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.