Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #161

[Springrain]

Something I'm wondering - will his defense try to say that somebody may have stolen his gun, and then returned it? (I 100% do not think that happened, just wondering if that could play out in court).

 

[Trebor5591]

RA is tied to the murders by the totality of evidence. LE clearly have a lot more than the gun.

We hope.

 

[Thewiley]

Something I'm wondering - will his defense try to say that somebody may have stolen his gun, and then returned it? (I 100% do not think that happened, just wondering if that could play out in court).

That’s always something the defense could throw in there, their job is to show “reasonable doubt”.
Problem is, how do they explain their client has put himself at the scene, wearing similar clothing, during the critical time, with witnesses having observed him and vice versa. I suspect this scenario Wouldn’t fly with most jurors.

 

[al66pine]

POSSIBLE DEFENSE. GUN WAS STOLEN & RETURNED???

Something I'm wondering - will his defense try to say that somebody may have stolen his gun, and then returned it? (I 100% do not think that happened, just wondering if that could play out in court).

@Springrain Couldmit happen? Briefly, possible, but
seems it would be like a wet paper bag, awfully f-l-i-m-s-y.

At risk of boring readers who already saw my post ~ 24 hrs ago, I'm pasting most of it here for you. See #2 below.
Could RA walk back his "no loan" stmt to LE?
________________________________________________

Poss'ty at trial?
1. If RA testifies: Sure, I told LE in fall 2022, no loan of gun, but oops, I forgot I had loaned gun to Rumplestiltskin in early 2017. Just completely slipped my mind, cause he returned it a couple weeks later like he said he would.
2. Wife or dau. testifies: One day in 2016, I came home and found front door open, & my jewelry box in bedroom was jumbled up, Grandma's cameo broach was missing, blah blah. But we did not make a police report because (lame excuse). Plus some other testimony. Def atty in closing argument: gun was stolen then, burglar returned later to same closet from which he took it, that's why LE located gun pursuant to S/Wt in fall 2022.

If def. firm or friend of def't is reading here, Websleuthers, worry not. This post is not "giving them any ideas." They've already thought of these plus more.
imo jmo moo

 

[Boxer]

As have I. Interestingly enough, we found the gentleman "not guilty".

But then, we weren't dealing with a case where:

- multiple, credible witnesses placed only a single, solitary male in extremely close proximity to a double murder crime scene where
- the victims also happened to have captured that male on video in that close proximity to cime scene at same time, wearing
- clothing described by witnessness and by the male suspect himself who also
- placed himself at the bridge where the crime began at the time the crime began wearing the same-type clothing the recorded suspect was admittedly wearing and
- the suspect himself never having seen another male in the vicinity either and
- who never stepped foot on the murder site and who
- never loaned his gun to anyone but
- whose unspent round, science shows, cycled through his gun and
- which just somehow miraculously ended up laying at the scene of the crime between the two victims and
- who also matched same, solitary male departing the immediate victinity of the crime all the while witnessed once again in
- bloody and muddy clothing that matched earlier lone male clothing descriptions walking up the road away from the crime scene. And all done at
- a time consistent with shortly after the crime occured which was
- also the time he admitted leaving the trails (yet he never heard or saw a thing ---lol).


Yet, some think it's actually "reasonable" that a thief or someone snuck into his house and - for whatever reason - stole a round he had cycled through his gun, or found it somewhere on the trail and "just happened to drop it in the midst of the scene of a crime" that he, himself would later be accused of committing. He, the only male seen there by multiple witnesses and where he placed himself at the time in question in the clothing in question. Nope; not reasonable.

Sorry, that's NOT reasonable. The odds are astronomical and ergo not reasonable. Hopefully, the judge gives this jury the same definition of what contstitutes "reasonable" that the jury I sat on got.

And don’t forget he said he walked from the bridge, back down the trail and sat on a bench.

He said did not see the girls who were walking from the Mears parking area to the bridge.

The bench is at the Mears lot at the junction to the lower trail.

They either crossed paths, he hid, or he continued in to the other side of the bridge.

 

[Andieinsyd]

At this point I am not sold on the bullet as evidence, as a pp stated we will likely be told both that this evidence is pseudo-science and not accurate, and some one else will swear that we can trust it.

But I think RAs own statement and Libby’s video have neatly implicated him as BG. I think the strongest evidence for him being BG is him being sighted on bridge by lady witness and he stating same very close to time of BG video. He says after he was on bridge he left bridge to go sit on bench But he didn’t see A and L go past. I guess he could say he popped into bush to relieve himself just as they were walking by, or he cut through to a different trail and missed them, and the real BG popped onto scene and followed girls onto bridge but this is not likely. I do think even a competent defence attorney will have difficulty creating reasonable doubt here, even if they do suggest an accomplic.

 

[Springrain]

That’s always something the defense could throw in there, their job is to show “reasonable doubt”.
Problem is, how do they explain their client has put himself at the scene, wearing similar clothing, during the critical time, with witnesses having observed him and vice versa. I suspect this scenario Wouldn’t fly with most jurors.

Yeah, I absolutely don't think it would fly with most jurors. It's absurd IMO.

POSSIBLE DEFENSE. GUN WAS STOLEN & RETURNED???
@Springrain Couldmit happen? Briefly, possible, but
seems it would be like a wet paper bag, awfully f-l-i-m-s-y.

At risk of boring readers who already saw my post ~ 24 hrs ago, I'm pasting most of it here for you. See #2 below.
Could RA walk back his "no loan" stmt to LE?
________________________________________________

Poss'ty at trial?
1. If RA testifies: Sure, I told LE in fall 2022, no loan of gun, but oops, I forgot I had loaned gun to Rumplestiltskin in early 2017. Just completely slipped my mind, cause he returned it a couple weeks later like he said he would.
2. Wife or dau. testifies: One day in 2016, I came home and found front door open, & my jewelry box in bedroom was jumbled up, Grandma's cameo broach was missing, blah blah. But we did not make a police report because (lame excuse). Plus some other testimony. Def atty in closing argument: gun was stolen then, burglar returned later to same closet from which he took it, that's why LE located gun pursuant to S/Wt in fall 2022.

If def. firm or friend of def't is reading here, Websleuthers, worry not. This post is not "giving them any ideas." They've already thought of these plus more.
imo jmo moo

Yes, they've 100% thought of it already, plus I doubt they're scouring WS threads looking for ideas for defense in court when the vast majority of us are not on the client's side.

I thought of both of those but hesitated on #2, just because I would guess his wife and daughter want to stay far away from the whole debacle (not that they don't want to support him privately, but based off what has been said by RA's lawyer about the wife's situation I don't think they would choose to do so publicly). No way of knowing for sure, though.

I'm very curious to see what direction his defense will go in court, and more evidence from LE, since of course the PCA is not the full story. To clarify - I do believe he did it, and that he acted alone (not just in the murders themselves, but that RL, KAK, and other parties are totally uninvolved). But the evidence outlined in the PCA alone definitely has the potential to be the subject of endless debate in court, arguments about the validity of ballistics testing and if it is a pseudoscience, etc. I do believe they have more, but if the defense really hones in on the bullet evidence I think it will be difficult. JMO and I am not a lawyer, my opinion has no real bearing, I'm a twenty-something cat lady from the west coast. lol

 

[Salah11]

How can RA’s defense team with a straight face say

My Client lent their gun to friend when he has basically in a around about way admitted he is basically BG?


That would be one hell of a coincidence that somebody borrowed his gun and used it in the crime and Richard Allen was stood on a bridge squinting for fish while this all happened.


Moo

 

[Springrain]

How can RA’s defense team with a straight face say

My Client lent their gun to friend when he has basically in a around about way admitted he is basically BG?


That would be one hell of a coincidence that somebody borrowed his gun and used it in the crime and Richard Allen was stood on a bridge squinting for fish while this all happened.


Moo

I think it's an absolutely horrible argument. Like really bad. I was just wondering about the likelihood of them using it, I guess if they have nothing else to fall back on.

 

[Bergmann]

Do we know if prior to or immediately after the arrest of RA whether LE put the known witnesses of BG/RA through line ups to positively identify him?

 

[Jade]

he is bridge guy and I would have loved to see the look on his face when he saw himself on video on every news channel in the world practically. I bet he about passed out..how can it be that he was not recognized? it boggles the mind! but what really blows my mind is how there was a video to begin with..this is the first case I think I ever heard of where the victim took video with a phone and it became part of the investigation. Libby was such a star and so smart. mOO

We have that mug shot!

RA’s face says CAUGHT.

Not scared not confused - caught.


With intent RA covered his lower face, the hat and hood obscuring the top of his face as he kept his head down, he was heavily clothed, didn’t play friendly pharm tech to fellow trail walkers.

He was disguised.

RA was not out as RA he was out as whatever beast he was that day.


all imo

 

[arielilane]

I think the shell casing will appear far less important when prosecutor produces its evidence at discovery. The ejected shell was helpful enough to assist in obtaining the search warrant. I believe it is the evidence not yet disclosed that will a great deal more powerful. It is just a matter of time. imo

Yes, this! We need to wait for trial as there will be much more evidence presented. It’s the totality of evidence and I’m going to be positive that LE will get it right. We’re finally going to see justice for Abby & Libby and their loved ones.

 

[gizmobtj]

MOO don’t believe e they’re is much controversy about the uniqueness of tool
marks on a microscopic level.

MOO generating a controversy is what defense does so they can say “there is controversy.”

There is (a) controversy about toolmarks in general and (b) huge controversy about toolmarks from just cycling a round. Usually, you have five to six or types of toolmarks when a a bullet is fired (fire pin drag marks, shear marks from the slide of the pistol, barrell markings and marks on the casing, extractor marks from the bullet being raised into the chamber and ejector marks from the shell casing) and only one, maybe two, when it cycles through an ejector. Those are extraction marks from the bullet being lifted and ejection marks from it being ejected.

The question becomes how unique are the marks they have. It's akin the a partial fingerprint. You can't exclude the gun but you are unlikely to be able to testify to a near-zero certainty that it did come from the gun.

 

[Rossymom]

We have that mug shot!

RA’s face says CAUGHT.

Not scared not confused - caught.


With intent RA covered his lower face, the hat and hood obscuring the top of his face as he kept his head down, he was heavily clothed, didn’t play friendly pharm tech to fellow trail walkers.

He was disguised.

RA was not out as RA he was out as whatever beast he was that day.


all imo

Heavily clothed and face covered. I remember the weather on THAT day vividly. It was a welcomed sunny day that gave all of us in Indiana a taste of Spring. I drove my Jeep to deliver Donaldson’s candy to our son in Burlington that morning with my windows down and great music playing. Seriously. He had no need to cover his face.

 

[Boxer]

There is (a) controversy about toolmarks in general and (b) huge controversy about toolmarks from just cycling a round. Usually, you have five to six or types of toolmarks when a a bullet is fired (fire pin drag marks, shear marks from the slide of the pistol, barrell markings and marks on the casing, extractor marks from the bullet being raised into the chamber and ejector marks from the shell casing) and only one, maybe two, when it cycles through an ejector. Those are extraction marks from the bullet being lifted and ejection marks from it being ejected.

The question becomes how unique are the marks they have. It's akin the a partial fingerprint. You can't exclude the gun but you are unlikely to be able to testify to a near-zero certainty that it did come from the gun.

“The question becomes how unique are the marks they have”

MOO On a microscopic level the tool marks will be unique.

 

[TL4S]

How can RA’s defense team with a straight face say

My Client lent their gun to friend when he has basically in a around about way admitted he is basically BG?


That would be one hell of a coincidence that somebody borrowed his gun and used it in the crime and Richard Allen was stood on a bridge squinting for fish while this all happened.


Moo

Not to mention that RA already said he had never let anyone borrow his gun, nor had he even been on that property.

 

[minazoe]

why they didn't hang onto RA like a dog on a bone from day one is just mind-blowing...for me anyone who says they were at the scene of a murder + SA well..they immediately go to the very front of the line and you throw them on the barbecue, was it a "clerical error" ? or something else?

and as for RA? what exactly was he trying to accomplish by meeting LE at the grocery store?

re-inserting himself into the case
attention
re-living his crime
confessing
creating an "honesty patch" for future questioning? " yeah I was there that day! I told LE!"
trying to find out what they know so far
trying to get an ally to smush any suspicions about him.

all of this?

he had to have a reason for this meeting. mOO

 

[Vern]

There is (a) controversy about toolmarks in general and (b) huge controversy about toolmarks from just cycling a round. Usually, you have five to six or types of toolmarks when a a bullet is fired (fire pin drag marks, shear marks from the slide of the pistol, barrell markings and marks on the casing, extractor marks from the bullet being raised into the chamber and ejector marks from the shell casing) and only one, maybe two, when it cycles through an ejector. Those are extraction marks from the bullet being lifted and ejection marks from it being ejected.

The question becomes how unique are the marks they have. It's akin the a partial fingerprint. You can't exclude the gun but you are unlikely to be able to testify to a near-zero certainty that it did come from the gun.

It really doesn't matter if 1 in every 5 Sig Sauers makes the same tool mark in this case.

I don't know what the population of Delphi is, but let's say there is another Sig Sauer there which is capable of making the exact same tool marks (there's not says the science, but let's go with that for defence's arguments' sake).

The odds of there being another, unwitnessed, unidentified male who was also dressed in the same clothing and present on the Manon High Bridge Bridge at the pertinent and videotaped times and ordering the girls, "down the hill" who then also departed the crime scene after murdering the girls at the same time as RA admittedly left and this "unknown" individual was also seen walking up the road in the same clothing muddy and bloody (again - as witnessed) away from the crime scene and towards where RA admittedly parked yet he was unseen by all other witnesses, unseen by RA himself and unseen within the girls' video who just happened to own the same model Sig Sauer that makes the exact same ejector markings as RAs is astronomical.

The odds of all that happening are now millions to one. Possible, but not probable. Ergo - not reasonable. Not reasonable at all when considering the totality of even just the known evidence thus far. When they pile up the rest of the evidence they have, this guy's never seeing freedom again.

 

[gizmobtj]

It really doesn't matter if 1 in every 5 Sig Sauers makes the same tool mark in this case.

I don't know what the population of Delphi is, but let's say there is another Sig Sauer there which is capable of making the exact same tool marks (there's not says the science, but let's go with that for defence's arguments' sake).

The odds of there being another, unwitnessed, unidentified male who was also dressed in the same clothing and present on the Manon High Bridge Bridge at the pertinent and videotaped times and ordering the girls, "down the hill" who then also departed the crime scene after murdering the girls at the same time as RA admittedly left and this "unknown" individual was also seen walking up the road in the same clothing muddy and bloody (again - as witnessed) away from the crime scene and towards where RA admittedly parked yet he was unseen by all other witnesses, unseen by RA himself and unseen within the girls' video.

The odds of all that happening are now millions to one. Possible, but not probable. Ergo - not reasonable. Not reasonable at all when considering the totality of even just the known evidence thus far. When they pile up the rest of the evidence they have, this guy's never seeing freedom again.

Good point. I do agree. If you can narrow it to 1 in 5 or even 1 in 10, it's good circumstantial evidence that you can pile on with circumstantial evidence. I think your total Sigs might have to go broader than Delphi, but, yes, it would be a good foundation for a circumstantial case.

 

[gizmobtj]

“The question becomes how unique are the marks they have”

MOO On a microscopic level the tool marks will be unique.

It's the question, but I don't know the answer. It's way outside or my expertise . But it will be interesting to see. @Vern makes a really good point below about how it could be still used if it was not unique ...