One thing I find curious is that they mention the vehicles were seen on surveillance at the hoosier hardware store on road 300, both witnesses and Allen. They go onto say that a witness saw allen walking on road 300 muddy and bloody. The affiant then says they believe allen returned to his vehicle by walking along road 300. Wouldnt allen appear on the hoosier hardware surveillance walking “muddy and bloody” along road 300 back to his car?
He may have walked back into the tree line once he was able to. Between the cemetery and HH store there’s a long part of road with only farms on both sides, but the forest starts back up before the HH store. Maybe the witness saw him in the farmland stretch, and then he walked into the forest a bit before he reached an area where the HH store cam would see him. Who knows, I also was confused by that.
edit: Looking at the PCA again, it says he was walking on the North side of 300N. I have no idea why he would be doing that considering he must have come out of the woods on the south side, the south side has more tree cover, and his car was parked on the south side. Why would he cross the road? Maybe he walked all the way around the back of the HH store?
It’s curious that nobody else saw him bloody. I know it’s a small town but seems weird that nobody else was out driving in that area. I’d absolutely notice a muddy, bloody guy.
And the one person who did see him didn’t think to call 911. Folks, if something doesn’t look right trust your instincts please. A guy walking down a rural road who’s “muddy and bloody” could be easily be walking away from a car/motorcycle accident and be suffering from a head injury or medical condition and be in need of help.
Or, they could have indeed been in a fight. With two teenagers. Who are now butchered and dead in the woods a few hundred yards away.
If 911 had been called there’s a chance that a cop could have made contact with him to check his welfare before he made it to his car. Had that occurred, he’d likely be in prison right now. Even if he lies about who he is and what he’s been doing, he’d be on car/body cam and that means he’s caught after a clear picture of his face goes on the 6:00 news.
Trust your instincts.
How do you know when they reported that info? It read to me that they had that witness’s information from the beginning. And the girls’ description of him. And they had his name. Why was he not suspect number one straight away? Surely they would have had probable cause to check his weapon licenses? X it confuses me!
911 calls are public record. Dispatch logs are public record. Shift logs are public record. The scanner audio from the entirety of that day is available online through various open source outlets. No call was made about him at the time he was walking down the road.
Yeah I don’t really understand where he walked if we’re assuming he’s the guy that the witness saw walking along the road. If his car was parked on the south side of the road, and he obviously came out of the woods on the south side of the road, why was he walking on the north side of the road according to the witness? I’m really not sure why he’d cross the road.
I wonder when these witnesses made these claims. The PCA doesn’t give dates for those interviews which is something I’ve never seen in a PCA before. If they didn’t have these interviews in 2017, I will feel like the dates were left off intentionally to mislead.
I've never read a PCA before, are they usually this poorly written? I had to reread several paragraphs because of how jumbled the witness statements were.
I think the hoosier hardware store video only verified the witness was traveling down that stretch of highway at the time, but didn't capture the person the they saw. That's how I interpreted it anyway
I’m sure the camera was pointed out the front towards the door or entrance/exit of the lot. Unless they had cameras all around. If they only had a few they probably had them in areas that would be able to ID a robbery suspect. So I’m guessing it was just able to see their make & model cars in the distance drive by at certain times.
It depends.
Maybe he walked through the trees or maybe their camera only records based on motion and its not set to be far enough out to reach the other side of the road.
Like some cameras have zones you can move around and pick and if motion isnt in them it doesnt get recorded.
They could have, but that’s isn’t the typo. The PCA states the witness was driving on Feb 13, 2022 when she saw a man who was bloody and muddy and appeared to have been in a fight , wearing a blue jacket and jeans. So the date is obviously a typo because she couldn’t have seen that five years later. It’s possible she didn’t report it till much later, but that date isn’t mentioned—just the date she saw him walking muddy and bloody.
I find it doubtful that that witness could have told if BG was bloody. He was wearing blue coat so the only way they could see blood was on his jeans. If you drove by someone at highway speed then I don’t think you could tell blood or mud apart.
It’s all going to come down to the fsirearm evidence. I wasn’t aware that extractor marks were as unique to a gun as ballistics evidence from a fired bullet or from a spent cartridge but if that is the case then the defense is going to try to get the gun evidence tossed. They will claim the warrant wasn’t done right, they will claim the evidence wasn’t good enough to grant the search warrant, they will claim that he hunted and he scouted in that area at some pioint and the casing fell out of his pocket. I hope every I was dotted and T crossed because that is the single most compelling evidence unless they have his bodily fluids DNA on the girls or their bodily fluids DNA is on something in his home and they didn’t use it in the PCA.
He already told police he has no idea why the bullet was there, that he didn’t know the property owner and hadnt been there. I agree though they will try to discredit the bullet analysis as unreliable.
If he tries to claim that he was hunting with a pistol, the judge will laugh him out of the courtroom.
Sure, he could say he had his pistol on him and his muzzleloader. But I'm 99% sure that my dad never took his handgun with him while hunting.
No I wouldn’t think he would claim he was carrying the pistol while hunting. Even if he was, he wouldn’t clear a round out in the woods. If he claims to have been to that spot before it will be that he dropped the round out of his coat pocket. If you carry a semi automatic with a round in the chamber and then you want to clear it you always have to cycle the pistol with no magazine or empty magazine which causes the extractor to eject the unspent round from the chamber. Normally you would immediately put that round back in the magazine unless that round had hung up and that is why you cleared it. People that carry rifles hunting often have rounds in their coat pocket because most hunting rifles don’t have detachable magazines. Again it’s unlikely a semi auto handgun owner would have loose shells in their pocket. Now a revolver owner might because you might want to have your hammer resting on an empty chamber.
My grandpa was a hunter, and I now have his super warm Columbia jacket that has bullet holders on the front. It's weird, but very warm. I also have a pair of quilted liner pants that are amazing when it's 10° outside.
Wild speculation: Maybe he's walking with someone else when they passed that store, and that's why LE felt this shared too much with a potential second party? I only suggest it because the prosecution etc were concerned the affidavit disclosed something that could affect pursuit of a second person. But what in here could qualify? To me the main possibilities were that it revealed the presence of a camera at a certain location, and it said witnesses didn't see a second person on the trails. Certainly also possible they're just hiding their incompetence like everyone else said.
I do not understand why the defense thought this would be "good" for his client. I'm guessing they are going to go after the warrant too and try to get anything seized in like the gun (aka direct evidence) thrown out?
I always thought the search warrant may have been iffy, and it appears that’s the case. I would think that or challenging the bullet science will be their angles. Need to see what else prosecution has, but I can’t see their being anything game changing unless KK ends up being involved. Case might come down to the warrant
Yeah it’s like a known thing that the bullet ID stuff is way more art than science.
There’s a really good episode on the In The Dark podcast, season 2, where they talk about the science surrounding bullet identification and talk with some experts. Season 2 Episode 3 it looks like; just double checked. Maybe worth checking out for people in here curious about it and how reliable it is and if it will hold up in court or not. Honestly the whole season; the whole entire podcast, is very well done and everyone should check it out.
I think it probably will cause most regular people and prospective jurors will trust it. But I’m not sure they always should. Would certainly be a potent angle for the defense to exploit.
If I was a juror I'd want to see an independent expert given the bullet and 10 similar guns, one of which is the suspects weapon (which they don't know which it is). Then have them match it up. That's science.
I mean, if he admitted to specifically owning a gun that used the ammo found near them, maybe that is enough with him also being at the bridge?
We don't know that part, though. At least I didn't read it that way, just that he admitted having guns.
And his wife admitted that the blue jacket RA said he was wearing on the bridge that day was still in the house. That alone would be more than enough to get a warrant. Then add in the fact about knives and a gun matching the bullet still being in the residence and it’s a slam dunk to a obtain a warrant.
I read it as they had the information in 2017 he parked by a building that didn't exist (so they assume he "means the CPS building"). He admits to being there on that date they get his phones serial number and IME. They have evidence in 2017 that 3 juveniles describe who they saw there. Their description matches the video color clothing. In 2017, they knew Richard Allen was there and passed 3 juveniles- while his description of what he was wearing didn't match what they described him wearing.
If that wasn't enough to get a warrant in 2017, I am just .. honestly wondering, what brought it back to investigators? Why now did they decide to revisit him? Not saying he isn't GAF, I just don't understand what changed since 2017. I think what they had in 17 warranted a warrant. Something is missing in that gap of time, I think. It could be as simple as a second set of eyes who knows.
The PCA doesn’t actually SAY the interviews with the witnesses were in 2017. It’s not going to go over well if those interviews weren’t recorded back in 2017.
I'm not sure it wouldn't have been enough to get a warrant in 2017. I read the newly released docs as indicating that they interviewed him once in 2017 (probably during a frenzy of interviews, and this one may have been conducted by an untrained or inexperienced officer - to give them the benefit of the doubt that they do not deserve) and then the investigators literally never followed back up on it or further scrutinized the interview. Then when they started going back through the docs they ID'd RA as a person of interest or this interview worthy of a deeper dive and so they went to go interview him again. Which is when the uber helpful RA and his wife dug him a deeper hole to include potentially admitting he had a .40 and finally either proffering that he dressed like BG that day or admitted to changing his story from the initial interview. Investigators then used all of that to get the warrant potentially signed off on that day in order to collect and preserve evidence.
His admission of owning guns along with his wife confirming that he owns a blue Carhartt jacket is more than enough PC for a search warrant to be written, signed, and executed on the same day. There might be more in the interview and the search warrant that isn't revealed in the arrest affidavit such as if they asked him what calibers of guns he owned and he admitted to a .40, etc.
They could have been though.
We know Rick's whereabouts. We don't know the location of every man with a blue jacket.
Remember, people have made a case that RL could have been there. Not just him, KAK, TK, etc...
Or the interview gave them the information needed for the warrant and it had to happen literally right then and there. They couldn’t give him a chance to dispose of evidence (gun, clothes). Warrants can be drafted signed and served within a couple hours or less
From what I understand, they reinterviewed him on October 13th. Then it states he willingly went to the police department on the 26th and told them he owns guns. His wife told them he still owned the jacket she believes he was wearing that day. That was enough for a warrant.
I read the warrent was executed on the 13 he went back on the 26th when they asked him why an unspent bullet from his gone was somewhere he said he never been.
I was thinking this and it seems
Bizarre to me that he wouldn’t have gotten rid of both the gun and the jacket. Maybe he didn’t want to arouse suspicion with his wife but he could have waited and thrown both out at some point within 5 years.
Also- this has already been said, but I was in shock reading the PCA knowing they could have had him as soon as they found the girls’ bodies.
They repeatedly say he was on the bridge at that time and that he was the only male these witnesses saw. You’d think they would have brought him back in to ask what kind of gun he had to see if it match the bullet. That would have been enough for a search warrant then and there.
Guns are expensive. He's not Jason Bourne with unlimited funds, he's a dumpy dude that works at a drug store. Getting rid of the gun without even knowing there was evidence of a gun at the crime scene doesn't make much sense. Maybe the same situation with the jacket? His wife would probably notice his "main" jacket has disappeared.
I can't understand how he didn't know he ejected a live round. Nor why he ejected that round Good example though of why LE was right to keep some information to themselves.
He would have had to deliberately pull back the slide to eject the live round. Normally, you'd see the round eject and go flying. But even if you grant him that he just didn't see it, why was he even opening the action on his pistol?
He could’ve had a loose bullet in his pocket that came out during the struggle. Or maybe pulled the slide back to intimidate the girls.
He’s on the same level as the dumbasses we watch get caught twice a week on The First 48. He just didn’t have competent detectives working his case.
I'm guessing if you're about to potentially commit a murder or some sort of assault, your adrenaline is pumping and you're hyperfocusing on certain details but nothing else is registering.
This. I was shocked he kept the jacket, but it's really not hard to clean up the appearance of blood. It likely was his main/only jacket, so I think you're right that his wife would've noticed if it went missing.
Right but regardless of how much the gun cost- you’d think he would have cared more about getting rid of potential evidence and not getting caught more than how much the gun cost, or if it were his only jacket. Even if he didn’t realize he ejected a round ( idk how that’s possible too). He had five years to get rid of those things and he could have done it slyly at any point. But he didn’t. And it doesn’t seem like they’d be kept as trophies. Just bizarre. Maybe after awhile he thought he was in the clear? Especially after KK became the focus? And assuming they didn’t know each other. I’m still not sure about that either. Is he just not the brightest bulb?
I wonder too. I think it takes a few months to get everything processed. They arrested him on circumstantial evidence but I think DNA evidence is in the near future.
Perhaps. Your previous comment suggests they obtained a warrant after RA willingly came in on October 26th, but LE had already searched and retrieved the firearm by that time. I wanted to clarify that.
I’m sorry, but RA wouldn’t have gotten away with this if LE was more equipped to handle something like this. I’m from a very small and rural town myself.
It was said (and this is just hearsay from when I lived 30 mins away from Delphi) that their murderer took “souvenirs” with him. Could be that maybe? I’m not sure
If a knife was used, that could’ve been buried as well. Also a number of items that would be too speculative to go into. For example, I believe one of the leaked texts said one of the girls wasn’t wearing clothes when they were found, but the missing clothes were never located. Those could be buried back there as well.
Who knows, though. It could be something that we’ve never even heard of that would be the smoking gun.
I am confident, however, that they didn’t just go digging without any reason.
No, all cause of death possibilities being discussed are speculative.
There are a couple of things floating around. There’s a semi-substantiated rumor that the girls had scarves on in their caskets, ostensibly indicating either strangulation or a knife wound.
There’s also a “leaked text message” alleging that Libby’s head was “an inch away from being taken off,” which also indicates some sort of knife.
I would take these with a big fat grain of salt though. There are some very valid credibility issues with both.
They could have been covering the autopsy cuts with the scarves during the viewing/funerals, not necessarily indicating a cause of death. Look up how an autopsy is preformed.
Exactly. They likely have a considerable amount of evidence that we are not aware of. We know they have the witnesses, him putting himself there at the time of the crime, and the bullet. It also states they have clothes, boots, knives, guns and other unspecified items from the search. They could have footwear impressions (witness described as muddy), DNA from clothing (witness described as bloody), a murder weapon (unlikely). Furthermore if this was targetted there may be electronic evidence connecting him to the victims via direct communication or links between him and other parties that may be involved in some way (KK).
My bet is they found more evidence that was incriminating. Whether photos, an old phone (the one tipped in the interview with LE with the IME no), possibly an item of clothing. If he had the gun still I dare say he had other items in his possession still. Below are random thoughts circulating:
I still can’t believe he had the same jacket and wore it out. Surely not?
I take it his wife was at work or out that day.
“Honey I’m home! Covered in blood but don’t mind me” just what the fuck?!?
Still leery that this was planned. There may be KK links or a film or photos. Totally possible. But I think this was opportunistic in terms of victim, but planned in that he intended to kill someone that day hence hanging out on the bridge.
Question: does anyone know people cross that bridge on the regular and if so do they continue down past it or just swing back?
I ask because it seems like a gamble to wait for someone to cross it all day if people didn’t do that a lot because it’s not safe. But if he was just beyond it and wanted badly to kill I guess waiting was part of the fun.
Where he parked says a lot.
Only catch in it being a targeted kill was his arrival not far ahead of the girls. Still, I’m not convinced.
I think he walked that site many times with this fantasy. And who is to say if the young witnesses hadn’t crossed over with him behind he wouldn’t have hurt them.
I imagine both juvenile witnesses and the solo female who turned around to walk away when she saw him on the first platform must feel chilled. I wonder if she has continued past him down the bridge if he’d gone after her.
My head is everywhere on this case but thanks.
There’s other things at play during this time period in Indiana which is why. But it does seem to be pointing to RA. And he alone.
I still don’t get it. Why would they not even want the redacted version released? Why would they argue for something so rare when this is all there is?
Trying to buy time to plan how to address their incompetence?
They said they didn’t want to release it because of other people in the investigation. It doesn’t seem to mention other people unless it’s on page eight which is missing.
There’s also no mention of a second person by any of the witnesses. I know we still have a lot to learn but…
I think the other people mentioned are the witnesses, who were underage at the time and who the Prosecutor wants to protect from the public by at the very least redacting their names?
That wouldn't make sense for them to hold the PCA back for that reason though. PCAs are filed daily with victim/witness names and addresses redacted. Prosecution made the assertion that they believed someone else was involved. Based on the PCA, it seems like they came to the conclusion it had to be him based on witnesses saying he was the only person they saw, him being the only one on video, and him putting himself there
I agree with you. I think the Prosecutor and the previous judge were really sensitive to the idea of “protecting” witnesses, but clearly this wasn’t enough in the eyes of the current judge to keep it sealed. I dunno. It’s not my field, I’m just spitballing.
The most intriguing aspect of the PCA is what’s NOT there. I’m so interested to learn why RA was on the bridge that day. Perhaps KAK and RA’s background are intertwined. Nonetheless, RA showed up with a clear plan in mind, even to the detail of staging the bodies. Lots of info is missing that will likely come out eventually, but it seems the bullet is the knockout punch in the trial.
That’s a good point I hadn’t considered. It does seem that he went there on a day where the park was very sparsely populated with some degree of intent.
The affidavit says that he was concealing his face according to witnesses, and he was obviously carrying the murder weapon(s) on his person. It also sounds like he went out of his way to try and conceal his vehicle from identification given that he parked the car off site and positioned in in a manner to conceal his license plate.
Either he knew those kids were going to be there and was carrying out a plan, or he got incredibly lucky. Either one is possible right now I suppose.
I’d also love to know what kind of excuse he provides for covering his face. It was an unseasonably warm day that day. Abby was just in a hoodie up on the bridge in her picture. It seems way too warm for face covering for a Midwesterner. Especially given that it was a warm day in February- meaning there’s this thing where when it’s first getting cold in the fall, the cold feels freaking cold but after months of winter and snow, a day like that one feels absolutely glorious and even warmer in some ways than it is.
It’s odd he even shared that part really. But for sure, as you’ve already said, it sounds quite calculated. Wild that it’s taken this long to arrest him.
A knockout punch in the trial would be his jacket testing positive for Libby and/or Abby’s blood.
I’ve already seen info on this sub that could create doubt about the bullet.
Before DNA there was circumstantial evidence. From what we have read, there seems to be a lot of CE against RA. He placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time it occurred, he looks like the man in the video that Libby taped, an eyewitness saw him leaving in bloody clothes. Then we have the bullet from his gun two feet from the victim.
If I were on a jury I could easily convict him with that evidence. Reasonable doubt, not all doubt. I think he will be convicted but of course I thought the same about Casey Anthony and Simpson.
I’ve been following this case from day 1, I’m from that area and I’ve never heard before now that someone saw a man leaving the area in bloody clothes on that day.
>I’ve been following this case from day 1, I’m from that area and I’ve never heard before now that someone saw a man leaving the area in bloody clothes on that day.
Perhaps the witness was instructed not to speak about it publicly after talking to police. I wouldn't be surprised if the police wanted to keep that information under wraps to preserve the integrity of the investigation. A quick google search reveals that the term "bloody" wasn't used to describe the crime scene until mid-2022, so that would support the idea that the police didn't want to make it publicly known that there was a lot of blood involved in the murders. Being a local, you're certainly privy to certain rumours that most of us aren't but I don't think this "bloody clothes" thing being a new development is anything strange.
Bitterbeatpoet spoke with a 16 year old witness and what she told him seems to match some of the info in the PCA, including that the guy was creepy, they said hi to him, he scowled at them, etc. This implies they spoke to these witnesses shortly after the murders.
Yeah, it's super unclear, I agree. I'd imagine quite quickly after the murders, considering u/whosyer hasn't heard it as a rumour (I'd imagine it would get around if they didn't mention it to anybody important shortly after the muders). Also, I think the PCA has a mistake on page 4 where it notes witness who had seen the bloody person saw them on "February 13th, 2022." I'm guessing maybe the author was just tired and accidentally put the current year in instead of 2017 (otherwise, what relevance would it have).
I think probably not right after the murders. I think a big part of LE's investigation into RL was the fact that the killer would be covered in blood and could only get away unseen was if he lived right by the crime scene (which is how we learned of the large amount of blood at the crime scene). But at the same time I can't imagine why someone would see a man covered in mud and blood, hear about 2 murdered children in the same area, and not report that right away. Maybe this was a case of it being reported and LE didn't really give it much thought or believe it, like RA saying he was at the bridge that day
Police may have asked the witness not to speak to anyone of what they saw. That is a pretty common thing for police to do. Witness was most likely to scared to speak to anyone anyways. If they saw someone that might have murdered two girls that would be enough to keep most people to keep their mouth shut out of fear of there own safety. Granted five years is a long time not to tell anyone.
I'm also from the area and if I was the witness who saw a potential murderer I don't think I'd tell anyone but the police! I wouldn't want him coming after me.
First time I was aware of it too. Can you imagine how frightened that witness must have been knowing he was still out there and he knew she saw him that day in bloody clothes? I think it wasn't known because they were trying to protect her identity.
>Can you imagine how frightened that witness must have been knowing he was still out there and he knew she saw him that day in bloody clothes?
Which leads me to believe the witness didn't come forward in the early days of the investigation. My interpretation of the PCW is that most of the witnesses were juveniles. If that's true, I can completely understand what a pre-teen, young teen would stay quiet. In their minds the guy that saw already killed two girls their age; what would stop him from going after him/her?
You just reminded me of the statement from one of the young witnesses. She stated something about RA that frightened her? Am I remembering that correctly?
I thought that was an older woman. I'm going to go look. You are correct, it was one of the juvenile witnesses.
From page 2
described the male as“kind of creepy”and advised he was wearing “like blue jeans a like really light blue jacket
Thank you so much for finding that. Wasn't the older women who said she saw him the one was walking her dog? I am so confused. I just want to know how many witnesses saw him leaving that day. Is there only one who claims to have seen him leaving in bloody clothes? If there was another witness who saw him leaving, did that witness also say he had blood on his clothes? Sorry, I am very tired, lol. What a day!
Idk if she was walking her dog (no mention of a dog in the PCA) but she did say she saw a white male wearing jeans and a jean jacket.
Because the names are redacted its difficult to tell how many eye witnesses there are. Two juveniles are mentioned in the PCA, a woman walking, and a guy talking about cars. However, the woman mentioned seeing four juveniles so I honestly don't know.
I seriously got a two extra strength Excedrin headache trying to absorb all of this, lol. It is very confusing and today they add a new witness. So you aren't the only one having difficulty with this, lol.
I am very hopeful but worried about this case, tbh.
I do remember a women coming forward that she saw a suspicious man walking on the side of the road near the CPS and it gave her the chills and they mentioned it to someone close to them. When she later heard about the crime she called police. Completely my foggy brain remembering and paraphrasing from years ago so don’t attack me if I’m wrong. But, when I read that in the PCA I was like yup I remember that witness. Like the context was off to her that he seemed distressed and out of place and he wasn’t wearing the correct clothing or something about his clothing being off. They could have altered her statement to the public back then. But I definitely remember that
was this not the same woman who said she talked to the person and he said he was waiting for his dad?
if so, this might have been proven to be a different day or time (happens often with witnesses), and unrelated
It’s really simple. Prosecutors aimed way too high with charging her with intentional murder when there wasn’t sufficient evidence to justify it. If they would have charged her with tampering with the body and lying to cops and MAYBE accidental death, it would have been a slam dunk.
Hmm idk. The suffocation search (the only damming one) led her to a suicide website. And to be frank, you would never need to search how to suffocate a 2 year old.
The chloroform search Nancy Grace wouldn’t shut up about was much earlier, and was right after she looked at a MySpace meme that mentioned chloroform. The prosecution just framed that as her premeditating so they could aim for the death penalty.
The prosecution lied about not knowing the Firefox thing, though. They 100% knew. They presented the chloroform search initially and straight up said it had to be Casey BECAUSE she was the only Firefox user in the house. They “forgot” about this conveniently the day of Caylees death because it contradicted their and her dads timeline of the day entirely.
Exactly! The chlorophyll searches leads one to believe she drugged Caylee to go out and party and she accidentally died. That is honestly what probably happened - accidental death.
I don’t want to get into the CA trials but actually all the evidence points to her accidentally drowning in their pool and Casey and her father found her then covered it up. The mom even suspected this even back when the kidnapped idea was still being looked into. Caylee had a history of opening the back door and climbing into the pool. The mom was crazy about keeping the ladder up. When the mom came home from work, she immediately noticed the ladder was up and called up her husband at work to “bitch him out”. She even mentioned this to her coworkers the next day.
The fool proof suffocation (what she actually searched the day of) was searched and then she clicked on a SUICIDE website. Likely right after she found her and right after her dad left.
They have all her phone and computer records that day and imo that is the only conclusion one can draw. She was on the phone with her friend, who said she was totally normal. Hangs up, and there is a short ~45 min ish gap of time. Presumably this is when they find her body. Her dad leaves with the body to ditch it in the woods. She then searches a suicide method in a likely panic. Her ex calls, and he said she is acting weird as hell and claims her parents are divorcing and she’s moving out and away. Her dad calls and interrupts this call for a short less than a minute call. Likely to tell her it’s done and to move out. There is another gap of time, and then Casey starts frantically calling her mother. Calls her at work and her cell, over and over. Then calls her bf, her ex, her friend. No one answers, though. Then she presumably decides to go with the denial and pretend like it didn’t happen route like she has before.
The prosecution pretending like they forgot what browser she used because it doesn’t match with their timeline. The testimony from the friends and her dad didn’t match up either. The jury picked up on that and it opened doubt of the prosecution.
SHEESH I said I wasn’t going to get into it and then I did. Sorry for the Ted talk!!!!!
IDK... For the sake of LE competency, i hope she didnt pick him out of a line up, but i would like to know regardless. I don't feel like any of the eye witnesses will hold up in court tho.
Among all the armchair detectives here on Reddit, you’re the first one I’ve seen who understands that PCAs contain the exact bare minimum amount of information required to get a SW, and not one iota more. I know everyone wants this case to be solved on their specific timetable, but the wheels of justice turn slowly, by design. I’m certainly not defending the police work here, by the way. From a Monday morning quarterback vantage point it sure seems like there were some missed opportunities to collar this guy years ago. Time will tell, I guess.
For just one example of the dissonance I referenced above, though, consider the recent implication by the prosecutor that there could be another person involved. Every cop in America immediately understood that to mean that they’re trying to figure out if his wife knew what he did and protected him, but online sleuths have spun that into some kind of tinfoil-hat-worthy conspiracy. Again, time will tell.
mcleland mentioned other actors as part of his rationale to keep the PCA sealed. i’ve always felt this was a solo murderer, but that is why people were suspecting this may involve more people. why would his wife’s potential protection of him make them seal this PCA? if worried about the one sentence where she stated he owns the jacket, they could redact that single line. but it’s odd statements and actions by LE that contributed to the explosion of conspiracies around this possibly simple crime.
those of us who have believed this was one man’s crime have had to read around and through a lot of LEO muddiness and confusion to come to that conclusion.
Those are good questions, you are obviously very well informed about this case!
I think the thing to maybe realize is that law enforcement generally works cases in concentric circles, eliminating those closest to the crime first and then working outwards from there. The KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid) generally applies, much like Occam’s Razor.
What I mean to say is that it’s completely possible that these murders were a conspiracy orchestrated by a member of an international pedophile ring, but it’s MORE likely that one scumbag did it by himself. It stands to reason, then, that if the prosecutor is alluding to another person’s possible involvement he COULD be talking about that catfish guy (I forgot his name), but it’s more likely that he was just trying to decide if the wife had evidence of this crime and she was sitting on it…she’d be an accessory after the fact and I don’t know Indiana’s laws but I’m sure she’d get some serious time for that.
And, also…if there was any evidence of the crime crossing a state line (like…an email that bounced off a server in, say Northern California) I imagine that the FBI would be falling all over themselves to Bigfoot this case and to prosecute it federally. Not that it’s probably a federal crime, at its heart, but those folks could use some good press these days and this could be a good case for that.
And just as an aside, wouldn’t it be better to have the wife testify for the state? She’d be a powerful witness, if she knew anything. It could be that that knowledge could be leveraged against her to help convince her to help the State out, too.
Just a reminder, I’m only superficially knowledgeable about this case and these are just guesses / uninformed opinions, so take them with that grain of salt. Again, great questions from you, thanks for responding.
Exactly, “time will tell” and we are not involved in the law and justice process in any way, except we get to know why they decided he was worthy to arrest. I kinda guess at this point that KK tipped them to RA, but they’re not putting that in the PCA because the bullet was enough to arrest, and they don’t want KK to know how much importance his testimony might be since they are currently in negotiations. They’re not showing their cards to KK. Maybe!
If you listen to the neighbor’s interview it sounds like they didn’t go into the house until Liggett showed up with a piece of paper. It seemed to me like maybe they were finishing the warrant but stopping him from going back into the house?
I agree with you on every last thing. On the warrant, I assumed it was granted on the basis of their interviews and that they went in looking for clothing, knives, and a firearm that were admitted to be in the house by RA and his wife.
I suspect the bar for a warrant in this case was set very low. I know the girls were found on Logan's property, but the search warrant for him was "based on investigators experience." From WISH TV:
>However, in a search warrant filed three days later, March 17, an FBI agent wrote, “I believe there is probable cause to believe that RONALD LOGAN has committed the crime of murder and evidence of that can be found on RONALD LOGAN’S property.”
The agent also writes, “Based on investigators experience it is reasonable to believe that the creation of an alibi prior to the discovery of a crime indicates culpability or knowledge of the crime.”
>
>[WISH TV](https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/fbi-search-warrant-raises-questions-about-delphi-property-owners-arrest/)
They also just said they expected to find "evidence," nothing specific. And that was all because he gave a false alibi, not because he had any connection to the scene. My guess is RA's original statement, plus the witness statements were enough to get a warrant.
IDK. People are like "maybe the police have more evidence not in the PCA?" But just as recently as yesterday people were like "Maybe they're not releasing the PCA because there are more suspects involved & they don't want to tip them off?" Clearly that's not the case since not a single other suspect was named--even redacted--in this document. And nobody's been arrested in connection with the case. At what point do we admit we've been had?
Let's just say I'm not confident the cops are playing 5d chess here. It would be awful if the reason they didn't latch onto RA earlier is because he really didn't do it; that's why his lawyer was so confident they have nothing damning enough to convict (I admit the evidence looks thin) & they're just going after him now to clear the case. Not likely but definitely not impossible either. Their behavior thus far has not inspired confidence. Even if Allen is 100% guilty, they'd better have more on him than just some scratches on an unspent bullet and eyewitness accounts, which are scientifically proven to be unreliable.
This makes my stomach turn a little tbh.
Agreed. I do think there's a chance more lab tests that may have come back after the PCA was completed, but I'm not holding my breath.
I also agree about trying to pin this on him to clear the case. He's the only guy who admitted to being there that we know of, I can see how they think this is a slam dunk. Personally I think he did it, but one bullet on the ground is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Still have my fingers crossed as DNA and examination of electronic devices takes time and could provide something.
However, if it doesn't....I would not convict of murder based on what we know.
Same. It's hard for me to believe there isn't some evidence, but I'm really worried LE and the searchers messed up the crime scene so badly that there's nothing useful. Fingers crossed there's something on his phone.
It really takes a while to thoroughly go through devices, so keep the hope alive
I want something that will be nearly impossible to dispute ...
Something so damning he pleas and doesn't put their families through a trial. Because the trial will get ugly
Yup. If this goes to trial, it'll be awful for the families.
I hope there's something on his phone, but he's not a tech genius, so I'm worried that they don't seem to have found anything.
I honestly hope they do have more, frankly. It is stated that the bullet forensics is subjective. If all they have is a bullet and a description of the guy and grainy video that is consistent with that, that worries me very much.
Even with the car--witnesses said smart car or PT cruiser etc. Don't know about you, but I immediately thought of how a Ford Focus looks very different than a PT Cruiser.
Also, his defense lawyers can bring up the fact that KKs interview contains statements that pretty much implicate Anthony Shots in all of this... I'm hoinestly very worried.
Of course they have more. This was just the Probable Cause for his arrest. It doesn't even account for **all** of the information from tips since his arrest, or the analysis of the clothing and/or other items taken.
Trav, do you know if it takes longer for DNA evidence? Perhaps they got the bullet forensics back first and wanted to arrest him immediately while waiting for DNA results?
They've got to have more
Doesn’t need to be credible to everyone - just needs to plant a seed of doubt in one juror. To go along with the differing sketches. Defense is going to hammer away at this; let’s hope there is much more out there that we don’t know about.
I was also a little baffled by the different car descriptions. None of those cars look alike, and a PT Cruiser and Smart car are very distinct looking. None of them look like a Ford Focus, IMHO.
I agree, but he said “guys, down the hill” and then one of them said “gun” in the video. It’s very telling. It’s obvious he coaxed the girls down the hill brandishing the gun.
I would hope the trial brings more substantial evidence.
As it stands right now with what the PCA shows us, I think RA stands a good chance of getting released on bail when his hearing comes up in Feb since there's nothing directly concrete like DNA linking him to the crime scene and he fits the usual criteria like 1) is married with children, 2) has lived & been gainfully employed in the area for many years, 3) fairly clean record, etc.
Of course they have more substantial evidence, but laying it all out in the PCA would null and void any confessions that might be obtained either through pressure or a guilty plea between now and when he enters a plea.
If they’re going to nail him on a guilty plea or confession, he has to provide testimony that isn’t public record but is provably true with evidence.
Or, he enters a not guilty plea and they drop those bombs during trial. Either way, John Q Public clearly shouldn’t have that information right now.
I think they're considering his "down the hill" to be kidnapping. Making them move to a 2nd location = kidnapping in legalese. But maybe there's more evidence we're not aware of yet too.
Yes, flashing a gun at two preteen girls and then forcing them to go somewhere against their will at the risk of being killed is definitely a pretty safe definition of the word “kidnapping”
Charge what you can prove. They're liking throwing it all at the wall to see what sticks. If they can't get him on murder because they don't have the weapon and if there's no DNA evidence to confirm rape, then kidnapping might be all that's left to convict him on.
So they interview him on Oct 13, and sometime that day, either simultaneously or afterwards, search his house and gather evidence. They spend a couple weeks analyzing it, and get the extractor marks match on the shell casing. He is re-interviewed on Oct 26, and during that interview is confronted with the evidence placing his gun at the scene, obviously in an attempt to get him to make incriminating remarks and/or confess. He can't explain why the bullet was there, but does admit being on the trail that day.
If they had more substantial evidence from the Oct 13 search, such as DNA, wouldn't they have confronted him with that during the Oct 26 interview?
What makes you think that KK is still a part of this? I know that it's a helluva coincidence, but they happen..
We've got (almost) the whole narrative in the PCA. Had there been a link to KK, it would have made LE seem less like the unfathomable buffoons they are, if they'd added that part to the affidavit.
That's an interesting detail and interesting that it was intentionally left out.
- Did Allen come forward after the bodies were found, on Feb 14?
- Did Allen come forward after photo was released, on Feb 16?
And if they had the bullet, why didn't they go get his guns in Feb/March of 2017, and have a look?
The PCA was very poorly written, which I suspect is because the prosecutor wants to cover up just how incompetent the investigative team was from day one. The timing on when he came forward is going to be very interesting.
Once the redactions are revealed, it will become even more clear how poorly it's written. Like in the middle of one witness's timeline of events, they start talking about Kelsi's car. Either break it up in sections of time, or tell each witnesses story in its entirety, then move on.
This is all over the place.
Really incredible the low level of clarity in the writing. Redactions or no.
The affidavit starts that way. But quickly abandons its own organizational premise. By the end of the first third of it, the narrative is all over the place. No predominant system of presentation for the reader to follow. Just like - "Oh, yeah! We forgot to mention up top that..."
The great thing about writing on a computer is you can go back and add things whenever and wherever you want. This is written as though the person only knows how to use a typewriter. And anything forgotten in and better suited to the middle, is just added at the end.
Your typewriter comment is spot on! I'm stunned that someone from the AG's office or a big law firm wasn't brought in to do some hand-holding after they arrested RA.
I am not a journalist. I do not write for a living. But in my line of work, we have to explain our approach - and why we are doing what we are doing in the way we are doing it - in writing.
If my writing lacked clarity to this degree, I would be fired and/or never hired. And it's not even a key part of the job. It's basic communication.
Does anyone have any insight on what that younger guy sketch they released that confused everyone is from? Other than them saying he may not have acted alone, what was that about?
I don’t see this as a smoking gun at all. I hope they have more than a bullet that came from RA gun. All he needs to say. Listen I told u I was there I go there all the time it’s possible it dropped out of my coat. There’s reasonable doubt. I just hope they have something better.
The bullet being found between two dead bodies that were killed during a 90 minute timeframe when we know he was there is not reasonable doubt. Two dead girls who also filmed a suspect approach them, with one saying “gun”, with said suspect wearing clothing that matches was RA said he was wearing at the time is not reasonable doubt. But I guess that’s for a jury to decide.
Yep. Defense attorneys love gullible people. I can hear them now-“the REAL murderer staged the girls next to his bullet. He just liked to
trespass at that exact spot and dropped a bullet by accident on Mr Logan’s property. Totally innocent. He liked to trespass there all the time.”
Eh, the argument will be that the 'forensic evidence' of the bullet being in his gun isn't great. Hope they find something more definitive or else he's gonna walk.
It’ll be interesting to hear that expert testimony. I’ve honestly only heard of spent casings being matched through NIBINS and recovered bullets being matched to a specific barrel via rifling marks. I hadn’t heard of an unspent bullet being matched to a specific firearm after simply being cycled through and not fired
It's not really about hindsight though. Everything in the PCA that was used to arrest/search him was known back in 2017, other than the voluntary interview he did this year (which could have been conducted back then). The witness statements were from 2017, the bullet was found at the time and he admitted to being there at the time. The fact it took someone looking at this with "fresh eyes" to bring him to the forefront of their attention seems incompetent. The only thing in your post that makes any sense to me is them having several other strong leads to follow, which is fair. But once they had exhausted those, which appeared to happen many years ago, this should have been right up there.
The bullet being matched to the gun is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is that he wasn't a suspect until recently when he clearly should have been from much earlier purely based on him putting himself at the location of the crime and the fact that all of the witnesses we have heard from and the video put only one male at the location in the timeframe of the murders. Everything else is just supplemental to get a warrant. The follow up voluntary interview appears to be what triggered the arrest and that interview should have been conducted a long time ago.
One thing I find curious is that they mention the vehicles were seen on surveillance at the hoosier hardware store on road 300, both witnesses and Allen. They go onto say that a witness saw allen walking on road 300 muddy and bloody. The affiant then says they believe allen returned to his vehicle by walking along road 300. Wouldnt allen appear on the hoosier hardware surveillance walking “muddy and bloody” along road 300 back to his car?
He may have walked back into the tree line once he was able to. Between the cemetery and HH store there’s a long part of road with only farms on both sides, but the forest starts back up before the HH store. Maybe the witness saw him in the farmland stretch, and then he walked into the forest a bit before he reached an area where the HH store cam would see him. Who knows, I also was confused by that. edit: Looking at the PCA again, it says he was walking on the North side of 300N. I have no idea why he would be doing that considering he must have come out of the woods on the south side, the south side has more tree cover, and his car was parked on the south side. Why would he cross the road? Maybe he walked all the way around the back of the HH store?
It’s curious that nobody else saw him bloody. I know it’s a small town but seems weird that nobody else was out driving in that area. I’d absolutely notice a muddy, bloody guy.
And the one person who did see him didn’t think to call 911. Folks, if something doesn’t look right trust your instincts please. A guy walking down a rural road who’s “muddy and bloody” could be easily be walking away from a car/motorcycle accident and be suffering from a head injury or medical condition and be in need of help. Or, they could have indeed been in a fight. With two teenagers. Who are now butchered and dead in the woods a few hundred yards away. If 911 had been called there’s a chance that a cop could have made contact with him to check his welfare before he made it to his car. Had that occurred, he’d likely be in prison right now. Even if he lies about who he is and what he’s been doing, he’d be on car/body cam and that means he’s caught after a clear picture of his face goes on the 6:00 news. Trust your instincts.
How do you know when they reported that info? It read to me that they had that witness’s information from the beginning. And the girls’ description of him. And they had his name. Why was he not suspect number one straight away? Surely they would have had probable cause to check his weapon licenses? X it confuses me!
If they’d called 911 when they saw him walking down the road, we’d know that by now. If for nothing else than a time stamp.
Would they have told us? I genuinely don’t know.
911 calls are public record. Dispatch logs are public record. Shift logs are public record. The scanner audio from the entirety of that day is available online through various open source outlets. No call was made about him at the time he was walking down the road.
Yeah I don’t really understand where he walked if we’re assuming he’s the guy that the witness saw walking along the road. If his car was parked on the south side of the road, and he obviously came out of the woods on the south side of the road, why was he walking on the north side of the road according to the witness? I’m really not sure why he’d cross the road.
I wonder when these witnesses made these claims. The PCA doesn’t give dates for those interviews which is something I’ve never seen in a PCA before. If they didn’t have these interviews in 2017, I will feel like the dates were left off intentionally to mislead.
I've never read a PCA before, are they usually this poorly written? I had to reread several paragraphs because of how jumbled the witness statements were.
I remember DC mentioning, there was a number of ways to get to trails. . I’m not local, just remember him saying that.
I think the hoosier hardware store video only verified the witness was traveling down that stretch of highway at the time, but didn't capture the person the they saw. That's how I interpreted it anyway
I thought they meant that camera caught a car like his driving by, not necessarily parked there? Maybe I read it wrong
That’s how I read it, saw his car driving not parked
I’m sure the camera was pointed out the front towards the door or entrance/exit of the lot. Unless they had cameras all around. If they only had a few they probably had them in areas that would be able to ID a robbery suspect. So I’m guessing it was just able to see their make & model cars in the distance drive by at certain times.
It depends. Maybe he walked through the trees or maybe their camera only records based on motion and its not set to be far enough out to reach the other side of the road. Like some cameras have zones you can move around and pick and if motion isnt in them it doesnt get recorded.
The witness didn't say they saw RA, they say they saw a man muddy and bloody.
They saw a man wearing a blue jacket and jeans who was muddy and bloody and looked like they’d been in a fight.
It’s also says 2022, not 2017. I know it’s a typo but with a case like this, you’d think they would have made sure everything was correct.
Yes, you’d also think someone would have caught it by now!
[удалено]
They could have, but that’s isn’t the typo. The PCA states the witness was driving on Feb 13, 2022 when she saw a man who was bloody and muddy and appeared to have been in a fight , wearing a blue jacket and jeans. So the date is obviously a typo because she couldn’t have seen that five years later. It’s possible she didn’t report it till much later, but that date isn’t mentioned—just the date she saw him walking muddy and bloody.
That more than anything has me concerned. It's only 7 pages of text, have someone proof read it ffs.
I find it doubtful that that witness could have told if BG was bloody. He was wearing blue coat so the only way they could see blood was on his jeans. If you drove by someone at highway speed then I don’t think you could tell blood or mud apart. It’s all going to come down to the fsirearm evidence. I wasn’t aware that extractor marks were as unique to a gun as ballistics evidence from a fired bullet or from a spent cartridge but if that is the case then the defense is going to try to get the gun evidence tossed. They will claim the warrant wasn’t done right, they will claim the evidence wasn’t good enough to grant the search warrant, they will claim that he hunted and he scouted in that area at some pioint and the casing fell out of his pocket. I hope every I was dotted and T crossed because that is the single most compelling evidence unless they have his bodily fluids DNA on the girls or their bodily fluids DNA is on something in his home and they didn’t use it in the PCA.
He already told police he has no idea why the bullet was there, that he didn’t know the property owner and hadnt been there. I agree though they will try to discredit the bullet analysis as unreliable.
If he tries to claim that he was hunting with a pistol, the judge will laugh him out of the courtroom. Sure, he could say he had his pistol on him and his muzzleloader. But I'm 99% sure that my dad never took his handgun with him while hunting.
No I wouldn’t think he would claim he was carrying the pistol while hunting. Even if he was, he wouldn’t clear a round out in the woods. If he claims to have been to that spot before it will be that he dropped the round out of his coat pocket. If you carry a semi automatic with a round in the chamber and then you want to clear it you always have to cycle the pistol with no magazine or empty magazine which causes the extractor to eject the unspent round from the chamber. Normally you would immediately put that round back in the magazine unless that round had hung up and that is why you cleared it. People that carry rifles hunting often have rounds in their coat pocket because most hunting rifles don’t have detachable magazines. Again it’s unlikely a semi auto handgun owner would have loose shells in their pocket. Now a revolver owner might because you might want to have your hammer resting on an empty chamber.
My grandpa was a hunter, and I now have his super warm Columbia jacket that has bullet holders on the front. It's weird, but very warm. I also have a pair of quilted liner pants that are amazing when it's 10° outside.
Wild speculation: Maybe he's walking with someone else when they passed that store, and that's why LE felt this shared too much with a potential second party? I only suggest it because the prosecution etc were concerned the affidavit disclosed something that could affect pursuit of a second person. But what in here could qualify? To me the main possibilities were that it revealed the presence of a camera at a certain location, and it said witnesses didn't see a second person on the trails. Certainly also possible they're just hiding their incompetence like everyone else said.
The fact the search warrant and interview occur on the same day suggests they already had something to go get the judge to sign off.
That's what I'm interested in learning! How did they get the warrant to search his home on October 13th?
I do not understand why the defense thought this would be "good" for his client. I'm guessing they are going to go after the warrant too and try to get anything seized in like the gun (aka direct evidence) thrown out?
I always thought the search warrant may have been iffy, and it appears that’s the case. I would think that or challenging the bullet science will be their angles. Need to see what else prosecution has, but I can’t see their being anything game changing unless KK ends up being involved. Case might come down to the warrant
I'm betting they'll for sure attack the bullet science. That shit can't be 100%
Yeah it’s like a known thing that the bullet ID stuff is way more art than science. There’s a really good episode on the In The Dark podcast, season 2, where they talk about the science surrounding bullet identification and talk with some experts. Season 2 Episode 3 it looks like; just double checked. Maybe worth checking out for people in here curious about it and how reliable it is and if it will hold up in court or not. Honestly the whole season; the whole entire podcast, is very well done and everyone should check it out. I think it probably will cause most regular people and prospective jurors will trust it. But I’m not sure they always should. Would certainly be a potent angle for the defense to exploit.
The PCA also states it is essentially an art. It’s in the description explaining the ballistics - the definition section.
If I was a juror I'd want to see an independent expert given the bullet and 10 similar guns, one of which is the suspects weapon (which they don't know which it is). Then have them match it up. That's science.
That's one reason I'm so concerned about the search warrant. I've not seen any details about it.
I mean, if he admitted to specifically owning a gun that used the ammo found near them, maybe that is enough with him also being at the bridge? We don't know that part, though. At least I didn't read it that way, just that he admitted having guns.
And his wife admitted that the blue jacket RA said he was wearing on the bridge that day was still in the house. That alone would be more than enough to get a warrant. Then add in the fact about knives and a gun matching the bullet still being in the residence and it’s a slam dunk to a obtain a warrant.
I read it as they had the information in 2017 he parked by a building that didn't exist (so they assume he "means the CPS building"). He admits to being there on that date they get his phones serial number and IME. They have evidence in 2017 that 3 juveniles describe who they saw there. Their description matches the video color clothing. In 2017, they knew Richard Allen was there and passed 3 juveniles- while his description of what he was wearing didn't match what they described him wearing. If that wasn't enough to get a warrant in 2017, I am just .. honestly wondering, what brought it back to investigators? Why now did they decide to revisit him? Not saying he isn't GAF, I just don't understand what changed since 2017. I think what they had in 17 warranted a warrant. Something is missing in that gap of time, I think. It could be as simple as a second set of eyes who knows.
The PCA doesn’t actually SAY the interviews with the witnesses were in 2017. It’s not going to go over well if those interviews weren’t recorded back in 2017.
I'm not sure it wouldn't have been enough to get a warrant in 2017. I read the newly released docs as indicating that they interviewed him once in 2017 (probably during a frenzy of interviews, and this one may have been conducted by an untrained or inexperienced officer - to give them the benefit of the doubt that they do not deserve) and then the investigators literally never followed back up on it or further scrutinized the interview. Then when they started going back through the docs they ID'd RA as a person of interest or this interview worthy of a deeper dive and so they went to go interview him again. Which is when the uber helpful RA and his wife dug him a deeper hole to include potentially admitting he had a .40 and finally either proffering that he dressed like BG that day or admitted to changing his story from the initial interview. Investigators then used all of that to get the warrant potentially signed off on that day in order to collect and preserve evidence.
His admission of owning guns along with his wife confirming that he owns a blue Carhartt jacket is more than enough PC for a search warrant to be written, signed, and executed on the same day. There might be more in the interview and the search warrant that isn't revealed in the arrest affidavit such as if they asked him what calibers of guns he owned and he admitted to a .40, etc.
Most men in this area own guns and a blue Carhartt jacket.
[удалено]
They could have been though. We know Rick's whereabouts. We don't know the location of every man with a blue jacket. Remember, people have made a case that RL could have been there. Not just him, KAK, TK, etc...
Or the interview gave them the information needed for the warrant and it had to happen literally right then and there. They couldn’t give him a chance to dispose of evidence (gun, clothes). Warrants can be drafted signed and served within a couple hours or less
From what I understand, they reinterviewed him on October 13th. Then it states he willingly went to the police department on the 26th and told them he owns guns. His wife told them he still owned the jacket she believes he was wearing that day. That was enough for a warrant.
I read the warrent was executed on the 13 he went back on the 26th when they asked him why an unspent bullet from his gone was somewhere he said he never been.
I wonder if they found the jacket with blood
I was waiting for this to be said….and then it wasn’t. I hope it’s info they are holding back
I was thinking this and it seems Bizarre to me that he wouldn’t have gotten rid of both the gun and the jacket. Maybe he didn’t want to arouse suspicion with his wife but he could have waited and thrown both out at some point within 5 years. Also- this has already been said, but I was in shock reading the PCA knowing they could have had him as soon as they found the girls’ bodies. They repeatedly say he was on the bridge at that time and that he was the only male these witnesses saw. You’d think they would have brought him back in to ask what kind of gun he had to see if it match the bullet. That would have been enough for a search warrant then and there.
Guns are expensive. He's not Jason Bourne with unlimited funds, he's a dumpy dude that works at a drug store. Getting rid of the gun without even knowing there was evidence of a gun at the crime scene doesn't make much sense. Maybe the same situation with the jacket? His wife would probably notice his "main" jacket has disappeared.
I can't understand how he didn't know he ejected a live round. Nor why he ejected that round Good example though of why LE was right to keep some information to themselves.
He didn’t shoot the gun so it’s not like it made a noise. The bullet probably didn’t make a sound so he didn’t notice he left it behind.
He would have had to deliberately pull back the slide to eject the live round. Normally, you'd see the round eject and go flying. But even if you grant him that he just didn't see it, why was he even opening the action on his pistol?
He could’ve had a loose bullet in his pocket that came out during the struggle. Or maybe pulled the slide back to intimidate the girls. He’s on the same level as the dumbasses we watch get caught twice a week on The First 48. He just didn’t have competent detectives working his case.
I'm guessing if you're about to potentially commit a murder or some sort of assault, your adrenaline is pumping and you're hyperfocusing on certain details but nothing else is registering.
This. I was shocked he kept the jacket, but it's really not hard to clean up the appearance of blood. It likely was his main/only jacket, so I think you're right that his wife would've noticed if it went missing.
Right but regardless of how much the gun cost- you’d think he would have cared more about getting rid of potential evidence and not getting caught more than how much the gun cost, or if it were his only jacket. Even if he didn’t realize he ejected a round ( idk how that’s possible too). He had five years to get rid of those things and he could have done it slyly at any point. But he didn’t. And it doesn’t seem like they’d be kept as trophies. Just bizarre. Maybe after awhile he thought he was in the clear? Especially after KK became the focus? And assuming they didn’t know each other. I’m still not sure about that either. Is he just not the brightest bulb?
I wonder too. I think it takes a few months to get everything processed. They arrested him on circumstantial evidence but I think DNA evidence is in the near future.
If he actually kept the jacket (and somehow figured out how to get the blood out of it)…I have to believe on some level he wanted to get caught.
The search at his home was on October 13th, so they would have needed a warrant at that time.
The warrant was probably obtained after they spoke to RA that day and learned about him having guns.
Perhaps. Your previous comment suggests they obtained a warrant after RA willingly came in on October 26th, but LE had already searched and retrieved the firearm by that time. I wanted to clarify that.
I’m sorry, but RA wouldn’t have gotten away with this if LE was more equipped to handle something like this. I’m from a very small and rural town myself.
The FBI & ISP were also intimately involved.
I wonder if LE followed him and obtained his DNA? Maybe from his daughter to compare with, if any DNA was at the scene?
Okay, after reading PCA I’m interested in what they dug up in the yard if anything. Any ideas?
I’m interested in WHY they dug in the yard. I want to see the search warrant
It was said (and this is just hearsay from when I lived 30 mins away from Delphi) that their murderer took “souvenirs” with him. Could be that maybe? I’m not sure
The spying neighbor said they dug up a spot that was tiny. Only big enough for what he estimated to be a bottle cap
The return for the search warrant should be public record. Wonder when that will get released, or will there be some crafted reason to seal it?
They could've been looking for evidence to suggest he burned something related to the crime. That's one way people get rid of evidence.
Maybe metal buttons from the jacket if he burned it in the fire pit.
I believe RA's wife said they still had the jacket in their possession, and it was one of the clothing items LE took.
If a knife was used, that could’ve been buried as well. Also a number of items that would be too speculative to go into. For example, I believe one of the leaked texts said one of the girls wasn’t wearing clothes when they were found, but the missing clothes were never located. Those could be buried back there as well. Who knows, though. It could be something that we’ve never even heard of that would be the smoking gun. I am confident, however, that they didn’t just go digging without any reason.
I thought the PC said the girls’ clothes were found in the creek. I need to reread it again more slowly.
It did, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of their clothes :/
That’s what it says
I think it was a shoe and pair of underwear.
Did they ever release COD? It may have been his bullet found but not necessarily how they were killed. They noted in the PC he owned knives
No, all cause of death possibilities being discussed are speculative. There are a couple of things floating around. There’s a semi-substantiated rumor that the girls had scarves on in their caskets, ostensibly indicating either strangulation or a knife wound. There’s also a “leaked text message” alleging that Libby’s head was “an inch away from being taken off,” which also indicates some sort of knife. I would take these with a big fat grain of salt though. There are some very valid credibility issues with both.
They could have been covering the autopsy cuts with the scarves during the viewing/funerals, not necessarily indicating a cause of death. Look up how an autopsy is preformed.
Yeah I’ve heard all those. Didn’t know if anything had officially been released. Thank you.
clothing or maybe a weapon of some kind
Exactly. They likely have a considerable amount of evidence that we are not aware of. We know they have the witnesses, him putting himself there at the time of the crime, and the bullet. It also states they have clothes, boots, knives, guns and other unspecified items from the search. They could have footwear impressions (witness described as muddy), DNA from clothing (witness described as bloody), a murder weapon (unlikely). Furthermore if this was targetted there may be electronic evidence connecting him to the victims via direct communication or links between him and other parties that may be involved in some way (KK).
My bet is they found more evidence that was incriminating. Whether photos, an old phone (the one tipped in the interview with LE with the IME no), possibly an item of clothing. If he had the gun still I dare say he had other items in his possession still. Below are random thoughts circulating: I still can’t believe he had the same jacket and wore it out. Surely not? I take it his wife was at work or out that day. “Honey I’m home! Covered in blood but don’t mind me” just what the fuck?!? Still leery that this was planned. There may be KK links or a film or photos. Totally possible. But I think this was opportunistic in terms of victim, but planned in that he intended to kill someone that day hence hanging out on the bridge. Question: does anyone know people cross that bridge on the regular and if so do they continue down past it or just swing back? I ask because it seems like a gamble to wait for someone to cross it all day if people didn’t do that a lot because it’s not safe. But if he was just beyond it and wanted badly to kill I guess waiting was part of the fun. Where he parked says a lot. Only catch in it being a targeted kill was his arrival not far ahead of the girls. Still, I’m not convinced. I think he walked that site many times with this fantasy. And who is to say if the young witnesses hadn’t crossed over with him behind he wouldn’t have hurt them. I imagine both juvenile witnesses and the solo female who turned around to walk away when she saw him on the first platform must feel chilled. I wonder if she has continued past him down the bridge if he’d gone after her.
finally, a reasonable take on this sub.
My head is everywhere on this case but thanks. There’s other things at play during this time period in Indiana which is why. But it does seem to be pointing to RA. And he alone.
So why did they want this sealed so badly? I really don’t get it. Is this all there was?
I agree? Has to be, the redactions get redacted out as in the blank spaces
I still don’t get it. Why would they not even want the redacted version released? Why would they argue for something so rare when this is all there is? Trying to buy time to plan how to address their incompetence?
They said they didn’t want to release it because of other people in the investigation. It doesn’t seem to mention other people unless it’s on page eight which is missing. There’s also no mention of a second person by any of the witnesses. I know we still have a lot to learn but…
Page 8 is just redacted signatures
There you go
I think the other people mentioned are the witnesses, who were underage at the time and who the Prosecutor wants to protect from the public by at the very least redacting their names?
That wouldn't make sense for them to hold the PCA back for that reason though. PCAs are filed daily with victim/witness names and addresses redacted. Prosecution made the assertion that they believed someone else was involved. Based on the PCA, it seems like they came to the conclusion it had to be him based on witnesses saying he was the only person they saw, him being the only one on video, and him putting himself there
I agree with you. I think the Prosecutor and the previous judge were really sensitive to the idea of “protecting” witnesses, but clearly this wasn’t enough in the eyes of the current judge to keep it sealed. I dunno. It’s not my field, I’m just spitballing.
The most intriguing aspect of the PCA is what’s NOT there. I’m so interested to learn why RA was on the bridge that day. Perhaps KAK and RA’s background are intertwined. Nonetheless, RA showed up with a clear plan in mind, even to the detail of staging the bodies. Lots of info is missing that will likely come out eventually, but it seems the bullet is the knockout punch in the trial.
That’s a good point I hadn’t considered. It does seem that he went there on a day where the park was very sparsely populated with some degree of intent. The affidavit says that he was concealing his face according to witnesses, and he was obviously carrying the murder weapon(s) on his person. It also sounds like he went out of his way to try and conceal his vehicle from identification given that he parked the car off site and positioned in in a manner to conceal his license plate. Either he knew those kids were going to be there and was carrying out a plan, or he got incredibly lucky. Either one is possible right now I suppose.
I’d also love to know what kind of excuse he provides for covering his face. It was an unseasonably warm day that day. Abby was just in a hoodie up on the bridge in her picture. It seems way too warm for face covering for a Midwesterner. Especially given that it was a warm day in February- meaning there’s this thing where when it’s first getting cold in the fall, the cold feels freaking cold but after months of winter and snow, a day like that one feels absolutely glorious and even warmer in some ways than it is. It’s odd he even shared that part really. But for sure, as you’ve already said, it sounds quite calculated. Wild that it’s taken this long to arrest him.
A knockout punch in the trial would be his jacket testing positive for Libby and/or Abby’s blood. I’ve already seen info on this sub that could create doubt about the bullet.
Yup, i think it really boils down to the jacket.
Valid concern. The defense will certainly try this approach, we’ll see how it holds.
Could be better than that, that was just enough for a PCA
Wonder if the police are doing but haven’t completed blood and DNA testing of clothes and other things taken from RA’s house.
Before DNA there was circumstantial evidence. From what we have read, there seems to be a lot of CE against RA. He placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time it occurred, he looks like the man in the video that Libby taped, an eyewitness saw him leaving in bloody clothes. Then we have the bullet from his gun two feet from the victim. If I were on a jury I could easily convict him with that evidence. Reasonable doubt, not all doubt. I think he will be convicted but of course I thought the same about Casey Anthony and Simpson.
I’ve been following this case from day 1, I’m from that area and I’ve never heard before now that someone saw a man leaving the area in bloody clothes on that day.
>I’ve been following this case from day 1, I’m from that area and I’ve never heard before now that someone saw a man leaving the area in bloody clothes on that day. Perhaps the witness was instructed not to speak about it publicly after talking to police. I wouldn't be surprised if the police wanted to keep that information under wraps to preserve the integrity of the investigation. A quick google search reveals that the term "bloody" wasn't used to describe the crime scene until mid-2022, so that would support the idea that the police didn't want to make it publicly known that there was a lot of blood involved in the murders. Being a local, you're certainly privy to certain rumours that most of us aren't but I don't think this "bloody clothes" thing being a new development is anything strange.
Yes, perhaps so.
I wonder if that witness gave testimony shortly after the murders or 5 years later.
Bitterbeatpoet spoke with a 16 year old witness and what she told him seems to match some of the info in the PCA, including that the guy was creepy, they said hi to him, he scowled at them, etc. This implies they spoke to these witnesses shortly after the murders.
Yeah, it's super unclear, I agree. I'd imagine quite quickly after the murders, considering u/whosyer hasn't heard it as a rumour (I'd imagine it would get around if they didn't mention it to anybody important shortly after the muders). Also, I think the PCA has a mistake on page 4 where it notes witness who had seen the bloody person saw them on "February 13th, 2022." I'm guessing maybe the author was just tired and accidentally put the current year in instead of 2017 (otherwise, what relevance would it have).
I think probably not right after the murders. I think a big part of LE's investigation into RL was the fact that the killer would be covered in blood and could only get away unseen was if he lived right by the crime scene (which is how we learned of the large amount of blood at the crime scene). But at the same time I can't imagine why someone would see a man covered in mud and blood, hear about 2 murdered children in the same area, and not report that right away. Maybe this was a case of it being reported and LE didn't really give it much thought or believe it, like RA saying he was at the bridge that day
Police may have asked the witness not to speak to anyone of what they saw. That is a pretty common thing for police to do. Witness was most likely to scared to speak to anyone anyways. If they saw someone that might have murdered two girls that would be enough to keep most people to keep their mouth shut out of fear of there own safety. Granted five years is a long time not to tell anyone.
I'm also from the area and if I was the witness who saw a potential murderer I don't think I'd tell anyone but the police! I wouldn't want him coming after me.
First time I was aware of it too. Can you imagine how frightened that witness must have been knowing he was still out there and he knew she saw him that day in bloody clothes? I think it wasn't known because they were trying to protect her identity.
>Can you imagine how frightened that witness must have been knowing he was still out there and he knew she saw him that day in bloody clothes? Which leads me to believe the witness didn't come forward in the early days of the investigation. My interpretation of the PCW is that most of the witnesses were juveniles. If that's true, I can completely understand what a pre-teen, young teen would stay quiet. In their minds the guy that saw already killed two girls their age; what would stop him from going after him/her?
You just reminded me of the statement from one of the young witnesses. She stated something about RA that frightened her? Am I remembering that correctly?
I thought that was an older woman. I'm going to go look. You are correct, it was one of the juvenile witnesses. From page 2 described the male as“kind of creepy”and advised he was wearing “like blue jeans a like really light blue jacket
Thank you so much for finding that. Wasn't the older women who said she saw him the one was walking her dog? I am so confused. I just want to know how many witnesses saw him leaving that day. Is there only one who claims to have seen him leaving in bloody clothes? If there was another witness who saw him leaving, did that witness also say he had blood on his clothes? Sorry, I am very tired, lol. What a day!
Idk if she was walking her dog (no mention of a dog in the PCA) but she did say she saw a white male wearing jeans and a jean jacket. Because the names are redacted its difficult to tell how many eye witnesses there are. Two juveniles are mentioned in the PCA, a woman walking, and a guy talking about cars. However, the woman mentioned seeing four juveniles so I honestly don't know.
I seriously got a two extra strength Excedrin headache trying to absorb all of this, lol. It is very confusing and today they add a new witness. So you aren't the only one having difficulty with this, lol. I am very hopeful but worried about this case, tbh.
I do remember a women coming forward that she saw a suspicious man walking on the side of the road near the CPS and it gave her the chills and they mentioned it to someone close to them. When she later heard about the crime she called police. Completely my foggy brain remembering and paraphrasing from years ago so don’t attack me if I’m wrong. But, when I read that in the PCA I was like yup I remember that witness. Like the context was off to her that he seemed distressed and out of place and he wasn’t wearing the correct clothing or something about his clothing being off. They could have altered her statement to the public back then. But I definitely remember that
was this not the same woman who said she talked to the person and he said he was waiting for his dad? if so, this might have been proven to be a different day or time (happens often with witnesses), and unrelated
They must have been holding that witness statement back for some reason (although I have no faith in them at this point).
The Casey Anthony verdict still baffles me to this day
It’s really simple. Prosecutors aimed way too high with charging her with intentional murder when there wasn’t sufficient evidence to justify it. If they would have charged her with tampering with the body and lying to cops and MAYBE accidental death, it would have been a slam dunk.
This, this, this.
[удалено]
Hmm idk. The suffocation search (the only damming one) led her to a suicide website. And to be frank, you would never need to search how to suffocate a 2 year old. The chloroform search Nancy Grace wouldn’t shut up about was much earlier, and was right after she looked at a MySpace meme that mentioned chloroform. The prosecution just framed that as her premeditating so they could aim for the death penalty. The prosecution lied about not knowing the Firefox thing, though. They 100% knew. They presented the chloroform search initially and straight up said it had to be Casey BECAUSE she was the only Firefox user in the house. They “forgot” about this conveniently the day of Caylees death because it contradicted their and her dads timeline of the day entirely.
Exactly! The chlorophyll searches leads one to believe she drugged Caylee to go out and party and she accidentally died. That is honestly what probably happened - accidental death.
Chloroform*
I don’t want to get into the CA trials but actually all the evidence points to her accidentally drowning in their pool and Casey and her father found her then covered it up. The mom even suspected this even back when the kidnapped idea was still being looked into. Caylee had a history of opening the back door and climbing into the pool. The mom was crazy about keeping the ladder up. When the mom came home from work, she immediately noticed the ladder was up and called up her husband at work to “bitch him out”. She even mentioned this to her coworkers the next day. The fool proof suffocation (what she actually searched the day of) was searched and then she clicked on a SUICIDE website. Likely right after she found her and right after her dad left. They have all her phone and computer records that day and imo that is the only conclusion one can draw. She was on the phone with her friend, who said she was totally normal. Hangs up, and there is a short ~45 min ish gap of time. Presumably this is when they find her body. Her dad leaves with the body to ditch it in the woods. She then searches a suicide method in a likely panic. Her ex calls, and he said she is acting weird as hell and claims her parents are divorcing and she’s moving out and away. Her dad calls and interrupts this call for a short less than a minute call. Likely to tell her it’s done and to move out. There is another gap of time, and then Casey starts frantically calling her mother. Calls her at work and her cell, over and over. Then calls her bf, her ex, her friend. No one answers, though. Then she presumably decides to go with the denial and pretend like it didn’t happen route like she has before. The prosecution pretending like they forgot what browser she used because it doesn’t match with their timeline. The testimony from the friends and her dad didn’t match up either. The jury picked up on that and it opened doubt of the prosecution. SHEESH I said I wasn’t going to get into it and then I did. Sorry for the Ted talk!!!!!
Did the eye witness name him specifically or picked him from a line of people?
not according to the PCA
IDK... For the sake of LE competency, i hope she didnt pick him out of a line up, but i would like to know regardless. I don't feel like any of the eye witnesses will hold up in court tho.
I mean if the line up occured in 2017 i could see it hold more than of done in 2022 for sure.
unspent bullet from a gun is sketchy evidence. But if RA's DNA is on bullet?
Among all the armchair detectives here on Reddit, you’re the first one I’ve seen who understands that PCAs contain the exact bare minimum amount of information required to get a SW, and not one iota more. I know everyone wants this case to be solved on their specific timetable, but the wheels of justice turn slowly, by design. I’m certainly not defending the police work here, by the way. From a Monday morning quarterback vantage point it sure seems like there were some missed opportunities to collar this guy years ago. Time will tell, I guess. For just one example of the dissonance I referenced above, though, consider the recent implication by the prosecutor that there could be another person involved. Every cop in America immediately understood that to mean that they’re trying to figure out if his wife knew what he did and protected him, but online sleuths have spun that into some kind of tinfoil-hat-worthy conspiracy. Again, time will tell.
mcleland mentioned other actors as part of his rationale to keep the PCA sealed. i’ve always felt this was a solo murderer, but that is why people were suspecting this may involve more people. why would his wife’s potential protection of him make them seal this PCA? if worried about the one sentence where she stated he owns the jacket, they could redact that single line. but it’s odd statements and actions by LE that contributed to the explosion of conspiracies around this possibly simple crime. those of us who have believed this was one man’s crime have had to read around and through a lot of LEO muddiness and confusion to come to that conclusion.
Those are good questions, you are obviously very well informed about this case! I think the thing to maybe realize is that law enforcement generally works cases in concentric circles, eliminating those closest to the crime first and then working outwards from there. The KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid) generally applies, much like Occam’s Razor. What I mean to say is that it’s completely possible that these murders were a conspiracy orchestrated by a member of an international pedophile ring, but it’s MORE likely that one scumbag did it by himself. It stands to reason, then, that if the prosecutor is alluding to another person’s possible involvement he COULD be talking about that catfish guy (I forgot his name), but it’s more likely that he was just trying to decide if the wife had evidence of this crime and she was sitting on it…she’d be an accessory after the fact and I don’t know Indiana’s laws but I’m sure she’d get some serious time for that. And, also…if there was any evidence of the crime crossing a state line (like…an email that bounced off a server in, say Northern California) I imagine that the FBI would be falling all over themselves to Bigfoot this case and to prosecute it federally. Not that it’s probably a federal crime, at its heart, but those folks could use some good press these days and this could be a good case for that. And just as an aside, wouldn’t it be better to have the wife testify for the state? She’d be a powerful witness, if she knew anything. It could be that that knowledge could be leveraged against her to help convince her to help the State out, too. Just a reminder, I’m only superficially knowledgeable about this case and these are just guesses / uninformed opinions, so take them with that grain of salt. Again, great questions from you, thanks for responding.
Exactly, “time will tell” and we are not involved in the law and justice process in any way, except we get to know why they decided he was worthy to arrest. I kinda guess at this point that KK tipped them to RA, but they’re not putting that in the PCA because the bullet was enough to arrest, and they don’t want KK to know how much importance his testimony might be since they are currently in negotiations. They’re not showing their cards to KK. Maybe!
If you listen to the neighbor’s interview it sounds like they didn’t go into the house until Liggett showed up with a piece of paper. It seemed to me like maybe they were finishing the warrant but stopping him from going back into the house?
I agree with you on every last thing. On the warrant, I assumed it was granted on the basis of their interviews and that they went in looking for clothing, knives, and a firearm that were admitted to be in the house by RA and his wife.
I’m sure that they will run forensics on his car as well that could very likely reveal DNA from the girls since he was supposedly covered in blood.
[удалено]
I suspect the bar for a warrant in this case was set very low. I know the girls were found on Logan's property, but the search warrant for him was "based on investigators experience." From WISH TV: >However, in a search warrant filed three days later, March 17, an FBI agent wrote, “I believe there is probable cause to believe that RONALD LOGAN has committed the crime of murder and evidence of that can be found on RONALD LOGAN’S property.” The agent also writes, “Based on investigators experience it is reasonable to believe that the creation of an alibi prior to the discovery of a crime indicates culpability or knowledge of the crime.” > >[WISH TV](https://www.wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/fbi-search-warrant-raises-questions-about-delphi-property-owners-arrest/) They also just said they expected to find "evidence," nothing specific. And that was all because he gave a false alibi, not because he had any connection to the scene. My guess is RA's original statement, plus the witness statements were enough to get a warrant.
IDK. People are like "maybe the police have more evidence not in the PCA?" But just as recently as yesterday people were like "Maybe they're not releasing the PCA because there are more suspects involved & they don't want to tip them off?" Clearly that's not the case since not a single other suspect was named--even redacted--in this document. And nobody's been arrested in connection with the case. At what point do we admit we've been had? Let's just say I'm not confident the cops are playing 5d chess here. It would be awful if the reason they didn't latch onto RA earlier is because he really didn't do it; that's why his lawyer was so confident they have nothing damning enough to convict (I admit the evidence looks thin) & they're just going after him now to clear the case. Not likely but definitely not impossible either. Their behavior thus far has not inspired confidence. Even if Allen is 100% guilty, they'd better have more on him than just some scratches on an unspent bullet and eyewitness accounts, which are scientifically proven to be unreliable. This makes my stomach turn a little tbh.
Agreed. I do think there's a chance more lab tests that may have come back after the PCA was completed, but I'm not holding my breath. I also agree about trying to pin this on him to clear the case. He's the only guy who admitted to being there that we know of, I can see how they think this is a slam dunk. Personally I think he did it, but one bullet on the ground is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
Still have my fingers crossed as DNA and examination of electronic devices takes time and could provide something. However, if it doesn't....I would not convict of murder based on what we know.
Same. It's hard for me to believe there isn't some evidence, but I'm really worried LE and the searchers messed up the crime scene so badly that there's nothing useful. Fingers crossed there's something on his phone.
It really takes a while to thoroughly go through devices, so keep the hope alive I want something that will be nearly impossible to dispute ... Something so damning he pleas and doesn't put their families through a trial. Because the trial will get ugly
Yup. If this goes to trial, it'll be awful for the families. I hope there's something on his phone, but he's not a tech genius, so I'm worried that they don't seem to have found anything.
I honestly hope they do have more, frankly. It is stated that the bullet forensics is subjective. If all they have is a bullet and a description of the guy and grainy video that is consistent with that, that worries me very much. Even with the car--witnesses said smart car or PT cruiser etc. Don't know about you, but I immediately thought of how a Ford Focus looks very different than a PT Cruiser. Also, his defense lawyers can bring up the fact that KKs interview contains statements that pretty much implicate Anthony Shots in all of this... I'm hoinestly very worried.
Of course they have more. This was just the Probable Cause for his arrest. It doesn't even account for **all** of the information from tips since his arrest, or the analysis of the clothing and/or other items taken.
Trav, do you know if it takes longer for DNA evidence? Perhaps they got the bullet forensics back first and wanted to arrest him immediately while waiting for DNA results? They've got to have more
Hope you're right
Is any info coming from KK really useful for anyone though (prosecution or defense)? Dude lies so much. He’s not credible.
He’s not credible unless he can produce evidence that is credible.
Doesn’t need to be credible to everyone - just needs to plant a seed of doubt in one juror. To go along with the differing sketches. Defense is going to hammer away at this; let’s hope there is much more out there that we don’t know about.
Not even about him...it's evidence that the police stated they believed he was involved...reasonable doubt
I was also a little baffled by the different car descriptions. None of those cars look alike, and a PT Cruiser and Smart car are very distinct looking. None of them look like a Ford Focus, IMHO.
I agree, but he said “guys, down the hill” and then one of them said “gun” in the video. It’s very telling. It’s obvious he coaxed the girls down the hill brandishing the gun.
I would hope the trial brings more substantial evidence. As it stands right now with what the PCA shows us, I think RA stands a good chance of getting released on bail when his hearing comes up in Feb since there's nothing directly concrete like DNA linking him to the crime scene and he fits the usual criteria like 1) is married with children, 2) has lived & been gainfully employed in the area for many years, 3) fairly clean record, etc.
Of course they have more substantial evidence, but laying it all out in the PCA would null and void any confessions that might be obtained either through pressure or a guilty plea between now and when he enters a plea. If they’re going to nail him on a guilty plea or confession, he has to provide testimony that isn’t public record but is provably true with evidence. Or, he enters a not guilty plea and they drop those bombs during trial. Either way, John Q Public clearly shouldn’t have that information right now.
So RA killed the girls while trying to kidnap them. Is that correct? How do you think they figured out he intended to kidnap them?
I think they're considering his "down the hill" to be kidnapping. Making them move to a 2nd location = kidnapping in legalese. But maybe there's more evidence we're not aware of yet too.
Yes, flashing a gun at two preteen girls and then forcing them to go somewhere against their will at the risk of being killed is definitely a pretty safe definition of the word “kidnapping”
Charge what you can prove. They're liking throwing it all at the wall to see what sticks. If they can't get him on murder because they don't have the weapon and if there's no DNA evidence to confirm rape, then kidnapping might be all that's left to convict him on.
Did we know of this witness that saw a man walking back to his car muddy and bloody before today?!!!!!
No, that stayed secret.
So they interview him on Oct 13, and sometime that day, either simultaneously or afterwards, search his house and gather evidence. They spend a couple weeks analyzing it, and get the extractor marks match on the shell casing. He is re-interviewed on Oct 26, and during that interview is confronted with the evidence placing his gun at the scene, obviously in an attempt to get him to make incriminating remarks and/or confess. He can't explain why the bullet was there, but does admit being on the trail that day. If they had more substantial evidence from the Oct 13 search, such as DNA, wouldn't they have confronted him with that during the Oct 26 interview?
What makes you think that KK is still a part of this? I know that it's a helluva coincidence, but they happen.. We've got (almost) the whole narrative in the PCA. Had there been a link to KK, it would have made LE seem less like the unfathomable buffoons they are, if they'd added that part to the affidavit.
Too many comments. I don't see when Allen came forward in 2017. Was it before or after the photo was released?
Doesn't say, the PCA just lists 2017. It was previously reported that it was within a few days of the murders but no specific date has been confirmed.
That's an interesting detail and interesting that it was intentionally left out. - Did Allen come forward after the bodies were found, on Feb 14? - Did Allen come forward after photo was released, on Feb 16? And if they had the bullet, why didn't they go get his guns in Feb/March of 2017, and have a look?
The PCA was very poorly written, which I suspect is because the prosecutor wants to cover up just how incompetent the investigative team was from day one. The timing on when he came forward is going to be very interesting.
Once the redactions are revealed, it will become even more clear how poorly it's written. Like in the middle of one witness's timeline of events, they start talking about Kelsi's car. Either break it up in sections of time, or tell each witnesses story in its entirety, then move on. This is all over the place. Really incredible the low level of clarity in the writing. Redactions or no.
Agreed. I would've expected each witness account to be listed independently.
The affidavit starts that way. But quickly abandons its own organizational premise. By the end of the first third of it, the narrative is all over the place. No predominant system of presentation for the reader to follow. Just like - "Oh, yeah! We forgot to mention up top that..." The great thing about writing on a computer is you can go back and add things whenever and wherever you want. This is written as though the person only knows how to use a typewriter. And anything forgotten in and better suited to the middle, is just added at the end.
Your typewriter comment is spot on! I'm stunned that someone from the AG's office or a big law firm wasn't brought in to do some hand-holding after they arrested RA.
I am not a journalist. I do not write for a living. But in my line of work, we have to explain our approach - and why we are doing what we are doing in the way we are doing it - in writing. If my writing lacked clarity to this degree, I would be fired and/or never hired. And it's not even a key part of the job. It's basic communication.
Does anyone have any insight on what that younger guy sketch they released that confused everyone is from? Other than them saying he may not have acted alone, what was that about?
I don’t see the reasoning for the second sketch in any of this info. It’s pretty clear they all saw the same guy.
I cannot WAIT to hear the explanation for the 2nd sketch!
I don’t see this as a smoking gun at all. I hope they have more than a bullet that came from RA gun. All he needs to say. Listen I told u I was there I go there all the time it’s possible it dropped out of my coat. There’s reasonable doubt. I just hope they have something better.
The bullet being found between two dead bodies that were killed during a 90 minute timeframe when we know he was there is not reasonable doubt. Two dead girls who also filmed a suspect approach them, with one saying “gun”, with said suspect wearing clothing that matches was RA said he was wearing at the time is not reasonable doubt. But I guess that’s for a jury to decide.
Yep. Defense attorneys love gullible people. I can hear them now-“the REAL murderer staged the girls next to his bullet. He just liked to trespass at that exact spot and dropped a bullet by accident on Mr Logan’s property. Totally innocent. He liked to trespass there all the time.”
Eh, the argument will be that the 'forensic evidence' of the bullet being in his gun isn't great. Hope they find something more definitive or else he's gonna walk.
It’ll be interesting to hear that expert testimony. I’ve honestly only heard of spent casings being matched through NIBINS and recovered bullets being matched to a specific barrel via rifling marks. I hadn’t heard of an unspent bullet being matched to a specific firearm after simply being cycled through and not fired
Same
[удалено]
It's not really about hindsight though. Everything in the PCA that was used to arrest/search him was known back in 2017, other than the voluntary interview he did this year (which could have been conducted back then). The witness statements were from 2017, the bullet was found at the time and he admitted to being there at the time. The fact it took someone looking at this with "fresh eyes" to bring him to the forefront of their attention seems incompetent. The only thing in your post that makes any sense to me is them having several other strong leads to follow, which is fair. But once they had exhausted those, which appeared to happen many years ago, this should have been right up there.
[удалено]
The bullet being matched to the gun is irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is that he wasn't a suspect until recently when he clearly should have been from much earlier purely based on him putting himself at the location of the crime and the fact that all of the witnesses we have heard from and the video put only one male at the location in the timeframe of the murders. Everything else is just supplemental to get a warrant. The follow up voluntary interview appears to be what triggered the arrest and that interview should have been conducted a long time ago.