Buy Ed Wallace and DutyRon a coffee here www.buymeacoffee.com/DutyRon The Super Thanks option is available for those who appreciate the replays and want to support. Please consider giving this video the thumbs up watch one of our other videos ru-vid.com/group/PL7vUvfzySeMBqiZNcc9hMpv6j1GLsh5po
My mom got abdominal cancer. After surgery to remove the cancer, she had radiation but declined chemo.. She is a 24 year survivor. She is 89 yrs old now and going strong!.. You will be the victor Ron!..❤
@Lemonbonbon thank.you for watching 👀 we appreciate your support here. Love Lauren's efforts and coverage 🙌 thanks again and welcome to Crime Time with DutyRon and Ed Wallace
Absolutely respect this channel so much. Having insight from LE personnel, who actually have expertise to explain things, is a huge difference to other content creators. Also love Lauren for her unbiased reporting on what is happening in the court room.
From one cancer warrior to another…you got this Duty Ron! Wishing you the best of luck on your Journey and sending you strength through this difficult time 💕
What a great panel! This was so helpful in assisting with our understanding. Ed is a masterful teacher! Prayers for Ron and all those dealing with cancer.
Thank you Jim and Ed for explaining about the cartridge and how it works. Im in Sydney most of us are probably following along with your explanation and yes Lauren I've been watching on her court notes. Thank you for this it helps me understand it about the cartridge and bullets work in a gun. Cheers Duty Ron & Ed and to both Jim & Lauren
The whole question was if they can proof that the ejection- marks are identical. She could not, that's why she fired the bullet. Result: Yes, could be his gun, but she could not exclude any other gun she's tested.
This case is close to home for me. I'm so glad you are diving into this. The lack of transparency is distressful because I know first hand the corruption in Indiana is real. We call it the "good ol' boys club". I'm praying for real justice for Abby, Libby and yes Rick Allen. Thanks for all you do and praying for you Ron. Much love and respect from Midwest Indiana.
The question is not whether you can compare marks on a fired and unfired cartridge. The question is when comparison of two unfired cartridges did not give "expected" results, repeated many times, why did they move to compare it to a fired one? This is total absence of reason. This is forcing an outcome, and radically unscientific.
This is sad. These girls and their family need justice and I'm not sure they're going to get that 😢 it's sad Libby even videoed the guy and this is what they get??
@pihi42 Respectfully disagree. Just because this one expert could not duplicate the marks by loading and manually ejecting a live ctg, doesn't mean somebody else couldn't do it. There are too many variables with speed and energy. The fact that ctg case in question had these markings means someone was capable of and in fact did it. Firing live ctgs was a way for this analyst to get consistent tool markings she was able to use to do the comparison, where she found individual characteristics consistent with the suspect ctg.
@@edwardwallace1776 "doesn't mean somebody else couldn't do it" That's exactly the point here. The difference between a scientific method and "other methods" is that a scientific experiment is repeatable and it's possible to statistically qualify the results. Which this one isnt. The most extreme example of an anti-scientific method is "repeat until you get the result you want".
@@edwardwallace1776 Just one more thing. Scientifically they should match the evidence cartridge to ALL of the test artticles. Only the patterns that appear every time are relevant. The claim here is that one gun reliably produces recognizable unique patterns. The shenanigans are incredible and only found in fraudulent science (unfortunately more and more so).
This is a very enlightening show! Even with having a basic understanding, this show showed me how the marks were made by all the moving parts. Valuable information!
Guys Thank you all so so much for a number of things. First helping me understand the bullet casing / markings. I pray the jury has a clear/ complete understanding. Second reason I’m thankful, Having Lauren on as a guest. I told Anna ( Abby’sMom) about her reporting the case with truth and honesty. Anna really appreciated that because not all RU-vid Creators give only the facts. Third reason is having Jim on as an expert and forth and final: I watch DutyRon and Lauren and Doctor John and both of these two channels has integrity/Truthfulness/Respect for victims and their families. Just one more thing, DutyRon I love the way you claim power over cancer!!!!! I have faith already that God has already begun your healing and will restore your body to complete/ good health 🙌
@Duty Ron, @Ed Wallace, @Jim Gannalo, & @Lauren @Hidden True Crime, THANK YOU! I LOVE when creators do a live together. You guys explained this so well! And Ron praying for you!
The problem still remains. The expert could not match the marks when she tried to cycle the weapon and she had to fire the weapon to get a match. That is sketchy. It’s like apples and oranges. Idk if he did it or not but the bullet evidence does not impress me. I hope the prosecution has more than this bullet.
THIS! She tried cycling it several times and could NOT get the mechanisms marks to appear. That is such a poor scientific experiment. The variables are not all the same, so the result does not mean it’s equal. It was NOT a valid experiment. At all. Yes the mechanics are the same as in the motions of the cartridge and the gears, but the force of the mini explosion, the force, the speed.. it changes the effects to the metal of the casing. A human hand CANNOT pull it back to eject as fast as firing the gun would, you just can’t. The force is not comparable. If it was done by a human hand with THAT gun, she should have been able to get the marking by manually ejecting. I just don’t understand why people are failing to grasp this. If this was in a peer-reviewed article for scientific research, it’d be criticized to hell and back for a poorly designed experiment.
1:20:50 ….. so friction and heat can change the tools that make the guns…but friction and heat won’t affect a casing that is a MUCH softer metal than anything else that has direct contact with a controlled explosion? And earlier, in regard to the mechanisms, they said “it’s metal, it’s not going to change.” So what is being used to manufacture? Those tools change. Even diamond tooling changes over time. I’m sorry, but the logic isn’t working here and it’s contradictory. Is there something I’m missing here? I need to do some journal research tomorrow
Another question I have.. did Richard Allen use that FA a lot or was it just used a few times? If just a few times, those marks could probably be one of many that were made on the same line at about the same time. It’s not uncommon for stores to get a few products within the same manufacturing date and lot. Whether that can be tracked post purchase I don’t know. Did they even bother to test even one or two FA to see how close the markings are? Shouldn’t there be a database? Without being able to verify anything but the 1:1 match, it’s bordering on useless. What if it’s common for THAT type made in that year? The reason we can get more concrete on DNA is because we have studies, databases, and statistical algorithms to calculate the number of possible combinations is dangeroud. Meanwhile, this is more like “this is comparable to this one, but we can’t say how many others may match the same.” Not even a remote idea. THATs why it’s questionable. Scientific tests as poorly designed as this with no statistical database to reduce the possibility of others matching without clarifying that it is not fail proof. it’s just a possibility It’s being presented as if it’s a fact that it’s THIS weapon, when they really only can say “it’s consistent with” which is not the same as a statistical uniqueness. It has not been appropriately tested with same variable for a controls study. “Science” like this is how innocent people get convicted. I completely disagree with the conclusive terms being used. It’s not conclusive, it’s suggestive. I’m not saying RA is innocent. The casing did not move me off my fence right in the middle, not even a foot down.
@DutyRon I just saw your post about the cancer and I'm absolutely thrilled for you!! May God continue to bless you. You give so much to your community on here and you served our country so thank you! Love you!❤❤❤
This is incredibly insightful! As someone who knows nothing about firearms, and have been following this trial - with tons of questions - this is fascinating! Thank you for sharing this!
Still confused. The expert cycled 6 cartridges & couldn't make the markings. So she fired rounds. If the gun made those markings at crime scene shouldn't it do same in a lab?
The extractor is totally different if the gun is fired, the extractor does not pull the shell casing out of the chamber if the gun is fired, the casing is shoved back by the explosion, shoving and pulling is very different so it's ridiculous what happened in court.
Lauren is one of the best. I watch her updates twice daily. I greatly appreciate her going above and beyond to report back to us little people the current ongoings in the trial. Thank you for having Lauren on your show.
I’m from Australia and have never held or fired a gun so I literally had no idea about how a gun is fired etc. I just couldn’t get my head around how an unspent cartridge could have the same markings as a fired cartridge. It seemed foolish to me that it could have the same markings. It seems I was the fool lol. After watching this I now understand the mechanics a lot better. I did not know once a bullet is in the chamber you can only get it out by cycling the gun. Absolutely fascinating stuff and listening to Ed and Jim is just phenomenal! Thank you so much everyone for the lesson, it’s very appreciated. Just wanted to edit to add good luck with your cancer battle Ron! My thoughts and hopes are with you.
Same, I live in Australia and I've never seen a gun. I just could not understand the explanation until I watched this. Excellent explanation, thank you. Wishing all the best with your health.
Right, she didn't create the marks on the cartridge, and she couldn't create them by ejected the cartridge like it was found. Richard Allen is a small man. He didn't have some abnormal amount of strength. Why didn't she have a male eject the rounds. She tried SIX times and couldn't get it to mark. So, she tested in a manner that the cartridge wasn't found. That makes her evaluation worthless. State couldn't find sufficient agreement so they found another way to get the conclusion that they wanted. This is exhibit one why LE should not be conducting ballistic testing. It should be done by an independent lab that doesn't consult with LE to see what they are trying to prove. That's not science. Why can't you call a horseshit investigation, horseshit?
It wouldn’t produce marks visible enough for comparison when the cartridge was ejected and not fired. She tired six times. She then had to figure out a way to make it work so she fired four and got one that would work. Defense expert will rip it apart but that’s the problem with the state. They lie and misconstrue to sell their story instead of just presenting facts and proving their case. @@edwardwallace1776
I always welcome the insight of experts, but I still have many doubts. And I do appologize in advance if I got something wrong, but I am relying on "triple hersay". 1- The bullet specialist said there were 3 markings on the unspent round and that she could only "match" one of those markings to Richard Allen's gun. Her "theory" for the other 2 markings was that the bullet was cycled more than once. How can that be considered a real match? 2- She could not dismiss the other guns they tested. The neighbor's gun, by the way, was with LE for months. If the other possibilities could not be dismissed, how is this a 100% match to RA's gun? 3- Since the girls weren't sh0t and the bullet was actually found AFTER the bodies were taken out the scene (therefore days after, with people coming in and out freely), how can they prove this bullet was "dropped" at the time the girls were being mvrdered and not ANY other time? 4- How could a man in RA's stature and being overweight (like he was at the time) was capable to take Libby's d3ad body from one place to another without living ANY drag marks or footprints? Aren't our bodies supposed to get heavier when we d1e? 5- If we take Betsy Blair's testimony in consideration, we can assume this was the sloppy "work" of a very disorganized k1ller. As per ms. Blair's account, the man was dripping in bl00d and had no gloves one. How did a sloppy and disorganized k1ller, who is supposed to be in a hurry and clumsy as hell (for having droped and left a bullet on the scene) manage to not shed ANY DNA whatsoever? 6- Why did local LE "uninvited" the FBI from the investigation? I have many other questions. I do have my mind open and don't mind at all if RA is guilty. But this just seems like yet another case of REALLY BAD police work. There are no excuses for what was done on this case. LE failed those poor babies miserably.
I mostly agree with you except I think that it was testified to that the casing was found before the scene was released. My issue with the casing is that they don't have any photos of the casing once it's out of ground or in other words in its entirety.
Watching on replay. I am a "Hidden Gem" from Hidden True Crime. This episode was FANTASTIC. I learned so much and am so much more educated for this Delphi trial. Thank you to all! PS - now a DutyRon subscriber. 😉
Thanks for all the information. I found this very informative.Interesting how they work & helps with understanding this court case. Thank you to you all. I watch a lot but rarely comment. I’m watching all the way from South Australia in Australia. Thanks Duty Ron, Ed, Jim & Lauren.
Ty guys so much for your time and explaining this to the general public. As a Former LE its frustrating to hear people belittle the hard work and dedication of this science.
Good information, really helped me understand better. I appreciate Ron and Ed's Detective expertise and Jim's gun expertise. I follow Lauren and wanted to support her, I look forward to her explaining things again. 💖
The only reason they’re able to say that ballistics is only incorrect 2% of the time, is because they don’t take the “inconclusive” results into account. That is actually what the defense was saying. They’re not stomping their feet that science should be 100%. Of course not. But she had 4 other guns and 3 of them couldn’t be ruled out. So you CANNOT then say that another gun is a “match”, because 3 out of 4 other guns could also potentially leave the same marks. It’s utter madness to then argue that the cartridge was cycled through the defendants gun. That is inaccurate and disingenuous.
I really hope you can re-clarify this critical question Lauren tried to explain at 29:25 - Richard Allen racked his gun and the unspend round was left at the murder scene aka unfired/live cartridge. In Oberg''s recreation, she was unable to rack the gun with enough force (she said she racked it 6 times) to see the ejection marks, so she fired to gun instead, and testified she was then able to see the same ejection marks as the unspent round found at the scene. Lauren was asking if this is an equivalent comparison or not. Does Jimmy's 29:46 'yes" answer/explanation still stand in this particular scenario?
Ok they did answer this later in the vid! No difference at primer end whether racking the gun or firing the gun. Only the projectile end is affected when racking vs firing. The cartridge in question was only analyzed at the primer end because it was never fired. So yes, Oberg did in fact conclude that Richard Allen is the killer!
Melissa Oberg said that she could not rule out Brad Weber's Sig from being the gun that the round was cycled through. Brad Weber is the guy who owns the property at the end of the bridge. As soon as you step off that bridge you are on his private property. I wish I would have caught this live so I could have asked about that.
It just said in beginning of live that the marks are the same which is a match, the marks are just more pronounced in a spent bullet. Hope the Jury understands this.
@@IlluminatingInk As a scientist, I can tell you that you cannot compare two completely different things and make any type of conclusion from it. That’s terrible science. She needed to compare the bullet to another bullet of that type ejected from RA’s gun. Which she did and it did not replicate the bullet they found. Which is why she then fired the bullet and then compared the fired bullet to the unspent one. This is not just comparing apples to oranges, it’s manipulating your results to get the answer you want. This would NEVER get past a peer review
Oy thank you for the visuals! I find it hard to read or imagine things at times when I don’t use them often myself especially. I appreciate the panels time and skills they bring. It fascinates me and frustrates me at the same time when I don’t comprehend something that could be so important to a case. I want to know for myself and wonder what the jury is thinking. You take care Ron and rest up! You’ve been in our thoughts and prayers. You’re in great hands! 🙏🏻❤️💪🏼👍🏻
Just found you guys. Been watching Lauren Matthias for a long time and saw she was gonna be with y’all. Watched your show and immediately liked and subscribed. I am fascinated with crime and law enforcement . Dear friend of mine is a 20 yr sheriff’s deputy in Florida. So admire what you guys in LE do. Praying for you Ron. Be well and keep up the good work! Sending love from Texas. 😎PS. My friend is a Volusia County Sherriff’s Deputy serving under Sherriff Mike Chitwood, also a former NYPD officer. Awesome guy. You guys rock!
Continuous prayers DutyRon. You have a strong support system in your family as well as your online family. Thank you for having Lauren on your panel. Hopefully, she will become a frequent visitor along with her husband John. Stay strong.
Thank you! This was very, very helpful. It makes alot more sense now, between someone testing a firearm vs someone (with adrenaline) racking it, it definitely makes a difference. Strength friction plays into this alot more than people realize. Sending you prayers, Duty Ron, and a huge thank you to your excellent advisors and to Lauren.🙏 Justice for Abby and Libby.❤
Thank you for this excellent explanation. I have watched several people who are covering the trial and each explanation did not make sense to me. As a person who never even seen a gun I needed this. I will definitely watch your channel in future.
Thank you for this information, very helpful. I fear the people who need to hear it cannot, and that’s unfortunate. In my opinion there is reasonable doubt in this case. I went in believing they must have the right guy (I mean it’s been 7 years!!!), but they’ve failed to convince me completely, or beyond a reasonable doubt. Duty Ron I have never watched your channel however I want to wish you the best. Thank you for all of your service!! You’re in my prayers!
At the 50:00 minute mark you state on the video you hear the gun rack and you said there you go. The problem is that if that was the case the live round would have been found at the bridge not where the bodies were found.
These people have no clue. They just jump into a case and comment on it blowing more hot air. Lauren recommended watching this but I should have known better.
Watching later: It seems to me she should have been able to reproduce the marks on the unspent round with other same bullets that eere chambered and ejected. She was unable to do so. I can see fired comparing to fired but if his gun caused the mark without firing it should be reproducible without firing.
The investigator in the case stated they were unable to replicate the extractor marks on a clean round in the suspected firearm by manual extraction. She was only able to replicate the marks by firing the weapon. The extractors on all Sig 226's are mass produced, Most will make identical markings only giving the type of weapon that the round was ejected from but won't make a positive match to a single weapon unless that weapon has a specific flaw with the extractor. There were no flaws identified with the extractor of RA's weapon.
@@edwardwallace1776 No I didn't examine this gun, but in the manufacturing process of the parts of these weapons they are made by machines to specifications so that they are interchangeable. There were no specific identifiers of the extractor marks mentioned when the investigator was on the stand specifically identifying the weapon as being specific to the defendants firearm. Only that it was the same type of firearm. Thats what I was getting at in my post. I've worked on firearms my entire life and you cannot tell me there are differences in those parts, because if they were each different they would not work in the firearms interchangeably and reliably. The parts aren't like a typewriter with the name of owner stamped on them. Just saying. Also, manually extracting a round 4 or 6 times as the investigator mentioned and was not able to replicate the markings, until she actually fired the weapon, makes absolutely zero sense to me. Unless of course, The defendant used reloads, that evidence round had been extracted manually at least three times until it was found by Law Enforcement. There was no reloading equipment found during the search warrant service that the prosecutors have mentioned so. I'll just leave it at that.
@@MrGmanDan There are microscopic difference in those parts because of the manufacturing process and tools used to make the parts. In addition the more you use the gun the more wear and tear it receives the more unique these parts become especially if they get damaged. When these parts are made, the machine making them will create all the correct tolerances, but with each part made the machine making them changes slightly, until eventually that machine part must be replaced or retooled. Think of saw blade or knife, after each use there are changes occurring to the blade, with greater use the blades need to be re-sharpened or replaced. The analyst not being able to replicate the markings by manually cycling the gun just says to me she wasn't able to replicate the energy, force and speed used to create those markings found on the suspect Ctg to her satisfaction and she should have developed different testing methods to identify those variables until she recreated those markings, and there would have been no need to used test fired Ctgs.
Re-watching from New York. I'm watching this Monday. I wanted to send you good luck vibes for your test you have tomorrow! Looking forward to some good news.. thanks for your content as usual!
Doing the replay Monday. Thanks for doing this guys. DutyRon, we are all lifting you up for tomorrow. You and the Mrs feel all our hugs and best wishes. Love you all❤❤
Fantastic analysis guys 🥰 I really appreciate you putting in the time to create this content, and trying to get justice for the two beautiful girls Abby and Libby.
I love your great rapport - Duty Ron and Ed Wallace. Been worried about you since your scan. 🙏🙏🙏 I can’t see how RA can be guilty after listening to Andrea Burkhardt, Bob Motta, and Lawyer Lee. Every night.
Sending prayers your way ! My brother had lymphoma over 30 yrs ago and he is still living his best life and cancer free! You absolutely will kick this 💪🏼💪🏼
Ed and Ron, as always, I love your explanations and your expertise that you share with us all. Always something to learn, and we all have to keep in mind, it is the culmination of these sciences that explain the evidence left behind at crime scenes, along with the boot work of investigators. When it adds up, evidence cannot be denied. Much respect to your guests. Lauren has been fantastic sharing courtroom testimony presented. 🙏🏻☮️🪦🪦👍
Wow guys & gal, this is the most clarifying information i have seen on understanding , somewhat, how the markings on a live round are made and the science behind it when it comes to forsenic analysis ❤ Many thank to each and every one of you for a phenomenal show!!!
Thank you duty Ron Ed and yòur guest .. i understand why lawyers like Andrea Burghart and others are so frustrated with junk science which have been founnd unscientific in other courts
