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.