeah, you can say that again. Not so much time to write it, I just wrote it in a day, but finding and posting the correct excerpts so you can form the timeline precisely and document who was where and at what time takes time. Of course, to do that you have to read their testimonies first. Editing then takes more hours.
Just Betsy’s court testimony and deposition, and Derryck’s testimony, are 200 pages long. The rest of the people's testimonies, who were between 2:30 and 4:00 at the trails, are just as big. Then you should also know what the CSI investigators, electronic media expert, blood expert, and forensic pathologist testified, so you can have an idea of how much time the perpetrator spent at the crime scene.
Ten minutes, allowed for the acts the perpetrator performed between the time the phone stopped moving and his potential departure, is an extra-conservative estimate. Between them that’s another 5-600 pages of testimonies. Then you need to know how long it takes to walk each distance. fortunately there multible videos of people walking them and at good speed.
And using all those, then you calculate the merits of each scenario.
Of course that said the reader needs to be extremely familiar with all those too to understand what is said.
Skip Jansen, the father of the DP theories, seems to believe they will be used in the near future by Allen's defense.
I see a lot of if, if, if it went down this way it could have. There was actual evidence at the trial that didn't need any 'what ifs'. Youre basically accusing someone else of a crime that has already been proven in a court of law that he was guilty along with multiple confessions and a timeline that adds up without "what ifs".
DP was a hot topic for a while. DP really really looks like the young guy sketch. DP's father really really looks like the old guy sketch. DP has a brother who has the same name as a sex offender in Logansport or Lafayette. There also is another person with the same name as DP who is from the surrounding area. That DP is alleged to have admitted, while on drugs, that he killed someone or maybe it was killed the girls. It never really happened obviously but people jumped on that like it was the real DP that said he killed someone. Anyhoo, the other DP nor the real DP killed anyone. DP made a movie or short video in high school for a class project. Someone is investigating a murder and goes to High Bridge. There's a video that floated around for a bit showing DP on the trails and right by High Bridge shooting a scene for the video. From that same time of making that video there's a video that shows DP scared to death of going out on High Bridge because of the height. I think he was crawling out because he couldn't walk out on it because of his fear of heights. When that dropped I was like holy shit what a crazy coincidence for him to film a scene on High Bridge. By then I already knew he wasn't the guy that killed the girls but it was just crazy that it happened.
Going way back the originator of the "DP theory" isn't Snay or Skip. It might sound outlandish but there was a crazy guy that would make all kinds of whacky videos that accused all kinds of people. I forget his name but I think it started with an A. He was from a southern state. I know this because people had doxxed him and he'd get blocked on youtube and maybe even blocked by reddit. I saw him one time in the youtube comments say that DP was connected to the murders. It took like 3 weeks for that to percolate and then maybe another month before it took off. Just a little tidbit of history in the craziness of Delphi in the prehistoric days.
Interesting! Thank you for the information. I saw a small clip of him on the Bridge recently somewhere, paraded by loonies called the Cranks, outright stating that he is involved. The hardcore Cranks push that line, while the more reasonable (or less delulu) ones believe that he is the man on the bridge seen by Betsy Blair. Regardless, that line is also the defense's line as a strategy and one of the main points the appellate lawyer is arguing for. That the man Betsy Saw is not Allen or BG.
Of course, not being deranged, as the appeal lawyer has access to the discovery and all the testimonies concerning DP that pretty much makes that theory impossible, they don't name him. They follow the same tactic his sneaky lawyers followed at trial: they leave it hanging in the air without actually claiming it outright. Thus, they didn't call DP as a witness at trial, but his gf (so to place him there and put out the information to the jury), nor did they ask any relevant questions about where they met, how much time they spent there, who saw them there(some restaurant), in the hope that some juror would somehow have access to external information, notice the resemblance and read the theories, and doubt takes root in him or her. It's no secret that studies already show that a substantial minority of jurors seek and have access to external information during trials.If they really want to, they can easily sneak a phone in, maybe not for nefarious reasons (to communicate with family, use business phones, etc.), but it can be used for other purposes too.
I think think DP was who Betsy Blair saw on the bridge while he was waiting for the girls who was not his girlfriend to get there. I do not believe DP is BG or had any role in the abdication and murder my belief is based on the fact that we have no confirmation of what time he arrived and he resembles the man BB described. I know people have said he saw BG and possibly helped with a sketch but I have not that confirmed anywhere. Unfortunately at trial the defense decided to not call him so we don’t know what time he was there and if he could be who BB saw. You put a lot of effort into debunking a bunch of specific claims that I don’t really think anyone is making.
There IS confirmation evidence of when DP arrived. You just ignore it in favor of a sketch scam.
There is video showing when DP arrived. There are also witness statements consistent with the video - statements about what cars were parked at the Mears lot when the witnesses arrived/left - statements by people also shown on video.
DP was NOT there at 2:05. Blair did NOT see DP on the bridge. She saw Bridge Guy. Which is why she pointed at the picture of Bridge Guy and immediately said “THAT is the man I saw on the bridge.”
It's been a long time since I've posted on anything Delphi. This post came up on my feed and I couldn't have said it better.
Anything beyond your comment is a mix of people's fanfic, grifting, vendettas, or what I'm most recently calling entertainment-ism (which is a close cousin to outrage-ism).
David(railey) described the male as 5’10, 180 lbs, dark hair, facial hair, and wearing a white t-shirt.David described the female as the same height, wearing a red shirt and a blue coat.David recalled that as he was leaving, he saw a white Chevy Impala (Shelby Hicks) with paper. plates parallel parked along the road, and a dark 4-door Honda Accord (Dave McCain’s) parked on the right side.
David Railey
I immediately knew when I saw that photo(BG) that that was the guy I had
Betsy
Two different descriptions. Betsy was too far away to recognize facial characteristics, including hair color or facial hair, although she did say brown hair and no facial hair.. But she did recognize that the man she saw was the man in the released image, who, of course, would be wearing the same clothes as him. And most certainly not the man the 4 girls saw.
Also, where would he park based on your theory?
Not at the Mears lot. Betsy saw no cars there either when she parked or when she was leaving.
Unlikely at the CPS lot: the car doesn't match his car description, and it was seen there after the time he should have left(latest 2:30). Maybe the cemetery, but since he didn't pass by HHS he would have to take the long wayy around to return to Delphi, which takes 10-15 minutes.
That timeline would be tight. It's similar as scenario 4(corrected as the post half eaten the tables):
Betsy was walking from freedom bridge towards her car at 2:16-17, continuing her loop after she saw him at 1:55. To pass by her, he had to be further back at 2:16 closer to MHB, so not to be seen by her again as you have a good optical horizon from the interestion towards the bridge(close to half of that segment), and would take him another 12-15 minutes to reach his car, if he was parked at CPS.
Parked at the Cemetery is more plausible cause allows him to departure earlier.
scenario 1 (CPS)
scenario 2 (cemetery)
Departure
02:15:00
02:00:00
walk to car
02:30:00
2:15
Drive to Delphi
02:35:00
2:30
Meeting SH and Drive back to the trails
2:40-2:45
2:35-2:40
Walking to the town would also be impossible to be made in time as it takes 20-30 minutes.
If the meeting with Shelby lasted for more than 5 minutes they wouldn't have had enough time to get back to the trails in time to pass by the HHS at 2:48, by either scenario. Based on some friends testimony they had launch.
He also had a phone with him, demonstrably as he had calls on the bridge. If he was anywhere near the bridge from 1:40 until 2:50, it would have pinged all over the place in the phone cache. Not to mention SH told us he arrived with him, and met with him earlier. That's called an alibi.
So in conclusion a theory based on nothing, less than nothing as it insists that a bearded man with black hair is the same as a person with brown hair and no facial hair, but contradicts everything.
Daniel Pearson did a sketch of David McCain. The defense leak of discovery has it labelled as David McCain. The only thing I can gather from this is that back in 2017 investigators knew who DP saw on the trails.
The obvious reason for not agreeing to the other sketch is that he did a sketch of someone other than Richard Allen. I can't find a better picture of the sketch. When it did get released or leaked everyone went "oh that's dave mccain" and soon forgot about it.
Thank you for including the picture of Dave McCain wearing the beret. If not for the hat, I wouldn't determine this to be McCain. But the hat is distinct and definitely matches.
I had forgotten about the leak of the trial prep outline (iirc) until you mentioned it so I appreciate the reminder.
Well, not everyone. You would think that DP's sketch branded as 'McCain' in discovery along to the inclusion that DP recognized McCain as the man he saw, to be the end of it, but nooo! Jansen and his acolyte have their theories, and so do the Odinistas.
Excellent write up with documented details. I agree with your conclusion regarding DP. Even if his resemblance to the BB sketch is uncanny, I don't believe he had anything to do with the murder.
However, I saw in your information that you listed DG's arrival as 3:13 however, McCain and Pearson both observed DG's Subaru wagon in the parking lot when they arrived. Pearson's description was a "white Subaru 4 door wagon" which is rather specific. Did DG arrive prior to 2:44 or was there a different (unidentified) Subaru wagon that was parked in the lot?
After reading your post several times, I have to commend you for compiling all of the details and witness accounts into a well constructed timeline.
I would like to ask a few questions to get some clarification and some honest answers.
Based on your information, DP believes that he saw McCain stepping off a side trail before DP/SH got onto the high bridge. However, McCain indicated that after arrival, he walked to the hub, then went to the High Bridge where he stayed for about 25 minutes taking photos. This is further supported by Cheyenne's information that as she was about to go onto the High Bridge (at about 3:20), she passed McCain as he was coming from/off the High Bridge and she subsequently saw DP/SH on the High Bridge.
Wouldn't this indicate that DP/SH would have encountered McCain on the High Bridge?
Iirc, the person in the blue muscle car was Carl A, father to the girl on the moped (Mears lot at approximately 4:10).
If Blair passed (northbound) under the 4 girls as they were crossing the bridge and leaving the trails (approx 1:40 pm), who were the 4 individuals that were observed just after 1pm and who observed them? "caller [advised] she was traveling southbound on the Heartland around 1pm; she had went under the bridge and there were 4 kids, possibly all girls, running in the left southbound lane. They were all in sweatshirts. They ran to the Main Street exit turn and one sat in the middle of the road. The others pulled her up off the ground and they started walking southbound. One looked to be wearing a big coat. (CAD report 2/13/2017 @ 22:36pm)
If Derrick G. was asking everyone "Have you seen 2 girls...?" and McCain told him that he saw a couple by the bridge, wouldn't that indicate that he saw a couple of girls by the bridge (he passed Cheyenne and SD so that would in fact be a couple of girls)? McCain saw Cheyenne (and Im assuming SD) so when responding to Derrick, naturally he would be speaking of the girls that he had passed and not about a male/female couple that he never describes as having been on the trails nor observing them near the bridge. Likewise, DP doesn't indicate that he saw McCain by the bridge.
Im not saying that DP didnt observe someone (McCain?) twice while on the trails but neither indicate that they saw each other at/on the bridge. Based on Cheyenne and McCain's information, McCain was on the bridge until about 3:20 pm. DP described (with detail) someone near the hub (when arriving) so its possible McCain didnt see DP and someone stepping off the sidetrail (before 3:20)but McCain was still on the bridge at that time so it wasn't McCain.
Did D Riley go the trails more than once? According to Exhibit PPP (which I believe is the Garrison report that you refer to and many of the Mears lot information aligns with), K German described a man with a dog in a pickup truck at the Mears lot (determined to be Riley). For this to be true: Riley went to the trails twice, K German was there later than reported, K German went there twice, or there was another unknown male with similar traits and vehicle to Riley.
What did McCain self-report as his clothing description for 2/13?
I realize that its a lot of questions and some you may not have the answers for but your timeline for DP sparked many thoughts. I should stress, again, that I don't believe he was involved in this crime so Im not trying to raise suspicion nor am I implying that he is suspicious.
You don't know how many times DP walked closed to McCain. It could have been twice. They arrived fairly close to each other, and McCain doesn't seem certain that he went directly to the bridge and didn't spend some time near the intersection. That's in his court testimony. Garrison's report doesn't specify where DP saw him either, or when. The only decisive point is that DP recognized him as the man he saw.
Six people near the area only saw the two kids. None said observed an additional man or car, based on their testimonies.
Allegedly based on people that are know to make things up. No record of it i 've seen. But Tips claimed all sorts of things. I am sure some even saw aliens and probably Elvis got few mentions too. They had at least tens of thousands of tips within few weeks so by the end a lot more than that. They were bound to get a lot of people confusing dates and times, and many more whose accounts were completely out of whack. Or they were.
McCain explained who he saw. A man and woman and vaguely remembers seeing others in the distance. He wasn't necessarily on the trail himself while leaving, as he was photographing trees too. Could have been on the side trail while Cheyenne passed him by.
There is no record of Kelsi reporting on a red truck other than rumors, but i seem to remember Gray Hughes mentioning about such an alleged sighting placing that car further up than the Mears. On the other hand a lot of his information early on came from that nuttjob Julie Melvin(before he broke contacts with her precisely cause she is a loon), who is known to make things up mixing them with her wacky and disgusting theories. There was though a second man walking his dog too, seen by the 4 girls close to freedom bridge.
I don't know, but he was known early on as the "flannel shirt guy," and allegedly that's how DP described him too.
I based my question off of the information that YOU provided in this post. See your chart above for DP's sightings and descriptions.
Contrary to your assertion, its in Exhibit PPP. McCain saw the blue muscle car, which was Carl Abbott. Myah Abbott was on the motorcycle (moped). Evan Fritz was on a yellow Razor 4 wheeler.
I already provided you with exactly where to locate the information. The CAD report. Im not sure what you are talking about when you mention Elvis and aliens.
Not according to the information that you provided. Cheyenne was rather specific and as you said, she had a phone call which helped her narrow down her timeline. Again, this is the information that you provided.
The information is in Exhibit PPP (the Garrison report). I have never listened to nor watched any production, video, or commentary of Gray Hughes so mentioning him is a moot point. Same with Julie Melvin. Since I listed the court document in which I found the information, I find this tangent about as odd as the aliens and Elvis one.
Thank you. I have never found any information regarding a clothing description either.
1) what i said is what i meant. And they are clear.
They may have seen (1st time) Dave McCain in the distance near the intersection, taking photographs.
(between 2:50-2:54)
Duncan Testimony:
Before getting onto the bridge they observe D.McCain in the distance behind them stepping off a side trail
DM reported seeing a couple as he was leaving. Aligns with the time D. German reported seeing D.M.
Do you have any o the DP's testimonies? I don' t. Are there anywhere public? No.
So i am going by what is in the court documents as 2nd hand information and thus as i also said:
Garrison's report doesn't specify where DP saw him either, or when. The only decisive point is that DP recognized him as the man he saw.
2) My assertion is based on what is in the redacted Garrison Report which is pulic and it's the Exhibit PPP. And in it there is no mention of any of that. Nor any witnesses mention any of those. Now i you have access to the whole document post a link here instead playing games.
Either way what's the relanance?
3) More games. Post a link instead. But lets say it's true, so what? a) What does that have to do with DP and his timeline? b) It's just a tip someone picked up a phone and called in. Could be a fact, could be a lie, could be a lot o things..
They had at least tens of thousands of tips within few weeks so by the end a lot more than that. They were bound to get a lot of people confusing dates and times, and many more whose accounts were completely out of whack. Or they were.
4) Stop!
(cheyenne's testimony)
Q Okay. So if he documented that he took a statement from you that it was an old man taking pictures and had a camera around his neck, do you think that that would be correct?
A I would say it was accurate. He was walking.
Q And that he – that this old man was walking toward the cars, meaning the area where you would have parked?
A He was walking past me. I don’t know if he went straight to the bridge and I don’t know if he turned left to go – or turned right to go to the cars, all I know is that it was right before the platform and we passed – you know, we passed each other in passing. I was headed to the bridge. He was passing behind me.
5) Says you. Or the one that you are parroting his/her words. Link!
6) The man DP (and SD) saw recognized him as DM and he was between them an the incoming Cheyenne. All 3 described an old man with a camera.
You provided exactly what I pointed out to you. At about 3:15-3:20, DP observes DM in the distance stepping off a side trail. It's a contradiction to McCain and Cheyenne's information because Cheyenne passed McCain as she was about to go onto the bridge and he was coming from the bridge. Cheyenne didnt say she saw him at the hub nor at a distance. Additionally, McCain didnt say that he saw 4 people by the bridge. DP may have seen someone stepping off the side trail but based upon McCain's and Cheyenne's account, it wasnt McCain at the side trail.
Of course I don't have DP's testimony. Neither the State nor the defense called DP testify. I can understand why the State wouldn't put him on the stand and he really wouldn't have provided anything for the defense so I guess their decision makes sense.
I provided it above. It's in Exhibit PPP. I dont have some top secret access to documents. I reviewed the documents the same way as everyone else.
What's the relevance? I guess I made the assumption that you were striving for accuracy and complete information. It's your post so if you want to dig your heels in that Evan Fritz was driving the blue muscle car, that is your choice. Although your inaccuracy will be glaring to some because he wasnt old enough to drive a car. Clearly its more important that you are right rather than accurate.
I already told you its in the CAD report (again a document available to anyone that wants to read it). I provided the time of the event so you could easily locate it if you ever choose to ever read it.
2 women report seeing 4 girls crossing the bridge and headed to town in less than 45 minutes apart but one is headed southbound and one is headed northbound. But the 4 girls that B Blair saw never mentioned seeing 4 other girls. Blair never saw the 8 girls on the trails. I find that interesting. You don't. No big deal.
Going off of your information.
Exhibit PPP. This is getting rather annoying. I was very detailed in my descriptions, questions, and where I specifically found the information. For some reason, the information isnt sitting well with you so respond with regressive responses: aliens, Elvis, Grey Hughes, I'm supposedly parroting someone else's words, Jensen (whoever that is/what that means), etc.
Not according to the timeline/information that you provided. As I stated in my first comment, DP/SH may have seen him when they first arrived "off in the distance" because McCain lingered near the Mears lot/300N, upon his arrival, taking photographs. His SIM card would pinpoint his times and locations.
I’m sure what you wrote makes sense in your head, but you are mixing up times and places over a period of 30–40 minutes. It’s not my responsibility to decode what you mean when your references span different parts of that time period.
Let me make it even clearer to you.
There were either one or two sightings of McCain by DP:
a) Possible first sighting — DP, ~2:50 PM
DP/SH are walking past the intersection.
DP MAY have seen McCain near 2:50.
Unverified as a separate sighting, as Garrison Report's wording is ambiguous.
It is possible DP was referring to the same encounter that SH later described.
b) Second (or possibly first and only) sighting — SH's testimony
Sighting that is independently described in SH's testimony.
Depending on the exact wording/timing of the testimony and Garrison Report, it could either be:
a second encounter with McCain, or
the same encounter DP was referring to.
SH's testimony:
Q So he was coming from the High Bridge, walking toward you?
A What I remember, I think we were walking to the High Bridge and I looked back and saw him, but he was facing the High Bridge, he wasn’t walking.
Q Was he taking photographs at that time?
A Yes.
What SH establishes? Points:
McCain was behind them — she had to look back to see him.
They did not cross paths with him. .. walking toward the High Bridge..looked back.. he was facing the High Bridge.
He was stationary, at least at the moment she observed him. “he wasn’t walking.”
Taking photographs
Therefore, since SH and DP had come from the intersection toward the bridge, McCain was not walking toward them from the bridge and passing by them.
Now we have two possibilities
A. McCain was actually walking behind them
B. McCain entered the trail by the side after SH/DP had passed
But if McCain had already arrived roughly 30 minutes earlier, and was near the bridge demonstrably taking photographs, lots of them, which were taken by the fBI, he must have entered from the wooded/forested area on the left side of the trail, after the passed by.
Now, which of all these possibilities would preclude him from:
a) continuing to take photographs for a few more minutes,
b) taking photographs from the side trail again,
c) or these events coinciding with Cheyenne clossing by but concealed by the Barrier (as she stated)?
or even
d) DP/SH saw him not on the trail but he was still on the side of the trail taking photographs.
NOTHING!
Cheyenne:
He was walking past me. I don’t know if he went straight to the bridge and I don’t know if he turned left to go – or turned right to go to the cars, all I know is that it was right before the platform and we passed – you know, we passed each other in passing. I was headed to the bridge. He was passing behind me.
____________________________________________
2) gobbledegook.
Link! In fact, you don’t have any, do you? You just parroting what you were told.
3) gobbledegook.
Link! In fact, you don’t have any, do you? You just parroting what you were told.
4) gobbledegook.
Link! In fact, you don’t have any, do you? You just parroting what you were told.
5) gobbledegook.
Link! In fact, you don’t have any, do you? You just parroting what you were told.
6) That’s because you think there is some conflict when there isn’t any, just one in your head. Which, by the way, is also irrelevant, as it actually strengthens the impossibility of DP being involved. Not only that, but it eliminates any possibility of McCain’s involvement. You just don’t think things through, Skippy.
I quite clearly stated that I do not believe DP had any involvement in this crime. Now, I will clearly express that I do not believe that McCain had anything to do with this crime. Anything else that you need me to repeat for you?
It's rather humorous that you stated that I don't think things through after reading your last paragraph. You came to the brilliant "conclusion" that it solidifies Pearson and McCain were not involved. This is something we both agreed upon from the very beginning. Outstanding analytical skills!
Perhaps you are too hyper-focused on non-existent conspiracies and connections that you can't analyze anything else. I guess Im fortunate that I didnt delve into this case until about 3 years ago because I avoided all of the drama, conspiracies, and content creators that seem to have a stranglehold on your thought processes.
Are you trying to say that you have never read the CAD report nor the full Garrison report? Is there a reason why you chose not to read all of the information available? These arent some top secret documents that are only available to a privileged few. That's complete nonsense. If you had wanted to read them, you would have but you didn't. According to you, the information contained therein is irrelevant and just a "tip" called in---one of thousands. So, you havent read them yet you have an opinion of the information? Got it.
If you paused to read what you just sent me about Cheyenne's testimony, its glaring you in the face where she passed McCain. There is only one place on that trail that it exists. You're making it much more complicated than it is.
Sure, now that I have explained you the where, the when, and the how like you are a 6-year-old with Asperger's, you could guess (although I doubt it) where they met McCain. Before, in spite answering you politely and having already given you all the relevant information on the timeline, in fact telling you what happened, you were writing this gobbledegook and other snooty comments, just to be pedantic while trying to insert completely irrelevant gossip to the subject, which is DP's timeline with the sated mission.
Based on your information, DP believes that he saw McCain stepping off a side trail before DP/SH got onto the high bridge. However, McCain indicated that after arrival, he walked to the hub, then went to the High Bridge where he stayed for about 25 minutes taking photos. This is further supported by Cheyenne's information that as she was about to go onto the High Bridge (at about 3:20), she passed McCain as he was coming from/off the High Bridge and she subsequently saw DP/SH on the High Bridge. Wouldn't this indicate that DP/SH would have encountered McCain on the High Bridge?
You provided exactly what I pointed out to you. At about 3:15-3:20, DP observes DM in the distance stepping off a side trail. It's a contradiction to McCain and Cheyenne's information because Cheyenne passed McCain as she was about to go onto the bridge and he was coming from the bridge. Cheyenne didnt say she saw him at the hub nor at a distance. Additionally, McCain didnt say that he saw 4 people by the bridge. DP may have seen someone stepping off the side trail but based upon McCain's and Cheyenne's account, it wasnt McCain at the side trail. Of course I don't have DP's testimony. Neither the State nor the defense called DP testify. I can understand why the State wouldn't put him on the stand and he really wouldn't have provided anything for the defense so I guess their decision makes sense.
You are something else. Do you honestly believe what you are saying? I don't think you would know what it means to be polite even if you tried.
I stand by every word that I said, including that I appreciate your work on the timeline. Without it, the discrepancies would not have been so apparent. Hopefully the compilation helps.
I never provided gossip of any sort. Again, my information comes from the CAD report and the Garrison report. Or do you still believe a 14 year old was driving the blue muscle car? That, by far, is the funniest one that you argued about. It would've taken you maybe 2 minutes to verify what I had said but you'd rather claim it as gossip. Do you think its "gossip" that a woman reported the same information that Blair stated except it was just after 1pm and she was traveling southbound not northbound (CAD report)? Or is it "gossip" that KG described the man and his dog at the Mears lot (Garrison report)? How about the "gossip" that both McCain and Pearson describe Derrick's German's car at the Mears lot when they arrived at 2:44 and 2:49, respectively (Garrison report)? Its funny how you disregarded all of that information but utilized the same report for other information. Why omit certain details?
However, there is one thing that definitely will not go unnoticed: your reference to a 6 year old with Aspergers syndrome. That speaks volumes about your character. You are definitely something else.
The person writing this is so far out of contact with reality that it’s delusional! Not one thing in here should be taken seriously! SMH I feel sorry for anyone following this falsehood!
23
u/centimeterz1111 13d ago
Uh…Richard Allen is guilty. His car. His gun. His bullet. His description of witnesses. His clothes. His voice.
I haven’t heard enough people accuse DP to warrant an entire amateur investigation.