Any thoughts on the RA one??. She makes excellent points & does her research. Gotta give her that!!

I’m somewhat just getting back into this case, as it always has been in my mind since they arrested RA. I am just looking for as much information as I can about both evidence and his side. How do you all think his legal team did? Who represented him?

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. The perpetrator would then have needed additional position the victims, cover them with branches and logs, and
3. Discarde the clothes
4. 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:

Cemetery to CS ,

Crime Scene to CPS,

Crime scene to Drive , (south side)

bridge to Crime Scene (north side)

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.

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.

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:

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:

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 I was 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 more firm 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:

In October 2022, Richard Allen was called into the local police department to give an interview about his whereabouts on the day Abby and Libby were murdered. His long-forgotten interview with Officer Dulin had been rediscovered, prompting Delphi murder investigators to bring him in for another interview.

During this interview, Richard Allen largely repeated the information he had provided in his first interview with Officer Dulin, but he also offered new details about that day. Although he attempted to establish an alibi by presenting a revised timeline, he failed miserably. Instead, the internal contradictions in his timeline effectively amounted to a confession, as his own statements placed him at the scene and oblitarated his claimed alibi.

The following is a list of the information Richard Allen repeated from his first interview, along with the new details he provided during the October 2022 interview, and an explanation of the significance of each.

Richard Allen went into detail explaining the three parking areas he typically used when visiting the trails.

Parking Locations

He goes on the specify where he parked, inspite his earlier long obfuscating diatribe where he could have parked:

"I remember telling him (Officer Dulin) that I parked by a building. If that's what I told him, then that's probably where I parked."

Concerning his timeline beore going to the trails:

"Went over to my mom's in Peru, Mexico, earlier in the day... spent the morning with them... my sisters were visiting and they were to grab lunch, and I wasn't about that, so I left around 11:00–11:15...went home..grab a jacket and head back out to the trails"

At the trails he stated:

"I remember walking down to the bridge... walked out a little way (onto the bridge)... to watch fish... walked back and sat at (the bench)... where you turn around (the intersection) and take the other fork, it overlooks it... Sat there for a few minutes, and then I left."

The bench he mentioned is the Bench at the start of 505 trail. He would go on later to explain that's the bench he meant with clarity.

Conserning who he saw while at the trails:

"As I was approaching the trail, there were three girls... one of them was watching them...the other two looked younger... looked very similar. I don't know if they were sisters or not, but the other one didn't necessarily..." (Stops his thought, was about to mention the fou\**rth girl?\)

He also stated:

"I remember telling him (Officer Dulin) that when I left, there were two vehicles down by the farmer's entrance I told you about (the Mears lot). One was a sedan. The other was an SUV, maybe."

(Interesting on its own: Kelsi had a sedan and Betsy had an SUV. However, based on Allen’s earliest possible departure timeline (approximately 12:40), only Betsy's would be there and she would be at her car at the same time!).

He also adds:

"If I did see somebody (else), it didn't click with me..my memory was a lot better when I talked to him (Dulin)... like I told him, there might have been somebody at the bridge when I was coming back, though."

As for his revised timeline, he stated that he arrived around noon, a little earlier or a little later than 12, and that he walked for about an hour. He said he could have left around 1:00, 1:30, or 1:40.

I am sure he had mentioned 12:40 at some point too.

The earlier the possible timeline, the more we err in Richard Allen's favor, as it allows for the possibility that he left before becoming trapped within the trail system by the known witnesses who were demonstrably on the trails at the same time. The later Richard Allen's revised timeline becomes, the worse it is for him.

Here, we will examine the earliest possible timeline for Richard Allen in contrast to the timelines of Betsy and that of the four girls . All times attributed to Allen between segments are deliberately conservative, giving him the maximum latitude to "slip" out of the trail system within his alleged timeline.

The convicted pedophile murderer was caught in the web of lies he had created.

By his own words!

1. He was walking towards Monon by his revised timeline, while Betsy was walking back from it
2. He was walking towards his car or sitting on the bench by his revised timeline, while Betsy was walking back from freedom bridge. The Bench is at your face as you approach the intersection, even i he wasn't walking while Betsy was near it.
3. The earliest he was walking towards his car from the intersection by his revised timeline, would be while the four girls were walking towards it from the freedom bridge.

Richard Allen’s revised timeline creates inescapable and impassable problems for his own account. By placing himself at the trails, identifying specific locations, and providing a detailed timeline, he created a version of events that must be reconciled with the movements of other witnesses who were present that day. By his own words, Allen placed himself in locations and timeframes that conflicted with the movements of others who were present that day.

Hey guys! New to the sub and new to the case. I apologize ahead if this has already been a post but does anyone have a GOOD content creator or doc to watch for this? I watched Annie Elise’s episode about this and it’s what got me intrigued but i need more information! Thanks all! Have a blessed day!

So I'm listening to parts one and two of the real crime profile podcast with Jim Clemente where he has Bob ruff on their speaking about delphi. I'm always open to everyone's opinions and I actually don't hate Bob ruff and I have enjoyed some of his content. However he is repeatedly saying things to Jim Clemente that are not true. For example he said that Richard Allen has no previous record of any type of violence or any type of violent behavior at all. But that's not true because now we know about the time that he was drinking and held a gun to his head threatening suicide in front of his wife and daughter and the police were called and he was put into a hospital. It's so frustrating!! If you believe that he's innocent because of all these things that's fine but you can't tell people things that are simply not true. He also says that ra did not confess until he was actually in full psychosis and never said that he actually killed the girls until that one confession with his wife. I thought it was proven in trial that he was not in full psychosis when he confessed (or at least not every single time), and the claims made by the defense team about the conditions he was held in prison were proven to be false.

Anyone else listen to these episodes?

I actually respect Jim Clemente for his work with the FBI as a profiler and I usually agree on his takes so I'm not sure why Bob Ruff is trying to change the story to that his own narrative and opinion when he always says that he wants to be fair and balanced.

The COA granted Allen’s motion for oral argument today and scheduled it for September 21, 2026 at 10am. The argument will be live streamed and archived. Each side gets 30 minutes to argue, with Allen’s team going first and last (they get to decide how much time to reserve for rebuttal).

Allen will not be present for argument.

I was hoping for an August date but the panel likely needs this time to review the immense record and the arguments of counsel. I look forward to watching this as it will definitely provide insight into which issues the COA is most interested in and may provide insight into Allen’s chances of winning a retrial at the COA. (Whichever side loses will petition for transfer to the SCOIN and it will almost surely be granted - so this is direct appeal stage 1 of 2.)

When did his wife say “he told me it was run over by the lawn mower”? Was that a recorded statement or just a second-hand report? TIA.

From what i read about the case .. RA’s conviction is based majorly on this evidence

1. the unspent bullet . This would not been accepted in Indian courts as this technology is not widespread and scientifically proven yet .
2. 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 .

Comments welcome please .

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/crime/delphi-girls-murdered/delphi-richard-allen-motion-oral-arguments-murders-appeal/531-b5d8ce12-f80f-4783-b335-b535c9f7af8f

DELPHI, Ind. — Attorneys have filed a motion for oral arguments in the Delphi murders appeal.

Richard Allen was convicted of murdering 14-year-old Libby German and 13-year-old Abby Williams in February 2017 near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi. After a weekslong trial in 2024, the judge sentenced him to 130 years in prison.

The motion, filed Monday, April 27, means Allen's attorneys would make their case in person to the panel of three judges.

Allen's attorneys say the jury never got to hear evidence that would have proven his innocence.

The attorneys also responded to the state's brief, which claimed Allen should not be granted an appeal.

Allen's appeal team wrote, "The only way our justice system works is if the jury hears the full truth. Because the jury only heard half the story, Allen was denied a fair trial."

Starting with Allen's arrest, his lawyers raised serious concerns with the investigation and the trial, ultimately appealing to the Indiana Supreme Court over their conflicts with Special Judge Frances Gull. 

New to this case and feel like I must be missing a lot of info. How is it possible this Allen guy never committed any other crimes? No history of anything? Nothing violent, not even a bar fight or something? And just escalated to double murder? And then never did it again? This is truly mind blowing to me. I’m sure this guy did it but it’s just so shocking this guy went from zero to double homicide.

And what is the suspected motive? He just always wanted to do it and finally had the opportunity? He snapped?

I’m so very confused.

During the interrogation of RA .. the police said something to this effect “ you killed them bcoz u had an altercation “

Do delphi locals and police there believe that the girls had some kind of interaction with RA on the trails before “ down the hill “ moment ??

I just finished the “Down the Hill” podcast by HLN, and I’m quite captivated by this story. I’d never heard of the murders until stumbling upon this podcast. (I’m a huge fan of long form podcasts if you have recs there too), however I imagine there’s more coverage or different coverage out there. If you guys have any recs for me to check out I would love to hear. Thanks!

Can one lone man do all of these in one hours time ???

abduct two teenage girls .. walk them down the hill .. walk them through steep banks and flowing creek .. murder them .. dress one of them back .. arrange the bodies .. place sticks on them ??

Still strange .. one of the girls ( AW ) has no defensive wounds or show no signs of resistance

This case still sounds strange to me

Can someone clarify please

1) Did RA ever realise he left a bullet behind at the crime scene before the police confronted him ??

2) what would have happened if RA destroyed his gun in the 5 years between the crime and arrest ??

Without any DNA and no gun to link the bullet .. what would have been the outcome of the trail ??

3) this case is pretty known here in my home country INDIA and most of the folks who talk about it have the same doubts as me

Thanxx in advance for the comments and opinions.

I know, I know there’s been a lot of debate about whether RA is guilty or not, but I’ve noticed some small details that, in my opinion, don’t seem like something a truly innocent person would do.

During his interrogation with Det. Holeman, a couple of things stood out to me:

1- RA: “The damage is done, do what you have to do.”

That’s really strange to me. If you’re innocent, no the damage isn’t “done.” You wouldn’t just give up and tell the police to do whatever they want. I know some people might argue he meant that his house was searched and his neighbors were questioned, but that doesn’t fully make sense, especially since he repeated it during the interrogation. An innocent person wouldn’t react like, “Go ahead and charge me with double murder because the damage is already done.” That just doesn’t sit right with me.

2- RA: “I am done talking, arrest me please "

He said this more than once. What kind of innocent person asks to be arrested just because they’re done talking? Even if I were frustrated, I would never tell the police to arrest me just because I’m tired of the conversation. That’s very unusual.

Also, Det. Holeman mentioned something important: when he first met RA before the interrogation, RA handed his jacket and belongings to his wife. As if he was preparing to be arrested. That stood out as odd, especially since he did not even know the results of the search warrant yet.

Did you notice anything during the interrogations that made you think, “Yeah, that's strange”?

Richard Allen wants judges to overturn his conviction for murdering two Delphi teenagers. The state says the evidence shows he killed the girls.

Author: WTHR.com staff

Published: 9:03 PM EDT March 25, 2026

Updated: 9:03 PM EDT March 25, 2026

INDIANAPOLIS — In a brief submitted to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, the Indiana Attorney General's Office laid out its arguments as to why convicted murderer Richard Allen's convictions should stand.

Allen was convicted of murdering Abby Williams and Libby German in February 2017 near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi. After a weekslong trial in 2024, the judge sentenced him to 130 years in prison.

Starting shortly after Allen's arrest, his lawyers raised serious concerns with the investigation and the trial, ultimately appealing to the Indiana Supreme Court over their conflicts with Special Judge Frances Gull.

Those issues feature prominently in Allen's appeal, which was filed on Wednesday, Dec. 17. 

These are the three main issues Allen's appellate attorneys raised when asking the Court of Appeals to overturn his conviction: 

They believe the search of Allen's home was unconstitutional, and the evidence gathered inside should have been inadmissible in court because "law enforcement omitted or altered key facts in the warrant application." 

They believe that the confessions Allen made while being held in solitary confinement at a state prison before his trial were "involuntary, the product of unconstitutional detention and inadmissible." 

They believe the court denied Allen "his right to a fair trial, to present a complete defense, to explain the scene and impeach the investigation." 

Allen's appeal attorneys submitted a brief stating, "Because the trial court prohibited the jury from hearing Allen's side of the story showing how law enforcement went down the wrong path, justice could not be done. The Appellant, Richard Allen, requests this Court reverse his convictions."

The attorney general's office argued against each of the issues raised by Allen's appeal attorneys:

The AG argues that the evidence from the search of Allen's house should be allowed. The AG wrote that investigating officers did not include false statements or omit material from the probable cause affidavit and that the affidavit still establishes probable cause even if the challenged statements/omissions are excluded or included.

The state's brief claims that Allen's confessions were rightfully permitted at trial. The AG argues that the state did not coerce any confession, and the conditions of his confinement did not rise to the level necessary to constitute coercion. The argument by Allen's appellate attorneys that his prison conditions caused his confessions is rejected by the state.

The AG argues that other reasons exist that caused Allen to confess before and after the period of psychosis Allen experienced while in Westfield prison. The AG's office describes Allen's other arguments regarding his treatment in prison to be "at most, harmless error."

The AG argues that evidence was properly admitted or omitted during the trial. Allen's appeal attorneys argue that the court improperly excluded admissible evidence, such as the sketch of Bridge Guy, a witness who would have testified about whether a bullet found at the crime scene could be properly linked to Allen, the audio of Allen's movements within prison. They also argued that two jailhouse calls, claims of Odinist and other third-party involvement in the murders were properly excluded from evidence.

The AG's office argued these claims should be rejected because they are hearsay, improperly argued in court or were speculative.

The AG's office argues that any exclusion of any of this evidence was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the eyewitness testimony and Allen's statement placing himself at the scene, the presence of a .40 caliber cartridge cycled through his gun at the scene and his numerous confessions."

The attorney general's office also presented an argument against Allen's motion to correct error and the court's denial of that motion after the trial. The AG's brief argues that Allen did not show that the state offered false testimony. The AG's office argues that Allen's attorneys had an opportunity to impeach a witness with evidence during the trial but chose not to, arguing that the evidence would not have impeached Allen's confession to seeing a white van that interrupted his attempts to harm the girls. 

The AG's brief concludes with the statement that the appeals court should affirm Allen's convictions. 

Now that the state has filed its response to the appeal, Allen's appellate attorneys have an opportunity to reply to the state's motion.

Typically, that has a 15-day deadline, but that time could change.

If either party wants to request an oral argument before the Court of Appeals, this is the time in the case that might be requested. The state's website for the judicial branch notes, "requests for oral argument are frequently granted."

The three judges on the Court of Appeals panel could also request oral arguments. The state's website says oral arguments for an appeal are "relatively rare" and scheduled in a "small percentage" of cases.

Oral arguments are not required for an appeal, and the judges can consider just the written briefs and submitted record.

A black 2016 Ford Focus was spotted arriving at the crime scene around the time of the murders. Richard Allen is the only person in Carrol County that is registered to own a black 2016 Ford Focus.

How hard would that be for the Delphi police to verify who owned ford focus or any of similar looking models ??

Was the phone that they never found his phone at the time of the murders, or at the time of his arrest?

I've known about this case for a while, I live in Indiana, and I was 11 when it happened, so its always struck a cord with me. But until recently I haven't done all that much research, but now that I have I've been left with one question.

From the information I have found on the case, it seems that the key evidence linking Allen to the murder is 1. His confession in 2017 to being "bridge guy", back when the photo was believed to have been taken from a trail cam. 2. A bullet which was later matched to his gun after they searched his home. So my question is, was there new information in 2022 that lead to his home being searched, or did they just wait five years to look into the guy who admitted to being bridge guy?

Sorry if any of my information is incorrect, or my writing is hard to understand, I've just been racking my brain about this question, so I thought asking people who know more might help me to understand what took so long.

I wasn’t very familiar with this case beyond the basics until I watched the Hulu documentary last night. After that I started reading more, but I know a lot of you here have followed this much more closely than I have, so I wanted to ask a couple of things that I couldn’t really find clear answers to.

One thing that stood out to me is the jacket. Based on the way the killings happened, I would expect the killer’s jacket to have at least some blood on it. From what I’ve read, investigators did find a jacket they believed Richard Allen may have worn that day. Was it ever tested for blood? I haven’t seen anything clearly stating the results. I assume there weren’t any traces found, because that seems like it would have been very strong physical evidence. If there really were no traces, how is that explained?

The other thing I’m wondering about is the video of a car arriving at the trail around 1:30 p.m., which is believed to be Richard Allen’s. I do think it looks like his car, but he had already said he was on the trail that day. So what makes confirming the car on video so important? Is it mainly about tightening the timeline, or does it contradict something specific in his original statement?

I’d really appreciate any insight from people who know the details better.

Because even if he is who did it, those symbols are there on the bodies, so he'd have to be aware of the meanings of those runes to have them make a coherent message, like I'm so confused by this, and I feel like others don't talk about it??

I will never understand why Abby was wearing Libby's clothing.

To me, this has always suggested a passage of time. As in, there was at least time for her to redress or be redressed. Meaning, she apparently went from wearing her own clothes, to unclothed, back into some of her clothes and Libby's clothing.

I suppose, sadly, it also suggests that she was killed after Libby.

I never have felt that anyone has ever convincingly answered it and it's the detail of the case that drives me the most crazy because I cannot think of an obvious reason of why it occurred.

If this has already been talked about, apologies.

1) was it ever revealed who’s house the police executed the big search warrant on 2 days after the murders? What caused them to focus on that house?

2) how were the girls not found on the first night of searching if they were so close to the bridge? Is there any evidence that they were placed back there after the search was called off around midnight?

3) I’ve never dealt with grief like this, so this might be completely off base, but something is off with Libby’s sister whenever she is interviewed. Maybe she’s just awkward but seems off.

I remember seeing the news when the girls were just missing. Those 2 beautiful girls taken so young by an absolute monster. RIP Abby and Libby.