Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why?That makes two of us.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
I know just enough to be dangerous, so take it with a grain of salt...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'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?they have yet to establish that it absolutely has been cycled through the specific gun owned by him.
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.
My feeling is it's N'Odin.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.
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.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 ...
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.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.
^BBMYou'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...
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.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 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.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.
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.
^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.”
AC said a mouthful here:
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.