Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #183

[TL4S]

Excluding any phone evidence from the defendant, victims, and last people to see them is ludicrous in 2024! Get it all out there!

MOO IMO

@TTF14 Like you, I'm very concerning if there is geofencing phone data that LE looked into, that at that time they found reliable enough to focus on several specific phone numbers, yet now they claim that data is not at all reliable and don't want the D to be able to ask the expert about.

The conspiratorial part of my brain wonders if this can be tied back to NMcL not wanting the PCA unsealed because they have good reason to believe there are others involved. When that PCA got unsealed, everybody was wondering what on earth was in there regarding others being involved. I've always thought it was due to the witnesses seeing the vehicle parked in the CPS lot. If there was another vehicle parked in that area, and LE thinks the driver might be involved, that driver would now know who saw what vehicles and where. And that there might be camera footage at HH.

So, what if the driver also owned one of those phones that was followed on geofencing. If it was a burner, that person could still be unidentified. And what if they drove a '65 Comet type car?

Let's say they think RA is involved and were hoping to get the name of the other person from him. But that other person is out there still. Maybe that's who RA is worried about hurting his family?

I mean, I have to allow myself some conspiracy theory time, too!

 

[layer]

Let's say they think RA is involved and were hoping to get the name of the other person from him. But that other person is out there still. Maybe that's who RA is worried about hurting his family?

There have been times that it really did look like they were trying to soften up RA to get him to turn on co-conspirators. It kind of felt that way with RL too. Maybe that's just how they operate there. Maybe it's just me.

 

[TL4S]

There have been times that it really did look like they were trying to soften up RA to get him to turn on co-conspirators. It kind of felt that way with RL too. Maybe that's just how they operate there. Maybe it's just me.

It could be common practice. Idk. I struggle with this being more than one perp, but there are things that suggest otherwise. Even NMcL himself, at the start. I really just want a clear cut answer from LE.

 

[Emma Peel]

Misconduct allegations in Delphi murder case continue less than two weeks before trial

In another motion filed Monday afternoon, the defense team is, again, asking to exclude evidence seized from Allen's home shortly before he was arrested in late October 2022. The attorneys cite new evidence that Carroll County Sheriff Tony Liggett "recklessly withheld pertinent information" they argue would've led to the search warrant application being denied.

"These omissions are so voluminous and significant, that there is no explanation for their omission other than a reckless disregard for the truth," Allen's attorneys wrote.

Blocher, who died in 2021, believed that Libby's cell was either "no longer in the area, or no longer in working condition," according to Mullin's report, and the last time investigators were able to ping the phone through a nearby cell tower successfully was at 5:44 p.m. Feb. 13, 2017.

But Allen's attorneys allege this was false. They cited data obtained from Libby's phone showing it connected with the cell tower at 4:33 a.m. Feb. 14, 2017 ― a fact the attorneys said investigators were aware of but improperly withheld from the probable cause affidavit justifying a search of Allen's home. They allege investigators withheld several more pieces of information, including evidence pointing to Odinists, that would've resulted in the search warrant application being denied.

 

[photographer4]

Thoughts on why the recording stopped on Libby’s phone after the 43 seconds?

Intentional, Unintentional, turned off by perp, mechanical incident?

It would seem if the phone kept pinging into the night that it did not run out of charge on the bridge as was considered a possibility earlier..

She may have been able to tuck the phone into her pocket and it kept recording for all we know. That is a massive part of the problem with this case. We do not know what LE think they know or factually know. We're all left guessing and trying to fill in the blanks. Then they wonder why the circus is in town?

 

[photographer4]

I wouldn't doubt it.

Nothing to see here folks... look over there in the direction of the police cars!

 

[AugustWest]

Here is a PCAST (President's Council of Advisors Science/Tech) Report from 2016 on forensic pattern examination (toolmark analysis):

Justice Department Publishes Statement on 2016 President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report

Today, the Justice Department published a statement on the 2016 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. The statement is a response to PCAST’s claims regarding what...

www.justice.gov

PDF is in link.

Oops, I meant to include point and counterpoint. The response of the justice department was what I referenced before. Here is the actual PCAST report:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

 

[TL4S]

Nothing to see here folks... look over there in the direction of the police cars!

They just don't want anyone to notice the pilot's white supremacist Odinist patch.

 

[layer]

Oops, I meant to include point and counterpoint. The response of the justice department was what I referenced before. Here is the actual PCAST report:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

Lawyers always have the good stuff!
The scientific inappropriateness of such testimony is aptly captured by an analogy by District of Columbia Court
of Appeals Judge Catharine Easterly in her concurring opinion in Williams v. United States, a case in which an
examiner testified that markings on certain bullets were unique to a gun recovered from a defendant’s
apartment:
"As matters currently stand, a certainty statement regarding toolmark pattern matching has the same
probative value as the vision of a psychic: it reflects nothing more than the individual’s foundationless faith
in what he believes to be true. This is not evidence on which we can in good conscience rely, particularly in
criminal cases, where we demand proof—real proof—beyond a reasonable doubt, precisely because the
stakes are so high."

 

[Scion]

I actually find the fact that it is the same brand of ammo about as compelling as shady unfired round comparisons. That was my new discovery of the day. It appears that both the CS round and the ammo loaded in RA's mags were CCI Blazer.

Source? As far as I know, it hasn't yet been disclosed what brand of ammunition was found at the crime scene.

 

[layer]

Source? As far as I know, it hasn't yet been disclosed what brand of ammunition was found at the crime scene.

Here ya go, posted it yesterday.

HA, I would have edited that and walked it back if I could have. I was perhaps a tad bit overexcited. I'm re-studying the document in question, the Certificate Of Analysis (It starts on Pg 276 here)
The ammo in RA's mags was Blazer. There were 2 loose rounds - 1 Winchester and the other Blazer. These were labeled as 315 & 316. The round discovered at the CS is labeled as 016, but they don't list the manufacturer. Odd

 

[WildHuncher]

Lawyers always have the good stuff!
The scientific inappropriateness of such testimony is aptly captured by an analogy by District of Columbia Court
of Appeals Judge Catharine Easterly in her concurring opinion in Williams v. United States, a case in which an
examiner testified that markings on certain bullets were unique to a gun recovered from a defendant’s
apartment:
"As matters currently stand, a certainty statement regarding toolmark pattern matching has the same
probative value as the vision of a psychic: it reflects nothing more than the individual’s foundationless faith
in what he believes to be true. This is not evidence on which we can in good conscience rely, particularly in
criminal cases, where we demand proof—real proof—beyond a reasonable doubt, precisely because the
stakes are so high."

Here’s a big thing for me, though. Clearly there’s enough variability in those toolmark patterns that the tests and the discipline itself exist. Tested pairs can’t all come out matching each other every time or no one would ever bother.

Many of the points raised against the tests are situations that greatly favor false negatives. “Tool marking may change as the gun wears.” Yes, so a match may exist but the evidence for it may decay with further use and the guilty escape.

It follows that the tests might well have excluded RA’s gun. The odds going in were probably overwhelmingly in favor of this outcome.

They didn’t. So we’re questioning whether there’s a .02 percent, a .2 percent, a 2 percent, or a 20 percent chance of a false positive.

Bricks / walls. He should have passed the test. He flunked it. He’s still too unlucky for me.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Lawyers always have the good stuff!
The scientific inappropriateness of such testimony is aptly captured by an analogy by District of Columbia Court
of Appeals Judge Catharine Easterly in her concurring opinion in Williams v. United States, a case in which an
examiner testified that markings on certain bullets were unique to a gun recovered from a defendant’s
apartment:
"As matters currently stand, a certainty statement regarding toolmark pattern matching has the same
probative value as the vision of a psychic: it reflects nothing more than the individual’s foundationless faith
in what he believes to be true. This is not evidence on which we can in good conscience rely, particularly in
criminal cases, where we demand proof—real proof—beyond a reasonable doubt, precisely because the
stakes are so high."

I can understand why this issue is so important to both sides. Indianapolis has been coming into possession of peoples' guns one way or another since the 70s. They have almost 21,000 guns in their property room. I wonder how many other agencies in Indiana do the same thing.
This article is from last year.

IMPD policy on seized guns called into question

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department has thousands of guns in its property room. Many of the guns have been connected to a crime. Some of them have not. The police department sends every single gun to the ballistic lab for testing. The data is sent to the federal...

www.wishtv.com

(excerpts)
The police department sends every single gun to the ballistic lab for testing. The data is sent to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for entry into a national database.
...
I-Team 8 is told the Indianapolis department is carrying out this practice without a search warrant or probable cause, making this decades old practice a possible violation of federal rules and the Fourth Amendment.
...
That is the purpose of NIBIN (the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network) to see if there is a connection. To my knowledge and the attorney’s knowledge, there has never been a challenge to our processes. … However, we are looking into it now to see if it is something we need to change. It has not been brought to our attention that it is something that is an issue.”
...
“We take key data, incident data. NIBIN is a cornerstone of that because NIBIN helps us connect one shooting to another. We look at things like trace data, try to determine how the firearms are being transferred from lawful use to criminal use,” McCormick said.
...

 

[layer]

Bricks / walls. He should have passed the test. He flunked it. He’s still too unlucky for me.

Sometimes the defense can remove a brick from the state's wall and use it to build their own. I don't need a wall, I just need to see the proof. Prove he did it and none of this trivial stuff matters. One brick with proof will do it for me.

 

[photographer4]

Thing is, if there were confusion about whether or not RA left by 1:30, that would have been cleared up by now. RL made up an alibi for that afternoon, which was hugely suspicious, but LE eventually resolved it.

It’s not just that RA may have changed the time he was there between interview #1 and #2 five years later. Nor just about confusion about an overlap of the 1:30 timeframe.

RA doesn’t have an alibi for the timeframe of the murders. He won’t be able to provide verifiable proof of being elsewhere, because he cannot.

He was at Monon High Bridge.

jmo

Ah but the absence of proof that he was elsewhere does not immediately mean he was at the bridge OR that he committed the killing. Ideally, the State can prove both issues. That he was there, that the witnesses saw RA (as opposed to someone else, which I am sure the D is going to argue ferociously given their Franks motions and the issues they have pointed out with what witnesses said they saw), and that he killed the kids. Just being seeing at the bridge by witnesses doesn't make him the killer. Makes him a man who went to the bridge and was seen by other trail walkers.

The thing that makes him the likely culprit or at a minimum involved for me (so far), is that pesky bullet at the scene. If the state can make jurors understand and believe that was his bullet, that he didn't loan out that gun and there is no way it could have got there unless he himself was there at the time of the murders, then his goose is good and cooked.


I think that bullet is the biggest problem here. Probably what the D wants thrown out really.

 

[EOA]

No, it does not make sense that the CO would start out with a leading question when sent to take a “tip narrative”.

I believe the “tip narrative” would be relayed to the CO without interference by the CO.

That is the nature of a supplying a narrative as opposed to being interrogated, imo.




Why would the witnesses that saw RA on the trails and bridge need to pick RA out of a lineup?

RA and his attorneys don’t dispute that RA was on the trails or the bridge.

You do understand that the only direct witnesses, they actually saw the crime take place, Abigail and Liberty, are dead.

Other witnesses are just telling LE what they saw and/or heard while on the trails that day.

Post wrap up is Court, imo.


all imo

I guess I’ll agree to disagree.
The OP flatly stated the 3 girls (subsequently disclosed as a group of 4 girls) as well as BB later all “saw RA” as though they’d specifically identified him by name, lineup, the CVS worker, etc which to my knowledge has not been the case. The PCA states they all saw “a man”. IIRC 2 of the 4 state he matched the photo from L’s phone (which has not yet proven to be RA) even though the descriptions vary as to the degree truly matching the man in the video.

Perhaps you don’t find it sensible which our beliefs can differ, but if LE is wanting to hear from people on the trail from 1:30-3:30 I find it quite reasonable that the first statement would confirm the legitimacy of the witness actually being there at the right place in the desired timeframe - before wasting time taking notes from someone not applicable.

 

[photographer4]

DBM =
duplicate. Sorry

 

[AugustWest]

Here’s a big thing for me, though. Clearly there’s enough variability in those toolmark patterns that the tests and the discipline itself exist. Tested pairs can’t all come out matching each other every time or no one would ever bother.

It follows that the tests might well have excluded RA’s gun. The odds going in were probably overwhelmingly in favor of this outcome.

They didn’t. So we’re questioning whether there’s a .02 percent, a .2 percent, a 2 percent, or a 20 percent chance of a false positive.

Bricks / walls. He should have passed the test. He flunked it. He’s still too unlucky for me.

It is a completely subjective determination of whether a match exists, so percent chance of false positive isn't a thing. The person that examines the striations either finds a match or doesn't find a match. It isn't a matter of "well only 0.02 percent of the time does this certain examiner get it wrong," because the person who is determining whether that person got it wrong is also making a subjective determination. Only in controlled studies can you avoid this bias, which is part of what the PCAST study was making its point over. You don't have the luxury of a controlled test in a courtroom; it's either "this examiner screwed up" or "this examiner didn't screw up."

 

[layer]

I think that bullet is the biggest problem here. Probably what the D wants thrown out really.

They could just quote District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Catharine Easterly in her 2016 concurring opinion in Williams v. United States, a case in which an examiner testified that markings on certain bullets were unique to a gun recovered from a defendant’s apartment:

"As matters currently stand, a certainty statement regarding toolmark pattern matching has the same
probative value as the vision of a psychic: it reflects nothing more than the individual’s foundationless faith
in what he believes to be true. This is not evidence on which we can in good conscience rely, particularly in
criminal cases, where we demand proof—real proof—beyond a reasonable doubt, precisely because the
stakes are so high."

As a juror, that would do it for me.

 

[TTF14]

@TTF14 Like you, I'm very concerning if there is geofencing phone data that LE looked into, that at that time they found reliable enough to focus on several specific phone numbers, yet now they claim that data is not at all reliable and don't want the D to be able to ask the expert about.

The conspiratorial part of my brain wonders if this can be tied back to NMcL not wanting the PCA unsealed because they have good reason to believe there are others involved. When that PCA got unsealed, everybody was wondering what on earth was in there regarding others being involved. I've always thought it was due to the witnesses seeing the vehicle parked in the CPS lot. If there was another vehicle parked in that area, and LE thinks the driver might be involved, that driver would now know who saw what vehicles and where. And that there might be camera footage at HH.

So, what if the driver also owned one of those phones that was followed on geofencing. If it was a burner, that person could still be unidentified. And what if they drove a '65 Comet type car?

Let's say they think RA is involved and were hoping to get the name of the other person from him. But that other person is out there still. Maybe that's who RA is worried about hurting his family?

I mean, I have to allow myself some conspiracy theory time, too!

Yes. There's a reason why the State doesn't want to have geofence data in. In my hope that it's not because they are corrupt, I'm crossing my fingers (and sitting on my hands) that it's all strategic and they don't want to divulge too much before the next round of arrests.

IMO MOO