Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #198

[Ravenmoon]

I strongly disagree, forensics can tell the difference between a piece of fiber and a hair. Given the fact that it’s not connected to RA that would mean they got a dna profile from it to rule it out as his.

Bob Motta says the hair is human.

How does Bob Motta know?

 

[Melted]

I really don't see how.
If it was the smoking gun that will exonerate RA the Defense would have written it in neon on all 5 of the Franks Memorandums.


JMO

They could have possibly been waiting for the tests against Richard Allen’s dna to come back.

In no circumstance whatsoever is a hair IN a murder victims hand that doesn’t match the suspect not a nightmare for the prosecutions

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Oh I don’t think (this is my opinion) that there would be a chance at all of appeal on grounds of ineffective counsel. These are excellent attorneys, in my opinion. If he’s convicted, the appeals will come for other reasons, in my opinion.

If he's convicted, do you think these attorneys will handle the appeals...or the two that were in the "Due Process Gang"?

 

[sunshineray]

I strongly disagree, forensics can tell the difference between a piece of fiber and a hair. Given the fact that it’s not connected to RA that would mean they got a dna profile from it to rule it out as his.

Bob Motta says the hair is human.

So says the FM and the "Due Process Gang". That does not make it true or the whole story. The trial will tell. MO

 

[Ravenmoon]

They could have possibly been waiting for the tests against Richard Allen’s dna to come back.

In no circumstance whatsoever is a hair IN a murder victims hand that doesn’t match the suspect not a nightmare for the prosecutions

JMO

I disagree.
It could have been Kelsi's, Becky's, Kathy's, RAs daughter, Libby's, etc
The hair in Abby's hand is probably of no consequence.

JMO

 

[Melted]

I disagree.
It could have been Kelsi's, Becky's, Kathy's, RAs daughter, Libby's, etc
The hair in Abby's hand is probably of no consequence.

JMO

This is just my opinion and I may be overreaching here but I would like to believe that law enforcement were savvy enough to test the DNA against these people. If they didn’t do that, they have bigger problems than the hair.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I disagree.
It could have been Kelsi's, Becky's, Kathy's, RAs daughter, Libby's, etc
The hair in Abby's hand is probably of no consequence.

JMO

Anybody riding in Kelsei's car or borrowing her sweatshirt. If Abby brought that sweatshirt from Libby's house, a whole new set of maybes. MO

 

[Ravenmoon]

This is just my opinion and I may be overreaching here but I would like to believe that law enforcement were savvy enough to test the DNA against these people. If they didn’t do that, they have bigger problems than the hair.

JMO

Who says that they didn't test it?
All that the defense stated is that it doesn't belong to RA

 

[m00c0w]

They could have possibly been waiting for the tests against Richard Allen’s dna to come back.

In no circumstance whatsoever is a hair IN a murder victims hand that doesn’t match the suspect not a nightmare for the prosecutions

JMO

There are many such scenarios - crime scene contamination, it belonging to a relative, it not being human, it belonging to either girl… the fact this was never brought up by the defense before now says everything, in my opinion. You don’t wait until jury selection to reveal a bombshell that would implicate third parties and potentially get your client off before trial even starts.

It will turn out to be like many things the defense has claimed - a lot of smoke and mirrors. Just like the runes, lack of blood at the crime scene, random people entering the crime scene based on incorrect cellular analysis… Just things meant to grab media attention and try to sway the public.

All my opinion.

 

[SouthEnd]

Who says that they didn't test it?
All that the defense stated is that it doesn't belong to RA

I agree. In the article about the spending we saw a line for FGG (forensic genetic genealogy) the prosecution spent 20-odd-K on. I sincerely doubt anything came out of it.

All MOO

 

[sunshineray]

This is just my opinion and I may be overreaching here but I would like to believe that law enforcement were savvy enough to test the DNA against these people. If they didn’t do that, they have bigger problems than the hair.

JMO

If Kelsei had that sweatshirt in her car, like a car sweatshirt, there when you need it (I keep a jacket, hat and gloves in my cat in the Winter) the possibilities could be many and random. JMO

 

[Melted]

Who says that they didn't test it?
All that the defense stated is that it doesn't belong to RA

That’s my point, is that they tested it and I’m sure they cross checked the family as they did take their DNA.

Forensics can tell the difference between human and animal hair ( https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/file/877741/dl )

Which tells us that it is of an unknown human, I would love to meet a prosecutor who wouldn’t agree that an unknown hair in the murder victim’s hand that doesn’t match the suspect isn’t a complete nightmare.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

In my opinion:

The hair = whose it is will play out later.
The big story here now is: It is not a RA match.

After all the stuff that child had been through, the hair she clutched in her hand did not belong to RA.

 

[TTF14]

If he's convicted, do you think these attorneys will handle the appeals...or the two that were in the "Due Process Gang"?

I would imagine appellate attorneys from the state RA lives in would handle it. And, as always, this is JMO.

 

[Boxer]

The defense is calling Doug Carter as a witness? Any thoughts on that?!

jmo

Sure. They will still be "you didn't investigate xyz, why?"

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I wonder if any of the witnesses picked RA out of a picture lineup?

A photo linup with RA's driver's license photo could only have been done after he was a suspect, far too long after the crime was commited. A routine question to witnesses when their statements are taken "Would you be able to identify the person if seen again, or a photo of that person"? You can't show them a picture years later and expect it to be admissable in court and you could never do it once his name was announced. There is a lot of case law that applies to photo lineups and some depts have even stricter policies. They would have had to disclose that they did one.

 

[loveplace]

That’s my point, is that they tested it and I’m sure they cross checked the family as they did take their DNA.

Forensics can tell the difference between human and animal hair ( https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/file/877741/dl )

Which tells us that it is of an unknown human, I would love to meet a prosecutor who wouldn’t agree that an unknown hair in the murder victim’s hand that doesn’t match the suspect isn’t a complete nightmare.

JMO

Assuming (and I do) that they tested it and compared to known samples doesn't correlate with the idea that we would KNOW what the results are at this point. We only know what the defense shared and they aren't likely to let slip things that make it seem innocuous even if it is. JMO

 

[AugustWest]

If he's convicted, do you think these attorneys will handle the appeals...or the two that were in the "Due Process Gang"?

Baldwin, Rozzi, Auger will likely not handle any appeals. Appellate lawyers normally only practice that specific type of law and vice versa. Trial lawyers don't address appellate issues.

 

[Ravenmoon]

That’s my point, is that they tested it and I’m sure they cross checked the family as they did take their DNA.

Forensics can tell the difference between human and animal hair ( https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/file/877741/dl )

Which tells us that it is of an unknown human, I would love to meet a prosecutor who wouldn’t agree that an unknown hair in the murder victim’s hand that doesn’t match the suspect isn’t a complete nightmare.

JMO

You are jumping to conclusions.
It's possible that they know EXACTLY who that hair belongs to.
They are trying to mislead the jury with a lack of clarity IMO.

EBM to add nowhere in my response to you did I say that it was animal hair.

 

[m00c0w]

In my opinion:

The hair = whose it is will play out later.
The big story here now is: It is not a RA match.

After all the stuff that child had been through, the hair she clutched in her hand did not belong to RA.

We don’t know anything about this hair, much less if it was “clutched”, among other things. I can think of zero reasons why such a smoking gun that would be a “nightmare for the prosecution” would be completely unmentioned until the day before the jury gets sequestered.

Doesn’t make a ton of sense if your goal is to actually defend your client in court with actual admissible evidence.

All my opinion.