The Delphi Case

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.