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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Small matter of proof but yes I can't dispute your logic, I agree if P prove RA must be BG then he's going to get convicted of felony murder.

At the moment the evidence as presented is not cast iron enough for me, but you know, with a very persuasive prosecutor, and a jury walking into court half thinking that it must be RA, I could could see a conviction with what they've got being eminently possible.

I wouldn't agree that was sound and I'm not sure that the whole truth would be surfaced in that way, but any conviction of RA would probably make a lot of people happy regardless.
I won't be happy period, it's not about that, nobody here is a winner. Abby & Libby are dead their entire futures wiped away by a madman, no proms, no graduations, no marriages, no children. The lives of so many families and loved ones have ruined almost beyond repair. The amount of suffering and pain is unthinkable.

I will be satisfied if RA is found guilty by 12 of his peers after receiving all the evidence and testimony of the State and the Defense, if they do indeed come to that conclusion based on evidence.

Abby & Libby deserve the truth and the person(s) responsible for this heinous crime needs to pay dearly, never to roam the street as a free person again.

JMO
 
See this, regardless of RA’s guilt, is alarming to me, especially considering the other allegations. RA has not even had a trial yet, why is this happening?
Is it totally out of the realm of possibility that RA might have had to been tased? We don't know the circumstances surrounding the incidents yet, but in most LE/Prison Systems an incident where a taser is deployed must be documented.

There were cameras on RA 24/7 so surely it was captured? If not, then I would say that was a problem.

MOO
 
As someone who believes RA is BG I take exception to the thought, on WS especially, that anyone would want a conviction that wasn’t just and that would make anyone happy.

I doubt it would make anyone happy if there was only a lesser charge for two innocent young girls murdered in cold blood.

Having been a long time WSer following trials I know to think that anything would be cast iron enough at this time hasn’t been following many cases.

It all comes out in trial; things are never what they seem, reporting never quite accurate, and in court witness are surprising.

Why would you take a shot at a Jury?

Why assume they would not do their duty as selected and sworn?

This is the long haul and sometimes it’s never cast iron even at the end.


All imo

Agree, more will come out at trial - again hopefully the whole truth.

Without saying it all again and building unintentional misunderstanding - I'm presenting the unsatisfactory scenario of the case as-is, with a supposition of what if that's truly all the state has - I know full well that more will come out at trial but when presented back with how the state's case looks to me with a cynical eye I keep being told by some 'the state definitely has more than this...' but what if it doesn't?

And yes I'm being provocative to say that I think that with the right jury and a good show from prosecution, what if they didn't need more to convince a jury? There's plenty of posters on here who have formed an opinion (totally within their rights that's what this is here for) based on what we've seen so far - who's to say some of the jury pool aren't the same mindset?

There's some who take everything that P and LE say to be gospel and the unimpeachable truth, and pour scorn and ridicule on everything that they D do. What if you end up with 12 of these mindsets on the jury? Equally could be the reverse I freely admit. But this ain't my first rodeo by a long shot and I've got a pretty good idea which is the more likely scenario.

This case had gone cold for a long time when many thought it would be solved pretty quickly. All of a sudden the state discovers a suspect and off to prison they go awaiting trial, with a waiting crowd of onlookers, many desperate for justice. That combined with IMO a state's case which is less than convincing so far following some examples of less than great LE crime scene work and investigation, my own opinion is that a rush to convict in these circumstances is potentially fraught with risk.

I'm just like everyone else - I want justice for the girls but not at the cost of the whole truth. Prosecution is there to seek justice not just a conviction.
 
I won't be happy period, it's not about that, nobody here is a winner. Abby & Libby are dead their entire futures wiped away by a madman, no proms, no graduations, no marriages, no children. The lives of so many families and loved ones have ruined almost beyond repair. The amount of suffering and pain is unthinkable.

I will be satisfied if RA is found guilty by 12 of his peers after receiving all the evidence and testimony of the State and the Defense, if they do indeed come to that conclusion based on evidence.

Abby & Libby deserve the truth and the person(s) responsible for this heinous crime needs to pay dearly, never to roam the street as a free person again.

JMO
Amen.
 
Small matter of proof but yes I can't dispute your logic, I agree if P prove RA must be BG then he's going to get convicted of felony murder.

At the moment the evidence as presented is not cast iron enough for me, but you know, with a very persuasive prosecutor, and a jury walking into court half thinking that it must be RA, I could could see a conviction with what they've got being eminently possible.

I wouldn't agree that was sound and I'm not sure that the whole truth would be surfaced in that way, but any conviction of RA would probably make a lot of people happy regardless.

None of us have seen all the evidence.
Your thoughts that the only way RA could be found guilty is for twelve jurors to get sucked in by a fast talking prosecutor or to have falsely sworn that they could weigh the evidence presented in court impartially, is pretty offensive.
It would be equally offensive if RA was found not guilty by slick talking defense attorneys, and by a jury walking into court half believing the defense’s Odinist fantasy or that DNA is the only true indication of guilt.
It is very possible that RA will be found guilty by the merits of the case.
Let’s go to trial.
 
Your thoughts that the only way RA could be found guilty is for twelve jurors to get sucked in by a fast talking prosecutor or to have falsely sworn that they could weigh the evidence presented in court impartially, is pretty offensive.

Please read again before taking offence - that is patently not what I am saying.
 
During the April 2019 PC, DC said to the killer that they knew this was about power to him. The evidence for that is pretty clear, imo: the use of a gun and knife, undressing the victims, making them cross the creek, etc.

I don't buy the Odinist stuff for a second, nor do I believe the girls laughed at him and he snapped. The killer acted upon something deep-rooted within himself and it came out odd and weird, and I can't help but wonder if RA eating his paperwork has something to do with that.

If RA is the killer and maybe didn't even remember doing some of the odd things (think signatures) that he did at the CS, then seeing it in discovery could have triggered him. Imo, this behavior is a troubling parallel to how we know RI's described the scene. Odd.

Maybe he doesn't want those details out, which is why he literally ate the evidence and made incriminating statements to his wife and mother. I personally think it's the fear of people finding out how weird he was that is driving him more than having committed the murders themselves. Jmo.
 
Last edited:
During the April 2019 PC, DC said to the killer that they knew this was about power to him. The evidence for that is pretty clear, imo: the use of a gun and knife, undressing the victims, making them cross the creek, etc.

I don't buy the Odinist stuff for a second, nor do I believe the girls laughed at him and he snapped. The killer acted upon something deep-rooted within himself and it came out odd and weird, and I can't help but wonder if RA eating his paperwork has something to do with that.

If RA is the killer and maybe didn't even remember doing some of the odd things (think signatures) that he did at the CS, then seeing it in discovery could have triggered him. Imo, this behavior is a troubling parallel to how we know RI's described the scene. Odd.

Maybe he doesn't want those details out, which is why he literally ate the evidence and made incriminating statements to his wife and mother. I personally think it's the fear of people finding out how weird he was that is driving him more than having committed the murders themselves. Jmo.

Totally agree.
 
Please read again before taking offence - that is patently not what I am saying.

From your post:

“….but you know, with a very persuasive prosecutor, and a jury walking into court half thinking that it must be RA, I could could see a conviction with what they've got being eminently possible.”

I read it about six or seven times before. I just read it again. It still sounds offensive.
It’s your words though so I’ll apologize for whatever.
 
To the topic a few pages back regarding the timeline and its benefit to either the P or the D:

Four components go into the timeline. I list in terms of most flimsy to least flimsy. JMO
1) "A car resembling RA's '16 Focus was noted on the HH Store video camera at 1:27 heading westbound toward the CPS building". First off, it's not certain that was RA's car - it only resembled it, which likely means a generic dark-colored mid-size sedan was seen. Though westbound, nobody knows if this car stopped and parked at the CPS. Even if it was RA's car it's not known whether he was arriving or departing, just moving westbound. The D may actually use this sighting to say this could've been RA leaving around 1:30 as per his recent LE interviews. This component is virtually no evidence if standalone to P, but might add a sliver of corroborative evidence if the other 3 are proven.

2) "Mr.Allen was on the trail between 1330 and 1530" per the CO's interview notes. MOO the phrase "between 1330 and 1530" does not equal the phrase "arrived at 1330 and departed at 1530" despite the leap others have taken. Also "on the trail sometime between 1330 & 1530" does not equal "on the bridge between 1330 & 1530". While he does tell the CO he went to the MHB at some juncture, it does not mean that he couldn't have went to the bridge at 1:00, was still lingering out on the trails at 1:35 before leaving - and nothing in the CO's report would be incorrect. Since RA now apparently says his time at the site was more like noon to 1:30, and at no point has he ever admitted to being present on the abduction end of the bridge 1/4 mile from the near-end, nor down below the bridge, I think for P this is slightly more flimsy than not (though his admission of wearing generally the same clothing as BG is intriguing)

3) the Betsy Blair witnessing - RA does not admit to seeing her, so this is solely trusting BB's recollection for content. Her window of time is tight and not disputable as she's observed on HH video driving in at 1:46 and driving out at 2:14. Given the rest of commute to/from Mears and parking the car, her total exercise time at the park would not probably have exceeded 25 minutes. Within that 25 minutes she apparently walks straight from Mears to MHB which would had to have been in the 1:53-1:55 range. Had she walked straight back to her car (passing A&L in the process which she says she did), she'd have returned to car around 2:01-2:02... but that would've been too early per departure camera sighting so she must have either done a second round-trip (unlikely as she doesn't mention that plus she'd have seen more info), walked elsewhere beyond Mears (I haven't heard that specifically either but it's more plausible), or just puttered around at/in her car (following a 12-14 minute exercise) before driving off 10-15 minutes later (seems unlikely but maybe on her phone or something). Regardless, it's not doubted that she saw someone on the MHB in that 1:53-1:55 window, but who she describes per D memo as an age 20's poufy haired fellow is not RA/BG. She is quite confident in this description however describing the YBG sketch as 100% spot on as to who she saw. She also is quite sure the lone vehicle she saw at the CPS lot was not a dark-colored sedan but matched a 1965 Comet which her father drove when she was a little girl (probably infers she's 60-65 years old now if BB was 5-7 yrs old when Dad got the new Comet?). These descriptions of both the man on the bridge and the car in the lot paint a bit of an outlier picture that I'm not sure would stand up if her recall is questioned, though she may be right. Overall probably more helpful to P than the first 2, but not ideal.

4) encountering girls at/near Freedom Bridge - this one carries the most weight since RA states he passed a group (though of 3) girls, while the group of 4 girls, 3 being interviewed with assumedly the 4th being quite young, likewise state they encountered a man. There is also a prospect of a digital time stamp - otherwise I don't see where either RA or the girls state what time this encounter occurred. While it's generally assumed there is no 2nd man nor any 2nd group of girls, it's important however that neither side has picked the other(s) out of a lineup. RA really provides no descriptives of the girls he saw other than the number of 3 and that one (babysitter? MOO) was taller than the others. The girls' descriptives of the man are quite assorted and wouldn't be considered strong confirmations, though one does state he matched the person in L's video (BG), assumedly after seeing L's video. Again however P will have to convince a jury that RA is in fact BG, otherwise the one girl's statement that he matched L's video only incriminates BG, who we all expect is guilty, but not necessarily RA. Two photos, taken by one of the girls (BW), one at MHB with a timestamp of 12:43pm and another supposedly of a bench east of Freedom Bridge w/timestamp of 1:26 were shown (per SW affidavit) to LE in 2020, three years after the murders. Whether LE was shoddy in asking for existence of any photos earlier or BW wasn't forthcoming with photos earlier is quite the mystery to me, but this becomes the most key piece of the timeline now. BW states the 1:26 photo was taken then right after that the group moved on towards Freedom Bridge when the encounter with man occurred. If to be believed (and if P can be convincing of that) of course then the timeline shifts toward that encounter occurring no earlier than 1:30 and possibly as late as 1:41 per GH animated video timeline. Of course this nullifies RA leaving the trail system at 1:30.

Questions the D will undoubtedly pose would include:
a) are the timestamps reliable this long after the fact? could anything have been manipulated?
b) is the 1:26 bench distinctive such that it couldn't be confused with another bench elsewhere on the trail? Is that bench still there today?
c) can it be proven beyond BW's recall belief that the encounter occurred after the 1:26 photo and not before?
d) is RA truly the man these girls encountered? would there be doubt of a 2nd man at 1:40 or 2nd group of girls at a different earlier time? Is RA positive there were only 3 girls in the group he encountered?
e) is this the same group of 4 girls BB witnessed (presumed so) on the overpass above as she drove below?
f) if e) is Yes, how/why did these 4 girls suddenly ratchet up their pace such that they covered the .25 mile from the encounter spot to the overpass in 3-4 minutes [12-minute mile pace] when earlier it had taken them 43 minutes to cover the .5 of a mile from photo spot #1 to photo spot #2? then another 15 minutes for the .15 mile from photo spot #2 to the encounter spot? Altogether the girls were at the MHB at 12:43 and 58 minutes later at 1:41 were encountering a man only .65 mile from where they started at 12:43. It's noted the PCA states the distance from MHB to Freedom Bridge is .7 of one mile. I don't believe there were any swings, restrooms, playground equipment, etc to distract from the hiking trail as to why it would've taken them so long to walk so little unless something about the stamps are questionable. And assumedly they didn't pause to take additional photos or we'd know about them.
g) along the lines of pace, it's then assumed the man they encountered at 1:41 covers that .7 of ground in a rapid pace to be already on the first platform and not noticeably breathing heavily by the time BB hikes up at 1:53-1:55

Overall, I think the RA as BG timeline provides a lot of places for D to poke doubt. In the end, the P will have to prove that RA is BG - but I personally don't think the timeline, vehicle, RA admissions, supposed witnesses, or encounters can get the P to that point unless they're sitting on previously unannounced evidence.
 
Agree, more will come out at trial - again hopefully the whole truth.

Without saying it all again and building unintentional misunderstanding - I'm presenting the unsatisfactory scenario of the case as-is, with a supposition of what if that's truly all the state has - I know full well that more will come out at trial but when presented back with how the state's case looks to me with a cynical eye I keep being told by some 'the state definitely has more than this...' but what if it doesn't?

And yes I'm being provocative to say that I think that with the right jury and a good show from prosecution, what if they didn't need more to convince a jury? There's plenty of posters on here who have formed an opinion (totally within their rights that's what this is here for) based on what we've seen so far - who's to say some of the jury pool aren't the same mindset?

There's some who take everything that P and LE say to be gospel and the unimpeachable truth, and pour scorn and ridicule on everything that they D do. What if you end up with 12 of these mindsets on the jury? Equally could be the reverse I freely admit. But this ain't my first rodeo by a long shot and I've got a pretty good idea which is the more likely scenario.

This case had gone cold for a long time when many thought it would be solved pretty quickly. All of a sudden the state discovers a suspect and off to prison they go awaiting trial, with a waiting crowd of onlookers, many desperate for justice. That combined with IMO a state's case which is less than convincing so far following some examples of less than great LE crime scene work and investigation, my own opinion is that a rush to convict in these circumstances is potentially fraught with risk.

I'm just like everyone else - I want justice for the girls but not at the cost of the whole truth. Prosecution is there to seek justice not just a conviction.

FWIW, Expert testimony can change EVERYTHING.
Experts are deposed in advance, during discovery. Like maybe right now. JMO
 
To the topic a few pages back regarding the timeline and its benefit to either the P or the D:

Four components go into the timeline. I list in terms of most flimsy to least flimsy. JMO
1) "A car resembling RA's '16 Focus was noted on the HH Store video camera at 1:27 heading westbound toward the CPS building". First off, it's not certain that was RA's car - it only resembled it, which likely means a generic dark-colored mid-size sedan was seen. Though westbound, nobody knows if this car stopped and parked at the CPS. Even if it was RA's car it's not known whether he was arriving or departing, just moving westbound. The D may actually use this sighting to say this could've been RA leaving around 1:30 as per his recent LE interviews. This component is virtually no evidence if standalone to P, but might add a sliver of corroborative evidence if the other 3 are proven.

2) "Mr.Allen was on the trail between 1330 and 1530" per the CO's interview notes. MOO the phrase "between 1330 and 1530" does not equal the phrase "arrived at 1330 and departed at 1530" despite the leap others have taken. Also "on the trail sometime between 1330 & 1530" does not equal "on the bridge between 1330 & 1530". While he does tell the CO he went to the MHB at some juncture, it does not mean that he couldn't have went to the bridge at 1:00, was still lingering out on the trails at 1:35 before leaving - and nothing in the CO's report would be incorrect. Since RA now apparently says his time at the site was more like noon to 1:30, and at no point has he ever admitted to being present on the abduction end of the bridge 1/4 mile from the near-end, nor down below the bridge, I think for P this is slightly more flimsy than not (though his admission of wearing generally the same clothing as BG is intriguing)

3) the Betsy Blair witnessing - RA does not admit to seeing her, so this is solely trusting BB's recollection for content. Her window of time is tight and not disputable as she's observed on HH video driving in at 1:46 and driving out at 2:14. Given the rest of commute to/from Mears and parking the car, her total exercise time at the park would not probably have exceeded 25 minutes. Within that 25 minutes she apparently walks straight from Mears to MHB which would had to have been in the 1:53-1:55 range. Had she walked straight back to her car (passing A&L in the process which she says she did), she'd have returned to car around 2:01-2:02... but that would've been too early per departure camera sighting so she must have either done a second round-trip (unlikely as she doesn't mention that plus she'd have seen more info), walked elsewhere beyond Mears (I haven't heard that specifically either but it's more plausible), or just puttered around at/in her car (following a 12-14 minute exercise) before driving off 10-15 minutes later (seems unlikely but maybe on her phone or something). Regardless, it's not doubted that she saw someone on the MHB in that 1:53-1:55 window, but who she describes per D memo as an age 20's poufy haired fellow is not RA/BG. She is quite confident in this description however describing the YBG sketch as 100% spot on as to who she saw. She also is quite sure the lone vehicle she saw at the CPS lot was not a dark-colored sedan but matched a 1965 Comet which her father drove when she was a little girl (probably infers she's 60-65 years old now if BB was 5-7 yrs old when Dad got the new Comet?). These descriptions of both the man on the bridge and the car in the lot paint a bit of an outlier picture that I'm not sure would stand up if her recall is questioned, though she may be right. Overall probably more helpful to P than the first 2, but not ideal.

4) encountering girls at/near Freedom Bridge - this one carries the most weight since RA states he passed a group (though of 3) girls, while the group of 4 girls, 3 being interviewed with assumedly the 4th being quite young, likewise state they encountered a man. There is also a prospect of a digital time stamp - otherwise I don't see where either RA or the girls state what time this encounter occurred. While it's generally assumed there is no 2nd man nor any 2nd group of girls, it's important however that neither side has picked the other(s) out of a lineup. RA really provides no descriptives of the girls he saw other than the number of 3 and that one (babysitter? MOO) was taller than the others. The girls' descriptives of the man are quite assorted and wouldn't be considered strong confirmations, though one does state he matched the person in L's video (BG), assumedly after seeing L's video. Again however P will have to convince a jury that RA is in fact BG, otherwise the one girl's statement that he matched L's video only incriminates BG, who we all expect is guilty, but not necessarily RA. Two photos, taken by one of the girls (BW), one at MHB with a timestamp of 12:43pm and another supposedly of a bench east of Freedom Bridge w/timestamp of 1:26 were shown (per SW affidavit) to LE in 2020, three years after the murders. Whether LE was shoddy in asking for existence of any photos earlier or BW wasn't forthcoming with photos earlier is quite the mystery to me, but this becomes the most key piece of the timeline now. BW states the 1:26 photo was taken then right after that the group moved on towards Freedom Bridge when the encounter with man occurred. If to be believed (and if P can be convincing of that) of course then the timeline shifts toward that encounter occurring no earlier than 1:30 and possibly as late as 1:41 per GH animated video timeline. Of course this nullifies RA leaving the trail system at 1:30.

Questions the D will undoubtedly pose would include:
a) are the timestamps reliable this long after the fact? could anything have been manipulated?
b) is the 1:26 bench distinctive such that it couldn't be confused with another bench elsewhere on the trail? Is that bench still there today?
c) can it be proven beyond BW's recall belief that the encounter occurred after the 1:26 photo and not before?
d) is RA truly the man these girls encountered? would there be doubt of a 2nd man at 1:40 or 2nd group of girls at a different earlier time? Is RA positive there were only 3 girls in the group he encountered?
e) is this the same group of 4 girls BB witnessed (presumed so) on the overpass above as she drove below?
f) if e) is Yes, how/why did these 4 girls suddenly ratchet up their pace such that they covered the .25 mile from the encounter spot to the overpass in 3-4 minutes [12-minute mile pace] when earlier it had taken them 43 minutes to cover the .5 of a mile from photo spot #1 to photo spot #2? then another 15 minutes for the .15 mile from photo spot #2 to the encounter spot? Altogether the girls were at the MHB at 12:43 and 58 minutes later at 1:41 were encountering a man only .65 mile from where they started at 12:43. It's noted the PCA states the distance from MHB to Freedom Bridge is .7 of one mile. I don't believe there were any swings, restrooms, playground equipment, etc to distract from the hiking trail as to why it would've taken them so long to walk so little unless something about the stamps are questionable. And assumedly they didn't pause to take additional photos or we'd know about them.
g) along the lines of pace, it's then assumed the man they encountered at 1:41 covers that .7 of ground in a rapid pace to be already on the first platform and not noticeably breathing heavily by the time BB hikes up at 1:53-1:55

Overall, I think the RA as BG timeline provides a lot of places for D to poke doubt. In the end, the P will have to prove that RA is BG - but I personally don't think the timeline, vehicle, RA admissions, supposed witnesses, or encounters can get the P to that point unless they're sitting on previously unannounced evidence.
I am confident the P is sitting on a bunch of evidence we don't know about, especially because of the gag order. We will know how they dismissed other POI's and a bunch of other accusations made by the D in their infamous Memo.

We will also hear about testing from items recovered from RA's home during the SW's.

JMO
 
None of us have seen all the evidence.
Your thoughts that the only way RA could be found guilty is for twelve jurors to get sucked in by a fast talking prosecutor or to have falsely sworn that they could weigh the evidence presented in court impartially, is pretty offensive.
It would be equally offensive if RA was found not guilty by slick talking defense attorneys, and by a jury walking into court half believing the defense’s Odinist fantasy or that DNA is the only true indication of guilt.
It is very possible that RA will be found guilty by the merits of the case.
Let’s go to trial.
Why be offended?

I think it's no secret that most law-abiding people favor the prosecution side, believe in what they say, feel strongly that they would not arrest an innocent person. I don't see why it's offensive to think that they could be easily swayed.

I've only listened to 3 or so jury selections but I did hear people questioned about their interactions with police and what transpired. Do their answers eliminate them from the pool? If I was a prospective juror and I told them I've followed The Innocence Project, read about exonerations and generally didn't trust that side anymore, would they let people like me sit on the jury? Probably not.

OTOH, I don't remember asking prospective jurors questions as to their feelings about the defense side. They probably do and I missed it. Have you heard such questions?

I will say this: I would NOT want to be a hold-out juror in this heinous case.
 
The text of the document itself reads, "LG and AW had no visible signs of a struggle or fight." I took that to mean possibly no visible defensive wounds on either victim.

JMO

Yes, and IMO, if we take that information a few things one might conclude:

Killer controlled victims w/ gun and controlled their actions/gave them instructions. Humiliating horrifying instructions. On a very cold day.

This control, the instructions, the spectacle ... the drive to perform these heinous acts ... was about the satisfaction the killer got from these actions. The satisfaction ... is the entire point.

Both forced to undress, one was re-dressed but re-dressed in the other's clothing. In the end, both victims were killed efficiently and died quickly by manner of a fatal knife slash.


*****
Beyond that ... should hard evidence be scarce then ...

What kind of guy - what kind of psych condition - demands such control and humiliation and horror in young women serves as relief/satisfaction.

What kind of guy has the skill to kill so efficiently?

What kind of guy carries all he needs for this crime on him on a hike on a nice day, a school holiday, in that particular park with knowledge of a hidden kill-spot a mere 1/4 mile from the old bridge, and comes and goes barely noticed - if noticed at all?

Who is this guy every other day? How often did he take the same walk thinking about, waiting for the right opportunity. How did he know the lay of the land, the creek, etc.?

On every other day ... what triggers him at home or at work? Is he odd? Is he warm? Is he a misogynist?

Was it just coincidence his victims were at the right place at the right time; just waiting for the right moment on one of his hikes?

Or had this killer done his research, lured, knew who was going where when?

******

If there's little physical evidence, perhaps P can match RA to a psych profile ... based on other facts from his life ... to help erase reasonable doubt. (Such as: all the women working with him at CVS testify they were afraid to be left alone with him.)

*****
Does anyone know if stock ticker apps keep records of an individual browsers' access ad infinitum?
Can't remember - In what context did RA mention that he used his phone to check stocks on a park hike? Perhaps LE asked witnesses on the trail if they took pictures or had some type of time stamp for their time there that day.
 
Yes, and IMO, if we take that information a few things one might conclude:

Killer controlled victims w/ gun and controlled their actions/gave them instructions. Humiliating horrifying instructions. On a very cold day.

This control, the instructions, the spectacle ... the drive to perform these heinous acts ... was about the satisfaction the killer got from these actions. The satisfaction ... is the entire point.

Both forced to undress, one was re-dressed but re-dressed in the other's clothing. In the end, both victims were killed efficiently and died quickly by manner of a fatal knife slash.


*****
Beyond that ... should hard evidence be scarce then ...

What kind of guy - what kind of psych condition - demands such control and humiliation and horror in young women serves as relief/satisfaction.

What kind of guy has the skill to kill so efficiently?

What kind of guy carries all he needs for this crime on him on a hike on a nice day, a school holiday, in that particular park with knowledge of a hidden kill-spot a mere 1/4 mile from the old bridge, and comes and goes barely noticed - if noticed at all?

Who is this guy every other day? How often did he take the same walk thinking about, waiting for the right opportunity. How did he know the lay of the land, the creek, etc.?

On every other day ... what triggers him at home or at work? Is he odd? Is he warm? Is he a misogynist?

Was it just coincidence his victims were at the right place at the right time; just waiting for the right moment on one of his hikes?

Or had this killer done his research, lured, knew who was going where when?

******

If there's little physical evidence, perhaps P can match RA to a psych profile ... based on other facts from his life ... to help erase reasonable doubt. (Such as: all the women working with him at CVS testify they were afraid to be left alone with him.)

*****
Does anyone know if stock ticker apps keep records of an individual browsers' access ad infinitum?
Can't remember - In what context did RA mention that he used his phone to check stocks on a park hike? Perhaps LE asked witnesses on the trail if they took pictures or had some type of time stamp for their time there that day.
About the stocks: if he was a day trader, I don't think it would be unusual for him to be checking them wherever he was. A lot of money can be made or lost in a very short period of time.
 
I'm in over my head with forensic pathologists. Are all murder cases sent to one?

I could only find a list of current FPs in IN but I think there were some that were closer than Kohr in 2017. I have this list, which I believe were the counties that he served: Clay, Greene, Monroe, Montgomery, Owen, Parke, Putnam, Sullivan, Vermillion and Vigo. My older map shows these are in Area 7 of the Indiana Health Districts.

Anyway, that made me wonder if it was his specialties that made Carroll Co decide to send him there. Asphyxia caught my eye.

Specialty Expertise
Dr. Roland Meredith Kohr has the following 4 areas of expertise
Tissue Biopsy
Blood Testing
Fluid Testing
Asphyxia

From my understanding, it varies from state to state. A coroner is elected. A forensic pathologist holds an M.D. and typically in the cases of any nefarious death (like homicide) a forensic pathologist would be contacted. A medical examiner can also be a forensic pathologist and/or have specialty in a forensic field; although in some jurisdictions the (elected) coroner can apparently act as a medical examiner.
 
Some days I wake up with a bunch of Q's.

today's Q's ... "as to possible others"

Quick Q #1:
Was RL cleared?
Follow-up: What if a POI hasn't been cleared but has died?
(No obligation clear them? Does it take paperwork to clear them? Maybe they can't clear him so they won't? Maybe they're using his witness statements? )

Quick Q #2:
Is LE obligated to finally clear other POIs once a guilty verdict is reached for the suspect they arraigned? (PW needs to know.)

Q #3:
Other POIs - What if a former POI hasn't been cleared but has provided witness statement with regard to RA? They're still a POI. Right?

Q #4:
Didn't LE - in a presser near RA arraignment day - say they were holding open other cases and believed others could be/were involved in this crime? Were they speaking of another known POI? Or were they speaking of someone they've not found yet. argh.

Q #5: Have they mentioned "possibility others involved" since that RA announcement LE presser?
oops. I'll answer # 5: NO. Duh. Gag order.

Q #6: I missed this PW name (recent interview guy) as a POI. Perhaps he was never announced to public? Likely there's many POIs we've not heard of. I do think Patrick - should he speak with counsel - will likely find LE can keep a list of POI's with anyone on it for any amount of time they see fit.
BUT - let's see if someone with know-how answers Q#2 above.

moo

Thanks in advance for any answers - or thoughts/advice about why I shouldn't have that Q anymore.

Random and also MOO: Finding RA by digging up a pile of old notes is such a weird story ... these days you'd think some mad cyber-forensics would nail the next POI but ... perhaps there is magic in the old notes/fresh eyes still.
 
From your post:

“….but you know, with a very persuasive prosecutor, and a jury walking into court half thinking that it must be RA, I could could see a conviction with what they've got being eminently possible.”

I read it about six or seven times before. I just read it again. It still sounds offensive.
It’s your words though so I’ll apologize for whatever.
I interpreted this comment as meaning a jury who came in 50-50 (undecided), which is ideally how you would want a jury. JMO
 
I interpreted this comment as meaning a jury who came in 50-50 (undecided), which is ideally how you would want a jury. JMO

If a juror was honest during the selection process, that person would not be selected if they half thought it must be RA. A thought, even a 50% perhaps, is an opinion.

If the members of the jury are permitted to separate during the trial, the court shall admonish the jurors that it is their duty not to form or express among themselves an opinion on the cause until the cause is finally submitted to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
1,939
Total visitors
2,024

Forum statistics

Threads
602,489
Messages
18,141,099
Members
231,409
Latest member
relaxininaz
Back
Top