Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #159

[layer]

That's true, you can examine an unfired round. But it's not not ballistics. And I have zero faith in the ability to match any unfired round to any gun. But that's just me.

 

[layer]

Circumstantial evidence:
1) Cycling marks on unspent bullet
2) Vague video of RA's car and eye witness testimony on the vehicle parked at CPS.
3) Voice analysis of RA versus BG.


Real and (Potential) evidence when time to present in court:
1) Eyewitness description of clothing and time on trail by 3 juveniles.
2) Evidence gleamed from search at RA's house (blood in seat of car, blood on clothing, blood in drain in bathtub if he presoaked clothes there, memento from killing like a ring or necklace, DNA of victims, digital photos possibly erased but not really erased on phone, blood in nooks and crannies of boots, etc.
3) RA's own admission of being on the trail and at bridge at or around time of abduction/killing.
4) Eyewitness description of woman who went to bridge and back who saw both RA and Libby and Abby.
5) RA's timecard swipe in and/or wipe out to show he was not at work at those times.
6) Video showing RA walking toward victims showing clothing that matched descriptions of 4 people on the trails within an hour of the girl's abduction/murder.
7) Other real evidence from search of his residence that we don't even know about.
8) Partial finger print on unspent casing.
9) Touch DNA on victims or trees/sticks etc. (Since girls were found within 24 hours, touch DNA should be there on SOMETHING).

Like I said before, I think there is a fairly solid circumstantial case so far. But we have only heard one side.
And it would behoove them to leave the cycling marks out, anything that can introduce reasonable doubt into a case should be left to the defense.
JMHO

 

[layer]

I can't tell if you mean the forensics ballistics testing, which is not limited to fired rounds only. But "ballistics" certainly includes the examination of a bullet that was in a magazine and then chambered and ejected from a firearm and the resulting markings on the bullet.

Ballistics is the study of flight and impact. Unspent rounds haven't flown or impacted.

CSI guys might call the examination of unspent rounds ballistics, but it's not.

 

[OckhamsRazor22]

Did anyone else actually read the PCA? You would think they would be more careful about what they put in there. Can't they afford a proofreader? If you are that careless with small details then how can you be trusted on bigger ones?

Excellent point. With great power comes even greater responsibility. Looks as if someone dropped the ball here. Big time.

 

[pepper 34]

It was in his Oct. 2022 interview:

View attachment 385408

I think RA mentions the bench in his first interview with the CO, too. It would be interesting to compare the two interviews. Does anyone have the first interview available to post here? I really did look online for it but all that comes up for me is the Probable Cause document.

 

[cbeagle]

Ballistics is related to firing and fired rounds - the fired bullet and the spent casing. There are no ballistics to be performed on a round that has never been fired.

NIST defines ballistics as:

"What is forensic ballistics? Forensic ballistics involves the examination of evidence from firearms that may have been used in a crime." - Ballistics

They do go onto to describe markings from a gun being fired, but there's also mentions in their website of toolmarks on cartridge cases, so I'm not sure ballistics is limited to fired bullets and spent casing.

E.g., here's the citation for a silver award:

"The team is recognized for developing the first open-access research database of microscopic firearm marks on bullets and cartridge cases. "

That could cover ejection marks on a unspent round.

2017 - Silver Medal Award---Sushama Singh, Richard Silver, Johannes A. Soons, Xiaoyu A. Zheng

The team is recognized for developing the first open-access research database of microscopic firearm marks on bullets and cartridge cases. State and federal forensic laboratories, academia, and industry have embraced the database as a critical tool to develop the scientific basis for firearm identif

www.nist.gov

 

[Gemmie]

IMO, he needed to change his pants after that video was released.

I'd have loved to have been there at that precise moment to catch his expression and demeanor. The people near him more than likely hadn't suspected him so it could have been a "Huh. That's sure an odd way to react to this news" moment for them.

 

[Prime8]

Probably a dumb idea, but is it possible that the person who saw him in all black is colorblind? If s/he couldn't see blues, they may only show up as dark or light.

Not dumb at all. I think people like to jump to crazy conspiracies when sometimes the answer may be very simple.

 

[Yemelyan]

Probably a dumb idea, but is it possible that the person who saw him in all black is colorblind? If s/he couldn't see blues, they may only show up as dark or light.

Possible maybe, but the type of color blindness that affects the ability to see shades of blues (tritanopia - you can actually still see blues but may have trouble distinguishing blues from greens) or the kind that causes a person to only see in greyscale are very, very rare. They are many times less common than red-green color blindness....about 1 out of every 10,000 people or fewer has tritanopia. Achromatopsia (complete colorblindness) is even more rare.

If the witnesses in this case couldn't agree on colors of clothing or cars it's probably just due to faulty memory, unfortunately.

 

[EOA]

Investigators spoke with WITNESS 4 who advised she was on the trails on February 13th, 2017.
Video from the Hoosier Harvestore captured a vehicle travelling eastbound at 1:46 p.m. toward the entrance across from the Mears farm.
WITNESS 4 advised she saw 4 juvenile females walking on the bridge over Old State Road 25 as she was driving underneath on her way to park.
WITNESS 4 advised there were no other cars parked across from the Mears farm when she parked.
WITNESS 4 advised she walked to the Monon High Bridge and observed a male matching the one from Victim 2's video. She described the male she saw as a white male, wearing blue jeans and a blue jean jacket.
WITNESS 4 advised he was standing on the first platform of the Monon High Bridge, approximately 50 feet from her.
WITNESS 4 advised she turned around at the bridge and continued her walk.
WITNESS 4 advised approximately halfway between the bridge and the parking area across from Mears farm, she passed two girls walking toward Monon High Bridge. She advised she believed the girls were Victim 1 and Victim 2.
WITNESS 4 advised she finished her walk and saw no other adults other than the male on the bridge. Her vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 2:14p.m.leaving westbound from the trails.

These are my observations with reference to this part of the PCA

1. Witness 4 advises she saw 4 juvenile females walking on the old bridge, not 3
2. Witness 4 advises no other cars were parked when S/he arrived and parked
3. It takes approximately 2 mins to drive from under the old bridge to the Mears Parking lot (Google Maps)
4. The Hoosier Harvestore Camera picked Him/Her up at 1:46
5. Witness 4 advises H/She walked as far as the High Bridge and saw a man on the first Platform of MHB Turned around and went back the way H/She came.
6. Witness 4 advises H/She saw the Victims heading towards the high bridge approximately halfway between the Mears parking lot and the High Bridge.
7. Witness 4 was captured on Hoosier Harvestore video leaving the area at 2:14
8. Witness 4 between being captured on camera appeared to be in the area for a total 28 minutes which included arriving, parking, walking the trail turning around returning to a car un-parking and going back from where they came.
9. Witness 4 advises H/She saw no other Adults in the area other than the man on the bridge during her visit.

The witness must have been a few minutes ahead of the victims on the trail to be able to see them whilst on the way back to His/Her car.

Not unless the Victims went in search of friends having been dropped off by a family member at 1:38 and turned right towards Freedom Bridge in the first instance. and just made their way back along the trails having missed their possible friends who had by then left the trails. Then went towards and across MHB to pass the time before they were due to be picked up.

However hard I try it does not answer why the family member's car was not observed by Witness 4 This is my last ditch attempt at the rationale and I do think it is possible If the family member's phone rang whilst driving and she parked/pulled over at a different spot a few yards up the road to take the call. Chatted and then was seen at 1:49 on the Camera which would be the right thing to do. The camera picked her up after dropping off the girls and leaving the area. After she had pulled over chatted to whoever called then after that call she made her way to her destination.

To top it all my next question would be

• Where TF did the guy on the first platform disappear to
• Whilst A&L was walking towards him and the HB
• Witness 4 was walking away from him

I suppose the interesting thing we have learned is MHB has WiFi or Data Signal connectivity

• Not only do we have Libby uploading to Snapchat
• Now we have RA tracking the stock market!

I would also like to know if one of the Juvenile's observations of the guy all dressed in black with their face covered was in line with the description of the lurker looking through the window episode a week later.

I am so sorry I sit on the proverbial fence and keep changing my mind because something somewhere is not quite making sense or adding up

Whilst I am at it

The friggin bullet

Am I right or wrong? If you find a bullet at a crime scene close to a victim, wouldn't one of the first things you do be ballistics? If you then found out it was from XYZ type of weapon wouldn’t you cross reference with all legally registered owners of said type of weapon?

It is known RA owned such a weapon since 2001. If that fact is known in October 2022 why wasn't it known in 2017 when they picked the bullet up?

I am on the side of Justice for Libby & Abby. I sit on a proverbial fence and constantly slip from one side to the other. With POI motive etc. I want the right person/s caught put behind bars and pay penalties for the right reasons.

Please be kind to each other and respect each other's thoughts
Seasons Greetings to all
May 2023 bring the right answers to Libby & Abby's Families

SIJ x

Good Post - you highlight potential weaknesses in Witness 4 - who reported seeing 4 juveniles when PCA/RA says there were 3, reported man she saw on bridge was wearing a jean jacket which wouldn't be the same color or material as what appears in L's video, and says she was 50 feet away from him which seems that distance is farther than that. (1300 ft bridge with six platforms would suggest platforms would more likely be 150-190 feet apart) With that many recollections in error, inconsistent, or questionable, how dependable are the rest of her assertions? specifically the assertion of when she saw the girls since a LOT is riding on that timing:

Curious that...this Witness 4 was driving as observed on camera, though nearby to parking, at 1:46 - let's say she exited her car parked across from Mears property soon thereafter at 1:48. PCA states it's believed A & L were dropped off at the same Mears parking area at 1:49. Thus Witness 4 must've just missed KG's dropoff assuming Witness 4 is correct in saying there were no other cars parked there when she parked. In any event Witness 4 had a one minute head start over A & L. However Witness 4 claims she walked the entire distance outbound to MHB, paused enough to notice someone on platform #1, turned around and was halfway back returnbound before passing the girls. Since Witness 4 was again observed on camera driving at 2:14 - let's say she ended her walk and got back in the car at 2:12 - therefore Witness 4 would've covered 3/4 of a round-trip in the 18 minutes 1:48 to 2:06 (with still 6 minutes of walking, 2:06 - 2:12, remaining after seeing the girls) while A & L only covered 1/4 of a round trip in the same time (17 minutes 1:49 to 2:06). I guess that's possible if girls were moving extremely leisurely and Witness 4 was practically running, but that's a big difference in pace and as per below, A & L would really have had to ratchet up the pace to get close to other timelines believed proven. Certainly seems possible that Witness 4 may have not remembered some piece of the puzzle altogether correctly?

PCA generally confirms the times in the above paragraph (as page 7 of 8 of PCA describes Witness 4 as being "on the trails from approximately 1:46 to 2:14). However Witness 4 really couldn't have encountered A & L halfway through Witness 4's returnbound hike at 2:06 (remember W4 was all the way back to her car at the farthest point from MHB South End at 2:12-ish) yet L snapped the on-bridge photo of A at 2:07 which went to IG, and the abduction was supposed to have taken place at 2:13. At 2:06 only halfway thru the walk toward MHB the girls were still about 6 minutes from the start of the bridge based on Witness 4's thought-to-be quick pace, and probably 15 minutes from the South End of bridge if on a leisurely pace stopping for pics and such. Again, it seems Witness 4's timing is a bit awry if the other times are to be believed correct. Also found it interesting that Witness 4 provides a clothing description of BG/RA per what she recalls even if not totally spot on - but when it came to the girls Witness 4 is not mentioned as giving any description, only saying in the PCA "she passed 2 girls walking toward MHB and believed the girls were Victim 1 and Victim 2.", probably because she'd seen pictures of them prior to this LE interview and had been convinced/deduced 'who else could those 2 have been'

 

[Ghosthunter]

Making a note to go back to the scanner thread re: something related to this, which iirc also goes along with the overhead helicopter iirc video of the searchers in a line in the bright outfits, maybe orange/red iirc.

It does have that info in the scanner threads iirc.You and I were here from the beginning and listening to and read the transcriptions of the scanner traffic. It also lists what the clothing items were. We weren't allowed to bring info from the basement up into the threads.

 

[WildHuncher]

As has been pointed out, there is no need to worry about the existence of a "Black Jacket Guy" and it would be sleazy for the defense to go there.

RA admits he saw three girls coming out as he was heading in. The PCA gives few details of his version, so we don't know how close he says he came or whether anyone said "Hi" to him, but he saw three girls.

Three girls saw him. Two of them remember that one said "Hi" to him as he walked past but he didn't answer. I think he's stuck with there having been just one man right there right then and it was him.

Their accounts vary as to the color of his clothing. One of the three has his jacket black. Another said light blue. OK. That color discrepancy might be used to cast some kind of doubt on their collective recall or powers of observation. But all three girls are looking at just one man. They are all describing the same encounter with just one man.

It's a stretch to say that the color discrepancy casts doubt on whether RA was even there. MOO

 

[photographer4]

Q: How does the prosecution usually begin making their case? Eg: will we hear from kelsi on how she dropped them off or what she saw as she did so?

 

[Ghosthunter]

I found nothing in the scanner thread between the dates 2/8/13 - 2/17/13. Hmmmmm....

did you try tippecanoe county? Hope I spelled it correctly. It wasn't on Carroll county scanner traffic iirc

 

[Ontario Mom]

As has been pointed out, there is no need to worry about the existence of a "Black Jacket Guy" and it would be sleazy for the defense to go there.

RA admits he saw three girls coming out as he was heading in. The PCA gives no details of his version, so we don't know how close he says he came or whether anyone said "Hi" to him, but he saw three girls.

Three girls saw him. Two of them remember that one said "Hi" to him as he walked past but he didn't answer. I think he's stuck with there having been just one man right there right then and it was him.

Their accounts vary as to the color of his clothing. OK. That's might be used to cast some kind of doubt on their collective recall or powers of observation.

It's a stretch to say that it casts doubt on whether he was even there. MOO

Agreed completely. Not to mention, lawyers know good and well "eyewitness testimony" is not always reliable so I doubt they'd even linger there but just, move on.
Especially if there's much more compelling evidence of his guilt that we have no idea about yet.
All we know is what's in the PCA. Which is usually very, very little of what the actual, daming evidence (usually) is.

jmo

 

[Snow_In _June]

Good Post - you highlight potential weaknesses in Witness 4 - who reported seeing 4 juveniles when PCA/RA says there were 3, reported man she saw on bridge was wearing a jean jacket which wouldn't be the same color or material as what appears in L's video, and says she was 50 feet away from him which seems that distance is farther than that. (1300 ft bridge with six platforms would suggest platforms would more likely be 150-190 feet apart) With that many recollections in error, inconsistent, or questionable, how dependable are the rest of her assertions? specifically the assertion of when she saw the girls since a LOT is riding on that timing:

Curious that...this Witness 4 was driving as observed on camera, though nearby to parking, at 1:46 - let's say she exited her car parked across from Mears property soon thereafter at 1:48. PCA states it's believed A & L were dropped off at the same Mears parking area at 1:49. Thus Witness 4 must've just missed KG's dropoff assuming Witness 4 is correct in saying there were no other cars parked there when she parked. In any event Witness 4 had a one minute head start over A & L. However Witness 4 claims she walked the entire distance outbound to MHB, paused enough to notice someone on platform #1, turned around and was halfway back returnbound before passing the girls. Since Witness 4 was again observed on camera driving at 2:14 - let's say she ended her walk and got back in the car at 2:12 - therefore Witness 4 would've covered 3/4 of a round-trip in the 18 minutes 1:48 to 2:06 (with still 6 minutes of walking, 2:06 - 2:12, remaining after seeing the girls) while A & L only covered 1/4 of a round trip in the same time (17 minutes 1:49 to 2:06). I guess that's possible if girls were moving extremely leisurely and Witness 4 was practically running, but that's a big difference in pace and as per below, A & L would really have had to ratchet up the pace to get close to other timelines believed proven. Certainly seems possible that Witness 4 may have not remembered some piece of the puzzle altogether correctly?

PCA generally confirms the times in the above paragraph (as page 7 of 8 of PCA describes Witness 4 as being "on the trails from approximately 1:46 to 2:14). However Witness 4 really couldn't have encountered A & L halfway through Witness 4's returnbound hike at 2:06 (remember W4 was all the way back to her car at the farthest point from MHB South End at 2:12-ish) yet L snapped the on-bridge photo of A at 2:07 which went to IG, and the abduction was supposed to have taken place at 2:13. At 2:06 only halfway thru the walk toward MHB the girls were still about 6 minutes from the start of the bridge based on Witness 4's thought-to-be quick pace, and probably 15 minutes from the South End of bridge if on a leisurely pace stopping for pics and such. Again, it seems Witness 4's timing is a bit awry if the other times are to be believed correct. Also found it interesting that Witness 4 provides a clothing description of BG/RA per what she recalls even if not totally spot on - but when it came to the girls Witness 4 is not mentioned as giving any description, only saying in the PCA "she passed 2 girls walking toward MHB and believed the girls were Victim 1 and Victim 2.", probably because she'd seen pictures of them prior to this LE interview and had been convinced/deduced 'who else could those 2 have been'

I personally think

Good Post - you highlight potential weaknesses in Witness 4 - who reported seeing 4 juveniles when PCA/RA says there were 3, reported man she saw on bridge was wearing a jean jacket which wouldn't be the same color or material as what appears in L's video, and says she was 50 feet away from him which seems that distance is farther than that. (1300 ft bridge with six platforms would suggest platforms would more likely be 150-190 feet apart) With that many recollections in error, inconsistent, or questionable, how dependable are the rest of her assertions? specifically the assertion of when she saw the girls since a LOT is riding on that timing:

Curious that...this Witness 4 was driving as observed on camera, though nearby to parking, at 1:46 - let's say she exited her car parked across from Mears property soon thereafter at 1:48. PCA states it's believed A & L were dropped off at the same Mears parking area at 1:49. Thus Witness 4 must've just missed KG's dropoff assuming Witness 4 is correct in saying there were no other cars parked there when she parked. In any event Witness 4 had a one minute head start over A & L. However Witness 4 claims she walked the entire distance outbound to MHB, paused enough to notice someone on platform #1, turned around and was halfway back returnbound before passing the girls. Since Witness 4 was again observed on camera driving at 2:14 - let's say she ended her walk and got back in the car at 2:12 - therefore Witness 4 would've covered 3/4 of a round-trip in the 18 minutes 1:48 to 2:06 (with still 6 minutes of walking, 2:06 - 2:12, remaining after seeing the girls) while A & L only covered 1/4 of a round trip in the same time (17 minutes 1:49 to 2:06). I guess that's possible if girls were moving extremely leisurely and Witness 4 was practically running, but that's a big difference in pace and as per below, A & L would really have had to ratchet up the pace to get close to other timelines believed proven. Certainly seems possible that Witness 4 may have not remembered some piece of the puzzle altogether correctly?

PCA generally confirms the times in the above paragraph (as page 7 of 8 of PCA describes Witness 4 as being "on the trails from approximately 1:46 to 2:14). However Witness 4 really couldn't have encountered A & L halfway through Witness 4's returnbound hike at 2:06 (remember W4 was all the way back to her car at the farthest point from MHB South End at 2:12-ish) yet L snapped the on-bridge photo of A at 2:07 which went to IG, and the abduction was supposed to have taken place at 2:13. At 2:06 only halfway thru the walk toward MHB the girls were still about 6 minutes from the start of the bridge based on Witness 4's thought-to-be quick pace, and probably 15 minutes from the South End of bridge if on a leisurely pace stopping for pics and such. Again, it seems Witness 4's timing is a bit awry if the other times are to be believed correct. Also found it interesting that Witness 4 provides a clothing description of BG/RA per what she recalls even if not totally spot on - but when it came to the girls Witness 4 is not mentioned as giving any description, only saying in the PCA "she passed 2 girls walking toward MHB and believed the girls were Victim 1 and Victim 2.", probably because she'd seen pictures of them prior to this LE interview and had been convinced/deduced 'who else could those 2 have been'

OK so W4 was in the vicinity for 28 mins including arriving parking, hiking/waking un-parking and seen leaving H/She left at 2:14
This is 1 min later than Libby's BG reported video and audio recording.
I remain curious about this
SIJ x

 

[pepper 34]

Probably a dumb idea, but is it possible that the person who saw him in all black is colorblind? If s/he couldn't see blues, they may only show up as dark or light.

It's a good theory but it doesn't seem that could explain someone claiming to see his clothing (or part of his clothing) as black.

Types of Color Vision Deficiency | National Eye Institute

Different types of color blindness cause problems seeing different colors. Read about red-green color blindness, blue-yellow color blindness, and complete color blindness.

www.nei.nih.gov

 

[LeBlack]

That's true, you can examine an unfired round. But it's not not ballistics. And I have zero faith in the ability to match any unfired round to any gun. But that's just me.

Maybe, but if he has the same "make/model" of bullet - narrows down the possibility of who else was DTH with the girls. How many boxes of THAT specific ammo sold in that county that year?

 

[flashy09]

It's a good theory but it doesn't seem that could explain someone claiming to see his clothing (or part of his clothing) as black.

Types of Color Vision Deficiency | National Eye Institute

Different types of color blindness cause problems seeing different colors. Read about red-green color blindness, blue-yellow color blindness, and complete color blindness.

www.nei.nih.gov

I don't think anyone is color blind.

If I were to pass someone on a trail in a completely benign moment I probably wouldn't even be able to tell you a thing. BG/RA admits to seeing these 3 girls in the same place and at the same time as they remember seeing him. The other 2 girls describe him in a "light blue" and "blue or black" jacket. I think this actually shows honest witness memory, not trying to match a picture, not trying to match each other. The fact that all of them describe him as trying to disguise himself and his demeanor as off is most important to me.

 

[Boxer]

That's true, you can examine an unfired round. But it's not not ballistics. And I have zero faith in the ability to match any unfired round to any gun. But that's just me.

Same category of evidence as tire tracks, boot prints. Steel marking brass leaves unique marks.