The Delphi Case

Several individuals affiliated with a pro-defense stance for Richard Allen have received suspicious phishing emails containing malicious attachments. A technical analysis was performed in collaboration with an IT security consultant to assess these emails and their attachments. The originator and recipients of these phishing emails will not be named here.

Details of the Attack

Targets:

• Quasi-public figures associated with the same cause.

Attack Vector:

• Phishing Email: Delivered via emails sent from an Outlook desktop application.
• Payload: Password-protected PDF with a malicious link disguised as a DocuSign document.

Technical Analysis Performed

1. MAPI Header Analysis:

• Confirmed the emails originated from a desktop Outlook application using the originator’s credentials. 
• Key Header:

  Received: from DM4PR17MB5995.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3f30:41e1:e3d8:61ae]) 
  by DM4PR17MB5995.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3f30:41e1:e3d8:61ae%4]) 
  with mapi id 15.20.8158.023.

2. Payload Examination:

• PDF Creation:
  • Created using ilovepdf.com from an HTML file generated in Microsoft Word 16.
  • File Metadata:
    • Source File: 88debc649ad27b9eab55458f76133618.html
    • PDF Creation Time: 18 November at 12:32 EST.
    • Author Name: "ft".

3. Link Redirection:

• DocSend Usage:
  • Redirects victims to capture IP addresses and browser metadata before leading to the malicious webpage.

4. Fake Login Page:

• Final Destination: fitnessmansion.com (appears as a Microsoft login page; DO NOT VISIT).
• Code Review:
  • Standard phishing page HTML and JavaScript designed to mimic a Microsoft login.
  • Misconfigured: Credentials are sent to drensioons1sedt.com, a non-existent domain.

5. Phishing Recreation Test:

• Method:
  • Simulated attack using dummy accounts and a sandboxed environment.
  • Tested effects of clicking the link and entering credentials.
• Results:
  • No malicious activity detected after entering credentials.
  • No suspicious login attempts or email activity from the test account.

Attacker's Infrastructure

Email Origin:

• Sent from the originator’s Outlook desktop application, not a spoofed account. This is confirmed by the presence of the MAPI header in the email from the originator. A MAPI header is only present in this scenario, and not when a compromised account is used via webmail or via an SMTP server.

Payload Creation:

• Tools: ilovepdf.com and Microsoft Word.

Redirection via DocSend:

• Captures IP addresses and user metadata.

Fake Login Page:

• Malicious but flawed; may indicate incomplete setup or alternative objectives.

Analysis of Objectives

Ruled Out:

1. Accidental Sending:
   • Inconsistent recipient list (included unfamiliar contacts which the originator would not have in their address book).
2. Compromised Address Book:
   • Email formatting lacked recipient names (unlike typical malware-based spam). Standard malware that sends out emails would use a format including the recipient name from the address book, e.g. "John Doe <johndoe@gmail.com>" instead of just the email address.
3. Credential Theft:
   • Non-functional login page and test results suggest credentials were not the primary target. The full recreation of what would happen to a logged in Outlook account if the malicious link were clicked also disproves this.

Possible Motivations

1. Reconnaissance/IP Address Harvesting:
   • Likely objective given DocSend usage, flawed login page, and the negative results of the recreation attempt.
2. Psychological Manipulation/Intimidation:
   • Targeting of pro-defense figures suggests a possible motive to create paranoia or disruption.
3. Discrediting/Compromising the Originator:
   • Using their account/computer could damage their reputation or cause discord.

Hypotheses About the Flawed Login Page

• Incompetence/Error: Unlikely, given other elements were well-executed.
• Generic Phishing Toolkit: Plausible; attackers may have failed to customize default configurations.
• Intentional Deception: May obscure true objectives, such as IP harvesting.
• Testing/Abandonment: Attack may represent an incomplete campaign.

Conclusion

• The phishing attack likely primarily aimed to harvest IP addresses and possibly sow psychological discord among the targeted group.
• Evidence does not support traditional account compromise or credential theft.
• The misuse of the originator’s Outlook account suggests potential exploitation of application vulnerabilities or social engineering tactics.

This summary organizes the factual details extracted from a detailed transcript of Dr. Kohr’s testimony on 24 October 2024, regarding the autopsy findings for the two victims, Abby Williams and Liberty German.

Victim 1: Abby Williams

• Estimated Measurements: 64 inches long, approximately 95 lbs.
• Clothing: Black hoodie, blue jeans, gray sports bra, black bra, and a pink camisole.
• External Examination:
  • Single incision across the neck, approximately 5 cm long (about 2 inches).
  • Significant gaping of the wound due to muscle fiber retraction, measuring 2 to 2.5 inches wide.
  • Very faint linear marks across her face, suggestive of cloth or duct tape, but no adhesive residue was found. These marks were later clarified to be primarily on her chin, leading Dr. Kohr to conclude her mouth was likely not covered.
  • A small, very minor abrasion on her lips with no further explanation given as to its potential cause.
  • Evidence of lividity on her back suggesting she was laying on her back for several hours, potentially on debris, prior to being moved.
  • Smears of blood on her right arm, potentially from putting on or removing clothing before her death.
  • No defensive wounds were observed.
  • No blunt force trauma observed.
• Internal Examination:
  • Partial transsection (partial cut) of the left jugular vein.
  • No injuries suggestive of traumatic sexual contact. Dr. Kohr emphasized this does not definitively rule out sexual contact.
• Sexual Assault Kit:
  • Standard components (blood sample, swabs, etc.) were collected.
  • Fingernail scrapings were not possible due to severely short nails from biting.
  • Multiple hairs, source unknown, were found on the body and collected in the kit.
• Cause of Death: While not explicitly stated, it can be inferred to be blood loss from the neck wound (exsanguination), but contributing factors were not addressed.
• Estimated Time of Death: Consistent with death occurring 40-41 hours prior to autopsy, but may be consistent with other time ranges.
• Additional Notes: Dr. Kohr noted the importance of considering autonomic nervous system responses and the shock system in cases like this, leading to prioritization of blood flow to vital organs.

Victim 2: Liberty German

• Estimated Measurements: 64 inches long, approximately 200 lbs.
• External Examination:
  • Multiple incisions to the throat, with at least four separate cuts and potentially a fifth.
    • The wound on the far right consisted of two cuts in an “X” pattern.
    • The wound on the left side showed scalloped edges, initially thought to be indicative of a serrated knife. Dr. Kohr revised this conclusion after his deposition, speculating the marks might be from the hilt of a box cutter or another weapon with a patterned handle.
    • A possible second pass on the center wound, making a total of four or possibly five incisions.
  • Most wounds were vertically oriented.
  • A small, superficial incision below the left shoulder, possibly about 1 cm in length (not officially measured).
  • Small abrasions below the throat.
  • Small abrasion between the wound on the left side and the center wound.
  • Hands were bagged at an unspecified point before arrival at the morgue.
  • No defensive wounds were observed.
  • No restraint wounds were observed.
• Internal Examination:
  • Partially transected left carotid artery.
  • Fully transected right carotid artery and right jugular vein.
  • Mild cerebral edema present.
  • No trauma to the sex organs observed, but no opinion was provided regarding sexual activity before death.
• Sexual Assault Kit:
  • Standard components were collected.
  • Miscellaneous swabs from her thigh were noted but their provenance (where and when they were taken) remains unclear.
• Cause of Death: While not explicitly stated, it can be inferred to be blood loss from the neck wounds (exsanguination).
• Estimated Time of Death: Death likely occurred within 5 to 10 minutes, perhaps even closer to 5 minutes, due to the nature of the artery injuries.
• Additional Notes: Dr. Kohr noted blood on Libby’s hands, suggesting she likely tried to cover her wounds to slow the blood loss. The presence of mild cerebral edema indicated that her death was not instantaneous, taking a few minutes to develop.

General Observations or Overarching Forensic Conclusions

• Precise determination of time of death is challenging in both cases.
• Both girls’ injuries are consistent with sharp force trauma.
• While a specific weapon could not be definitively determined, Dr. Kohr initially concluded a serrated knife was used. He later revised his opinion based on a later analysis of the wound patterns and suggested a box cutter as a potential weapon. This is controversial due to the timing of Dr. Kohr’s change of opinion; the consideration of a box cutter came about after contact with the prosecutor in 2024, and was not based on supplemental investigation or a supplemental report.
• One knife could have potentially caused all the wounds.

The iPhone 6, like its predecessors, used a standard 3.5mm TRRS (Tip-Ring-Ring-Sleeve) connector for its headphone jack. This connector provided stereo audio output, microphone input, and remote control functionality through a single port.

Physical Design:

• Connector: The 3.5mm jack itself is a female connector, mechanically mounted to the iPhone’s chassis.
• Contacts: Internally, the jack has four spring-loaded contacts that connect to the corresponding sections (tip, ring, ring, sleeve) of the inserted headphone plug.
• Switches: In addition to the contacts, the headphone jack assembly typically incorporates mechanical switches activated by the insertion and removal of the plug.

Headphone Jack Detection Circuit:

The iPhone 6 utilized a combination of hardware and software to detect the presence of headphones. The detection circuit primarily relied on mechanical switches within the headphone jack assembly and the resulting change in resistance across specific contacts.

Here’s a breakdown of the likely components involved:

1. Mechanical Switch(es):
   • The headphone jack assembly includes at least one, and potentially multiple, small switches activated by the insertion of the headphone plug.
   • When a plug is inserted, the tip of the plug pushes a switch, either directly or through a lever mechanism.
   • This action either closes a normally open switch or opens a normally closed switch, depending on the specific design.
2. Resistor Network:
   • The switch(es) are typically part of a voltage divider circuit connected to the iPhone’s logic board.
   • When the headphone plug is not inserted, the switch remains in its default position, and the resistor network provides a specific voltage level to the detection pin on the logic board.
   • Upon insertion, the switch’s change in state alters the resistance in the network, thus changing the voltage level on the detection pin.
3. Logic Board Interface:
   • The iPhone’s logic board contains a dedicated GPIO (general purpose input/output) pin assigned to headphone detection.
   • This pin is connected to the resistor network through a dedicated trace on the logic board.
   • The logic board constantly monitors the voltage level on this pin.
4. Software Processing:
   • The iPhone’s operating system (iOS) is programmed to interpret the voltage level received on the headphone detection pin.
   • When the voltage changes to indicate the insertion of headphones, iOS recognizes this and triggers appropriate actions, such as:
     • Routing audio output to the headphones.
     • Deactivating the built-in speakers.
     • Enabling headphone controls (if present on the headphone cable).
     • Displaying the headphone icon in the status bar.

Simplified Illustration:

Imagine a simple scenario with a single, normally open switch and two resistors in a voltage divider.

• No Headphones: When no headphones are inserted, the switch is open. The voltage divider, consisting of two resistors, provides a specific voltage (e.g., high voltage) to the detection pin.
• Headphones Inserted: Inserting the headphones closes the switch. This changes the resistor network configuration, resulting in a different voltage (e.g., low voltage) at the detection pin.

The prosecution and defense presented closing arguments, with the state focusing on Allen’s confessions, physical evidence, and witness testimony, while the defense emphasized a lack of forensic evidence, disputed the reliability of witness accounts, and argued Allen’s confessions were coerced due to solitary confinement. After instructions, the jury began deliberations but adjourned early, leaving the verdict uncertain.

Closing Arguments:

Prosecution:

• Timeline:
  • Focused on witness testimonies and digital evidence placing Allen at the trails during the time of the murders.
  • Emphasized Libby’s video, the “guys down the hill” audio, and Sarah Carbaugh’s testimony about seeing a muddy/bloody man.
  • Claimed Allen’s car was seen on the Hoosier Harvest store video and that it was the only black 2016 Ford Focus registered in Carroll County at the time.
• The Bullet:
  • Highlighted state expert testimony connecting the unspent cartridge to Allen’s gun.
  • Emphasized that other guns were tested but could not be excluded, and ultimately Allen’s gun was the only “match.”
• Confessions:
  • Characterized Allen’s confessions to his wife and mother as “unprovoked and unpressured,” focusing on his statements like, “I did it. I killed Abby and Libby.”
  • Referenced Allen’s desire to apologize to the families.
• The Van:
  • Pointed to Allen’s confession detail about being startled by a van as a key fact only the killer would know.
  • Connected the van detail to Brad Weber’s van, claiming he drove by the private drive around the time Allen would have been at the crime scene.
  • Harshman’s voice analysis: Prosecutor mentioned that law enforcement officer Harshman, who had listened to numerous calls of Allen, positively identified Allen’s voice as the voice on Libby’s video.
• The Phone:
  • Referred to Abby as a “hero” for hiding Libby’s phone, implying a conscious effort to preserve evidence.
• Closing:
  • Emphasized that all pieces of evidence, especially Allen’s confessions, point to his guilt.
  • Implored the jury to act upon the evidence presented and find Allen guilty on all four counts.

Defense:

• Countering the State’s Narrative:
  • Highlighted discrepancies and omissions in the state’s case, repeatedly asking why the state didn’t present certain evidence or witnesses.
  • Stressed that the burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution and the jury must act on evidence, not speculation.
• Challenging Witness Testimony:
  • Criticized Sarah Carbaugh’s testimony about the muddy/bloody man, highlighting inconsistencies and calling her credibility into question.
  • Presented alternate witnesses (David McCain, Cheyenne Mill, Shelley Hicks) who were at the trails around the time of the murders but saw or heard nothing suspicious.
• Attacking the Bullet Evidence:
  • Emphasized the state expert’s initial inability to match the unspent cartridge to Allen’s gun.
  • Argued against the validity of comparing a fired cartridge with an unspent one.
  • Questioned why the state, after their “match” was challenged by the defense expert, didn’t seek a third-party analysis for unbiased verification.
• The Van Detail:
  • Cast doubt on the significance of the van detail, highlighting the prevalence of vans in the area.
  • Pointed to Brad Weber’s inconsistent accounts about his whereabouts that day.
  • Questioned why Weber brought text messages to the police interview when, according to Mullen, he was not told why he was being interviewed.
• Exposing “Acts of Desperation”:
  • Pointed to several late-stage investigations (DMV search for Allen’s car, DNA test on the hair in Abby’s hand, the Google search by the state’s digital expert) as evidence of the state’s “desperation” to fit the crime to Allen.
• Focus on False Confessions:
  • Emphasized the severe and abnormal conditions Allen endured in solitary confinement, claiming it caused mental breakdown and false confessions.
  • Compared solitary confinement to Medieval torture techniques, arguing that prolonged isolation under harsh conditions could break anyone.
  • Stressed that numerous mental health professionals treating Allen at the prison failed to identify the detrimental effects of solitary confinement, asking “Where is the moral compass?”.
  • Cast doubt on Dr. Walla’s testimony and notes, hinting at her potential biases.
• Phone Data Discrepancies:
  • Referred to the Health Data on Libby’s phone, highlighting its limited stair-count data that contradicts the state’s theory about how and where the girls were moved.
  • Emphasized the phone’s accuracy as a source of data, stressing the unusual audio input/output activity (headphone plugged in/out) at 5:44 pm and 10:32 pm that cannot be explained if the phone was undisturbed under Abby’s body.
• Lack of Forensic Evidence:
  • Pointed out the absence of Allen’s fingerprints, footprints, DNA, or clothing at the scene, and no trace evidence from the crime found on Allen, his home, or his car.
• Closing:
  • Implored the jury to be the “moral compass” and reject the state’s inhumane treatment of Allen.
  • Summarized by highlighting discrepancies, challenging the state’s evidence and pushing the narrative of a botched investigation that resulted in coerced, false confessions from a mentally ill, psychologically broken man.

Judge’s Instructions:

• Reiterated standard instructions: Reasonable Doubt, presumption of innocence, careful consideration of all evidence, witness credibility, and exclusive judgment of the jury in determining guilt or innocence.

Jury Deliberations:

• Jury deliberations began at 1:25 p.m. and were adjourned at 3:20 p.m., despite the Judge’s intention to continue until 4 p.m.
• This unexpected early adjournment left everyone speculating about whether the jury reached a decision or had hit a roadblock.
• The jurors will resume deliberations at 9:00 a.m. the following morning.

The defense in the Richard Allen trial unexpectedly rested its case without calling key witness Kathy Allen. The state presented a brief rebuttal, focusing on challenging Allen's alibi and the circumstances surrounding his mental health and incriminating statements while incarcerated, before moving into preparations for closing arguments.

Defense Rests:

• The defense surprisingly rested their case immediately upon the start of proceedings.
• Kathy Allen, the defendant’s wife, who was on the witness list and was expected to testify, was not called.
• Several jurors were visibly surprised by the defense’s decision to rest.

State’s Rebuttal:

The state called three witnesses:

Breann Wilbur - Recalled from the State's case-in-chief:

• Testified about previously undisclosed Snapchat photos timestamped 12:25 p.m. on February 13, 2017, placing her near the Freedom Bridge, a starting point for accessing the Monon High Bridge Trail.
• Confirmed that she and her companions did not encounter any other children or adults, including the individual later identified as “Bridge Guy,” during their walk to the High Bridge around 12:30 p.m.
• This testimony was introduced to cast doubt on Allen’s alibi of being on the trail around 12:30 p.m., suggesting that he should have been seen by Wilbur and her group if his alibi was true.

Brian Harshman (Indiana State Police):

• Testified about Richard Allen’s confinement conditions in various correctional facilities (Westville, Wabash, Cass County Jail), emphasizing Allen’s lack of human contact even when not in solitary confinement.
• Acknowledged that while conditions in the Cass County Jail were physically better, the isolation from human interaction was more severe than in Westville, where Allen had limited interactions with guards, Dr. Walla, and other inmates.
• Defense attempted to highlight the harshness of solitary confinement (labeled a "one-man cell" by the state), suggesting it may have impacted Allen’s mental state and confessions, but this line of questioning was deemed beyond the scope of rebuttal.

Dr. John Martin (Psychiatrist):

• Provided a detailed account of Richard Allen's mental health treatment from November 2022 until his transfer from Westville Correctional Facility.
• Testified that Allen was initially diagnosed with major depressive disorder and anxiety, prescribed Prozac, and showed no signs of psychosis.
• Detailed Allen’s rapid mental deterioration in April 2023, when he was found naked in his cell, covered in feces, and exhibiting signs of psychosis.
• Explained that Allen was involuntarily medicated with haloperidol ("Haldol") after a panel of psychiatrists, including himself, Dr. Walla, and Dr. William Hayes, determined Allen was incompetent and a danger to himself.
• Claimed that Allen's condition improved over the next few months, eventually showing no outward signs of psychosis, and haloperidol injections were discontinued.
• Claimed that during a visit on June 20, 2023, Allen spontaneously said, "I would like to apologize to the families," despite exhibiting no other signs of psychosis at that time.
• Cross-examined about potential gaps in Allen's treatment, his reliance on other healthcare providers’ notes, limited interaction time with Allen, and the potential impact of solitary confinement on his mental state.
• Confronted with video evidence of Allen’s catatonic state from June 20, 2023, taken just hours after Dr. Martin's reported encounter with him. Dr. Martin conceded that the video contradicted his previous assessment of Allen's mental state that day, raising questions about the credibility of both Dr. Martin's testimony and Allen’s supposedly lucid statement of apology.

Jury Instruction Conference:

• The state did not object to the judge's proposed jury instructions.
• Defense raised concerns about instructions regarding Richard Allen’s decision not to testify and the credibility of his confessions given his mental state during interrogation.
• Judge addressed defense's concerns and decided to use the standard, updated pattern instructions.

Post-Testimony Motions:

• Andrew Baldwin (defense) unsuccessfully attempted to enter three offers of proof concerning two subpoenaed inmates and the non-appearance of witness Elvis Fields. The judge denied the request to issue a bench warrant for Fields.

Other Notable Developments:

• It was announced that closing arguments will occur Thursday, November 7, 2024, with each side granted 2-2.5 hours for closing remarks.
• It was discussed that the judge would deliver preliminary instructions to the jury before closing arguments.

Court Adjourned: Court was adjourned until 9 a.m. the following day, with closing arguments to be delivered before jury deliberations.

Day 16 of the Richard Allen trial saw the defense challenge the state’s firearms evidence and introduce digital forensics suggesting Libby German’s phone was tampered with, potentially creating reasonable doubt in the state’s case.

Witness Testimony:

Betsy Blair (Defense Witness):

• Returned to the trails around 1:49 p.m. after a bathroom break. Left the trails for good at 2:14 p.m.
• She was the only car parked at the entrance when she arrived.
• Observed a single, older model car, potentially a Ford (but corrected to likely a Mercury Comet), backed into a parking space facing the road at what she believed to be the old CPS building. She could not recall the color but definitively stated it was not black.

Dr. Stuart Grassian (Defense Expert Witness - Psychiatrist):

• Expert in solitary confinement and its psychological effects on inmates.
• Testified about the potential for delirium, memory loss, and false confessions caused by prolonged solitary confinement, highlighting the harsh conditions Allen faced for 13 months.
• Noted that international standards set a 15-day limit for solitary confinement, far less than Allen’s experience.
• Described the process of memory formation, stating that memories begin as beliefs about what happened, not as visual images, and are therefore susceptible to change and distortion over time.

Dr. Aaron Warren (Defense Expert Witness - Firearms Examiner):

• Reviewed the State’s firearms expert - Melissa Oberg’s - reports and microscopic images but did not conduct his own physical examination of the evidence.
• Discussed the criticism surrounding tool mark analysis but defended the practice as constantly striving for improvement through research and constructive criticism.
• Believes it is inappropriate to compare a cycled round with a fired round due to differences in pressure and other variables.
• Stated Oberg focused on “gross marks” (larger markings) for comparison rather than the more individualized “finer marks,” casting doubt on her conclusion of sufficient agreement.
• Applied the Consecutive Matching Striations (CMS) standard, finding insufficient agreement between the cartridge casing found at the scene and those fired from Allen’s gun, leading to his opinion that the crime scene casing was not ejected from Allen’s gun.

Stacy Eldridge (Defense Expert Witness - Digital Forensics):

• Analyzed the digital extraction data from Libby German’s phone, focusing on Apple Health Data and the event causing the phone to turn on at 4:33 a.m.
• Highlighted the loss of critical data due to multiple power cycles of the phone prior to a full file system extraction being completed. This included data from the phone’s “Power Log,” making it impossible to determine when, or if, the phone was turned off between 5:44 p.m. on February 13th and 4:33 a.m. on February 14th.
• Discovered, through analysis of the “KnowledgeC” database, that a headphone jack (or aux cord) was plugged into the phone at 5:44 p.m. on February 13th and unplugged at 10:32 p.m.
• Just milliseconds prior to the headphones being plugged in, there was an incoming phone call to Libby’s phone.
• Could not provide an explanation as to why the phone did not connect to a tower between 5:44 p.m. on February 13th and 4:33 a.m. on February 14th.

Christopher Cecil (Recalled by the Defense):

• Confirmed he could not decipher the data related to the audio output route in the KnowledgeC database (which Eldridge was able to analyze).
• Could not provide an explanation for the lack of cell tower connection during the critical timeframe.

Brian Bunner (Recalled by the Defense):

• Also could not explain the audio output data in the KnowledgeC database.

Notable Events:

• The defense’s strategy in recalling Cecil was to “lock him in” to his initial findings before he had a chance to prepare a rebuttal for the state based on Eldridge’s testimony.
• The State’s attempt at a rebuttal regarding the audio output data was thwarted when Cecil admitted he had relied on a quick Google search during the break to come up with alternative explanations, which enraged the defense and possibly raised questions about the state’s investigative thoroughness in the minds of the jury.
• Judge Frances Gull denied the State’s motion for a limiting instruction regarding Dr. Grassian’s testimony on the potential for false confessions in cases involving solitary confinement.
• Many juror questions centered on the reliability of the firearms analysis, suggesting it may be a pivotal factor in their deliberations.

Day Summary:

Day 16 presented a potential turning point in the trial with the introduction of surprising digital evidence suggesting someone tampered with Libby German’s phone during the crucial timeframe. The credibility of the State’s firearms evidence was also heavily challenged. The day concluded with the potential for doubt cast on the state’s case due to unprepared witnesses, a lack of comprehensive investigation, and what could be perceived as inadequate scientific analysis, forcing the prosecution to find effective counter-arguments regarding the audio output and tool mark issues to sway the jury towards a conviction.

Defense experts testified to Richard Allen’s deteriorating mental state in jail, arguing his confessions were unreliable due to psychosis. Testimony from Brad Weber, including a photo from his property that elicited a strong jury reaction, introduced a potential alternate suspect and raised questions about the prosecution’s case.

Witness Testimony: Dr. Polly Wescott (Neuropsychologist)

• Key Points: Dr. Wescott testified about Richard Allen’s mental health, basing her analysis on 20 hours of video footage, medical records, and personal interviews totaling 5-6 hours. She described Allen as a “fragile egg” with pre-existing mental health conditions including anxiety, depression, and dependent personality disorder, exacerbated by incarceration. She concluded that Allen experienced a significant decline in mental and physical health during his incarceration, marked by psychosis, delusions, and unusual behaviors. She testified that these symptoms were not faked and that the stress of solitary confinement contributed to his decline. Dr. Wescott also analyzed Allen’s handwriting, finding a marked deterioration in coherence and organization over time.
• Cross-Examination: The prosecution questioned Dr. Wescott’s conclusions, focusing on inconsistencies with prison psychologist Dr. Wala’s observations and suggesting that Allen’s confessions, although made during psychosis, could contain elements of truth. They also questioned her reliance on Allen’s self-reported information regarding his family’s mental health history and the severity of his prison conditions.
• Jury Questions: Jurors questioned whether Allen’s fear of threats in prison indicated an awareness of the potential negative consequences of confessing, and if a childhood history of depression and anxiety could cause someone to commit crimes as an adult. They also inquired about the specific nature of Allen’s diagnosis and whether Dr. Wescott had reviewed Allen’s pre-arrest police interview.

Witness Testimony: Max Baker (Defense Legal Intern)

• Key Points: Baker presented video footage of Allen in his cell, focusing on periods where Allen exhibited signs of mental distress. The footage included camcorder recordings of Allen being escorted outside his cell and overhead camera footage from inside his cell. Baker compiled this footage to illustrate the decline in Allen’s mental state during incarceration.
• Cross-Examination: The prosecution questioned Baker’s selection of video clips, arguing that he deliberately chose the most disturbing footage to portray Allen as a victim and curry favor with the jury. They also inquired about the rationale for including footage of Allen being tased.

Witness Testimony: Jamie Jones (Richard Allen’s Sister)

• Key Points: Jones testified that Allen never molested or touched her in a sexual way, refuting one of Allen’s alleged confessions.

Witness Testimony: Brittany Zapanta (Richard Allen’s Daughter)

• Key Points: Zapanta testified that Allen never molested her and that she would not lie for him. She was asked if she loved her father, to which she replied yes. She also stated that she visited the Monon High Bridge with her father in her teenage years and that she was terrified of it. The defense introduced photographs of Allen from 2017 to show his appearance at the time of the murders.

Witness Testimony: Steve Mullin (Investigator for Carroll County Prosecutor)

• Key Points: Mullin testified again about the 2016 Ford Focus believed to be Allen’s, stating that it was the only one of that specific model in the county. He acknowledged that other similar models existed that could not be definitively excluded based on the Hoosier Harvester video. The defense questioned Mullin’s methodology for eliminating these other vehicles, suggesting bias toward implicating Allen. Testimony also touched on missing video footage of interviews conducted early in the investigation.

Witness Testimony: State Trooper Harshman

• Key Points: Harshman was questioned about the van reportedly seen near the Monon High Bridge around the time of the murders. The defense suggested that the van belonged to Brad Weber, who lived near the bridge.
• Jury Questions: A juror questioned whether a van was discussed before Allen’s confession.

Witness Testimony: Brad Weber

• Key Points: Weber, who had returned from Arizona on February 12th, testified about his activities on February 13th, the day of the murders, attempting to clarify inconsistencies in his prior statements. He confirmed driving his white van that day, a departure from his usual routine of driving his black Subaru, potentially placing him near the crime scene around the time of the abduction. He claimed to have left work early that day, going straight home for a nap, despite typically servicing his 35 ATMs after work. Police contacted him at 5:00 PM inquiring about the missing girls. He stated he then went back to sleep and, unusually, did not service his ATMs that day. He also confirmed that police searched his property and vehicles multiple times, with a specific search occurring on February 19th.
• Evidence: A photograph taken on Weber’s property during the February 19th search, presented by Allen’s defense attorney Andy Baldwin, was admitted into evidence over the State’s objection. The jury’s reaction to the photograph was notably animated, with jurors observed engaging in discussions amongst themselves after reviewing it. The context or subject of the photo was not disclosed in open court.
• Cross-Examination: The prosecution highlighted discrepancies between Weber’s current testimony and his previous statements to law enforcement, particularly regarding his timeline and deviations from his established routines. They questioned his decision to drive the white van instead of his Subaru and his failure to attend to his ATMs on February 13th.
• Jury Questions: Jurors’ questions focused on Weber’s work habits, specifically the process for clocking out, his typical routine after leaving work, and whether his driving route ever took him under the Monon High Bridge, a location potentially relevant to the case.
• Other Observations: Weber was questioned about past issues with trespassers on his property. The word “sticks” was overheard during his testimony, although its context remains unclear. Prosecutor Holeman appeared visibly frustrated by the conclusion of Weber’s testimony. This, combined with the jury’s reaction to the photograph, suggests that Weber’s testimony may have been problematic for the prosecution.

Additional Notes & Observations

• The defense’s attempts to introduce additional third-party culprit evidence relating to Odinists, including statements and social media posts by other individuals, were denied by the judge due to lack of a direct nexus to the crime.
• The jury’s reactions to the video footage of Allen in his cell and the photo of Weber’s garage were noted, suggesting potential emotional impact.

Overall

The day’s proceedings heavily focused on Richard Allen’s mental state during his incarceration and the credibility of his confessions. The defense presented evidence and testimony aiming to establish that Allen’s confessions were a product of a psychotic break induced by solitary confinement. The prosecution countered by suggesting that even within a psychotic state, Allen’s confessions could contain truthful elements. The testimony of Brad Weber and the introduction of the photo of his garage, potentially containing sticks similar to those found on the victims, added another layer of complexity to the proceedings. The numerous jury questions throughout the day indicated their active engagement with the evidence and their focus on key aspects of the case, such as the timeline of events and the validity of the confessions.

This primer is designed to inform newcomers about compelling evidence suggesting the involvement of third-party suspects in the Delphi murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German on February 13, 2017. While the trial of Richard Allen is now underway, many are unfamiliar with the strong links to a group of individuals practicing Odinism, a pagan Norse religion often appropriated by white nationalist groups.

The information here is derived from Richard Allen's defense, Franks Motion (1), which you can read in full here. 

1. Ritualistic Elements at the Crime Scene:

The crime scene showcased several ritualistic aspects strongly suggesting a planned act involving multiple individuals:

• Rune formations: Both girls had sticks and tree branches arranged on their bodies, mimicking specific runes, symbols deeply tied to Odinism. “Sticks and tree branches were deliberately, carefully and proficiently placed on each girl in a certain arrangement mimicking certain runes."
• Libby’s blood “painting”: A symbol resembling the “F” rune, often signifying “Odin”, was found on a nearby tree, painted with Libby’s blood.
• Abby’s “horns”: Small sticks, resembling horns, were crudely placed on Abby’s head. Elvis Fields, a later suspect, confessed to “giving [Abigail] horns” with sticks, matching the crime scene evidence.
• Posing and clothing differences: The girls were posed differently. Libby was naked with blood markings across her body, while Abby was dressed in Libby’s clothes with no blood on her garments.

The deliberate arrangement of the bodies and symbolic elements points strongly towards ritualistic practices within Odinism, a theory largely ignored by the lead investigators, Unified Command.

2. Brad Holder – A Suspect Quickly Dismissed:

Brad Holder, an avowed Odinist, becomes a key suspect. He is directly connected to Abby Williams as his son, Logan, was dating her. However, despite alarming evidence, Holder was cleared as a suspect by Unified Command remarkably quickly.

Compelling evidence against Holder:

• Runes on social media: Holder posted images on social media mimicking the specific runes found at the crime scene, knowledge the public should not have had access to. “Police knew – or had to know – that runes had been left at the crime scene. Additionally, Unified Command had already cleared Holder as a suspect in spite of the fact that runes found on Brad Holder’s Facebook pages mimicked runes found at a crime scene that had not been released to the public.”
• Mimicked murder scene image: A disturbing image found on Holder’s social media depicted two young women, either dead or posed as such, with branches laid across their bodies in a forest setting, eerily mirroring the Delphi crime scene.
• “Goodfellas” meme: Holder posted a meme the day after the girls' bodies were found, later deleted, depicting characters moving a dead body, with a caption referencing real friends helping to "move the body & never speak of it again.”
• Incriminating 2am Facebook post: Just 12 hours after the girls went missing, Holder posted, and later deleted, a status proclaiming his testosterone and energy were “through the roof," raising questions about his actions that night.
• Link to Elvis Fields: Fields, a later suspect who confessed to his involvement in the murders, actively recreated Holder’s social media posts, including photos of weaponry and a mason jar. Fields described himself as part of a “gang” with a "brother,” suggesting connections to Holder and the Vinlanders group.
• Weak alibi and suspicious behavior: Holder claimed to be at work during the murders, but his alibi was weakly investigated. Deputy Rogers memorialized his contact with Human Resources at Liberty Landfill as follows: “Case provided this officer a copy of the time sheet for this week showing Brad indeed had clocked in and out on February 13th…"
• Disregard of tips: Multiple tipsters alerted law enforcement to Holder’s suspicious social media activity and potential connection to the crime, but these were swiftly dismissed by investigators. “Liggett essentially gave up on investigating Brad Holder because of Holder’s purported alibi."

3. Other Third-Party Suspects & the “Odin Report”:

Trooper Kevin Murphy independently investigated a man named Elvis Fields in Rushville, IN (126 miles from Delphi), after his sister, Mary Jacobs, reported his suspicious confession of being involved in the murders. “On February 14, 2017, her brother, Elvis Fields, in Rushville, IN, was rambling, hyper, and borderline incoherent. He was talking about having a ‘brother’ and was part of a ‘gang’ now. Elvis told her that he had been on a bridge with two girls that were killed." This investigation revealed several key connections back to Holder and the Odinite group:

• Elvis Fields’ confession: Fields, described as mentally impaired, admitted his involvement to two of his sisters, even revealing knowledge of specific crime scene details such as the placement of sticks to give Abby “horns." "Elvis told her that someone named Abigail was a troublemaker, so he had to give her horns.”
• “Spit” incriminating statement: After submitting a DNA sample, Fields chillingly asked a state trooper if he could explain his “spit” being found on one of the girls. Later, he confirmed to a different sister that he did “spit on one of the girls” after they were killed.
• Johnny Messer: This Rushville man was an active recruiter for the Vinlanders and was known to have close ties with both Holder and Fields, potentially bridging the gap between them. “Evidence shows that the Recruiter, Johnny Messer was the connective tissue between the Delphi crew and the Rushville crew. Unified Command overlooked these connections and furthermore Liggett failed to inform Judge Diener of these connections to the murder scene.” Messer’s ex-girlfriend confirmed to police that Messer travelled to Delphi around Valentine’s Day 2017 with her vehicle. When he returned the car, there was dried blood on one side of it which took “several car washes to clean off.”
• Rod Abrams: Fields’ roommate and friend provided a conflicting alibi to investigators, claiming they were in Muncie visiting a sick friend on the day of the murders, which phone records contradicted. Both men, along with another individual, Ned Smith, were purportedly seeking membership in the Vinlanders.

This evidence was documented in what is now called the “Odin Report,” but ultimately ignored by Unified Command and concealed by Tony Liggett, the lead investigator who filed for a search warrant against Richard Allen in October 2022.

4. Falsified Evidence & A Disintegrating Timeline:

The search warrant affidavit filed against Richard Allen was based on a faulty timeline carefully constructed by Tony Liggett.

Key flaws in Liggett’s affidavit and investigation:

• Conflicting witness descriptions: Liggett used statements from key eyewitnesses, Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh, to establish Allen’s presence at the crime scene, but he concealed vital information contradicting his narrative. Blair described a man on the bridge in his twenties or thirties with brown, “poofy” hair, significantly younger than Allen’s appearance in 2017, a fact Liggett knew firsthand. Carbaugh described a man walking down the road wearing a “tan” jacket with “mud” on his clothes, whereas Liggett falsified her account, claiming the man wore a “blue” jacket with “muddy and bloody” clothing.
• Concealing Betsy Blair’s vehicle observation: Blair saw a car at the CPS lot that did not match Allen’s black Ford Focus, supporting the possibility that Allen had already left the trails at 1:30 pm, as he told investigators. However, Liggett failed to mention this in the affidavit, a detail that destroys his timeline.

Liggett’s omissions and blatant lies regarding eyewitness accounts completely undermine his narrative, revealing a desperate attempt to frame Richard Allen.

5. Odinite “Guardians” at Westville:

Richard Allen was kept at Westville Correctional Facility, guarded by Odinist corrections officers, raising significant concerns about his safety and well-being. “Throughout this document references are made to the ‘Unified Command’. Essentially, the Unified Command was “the leadership” of the Delphi murder investigation, according to Tony Liggett (Carroll County sheriff and member of Unified Command when the investigation began).” Two such officers, Sergeant Robinson and Sergeant Jones, were routinely seen wearing “In Odin We Trust” patches on their uniforms during attorney visits, a display that curiously ended after Unified Command became aware that the defense was pursuing the Odinite angle. Robinson’s Facebook posts also revealed pictures of his Odin altar, filled with Odinite symbols, further solidifying his connection to the religion.

These facts raise questions about the impartiality and integrity of Allen’s confinement at Westville, where he has faced intimidation and potential threats. The coincidence of Odinite officers overseeing Allen’s custody in a case with substantial links to their religion raises serious doubts.

6. Lack of Evidence Against Richard Allen:

Liggett and Holeman have confirmed no forensic or electronic evidence links Allen to the girls or the crime scene:

• No DNA
• No incriminating cell phone or computer data
• No fingerprint evidence
• No social media connection to the murders

Liggett attempted to link Allen to the crime using his presence on the trails that day, his ownership of a blue coat, guns, and knives - attributes shared by countless individuals. Liggett even cited a flawed report from a DNR officer, Dan Dulin, whose interview with Allen is missing and who, concerningly, identified Allen with an incorrect name in official reports. “Well, since we can’t necessarily trust DNR Dan’s accuracy in writing reports, at least there would be a tape-recording that would be able to provide the precise words used by Richard Allen, right? Wrong."

The lack of evidence, coupled with Liggett’s intentional and reckless fabrication of a timeline using concealed and falsified information, creates a compelling case for Allen’s innocence. It is hard to believe Liggett could state this about Holder as an officer on Unified Command: “Q: Nothing stands out to you as you sit there about why Brad Holder might have been a suspect? A: No.” This entire investigation is troubling.

7. Conclusion:

While Richard Allen faces trial for the Delphi murders, substantial evidence strongly suggests that other individuals, possibly connected through Odinism, are responsible. Liggett’s blatant efforts to manipulate the narrative through concealed and falsified information cannot be ignored. His attempts to suppress this investigation by stating “no leads required” or “fully covered” with regards to Holder showcase reckless behavior by Unified Command. The presence of Odinite officers at Westville, the alarming evidence against Holder and his associates, and the complete lack of evidence connecting Allen to the crime demand a deeper look into the role of third parties in this heinous crime. As the primer discussed, Richard’s defense team learned that in February of 2018, Mary Jacobs passed a polygraph test related to what she had been told by Elvis Fields about Fields involvement in the crime, however Elvis was never seriously considered a suspect and Unified Command seemingly buried the evidence that showed how connected Elvis was to Holder. While Allen is the individual being charged, perhaps the spotlight should shine elsewhere, on individuals linked to a disturbing ideology with an evident connection to the crime.

The defense presented jail videos aiming to show Richard Allen’s mental decline while incarcerated, arguing his confessions were coerced. Jurors reacted emotionally to the videos, while the prosecution and judge limited the scope of footage shown.

Witness Testimony

1. Max Baker (Legal Intern for Defense):
   • Presented video clips of Richard Allen in jail, primarily “walk-around” videos showing his movements outside his cell under guard supervision.
   • Videos were silent, but jurors’ reactions indicated significant emotional impact.
   • Specific dates/times were provided for several clips, particularly those eliciting strong reactions from the jury (e.g., April 13, 17, 18).
   • The content of the videos was not described explicitly due to privacy concerns raised by the defense.
2. Doug Carter (Former Superintendent, Indiana State Police):
   • Brief testimony about his role as support for the Delphi Murders Investigation.
   • Confirmed involvement of various agencies, including the FBI, ATF, and US Marshals.
   • Indicated the FBI’s involvement ceased in August 2021.
   • Defense questioning seemed to focus on the FBI’s potential role in pursuing alternate leads/suspects.
   • A significant portion of intended testimony may have been excluded following a sidebar with the judge.

Legal Arguments/Motions

• Defense: Argued for showing an extended series of jail videos to demonstrate the progression of Richard Allen’s alleged mental decline. This was denied by the judge.
• Prosecution: Argued against showing lengthy jail videos, stating only the portions relevant to his mental state at the time of the confessions should be shown.
• Defense (in past filings): Filed a motion to modify the safekeeping order in April, arguing Richard Allen’s treatment was worse than convicted individuals and was leading to a mental health decline.

Judge’s Rulings

• Denied defense request to show broader range of jail videos.
• Allowed limited presentation of jail video clips as chosen by the defense, with content redacted and audio muted for privacy.
• Excluded a portion of Doug Carter’s testimony following a sidebar with the prosecution.

Notable Courtroom Exchanges

• Defense and prosecution worked together to adjust the courtroom video screen to obscure the jail video footage from the public.
• Jurors displayed a wide range of strong emotional reactions to the jail videos, from intense focus and note-taking to visible distress and tears.
• Several jurors had notably strong reactions, with juror #10 (a man described as highly engaged throughout the trial) and juror #6 (a young woman) mentioned specifically.
• Richard Allen and his wife, Kathy Allen, were not present in the courtroom during the viewing of the jail videos.

Summary of Richard Allen’s Mental State and Alleged Confessions

The timeline reveals a complex picture:

• Initial Interviews (Oct. 2022): Allen appears confident, denies involvement, becomes agitated only after prolonged questioning.
• Confessions Begin (Mar. 2023): First confession to Dr. Wala includes religious themes and remorse.
• Deterioration and Bizarre Behavior (Apr. 2023): Increased erratic behavior documented by guards (e.g., drinking toilet water, self-harm threats, nudity, rambling speech). Multiple confessions during this period, both to guards and Dr. Wala.
• Involuntary Medication (Apr. 2023): Diagnosed with grave disability, prescribed psychotropic medication (Haldol).
• Detailed Confession (May 2023): Provides specifics about the murders to Dr. Wala, including mention of a van startling him, cutting the victims’ throats, and covering their bodies. This confession was considered coherent by Dr. Wala.
• Continued Confessions (May – June 2023): Further confessions interspersed with bizarre behavior. Dr. Wala diagnosed a brief psychotic disorder with disorganized symptoms.
• Mental Improvement (Late June 2023): Improvement noted, though further confessions occurred.
• Confession After Improvement (Oct 2023): Expresses remorse and a desire to confess to the warden.
• Continued Confessions & Erratic Behavior (Feb 2024): Despite signs of mental improvement, he continues to confess and exhibit odd behaviors, suggesting a potential relapse.

Next hearing:

The trial will continue on day 15, Monday 4 November.

The defense challenged the prosecution's narrative by highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies, raising concerns about evidence handling, and suggesting a possible multi-perpetrator theory, but faced limitations due to the judge's rulings against admitting certain evidence.

Defense Witnesses & Testimonies:

Christopher Gootee (Hammond CountyPolice Officer, FBI GRIT Taskforce):

• Testified about conducting interviews with witnesses, including Brad Weber, in the early weeks of the investigation.
• Defense attempted to impeach him with a prior statement from Brad Weber, suggesting Weber didn’t go straight home after work on the day of the murders.
• Judge allowed impeachment for credibility purposes only.
• Witness struggled to recall details from the FBI report, despite acknowledging it refreshed his recollection, frustrating the defense.

Dr. Deanna Wenger (Indiana Department of Corrections/Centurion, Dr Wala’s supervisor):

• Explained Richard Allen’s classification as a “safekeeper” and the challenges in providing appropriate mental health care within the prison system.
• Noted Allen met the criteria for mental health care but was never placed in a specialized facility.
• Described Allen’s mental health decline due to extended solitary confinement.
• Confirmed Dr. Walla initially suspected Allen was faking mental health issues, but later recognized the need for involuntary medication.
• Discussed how conflicting classifications of “safekeeping” and “serious mental illness” contributed to inadequate treatment for Allen.
• Revealed concerns regarding the impact of constant video surveillance on Allen’s mental health.

Max Baker (Defense Legal Intern):

• Tasked with compiling and organizing video evidence of Richard Allen’s time in prison, highlighting his mental state and the conditions of his confinement.
• Prepared video summaries of Allen’s behavior for specific periods.
• Prepared videos with audio of Allen’s interactions while being moved around the facility.
• Prosecutor raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the video timelines, delaying the presentation of these exhibits to the jury.
• Judge ruled against admitting a video showcasing Allen’s mental state outside the designated periods of his “mental health decline.”
• Judge also excluded audio from the “walkaround” videos, citing hearsay concerns.

Brad Heath (Former Exterminator):

• Testified to seeing an “old-timey” vehicle near the Monon High Bridge on the morning and afternoon of the murders, potentially contradicting evidence about Richard Allen’s car.

David McCain (Monon High Bridge Project Manager):

• Described his familiarity with the area, including details about the Monon High Bridge and the surrounding trails.
• Recalled being at the trails on the day of the murders, potentially contradicting sightings of “Bridge Guy.”
• Testimony supported Derrick German’s account of searching for the girls and asking witnesses for information.
• Testified about interactions with law enforcement and handing over his camera’s memory card, which was never returned.

Daryl Starrett (Former Delphi Fire Chief):

• Detailed the fire department’s involvement in the initial search efforts.
• Described the areas they searched and emphasized the use of flashlights.
• Faced extensive impeachment based on inconsistencies between his trial testimony and his prior deposition, creating doubt regarding his recollection of events.

Steve Mullen (Carroll County Prosecutor’s Investigator):

• Acknowledged the importance of preserving evidence and disclosing any lost evidence to the defense.
• Testified about the disappearance of critical interview recordings from the early days of the investigation, highlighting significant issues with evidence handling.
• Admitted to writing undated reports regarding the missing interviews, raising concerns about the timeline of discovery disclosure.
• Revealed details about his recent interview with Brad Weber, aiming to verify the “van sighting” mentioned in Richard Allen’s confessions.
• Faced challenging questions from the defense about his failure to record the Weber interview and the potential for pre-interview communication influencing Weber’s statement.
• Struggled to explain inconsistencies in Weber’s statements about his actions on the day of the murders, creating doubt about the credibility of the “van sighting” and its connection to Allen’s confessions.

Tobe Leazenby (Former Carroll County Sheriff):

• Initially stated he believed Richard Allen was the sole perpetrator.
• Defense successfully impeached him with his deposition, where he expressed a belief that multiple people were involved.
• Acknowledged both he and current Sheriff Liggett believed more than one person committed the murders, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s theory of a single perpetrator.

Legal Arguments & Judge’s Rulings:

Admission of FBI Agent Pohl’s Testimony (Touhy Request):

• Defense requested Agent Pohl’s testimony, arguing they need it to establish that Brad Weber’s account of his actions after work was inconsistent with the prosecution’s narrative.
• Cited Agent Pohl’s medical condition preventing travel and proposed using video testimony for his convenience.
• Prosecutor opposed the request, arguing Weber should be re-examined instead.
• Judge denied the remote hearing request, claiming the defense failed to demonstrate “good cause” for video testimony and prioritizing in-person appearances.

Admission of Third-Party Suspect Evidence:

• Defense renewed efforts to introduce evidence regarding potential involvement of third parties in the Delphi murders.
• Argued “the door was opened” based on previous testimonies discussing items found at the crime scene and a statement from a potential third-party suspect.
• Judge ruled against the defense again, reiterating a lack of “nexus” between the proposed evidence and the Delphi murders.

Notable Courtroom Events:

• Extended sidebars and private conferences with the judge, revealing tensions and disagreements surrounding admissible evidence.
• Frustration from the defense at difficulties eliciting information from some witnesses, particularly regarding prior statements and potential exculpatory details.
• Jury actively participating by submitting numerous questions, showcasing their interest in the evidence and timelines presented.

Analysis:

Day 13 witnessed a series of challenges for the defense, marked by reluctant witnesses, frequent objections, and strict rulings limiting the scope of their evidence. Despite the hurdles, the defense managed to:

• Highlight inconsistencies in witnesses’ testimonies, especially related to the timeline of events and Richard Allen’s alleged involvement.
• Raise serious doubts about the integrity of the investigation due to lost interview recordings and potentially mishandled evidence.
• Plant seeds of doubt regarding Brad Weber’s account of the “van sighting” and its potential to verify Allen’s confessions.
• Introduce evidence supporting a possible “multiple perpetrator” theory, which contrasts sharply with the prosecution’s current narrative.

However, the judge’s unwavering rulings against third-party suspect evidence and video testimony for Agent Pohl pose significant limitations on the defense’s ability to fully explore their alternate theories. It remains to be seen if the defense can overcome these challenges and successfully present a compelling counter-narrative to the jury.

The prosecution rested its case after presenting evidence like prison phone calls where Allen confessed, while the defense challenged the reliability of the confession due to Allen’s mental state and lack of strong corroborating evidence. The judge made key rulings on admissibility of evidence, notably excluding a jail video but allowing Allen's Google search history.

Witness Testimonies:

Brian Harshman (Indiana State Police Master Trooper):

• Testified about phone calls made by Richard Allen from prison.
• Described Allen’s demeanor in these calls as agitated, anxious, stressed, crying, and different from his demeanor in prior interviews.
• Confirmed the authenticity of the calls and that they were subject to monitoring and recording.
• Confirmed that Allen had stated he would “tell them whatever they want” in a call to his wife, but noted he had also proclaimed his innocence in a separate call shortly after.
• Addressed concerns regarding Allen’s voice changing due to medication (Haldol), but stated he did not consult medical staff about this possibility.
• Revealed that Allen expressed feelings of being broken down and feeling like he was in Guantanamo Bay.
• Stated he believed the voice on the video captured by Libby German was Allen’s voice.
• Acknowledged that Allen mentioned a van in his confession but not specifics about it, and connected this detail to a potential sighting of a van owned by Brad Weber.
• Revealed that he had not previously reviewed a report by another agent that contained contradictory information regarding Brad Weber’s presence.
• Maintained his theory that the van sighting was a factual detail corroborating Allen’s confession, despite challenges from the defense.

Cheyenne Mill:

• Testified about being at the Monon High Bridge trail on the day of the murders at approximately 2:50 PM, parking at the same entrance as the victims.
• Stated that she passed a man on the trail but could not remember details of his appearance after seven years.
• Recalled that she reached the bridge and encountered other people, including Shelby Dicks and Daniel, and that she and Shelby Duncan (her friend) walked across the bridge and back without seeing the victims or anything suspicious.
• Presented a timeline that indicated she and her friend were on the bridge at a time when the prosecution believes the girls were already deceased.
• Confirmed seeing a frantic scene with a man and a woman upon returning to the entrance.
• Highlighted negative interactions with law enforcement, suggesting they initially disregarded her information.

Teresa Lebert:

• Testified that at 8:30 AM on the morning of the murders, she saw an unknown individual standing by the mailboxes on the same road (albeit a different section) where Brad Weber lived.
• Stated that this person could have potentially walked to the High Bridge.
• Explained that she could no longer describe the person seven years later.

Legal Arguments:

Defense:

• Argued for the “rule of completeness” to be applied to the presentation of Allen’s phone calls, emphasizing the need for context from surrounding conversations.
• Stressed that the confessions were made during a period of significant mental deterioration, highlighting Allen’s actions such as eating feces and drinking toilet water, arguing they cannot be deemed reliable.
• Suggested that Allen’s confession details could have been gleaned from the discovery materials he received, specifically mentioning the detail about the van potentially being planted after learning about Weber’s van through discovery.
• Questioned the thoroughness of the investigation, highlighting the potential involvement of other suspects like Brad Weber and law enforcement’s seeming disregard of some witness information.
• Challenged Harshman’s qualifications to assess Allen’s speech patterns and the potential impacts of medication on his voice.
• Objected strongly to the introduction of the Cass County Jail video, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial.
• Successfully argued against the admissibility of undated photographs of the defendant.

Prosecution:

• Argued for the admissibility of the select phone calls, stating they presented complete calls without omitting misleading information.
• Attributed Allen’s confessions to his newfound religious faith, rather than mental deterioration, claiming his conscience led him to confess after reading the Bible.
• Pointed to the van detail as a key fact known only to the killer and used it to support the validity of the confession, suggesting it could not have been fabricated from discovery.
• Attempted to introduce the Cass County Jail video to demonstrate Allen’s supposed violent tendencies and counter the defense’s arguments about mental instability, suggesting his outbursts were merely attention-seeking behavior.
• Sought to admit undated photographs of the defendant for comparison to the “Bridge Guy” video, but this was denied.

Judge’s Rulings:

• Allowed the prosecution to present select portions of Allen’s phone calls, overruling the defense’s “rule of completeness” argument.
• Overruled defense objections regarding Harshman’s testimony about voice patterns and medication impacts.
• Sustained defense objections and ruled against the admissibility of the Cass County Jail video, deeming it irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.
• Denied the admissibility of the undated photographs due to lack of authentication and connection to the relevant time period.
• Allowed the introduction of Allen’s Google search history into evidence.

Notable Courtroom Exchanges:

• Harshman’s acknowledgement that he had not reviewed the report containing information about Brad Weber’s potential whereabouts during the murders raised questions about the thoroughness of the investigation.
• The heated debate over the admissibility of the Cass County Jail video led to a sidebar, revealing strong disagreement between the prosecution and the defense.
• Rozzi’s decision to not cross-examine Harshman after the judge ruled in their favor regarding the jail video indicated a strategic awareness of preserving the favorable outcome.
• The direct examination of Harshman concluded with a direct challenge from Rozzi highlighting that only one supposed fact (the van) corroborated the confession.
• The prosecution rested its case, shifting the focus to the defense.

Overall Summary:

October 31, 2024, saw the prosecution rest its case. The primary focus of the proceedings was on the phone calls Richard Allen made from prison. While the prosecution used these calls to establish a narrative of confession, the defense emphasized the inconsistencies within the calls, the mental state of the defendant, and a lack of substantial corroborating evidence. The defense also pointed to a failure by the prosecution to thoroughly investigate other potential suspects. The judge’s rulings on evidentiary issues had a significant impact on the proceedings, including denying the admissibility of a video showcasing an incident in the Cass County Jail. The defense began their case with the goal of questioning the validity of the confessions and proposing alternative scenarios.

The state presented testimony focusing on Richard Allen’s confessions while in prison and potential links to his vehicle, while the defense undermined the psychologist’s credibility and highlighted the coercive conditions of Allen’s confinement. The state is expected to rest its case tomorrow.

Overall:

• A short day in court. The state presented two short witnesses and began the testimony of a longer witness, expected to continue the next morning.
• The state is expected to rest its case tomorrow, November 1st, after concluding the testimony of their final witness, likely Indiana State Police officer Brian Harshman.
• Harshman is expected to testify about recorded phone calls between Richard Allen and others, focusing on statements interpreted as confessions.

Witness Testimony:

1. Dr. Monica Wala (Forensic Psychologist, former lead psychologist at Westville Correctional Facility):

• Direct Examination:
  • Wala detailed Richard Allen’s mental state during his incarceration at Westville, including his placement on suicide watch beginning April 4th, 2023.
  • The state walked Wala through various notes and reports from her meetings with Allen, highlighting numerous statements interpreted as confessions to the Delphi murders.
  • Allen reportedly confessed to killing both Abby and Libby, initially intending to sexually assault them, claimed a passing van scared him, leading him to cut the girls’ throats, and admitted to covering the bodies with branches before leaving.
  • Wala’s reports indicated that Allen exhibited symptoms like crying fits, solemnness, and a matter-of-fact style when confessing, which she initially suspected as being motivated by “secondary gains” such as gaining visitation with his wife or a transfer out of Westville. However, she later revised her opinion to suggest he genuinely experienced a temporary psychotic episode.
  • The state also established that Wala had advised Allen not to discuss his case with her or others, including guards and inmates.
• Cross Examination:
  • Brad Rozzi challenged Wala’s credibility, establishing her personal interest in the case (following podcasts, researching case details, joining social media groups dedicated to the case) and highlighting a potential bias.
  • Rozzi revealed that Wala had even accessed confidential databases for personal research and disclosed information learned from these sources to Richard Allen, violating APA guidelines and professional ethics.
  • He further established that Wala destroyed her original handwritten notes, contrary to best practices, and relied on the testimony of guards with no psychological training to assess Allen’s behavior as “feigning.”
  • Rozzi successfully demonstrated the harsh conditions of Allen’s confinement (solitary confinement for 13 months, 24/7 video surveillance, lack of orientation to prison rules, limited access to communication) and argued that these circumstances, along with Allen’s diagnosed mental health conditions (major depressive disorder, anxiety) could have significantly impacted his mental state and led to false confessions.
• Jury Questions:
  • Jurors asked questions about the nature of psychosis (fluctuation in symptoms), Richard Allen’s awareness of prison procedures (hunger strike rules), screening procedures for delirium, and access to medical records.

2. Steve Mullin (Investigator for Carroll County Prosecutor’s Office):

• Direct Examination:
  • Mullen testified about his investigation into the number of 2016 black Ford Focuses (Allen’s car model) registered in Carroll County and surrounding counties. This testimony was prompted by a previous jury question regarding this information.
  • He stated that his investigation found 31 entries, narrowed down to 18 after removing duplicates, with only one being the SE model like Allen’s.
• Cross Examination:
  • Auger emphasized the possibility of out-of-county vehicles being present near the crime scene and questioned why the state allowed Mullen to provide additional information about his investigation during the trial after his initial testimony.
  • She also highlighted Mullen’s reliance on still images from a surveillance video rather than securing the full video, pointing out limitations in identifying the exact car model from those images.
• Jury Question:
  • Jurors questioned whether the specific rims on Richard Allen’s Ford Focus were unique to that model and year, which Mullen could not confirm.

3. Brad Weber (Property owner near the Monon High Bridge Trail):

• Direct Examination:
  • The state questioned Weber about his employment and vehicle information, aiming to establish a possible connection between his white Ford Econoline van and the van described in Richard Allen’s confession (a van that Allen claimed interrupted his initial plan to sexually assault the girls, causing him to kill them instead).
  • Weber confirmed working at a Subaru plant with a shift ending at 2:30 pm on the day of the murders, driving his van to work, and requiring 25 minutes to drive home, implying he could have been near the bridge around the estimated time of the killings.
• Cross Examination:
  • Baldwin started to question Weber about his activities after work on the day of the murders, suggesting he did not go directly home, potentially contradicting the timeline suggested by the state.
  • The judge interrupted the cross-examination following an objection, preventing Baldwin from further exploring this line of questioning.

Key Takeaways:

• The defense strategy centers around challenging the reliability of Richard Allen’s confessions due to his compromised mental state under duress, inadequate treatment, and coercive conditions in solitary confinement.
• The state continues to build its case around Allen’s alleged confessions and attempts to tie external details (vehicle, van sighting) to those statements, while potentially overlooking investigative gaps highlighted by the defense.
• The trial’s unusual circumstances (secrecy, limited information accessible to the public) make it challenging to assess the strength of the state’s case objectively.

The day’s proceedings centered around the presentation of evidence related to Richard Allen’s interviews conducted in October 2022 and subsequent confessions made while in custody at the Westville Correctional Facility. Testimony from the former warden and several prison guards detailed Allen’s behavior and statements while in solitary confinement, leading to a compelling juxtaposition of his initial denials with later admissions of guilt.

Witness Testimonies and Interviews:

1. Richard Allen Police Interview Videos (October 13 & 26, 2022):

• Interview 1 (October 13, 2022):
  • Allen voluntarily participated in the interview after being read his Miranda rights.
  • He provided a detailed account of his whereabouts on the day of the murders, claiming to be at the Monon High Bridge trail from approximately noon to 1:30 pm.
  • Allen stated he observed three girls on the trail.
  • He denied any interaction with the victims and expressed concern about becoming a scapegoat for the crime.
  • Initially, he agreed to allow a search of his phone and vehicle but later rescinded consent for the vehicle search, demanding a warrant.
  • He was shown a photograph of the individual known as “Bridge Guy” from the victim’s video and denied it was him.
• Interview 2 (October 26, 2022):
  • Allen appeared visibly more agitated and uncomfortable during this interview.
  • Law enforcement asserted they had matched a bullet casing from the crime scene to his firearm and implied they possessed voice identification from the video (a claim later revealed to be untrue).
  • Allen vehemently denied any involvement and expressed distress over the damage to his reputation.
  • His wife was brought into the interview room, leading to an emotional exchange where she questioned how his firearm could be linked to the crime scene.
  • The interview concluded with Allen demanding either to be arrested or allowed to return home.

2. John Galipeau (Former Warden, Westville Correctional Facility):

• Galipeau testified about the conditions of Allen’s confinement at the Westville Correctional Facility, including being housed in a 12x8 suicide watch cell in the maximum-security unit (referred to as “The Hole”) under constant surveillance.
• He confirmed that Allen was held in an observation cell under suicide watch for over a year in the maximum security area, despite being a pre-trial detainee.
• He also confirmed Allen confessed to him directly on two occasions, including a written confession (Exhibit #292) stating, “I’m ready to officially confess to killing Abby and Libby.”
• Cross-examination:
  • The defense emphasized the unusual nature and potential detrimental effects of Allen’s prolonged solitary confinement (13 months) on his mental health, as well as the restrictive conditions of his confinement, including limited human interaction, minimal furnishings in his cell, and monitored showers.
  • They also highlighted the former warden’s termination, suggesting a possible connection to the facility’s treatment of inmates, including Allen.
  • Furthermore, they questioned the warden’s failure to document Allen’s confessions or inform the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office, raising concerns about the handling of this crucial information.

3. Testimony of Department of Corrections Officers:

• Ethan Drang: Testified that Allen requested a Bible on April 5, 2022, and expressed a desire to confess to the murders.
  • Cross-examination: The defense questioned why Allen would confess verbally after already submitting a written confession to the warden two days prior, implying potential coercion or inconsistencies in his statements.
• Michael Roberts: Recounted numerous confessions from Allen in early April 2023, often framed as pleas for divine forgiveness, and described Allen eating his Bible and engaging in other erratic behaviors.
• James Early: Testified about Allen’s erratic behavior, including consuming his Bible, drinking toilet water, smearing feces on himself, and self-harm. He believed Allen was feigning mental illness for attention.
• John Miller: Detailed further confessions from Allen in early April, some suggesting a desire for eternal punishment.
  • Cross-examination: Defense questioned if Allen’s self-harming actions, such as banging his head on the wall, warranted sufficient concern.
• Brandon Fiser: Shared Allen’s detailed, but false, confessions from April 20, 2023, where he claimed to have used box cutters purchased from CVS as the murder weapon. The prosecution suggested this demonstrated insider knowledge of the case.
• Raymond Smith: Testified about confessions heard on April 10 and August 8, 2023, in which Allen confessed to the murders and expressed suicidal thoughts.
• Jason Bedwell (Wabash Correctional Facility): Offered a significant confession from a different facility on February 4, 2024, where Allen apologized for the murders, indicating further supposed admissions of guilt.
  • Cross-examination: Defense emphasized that despite being at a different facility, Allen was still held in similar maximum security, solitary confinement conditions that may have induced false confessions at Westville.

Notable Courtroom Interactions:

• Juror Engagement: Jurors demonstrated active engagement by posing numerous pertinent questions throughout the proceedings.
• Juror Observing Kathy Allen: One juror appeared particularly focused on Kathy Allen’s (Richard Allen’s wife) emotional responses during the playback of the interviews and blood spatter testimony.
• Richard Allen’s Demeanor: Allen remained largely impassive and expressionless throughout the presentation of his interviews and testimony regarding his confessions. His wife, Kathy Allen, was visibly distressed and tearful for a significant portion of the day.

Overall Impression:

• The prosecution presented the interviews and confessions as pivotal evidence, arguing that Allen’s behavior demonstrated consciousness of guilt and a willingness to admit to the crimes.
• The defense strategically highlighted the potential impact of prolonged solitary confinement on Allen’s mental state, contending that it led to false confessions. They aimed to establish reasonable doubt by contrasting his initial confident denials with his later emotional breakdown and seemingly illogical confessions.
• The day’s proceedings presented the jury with contrasting portrayals of Richard Allen.

Looking Ahead:

• The next day’s proceedings may involve testimony from Dr. Walla, a mental health professional who evaluated Allen during his incarceration.
• Potential confessions made by Allen to his mother and grandmother during phone calls could also be introduced.
• The case may be nearing the transition from the prosecution’s case to the defense’s presentation, potentially indicating an earlier conclusion to the trial than initially anticipated.

Day 9 of the Richard Allen trial featured testimony on DNA and blood spatter analysis, revealing no direct link between Allen and the Delphi murders, raising questions about the prosecution’s case which appears to heavily rely on Allen’s confession.

DNA Testimony (Stacy Bozinovski)

Expert Qualifications:

• Indiana State Police forensic scientist.

Key Findings:

• No direct DNA link to Richard Allen: Extensive DNA analysis of various items from the crime scene, the victims’ bodies, and Allen’s home revealed no DNA evidence connecting him to the murders.
• Male DNA present, but inconclusive: Male DNA was found on the external genitalia and fingernails of both victims, but insufficient for generating a full profile. This could be due to a vasectomy, inconclusive tests, or potentially from household contact. No male DNA was found in the victims’ vaginal or cervical swabs, although possible semen was detected.
• Mixture of victims’ DNA: Many items, especially clothing, showed a mix of Abby and Libby’s DNA, likely due to transfer during the struggle. One of Abby’s shoes had a mixture of blood where Libby was the major contributor, raising questions about the sequence of events.
• Contamination and degradation issues: The black hooded sweatshirt, tested months after the murders, revealed a mix of Abby, Libby, and a lab employee’s DNA, indicating contamination. Samples from the creek and some other items yielded insufficient DNA for analysis, possibly due to degradation.
• Emerging DNA technologies not utilized: The defense questioned why the Indiana State Police (ISP) lab didn’t utilize advanced DNA analysis techniques like autosomal Y-STR and SNP analysis, or send samples to labs capable of doing so. The prosecution argued that all available methods at the ISP lab were used and no further analysis was deemed necessary at the time.
• Hair analysis: 80 hairs were found at the scene, but only one yielded a DNA profile belonging to an unknown female, not matching the victims or Kelsi German. A hair found on Abby’s body was initially thought to belong to a family member but was later confirmed to be from Kelsi. 72 hairs were sent to the FBI for advanced rootless hair testing, but the testing hasn’t been conducted to preserve the samples for potential future advancements in technology.

Blood Spatter Testimony (Pat Cicero)

Expert Qualifications:

• Sheriff of LaPorte County with extensive experience and training in bloodstain pattern analysis, having testified 34 times previously.

Crime Scene Analysis and Conclusions:

• Minimum of one perpetrator: Based on the bloodstain patterns, Cicero concluded that at least one person was involved in the murders, but could not rule out multiple individuals.
• Libby’s movements: Blood spatter on the “F” tree, shaped like an upside down “L”, was attributed to Libby’s handprint while she was still mobile after receiving a neck wound. Blood flow patterns indicated that Libby may have been seated at some point and then dragged to her final resting location. The lack of drag marks was attributed to the leafy terrain. Upward blood flow patterns on her face suggest her head was positioned lower than the neck wound at some point, possibly while being dragged.
• Abby’s unusual lack of blood: Abby’s body was found in the “pugilistic pose” with remarkably little blood on her hands, arms, or clothing, despite a neck wound. Cicero found this unusual and suggested she might have been bound, unconscious, or restrained during the attack. The defense suggested the possibility of her hands being washed postmortem.
• Movement of bodies: Cicero stated that both bodies appeared to have been moved or repositioned at some point. He acknowledged the defense’s argument that Libby (200 lbs) would have been difficult for a smaller individual like Richard Allen to drag without leaving more obvious drag marks.

Points of Contention:

• Timeline of involvement: The defense highlighted that Cicero’s expertise was only sought seven years after the murders.
• Dragging theory: The defense challenged Cicero’s theory that Libby was dragged, given her weight and the lack of drag marks.
• Simultaneous or separate attacks: Cicero could not definitively determine whether the attacks on Abby and Libby occurred concurrently or at different times.
• No direct link to Allen: Under cross-examination, Cicero confirmed that he found nothing linking Richard Allen to the murders based on his blood spatter analysis.

Other Notable Events

• Juror emotional response: A juror showed visible distress during the blood spatter testimony.
• “Bombshell” email evidence: The prosecution revealed an email address, potentially belonging to Richard Allen, containing sexually suggestive emails. The admissibility of this evidence was challenged by the defense, arguing that the prosecution needed to prove exclusive access to the email account by Allen. The judge took the matter under advisement.
• Debate over Google search evidence: A dispute arose over the admissibility of a Google search found on a tablet used by both Richard Allen and his wife, Kathy Allen. The defense argued against its admissibility due to lack of clear ownership of the device and account.

Key Takeaways and Concerns

• Lack of direct physical evidence: While forensic evidence was presented, no DNA or blood spatter evidence directly linked Richard Allen to the crime scene.
• Reliance on confession: The prosecution’s case appears to hinge heavily on Richard Allen’s confession, which has not yet been presented in court. Concerns were raised about the potential for coercion during his time at the Westville Correctional Facility.

Overall: Day 9 focused on complex forensic evidence that, while providing some insights into the crime, failed to establish a direct connection between Richard Allen and the murders. The prosecution’s reliance on the yet-to-be-heard confessions, coupled with concerns about potential coercion, creates significant uncertainty about the strength of their case. The trial continues to raise questions about whether a fair and impartial verdict can be reached based on the evidence presented.

The defense challenged the lead investigator’s interrogation tactics and highlighted inconsistencies in the state’s case against Richard Allen, focusing on the lack of physical evidence and the questionable validity of the firearm analysis linking Allen to the crime scene.

Witness Testimony - Lieutenant Jerry Holeman (Lead Investigator, Indiana State Police)

Background:

• Confirmed presence in courtroom during Melissa Oberg’s (toolmark expert) testimony.
• Acknowledged accuracy of bullet analysis presented by Oberg.
• Last formal interrogation training received in 2006.
• Confirmed training on interviewing sexually abused children and individuals with mental illness (CIT training).

October 26, 2022 Interrogation of Richard Allen:

• Took place at the Indiana State Police Post in Lafayette.
• Possessed initial toolmark analysis & confirmation that a round found at the crime scene matched Allen’s gun.
• Allen was initially called in to retrieve his previously confiscated vehicle.
• Initially focused on building rapport: Discussed personal life, time in the Marines, firearm preferences.
• Directly confronted Allen with the toolmark analysis.

Allen’s Response During Interrogation:

• Repeatedly denied owning the bullet (20-25 denials), knowledge of the crime, or involvement in the murders.
• Showed signs of agitation; demeanor changed.
• Disclosed struggles with depression & anxiety.
• Expressed feelings of being falsely accused & defeat: "My life was ruined.” "Just take all your evidence and arrest me.”

Holeman’s Interrogation Techniques:

• Admitted to lying/exaggerating evidence during the interview.
• Claimed Allen was not under arrest & free to leave.
• Did not personally read Allen his Miranda rights; referred to the rights read by Investigator Steve Mullin on October 13, 2022.
• Employed the Reid technique, focusing on body language & interpreting potential signs of deception.
• Raised voice to mirror Allen’s increasing agitation.
• Informed Allen he (Holeman) wanted to “lock him up & throw away the key."
• Told Allen his family would suffer & he would face the death penalty (case was not a death penalty case) unless he confessed.

Controversial Points & Defence Arguments:

• Missing Video Footage: Initial stages of the interrogation & discussions about Miranda rights were unrecorded. Holeman’s account of recording indicators conflicts with the absence of footage.
• Ethics of Lying & Death Penalty Threat: The defence challenged the ethical implications of Holeman’s tactics.
• Reid Technique Reliability: The defence highlighted the controversial nature of the Reid technique & its potential to lead to false confessions.
• Probable Cause for Detention: The defense questioned the adequacy of probable cause for detaining Allen (primarily eyewitness statements & the unspent round) given inconsistencies, missing evidence & lack of confession.

Other Notable Exchanges:

• Kathy Allen, Richard’s wife, entered the interrogation room & had a private conversation with him. She allegedly told him to request an attorney.
• Holeman stated that he found Betsy Blair (eyewitness) credible.
• Defence pointed out inconsistencies regarding vehicle descriptions (Blair did not match Allen’s), traffic patterns near the crime scene, & the unspent round comparison to fired bullets.
• Holeman acknowledged awareness of mistakes in the investigation, such as Dan Dulin (investigator) transposing numbers in his documentation.
• Holeman stated that he believed the killer intended to camouflage the bodies based on the placement of sticks but could not explain the absence of drag marks.
• Defence questioned the lack of DNA & fingerprint evidence.
• Defence challenged the state’s “interruption” theory (alleging Allen abandoned plans due to hearing the search party) due to phone call & text message timestamps indicating Derek German contacted Libby prior to Allen allegedly leaving the scene.
• Jury Question: Inquired if there was another way to access the location on the video without crossing the bridge (referring to an access road that would bypass the bridge), suggesting awareness of alternative approaches not explicitly presented by the state.

Judge Frances Gull:

• Sustained: Numerous defense objections throughout Holeman’s testimony, often without providing specific legal explanations.
• Sidebars: Granted frequent sidebar discussions between the prosecution and defense, obscuring the subject matter from public observation.

Overall: The defense strategically utilized their cross-examination of Holeman to expose holes, contradictions, questionable tactics & missing elements within the state’s investigation & interrogation practices. Judge Gull’s rulings consistently favored the prosecution. The jury’s direct question indicates an active & observant group.

The prosecution’s firearms expert linked the unspent round at the crime scene to Richard Allen’s gun, but the defense challenged the reliability of this analysis and highlighted the lack of certain investigative steps. The state’s expert’s testimony will continue when the trial resumes.

Date: Friday, October 25, 2024

Witness Testimonies:

Melissa Oberg (State’s Expert Witness): Oberg, a former firearms expert with the Indiana State Police, testified for the entirety of Day 7, focusing on her analysis of the unspent round found at the crime scene and Richard Allen’s Sig Sauer P226 pistol.

Key Points:

• Oberg explained the basics of firearm and tool mark examination, including different types of tool marks and how cartridges are cycled through a firearm.
• She detailed her analysis process, which involved assessing the condition of the evidence, test firing the firearm, and using a comparison microscope to compare the crime scene cartridge with test-fired cartridges from Allen’s gun.
• Oberg stated that she found matching ejector, extractor, and head marks on the crime scene cartridge and a cartridge test-fired from Allen’s gun, concluding that the unspent round could have been cycled through Allen’s firearm.
• She acknowledged that there is subjectivity in tool mark analysis and that there is debate within the field about its scientific validity.

Cross-Examination of Melissa Oberg (Defense Attorney Bradley Rozzi):

Key Points:

• Rozzi questioned Oberg about her claim of never having made a mistake in her analysis.
• He pointed out that the testing she relied on involved fired rounds, whereas the crime scene cartridge was unspent, and that there’s no proficiency testing involving unfired bullets.
• Rozzi highlighted that Oberg could not determine when the crime scene cartridge had been cycled, and that the cycling marks on the gun could have changed over time.
• He questioned the reliability of Oberg’s conclusion based solely on ejector marks.
• Rozzi emphasized the subjectivity inherent in tool mark analysis and the fact that some consider it “junk science.”

Legal Arguments/Objections:

• The prosecution objected to Rozzi’s line of questioning regarding whether it would be wise for the jury to draw conclusions based on photos of Oberg’s work product. The judge sustained the objection.
• Prosecutor Nick McLeland emphasized that the term “sufficient agreement,” used by Oberg, is an industry term based on scientific meaning.

Judge’s Rulings:

• Judge Frances Gull sustained the prosecution’s objection to Rozzi asking Oberg if comparing firearm testing to paternity testing would be reckless.
• She sustained the prosecution’s objection regarding the jury drawing conclusions from photos of Oberg’s work product.

Notable Courtroom Events/Exchanges:

• One of the four alternate jurors was excused for a family health emergency after the lunch break.
• The prosecution experienced technical difficulties trying to show videos about the manufacturing and assembly of Sig Sauer firearms.
• The court took a break at 3:40 p.m. after Rozzi’s cross-examination.
• It was revealed that the state did not investigate how many 2016 black Ford Focuses were registered in Carroll County at the time of the crime, despite this being a key element in linking Allen to the scene.

Key Takeaways from Day 7:

• Day 7 focused heavily on the firearms and tool mark evidence, with the prosecution relying significantly on Oberg’s testimony and analysis to tie Allen to the crime scene.
• The defense successfully highlighted the subjective nature of tool mark analysis and the lack of proficiency testing for unfired rounds.
• Questions arose about the thoroughness of the investigation, including the lack of effort to determine the prevalence of similar vehicles in the area and the reliance on potentially unreliable eyewitness testimony.
• The trial recessed for the weekend with Oberg’s testimony still in progress. A DNA expert was expected to be called by the prosecution on Saturday.

Testimony from several witnesses, including the current sheriff, focused on placing Richard Allen at the Delphi trails on the day of the murders, but the defense successfully highlighted inconsistencies in witness accounts and a lack of physical evidence, notably with the sheriff admitting the eyewitness description of “Bridge Guy” did not match Allen.

Key Events:

• Robert Ives Subpoena: The defense subpoenaed former prosecutor Robert Ives. Ives’ attorney filed a motion to quash, arguing his testimony would be considered work product. The judge is expected to grant the motion, although the defense may argue that Ives’ public statements do not fall under work product protection.
• Keegan Klein Transport Order: An order was issued for Keegan Klein’s transport, indicating he will be testifying for the defense.
• Evidentiary Stipulations: The prosecution and defense agreed on several stipulations to expedite proceedings:
• Chain of custody for various items, including crime scene evidence, items seized from Allen’s home, and Libby’s phone.
• Admissibility of recordings of Allen from Westville Correctional Facility (excluding confidential communications).
• Stipulation to medical and mental health records, provided the author testifies.
• Admissibility of AT&T cell records for relevant towers and Libby’s phone.
• Stipulation regarding authenticity of firearm testing and extraction of electronic devices.

Witness Testimonies:

1. Kathy Shank:

• A volunteer who organized investigation tips.
• Found a tip narrative about Richard Allen (initially misidentified as “Richard Allen Whiteman”) from February 16, 2017, that was marked as “cleared”.
• Brought the tip to the attention of Tony Liggett, then contacted Steve Mullin, who in turn contacted Dan Dulin.

Cross-examination: The defense questioned her about the “Whiteman” error, whether Liggett’s candidacy for sheriff influenced her actions, and the fact that she was not tasked with investigating tips.

Jury Question: The jury questioned Shank about her reasoning for changing the name on the Allen tip.

2. Dan Dulin:

• Conservation officer who interviewed Allen on February 18, 2017, after Allen contacted the tip line.
• Testified that Allen initially said he was on the trails between 1:30 pm and 3:30 pm and saw three girls at the Freedom Bridge.
• Described Allen’s demeanor as normal.
• Admitted destroying his original handwritten notes from the interview.
• Revealed that Allen’s fishing license initially listed his height as 5’4" but was changed to 5’6" in April 2017; his weight was also reduced by 13 pounds.
• Did not ask Allen about his clothing during the 2017 interview.
• Identified Richard Allen in the courtroom.

Cross-examination:

• Clarified that Allen suggested meeting at the grocery store for convenience, as he was already en route.
• Pointed out inconsistencies between Dulin’s deposition (claiming no recollection) and current testimony (recalling some details).
• Established that anyone could have purchased Allen’s fishing license, and details like height/weight could be entered by others.
• Highlighted that shell casings and unspent rounds are common in Indiana woods.
• Confirmed Dulin did not think of Allen again until 2022.

Redirect: Focused on establishing Allen purchased the fishing license.

Jury Question: The jury had a question for Dulin regarding the lead sheet, but details were not fully clarified in available summaries.

3. Steve Mullin:

• Testified about receiving the Allen tip from Liggett and contacting Dulin.
• Went to review footage at Hoosier Harvester after learning about the tip.
• Claimed he and Liggett found Allen’s car on the footage and identified it based on the general shape, tail lights, bumper, and rims (specifically the “sport rims”). Footage time-stamped at 1:27 pm.
• Described the October 13, 2022 interaction where Allen was taken in for questioning.
• Testified that Allen claimed to have been at his mother’s in Peru, returned to Delphi, picked up a jacket, and went to the trails around 12:00 pm, leaving around 1:30 pm.
• Stated that Allen said he saw three girls on the bridge, one appearing older and seemingly babysitting.
• Testified that Allen said he couldn’t be “Bridge Guy” if the video was taken by the girls’ camera, implying he wasn’t there at that time.
• Confirmed that Allen got upset and walked out of the interview when asked to examine his phone.

Cross-examination:

• Challenged Mullin’s identification of Allen’s car in the video, implying it was merely interpretation.
• Presented a transcript suggesting Allen might have taken a different route than initially described.
• Pointed out that Allen had mentioned possibly driving his other vehicle.
• Questioned Mullen’s timeline and whether it conflicted with Betsy Blair’s testimony.
• Asked if the unspent round was lost by law enforcement (objection sustained).
• Asked if Allen had stated he didn’t remember the route he took.
• Questioned whether Mullen had investigated how common Allen’s type of vehicle and rims were.
• Asked if he had checked if Allen’s other car was visible on the footage.

Notable Courtroom Exchange: Several objections from the prosecution, particularly during Baldwin’s cross-examination of Mullin. The defense directly accused Mullin of lying to the jury to fit Allen’s car into the prosecution’s timeline.

4. Sheriff Tony Liggett:

• Testified about wanting to speak with the person who passed Brianna Wilbur and Railly Voorhies on the trail.
• Admitted to watching Libby’s phone video many times.
• Confirmed they found Allen’s car backed into a parking spot, which corroborated witness statements about a backed-in vehicle.
• Confirmed details about Allen owning a handgun, the caliber of the bullet found between victims, finding the jacket, and ammunition.
• Stated that no DNA evidence connecting Allen to the crime scene had been found.

Cross-examination:

• Focused on Liggett’s role as Chief Deputy during the arrest and his candidacy for Sheriff, questioning if an arrest could be beneficial for his career.
• Discussed the compromised crime scene due to leaked photos.
• Emphasized witness descriptions of “Bridge Guy” that did not match Allen.
• Highlighted Doug Carter’s removal of the FBI from the case in 2019, which Liggett claimed not to know.
• Questioned if the 5-year gap impacted his memory.
• Established Liggett’s belief that Allen acted alone and that there was no DNA or digital evidence linking him to the scene.
• Highlighted Allen’s lack of flight after the murders.
• Emphasized the discrepancy between witness descriptions (Betsy Blair) and Allen’s appearance.

Redirect: Attempted to reaffirm the timeline and the accuracy of Allen’s memories from 2017.

Recross: Reemphasized the accuracy of Betsy Blair’s memory from 2017.

Notable Courtroom Exchanges: A heated exchange between Rozzi and Liggett about the investigation timeline, with Rozzi accusing Liggett of making up details. The defense pointedly asked if an arrest in the case would benefit his campaign, which Liggett vehemently denied.

End of Day Testimony: Ended with Liggett admitting that Betsy Blair’s description of “Bridge Guy” in 2017 was likely accurate, directly contradicting the state’s theory that Richard Allen is “Bridge Guy”.

Unanswered Questions & Points of Contention:

• The significance of Allen’s missing 2017 phone remains unclear.
• The circumstances surrounding the discovery and handling of the Allen tip (found by Shank and marked “cleared”) raise concerns about the thoroughness of the initial investigation.
• Discrepancies in Allen’s timeline and accounts of his whereabouts on February 13th raise questions about his credibility.
• The state’s theory of Allen’s route to the trails, based on the Hoosier Harvester video, appears to be challenged by the defense and seems implausible to some observers.
• The prosecution’s reliance on the bullet and its potential link to Allen’s gun has yet to be fully explored in court.

Overall Impact:

Day 6 saw the prosecution begin presenting their case against Richard Allen, but witness testimonies and the defense’s cross-examinations revealed inconsistencies and a lack of strong physical or digital evidence connecting Allen to the murders. Sheriff Liggett’s admission that eyewitness descriptions of “Bridge Guy” did not match Allen could seriously damage the prosecution’s case. The coming days will be crucial for the state to establish a more concrete and persuasive narrative to convince the jury of Allen’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Witness testimony about seeing “Bridge Guy” was significantly challenged, and technical evidence regarding Libby German’s phone activity created more questions than answers about the timeline of the murders, including a critical gap in phone data that could include the time of the murders. The defense scored important points by exposing flaws in the prosecution’s case and investigative work. Additionally, the defense’s introduction of a motion related to ritualistic killing suggests they may be exploring alternative suspects and motives.

Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2024

Witness: Sarah Carbaugh

Direct Examination (Prosecution):

• Carbaugh described driving by the Monon High Bridge trail entrance multiple times on February 13, 2017, intending to walk the trail, in her “little red Saturn.” She noted seeing a group of people who seemed “stressed” in the Mears parking lot.
• She later saw a man walking westbound on 300 North, away from the trail. She claimed he was “covered in mud and blood,” hunched over with hands in his pockets, and exhibiting a “sketchy demeanor.”
• Carbaugh confirmed seeing someone wearing a pink shirt during her testimony.
• She said she saw him on her driver’s side, initially estimating the time as 4:30 pm and later agreeing with the prosecutor’s suggestion of 3:57 pm.
• Three weeks later, after seeing images of “Bridge Guy” on the news, she recognized him as the man she saw and contacted law enforcement.
• Carbaugh testified that the man was wearing whitewashed jeans, a tan/blue coat (later corrected to always being blue, blaming mud for confusion), a hoodie, and a hat partially obscured by the hoodie’s hood.
• She estimated looking at him for 30 seconds and said she was about 3 feet away from him while driving 30-35 mph.
• She stated she offered her phone and any interview to law enforcement as her phone would have pinged near the trail (Verizon service).
• She stated there was a missing portion from her hour-and-a-half-long June 2017 interview where she described the mud and blood on Bridge Guy.
• Carbaugh described Bridge Guy as “caked in mud” to the point where she believed he must have been down by the creek.

Cross Examination (Defense Attorney Baldwin):

• Baldwin challenged Carbaugh’s initial statements to police, pointing out that she mentioned mud 11 times in the first interview and 13 times in the second, but never blood. She claimed she was “mumbling” in the first interview and the relevant portion was missing from the second.
• In a June 2017 transcript, she only mentioned mud, omitting blood. She later claimed this was because she thought it was “more important” to talk about blood in the third interview.
• He questioned her changing descriptions: tan coat becoming blue coat, seeing Bridge Guy’s hair while driving at 35 mph.
• He brought up a previous statement where she described Bridge Guy’s eyes as “feminine.” She denied making this statement, refusing to review the transcript.
• Baldwin questioned her judgment of distance and time, emphasizing the improbability of seeing so many details at 3 feet and 30 seconds while driving.
• He implied that her story evolved after seeing the Bridge Guy images and learning about the case’s prominence.
• He pointed out she didn’t mention a box cutter during the February 2024 deposition, implying she invented this detail after learning of Richard Allen’s alleged confession involving a box cutter.

Jury Questions:

• Carbaugh was 26/27 years old in 2017.
• The road she drove on was wide enough for two cars to pass comfortably.
• She claimed she could tell there was blood spatter on Bridge Guy due to his whitewashed jeans, stating it was “bright red” and not dried.
• She insisted again that she was 3 feet away from the man while driving.

Analysis:

Carbaugh’s testimony seemed compelling at first, but her combative attitude, changing stories, inconsistencies, and poor time and distance judgments seriously undermined her credibility. She came across as a potentially unreliable witness influenced by the publicity surrounding the case.

Witness: Dr. Roland Kohr - Forensic Pathologist

Direct Examination (Prosecutor Luttrell):

• Dr. Kohr provided a detailed explanation of the autopsy process.
• He confirmed conducting autopsies on both Abby Williams and Libby German on February 15, 2017, documenting clothing, injuries, and other details.

Abby Williams Autopsy Findings:

• Height: 64 inches (5’4”)
• Weight: 95 pounds
• Clothing: Black hoodie, blue jeans (size 26 x 33, according to notes), pink top, gray/blue sports bra, black camisole, earrings
• Wounds: 2-2.5 inch laceration on the left side of her neck (right-to-left directionality)
• Partial transsection of the left jugular vein.
• Sexual assault kit performed. No visible evidence of sexual injury.
• Nail scraping impossible due to bitten fingernails.
• No defensive wounds observed.
• Faint ligature mark found below her mouth, estimated at 2 inches wide.
• Cause of death: Bleeding out from the neck laceration, resulting in a state of shock, loss of consciousness, and death.
• Dr. Kohr initially estimated the time of death as 40 hours prior to the autopsy, but later admitted this was inaccurate and he could only state it was sometime between their last known sighting and when their bodies were found.

Libby German Autopsy Findings:

• Height: 64 inches (5’4”)
• Weight: 120 pounds
• Hands were wrapped in brown paper bag and secured with masking tape for evidence preservation.
• Wounds: 3 obvious wounds on her neck, appearing more vertical; two wounds with “skin tag” flap, indicating potential multiple passes; four red contusion-like marks near one of the neck wounds, possibly caused by a serrated edge or the weapon handle.
• Partial transsection of the right carotid artery, complete transsection of the left carotid artery, and complete transsection of the left internal jugular vein.
• Estimated 4-5 wounds on the neck.
• No defensive wounds observed.
• Sexual assault kit performed, but no visible signs of injury.
• Blood found under Libby’s fingernails, potentially from applying pressure to her wounds.
• Cerebral edema observed, likely caused by head injuries or lack of oxygen.
• Cause of death: Multiple neck lacerations, likely leading to rapid blood loss and shock, followed by death.
• No specific time of death could be determined.
• The doctor stated blood loss from the jugular vein would cause death within 10-20 minutes, but might have allowed for fightback during that period.
• Debris on Libby’s legs suggested she may have been moved from another location.

Cross Examination (Defense Attorney Rozzi):

• Rozzi reminded Dr. Kohr he mostly testified for the prosecution, even though he takes an oath to remain impartial.
• He challenged the estimated time of death, reminding the doctor he admitted in his February 2024 deposition that he couldn’t determine the time of death and that estimating it was challenging.
• He stressed that the crime scene photos were only shown to Dr. Kohr earlier in the current year (2024).
• Rozzi highlighted that Dr. Kohr didn’t mention a box cutter in his initial report or deposition and inquired about his discussions with the prosecution about the box cutter theory. Dr. Kohr confirmed these conversations but maintained the box cutter theory was mere speculation.
• He emphasized the difficulty of determining whether a person was right or left-handed based on wounds and reminded the doctor he hadn’t determined that in this case.
• Rozzi challenged Dr. Kohr’s use of the term “serrated edge,” prompting further discussion about the potential weapon used.

Analysis:

Dr. Kohr’s testimony offered graphic details about the injuries both girls sustained, emphasizing the brutality of their murders. While he couldn’t offer a precise time of death, his explanation of the bleeding process and physiological response to the injuries provided insight into the potential timeframe of their deaths. Rozzi effectively cast doubt on Dr. Kohr’s revised opinion about a possible box cutter being involved, highlighting potential prosecutorial influence on his speculation. The presence of blood under Libby’s fingernails, coupled with the possibility of fightback during the bleeding process, indicated she might have struggled with her attacker.

Witness: Christopher Cecil - ISP First Sergeant, Digital Forensics

Direct Examination (Prosecutor McLeland):

• Cecil outlined his extensive experience in digital forensics.
• He explained how new ISP equipment (gray key) allowed access to encrypted data from Apple devices, in this case, Libby German’s iPhone 6s (space gray).
• He detailed the process of data extraction, analysis, and interpretation using various software, including gray key, Cellebrite, and Magnet.
• He clarified that “knowledge C” refers to a recently discovered (2019) data set within iPhones that provides additional details not readily available with previous techniques.
• Examination of Libby’s phone showed it was used by both Libby and Abby.
• The Apple health application data recorded Libby’s steps, change in elevation (two floors/10 feet/2 meters/16 steps), and indicated the last phone movement was at 2:32 pm.
• The last recorded phone activity was at 2:14 pm - the 43-second video of Abby walking on the bridge. At 2:14:41 pm there was a failed attempt to unlock the phone.
• His initial report (2019) incorrectly stated that the phone’s battery was depleting and likely died, however, he now claimed, based on updated data analysis, that the phone was on at 4:33 am (February 14) when it received a “batch” of 15 SMS text messages, including one from Becky Patty sent at 4:06 pm that read: “You need to call me now!!!” The time the phone powered off remained unaccounted for.
• The phone was powered back on by investigators at 3:06 pm on February 15, 2017.
• Cecil clarified that location data within the phone relies on GPS and cell towers, confirming that initially the location might be imprecise, as with the initial “ping” from the Delphi High School cell tower, before becoming more accurate as it connected to satellites. He reiterated the matching latitude and longitude from the video with the physical location on the bridge, supporting the girls being there at the time of the video recording.
• He mentioned examining data from 23 devices seized from Richard Allen’s home, but did not elaborate on the findings or their relevance to the case.
• 23 devices seized from Richard Allen’s home. Allen’s 2017 phone is missing. No information on whether data was extracted from the cloud or backups.
• While under questioning from the jury, Cecil stated that no direct connection was found linking Richard Allen’s phone to Libby and Abby. He mentioned finding a search history related to the Delphi murders on Richard Allen’s device, but without specifying the search terms or timeframe, raising questions about the context and relevance of the search. He claimed that he did not know who conducted that search on Allen’s device.

Cross Examination (Defense Attorney Auger):

• Auger challenged Cecil’s sourcing of the picture timestamped 2:07 pm, demonstrating it originated from Google Images with an arbitrary time stamp and was not verifiable phone data. This emphasized potential inaccuracies and biases in the investigation’s timeline.
• She pointed out that Cecil relied heavily on data interpretation rather than raw data, which can be subject to human error and subjective biases.
• She highlighted the numerous mistakes and corrections made in Cecil’s multiple reports, undermining confidence in his process and findings.
• She emphasized his initial statement that the phone was likely dead based on battery depletion, and challenged his revised opinion claiming the phone remained active until 4:33 am, despite not explaining the timeframe of when it turned off and lacking specific battery level details. She effectively pointed out this contradicted his prior assessment.
• Auger meticulously outlined each Snapchat event recorded at 1:40 pm, 1:41 pm, 1:43 pm, 2:05 pm, and the absence of a 2:07 pm event.
• She established that a photo taken on Libby’s phone would have to be present on her phone, meaning that a 2:07 pm picture found on social media and not on Libby’s device suggests someone else could have posted it from a different device.
• Auger successfully showed Cecil was unfamiliar with certain technical aspects and processes, particularly those involving encrypted data. This exposed potential limitations in his expertise and investigative thoroughness.
• She pointedly reminded him that the data lost each time the phone shut down could be vital, highlighting potential loss of crucial evidence. She specifically noted that shutting down the phone on February 14 erased any information pertaining to the phone’s usage between 2:14 pm and 4:33 am on the 13th and 14th.
• She revealed that while a second set of eyes, specifically from Homeland Security, had been requested by both the FBI and Lt. Holman, Cecil had never followed up on this request, suggesting potential lapses in protocol and communication.
• Auger directly and repeatedly established that there was nothing on Richard Allen’s phone that directly linked him to Libby German or Abby Williams, emphasizing the absence of incriminating data.
• She successfully established that cellphone data can record steps even if the phone is not actively moving, such as in a vehicle.

Analysis:

Cecil’s testimony was meant to support the timeline constructed by the prosecution, however, Auger effectively exposed significant inconsistencies, uncertainties, and potential mishandling of data within his investigation. She successfully undermined the reliability of the timestamps relied upon by the state and cast doubt on the supposed connection between the girls’ final location and the time their phone was last active. Auger effectively underscored the potential for vital information to be lost or overlooked, specifically emphasizing the time between when the phone recorded its final movement and when the phone was turned off, a period for which investigators had no data and which includes the likely window in which the murders were committed. Finally, Auger effectively demolished the notion that there was anything on Richard Allen’s phone that would implicate him in the crimes.

Other Court Orders Issued:

• The court denied Andrea Burkhart’s request for access to the audio recordings, claiming that only parties to the case are entitled to them, effectively blocking public access to crucial courtroom information.
• Judge Gull approved Nick McLeland’s motion in limine regarding Dr Tobin, preventing the metallurgist expert from testifying, concluding his testimony was irrelevant and inadmissible.
• Judge Gull also confirmed the identities of the cameramen whose footage was confiscated on the first day of trial, acknowledging it did contain images of the jury.
• The defense filed a new motion requesting admittance of evidence regarding odinism, norse paganism, and ritualistic killing in connection with the sticks found covering the girls’ bodies, arguing it offers an alternative explanation for the crime scene. This motion also argues for Richard Allen’s right to a complete and effective defense.

Overall Day 5 Analysis:

Day 5 witnessed dramatic shifts in momentum. While Sarah Carbaugh initially appeared to bolster the prosecution’s case, aggressive cross-examination exposed serious weaknesses and potential untruths in her testimony. The pathologist’s testimony highlighted the brutal nature of the murders, yet the defense attorney cast doubt on the supposedly critical “box cutter” theory. The testimony regarding phone data could have been crucial for establishing the timeline, but instead ended up creating more confusion and raising troubling questions about incomplete or flawed investigative practices, as well as missing information, particularly the critical gap in data that likely includes the time of the murders. 

Ultimately, while the prosecution attempted to solidify its narrative and build its case, the defense’s cross-examination exposed significant vulnerabilities in the state’s arguments, witness testimony, and investigative methods. Adding to this was Judge Gull’s order preventing public access to the recordings of the court proceedings and preventing potentially impactful expert witness testimony for the defense. Furthermore, the defense’s introduction of a motion related to ritualistic killing suggests they are exploring alternative theories regarding the murders, potentially implicating other suspects and motives.

Day 4 of the Richard Allen trial revealed inconsistencies in witness testimonies, Libby’s phone data, and video evidence, potentially weakening the prosecution’s case and raising questions about the suspect’s description and timeline.

Witness Testimonies:

1. Brian Olehy (ISP Crime Scene Investigator) - Cross-Examination & Redirect:

Evidence Handling:

• Discussed the collection of clothing, shoes, unspent bullet, hair, fibers, and DNA swabs.
• Confirmed items were put into storage on February 14th and sealed on the 16th.
• Confirmed that Abby’s clothes were wet during the February 15th autopsy.
• Stated the sticks near the girls appeared to be intentionally placed but weren’t tested.
• Confirmed no fingerprint lifting attempts were made due to lack of suitable surfaces.
• Stated it’s not unusual to find a bullet in wooded areas in Indiana.
• Admitted to limited personal viewing of the unspent bullet photos and no photos after removal.

DNA Evidence:

• Initially stated he wasn’t aware of any DNA evidence in the exhibits linked to Richard Allen (objection sustained based on relevance and witness expertise).

Crime Scene Integrity:

• Confirmed that the public taking photos of the crime scene could compromise its integrity.
• Clarified that the girls were not concealed and easily visible.

Ground Disturbance:

• Stated that the ground under Abby did not appear disturbed, raising questions about how she might have been dressed postmortem.

2. Lieutenant Brian Bunner (ISP Digital Forensic Unit):

Libby’s Phone Data:

• Detailed the process of phone extraction: manual examination, photographing, data extraction using tools, software processing, report generation.
• Confirmed Libby’s phone was extracted at least four times (2017, 2019, and twice in 2024).

Bridge Video:

• Located the “Bridge Guy” video in Libby’s phone’s camera roll, noting it was the last user activity.
• Confirmed the video was approximately 35-43 seconds long and taken between 2:00 PM and 2:30 PM.
• Confirmed that the girls (Libby and Abby) could be heard conversing in the video.
• Initially could not identify a man behind Abby in the video but could in subsequent zoomed-in screenshots.

GPS Data:

• Stated the video’s GPS coordinates placed it near the Memorial Park, not the Monon High Bridge, but admitted to not examining the GPS data himself.
• Clarified on redirect that the GPS location was reasonable but not exact due to technological limitations at the time.

3. Jerry Chapman (Audiovisual Forensic Expert):

Audio Enhancement:

• Explained the process of enhancing audio to improve clarity and reduce background noise.
• Confirmed he enhanced the “down the hill” portion of the video.

4. Railly Voorhies (Eyewitness):

Encounter with a Man on the Bridge:

• Confirmed she was on the Monon High Bridge on the day of the murders.
• Recalled passing a man and exchanging greetings.
• Identified the “Bridge Guy” from Libby’s video as the man she encountered.
• Admitted that the photo of “Bridge Guy” might have influenced her memory of his appearance.
• (Note: other sources indicate she placed the encounter at 2:15 PM and described the man as 5’10" tall and wearing all black, potentially impacting the timeline and suspect description).

5. Brie Wilbur (Eyewitness):

Presence at the Scene:

• Confirmed being friends with Libby on Snapchat and messaging her on the day of the murders.
• Presented photos with timestamps placing her near the Freedom Bridge at 1:26 PM.
• Recalled seeing a man who resembled “Bridge Guy” while heading back towards the bridge.

Description of the Man:

• Described the man as wearing a blue or black windbreaker jacket with a collar and the hood up, baggy jeans, taller than herself (head reached his shoulder).
• Described the man as walking with a purpose and having his hands in his pockets.
• (Note: conflicting information exists regarding if she saw a “grumpy” man or exchanged greetings with him. Mention of “muscular” build in 2017 statement also noted).

6. Betsy Blair (Eyewitness):

Observations on the Bridge:

• Confirmed frequently walking the trails but not being a Delphi resident.
• Recalled seeing Abby and Libby on the bridge and subsequently encountering “Bridge Guy”.

Suspect Description:

• Described the man to the sketch artist as having brown, poofy hair and being in his 20s-30s with average height.
• Conceded that it might have been a hat mistaken for hair.
• Mentioned comparing two sketches when providing a statement to police, potentially opening the door for the sketches to be reintroduced as evidence.

7. Steve Mullin (Investigator, Former Delphi Police Chief):

Timestamp Correction:

• Recalled to the stand to address a timestamp issue with the Hoosier Harvest Store surveillance video.
• Testified that the video’s timestamp was 54 minutes fast, potentially impacting timelines.

Key Points and Developments:

Libby’s Phone Data & Video:

• Multiple extractions of Libby’s phone raise questions about chain of custody and data integrity.
• Discrepancies in the video length and reported content create uncertainty.
• The clarity of audio in the enhanced version versus the original is questioned.
• The video’s GPS data potentially placing it near the Memorial Park, rather than the bridge, is a significant deviation from previous testimony.

Witness Testimonies & Suspect Description:

• Railly and Brie’s timelines for encountering “Bridge Guy” differ significantly, challenging the established narrative.
• Eyewitnesses acknowledged the released images and video might have influenced their memories.
• Varying descriptions of the man’s demeanor and appearance further complicate matters.

Sketches Potentially Admissible:

• Betsy Blair’s mention of comparing two sketches during her initial statement potentially creates a legal pathway for the defense to reintroduce sketches into evidence.

No In-Court Identification:

• No eyewitnesses were asked to or made in-court identifications of Richard Allen as “Bridge Guy”.

Timestamp Discrepancy:

• The revealed timestamp error in the Hoosier Harvest Store surveillance footage introduces further uncertainty into previously established timelines.

Overall Impression:

The day presented numerous inconsistencies and potential weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. The reliability of Libby’s phone data, the enhanced video and audio, the differing eyewitness accounts, and the timestamp discrepancy are all points that raise questions and cast doubt. The defense appears to have gained some ground by highlighting these issues, and potentially opening the door to having sketches reintroduced.

Day 3 of the Richard Allen trial focused on crime scene evidence, featuring graphic photos and testimony from multiple investigators. Defense attorneys highlighted inconsistencies in the investigation, especially concerning the handling of a bullet and sticks found at the scene.

Witness Testimonies:

1. Deputy Darren Giancola - Carroll County Sheriff’s Office:

Initial Search (Feb 13, 2017):

• Was off-duty but assisted in the search after seeing social media posts about the missing girls.
• Began searching around midnight.
• Used a flashlight but visibility in the woods was poor.
• Noted a disturbance near the end of the High Bridge where bare ground was visible and pointed it out to a firefighter.
• Ended his search at 2 am on Feb 14th.
• Did not consider it a murder investigation at that point and believed the girls were still alive.

Discovery of Evidence (Feb 14, 2017):

• Was sent to investigate a possible lead and then redirected to Morning Light Cemetery after receiving a call from someone named Liet.
• Upon arrival, saw Libby German’s tie-dye shirt and one of her shoes in the creek.
• Was then informed the girls’ bodies were located behind him.
• Identified the bodies based on previously circulated pictures.
• Described the bodies’ states, noting both girls had lacerations to the throat, Abby’s pants were wet, and there was a substantial amount of blood around both bodies.
• Did not perform life-saving measures as it was apparent the girls were deceased.
• Called for the area to be secured.
• Remained at the scene until sunrise on February 15th.

Cross-examination:

• Defense attorney Andrew Baldwin questioned Giancola about the search timeline, area where the girls were found, the nature of the disturbance, and the specific appearance of the bodies.
• Giancola clarified Libby had blood around her body and Abby had some blood on her person but mainly around her, with the largest concentration of blood pooled on the ground between the girls.
• Giancola also confirmed he was carrying a Glock 17 9mm pistol at the time.

2. Sergeant Jason Paige - Indiana State Police CSI:

Background:

• Law enforcement officer for 24 years.
• Crime Scene Investigator for 16 years.

Responsibilities at the Scene:

• Secured and photographed the scene.
• Described the area behind the crime scene tape as the size of a football field with “Ground Zero” being where the bodies were found.
• Testified about 45 State exhibits, including 42 crime scene photographs, many depicting the bodies and surrounding evidence.
• Testified about the topography of the crime scene and provided detailed explanations of all photos taken.
• Explained that his responsibility was solely to document the scene and did not include moving bodies or making decisions about DNA testing.
• Was not aware of any DNA evidence from Richard Allen found at the scene.

Cross-examination:

• Defense attorney Bradley Rozzi focused his questioning on the time of death and Paige acknowledged it was not within his expertise to determine that.
• Paige could not confirm whether rape kits had been performed.
• Rozzi questioned the evidentiary value of sticks found placed on the girls’ bodies. Paige initially stated they were irrelevant but later noted he’d seen sticks used in other death investigations and acknowledged epithelial cells or other DNA could potentially be recovered.
• Rozzi questioned why the bullet was not individually photographed once recovered from the ground. Paige agreed it would have been helpful to establish continuity of evidence for the courtroom, especially considering its importance to the case.

3. Sergeant Dwayne Datzman - Retired Indiana State Police CSI:

Background:

• Had 20+ years of experience as a CSI and processed hundreds of crime scenes.

Testimony:

• Focused primarily on the photos he took of the scene, including aerial views from a helicopter and ground-level images.
• Talked about blood found on and near the bodies.
• Described finding a bullet at the scene between the bodies.
• Reiterated that the yellow rope visible in many photographs was used by the CSI team to demarcate searched areas, not evidence found at the scene.
• Explained that a process involving an Alternative Light Source (ALS) revealed the “sparkle” of the bullet casing among the leaves, leading to its discovery.
• Claimed the sticks covering the bodies had no evidentiary value as there was no blood on them. He also indicated the sticks appeared intentionally placed.

4. Brian Olehy - Indiana State Police CSI:

Testimony:

• Discussed clothing and other personal items found both on the victims and in the creek.
• Identified Abby’s clothing: Delphi swimming sweatshirt with the name “German,” pink shirt, a sports bra, jeans, and Converse shoes (without socks).
• Showed Libby’s clothing found in the creek: inside out tie-dye shirt, inside out jeans with dark pink underwear still attached, a left Nike shoe, and a gray zip-up hoodie. A single ankle sock (black/dark blue) and a muddy handkerchief/bandana were also retrieved from the creek.
• Described the placement of items related to Libby’s body: her left shoe on its side near the body, her phone underneath it, face up.
• Noted Libby had multiple abrasions on her backside, suggesting she may have been dragged.
• Claimed the sticks covering the bodies DID have blood on them, contradicting Datzman’s earlier testimony. Confirmed the sticks were later recovered and taken into evidence.

Note: Testimony regarding specific injuries and condition of the bodies was extremely graphic.

Courtroom Exchanges:

• Jurors requested clarification on how the chain of custody of the bullet was maintained to ensure it remained the same item recovered from the scene. Paige and Olehy explained the process for evidence documentation and collection used at the scene.
• Family members and some jurors were visibly upset during the presentation of crime scene photos, particularly when a close-up image of Libby German was briefly displayed on screen due to a technical error.

Judge’s Rulings:

• Judge Gull granted the jury a 90-minute lunch break following the presentation of emotionally challenging crime scene photographs.
• Court proceedings ended for the day at approximately 5:40 p.m. due to time constraints, before the cross-examination of Brian Olehy could be completed. Testimony will resume the next day.

Unresolved Issues:

• There remain discrepancies regarding the initial recovery of the sticks covering the girls’ bodies and whether blood was initially detected.
• The reason for not taking a picture of the bullet individually after it was removed from the ground was never satisfactorily addressed by the CSI witnesses.
• Clarification is needed regarding whether Abby Williams was wearing two bras at the time of her death, as mentioned in previously released documents, as this was not addressed in court.
• It’s still unclear where the missing bra and Libby’s underwear are.

General Observations:

• The day’s proceedings were dominated by detailed and often graphic descriptions and photographs of the crime scene and victims’ conditions.
• Defense attorneys focused their questioning on attempting to establish inconsistencies in evidence handling procedures and lack of certain types of evidence collection, particularly in relation to the bullet and sticks.
• The prosecution’s case relies heavily on establishing the integrity of the investigation and emphasizing the brutal nature of the crime.

Anticipated Upcoming Events:

• Testimony from the medical examiner who performed the autopsies is expected shortly.
• Potential witness Railly Voorhies may testify about her encounter with a man on the trail the day the girls went missing.

Overall Impression:

Despite graphic evidence and emotional testimony, the state’s case continues to face challenges related to questionable decisions made early in the investigation, particularly concerning documentation, evidence handling, and testing procedures. This has provided avenues for the defense to attack the integrity of the investigation, raising questions about whether the evidence presented truly links Richard Allen to the murders.

The Delphi Murders, a case shrouded in mystery, took another Kafkaesque turn this week with Judge Frances Gull's August 28th order (Page 1 | Page 2). Richard Allen, the man accused of the heinous crime, saw his purported "confessions" deemed admissible, despite concerns over the conditions in which they were extracted. One might be forgiven for wondering if we're witnessing justice unfold or a masterclass in legal acrobatics.

Judge Gull, seemingly unfazed by the unorthodox methods employed to elicit these "confessions", offered a rather simplistic rationale: if the words came out of Allen's mouth, they're fair game. The fact that these pronouncements were made within the stark confines of solitary confinement, amidst a cocktail of powerful psychotropic medications, appears to be of little consequence.

Let's be clear: this is not about Allen's guilt or innocence. This is about the very bedrock of the justice system: the presumption of innocence, the right to due process, and the inadmissibility of coerced statements. Judge Gull, however, seems content to glaze over these inconvenient truths, accepting the prosecution's narrative with the eagerness of a child presented with a shiny new toy.

Allen's mental state, meticulously documented as fragile and deteriorating under the strain of his confinement, is casually dismissed. The fact that his "confessions" emerged after months of what can only be described as psychological torture raises more eyebrows than a game of eyebrow twister.

The prosecution, naturally, paints a picture of a cunning criminal feigning mental illness. Yet, one has to wonder: if Allen were truly a mastermind, would he confess in such a haphazard manner, to prison guards, fellow inmates, and even his own psychologist? Or is it more likely that a vulnerable, mentally unstable individual, under immense pressure, cracked under the weight of his circumstances?

Judge Gull's order leaves a bitter taste, a sense that expediency trumps justice in the hallowed halls of her courtroom. Whether this decision will withstand the scrutiny of a higher court remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the fight for justice in the Delphi Murders, much like the case itself, continues down a winding, and frankly, disturbing, path.

We'll shortly learn if third-party culpability evidence will also be deemed admissible...

This week’s pre-trial hearings in the Delphi murders case have dramatically shifted the narrative, unveiling new information and formally validating earlier speculations. Key revelations include the surprise vacating of Richard Allen’s safekeeping order, new forensic insights into blood placement and body positioning, and significant witness testimonies that further add to the complexities surrounding Allen and the investigation into the tragic deaths of Abby and Libby in Delphi, Indiana, in February 2017.

Richard Allen’s Mental Health and Treatment

The hearings have revealed troubling aspects of Richard Allen’s mental health treatment. Diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) with psychosis, Allen experienced prolonged solitary confinement at the Reception Diagnostic Center (RDC) despite not exhibiting suicidal ideation at intake. This solitary confinement lasted 12 months, a prison condition known to exacerbate psychological issues. Dr. Wala, who managed Allen's medication and offered limited therapy sessions, noted his initial claims of innocence but later shifted her focus to his deteriorating mental state, including suicidal ideation and delusions. Concerns have emerged about Dr. Wala’s potential bias and ethical breaches, including the use of involuntary medication, namely questionable doses of Haldol, an archaic antipsychotic medication, which the defense argues could have influenced the validity of Allen’s confessions. The defense contends that Allen’s mental state, deteriorated by the harsh conditions of confinement and inadequate psychiatric care, may have led to coerced confessions.

Safekeeping Order and Conditions

In a surprising twist, Judge Gull vacated Allen’s safekeeping order on August 1, marking a significant shift in the case. Allen had been held under this measure for seven months without a formal hearing, a decision now confirmed as lacking clear evidence of imminent danger and legality. The defense argues that this prolonged isolation, coupled with Allen's severe mental health issues and inadequate treatment, aggravated his condition and potentially coerced his confessions. The vacating of the safekeeping order now places Allen in the custody of the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office, altering the conditions under which he will face trial.

Confessions and Their Validity

The hearings have spotlighted the contentious issue of Allen’s confessions. Testimonies revealed that Allen’s statements, made between March and June 2023, are under scrutiny for their voluntariness. The defense argues that these confessions may have been tainted by Allen’s deteriorating mental state and possible coercion due to his prolonged confinement and Dr. Wala’s questionable practices. The prosecution counters that the statements were voluntary, attributing them to Allen’s religious motivations rather than undue influence. This divergence raises questions about the reliability of his alleged confessions.

Todd Click

Todd Click’s testimony suggested a potential motive for the murders. Click proposed that Abby and Libby were killed out of anger after inadvertently stumbling upon a ritual they mocked. According to Click, Libby was likely the primary target and killed first, with Abby then murdered as a witness. This theory introduces a new angle on the possible motivations behind the killings.

Elvis Fields

Elvis Fields was mentioned in relation to suspicious social media activity where he reportedly mimicked the crime scene. While Murphy testified to Fields' actions, he could not link Fields directly to the scene on the day of the murders. This detail adds complexity to the investigation but does not establish a clear connection to the crime, yet.

Brad Holder

Brad Holder emerged as a significant figure, with forensic anthropologist Dawn Perlmutter’s testimony suggesting a potential connection to ritualistic practices. Perlmutter linked elements of the crime scene to known Odinist rituals, introducing Holder as a suspect who may have been involved in a ritualistic murder. Anticipated testimony from Amber Holder - Brad Holder's ex-wife - is expected to assert that Brad Holder implicated himself and another person in the murders. Despite this, the defense has provided an alibi placing Holder at a gym during the murders, though it was revealed that Holder left work around 2:30 PM on the day of the murders and did not arrive at the gym until 4:30 PM, opening a window of possibility for his involvement.

Keegan Kline and His Father

Keegan Kline remains under scrutiny. Indiana State Police Trooper David Veto testified about intense investigations into Kline and his father, highlighting Kline’s history of violence, app deletions, and discrepancies in his alibi. Veto noted physical similarities between Kline and the bridge guy in the video. Kline initially denied knowing Libby but later claimed to be at the cemetery with his father that day, admitting to disposing of a phone and knife into the Wabash River. Kline has also admitted to having communicated with Libby via social media and planning a meet-up on the day of the murders.

Libby's Cellphone

Libby’s cellphone has been a focal point in the hearings. Cecil, a phone expert, disputed earlier claims that the phone was off at 4:33 AM, asserting it was receiving texts at that time. Specifically, he testified that the phone was off from around 4 PM on February 13 and was switched back on at 4:33 AM the next day, at which point 15 text messages that had been sent since her disappearance were delivered. It remains unclear how Libby's phone came back on at 4:33 AM. Cecil also detailed the Apple Health step tracking data from Libby's phone, but could not confirm if the recorded steps matched the state’s version of the distances traveled.

The Crime Scene, Blood and Body Placement

New forensic insights have clarified several aspects of the crime scene. Official testimony confirmed that Libby’s blood was "pooled" at the scene, indicating she was mobile after the initial attack, while Abby’s blood was found only near her body. Blood splatter expert Patrick Cicero suggested that Libby’s left arm was raised and her body dragged, possibly with injuries occurring while she was sitting down. The positioning of the bodies—Libby’s left arm up and signs of dragging—along with the use of sticks to conceal them, adds to the scene’s complexity. 

No suspect DNA was found, and the state has yet to establish a definitive time of death or fully explain the timing of the murders. 

Novel blood splatter analysis was conducted by Cicero as late as February 2024, but his experiments and analysis were not video-recorded.

A Box Cutter

The prosecution has focused on the potential disposal of a box cutter, suggesting it may be a crucial piece of evidence. This aspect of the case is being scrutinized, though it appears to overshadow other potential suspects and theories. Evidence points to potentially more sophisticated tools being involved, such as a saw, which contradicts the state’s focus on a box cutter.

Geofencing

Geofencing data has played a role in the hearings, with the defense attempting to introduce this data to support their theories. The prosecution disputed its accuracy, however it was clarified that geofencing data is precise within 3-5 meters, challenging the prosecution’s claims. Questions remain about why specialized forensic expertise was not utilized until February 2024.

Conclusion

This week’s hearings have introduced pivotal new information and confirmed previously speculated details, but perhaps the most surprising development was Judge Gull's decision to vacate the safekeeping order for Richard Allen. This unexpected ruling has shifted the dynamics of the case, with Allen now transferred from the extreme isolation of safekeeping to the custody of the Carroll County Sheriff’s Office.

The vacating of the safekeeping order, announced on August 1, has significant implications. It marks a dramatic turn in Allen’s treatment and could affect his mental state and the overall strategy of both the defense and prosecution. The hearings have also brought to light key testimonies and forensic insights, including revelations about Allen’s mental health, the validity of his confessions, the implications of Liberty German's phone being switched back on at 4:33 AM on February 14, and new perspectives on potential suspects like Brad Holder.

Huge credit to Yellow Jackette for attending each hearing and getting a very numb butt in the process, providing excellent notes. Hear her experiences of the hearings on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/@RMproductionsyoutube.

The upcoming three days of hearings in the Delphi Murders trial, set to begin today 30 July, 2024, will be crucial for both the prosecution and the defense. A series of motions filed by both parties will be heard, potentially impacting the course of the trial and influencing the evidence presented to the jury. 

Here’s a breakdown of all the motions being heard, and what they entail:

State’s Motion for Admissibility:

• Key Issue: This motion concerns the admissibility of statements made by the defendant, Richard Allen, to a psychologist at the Indiana Department of Corrections where he is currently held for safekeeping.
• Details: The prosecution argues that these statements fall under an exception to confidentiality, allowing them to be introduced in court as evidence, as they relate directly to the homicide charges.
• Importance: The potential admission of these statements could offer crucial insights into the defendant's mental state, motivations, and potential involvement in the murders.

Defense Motion to Suppress Second Statement:

• Key Issue: This motion aims to suppress statements made by Richard Allen during a second interrogation conducted by Indiana State Police Trooper Jerry Holeman on October 26, 2022.
• Details: The defense claims that Holeman violated Allen’s Miranda rights during this interrogation, as he didn’t read him his Miranda warning and made false statements about the evidence against him. Additionally, the beginning portion of the interrogation video provided to the defense is missing, adding to the suspicions surrounding the interrogation.
• Importance: If the court grants this motion, Allen’s statements from the second interrogation would be excluded as evidence, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case.

State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress:

• Key Issue: This response by the prosecution counters the defense’s motion to suppress the second statement.
• Details: The state asserts that the interview was non-custodial as Allen arrived voluntarily and was informed that he was free to leave. The prosecution emphasizes that the interrogation wasn’t coerced, highlighting Allen’s calm demeanor and continued participation, despite occasional accusatory remarks by Holeman.
• Importance: This argument aims to convince the court that the interrogation was conducted appropriately, and Allen's statements are therefore admissible.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions:

• Key Issue: The defense requests the court to compel the state to produce specific evidence they claim has been withheld, including data extracted from victims’ phones and evidence related to potential third-party suspects. They also demand sanctions against the prosecution for the late disclosure of evidence, which they allege has significantly hampered their ability to mount a proper defense.
• Details: The defense argues that the delayed and incomplete discovery provided by the prosecution has compromised their preparation for the trial. They specifically cite the withheld phone extraction data from third-party suspect Brad Holder, who they believe is central to the case, and the exculpatory information from the Rushville Police Chief's report, which was not provided for several months after its creation.
• Importance: The granting of this motion would potentially significantly expand the defense's access to crucial evidence and force the prosecution to provide adequate information in a timely manner.

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order:

• Key Issue: The defense requests that the court overturn the safekeeping order, which requires Richard Allen to be held in a high-security unit of the Indiana Department of Corrections instead of a county jail.
• Details: The defense argues that the original concerns about transport and safety issues have been resolved, and the defendant poses no threat to the safety of others.
• Importance: If granted, this motion could lead to a transfer of Allen to a less restrictive environment, potentially improving his mental and physical condition while awaiting trial.

State’s Motion in Limine:

• Key Issue: This motion seeks to prevent the defense from mentioning specific evidence or arguments that the state deems irrelevant or prejudicial to the trial.
• Details: The motion specifically targets mentions of Odinism, cult activities, the names of several individuals investigated as potential suspects (including Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall, and Elvis Fields), as well as evidence related to the geofencing investigation.
• Importance: This motion seeks to tightly control the scope of evidence presented to the jury, preventing the defense from introducing arguments that could create confusion or bias.

Defense Response to State’s Motion in Limine:

• Key Issue: This response challenges the state's attempt to limit the presentation of evidence, particularly regarding potential third-party perpetrators.
• Details: The defense argues that their ability to present evidence of possible third-party involvement is essential for their case and their Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. They argue that the prosecution’s attempts to limit this evidence is an overreach that will only hinder a fair trial and judicial efficiency.
• Importance: The outcome of this response could dramatically impact the defendant’s ability to introduce evidence that supports alternative theories about the murders, directly impacting the jury's understanding of the case.

Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss:

• Key Issue: The defense argues for dismissal of the charges against Richard Allen based on the destruction and/or withholding of exculpatory evidence, particularly concerning potential third-party suspects Brad Holder and Odinism.
• Details: The motion argues that various items of evidence have been intentionally lost or destroyed by law enforcement, specifically highlighting the missing Brad Holder phone extraction data, the absence of his second interview with authorities, and the missing images of a mimicked crime scene found on Holder’s social media. The defense argues that this evidence is highly exculpatory and crucial to their ability to mount a robust defense.
• Importance: The potential dismissal of the charges based on prosecutorial misconduct is a significant legal hurdle for the prosecution to overcome. It highlights the severe consequences of losing or withholding potentially critical evidence, raising concerns about fairness and the integrity of the legal process.

State’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss:

• Key Issue: This response directly challenges the defense's claim of lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence, arguing that the claims lack any substantive evidence and that Brad Holder is not a third-party suspect.
• Details: The state argues that the defense's allegations of intentional destruction and concealment are unfounded. They maintain that Brad Holder’s involvement in the murders is unsubstantiated and the evidence they have already provided is sufficient.
• Importance: This response attempts to dismiss the defense's allegations, arguing that the state has not engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and that the evidence they have presented adequately proves Richard Allen’s involvement in the murders.

Beyond being a fascinating week for true crime and legal folks who have followed the case, the outcomes of these hearings is likely to set the tone for the remaining period between now and the start of the trial in October. For context, it's unprecedented in Richard Allen's proceedings so far to have this many hearings - or actually many hearings at all - and I'm personally not sure if Judge Gull realises that she's ordered herself a huge plate of hearing, that she will now have to consume. 

Of course it's possible that nothing will be ruled on this week and that the Judge will take everything under advisement, for her to consider while she's on vacation this Summer. However it's also possible that she will make key findings here and now. Many will be watching to see if her posture has changed at all since the recent "lazy judge" motion.

Stay tuned, I guess...

The Richard Allen Delphi murders continue to be a battleground of technical evidence, with yesterday's defense filing (Defense Reply to State's Response to Defense's 4th Motion for Franks Hearing) throwing a curveball into the ongoing fight over the search warrant used on Allen's property, ultimately leading to him becoming Defendant Allen. The back-and-forth really is a Franks showdown. 

The latest wrinkle? Cell phone data from one of the victims, Liberty German.

Why the Phone Pings Matter:

• The Prosecution's Story: They believe the girls were dropped off near the trailhead on 13 February, 2017, never left the area, and were murdered soon after being ordered down a hill by their abductor.
• The Defense's Argument: They entered a response to the state's rebuttal of their previous Franks motions. This latest filing centres on phone pings generated between 13-14 February, 2017. The defense claims these pings show activity outside the original area where the bodies were found, contradicting the prosecution's timeline.

The Defense Focuses on the Gap:

The crux of the defense's argument hinges on a gap in the pings after 5:44 pm on 13 February. They suggest phone activity outside the original area occurred sometime between then and 14 February. They reference Sergeant Blocher's interpretation of the pings in their motion, suggesting the phone was likely not in the area or not working at that time. Their implication? That the phone was taken elsewhere, then brought back – a scenario at odds with the prosecution's narrative.

Holes in the State's Counterarguments:

The state argues the defense is misreading the phone data, but their arguments have some weaknesses:

• Silent on the Switch: The state says pings after 5:44 pm represent historical data, but they don't explain why the pings would abruptly switch at that specific time.
• Blocher's Interpretation Sidestepped: The defense cites Sergeant Blocher's analysis, suggesting the phone wasn't in the area. The state doesn't address this directly, leaving the phone's status during the gap unclear.
• Accuracy Questions Linger: While the state acknowledges ping inaccuracy, they don't specify an acceptable level of error in this case. Inconsistent ping accuracy weakens their argument that pings during the gap are unreliable outliers.
• Alternative Explanations Not Addressed: The state argues the pings don't necessarily contradict their timeline because the phone could have been left behind. However, this doesn't eliminate the possibility the phone was moved, especially if pings after the gap show a significant location change.

Data Recovery: The Missing Piece?

The state's response makes no mention of data recovery efforts from Liberty German's phone. This is important because:

• Deleted Data: Recovered data might include messages or location information that could clarify the phone's movements.
• Phone Functionality: Data recovery efforts could also indicate whether the phone was functioning during the gap,potentially impacting the state's argument about the phone being out of range.

The absence of mention in this filing doesn't necessarily mean data recovery efforts haven't happened, but it raises questions the court may consider.

What's Next?

The court will now decide whether the defense's arguments about the phone pings warrant a Franks hearing. If granted, the court would hear evidence from both sides about the ping data and its significance to the case. The outcome of this motion - if heard - could significantly impact what evidence is allowed at trial. 

Will it lead to that ever-evasive Franks hearing? I wouldn't hold my breath, but it would be interesting if it does. Perhaps some of the funds raised for defense expert witnesses will go towards cell data experts who might finally be able to put this contentious point to bed.

If Libby's phone was moved away from the bridge area after the girls encountered Bridge Guy, what does it mean? Where did the phone - or the girls - go? Was the phone switched off on the afternoon of 13 February and switched back on in the dawn hours of the next day? If so, why, and by whom?

Richard Allen's defense has today (23 July) filed a motion (Mini summary motion page 1 | Page 2) seeking permission to present mini opening statements to the jury panel before the commencement of voir dire. This motion is not just a procedural request but a strategic maneuver aimed at ensuring a fair trial. Let's look into what this motion means, its historical and legal context, and what the defense might be hoping to achieve with it, especially in light of the challenges this case has faced so far.

What is the Motion Asking For?

The motion requests the court to allow both the defense and prosecution to present brief opening statements to the jury panel before the voir dire process begins. According to Indiana Jury Rule 14(b), these mini opening statements are intended to help the jury panel understand the case's key issues and facts. The defense suggests that these statements be limited to three minutes or less, allowing each party to summarize the main issues that will be contested at trial.

Historical and Legal Context

Mini opening statements are not a new concept. They have been used in various jurisdictions to improve the jury selection process. The rationale behind this practice is rooted in the belief that an informed jury is better equipped to serve impartially. By providing jurors with a snapshot of the case, attorneys can help them understand the context and identify any biases or preconceived notions they might have.

Historically, voir dire has been the primary tool for uncovering juror biases, but it has limitations. In a case as controversial as the Delphi Murders, voir dire may be particularly challenging. Traditional voir dire questions can sometimes fail to reveal deeper prejudices or misunderstandings about the case. Mini opening statements offer a proactive approach to address these issues by giving jurors a clearer picture of what to expect.

What the Defense Hopes to Achieve

In the case of Richard M. Allen, the defense's motion for mini opening statements is particularly significant given the case's troubled history. The trial has been plagued with due process errors, and the relationship with the judge has been contentious to say the least. 

Here are some potential objectives the defense might be aiming for with this motion:

1. Enhancing Juror Understanding: By providing a concise overview of the defense's position, the defense hopes to ensure that jurors have a balanced understanding of the case from the outset. This is crucial in a case that may have already been influenced by media coverage and public opinion.
2. Identifying Bias: Mini opening statements can help expose potential biases or preconceived notions among the jury pool. This can be particularly important in a high-profile case where jurors might have formed opinions based on incomplete or biased information.
3. Setting the Narrative: The defense can use this opportunity to establish key themes and narratives that will be important throughout the trial. This early framing can help jurors better understand the defense's arguments and evidence.
4. Balancing the Scales: In a case where the judge's hostility has been a concern, presenting a mini opening statement allows the defense to ensure their perspective is heard clearly and without interruption. This can help counteract any perceived or actual bias from the bench.
5. Fair Trial Safeguards: Given the due process issues that have arisen, this motion is a proactive step to safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial. By enhancing the jury's understanding and helping to select impartial jurors, the defense is taking a crucial step to protect their client's constitutional rights.

Conclusion

The motion for mini opening statements in the case of Richard M. Allen is more than a procedural request; it is a strategic effort to ensure a fair and impartial trial. By providing jurors with a brief overview of the case before voir dire, the defense aims to enhance understanding, identify biases, and establish a balanced narrative. In a trial marked by due process errors and a hostile judge, this motion represents a vital step towards safeguarding the defendant's rights and achieving a just outcome.

On 7 July Richard Allen's defense attorneys made an arcane legal move, invoking Indiana Trial Rule 53.1 (the "lazy judge" rule), in an attempt to have Judge Gull removed from the case, for delaying in ruling on motions. The premise of IN 53.1 is that if a motion requires a judgment or a hearing has not been addressed within thirty days, the defendant has the right to have the cause removed from the presiding judge.

The ethos behind IN 53.1 is the fair execution of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, and that is the basis for this powerful tool which ensures justice is timely.

The motions which not ruled on are the defense's Franks motions, which are powerful, because if successful the case can be thrown out. Franks motions attack the evidential root by which someone becomes a defendant.

When the defense filed their "lazy judge" praecipe on 7 July there was a flurry of online chatter about what would happen. Going by the letter of IN 53.1, and a detailed look at the motions that were cited, it looked like the case might get a new judge. 

On 19 July Justin Forkner - the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration official who gets to decide if there has been a relevant delay in ruling on a motion - published his finding. Forkner found that Judge Gull did delay ruling on defense's 9 April Franks motion (which I'll refer to as the "Latest Franks motion"). 

However, he also found that Allen had waived his IN 53.1 right by filing, on 18 June, a subsequent motion titled "Accused's Response to This Court's May 31, 2024 'Order or Judgment of the Court', and Notice of Conflict" (which I'll refer to as the "Resetting motion"). 

Justin said no.

By Forkner's interpretation, the thirty-day clock which was started by the Latest Franks motion was reset by the filing of the Resetting motion. He interprets the Resetting motion to be so central to what was being asked of the court in the Latest Franks motion that it nullifies the right provided by IN 53.1.

The Resetting motion, however, was about one thing only: Judge Gull's bias. It wasn't about the contents of the Franks, or anything else you might consider foundational to Indiana v Richard M Allen. Is that relevant? Yes, it is, and here's why.

Forkner - who remember is not a judge - cited a piece of Indiana case law, Board of Medical Registration and Examination v Turner 168 N.E.2d 193, 195 (Ind. 1960) (which I'll refer to as "Board of Medical Registration and Examination") as his legal rationale, quoting (where it references Rule 1-13, understand that Rule 1-13 was the predecessor rule to IN 53.1):

"[...] it is well settled that a party cannot claim the benefit of Rule 1-13 when by his conduct has has consented or waived his right to claim it."

He then goes on to tell us that in more recent case law - State Koppe v Cass Circuit Court (Ind. 2000) - the Indiana Supreme Court added the following footnote:

"Similarly, the benefit of Trial Rules 53.1 or 53.2 may be waived where the deadline for a ruling has passed, but rather than filing a praecipe to withdraw the cause, a party files pleadings or otherwise takes voluntary action of record inconsistent with that party's right to invoke those rules."

In legal rulings, and in legislation, words hold power, and their strict interpretation sometimes hinges on a single word, and why that word was chosen. 

What does "may be" mean to you? The Oxford Dictionary defines the verb "may" as:

"used to say that something is possible

• That may or may not be true.
• He may have (= perhaps he has) missed his train.
• They may well win.
• There is a range of programs on the market which may be described as design aids."

To me this is ambiguous enough to leave space for "may not". Something may or may not be. If the Indiana Supreme Court wanted that footnote to be an absolute bar on subsequent-action waiver of IN 53.1, they would have used "is", not "may be". Appellate courts don't misuse words, because doing so introduces risk of misinterpretation.

The problem is there is nowhere for Richard Allen to go with Forkner's interpretation of the law. Indiana apparently has a serious due process issue, and a messy mish-mash of officials making quasi-judicial decisions that cannot be reviewed.

Due process is a fundamental right in any legal system. It means that up to a point, any decision impacting one's legal rights must be challengeable. 

Ultra vires is an interesting legal term, meaning "beyond the powers", as in when an official acts beyond their powers. Ultra vires is the legal basis for judicial review, whereby someone asks a court to review the actions of an official. In the case of Allen's "lazy judge" attempt, his attorneys might argue that Justin Forkner is merely an official and has acted "beyond his powers" in his interpretation of the law, that they'd prefer a judge to clarify whether Allen's Resetting motion really should be considered a subsequent-action waiver to the rights inherent in IN 53.1.

Perhaps in that footnote, the Indiana Supreme Court foresaw a situation where there might be some subsequent-action that doesn't contradict the intent to enforce rights inherent in IN 53.1. Perhaps they - by using "may be" instead of "is" - wanted to maintain some judicial discretion over such decisions in future.

However, the way the Indiana Office of Judicial Administration was created, of which Forkner is the chief official, means that it is an arm of the Indiana Supreme Court itself (via §33-24-6 of the Indiana Code). It might be uncomfortable, or very unusual, for an attorney to ask that court to review its own actions. It may be that nobody has attempted before.

How can such a due process black hole be left unaddressed just because it's unusual, though? For Richard Allen, and everyone else in Indiana, it shouldn't. Quasi-judicial officials who are non-reviewable is the stuff of tyrannical legal regimes, where a faceless person not vested with judicial responsibilities and accountability can determine the fate of individuals facing the full might of the state.

Novelty is how law progresses. Novelty on the part of the Indiana Supreme Court has created this due process black hole, perhaps novelty on the part of Indiana attorneys is the only way to correct it.

These are the questions that were asked to prospective jurors in Indiana v Richard Allen, which was scheduled for May of this year but was since moved to October.

1. Name

2. Age

3. Home Address

4. If you have lived at any other address in the last five years, please list each such address

5. What is your occupation and who is your current employer?

6. If you are married or if you live with a companion, what is his or her name?

7. If you are married or if you live with a companion, please list his or her employers for the last three years, including his/her present employer:

8. With respect to other members of your household, if any, please state their names, ages, occupations, and employers, if applicable:

9. Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a violent crime? If yes, please explain:

10. Are you or any member of your family related to, or a close friend of any law enforcement officer? If so, please explain:

11. Have you ever been called for jury service before?

If so, were you seated as a juror?

If so, was it a civil or a criminal case?

What was the outcome of the case?

What concerns you most about the jury system?

12. Have you ever appeared as a witness in a court?

If so, was it a civil or a criminal matter?

13. If so, for whom did you testify?

Have you or any member of your family ever been involved in a lawsuit?

If so, please describe briefly the type of lawsuit and the outcome of the proceeding:

14. How much education have you completed? (Select all that apply)

Grade School ____

High School ____

College ____

Graduate School ____

Vocational School or Specialized Training ____

15. Have you or any members of your immediate family served in the military?

If so, when and in what branch?

16. How do you keep up with the news? (Select all that apply)

TV ____

Newspaper ____

Friends ____

Magazines ____

Don't Keep Up With The News ____

17. How often do you read the newspaper?

Daily ____

Weekly ____

Monthly ____

Once In A While ____

Never ____

18. Which books, newspapers or magazines, if any, have you read in the last three months?

19. Which television programs, if any, do you regularly watch?

20. What podcasts, if any, do you regularly listen to?

21. What social media platforms do you use?

22. How reliable do you believe the media is?

Very Reliable ____

Somewhat Reliable ____

Not Reliable ____

Please explain your answer.

23. Are you familiar with the investigation and/or prosecution of Richard Allen for Murder? Yes ____ No ____

If Yes, what do you know about the case?

24. Have you heard any discussion in the local community about the prosecution of Richard Allen for Murder? Yes ____ No ____

If Yes, what have you heard?

25. Have you formed an opinion about what you have heard about this case such that your opinion would interfere with your ability to decide this case by what you hear in court? Yes ____ No ____

Please explain your answer:

26. Please list any organizations or associations to which you belong or are interested in, such as PTA, social clubs, political organizations, etc.:

27. Please list any organizations or associations to which your spouse, if any, belongs or is interested in:

28. Please list any religious organizations to which you or your spouse belongs or is interested in:

29. Do you have any disabilities or health-related problems which would make it difficult for you to serve as a juror?

30. Is there any information which you would like to provide to the court that you believe is relevant to your ability to serve as a juror in this case?

31. Do you or have you suffered from a mental illness? If you answered yes, please explain:

32. Do you have any pressing matters which would make it impossible for you to serve as a juror during the time frame of May 15th, 2024, through May 31st, 2024?

33. Have you ever heard of the Delphi murders? Yes ____ No ____

34. Do you have a family member or close friend who works in the legal system as a judge, lawyer, court reporter, paralegal, legal secretary or law enforcement officer?

If you answered yes, please explain:

35. Have you or anyone close to you been convicted of a felony? If you answered yes, please explain:

36. Are you currently on probation or serving a sentence of house arrest, work release or under suspended sentence?

37. Have you, or anyone close to you, been prosecuted for a criminal offense in Allen County and/or Carroll County? (This Does Not Include Traffic Infractions Such As Speeding)

38. Do you believe that the jury system in this country is a fair system?

Yes ____ No ____

Please explain your answer:

39. Have you ever seen anything on television related to this case?

40. Are you part of an online group, YouTube channel, or other internet-based organization that has discussed this case? If so, what group?

41. No matter what you have heard or seen about this case, and no matter what opinions you might have formed, what difficulty might you have putting all of that aside and deciding this case only on the evidence you receive in court, following the law, and deciding the case in a fair and impartial manner?

42. The jury is told not to read, watch or listen to news accounts of a trial they are involved in until it is over, and not talk to anyone about the case, and to not post anything on social media or elsewhere, including through jury deliberations.

What difficulty might you have following these instructions for any reason?

This filing on behalf of the defense is a "Motion to Suppress the Accused’s Second Statement" filed by Richard Allen, the accused, through his counsel. It requests the court to suppress all statements made during his interrogation on October 26, 2022, on the grounds of constitutional violations and irregularities in the interrogation process. This follows Allen's first motion to suppress which related to admissions he made under duress while in prison, which is summarized here.

Summary of Allegations and Evidence:

1. First Interrogation (October 13, 2022):
   • Initially, Allen cooperated voluntarily, believing he was assisting in solving the case of the murders of Libby and Abby.
   • The interrogation turned accusatory, causing Allen to assert his innocence and express frustration.
   • Despite being read his Miranda rights, Allen eventually decided to stop cooperating.
   • Subsequently, a search warrant was issued for Allen's home and vehicle.
2. Second Interrogation (October 26, 2022):
   • Allen and his wife went to retrieve their seized vehicle but were unexpectedly subjected to further interrogation.
   • The beginning of the interrogation, including Miranda rights reading, is missing from the provided video.
   • Discrepancies exist between the interrogation video and the officer's report regarding Miranda rights and freedom to leave.
   • The defense alleges various constitutional violations during this interrogation, including:
     • Lack of Miranda rights reading.
     • Unlawful detention.
     • Coercive and deceptive interrogation tactics.
     • False statements made by the interrogating officer.

State v E.R.:

The filing cites State v. E.R., a similar case where the defendant's constitutional rights were deemed violated, leading to the suppression of statements. It highlights specific parallels between E.R.'s case and Allen's interrogation, emphasizing the importance of Miranda rights, freedom to leave, and the nature of the interrogation atmosphere.

What this means:

The motion asserts that Allen's constitutional rights against self-incrimination were violated during both interrogations due to the absence of Miranda rights reading, coercive tactics, and deceptive statements by law enforcement. It requests the suppression of Allen's statements and a finding that the interrogating officer and the State Police violated Allen's constitutional rights.

In essence, the filing aims to challenge the admissibility of Allen's statements in court, arguing that they were obtained unlawfully and in violation of his constitutional rights, thereby weakening the prosecution's case against him.

Custodial interrogation or not?

There has already been debate since this document was released about whether or not interview/interrogation number two was covered by the Miranda requirement, hinging on whether or not it was a custodial interrogation or an informal conversation with the police. 

I think the point is moot, because they clearly did read his Miranda rights in the first conversation, and failed to in the second. No reasonable person would conclude that these two conversations were acutely different to the point that the second conversation wasn't similar in nature and structure to the first. 

Impact on the trial

In a "normal" trial, if evidence extracted from the second interrogation was central to a prosecution's case, the failure to read the defendant his Miranda rights could be grounds to request dismissal of the charges. However, if what the police extracted from Allen in that conversation only forms part of their case against him, then that part can be directly challenged as inadmissible. There's plenty of precedent/jurisprudence at a United States Supreme Court level that should instruct the court on that. There is also, as the filing itself indicates, Indiana-specific jurisprudence in State vs E.R. 

Richard Allen however has a hostile judge, so it's not clear if she will follow the jurisprudence at this level or leave it as a prospective appellate issue. I think it depends very much on what information was extracted from the interrogation and how central it is to the prosecution's case. If it is central, then forget it, because Judge Gull isn't going to act against the interests of the State, but if it's peripheral, then perhaps she'll let it be suppressed because it does the State no harm.

Why did Indiana State Police read Rick Allen his Miranda rights in the first conversation on 13 October, but not the second on 16 October? 

Is this another case of Detective Dufus forgetting to do his actual job while pretending to be a detective? I think it's got to be, because they were trying really hard to put Allen in the frame for the murders in October 2022, and every cop in America is aware that if they screw up the suspect's constitutional rights in interviews then those interviews are worthless. It just goes to show how inept the senior figures in law enforcement around this case were, and are.

The idea of an innocent person confessing to a crime seems absurd on the surface. Why would someone admit to something they didn't do? Yet, the reality is that false confessions are a disturbingly common occurrence, especially within the coercive environment of prisons. While skepticism is understandable, extensive research and expert analysis demonstrate that prisoners under duress are particularly vulnerable to making false confessions.

Plenty of academics have studied this phenomenon. This post highlights a few of those studies and their conclusions. These authors are not people who are fighting for "Justice for Person Y" or "Justice for Person X", they are independent academics who have to follow a rigorous process in their work.

Understanding Coerced Compliant Confessions

Let's begin by recognizing that not all false confessions are created equal. Coerced compliant confessions happen when individuals, often in vulnerable positions, succumb to pressure from authority figures and confess to a crime they didn't commit. This pressure can manifest as threats, violence, or even manipulative psychological tactics. As experts Kassin, et al. (2003) describe it, such confessions occur because individuals "succumb to pressure from law enforcement or other authoritative figures to confess to a crime they did not commit."

The prison environment is a breeding ground for such pressure. Leo and Ofshe (1998) highlight how "the prison environment, characterized by its coercive nature and power differentials, can compel inmates to make false confessions to prison staff in order to alleviate punishment or gain privileges within the institution." 

Imagine the desperation of an inmate facing solitary confinement or denied basic necessities. In such a situation, confessing to a crime, even a false one, might seem like the only path to relief.

Vulnerable Populations and Duress

The susceptibility to false confessions intensifies for certain individuals. Gudjonsson and Clare (2004) point out that those with "intellectual disabilities or psychological impairments, are particularly susceptible to making coerced compliant confessions when subjected to intense interrogation tactics." 

In the pressure cooker environment of prison, these vulnerabilities are magnified, leaving these individuals at even greater risk of confessing to crimes they did not commit.

False Confessions Between Prisoners

The pressure to falsely confess doesn't always come from prison staff. Kassin et al. (2016) highlight how prisoners may also falsely confess "to crimes within the prison environment as a means of self-protection or to gain acceptance or status among their peers." 

In the harsh reality of prison life, where violence and intimidation are commonplace, confessing to a crime may seem like a survival strategy to avoid becoming a target. This must magnify for a defendant who is yet to be prosecuted, who happens to be temporarily held in a prison, rather than the traditional temporary jail environment they belong.

A Call for Awareness and Reform

The prevalence of false confessions within the prison system points to a larger issue: the vulnerability of individuals under duress and the potential for grave miscarriages of justice. As Drizin and Leo (2004) emphasize, "False confessions made by prisoners under duress highlight the vulnerability of individuals within the criminal justice system, particularly when subjected to coercive pressures from authority figures or peers."

Ignoring this is not an option. Some of us are advocating for justice for Richard Allen in the Delphi murder trial. If boring, dry academic people - with rigorous methods - have reached the conclusions that I've highlighted here, then why should any half-sane person accept that the supposed confessions are real. It's unthinkable that there are people who, given the information that came with Allen's Motion to Suppress this "confession" evidence, can look themselves in the mirror and double-down on the validity of the confessions Richard Allen made. Do you consider yourself American?

The National Registry of Exonerations: Shedding Light on Injustice

One of the most powerful tools in understanding the prevalence of wrongful convictions, including those based on coerced confessions, is the National Registry of Exonerations. This database documents cases where individuals have been wrongfully convicted and later cleared of their charges, often due to newly discovered evidence or advancements in forensic techniques.

In Indiana alone, the National Registry of Exonerations has recorded 46 cases of wrongful convictions that have been formally exonerated. Each entry in this registry represents a life disrupted, a family torn apart, and a miscarriage of justice that must be rectified.

The National Registry of Exonerations' catalog shows us that the state can - and does - get it wrong, either by incompetence, malice or a mixture of the both. These cases underscore the urgency of addressing issues such as coerced confessions, inadequate legal representation, and flawed investigative techniques.

For Richard Allen's trial, I don't think the confession "evidence" needs to be suppressed at all. The filed motion did a service to the the idea that an innocent man is being tortured by the state. 

A jury of twelve - if they are presented with confession "evidence" by the prosecution - will also have to hear what the defense say about those confessions, and will have to search their souls. 

If McCleland goes heavy on the confessions as primary evidence of Allen's guilt, then perhaps we'll see the defense bring in confession experts too, possibly including some of the academics named here. If they can find a way to pay for them.

This document is a legal memorandum supporting a motion to suppress evidence (specifically, statements made by Richard M. Allen that amount to an "admission") in the case of the State of Indiana vs. Richard M. Allen. Allen is accused of the double homicide of Abigail Williams and Liberty German.

Key Points:

• Unusual Detention: Allen, while awaiting trial, was held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison unit typically used for individuals with suicidal ideations, despite no evidence suggesting he was suicidal.
• Harsh Conditions: He endured extreme isolation, limited amenities, constant surveillance, and shackling even during meetings with his attorneys.
• Mental Health Concerns: Allen had a history of depression and his mental health deteriorated significantly during his detention, leading to possible psychosis.
• Questionable Statements: While in this state, Allen allegedly made incriminating statements to inmates and guards, which his lawyers argue were involuntary and should be suppressed.
• Due Process Concerns: The defense argues that the conditions of Allen's detention violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, as well as his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution.

Important Quotes:

• "[Allen's] free will was overcome by the forces of his environment, all of which were placed upon him by the government and its actors." This quote highlights the defense's argument that the harsh conditions of Allen's detention were coercive and led to involuntary statements.
• "[Allen] was reduced to nothing more than a human experiment." This quote emphasizes the defense's belief that the extreme isolation and lack of proper mental health care severely impacted Allen's mental state.
• "The system of pre-trial detention employed against Allen runs afoul of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article 1 Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution." This quote clearly states the defense's claim that Allen's rights were violated by the manner of his detention.

Why This Matters:

This motion raises critical questions about the limits of pre-trial detention and the protection of individuals' constitutional rights. The defense argues that the extreme conditions Allen faced, combined with his pre-existing mental health issues, rendered any statements he made involuntary and unreliable. If the court agrees - which frankly is unlikely - it means the "admission" will not be admissible in evidence in front of a jury..

Additional Points of Interest:

• The document mentions the existence of investigative findings related to a group of suspects associated with Odinist religious practices, and the potential involvement of prison guards with similar beliefs.
• It also highlights inconsistencies between Allen's alleged confessions and the known facts of the case, further supporting the argument that his statements were unreliable.

You just know Judge Gull would love to stick a ball-gag over David Hennessy's mouth after he called her Gollum...

But she hasn't. She has however issued a new injunction barring relevant parties to the Delphi case from speaking to the media. We didn't learn about this from the docket, because... it's not on the docket. News of the new gag order came from the media (WSBT article).

WSBT says this about the new gag order:

"The order will prohibit prosecutors, the defense team and investigators from talking to the media about the case against Richard Allen."

"The order does not extend to the attorney representing Allen's defense team."

So what we have is a new gag order, that sounds a lot like the gag order that's already in place. It prevents the parties - prosecution, defense, and investigators - from talking to the media about the case against Richard Allen. Okay, but we've already had an active order barring the same since December 2022.

When I first heard about this I thought she'd be extending the scope of her original order to include the other attorneys that have tangentially become involved in the case, i.e. David Hennessy and others. I assumed this because those attorneys have been more talkative in recent weeks, particularly David Hennessy, notably in the YouTube live he did with Bob Motta and Unsolved Crimes: Unsolved. But she didn't.

The new gag order appears to do nothing new at all.

Richard Allen's case is not just about one man; it's about the very foundation of our justice system and the rights of every American citizen. Here are three crucial reasons why you should consider donating to his legal defense fund:

1. Denial of Funding for Critical Evidence Examination:

Imagine being accused of a crime you didn't commit, with evidence existing that could prove your innocence. Now imagine being denied the resources to even examine that evidence. This is the shocking reality for Richard Allen. He's been refused funding for crucial analysis, including analysis of the cellphones present at the crime scene, and shell casing analysis, that could potentially exonerate him. This denial is not just unfair; it strikes at the heart of justice itself. By supporting his legal fund, you're ensuring he has the means to fight for the truth and expose potential flaws in the prosecution's case.

2. Destruction of Exculpatory Evidence:

In a truly just system, all evidence, whether it points towards guilt or innocence, must be preserved. However, in Richard Allen's case, potentially exculpatory evidence has been destroyed. This could include anything from witness statements to surveillance footage, all of which could have been crucial in establishing his alibi and proving his innocence. Such actions not only hinder his defense but also raise serious concerns about transparency and accountability within the justice system. Your support can help his legal team investigate these actions and fight for the truth, regardless of the obstacles.

3. Judicial Misconduct and Concealment of Evidence:

The role of a judge is to ensure a fair trial, where both sides have the opportunity to present their case. However, Richard Allen's case is marred by allegations of judicial misconduct and evidence concealment. This could involve suppressing evidence favorable to the defense or even colluding with the prosecution. Such actions undermine the very foundation of a fair trial and threaten the integrity of the entire judicial process. By supporting Richard Allen's legal fund, you're taking a stand against such injustices and advocating for a system that upholds the principles of fairness and due process for all.

Richard Allen's fight is not just his own; it's a fight for justice for all. Your contribution, no matter how small, can make a significant difference in ensuring he has the resources to defend himself and challenge the systemic failures that threaten the very core of our justice system. Donate today and stand up for what's right.

-

Richard Allen's defense has created a crowdsourced fundraising campaign. Every single dollar will go towards the payment of defense experts to ensure a fair trial. It's reached two thirds of its target - if you can donate now via PayIt2 by clicking here. 

For legal information about the fundraiser, click here.

The Defense Reply to Prosecution's Response to 3rd Franks Memorandum hit the Internet earlier, but it's a weighty read. If you want to know the key arguments, here is a summary of the filing.

Richard Allen's defense team argues that a Franks hearing is necessary due to alleged false information and omissions in the search warrant affidavit, as well as a pattern of concealing evidence by law enforcement and the prosecution.

Key Points:

• False Information in Affidavit: The defense claims the affidavit contains false information regarding witness statements, specifically about the color of a jacket and the presence of blood. They argue this misinformation impacted the timeline presented by the prosecution.
• Omission of Crucial Information: The defense highlights the omission of witness descriptions of the suspect and vehicle, which they believe do not match Richard Allen and his car. They argue these omissions were intentional and crucial to establishing the timeline.
• Pattern of Concealing Evidence: The defense presents several instances where they believe law enforcement and the prosecution concealed or misrepresented evidence, including:
  • Misrepresenting statements by a Purdue professor regarding Odinism.
  • Delaying the disclosure of exculpatory evidence supporting the defense's theory of Odinism involvement.
  • Providing conflicting testimonies about the number of individuals involved in the crime.
  • Late disclosure of geofencing data and refusal to identify the expert who analyzed it.
• Defense's Theory: The defense maintains their theory that individuals involved in Odinism committed the murders, supported by evidence and the findings of some investigators.
• Late Discovery: The defense emphasizes the prosecution's late disclosure of crucial evidence, hindering their ability to prepare for trial and depositions.

Key Quotes:

• "The defense has provided evidence that throughout the history of this case, but particularly in 2023, law enforcement and/or the prosecution have presented false information or attempted to conceal evidence."
• "If this Court expects or requires that law enforcement admit to intentionality or reckless disregard for the truth, then a Franks hearing is nothing more than a legal fiction."
• "Clearly, by September 6, 2023, McLeland had been fully aware for over 3 weeks that Holeman had learned the possible identity of the Purdue Professor (Jeffrey Turco) and by then had even received the unsigned 2017 report of that professor. Yet McLeland claimed to the defense that the FBI and Purdue Police had not yet responded to Holeman when clearly both had, even providing the name Turco to Holeman."

Requested Action:

The defense urges the court to grant a Franks hearing to assess the validity of the search warrant based on the alleged false information and omissions, and the pattern of concealing evidence.

Yesterday - 3 April 2024 - Judge Gull ordered the release of Richard Allen's health records to the prosecution, without hearing.

Let's read the Indiana Code. Section 16-39-3 deals with health records.

Section 16-39-3-4 - Notice of hearing

Except as provided in section 8 of this chapter, notice of a hearing to be conducted under this chapter shall be served at least fifteen (15) days in advance on the following:

(1) The patient.

(2) The guardian, guardian ad litem or court appointed special advocate appointed for a minor, parent, or custodian of a patient who is incompetent.

(3) The provider that maintains the record or the attorney general if the provider is a state institution.

Now, consider the order made yesterday, and its wording:

"State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (mental health records) filed March 14, 2024 granted without hearing. State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (medical records) filed March 14, 2024, granted without hearing."

You can see where I'm going with this. Sometimes in court cases the "authorities" that lawyers cite to say a court can't or should do something are difficult to unravel, relying on case law that has gone through appeals, or state or federal Supreme Court rulings. Those can be open to interpretation or misinterpretation. Statute however - in this case the Indiana Code - is much less open to interpretation, and §16-39-3-4 is about as clear as you can get. "Notice of a hearing to be conducted" is the key language, and Judge Gull's order completely ignored it. She ignored the law.

So what next?

I think Gull's calculation was that Allen's defense will go for an interlocutory appeal on this order, which would delay the trial by many months. But I think she might have shot herself in the foot. Such a bare failure to follow the law in a case that has already seen a man jailed (in solitary, in a high-security prison) for a year and a half, where speedy trial rights have been activated, is in my opinion a sound reason to go straight to Indianapolis, straight to the Indiana Supreme Court (SCOIN). 

If the lawyers go down that route, this matter could be ruled on by SCOIN before the trial is even scheduled to begin, and the implications of another slap-down from SCOIN could be very chilling for Judge Gull. Not least, SCOIN would be forced to look at Gull's actions since their last ruling earlier in the year, and perhaps the issue of impartiality will finally be given the weight it needs.

In a 2 April order, the Carroll Circuit Court has approved the request for public funds to cover some specific defense costs.

The approved motion, initiated by Attorney Brad Rozzi, sought reimbursement of public funds to cover legal services provided by Attorney Jennifer Auger to indigent defendant Richard Allen. Attorney Auger's assistance was deemed necessary due to the overwhelming volume of discovery and evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly in the identification and vetting of prosecution witnesses, notably FBI agents.

To read a more detailed summary of the motion that led to this order see this post.

The order issued by Frances Gull, Special Judge of the Carroll Circuit Court, grants authorization for Attorney Auger to submit invoices for her services. Upon approval by the Court, the Carroll County Auditor will be directed to reimburse Attorney Auger at the same hourly rate as the public defenders.

This will come as a relief to a defense that is still having to crowdsource funds to pay for expert witnesses. It will be interesting to see what - if any - FBI involvement comes about because of Jennifer Auger's actions, but considering they had a key role in the early days of the Delphi murders investigation, it could be an important element of the trial.

One of the more intriguing things to emerge from the transcript to the Motion to Dismiss hearing on 18 March is the emergence of "Chinese software" as a new thread in the conversation around Richard Allen.

At the heart of the matter lies the mysterious disappearance of crucial video footage, believed to hold the key to Allen's defense.

In the courtroom on 18 March, Todd Click, a police officer, was asked about the intricacies of software used in evidence retrieval specific to the evidence around Elvis Fields et al. Central to the discussion was the revelation of the use of "Chinese software" in attempts to recover the lost videos spanning the critical timeframe when Fields was being investigated.

Questions centered on the efficacy and reliability of this software, with the defense attorney pressing Click on the completeness of the recovered videos. Click's admission that some videos lacked audio will only further fuel speculation about the reliability of any Carroll County/ISP evidence, and the murky circumstances around the early investigation into the Delphi murders, and why and how Richard Allen was named a suspect.

Adding fuel to the fire was the absence of a report confirming the success of the Chinese software, casting doubt on the methods employed by law enforcement in their efforts to salvage the lost evidence. As the defense probed deeper, Click shed light on the labyrinthine nature of software systems utilized by various entities, complicating the already challenging task of evidence retrieval.

It's likely this key evidence - which could exonerate Richard Allen - is lost forever, depriving the defense of what could be a key pillar in its efforts to bring justice to Allen, and, importantly, Abby & Libby.

The hearing also underscored the critical importance of time in reviewing received information, particularly in light of the voluminous nature of digital records stored in intricate software formats. Click's request for additional time to peruse data from the Department of Corrections highlighted the complexities inherent in navigating the digital landscape.

As the case unfolds, the role of software in evidence retrieval emerges as a central theme, underscoring the imperative of transparency, accountability, and meticulous attention to detail in the pursuit of truth. Values that many feel the LE establishment around this case are lacking. 

In a case already shrouded in uncertainty, the quest for justice remains paramount, with each twist and turn bringing Allen closer to uncovering the truth behind his ordeal - or does it? How many murky turns will this case take before finding a conclusion?

The good folks at Defense Diaries, The Unravelling, as well as Cara Wieneke spent their own money securing the court transcript for the 18 March hearing on Defense's Motion to Dismiss (Exculpatory Evidence). A huge hat-tip to them for doing this, and I hope we can find ways to fund similar initiative in future.

Last night Bob and Ali Motta of Defense Diaries held a reading of the entire transcript on their YouTube Channel (Defense Diaries on Youtube). Revelations from the court hearing on the 3/18 Motion to Dismiss have shed new light on the case, unveiling potentially crucial evidence that challenges the prosecution's narrative.

I can't help but feel that if the Jury in Allen's trial hears this same evidence, they will be forced to acquit Richard, because it is so compelling. It's especially compelling considering its source: a veteran police officer with first-hand knowledge of how the Delphi Murders investigation was carried out. I want to say it here and now: Todd Click is a hero for doing this in the name of justice. At least one of his colleagues was murdered in the course of this investigation, and in the tense and dangerous world of Indiana law enforcement and some of the corrupt elements surrounding this case, he is genuinely risking his life.

Here are some key takeaways from the transcript.

Key Points and Incriminating Evidence:

• Missing Audio Evidence: Defense attorney Andrew Baldwin highlighted the absence of critical audio evidence, which could potentially implicate Elvis Fields in the murders. This missing evidence suggests a possible oversight or negligence in the investigation process.
• Fields' Alleged Statements: Elvis Fields purportedly made several admissions that could link him to the crimes. He allegedly told Detective Murphy that if his spit were found on one of the victims, he had a reason for it. This statement strongly implies Fields' involvement or awareness of the crime scene. Additionally, Fields allegedly confessed to his sister, Mary Abrams, admitting to "having done something bad to some girls." He also allegedly described placing sticks in a victim's hair and claimed to be part of a gang with a brother. These statements provide compelling circumstantial evidence of Fields' guilt.

Primary Insights:

• Significance of Fields' Admissions: The defense argues that Fields' admissions to both Detective Murphy and his sister, Mary Abrams, serve as crucial evidence linking him to the murders. These statements, if proven to be true, establish a direct connection between Fields and the crimes.
• Failure to Obtain Search Warrant: Despite the compelling nature of Fields' admissions, law enforcement failed to obtain a search warrant for Fields' residence. This failure raises questions about the thoroughness of the investigation and suggests a potential oversight on the part of law enforcement.

Additional Information:

• Impact of Detective Ferency's Death: The investigation into Fields' potential involvement stalled following the tragic death of Detective Ferency. Ferency was shot to death by FORMER CORRECTIONS OFFICER Shane Meehan in July 2021. This event significantly impeded the progress of the investigation, leaving crucial leads unexplored. It is unlikely the circumstances of Ferency's murder will ever be known, but it had a chilling effect on a key line of investigation.
• Letter to Prosecutor's Office: Officer Todd Click, along with other detectives, drafted a letter to the prosecutor's office outlining their findings regarding Fields' potential involvement in the murders. This letter, dated April 28, 2023, underscores the seriousness of the allegations against Fields and the detectives' concerns regarding the direction of the investigation.

Relevant Quotes:

• Defense Attorney Baldwin emphasized the importance of Fields' alleged admissions, stating, "If his spit was found on one of the victims, he had a reason for it." This quote highlights the potentially incriminating nature of Fields' statements to Detective Murphy.
• Baldwin also referenced Fields' alleged confession to his sister, Mary Abrams, stating, "He had done something bad to some girls." This quote underscores the gravity of Fields' admissions and their potential significance in the investigation.

It's hard not to be enraged when you read this transcript, and/or consider what it implies. If Judge Gull doesn't prevent this "SODDI" (Some Other Dude Did It) defense into the trial proceedings, I strongly believe it - in and of itself - will be enough to force the Jury to acquit Richard Allen.

Given the extensive involvement of media entities throughout the Delphi Murders trial and the subsequent Indiana Supreme Court appeal, the overall status of the media in the case is multifaceted.

TIMELINE OF MEDIA INTERVENTIONS IN THE STATE v RICHARD ALLEN

• November 21, 2022: The media intervenes in support of a petition for bail, signaling an early push for transparency in the legal process.

• November 21, 2022: Media entities file a memorandum seeking public access to crucial legal documents, highlighting the media's commitment to information dissemination.

• November 29, 2022: The court partially denies the state's request to limit public access to court records but denies the media intervenors' motion to intervene, reflecting initial resistance to media involvement.

• December 2, 2022: The court issues an order prohibiting the dissemination of information pending further hearings, emphasizing efforts to control information flow.

• February 21, 2023: The court grants media intervenors' renewed motion, acknowledging the significance of public access to legal proceedings, a pivotal win for media transparency.

• June 8, 2023: MYSTERY SHEET LLC DBA MURDER SHEET files a motion for public access to court records, showcasing ongoing efforts by media entities to obtain relevant information.

• June 28, 2023: The court makes certain documents remotely accessible, a step towards broader transparency in the legal process. The way this directive as implemented, however, led to further claims of lack of transparency, as the court made the documents "available" in an incoherent, complex format.

• October 17, 2023: Limited media coverage of a hearing is authorized, balancing the public's right to information with courtroom decorum.

• March 22, 2024: Despite earlier victories, the court denies a request for recording of court proceedings, highlighting continued tension between media entities and the court over coverage rights.

Indiana Supreme Court Appeal: Additional Complexities

In parallel to the trial proceedings, an Indiana Supreme Court appeal adds layers of complexity to the media-court battle.

• October 30, 2023: Richard M. Allen files a petition for Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition, marking the initiation of the appeal process.

• November 16, 2023: The Indiana Broadcasters Association and other media entities submit an amicus curiae brief, highlighting the broader media support for transparency in legal proceedings.

• November 17, 2023: The Media Coalition's motion to appear as Amicus Curiae is granted, further solidifying media involvement in the appeal process.

• December 11, 2023: The Indiana Supreme Court denies Allen's petition, emphasizing the burden of proof and the finality of the decision, closing this chapter of the legal saga.

Conclusion

On one hand, media organizations have made significant strides in their quest for transparency and access to information related to the trial. Through legal interventions, motions, and advocacy efforts, media entities have successfully obtained public access to crucial legal documents and certain court proceedings. These victories reflect the media's commitment to upholding the public's right to information and ensuring accountability within the judicial system.

However, challenges and limitations persist. Despite efforts to grant media access to certain aspects of the trial, the court has imposed restrictions on recording proceedings and disseminating information, citing concerns about maintaining decorum and protecting the integrity of the legal process. Additionally, the denial of certain media requests, such as recording court proceedings, highlights ongoing tensions between media entities and the court over coverage rights and access privileges.

Overall, while media organizations have made significant progress in advocating for transparency and access in the Delphi Murders case, the status remains a complex interplay of victories, challenges, and ongoing negotiations between the media and the court. As the legal proceedings continue, the role of the media in the case will likely continue to evolve, shaping the narrative surrounding the trial and influencing broader discussions about media freedom, legal transparency, and the public's right to information.

The original Franks Memo from Richard Allen's defense was a huge document. It triggered a lot of discussion, and is arguably the most important turning point in the case. As we approach Richard Allen's trial, it's important that the information in the Memo is looked at with fresh eyes. 

The first Franks Memo named five individuals who could be responsible for the murders. Here we look at those five individuals again, and summarize the reasons RA's defense pointed the finger at them.

Brad Holder: A Friend with Dark Ties

Evidence:

• Social Media Disappearance: Holder's abrupt disappearance from social media following the murders raises eyebrows, especially considering his close ties to Patrick Westfall.
• Symbolism: The eerie resemblance of a rune symbol on Holder's hand to one found on Abby's body raises chilling questions.
• Disturbing Posts: Suspicious social media activity, including posts referencing "half-dead women" and a fascination with Gothic figures, hint at a disturbing mindset.
• Alibi Concerns: Questions linger over the adequacy of Holder's alibi at Liberty Landfill, which warrants further investigation.

Connection to Elvis Fields:

• Social Media Mimicry: Fields' emulation of Holder's posts on social media suggests a possible connection and shared interests.
• Personal Connection: Holder's son's relationship with Abby Williams adds a personal dimension to the suspicion surrounding him.

Patrick Westfall: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle

Evidence:

• Close Association: Westfall's close friendship with Holder and subsequent disappearance from social media align him closely with the case.
• Ritualistic Behavior: Allegations of involvement in a ritual with Holder in the woods, coupled with proximity to the crime scene, paint a concerning picture.
• Incriminating Posts: A Facebook post depicting Westfall carving runes into tree limbs reminiscent of those found at the crime scene raises significant red flags.

Connection to Brad Holder:

• Religious Ties: Participation in Asatru religious ceremonies alongside Holder deepens the connection between the two friends.
• Potential Conflict: A reported rift over a ritual in the woods hints at underlying tensions that could have escalated.

Elvis Fields: A Troubled Confession

Evidence:

• Confession: Fields' confession to his sisters, coupled with intimate crime scene details, positions him squarely as a suspect.
• Physical Resemblance: The resemblance between Fields and a sketch of a man near the crime scene further intensifies scrutiny.
• Influence Suspicions: Fields' mental state and alleged susceptibility to Holder's influence raise questions about his culpability.

Connection to Brad Holder:

• Familial Connection: Holder's son's relationship with Abby Williams establishes a direct link between Fields and the victims.
• Possible Grooming: Speculation about Holder grooming Fields for involvement in the crime adds layers to the investigation.

Johnny Messer: The Gang Connection

Evidence:

• Gang Affiliation: Messer's ties to the Vinlander gang, along with connections to other suspects, position him within the realm of suspicion.
• Unexplained Blood: The discovery of Messer's vehicle with unexplained blood in Delphi around the time of the murders raises significant concerns.

Connection to Brad Holder:

• Gang Affiliation: Shared associations with Holder through Vinlander connections suggest potential collaboration or recruitment.

Rod Abrams: Concealed Complicity?

Evidence:

• Deception: Abrams' deceit regarding his whereabouts on the day of the murders raises suspicions about his involvement.
• Concealed Communications: Refusal to allow examination of his phone for communications with Fields raises red flags about potential collaboration.

Connection to Elvis Fields:

• Friendship: Abrams' friendship with Fields suggests a possible connection to the crimes, especially considering his reluctance to cooperate with authorities.

Richard Allen is not the only person who has been named as suspect or person-of-interest in the Delphi Murders. Over the five years between the murders and Allen's arrest, four others were discussed as possible killers. Let's take a look at some of the main ones.

James Brian Chadwell:

James Brian Chadwell emerged as a person of interest in the investigation into the tragic murders of Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi, Indiana. Suspicion fell upon Chadwell due to several factors uncovered during the meticulous examination of evidence at the crime scene and surrounding area. Among the most compelling pieces of evidence were kitchen utensils and a distinctive blue jacket found at the scene, suggesting a possible connection to Chadwell. Additionally, scrutiny of Chadwell's social media history revealed posts from 2011 and 2014 that investigators believed warranted further examination in the context of the case.

Authorities scrutinized Chadwell's background and behavior for any potential links to the crime. Although specifics regarding his alleged involvement were not disclosed publicly, investigators considered Chadwell's proximity to the crime scene and any potential motive that may have led him to commit such a heinous act. Despite the suspicion cast upon him, Chadwell's direct involvement in the murders remained unconfirmed, leaving investigators to continue their pursuit of justice through thorough examination of all available evidence.

Kegan Kline:

Kegan Kline emerged as a person of interest in the investigation into the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German based on a series of suspicious actions and communications that caught the attention of law enforcement. Investigators scrutinized Kline's digital footprint, uncovering multiple phones containing troubling discussions related to the crime and DNA evidence. Additionally, Kline's behavior following the murders raised red flags, prompting investigators to delve deeper into his potential involvement.

One of the key factors that contributed to Kline's status as a person of interest was his apparent knowledge of the crime and his interactions with individuals connected to the case. Investigators questioned Kline and explored his familial connections, including discussions with his father, which further fueled suspicions surrounding his possible role in the murders. Despite initial evidence pointing towards Kline, authorities faced challenges in obtaining concrete proof of his involvement, leaving his connection to the case shrouded in uncertainty.

Ron Logan:

Ron Logan became a person of interest in the investigation into the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German due to his proximity to the crime scene and the potential significance of his property in relation to the case. As the owner of property near the area where the girls were last seen alive, Logan's actions and the characteristics of his land came under scrutiny from law enforcement officials.

Investigators focused their attention on Logan's property, including Morning Heights Cemetery, and examined the presence of a tree stand on his land for any potential connections to the crime. The location of his property and its proximity to the crime scene raised questions about whether Logan may have had knowledge of the area that could have facilitated the commission of the murders. Despite being considered a person of interest, Logan's involvement in the case remained unconfirmed, leaving investigators to continue exploring all avenues in their pursuit of justice.

Daniel Nations (Colorado Springs Suspect):

Daniel Nations, also known as the Colorado Springs Suspect, emerged as a person of interest in the investigation into the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German. His association with the case stemmed from his criminal history and potential connections to the Delphi area. Nations gained attention after being arrested in 2017 in Colorado Springs for threatening individuals with a hatchet on a hiking trail and being suspected in the murder of cyclist Tim Watkins. Additionally, a warrant was issued for Nations for failing to register as a sex offender in Indiana, further raising suspicions about his potential involvement in the Delphi case.

Investigators scrutinized Nations' background and activities, exploring whether he had any ties to the Delphi area or any other relevant connections that could link him to the crime. Despite these red flags, concrete evidence linking Nations to the Delphi murders remained elusive, leaving investigators to continue their pursuit of justice through thorough examination of all available leads.

Since the SCOIN intervention, Prosecution has had 78% of its motions granted, Defense has had just 23% of its motions granted.

Defense Motions:

• Motion to Transfer - Denied
• Motion for Leave to Amend - Granted
• Motion for Summary Denial of State's Information - Denied
• Motion to Dismiss for Destroying Exculpatory Evidence - Denied
• Motion to Continue the hearing scheduled for February 12, 2024 - Granted
• Petition for Clarification Regarding Contempt Hearing - Denied
• Request to Allow Electronic Devices at Hearing - Denied
• Motion for More Time - Denied
• Motion to Vacate Hearing - Denied
• Verified Motion to Disqualify - Denied
• Motion to Dismiss for Destroying Exculpatory Evidence - Denied
• Motion for Summary Denial of State's Information - Denied
• Verified Petition for Clarification Regarding Contempt Hearing - Denied
• Request to Allow Electronic Devices at Hearing - Denied
• Motion for Continuance - Denied
• Verified Ex Parte Motion for Hearing on Funding for Expert Services - Denied
• Motion for Early Trial - Granted
• Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records. 3rd Request for Mental Health Records - Granted
• Verified Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline - Denied
• Motion for Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions Thereon - Granted
• Verified Petition for Recusal from Contempt Proceedings - Denied
• Motion to Stay All Ancillary Proceedings and Get This Case to Trial - Denied
• Verified Emergency Motion for Continuance - Denied
• Supplement to Verified Emergency Motion for Continuance - Denied
• Richard Allen's Third Franks Notice and Request for Franks Hearing Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence and Request for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Upon Any Ruling on this Request - Denied
• Third Request for Medical Health Records - Granted
• Fourth Request for Mental Health Records - Granted
• Verified Supplement to Verified Emergency Motion for Continuance - Denied
• Motion for Parity in Resources, To Reconsider the Denial of Anticipated Defense Costs, or to Exclude Evidence - Denied
• Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions - Denied
• Amended Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions - Denied
• Verified Petition for Public Funds - Denied
• Motion for Motion for Specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions Thereon - Granted

Prosecution Motions:

• Motion to Amend Information - Granted
• Motion for Leave to File Amended Charges - Granted
• Motion for Discovery Compel - Granted
• Motion to Compel Discovery - Granted
• State's Motion to Withdraw Motion - Granted
• State's Motion to Compel Discovery - Granted
• State's Motion to Withdraw Motion - Granted
• State's Motion for Protective Order - Denied
• State's Motion for Protective Order for Evidence Gathered From The Indiana Department Of Correction - Denied
• State's Response to Amended Motion to Compel - Denied

Defense Motions Granted: 6 Defense Motions Denied: 20 Prosecution Motions Granted: 7 Prosecution Motions Denied: 2.

Type of Filing: Verified Petition for Public Funds

Petitioner: Attorney Bradley A. Rozzi

Request: Reimbursement of public funds to cover legal services provided by Attorney Jennifer Auger to Pauper Defendant Richard M. Allen.

Background:

• Defendant Allen is indigent and currently represented by Public Defenders Bradley A. Rozzi and Andrew J. Baldwin.
• A speedy trial is scheduled for May 13, 2024.
• The defense has been overwhelmed by the volume of discovery and evidence presented by the prosecution.

Reasons for Request:

• The defense needs assistance with identifying and vetting prosecution witnesses, particularly FBI agents.
• The "Tuohy" process, required for obtaining FBI agent depositions, presents a significant burden.
• Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin have limited time and require assistance to ensure effective representation.
• Attorney Auger, who practices near the Carroll County Auditor, has agreed to provide assistance.

Relief Requested:

• Authorization for the expenditure of public funds to reimburse Attorney Auger for her legal services at the same hourly rate as the public defenders.
• Contingency upon court pre-approval of the reimbursement.

Supporting Documentation:

• Affidavit of Attorney Bradley A. Rozzi
• Defendant Allen's consent to Attorney Auger's limited appearance

Status:

• Limited appearance of Attorney Jennifer Auger has been entered.
• Petition for public funds is pending court approval., and the Court is aware of Attorney Allen's Limited Appearance.

Judge Gull issued three orders on Monday the 25th of March. 

Here's a summary:

1. State's Motion for Protective Order Denied: The court considered the State's Motion to Enter Protective Order for Evidence Gathered from the Indiana Department of Correction, alongside the Defendant's Response, and ultimately denied the State's motion. However, the court imposed restrictions on the defense, prohibiting the dissemination of personal practices of any deponent.
2. Defense Motion to Dismiss Under Review: A hearing was held on the Defense Motion to Dismiss for Destroying Exculpatory Evidence. The court took the matter under advisement to review the evidence submitted, indicating that a decision on this motion is pending further review.
3. Preliminary Matters Addressed Before Contempt Proceedings Hearing: Prior to the commencement of the hearing on the State's Verified Information of Contemptuous Conduct, several preliminary matters were addressed by the court:
   • The State's Motion for Leave to Amend Charging Information was granted without objection.
   • Certain counts were dismissed upon the State's oral motion.
   • The Verified Petition for Recusal of Prosecutor from Contempt Proceedings was denied.
   • The Motion to Stay All Ancillary Proceedings was denied.
   • Various other motions and objections were heard and addressed by the court.
4. Further Proceedings Scheduled: The court set a date for the speedy trial, scheduled from May 13 to May 31, 2024. Additionally, the court granted requests for submission of post-hearing briefs from both parties, with deadlines for submission specified.