Hi friends, I have been following this nightmarish case for a number of years, and after the last year of warring podcasts/YT, I am more confused than even when RA was first indicted. I have been following the threads on WS for a few weeks and I wanted to thank you for sharing some really good, well-sourced information.
Some thoughts re: Evidence, as I am trying to work out if my understanding is sound. (A lot of it is speculation on my part)
a) PCA: When I first read through RA's PCA, I was worried about the case against RA. Comparing it to the Idaho PCA that came out soon after, I found it less compelling - as in, it didn't include the 'GOTCHA' moment I was somehow expecting, MOO. However, after reading through other PCAs, I am now neutral; I realise that in this case, the LE's line is keeping as much information out of the public eye, so I am starting to understand that they are only included as much information as they needed to meet the Probable Cause burden. Of course, it could be that this is all they have, in which case, BARD will be hard to be met. IMO.
b) Tool mark analysis: MS is a podcast that inspires a lot of emotion, but in their 23d of August 2023 episode they had a forensics expert discuss the validity of toolmark analysis. In my understanding, Indiana does accept tool mark analysis in court but it is a process that's vulnerable to attack from the DT. While I don't personally doubt the existence of the ejected round, for me it is a mid-low weight piece of evidence, unless something comes out on trial (aka - if they have found a box of the same type of ammunition in RA's home, if they prove that from all gun owners only less than 5% use that brand, etc)
c) SODDI defence strategy: I don't understand the current angle. I see the appeal of the conspiracy angle and IMO it worked in Karen Reads' case well enough (I am still waiting to learn, if we ever learn, what compelled the jurors to vote the way they did) BUT. I personally believe that the alibis mentioned in the pretrial hearing for the main person linking LG and AW to the Odinist theory, BH, have been checked as thoroughly as possible. Of course there could be a 'what if' - the time was off, 'what if' - someone else clocked out, 'what if' - more cars were present maybe via the cemetery and 'what if' the helicopters never spotted them BUT I personally believe in the shorter path approach. Yes, they could be implicated if those 3-4 things that we have no evidence on are true, but there is a shorter path.
Which leads me to - RL and KK and his father. If we are to create reasonable doubt, I believe that there is an equal amount of 'proof' - aka the number of years and searches and resources the LE spent on these two as POI to create some kind of doubt for RA's guilt. Why does the Defence take the much more arduous and harder to prove path of resurrecting a group conspiracy - instead of leaning into the two, IMO, more believable alternative options, that require way fewer logical steps?
d) Confessions: Ooof. False confessions are very real. However, I spent a few hours looking into the Innocence Project and the data that have come out of acquittals/reverals. I hope it is ok to share a link:
Do laypeople recognize youth as a risk factor for false confession? A test of the ‘common sense’ hypothesis
To quote the article: In their analysis of 125 proven false confessions, Drizin and Leo (
2004) noted that a disproportionately high percentage (33%) came from juveniles, most of whom were age 15 years or younger. Similarly, Gross and Schaffer (
2012) found false confessions in 42% of juvenile exonerations (compared to 15% of all exonerations).
Age is a factor. Reading some of the research, it also seems that the majority of false confessions happen during a single long interrogation. I have found very little data on spontaneous confessions given while kept on solitary-like conditions and I understand that this is because this is a very very unique case. Still, I am thinking that if allowed, the recordings of the confessions will be a high weight piece of evidence.
I believe the timing of the confessions and whether RA had access to discovery or not, will be detrimental, and we will have a black and white answer to that come trial.
To conclude, I am on the fence on whether the evidence will reach BARD. I don't enjoy being on the fence. My biggest worry is a hung jury. While we may never know with absolute certainty what happened in the last horrific moments of their life, the jurors will have to decide based on oftentimes conflicting information. And that's a heavy burden, but that's the nature of the justice system.
However, beyond the future juries, beyond RA and the number of people who have been dragged into this and are potentially innocent, my heart goes out to the families of the two girls who have been retraumatised over and over through this impossibly chaotic process. I hope for the sake of the families and the loved ones that the sensationalism will end, and some kind of outcome will be reached in October.
