Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #179

[Salah11]

In regards to the bullet, I find it interesting that RA brought a loaded gun with him that day when an unloaded gun would have probably provided the same results. I wonder why he loaded the gun and how many bullets he brought. One can assume he never intended to discharge the gun so I wonder if cocking the gun played into his fantasy.
From my limited research of Norse religion and Odinism, I have not found any connection to guns. IMO a group of 3-5 men wouldn’t need a firearm to control teenage girls.
One man acting alone would.

AMO

What makes you believe that?

Two victims if one tried to run away why wouldn’t he have used it?.

 

[layer]

IMO a group of 3-5 men wouldn’t need a firearm to control teenage girls.
One man acting alone would.

I must disagree with that. Two adolescent girls literally at the dead end of a sketchy bridge would be easy for one grown man to physically threaten, intimidate and control. What I can't figure out is how he planned (and seemingly succeeded) in keeping them from screaming. Teen girls are notoriously loud screamers and I bet you would be able to hear echoes all along Deer Creek. Without further specifics, I'm about done with the gun and bullet. What I'm really interested to learn is what the murder weapon is.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I may have misread the question here. You want to know, “What if the lab tested a DIFFERENT weight of cartridge when it compared tool marks and found a match?”

Purely IMHO, they would be likely to use the same weight and brand if they can possibly procure it. If they did use a mismatched test round but the tool marks even so were identical that would be no surprise. One might expect that the same gun will put the same marks on cartridges shaped to cycle through it.

Sorry. No. You answered it here:

Probative value of a years-apart difference in bullet weights would mean nothing even if the accused swears he only uses one weight.

If I was on the jury, it would be an important issue if the bullet from the scene was a different weight than what RA possessed. I'd have to have a clear explanation of why it wouldn't matter.

 

[AugustWest]

Deleting my post, can only find the challenges to the evidence by the defense, not the original methods discussion.

@Boxer I deleted mine too. There are similar numbers in this article, but they are simply numbers from a study, not particular to RA's gun.

Link: Linking of Richard Allen’s gun to Delphi crime scene ‘not science’ says The Innocence Project

No big deal, I don't get caught up on the factual background of cases very much until trial. I'm more interested in points of law.

 

[sunshineray]

I must disagree with that. Two adolescent girls literally at the dead end of a sketchy bridge would be easy for one grown man to physically threaten, intimidate and control. What I can't figure out is how he planned (and seemingly succeeded) in keeping them from screaming. Teen girls are notoriously loud screamers and I bet you would be able to hear echoes all along Deer Creek. Without further specifics, I'm about done with the gun and bullet. What I'm really interested to learn is what the murder weapon is.

According to LE, a sharp object. According to the defense's FM, it sounded like the girl"s throats were cut. Sounds like a knife. MO

 

[layer]

Deleting my post, can only find the challenges to the evidence by the defense, not the original methods discussion.

I'm thinking you may be (mis)remembering these stats, Boxer:
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms pointed us to several, including one published this year in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. In it, a trio of Federal Bureau of Investigation scientists gave 172 certified tool mark examiners cartridges and guns and asked them to look for matches. The reported instance of false-positive errors (where a cartridge and a gun were incorrectly matched) was 0.933%.
Whle not specific to RA's gun, caliber or cartridges, that is an impressive error rate. But I have a hunch that 100% of the cartridges in that study were fired cartridges.
Source

 

[AugustWest]

I'm thinking you may be (mis)remembering these stats, Boxer:
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms pointed us to several, including one published this year in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. In it, a trio of Federal Bureau of Investigation scientists gave 172 certified tool mark examiners cartridges and guns and asked them to look for matches. The reported instance of false-positive errors (where a cartridge and a gun were incorrectly matched) was 0.933%.
Whle not specific to RA's gun, caliber or cartridges, that is an impressive error rate. But I have a hunch that 100% of the cartridges in that study were fired cartridges.
Source

Not to mention the scientists were associated with the FBI, who clearly have a bias in showing their work to be reliable. Coupled with the statistical reliability of the research method, of which I have no expertise with (I was told there would be no maths ). They might be accurate, they might be not.

 

[layer]

Not to mention the scientists were associated with the FBI, who clearly have a bias in showing their work to be reliable. Coupled with the statistical reliability of the research method, of which I have no expertise with (I was told there would be no maths ). They might be accurate, they might be not.

There's accurate (enough to encourage further investigation) and there's accurate (enough to prove guilt). The part of that nearly 1% error rate that is scary is this: a cartridge and a gun were incorrectly matched. So out of those 172 examiners more than one would have matched the cartridge to the wrong gun.

 

[FrostedGlass]

New filings

04/02/2024

Order Issued Court orders ex parte communication from Kamie Redinbo, Kala Newell, Stacey L. Parker, Liza Trick, Hope Douglas, Paige Moore, Ann Smith, Stephanie Cope, Victoria Best, and Oscar Lopez copied and sent to counsel of record and the Clerk of Carroll Circuit Court. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 04/02/2024

04/02/2024

Order Issued The Court, having had Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Destroying Exculpatory Evidence under advisement following a hearing conducted on March 18, 2024, now denies the Motion to Dismiss as the defendant has failed to show that the evidence was exculpatory and that it was destroyed negligently, intentionally, or in bad faith. The recordings of interviews between February 14-20, 2017 were lost due to human error or were spontaneously lost due to the equipment resetting. At the time the interview of Brad Holder was lost, he was not a key suspect in the case. The interview was memorialized in a written report provided to the defendant. Patrick Westfall was interviewed at his home by FBI agents. That interview was not recorded but was documented in a written report provided to the defendant. Patrick Westfall was not a key suspect in the case at the time of the interview. As neither Holder nor Westfall were suspects at the time the interviews were conducted, the defendant has failed to show that the lost interview of Holder was material and that the lack of a recorded interview of Westfall was material. As defendant must establish materiality to claim a denial of due process and Allen had failed to do so, his due process rights have not been violated. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 04/02/2024

 

[sunshineray]

Not to mention the scientists were associated with the FBI, who clearly have a bias in showing their work to be reliable. Coupled with the statistical reliability of the research method, of which I have no expertise with (I was told there would be no maths ). They might be accurate, they might be not.

Do you mean you think the FBI rigged that study by using/testing their scientists?

 

[layer]

Do you mean you think the FBI rigged that study by using/testing their scientists?

I took that to mean that there is simply implicit bias in studying your own work; something that can't easily be avoided in many of these types of studies.

 

[AugustWest]

Do you mean you think the FBI rigged that study by using/testing their scientists?

Nope

I took that to mean that there is simply implicit bias in studying your own work; something that can't easily be avoided in many of these types of studies.

Exactly this, @layer and @sunshineray

 

[sunshineray]

Nope

Exactly this, @layer and @sunshineray

I disagree with there being an "implicit bias" or "bias". JMO

Edited for clarity:
If a blind study of a certain science shows whatever results, those are the results, to then be interrupted. There's no bias involved. Again JMO

 

[AugustWest]

I disagree with there being an "implicit bias" or "bias". JMO

Edited for clarity:
If a blind study of a certain science shows whatever results, those are the results, to then be interrupted. There's no bias involved. Again JMO

That isn't the only way a study could be biased. How many times did they test their experts? How experienced were the experts? What variables were involved? How many types of guns were tested? What type rounds were used? Were the cartridges fired or not? And so on.

JMO, it could be wrong, and that's okay with me.

EDIT: great conversation guys!

 

[FrostedGlass]

From last June. I wonder about Kobina E. Abruquah's new trial.

Ballistics experts can't testify that recovered bullets match firearms, Md. high court rules - Maryland Daily Record

The field of firearms identification is not reliable enough to allow expert testimony linking crime scene bullets to specific guns, Maryland's top court ruled.

thedailyrecord.com

Using a new, stricter admissibility standard for scientific testimony, a split Maryland Supreme Court concluded that ballistics experts can only say whether the markings on a bullet are “consistent” or “inconsistent” with bullets fired from a particular gun.

“We do not question that firearms identification is generally reliable, and can be helpful to a jury, in identifying whether patterns and markings on ‘unknown’ bullets or cartridges are consistent or inconsistent with those on bullets or cartridges known to have been fired from a particular firearm,” Chief Justice Matthew Fader wrote in a 59-page majority opinion.

“However, based on the record here, and particularly the lack of evidence that study results are reflective of actual casework, firearms identification has not been shown to reach reliable results linking a particular unknown bullet to a particular known firearm.”

The man at the center of the case, Kobina E. Abruquah, will receive a new trial in a murder case out of Prince George’s County.

 

[sunshineray]

That isn't the only way a study could be biased. How many times did they test their experts? How experienced were the experts? What variables were involved? How many types of guns were tested? What type rounds were used? Were the cartridges fired or not? And so on.

JMO, it could be wrong, and that's okay with me.

EDIT: great conversation guys!

Yes and all questions for the trial lawyers to ask and the witnesses to answer. Then it's up to the jury how much weigh to give the evidence.

 

[layer]

Using a new, stricter admissibility standard for scientific testimony, a split Maryland Supreme Court concluded that ballistics experts can only say whether the markings on a bullet are “consistent” or “inconsistent” with bullets fired from a particular gun.

“We do not question that firearms identification is generally reliable, and can be helpful to a jury, in identifying whether patterns and markings on ‘unknown’ bullets or cartridges are consistent or inconsistent with those on bullets or cartridges known to have been fired from a particular firearm,” Chief Justice Matthew Fader wrote in a 59-page majority opinion.

“However, based on the record here, and particularly the lack of evidence that study results are reflective of actual casework, firearms identification has not been shown to reach reliable results linking a particular unknown bullet to a particular known firearm.”

The man at the center of the case, Kobina E. Abruquah, will receive a new trial in a murder case out of Prince George’s County.

Add to that, this ruling is questioning the reliability of identifying fired bullets... not what we have here at all.

 

[snooptroop88]

There's accurate (enough to encourage further investigation) and there's accurate (enough to prove guilt). The part of that nearly 1% error rate that is scary is this: a cartridge and a gun were incorrectly matched. So out of those 172 examiners more than one would have matched the cartridge to the wrong gun.

Agreed, that's problematic, but in conjunction with a lot of other good evidence, it can still be potent, JMO. Am still wondering about the two magazines they found, too, one was loaded for nine rounds, one had eight rounds. But I think the P will have more in the end than I imagined, and the gun evidence will be but a small part of it. And I don't think the D will be nearly as well braced for a trial, and I don't think it'll have anything to do with funds. Based on the D's performance pre-trial, imo they felt their best chances (by far) lay in avoiding an actual trial. Yes, I know all D teams will if they can, but this team especially seemed hellbent on making sure no trial ever came into existence. The antics, the desperation, slew of motions, the Franks, the YouTuber court. And then once the trial became a certainty, the crowdsourcing. it was like nothing I've seen in a long time. Now that the trial is coming, I think they're probably already well into strategizing for appeals. MOO chances for a conviction here are stronger than I'd originally thought.

Trial now is like six weeks away. The vicious, evil murders of these two sweet little children leave wounds that will never heal. Just hoping the trial produces the right outcome for those who suffer and grieve. Something that leaves a sadness that is beyond words.

 

[katydid23]

Without a doubt Murphy will be called. I'm sure both sisters that Elvis made confessions/incriminating statements to (which is what initiated the Rushville investigation into Elvis) will also be on the witness list.
JMO

The court would have to agree to admitting the testimony of those witnesses. Since Elvis is not the one on trial, it is not automatic that his sisters will be allowed to testify. If the prosecution has solid evidence to clear him, those witnesses will not be allowed to testify.

The same situation happened in the McStay family murder trial. The defense hung its hat upon blaming another guy for the murders. But the court did not allow much of that extraneous testimony because there was a solid alibi for the SODDI.

 

[layer]

Agreed, that's problematic, but in conjunction with a lot of other good evidence, it can still be potent, JMO. Am still wondering about the two magazines they found, too, one was loaded for nine rounds, one had eight rounds. But I think the P will have more in the end than I imagined, and the gun evidence will be but a small part of it.

I agree. I think the real value of the unfired cartridge, whatever happens after, is that it was the key to the SW & PCA. Personally, the toolmark evidence just isn't compelling to me at all. And if what Barbara MacDonald reported is really true - the bullet was recovered days after the crime scene had been released - then I can't see that it would have any impact at all.