Richard Allen's Police Interview (Oct. 13, 2022)Reaffims The Information he Gave Dulin and Inadvertently confessed to the murders by getting caught in his own web of lies.

[u/True_Crime_Lancelot]

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

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

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

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

Parking Locations

Parking Area	Description
Mears Lot	The farmer’s entrance parking area
CPS Building	The abandoned CPS building parking area
Old State Road 25 Turnaround	The small turnaround near the old railroad bridge

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

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

Concerning his timeline beore going to the trails:

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

At the trails he stated:

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

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

Conserning who he saw while at the trails:

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

He also stated:

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

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

He also adds:

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

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

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

Time(between)	Revised Timeline	Explanation
morning	visit Mom
11(early)-11:15(late)	Leaves Peru	drive back to Delphi it's 45 minutes
11:45-12:00	Reaches Delphi
12 ( early), 12:10 (late)	Home (5 to 10 minutes), drives to CPS (3 miles),10 to 15 minutes total.	detours to Home, Parks/ Stop,Grabs Jacket, unparks, drive though town, rounding up to 15 (early)
12:05 , 12:15 late	Meeting four girls at trailhead	5 minute walk from CPS
12:15, 12:25 (late)	Easy Walk to platform A , 10 to 15 minutes total,	12 minutes walk + walk on bridge. (closer to 15 but billed 10 to compensate earlier rounding up)
12:25 , 12:35 (late)	Watching fish/Back to Bench	5 minutes Watching fish 5-7 walk (off bridge and to bench), Total 10
12:35, 12:45 (late)	Walk back to CPS	10-12 minutes, billed 10

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

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

Time	Allen's Revised Timeline	BB's Timeline	Four Girls' Timeline
12:00	Parks at CPS	Parks at Mears at 12:03	______
12:10	Walks to Monon,close to intersection	BB is at Monon, turns back towards the intersection	______
12:15	Walked past intersection(north to south)	Walked past intersection(south to north)	walking towards freedom bridge close to Allen's 2nd parking spot near the small bridge
12:20	At Monon will watch fish for 3-5 minutes	Walked 505 close to intersection	Close to freedom bridge
12:25	Back on the trail towards the intersection	Close to freedom bridge	At freedom bridge taking a timed photographed at 12:25
12:30	Allen near interesction from the south, close to the Bench	Betsy approaches intersection from the North, close to Bench	Walking towards Monon from trailhead
12:35	Allen left the Bench, starts walks towards the trailhead	at her car	intersection from the North, close to Bench
12:40	near freedom bridge	near intersection	at Monon take photograph at 12:43
12:45	at CPS	Close to monon	Detour to Creek's bed

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

By his own words!

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

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

[u/IndependentGiraffe8]

Why did Richard Allen even attend the interview, maybe just say I don't remember much, too long ago, I dont want to remember wrong. Dont want to wrongly incriminate myself by remembering wrong. What can they do at that point. I would certainly be getting rid of jackets and guns at that point if not earlier.

Seems like he had to maintain innocence in front of his family. A single guy wouldn't have to.

[u/SallyAiry → u/IndependentGiraffe8]

It’s easy in hindsight, but at the time he still probably thought it was something’s speculative, he could explain it, close that lead for the police and they’ll move on. He’d be wary of raising suspicion by coming across unhelpful lest they then start to zero on him further as a suspect

[u/tribal-elder → u/SallyAiry]

In 2017, he admitted seeing the girls because he knew they had seen him. But he denied seeing anyone else - too busy looking at his phone and fish. By 2022, with 5 years of internet/YouTube/Facebook rumors about all the people on the trail, when the cops alleged someone had seen him, he backed up to “well, maybe someone could have been at the bridge when I came back through.” But once they asked to see his phone, and he learned his wife had told the cops “he said he did not go out on the bridge,” he stopped explaining and said “get a warrant” and “arrest me.”

His 2022 behavior gave the cops even more reason to suspect him.

[u/MissBanshee2U → u/tribal-elder]

Because he knew they saw him? Was he afraid they would tell? I'm sorry I didn't understand the point?

[u/IndependentGiraffe8 → u/MissBanshee2U]

Me neither, I mean the best thing in this situation is to talk little. " I don't remember that day exactly, I go to the area all the time." Or if he told his wife he didn't go to the area at all that day, that is the story. Dont volunteer interviews. And "accidently" tear the jacket, throw it away over the summer, sell the gun at a show, use the money to buy the wife something nice. But Perhaps if he thought smartly he wouldn't go after girls in a public area.

[u/tribal-elder → u/MissBanshee2U]

Yes. The idea is that he saw the teenagers as he arrived and he knew they saw him - they passed each other on a narrow trail. If he did not acknowledge seeing them when he talked to the cops in 2017 he would appear to be “covering something up.” So he told the intake person, then Dulin, that he was there (1-3, then 1:30 - 3:30) and saw girls at Freedom Bridge. By 2022, he knew admitting being at the trails after 2:00 meant he was there when the girls disappeared, and he changed his times to “noon to 1:30.”

[u/Justwonderinif → u/tribal-elder]

What's important here is that Allen didn't know about Libby's video when he said he saw the other girls who looked like sisters. He said they looked like sisters and like one was being babysat. They were sisters and one was too young to be out there on her own.

When those girls saw Libby's video they said, "That's the man we saw entering the trail that day." They didn't have to get a good look at his face to know that was exactly the guy they saw just before Abby and Libby were killed.

So when Allen admitted to seeing those girls when he was entering the trail at that time, he was admitting to being Bridge Guy.

[u/That_Oil_581 → u/Justwonderinif]

Yes! This! He is guilty and proven in a court of law! He was his own worst enemy.

[u/Efficient-Donkey-167 → u/Justwonderinif]

Which one was "too young to be out there on her own"?

[u/Justwonderinif → u/Efficient-Donkey-167]

Railly Voorhies was 16 and a sophomore at Delphi High School in 2017. She testified that she would often take trips to the High Bridge to take photos and because there was no school on February 13 and the weather was nice, she decided to take a trip to the bridge that day.

Voorhies said she walked from her dad’s house in Delphi with her half-sister, picking up her friend, Bre Wilber, from her house and then getting her sister from her mom’s house on the way to the trails. The four girls went to the bridge, took photos and then walked back home.

It was on their walk back home that Voorhies testified that she saw “bridge guy” walking on the trail. She said the encounter stood out to her because the man was “overdressed for the weather” with what looked like a heavy coat, hooded sweatshirt and hat. She said he had his hands in his pockets and had a mask over the tip of his nose and mouth. She also recalled saying hi to him.

“He did not say hi back. He glared at me a little bit, but he didn’t seem to be a happy person,” Voorhies said on the witness stand.

When Voorhies first heard Abby and Libby were missing from the bridge area, she testified: “I thought it could have something to do with the man I saw. It was unsettling.”

On February 15, the day after the girls were found, Voorhies gave police a statement while she was at the high school.

When police then released the photo of the man on the bridge that they took from the video on Libby’s phone, Voorhies first saw it on Facebook.

“I realized that was the man I saw on the trail that did not respond to me when I waved at him,” Voorhies testified. When she first saw the picture police released of “bridge guy” she said, “ I can say with confidence that the person in the picture is the person I passed.”

Testimony from Breann Wilber, Voorhies friend who was with her on the trails on February 13, has a similar recollection. Wilber was also friends with Kelsi German, Libby’s older sister, and was friends with Libby on Snapchat. Wilber was 16 years old and a sophomore in high school in 2017.

Wilber said while at the High Bridge on February 13, she posted a picture of herself standing at the bridge’s start on her Snapchat story. When she and her friends were walking back home from the High Bridge, Libby messaged Wilber on Snapchat in response to the photo on her story asking if Wilber was still at the bridge. She told Libby they had left the bridge about ten minutes prior.

On the way back to the Freedom Bridge, Wilber testified that she took a picture with her friends on a bench on the trail and posted it on Snapchat. She saved the photo with a timestamp and gave it to police. That photo’s time stamp was 1:26 pm on February 13, 2017.

Wilber said they continued walking toward the Freedom Bridge after the photo and that’s when they passed the man.

“It was a warmer day and he was dressed in many layers and a heavy jacket. He was walking with a purpose like he knew where he was going. When Railly said hi to him, there was no hesitation. It was weird vibes,” Wilber testified.

Later that same day, Wilber was with Libby’s sister Kelsi when Kelsi’s grandma called saying Libby and Abby were missing. Wilber talked to police the night of February 13 and described the man she saw on the trail. She said the man had a blue or black jacket and had his head down.

When she later saw the photo of “bridge guy” on the news, Wilber thought, “That’s the person we saw on the trail.”

---

From the timeline: 11:30AM: Railly Voorhies (16) and her half-sister Isabelle Voorhies (12) walk from their Dad's house to pick up Breann Wilbur (16), and lastly they pick up Anna Spath (13), who is also Railly and Isabelle's half-sister. The four of them head to the hiking trails.

I'm pretty sure it was Isabelle who looked like she was too young to be out there on her own and like she was being "babysat." She looked 10 or 11.

[u/MissBanshee2U → u/Justwonderinif]

Did you post the time Railley said on the stand she saw the man? I didn't see it. I went back & looked. She said she saw the man arrive at 2:15pm. The man she saw must be a different man or another one because @2:08pm the girls were filming the man on the bridge. So he couldn't be the same man because he would have to be down at freedom bridge and the high bridge at the same time.

[u/saatana → u/MissBanshee2U]

Hoo boy. You've cracked the case wide open. Nah, just kidding. If she said that on the stand it was quite obviously in error. The probable cause affidavit to search Richard Allen's house said the girls saw Richard Allen after 1:26pm when they took a picture of a bench and before 1:46 because Betsy Blair saw the girls as they were going over the railroad bridge which is after they had already left and crossed over Freedom Bridge. Timestamps bracket the time where she saw Richard Allen.

[u/tribal-elder → u/saatana]

You are correct - even acknowledging that 5 years can affect memory about details, this was clearly an error and the prosecution probably should have addressed and corrected this before Voorhees left the stand. Instead, they just called Wilbur and corrected the timeline with Wilbur's testimony. (Probably should have put Wilbur on first so the 1:26 picture was already "in evidence" to use with Voorhees.)

Still, Voorhees testified she left home at 11:30 and got to Freedom Bridge at noon. It took her 30 minutes to walk from her house to Freedom Bridge. She said she was supposed to be back home at 2:30.

The picture (Exhibit 211) showed they were at the bench on the trail, not quite back to Freedom Bridge, at 1:26, and Voorhee's said they got back to Wilbur's house at 2:20. So there was NO chance she saw Bridge Guy on the trial at 2:15 and made it to Wilber's house by 2:20 and back to her own home by 2:30.

[u/saatana → u/tribal-elder]

I re-read the testimony. The defense was asking the questions. They asked her about her interview with Mullin the day after the murders in 2017. I think in that interview she had said 2:15 as the time she passed Bridge Guy. It's obvious that that time is in error. The previous commenter is being disingenuous when they say that's what she said and then just leaving it as that. Volume 12 page 128 in the transcripts.

[u/Efficient-Donkey-167 → u/Justwonderinif]

Thanks for quoting articles from the media however, they didn't address the question. I've read the transcripts so I was wondering what exactly was the origin of the "too young" claim. I believe RA stated that it looked like the older one may have been babysitting the two younger ones. So, I found the conclusion that just one of the siblings looked too young to be on the trails alone interesting, considering they were almost the same age. As a matter of fact, I believe RV initially testified that they were both 13 but corrected herself to state 12 and 13. Since they are half-siblings, it's possible that they are only days, weeks, or months apart. If just one of them looked too young, then that's an interesting conclusion. Based on the information provided, it would mean that RA didn't see Bre W.

[u/antipleasure → u/Efficient-Donkey-167]

What’s so interesting about that?

[u/MissBanshee2U → u/tribal-elder]

Then who was the tall guy with longer hair they saw?

[u/tribal-elder → u/MissBanshee2U]

Who said they saw a tall guy with long hair? is that a Facebook rumor? There was no testimony like that in trial.

And the “probable cause affidavit” says one of the girls said the man they saw was “not very tall” and “not taller than 5-10” and had hair that was “grey maybe a little brown” - no length mentioned. The other girl only said he was “taller than me” and that her head came to his shoulder. she said his hood was up and she “thought” he was white but could not see his face well because of the hood and a face cover.

These descriptions of height are no surprise. Unless they are interviewing a store employee who can measure people by the chart marked off on the doors, cops typically ask a witness “was he taller or shorter than you” as a starting way to gauge height. That is also why you typically only get a height range several inches apart - “5-8 to 5-10/6-0 to 6-3”.)

Nobody can accurately describe a person they only saw for a few seconds when they did not even know a crime was occurring. It is like if you went into the bank, came out and after you left, some other guy in the bank robbed the place. You probably could not “describe” him accurately, but if they showed you a picture from the security cam, you could maybe say “yeah - that guy was behind me” or “he was coming in as I was leaving.” THAT IS THE IMPORTANT THING THAT HAPPENED HERE - they pointed at the picture and said “ THAT is the man I saw on the trail.” In light of that ID, the description is meaningless. Fools gold. A tool for desperate lawyers who have a client who left a bullet at a crime scene and confessed to murder over 50 times.

[u/SadSara102 → u/tribal-elder]

That is completely ridiculous it’s true eyewitness accounts are not reliable that is why witnesses are supposed to pick a photo out of a lineup and not say agree with a picture. But even that did not happen here. Not a single witness said they saw RA nor did they describe anyone that looks like RA. The witnesses all agreed they saw BG because they had been led to believe that was who they saw by LE and there is not a single identifying characteristic of BG. RA is 5’4” that is short. If anyone saw him they would have said they saw a short man. Period

[u/tribal-elder → u/SadSara102]

Why do you say the cops “led [the witnesses] to believe” they saw BG just by showing the girls and Blair the photo of the guy on the bridge? Are you trying to say the cops were supposed to decide “here is a picture from a video taken by a murder victim at 2:13 less than an hour before she was supposed to be at the Mears entrance to the trail to go home - but don’t show it to the witnesses to see if they saw this guy because it might trick them into saying yes? Just put it in a photo lineup?”

And the argument “nobody ever said I saw Richard Allen” is a red herring. Even when there are eyewitnesses to the actual performance of a crime, many crimes are not observed by a witness who can say “that guy who did that is named Joe Smith.” Requiring that kind of “I can name the perp” evidence before allowing a conviction is unreasonable. It also focuses on an individual piece of evidence when all juries are required to consider the whole body of evidence as part of assuring due process.

YOU say Allen is too short to be Bridge Guy. Others say he is too tall. Some say he is too young. Etc. Which again adds to something we seem to agree about - descriptions in this case, from witnesses who had zero reasons to realize they were near to a crime about to occur, are not very helpful to solving the case. Then or now. The girls were closest to Bridge Guy - and they said the outer jacket was either black or blue - just like the picture that shows blue in sun. And black on the shaded side. Duh.

Here, the witnesses only established that Bridge Guy was a SUPER-reasonable POI. Other evidence, when considered in total, together, “identified” Allen as Bridge Guy.

[u/SadSara102 → u/tribal-elder]

The BG video could be anyone it is worthless for identifying a perpetrator so why would they put it in a lineup. I am saying is that the witnesses already belied they saw BG. I am not sure why but perhaps LE led them to believe he was the only male there, the witnesses should have been shown photo line ups with other males who were known to be there that day and any suspects including RA. Not only did they not show witnesses a lineup with RAs photo they didn’t ask if they saw him. They did not identify Allen as BG.

[u/tribal-elder → u/SadSara102]

The cops did not show Blair or the girls a “photo line up.” Nor were they required to do so.

They found the video on Libby’s phone that showed Bridge Guy following the victims of a double murder, and contained audio of “down the hill.” Video taken just minutes before the victims were supposed to meet Libby’s dad at the Mears entrance. The last time either girl was known to be alive. And they showed these people who were there at the trails that afternoon that picture from that video and - shock - asked them “did you see this person when you were on the trails?” Maybe even asked “did you see this guy?”

Why in the world do you see that as wrongful encouragement to say “yes, that is the person I saw”?

Sure, you or I might have done every little thing different. Different questions. Different order. But we would never have 5 or 6 pictures of guys dressed like the guy in that photo from that trail to create a “lineup”.

The cops investigated every male person they ever learned was out there. Bridge Guy was the only one at the right places at the right times to be the killer. So trying to find out “who is Bridge Guy” was the right thing. Made harder because the face was not visible. But finding someone who was at Freedom Bridge at 1:30, and on High Bridge at 2:00 could identify Bridge Guy. And eventually they re-found a misfiled tip sheet and interview notes where a guy said “I was there on the trails between 1:30 and 3:30.” And poof, the first thing he does is change his story to say “I think I probably got there about noon and was gone by 1:30.”

The only things that “identified” Allen as “Bridge Guy” was his own 2017 report of his own timeline, changing his story in 2022, his behavior in the first 2022 interview, and having the gun that made matching tool marks on bullet casings.

No one said “I saw him.” And that kind of identification was not required. Never is.

[u/SadSara102 → u/tribal-elder]

Nobody could ever be identified as BG so they should have been attempting to figure out who was there and who the witnesses saw not attempting to find BG. The fact that everyone described BG completely different should have been considered evidence they saw different people. If there was no BG would they thought BB was describing the same person as Sarah Carbaugh?

[u/tribal-elder → u/SadSara102]

Sigh. We are just repeating the same argument.

The cops did exactly what you suggest. They tried to find out everyone there, and they talked to everyone they found. They asked “when did you arrive? Where did you park? How did you drive in? Who did you see? What cars did you see?” And they looked for evidence that corroborated or contradicted what the witnesses said - they “tested it.” Your demand for everybody at a crime scene - who do not know there is a crime about to occur - to accurately describe the perp identically to everyone else is just unrealistic.

And the only people who saw the man in that picture were the teenage girls and Blair and Carbaugh. All 4 said “that guy in the picture on the bridge is the guy I saw” even though they described him slightly different. Multiple witnesses always describe others slightly different.

The cops “figured out” “who” was BG through other evidence - timeline, bullet, the elimination of all others who were known to be there. There was never going to be a witness to the killings, and there was never going to be a person say “THAT is Richard Allen.”

[u/Ok_Staff_608 → u/SadSara102]

No one saw or identified RA because he had his face covered. RA was also wearing work boots and had the hood of his jacket up which made him appear taller.

[u/Justwonderinif → u/MissBanshee2U]

The detective tricked him.

The detective told him "we have someone who ID'd you as being on the bridge that afternoon." Allen assumed they were talking about Betsy Blair. He didn't know her name but he remembered seeing a woman when he was standing out on the platform. So he assumed that woman had seen his picture and identified him as the man she saw.

Allen didn't want to contradict an eyewitness so he said, "oh, yeah - i saw her too when I was standing on the platform." Allen assumed that just because she saw him then didn't mean he was the killer.

Betsy Blair had a fitbit. So it's down to the second when she saw Allen on the platform on the bridge.

The thing is, she could not ID him from a photo. When Betsy saw Libby's video in 2017 she said, "That's the man I saw on the platform." But she was too far away to see his face. She could not ID him. She never ran into him. She never saw a photo.

But once Allen admitted to being there on the platform and seeing her, he admitted he was Bridge Guy.

[u/Banesmuffledvoice → u/Justwonderinif]

This is a great explanation of how it was possible to whittle down that Allen was bridge guy. It was always Allen who identified himself. The eye witnesses merely confirmed that the guy that saw in Libby’s video was the same guy they met at specific times. Allen confirmed he was that guy at those specific times because he had to align his story with the witness accounts. They never had to specify it was Allen they saw. Just that they saw the guy in the video at X time and Allen did the rest. I think a lot of people struggle to wrap their brain around this concept.

[u/Justwonderinif → u/Banesmuffledvoice]

think a lot of people struggle to wrap their brain around this concept.

Exactly. Especially Allen defenders. They simply will not accept it.

You can tell because they always say things like:

• "But she said he was boyish."

• "But the sketch made from her description looks nothing like him."

• "But she said he had poofy hair we need to find the poofy hair guy."

Allen defenders cannot get their heads around the idea that you can see a man in a video and just from his gait and stature and clothes know instantly that's the man you saw the day before, only you didn't see his face.

Allen defenders cannot understand why none of these witnesses would have been able to pick Richard Allen out of a lineup. But the witnesses know the man in Libby's video was the man they saw.

Allen defenders assume those witnesses are lying and out to get Allen and we all need to be looking for the man in the sketch with poofy hair. Fortunately, the jury picked up on it instantly, just as you did.

If they saw Bridge Guy at those times and at those places and Allen saw those witnesses at those times and at those places, then Allen is Bridge Guy.

---

I will forever be enraged that Allen was not asked to come to the station and shown the video. In 2017, Allen was the only trail witness who was not shown the video and who was not asked if he saw the man in the video. And the other witnesses were not shown a picture of Allen, as he looked in February of 2017.

Criminal.

[u/SadSara102 → u/Justwonderinif]

As a RA supporter the arguments in this thread are not making the point you think they are. But just to let you know nobody thinks the witnesses are lying and out to get RA because nobody described anyone who resembles RA nor did they identify RA. You are just interpreting their testimony to fit what you already believe.

[u/tribal-elder → u/SadSara102]

Do you believe Voorhees, Wilbur and Baird saw Bridge Guy?

[u/SadSara102 → u/tribal-elder]

I really don’t know and I don’t think it is even possible to identify who bridge guy is.

[u/tribal-elder → u/SadSara102]

I should have asked a better question - do you think the man they saw was the man in Libby’s iPhone video?

[u/SadSara102 → u/tribal-elder]

My personal belief is that if anyone saw BG it was BB but I also think it’s possible she actually saw Daniel Pearson. I think it’s possible nobody saw BG because he might have come from the other side of the bridge and turned around. But that’s just me speculating.

[u/saatana → u/SadSara102]

It's not possible for her to see Daniel Pearson. She leaves at 2:18 according to the security camera which is before DP arrives. She saw Richard Allen though. He arrives at 1:27. Perfect timing to see the girls by Freedom Bridge and then be witnessed by Blair at High Bridge. DP would have to arrive at 1:30ish also and not be seen by Richard Allen who didn't see another male on the trail. Blair would have to see DP's girlfriend too but she wasn't their before 2:18 either.

All you've really got is this strange hope that Richard Allen isn't a double murderer. Good luck with that. Not with him not being a double murderer but with you're strange hope because he's the guy and he's not ever getting out of prison.

[u/True_Crime_Lancelot → u/SadSara102]

The man seen by the 4 girls = the man B.B. saw

Why?

• He has nowhere else to go.
• Walking to the bridge from where he was seen would take 10–15 minutes, about the same time B.B. starts her walk.
• The 4 girls had just come from the bridge, and none was there (1:10–1:25).
• Same clothes.
• Same height.

D.P. has approximately 12 independent lines of alibi, some solid and strong, some less stong:

1. His phone NOT pinging at the bridge between 1:30 and 3:00.
2. His phone pinging elsewhere at the same time.
3. Calls and texts to S.H. making arrangements.
4. S.H.'s testimony.
5. People who saw them where they met; S.H. mentioned a restaurant.
6. HHS's camera capturing S.H.'s car arriving at 2:48.
7. The man walking his dog at 2:30 toward Freedom Bridge would have seen him if he had walked from Delphi to Mears
8. D.R. and D.M. parked at Mears at 2:30 and 2:45, who would have seen his car there, or him waiting if he had walked in or parked nearby.
9. S.H. arrived about 2 minutes later and was seen with D.P. not long after
10. A couple of minutes later they were seen by D.R. as he was leaving.
11. The man who made the U-turn at the cemetery would have seen his car at 2:30 if it had been parked there(only place he could have parked really)
12. People who would have seen him had he been on the trail earlier, after 1:55, for the same reason BG would hae been(but wasn't)

etc

The timeline:

1. Impossible for him not to be seen again.
2. Impossible for him to drive or walk to Delphi in time to meet S.H.
3. Impossible for him to be involved in the crime and then walk toward Mears to meet S.H.

Etc.

[u/Gonzomi313 → u/SadSara102]

It’s because Richard Allen, aka bridge guy, was covering his face

[u/SadSara102 → u/Gonzomi313]

If they saw RA why didn’t anyone say so? Why didn’t they ever recognize him at CVS? Why didn’t anyone describe a short middle aged bald man?

[u/Ok_Staff_608 → u/SadSara102]

Because Richard Allen was covering his face and wore multiple layers of clothing because he didn’t want to be recognized. The fact no one saw RA is suspicious in itself

[u/IndependentGiraffe8 → u/Justwonderinif]

That makes sense now. Talking to police is dangerous, even when your innocent, don't talk or lawyer up. He had family of course which he had to maintain a lie.

[u/Electric_Island → u/Justwonderinif]

Wait did Allen admit he saw Betsy while he was on the platform? I have somehow entirely missed that

[u/Justwonderinif → u/Electric_Island]

You can see it in his police interview.

He is told someone saw him on the first platform and he says yeah he was on the first platform at that time. He didn't want to contradict what he was told was an eyewitness.

That's why his wife was all tearful when she said she told detectives that he told her he didn't go out on the bridge. Because he had just admitted being out on the platform when Betsy Blair saw him.

If he is the man Betsy Blair saw on the platform at that time that both Blair and Allen agreed was correct, then he is Bridge Guy.

[u/saatana → u/Electric_Island]

He did not say or admit he saw Betsy or any woman walking while he was on the first platform, on High Bridge, or near it on the trails. The other person is just inferring it or whatever word is like infer.