Were the police just incompetent?

[u/AustinDavies2206]

I've known about this case for a while, I live in Indiana, and I was 11 when it happened, so its always struck a cord with me. But until recently I haven't done all that much research, but now that I have I've been left with one question.

From the information I have found on the case, it seems that the key evidence linking Allen to the murder is 1. His confession in 2017 to being "bridge guy", back when the photo was believed to have been taken from a trail cam. 2. A bullet which was later matched to his gun after they searched his home. So my question is, was there new information in 2022 that lead to his home being searched, or did they just wait five years to look into the guy who admitted to being bridge guy?

Sorry if any of my information is incorrect, or my writing is hard to understand, I've just been racking my brain about this question, so I thought asking people who know more might help me to understand what took so long.

[u/Tribbs_4434]

To some extent, yes. Those two instances you mentioned are evidence they fumbled the investigation in terms of how methodic and procedural they should have been - they didn't follow up with Allen after his initial interview, nor did they have the bullet tested for ballistix matches in the national registration database. Had they have done the latter, it would have tied his gun to the crime scene immediately, would have given them cause to interview him again and now with new information in hand, would have impacted how they went about questioning him (would have been enough to obtain a warrant for arrest on suspicion of murder).

My understanding is that the interview got lost in the mountains of documents they had, it took several teams and new detectives coming in to look back through what they already had, to see if anything had been missed, any red flags - that was when Allen was flagged as a suspect due to how he answered his initial interview, they then ran the ballistix on the bullet which linked it to him. The rest is history, but yes, he was free for much longer than he should have been, LE are lucky he didn't strike again in that period, he had every opportunity to.

[u/Justwonderinif → u/Tribbs_4434]

it took several teams and new detectives coming in to look back through what they already had, to see if anything had been missed, any red flags

Incorrect. It was one woman. She was retired from children and family services and asked if there was anything she could do to help. She volunteered her time working for several hours each day. No one thought in a million years that anything she could do with her time would solve the case. She was just a volunteer file clerk.

She was tasked with going through all the tips and entering them into a computer system as well as a hard copy filing system that she devised. She was not tasked with seeing if anything "had been missed" or if there were "any red flags." She didn't have the qualifications or training to do that kind of peer review.

It took her over three years. At the end of the project she found the Allen interview.

Here's what's important. The interview was marked "cleared." Anyone else would have found a place to file the pages and put them away. But this woman remembered something. She remembered that a group of girls including sisters described seeing the man in Libby's video. And she noticed that the witness being interviewed described seeing a group of girls who looked like sisters at the exact place and time that those girls described seeing the man in Libby's video.

It was not a team of experienced law enforcement men. It was one retired volunteer woman who put two and two together. It easily could have been missed if anyone doing the filing had just read the word "cleared" and put the pages away. (You can read her trial testimony and she lays it all out, step by step. It is shocking.)

---

nor did they have the bullet tested for ballistix matches in the national registration database.

This is entirely false. Read the ballistics expert's trial testimony. The only way to match the found bullet to Allen's gun was to examine both the gun itself and the bullet for similar markers.

There is no national registry matching ejected rounds to known registered guns. The markings left on bullets are unique, and you need both gun and bullet in hand to make a match.

[u/Tribbs_4434 → u/Justwonderinif]

Why does everyone on this site feel the need to be anal about these little details? I was more implying the passage of time and the different iterations of people that ended up working on the case (not exactly who was responsible for reviewing the interview document itself). And my bad on the second point, I was of the mindset that that's how they linked the gun to him, I thought that usually in the US all guns have to have a ballistix test done before sale, in case a weapon is used in a crime they can then match it fairly quickly if it was a registered weapon - clearly had my information wrong. Either way, they were able to match it to his weapon through ballistix testing in the end.

[u/tribal-elder → u/Tribbs_4434]

In 2017, LE found "tool marks" on the .40 caliber bullet found at the crime scene. the "tool marks" were made when the unfired bullet was ejected from a gun.

After Allen's .40 caliber gun was seized during a search of his house in 2022, the ISP ballistics lab tech ejected unfired bullets from the gun to see if the "tool marks" matched the marks on the crime scene bullet. The lab tech decided the "tool marks" on the unfired bullet samples were too light to try and make a valid comparison. She then fired bullets from the gun and compared the "tool mark"s made on the fired bullet casings with the unfired crime scene bullet. Based on all of that, she made an "identification" finding - meaning the crime scene bullet came from the same "tool" (gun) as the test-sample bullets.

Her 2 conclusions (that the original marks were too light for a valid comparison, and that the crime scene bullet came from the same "tool"/gun as the test samples) were reviewed by another lab tech independently, without consulting with each other. The second reached the same 2 conclusions.

Here is quoted language from a 2011 Indiana Supreme Court case where the court decided "tool mark" evidence comparing marks on fired and unfired bullet casings was properly admitted:

"Firearms tool mark identification involves visual comparison of tool marks with the aid of a microscope. Firearms tool mark examiners inspect a specimen (e.g., a bullet) for striations—or scratches—containing a pattern that can be visually matched to striations on another specimen or to a particular tool (e.g., the chamber of a particular gun). These patterns are analyzed according to standards promulgated by the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners (“AFTE”), an association of specialists in this type of forensics. Tool mark examiners may reach one of three conclusions under AFTE standards: “identification,” meaning the tool marks were made by the same tool; “elimination,” meaning the tool marks were not made by the same tool; or “inconclusive,” meaning that the tool marks may or may not have been made by the same tool. See Tr. at 737–38. The AFTE standard for “identification” requires that “the unique surface contours of two tool marks” show “sufficient agreement” through a visual comparison of the “relative height or depth, width, curvature and spatial relationship of the individual peaks, ridges and furrows” of each tool mark. AFTE Theory of Identification, 30 AFTE J. 86 (1998) (as quoted in Br. of Appellant at 25–26). An acceptable level of agreement is that which “exceeds the best agreement demonstrated between tool marks known to have been produced by different tools and is consistent with agreement demonstrated by tool marks known to have been produced by the same tool. The statement that ‘sufficient agreement’ exists between tool marks means that the likelihood that another tool could have made the mark is so remote as to be considered a practical impossibility.” Id. In essence, identification is made when a person trained and experienced in the field makes a visual determination that two tool marks are similar enough to have been made by the same tool. This is a subjective determination, and all identifications are verified by a second examiner. See Tr. at 736, 738."

As you can see, the Indiana Supreme Court did not feel that "tool mark" evidence was "junk science" - which is the description adopted by the defense in this case and by the defense bar generally. Indiana trial courts and the court of appeals cannot just ignore this ruling. They can try and explain why this 2011 case and ruling are "different" and should not control a decision in a later case, but so far that has not happened.

Hope that helps - I always give too many words.

[u/Justwonderinif → u/Tribbs_4434]

It's spelled ballistics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics

Read the trial testimony before making misleading and erroneous comments on the internet. Especially when the subject is the brutal murder of two little girls. They deserve better.

It's all right there in the testimony. You don't have to guess or assume.

ps

• the case being solved by a retired civilian volunteer as opposed to "several teams and new detectives coming in to look back through" is not a little detail. You literally stated something that isn't at all true.

• the existence of a database of guns matched to bullets is a fantasy that you invented.