IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170

[Emma Peel]

When JG did her doc dump, I copied the CCS through June 22, 2023 with the thought of joining the documents with their entry dates. I deleted all of the scheduling activities and automated emails; then I grouped the entries by date. I'll be able to tell if she has updated any of those entries unless it's an item that is included as part of the entry ( like the things only attys can see).
Here it is if anyone wants it.

smart.
(has Wieneke called to hire you yet?)

 

[photographer4]

Thank you for this. BR's request indicates to me that the original recording might be the stenographers notes that were later transcribed, and not an "audio" recording. If so this is unfortunate. I would have loved to hear the tone in that meeting. I also wonder if the judge ordered her ultimatum off the record before she issued them in chambers, meaning whether she told the court reporter stop typing for a minute right now.

With respect to Hennessy's filing he mentions two in-chambers sessions. I did not know there were two in-chambers meeting that day. Hmmm.

jmo

Could she legally have done a "off the record right now" moment? How the heck does that then all get resolved if it wasn't even noted by the court reporter??

 

[Jurisprudence]

When JG did her doc dump, I copied the CCS through June 22, 2023 with the thought of joining the documents with their entry dates. I deleted all of the scheduling activities and automated emails; then I grouped the entries by date. I'll be able to tell if she has updated any of those entries unless it's an item that is included as part of the entry ( like the things only attys can see).
Here it is if anyone wants it.

So all of this information (and more) that is on the docket now (post Writ filing) was missing from the docket pre-writ filing? Is that right? Or is this part of the info you deleted?

 

[FrostedGlass]

View attachment 458229

So all of this information (and more) that is on the docket now (post Writ filing) was missing from the docket pre-writ filing? Is that right? Or is this part of the info you deleted?

I deleted all of the scheduling activities and and the automated emails. I didn't think those had anything to do with the docs that were released in the dump.

What is on my list is everything that was entered into record from the beginning until the date of my last entry.

 

[Emma Peel]

almost done listening to MW on MS and I've decided that his affidavit didn't make it to the docket b/c it exceeded the the state's cyber-storage capacity.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I want to coordinate the items in the doc dump with the CCS like I've done here with recent filings:

10/26/2023
Praecipe for Transcript Filed
Praecipe for Transcript
Filed By:Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:10/25/2023
PRAECIPE FOR TRANSCRIPT Filed by Rozzi

Allen Praecipepdf.pdf

drive.google.com

10/27/2023
Praecipe for Transcript Filed
Praecipe
Filed By:Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:10/27/2023
PRAECIPE for chamber transcripts hearing 10/19 Filed by Hennessy for Baldwin

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[Jurisprudence]

Gag order issued December 2022
Made permanent (says 1/13/2023) docketed 1/23

Gag order covers LE




Barbara MacDonald said twice on Court TV that LE investigators were giving her information.
1. Delphi Murders | The Clues Left Behind (11:34)
2. Richard Allen: Odinists 'Sacrificed' Delphi Teens (40:55)

Was the state ever reprimanded or sanctioned for violating the gag order? Was this ever looked into or raised?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPH68rI-hz8&t=11s

 

[FrostedGlass]

Could she legally have done a "off the record right now" moment? How the heck does that then all get resolved if it wasn't even noted by the court reporter??

The D would surely have objected to that, wouldn't they?

 

[sunshineray]

You very well could be right sunshineray, I will have to reread the doc, which I'm loathe to do. Either way though, "Andy" is referenced and that is not a good thing.

I do wonder why would AB have MW's back if he did such a horribly unethical thing, putting one of his very high profile cases in jeopardy? I find it all highly suspect.

MOO

As do I.

 

[girlhasnoname]

As do I.

I guess we'll have to wait until Nov 15th now. That's okay, I have a lot more faith in the conduct and actions of Judge Gull than I do these two, especially AB. Gross misconduct by these 'lawyers' is an understatement, they've oozed slimy and reckless to me from day one.

I've never felt this particular way about a Defense Lawyer(s) on any other case. I've seen some hard charging, strong and unrelenting Defense Attorneys before and I have respected that, but this is something completely different to me, just wrong in a very bad way.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

I guess we'll have to wait until Nov 15th now. That's okay, I have a lot more faith in the conduct and actions of Judge Gull than I do these two, especially AB. Gross misconduct by these 'lawyers' is an understatement, they've oozed slimy and reckless to me from day one.

I've never felt this particular way about a Defense Lawyer(s) on any other case. I've seen some hard charging, strong and unrelenting Defense Attorneys before and I have respected that, but this is something completely different to me, just wrong in a very bad way.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

With respect, a Judge empowered with running a Fair Trial, who fails to maintain a legally compliant record for a double murder trial such that the accused would lose the option of an appellate review ... and who orders a 6th Amendment violation in favor of a Franks hearing ...

... is the definition of gross negligence. JHMO

 

[Tealgrove]

I guess we'll have to wait until Nov 15th now. That's okay, I have a lot more faith in the conduct and actions of Judge Gull than I do these two, especially AB. Gross misconduct by these 'lawyers' is an understatement, they've oozed slimy and reckless to me from day one.

I've never felt this particular way about a Defense Lawyer(s) on any other case. I've seen some hard charging, strong and unrelenting Defense Attorneys before and I have respected that, but this is something completely different to me, just wrong in a very bad way.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

I agree 100%.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I'm 100% with you on doxing the other POI's. REDACT REDACT REDACT.

However, I don't agree the the D is accusing other POI's.

The D will attempt to raise doubt taking a microscope to LE's 7 year investigation's process, investigation lines abandoned, and investigation conclusions with regard to a variety of other POI's that were investigated. Maybe even some that weren't investigated.

And that's the D's job. The P's job is to knock all that stuff down as frivolous with LE testimony, facts, experts, P's argument skills. The P did this in his filed Answer.

In their memorandum, RA’s original defense team most definitely openly accused and named another POI of involvement in the murders. Over and over. It was repeated in MSM.

“The Defense believes that the Court will be shocked at the number of clues or ‘easter eggs,’ both before and after the murders, that Holder openly posted on his Facebook page that pointed the finger to his involvement in the murders.”

What is Odinism, and is it connected to the Delphi murders?

Odinism is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

www.newsnationnow.com

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Reading up on tool mark analysis re: unspent bullet, here are some articles on the topic I found interesting.

Spoiler

Melissa Oberg, the forensic scientist who identified the unfired bullet to Allen's gun, was once the treasurer of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners. Their website shares their "AFTE Theory of Identification as it relates to Toolmarks":

1. The theory of identification as it pertains to the comparison of toolmarks enables opinions of common origin to be made when the unique surface contours of two toolmarks are in “sufficient agreement”.
2. This “sufficient agreement” is related to the significant duplication of random toolmarks as evidence by the correspondence of a pattern or combination of patterns of surface contours. Significance is determined by the comparative examination of two or more sets of surface contour patterns comprised of individual peaks, ridges and furrows. Specifically, the relative height or depth, width, curvature and spatial relationship of the individual peaks, ridges and furrows within one set of surface contours are defined and compared to the corresponding features in the second set of surface contours. Agreement is significant when the agreement in individual characteristics exceeds the best agreement demonstrated between toolmarks known to have been produced by different tools and is consistent with agreement demonstrated by toolmarks known to have been produced by the same tool. The statement that “sufficient agreement” exists between two toolmarks means that the agreement of individual characteristics is of a quantity and quality that the likelihood another tool could have made the mark is so remote as to be considered a practical impossibility.
3. Currently the interpretation of individualization/identification is subjective in nature, founded on scientific principles and based on the examiner’s training and experience.

Ms. Oberg's certificate of analysis also states the subjective nature of the analysis.

The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed

The matching of bullets to guns is subjective, and courts are starting to question it because of testimony from scientific experts

www.scientificamerican.com

Existing studies, however, count inconclusive responses as correct (i.e., “not errors”) without any explanation or justification. These inconclusive responses have a huge impact on the reported error rates. In the Ames I study, for example, the researchers reported a false positive error rate of 1 percent. But here’s how they got to that: of the 2,178 comparisons they made between nonmatching cartridge cases, 65 percent of the comparisons were correctly called “eliminations.” The other 34 percent of the comparisons were called “inconclusive”, but instead of keeping them as their own category, the researchers lumped them in with eliminations, leaving 1 percent as what they called their false-positive rate. If, however, those inconclusive responses are errors, then the error rate would be 35 percent. Seven years later, the Ames Laboratory conducted another study, known as Ames II, using the same methodology and reported false positive error rates for bullet and cartridge case comparisons of less than 1 percent. However, when calling inconclusive responses as incorrect instead of correct, the overall error rate skyrockets to 52 percent.

The most telling findings came from subsequent phases of the Ames II study in which researchers sent the same items back to the same examiner to re-evaluate and then to different examiners to see whether results could be repeated by the same examiner or reproduced by another. The findings were shocking: The same examiner looking at the same bullets a second time reached the same conclusion only two thirds of the time. Different examiners looking at the same bullets reached the same conclusion less than one third of the time. So much for getting a second opinion! And yet firearms examiners continue to appear in court claiming that studies of firearms identification demonstrate an exceedingly low error rate.

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition (2011)

Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise--Paul C. Giannelli, Edward J. Imwinkelried, and Joseph L. Peterson | Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise--Paul C. Giannelli, Edward J. Imwinkelried, and Joseph L. Peterson: The Reference Manual...

nap.nationalacademies.org

Footnote 247: However, bullet and cartridge case identifications differ in several respects. Because the bullet is traveling through the barrel at the time it is imprinted with the bore imperfections, these marks are “sliding” imprints, called striated marks. In contrast, the cartridge case receives “static” imprints, called impressed marks.

However, the markings on a bullet or cartridge case are imprinted in roughly the same way every time a firearm is fired. In contrast, toolmark analysis can be more complicated because a tool can be employed in a variety of different ways, each producing a different mark: “in toolmark work the angle at which the tool was used must be duplicated in the test standard, pressures must be dealt with, and the degree of hardness of metals and other materials must be taken into account.”

As with firearms identification testimony, toolmark identification testimony is based on the subjective judgment of the examiner, who determines whether sufficient marks of similarity are present to permit an identification.258 There are no objective criteria governing the determination of whether there is a match.

Over the entire 1978–2005 period, fewer than 5% of responses were in error, but individual test results varied substantially. In some cases, 30% to 40% of replies were inconclusive, because laboratories were unsure if the blade of the tool in question might have been altered between the time(s) different markings had been made. During the final 6-year period reviewed (2000–2005), laboratories averaged a 1% incorrect comparison rate for toolmarks. Inconclusive responses remained high (30% and greater) and, together with firearms testing, constitute the evidence category where evidence comparisons have the highest rates of inconclusive responses.

Questions have arisen concerning the significance of these tests. First, such testing is not required of all firearms examiners, only those working in laboratories voluntarily seeking accreditation by the ASCLD. In short, “the sample is self-selecting and may not be representative of the complete universe of firearms examiners.”265 Second, the examinations are not blind—that is, examiners know when they are being tested. Thus, the examiner may be more meticulous and careful than in ordinary case work. Third, the results of an evaluation can vary, depending on whether an “inconclusive” answer is counted. Fourth, the rigor of the examinations has been questioned. According to one witness, in a 2005 test involving cartridge case comparisons, none of the 255 test-takers nationwide answered incorrectly. The court observed: “One could read these results to mean that the technique is foolproof, but the results might instead indicate that the test was somewhat elementary.

There's also very interesting case law examples but I didn't quote that because this paper is from 2011 and I feel that there's likely plenty of developments since then.

Ballistic Imaging (2008)

Ballistic Imaging | The National Academies Press

Read online, download a free PDF, or order a copy in print or as an eBook.

nap.nationalacademies.org

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (2016)

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

Foundational validity. PCAST finds that firearms analysis currently falls short of the criteria for foundational validity, because there is only a single appropriately designed study to measure validity and estimate reliability. The scientific criteria for foundational validity require more than one such study, to demonstrate reproducibility.
Whether firearms analysis should be deemed admissible based on current evidence is a decision that belongs to the courts.
If firearms analysis is allowed in court, the scientific criteria for validity as applied should be understood to require clearly reporting the error rates seen in appropriately designed black-box studies (estimated at 1 in 66, with a 95 percent confidence limit of 1 in 46, in the one such study to date)

Validity as applied. If firearms analysis is allowed in court, validity as applied would, from a scientific standpoint, require that the expert:
(1) has undergone rigorous proficiency testing on a large number of test problems to evaluate his or her capability and performance, and discloses the results of the proficiency testing; and
(2) discloses whether, when performing the examination, he or she was aware of any other facts of the case that might influence the conclusion.

 

[Emma Peel]

In their memorandum, RA’s original defense team most definitely openly accused and named another POI of involvement in the murders. Over and over. It was repeated in MSM.

“The Defense believes that the Court will be shocked at the number of clues or ‘easter eggs,’ both before and after the murders, that Holder openly posted on his Facebook page that pointed the finger to his involvement in the murders.”

What is Odinism, and is it connected to the Delphi murders?

Odinism is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

www.newsnationnow.com

Again, I disagree w/ the doxing vehemently.

As to MSM, this is one sentence quoted from what ? 136 pages? (LOL)
The point being, context is everything.
IMO, this topic/discussion in the memo addresses holes/errors/incompetence in the LE investigation.
(The Court will be shocked at ... how inadequate LE's investigation of this Rune area was.)
D's purpose is get this Rune topic admitted and on the Court table for trial.

JHMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Reading up on tool mark analysis re: unspent bullet, here are some articles on the topic I found interesting.

Spoiler

Melissa Oberg, the forensic scientist who identified the unfired bullet to Allen's gun, was once the treasurer of the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners. Their website shares their "AFTE Theory of Identification as it relates to Toolmarks":

Ms. Oberg's certificate of analysis also states the subjective nature of the analysis.

The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed

The matching of bullets to guns is subjective, and courts are starting to question it because of testimony from scientific experts

www.scientificamerican.com

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition (2011)

Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise--Paul C. Giannelli, Edward J. Imwinkelried, and Joseph L. Peterson | Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition | The National Academies Press

Read chapter Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise--Paul C. Giannelli, Edward J. Imwinkelried, and Joseph L. Peterson: The Reference Manual...

nap.nationalacademies.org

There's also very interesting case law examples but I didn't quote that because this paper is from 2011 and I feel that there's likely plenty of developments since then.

Ballistic Imaging (2008)

Ballistic Imaging | The National Academies Press

Read online, download a free PDF, or order a copy in print or as an eBook.

nap.nationalacademies.org

View attachment 458276View attachment 458277View attachment 458278

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (2016)

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf

View attachment 458279

Thanks for sharing your research.

Have you come across anything that addresses identifying a casing match to a specific individual gun when the casing was ejected from a gun five years prior to the identification testing?

i.e. When a gun is used over 5 years, do the casing markings change over time and use?

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

It's my understanding that the gag order has nothing to do with the Franks motion. The gag order refers to extra-judicial statements. See pg 44 in the link.

I'd have to dig through a bunch of filings to show you the rules of sealing documents or you can look them up. We do have them and we need to be sure those rules are followed. Do you have any idea of how long records can be sealed and what it sometimes takes to get them unsealed?

After months of reading peoples' feelings about RA sitting in prison, it's good to suddenly see a little concern about his constitutional rights as an innocent man in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

I have great concern for the girls' families, now and in the future.

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

It was my understanding too from previous reading that the Franks motion was an exception to the gag order.

 

[mrjitty]

The point about the Franks motion is they included all the irrelevant tosh about Odinism, sensitive crime scene details and accused people of murder - all of which has nothing to do with a Franks motion

They should have filed a clean motion, and if they wanted to file the other parts of the motion (which relates to what legal application exactly?) it should have been under seal so it could be redacted.

 

[sunshineray]

It was my understanding too from previous reading that the Franks motion was an exception to the gag order.

If it had been just a challenge to the search warrant maybe but that motion went way beyond the boundries of that.

It described many details of the crime scene that were confidential. People don't realize how that can now compromise investigators and even the defendant.

It also named 5 local men, where they lived and accused them of double murder.

It named witnesses and explained what they saw and where.

It laid out in great detail what the defense's strategy for trial was going to be.

It was a travesty of a Franks motion and was subsequently sealed. It never should have been filed with all that in it. The D was grossly negligent.

AJMO

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

As best as I understand it, the ex-employee and trusted friend of B’s was invited to discuss the case as the office often engages in a collaborative approach. But instead he was snookered by this trusted friend who copied photos and shared confidential info with a 2nd friend. This 2nd friend shared it with one or more other people, who passed it along to Murder Sheet. At that point the 3rd party involved agreed with MS that the matter be turned over to LE including the FB messages illustrating the chain of events.

There was an earlier leak B had admitted to involving an email listing discovery docs and photos that was sent to a guy who B had earlier been in contact with, who was very vocal on FB and had filed a lawsuit against LE in Delphi. The FB messages pertaining to this latest leak indicated a plot to frame this same guy to make it appear as if he was the leaker, thereby protecting the identity of those who were involved.

What was the purpose? That’s not real clear but MS stated depending on what one believed, one could probably see whatever they wanted to validate an opinion.

Shortly after LE questioned the 2nd guy, he tragically took his life. Will the trusted friend of B be charged? Hasn’t happened yet, who knows.

This is just my perception the information which I read, others may disagree.

I perceive this situation very similar to you. JMP, as you said, I think AB and the ex-employee collaborated or at least AB liked to bounce ideas and get feedback from him with the understanding that due to the gag order the printed pictures and documents could not be copied and disseminated outside the office. I suppose he put blind faith in his friend and former employee.

Unfortunately AB’s trust was betrayed by his friend who seemed to know that AB’s hard copy of the discovery was not locked in his office or his file cabinet, at least not during the work day, when he found it more convenient to keep the door unlocked so he could walk in and out without the hassle. When AB was absent and unaware the ex-employee made copies to share with a friend or connect who in turned shared it with multiple people, including the individual who would inform MS and shared the pictures with them and possibly others.

IMO they knew they were breaking the law due to the gag order which is why they seem to draw out vows to protect each other should their identities and actions become public or discovered by LE. Others online have mentioned that it is possible that man from Fishers probably felt overwhelmed and distressed with the implications of he and his family losing his position, benefits and place among the U.S. Air Force base if he was found guilty or linked to the crime.