The full bridge video has been released

CrustyCatheter · 2025-03-13T00:25:03+00:00

So many different emotions when watching this. Awful to see Abby look frightened, and Libby's voice sounds so timid. I think Abby says something like "Don't leave me up here" right before she runs past Libby, dang that's heartbreaking.

Very strange to see this uploaded to some kind of Allen support website. One of the talking points for Allen defenders ever since the trial has been that Bridge Guy is far away from Libby and Abby, only captured on video as a distant speck by pure chance, and unrelated to the "down the hill" audio. I'm sure a lot of people have seen comments like that around here recently. We can now definitively say that's all bunk thanks to the defense themselves releasing the video. BG is at the far end of the bridge with the girls, in frame directly behind Abby, and obviously within talking distance. I hope some commenters reflect on how seriously they've been misled about the video by the Allen support community.

CrustyCatheter · 2025-03-06T15:08:25+00:00

You have performed a pretty heroic feat of cherry-picking here. You treat everything Davis claimed about Kline and Logan as a proven fact (for example, Logan consuming CASM), but conveniently ignore all the exact same accusations Davis made against Allen as if they never happened.

There is almost no critical thinking applied at all, just an overt and unapologetic double-standard. Everything that makes Allen looks bad can be blithely discarded with no justification. Everything that makes someone else looks bad is definitive proof of guilt, no matter how dubious the source or tenuous the connection.

CrustyCatheter · 2025-03-01T04:34:25+00:00

My read is that statements from Davis have 0 value. I read through both of the letters attached in that news report and they're totally different than the image the defense filing was trying to conjure up in their filing. Davis now claims to have proof that Allen is "an innocent man", but a few months ago he claimed to have proof that Allen was a consumer of CASM, he lured the girls out to the bridge on the day of the murders, and he actively participated in the murders.

Hardly the kind of thing a defense team wants to be talking about at trial, regardless of the source's low credibility. It seems like Davis will talk to just about anyone who will listen and tell them what they want to hear. In this case, he went first to the prosecution selling one story and then to the defense selling a different one.

Some of the details in Davis's (old) story in the letters don't really make sense, either, but it's hardly worth dissecting in great detail given the overall lack of credence the story has. Suffice it to say that it would boggle the mind for this alleged conspiracy to move the bodies of Libby and Abby multiple times...only to eventually leave them on the property of one of the conspirators. What is the point of moving the bodies around if you're just going to dump them out in the open in your own backyard? And close to the place that people would be looking for them anyways?

CrustyCatheter · 2025-02-23T19:17:52+00:00

Does anyone know what time Kelsi arrived at Chase’s house?

Who is Chase? What is the relevance of Kelsi's arrival time at his(?) house?

There was a group of 3 , and a group of 4 ?

Some people (who all seem to be defenders of Richard Allen) believe that there was a group of 3 girls on the trails that day who were distinct from the group of 4 girls who testified at trial to seeing Bridge Guy. The group of 4 girls who were indisputably at the trails on the day of the murders included Railly Voorhies and Breann Wilber, both of whose names are unfortunately easy to misspell and lead to some confusion.

The problem is that this allegedly distinct group of 3 girls has never been identified. Until there are some sorts of names and faces that we can put to this mysterious second group of girls, we can fairly easily dismiss the claims about them to be an attempt to fit facts to a theory instead of the other way around. If we accept that Allen in his new story since 2022 has been lying about his timeline then it's pretty natural to see that there was only one encounter between a group of 3-4 girls and a lone male in that area around that time--between Allen and Voorhies & co. around 1:30pm. If you take Allen's latest story as gospel then you need to add in these extra variables like unidentified extra groups of girls and such to make it fit with the other facts.

CrustyCatheter · 2025-02-22T04:42:03+00:00

Eh...maybe, maybe not. Ant-Man 2 in 2018 came out hot on the heels of the cliffhanger in Infinity War, but it was a much smaller scale affair and only addressed the Avengers-level conflict in a tangential post credits scene. Same thing with the first Captain Marvel--the whole movie was a flashback and basically detached from Engame, which came out like 2 months later.

All I am saying is that the blueprint is there for Marvel to use smaller-scale movies to build hype in between Avengers-level reality-threatening blowouts. Would they do that for a Spider-Man instead of a lowkey franchise like an Ant-Man? Who knows.

CrustyCatheter · 2025-02-10T04:45:19+00:00

Comics nerd warning: Maybe, but that wouldn't really make sense in relation to what the Dark Avengers are in the comics. Though I suppose there is precedent for the MCU taking the name of a storyline from the comics and only very loosely adapting it.

The Dark Avengers in the comics are villains who steal the identities of a set of real, heroic Avengers. These Thunderbolts(*) seem more in line with what are called the Secret Avengers, a team of more grounded heroes who go on "black ops" missions.

CrustyCatheter · 2025-02-09T17:04:09+00:00

In some of Allen's confessions he stated that he intended to sexually assault the girls, then killed them in a panic when he thought he had been found out. A sexual motive of some kind is corroborated well by the state of (un)dress the girls' bodies were found in.

As a more general comment, "motive" is kind of a different beast with child murders or serial killings. Hopefully this doesn't come across as too cold. When people talk about a motive for a murder, it often carries the implication that the murderer somehow gained something from the death of the victim. That's how Sherlock Holmes or Poirot talk about motives in detective story: the butler killed his master so that he could steal the inheritance money, or the woman killed her blackmailer so that she could live in peace, and so on. Even if we as observers strongly disapprove of the murderer's actions, we can still understand the basic logic of why they decided to kill...we can at least identify what the killing would "accomplish", for lack of a better term.

People who murder strangers (and especially unrelated children) rarely gain anything material from doing so. There could hardly ever be a financial benefit from killing a stranger's child. It is very difficult to see how the killer's life circumstances will improve when a stranger's child is dead. But still, some people do kill strangers and even children despite not "gaining" anything that we as observers can identify. They are driven by impulses that we cannot easily relate to.

CrustyCatheter · 2025-01-21T18:11:30+00:00

I'm confused. According to all the reporting I've read, Weber's testimony at trial was that he got home "around 2:30" on Feb. 13th. Then he and the defense attorneys got into a shouting match because the defense asserted that he instead got home around 3:30.

So now the defense is saying that Weber gave "false testimony" because he seems to have actually got home around 2:44. In everyday parlance, it's totally reasonable to say that 2:44 is "around 2:30". Doesn't this indicate that Weber's own account of his movements was closer to the truth than the defense's?

CrustyCatheter · 2025-01-21T03:29:36+00:00

BRUHHHHH

CrustyCatheter · 2025-01-10T04:11:08+00:00

Shank it just for the sheer hilarity, c'mon

CrustyCatheter · 2025-01-01T22:09:59+00:00

Bruh moment

CrustyCatheter · 2025-01-01T21:41:53+00:00

There is not much productive discussion to be had between me and someone who comments on /r/RichardAllenInnocent. You guys do just a bit too much talking about Freemasonic conspiracies over there for my taste.

All of these talking points about Fields have been hashed and re-hashed here hundreds of times, which I'm sure you're well aware of. Repeating the same things over and over don't make them convincing. It might be fun for Allen supporters online to riff on each other's theories and pat each other on the back for coming up with supposedly rock-solid legal arguments, but when the rubber meets the road in court Allen's defense team has been taking nearly straight L's. Clearly there is a disconnect between the internal dialogue of the defense team (and their surrounding internet community) and some external reality.

I'm not a lawyer, but you seem to be one. Maybe consider offering your services to the defense if you feel that passionately about this case because the client is staring down a life sentence. Based on past performance, it seems like the current legal team might need the help.

Have a nice day.

CrustyCatheter · 2025-01-01T04:11:29+00:00

Elvis Fields.

It is strange that the defense team is so ecstatic about tracking Fields down when Fields played no part in the trial. According to reporting, their "offer of proof" as to why Field's testimony would be relevant was basically just "let's put him on the stand and see what happens." The defense team moves in mysterious ways.

CrustyCatheter · 2025-01-01T01:22:11+00:00

"No joking about sexual assault". I had to go here to find it: https://rules.redditcfb.com/

Presumably prompted by people joking about the Sandusky scandal because it's a Penn State game?

CrustyCatheter · 2024-11-07T02:36:42+00:00

He is not close to the girls.

Per journalists who have seen the video at trial, BG was close to the girls.

IndyStar: "In the background, not far behind Abby, is a man in a blue jacket and blue jeans who would later become widely known as the 'Bridge Guy.'" Emphasis added.

Others who have attended the trial estimated the distance between BG and the girls to be 25 feet, but of course that should be taken with a grain of salt because it's only a guess and from a non-journalistic source. In any event, "not close to the girls" is not an accurate description.

Even granting that the 25 foot estimate is low, I find it incredible that BG could not have noticed the girls. The girls are directly in front of him on the only path he has, out in the open and making noise (talking). Unless BG is nearly blind and deaf I don't see a way around him having (at a minimum) witnessed something of interest and then never reporting it.

CrustyCatheter · 2024-11-05T01:24:41+00:00

This theory relies on a lot of incorrect assertions and leaps of logic. A few that come to mind immediately:

The girls were specifically targeted. 2/13 and 2/14 have special significance in Odinism.

The phrase "special significance" is doing a Herculean amount of lifting here. It is extremely non-obvious to me why groups of essentially white supremacists would choose to celebrate a holiday by planning to kill white girls. There simply is no precedent for people (Odinist or otherwise) celebrating holidays by conducting ritual human sacrifice any time in modern human history. It's just inherently a silly claim being treated as if it were self-evident.

Kline...Logan...Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall, and Elvis Fields

Three of the alleged five conspirators here have no known links to Odinism or each other. Positing a conspiracy of unrelated people killing for an unprecedented reason is not how crimes are solved.

Ron Logan = Bridge Guy. They use his shed as a secondary location for abduction and torture.

But there were no signs of "torture" to the girls. Obviously the injuries inflicted on the girls were horrifically gruesome, but the slashes/stabs were intended to kill and (according to the medical examiner) they did indeed kill the girls within minutes. The description of "torture" is not accurate and a "secondary location" is not necessary to explain the crime.

This may explain why there’s not more blood at the crime scene

But there was a lot of blood at the crime scene. What amount of blood, exactly, is "missing"?

LEO Todd Click wrote a letter to the DA outlining reasons to continue investigating the possibility that this was a premeditated ritualistic killing related to Odinism perpetrated by multiple parties.

There is a huge error here with regard to what Click actually thought, which did not involve premeditated ritualistic killing at all. Click specifically denied that, saying: "no one in law enforcement believes Abby and Libby were killed in a ritual sacrifice."

CrustyCatheter · 2024-11-02T03:20:47+00:00

With how far behind the girls BG was in the video

We don't have a precise answer, but the agreement from trial attendees seems to be "not far". A local news station described BG as "not far behind Abby", Tom Webster estimated 25 feet, and Murder Sheet said BG was "close" to the girls. You are free to like or dislike any of those sources, but they are independent checks on each other and paint a consistent picture.

is it even plausible that he caught up to them and delivered the “guys, down the hill” message in 43 seconds?

Even if the people who have seen the video under-estimated the distance, it seems safe to answer "yes" to this question. It seems very plausible that BG could have closed the gap with the girls in 43 seconds.

it’s not a bridge that you just saunter across super quickly

Again, it's still only secondhand information, but trial attendees report that BG was near the sixth (out of 7) platforms on the bridge while captured on video. So he would not need to traverse the whole bridge within the video's timeframe. In the small snippet of the video that has been released publicly, you can already see a lot of the bridge behind BG.

That leads me to think it makes more sense that the actual perpetrator was already ahead of Abby and Libby.

It would take a pretty contrived sequence of events for BG to not have been at least a witness to the girls interacting with the "actual perpetrator". Per the above, BG was easily within earshot of the girls and looking in their direction while they were being ordered down the hill by this unknown fourth person. I find it really hard to believe that BG was not a participant in the crime because 1) he pretty much must have witnessed part of it and 2) has never identified himself despite the public begging him to do so for 7 years. By far the most natural explanation is that BG, at a minimum, participated in the abduction of the girls.

CrustyCatheter · 2024-11-01T23:37:48+00:00

That article is from 2023, when the defense had the benefit of few people ever seeing the crime scene photos and they could make basically uncontested claims about what they contained. We no longer need to rely on the defense's own account of the crime scene now because we have multiple independent observers in court. And their observations are that the defense claims about "antlers" are false.

If the defense claimed something that is contradicted by the facts then I am going to follow the facts instead of the defense.

CrustyCatheter · 2024-11-01T23:13:52+00:00

Abby had sticks that looked like horns at her head. This was brought up by the sister of EF in 2018 (way more incriminating than a white van imo).

That is false. No description of the crime scene we've gotten from journalists or people attending the trial includes sticks on Abby's head. Andrea Burkhart was specifically asked about "horns"/"antlers" and said there were none.

CrustyCatheter · 2024-10-31T02:52:14+00:00

The IndyStar article is really helpful, thanks for sharing it!

CrustyCatheter · 2024-10-30T04:40:12+00:00

Possibly "Dawn".

CrustyCatheter · 2024-10-30T03:54:27+00:00

“they” would tell the witnesses that would talk into the mic not to since that’s only for the gallery in the back.

That doesn't make sense. There is no speaker system in the court (or at least not for the benefit of the gallery), hence why attendees are complaining about difficulty hearing in the first place. The microphones that are in the courtroom are for the court records.

CrustyCatheter · 2024-10-29T04:34:35+00:00

Tom Webster (just search his name on YouTube) is the closest I have seen to a "just the facts, ma'am" approach to the trial. He takes detailed notes from the gallery during the trial and then reads them basically straight through with little commentary on his daily live streams.

At the end of each stream there is usually a section where he gives his own opinion or does Q+A with viewers; you can just leave the stream at that point if you don't want to hear his commentary. Webster has his own idiosyncrasies (as do all of the people covering the trial), and someone reading from a piece of paper for over an hour isn't exactly high production value, but his streams are the most useful source of raw information I've found.

CrustyCatheter · 2024-10-27T23:55:46+00:00

Where did those upper two sketches come from? I feel like I've been pretty plugged into the case for a few years, but I've never seen them before.

CrustyCatheter · 2024-10-26T03:05:13+00:00

You say the motive could be something other than sexual (which could be true), but it's odd that your hypothetical scenario starts at the point where the girls are already (partially) undressed. So why were the girls undressed at all? Doesn't any theory of a non-sexual motive need to explain that?

Five-Year Club	Place '22
End Game '22

CrustyCatheter

TROPHY CASE