Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #160

[mrjitty]

<modsnip: quoted post removed> Just as technical comment on all this - as it comes up every trial.

The bullet was found by the bodies as a question of fact. I think we can assume that the bullet has tool marks on it, meaning it was ejected. I won't comment further, as it will be the subject of the expert evidence - these are more general comments about circumstantial evidence:

1. The prosecution need only prove the bullet was found there. (Crime scene photos).

2. This leads to a natural and obvious inference the killer placed/dropped/ejected it there. One must be true IMO. Which does not matter IMO.

3. The jury will be invited to make that inference as the only conclusion (any reasonable jury will IMO)

4. Defence Counsel cannot 'testify' about how the bullet got there, nor engage in wild speculation to henpeck the circumstantial evidence

5. Inferences do not need to be beyond reasonable doubt. Jurors asks themselves what evidence they accept and what obvious inferences to draw. At the end of that process, considering all the evidence together, one applies the BARD standard.

 

[mrjitty]

If you were on the jury, would you actually buy this story about the bullet? That it "accidentally fell out" (it has ejection marks) and landed in between the bodies of the two girls and just coincidentally, RA admits being across the bridge at the same time and also still has the same gun? And would you trust FBI forensics or the forensics of the defense?

Most juries go with believing LE experts, not hired defense experts.

How would this "innocent explanation" even get into the trial? Are you thinking the defense will put RA on the stand? Because they'd have to, to make that explanation and I don't think that's an option for them.

Great post

I find speculation that the bullet got there by coincidence to be a bit absurd to be honest.

No doubt counsel will indulge in wild speculation but i think their case has to be that the bullet is from the real killer, and that it somehow excludes their client, or doesn't prove anything.

 

[mrjitty]

MOO I don’t find racking ridiculous, for intimidation or just to do something as he steps into an irrevocable act of criminal excel.

I mean whether or not RA is the killer, it does seem likely the killer did eject the bullet for some reason, because that is the most obvious inference.

His motivations for doing so, are not something the prosecution needs to prove. Whether he dropped it, placed it, or ejected and lost/forgot it, don't matter.

I think there is a danger of speculating rationalisations as a way of not following the physical evidence

Especially we have to be careful about saying something is 'unlikely' when the physical evidence indicates that for whatever strange reason, it happened!

 

[everybodhi]

Just as technical comment on all this - as it comes up every trial.

The bullet was found by the bodies as a question of fact. I think we can assume that the bullet has tool marks on it, meaning it was ejected. I won't comment further, as it will be the subject of the expert evidence - these are more general comments about circumstantial evidence:

1. The prosecution need only prove the bullet was found there. (Crime scene photos).

2. This leads to a natural and obvious inference the killer placed/dropped/ejected it there. One must be true IMO. Which does not matter IMO.

3. The jury will be invited to make that inference as the only conclusion (any reasonable jury will IMO)

4. Defence Counsel cannot 'testify' about how the bullet got there, nor engage in wild speculation to henpeck the circumstantial evidence

5. Inferences do not need to be beyond reasonable doubt. Jurors asks themselves what evidence they accept and what obvious inferences to draw. At the end of that process, considering all the evidence together, one applies the BARD standard.

Can’t they bring such evidence as, “I ejected the bullet at my house and put it in my pocket”, “the bullet fell out of my pocket as I crossed the bridge”, “I heard people under the bridge talking”, “I’ve never been on RL’s property” (which he already stated in his police interview), if the defendant testifies in his own defense?
Me putting it forth here may be wild speculation but the defendant explaining other reasons, whatever they may be, as to why he is not the killer who left an unspent round is no more wild speculation than the prosecutions claim he ejected a bullet during the course of a double murder with no shots fired, and left it between the bodies for some reason which no one can seem to explain.
Maybe the prosecution has an explanation that no one here has thought of yet.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s the killer, I just hope they are able to prove that in court and it doesn’t end with a “what the heck is the prosecution thinking” like the Morphew fiasco, where the state provides the source of doubt.
Taking five years to figure out he needed a follow up interview makes me have doubts about authorities ability to be successful getting a conviction.
All jmo which may change at any time, depending on the actions of the prosecution and the defense.

 

[taylorss]

The DA doesn't charge on speculation. The charges are very clear and very serious.

Very little evidence to support the charges is currently in the public domain. That does not mean they don't have at least adequate evidence to support those charges.

This case has reached way beyond mistakes causing embarrassment. The man charged with the murders is jailed without bond.

In my view, it's all a game to RA. He knew they would eventually come for him. He places himself at the scene of the crime but pleads not guilty, knowing probably 99% of what they've got on him.

Did he kill before the horrific murders of A & L? Has he killed since?

That's what I want to know.
MOO

Yeah I agree about the lack of publicly known info! <modsnip: rumors> just a weird lack of info about what should be the plain, unhidden parts of his life. (There were a few days between his apprehension & its announcement to scrub what could be scrubbed.) And ITA that huge questions loom about his potential other criminal or wrongful conduct.

But not about his conduct leading to the charges! not sure where that comes from. He’s charged with kidnapping as underlying felony to felony murder. The whole incident was recorded by little Libby. Altho we’ve never seen the complete video, the portions that were released years ago establish his guilt of the charges well beyond reasonable doubt.

There’s very little left to be said about his guilt as charged cuz it’s so open & shut. Which is why I’m speculating about other things like the investigation etc.
IMO

 

[taylorss]

added. on the helpful psychopath...

it's like they kind of enjoy playing the innocent role..

I guess this is duper's delight...he has no doubt he can fool you..always trust your intuition with people, they all have tells
and an astute person can sniff them.

Yeah duper’s delight… also a desire to know what’s going on in the investigation, whether to continue enjoying the destruction he caused, to stay one step ahead of suspicion, or both…

Also re RA in particular, it sounds like he had to take on some responsive role. He was routinely planted right there in the middle of the town, just a stones throw from the sheriffs office, being very very helpful & handing over developed pictures & pills. Given the notoriety of the crime, he must’ve had no choice but to present one fake face or another to talk about it.
JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Can’t they bring such evidence as, “I ejected the bullet at my house and put it in my pocket”, “the bullet fell out of my pocket as I crossed the bridge”, “I heard people under the bridge talking”, “I’ve never been on RL’s property” (which he already stated in his police interview), if the defendant testifies in his own defense?

Sure they can, but I think that would be near suicidal as a trial strategy as then the accused is admitting it's his bullet found at the crime scene with a less than credible explanation.

Me putting it forth here may be wild speculation but the defendant explaining other reasons, whatever they may be, as to why he is not the killer who left an unspent round is no more wild speculation than the prosecutions claim he ejected a bullet during the course of a double murder with no shots fired, and left it between the bodies for some reason which no one can seem to explain.

If the defendant gives a version, that is not speculation. What i was getting at, is technically counsel is not allowed to offer wild speculation to attack individual pieces of circumstantial evidence. To my mind, speculating that he dropped it somewhere, then the real killer picked it up some time before, and left it at the scene of a double murder, is straining credibility. Not much different to aliens dropping it there!

Maybe the prosecution has an explanation that no one here has thought of yet.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s the killer, I just hope they are able to prove that in court and it doesn’t end with a “what the heck is the prosecution thinking” like the Morphew fiasco, where the state provides the source of doubt.
Taking five years to figure out he needed a follow up interview makes me have doubts about authorities ability to be successful getting a conviction.
All jmo which may change at any time, depending on the actions of the prosecution and the defense.

Understood

 

[taylorss]

If I remember correctly there were other warrants issued after the murders, people’s homes were searched.
I can’t imagine they did not ask the people who were searched if they owned any guns or knives, like they asked RA and his wife.
They can’t check ejector marks without a gun for comparison. Maybe they did check the ejector marks against other guns found in other search warrants but they didn’t match.
They kept the information from the public that one of the girls said “gun” and that they had found a bullet at the crime scene so that the perp would not know they had this piece of evidence, hoping he would not dispose of the gun. Which worked. Allegedly.

IIRC the way we all knew the crime involved a gun was it was listed on the search warrant for RL’s home … so yes LE were definitely searching for a gun, presumably to compare ejector marks (if the bullet was a match for type of gun found I guess?? Idk anything really about guns!)

 

[Ozoner]

Just as technical comment on all this - as it comes up every trial.

The bullet was found by the bodies as a question of fact. I think we can assume that the bullet has tool marks on it, meaning it was ejected. I won't comment further, as it will be the subject of the expert evidence - these are more general comments about circumstantial evidence:

1. The prosecution need only prove the bullet was found there. (Crime scene photos).

2. This leads to a natural and obvious inference the killer placed/dropped/ejected it there. One must be true IMO. Which does not matter IMO.

3. The jury will be invited to make that inference as the only conclusion (any reasonable jury will IMO)

4. Defence Counsel cannot 'testify' about how the bullet got there, nor engage in wild speculation to henpeck the circumstantial evidence

5. Inferences do not need to be beyond reasonable doubt. Jurors asks themselves what evidence they accept and what obvious inferences to draw. At the end of that process, considering all the evidence together, one applies the BARD standard.

A "bullet" was not found by the bodies. And unspent cartridge (which includes a bullet) was found by the bodies.

Can’t they bring such evidence as, “I ejected the bullet at my house and put it in my pocket”, “the bullet fell out of my pocket as I crossed the bridge”, “I heard people under the bridge talking”, “I’ve never been on RL’s property” (which he already stated in his police interview), if the defendant testifies in his own defense?
Me putting it forth here may be wild speculation but the defendant explaining other reasons, whatever they may be, as to why he is not the killer who left an unspent round is no more wild speculation than the prosecutions claim he ejected a bullet during the course of a double murder with no shots fired, and left it between the bodies for some reason which no one can seem to explain.
Maybe the prosecution has an explanation that no one here has thought of yet.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he’s the killer, I just hope they are able to prove that in court and it doesn’t end with a “what the heck is the prosecution thinking” like the Morphew fiasco, where the state provides the source of doubt.
Taking five years to figure out he needed a follow up interview makes me have doubts about authorities ability to be successful getting a conviction.
All jmo which may change at any time, depending on the actions of the prosecution and the defense.

The defense is not going to speculate about how the unspent cartridge got there.

They're going to challenge the scientific validity of the identification of RA's gun as the only gun that could have left the marks on the cartridge—full stop.

If the defense can impeach that technique, RA walks (unless these have more forensic evidence that has yet to be divulged).

All IMHO.

 

[taylorss]

<modsnip: unnecessary snark> they do not need to prove a single thing about the unspent cartridge. All the actions making up the crime RA is charged with (kidnapping / felony murder) occurred on the bridge & were captured on Libby’s video. The prosecution could literally not even mention the unspent cartridge.

The only aspect of the crime that needs to be proven but isnt on Libby’s video is that the girls’ deaths were by homicide. Nothing else needs to be shown about the murders - simply that they were murders (and not eg death by natural causes).

It’s a nice cherry on top maybe for the prosecution to use the unspent cartridge & further prove RA’s participation. But it’s not essential in any way.

Imo

 

[pseudo_hum]

<modsnip: unnecessary snark> they do not need to prove a single thing about the unspent cartridge. All the actions making up the crime RA is charged with (kidnapping / felony murder) occurred on the bridge & were captured on Libby’s video. The prosecution could literally not even mention the unspent cartridge.

The only aspect of the crime that needs to be proven but isnt on Libby’s video is that the girls’ deaths were by homicide. Nothing else needs to be shown about the murders - simply that they were murders (and not eg death by natural causes).

It’s a nice cherry on top maybe for the prosecution to use the unspent cartridge & further prove RA’s participation. But it’s not essential in any way.

Imo

Agreed, IMO, the unspent bullet helped to identify who was there. But, IMO, there will be enough other evidence to convict, without a doubt.

 

[iamnotagolem]

(unspent round ejected at the "GDTH" point couldn't be the source of the round found with the bodies unless BG did it deliberately, which I implied in my message but didn't explain; your msg respectfully snipped for focus.)

Sorry, this has probably been answered better by others; I'm unable to keep up with the number of messages lately. But:

Just personally, it seems likely to me that BG may have racked the slide to intimidate the girls. It's certainly a frightening sound if the gun is pointed at you! And if he did do that, it was at the end of the bridge when he said "GDTH," and it MIGHT (IMO) be the "gun sound" rumored to be on the BG audio. (And it might well NOT be the 'gun sound,' LE may know but we don't.) We know "he's got a gun" is on the audio, so he WAS using the gun to scare the girls. Racking the slide would emphasize the gun's menace in the girls' minds, I'm sure.

Brief digression: everybody I know who carries a pistol carries with a live round in the chamber and the safety on. That's just how you do it if you might actually NEED to use the pistol. He couldn't shoot it at the trails without possibly alerting people nearby--that .40 caliber pistol would be loud. But also IMO he certainly wasn't on the trails with an unloaded pistol; that would increase his own danger. As you said yourself, if you might need a pistol, you carry it loaded, QED.

SO: If there was a clip in BG's pistol at the end of the bridge, when he said DTH, and a round in the chamber, racking the slide (which certainly would intimidate the girls) would eject the unshot bullet and chamber the next round in the clip (magazine.) If he DID do that to scare the girls, it would be a really good idea to pick up that round, though who knows what's going on with a murderer abducting innocent kids? Maybe he wanted to but was busy, maybe he was too full of excitement to think of it ...

Here at last is my own answer to your question: This intimidation at the initial contact (a scare to accompany "G,DTH") means if a bullet was ejected, it is (again IMO) not the bullet that was found between the bodies, which was far away from the end of the bridge and long after the girls had been intimidated into compliance, right? Unless it was deliberately picked up and brought to the murder scene. Since the audio ends after "GDTH," a 'gun sound' at the murder scene, after crossing the creek, would not be on the audio. So the round at the bodies would not have been from racking the slide at the end of the bridge, 200 yards (or whatever) away--unless BG deliberately picked that round up and later placed it with the bodies as a bizarre murderer's signature, a way of memorializing his loathsome kill.

He might have racked the slide at both places (bridge and murder location) for intimidation, and he picked up the unspent round at the end of the bridge, but not at the murder scene, for whatever reason. Possible IMO but less likely. Which suggests to my own underpowered brain that the cartridge found with the bodies is more likely to have been a "calling card," a signature. MHO, of course.

I'm so glad there's finally an arrest in this case! Now that I know the wheels of justice are in motion at last, I feel like I can relax a bit, if you know what I mean. The girls deserve a proper and just conclusion to the case, IMO.

I mentioned this earlier and I'm playing catch up on the threads today.

But I think it's possible that he racked the slide at the end of the bridge like the rumors state and the unspent round ejected and landed in the folds of his jeans. Remember he's short and his pants are all crumpled at the bottom around his ankles.

During the murders the caught round may have fallen out of his jeans folds and landed between the bodies.

The reason I think this is possible is because I've seen it happen with casings after target shooting.

 

[Boxer]

MOO very strong case as is.

RA said he did not see the girls as he walked back from MHB platform. A practical impossibility.

A&L dropped off 1:49 start walking to MHB.
RA seen on platform appx. 1:55 by witness.

Witness that saw RA on bridge platform passes A&L on trail on way back appx. 1:56-7.

L takes empty bridge picture 2:07.

BG abducts them on video 2:13.

RA not seen after 1:55.
RA said he was on trail till 3:30.

Several people were walking the trail at this time who would have seen him.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

<modsnip: referenced post removed>

1. RA placed himself on the High Bridge.
2. RA placed himself in the area at the same time as the abduction.
3. RA described his clothing as matching BG’s clothing.
4. Witness saw RA on the bridge prior to abduction.
5. Victims recorded video of suspect on bridge at time and location that RA placed himself on the bridge.
6. Victims mentioned “gun” on same recorded video of the suspect.
7. Unspent round recovered from crime scene.
8. Recovered round is the same size used in RA’s gun.
9. Witness saw man covered in blood and mud walking in the direction of RA’s parked vehicle.

This is mostly circumstantial evidence. However, if I was a juror, it would be difficult to dismiss all of these items as being purely coincidental or accidental. For example, if only #1 and #8 were evidenced there would be doubt about RA’s guilt. Or if only #6 and #9 were known, I could dismiss these as coincidental. There comes a point where the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence is too great to be reasonably explained in a way that exonerates RA.

 

[Gemmie]

Ya his actions were very strange. Like he's bloody and has mud on him, looks like he got in a fight and a witness sees him.

SBMFF

I could be wrong about this but I think the witness described him as muddy and bloody and "like he got into a fight" wasn't because he looked like he had been roughed up or tussled, it simply (in MOO) was because he had blood and mud on him.

IMO I feel that most people's minds aren't going to go to "He has blood on him! I wonder if he just murdered someone?!?!?" ) I'd place money on it, that since people aren't going to think murder first (unless they are carrying a bloody weapon), that Dude + Mud + Blood HAS TO = a Fight. No one wants to think blood equals a murderer. It has to be a fight or an accident since most people's minds don't go to 'MURDERER!!' first. All MOO

Pg 3 of RL's PCA:

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/logan-warrrant.pdf

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

1. RA placed himself on the High Bridge.
2. RA placed himself in the area at the same time as the abduction.
3. RA described his clothing as matching BG’s clothing.
4. Witness saw RA on the bridge prior to abduction.
5. Victims recorded video of suspect on bridge at time and location that RA placed himself on the bridge.
6. Victims mentioned “gun” on same recorded video of the suspect.
7. Unspent round recovered from crime scene.
8. Recovered round is the same size used in RA’s gun.
9. Witness saw man covered in blood and mud walking in the direction of RA’s parked vehicle.

This is mostly circumstantial evidence. However, if I was a juror, it would be difficult to dismiss all of these items as being purely coincidental or accidental. For example, if only #1 and #8 were evidenced there would be doubt about RA’s guilt. Or if only #6 and #9 were known, I could dismiss these as coincidental. There comes a point where the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence is too great to be reasonably explained in a way that exonerates RA.

My question, as a juror, would be what is up with the second younger guy sketch.

 

[Gemmie]

I wish we knew how that intuition works. But not always, though. I've seen on Websleuths where animals have been harmed as their owner was. I guess perhaps animals don't have a guard up like humans do.

Just because the animal was harmed doesn't mean (to me) that it was because it was oblivious to the situation. They might have been agitated, scared, or ready to spring into action, but the owner had them on a leash so they couldn't do much. Also, a lot of times (IMO) the human isn't tuned into reading "Dog". They don't realize what the dog might be trying to tell them. Then whatever goes down goes down and the animal is harmed as well as their human.

 

[Gemmie]

If I remember correctly there were other warrants issued after the murders, people’s homes were searched.
I can’t imagine they did not ask the people who were searched if they owned any guns or knives, like they asked RA and his wife.

SBMFF

They did search RL's home for exactly that.

Pg 10:


You should read his PCA. And no, I'm not trying to be snarky. His PCA has a lot of good information in it since they did consider him to be the murderer at one point. It's a good read IMO.

https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/logan-warrrant.pdf

 

[Boxer]

My question, as a juror, would be what is up with the second younger guy sketch.

DA has said they believe there is another involved, but RAs guilt can stand alone.

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

My question, as a juror, would be what is up with the second younger guy sketch.

Since RA voluntarily placed himself on the bridge, does the sketch matter?