Yes^^^ A friend work in juvie hall (he's a big guy) and a 15 yr old kid suddenly attacked him while being escorted. He torn bilateral muscles in one arm, still can't use it to do much of anything, 2 years later. His livelihood gone in a moment.
There may have been some erosion, especially down by the creek's banks, but wasn't it described as a berm area on two sides with the crime scene situated in a kind of bowl area in between?
I think the context of those statements he made were other girls, not Abby and Libby. I believe that's why officers wanted to talk to RA's daughter's friends. If I'm remembering correctly.
Thanks for clarifying that about the phone being under her shoe and not in it.
Snipped by me;
Yes. I believe that as well. Abby was nude from the waist down at some point. I believe the top clothing items never came off.
Motion to argue Let Bail was set for that June 15th hearing. That was when all of the confessions came out in the hearings and it was the DEFENSE who asked for it to be continued IIRC. Makes a lot of sense considering the Court had just heard the confessions made by RA.
Bingo and because RA didn't want them to see what he'd done to them.
Thanks for this Vern. I suspect this may be a critical piece of evidence. The type of ammo., the empty ammo box (I'll guess a 20 round box), two mags retrieved, one had 8 rds. and one had 9 rds., the bullet in the box, the one in the chamber, and the one at the scene....equals 20.From same Delphi Docs Link:
DelphiDocs.zip
drive.google.com
The capacity of Richard Allen's Sig Sauer Magazines was 10; I know there were queries the other day, but these lab reports confirm 10 round capacity of the mags (third item down):
View attachment 529719
Thanks, so if those are correct...there's possible 3 socks, maybe a bra (Libby), one pair of under drawers (Abby), Abby's jeans and shoes not mentioned, accounted for. If he did take a trophy, I wonder if it was found in the search? Were any of those clothing items mentioned in SW? recovery...underwear, socks, Converse sneaks or jeans?
So is it morally wrong but not legally wrong, so it's OK to publicly accuse some men of murdering young girls, even if morally wrong to do so?
It's been speculated that one sock and one pair of underwear was missing. Someone posted the SW the other day on here. I'll have to go back and take a look. We might want to look at RL's search warrant too. Was the search warrant for KK ever released?
I think they are going to file for recusal of the judge once more. I understand that the Judge can block it, but I still feel they will try it, once again, like GroundHogs Day.
I have no control over what's moral or what's legal. I remember a couple of other people who got raked over the coals publicly. As I stated in my post you quoted: "If it's found that the Ds actions are legally wrong, I'm sure we will hear about it in the future."
Not the OP but I don't think it's ok.. It shocked me when I read those names in the FM. And it's even more shocking that legally they have no recourse to sue for defamation. Something is wrong with the system in that regard, IMO
I think that's the problem, they were just being zealous and it's protected, they're protected. MO
In RL's search warrant it states there was missing items of clothing from the crime scene but the type of clothing is redacted. I personally believe it is one pair of panties and one sock.
