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

[StarryStarryNight]

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

Yes. Marks on cartridges from bullets fired at Maggie Murdaugh were compared with marks on cartridges from fired bullets found near the side steps at Moselle to determine if they were fired by the same gun, since the murder weapon had not been recovered. The expert determined that they were fired from the same gun based solely on breech, extractor, and ejector marks.

Missing rifle Murdaugh bought for his son Paul could be MURDER WEAPON

Paul Greer, a weapons expert, told jurors Friday that .300 Blackout casings discovered near Maggie's body were fired from the same weapon as shells scattered across the estate in South Carolina.

www.dailymail.co.uk

“He(Greer; SLED firearms expert) also admitted that firing pin marks on the shells were inconclusive, but breech, extractor and ejector marks
all matched.”

**in the article, at the point where this quote was taken, they were discussing the 300 Blackout AR-15 style rifle. I don’t know why they refer to the cartridges as “shells”. Maybe it’s an English thing.

 

[TL4S]

Another new Murder Sheet:

The Delphi Murders: Discussing the Franks Memorandum with the Hoosier Public Defender

 

[FrostedGlass]

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.

Yes. That is what I was asking.

This is what I was trying to say in my poorly worded question: we're told the cartridges cycled through his gun match the marks on the cartridge they have at the lab. But what we don't know at this time is if the cartridge at the lab is the same one as the one at the scene. We're left to assume it is. Since they took the boxes, I just thought there might be a stamp of some sort on the bullets. Thanks for the answer.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

It's the cycling through the chamber ejecting that leaves markings. Whether or not those are unique enough, like bullet cartridges through the barrel, to use in court to link a cartridge to a specific gun will certainly be addressed.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Another new Murder Sheet:

The Delphi Murders: Discussing the Franks Memorandum with the Hoosier Public Defender

One thing for sure, IMO, they really tread lightly in these podcasts. They covered a lot of issues we've been questioning; I always like to hear his views.

Around the 10 mm, they discuss having the defendant testify. SH said in those cases, he askes the difficult questions on direct because P can't go back on cross examination and re-ask the same question. I didn't know that.

At the 18 mm, they're back on whether the D should have named the possible suspects. He talks about the pros and cons of that.

25:18mm SH goes into the problems he finds with the PCA.
28 mm Cameras in the courtroom discussion.

 

[Andieinsyd]

It's the cycling through the chamber ejecting that leaves markings. Whether or not those are unique enough, like bullet cartridges through the barrel, to use in court to link a cartridge to a specific gun will certainly be addressed.

I don’t have any idea about ballistics. But do have a question about marks from ejecting. Given the bullet from the scene was ejected from a gun six years ago, would the same gun make the same marks all this time later? Let’s say the gun had been used regularly- perhaps this usage would wear the chamber somewhat? Could this Invalidate the bulls tics evidence?

 

[CGBSpender]

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.

Possibly. Remember though, lawyers are trained experts in words and language. I'd say the same warning applies when it comes to someone's answer in a deposition. Make no mistake...people being deposed in a situation like this have been prepared by a lawyer on how to answer anticipated questions with specific language. Without seeing the deposition in its entirety, it is difficult to know whether "data extracted" means what someone might assume it to mean...there may be information from the phone that was not "extracted" but connects. Does phone and computer as applied to Holeman include other electronics? Maybe, maybe not. Holeman clearly knows more than Liggett, so the D was more free to get the answers they wanted out of Liggett that would be helpful to their motion. It's telling to me that the Liggett depo responses were quoted more broadly...and the Holeman responses included possibly limiting or qualifying language.

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

Somewhat related to my previous comment about lawyers being experts in word choices and language, and deponents being prepared for depositions by lawyers...

Some people have speculated that there was some kind of rift between local and/or state LE, and the FBI on the Delphi case. My suspicion however....has been that possibly some evidence or suspect surfaced at some point in the case that caused the FBI to have to recuse itself from participating in all or part of the Delphi investigation due to a conflict(s) of interest.

Footnote 8 in the memo says, "Although State Police Superintendent Doug Carter pulled the plug and kicked the FBI off the Delphi murder case around 2021 over some conflicts, according to Jerry Holeman..."

I would really love to know what is meant by the term conflicts. Do they mean conflict, as in a rift of some sort? Or is it as I have long suspected...a conflict(s) of interest surfaced...and in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation, the FBI had to be conflicted out of all or part of the investigation?

Taking it one step further...my tin foil hat theory is that LE would rather people assume that conflict means rift...because conflict(s) of interest might tip LE's hand somehow on something related to the investigation that LE wants/needs kept confidential. (Hypothetical Example: If a possible suspect arises that LE needs to investigate, but that individual turns out to be/have been a paid confidential informant to the FBI on a federal case(s) or something. Confidential paid informants are not always the most upstanding citizens. Or perhaps an individual(s) being investigated are part of a group where the FBI has an undercover agent planted on a different case. I'm sure there are lots of other hypothetical examples, but my caffeine for the morning hasn't kicked in yet.).

JMO

 

[TL4S]

Around the 10 mm, they discuss having the defendant testify. SH said in those cases, he askes the difficult questions on direct because P can't go back on cross examination and re-ask the same question. I didn't know that.

RSBM
I didn't know this either and find it absolutely fascinating. What an important tool in the D's toolbox, although it probably doesn't come without risks, I'd imagine.

I think it was SH's who once said that the job of a defense attorney isn't just to give their client representation, but to make sure the State is doing their job properly, as well. I think this is the significance of the memorandum, imo, because it appears, from the D's claims, that not everything was done properly. The judge has the discovery (we don't), so it will be interesting to see what she rules on all of this. Jmo.

 

[FrostedGlass]

RSBM
I didn't know this either and find it absolutely fascinating. What an important tool in the D's toolbox, although it probably doesn't come without risks, I'd imagine.

I think it was SH's who once said that the job of a defense attorney isn't just to give their client representation, but to make sure the State is doing their job properly, as well. I think this is the significance of the memorandum, imo, because it appears, from the D's claims, that not everything was done properly. The judge has the discovery (we don't), so it will be interesting to see what she rules on all of this. Jmo.

From what we've seen so far, I'm doubtful that the judge will throw out the SW. If she did feel deep down inside that the SW should be tossed, would she? OR would she just let it play out in court?

 

[Bergmann]

Never forget, the vast majority of Judges sat on benches were previously prosecutors so they tend to naturally have lets say more sympathy/ understanding/ tolerance for what P do than what D do. The D has chosen to take an almost unprecedented 'you never do that' risk in openly accusing LE and by implication NMcL of lying/ deliberately misleading the Judge to obtain a SW.

Think about that for a second. I don't think many people truly understand the enormity of what the D have done in a legal sense.

What incentive at all does this J have to admit that the SW was obtained by LE lying/ fooling her predecessor J Diener? (It's increasingly obvious why he recused himself).

Typically in cases where the D is in any way criticising or attempting to put LE in a bad light, J's come down super hard and want absolute chapter and verse, they want to see everything recipted and certificated, and lord help you if you don't have everything to back up what you're saying.

It will be fascinating how J Gull decides to play what has been put in front of her. There are ramifications whether she grants the Franks or if she doesn't.

If she does then I expect the D to get the grilling of their lives from the bench, something they will never forget! I cannot see the SW being tossed no matter what as if that goes then not only does the evidence therefrom but also the credibility and likely the tenure of the associated LE and the unwitting NMcL who IMO is not experienced enough for a prosecution of this complexity and profile (don't ask me, ask his peers).

 

[browning]

RA will plea.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

One thing for sure, IMO, they really tread lightly in these podcasts. They covered a lot of issues we've been questioning; I always like to hear his views.

Around the 10 mm, they discuss having the defendant testify. SH said in those cases, he askes the difficult questions on direct because P can't go back on cross examination and re-ask the same question. I didn't know that.

At the 18 mm, they're back on whether the D should have named the possible suspects. He talks about the pros and cons of that.

25:18mm SH goes into the problems he finds with the PCA.
28 mm Cameras in the courtroom discussion.

I don’t quite understand what the guy is talking about around the 10 mm.
I thought cross examination was limited to issues brought up under direct examination, but this makes it sound like the prosecution, while cross examining someone, would be prohibited from doing that. That seems contradictory to me. Can someone un-confuse me.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/crossexam/

“Cross-examination is generally limited to questioning only on matters that were raised during direct examination.”

 

[CGBSpender]

I don’t quite understand what the guy is talking about around the 10 mm.
I thought cross examination was limited to issues brought up under direct examination, but this makes it sound like the prosecution, while cross examining someone, would be prohibited from doing that. That seems contradictory to me. Can someone un-confuse me.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/crossexam/

“Cross-examination is generally limited to questioning only on matters that were raised during direct examination.”

I don't listen to the podcast, but from the comments I'm guessing they are referencing D making an "Asked and Answered" objection to P asking the same question on cross. A judge will have discretion to allow the question despite the objection, the objection isn't necessarily and absolute bar. Furthermore, if the witness didn't fully answer the question the first time around, there may be a legitimate need to ask it again and get a proper answer on the record.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Deleted, already answered.

 

[CGBSpender]

The D has chosen to take an almost unprecedented 'you never do that' risk in openly accusing LE and by implication NMcL of lying/ deliberately misleading the Judge to obtain a SW.

Think about that for a second. I don't think many people truly understand the enormity of what the D have done in a legal sense.

I have to respectfully disagree here. If D needs the evidence suppressed from the search...this is their best shot based on what they have to work with. Not making the argument might be worse for both sides in the long run...you want the accused to have been given a zealous defense. Is challenging the PCA common...perhaps not, because it is pretty difficult to win on, and takes time/resources...but it is also not unheard of either. If I had a crystal ball...my prediction might be....

• There's probably been enough crap thrown against the wall in 136 pages that some will stick in order to justify granting a hearing.
• That if something was false, Liggett didn't know it and was relying on information from other investigatory documents that he had no reason to doubt...and that nothing Liggett said or didn't say rises to the level of reckless (negligent maybe, but not reckless).
• That even if a couple of things that stuck to the wall were ultimately considered knowingly false or reckless...and you set those things aside...there is still sufficient information in the affidavit to warrant probable cause (and D will likely be unsuccessful clearing this final hurdle)...if the analysis even gets that far.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

I have to respectfully disagree here. If D needs the evidence suppressed from the search...this is their best shot based on what they have to work with. Not making the argument might be worse for both sides in the long run...you want the accused to have been given a zealous defense. Is challenging the PCA common...perhaps not, because it is pretty difficult to win on, and takes time/resources...but it is also not unheard of either. If I had a crystal ball...my prediction might be....

• There's probably been enough crap thrown against the wall in 136 pages that some will stick in order to justify granting a hearing.
• That if something was false, Liggett didn't know it and was relying on information from other investigatory documents that he had no reason to doubt...and that nothing Liggett said or didn't say rises to the level of reckless (negligent maybe, but not reckless).
• That even if a couple of things that stuck to the wall were ultimately considered knowingly false or reckless...and you set those things aside...there is still sufficient information in the affidavit to warrant probable cause (and D will likely be unsuccessful clearing this final hurdle)...if the analysis even gets that far.

JMO

The DA they spoke with on MS basically said that he suspects even if some of what the D claims in the memo is true, there was likely still probable cause for the SW based off admitted similar clothing, being near the bridge at the time, the three juvenile witnesses, etc, so it's unlikely they'll throw it out entirely.

 

[Bergmann]

I have to respectfully disagree here. If D needs the evidence suppressed from the search...this is their best shot based on what they have to work with. Not making the argument might be worse for both sides in the long run...you want the accused to have been given a zealous defense. Is challenging the PCA common...perhaps not, because it is pretty difficult to win on, and takes time/resources...but it is also not unheard of either. If I had a crystal ball...my prediction might be....

• There's probably been enough crap thrown against the wall in 136 pages that some will stick in order to justify granting a hearing.
• That if something was false, Liggett didn't know it and was relying on information from other investigatory documents that he had no reason to doubt...and that nothing Liggett said or didn't say rises to the level of reckless (negligent maybe, but not reckless).
• That even if a couple of things that stuck to the wall were ultimately considered knowingly false or reckless...and you set those things aside...there is still sufficient information in the affidavit to warrant probable cause (and D will likely be unsuccessful clearing this final hurdle)...if the analysis even gets that far.

JMO

I'm not sure which bit you're disagreeing with lol!

My main point is that what the D have done is a massive deal and has big ramifications whichever way it goes.

I agree that challenging a PCA isn't uncommon. Coming out and saying flat out - the P has intentionally lied and deceived the J to get a SW is just not the done thing, that is highly unusual (and high risk, and very unlikely to actually succeed).

The rest I think we're agreeing on!

I cannot for the life of me see how if a hearing is granted that this could possibly be allowed to go D's way - the ramifications would be huge - so there's no way the J is going there!

 

[TTF14]

I cannot for the life of me see how if a hearing is granted that this could possibly be allowed to go D's way - the ramifications would be huge - so there's no way the J is going there!

This sounds like you think the judge will/should make a decision based on how she wants the end result to go, not on the facts of the matter.

 

[Bergmann]

This sounds like you think the judge will/should make a decision based on how she wants the end result to go, not on the facts of the matter.

I just don't think that any J considers what is front of them and makes a decision on that alone without considering precedent and consequence.