ADVERTISEMENT

Delphi murders about to be solved? (Part 1)

The technical legal stuff further evidences this a desperate play.

Mostly, they need to show the search warrant contained lies. They can use omissions too, but they are harder to use to show impact, because the cops don't have to disclose all their case - they just have to show probable cause to search.

The defense is basically saying "an ex-wife and an ex-girlfriend say other guys confessed to them and acted guilty and were Odinists and we interpret branches and blood at the crime scene as Odinists runes, and the cops should have investigated all this more than they did, and should have told the judge all of this exculpatory info in the search warrant affidavit. And the cops also left out or misinterpreted some other stuff that hurts their timeline. And Odinists are guards where our guy is in prison and COULDMHAVE threatened him and caused him to confess falseley (instead of confessing falsely because he was crzy - which is what we said last time."

Any case where the the investigation lasts very long, and has multiple "persons of interest" investigated - ends up wit the defense pointing at one of the OTHER guys as the "real killer."

The defense claim of "abuse at the prison" blew up o. them earlier. It will be interesting to see the prosecution says about this. Good bet they will say "we DID look into those guys, and yes they are bad people, but hefre is why they were cleared, AND none of tghis - even if beleived - means there was not probable cause for the search at HIS house."

If then witnesses on the trail say "that's they guy" and the expert says "THAT bullet came from HIS gun" - he will get convicted.
 
So, they started jury selection today and picked 14 of the 16 jurors, or so that's what the news said.

My buddy is the guy reporting on it and I think is in the courtroom, or so it seems like. I'm gonna text him and ask.
 
The technical legal stuff further evidences this a desperate play.

Mostly, they need to show the search warrant contained lies. They can use omissions too, but they are harder to use to show impact, because the cops don't have to disclose all their case - they just have to show probable cause to search.

The defense is basically saying "an ex-wife and an ex-girlfriend say other guys confessed to them and acted guilty and were Odinists and we interpret branches and blood at the crime scene as Odinists runes, and the cops should have investigated all this more than they did, and should have told the judge all of this exculpatory info in the search warrant affidavit. And the cops also left out or misinterpreted some other stuff that hurts their timeline. And Odinists are guards where our guy is in prison and COULDMHAVE threatened him and caused him to confess falseley (instead of confessing falsely because he was crzy - which is what we said last time."

Any case where the the investigation lasts very long, and has multiple "persons of interest" investigated - ends up wit the defense pointing at one of the OTHER guys as the "real killer."

The defense claim of "abuse at the prison" blew up o. them earlier. It will be interesting to see the prosecution says about this. Good bet they will say "we DID look into those guys, and yes they are bad people, but hefre is why they were cleared, AND none of tghis - even if beleived - means there was not probable cause for the search at HIS house."

If then witnesses on the trail say "that's they guy" and the expert says "THAT bullet came from HIS gun" - he will get convicted.
They do not have a "bullet came from HIS gun" as I understand it. When a leak of crime scene photos occurred months ago, some who saw them said the girls were knived, not shot. I don't know if autopsy reports have ever been released.

As I recall, what they have is an unfired shell found at the scene. Apparently, they intend to argue that scratches on the shell were made by the ejector mechanism on his gun. Don't know how scientific that is.
 
They do not have a "bullet came from HIS gun" as I understand it. When a leak of crime scene photos occurred months ago, some who saw them said the girls were knived, not shot. I don't know if autopsy reports have ever been released.

As I recall, what they have is an unfired shell found at the scene. Apparently, they intend to argue that scratches on the shell were made by the ejector mechanism on his gun. Don't know how scientific that is.

My buddy in his report said that the prosecution said they will prove the bullet came from his gun.
 
They do not have a "bullet came from HIS gun" as I understand it. When a leak of crime scene photos occurred months ago, some who saw them said the girls were knived, not shot. I don't know if autopsy reports have ever been released.

As I recall, what they have is an unfired shell found at the scene. Apparently, they intend to argue that scratches on the shell were made by the ejector mechanism on his gun. Don't know how scientific that is.

The methodology is iffy. At least it was considered so last year when I Googled it and looked at several sites. Sometimes it has played a key role, other times courts haven't even allowed it in.
 
My buddy in his report said that the prosecution said they will prove the bullet came from his gun.
Here is one account during jury selection:

"In their mini opening statement, the defense said Allen confessed to shooting the girls in the back, but the evidence shows they were not shot."

 
They do not have a "bullet came from HIS gun" as I understand it. When a leak of crime scene photos occurred months ago, some who saw them said the girls were knived, not shot. I don't know if autopsy reports have ever been released.

As I recall, what they have is an unfired shell found at the scene. Apparently, they intend to argue that scratches on the shell were made by the ejector mechanism on his gun. Don't know how scientific that is.

My buddy in his report said that the prosecution said they will prove the bullet came from his gun.

The methodology is iffy. At least it was considered so last year when I Googled it and looked at several sites. Sometimes it has played a key role, other times courts haven't even allowed it in.

The Indiana Supreme Court has rejected at least one argument claiming “tool mark” analysis on unfired bullet casings is inadmissible junk science. So it will come into evidence. As I recall, that case involved tool marks from a fired gun/bullet at a crime scene compared to tool marks from unfired bullets found in the defendants house. Could be wrong.

I think the “stink” arises from some court’s (other states, not Indiana yet) not permitting an expert to say “in my opinion, they came from the same gun” as they allow for fired guns/bullets. They are limited to saying “in my subjective opinion, these marks are similar enough that there is a high/strong likliehood they came from the same gun” - not sure of the precise language they limit/require. The written ballistics report says “subjectively, the marks on test bullets from his gun match the marks on the bullet from the crime scene.”

The Maryland Supreme Court issued an opinion last year calling “regular” fired bullet comparisons into question.

But in the end, it’s a battle of experts and the jury decides.

The kicker here will be alleged confessions. Apparently the guy confessed to his wife in March 2023 in a recorded call, then confessed to anybody who would listen. Like 140+ times, some with details only the killer would know, others with facts that are wrong, others generic. The defense says “he went/was crazy because he was placed in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison for protection.” The prosecution says “he confessed - you can listen to them and decide.”

The PROCESS has been a wild ride. No death penalty sought. 5+ years of cops saying “maybe more than 1 person involved.” The defense has taken every opportunity to agonize the judge, and she tried to toss them after they leaked/allowed to get leaked some crime scene photos and “over-exaggerated” some stuff in pleadings and arguments.

She recently precluded the defense from offering evidence of several alternative third-party suspect because the evidence couldn’t really put them at the scene on the day.

There WILL be an appeal.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT