Former LSU Running Back Richard Murphy Charged in Fatal Main Street Crash
Richard Murphy faces charges stemming from a 2026 crash that killed two people; the case has not yet gone to trial.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 30, 2026, 1:47 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 30, 2026, 1:47 a.m. ETFirst report
Former LSU Running Back Richard Murphy Charged in Fatal Main Street Crash
Richard Murphy, a former LSU running back, has been charged with two counts of vehicular homicide and one count of first-degree vehicular negligent injury, according to WBRZ. The charges stem from a crash on Main Street that killed two people. The date of the crash has not been established.
WBRZ reports that Murphy was allegedly driving a Ford F-250 and crashed into a Ford F-150 occupied by the Tarvers. He was allegedly intoxicated at the time of the crash. The charges are allegations, and Murphy is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As this case is only at the charging stage, it remains undecided and has not been resolved in court.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 130 Aug 2026, 05:52current
First published.
- Version 130 Aug 2026, 05:47current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.