From the time given by LE he was seen leaving and the 3 girls were on the way in .
It was stated in the PC he was observed to be muddy and bloody looking like he was In a fight.
Imo the reason that was how he was described this way is; who would describe a person as "someone who looked like they stabbed someone to death in a mud puddle" . He may have had a scratch or 2, bloody hands and muddy jeans / boots hence the description of muddy and bloody...
Really no shake at all ..if anything more wasted time on defense theory's that dont match the evidence. Here is what a good lawyer would do with what you posted:
You mention Carhartt, Jeans, and Sig.
You the jury have been shown eye witness or Video or photo evidence which shows suspect who said "down the hill" wearing a carhart hoody jacket at 2:15pm. The defendent (points finger at RA) willing offered information he was on that bridge ,during that exact time ,wearing a carhartt hoody jacket..let me remind you members of the jury that this is the same jacket seized from (points at RA)defendants home 5 years later.
Jeans :Same as above just change the words "carhart hoody" to the words " blue jeans"
State Trooper Sig 227:
The crime scene was secured and only a handful of SP investigators were at the crime scene and maybe 2-3 from that agency were within the inner taped off crime scene location were the bodies and 40c bullit were found. After test results came back confirming the bullit had been cycled through (points at defendants) RAs gun and only his gun as the eject marks are similar to fingerprints and chances of matching 2 different guns would be in the billions we still went ahead and compared the marks to our own officers service weapons which did not result in match.
There are tens of thousands of these sig 26 and 27 owned by LE and private owners all over the US and the world...what are the chances we found 1 round at the scene,, that matches 100% like a fingerprint to (points at defendant) RAs weapon ..that he has stated nobody has ever had access too but him? He Also Stated he was in the immediate area of the crime scene at the time of the murders which has been confirmed by several other eye witnesses and also video.
RA like every US citizen derserves his day in court,His defense is required to do everything in thier legal capicity to get him off and if he doesnt make a plea deal after seeing all the evidence against him ..then he wll get his fair trail..the thing is.. this is 2022.. it's not easy to get away with any crime let alone murder...especially if you did it, Cameras,cell phone pings,dna,lie detectors,hair and fiber analysis,tire tracks,boot prints,socoal media etc etc will all be used against him. The days of uncheckable "maybe this happend..maybe it was this person" are a defense of the past. Either fight the science with science and let the chips fall or or plead out
Its possible when RA is confronted with the scientific evidence he will take a plea offer...IF one is offered. If not theres a small chance he still may plead guilty knowing its a slam dunk.
Good exercise.
I guess the weakness they'd go for is that bullet casing extraction marks are weaker evidentially than a fingerprint, or even more established ballistic forensics. If the defence can show that casing extraction marks are a
subjective analysis technique, the rest is circumstantial. We can see from the PCA that the state has only used human-based subjective comparison techniques, not the more advanced techniques like 3D microscopic analysis etc., that are not subject to visual errors or analyst error. If the bullet casing is further analysed and is proven beyond doubt to have cycled through RA's gun, well, unspent bullets belonging to RA could have been dropped in the vicinity at any time, doesn't mean guilt, even though it paints a circumstantial picture that circumstantially points toward guilt.
When a judge retires a jury for deliberation she gives them very specific instructions, it isn't a free-for-all. If the judge says: based on the evidence in front of you,
you must be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, or you must return a not-guilty verdict.
Without the bullet it comes down to: Man wearing jeans and blue jacket in the area at a similar time window. Several juvenile witnesses who aren't reliable (contradictions regarding colour of clothing, they all say they didn't see his face). One witness said bridge guy could have been as tall as 5'10", RA is 5'4". RA admits himself he was in the area and has not changed his life considerably since the crimes to suggest he has sought to evade prosecution. He didn't get rid of his gun despite the knowledge that LE were looking for guns on the properties of other persons-of-interest (RL). He didn't move house.
The then-juvenile witnesses will be cross-examined and if they have any doubts or biases that have crept in since the murders and arrest, those will ring loud and be cause for doubt.
With the bullet it's all of the above plus a bullet casing that RA could have dropped anywhere at any time. Prove he put it there on 13 Feb 2017 at 14.30.
The bullet casing in and of itself does not prove guilt. That plus all of the other circumstantial evidence together paints a picture which I'd hate to have to consider as a juror. But let's for argument's sake suggest the state can't have the bullet casing admitted to the trial as evidence. In that scenario it just comes down to the clothes and the timing. Based solely on "the kidnapper was a middle aged white man wearing blue jeans and a blue jacket, and the defendant is a white middle aged man who wore blue jeans and jacket same day same place" in a vacuum - forget anything else for just a moment, as a juror you have to suspend certain biases and what might feel like logic, as per the judge's instructions - is enough to execute someone who doesn't deny being around there, has no apparent motive, no violent crime history, and no DNA evidence (again, we don't know, maybe it's coming)? No way would I say guilty in that situation.
