Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #212

Status
Not open for further replies.
lol. This bit was confusing because Rozzi absolutely did ask him to write a report and hired him as an expert. I think maybe Waren's response here is misreporting or Rozzi actually asked Waren if Rozzi asked him WHAT to write in his report and that bit is inaccurate reporting.

That question would make good sense and I agree this is probably another misquote.

It was the ‘I was in Morocco’ response that had me chuckling, have to admire the guy for being totally forthright with the reason the P didn’t depose him. JMO
 
Wow, I’d say this jury knows guns!


Court is back in session at 11:31 a.m. There have been delays in getting the pool notes from Delphi today.

At 12:24 p.m., the jury began their questions of Warren:
  1. How would CMS or objective testing be used? Pool notes do not show an answer.
  2. Would removing, cleaning, disassembling change individual characteristics of a firearm? Warren says, “no, only if there was some sort of damage.”
  3. Do you know if manufacturer keeps track of sub-class? Warren says, “no, they don’t.”
  4. Pool notes do not transcribe a question, but Warren says, “my role here was to educate attorneys on what documentation was and see if it supported the concession.”
  5. Would doing your own analysis have been more conclusive? Warren says, “hard to say.”
  6. Is CMS criteria the gold standard? Pool notes do not indicate an answer.
  7. Are you a certified firearm and tool mark examiner? No answer in pool notes.
  8. Would individual markings be different depending on who cycles? Warren says, “documentation of Oberg does not support conclusion.”
  9. Did you look at the sub-class marks of the cartridge? Pool notes do not show an answer.
  10. What is the relevance of cartridges having similar sub-class characteristics? Warren says, “Depends on if it is from manufacturing or cycling.”
  11. Are sequential serial numbers made in the same lot? Warren says, “generally accepted that close serial numbers have parts made at similar times, but may be in different lots.”
  12. Are you aware that Oberg’s conclusion was unfired by another expert? Warren says yes.
  13. Are you aware Allen’s gun’s ejector was recessed and had similar markings to markings made on the cartridge? Pool notes do not indicate an answer.
  14. Is it normal practice to not issue a report when consulting? Warren says yes.
  15. Wha are the chances that the cartridge at the scene matches the test bullets? Warren says, “higher likelihood of guns just in Indiana.”
The court is in recess and breaks for lunch at 12:42 p.m.
 
And this is after the prosecution’s witness made such a big deal about how you can’t perform meaningful comparisons using photographs because it’s a three-dimensional surface.

JMO
I think I’d be confused if I was on the jury-

I’m really hoping that the information was clearer to them to understand what the different approaches to the analysis mean/imply about the odds of the bullet at the scene being from RA’s gun-

Hate not being able to hear the actual testimony- moo
 
@m00c0w

your post refers
If the data would not be confusing or misleading and was relevant, it would be allowed. The motion in limine quite literally and clearly specifies they only seek to limit irrelevant, confusing, or misleading geofence data.

to wit they were trying to imply the witness P who testified yesterday was at the murder scene. Apparently this was a well known conspiracy according to the murdersheet podcast i posted back a couple of posts.

of course had they really wanted to use this evidence at trial they wouldn’t have promoted it so absurdly months before trial so that it ended up excluded.
 
I wondered why it’s happening as well. You might be right, Yters taking up extra seats in hopes the ‘competition’ can’t get a seat, hadn’t thought of that. If so, hopefully security will catch on to it.

JMO
One of the talking lawyers mentioned that people were migrating to the defense side and leaving open seats on the prosecution side...take it as a grain of salt - could be anything since we aren't there.
 
I may have missed this in past threads-- has Kelsi ever been questioned as to what she may have seen when she dropped the girls off, as far as cars, people walking, whatever?
Also-- when I read that there was no DNA-- I'm wondering if there might have been some DNA, or a fingerprint, if the girls had given BG their phone. (NOT suggesting they did anything wrong by not doing so!)
 
Wow, I’d say this jury knows guns!


Court is back in session at 11:31 a.m. There have been delays in getting the pool notes from Delphi today.

At 12:24 p.m., the jury began their questions of Warren:
  1. How would CMS or objective testing be used? Pool notes do not show an answer.
  2. Would removing, cleaning, disassembling change individual characteristics of a firearm? Warren says, “no, only if there was some sort of damage.”
  3. Do you know if manufacturer keeps track of sub-class? Warren says, “no, they don’t.”
  4. Pool notes do not transcribe a question, but Warren says, “my role here was to educate attorneys on what documentation was and see if it supported the concession.”
  5. Would doing your own analysis have been more conclusive? Warren says, “hard to say.”
  6. Is CMS criteria the gold standard? Pool notes do not indicate an answer.
  7. Are you a certified firearm and tool mark examiner? No answer in pool notes.
  8. Would individual markings be different depending on who cycles? Warren says, “documentation of Oberg does not support conclusion.”
  9. Did you look at the sub-class marks of the cartridge? Pool notes do not show an answer.
  10. What is the relevance of cartridges having similar sub-class characteristics? Warren says, “Depends on if it is from manufacturing or cycling.”
  11. Are sequential serial numbers made in the same lot? Warren says, “generally accepted that close serial numbers have parts made at similar times, but may be in different lots.”
  12. Are you aware that Oberg’s conclusion was unfired by another expert? Warren says yes.
  13. Are you aware Allen’s gun’s ejector was recessed and had similar markings to markings made on the cartridge? Pool notes do not indicate an answer.
  14. Is it normal practice to not issue a report when consulting? Warren says yes.
  15. Wha are the chances that the cartridge at the scene matches the test bullets? Warren says, “higher likelihood of guns just in Indiana.”
The court is in recess and breaks for lunch at 12:42 p.m.
wow, all excellent questions. So this also seems to validate that no report was prepared by this expert. Interesting - @Gremlin444 I believe you were right in your post on that topic on the previous page.
 
One of the talking lawyers mentioned that people were migrating to the defense side and leaving open seats on the prosecution side...take it as a grain of salt - could be anything since we aren't there.

Thank you. I’d go with the grain on the one, questioning why there’d be open seats on the defense side for people to move into.
 
Jury questions:
12:24 p.m., the jury began their questions of Warren:

  1. How would CMS or objective testing be used? Pool notes do not show an answer.
  2. Would removing, cleaning, disassembling change individual characteristics of a firearm? Warren says, “no, only if there was some sort of damage.”
  3. Do you know if manufacturer keeps track of sub-class? Warren says, “no, they don’t.”
  4. Pool notes do not transcribe a question, but Warren says, “my role here was to educate attorneys on what documentation was and see if it supported the concession.”
  5. Would doing your own analysis have been more conclusive? Warren says, “hard to say.”
  6. Is CMS criteria the gold standard? Pool notes do not indicate an answer.
  7. Are you a certified firearm and tool mark examiner? No answer in pool notes.
  8. Would individual markings be different depending on who cycles? Warren says, “documentation of Oberg does not support conclusion.”
  9. Did you look at the sub-class marks of the cartridge? Pool notes do not show an answer.
  10. What is the relevance of cartridges having similar sub-class characteristics? Warren says, “Depends on if it is from manufacturing or cycling.”
  11. Are sequential serial numbers made in the same lot? Warren says, “generally accepted that close serial numbers have parts made at similar times, but may be in different lots.”
  12. Are you aware that Oberg’s conclusion was unfired by another expert? Warren says yes.
  13. Are you aware Allen’s gun’s ejector was recessed and had similar markings to markings made on the cartridge? Pool notes do not indicate an answer.
  14. Is it normal practice to not issue a report when consulting? Warren says yes.
  15. Wha are the chances that the cartridge at the scene matches the test bullets? Warren says, “higher likelihood of guns just in Indiana.”
The court is in recess and breaks for lunch at 12:42 p.m.

Wow, sometimes it seems like this jury is asking tougher questions of the witnesses than the attorneys have been!
 
Demonstrating the central role the bullet plays in the trial–and the importance the jury may place on that evidence–jurors had 15 questions for Warren. That is by far the most they’ve asked a single witness during the proceedings.

Questions included whether cleaning or reassembling a gun would change its firing characteristics and why Warren didn’t do his own direct assessment of the “unspent bullet” and Allen’s gun.

Another question asked if a direct examination by Warren would’ve been more conclusive. He indicated that it was “possible” but “could have gone either way.” Jurors also asked some technical questions regarding cartridges and how firearms make marks on rounds–and how they differ by manufacturer.

One juror asked if Warren was aware someone else had reviewed Oberg’s findings for verification. Warren said he was aware and added that was “part of the process.” Oberg testified she had all her findings verified.

An additional question asked Warren if he was aware that the extractor on Allen’s gun had a “recessed” area that made individual marks that matched the “unspent bullet.”

Warren said he was aware. He then made a comment about a “lack of documentation” in Oberg’s report. The response led Luttrull to laugh in court, according to media pool notes.

 
Another question asked if a direct examination by Warren would’ve been more conclusive. He indicated that it was “possible” but “could have gone either way.” Jurors also asked some technical questions regarding cartridges and how firearms make marks on rounds–and how they differ by manufacturer.

oh I believe Waren spoke the truth on that. I think that was the concern, that it "could have gone either way" JMO
 
I may have missed this in past threads-- has Kelsi ever been questioned as to what she may have seen when she dropped the girls off, as far as cars, people walking, whatever?
Also-- when I read that there was no DNA-- I'm wondering if there might have been some DNA, or a fingerprint, if the girls had given BG their phone. (NOT suggesting they did anything wrong by not doing so!)
Yes, Kelsi was questioned by LE multiple times about everything about the day the girls went missing, including people and vehicles she saw at drop off. If the girls handed over their phone, I would imagine there could have been DNA or fingerprints, unless he wiped it off. But more likely, he’d have just kept it. He didn’t, it was found at the crime scene.
 
I’ll say it again, I’m impressed with how engaged the jury has been… moo
I have to wonder if it’s just one or two jury members who are well educated on guns and might be driving these questions and might have some sway on other jurors who know nothing about gun stuff.

ETA: I think the bullet is going to be a big part of their decision.
 
I think this was the single biggest witness for the defense, as it was crucial they discredit that cartridge. Even if things went half as bad for them as it sounds they did, it’s a huge coup for the prosecution.

I get the impression that the jury wasn’t buying what this expert was selling, based on the questions they asked.

I expected them to make their money here, and I really don’t think they came remotely close. I don’t even think they achieved a wash.
 
RA, the man who has confessed and dressed like the killer and has no alibi and his gun ejected a bullet which ended up under the victims' bodies. As much as some shout conspiracy, which is absolutely ridiculous, that's what this all boils down to.



IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
962
Total visitors
1,073

Forum statistics

Threads
626,036
Messages
18,519,446
Members
240,922
Latest member
sebsleuth
Back
Top