Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #161

[UnapologeticallyAspie]

They can say whatever they want to KAK but he’s not a suspect in this case..

RSBM
He’s not a suspect in this case, YET.

mOO JMVHO ymmv

 

[Boxer]

Edited by me for clarity.

I could be wrong, but I think all they need for a SW or PCA is enough information to convince a judge that they have probable cause to search (SW) or to arrest the person (PCA), respectively. They can add additional information to the case later on (which they will have to share with the defense during discovery). But I don’t think they are obligated to disclose all the evidence they have at that time IF what they present to the judge is enough.

But they do have to be very specific about what they are searching for in the SW.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

The interview can be entered as evidence. All the defense has to do is call the investigators or KAK to the stand. They could say they lied to KAK but there is no reason it could not be used to plant doubt. LE flat out says in the transcript "its either it's ... it's all you or it's you and someone else."

I am not referring to what Murder Sheet said about the transcript but what the transcript says, inter alia:

1. Page 125, Line 16 to Page 126, Line 6 -- KAK admits he talked to Libby

2. Page 126, Line 16 to Page 128, Line 128 - LE says Libby added him on Instagram

3. Page 128, Line 8 to Page 129, Line 7 -- he admits to searching multiple sites on the investigation, including this Tips pour in after suspect identified in Delphi double homicide and this, where he listens to the audio recording 6 times, New details in Delphi killings to be released

4. Page 131, Line 22 -- the investigator says KAK spoke to Libby on the day of her murder

5. Page 133, Line 19 to Page 134, Line 17 -- the investigator talks about a picture he sent Libby but at the bottom of the page KAK says someone from the anthony_shots account was speaking to Libby but they catch him in a lie because they read him a Line sent to her from the account that he said "I would say that to every one of those girls."

6. Page 136, the investigators say Libby and "they" sent him a photo while they were at a sleepover.

7. Page 137, Line 1 to 3, LE says "... it's a fact you're communicating to [Libby] multiple days, at a time... including up to the day she went missing, right before"

8. Page 137, Line 11 to 16, LE says someone logged in and out of the anthony_shots account multiple times on different devices at KAK's home starting at 8 am on Feb. 13, the day of the murders

9. Page 138, Line 23 to Page 139, 15. LE says to a girl who was friends with Libby that KAK admits to speaking to said "that Anthony Shots was meeting up with Liberty German"

10. Page 140. Line 140, says the account wrote to Libby's friend, "Yeah, we were supposed to meet but she never showed up"

11. Page 147. Line 13, KAK admits talking to Libby again

12. Page 153, Line 23 to Page 154, Line 7 - LE notes KAK's dad's is friends with Abby's mothers friends on Facebook and KAK's girlfriend is friends with one of Libby's ex-boyfriends

13. Page 154, Lines 9 to Lines 20 -- LE says the sleepover Libby was at was with a family that KAK knows

14. Page 156, Line 5 to 14, LE says KAK lied about when he last talked to Libby and then says "We have these grooming pictures. We have the money. The Anthony Shots money account going to [Libby]."

15. Page 158, Lines 2 to 6 - LE says KAK was sending Snapchats to Libby after he searched for a articles about her death

16. Page 159, Lines 2 to 5 - LE says KAK failed his polygraph on the Delphi murders and, then, went home and deleted his Snapchat and Instagram and then searched for "how long does DNA last"

17. Page 184, Line 23 to Page 15, Line 3 - LE says multiple witnesses say Libby was "looking to meet up" with "Anthony Shots"

18. Page 66, Lines 4 to 6:

LE: ""... it's either its ... it's all you or it's you and someone else"

KAK: "Right"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Tx-statement-Kegan-Kline-10-19-2-FINAL-VERSION-Redacted-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj3mKyJoJH8AhVGEFkFHS4yDiMQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2UCec4pq8ZIE22ETk6MKZ3

Over a long period of time, I have responded to many postings similar to this, it seems some people are still convinced KAK is involved in the murders and many have called the transcript "evidence". I am not going to go thru the list and explain why each LE question/statement and/or KAK's response is hearsay and/or not a proven fact. They are out of context and it seems apparent, in my opinion, that you are using them in a manner that supports your position. Even the interrogators don't seem to have many actual proven facts with which to confront KAK, except for the charges already filed.
He seems willing to admit to nearly everything when the proof of the A Shots and CSAM is shown to him.
The transcript cannot stand alone as evidence and to be used in court, the interrogators would testify and be cross-examined. We have no statement of facts from LE that verify anything in the interrogation when it comes to the murder.

The following is absolutely just hearsay.

"LE flat out says in the transcript "its either it's ... it's all you or it's you and someone else.""

Since it appears that KAK will not be tried as a murder suspect, only a limited part of the transcript is relevant (to his present charges) and I doubt it will ever be used in court. MOO

 

[everybodhi]

Does it Matter why the bullet was there?

The fact is it was there and he admitted he had never loaned his gun to anybody. It places him slap bang in the middle of two dead bodies.

The trick is going to be convincing a jury that the science proves that round came from his gun.
There will be experts for and against but the other circumstantial evidence, his own words, putting him at the scene and his likeness to the sketch and voice recording may be enough to convince them.
You just never know with juries.

Linking of Richard Allen’s gun to Delphi crime scene ‘not science’ says The Innocence Project

The Innocence Project, along with an array of university scientists, point to issues with research supporting tool mark analysis. They include small sample sizes, standards set by tool mark examiners themselves, and often studies are financed by law enforcement agencies that benefits from positive tool mark matches.

During its 30 years of existence, it has used DNA to exonerate 375 people who were wrongfully convicted.
An examination found flawed forensic evidence played a role in 51% of those erroneous convictions. [BBM]

“The question for courts is whether or not the science is current and reliable,” said Brief.

An example of that effort is an appeal underway in Maryland of the murder conviction of Kobina Ebo Abruquah. Thirteen university professors are challenging the testimony of a tool mark examiner that linked bullets found in the murder victim to Abruquah’s gun.

The filed brief states studies supporting the analysis are “well below thresholds of scientific validity.”

 

[gizmobtj]

Over a long period of time, I have responded to many postings similar to this, it seems some people are still convinced KAK is involved in the murders and many have called the transcript "evidence". I am not going to go thru the list and explain why each LE question/statement and/or KAK's response is hearsay and/or not a proven fact. They are out of context and it seems apparent, in my opinion, that you are using them in a manner that supports your position. Even the interrogators don't seem to have many actual proven facts with which to confront KAK, except for the charges already filed.
He seems willing to admit to nearly everything when the proof of the A Shots and CSAM is shown to him.
The transcript cannot stand alone as evidence and to be used in court, the interrogators would testify and be cross-examined. We have no statement of facts from LE that verify anything in the interrogation when it comes to the murder.

The following is absolutely just hearsay.

"LE flat out says in the transcript "its either it's ... it's all you or it's you and someone else.""

Since it appears that KAK will not be tried as a murder suspect, only a limited part of the transcript is relevant (to his present charges) and I doubt it will ever be used in court. MOO

1. I actually don't believe KAK was involved
2. The conversation was about how KAK could be used by the defense to sow reasonable doubt
3. By hearsay, do you mean the lay definition that it's a rumor or the legal definition that it's a report of someone else's words that cannot be used in court? Because it's not a rumor unless you don't believe the transcript is real and admitting it would be as simple as calling the investigator, who is an investigator on the Delphi case, to the stand

 

[getthefax]

The trick is going to be convincing a jury that the science proves that round came from his gun.
There will be experts for and against but the circumstantial evidence putting him at the scene and his likeness to the sketch and voice recording may be enough to convince them.
You just never know with juries.

Linking of Richard Allen’s gun to Delphi crime scene ‘not science’ says The Innocence Project

The Innocence Project, along with an array of university scientists, point to issues with research supporting tool mark analysis. They include small sample sizes, standards set by tool mark examiners themselves, and often studies are financed by law enforcement agencies that benefits from positive tool mark matches.

During its 30 years of existence, it has used DNA to exonerate 375 people who were wrongfully convicted.
An examination found flawed forensic evidence played a role in 51% of those erroneous convictions. [BBM]

“The question for courts is whether or not the science is current and reliable,” said Brief.

An example of that effort is an appeal underway in Maryland of the murder conviction of Kobina Ebo Abruquah. Thirteen university professors are challenging the testimony of a tool mark examiner that linked bullets found in the murder victim to Abruquah’s gun.

The filed brief states studies supporting the analysis are “well below thresholds of scientific validity.”

This is so true—it will depend on the other evidence and the jury.

I think right now, if I were a prosecutor, I’d be gathering up as many of that model Sig Sauer as I could find and load/eject rounds (in multiple ways (either by loading/unloading the mag or by actually loading and then clearing the chamber), to see if I could show the jury how each gun tested leaves its own individual mark in the casing of its unspent, ejected bullets. MOO. This wouldn’t have the same strength/reliability of annything like traditional ballistics or something like DNA evidence, but hopefully the tool markings will be an important piece of evidence in a much larger, much clearer picture, IMO. MOO/YMMV

 

[gizmobtj]

The trick is going to be convincing a jury that the science proves that round came from his gun.
There will be experts for and against but the other circumstantial evidence, his own words, putting him at the scene and his likeness to the sketch and voice recording may be enough to convince them.
You just never know with juries.

Linking of Richard Allen’s gun to Delphi crime scene ‘not science’ says The Innocence Project

The Innocence Project, along with an array of university scientists, point to issues with research supporting tool mark analysis. They include small sample sizes, standards set by tool mark examiners themselves, and often studies are financed by law enforcement agencies that benefits from positive tool mark matches.

During its 30 years of existence, it has used DNA to exonerate 375 people who were wrongfully convicted.
An examination found flawed forensic evidence played a role in 51% of those erroneous convictions. [BBM]

“The question for courts is whether or not the science is current and reliable,” said Brief.

An example of that effort is an appeal underway in Maryland of the murder conviction of Kobina Ebo Abruquah. Thirteen university professors are challenging the testimony of a tool mark examiner that linked bullets found in the murder victim to Abruquah’s gun.

The filed brief states studies supporting the analysis are “well below thresholds of scientific validity.”

I also think another trick will be proving when the cartridge casing got there

 

[everybodhi]

1. I actually don't believe KAK was involved
2. The conversation was about how KAK could be used by the defense to sow reasonable doubt
3. By hearsay, do you mean the lay definition that it's a rumor or the legal definition that it's a report of someone else's words that cannot be used in court? Because it's not a rumor unless you don't believe the transcript is real and admitting it would be as simple as calling the investigator, who is an investigator on the Delphi case, to the stand

I’ve seen more relevant testimony ruled inadmissible.
If KAK is not charged in this murder case, accessory, accomplice, or conspiracy to murder, the transcript of his interrogation may very well be irrelevant.
Detectives can work many cases at once but that doesn’t give defense attorneys free rein to bring interrogation evidence collected from other cases into a trial, KAK hasn’t even been convicted. How can his interrogation prove RA’s innocence? Jmo

Justia
Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Cases

The most important factor in determining whether a piece of evidence is admissible is its relevance to the proceeding. “Relevant evidence” includes any evidence that would make the existence of a material fact “more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” As a general rule, relevant evidence is admissible, while evidence deemed irrelevant is not.

Material fact = a fact relevant to proving or disproving an element of the crime at hand or otherwise having a legitimate influence on the case at hand

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

1. I actually don't believe KAK was involved
2. The conversation was about how KAK could be used by the defense to sow reasonable doubt
3. By hearsay, do you mean the lay definition that it's a rumor or the legal definition that it's a report of someone else's words that cannot be used in court? Because it's not a rumor unless you don't believe the transcript is real and admitting it would be as simple as calling the investigator, who is an investigator on the Delphi case, to the stand

I did not respond to your post suggesting KAK be used by the defense, or to a part of another post talking about that subject. I addressed your statements about KAK and RL being named suspects. You then brought up the transcript and said

I don't think having him identified as a suspect is necessary. I think that if he was in contact with Libby, had CSAM and was identified because of the Delphi case that's enough to make the arguement. And if things like KAK being in touch with her that day are true or that he Googled the Marathon gas station that day ate true, it's worse.

But I disagree. He most surely was or is a suspect in some aspect of the case. What we do know, from the Murder Sheet-obtained interview transcript, is that he was, at some point, suspected of being involved.

As to hearsay:
If the interrogators did not have first-hand knowledge of what they were claiming to know, it is hearsay. They would never be allowed to testify to the contents of the transcripts as if the statements made were proven facts, without proving any of them. It's a fact that they asked a lot of questions about Delphi and asked questions that sounded like they were based on facts, but with no foundation, that is hearsay.
I have no opinion on how successful the "the other dude did it" defense would be in this case. To a jury, it may just look like LE checked out every possible lead.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

That’s the transcript from the interview, which is far different than evidence or a case file. They can say whatever they want to KAK but he’s not a suspect in this case, which is why he has his own thread where this conversation should be taking place. You can discuss him as a suspect in Libby & Abby’s murders there but since he’s not a suspect in this case, we try to keep the conversation focused on the man arrested for the murders, RA.

Hopefully that makes sense.

And the OP is meerly sharing a potential defense for the accused. I don't think a separate thread is necessary for that, or have TOS changed? TIA

 

[GoBuckeyes]

The trick is going to be convincing a jury that the science proves that round came from his gun.
There will be experts for and against but the other circumstantial evidence, his own words, putting him at the scene and his likeness to the sketch and voice recording may be enough to convince them.
You just never know with juries.

Linking of Richard Allen’s gun to Delphi crime scene ‘not science’ says The Innocence Project

The Innocence Project, along with an array of university scientists, point to issues with research supporting tool mark analysis. They include small sample sizes, standards set by tool mark examiners themselves, and often studies are financed by law enforcement agencies that benefits from positive tool mark matches.

During its 30 years of existence, it has used DNA to exonerate 375 people who were wrongfully convicted.
An examination found flawed forensic evidence played a role in 51% of those erroneous convictions. [BBM]

“The question for courts is whether or not the science is current and reliable,” said Brief.

An example of that effort is an appeal underway in Maryland of the murder conviction of Kobina Ebo Abruquah. Thirteen university professors are challenging the testimony of a tool mark examiner that linked bullets found in the murder victim to Abruquah’s gun.

The filed brief states studies supporting the analysis are “well below thresholds of scientific validity.”

So glad someone finally spoke out on the lack of scientific validity concerning the unspent round. So, if we exclude that 'evidence', we're left with at least one currently convicted murderer being there that day, correct? And we're left with a defendant facing 30 counts of CSAM who alleges he made plans to see Libby at the bridge that day. Finally, we're left with a few resembles statements.MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

And the OP is meerly sharing a potential defense for the accused. I don't think a separate thread is necessary for that, or have TOS changed? TIAPls

For clarity, the conversation that ended up with the OP quoting the transcript was not to do with the potential defense. It was a reply to my post that stated it was incorrect to state that RL and KAK had been named suspects. So I hope the conversation is over.

 

[Salah11]

RA is tied to the murders by the totality of evidence. LE clearly have a lot more than the gun.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

And we're left with a defendant facing 30 counts of CSAM who alleges he made plans to see Libby at the bridge that day

KAK denied that he ever made plans or ever told anyone he made plans, to see Libby that day. He now has 25 charges pending.

 

[everybodhi]

So glad someone finally spoke out on the lack of scientific validity concerning the unspent round. So, if we exclude that 'evidence', we're left with at least one currently convicted murderer being there that day, correct? And we're left with a defendant facing 30 counts of CSAM who alleges he made plans to see Libby at the bridge that day. Finally, we're left with a few resembles statements.MOO

You may have noticed they question the validity of fired rounds too.
I remember when convictions where gotten on teeth marks, that is now a thing of the past.

A bite mark, a forensic dentist, a murder: how junk science ruins innocent lives

In his new book, Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System, Fabricant explains what he means by the term. “Junk science sounds like science,” he writes, “but there is no empirical base for the ‘expert opinion’; it is subjective speculation masquerading as science.”

 

[MissUnderstood]

That’s the transcript from the interview, which is far different than evidence or a case file. They can say whatever they want to KAK but he’s not a suspect in this case, which is why he has his own thread where this conversation should be taking place. You can discuss him as a suspect in Libby & Abby’s murders there but since he’s not a suspect in this case, we try to keep the conversation focused on the man arrested for the murders, RA.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Isn’t talking about links to L & A in the KAK thread the same as KAK involvement in this one?

 

[Salah11]

So does this confirm what a lot of people thought back in the day that one of the girls were cropped from the video on the bridge?

The video recovered from Victim 2's phone shows Victim I walking southeast on the Monon High
Bridge while a male subject wearing a dark jacket and jeans walks behind her. As the male-subject approaches Victim 1and Victim 2, one of the victims mentions, "gun".

 

[girlhasnoname]

KK and RL were never "identified" as suspects in the murders. Having a search warrant issued for your person or property does not equal being named a suspect.

There is nothing to show KAK made a trip to Delphi that day. No one with any direct knowledge of the case has ever stated this was a fact. There has been no mention by LE or in MSM, that RA was involved in CSAM or had any connection to KAK.

Key word in my statement being "if".

 

[5W's]

IMO you are correct in this observation. It would make him a witness. So what happened. Did he panic after the murders/hoping for the best/maybe he didn't care of the consequences at the time and afterward he did? IDK just is so bizarre thinking! IDK if the concequences weren't important at the time than that just shows perhaps it may be like getting some sort of high, the killing and the other horror that happened to the kids that day as if it was a significant part of the entire action. The sick high was what was the main concern at the time? Maybe also plans didn't unfold as they were suppose to? Other's involvment being mentioned in earlier posts above and the the plans went wrong for whatever reason and elements of what I just mentioned about concequences playing into this aspect also? https://interactive.wthr.com/pdfs/logan-warrrant.pdf
Page 3) # 11: LE requested consent to search Logan's property and advised him that they would not search his residence if nothing was found. That being said perhaps Logan was smart enough to avoid this complication LE may have unknowingly given him time to get rid of evidence, actually LE has to act accordingly so it was a procedure they had to follow and he took advantage of that procedure. He told LE that he didn't think LE would find evidence leading to that, but said "I don't know." IMO its either yes or no to the question LE asked. What is "I don't know?" Anyways the point is that there may have been something outside of the residence that led LE to lay charges against him but it was inconspicuous and didn't warrant LE's attention and that's how he may have gotten away with being involoved with others involved in this crime. MOO.

OMG! It was too late when I typed this I didn;t mean lay charges against him since that didn't happen in fact regarding the killings. What I meant was that LE questioned him and were interested in knowing what he would say, and it didn't help with his previous engagement with LE regarding probation right? But the argument I made regarding everything else I do stand by though.

 

[Elley Mae]

In reference to the ejected round found on the ground.

Pictures will seal the deal on it matching his gun.

Jmo