Oh absolutely. I didn’t mean I wish they would hurry up. I just meant after they asked to leave early, I assumed they already had a unanimous decision so was surprised that’s clearly not the case.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I don’t envy them, they’ve got a really tough task. Getting 12 people on the same page with a not very clear-cut case like this would be pretty challenging. They seem like they’ve been very diligent and engaged jurors, I hope they will all be ok and be offered some support after what must have been a very harrowing experience for them all.
Probably opposite they knew they were not going to agree and decided to sleep on it and start afresh the next day.
I think he's guilty but I don't think they have proved it. A big sticking point for me is why the device he owned from the year the girls were murdered was not found in his possession but they found 26 other devices? Why would he not still have that phone if they obviously kept multiple other devices?
I do think he is guilty, and I think they’ll convict him, but I don’t think the case is solid enough and the state hasn’t done enough imo to prove his guilt. The entire case had been bungled so badly from the start. Those poor girls. 
See I'm not convinced he is bridge guy. Bridge Guy could be anyone, he is wearing what I think a lot of people would wear at that time of year, there is nothing distinctive about his clothes in the images we have.
The witness descriptions of Bridge Guy are all different so I don't think they are talking about the same person.
Also I don't think one person could have done this crime in the time frame and with two victims without restraining thek and there were apparently no signs of restraint.
I've also recently heard about Elvis Fields confessions to committing the crime on at least three occasions. He apparently said he gave Abby horns and there were two branches above her head. The scene imo was staged and the branches were not a cover up as apparently there were loads of leaves on the ground the killer(s) could have used.
The whole investigation stinks, stopping working with the FBI not following up on forensics, abby had a hard in her head that wasn't tested until trial. There are others hairs the FBI could test for dna but the police have said no.
The witness descriptions of Bridge Guy are all different so I don't think they are talking about the same person.
Also I don't think one person could have done this crime in the time frame and with two victims without restraining thek and there were apparently no signs of restraint.
I've also recently heard about Elvis Fields confessions to committing the crime on at least three occasions. He apparently said he gave Abby horns and there were two branches above her head. The scene imo was staged and the branches were not a cover up as apparently there were loads of leaves on the ground the killer(s) could have used.
The whole investigation stinks, stopping working with the FBI not following up on forensics, abby had a hard in her head that wasn't tested until trial. There are others hairs the FBI could test for dna but the police have said no.
I find it really interesting that neither the state or the defence has asked ANY witness if they guy they saw that day was Richard Allen.
A crime commentator the other day said they felt this question had not been asked of any witness because the legal team for either side would not ask a question if they did not know how it would be answered.
So if the state had asked a witness if Richard Allen was they guy they saw that day and the witness said no then it's game over for the state.
But if the defence asked the same question and the witness said 'yes Richard Allen is the guy I saw' then it's game over for them too.
I don't think either side has much faith on their argument if I'm totally honest which is why no witness as been asked this question outright.
A crime commentator the other day said they felt this question had not been asked of any witness because the legal team for either side would not ask a question if they did not know how it would be answered.
So if the state had asked a witness if Richard Allen was they guy they saw that day and the witness said no then it's game over for the state.
But if the defence asked the same question and the witness said 'yes Richard Allen is the guy I saw' then it's game over for them too.
I don't think either side has much faith on their argument if I'm totally honest which is why no witness as been asked this question outright.
Has the full video of bridge guy ever been released? I’ve only ever seen the down the hill bit but apparently the full video is a fair bit longer
I've seen stuff on X showing pictures of Brad Holder and he bears a remarkable resemblance to BG. If RA is found NG I wonder if they'll start to look into others
I don't think they'll be able to. I honestly think if RA is not guilty, that's it. Zilch. I think this is their only shot.
I also heard they've already investigated Brad Holder, Ron Logan, the supposed Odinists and there is nothing tying them to the crime. They all have alibis
I agree if this ends in a not guilty it will be all over unless someone confesses in the future.
Mind boggling they have video and audio footage and took them this long really.
I just hope the jury don't feel pressured to convict him just so that someone is convicted but they seem like a smarter bunch than that.
I'm not sure how well they checked alibis. From what I've seen the investigation was a complete shambles so it wouldn't surprise me if they'd forgotten to do this thoroughly.
I agree that if Richard Allen is found not guilty they won't look for anyone else. The excuse will be that the jury got it wrong, not that they messed up by not investigating properly.
I'm just listening to Hidden True Crime. She was in the court room. The witness who saw him 'bloody and muddy' she's breaking down what that was. It is truly bizarre and I cant work out whether she is a crackpot, the police are incompetent and didn't follow up, or the police have seen an opportunity to mould her original vague tip into something that fits the narrative.
The day of: The witness saw a man huddled 'sketchy' walking by the trail . She described him covered in mud and blood. Then she heard an amber alert of two girls missing that night on that trail. But didn't report it.
Around a few weeks later: Police had a barricade at a supermarket so they were forcing everyone to stop and asking for tips. She told the officer from her car that she had seen a man bloody and muddy (her words). The notes from that officer say she saw a 'man in a tan jacket, with curly hair and feminine eyes with mud on his legs' (at this point the witness is saying 'I never said that, I said blood from the start'.
7 MONTHS LATER: The police don't bother to bring her in for 7 months, despite her saying she saw a man on the trail acting sketchily. Why? even if he was only muddy according to her, that's something worth looking into? In this interview the jacket the man is wearing she describes as blue, which is different to the tan jacket first reported. The transcripts say she says she saw a man with mud all down him. She repeats the with curly hair and feminine eyes' (again she's saying, no, I said mud and blood, of course the defence hone in on this)
2 years later (I think, could be wrong): She is interviewed again. This time the transcript says that she describes a man just like bridge guy, blue jacket, jeans covered in blood, like he had slaughtered a pig (her words). No mention of mud. The defence say 'no mud mentioned this time, why' and she says 'well there's an hour of video recorded interview missing, that's why!'. The defence say 'what? how do you know there is missing interview' and she says she has seen her interview recording and there's a lot missing.
The day of: The witness saw a man huddled 'sketchy' walking by the trail . She described him covered in mud and blood. Then she heard an amber alert of two girls missing that night on that trail. But didn't report it.
Around a few weeks later: Police had a barricade at a supermarket so they were forcing everyone to stop and asking for tips. She told the officer from her car that she had seen a man bloody and muddy (her words). The notes from that officer say she saw a 'man in a tan jacket, with curly hair and feminine eyes with mud on his legs' (at this point the witness is saying 'I never said that, I said blood from the start'.
7 MONTHS LATER: The police don't bother to bring her in for 7 months, despite her saying she saw a man on the trail acting sketchily. Why? even if he was only muddy according to her, that's something worth looking into? In this interview the jacket the man is wearing she describes as blue, which is different to the tan jacket first reported. The transcripts say she says she saw a man with mud all down him. She repeats the with curly hair and feminine eyes' (again she's saying, no, I said mud and blood, of course the defence hone in on this)
2 years later (I think, could be wrong): She is interviewed again. This time the transcript says that she describes a man just like bridge guy, blue jacket, jeans covered in blood, like he had slaughtered a pig (her words). No mention of mud. The defence say 'no mud mentioned this time, why' and she says 'well there's an hour of video recorded interview missing, that's why!'. The defence say 'what? how do you know there is missing interview' and she says she has seen her interview recording and there's a lot missing.
There’s a verdict guys!!!! It’s not in yet but they’ve reached one
To be read at 3pm EST. I really have no idea which way they'll go.
If I was on the jury I'd go not guilty based on the evidence presented. I do think he had something to do with it but not convinced it was just him involved due to certain factors. I feel for the families of both girls and do feel whatever the verdict it will never feel fully certain for anyone.
I think the man has been stitched up
I think they will find him not guilty because the evidence is crap...however I do think he had something to do with it so I hope they find him guilty.
Elvis Fields
Brad Weber
Kegan Kline
Kegan’s Dad
Ron Logan
The Unknown ISP officer whose DNA was found on one of the girls
There are even more possibilities of who the real killer(s) are/is than RA
If a confession under torture sways anyone, what do you make of Elvis Fields confession to many people including his sister who passed a lie detector without torture?
Brad Weber
Kegan Kline
Kegan’s Dad
Ron Logan
The Unknown ISP officer whose DNA was found on one of the girls
There are even more possibilities of who the real killer(s) are/is than RA
If a confession under torture sways anyone, what do you make of Elvis Fields confession to many people including his sister who passed a lie detector without torture?