Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #191

[grannygates]

Yes.
There was no Fehu written in blood.

There was never a threat to "kill RAs family"

Those are the first things that came to mind.

I am sure that there are more, many more.

The prosecution and their hired experts are obviously not going to agree to anything in the franks or any part of the defenses case because it goes against their theory. The prosecution just saying it or hiring an expert is not debunking. (Or else pings, geofencing and cell phone data are completely useless tools)

The blood spatter expert was hired a few months ago to look at photos. He also provided no videotape proof of his nonsensical experiment, which is odd when you’re “proving” something occurred one way and not another, but honestly expected in this case.

I want to know where the original report or the original investigators are ? Why did they have to hire a brand new person to look at photographs a couple months ago? Did they not have anyone look at the crime scene before a few months ago? Surely reports existed at one time, where are they?

MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

To be fair, it was just an opinion about the "F" on the tree. An option the jury will be able to consider (unless both sides stipulate to it before the trial I guess). One of the experts who conducted his own blood spatter experiment, oddly, didn't even video record it. And, also to be fair, the defense only presented the threats to RA's family as a hypothetical in the Franks. They never claimed it happened. I'm not sure hypoetheticals can even be debunked.

IMO MOO

The entire case that the D is trying to build is that "Odinists did it".

One of the big reveals was the Fehu painted in Libby's blood.

It isn't and wasn't true.

The girls were murdered where they were found. They were not transported and returned, nor were they murdered elsewhere.

The Franks is mostly a work of fiction.
It's dishonest and misleading.


JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Maybe that's because some "facts" aren't really facts.

Blood spatter experts, for instance. Just because one expert arrives at an opinion does not make it a fact.

Study Reports Error Rates for Bloodstain Pattern Analysis

Bloodstains are commonly encountered at scenes of violent crime. Forensic practitioners known as bloodstain pattern analysts seek to answer questions about the manner and sequence of events of a crime by examining the bloodstains left behind. Their methods are largely based on subjective expert...

nij.ojp.gov

Bullet mark expert opinions aren't fact, either.
What other opinions do we take as fact?

RA admitting he was on the bridge right before Abby and Libby got to the bridge is a fact.

Some people on here have been taking the FM as fact for months, even citing it as a source. It’s been exposed as a complete fantasy, and admitted as such by the defense’s auxiliary attorneys, but some people won’t even listen to the actual texts proving it.

Another fact is that all expert testimony, prosecution and defense, at a trial ultimately comes down to opinion. The credentials of those experts matters.
Cicero’s credentials blow the defense’s self appointed expert’s out of the known universe. That matters. You may not like what he said but it matters…a lot.

And, RA is still on that bridge.


Edit: typo

 

[Ravenmoon]

The prosecution and their hired experts are obviously not going to agree to anything in the franks or any part of the defenses case because it goes against their theory. The prosecution just saying it or hiring an expert is not debunking. (Or else pings, geofencing and cell phone data are completely useless tools)

The blood spatter expert was hired a few months ago to look at photos. He also provided no videotape proof of his nonsensical experiment, which is odd when you’re “proving” something occurred one way and not another, but honestly expected in this case.

I want to know where the original report or the original investigators are ? Why did they have to hire a brand new person to look at photographs a couple months ago? Did they not have anyone look at the crime scene before a few months ago? Surely reports existed at one time, where are they?

MOO

So, even a blood splatter expert and his educated findings are not reliable?
That surprises me in all honesty.

Do you honestly believe that someone used LG'S blood to paint the tree and didn't leave any of their own DNA in that mark?

Would it be fair to say that anything that is brought in by the Prosecutor is untrue, in your opinion?


JMO

 

[Salah11]

So, even a blood splatter expert and his educated findings are not reliable?
That surprises me in all honesty.

Do you honestly believe that someone used LG'S blood to paint the tree and didn't leave any of their own DNA in that mark?

Would it be fair to say that anything that is brought in by the Prosecutor is untrue, in your opinion?


JMO

Don’t you know that everybody is out to frame poor old Rick from the local CVS

He is just so noble going along with it as well. If he was British I would nominate him for a Pride of Britain award.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

Do you honestly believe that someone used LG'S blood to paint the tree and didn't leave any of their own DNA in that mark?

Wouldn't it be possible to paint it on with blood and leave no DNA if you used anything other than a finger as a "paintbrush?"

 

[Cyber sleuth]

<modsnip> There’s no mention about matching the animal hairs in RAs SW. I don’t think we see anything about searching for matching animal hair in court docs after RLs SW, do we ?

RL’s SWA does mention unidentified fibers and hairs found during the processing of the crime scene ( section 8)
LOGAN WARRANT final_Redacted.pdf

Hairs/fibers at the crime scene that can be matched to hairs/fibers at RA’s residence or car would be damning evidence.
They also state in this SWA that the video captured by LG shows the man approaching the girls from behind, speaking to the girls and directing them down the hill. So the narrative here has not changed.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Wouldn't it be possible to paint it on with blood and leave no DNA if you used anything other than a finger as a "paintbrush?"

In my opinion, no.
Cicero is an expert.
I trust that the print was made by Libby. Libby was a powerhouse. She made that print while standing, while struggling to live, after clutching her wounded neck to stop the bleeding according to Cicero.


IMO,.this crime was not in any way ritualistic. This crime was a sexually motivated murder carried out by a disturbed, obsessed man that hid in plain sight for years.

 

[grannygates]

So, even a blood splatter expert and his educated findings are not reliable?
That surprises me in all honesty.

Do you honestly believe that someone used LG'S blood to paint the tree and didn't leave any of their own DNA in that mark?

Would it be fair to say that anything that is brought in by the Prosecutor is untrue, in your opinion?


JMO

I expect experts on either side to show the court proof of their experiments. If the state says handprint, prove it’s a handprint. Defense says it was painted, show it can be painted. We’re long past “trust me, bro” as a source in this case. I expect everyone to have actual proof.

IMO A paintbrush could be used and also leave some type of hair in the bark that LE would find and then search for in search warrants.

IMO This expert was hired specifically to try to disprove the defense theory. He also said the sticks were used to hide the bodies but then admitted they only covered 3% of the bodies and it would have taken seconds to cover the bodies with all the leaves.

Expert opinions are not all or nothing. I found a lot of his testimony to make sense. There were a few offers that didn’t connect with me. We can take and leave parts of expert opinions if we believe some parts and not others.

MOO

 

[grannygates]

RL’s SWA does mention unidentified fibers and hairs found during the processing of the crime scene ( section 8)
LOGAN WARRANT final_Redacted.pdf

Hairs/fibers at the crime scene that can be matched to hairs/fibers at RA’s residence or car would be damning evidence.
They also state in this SWA that the video captured by LG shows the man approaching the girls from behind, speaking to the girls and directing them down the hill. So the narrative here has not changed.

The OP was about Nancy Grace stating on her show that they were trying to match cat hairs and how that info has never come from LE.

 

[TTF14]

I expect experts on either side to show the court proof of their experiments. If the state says handprint, prove it’s a handprint. Defense says it was painted, show it can be painted. We’re long past “trust me, bro” as a source in this case. I expect everyone to have actual proof.

IMO A paintbrush could be used and also leave some type of hair in the bark that LE would find and then search for in search warrants.

IMO This expert was hired specifically to try to disprove the defense theory. He also said the sticks were used to hide the bodies but then admitted they only covered 3% of the bodies and it would have taken seconds to cover the bodies with all the leaves.

Expert opinions are not all or nothing. I found a lot of his testimony to make sense. There were a few offers that didn’t connect with me. We can take and leave parts of expert opinions if we believe some parts and not others.

MOO

Agree. And I find it really odd and sloppy that an expert doing an experiment didn't document it with video. If I were on the jury, I'd be wondering why, and would choose to give his testimony less (or no) weight because of it. Again, this isn't 1950. We have the technology. I wonder why he didn't record it. Absent recordings seem to be the theme of this entire investigation so maybe he thought it was a rule!

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

IMO A paintbrush could be used and also leave some type of hair in the bark that LE would find and then search for in search warrants.

Wow. This is an excellent theory, @grannygates!

 

[Ravenmoon]

I expect experts on either side to show the court proof of their experiments. If the state says handprint, prove it’s a handprint. Defense says it was painted, show it can be painted. We’re long past “trust me, bro” as a source in this case. I expect everyone to have actual proof.

IMO A paintbrush could be used and also leave some type of hair in the bark that LE would find and then search for in search warrants.

IMO This expert was hired specifically to try to disprove the defense theory. He also said the sticks were used to hide the bodies but then admitted they only covered 3% of the bodies and it would have taken seconds to cover the bodies with all the leaves.

Expert opinions are not all or nothing. I found a lot of his testimony to make sense. There were a few offers that didn’t connect with me. We can take and leave parts of expert opinions if we believe some parts and not others.

MOO

It's fair that you have your opinions.


Are you of the opinion that Circumstantial evidence isn't strong enough?

 

[Ravenmoon]

Agree. And I find it really odd and sloppy that an expert doing an experiment didn't document it with video. If I were on the jury, I'd be wondering why, and would choose to give his testimony less (or no) weight because of it. Again, this isn't 1950. We have the technology. I wonder why he didn't record it. Absent recordings seem to be the theme of this entire investigation so maybe he thought it was a rule!

IMO MOO

Well, this was a hearing and not a trial.

I believe he will be prepared for trial.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

The OP was about Nancy Grace stating on her show that they were trying to match cat hairs and how that info has never come from LE.

Well unidentified hair was found at the crime scene. It could be linked to RA’s residence or car.
Hair that could belong to another occupant of RA’s home( human or animal).

I want to add that if there was hair found at the crime scene that could be linked to one of RA’s pets that would be damning.
It would also fall outside of the specific statements in the Franks motion ( PartV) that states that there was no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.
Thats because hair at the crime scene would be linked back to his residence
If one uses Critical Discourse Analysis when reading the many Franks filed by defense it becomes glaringly obvious that the language is being used to mislead.

All my opinion

FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf | PDF Host

 

[grannygates]

It's fair that you have your opinions.


Are you of the opinion that Circumstantial evidence isn't strong enough?

That’s kind of a broad question. So all I can really say is that it depends on the circumstances. If there are a few corroborating sources, if the evidence is logical and believable and depends on the credibility of the sources.

 

[photographer4]

Yes.
There was no Fehu written in blood.

There was never a threat to "kill RAs family"

Those are the first things that came to mind.

I am sure that there are more, many more.

There was no Fehu in blood if you believe the State’s expert witness. There was one, if believe the Defense team. Opinions are subjective. Many people may not believe the Defense, but there is a good chance many will. The two sides just have to hope they have more believers on their side than the other come trial. This particular issue about Fehu or grabbing the tree with a bloody hand could go either way in my view. MOOOOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

IMO A paintbrush could be used and also leave some type of hair in the bark that LE would find and then search for in search warrants.

rs.

MOO

RSBM/BBM
I would think lab would be able to identity quite quickly if the hair was human, cat, dog or weasel/oxen/horse as used in paintbrushes.
JMO

 

[grannygates]

Well unidentified hair was found at the crime scene. It could be linked to RA’s residence or car.
Hair that could belong to another occupant of RA’s home( human or animal).

I want to add that if there was hair found at the crime scene that could be linked to one of RA’s pets that would be damning.
It would also fall outside of the specific statements in the Franks motion ( PartV) that states that there was no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.
Thats because hair at the crime scene would be linked back to his residence
If one uses Critical Discourse Analysis when reading the many Franks filed by defense it becomes glaringly obvious that the language is being used to mislead.

FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf | PDF Host

I was originally just talking about the cat hair comment. I recall the animal hair mentioned on RL SW but I didn’t see any mention of it on RAs, in the actual search warrant or the SW return with the list of collected items? Unless I’m missing it.

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Objection-Filed-6-27-2023-13.34.25-248103915-FFC47C07-5DAF-414E-9879-66EEBA100263.pdf

 

[photographer4]

Well unidentified hair was found at the crime scene. It could be linked to RA’s residence or car.
Hair that could belong to another occupant of RA’s home( human or animal).

I want to add that if there was hair found at the crime scene that could be linked to one of RA’s pets that would be damning.
It would also fall outside of the specific statements in the Franks motion ( PartV) that states that there was no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.
Thats because hair at the crime scene would be linked back to his residence
If one uses Critical Discourse Analysis when reading the many Franks filed by defense it becomes glaringly obvious that the language is being used to mislead.

All my opinion

FINAL DRAFT - 9.17 at 6.30 pm - Delphi Franks brief.pdf | PDF Host

I just have a question about Pet Hair DNA if anyone happens to know before I try to google… is it possible to link Pet hair to a specific animal from a specific home or just a type of breed et: a yellow lab or a tabby cat? Not familiar with how this would work to say it could only have come from RA’s home - if such hair was found?