IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #167

[TL4S]

Dbm

 

[Bergmann]

So given that right from the get go we heard that the crime scene was unusual, there were signatures, the bodies moved and they may have been staged etc - and this is now being supported by what the D is reporting in their memo; what about the DNA which LE said was recovered from the scene?

Are there any experts on how DNA is used, I'm thinking the familial/ genealogical application to narrow the focus and target of investigation. Delphi has a very small population and so do surrounding towns. I am surprised that this hasn't (that we know of) directed investigation towards suspects (obviously prior to when RA landed in their lap).

Anyone have the credentials to professionally comment/ shine light on this method and its potential in this case?

 

[Boxer]

That makes two of us.

Why?
He was there, so that's a bigger coincidence than I would entertain.
He was on the trail AND someone placed one of his cycled bullets at the crime scene.

 

[CGBSpender]

I think what you say is interesting. I feel even the stick placement over the bodies could fit into that scenario, especially if he was covering them or expressing something by doing this after he killed them. Jmo.

In terms of the sticks...my mind has been going back and forth between three possibilities: 1) something meant to mislead LE and point blame towards another party; 2) something he/they hoped would get out and scare the public; or 3) his/their fantasy version of something they saw on TV or read at one point (the description of three of the sticks on LG made me immediately think Blair Witch Project, but it's been years since I've seen the film)....or perhaps all of the above.

JMO

 

[M. Kay]

At this point, no part of me believes this crime was done by any cult. That said, I think it is possible the killer(s) may have incorporated certain elements into their crime so that it appeared to have been done by someone with ties to a cult...it's hard to know without seeing the actual crime scene.

Agree. The FBI agent who visited the scene saw the staging. Or, "Odinists" pop up in Indiana, draw attention to themselves in that way, and then disappear without a trace for over five years? Faked.

 

[Bergmann]

Why?
He was there, so that's a bigger coincidence than I would entertain.
He was on the trail AND someone placed one of his cycled bullets at the crime scene.

Look I don't yet know quite what to make of the bullet evidence particularly as it hasn't been fully examined (yet).

But to your assertion -

'He was on the trail' - yes he was but D & P differ in their contention as to precisely when, which is highly material. Anyone can decide to make their mind up which version suits their preconceptions but the validity of those contentions has yet to be tested.

'...someone placed one of his cycled bullets at the crime scene' - with what we can definitively say so far, a bullet was recovered from the crime scene, the P contend that it comes from a gun matching RAs type of gun (recovered from his house by SW) but they have yet to establish that it absolutely has been cycled through the specific gun owned by him.

I'm not deflecting I'm just trying to be accurate. The devil is in the detail of this case, not the broad strokes of what D or P are saying.

 

[CGBSpender]

So given that right from the get go we heard that the crime scene was unusual, there were signatures, the bodies moved and they may have been staged etc - and this is now being supported by what the D is reporting in their memo; what about the DNA which LE said was recovered from the scene?

Are there any experts on how DNA is used, I'm thinking the familial/ genealogical application to narrow the focus and target of investigation. Delphi has a very small population and so do surrounding towns. I am surprised that this hasn't (that we know of) directed investigation towards suspects (obviously prior to when RA landed in their lap).

Anyone have the credentials to professionally comment/ shine light on this method and its potential in this case?

I know just enough to be dangerous, so take it with a grain of salt...

My suspicion is that what (if any) was collected was not of a quantity and/or quality necessary in order to conduct genealogical analysis on.

My other suspicion is that the killer(s) did something to the scene to help cover their tracks given how long was spent there, and how much was touched, moved, placed etc. In another unsolved murder that I looked at that I thought might be connected somehow...the killers sprayed a certain chemical at the scene in order to attempt to destroy/damage any DNA left behind.

Keep in mind, even with a sample of appropriate quantity/quality...genealogical analysis isn't a slam dunk. If the closest match is like a 3rd cousin or farther it could take a long time to try to figure out...and that is assuming that the documents evidencing relationships are accurate from a genetic perspective...adoptions, identical twins, incorrect parentage, contamination (i.e. bone marrow transplant), etc...and it can get complex very quickly.

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

they have yet to establish that it absolutely has been cycled through the specific gun owned by him.

I'm not sure I follow...the PCA said, "The Laboratory determined the unspent round located within two feet of Victim 2's body had been cycled through RA's Sig Sauer Model P226". Are you talking about them just not yet having put an expert on the stand to back up the statement, and/or presented the lab tests that were done?

JMO

 

[Boxer]

Look I don't yet know quite what to make of the bullet evidence particularly as it hasn't been fully examined (yet).

But to your assertion -

'He was on the trail' - yes he was but D & P differ in their contention as to precisely when, which is highly material. Anyone can decide to make their mind up which version suits their preconceptions but the validity of those contentions has yet to be tested.

'...someone placed one of his cycled bullets at the crime scene' - with what we can definitively say so far, a bullet was recovered from the crime scene, the P contend that it comes from a gun matching RAs type of gun (recovered from his house by SW) but they have yet to establish that it absolutely has been cycled through the specific gun owned by him.

I'm not deflecting I'm just trying to be accurate. The devil is in the detail of this case, not the broad strokes of what D or P are saying.

MOO I dont have time to go back through the testing, but the tool mark match was corroborated in the upper 90%s and was convincing to me.

 

[Boxer]

Agree. The FBI agent who visited the scene saw the staging. Or, "Odinists" pop up in Indiana, draw attention to themselves in that way, and then disappear without a trace for over five years? Faked.

My feeling is it's N'Odin.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Of course LE has to keep everything and keep all notes (these days with computers, it's also easy to find what you are looking for), if they didn't do that, if it ever comes to a trial and things are missing, that's a problem. If important things are missing, you can't even bring it to trial. That's why it's also a problem that is seems like they don't have chain of custody of the bullet. Unless they do and so far didn't give it to the defense.

I also doubt that if they talk to an _expert_ they'd just shred that and act like it never happened. Also, how many Professors can there be at this university that are experts in this field? How hard can it be to find him?

But the point is, they were lying, the prosecutor told the defense they are still looking for the Professor but couldn't find him and might never be able to identify him. While _at the same time_ Holeman was trying to set up an interview with the Professor, meaning, they already knew (and maybe always did) the Professor's name. The defense memo came out on September 18 and on September 19 (!) they not only knew who the Prof. was but Holeman interviewed him. What a coincidence ...

LE and Defense are two separate entities. I imagine records were kept by LE, but they did not deem it as exculpatory so it wasn't forwarded to prosecution. I do believe LE talked to an expert and even went back to interview and provide the evidence of the recent interview to all involved parties once it became the theory of the defense. I do not see this as a lie by the prosecution.
I don't think the occult angle is valid. I don't think the evidence of a rune like pattern at the crime scene means that this was a ritual sacrifice done by Odinists. I don't think the newly released information provided but TC ( Purdue Professor) ties the crime to any type of cult or ritual. If it was a cross made of twigs and branches, would we immediately believe that the crime was done by a group of Christians or Catholics? Would we then be able to eliminate all suspects that were not practicing Christians or Catholics?
Symbols are left at crime scenes and the perpetrator does not have ANY connection to the actual religion/occult. The symbols have a meaning the perpetrator; to confuse the victims, to confuse the investigators, to install urban legend type of status to the crimes or even part of their twisted sexual or murder fantasies that could stem from several sources not based on any occult.
The FBI has done research on the validity of occult being involved in murders and sex crimes and their findings point away from the connection the defense is trying to connect here. PDF reports are available online.
I think the memorandum is sweeping and non specific. The defense interchange the terms Odinist, Nordic beliefs and Pagan. They state specifically that RA does not have connections to Pagan cult or pagan cultist.

What he does have is a connection to the place the girls were last seen around the time they were last seen, a connection to the crime scene and connection to a 43 second audio/video clip in which we have seen less than 3 seconds.
IMO this odinists angle does not have any connection much less absolve any guilt from the defendant.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I am going to play devils advocate here and am in no way saying this is what happened. What if RA did not feel his family believed him about his innocence and a big what if he is innocent, he finally breaks and says “you don’t believe me ..fine.. I did it now leave me alone out of sheer frustration”. This could happen but I’m not saying it did.

Interesting. Sounds like something a petulant teenage boy would do. Pretty poor choice by a grown man potentially facing life in prison, or the death penalty.

 

[steeltowngirl]

You're entitled to speculate on that but the P would have to prove that kind of accusation for it to stand, which is problematic due to the fact that LE said DNA was recovered from the scene, but also said on record they have no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.

As a strategy they are likely on stronger ground to focus on the confessions and proving RA=BG.


As ghoulish and upsetting it is to consider such things, the emergence of this kind of evidence could be very helpful in identifying the perpetrator(s). I'm loathe to hope for such a thing to exist but...

^BBM

I’ve heard this said a few times. Sorry to do this to you, but do you have a link for this statement?: “LE said they have no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.”

 

[steeltowngirl]

So given that right from the get go we heard that the crime scene was unusual, there were signatures, the bodies moved and they may have been staged etc - and this is now being supported by what the D is reporting in their memo; what about the DNA which LE said was recovered from the scene?

Are there any experts on how DNA is used, I'm thinking the familial/ genealogical application to narrow the focus and target of investigation. Delphi has a very small population and so do surrounding towns. I am surprised that this hasn't (that we know of) directed investigation towards suspects (obviously prior to when RA landed in their lap).

Anyone have the credentials to professionally comment/ shine light on this method and its potential in this case?

DNA has been discussed in detail throughout many of the 167 threads. Quite a few posters have provided terrific analysis. @Yemelyan posts come to mind as excellent. You may want to start with a search of the forum for the posts.

Also, the Idaho Murder threads have great discussion of DNA techniques.

As far as professionals, Othram has a thread on this site.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I am going to play devils advocate here and am in no way saying this is what happened. What if RA did not feel his family believed him about his innocence and a big what if he is innocent, he finally breaks and says “you don’t believe me ..fine.. I did it now leave me alone out of sheer frustration”. This could happen but I’m not saying it did.

I imagine his family absolutely wanted to believe in his innocence but may have been pleading with him to come up with some sort of believable facts. If his wife knew he had been there at the time the girls had gone missing and he had told her a similar story he told the CO, she probably believed he had been interviewed and cleared. When more questions are asked 5 years later she seemed to have no issue to tell LE that he did have knives and guns at the home and he did have the outfit he was wearing that day. She probably in some serious denial and wanting him to make it make sense. I do not believe she wanted a confession, after he had sat 8 months in jail she probably wanted an ironclad explanation of innocence. Instead she got a confession then no contact.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

This case needs to come to trial way sooner than later to put an end to this circus.
To the prosecution…let’s see it. Front and center, under oath, under cross examination. Let’s hear the confessions. Tell us in detail about the crime scene and forensics you have, what kinda guy RA is and what he was doing before, during and after the murders. What other evidence do you have. Put the pieces together. Prove RA is the right guy.
To the defense…you talk a good talk, let’s see if you can walk the walk. This is not a fiction writing competition. What have you got. Front and center, under oath, under cross examination. Explain the confessions. Refute the evidence.

 

[Miya]

LE and Defense are two separate entities. I imagine records were kept by LE, but they did not deem it as exculpatory so it wasn't forwarded to prosecution. I do believe LE talked to an expert and even went back to interview and provide the evidence of the recent interview to all involved parties once it became the theory of the defense. I do not see this as a lie by the prosecution.

Ok, I'll explain it again. On Sept 6 the prosecutor told the defense they still couldn't find the Prof. and might not be able to ever identify him. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME Holeman already knew who the Prof. was and was in the process of setting up an interview with him. So "we couldn't find him and might never be able to identify him" was a lie.

Also, the prosecution needs EVERYTHING. Because they have to decide if they can win the case or they won't even bring it to trial. The prosecution can even request things from LE - "bring me more, I don't have enough yet" and then LE has to keep investigating. LE can't decide what to show to the prosecution (or defense in discovery) or the court, nobody would ever have a fair trail if LE decided what to show the lawyers and court, they's be judge and jury if they did that. Or were allowed to do that.

 

[Miya]

^BBM

I’ve heard this said a few times. Sorry to do this to you, but do you have a link for this statement?: “LE said they have no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.”

It's in the 136 pages defense memo, I can't remember right now who (Holeman?) said this in a deposition.

 

[FrostedGlass]

New Murder Sheet:

The Delphi Murders: Motion for Discovery Deadline and Defendant's Additional Franks Notice

AC said a mouthful here:
2:14 mm
"Prosecution and law enforcement have the whole resources of the State and awesome powers to throw people in jail and ruin their lives."

That's why we scrutinize everything they say and do. MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Ok, I'll explain it again. On Sept 6 the prosecutor told the defense they still couldn't find the Prof. and might not be able to ever identify him. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME Holeman already knew who the Prof. was and was in the process of setting up an interview with him. So "we couldn't find him and might never be able to identify him" was a lie.

Also, the prosecution needs EVERYTHING. Because they have to decide if they can win the case or they won't even bring it to trial. The prosecution can even request things from LE - "bring me more, I don't have enough yet" and then LE has to keep investigating. LE can't decide what to show to the prosecution (or defense in discovery) or the court, nobody would ever have a fair trail if LE decided what to show the lawyers and court, they's be judge and jury if they did that. Or were allowed to do that.

From your post above:

“On Sept 6 the prosecutor told the defense they still couldn't find the Prof. and might not be able to ever identify him. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME Holeman already knew who the Prof. was and was in the process of setting up an interview with him. So "we couldn't find him and might never be able to identify him" was a lie.”

This is the defense’s interpretation and opinion of what happened here. It cannot be read as fact.