Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I now am wondering what happened in the life of RA from 1998 to 2017. It’s a mystery. A mystery more than I’ve ever seen. He got married in 1991 had one child. We know he was in Peru, Indiana and Mexico, Indiana but doing what? And why no more children? He apparently was financially sound, could buy new cars and pay off houses and buy loads of electronic devices.
He’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
In this day and age it is uncommon.
More wonderings when I should be sleeping.
MOO-
 
Cyber sleuth said:
Yes of course they have his DNA now. I am speaking from an investigative standpoint if this was something missed or simply
Click to expand...
I get that. Wouldn't it be great if they have DNA from RA at the scene? I mean, every day it seems like they figure out a new way to collect it, not just touch but even shed now. Speaking of which, I came across this recently:
Analysis: We shed our DNA everywhere we go.
I also wonder if forensic genetic genealogy was used.
 
layer said:
I get that. Wouldn't it be great if they have DNA from RA at the scene? I mean, every day it seems like they figure out a new way to collect it, not just touch but even shed now. Speaking of which, I came across this recently:
Analysis: We shed our DNA everywhere we go.
I also wonder if forensic genetic genealogy was used.
Click to expand...
Yes one day in the future it will be like the movie Gattica and they can just bring in a little vacuum and solve a crime on the spot by identifying the most recently shed human dna cells.
The criminals will have to become more cunning to outsmart the scientific and forensic advances.
In the interim we can still convict without DNA, the threshold of doubt is just higher to overcome without identifying DNA.
All my late night musings.
 
TL4S said:
RSBM. I think so too, but it seems during this pre-trial phase, it's fallen on deaf ears, IMO. JG isn't worried about it, and neither is a lot of the public.
Click to expand...

I think this is unfair. Judge Gull held a hearing as requested. The defence clearly failed to carry the burden for Judge Gull to do anything. They may be able to raise it at trial as part of a botched investigation defence. What else should Judge Gull do exactly? As far as I can see, she has followed the law precisely here?

TL4S said:
Seventy days of lost interviews, the partial loss of the Oct. 26 interview, possible omissions in the PCA, NMcL gaining access to, reading, quoting, and simply withdrawing his motions on the D's ex parte motions with no repercussions, are only some of the questionable conduct by the State, and it's all but ignored.
Click to expand...

Again I am not sure it has been ignored? Judge Gull held a hearing on the lost interviews. The state has not yet responded to the D's allegations re the Oct. 26 interview. Possible omissions in the PCA for SW did not rise to the standard of a Frank's hearing, which are hard to get.

The one I agree on is Mcl reading the ex-parte motions.

TL4S said:
If the D dare argues it, it's just because they have nothing else. They can't do anything but lie, conflate, or throw crap at the walls since they are a joke. Trial might come and we find out RA is unequivocally BG, the State's mistakes were insignificant, and the Ds are a total P O S, but I'm certainly not ready to confine my opinions to that at this point, before we know really anything. JMO.
Click to expand...

I think it's really important to separate what is possible in pre-trial motions vs the actual trial. I don't think Gull has particularly ignored anything pre-trial with the potential exception of the ex-parte fiasco.

The defence will get their chance to raise these substantive issues at trial.
 
steeltowngirl said:
The Patrick Frazee murder trial (Kelsey Berreth case) explored the attempt to use a general denial defense vs. an alternate suspect defense, which had a lower bar. It still did not work. Frazee was sentenced to LWOP plus 156 years.

www.koaa.com

Attorney explains Patrick Frazee's planned defense for murder trial

While his lawyers did not file a motion to blame the murder on someone else as a defense, they do plan to use an alternate suspect to spark the idea of reasonable doubt.
www.koaa.com www.koaa.com
Click to expand...

This is right on point @steeltowngirl !!

As I understand it, the alternative suspect defence can be hard to raise per the authorities I posted. But as a backup one can point to a botched or deficient investigation ... (quotes from your article linked)

While his lawyers did not file a motion to blame the murder on someone else as a defense, they do plan to use an alternate suspect to spark the idea of reasonable doubt. Through his attorney Adam Stiegerwald, Frazee outlined his planned defenses and witnesses in a court document released Wednesday. They plan to use the 'general denial' defense, requiring the state prove Frazee is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

The key in this version, is you are not arguing the alternate suspects did the crime but rather than the investigation was deficient because it did not complete key steps and investigate sufficiently important leads.

The document also includes a component about pointing to an alternate suspect as part of the general denial defense. It's important to note this is not the alternate suspect defense.
"It is anticipated that as part and parcel to general denial, there may be evidence that other individuals committed or fabricated portions of the crimes alleged against Mr. Frazee, to include Krystal Lee (Kenney)...," the document read.
Click to expand...

This can get a around the issue (as in the Delphi case) that the defence is lacking specific evidence tying the alternative suspects directly to the crime. Another issue this gets around is hearsay. Often the defence has the problem that police have received a tip that someone else did it, or said they did - and these constitute hearsay as to the truth of the allegation. However they apparently can be used to prove whether or not police received a tip and then failed to investigate it - so this is an important differentiator in the 2 theories. Especially Mr Click might be able to give evidence about perceived failures of his investigation and that in his opinion, the suspects were not run to ground.

From an attorney's perspective, this route provides Frazee's team more options. Instead of having to persuade a jury that an alternate suspect committed the crime from start to finish (the alternate suspect defense), the defense will focus on poking holes in the prosecutor's case with hopes of establishing reasonable doubt in the facts.
Click to expand...

IMO the potential weakness of the defence case is on it's face. If one contends these suspects weren't investigated, the obvious answer is that they were in fact investigated. e.g They were questioned, alibi discovered etc.

My review of the case law
 
Started reading the contempt hearings last night. The Judge seems more than reasonable. Listens. Asks for respect in her court and doesn't like to be interrupted. As for Click and his evidence. I am seeing this was a 12 page report. That seems thin compared to the evidence against their client.

I also notice when Hennessey doesn't get his way or disagrees with the Judge he uses phrases like "I'm sorry". Sounds like "excuse me come again". At one point she asks if he needs a listening device :)

1713696108754.png
 
Last edited:
susane7 said:
Thank you. I really hope so because I really believe they have the right man despite of all mistakes in the investigation. But I don't know if they have more direct evidence. I don't think they have DNA (I think Paul Holes or Ives said this crime will not be solved trought DNA) and even were more evidence in 2017, RA had 5 years to clean/get rid over the evidence. I don't know if the juries will understand the circunstancial/inference/indirect evidence and with so many mistakes in this investigation, I see a possibility of him walks.
Click to expand...
Juries convict on circumstantial evidence all the time. Often, there is no body or direct DNA in some cases. The State builds their case brick by brick until it is obviously no else other than the accused.

I still think there will be currently unknown facts presented by the State even though they haven't been blabbing their theory in Motions this whole time. I feel good about their case.

RA=BG=Killer(s)

23 Days until trial, tick tock.

JMO
 
snooptroop88 said:
I'm pretty sure that's just the national guard armory address, though. (Looked it up earlier.) Source: Peru National Guard Armory Photos · Map · 77 German St. Peru, IN 46970.
Click to expand...
An address he would be familiar with so still eerie. Hmm. Guess we have to wait until trial to find out if this connects in any way.
 
DeDee said:
I'm not certain a clear timeline of the recordings will be presented in court.

" ... the state in September said they did not have any recordings of the interviews and “offered no explanation as to why these didn’t exist,” the motion states.

Prosecutors subsequently sought to have Allen’s attorneys, Brad Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin, removed from the case. The duo were controversially removed by Special Judge Fran C. Gull in October before the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated them last month."

Hence, when the D discovered the recordings were missing, the P made a motion to have them removed from the case.
Click to expand...
Judge Gull ultimately made the decision to remove the Defense based on her observations and knowledge of their misconduct. The State agreed.

A timeline and explanation will be presented of the recordings because it will be something the Defense will present to the jury in an effort to continue to spin their massive conspiracy and coverup theory around.

I've also learned that the Defense Motions are not worth the paper they are printed on. Smoke and mirrors, misdirection.

JMO
 
DeDee said:
I'm not certain a clear timeline of the recordings will be presented in court.

" ... the state in September said they did not have any recordings of the interviews and “offered no explanation as to why these didn’t exist,” the motion states.

Prosecutors subsequently sought to have Allen’s attorneys, Brad Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin, removed from the case. The duo were controversially removed by Special Judge Fran C. Gull in October before the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated them last month."

Hence, when the D discovered the recordings were missing, the P made a motion to have them removed from the case.
Click to expand...
"Hence, when the D discovered the recordings were missing, the P made a motion to have them removed from the case."

So was it because the D discovered the old recordings were missing that the court wanted to remove the DT---or was it because the DT negligently allowed two major leaks go public?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 133 more.
Total: 1,676 (members: 134, guests: 1,542)

Online statistics

Members online
134
Guests online
1,542
Total visitors
1,676
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,727
Messages
18,112,627
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top