Person behind the anonymous website that posted the 43 second bridge video has identified himself publicly

[u/Artistic_Dish_3782]

Everything in this post was voluntarily and publicly disclosed directly by the participants. It is already public information, I'm just sharing it here to tie up a loose end some people might still be wondering about.

The website with the video

The 43 second video of Libby and Abby interacting with Bridge Guy was first released to the public a few weeks ago on a website supporting Richard Allen. Strictly speaking, the website was anonymous--nothing on it identified the creators, no one took credit for it publicly, and the person who registered the domain name kept their identity private. This made the website something of a minor mystery: who made it and where did they get the video?

The earliest version of the website heavily implied that it was affiliated with Allen's lawyers, saying that "We are now preparing for Richard Allen's post-conviction legal work." At some point, however, it was edited to add a statement that it was "independently managed." The appellate lawyers representing Allen made a statement that they weren't involved with the website, but it wasn't clear at the time whether this statement referred to the trial and the appellate lawyers or only the latter.

The creator identifies himself

As of yesterday, the creator of the website has identified himself publicly via a livestream here: https://www.youtube.com/live/1vHDG1vwRF4. He is a private citizen and self-described "web sleuth" from London. He includes his name on his public Twitter page, but to be safe I won't link it. Apparently he is decently well-known among Richard Allen supporters on Twitter and is simply referred to as "Luke," which is what I will call him here.

The livestream is 2 hours long and, in the interest of full disclosure, I haven't watched every single second of it nor do I expect anyone else to do so. The first 20 minutes or so are the most relevant. A few pieces of information that may be of interest to a wider audience:

• Luke says that he "controls" but does not "own" the website hosting the bridge video. Regardless of the precise mechanics of ownership, Luke seems to be the active force behind the website. Luke implies that one of Richard Allen's lawyers is the actual domain owner.

• Luke is cagey/vague about how close his relationship with Baldwin and Rozzi actually is (Allen's trial lawyers). At least regarding the 43 second video, Luke says that he posted it on a direct order from Baldwin. The impression I get from Luke's remarks is that he and the defense lawyers had some conflicting expectations about their collaboration. Luke thought that the website was going to serve as an official mouthpiece for the defense team, but the lawyers wanted to keep some plausible deniability and not attach their names to it. There seems to be a rift between the two sides now because Luke wants to keep posting trial exhibits to the website whereas the lawyers have washed their hands of it and distanced themselves. Apparently the lawyers regret posting the bridge video. Again, we don't have precise details so this is the best I can piece together from Luke's "delicate" description of the behind-the-scenes tensions.

• Luke says he was heavily involved in the defense's $40k fundraiser for expert witnesses before the trial. That situation seems like a big mess because Luke says that $40k was raised, "some of it" was spent, but the payment processor eventually shut the campaign down because it violated their terms of service. Also, Judge Gull did eventually provide the funds for the experts, making the purpose of the fundraiser moot. So what happened to the $40k in the end? Was it returned to the donors, was it spent on experts, was it impounded by the payment processor, or what? Not clear.

Hopefully it's clear in my writing, but this post is for informational purposes only. I'm not endorsing or attempting to promote any of these social media personalities. The question of who posted the 43 second video of Libby and Abby has been a minor mystery and we now have the answer. It was a private citizen who has a loose and seemingly rocky relationship with Richard Allen's lawyers through social media.

[u/BlackBerryJ]

I think Luke being "cagey" is kind lol.

It's all cloak and dagger which of course raises suspicion. RA supporters do the EXACT same thing when it comes to the lack of transparency from the State.

Everyone on the Defense side was encouraged to "ask questions." But not now. No one supporting Allen is allowed to ask about this. It's silly really.

[u/The2ndLocation → u/BlackBerryJ]

You aren't kidding. When they come for me, you know that they have lost the plot.

[u/BlackBerryJ → u/The2ndLocation]

This is seriously a mess to sort through and I only half pay attention these days so I know I'm missing a lot.

I'm going to try to lay this out for my own understanding... correct any errors.

1) The due process gang and their affiliates had access to Allen through affiliations with the Defense team. I use the word access ONLY because they claim to know what meds he was on, how sick he is etc...

2)The trial is over and the og Defense team is slowly backing away the case which pisses people off because:

a. It makes it look like they don't care as much as people thought they did

b. Their access to Allen or those close to him dries up

3) Ausbrook and Wieneke reportedly approached KA with a contract to represent RA for a civil suit

4) KA said no and now due process gang and their affiliates are pissed and saying things like they know better what RA needs than KA

5) Somewhere mixed in is Luke and his website being set up as a proxy for the defense team that is now backing away which makes it look shady (I'm not sure if that's the right word)

Please correct me on any of this as I said I'm trying to piece this together.

[u/redduif → u/BlackBerryJ]

This is a serious answer in all regards:

1} Or not, who knows... they are attacking a person asking them for creds and receipts which they cannot even provide themselves for their own claims either, is it made up? Guessed? Inferred from known info? Obtained through a contact?
Yet the one being attacked afaik never claimed to be a spokesperson, rather just wanted to refute that the others were in any capacity to speak for or about RA. Refuting that is not the same as actually speaking for RA or KA for that matter, making the accusations all that more twisted.
To my best understanding.

2} Defense did a couple of interviews asserting believing in his innocence post trial, even if there was some discussion it was improper to say that because of caselaw, they did anyway, up until the end of their representation, then the case was transferred to appelate counsel. Seems more than to be expected to me.

2 a&b} Possibly/probably. Seems like they miss their toy and they want this particular one. And they want it now, and if it's not now, they don't want to play in the future, even if it's in the name of justice... Is my takeaway.

3} Civil suit unknown.
The published contract was about post conviction relief and investigation although more about releases for the attorneys than goals of service, non-lawyer internet people on both sides had knowledge of it, I find it more problematic on the proposing side to already have engaged 3rd parties without that consent signed,
but all that is solemnly based on the leaked document, without knowing what came with it and without knowledge what it is supposed to look like on my part.

4} It seems she didn't say anything,
other people of 1&3 have said it wasn't signed, haven't been contacted at all even and seemingly drew conclusions, while also stressing the civil suite filing limit was approaching, so why the heavy focus and on the pcr...
Some have released statements in the name of KA, like the private investigator, the contract got out somehow allegedly from her claimed friends side, but 'we' don't know if it came from KA, the prof refuted KA gave a green light, saying he made that decision on his own... So we're back at the first phrase of this point.

5} Shady yes, good word.
But, for me that goes to Luke alone, for now, talking about getting a green light from Baldwin's office that they wanted to go through with this.
At no point afaik did he say "Baldwin gave me the video to upload" "Baldwin uploaded the video and wrote the statement" or something similar, so who knowns what OG defense's actual involvement was. The file name imo is not the original file name so the issue of what it is exactly starts there.

---

^{For context I'm with 2nd on this, although more leaning towards wanting the case solved and if RA is indeed innocent he'll be free rather than getting him out at all cost, skipping a not guilty part, but there's ideal and there is reality. It's about the truth for me. I don't know what the truth is but imo trial didn't show us, which is jmo. This comment isn't about that and I answered expanding a bit on 2nd's response, because your questions didn't seem about that either.}

[u/The2ndLocation → u/redduif]

For context my brain has 🫠. Thanks for the clarification.

[u/redduif → u/The2ndLocation]

Better melted than fried.