Fig.Solves

Recently, a YouTuber did a livestream where she displayed these misleading maps and tried to use them to create doubt about Libby’s phone data. Hopefully nobody takes this analysis seriously, because the problems are everywhere: some of the data is wrong, the geometry is wrong, the way she applies the data is wrong, and even some of her basic calculations are wrong.

The biggest problem with these maps is that she does not compare the same period of time.

Apple Health recorded 414.38 meters of movement from about 2:08:48 p.m. to 2:18:48 p.m. But when she calculates the route to the crime scene, she starts her measurement at the south end of the bridge around 2:13 p.m.

She simply leaves out the first four-plus minutes of movement.

Then she subtracts her 197-meter route from the full 414 meters and announces that there are about 217 “extra” meters that need to be explained.

They are explained.

Those 217 meters occurred during the approximately four minutes of movement she left out of her comparison. Covering 217 meters in that time is only about 1.9 mph — a completely normal walking speed.

She makes it worse on another graphic by claiming the 414 meters covers approximately 2:08:49–2:25:22. That is also wrong. The 414-meter movement ended around 2:18:48. The phone then showed no movement until 2:25:22.

So she chops several minutes off the beginning of the route she measures, stretches the Apple Health time window at the other end, and then presents the discrepancy she created as some unexplained mystery.

Her next map takes the 414 meters of recorded movement and draws a 414-meter circle around the crime scene, suggesting the phone could have been anywhere inside that area.

That is bad geometry.

The 414 meters is accumulated distance traveled along a route. It is not straight-line distance from the crime scene. If you walk 414 meters while turning, crossing a bridge, going downhill and crossing a creek, you do not end up 414 meters away from where you started.

She takes path distance and treats it like “as the crow flies” displacement, then centers that invented radius on the crime scene. The Apple Health data does not support that map.

She also misrepresents what the 414 meters means. The 414.38 meters is the total movement recorded during the full 2:08:48 p.m. to 2:18:48 p.m. period. It is not a single straight trip from the bridge to the crime scene, and it is not “elevation gain.”

Then there are the basic arithmetic errors.

She lists route segments of 24 + 2 + 21 + 44 + 26 + 122 + 28 + 24 steps.

That equals 291 steps.

Her graphic says 294.

She also uses about 647 feet for the route and approximately 2.3 feet per step.

647 ÷ 2.3 = about 281 steps.

Again, not 294.

And another graphic shows:

414 + 5 + 50.64 meters.

That equals 469.64 meters.

Her graphic says 469.74.

So we are dealing with the wrong time window, the wrong use of the distance data, bad geometry, mislabeled data, and arithmetic that does not even match the numbers on her own graphics.

When you correct those errors, the supposed Apple Health mystery she is trying to create disappears. There are a lot of other things wrong, but I got better things to do. I think everyone gets the point don’t trust these people for information.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4

3 hours ago | [YT] | 38

Fig.Solves

Richard Allen’s Own Defense Attorneys Called Him “Schizophrenic and Delusional”

In my last video, I once again brought up how Richard Allen’s defense attorneys called him “schizophrenic and delusional” as part of their emergency reaction after Rick Allen started confessing.

And apparently, the Richard Allen fan club now says I made it up and I’m a liar.

Well, I’ve had the screenshot since the day it happened. It’s even in one of my old videos, Un Founded. And here are the screenshots, the articles, and the court filing. The language is still sitting right there in one of the defense’s own filings:

“Mr. Allen appeared to be suffering from various psychotic symptoms which counsel would describe as schizophrenic and delusional.”

Sigh. When will the RA lovers figure out that I don’t make things up? I always have receipts.

It’s the defense attorneys who make things up. Then people come to my YouTube channel, see the actual documents and evidence, and get shocked when the truth doesn’t match what they’ve been told. They go into denial and hope it isn’t true.

Well, sorry RA folks. It’s all true.

WRTV:
www.wrtv.com/news/attorneys-for-delphi-murder-susp…

Oxygen:
www.oxygen.com/crime-news/accused-delphi-murderer-…

Rick Allen started confessing, and his defense immediately tried to poison those confessions by branding him “schizophrenic and delusional” without a schizophrenia diagnosis, because a sane man repeatedly admitting he killed Abby and Libby—and later giving crime-specific details—was devastating evidence against him, they needed the public to see his confessions as mental illness before people saw them for what they were, repeated admissions from the man who was ultimately convicted of the murders.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4

16 hours ago | [YT] | 48

Fig.Solves

Lindsay Clancy’s Civil Lawsuit and the Admission in Her Own Complaint

Lindsay Clancy filed her own medical-malpractice lawsuit in Norfolk Superior Court on January 22nd, 2026. The case is Lindsay M. Clancy v. Jennifer A. Tufts, M.D., et al., Civil Action No. 2682CV00081. She sued the doctors, psychiatric providers, and institutions involved in treating her before the deaths of Cora, Dawson, and Callan. The lawsuit has since been amended, and the operative second amended complaint was filed on June 8th, 2026. It names 11 defendants, including Dr. Jennifer Tufts, Dr. Alia Goodheart, Dr. Zobeida Diaz, Dr. Elizabeth Madva, Rebecca Jollotta, Julie Paul, Lateisha Dukes, Aster Mental Health, South Shore Health System, McLean Hospital, and Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island.

Her theory of the civil case is straightforward: the medical providers allegedly failed to diagnose bipolar disorder with postpartum onset, failed to coordinate her psychiatric treatment, prescribed an inappropriate combination of medications, and discharged her without adequate treatment. According to her complaint, those failures contributed to a psychotic episode that culminated in the deaths of her children and her own catastrophic injuries. The defendants dispute the allegations, and the civil case remains pending.

The significant part for the criminal case is what Lindsay herself pleaded about January 24th, 2023.

Her complaint does not present the killings as something another person might have done. Her own civil pleading gives an account in which she killed the children. The filing states:

“Lindsay Clancy killed her three children by ligature strangulation.”

The complaint then describes her account of what happened after Patrick left the house. It says she heard a demanding voice telling her:

“Kill the children so you can kill yourself.”

Her pleaded account continues:

“I lost all control. My body started acting without any control on my part. I was just following commands, ‘all action.’”

It also includes the statement:

“Go to God, baby.”

Those allegations appear in a lawsuit Lindsay herself brought seeking damages based upon the proposition that her medical treatment contributed to what she did.

That creates a major problem for the argument Kevin Reddington made on September 29th, 2026, when he questioned whether there was sufficient evidence that Lindsay was even the person who killed the children. Lindsay’s own pending civil lawsuit proceeds from the opposite factual premise: she killed the children and claims her psychiatric condition and medical treatment explain why. Reddington argued after the mistrial that there was a “total and complete lack of evidence” establishing that she committed the killings, even though her civil complaint affirmatively describes her doing exactly that.

1 day ago | [YT] | 51

Fig.Solves

What happened to this fraud?

So I went back and finally watched this dudes video where he claims that Rick Allen is innocent because … he doesn’t need any evidence - but his unscientific method says so- you can’t make this stuff up.

So I took note of the method he used to “determine” Rick Allen was innocent during his interrogation- and applied his exact method to Rick Allen’s confessions - and guess what? Rick Allen is guilty!! So if you believe in this guys method then you must then believe Rick Allen is guilty.

Sergio Dinaro is this frauds name.

In his video he straight says “the evidence is completely irrelevant,”

Then says society emphasizes evidence “too heavily,” haha of course a fraud would say that.

He follows that up with “I don’t worry about if somebody’s lying. I can see right through that,” we shall see…

So in his video He tells viewers that short, direct, unqualified answers indicate truthfulness and even calls Allen’s “I did not murder two little girls” a “perfectly truthful” statement.

So now let’s Apply that same rule to Allen’s confessions: “I did it,” “I killed Abby and Libby,” “Yes, I did,” “Well, it does when I did,” and “Mom, I wouldn’t sit here and tell you I did it if I didn’t.”

Those statements are shorter, more direct, more committed, and less qualified than many of the denials Dinaro uses to proclaim innocence.

Allen then told Dr. Wala, “I laid in wait,” “I ordered them down the hill,” and later separated his bizarre statements from the core admission by saying, “I didn’t do everything I said I did, but I did kill A.W. and L.G.”

Dinaro’s method therefore produces guilt when applied consistently, so he has to cherry-pick the statements that support his conclusion and ignore the ones that prove that he’s full of shit.

His logic becomes circular: Allen sounds innocent to Sergio, contradictory evidence must therefore be wrong, the cartridge must therefore be planted, and even a detective denying evidence planting becomes a supposed confession that police planted it.

The method Dinaro uses, SCAN, has failed peer-reviewed testing at reliably telling truth from lies, and research shows people generally detect deception only about 54% of the time—barely better than flipping a coin.

So when Dinaro acts like he can determine Richard Allen’s innocence from word choices and speech patterns, he is claiming a level of accuracy and certainty that the science simply does not support. If he still stands behind that method, then I want him to analyze “I did it,” “I killed Abby and Libby,” “Yes, I did,” and “I wouldn’t sit here and tell you I did it if I didn’t” using the exact same rules he used to declare Allen innocent—and then explain why his method suddenly stops working when Richard Allen confesses. That is the analysis I want to see.

1 day ago | [YT] | 36

Fig.Solves

Debunking the 54 Biggest Claims Made in Defense of Richard Allen

Okay, I have listened to the oral arguments, watched certain defense attorneys do YouTube interviews, watched some defense “LawTubers” be ignorant and dishonest as sin, and made a list of all 54 of their arguments for why Richard Allen supposedly isn’t guilty.

What I kept finding were a bunch of one-off arguments from people who either do not know how to consider the totality of the evidence, or simply refuse to.

So I wrote them all down. All 54 of them.

None of them are convincing. Some leave out half the story. Most completely misunderstand the evidence. Some are misleading, some are flat-out wrong, and some are complete lies.

Hmm… now what should I do with this list of debunks? 👀



1. Richard Allen does not fit the profile of someone who would commit this crime.
2. Nobody recognized Richard Allen as Bridge Guy.
3. None of the witnesses identified Allen in court.
4. Dulin thought Allen did not match Bridge Guy, and Allen had been cleared.
5. Allen saw a different group of girls.
6. The juvenile witnesses’ height descriptions do not match Allen, therefore the man they saw was not Richard Allen.
7. Bridge Guy’s height was never determined, therefore it was not Richard Allen.
8. Betsy Blair actually saw Daniel Pearson.
9. Other witnesses saw Bridge Guy at times when Allen could not have been there.
10. Harshman’s voice identification was unreliable because there were not enough words.
11. There is a third female voice on Libby’s recording.
12. A gun was not used in the crime.
13. It was never proven that Bridge Guy killed the girls.
14. The exact time of death is unknown, so Bridge Guy cannot be tied to the murders.
15. The 1:27 p.m. vehicle was not Allen’s Ford Focus.
16. Allen would not normally have driven that route.
17. Allen did not park at the old CPS building.
18. Allen was on the trails around noon to 1:30 p.m., before the murders.
19. Allen could not have returned to his car without being seen.
20. Brad Weber’s van arrived around 2:44 p.m., too late to interrupt Allen.
21. Weber’s phone data proves he got home too late.
22. Dr. Wala fed Allen the van detail.
23. Wala suspiciously destroyed her notes and was fired.
24. The girls’ shoes were pristine, so they did not cross Deer Creek.
25. A branch was freshly sawed, meaning the killer needed a saw.
26. The large branch was too heavy for Allen to move alone.
27. Phone data proves someone plugged headphones into Libby’s phone.
28. Calls going to voicemail and later ringing prove the phone was moved or handled.
29. Libby’s phone battery behavior proves something suspicious happened to the phone.
30. Abby could not have put Libby’s phone underneath herself.
31. Unknown male DNA and the “sperm fraction” point to another perpetrator.
32. Oberg’s cartridge identification is unreliable because the marks were “random.”
33. Oberg could not reproduce the marks, so she fired the cartridge to get a match.
34. William Tobin should have been allowed to discredit the firearm evidence.
35. The Odinism theory came from law enforcement, giving it credibility.
36. Perlmutter should have been allowed to testify.
37. Professor Turco supported the rune/Odinist interpretation.
38. Brad Holder is Bridge Guy.
39. The FBI was kicked off the investigation before it could finish investigating Odinism.
40. The investigator looking into Odinism was killed before he could testify.
41. Allen’s confessions were caused by isolation, prison conditions and Haldol.
42. Prison staff manipulated or rewarded Allen into confessing.
43. Nobody genuinely confesses more than 60 times.
44. Allen’s confessions contain false details that contradict the evidence.
45. Allen’s false statements make all of his confessions unreliable.
46. Prison conditions caused Allen’s psychosis.
47. The search warrant should have been thrown out.
48. Allen did not receive a fair trial.
49. Firearm/toolmark identification is junk science.
50. Brad Holder’s overwritten interview proves a cover-up or corruption.
51. Allen voluntarily came forward, so he must be innocent.
52. Police developed tunnel vision after rediscovering Allen’s lead.
53. Three unidentified phones were moving around the crime scene during the murders, proving other people were involved.
54. There was police corruption.

2 days ago | [YT] | 89

Fig.Solves

DNA FACT CHECK — DELPHI / RICHARD ALLEN

I keep seeing Richard Allen supporters repeat claims about the DNA in this case that show they either do not understand DNA, do not understand the testimony, or simply do not know the facts of the case.

So I’m going to use the actual trial testimony, quote the DNA analyst directly, and explain what was actually found — and what was not.

The defense took technical forensic language and used it as aggressively as they could for their client. Some Allen supporters have taken phrases like “male DNA,” “presumptive seminal material,” and “unknown male DNA” and turned them into claims the testing never established.

Richard Allen is a convicted child killer. If you are going to argue that DNA somehow proves somebody else murdered Abby and Libby, then at least understand what Indiana State Police forensic scientist Stacy Bozinovski actually testified to before repeating it.

There was NO usable unidentified male perpetrator DNA profile recovered from the crime scene that pointed to another killer or excluded Richard Allen.

Yes, tiny amounts of male DNA were detected on some external genital swabs and fingernail scrapings.

Prosecutor James Luttrull asked Bozinovski directly:

“Does the finding of some male DNA on those swabs indicate that that would have been from a perpetrator of a crime?”

Her answer:

“No, it does not.”

She explained:

“I can’t make any conclusions about who that DNA is attributable to, first of all, because I don’t have a DNA profile.”

She described the amount of male DNA as “very, very little” and testified that it was below the amount needed to amplify and develop a DNA profile.

So there was no identifiable male profile sitting there waiting to be compared to Richard Allen. The amount was too small to determine whose DNA it was.

Bozinovski also explained that tiny amounts of DNA in those locations can come from ordinary contact with clothing, laundry, household members, objects, other people and the environment. She testified that the amount detected was so small that finding it from those ordinary sources would not surprise her.

Now the sexual-assault-kit claims.

The kits included private-area/cervical swabs, oral swabs, anal swabs, external and internal genital swabs, fingernail scrapings and hair-combing samples.

The private-area/cervical swabs gave a preliminary presumptive indication of possible seminal material. Bozinovski explained exactly why the lab did not run a separate confirmatory serology test. At that time, confirmatory testing was not part of the laboratory’s sexual-assault-kit workflow because it would have required using another cutting of the sample. Instead, they preserved the sample and moved it forward to DNA analysis to determine what DNA profile was actually present, regardless of whether the presumptive seminal-material result could be confirmed.

She also testified that a presumptive positive for seminal material can later be negative on a confirmatory test.

Then the DNA testing was performed.

Bozinovski testified that the contents of the kits mostly showed no male DNA, with only tiny amounts detected on certain external genital swabs and fingernail scrapings — again, amounts too small for further analysis.

When she discussed the private-area/cervical samples specifically, she testified:

“The DNA result indicated that there was no male DNA present on both of those samples.”

There is no unidentified semen DNA profile from another man.

The underwear recovered from Deer Creek was also examined for blood and seminal material.

Bozinovski testified:

“No blood or seminal material was detected.”

And the phrase “sperm fraction” does not mean the laboratory discovered sperm from some unknown man.

A sperm fraction is terminology used during a laboratory differential-extraction process. It describes a portion of the processed sample. Seeing the words “sperm fraction” on laboratory paperwork is not itself a test result saying sperm was detected.

The actual testing determines whether seminal material or male DNA was found.

Now the famous “unknown male DNA.”

There actually was a male DNA profile that was initially unknown.

It came from a swab of the black sweatshirt.

Bozinovski entered that unknown profile into CODIS. Later, using newer technology, she ran it through the employee database again.

Her testimony:

“I ran my unknown profile through an employee database for a second time and was able to get a match to that unknown profile to an employee sample.”

The profile was then removed from CODIS because it had been identified.

It was associated with laboratory personnel.

There was also a problem with the employee database. The person had not been included during the original comparison even though they should have been. The laboratory took corrective action.

So when someone says there was an “unknown male DNA profile,” the identification of that profile cannot simply be left out.

It was traced to laboratory personnel.

The comments saying, “They found DNA on the girls but never tested it against Richard Allen or another suspect,” completely misunderstand what the analyst testified to.

There was nothing to compare to Richard Allen from those trace samples because the laboratory never developed an individual DNA profile from them.

The claim that they found male DNA “in the girls’ crevices” is also misleading.

The tiny amount of male DNA was detected on certain external genital swabs and fingernail scrapings. When the private-area/cervical samples were analyzed for DNA, Bozinovski testified:

“The DNA result indicated that there was no male DNA present on both of those samples.”

The claim that semen from another man was found is also false.

The private-area/cervical swabs gave a presumptive indication of possible seminal material. The laboratory did not simply stop testing. Bozinovski explained that they preserved those samples rather than consuming additional material on a confirmatory serology test and moved them forward to DNA analysis. The subsequent DNA analysis found no male DNA on those private-area/cervical samples.

And no, the prosecutor did not simply invent “shared laundry” as an excuse.

The DNA analyst herself testified that amounts this small can come from ordinary contact with clothing, laundry, household members, objects, other people and the environment.

So here are the facts:

No unidentified male perpetrator DNA profile was developed from the girls.

No male DNA profile was developed from the private-area/cervical samples.

No confirmed semen profile from another man was found.

The trace male DNA was too small to identify anybody.

The DNA analyst specifically testified that the trace male DNA did not mean it came from the perpetrator.

The one identifiable male profile that was initially unknown was ultimately associated with laboratory personnel.

Richard Allen was not excluded by DNA.

Repeating “male DNA was found” does not turn an unidentifiable trace amount into another killer. Repeating “presumptive seminal material” does not turn an unconfirmed screening result into another man’s semen. Saying investigators “never compared it to Rick” ignores the basic problem: there was no profile there to compare to him.

If you are going to use DNA to argue that somebody else murdered Abby and Libby, then produce the unidentified male perpetrator profile.

There isn’t one.

#delphimurders #trending

4 days ago | [YT] | 94

Fig.Solves

Rick Allen’s defense wants us to believe that this sketch is supposed to be of a heavily bearded Brad Holder who was at work, clocked in, logged into his specialized equipment, 35 miles away during the time of the murders.🤣🤣

Thanks to Jason Haynes for bringing this up.

Brad Holder has a rock-solid alibi.
Bridge Guy was recorded on Libby’s phone at 2:13 p.m.
Brad Holder was at work in Buffalo, Indiana, roughly 35 miles away.
He clocked into work at 4:55 a.m.
He clocked out of work at 2:45 p.m.
More importantly than that, while at work, Holder runs a special piece of equipment, that requires an employee code to be logged in, and Brad Holder was logged into that equipment, and also, not just anyone off the street could run that equipment, the person would need to be highly trained.
The operations clerk at the landfill, the only person who could change the electronic time records, confirmed she had not changed them. She also explained why it would have been obvious if Holder had left, had someone cover for him, or if anything unusual had happened. Only a small number of people worked each shift, the equipment ran continuously, and specialized training was required.
Then after work, Holder checked in at a gym in Logansport at 4:08 p.m.”
There is 0 evidence that Brad Holder even set foot in Delphi the day of the murders.
Leeman ultimately conceded that if Holder really clocked out at 2:45 p.m., he could not have been the person who initially confronted Abby and Libby at approximately 2:13 p.m. He then tried to move Holder later into the crime and suggested he could have been the muddy-and-bloody man.

Skip the Carousel

1 2 3 4 5

1 week ago | [YT] | 89

Fig.Solves

I watched today’s oral arguments in Richard Allen’s appeal this morning. I’ll have a video out pretty soon sharing my thoughts, breaking down what happened, and debunking some of the claims of the defense.

My quick takeaway after watching the entire Richard Allen oral argument today: I do not think the hearing went nearly as well for the defense as some people are claiming.

The judges asked tough questions of both sides because that is their job. Those questions are already being treated online like rulings. They are not.

The defense mostly repackaged the same arguments involving Allen’s confessions, the Odinist theory, Betsy Blair’s sketch, the firearm evidence, the prison videos, and Brad Weber’s van. Once the missing context is restored, I still find those arguments weak. Allen confessed before the claimed psychotic period, continued confessing after he improved, and revealed details that matched the crime. Even without the confessions, the remaining evidence against him is substantial.

My overall impression is that Richard Allen’s convictions are likely to be affirmed. I’ll explain why and debunk some of the misleading claims in my upcoming video.

1 week ago | [YT] | 119

Fig.Solves

Just a quick heads up about my Lindsay Clancy video.

I’ll be taking down the current unfiltered version and uploading the same video again with a few things blurred out and a few words edited that YouTube doesn’t like.

The original video is currently partially blocked in certain areas because of some of the content, so I’m making these small edits to make it more widely available.

The unfiltered version will remain available to Fig Solves members.

If you already watched the video, I don’t want you to see the new upload and think it’s a different video. It’s the same video and the same analysis — just with a few minor edits for YouTube.

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up. Thank you for watching and supporting the channel!

— Fig Solves

1 week ago | [YT] | 51

Fig.Solves

Coming soon: The Case Against Lindsay Clancy. Mrs. Fig Solves and I are working on it now. The script started out at 89 pages, so we’re tightening it up, keeping all the good stuff, and cutting the unnecessary bulk. There are also several things I’ve put together that I haven’t heard anyone else discuss yet. This one is going to be worth the wait.

#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #TrueCrime #TrueCrimeCommunity #CourtTV #CrimeNews #TrialCoverage #CriminalJustice #BreakingNews #Trending

3 weeks ago | [YT] | 164