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

[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?

 

[photographer4]

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.

Post trial, are reporters etc allowed to ask the jurors about what tipped the scales in their mind towards guilt or innocence? I am unsure how post trial works in regards to this? I’d be very curious to know what deliberations went down and what their sticking points were in terms of guilt or innocence.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Post trial, are reporters etc allowed to ask the jurors about what tipped the scales in their mind towards guilt or innocence? I am unsure how post trial works in regards to this? I’d be very curious to know what deliberations went down and what their sticking points were in terms of guilt or innocence.

It's up to the jurors discretion if they decide to talk to reporters post trial.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

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?

Hair Shed by Pet Cats is Useful Source of Forensic Evidence, Study Says | Sci.News

 

[grannygates]

Post trial, are reporters etc allowed to ask the jurors about what tipped the scales in their mind towards guilt or innocence? I am unsure how post trial works in regards to this? I’d be very curious to know what deliberations went down and what their sticking points were in terms of guilt or innocence.

In the Lori and Chad daybell trials, the jurors did speak in depth with Nate Eaton afterwards. They gave really good insight into what specifically sold them on the guilty verdict. I watched them through Nate’s YouTube channel East Idaho News ( I believe he’s an approved source).

 

[photographer4]

Hair Shed by Pet Cats is Useful Source of Forensic Evidence, Study Says | Sci.News

Always so patient with the links! Ty!

 

[Cyber sleuth]

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

I would imagine that the multiple pieces of clothing, boots and carpet from RA’s Ford would be examined thoroughly for forensic evidence.
Just my opinion.
Isn’t part of the evidence of the Gilgo Beach Murder is a hair from an occupant of RH’s home?
Which leads me to another question. Is search of one’s trash require a search warrant? Or is it property of the city once collected?

 

[grannygates]

I would imagine that the multiple pieces of clothing, boots and carpet from RA’s Ford would be examined thoroughly for forensic evidence.
Just my opinion.
Isn’t part of the evidence of the Gilgo Beach Murder is a hair from an occupant of RH’s home?
Which leads me to another question. Is search of one’s trash require a search warrant? Or is it property of the city once collected?

In the search warrant return (last few pages) there is a box on the right hand side that indicates which items were sent to the lab. I can see the gun, keepsake box cartridge and the carpet cutting from the car were indicated to be sent to the lab.

I’m not sure about warrants surrounding LISK. I haven’t read any of the court documents so I’m not sure what they collected from “public trash” vs what was in the warrant. I totally just assumed they got a warrant for the wife’s hair for that security. I did learn a lot from LISK about the digital aspect, how much information the FBI/LE can recover from old computers, phones, geofencing, deleted items etc. it’s been incredible to see what they’re able to recover from 20+ years ago. We need that level of forensic investigation over here.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

In the search warrant return (last few pages) there is a box on the right hand side that indicates which items were sent to the lab. I can see the gun, keepsake box cartridge and the carpet cutting from the car were indicated to be sent to the lab.

I’m not sure about warrants surrounding LISK. I haven’t read any of the court documents so I’m not sure what they collected from “public trash” vs what was in the warrant. I totally just assumed they got a warrant for the wife’s hair for that security. I did learn a lot from LISK about the digital aspect, how much information the FBI/LE can recover from old computers, phones, geofencing, deleted items etc. it’s been incredible to see what they’re able to recover from 20+ years ago. We need that level of forensic investigation over here.

So is it your opinion they collected 10-20 pieces of clothing and personal accessories from RA’s home and did not send them to be examined?

 

[grannygates]

So is it your opinion they collected 10-20 pieces of clothing and personal accessories from RA’s home and did not send them to be examined?

It’s not my opinion - Its what the search warrant return says. If you scroll down to the end you can see which ones were marked as sent to the lab. Ill screenshot the pages with the items sent for lab exam

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I would imagine that the multiple pieces of clothing, boots and carpet from RA’s Ford would be examined thoroughly for forensic evidence.
Just my opinion.
Isn’t part of the evidence of the Gilgo Beach Murder is a hair from an occupant of RH’s home?
Which leads me to another question. Is search of one’s trash require a search warrant? Or is it property of the city once collected?

If it’s on the street, it’s fair game.