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

[5W's]

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

Yes the transcripts are what they are. But digital evidence on the other hand is a different story tying anyone, all, whoever was involved so IMO that shouldn't be overlooked. Heresay is one thing but when someone says something and its backed up by evidence then that is possible of involvment.

 

[Salah11]

The girls mentioned a gun and low and below RA’s drops a bullet from his gun right by the bodies.

Then add in all the other things he admitted to then he doesn’t have a leg to stand on here



But what do I know

<modsnip>

 

[Laughing]

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

Yes, exactly. Science never sleeps.

I expect that evidence techs at the Indiana Highway Patrol labs have ejected plenty of rounds recently, and techs from other states have likely sent reports on their tests. If the Science here is not complete, that Science may well by by time of trial.

Sig-Sauer is popular with LE, plenty of pistols available for the needed tests.

Keep in mind that what we know today about traditional ballistics testing -- barrel rifling marks -- did not spring from the Earth complete but was gathered by humans over time.

An anecdote, colleagues noticing similar things, reading & researching, asking additional colleagues, designing & carrying out tests, statistical significance -- this is how 'proof' is born.

(For Federal holidays -- well then Science might sleep.)

 

[crussell821]

RA told LE he had never been to the property where the round was recovered. Also, RA said that he had never loaned his gun to others. If the casing marks demonstrate a high likelihood of coming from his weapon, then he was present at the location where the decedents were found.

I guess that’s the most likely answer to the question I was asking. It has to be RA who was at the scene, holding the gun, since he himself says he never loaned it to anyone and I presume never noticed the gun missing.

 

[gizmobtj]

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

I hear what you are saying and I want to point to the fact that we don't know all the evidence that points to suspects.

Because of the case law below, I put a Sam Shepard/OJ third party defense in the probable but unclear bucket.

My take is that the judge's intreperartation of the evidence will be based on the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. It is what will decide whether RA could introduce third pary evidence about KAK. What the prosecution or police say about KAK being a suspect is absolutely irrelevant. The Supreme Court has been whittling away state's abilities to exclude exculpatory evidence and alternative theories. Justice Alito's first opinion in a 9-0 case in 2006 struck down a South Carolina law that barred certain evidence implicating another perpetrator if the state presented forensic evidence that, if believed, strongly supported a guilty verdict.

The Court overturned a death penalty conviction and ruled rhat that third-party guilt brought by the defense could not be excluded only on the basis of the strength of the prosecution's case. Although the Constitution is not violated by the exclusion of evidence based on "certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury," the Court held that exclusion of a defendant's evidence based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence denies the defendant his constitutional right to "'a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.'" (Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006))

Joyner vs. State, 1997 (affirmed in the Indiana Supreme Court in Lashbrook v. State, 2002) are the Indiana standard. The Court ruled that "evidence which tends to show that someone else committed the crime logically makes it less probable that the defendant committed the crime, and thus meets the definition of relevance in Rule 401." (Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386 | Casetext Search + Citator , Tibbs v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1005 | Casetext Search + Citator and

https://casetext.com/case/lashbrook-v-state).

In Allen v. State, 2004, the court reversed a murder conviction because “Allen had the right to present evidence that [a third party] was involved in the commission of the crimes.” In that case, the trial court excluded testimony that the witness and a third party “cased” the Osco drug store where the murders took place. (Allen v. State, 813 N.E.2d 349 | Casetext Search + Citator)

 

[rainbowshummingbird]

I guess that’s the most likely answer to the question I was asking. It has to be RA who was at the scene, holding the gun, since he himself says he never loaned it to anyone and I presume never noticed the gun missing.

And since he told LE he had never been on that property, it means he cannot have dropped the round there on any prior hikes to that area.

 

[getthefax]

Yes, exactly. Science never sleeps.

SBM.
(EBM to add location where round was found)

Agree, and couldn’t have said it better. The defense will, of course, challenge the bullet evidence, but it isn’t great for RA’s defense that they found a comparably rare .40 caliber round with markings that match those produced by RA’s gun (also, a comparably rare model of handgun) in a location RA said he’d never been (which was 2 feet from Libby’s body).

Regarding so many other posts claiming “junk science” etc., key to remember is that the unspent round is not going to be the only piece of evidence, and it isn’t even the only piece of evidence of which we, the public, are aware.
RA placed himself at the scene at the time of the murders. RA backed his car up against the old CPA building (so his license plate couldn’t be readily viewed). RA looks like BG, is the same height as BG, and had the clothes of BG. RA’s voice would be on the DTH video. RA didn’t see the other folks he should have seen if he were walking back to his car the way he told the conservation officer he did. In fact, RA reported his “walk to look at fish” to a conservation officer and not to the ISP or FBI (maybe hoping they wouldn’t be able to spot him as one of those folks who insinuates themselves into investigations/hides in plain sight, as RA did).

Taken alone, any one of these pieces of evidence isn’t sufficient to arrest or convict. But taken all together, a clear impression begins to emerge, and evidently a judge agreed and signed off on the the SW & PCA. Now the work to build the case begins in earnest.

For the sake of Libby and Abby and their families, we have to hope beyond hope that the police have much more evidence that seals the deal.

For now, the one thing I hope we can ALL agree it’s good to have anything after 5+ years of nada.

 

[Salah11]

I am sure we hear about RA’s behavior before and after he murdered them. Because the days and week afterwards will be intriguing to hear about and he had the pressure of a home life as well.

 

[Boxer]

My thoughts are that the casing found in between the girls is not necessarily hard evidence against RA, but against whomever was standing there holding the gun. Is it likely him? Yes. We know he was on the bridge that day. But it’s not 100% proof that RA himself shot the gun. MOO

No shooting is suggested in the PCA.
The cycled round is very strong evidence that RA was at the CS.
Defense tactics are confuse issues, conflate terms, make false equivalencies, suppress facts and agitate in general.
You can expect a toothpaste advertisement’s worth of “sciencey” sounding assertions such as… “13 University Professors say…”

Defense uses it’s media advantage early in the game

 

[Boxer]

But why are we so sure the casing was placed there at, and not before, the killings?

Weathering. Unless you mean that same morning. Brass oxidizes quickly.

 

[Arkay]

maybe one of the fish’s he was watching that day from a billion feet up escaped the river and he decided to give chase on foot and just happened to drop a bullet while chasing this fish and it just happened to drop in between two murder victims. Then being the upstanding citizen he was he returned the lost fish to the river and made it home in time for dinner muddy and bloody.

Excellent.

Maybe these fish are very rare fish who can speak, in English, and provide RA with an alibi.

"Yes, officer, I saw a man matching this description gazing at me from high above."

If not, IMO he's where he ought to be---behind bars.

 

[everybodhi]

I hear what you are saying and I want to point to the fact that we don't know all the evidence that points to suspects.

Because of the case law below, I put a Sam Shepard/OJ third party defense in the probable but unclear bucket.

My take is that the judge's intreperartation of the evidence will be based on the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. It is what will decide whether RA could introduce third pary evidence about KAK. What the prosecution or police say about KAK being a suspect is absolutely irrelevant. The Supreme Court has been whittling away state's abilities to exclude exculpatory evidence and alternative theories. Justice Alito's first opinion in a 9-0 case in 2006 struck down a South Carolina law that barred certain evidence implicating another perpetrator if the state presented forensic evidence that, if believed, strongly supported a guilty verdict.

The Court overturned a death penalty conviction and ruled rhat that third-party guilt brought by the defense could not be excluded only on the basis of the strength of the prosecution's case. Although the Constitution is not violated by the exclusion of evidence based on "certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury," the Court held that exclusion of a defendant's evidence based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence denies the defendant his constitutional right to "'a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.'" (Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006))

Joyner vs. State, 1997 (affirmed in the Indiana Supreme Court in Lashbrook v. State, 2002) are the Indiana standard. The Court ruled that "evidence which tends to show that someone else committed the crime logically makes it less probable that the defendant committed the crime, and thus meets the definition of relevance in Rule 401." (Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386 | Casetext Search + Citator , Tibbs v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1005 | Casetext Search + Citator and

https://casetext.com/case/lashbrook-v-state).

In Allen v. State, 2004, the court reversed a murder conviction because “Allen had the right to present evidence that [a third party] was involved in the commission of the crimes.” In that case, the trial court excluded testimony that the witness and a third party “cased” the Osco drug store where the murders took place. (Allen v. State, 813 N.E.2d 349 | Casetext Search + Citator)

The Alito cited SC ruling is based on exculpatory forensic evidence, that’s a bit more than KAK’s interrogation transcripts.
I don’t know what the evidence was in the second case but the third one was testimony from a witness who testified to casing a place with someone else where a murder occurred.
Where is the evidence KAK committed the murders? That’s what I don’t get.
Is there forensic evidence he was there?
Did anyone see him there that day?
Did someone say they went with or even just made plans to go there with him?
Honest questions, I haven’t been to the KAK websleuths thread, I’ve only read a few articles about him and comments posted in this thread.
I don’t understand what in those transcripts shows that he is guilty of murdering A and L.
If LE says to me during an interrogation, “I believe you killed that man”, and even if LE states a detailed description of how he thinks I did it and a motive, is that evidence that I killed someone?
It’s a long way from forensic evidence or the testimony of a witness/accomplice cited in those cases.
And if KAK is guilty of conspiracy to murder A and L, why don’t they charge him?

 

[getthefax]

A few things I’m turning over in my head:

1) I’m wondering whether RA attended that presser where they asked folks to show ID & sign in , and impressed upon the crowd as they delivered the update that the killer may be in this room. I’d be very curious to know whether RA happened to attend that.

2) For folks saying that RA probably couldn’t have done this because he doesn’t have a prior record, I’m taking some time to analyze this from a different perspective.

If we forget everything that’s happened thus far and just consider the evidence that they do have, doesn’t this crime kind of look now like a more novice kind of kill? Placing oneself voluntarily on the bridge on the day of the crime during the exact window the victims were killed, leaving behind an ejected/unspent bullet at the crime scene, leaving behind a victim phone that contains actual video footage of the kidnapper/killer on it, appearing muddy/bloody while walking to one’s car…

Looked at in this light, holy cannoli… to my eye, it looks more amateur. An experienced killer would probably not have made those glaring errors except under some external duress (imminent capture, etc).

Thoughts?

 

[Gemmie]

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.

Yes, he did, and pretty vehemently too. His interviewers said that they believed there was more than 1 person talking to underage girls through his A_S acct. So, let's say this is one thing KAK didn't lie about because of how vehement he was about it (and not other things throughout the interview), and "A_S" was supposed to meet Libby at Monon bridge. Who showed up shortly before they did? BG/RMA. Which begs the Q.... Is RMA the person who was also using the A_S account that LE brought up in KAK's interview?

19 DC: With regardless of what you say there are two different authors. Of those
20 messages. Regardless of what you say. Right? They're not both you. They're
21 both your, your devices their mixed but, the im- the phrasings different. It
22 changes. It is not the same person. So we know we have multiple account log
23 ins, with Snapchat. We have two different people using Kik messenger, talking to
1 people from your residence. I mean all, all that hundred percent sure. We know
2 it. We know if for fact.

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Tx-statement-Kegan-Kline-10-19-2-FINAL-VERSION-Redacted-1.pdf

 

[minazoe]

I am interested though to hear if FBI and LE are finding other cases they can look at him for. I personally think he is
involved in Lyric and Elizabeth. Also I hope they are looking at another convicted violent pedophile for additional crimes he may have committed..I think in cases like this you have great potential for solving others..of course you all know that already..I am hoping for the families of victims of these predators to get closure..or something anyway..is there closure?

I don't know if there is.. mOO

 

[Trebor5591]

If the gun jams, and doesn’t ignite the gunpowder and jettison the bullet out through the barrel, the bullet remains unspent.

Almost right. Your description is more like a misfire rather than a jam. If the gun jams, the bullet does not enter the chamber, and so the firing pin never strikes the bullet. When the operator racks the slide one or more times, the jammed bullet is ejected onto the ground. My opinion!

 

[Salah11]

I am interested though to hear if FBI and LE are finding other cases they can look at him for. I personally think he is
involved in Lyric and Elizabeth. Also I hope they are looking at another convicted violent pedophile for additional crimes he may have committed..I think in cases like this you have great potential for solving others..of course you all know that already..I am hoping for the families of victims of these predators to get closure..or something anyway..is there closure?

I don't know if there is.. mOO

This man was so incompetent I don’t think he has done this before. This crime screams amateurish as he was seen by multiple people in the community and he worked serving the public.


<modsnip>

 

[gizmobtj]

The Alito cited SC ruling is based on exculpatory forensic evidence, that’s a bit more than KAK’s interrogation transcripts.
I don’t know what the evidence was in the second case but the third one was testimony from a witness who testified to casing a place with someone else where a murder occurred.
Where is the evidence KAK committed the murders? That’s what I don’t get.
Is there forensic evidence he was there?
Did anyone see him there that day?
Did someone say they went with or even just made plans to go there with him?
Honest questions, I haven’t been to the KAK websleuths thread, I’ve only read a few articles about him and comments posted in this thread.
I don’t understand what in those transcripts shows that he is guilty of murdering A and L.
If LE says to me during an interrogation, “I believe you killed that man”, and even if LE states a detailed description of how he thinks I did it and a motive, is that evidence that I killed someone?
It’s a long way from forensic evidence or the testimony of a witness/accomplice cited in those cases.
And if KAK is guilty of conspiracy to murder A and L, why don’t they charge him?

Let me preface this by the fact that I feel, sometimes, some people intrepert those of us who doubt the strength of the prosecution's case are not interested in justice for Abby and Libby. Justice for Abby and Libby is about having the right person and having a strong case against them. For me, questioning the case is because I want justice.


To answer your question, they absolutely do not show that KAK is guilty of conspiracy or even any crime related to Abby snd Libby; just contact and catfishing.

As for the Alito ruling, the South Carolina case and law had to do with forensic evidence but the Supreme Court ruled on all third party evidence of guilt evidence. The ruling was that the strength of a prosecutor's case had no logical relationship to whether a defendant's evidence was too weak to be admissible.

They interupted the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as saying that "a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense" had nothing to do with the strength of the prosecution's case, as was being argued on this thread.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/04-01327qp.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjCp4iPj5P8AhUrEFkFHW9FBHQQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3TRQiUyosOltOg3c-Vg3h7

The question is merely whether KAK or a KAK theory is enough to raise doubt that a jury could find reasonable.

You can put the "first sketch is not a POI anymore" stuff in the same bucket. If the RA defense can use that to say there was a second guy out there, they could sow doubt.

https://www.wrtv.com/isp-person-in-first-delphi-sketch-is-not-a-person-of-interest-in-libby-abbys-murders%3f_amp=true

The prosecution case, from this stuff, to the science around the casing and second actor, is just a mess in my opinion.

Holmes

 

[gizmobtj]

Weathering. Unless you mean that same morning. Brass oxidizes quickly.

Also, if other evidence was on the casing (like blood); that could be another way

 

[minazoe]

This man was so incompetent I don’t think he has done this before. This crime screams amateurish as he was seen by multiple people in the community and he worked serving the public.


He is extremely lucky he had so many bonus years of freedom because a better police force he would of been flagged straight away imo

sadly though most sexual/sadists are repeat offenders and usually don't start out stalking and murdering at 45 years old.

chances are high he has other victims. mOO