IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #721
Okay, again…. I notice no mention of DNA that might’ve been found on the victims bodies, which would be far more incriminating than if DNA had been found at the fairly large crime scene as some of it involves a public area (ie the bridge).
To clarify, are you saying that no DNA linking RA to the crime scene means that RA’s DNA could have still been on one of the victim’s bodies? The bodies are part of the crime scene, so if DNA was on the bodies, DNA would be connected to the crime scene.

Source:
 
  • #722
I would imagine it would depend on when a DNA sample was taken from RA. If it wasn’t until he was arrested any match wouldn’t be included in the prior PCs supporting the SW or arrest.

Otherwise I don’t think the P is required to disclose anything at all to the public prior to the trial, other than discovery material shared with only the defense. Purely speculation but maybe that was involved with RA eating his paperwork?

JMO
I could come up with other reasons for why RA resorted to eating his paperwork, most wouldn’t agree so I’ll just leave that alone.

Personally, I just don’t see the D fighting tooth and nail for RA if they thought he was in anyway involved. IANAL, obviously, but if I were and there was discovery linking RA to the bodies, I’d be going for a plea deal. Come on, if LE found RA’s DNA on one or both of the girls, RA is done! But that’s not how they are going at this, which leads me to believe his DNA was not found on the bodies or anywhere around the CS. Again, JMO.
 
  • #723
I would imagine it would depend on when a DNA sample was taken from RA. If it wasn’t until he was arrested any match wouldn’t be included in the prior PCs supporting the SW or arrest.

[sbm]
The info is from his deposition taken August 8, 2023. They certainly had the results 6 (almost 7) years later. jmo
 
  • #724
I think you should read their own words (LE) instead of the defense counsel's words because we know you distrust the defense. LE thought it was a big deal at the time. So, the question is why did this big break suddenly disappear? Whose DNA is it? Did they clear the person and if not, why not?


LE has never conclusively stated they are certain they have DNA belonging to the murderer. In fact after the news release you quoted iirc there was a clarification/retraction but I can’t find it as it was so long ago. I can appreciate not everyone has followed this case closely but in these 171 threads the topic of whether or not LE has DNA has been discussed over and over and over again, do they or don’t they, we still don’t know for sure.

This article is from August 2017, several months later than your link from February 2017.

“At every crime scene, you are going to have DNA. We are still working on identifying all of the DNA that we have there,” said Sgt. Holeman.“
 
  • #725
Personally, I just don’t see the D fighting tooth and nail for RA if they thought he was in anyway involved.

[sbbm]

This is the biggest "tell" here imo. Always has been, but is especially front of mind now.
jmo
 
  • #726
LE has never conclusively stated they are certain they have DNA belonging to the murderer. In fact after the news release you quoted iirc there was a clarification/retraction but I can’t find it as it was so long ago. I can appreciate not everyone has followed this case closely but in these 171 threads the topic of whether or not LE has DNA has been discussed over and over and over again, do they or don’t they, we still don’t know for sure.

This article is from August 2017, several months later than your link from February 2017.

“At every crime scene, you are going to have DNA. We are still working on identifying all of the DNA that we have there,” said Sgt. Holeman.“
I guess it could have technically been Libby’s DNA found on the tree to write the F? Does anyone remember DNA that was too degraded to test being mentioned? It seems I read somewhere there was a DNA sample but it was untestable?

Either way, RA’s DNA wasn’t on the bodies/at the CS according to LE.
 
  • #727
[sbm]
The info is from his deposition taken August 8, 2023. They certainly had the results 6 (almost 7) years later. jmo

RA’s DNA may have been found on one or both of the victims but his DNA was not found anywhere at the crime scene location. Therefore the D’s statement referring to info from the deposition would be factually correct. We all can be certain they’re not about to disclose any info pretrial which implicates RA in the least.
 
  • #728
LE has never conclusively stated they are certain they have DNA belonging to the murderer.
It doesn't matter if they have it from a hiker, or a first responder, or an unknown. The only fact that matters is that they have it. It is potentially exonerating. It is Brady/Giglio material.

ETA: that ironically, your own linked article says: "Now, they report they also have what they think is the killer's DNA, although it’s still unclear what kind of DNA evidence they found."
In fact after the news release you quoted iirc there was a clarification/retraction but I can’t find it as it was so long ago.
But respectfully, none of this matters if this wasn't turned over to AB and BR. Do you know if it was? LE can't unilaterally say well, it didn't pan out so we're ditching it.
I can appreciate not everyone has followed this case closely but in these 171 threads the topic of whether or not LE has DNA has been discussed over and over and over again, do they or don’t they, we still don’t know for sure.
Thank you
This article is from August 2017, several months later than your link from February 2017.

“At every crime scene, you are going to have DNA. We are still working on identifying all of the DNA that we have there,” said Sgt. Holeman.“

This article you linked was 6 months after the find. Either the publication is way behind the times or the results were a bust and they didn't disclose it.

jmo
 
  • #729
RA’s DNA may have been found on one or both of the victims but his DNA was not found anywhere at the crime scene location. Therefore the D’s statement referring to info from the deposition would be factually correct. We all can be certain they’re not about to disclose any info pretrial which implicates RA in the least.
RA’s DNA was not found on either of the victims’ bodies, bc his DNA wasn’t found at the crime scene-the bodies are part of the crime scene.
 
  • #730
I can certainly come up with a few people whose DNA they should have tested! Saliva comes to mind. :rolleyes: Just sayin’.

ETA - Not to mention, there’s nothing that connects RA to the CS or the other possible players from Rushville. Nor Odinism or any cult at all. I would venture to say, he had the misfortune of going to the bridge that day and coming forward in an effort to assist. JMHO

ETA - Just a spurious bullet.


They tested lots of spit, if that's what you are going for.

That would include EF and BH and PW.



JMO
 
  • #731
  • #732
Last edited:
  • #733
Isn’t defending RA their actual job?
Not pro Bono. And before that they were taking a HUGE pay cut as public defenders, making abt 5-10x less than they would in their private practices.
 
  • #734
Do we have access to Holeman’s and Liggett’s full depositions? The defense memorandum didn’t discuss the evidence against RA, and I would not expect it to, since it’s the defense‘s body of work.

I can’t recall, did the memorandum say where RA went when he left the trail before the murders?
 
  • #735
They tested lots of spit, if that's what you are going for.

That would include EF and BH and PW.



JMO

That's a good thing. But if they took their DNA and tested it against the sample found at the crime scene and it wasn't a match, why not turn over those reports demonstrating how those people were exonerated? And, if they were exonerated because their DNA wasn't a match, why wasn't RA exonerated since his wasn't a match? I'm not really asking you this, I'm just thinking out loud. You can start to see the problems here.
jmo
 
  • #736
RA’s DNA may have been found on one or both of the victims but his DNA was not found anywhere at the crime scene location. Therefore the D’s statement referring to info from the deposition would be factually correct. We all can be certain they’re not about to disclose any info pretrial which implicates RA in the least.
Can you provide me with a link that RA's DNA was on the victims? I'd appreciate it because I haven't seen it. Being sincere. I have no recollection of seeing evidence that he interacted with these 2 teens on occasion. TIA
 
  • #737
Not pro Bono. And before that they were taking a HUGE pay cut as public defenders, making abt 5-10x less than they would in their private practices.
The pro bono is puzzling. But they were appointed as public defenders. Did they have an option to refuse?
 
  • #738
[sbbm]

This is the biggest "tell" here imo. Always has been, but is especially front of mind now.
jmo

Considering their status is now “former defense”…….not so sure about fighting “tooth and nail“. Maybe they did everything they could think of to get kicked off the case at the same time as appearing blameless and victimized to save face?
 
  • #739
The pro bono is puzzling. But they were appointed as public defenders. Did they have an option to refuse?
If you mean “Did they have an option to refuse representing RA as public defenders?” Then yes, from my understanding, they could have said no, bc they have their own private practice/are not regularly public defenders. I believe they were approached/asked, and they said yes (knowing they would take a pay cut).
 
  • #740
Can you provide me with a link that RA's DNA was on the victims? I'd appreciate it because I haven't seen it. Being sincere. I have no recollection of seeing evidence that he interacted with these 2 teens on occasion. TIA

Did you not notice the words “may have been found” as opposed to “was found”? As that’s typically indicative of speculation, no there’s no link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
2,254
Total visitors
2,307

Forum statistics

Threads
632,251
Messages
18,623,875
Members
243,066
Latest member
DANTHAMAN
Back
Top