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.