Delphi Murders: Still Guilty Part 1

Added: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]Early this Morning.

[00:00:30]When you knocked on my door early this morning when you knocked on my door and I said, "Hello, Satan.

[00:00:52]I believe it is time to go.

[00:00:58]Me and the devil, walking side by side, me and the devil, walking side by side.

[00:01:20]And I'm going to see my man until I get satisfied.

[00:01:29]See, you don't see why.

[00:01:35]And you talk me around.

[00:01:41]Say don't see why people talk me around.

[00:01:52]There must be an evil spirit so deep down in your ground.

[00:02:14]A date is now set for oral arguments and the deli murders appeal. It will begin Monday, September 21st at 10:00 a.m.

[00:02:21]inside the Indiana State House.

[00:02:23]According to the filing, the prosecution and defense will be allowed 30 minutes each to argue in front of a panel of three judges. Richard Allen was convicted of murdering 14-year-old Libby German and 13-year-old Abby Williams back in February of 2017. He was later sentenced to 130 years in prison.

[00:02:42]Allen's attorneys say the jury never got to hear evidence that they believe would prove he's innocent.

[00:02:48]>> It's been almost a year since I last made a video on the deli murders, but I've read the pre-trial and trial transcripts and I've recently read all the appeals and appeal responses, the appella stuff. And really, it's even more clear now that Richard Allen is guilty of the murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams in 2017. Now, just like the prosecutor's podcast predicted, due to the high-profile nature of this case, the Indiana Court of Appeals has granted Richard Allen's request for oral argument. It will take place on September 21st, 2026. And as someone who believes Richard Allen was rightfully convicted by a jury of his peers, I think this is great news because now Richard Allen's appellet team will have to stand there in public in front of the appellet judges and explain this nonsense out loud. The defense will have to explain why the search warrant fails when during the actual trial, the witness confirmed that what Liot said was true. He was not lying. They will also have to explain why the search warrant should not have been executed when Richard Allen placed himself on the trail in the timeline on the bridge and parked where the killer parked. That's obviously enough for a search warrant.

[00:04:01]They will have to explain why Allen's confessions should have been thrown out when he confessed before and after the period when the defense claims he may have been in psychosis. And hopefully they have to explain why they keep saying that Richard Allen was in solitary confinement when he wasn't.

[00:04:17]They will also have to explain how a man supposedly in psychosis gave details only the killer would know, including the van detail that lined up with Brad Weber's route home from work. They will have to explain why the jury should have heard the Odinist fairy tale when the trial defense team cannot provide a single piece of evidence tying Odinist to the crime in a pre-trial hearing.

[00:04:40]It's a lot harder to defend these claims when appellet judges start asking direct questions like how would this change the outcome of the trial and where is the actual evidence? And this oral argument will be televised which is good for the public to see. And despite what you hear on X or on YouTube, this is not a win for Richard Allen or the people defending a convicted child murderer.

[00:05:03]Criminal appeals are overwhelmingly denied. Now, I cannot think of a good reason to defend a convicted child killer, unless they're your actual client. But to give people the benefit of the doubt, maybe they have been misled due to not understanding the legal system or the different roles of the prosecutors and defense lawyers. So, here's some help. First of all, defense attorneys, they're not sharing the truth with you. That's not their job. They get to pretend, speculate, and create stories that don't have to be based on truth. defense attorneys in the Deli case, they wanted you to believe many things that weren't true. They wanted you to believe that Rick Allen was schizophrenic and that's why he confessed to the murders until that article was taken down moments later.

[00:05:47]They want you to believe that Rick Allen was locked up in solitary confinement.

[00:05:51]And the more times that they put it in documents, the more it makes it true.

[00:05:54]Well, guess what? He wasn't in solitary confinement. He was in an isolation cell. You might have heard the phrase, "The best defense attorneys are the ones who are the best storytellers." And apparently a lot of people on YouTube still have not figured this out. Stories are just stories. They are not evidence.

[00:06:11]They are not proof. The Frank's motion in the Deli case was basically a fictional fairy tale. Let's take the part about horns being placed on top of one of the girls heads. This was absolutely not the case. They took a victim laying on an outdoor surface and twisted that into someone came and placed sticks above one of the girls' heads. Based on what? Where is the proof? Where is the forensic evidence showing when each stick got there? There was no eyewitnesses. There was no video of that. No physical evidence tying an odinist to that act. There isn't any.

[00:06:45]Why? Because it's just a story, not something to take as truth. It's non-fiction. And people still quote things from that Frank's memo as if they actually happened. Ayayy. And I just think it's funny how people require zero evidence to believe the defense theory or Odinist, but then they demand impossible levels of proof for the evidence against Richard Allen. Now, let's get everyone up to speed here. On February 13th, 2017, one of the victims, Liberty German, and her best friend, Abigail Williams, who were 14 and 13 years old, went to the Monen High Bridge Trail in Deli, Indiana. Liberty recorded video on her phone showing the man later known as Bridge Guy and Richard Allen following them on the bridge and ordering them down the hill. The next day, both girls were found murdered.

[00:07:35]Then Richard Allen was arrested in October 2022, over 5 years later. In 2024, after a full trial, a jury convicted him. Once the evidence finally came out in court, the case got a lot less mysterious and a lot more obvious.

[00:07:51]We learned that Rick Allen put himself on the trail and in the timeline in which the murders occurred. Rick Allen's car was seen on video arriving to where the killer parked during the critical time of the murders. Rick Allen admitted to parking where Bridgeu guy parked. He described witnesses that he saw who didn't see the friendly CVS employee Richard Allen, but they did see Bridge Guy, who was the only man there at the time. Witnesses described the same lone man on the trail and bridge. Rick Allen admitted he dressed exactly like Bridge Guy that day. There was a cartridge cycled through his gun and found near the bodies. A witness saw Bridge walking toward Rick Allen's car, the only car that was parked there. Oh, and also Rick Allen admitted to killing the girls, giving accurate details that only the killer would know. He didn't confess to the police, but he calmly and coherently told his wife, mom, and many others that he did commit the murders. He also told his mental health physician that he killed the girls and accurately and logically explained the events and actions that occurred that day, something a person in psychosis would not be able to do. Then in December 2025, Rick Allen's appellet attorneys filed 113page appellants brief trying to overturn the conviction. In March 2026, the state filed its response. Then in late April 2026, Allen's appellet team has filed their reply brief and they're making three major claims to overturn Allen's conviction. One, they claim the search warrant for Allen's house should not have happened because law enforcement lied or left out key information on the search warrant affidavit. So basically here, the defense wants the gun thrown out. The second thing they focus on is the 60 plus confessions that Richard Allen made. They want all of those thrown out because for some reason they think that Rick Allen was forced to confess to his wife and his mom and that he only confessed because his prison cell was too small which drove him crazy which gave him the ability to know things that only the killer would know somehow.

[00:09:53]Their third argument is they claimed the jury was deprived of hearing about the Odinist theory. Yes, this is a theory where Allen's trial attorneys claimed, and I quote, "Members of a pagan Norse religion called Odinism, hijacked by white nationalist, ritualistically sacrificed Libyan Abbey, who are both white, by the way." And there is zero evidence that happened. But according to the defense, if the jury had heard that fairy tale, then Richard Allen would be a free man today. So, let's start with the first major claim in the appeal. The search warrant for Rick Allen's house was invalid. The defense claims Detective Tony Liot, now Sheriff Liot, misled the judge in order to get him to sign off on the search warrant affidavit that allowed them to search Rick Allen's property. Now, a search warrant affidavit is a sworn document police give to a judge explaining why there's probable cause to believe evidence connected to a crime may be found in a specific place. You don't need to include every witness interview ever conducted. It is not a complete case summary with every possible defense theory included. However, police cannot lie or intentionally mislead the judge.

[00:11:05]And the defense says Liot did in fact mislead the judge in three main ways.

[00:11:10]First, with one of the witnesses, Sarah Carbaugh. She is the one who saw a bridge guy leaving the trails at approximately 3:57 p.m. as she was driving down the road. The defense claims Liot overstated what Sarah Carbaugh saw because in the search warrant affidavit, they stated that Carbo saw a man walking who was muddy and bloody. And the defense argument is basically this. Carbaugh first said the man was muddy and described a lighter jacket. So Liot supposedly made her statement sound stronger by writing that she saw a man who was muddy and bloody wearing a blue jacket and blue jeans. So they were saying Sarah Carbaugh never said that the man had blood on him. Liot put that in there anyways just to make the case stronger. However, Carbaugh was interviewed three different times. In the first interview, she claimed she did say muddy and bloody, but she was mumbling a lot and the transcriber made an error, but she in fact said muddy and bloody. The second time she was interviewed, the first hour wasn't recorded. By the time the third interview, they counted how many times Carbaugh mentioned blood, and it was over 16 times. So now the defense is saying Tony Liot lied because Sarah Carbaugh never said muddy and bloody.

[00:12:25]What they did was they ignored the third interview, but none of it matters because at trial, Sarah Carbaugh said the man was muddy and bloody. So that's why this argument that the defense is trying to make here is just going to fall flat on his face. The defense also claims that Liot misrepresented what Betsy Blair described. She's another witness. She was a person who described the person she saw on the bridge and also described the vehicle that she saw parked near the old CPS building. And this is the same move by the defense taking normal eyewitness limitations and trying to rebrand them as a lie. Betsy Blair stated she saw a man on the first platform of the Monen High Bridge. She saw him briefly and it was from over 100 ft away even though she guessed 50 ft.

[00:13:09]Again, she got a lot wrong, but she had no reason to memorize his face, body, clothing, or a vehicle description for a future murder trial. So, even if Blair's description was imperfect, that does not make Liot a liar. I mean, if Liot really wanted to lie on their search warrant affidavit, wouldn't they leave out all the parts that Betsy Blair got wrong?

[00:13:32]Wouldn't they have lied about what she saw and make it match Richard Allen, right? But they didn't. They were being transparent. Allen admitted he went to the first platform which matched exactly what Betsy Blair said. And that's why this appeal is going to go nowhere. And kind of the third argument in this section, it's about Allen's clothing and the Carheart jacket, which is really the weakest part. They claim the affidavit made too much of the blue Carheart jacket and head covering. And they point to Kathy Allen, Rick Allen's wife, saying that the blue car heart found in the house had only been purchased a couple of years before 2022, which doesn't really matter. I mean, I personally think that Rick Allen threw away his original jacket right after the murders. So yeah, I don't even think they got the right jacket. And Kathy Allen didn't provide any evidence of when the jacket was purchased. So none of it really matters. But the interesting thing to know is on October 13th, 2022, they were interviewing Rick Allen and then they went and executed that search warrant on the same day. So on October 13th, Rick Allen describes what he was wearing on February 13th, 2017. He says he was wearing blue jeans and a blue or black car heart jacket with a hood. He advised he may have been wearing some type of head covering as well. That came from Richard Allen himself. The bottom line is to win a Frank's argument, they have to show that Liot knowingly lied or recklessly misled the judge and then show that probable cause falls apart once the challenged information is removed or corrected.

[00:15:09]That is a steep hill. And yeah, honestly, after Allen's 2017 statements to DNR officer Dan Dulan, this should have been escalated immediately. They should have searched his house that day or the next day of when he came forward for the statements because he told police he was there from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. He said he was on the trail during the time that the girls were killed. He said that he parked next to the old building, which turned out to be the CPS building. He gave specifics on the witnesses that he saw. I mean, yeah. And yes, he gave law enforcement his phone and then Dan Dulan gave him back his phone and somehow it seems like he took that phone and ran over it with his lawn mower. A search warrant does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not require police to prove that person is guilty. It only requires probable cause. a fair probability that evidence connected to a crime may be found in the place being searched. And in the Deli investigation, police served several search warrants on people for far less than what they had on Richard Allen.

[00:16:14]They did the search on a house on Bicycle Road because someone there was reportedly dressed like Bridge Guy on the day of the murders, even though that person was later determined to be at work during the murder window. They served a warrant connected to an online predator who communicated with one of the victims. They served a warrant on a man in Lebanon, Indiana, Garrett Kurt's father, I believe, and that was just based on ties that he had to the area and his violent history. They searched 77year-old Ron Logan's property more than once because the girls were found on land connected to him, even though his house was roughly a half mile away from the crime scene. All right, now let's talk about the sketch issue.

[00:16:53]Personally, I can't think of a case where a sketch was ever part of the actual murder trial. I mean, I'm sure there's been some in history, but it's definitely not a common thing. The reason why is witness sketches are hearsay. They're subjective, and they're only an investigative tool, not evidence of anything.

[00:17:11]>> We still want both sketches to be visible to the public. We're not eliminating one or the other. A sketch is not a photograph. A sketch is based on what the human mind and human brain saw.

[00:17:24]We know it's natural. You get fixated.

[00:17:27]But understand that over time investigations evolve.

[00:17:30]>> At this point, we are asking people to look at both sketches and the photo and the video and listen to the audio and help us identify the suspect in this case.

[00:17:40]>> Now, in the documents, the basic argument is that Betsy Blair's sketch looked younger than Richard Allen.

[00:17:47]Therefore, it's not Richard Allen. But the reality is Betsy Blair once shown a picture of bridge guy said, "Yes, that's who I saw." Betsy Blair saw a man on the bridge from over 100 ft away. Then a few days later, she sat down with a sketch artist and tried to turn that memory into a drawing. People get clothing wrong, faces wrong all the time.

[00:18:06]>> Now, we all think we would never ID the wrong person in a crime, even though studies show it happens most of the time. To test the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, WFMY News2's Lelle Yates set up an experiment. Wait until you see how this two wants to know investigation unfolds.

[00:18:22]>> Hit under the kneecap. You're watching Dr. Rob Guten Tag teach a psych class at UNC Greensboro. It's Wednesday afternoon.

[00:18:29]>> That's a spinal reflex.

[00:18:31]>> And about 5 minutes into his lecture, this young man walks in.

[00:18:36]>> Tad late. I think >> he's not here for class. Rather the professor's briefcase.

[00:18:42]>> Excuse me.

[00:18:45]Excuse me.

[00:18:55]You have all just been witnesses to a crime and we want to see what good witnesses you were.

[00:19:02]>> Dr. Guttenag asked the students to quickly write down everything they remember about the crime. He needs specifics here.

[00:19:09]>> What did the perp look like? His shirt, his pants, and his hair.

[00:19:13]>> Our suspect, Ethan, is waiting in the hall. You take a look. He's wearing a tan zip-up jacket, jeans, and he has brown hair combed back. A lot of students get these details right, but not everyone.

[00:19:26]>> I thought he had like a beige fleece thing on with darker beige patches on it.

[00:19:30]>> This student right in the front row said it was a tan vest and it had black lining.

[00:19:36]>> He had a long sleeve shirt on with a a stripe over the middle.

[00:19:40]>> I thought he was wearing khakis. We're looking for 5'6 with a vest and tan khakis or 6'2 with blue jeans and a jacket.

[00:19:50]>> How well did the students describe Ethan's physical appearance?

[00:19:54]>> So, most of you didn't feel you remembered anything about the face at all.

[00:19:59]Wow. His hair.

[00:20:01]>> I said it was um kind of mid-length blonde and shaggy.

[00:20:05]>> It was blonde though. I had blonde also.

[00:20:07]>> Then Dr. Gun tag brings Ethan back into the room. And watch this twist that even shocked the professor.

[00:20:14]>> This is the perp.

[00:20:18]>> This is Ethan.

[00:20:20]>> That's not him.

[00:20:22]>> Quickly, Dr. Gun Tag picks up on the confusion and starts trying to influence the students memory.

[00:20:27]>> How many of you realize that this is a trick and that isn't really him? Put up your hand. Put your hand up high if you realize that we brought a different person in.

[00:20:35]>> I definitely don't think that it was him. How's he different?

[00:20:38]>> His hair is slick back and I think he's wearing different jeans. Again, listen to the student on the front row and I saw his vest. I don't remember seeing a jacket.

[00:20:48]>> Put up your hand real high if you did think that the guy who came in was the per >> fewer than 10 students raised their hands.

[00:20:57]>> How many people said realized it wasn't him?

[00:21:02]Looks like about 80. Okay, this is him.

[00:21:11]This is him. This is Ethan.

[00:21:14]This is the person who came in the room before. He didn't change anything at all.

[00:21:21]>> So, that's why I wanted to show the eyewitness clip. It makes the point perfectly how people could be completely wrong about what they saw, even if a person was standing right in front of them. Now, in the deli murders case, witnesses have different descriptions about how the person looked, who they saw, but they all agreed they saw the same guy, and that guy is Bridge Guy, the only male out on the trails at the time they spotted him. And it's odd that the people who argue that Rick Allen's gun match is junk science because it's subjective, but then they think that the sketch should have been used at trial, that's hypocritical. So, think about it this way. Imagine all of the witnesses had seen a man walking the trail in a mountain lion suit. One witness might later describe it as a cougar suit.

[00:22:07]Another might say a lion suit. Another might remember it more brown while someone else remembers it more tan or darker color. Now, that doesn't mean that they saw different people in different suits, right? If police later showed them a picture of the mountain lion suit and the person walking in it, they would all say, "Yes, that's who I saw." And that's basically what happened here. The witnesses were not looking at Richard Allen's bare face and perfect conditions, calmly studying his features for future courtroom use. They were seeing a man dressed as Bridge guy concealing his face. They recognized the outfit, the body type, the overall look, and the presence of that same man on the trail. So when they saw the Bridge Guy image, they knew that was the man that they had seen. So that is the point.

[00:22:52]Nobody is claiming they knew his name was Richard Allen back then. They identified the man in the Bridge Guy disguise. So the man in the video, Bridgeu Guy, walked right by four juvenile witnesses. They only walked by one man, Bridge Guy. Rick Allen, who was there at the exact same time as the four witnesses, only walked by one group of girls. And he described that group of girls as one being taller with dark hair, which is true. He said that they look like sisters, which three of them were sisters, so that was true. And he said it looked like they might have been babysitting a younger one, and that is also true. The fact that Rick Allen confirms that those girls that saw him were the ones that he saw is extremely damning. Rick Allen describing those witnesses is something only the killer could do. And remember, those witnesses never saw Rick Allen. They only saw Bridge Guy. Even Kathy Allen ended up admitting that Bridge Guy looks like her husband. She says it in a police interview. She conceds, quote, that picture, would that be your husband?

[00:23:52]That could be any male. Okay. Anywhere, anytime. I mean, those clothes or whatever, could that be your husband size-wise? I mean, well, size-wise, yeah. So, there's Kathy Allen saying that Bridge guy matched her husband size-wise. And then Rick incriminates himself, too, because his response to the picture is weird as hell. And this is a picture was taken with the thumb of one of the girls.

[00:24:17]Okay, I understand that. And the question needs to be, is that you?

[00:24:25]If it was taken with the girl's phone, that is absolutely I mean, it's not me, but I never have met these girls before.

[00:24:32]So even if I thought it looked like me, I if it was taken with the girl's phone, there's no way it could be. I've never met them. I've never seen them. If I showed you that picture and asked, "Is that you?" You're innocent, so you would just say, "No, that's not me." Well, Rick didn't do that. When Rick was shown the picture of Bridge Guy and was asked if it was him, his response was, "If it was taken with the girl's phone, then it's absolutely not me. I mean, it's not me because I've never met those girls before." That is a bizarre answer. Who took the picture should not change the answer, right? Either it is you or it isn't you. Rick answered that question like a man trying to think his way around the problem instead of just giving the obvious truthful answer, which is yes. So, now we're going to get to the second major issue Allen's appellet attorneys are going to argue at oral arguments, the confessions. And this is where the defense has one of its biggest problems. Because Richard Allen did not confess just once, and he didn't confess during some police interrogation. He confessed over 60 times to his wife, his mother, correctional officers, mental health staff, prison employees, the warden, medical staff, his psychologist, his psychiatrist, and he didn't sound crazy or irrational during these confessions.

[00:25:52]We have phone recordings of them, and he sounds very calm, coherent, and he just sounds like a man trying to unbburden himself. What happened was on April 3rd, 2023, Rick Allen was in prison being held in an isolation cell and he started receiving some of the evidence against him and he ate some of it. It was very damning. Once he started receiving it later that day, he confessed to his wife Kathy saying, "I did it. I killed Abby and Libby." Then Rick's trial attorneys caught wind of this and they paid Rick a visit the very next day. So on April 4th, 2023, they had a problem solved.

[00:26:28]And one of the things they did was they wanted him to act crazy. They wanted him to start saying other confessions and putting in false details in those confessions. He would tell other inmates things that weren't true. That way they could try and discredit all of the confessions. Lump them together and say, "See, his confessions can't be true.

[00:26:46]Look at all these errors they have in them." However, the only confessions that have anything incorrect in them come from other inmates. They're secondhand. We don't know if he even said those things. All we know is a prisoner is saying that Richard Allen said these things, but everything that we have recorded or documented by credible sources, none of those have any incorrect information in them. So like one inmate claimed that Rick Allen told him that he shot the girls with a gun and that never happened. So we don't know if the inmates are making things up, if they misheard something, but I don't consider other inmates credible sources. if we threw out all of the silly things that these inmates claimed that Rick Allen said, all that would be left is confessions that actually match up with the evidence. So, going back to the confessions in April 3rd, Rick's defense attorneys, they had to come up with something, right? So, that's why on April 4th, 2023, they tried to get ahead of the situation and out came this story that was briefly published online that used the word schizophrenic in it. And they came up with a story that was published online that says Rick was a prisoner of war. And they claimed that Rick Allen was acting schizophrenic despite Rick Allen was never diagnosed as schizophrenic. So again, that's the defense just making things up. So the defense came up with reasons that Rick Allen was crazy. They had to come up with something. So they said it was because he was treated like a prisoner of war and he was forced to be in solitary confinement, which is not true.

[00:28:13]He was housed in a single man cell in the restrictive housing unit at Westville for safekeeping and suicide watch. And prisoners in jail do not take kindly to those who harm children. So that's why he was placed in a safekeeping cell for his own safety.

[00:28:29]Because if he was put in general population, let's just say he probably wouldn't have made it to trial. And here's the truth. Rick Allen's isolation cell did not reflect a prisoner of war because in a cell he had a bed, a sink, toilet, window, showers, even had recreation time, but he did have clean clothes. He had books, commissary, and he had a freaking tablet that he could call and text on. He could watch movies on. They even offered him a TV. He got in-person visits with his wife, regular medical checks, mental health support, chaplain access, weekly contact with Dr. Wala depending on his status. So he had it way better than anyone else in the prison. So that's going to get debunked at this oral hearing. And also the defense tries to make it sound like all of the 60 confessions came out during one long psychotic break. And that's not true. Really. Allan was saying incriminating things back in October November of 2022. The day that his house was searched, he was saying things like, "Why bother? It's all over." Then in November, he was apologizing to Kathy on the phone, talking about his next life and sounded like a man who knew exactly where he was headed. And then remember in early April, that's when he started receiving the discovery, the evidence against him. And he met with his attorneys. And then on April 5th, Richard Allen stated to Dr. Walla that he killed Libby and Abby. Then he made sure they were dead because he didn't want them to suffer and that he acted alone. Rick also stated that his intentions were sexual in nature, that he thought the victims were at least 18 or 19, but could have been as young as 11 years old. Rick said that he killed them because he was selfish and chose to take their lives in order to preserve his own, that he wanted to apologize to the victim's families. Rick alluded to having a sex addiction and that he was an alcoholic. On April 7th, he said he killed them by himself and he said he was just acting like he was crazy. On April 8th, 9th, and 10th, he kept confessing and expressing remorse, and Allen's behavior was deemed severe enough for medical intervention on April 13th. So, the confessions before that, he was not deemed to be in psychosis.

[00:30:38]The treatment review committee agreed on April 14th that he was showing psychotic symptoms, serious enough to justify how doll, but then by May 2nd and May 3rd, it's documented that Rick Allen had returned to baseline behavior and no longer showed signs of psychosis. And on May 3rd, that's when he gave his most detailed confession to Dr. Walla, including the van detail where he logically explained the events the day of the murders, what he did, how he did it, and why he did it. Here's a quote from the testimony of Dr. Walla about Richard Allen. He said he wanted to confess to his crimes and went on to tell his story. He reported seeing his parents the morning of the crime. He stated he was supposed to go eat with them, but opted to get himself a six-pack. He reported drinking three beers and then finishing the rest later.

[00:31:25]He stated, "I bundled up once on the trail." He stated, "I laid in weight."

[00:31:31]He reported seeing the girls, Libyan Abby, and following them to the bridge.

[00:31:36]He mentioned doing something with his gun and stated, "I think that's where the bullet fell out." And then he said, "I ordered them down the hill." He stated his intention was to ar them. And mentioned he thought they were older than their biological ages. He said he saw a van which scared him and caused him not to follow through on ringing the girls. He said they crossed a creek and then he cut their necks. He indicated wanting to make sure they were dead. He reported covering their bodies with tree branches. He said he exited the area by keeping off the trail as to not be seen.

[00:32:10]He said he returned to his vehicle which he parked by a nearby building. He stated he managed to continue living his life after time passed by and he hadn't been caught and that he seemed relieved after making this confession. And the most important part is how much of that sequence lines up with the facts of the case. He stated he followed the girls across the bridge, which the video evidence verifies. He states that a bullet fell out of his gun, which is true. A bullet cartridge was found at the crime scene. He said his intent was sexual, and this lines up with the facts of the case. The girls had their clothing removed and one of the victims was found nude. And yet there was no medical evidence of a sexual assault, which lines up to a sexual assault that was in progress and then interrupted.

[00:32:55]And how would anyone other than the killer know that happened? Rick Allen also said that a van interrupted him.

[00:33:01]With a little help, investigators followed up on Rick's statement and they were able to connect it to Brad Weber's van. And Weber's work record showed that he clocked out at 2:02 p.m. Then he had a walk out to his van, drove home, which he stated takes about 20 to 25 minutes, putting his van on the private drive at approximately 2:32 p.m., which is the time that Libbyy's cell phone stopped moving. Investigators also pulled Weber's phone records, which helped confirm that he drove home that day at that time. So, the question becomes simple. How would Richard Allen know that a van came down that private drive at that critical moment unless he was there? There is no reasonable innocent explanation for Allen knowing that detail. Also, what Rick Allen gets right is that they crossed the creek. This is backed by actual evidence based on what they found on the victim's clothes, the pants, and the shoes. When a bunch of people online say that they didn't cross the creek, well, Rick got this one right. They did cross the creek. Rick said that he cut both of the girls' necks, which aligns with the autopsy evidence. He stated that he covered their bodies with tree branches, another fact that wasn't publicly known, but lines up with the crime scene evidence.

[00:34:12]He said he left off trail so he would not be seen. And that fits with the witness evidence. Nobody has ever came forward and said that they saw a muddy and bloody man walking in the trail system. Sarah Carbaugh saw the muddy and bloody man walking outside of the trail system alongside a road towards where Allan had parked. And Allan said that he returned to his vehicle near a nearby building, which lines up with Allen's own statements that he parked near the old CPS Farm Bureau building. So, it's not the fact that he just confessed or some false confession by some crazy person in psychosis. This was very detailed. He didn't get a single detail wrong. Everything he said matches up with the facts of the case. So, the trial court was right to let the jury hear those confessions. And the appellet brief is doing what defense briefs do.

[00:35:01]They cherrypick, exaggerate, and hope for the best. The third major argument from the defense is that the trial defense team was blocked from presenting key evidence, aka the Odinist did it argument. So, let's end this Odinist satanic panic stuff once and for all.

[00:35:18]Now, the deli case generated a bunch of tips. That's what happens in every high-profile murder case. People tip in their exes, their neighbors, weird guys from Facebook, local creeps, and sometimes just full-blown conspiracy theory type stuff, a bunch of tips, right? So, law enforcement has to run those leads down to see if there's anything there. So yes, police did look at violent offenders, child predators, perverts, traffickers, and they had to look at the Viking wizard, Odinist garbage stuff, too. They looked into it, went down that rabbit hole, and it led nowhere. So, they had to move on. They had to do their due diligence, and it led nowhere. The biggest and most important point I want to make is there is zero evidence that these murders were Odinist killings. No physical evidence, no forensic evidence, no eyewitness evidence, nothing scientific, only storytelling. No one placed an odinist at the crime scene. I mean, the defense had a full pre-trial hearing in 2024 to show that there's some substance there, and they could not establish a real nexus between any alleged Odinist and the murderers. And that is why the court kept it out. The F tree was not an F.

[00:36:36]There was no F in blood on the tree.

[00:36:39]That idea came from the reddish tints in the bark. Once a chemical was applied that turned the blood white, the extra line people wanted to form an F with was gone. What was left was an upside down L, which is not a rune at all. Same with same with the theory that the bodies were hung upside down. They were not.

[00:36:59]The actual science, the blood patterns on the bodies and on the ground were inconsistent with that theory. and the sticks. Even assuming for the sake of argument that they were intended to be runes, the arrangement did not in any obvious way spell a word. And no, the FBI did not back up this theory. The FBI's behavioral analyst unit was quote unable to verify or find support for the claim that this was an Odinist killing.

[00:37:26]Their conclusion was that neither the blood on the tree nor the sticks on the bodies quote clearly depict, capture, or present known aspects of Odinism or its symbology. The sticks were used to conceal the victims. Nothing more, nothing less. Brad Holder was the backbone of this whole story, and he has probably one of the best alibis that you will ever learn. Brad Holder was at work at a landfill in Buffalo from 4:55 a.m.

[00:37:53]to 2:45 p.m. on February 13th, 2017. His vehicle was on video verifying that he was there. He clocked in and clocked out. That was verified. But I think the biggest part that really locks down his alibi is he also had to log into the piece of machinery that he worked on.

[00:38:13]This was a unique code that only he knew. And even if he shared it with someone, that person would have to know how to operate that equipment. It's not something that a buddy could just go and cover for you. People would have noticed and you had to be trained on this equipment. After he left work, he went to the gym. His gym check-in placed him in Logan's port at 4:08 p.m. So yeah, the operations clerk at the landfill, the only person who could change the electronic time records, confirmed she had not changed them. Police investigated Holder and Westfall and found no evidence connecting them or any other alleged Odinist conspirator to the murders or placing them at the Highbridge Trail that afternoon. No video put them there. No cell phone put them there. They didn't put themselves there. No witness put them there. There was no physical evidence that tied them to the crime scene. So, it cannot have been Brad Holder. So with him out, the theory against West fault falls apart, too. Because the defense's own story depended on multiple participants.

[00:39:15]Without Holder, all you're left with is unusual beliefs, social media post, and people staring at sticks and crime scene photos until their brains melt. Also, there is no history of ritual human sacrifices in Odinism. According to an Odinist who testified at the pre-trial hearing, child sacrifice would be contrary to the religion, even quote expert Doctor Don Pearlmutter cannot identify another confirmed example of an Odinist ritual killing. I mean, if it's a ritual, shouldn't there be multiple killings like on a specific day or time?

[00:39:52]Like, what makes it a ritual? So that's a serious problem when your whole theory is this was an Odinist ritual killing when Odinists don't kill and there is no ritual. So it's important to note that there was a pre-trial hearing. It was 3 days in July and August of 2024 where the defense got to bring witnesses, experts, and whatever evidence they thought supported the Odinist theory.

[00:40:17]That was the time to prove it. And they did not. No suspect at the scene, no evidence, nothing. And even if we wanted to keep playing pretend, and that Odinist killed the girls, how does that clear Rick Allen? Maybe Rick Allen's a Odinist. We don't know. So, yes, police looked into the Viking wizard theory.

[00:40:34]That's what investigators do. Then they moved on. The evidence never supported Odinism. The FBI did not support it. The symbols were garbage. The suspects weren't there. And the whole thing collapsed once it had to go into a pre-trial hearing. It was a waste of time then and it's a waste of time