Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #192

[photographer4]

IPhone 6

From what I understand Libby had issues with her phone as in it was glitchy.

Her grandmother had no plans to get her a new one so Libby did a full reset over the weekend of February 4th-February 5th, 2017.

All data on it was deleted in full.

Maybe there is a possibility the full reset didn't resolve what was going on with her phone as to why it turned on like it did at 4:33 am.

JMT

Would depend on what caused the glitch. If it was a rogue app, deleting and reset would resolve it unless the app was reinstalled. The question I have is how much data was overwritten and thus harder if not impossible to recover from before the reset?

Moooo.

 

[photographer4]

Regarding the Chain of Custody issue:

Nick talks about his witnesses and states about a half dozen to a dozen are Chain of Custody type witnesses.

5.7.24 Richard Allen Motions Hearing.pdf

drive.google.com

I thought Chain of Custody was really important but if he can just bring in witnesses, then why even bother in the first place?

Interesting so they could in theory throw a guy on the stand to say he did xyz then the next guy and not? Provide further back up evidence like photos or video or notes?

 

[photographer4]

Maybe they went back and got the branches for evidence then?

Whatever they went back to look for - imo - not acceptable. why would they have left anything there at all?!?! I hope the D sorts this issue out.

 

[justtrish]

Regarding the Chain of Custody issue:

Nick talks about his witnesses and states about a half dozen to a dozen are Chain of Custody type witnesses.

5.7.24 Richard Allen Motions Hearing.pdf

drive.google.com

I thought Chain of Custody was really important but if he can just bring in witnesses, then why even bother in the first place?

I take this to mean they can show the chain of custody by brining in witnesses that are in that chain of custody to verify they in fact are part of the chain of custody.

 

[grannygates]

Absolutely they would have covered that crime scene thoroughly, especially with it being between Abby and Libby's bodies.

It just makes it far more conspiratorial and sensational to allege the bullet wasn't found that day or there is no chain of custody for it.

MOO

We’ve heard several sources state that the round was found some days after the murder. I don’t believe I’ve seen a source say it was found during the original crime scene search if you have one?
2:11

 

[m00c0w]

What if the bullet was found by a random citizen. Does this person come to court to testify why they decided to dig in that one spot and how they handed it off to LE ? What if someone forgot the evidence bag on top of their car and it flew away for a little while, does the court get to know that? You know, hypothetically speaking, I’m just curious how much of this bullets life the court gets to know ?

Yes, they would be considered a material witness and would have to come in to testify. Investigators would have to testify about how they handled the evidence. Techs would come in to address how they handled the evidence, tested it, and what their results were.

As far as evidence bags, it should be sealed and signed off on, over the seal. That’s pretty standard. If it flew away and was lost for 5 minutes but the seal was still intact, not a super big deal. If it was gone for 3 days and the bag was ripped open, absolutely should be disclosed and defense would probably address it in court.

The thing is, the defense right now could argue to suppress the evidence if they believed it was found days after the fact and its evidentiary value was compromised. That would actually snowball into possibly contesting the search warrant. I haven’t seen those specific claims (and the defense calls out much smaller issues routinely), so it makes me wary of just believing the round was found days later as opposed to during the regular processing of the scene. We’d know for sure if that was the case because it would have been included in a Franks memo somewhere.

All my opinion.

 

[Vern]

If SC didn't use the word bloody, it was certainly an embellishment. Blood implies violence. Mud doesn't. The girls were murdered. I believe the word bloody was added to influence the judge to sign off. A muddy guy could have just been fishing. A bloody guy was probably in a physical altercation.

All my opinion and interpretation. Last I'll say on the matter.

IMO MOO

Here's my previous post (with same IMO that I posted yesterday too) to you ...

Again, "bloody" does not infer lies and/or embellishment. It just means she didn't use the word "bloody" that the D-Team quoted. It does not mean anything was embellished IMO and the Judge apparently agrees. It was denied by her and she has seen the actual evidence and video-taped statement.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/abby-libby-the-delphi-murders-richard-allen-arrested-192.721222/reply?quote=19044163

So, yes - I'm glad that this matter is now getting put to bed.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Interesting so they could in theory throw a guy on the stand to say he did xyz then the next guy and not? Provide further back up evidence like photos or video or notes?

Prosecution isn’t going to “throw a guy on the stand to say he did….”
They will call evidentiary witnesses to provide testimony, under oath.

All of which will be heard by the jury.

Maybe there will be photos and videos, maybe not.
The jury will consider it, along with all other evidence, in its totality.

It may not meet the public’s demands, but it is how it works in court.

jmo

 

[tlcya]

We’ve heard several sources state that the round was found some days after the murder. I don’t believe I’ve seen a source say it was found during the original crime scene search if you have one?
2:11

Barbara states "my understanding is that that discovery was made several days after the murders."

I'm gonna need to have an understanding of how she came to that understanding of hers before I know what weight to give it. But that is just me.

has the motion in limine re ballistics from DT ever been unsealed? If so not sure I've read it yet.

 

[grannygates]

has the motion in limine re ballistics from DT ever been unsealed? If so not sure I've read it yet.

It has been but I believe it focused on the junk science aspect. I can’t recall if they talk about COC. I’ll see if I can dig it up and share it

 

[tlcya]

It has been but I believe it focused on the junk science aspect. I can’t recall if they talk about COC. I’ll see if I can dig it up and share it

TIA I would like to look at it. If it mostly focused on junk science and not the chain of custody, I wonder why? I would think it would be much easier to attack COC if the bullet indeed was left at the scene unsecured and found buried in dirt later after the scene had been cleared several times.

I mean, if you can prove the bullet was planted, or at least suggest reasonable doubt surrounding it's discovery, I would think that you would do that rather than attack the science that says it aligns with RA's gun.

ETA get it thrown out before you have to get the science discounted you know what I mean?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Barbara states "my understanding is that that discovery was made several days after the murders."

I'm gonna need to have an understanding of how she came to that understanding of hers before I know what weight to give it. But that is just me.

has the motion in limine re ballistics from DT ever been unsealed? If so not sure I've read it yet.

In the redacted PCA it states that the ISP lab conducted a test on RA's gun compared to the recovered unspent bullet.
Page 5 (last paragraph) of 8 explains the testing clearly.

Page 2 of 8 also talks about the unspent cartridge being found in the same context of finding the girls remains and articles of clothing at the creek.

It won't let me copy and past in this format.

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/08C01-2210-MR-000001.pdf

 

[grannygates]

TIA I would like to look at it. If it mostly focused on junk science and not the chain of custody, I wonder why? I would think it would be much easier to attack COC if the bullet indeed was left at the scene unsecured and found buried in dirt later after the scene had been cleared several times.

I mean, if you can prove the bullet was planted, or at least suggest reasonable doubt surrounding it's discovery, I would think that you would do that rather than attack the science that says it aligns with RA's gun.

ETA get it thrown out before you have to get the science discounted you know what I mean?

This is the filing:

Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics.pdf

drive.google.com

I’m trying to find the response from the court, but I believe she uses the word “admissible” in her response. Which makes sense if you read Turner. The standard of matching empty casings at a crime scene with a random unspent round found at some guys house with no gun to even confirm that the round was ever in that gun.. I think anything goes in Indiana.

 

[statt#1]

A metal detector coil is 5 to 12 inches, sometimes larger, but more often 8 to 10 inches or so. It's likely they didn't sweep the scene on day 1, probably not day 2 either. It takes a long time to sweep an area with a 10 inch coil and ensure absolute coverage. One rule in detecting...the coil has to pass over, or extremely close to an object in order to detect it.

My experience tells me chances are good that bullet wasn't seen by walking around and looking down.

 

[photographer4]

I was responding to a member who was surprised witnesses might be called to testify about chain of custody. I was not commenting on when any specific evidence was located or where.

No I wasn’t surprised I was more wondering if they could then skip detailing the chain in other forms is all. Why bother if they can testify to it?

 

[Salah11]

Let’s look at this objectively.

RA said in an interview he had never loaned his gun to anybody. Yet mysteriously his gun managed to eject a unspent bullet between two dead bodies.

How did it get there if he isn’t involved?!… hmmm

The same man has no alibi and admits he was on the trails that day.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[tlcya]

No I wasn’t surprised I was more wondering if they could then skip detailing the chain in other forms is all. Why bother if they can testify to it?

my understanding is that the testimony would include the chain forms.

Witness, do you recognize this document?
Yes, I do it is the chain of custody form.
Mr. Witness, can you identify that signature right here on line 7?
Yes, that is my signature.
So you handled this evidence on such and such a date?
Yes. that is correct.
Can you describe your activities?

and so forth.

 

[AugustWest]

Let’s look at this objectively.

RA said in an interview he had never loaned his gun to anybody. Yet mysteriously his gun managed to eject a unspent bullet between two dead bodies.

How did it get there if he isn’t involved?!… hmmm

The same man has no alibi and admits he was on the trails that day.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

This isn't objectively, however. Objectively means "with a basis in observable facts rather than feelings or opinions."

See: Definition of OBJECTIVELY

"His gun managed to eject an unspent bullet" presupposes that the unspent bullet actually came from his gun. Which was formed by your opinion that the tool mark analysis is an observable fact. It is fine to feel that way, but many don't.

 

[KSwizzle]

I think he's guilty MOO. but the argument would be racking a gun and an unspent bullet coming out is going to be argued as junk science, I personally don't know if it's scientifically accurate or some sort of pseudo science like handwriting analysis or something, if someone has a good article I would like to read it

 

[AugustWest]

I think he's guilty MOO. but the argument would be racking a gun and an unspent bullet coming out is going to be argued as junk science, I personally don't know if it's scientifically accurate or some sort of pseudo science like handwriting analysis or something, if someone has a good article I would like to read it

@KSwizzle

Here is an article that discusses the issue:

Ballistics experts can't testify that recovered bullets match firearms, Md. high court rules

The field of firearms identification is not reliable enough to allow expert testimony linking crime scene bullets to specific guns, Maryland's top court ruled.

thedailyrecord.com

I have a U.S. government study linked somewhere that shows some jurisdictions question the reliability of toolmark analysis, but I'll have to search for it later, as I'm away from the computer it is stored on.

ETA PCAST study where the gov't report originated: PCAST Releases Report on Forensic Science in Criminal Courts

ETA law journal articles:

Temple University: TOOLMARK EVIDENCE: CAN’T LIVE WITH IT, CAN’T… - Advocacy and Evidence Resources

Duquesne: Firearm and Toolmark Evidence: Issues Lead to Injustice – Juris Magazine