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.