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

[scapa]

The absolutely only thing I can think of would be if he were to *advertiser censored* the gun back, with a bullet in the chamber.
As if it was being unloaded.

If you were unloading a handgun, you'd
1.Take the magazine out
2.Check for bullet in the chamber, by pulling the slide back.
*If there was a bullet in the chamber, it would 'pop' out after pulling the slide back.

I can't think of ANY other reasoning as to how an UNSPENT bullet would be found.
ESPECIALLY since it has been 'linked' to a specific gun.

**It's not like the bullet misfired- If this were the case, the bullet WOULD be 'spent'.

I know zero about guns so am trying to wrap my head around what the site bot has found offensive in that sentence in order to make sense of it.

Do mean racking the slide as a means of intimidating A and L?

 

[CGBSpender]

Full disclosure - I'm not convinced by the bullet evidence in any way shape or form as a reliable method of connecting a suspect, I regard as do many States now, ballistics as unreliable evidence, and ejector tooling marks have little to no precedent and are even less reliable.

But more than that I 100% just don't believe it was planted and so no speculation required. You have to ask by whom, when and for what purpose that fits the timeline of the crime and the investigation, all of which doesn't really lead anywhere convincing IMO.

If people want to point towards bad faith, foul play then I think there's much better examples of that in this case than the notion of planting a bullet.

I've said it before, but I think a decent expert can poke holes in ejector ballistics analysis all day long. Which brings me back to my initial question a few days ago...what alleged fruit of the poisonous tree has the D working overtime to get it all tossed out? Re-reading that terribly long memo, what the D didn't say / didn't focus on is more interesting to me than what they did focus on and say...What did they avoid talking about more than necessary in said memo? The gun...and the storage devices:

- They hit on the phones and computers recovered from the search...but left an obvious void as to Holeman's opinion on evidence from recovered storage devices. They quote Liggett all over the place, because what is being shared with him by ISP is clearly limited in scope...but they seem to have been careful to either not disclose what Holeman said about certain evidence (evidence that they clearly asked Liggett about in his depo and quoted)...or they chose not to ask Holeman some of those same questions in his depo, because they were not sure they would like what his answer would be.

- I don't think I'm out of line by saying that most of the internet knew a long time ago the make and model of the gun LE has been looking for from the very beginning of the investigation. The PCA simply confirmed what many already had heard. I have a hard time accepting that the make and model of the gun used was identified by LE by either: a) ejector marks (might get them in the ballpark IMO, but not exact); or b) based on the grainy video view of BG that has been released to the public. That makes me think that there is some other piece of evidence that LE has had from the beginning that told them exactly the make and model gun they were looking for. My suspicion is that maybe it isn't the ballistics so much that has the D worried...it is perhaps the gun itself...that if that weapon is allowed into evidence...whatever evidence LE has that allowed them to quickly ID the make/model they were looking for...combined with the ballistics...is a problem for the D.

JMO

 

[Vaderman]

I may have been mistaken, but I thought the poster who started the debate about the bullet being intentionally planted meant that it was intentionally planted by RA, as a signature of some sorts.

 

[Baby baby Jane]

The absolutely only thing I can think of would be if he were to *advertiser censored* the gun back, with a bullet in the chamber.
As if it was being unloaded.

If you were unloading a handgun, you'd
1.Take the magazine out
2.Check for bullet in the chamber, by pulling the slide back.
*If there was a bullet in the chamber, it would 'pop' out after pulling the slide back.

I can't think of ANY other reasoning as to how an UNSPENT bullet would be found.
ESPECIALLY since it has been 'linked' to a specific gun.

**It's not like the bullet misfired- If this were the case, the bullet WOULD be 'spent'.

Chambered and unloaded at an on another day (cleaning, unloading for safety) earlier point and put in a pocket, chucked in a drawer and then repocketed. RA unaware it’s in a pocket, pulls thing out of pocket and it falls out. Struggling around bending down falls out of pocket.

 

[TL4S]

I know zero about guns so am trying to wrap my head around what the site bot has found offensive in that sentence in order to make sense of it.

Do mean racking the slide as a means of intimidating A and L?

I believe the censored word was c o c k i n g, as in with the gun.

 

[Boxer]

That makes two of us.

Who would have obtained the cycled bullet from the never loaned Sig?

 

[TL4S]

I've said it before, but I think a decent expert can poke holes in ejector ballistics analysis all day long. Which brings me back to my initial question a few days ago...what alleged fruit of the poisonous tree has the D working overtime to get it all tossed out? Re-reading that terribly long memo, what the D didn't say / didn't focus on is more interesting to me than what they did focus on and say...What did they avoid talking about more than necessary in said memo? The gun...and the storage devices:

- They hit on the phones and computers recovered from the search...but left an obvious void as to Holeman's opinion on evidence from recovered storage devices. They quote Liggett all over the place, because what is being shared with him by ISP is clearly limited in scope...but they seem to have been careful to either not disclose what Holeman said about certain evidence (evidence that they clearly asked Liggett about in his depo and quoted)...or they chose not to ask Holeman some of those same questions in his depo, because they were not sure they would like what his answer would be.

- I don't think I'm out of line by saying that most of the internet knew a long time ago the make and model of the gun LE has been looking for from the very beginning of the investigation. The PCA simply confirmed what many already had heard. I have a hard time accepting that the make and model of the gun used was identified by LE by either: a) ejector marks (might get them in the ballpark IMO, but not exact); or b) based on the grainy video view of BG that has been released to the public. That makes me think that there is some other piece of evidence that LE has had from the beginning that told them exactly the make and model gun they were looking for. My suspicion is that maybe it isn't the ballistics so much that has the D worried...it is perhaps the gun itself...that if that weapon is allowed into evidence...whatever evidence LE has that allowed them to quickly ID the make/model they were looking for...combined with the ballistics...is a problem for the D.

JMO

In one of the PCA's it was said that near the end of the 43 sec video, the man was heard and seen saying, "G...DTH." I have long wondered if the gun was visible there.

Then again, very recently, we have BMcD saying her sources, who told her about the bullet all along, said there had not been definitive theories that the bullet belonged to the suspect, and could even have come from LE. That threw me for a loop. LE had the bridge video nearly from the beginning. If they knew the gun, why would it ever be in question where the bullet came from?

 

[CGBSpender]

In one of the PCA's it was said that near the end of the 43 sec video, the man was heard and seen saying, "G...DTH." I have long wondered if the gun was visible there.

Then again, very recently, we have BMcD saying her sources, who told her about the bullet all along, said there had not been definitive theories that the bullet belonged to the suspect, and could even have come from LE. That threw me for a loop. LE had the bridge video nearly from the beginning. If they knew the gun, why would it ever be in question where the bullet came from?

That actually makes some sense to me. Something likely told them what the make and model was that BG had on him...but probably not the chambering (which on that one could be one of four different options I believe). That model in a .40 was standard issue for many LE agencies at one time, so I can see why they might not want to limit their search to only the subgroup of the model chambered in a .40 (ex: on the off-chance BG's was chambered in a 9mm, and LE accidentally dropped the .40 when doing crime scene analysis).

JMO

 

[zh0r4]

Can you find a copy of the Motion For Discovery Deadline?
Isn't it interesting how much of the info can be something or nothing?

Motion For Discovery Deadline (8 pages total)

 

[O.Incandenza]

Even more head scratching is the defense's theory that Odinist cult of 2 members decides to include invite 3 new recruits to come to Delphi in the middle of the day for a ritualist human sacrifice. You know as indoctrination to the cult.

The more I read the memorandum and subsequent filings by defense the more I believe the odinist bait was only peppered into initial discovery because LE and prosecution knew it was a big old nothing burger. Defense would automatically think it was evidence being withheld and plan their whole defense around this crazy theory. Now Prosecution can spring the trap because defense is boxed in on their theory. JMO

FWIW, they're not boxed in on their theory. They can argue something completely different to the jury if they want.

 

[zh0r4]

RA may have kept his DNA from the crime scene but he might've brought DNA from the crime scene home with him.

JMO

True. I also think that would be considered linking RA to the crime scene per the D statement “There is no DNA linking RA to the crime scene.”? IMO If there was DNA from the crime scene at RA’s house/on his belongings for example, I would expect the D to have said “There was no DNA of RA’s at the crime scene.”

 

[FrostedGlass]

Motion For Discovery Deadline (8 pages total)

#13 = three new audio files of interviews from Aug 2023.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Who would have obtained the cycled bullet from the never loaned Sig?

Must be those sacrificial Odinists as alleged by the Defense.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

For the bullet to have been planted would require;

1) the killer to randomly choose RA as the person they wanted to frame.(if RA wasn’t chosen randomly then that would imply RA knew the killer)
2) prior to Feb 2017, the killer would have to break into RA’s house, take RA’s Sig Sauer and some ammo, rack the gun to cycle a bullet through, pocket the bullet and return the gun back to where it’s kept.
3) drop the bullet between Libby and Abby after killing them
4) by doing all this, the killer must whole-heartedly:
a—believe that identifying unspent bullets by ejector marks is reliable science so it can be linked to RA
b—that LE will find the bullet at the crime scene and think it is significant evidence

I would add that someone in LE would not be who planted the bullet. No way that person would sit for 6 years waiting for LE to stumble upon RA to find the planted bullet. In fact, I don’t think a non-LE killer wouldn’t wait that long either.

Personally, I don’t believe it was planted but I believe the entire bullet situation is weird. I don’t believe it will hold up in court as primary evidence (I’m not saying P doesn’t have more evidence we are unaware of) and I believe the D could get their own ballistics expert who could counter the report by the P ballistics expert. JMO

 

[TheVisual]

I have a counter-question. What action would make a bullet nest in such a place, smack between two girls who were not shot, but stabbed?

Could be as simple as someone hunting on the grounds and dropped it. That kind of property,near water, would be very soft and loose because of the trees and plants growing untouched. It could lay there untouched for who knows how long or maybe pushed by a foot into the ground by someone hunting. It was said that Ron Logan allowed people to hunt on his property. If a metal detector was used then it could have been under the soil and found. It could have been there a long time. JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Personally, I don’t believe it was planted but I believe the entire bullet situation is weird. I don’t believe it will hold up in court as primary evidence (I’m not saying P doesn’t have more evidence we are unaware of) and I believe the D could get their own ballistics expert who could counter the report by the P ballistics expert. JMO

I personally don’t see the bullet situation as weird. A scenario where RA racks his gun to frighten and control the girls sounds pretty plausible to me. He stupidly leaves the bullet there. Plenty of folks are legitimately behind bars for doing stupid things that got them caught.
I also wouldn’t be so quick to discount testimony concerning ejector marks as an identifying method in ballistics. People are quick to cite that it’s a fairly new technique, but that doesn’t mean it’s not not reliable or proven. Folks bring up rulings questioning it from other states but there are also states where it has been used without question. Part of the evidence that tied Alex Murdaugh to, and convicted him of murdering his wife and son was the analysis of ejector marks. I agree though that this testimony needs to be presented by someone who is clear and confident in what they are telling the jury.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I have a question for anyone that knows the answer to.

Why are we, the public, able to obtain all of these documents,?

Isn't there a gag order in place?

Isn't it the court that put a gag order in place to begin with?

Is it only the prosecution that has to follow the gag order?


What if any repercussions will come to the defense if they are legally bound to the gag order?

I really want to know!

 

[zh0r4]

Without proof at the moment, I'm trying to figure how a bullet A, which could be used in other kinds of guns, became RA's problem. Do bullets have identifying manufacturing marks on them? Is there any way they could connect bullet A to the others in the magazines?

Agreed. Cartridges/bullets do not have identifying manufacturing marks on them that would tie them to a specific firearm or to who purchased the cartridges, if that is what you were asking? There is also no way I am aware of to connect one unspent bullet to another unspent bullet in the magazine. Everyone who has a firearm that uses .40 cal cartridges would have .40 cal cartridges. There may be faint marks on an unspent cartridge, but I am unaware of any case where ballistics of an unspent cartridge/bullet was used to convict someone. This is why it is so bizarre to me. If anyone knows of a case where ballistics was used this way please lmk. I am not saying the P doesn’t have more evidence than the unspent cartridge, I assume they do.

To add: the bullet is technically only the tip/projectile part that is fired from the cartridge. The cartridge is what holds the components (projectile/bullet, propellant substance, ignition device) together. When someone fires, the bullet is fired through the chamber of the firearm, which leaves identifying marks of the specific firearm.

EDIT to add: An unspent cartridge could have something like a fingerprint of a perp that ties them to the scene. I am only assuming ballistics of an unspent cartridge is being used due to the ballistics report mentioned in the PCA.

 

[zh0r4]

I've said it before, but I think a decent expert can poke holes in ejector ballistics analysis all day long. Which brings me back to my initial question a few days ago...what alleged fruit of the poisonous tree has the D working overtime to get it all tossed out? Re-reading that terribly long memo, what the D didn't say / didn't focus on is more interesting to me than what they did focus on and say...What did they avoid talking about more than necessary in said memo? The gun...and the storage devices:

- They hit on the phones and computers recovered from the search...but left an obvious void as to Holeman's opinion on evidence from recovered storage devices. They quote Liggett all over the place, because what is being shared with him by ISP is clearly limited in scope...but they seem to have been careful to either not disclose what Holeman said about certain evidence (evidence that they clearly asked Liggett about in his depo and quoted)...or they chose not to ask Holeman some of those same questions in his depo, because they were not sure they would like what his answer would be.

- I don't think I'm out of line by saying that most of the internet knew a long time ago the make and model of the gun LE has been looking for from the very beginning of the investigation. The PCA simply confirmed what many already had heard. I have a hard time accepting that the make and model of the gun used was identified by LE by either: a) ejector marks (might get them in the ballpark IMO, but not exact); or b) based on the grainy video view of BG that has been released to the public. That makes me think that there is some other piece of evidence that LE has had from the beginning that told them exactly the make and model gun they were looking for. My suspicion is that maybe it isn't the ballistics so much that has the D worried...it is perhaps the gun itself...that if that weapon is allowed into evidence...whatever evidence LE has that allowed them to quickly ID the make/model they were looking for...combined with the ballistics...is a problem for the D.

JMO

I interpret these statements to include data in storage devices:

“Liggett further has testified that he is unaware of anything that links Richard to the crime through his phone, computers, or electronics.”

“Jerry Holeman has testified to the following:……No data extracted from RA’s phone connects him to the murders…..There is no evidence found on RA’s computers that connects him to the murders.”

The storage devices are external hard drives, which hold data from computers/phones/electronic devices. What would be stored on external hard drives that wasn’t originally on phones or computers? I guess technically you could have data from someone else’s phones or computer on your external hard drives. JMO I don’t feel their statements omit data storage devices. I interpreted it as the D attempting to avoid redundancy.

 

[zh0r4]

I personally don’t see the bullet situation as weird. A scenario where RA racks his gun to frighten and control the girls sounds pretty plausible to me. He stupidly leaves the bullet there. Plenty of folks are legitimately behind bars for doing stupid things that got them caught.
I also wouldn’t be so quick to discount testimony concerning ejector marks as an identifying method in ballistics. People are quick to cite that it’s a fairly new technique, but that doesn’t mean it’s not not reliable or proven. Folks bring up rulings questioning it from other states but there are also states where it has been used without question. Part of the evidence that tied Alex Murdaugh to, and convicted him of murdering his wife and son was the analysis of ejector marks. I agree though that this testimony needs to be presented by someone who is clear and confident in what they are telling the jury.

The cartridges in the Murdaugh case were spent/fired. The cartridge in this case is unspent/not fired.