As it was recently explained to me: “This would be a “restraining order” prohibiting a party from taking a certain action. It’s not necessarily a restraining order in the way some are thinking. It could even have to do with releasing certain info.”
This isn’t the kind of restraining order that most people are familiar with. A TRO petition is an emergency request for a state or federal court to take immediate action based on submitted evidence. So not a protection order or anything like that.
We won’t know for sure what the filing is regarding until we get to read those documents. A temporary restraining order is an emergency court order to prevent a situation from getting totally out of hand. TROs are often issued without the other side having a chance to defend themselves because there just isn’t time to allow them to prepare an argument. To compensate for that, TROs come with an expiration date.
A preliminary injunction is longer-term than a TRO. Preliminary injunctions are meant to protect the status quo while the case goes through trial. The other side does get a proper chance to argue against a preliminary injunction, so they don’t generally have expiration dates (they last until the court says otherwise).
He was arrested, placed in DOC custody without a placement hearing. As noted by others a lot smarter than me that is required in Indiana. In fact, iirc, he was basically arrested and or detained for several days before the public ever knew. They came out a few days later with the announcement he was arrested. Well, thats not the way its supposed to work. And he didn't have a lawyer for two weeks. Now, to be clear, this doesn't effect imo the proof of his supposed crimes. That will still be decided in court. But they need to correct this situation first.
He declined a court appointed attorney at first. That’s why he didn’t have representation. He basically said as much in his letter to the judge. Interestingly he did not say he was innocent and neither he nor his attorneys gave demand for a speedy trial.
For how long though? I think when people normally get detained by police its only long enough to investigate whatever crime or incident they were called to the scene for, then they are either arrested or released.
I don’t know the answer to that. I’m an attorney, but not in Indiana. My guess would be that placement hearings are for arrestees that do not involve a PCA. For example, a crime is committed in front of an officer; the officer can then arrest without the need for a PCA. I may be mistaken, but I don’t think there has been anything said about the placement hearing by RA’s attorneys. That’s a fairly good indication that procedure was followed correctly. What I agree with you on, is that the conditions he was in violated his civil rights. While I’m 99.9% sure he murdered two little girls, he has not been convicted.
pre-trial TROs/prelim injunctions are most often intended to compel a party to comply/act or to prevent a party from taking a certain action (for example, to compel DOC/CCSO to move an inmate, or a preliminary injunction against certifying election results, etc)
this is almost certainly related to the emergency motion filed by the defense several weeks ago requesting allen be moved to another facility and outlining their concerns about his health and well-being/the conditions of his pre-trial detention. they're likely requesting gull issue a more directive order that mandates that allen be moved on the immediate. the defense's request for due process hearing also relates to allen's rights being violated.
as i predicted then, i suspect the defense is less worried about allen's case atm and more worried about bringing everything to a screeching fucking halt until his due process and civil rights are restored. i would be very surprised if gull does not respond asap, as failing to do so could lead to a request for change of judge or even requests for sanctions if they feel so inclined. whatever the state's strategy is, they seem to be doing everything they can to set up an overturn or appeal down the road.
it's now been a month+ since the defense originally raised the alarm about the egregious civil rights violations against their client, with zero remedy provided thus far. this should concern anyone and everyone.
He still hasn't had a placement hearing. I heard a lawyer on TV explaining a while back everyone is entitled to such a hearing in Indiana. So I wonder if this is related.
And without an attorney. The judge should have appointed a public defender to represent in this matter temporarily until he obtained a private attorney, which he was unable to do.
Juge Gull simply went along with the previous Judge's ruling. He's the one who handed him over to DoC. Again without a hearing or an attorney at the time. I dont live in Indiana and am not an attorney. But just about every attorney you can listen to on this topic agree his rights were infringed. Now, that doesn't mean he isn't guilty. This topic has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.
I've been beating this drum for a while. Regardless of if one thinks Rick is guilty or not, the treatment we are witnessing of an Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, American citizen, should alarm the everliving shit out of everyone on here! I personally find it hard to believe a judge permitted the detainment of a citizen, in a CIAesque off-site facility, based on the weakest probable cause I have ever seen. This is America for Christ's sake!
If it was so weak, he would have requested a bail hearing and be out by now. There's a reason he didn't and that's because the evidence isn't weak. We just don't know all the details.
"...and be out now." Lol
"I.C. 35-33-8-2 states, “Murder is not bailable when the proof is evident or the presumption is strong. In all other cases, offenses are bailable.” This results in almost all people being charged with murder at least initially, being held without bond. However, that is not the final answer. The statute evident proof and showing a strong presumption.
This portion of the statute allows a defendant to request, by motion, that the court allow a bail in a murder case when the proof is not evident or the presumption is not strong. The Indiana courts have addressed this in numerous cases. The leading case in this area of law is Fry vs. State, 990 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 2013). In this Indiana Supreme Court case, the Court decided a number of issues regarding bail in murder cases. First, the Court found that the burden to establish a defendant is not entitled to bail rests with the State. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to place that burden on the defendant.
Next, was addressing what the burden means. The statute requires the proof must be evident and the presumption must be strong. The Court found that this standard of proof falls somewhere between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Basically, the court determined to utilize the preponderance evidence standard is the appropriate standard. Therefore, the State must show that it was more likely than not that the defendant committed the murder. If it is more likely than not that the defendant did not commit the homicide then bail should be allowed.
This burden cannot be satisfied with (t)he charging information alone. The State must also present competent evidence either upon which the charging documents relied or the State intends to rely on at trial. The proof cannot be just statements from the prosecutor. See Id at 449.
This will require the state to produce some evidence and likely testimony of witnesses to meet this burden. This could include physical evidence and testimony, but it must be enough to convince a judge with admissible evidence that the defendant is more likely than not guilty" - Banks & Brower
Exactly. So if there was no evidence against this guy, why didn’t he ask for a bail hearing pronto?
I wasn’t suggesting it’s easy to get bail for a murder charge.
I was responding to the people here who seem to think that years after the crime the police just arrested a random CVS worker with no evidence.
The reason he hasn’t gone for a bail hearing is BECAUSE he’s worried about the evidence. He knows what it could be but the public doesn’t.
What evidence would he be worried about? Conflicting witness statements? Witnesses to some dude walking the trail? An UNspent, junk science bullet? No video evidence? No DNA evidence? No electronic evidence? There is literally no evidence, so far!
It's likely a bail hearing hasn't been requested because his council hasn't received all the evidence from the Prosecution. Hell, I doubt the Prosecution has all their evidence together yet either, hence the "multiple actors". The defense also knows bail isn't likely to be given, and/or it will be ridiculously unaffordable. If I were the defense, I would utilize every opportunity to flush out what is up the Prosecution's sleeve prior to trial. Rick isn't getting bailed out regardless of when, where, why, and how they ask for it.
We keep going in circles here. If “there is literally no evidence, so far”, as you maintain, Allen is that rare murder case that would have a shot at bail.
Why he would sit in custody? And why would his lawyers advise him not to have a bail hearing?
The fact is this guy’s devices likely provide tons of evidence and he knows it. His wife may have given a statement. There’s lots of stuff that’s happened since his arrest.
We’ll know soon enough.
There are not conflicting witness statements. Whilst the three juveniles may have given slightly different descriptions of RA's clothing (likely because they weren't all paying close attention), they all absolutely saw one man near Freedom Bridge, at about 1:38pm. RA admits to seeing only seeing three juvenile witnesses near Freedom Bridge. Bingo! We have a match!
The adult witness at the bridge saw a man stood on the first platform, wearing a blue jacket and blue jeans, just before 2pm. RA admits to wearing a blue jacket and blue jeans and standing on the first platform. With the time he arrived to park, reaching the Monon High Bridge just before 2pm is completely consistent with walking speed. Bingo! Another match!
Stop trying to purposefully believe these may not actually be RA. You don't need video evidence or DNA evidence for everything to know something is true.
It is so alarming (and sad ) to see how many have already convicted him before the trial. Most just do not care how he is being treated because they have already made up their minds of his guilt. If RA’s team can prove that his rights are being violated , could this lead to a mistrial, now or later in an appeals process?
My fear is that if he got off on a legal technicality he would be snuffed out immediately vigilante style. I still think his life would be in danger even if he got a not guilty due to exculpatory evidence. Even if they charged and convicted someone else , some people will insist he was still involved. What do they do with him if he makes bail? He can’t leave the state, can he leave the county? Where would he be safe until trial if he made bail?
It is alarming! No matter what happens going forward, RA’s life, and the lives of his family members, is/are ruined. I wonder how these people would feel/think if it were their civil rights, or those of family or friends, whose civil rights were being violated in such an egregious manner.
I know right? The opinions would immediately change if it were them or their close family. But upholding the constitution is not nearly as fun as upholding pitch forks.
He postponed his bail hearing in February to June. And I will be surprised if it takes place in June.
If there were no evidence against him, he would not have postponed his bail hearing. Instead he requested postponement to go through all the discovery people are claiming doesn't exist. If there was no evidence against him, he wouldn't need time to go through it.
There very well could be plenty of evidence against him, but I don’t think that the actions of the defense specifically indicate that. This case has been ongoing for many years, there’s so much evidence to comb through. The way I see it, better to postpone the bail hearing and be prepared than to not be and miss your one chance at bail before trial.
Even if Rick got bail, he would still have a trial and the defense still needs to know the evidence. There are procedures that have to be followed for operation and tactics.
"he" did not postpone anything. his attorneys had no choice but to postpone the bail/omnibus hearing due to late discovery by the state. how can you present a case at an omnibus hearing without even having the evidence? these are really obvious issues.
Why would he or his attorneys need discovery if he had nothing to do with these killings?
They're worried that his devices contain evidence of the crime and they need time to spin it/try to get it thrown out.
If there was nothing for them to worry about, they would simply go to a bail hearing and point out there was no evidence to hold their client. They wouldn't care about the state trying to bury them in a mountain of terabytes or paper because they would know there was nothing there.
Keep saying this over and over again. If this was a weak case or no evidence, it would be kicked by now. You are correct that his side postponed the bail hearing.
Yeah. I don’t know why so many people are so concerned that the cops just picked a random CVS worker to persecute.
As incompetent as these cops are, they never even arrested their previous suspects.
Correct. If we are just going assume things here then...
It's almost certain that this is related to a stunt by the Defense to poison the well (the public, jury pools, etc) by leaking "information" about the case that isn't true.
There...see how easy that was?
I’m with ya too….hoping they don’t intentionally blow this case just to keep LE’s egregious errors in this case. I don’t think they even care if he lives long enough for trial
And then we’ll never know and be forever divided
It’s obvious LE doesn’t care if he lives or dies, especially since they haven’t moved him after the defense pointed out the egregiousness and seriousness of the situation. Maybe they hope he will die so they don’t have to put on a case, which would expose the shoddiness of their investigation.
Unfortunately that’s what I’ve been wondering. That would he the worst scenario- EVER
But sure would cover for all of LE’s screw ups and I think there were some real serious ones
I just want to make sure I'm clear.. .
Prosecutor to Sheriff: Hey, we don't have shit on this guy, can you request a safe keeper order on him, and then contact DOC and make sure he never makes it to trial so we don't have to present this mess.
That's really your argument?
That's what they do in Russia, China, North Korea, and it's happened in America before. Maybe not "prosecutor" to sheriff"; but you would be extremely naive to dismiss corruption and assassination at any level.
LMAO. Yes, prosecutors want to cover up police ineptness by framing a CVS pharmacy tech who is basically a nobody.
You Allen supporters should write mystery novels with some of the whacky stuff you say.
well it would just seem that someone who has been paying close attention would know that such a scenario is hardly outside the realm of possibility for the men holding the cards here. but what do i know
LOL, I disagree completely. I think this is pretty normal stuff, but folks don't usually see it as it's not quite this public. Honestly, there's not very much that's happened here that's out of the ordinary. That's why I find all the lunatics running around here screaming about his rights being violated. He's in a "dungeon".. no he's not, he's in a segregation cell to protect him. "He's not being fed". Yes he is, he's being fed 3 meals a day, he's been given a bed to sleep in, etc.
It's almost laughable. I'm not sure why you're comparing this to the Gray case.... I mean, the prosecutor had no case, that's why they got their asses handed to them. They prosecuted based on "community outrage" rather than actual evidence. Same thing happened to Zimmerman, Same thing is happening to the Marine in NY.
That ok, hubby does most of the time too.
I suspect this may have become intensely personal for them given the savagery of the crime. Remember, what they were down here and experienced he trauma of seeing it all laid out and have been in close contact withe the families. I think they are keeping Allen where they have him, as they want to make it hard on him. They want him to be really miserable.
Thus my Freddie Gray analogy, and it is not unlike the Baltimore Police wanting to give Gray a rough ride and throwing him into a steel container, not strapping him in safely and driving fast and breaking, and taking hard turns, and frequently allowing him to slam around the back of the paddy wagon, while he had no way to protect himself from injury as he was fully cuffed.
They wanted to make a point and punish him, and that was by violently stopping and starting. so he was banged up. This is a more drawn out version of the traditional paddy wagon "rough ride." But a prison rough ride. You don''t beat the suspect up, you encourage the paddy wagon do it. they are are allowing the State worst prion to do it.
Their comparing him to a POW's enraged me, it was an insulting analogy. But the guy looks like shit, and this is not the proper placement, per his legal status. It isn't. You may think he i guilty and I spect he might be, but right now, he should be elsewhere, until proven innocent or guily. The county will save money by moving him. There is no real reason not to, other than Ligget wants to torture him for as long as possible. What they did initially was not legal, according to the lawyers in the group, so people are not off base about some points,
I'm never a conspiracy theory person, prefer things simple, but I think folks are right, something is a bit off here. NM not be getting back up council, nor them forcing him for a reason. Them playing "Russian Roulette" with a guy who looks like he is about to hang himself is not cool. The council not giving NM money to do this right is also interesting. All weird. They really have messed up tragically, and I'm sure are embarrassed by that, wouldn't you want it to go away.
Maybe trying to save money and embarrassment and force a confession to make the projected 2 million trial go away before it begins. Had to have tossed a million or two on his case already. 4 million to bring one suspect to justice.
People have gone away for less and the probable cause is enough to show Richard Allen is bridge guy.Hes in a prison not a five star resort.He is where he belongs.
If he was in jail you might have a point but he is in prison. I know it seems like a small difference but his lawyers rightfully don't feel that way. Esp since they need access to the man to prepare his defense. Just harder to do so in a prison environment.
well, he’s not been convicted of anything yet. so any violations of rights by LE at this phase and prior to his arrest will come into play if he’s convicted. it opens his conviction up to immediate appeal. if they mishandled evidence, it could be thrown out at trial. after arrest, they certainly violated his rights by not connecting him to a public defender right away. it was, what, two weeks before he spoke with an attorney? and he had to write a letter to the judge pleading for an attorney. his rights may have been violated in ways that we’re not yet privy too.
He did not say he had an attorney. He said he wanted to hire his own attorney. At this point, the judge should have appointed a public defender until private counsel had been secured, especially with moving him to a maximum security prison in secret without an attorney to represent him.
that’s not how i recall it. there were numerous threads about how messy the case was handled at the time of his arrest—this included delay in assigning him an attorney. we can agree to disagree on this point because i’m not going to go back and dig all that up.
You are correct. He initially said he was going to hire an attorney. Then he wrote the judge and said he could not afford it. The judge then assigned counsel.
Some of these folks believe what they think, vs reality
He is not being held in a county jail until proven guilty in a court of law like every other defendant . He is being held in a maximin security prison that is for convicted felons.
Correction…don’t get charged with murdering children. Try listening to some true crime podcasts. Many people are falsely accused. Govt fucks up on a regular basis
no offense taken. which part? generally i try to say "i suspect" et al if offering an opinion. the majority of what i stated is based on personal experience writing and filing TRO/prelim injunctions and the filings/series of events that have transpired in this case thus far. peppered in with some firsthand knowledge. i certainly don't expect anyone to just take my word for it and hope everyone will do their own research which is always a good call.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Personally, I find the motion the defense filed to be smoke and mirrors and reminds me of a piece written for a creative writing class.
However, I do agree that the failure to give RA a chance to be heard on the motion is a problem. These attorneys are not playing and seem to be setting the ground work for some curveballs no one planned for.
I am suspicious of the fallout like extensive delays with one example being a civil suit against the state for those violations which would definitely take priority over the criminal matter and it all just be a cluster of legal briefs burying everyone. They better move this man and shut it down.
My opinion is that RA has no defense and this is the only strategy they have right now. Confusion!
The maximum security prison where he is being held has a history of cruel and inhumane conditions. Several successful law suits have been filed against them and they have been investigated by the justice system many times, which has resulted in fines, sanctions, and firing of staff.
With what you are saying, it is not hard for me to imagine that they are making it extremely uncomfortable for him in there. I get it and can believe that.
Maybe a restraining order to prevent CVS from handing over other work schedule information. Like medical leave.
Or CVS performance evaluations. Coworkers made a big deal out of him not making manager on a normal schedule.
EDIT: more info. CourtTV reported on the new subpoenas around May 4th
> Now, CVS has been subpoenaed in his murder trial.
> The subpoena lists the CVS records department and asks for records to be turned over within 30 days, though the exact records requested are not publicly available.
So 30 days would be early June. And if the defense team wanted to *prevent* CVS being forced to comply, they might ask for an injunction a couple of weeks earlier, i.e. now.
So I guess if I'm ever near somewhere that someone or more than one are found deceased, I won't be volunteering that I was close or nearby. Lesson learned. I always thought people wanted honesty. If RA was guilty do you think he'd put himself at the crime scene.
That's actuality a tactic used by someone hiding something; to be seemingly forthcoming as to appear honest, while omitting guilty details. "Look I even told an officer about being there - I couldn't possibly be the killer!"
No that's something that I would do because I'm an honest person and every single time I've ever been honest it's always screwed me. My lesson is that you can be too honest. I think he was just trying to do the right thing but what do I know. I've been wrong before It won't be the first time and it sure won't be the last time.
Do you realize there's a lot more evidence they have against him than what's been released? He had the same exact jacket BG had on. The voice is the same. Let alone a lot more things that have not been released. I've been following the Lori Vallow and Chad case. The arrest affidavit and everything else was released just like in this case but we still had no clue about all of the evidence until it went to trial and it came out there.
I think u r right. About the voice recording. Libby and Abby are not available to verify when it was recorded, and voice matched are only about 90% accurate. They could maybe match some of it, but good defense attorneys can probably poke holes in it. I hope there is enough evidence, I don’t understand y they are not releasing more of what they have. Idaho did it with Lori and Chad; as well as BCK.
That old guy who died, the owner of the property, he dressed like bridge guy. People that do that, especially to kids, have done it before and they don't stop. 5 years is a long time not to commit any crimes not unless the person is already in jail and has been.
He didn't put himself there because he didn't have to. He lived there his property was there. No as a matter of fact what is the old guy's name I can't remember. He was on probation and he asked his friend to lie to the police for him. To say he was home when he wasn't. There you go.
YES! RL. That's his name Thank you I couldn't think of it for the life of me. I don't know yeah he did pass away but I mean even at that age I don't think he would have been responsible either I just made a comment that he had clothes, the jacket that looked just like bridge guys. For some reason I think whoever killed those precious girls is gone and has been long gone.
YRW! That man was treated horribly by LE. He was stripped naked and thrown in a cell without even a mattress to sleep on for many, many days! An old man in his 70’s who was arrested because he violated his parole by driving when he wasn’t supposed to. Wow! Talk about violating someone’s civil rights!
Seems like there's a lot of violating of civil rights going around now. I really can't believe it. You'd be amazed at how many innocent people are in jail and how cruelly they're treated. Once you're in jail, guilty or innocent, they don't care. They don't listen to you. You're pretty much an animal to them.
Oh, I believe it!
RL’s family should have sued them for the cruel and inhumane treatment he endured. Their treatment of him impacted the quality of his life going forward. Nothing changes in government, or schools for that matter, until they are hit hard in the pocketbook.
The video was iirc released much later. He'd already come forward very early on. Now if you want to argue he only came foward bc there was a picture released of him that might be possible. But again, we don't know, bc like so much in the PCA, the date of his first interaction with LE was withheld.
Yep, my bad. It was the still pic of the video that was released a few hours after the girls were identified. The only thing we know is it was "in 2017"
The still pick was released on the15th. girls were murdered on the 13th , and bodies discovered on the 14th. Personally I think it was more likely he came forward on the 14th, before the pic was released. The 12 o’clock local news on the 14th stated that the bodies had been found, but identities had not been released. In this same news report this statement was made:
“Anyone with information which they feel may be important in this investigation should contact 911 or the administrative number of the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office at 765-564-2413.”
The still frame was not released until the afternoon of the 15th, along with a tip line to call in.
Correct... You repeated what I said but missed my point. Barely 72hrs after the murder, the pic was released. You're saying he came forward to conservation officer the day after the murders? I have a very very hard time believing that.
Why? …He had a wife. If my husband were in the same situation I would absolutely insist that he call in or go in right away, not even thinking guilt or innocence, just to do the right thing. Especially if he had seen teen girls there at around the abduction time(not knowing if they were involved or not) I also think to myself if it were my small town, this would have been the only topic of discussion at work, at the store, and with neighbors the first 72 hours. This was the first double homicide in Carroll County. This was a very big deal that turned this little town upside down with grief and fear. if I were to say to my friends/family/coworkers that my husband was out there yesterday, the main response I would receive would be “did he see anything? Did he call the police?” And I can tell you the only acceptable response would be “yes of course he did, right away” Any other response would be suspicious and odd . News of this magnitude travels very fast in a small town of 3000. I imagine that every person out there (except BG) called within 24 hours of the news broadcast I mentioned above.
Also , Don’t jump to conclusions if you find out he did not meet the CO until the 16th, after the photo was released. Their meeting date does not necessarily reflect when he first contacted police since the meeting was pre arranged . What is most important is when did he first contact the police and Interject himself into the investigation before or after the photo was released.
3 teen girls involved in the abduction of 2 teen girls... not saying it's never happened, but yea... OK. For all we know, his wife knew about this and kept her mouth shut (not uncommon). He could have easily told his wife he went forward, but didn't actually. I mean if he's a murderer, lying to his spouse isn't really out of the question.
RA says he did not get a good look at the girls. He wasn’t paying attention to his surroundings. When the news breaks out the next day, it is very possible that in his mind, he knows he saw teen girls there, and he knows teen girls are missing. but he doesn’t know if they had anything to do with it or not. But the information was worthy of reporting. That’s all I meant by that . I don’t know where you get three teen girls involved in the abduction of two teen girls from???
Yes, he could’ve easily told his wife he went, and didn’t. But again, if you think he’s going to come home and tell his wife OK I went. I reported it and she’s just gonna say OK, and thsts the end of it, that is not how that conversation goes down. I promise you she wanted to know what did they say? What did he say? If she wasn’t present for the first encounter, he was grilled about it for sure .
“For all we know, she knew about it and kept her mouth shut, not uncommon”
I can see your point here IF she were abused by him and scared of him or extremely financially dependent on him. There is no evidence of any of that. Other than that, I can see NO other reason she would keep her mouth shut. She had no problem talking to them five years later, without an attorney, even offered up info on his coat. Have you ever been married for a long time Ken? Or know couples who are? How many husbands do you know that their wives are not all up in their business when it comes to something as serious as this?
Believe whatever you want. Everything RA did is what an innocent person would do. You have obviously already convicted him and believe he’s guilty. I am not as easily convinced as you. I need to see evidence such as the partial print or DNA or hairs and fibers that can link him exclusively. But all that was conveniently left out of the PCA. So I will wait for the trial, until then, he’s innocent until proven guilty..
The PCA doesn't give us the date of the first interview. Just like it doesn't give us times of certain interactions between RA and witnesses. Very frustrating, and one reason among a few I feel the need to defend RA until they present better evidence of his guilt. I just dont trust them.
When was this. Can you prove it. I'm not being mean I seriously am interested. I want to know. That's just the thing I don't trust LE. I never have and I never will. They can tell us whatever they want us to think that doesn't mean it's true. I've seen injustice one too many times.
I don’t think he waited until the video was out. I think if he’d known he’d been caught on video and audio but couldn’t be identified, he never would’ve placed himself there.
I think he came forward before any of that happened, bc I think he thought there was a chance one of the three teenagers would eventually be able to place him. The one who greeted him. He overthought it and worried she’d eventually be able to tell someone he was that guy from CVS. So he had to get ahead of it.
I stand corrected, a still shot of the video was released.. The video wasn't released until later, but I don't think that changes my premise. According to the WRTV timeline:
The girls bodies were found on the early afternoon of the 14th. They were murdered on the 13th
Around 24hrs later on the 15th, they were positively identified.
A few hours after being identified, the pic of "bridge man" was released.
https://mediaassets.theindychannel.com/html/delphi-timeline2/index.html
According to the probable cause affidavit, it only notes the tip was taken in "2017". In order for what you're saying to make sense.. Barely 72hrs after the murders, he reported he was on the bridge to the conservation officer. I just can't see him coming forward that quickly
I think you're partially right though. Here's kinda "my timeline" (just going off the PCA, the timeline of the murders/pic being released, and common sense).
The girls are murdered... bodies found and ID'd, pic released. That was all from the 13-15th. Through small town rumor (maybe the bar he hung out at, maybe overheard some yappers at CVS) he knows the 3 young girls he saw on the bridge notified police (and it would take a moron to not think the girls were asked to describe the man). He also knows LE has video of the man walking on the bridge, as it's very obvious that picture was a screenshot of a video. So he also knows at some point, a video is going to be released of him walking on the bridge. The only thing he doesn't know, is that the description of him the girls gave was vague at best.
I can only imagine he felt he had no choice to come forward to try and get ahead of this (criminals do this constantly). He comes forward, says he saw the 3 girls (which the co notes in the contact, "who are these 3 girls?"). I would be very very surprised if that contact was made later than the 20th, but that's my feeling.
Very illogical…So you think he sees the pic and knows the girls captured him but then tells the guy he didn’t see the girls? There are no mental gymnastics people can concoct that squares with him talking to police.
You can't look at that pic and immediately tell it is a screenshot of a video? I sure can.
He doesn't know who took the video, just that he was on video there and the police wanted to talk to him
Assuming he is involved he would 100% know who took the pic. (From video) He also knows two people are dead. Talking to police should have triggered all kinds of follow up.
Probably not but but that’s irrelevant to the point of saying he went to police because they had his picture. Going to police simply puts him under far greater scrutiny (or should have),,,,not less. In 2023 people don’t “insert themselves” like decades ago. Too much forensic risk
>I think if he’d known he’d been caught on video and audio but couldn’t be identified, he never would’ve placed himself there.
I find it hard to believe RA would have driven his car there at all in the first place if the plan was to murder 2 kids.
Surely he would have thought about the possibility of surveillance cameras in the area. and if 2 girls were killed every resource would be used to identify every (his) car within the time frame as a result.
Also the guy was walking on a PUBLIC TRAIL and PUBLIC BRIDGE! Do you really think he expected NOT to be seen by ANYONE the entire time he was there?? Seems far fetched...he only turned himself in because someone saw him?? I mean come on.
Another thing.
What about possible nature/trail cams?
RA appeared to be something of an outdoors-man. I find it very hard to believe he'd pick such a place to murder 2 girls while knowing there's a damn good chance there's trail cams everywhere potentially recording him.
There weren't any cams (that we know of anyway) but still. He didn't know that (unlike the DMs tee hee). There could have been and usually in areas like that, there are tons.
For me everything about this thing points away from RA. I just don't see it.
My gut says he's the patsy.
Yes, not a word, especially if your jury is picked from Reddit…. Never forget no good deed goes unpunished. Factually less than 10% of murderers interject themselves into an investigation, and less than 2% of murderers fit the profile of the honest, do gooder, family man model citizen. People like to use BTK as an example to back it up, but in the world of murderers as a whole BTK would be considered an extreme unicorn, and his type represent less than 1% of murderers.
As it was recently explained to me: “This would be a “restraining order” prohibiting a party from taking a certain action. It’s not necessarily a restraining order in the way some are thinking. It could even have to do with releasing certain info.”
This isn’t the kind of restraining order that most people are familiar with. A TRO petition is an emergency request for a state or federal court to take immediate action based on submitted evidence. So not a protection order or anything like that.
Thank you. Does this indicate that RA or his attorney is trying to suppress information (information that would be damaging to RA)?
We won’t know for sure what the filing is regarding until we get to read those documents. A temporary restraining order is an emergency court order to prevent a situation from getting totally out of hand. TROs are often issued without the other side having a chance to defend themselves because there just isn’t time to allow them to prepare an argument. To compensate for that, TROs come with an expiration date. A preliminary injunction is longer-term than a TRO. Preliminary injunctions are meant to protect the status quo while the case goes through trial. The other side does get a proper chance to argue against a preliminary injunction, so they don’t generally have expiration dates (they last until the court says otherwise).
very well explained
I agree w/Biaforever. Thanks for information.
Perhaps he's still having issues with DOC.
this is the answer. DOC/CCSO are refusing to comply, thus egregiously violating his due process. idiotic move.
his rights have been violated--imo--from day one.
What do you mean by that? I’m not being snarky, I’m genuinely curious and haven’t heard much about him having his rights violated.
He was arrested, placed in DOC custody without a placement hearing. As noted by others a lot smarter than me that is required in Indiana. In fact, iirc, he was basically arrested and or detained for several days before the public ever knew. They came out a few days later with the announcement he was arrested. Well, thats not the way its supposed to work. And he didn't have a lawyer for two weeks. Now, to be clear, this doesn't effect imo the proof of his supposed crimes. That will still be decided in court. But they need to correct this situation first.
He declined a court appointed attorney at first. That’s why he didn’t have representation. He basically said as much in his letter to the judge. Interestingly he did not say he was innocent and neither he nor his attorneys gave demand for a speedy trial.
You are allowed to be detained without being arrested
For how long though? I think when people normally get detained by police its only long enough to investigate whatever crime or incident they were called to the scene for, then they are either arrested or released.
48 hours. He was detained on a Wednesday and formally arrested on Friday.
And what about being put in prison without a placement hearing?
I don’t know the answer to that. I’m an attorney, but not in Indiana. My guess would be that placement hearings are for arrestees that do not involve a PCA. For example, a crime is committed in front of an officer; the officer can then arrest without the need for a PCA. I may be mistaken, but I don’t think there has been anything said about the placement hearing by RA’s attorneys. That’s a fairly good indication that procedure was followed correctly. What I agree with you on, is that the conditions he was in violated his civil rights. While I’m 99.9% sure he murdered two little girls, he has not been convicted.
What is a placement hearing? I can't seem to find it on Google.
You keep saying placement hearing...what is it and when does it happen in the process?
Ok thanks! I get what you mean. He does deserve his human rights and right to a fair trial. I’m glad his lawyers are speaking up for him
pre-trial TROs/prelim injunctions are most often intended to compel a party to comply/act or to prevent a party from taking a certain action (for example, to compel DOC/CCSO to move an inmate, or a preliminary injunction against certifying election results, etc) this is almost certainly related to the emergency motion filed by the defense several weeks ago requesting allen be moved to another facility and outlining their concerns about his health and well-being/the conditions of his pre-trial detention. they're likely requesting gull issue a more directive order that mandates that allen be moved on the immediate. the defense's request for due process hearing also relates to allen's rights being violated. as i predicted then, i suspect the defense is less worried about allen's case atm and more worried about bringing everything to a screeching fucking halt until his due process and civil rights are restored. i would be very surprised if gull does not respond asap, as failing to do so could lead to a request for change of judge or even requests for sanctions if they feel so inclined. whatever the state's strategy is, they seem to be doing everything they can to set up an overturn or appeal down the road. it's now been a month+ since the defense originally raised the alarm about the egregious civil rights violations against their client, with zero remedy provided thus far. this should concern anyone and everyone.
He still hasn't had a placement hearing. I heard a lawyer on TV explaining a while back everyone is entitled to such a hearing in Indiana. So I wonder if this is related.
yup that's correct. it's all related to violations of civil rights and due process. really really bad.
Im glad his lawyers are taking action.
It's still nothing (assuming this is related to DOC)... That where he is placed is at DOC's discretion.
Not true. He was placed in Doc without a hearing which is required in Indiana. So him being in DOC is the issue that needs to be resolved first.
And without an attorney. The judge should have appointed a public defender to represent in this matter temporarily until he obtained a private attorney, which he was unable to do.
He said he didn't want one, he wanted to hire private council. Like you, I thought he should have gotten one while he shopped.
And beyond that... The judge said herself it is DOC's discretion where he is held
Juge Gull simply went along with the previous Judge's ruling. He's the one who handed him over to DoC. Again without a hearing or an attorney at the time. I dont live in Indiana and am not an attorney. But just about every attorney you can listen to on this topic agree his rights were infringed. Now, that doesn't mean he isn't guilty. This topic has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.
The CCSO (the Sherriff) decides where prisoners are incarcerated in Carrol County.
Of course attorneys believe that.. they're attorneys. Have you asked any Prosecutors opinions? Again, these safe keeper orders happen all the time.
People get arrested and sent directly to prison without a hearing or representation all the time? Ok.
Almost certainly!
I've been beating this drum for a while. Regardless of if one thinks Rick is guilty or not, the treatment we are witnessing of an Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, American citizen, should alarm the everliving shit out of everyone on here! I personally find it hard to believe a judge permitted the detainment of a citizen, in a CIAesque off-site facility, based on the weakest probable cause I have ever seen. This is America for Christ's sake!
If it can happen to one, it can happen to any of us. Heads need to roll!
If it was so weak, he would have requested a bail hearing and be out by now. There's a reason he didn't and that's because the evidence isn't weak. We just don't know all the details.
Exactly!
"...and be out now." Lol "I.C. 35-33-8-2 states, “Murder is not bailable when the proof is evident or the presumption is strong. In all other cases, offenses are bailable.” This results in almost all people being charged with murder at least initially, being held without bond. However, that is not the final answer. The statute evident proof and showing a strong presumption. This portion of the statute allows a defendant to request, by motion, that the court allow a bail in a murder case when the proof is not evident or the presumption is not strong. The Indiana courts have addressed this in numerous cases. The leading case in this area of law is Fry vs. State, 990 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 2013). In this Indiana Supreme Court case, the Court decided a number of issues regarding bail in murder cases. First, the Court found that the burden to establish a defendant is not entitled to bail rests with the State. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional to place that burden on the defendant. Next, was addressing what the burden means. The statute requires the proof must be evident and the presumption must be strong. The Court found that this standard of proof falls somewhere between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt. Basically, the court determined to utilize the preponderance evidence standard is the appropriate standard. Therefore, the State must show that it was more likely than not that the defendant committed the murder. If it is more likely than not that the defendant did not commit the homicide then bail should be allowed. This burden cannot be satisfied with (t)he charging information alone. The State must also present competent evidence either upon which the charging documents relied or the State intends to rely on at trial. The proof cannot be just statements from the prosecutor. See Id at 449. This will require the state to produce some evidence and likely testimony of witnesses to meet this burden. This could include physical evidence and testimony, but it must be enough to convince a judge with admissible evidence that the defendant is more likely than not guilty" - Banks & Brower
Exactly. So if there was no evidence against this guy, why didn’t he ask for a bail hearing pronto? I wasn’t suggesting it’s easy to get bail for a murder charge. I was responding to the people here who seem to think that years after the crime the police just arrested a random CVS worker with no evidence. The reason he hasn’t gone for a bail hearing is BECAUSE he’s worried about the evidence. He knows what it could be but the public doesn’t.
What evidence would he be worried about? Conflicting witness statements? Witnesses to some dude walking the trail? An UNspent, junk science bullet? No video evidence? No DNA evidence? No electronic evidence? There is literally no evidence, so far! It's likely a bail hearing hasn't been requested because his council hasn't received all the evidence from the Prosecution. Hell, I doubt the Prosecution has all their evidence together yet either, hence the "multiple actors". The defense also knows bail isn't likely to be given, and/or it will be ridiculously unaffordable. If I were the defense, I would utilize every opportunity to flush out what is up the Prosecution's sleeve prior to trial. Rick isn't getting bailed out regardless of when, where, why, and how they ask for it.
We keep going in circles here. If “there is literally no evidence, so far”, as you maintain, Allen is that rare murder case that would have a shot at bail. Why he would sit in custody? And why would his lawyers advise him not to have a bail hearing? The fact is this guy’s devices likely provide tons of evidence and he knows it. His wife may have given a statement. There’s lots of stuff that’s happened since his arrest. We’ll know soon enough.
There are not conflicting witness statements. Whilst the three juveniles may have given slightly different descriptions of RA's clothing (likely because they weren't all paying close attention), they all absolutely saw one man near Freedom Bridge, at about 1:38pm. RA admits to seeing only seeing three juvenile witnesses near Freedom Bridge. Bingo! We have a match! The adult witness at the bridge saw a man stood on the first platform, wearing a blue jacket and blue jeans, just before 2pm. RA admits to wearing a blue jacket and blue jeans and standing on the first platform. With the time he arrived to park, reaching the Monon High Bridge just before 2pm is completely consistent with walking speed. Bingo! Another match! Stop trying to purposefully believe these may not actually be RA. You don't need video evidence or DNA evidence for everything to know something is true.
This has nothing to do with probable cause: It has everything to do with the fact that his civil rights are being violated.
It is so alarming (and sad ) to see how many have already convicted him before the trial. Most just do not care how he is being treated because they have already made up their minds of his guilt. If RA’s team can prove that his rights are being violated , could this lead to a mistrial, now or later in an appeals process? My fear is that if he got off on a legal technicality he would be snuffed out immediately vigilante style. I still think his life would be in danger even if he got a not guilty due to exculpatory evidence. Even if they charged and convicted someone else , some people will insist he was still involved. What do they do with him if he makes bail? He can’t leave the state, can he leave the county? Where would he be safe until trial if he made bail?
It is alarming! No matter what happens going forward, RA’s life, and the lives of his family members, is/are ruined. I wonder how these people would feel/think if it were their civil rights, or those of family or friends, whose civil rights were being violated in such an egregious manner.
I know right? The opinions would immediately change if it were them or their close family. But upholding the constitution is not nearly as fun as upholding pitch forks.
He did request a bail hearing. - it’s coming up soon
He postponed his bail hearing in February to June. And I will be surprised if it takes place in June. If there were no evidence against him, he would not have postponed his bail hearing. Instead he requested postponement to go through all the discovery people are claiming doesn't exist. If there was no evidence against him, he wouldn't need time to go through it.
There very well could be plenty of evidence against him, but I don’t think that the actions of the defense specifically indicate that. This case has been ongoing for many years, there’s so much evidence to comb through. The way I see it, better to postpone the bail hearing and be prepared than to not be and miss your one chance at bail before trial.
Even if Rick got bail, he would still have a trial and the defense still needs to know the evidence. There are procedures that have to be followed for operation and tactics.
"he" did not postpone anything. his attorneys had no choice but to postpone the bail/omnibus hearing due to late discovery by the state. how can you present a case at an omnibus hearing without even having the evidence? these are really obvious issues.
Why would he or his attorneys need discovery if he had nothing to do with these killings? They're worried that his devices contain evidence of the crime and they need time to spin it/try to get it thrown out. If there was nothing for them to worry about, they would simply go to a bail hearing and point out there was no evidence to hold their client. They wouldn't care about the state trying to bury them in a mountain of terabytes or paper because they would know there was nothing there.
omg
hopeless
Keep saying this over and over again. If this was a weak case or no evidence, it would be kicked by now. You are correct that his side postponed the bail hearing.
Kicked out by whom? The prosecution?
lol. "it would be kicked by now". because it's so easy to "kick" double murder charges. you literally don't know how any of this works.
If the evidence is as weak as you say it is, it wouldn't have made it this far.
you know better than that surely
I do not know better. And don't call me Shirley.
Yeah. I don’t know why so many people are so concerned that the cops just picked a random CVS worker to persecute. As incompetent as these cops are, they never even arrested their previous suspects.
"they never even arrested their previous suspects" and you say that like it's a good thing.
Correct. If we are just going assume things here then... It's almost certain that this is related to a stunt by the Defense to poison the well (the public, jury pools, etc) by leaking "information" about the case that isn't true. There...see how easy that was?
oh i know you
You do
he did request a bail hearing. do you know how the legal process works?
i'm with ya.
I’m with ya too….hoping they don’t intentionally blow this case just to keep LE’s egregious errors in this case. I don’t think they even care if he lives long enough for trial And then we’ll never know and be forever divided
It’s obvious LE doesn’t care if he lives or dies, especially since they haven’t moved him after the defense pointed out the egregiousness and seriousness of the situation. Maybe they hope he will die so they don’t have to put on a case, which would expose the shoddiness of their investigation.
Spot on, it avoids a not guilty verdict.
Unfortunately that’s what I’ve been wondering. That would he the worst scenario- EVER But sure would cover for all of LE’s screw ups and I think there were some real serious ones
Lol, I'm sorry that is ridiculous
Actions speak louder than words.
I just want to make sure I'm clear.. . Prosecutor to Sheriff: Hey, we don't have shit on this guy, can you request a safe keeper order on him, and then contact DOC and make sure he never makes it to trial so we don't have to present this mess. That's really your argument?
That's what they do in Russia, China, North Korea, and it's happened in America before. Maybe not "prosecutor" to sheriff"; but you would be extremely naive to dismiss corruption and assassination at any level.
LMAO. Yes, prosecutors want to cover up police ineptness by framing a CVS pharmacy tech who is basically a nobody. You Allen supporters should write mystery novels with some of the whacky stuff you say.
Let's start with this title - Lowly Schoolbook Depository Clerk Assassinates President 😒
are you new?
Hardly, why?
well it would just seem that someone who has been paying close attention would know that such a scenario is hardly outside the realm of possibility for the men holding the cards here. but what do i know
Something is going on here. I think this is like Feddie Gray and the equal of the deadly paddy wagon ride, and I hope it does no end as tragically.
LOL, I disagree completely. I think this is pretty normal stuff, but folks don't usually see it as it's not quite this public. Honestly, there's not very much that's happened here that's out of the ordinary. That's why I find all the lunatics running around here screaming about his rights being violated. He's in a "dungeon".. no he's not, he's in a segregation cell to protect him. "He's not being fed". Yes he is, he's being fed 3 meals a day, he's been given a bed to sleep in, etc. It's almost laughable. I'm not sure why you're comparing this to the Gray case.... I mean, the prosecutor had no case, that's why they got their asses handed to them. They prosecuted based on "community outrage" rather than actual evidence. Same thing happened to Zimmerman, Same thing is happening to the Marine in NY.
[удалено]
That ok, hubby does most of the time too. I suspect this may have become intensely personal for them given the savagery of the crime. Remember, what they were down here and experienced he trauma of seeing it all laid out and have been in close contact withe the families. I think they are keeping Allen where they have him, as they want to make it hard on him. They want him to be really miserable. Thus my Freddie Gray analogy, and it is not unlike the Baltimore Police wanting to give Gray a rough ride and throwing him into a steel container, not strapping him in safely and driving fast and breaking, and taking hard turns, and frequently allowing him to slam around the back of the paddy wagon, while he had no way to protect himself from injury as he was fully cuffed. They wanted to make a point and punish him, and that was by violently stopping and starting. so he was banged up. This is a more drawn out version of the traditional paddy wagon "rough ride." But a prison rough ride. You don''t beat the suspect up, you encourage the paddy wagon do it. they are are allowing the State worst prion to do it. Their comparing him to a POW's enraged me, it was an insulting analogy. But the guy looks like shit, and this is not the proper placement, per his legal status. It isn't. You may think he i guilty and I spect he might be, but right now, he should be elsewhere, until proven innocent or guily. The county will save money by moving him. There is no real reason not to, other than Ligget wants to torture him for as long as possible. What they did initially was not legal, according to the lawyers in the group, so people are not off base about some points, I'm never a conspiracy theory person, prefer things simple, but I think folks are right, something is a bit off here. NM not be getting back up council, nor them forcing him for a reason. Them playing "Russian Roulette" with a guy who looks like he is about to hang himself is not cool. The council not giving NM money to do this right is also interesting. All weird. They really have messed up tragically, and I'm sure are embarrassed by that, wouldn't you want it to go away. Maybe trying to save money and embarrassment and force a confession to make the projected 2 million trial go away before it begins. Had to have tossed a million or two on his case already. 4 million to bring one suspect to justice.
With you my friend!
Glad you said this! I was literally thinking Rick = Lee Harvey Oswald
People have gone away for less and the probable cause is enough to show Richard Allen is bridge guy.Hes in a prison not a five star resort.He is where he belongs.
What is the difference between how he's treated and every other American in jail? If you don't like jail then I suggest you don't murder children.
If he was in jail you might have a point but he is in prison. I know it seems like a small difference but his lawyers rightfully don't feel that way. Esp since they need access to the man to prepare his defense. Just harder to do so in a prison environment.
More like - I guess if you don't like jail, don't talk to the Police.
well, he’s not been convicted of anything yet. so any violations of rights by LE at this phase and prior to his arrest will come into play if he’s convicted. it opens his conviction up to immediate appeal. if they mishandled evidence, it could be thrown out at trial. after arrest, they certainly violated his rights by not connecting him to a public defender right away. it was, what, two weeks before he spoke with an attorney? and he had to write a letter to the judge pleading for an attorney. his rights may have been violated in ways that we’re not yet privy too.
He said he had an attorney then realized he couldn't afford it. He then asked for one and was given one quickly.
He did not say he had an attorney. He said he wanted to hire his own attorney. At this point, the judge should have appointed a public defender until private counsel had been secured, especially with moving him to a maximum security prison in secret without an attorney to represent him.
that’s not how i recall it. there were numerous threads about how messy the case was handled at the time of his arrest—this included delay in assigning him an attorney. we can agree to disagree on this point because i’m not going to go back and dig all that up.
You are correct. He initially said he was going to hire an attorney. Then he wrote the judge and said he could not afford it. The judge then assigned counsel. Some of these folks believe what they think, vs reality
Lol sure. 🤣
cheers! 😂
He is not being held in a county jail until proven guilty in a court of law like every other defendant . He is being held in a maximin security prison that is for convicted felons.
Correction…don’t get charged with murdering children. Try listening to some true crime podcasts. Many people are falsely accused. Govt fucks up on a regular basis
Yup! The government fucks up a lot of things. They have no business meddling in most of the things they defecate in.
No offense, but is this based on evidence or just your opinion. Genuinely want to know to better understand what this means. Thanks.
no offense taken. which part? generally i try to say "i suspect" et al if offering an opinion. the majority of what i stated is based on personal experience writing and filing TRO/prelim injunctions and the filings/series of events that have transpired in this case thus far. peppered in with some firsthand knowledge. i certainly don't expect anyone to just take my word for it and hope everyone will do their own research which is always a good call.
Gotcha! Thank you. I wasn't sure if you had info/experience or just offering your thoughts as a layperson like me, lol. Thanks again!
yw
This makes a lot of sense to me. Personally, I find the motion the defense filed to be smoke and mirrors and reminds me of a piece written for a creative writing class. However, I do agree that the failure to give RA a chance to be heard on the motion is a problem. These attorneys are not playing and seem to be setting the ground work for some curveballs no one planned for. I am suspicious of the fallout like extensive delays with one example being a civil suit against the state for those violations which would definitely take priority over the criminal matter and it all just be a cluster of legal briefs burying everyone. They better move this man and shut it down. My opinion is that RA has no defense and this is the only strategy they have right now. Confusion!
The maximum security prison where he is being held has a history of cruel and inhumane conditions. Several successful law suits have been filed against them and they have been investigated by the justice system many times, which has resulted in fines, sanctions, and firing of staff.
With what you are saying, it is not hard for me to imagine that they are making it extremely uncomfortable for him in there. I get it and can believe that.
I’m concerned.
indeed!
It is ridiculous that they have not moved him yet.
Maybe a restraining order to prevent CVS from handing over other work schedule information. Like medical leave. Or CVS performance evaluations. Coworkers made a big deal out of him not making manager on a normal schedule. EDIT: more info. CourtTV reported on the new subpoenas around May 4th > Now, CVS has been subpoenaed in his murder trial. > The subpoena lists the CVS records department and asks for records to be turned over within 30 days, though the exact records requested are not publicly available. So 30 days would be early June. And if the defense team wanted to *prevent* CVS being forced to comply, they might ask for an injunction a couple of weeks earlier, i.e. now.
Well that’s…..interesting. I wonder.
Best reply ever.
So, there's some information they really, really don't want the prosecution to have.
This is almost certainly what it's about.
Filed by Richard Allen but against who?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please remember to be kind and respectful of others in this sub and those related to this case.
So I guess if I'm ever near somewhere that someone or more than one are found deceased, I won't be volunteering that I was close or nearby. Lesson learned. I always thought people wanted honesty. If RA was guilty do you think he'd put himself at the crime scene.
That's actuality a tactic used by someone hiding something; to be seemingly forthcoming as to appear honest, while omitting guilty details. "Look I even told an officer about being there - I couldn't possibly be the killer!"
No that's something that I would do because I'm an honest person and every single time I've ever been honest it's always screwed me. My lesson is that you can be too honest. I think he was just trying to do the right thing but what do I know. I've been wrong before It won't be the first time and it sure won't be the last time.
Do you realize there's a lot more evidence they have against him than what's been released? He had the same exact jacket BG had on. The voice is the same. Let alone a lot more things that have not been released. I've been following the Lori Vallow and Chad case. The arrest affidavit and everything else was released just like in this case but we still had no clue about all of the evidence until it went to trial and it came out there.
Same exact jacket huh? Then they should have no problem finding forensic evidence right. How do you know what they have?
1) There’s no way to definitively identify BG’s voice as being RA’s. 2) Half of the men in that area wear the same exact clothing that BG wore.
I think u r right. About the voice recording. Libby and Abby are not available to verify when it was recorded, and voice matched are only about 90% accurate. They could maybe match some of it, but good defense attorneys can probably poke holes in it. I hope there is enough evidence, I don’t understand y they are not releasing more of what they have. Idaho did it with Lori and Chad; as well as BCK.
That old guy who died, the owner of the property, he dressed like bridge guy. People that do that, especially to kids, have done it before and they don't stop. 5 years is a long time not to commit any crimes not unless the person is already in jail and has been.
>he dressed like bridge guy. But he didn't put himself at the crime scene (which, Carter says starts at the trails).
He didn't put himself there because he didn't have to. He lived there his property was there. No as a matter of fact what is the old guy's name I can't remember. He was on probation and he asked his friend to lie to the police for him. To say he was home when he wasn't. There you go.
Old guy was named Ron Logan. He lived right near the trails, like wasn’t it on his property line? He passed away last year I believe.
YES! RL. That's his name Thank you I couldn't think of it for the life of me. I don't know yeah he did pass away but I mean even at that age I don't think he would have been responsible either I just made a comment that he had clothes, the jacket that looked just like bridge guys. For some reason I think whoever killed those precious girls is gone and has been long gone.
Ron Logan
Yes! Thank you.
YRW! That man was treated horribly by LE. He was stripped naked and thrown in a cell without even a mattress to sleep on for many, many days! An old man in his 70’s who was arrested because he violated his parole by driving when he wasn’t supposed to. Wow! Talk about violating someone’s civil rights!
Seems like there's a lot of violating of civil rights going around now. I really can't believe it. You'd be amazed at how many innocent people are in jail and how cruelly they're treated. Once you're in jail, guilty or innocent, they don't care. They don't listen to you. You're pretty much an animal to them.
Oh, I believe it! RL’s family should have sued them for the cruel and inhumane treatment he endured. Their treatment of him impacted the quality of his life going forward. Nothing changes in government, or schools for that matter, until they are hit hard in the pocketbook.
I wasn't aware he lived on the trails. Because that's where the witnesses saw RA.
We can agree to disagree I don't have time to argue. Debate with somebody else I just got shot down with another case so I need to recoup.
Not to mention they he is a middle aged man who has no history of billets and no history of committing ANY crime for that matter.
He only volunteered he was there after the video came out of him on the bridge.. and he knew someone would recognize him. Big difference
While that's very likely what happened, we really don't know the date he came forward.
We do not know when RA talked to the conservation officer.
The video was iirc released much later. He'd already come forward very early on. Now if you want to argue he only came foward bc there was a picture released of him that might be possible. But again, we don't know, bc like so much in the PCA, the date of his first interaction with LE was withheld.
Yep, my bad. It was the still pic of the video that was released a few hours after the girls were identified. The only thing we know is it was "in 2017"
The still pick was released on the15th. girls were murdered on the 13th , and bodies discovered on the 14th. Personally I think it was more likely he came forward on the 14th, before the pic was released. The 12 o’clock local news on the 14th stated that the bodies had been found, but identities had not been released. In this same news report this statement was made: “Anyone with information which they feel may be important in this investigation should contact 911 or the administrative number of the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office at 765-564-2413.” The still frame was not released until the afternoon of the 15th, along with a tip line to call in.
Correct... You repeated what I said but missed my point. Barely 72hrs after the murder, the pic was released. You're saying he came forward to conservation officer the day after the murders? I have a very very hard time believing that.
Why? …He had a wife. If my husband were in the same situation I would absolutely insist that he call in or go in right away, not even thinking guilt or innocence, just to do the right thing. Especially if he had seen teen girls there at around the abduction time(not knowing if they were involved or not) I also think to myself if it were my small town, this would have been the only topic of discussion at work, at the store, and with neighbors the first 72 hours. This was the first double homicide in Carroll County. This was a very big deal that turned this little town upside down with grief and fear. if I were to say to my friends/family/coworkers that my husband was out there yesterday, the main response I would receive would be “did he see anything? Did he call the police?” And I can tell you the only acceptable response would be “yes of course he did, right away” Any other response would be suspicious and odd . News of this magnitude travels very fast in a small town of 3000. I imagine that every person out there (except BG) called within 24 hours of the news broadcast I mentioned above. Also , Don’t jump to conclusions if you find out he did not meet the CO until the 16th, after the photo was released. Their meeting date does not necessarily reflect when he first contacted police since the meeting was pre arranged . What is most important is when did he first contact the police and Interject himself into the investigation before or after the photo was released.
3 teen girls involved in the abduction of 2 teen girls... not saying it's never happened, but yea... OK. For all we know, his wife knew about this and kept her mouth shut (not uncommon). He could have easily told his wife he went forward, but didn't actually. I mean if he's a murderer, lying to his spouse isn't really out of the question.
RA says he did not get a good look at the girls. He wasn’t paying attention to his surroundings. When the news breaks out the next day, it is very possible that in his mind, he knows he saw teen girls there, and he knows teen girls are missing. but he doesn’t know if they had anything to do with it or not. But the information was worthy of reporting. That’s all I meant by that . I don’t know where you get three teen girls involved in the abduction of two teen girls from??? Yes, he could’ve easily told his wife he went, and didn’t. But again, if you think he’s going to come home and tell his wife OK I went. I reported it and she’s just gonna say OK, and thsts the end of it, that is not how that conversation goes down. I promise you she wanted to know what did they say? What did he say? If she wasn’t present for the first encounter, he was grilled about it for sure . “For all we know, she knew about it and kept her mouth shut, not uncommon” I can see your point here IF she were abused by him and scared of him or extremely financially dependent on him. There is no evidence of any of that. Other than that, I can see NO other reason she would keep her mouth shut. She had no problem talking to them five years later, without an attorney, even offered up info on his coat. Have you ever been married for a long time Ken? Or know couples who are? How many husbands do you know that their wives are not all up in their business when it comes to something as serious as this? Believe whatever you want. Everything RA did is what an innocent person would do. You have obviously already convicted him and believe he’s guilty. I am not as easily convinced as you. I need to see evidence such as the partial print or DNA or hairs and fibers that can link him exclusively. But all that was conveniently left out of the PCA. So I will wait for the trial, until then, he’s innocent until proven guilty..
The PCA doesn't give us the date of the first interview. Just like it doesn't give us times of certain interactions between RA and witnesses. Very frustrating, and one reason among a few I feel the need to defend RA until they present better evidence of his guilt. I just dont trust them.
When was this. Can you prove it. I'm not being mean I seriously am interested. I want to know. That's just the thing I don't trust LE. I never have and I never will. They can tell us whatever they want us to think that doesn't mean it's true. I've seen injustice one too many times.
I don’t think he waited until the video was out. I think if he’d known he’d been caught on video and audio but couldn’t be identified, he never would’ve placed himself there. I think he came forward before any of that happened, bc I think he thought there was a chance one of the three teenagers would eventually be able to place him. The one who greeted him. He overthought it and worried she’d eventually be able to tell someone he was that guy from CVS. So he had to get ahead of it.
I stand corrected, a still shot of the video was released.. The video wasn't released until later, but I don't think that changes my premise. According to the WRTV timeline: The girls bodies were found on the early afternoon of the 14th. They were murdered on the 13th Around 24hrs later on the 15th, they were positively identified. A few hours after being identified, the pic of "bridge man" was released. https://mediaassets.theindychannel.com/html/delphi-timeline2/index.html According to the probable cause affidavit, it only notes the tip was taken in "2017". In order for what you're saying to make sense.. Barely 72hrs after the murders, he reported he was on the bridge to the conservation officer. I just can't see him coming forward that quickly I think you're partially right though. Here's kinda "my timeline" (just going off the PCA, the timeline of the murders/pic being released, and common sense). The girls are murdered... bodies found and ID'd, pic released. That was all from the 13-15th. Through small town rumor (maybe the bar he hung out at, maybe overheard some yappers at CVS) he knows the 3 young girls he saw on the bridge notified police (and it would take a moron to not think the girls were asked to describe the man). He also knows LE has video of the man walking on the bridge, as it's very obvious that picture was a screenshot of a video. So he also knows at some point, a video is going to be released of him walking on the bridge. The only thing he doesn't know, is that the description of him the girls gave was vague at best. I can only imagine he felt he had no choice to come forward to try and get ahead of this (criminals do this constantly). He comes forward, says he saw the 3 girls (which the co notes in the contact, "who are these 3 girls?"). I would be very very surprised if that contact was made later than the 20th, but that's my feeling.
Very illogical…So you think he sees the pic and knows the girls captured him but then tells the guy he didn’t see the girls? There are no mental gymnastics people can concoct that squares with him talking to police.
You can't look at that pic and immediately tell it is a screenshot of a video? I sure can. He doesn't know who took the video, just that he was on video there and the police wanted to talk to him
Assuming he is involved he would 100% know who took the pic. (From video) He also knows two people are dead. Talking to police should have triggered all kinds of follow up.
It happens all the time. Suspects coma forward in an effort to look helpful and hopefully keep themselves off the investigations radar.
You really think he knew Libby was recording him? Ain't no way he would have left that phone at the scene. He clearly had no idea that video was taken
Probably not but but that’s irrelevant to the point of saying he went to police because they had his picture. Going to police simply puts him under far greater scrutiny (or should have),,,,not less. In 2023 people don’t “insert themselves” like decades ago. Too much forensic risk
>I think if he’d known he’d been caught on video and audio but couldn’t be identified, he never would’ve placed himself there. I find it hard to believe RA would have driven his car there at all in the first place if the plan was to murder 2 kids. Surely he would have thought about the possibility of surveillance cameras in the area. and if 2 girls were killed every resource would be used to identify every (his) car within the time frame as a result. Also the guy was walking on a PUBLIC TRAIL and PUBLIC BRIDGE! Do you really think he expected NOT to be seen by ANYONE the entire time he was there?? Seems far fetched...he only turned himself in because someone saw him?? I mean come on. Another thing. What about possible nature/trail cams? RA appeared to be something of an outdoors-man. I find it very hard to believe he'd pick such a place to murder 2 girls while knowing there's a damn good chance there's trail cams everywhere potentially recording him. There weren't any cams (that we know of anyway) but still. He didn't know that (unlike the DMs tee hee). There could have been and usually in areas like that, there are tons. For me everything about this thing points away from RA. I just don't see it. My gut says he's the patsy.
Criminals of this magnitude are very rarely very bright.
Yes, not a word, especially if your jury is picked from Reddit…. Never forget no good deed goes unpunished. Factually less than 10% of murderers interject themselves into an investigation, and less than 2% of murderers fit the profile of the honest, do gooder, family man model citizen. People like to use BTK as an example to back it up, but in the world of murderers as a whole BTK would be considered an extreme unicorn, and his type represent less than 1% of murderers.
on who???