Two bodies found in Carroll County

[HoughMade]

Yes, but if the COD isn't from a gun, does he need to explain it? The dude reeks per the PCA, but I'm not sure the term 'flimsy' isn't accurate. Though there may well be details/evidence that further the claims against the accused. I hope they have the right guy. I hope they can prove it.

Under the law, he never has to explain anything....but he voluntarily (per the aff.) talked to police. What he said then becomes admissible (assuming voluntariness, not in custody or that he was Mirandized). He could have said nothing and the fact that he said nothing could never be presented in court.

However, according to police, he said he was never there, said that no one else has ever used his gun and he had no explanation for how a cartridge ejected from his gun (assuming the testing is correct) was between the bodies.

That is decent evidence that puts him at the scene and has him lying about being at the scene. That's not nothing. Juries are allowed to decide whether they believe a person is lying and more than that, they are allowed to infer why they are lying. Is that alone "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Don't know, but no one piece of evidence has to be.

This is a classic case of keeping your pie hole shut helps a whole lot. With all the assumptions above, that is very harmful evidence against him. It's not like the prosecution needs his permission to use his statements in court.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

Did anyone on here attend the funerals for the girls?

 

[BigRed]

Under the law, he never has to explain anything....but he voluntarily (per the aff.) talked to police. What he said then becomes admissible (assuming voluntariness, not in custody or that he was Mirandized). He could have said nothing and the fact that he said nothing could never be presented in court.

However, according to police, he said he was never there, said that no one else has ever used his gun and he had no explanation for how a cartridge ejected from his gun (assuming the testing is correct) was between the bodies.

That is decent evidence that puts him at the scene and has him lying about being at the scene. That's not nothing. Juries are allowed to decide whether they believe a person is lying and more than that, they are allowed to infer why they are lying. Is that alone "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Don't know, but no one piece of evidence has to be.

This is a classic case of keeping your pie hole shut helps a whole lot. With all the assumptions above, that is very harmful evidence against him. It's not like the prosecution needs his permission to use his statements in court.

Makes me recall a certain video....

 

[GregD]

Did anyone on here attend the funerals for the girls?

The way they are running this . . . . I would say NOTHING!
It could come back on you.

 

[injb]

I just noticed that it says they interviewed him on the 13th. Then it says they executed a search warrant on the 13th. Is it possible the search warrant was obtained based on what he said that same day? Can it be done that fast? Or did they have to have the search warrant already from some other evidence?

 

[HoughMade]

Can it be done that fast?

Absolutely, but I don't know what the case was here.

 

[wcd]

Under t

I just noticed that it says they interviewed him on the 13th. Then it says they executed a search warrant on the 13th. Is it possible the search warrant was obtained based on what he said that same day? Can it be done that fast? Or did they have to have the search warrant already from some other evidence?

Under the right circumstances the bureaucracy can move at lightning speed.

 

[utl73]

I just noticed that it says they interviewed him on the 13th. Then it says they executed a search warrant on the 13th. Is it possible the search warrant was obtained based on what he said that same day? Can it be done that fast? Or did they have to have the search warrant already from some other evidence?

We would sit in our cars outside a house and write up a search warrant and email it to a judge. It would take less than an hour.

 

[BJHay]

Three things struck me:
1. None of the eye witnesses saw the mans face. Neverminded the low quality of eye witness testimony.
2. There was a lot made of the clothing. Around here Carhart type jackets and jeans are so common they're almost camouflage.
3. On p. 8 the laboratory states the cartridge's match is subjective. I can envision dueling experts on the stand talking about the the degree of subjectivity and the defense working hard to inject more than a shadow of doubt on the finding.


This guys smells bad but I do expect they have more convincing evidence.

 

[injb]

Three things struck me:
1. None of the eye witnesses saw the mans face. Neverminded the low quality of eye witness testimony.
2. There was a lot made of the clothing. Around here Carhart type jackets and jeans are so common they're almost camouflage.
3. On p. 8 the laboratory states the cartridge's match is subjective. I can envision dueling experts on the stand talking about the the degree of subjectivity and the defense working hard to inject more than a shadow of doubt on the finding.


This guys smells bad but I do expect they have more convincing evidence.



View attachment 239618

At first I thought it was a little weak. And I am still a bit disappointed. But the more I read and put together the whole set of circumstances, the stronger it seems.

We'll need to see the exact timeline to really know, but I think they are going show that he was the person the witness saw on the first platform of the bridge. He has admitted walking to that exact spot before going back. That witness then turned around (lucky for her) and she passed Abby and Libby on the way back, on their way to the bridge. That witnesses car was then seen leaving around the time of Libby's video.

RA would then have to claim that he left in that short time window, passed Abby and Libby but didn't remember them, passed the real killer without noticing him, and wasn't himself seen by anyone despite having been noticed by everyone who passed him up to that point. If they have other witnesses who were definitely there when RA should have been walking back to his car, he's screwed. Maybe they don't. Maybe it'll come down to when his car left. The latest they mention it being seen at the CPS building is 2:28, which is probably not late enough to trash his story. He says he sat on a bench on the trail before leaving.

But it sounds to me like they have built up a pretty tight timeline of when stuff happened, and he can't have known those details before he gave his statement. It's not going to be just the bullet.

 

[Cameramonkey]

It's not going to be just the bullet.

Thats just icing on the cake. I wonder if they found any other prints on the gun? Could he have been honest about not being where the bodies were found? Sure. If he handed the gun to an accomplice to finish the job who racked one round out. (accidentally?)

 

[manifest destiny]

I had never heard of identifying a gun via marks on an unspent round. Like anything, there are proponents and detractors of this type of analysis. A cursory look around the web leads me to believe there would be a huge pushback on this from Allen's defense team. There seems to be some genuine concerns with this testing. Class markings, individual markings, single occurance markings and the ability to discern one from another. Each case is its own beast and this one is from 2005, so maybe the science has improved.

US v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104 - Dist. Court, D. Massachusetts 2005 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

 

[Cameramonkey]

I had never heard of identifying a gun via marks on an unspent round. Like anything, there are proponents and detractors of this type of analysis. A cursory look around the web leads me to believe there would be a huge pushback on this from Allen's defense team. There seems to be some genuine concerns with this testing. Class markings, individual markings, single occurance markings and the ability to discern one from another. Each case is its own beast and this one is from 2005, so maybe the science has improved.

US v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104 - Dist. Court, D. Massachusetts 2005 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Devils advocate. So they narrow it down to ALL Sig P226's, not just HIS. what are the odds that the killer just happened to carry a 226 too. In .40 as well? Remember that .40 is a relatively odd caliber in 2022.

Once again, we are starting to get into the One Armed Man theory again if it aint him.

Given all of the other facts, it just doesnt look good.

 

[CHCRandy]

Under the law, he never has to explain anything....but he voluntarily (per the aff.) talked to police. What he said then becomes admissible (assuming voluntariness, not in custody or that he was Mirandized). He could have said nothing and the fact that he said nothing could never be presented in court.

However, according to police, he said he was never there, said that no one else has ever used his gun and he had no explanation for how a cartridge ejected from his gun (assuming the testing is correct) was between the bodies.

That is decent evidence that puts him at the scene and has him lying about being at the scene. That's not nothing. Juries are allowed to decide whether they believe a person is lying and more than that, they are allowed to infer why they are lying. Is that alone "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Don't know, but no one piece of evidence has to be.

This is a classic case of keeping your pie hole shut helps a whole lot. With all the assumptions above, that is very harmful evidence against him. It's not like the prosecution needs his permission to use his statements in court.

With all due respect counselor....he did not say he was never there. He actually said he was there that day, just not in the woods. Page 9 states that he admitted to being at the trail on that date.....this was in 2017, when they first interviewed him. Between 1:30 and 3:30.....same hours they were murdered.

My theory is this......he was covering his bases by saying that in 2017. You are exactly right, if he had said he had never been to that trail....well then all the sudden they have all kinds of evidence you are lying. But in his case, he admitted being there. He knew he was seen by others....so he didnt want to lie about that. Now at least his defense can make a case that the shell must have got there by some other means or was not his.

I always like these shows where people are in some ones car and kills them, cops then ask if they knew that person or ever hung out with them........they say never......and cops say, ok....how did your DNA get in that car? They would be better off to say they were friends and he use to give me rides to work.

1. Many people seen him there.
2. He admitted he was there between 1330 and 1530 hours.
3. Video of his car
4. Lady seen him walking on county rode muddy and bloody at 3:57.
5. The timeline matches known proof. Such as video from Hoosier Harvestore. All witness statements match up. This guy was entering trail as another group was leaving, that group took pictures and time stamp correlates to time the lady walker said she seen him on the bridge......then as she was leaving, the 2 victims were walking in. Her and another caller reported vehicle parked at CPS building, backed in hiding license plate. This was between 1:40-2:15. He then took them down the hill, at 2:15 and was not seen again until 3:50 when walking on county road. One of the victims mentioned "gun" in video before it ended. He did what he did, walked thru the woods near the cemetery out to 300 North.....where he walked back to where he parked. On his way back is when someone seen him walking all muddy and bloody, like he had been in a fight.

I still have questions though. We dont know how these girls were killed. I am not sure they were shot...and the reason is there were other people walking that trail between 2:15 and 3:30, none of them seen anyone. This tells me he was in the woods with victims. If he would have shot them, someone would have heard the gunshots. Wouldnt they? If he slashed them up, would one of them not screamed? How did people not hear this?

Why was the victims clothes in creek? If he sexually assaulted them, why no DNA? Can someone commit a crime this sickening and never leave a trace of DNA?

Let's assume he didnt shoot them. Then how did the shell get on the ground? Did he panic and rack a loaded gun......then couldnt find the shell? Malfunction?

So many unanswered questions......but too many correlations to be coincidence.

 

[KLB]

I really hope they have some physical evidence here other than the unfired bullet. This all seems to be circumstantial evidence.

 

[KittySlayer]

Maybe he racked the gun to scare the girls. Just like the mythical sound of a shotgun being racked scaring away home invaders.

 

[injb]

I really hope they have some physical evidence here other than the unfired bullet. This all seems to be circumstantial evidence.

It's very damning circumstances though. Now that he has put himself at the Freedom Bridge at ~1:30 (thanks to the 1:26 timestamp on the teenage girl's bench photo, coupled with his confirmation that he was the guy they saw), and admitted walking to the first platform on the high bridge, that puts him at the bridge platform at ~1:40ish

The witness parked at 1:46 (verified by camera) and walked straight to the bridge, and saw a guy on that platform. Is it possible that wasn't him? Well he would have had to turn around and leave immediately in order for it to not be him. Then the timing would have to be perfect for him to not pass that witness on the trail. There isn't much wiggle room here. No time for watching fish or whatever he said he was doing.

 

[Hawkeye]

I still wonder what the motive was. AN apparently "normal" guy in his forties. No criminal history (that I am aware of). Educated, good job, good family. Why would he do this? and then go about "normal" life for years. Not seeming to do anything to bring himself into suspicion?

 

[injb]

I still wonder what the motive was. AN apparently "normal" guy in his forties. No criminal history (that I am aware of). Educated, good job, good family. Why would he do this? and then go about "normal" life for years. Not seeming to do anything to bring himself into suspicion?

Apparently this is the big revelation from the wave of cold cases being solved lately through new DNA techniques, genealogy etc. The belief used to be that these people are always repeat offenders. But now it's starting to look like that is true for the ones who were caught (and that's why they were caught in the old days). It turns out that people who do something like this once and then never strike again are much more common than you'd think.

 

[Mij]

My thoughts are, their are a lot of closeted kinds of subhumans out there. Dopers, cross dressers, pornographers, perverts, ect. This guy (if found guilty) was one of them. It’s happened a lot in the past, it will continue now and in the future. I only hope and pray they have the right guy and any others that may be involved. Just my two cents.