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?
Well then perhaps there was enough evidence collected from those items marked as returned to convict.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
View attachment 523938
View attachment 523936
View attachment 523937
I don’t know if we have seen the car carpet mentioned anywhere in filings but the gun and toolmarkings is definitely a huge part of their case. I don’t really understand why they wouldn’t test any of the clothing. I would have assumed they’d do every inch of that blue carhartt jacket.Well then perhaps there was enough evidence collected from those items marked as returned to convict.
Otherwise I cannot formulate why they would collect evidence for testing and not test.
JMO
The items they collected but appear not to have forwarded to the lab - could they have done some presumptive testing on them to show the presence of XYZ or lack thereof? If they did these and they didn’t turn positive for initial presumptive tests, maybe they were deemed negative and not in need of further investigation? Presumptive and confirmatory tests - WikipediaWell then perhaps there was enough evidence collected from those items marked as returned to convict.
Otherwise I cannot formulate why they would collect evidence for testing and not test.
JMO
I am actually wondering if those items with the X are items they had to send out for lab testing and other items they could do "in house". I know not all labs to all the various types of testing. Just a thought. Also, if they had to send just a few items initially, I think those that they have marked X were likely important enough to be the first to go. What if others were sent later and this screengrab of the documents is just the initial testing/items sent out. I'd say over the course of the last nearly 2 years other items could certainly be tested and we wouldn't have record of that, if this document was filed right after the SW was executed.The items they collected but appear not to have forwarded to the lab - could they have done some presumptive testing on them to show the presence of XYZ or lack thereof? If they did these and they didn’t turn positive for initial presumptive tests, maybe they were deemed negative and not in need of further investigation? Presumptive and confirmatory tests - Wikipedia
The return on the search warrant return and its attached list of items has a file date of May 1, 2023.I am actually wondering if those items with the X are items they had to send out for lab testing and other items they could do "in house". I know not all labs to all the various types of testing. Just a thought. Also, if they had to send just a few items initially, I think those that they have marked X were likely important enough to be the first to go. What if others were sent later and this screengrab of the documents is just the initial testing/items sent out. I'd say over the course of the last nearly 2 years other items could certainly be tested and we wouldn't have record of that, if this document was filed right after the SW was executed.
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.
Agreeing that all evidence has not yet been presented. We may collectively think "we have most"' yet do not. I was driving many years ago when National Public Radio included in a news broadcast there was discovery with regard to this case...which is how I learned detail of the case initially. Best that a plea spares family, friends and community a court ordeal. Rest in peace Libby and Abby.I am not tasked TODAY with convicting him because I'm not a juror, the evidence hasn't been presented yet, but I do think the jury will find him guilty, based on the case that will be before them.
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
View attachment 523938
View attachment 523936
View attachment 523937
It’s as if the 3-day hearings didn’t happen. And anybody who reported on them can’t be trusted
I wonder if there was any "gimme monies" involved? I surely hope not. For myself... I don't trust any story that was bought and paid for. MOOMOO
Actually, it's off to a bad start with it's lead (thanks to MS); how does this media source its information?
A whole bunch of this article comes from MS; who else?
Does anyone have any verifiable info about RA snubbing a plea deal?
TRIAL TWIST Delphi ‘killer’ Richard Allen snubbing plea deal to ‘avoid disappointing family’ despite confessing to murders 61 times
'Motive' for Delphi 'killer' refusing plea deal despite 61 confessions uncovered
ACCUSED Delphi murderer Richard Allen has allegedly confessed to killing two teen girls more than 60 times since his arrest in 2022, but questions have been raised over why he hasn’t taken a …www.the-sun.com
I wondered this as well. I noticed the date of the SW but I seem to recall RA was arrested in late October. Yeah Oct 26 was his arrest date per this article:Doesn't seem like any Trophies or Souvenirs from the girls were found among all that unless not listed.
It is highly unlikely the perpetrator, if he did take T & S's, would have gotten rid of anything if he didn't have to at all. It would have been done as a last resort and with immense reluctance and only if he felt threatened in some way.
Either those missing items from the girls may have been tossed in the creek and swept away or the perpetrator took them.
Did RA know he was going to be arrested when he was arrested in October of 2022?
Link:
Articles Of Clothing Missing
I wondered this as well. I noticed the date of the SW but I seem to recall RA was arrested in late October. Yeah Oct 26 was his arrest date per this article:
Richard Allen case | Full timeline and events so far
A status hearing held in Fort Wayne on Thursday will allow Judge Francis Gull to address both the defense and prosecution ahead of Richard Allen's jury trial.www.wthr.com
The SW was conducted on Oct 13 per this article:
Richard Allen case | Full timeline and events so far
A status hearing held in Fort Wayne on Thursday will allow Judge Francis Gull to address both the defense and prosecution ahead of Richard Allen's jury trial.www.wthr.com
I wonder what was going through his mind in the delay between the warrant and arrest??
I always thought some lab test must have come back positive for some forensic evidence and that is how they took so long between SW and arrest???
What it seems to suggest as well to me is that the police likely did put 24/7 detail on him. Maybe they left him in the wild with supervision to see what he did, where he went, who he saw and or spoke with?October 13th until October 26th, 2022.
If he was a POI would the LE have kept an eye on him 24/7 between mid October and the arrest?
That would have been ample time to get rid of anything for sure.
For them to have made an arrest you could be right about something coming back positive in the lab tests carried out.
During the trial we may find out what sealed it for the LE to arrest RA when they did - hope so anyway.
I'd say over the course of the last nearly 2 years other items could certainly be tested and we wouldn't have record of that, if this document was filed right after the SW was executed.
is the waiting so long between the sw and arrest an indication the case wasn’t strong enough til something came back from the SW???
What it seems to suggest as well to me is that the police likely did put 24/7 detail on him. Maybe they left him in the wild with supervision to see what he did, where he went, who he saw and or spoke with?
If they were confident it was RA in the video, what stopped them arresting him at any point earlier? They’d have seen him when they interviewed him. They’d have seen his walk, heard his voice. Why did they need to wait for the SW to be completed and then a few days later to arrest him?
Is it possible they only got the warrant to scare him? Make him think he was going down for it and hope he would sing like a bird on anyone else who may have been involved?
Did they hope he would be so spooked he would confess? Or that he would discard something of evidentiary value in a place they could get it without a warrant??
is the waiting so long between the sw and arrest an indication the case wasn’t strong enough til something came back from the SW???
I'd think sometimes things collected don't get tested but are stored until trial is over, then returned?Well then perhaps there was enough evidence collected from those items marked as returned to convict.
Otherwise I cannot formulate why they would collect evidence for testing and not test.
JMO
RA has confessed over 60 times and made multitudes of incriminating statements. Before he did that, he put himself on the bridge, in the area, at the time of the murders wearing the same clothes as BG (before BG's photo was released IIRC), who police have stated is the killer of Abby and Libby. Should we not believe him? MOI would never presume to make a decision on someone's guilt BARD before a trial. We simply *don't have access to all the evidence*.
It's perfectly fine, IMO to say - I believe that the evidence leans this or that way, eg in the Idaho massacre case, IMO the evidence leans pretty hard against BK's innocence. But what frustrates me with this case is having so many leaks/public-oriented FMs that give ppl the impression that we have all the data. But we don't. The prosecution, IMO have been only revealing as little evidence as possible to argue against the DT's motion.
I'm interested in this case, and I'm the public, but I'm not interested in a trial via the public. If that makes sense.