Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - DELPHI MURDERS: EERIE "RITUAL" SACRIFICE-MURDER CLAIMS, CLASH OVER SUSPECT "CONFESSIONS"

Episode Date: July 31, 2024

Special Judge Frances Gull is hearing arguments on several motions in the Delphi Murders trial of Richard Allen. The judge will consider six topics: Richard Allen's safekeeping, psychologist statements, suppression of some of Richard Allen's previous statements, discovery issues that continue to plague the case, a defense request to dismiss the case, and what both sides can say in front of jurors without specific permission from the judge. The defense seeks four sanctions. They want the court to inform jurors that the prosecution violated rules by delaying the turnover of exculpatory evidence. They also want the judge to allow the defense to play any video that was "belatedly produced" without state objection. Additionally, the defense aims to prevent the state from rebutting evidence provided by former Rushville police chief Todd Click on May 1, 2023, and they want to bar the prosecution from using any data or information from Liberty German's phone in evidentiary presentations. The state wants to limit what the defense can mention in front of jurors without prior approval from the judge. Prosecutors have several pages of items they seek to restrict, including personal attacks on the prosecutor and any attempt to introduce evidence of third-party motive that is not relevant or would unfairly prejudice jurors. This includes mentions of Odinism, ritualistic killings, names of others the defense might claim are connected to the killings, geofencing, references to how discovery was handled, and any mention of an investigation conducted by former Rushville Police Chief Todd Click. JOINING NANCY GRACE TODAY:  Rich Shoenstein - Trial Attorney, Partner with Tarter Krinsky & Drogin; X:@LawfulRiches    Caryn L. Stark – Psychologist, Renowned TV and Radio Trauma Expert and Consultant; Instagram: carynpsych/FB: Caryn Stark Private Practice Chris McDonough  – Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel: “The Interview Room” Joseph Scott Morgan – Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, and Author: "Blood Beneath My Feet,” and Host: “Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan;” Twitter/X: @JoScottForensic Susan Hendricks - Journalist, Author of “Down the Hill: My Descent into the Double Murder in Delphi;" IG @susan_hendricks, X @SusanHendicks  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The Delphi murders, Little Abby and Liberty, both murdered. The eerie ritual sacrifice murder claims. What is that? A ritual sacrifice murder? Is that the defense? And a mighty clash in court over the suspect's confessions. Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. Abigail Williams and Liberty German set out

to walk along the popular Delphi historic trail, but the two missed their appointed pickup time. What happened to Abby and Libby? Right now, hearings are going on in that courtroom, and joining us at the courthouse, my longtime friend and colleague, Susan Hendricks, journalist, author of Down the Hill, My Descent into the Double Murder in Delphi. You may know her from my old TV home, HLM. Well, here she is now with us with the latest. Susan, welcome. What's happening? I'm hearing that there is a mighty clash of the titans in

the courtroom over alleged confessions, statements that the suspect made. And also the state is trying to quash the defense that Odinists, which are kind of like, um, they worship like Thor, um, and the Valkyrie. They're actually claiming that they did it. I think it's a horrible move by the state. In fact, if I were prosecuting this, I would be mad if the defense didn't claim Odinists did the deed. Really some heated moments, as you mentioned, in the courtroom. What will be admissible? What will the judge rule on this?

What will be left out? But huge. I'll start with the confessions, the alleged confessions that Richard Allen made to his wife, Kathy, and his mother, who, by the way, are front row there in the hearings. And he mouthed the prisoner, Richard Allen, the suspect. I love you when leaving the courtroom. So back to the onus theory, there's been several frank motions and the judge has yet to rule on that. But that is where they're going. We're getting a taste of the defense theory during these hearings. Will it be admissible? And you bring up such a good point. Why not let it in? Because the one name they do want in, which is one of the franks motions, Brad Holder, the prosecution saying, look, he has an alibi. We don't want to allow this.

But that does make sense. Let them have their theory. If he has an alibi, the jurors are going to see that. But several key decisions have to be made after this week. And I think it will give us an indication of what we'll hear during the trial in October. I want to first talk, we'll get to the onus claim that, uh, worshipers of Thor and the Valkyrie, they committed the double murders. Uh, I'm going to get to that in a moment, but first something that I understand a little bit better, the legal concept of confessions and confessions guys joining me in addition to Susan Hendricks and an all-star panel is Rich Schoenstein. He's a renowned trial attorney, partner with Tartar, Krinsky and Drogon. Rich, thank you for being with us.

He knows his way around a courtroom. Confessions, in my mind, come in all manner of modes. It doesn't have to be a videotaped confession where you get your Miranda rights first and you're sitting there with your lawyer or like you see on TV. It's not like that. Uh, very often a defendant such as this guy, Richard Allen, the local pharmacy tech, um, says to his wife on the phone from the jail, basically, yeah, I did it. Okay, that's the confession, Rich Schoenstein.

That's right. That's absolutely right. You know, jurors have common sense. They apply their life experience. They understand a husband talking to his wife. So those words are, to a jury, perhaps more meaningful than something he would say under police interrogation. That's him telling the truth to his own wife. And you can certainly see why the defense wants to keep out any version of a statement like that.

OK, quick question. And remember, this is ping pong, not jest. I know you're used to standing up and making all sorts of complicated legal arguments, but what about the claim, and I certainly don't want to give the defense any ideas, that this was a marital communication protected by husband-wife privilege, even though it was over a jailhouse phone? phone. I think there might be some credit. I think there might be some credit to that. It is a communication. It is a private communication between husband and wife. So I'd have to look at local law on the marital privilege, which I don't know in that state to really understand if they have a shot at that. But he is talking to his wife. Rich, I've got a way to defeat it. Okay. I've got a way to defeat it. Here it is. If you utter a confidential communication, such as you tell your lawyer, I did it. I'm up S Creek without a paddle. That's protected under attorney client privilege. But what if you say it at a cocktail

party and everybody's standing around and getting to hear everything you say, you yourself by saying saying it around other people, have waived your attorney-client privilege, and you cannot claim that at trial. Same thing here. This is how I would defeat husband-wife. He said it on a jailhouse phone. And everybody knows, and there's a sign up there that says, these are being recorded. So he willingly gave up that confidentiality. That's how I would attack it. I like the argument. You're absolutely right about a cocktail party. If you say something to your lawyer in front of other people, there is no privilege. You've waived it because you've

shared it with people you don't have a privilege with. So I think that's a pretty good argument that the phone was recorded and he knew that and he didn't have any expectation of privacy or expectation of a private spousal conversation. It's a good argument. Okay. We're learning a lot about the motions being filed. Guys, this is so critical because based on the outcome of these hearings, what evidence will or not or will not be presented in front of the jury is going to be determined. Back to Susan Hendricks is joining us.

Susan is joining us from the courthouse steps. She's been in the hearings. Explain to me the content of the alleged confessions. Yes. With Dr. Monica Waller is her name, who treated Richard Allen in prison. And she is key for the prosecution. Will the judge allow her to testify during the trial? And what specifically did she hear? We are hearing that that doctor, Dr. Monica Waller, heard incriminating statements from Richard Allen himself and maybe even confessions.

So as we spoke of, confessions to the wife in the jailhouse phone call, the mother in the jailhouse phone call. Now, the doctor in the prison, will that be admissible? We'll see what the judge rules on this. Let me go out to Chris McDonough. He's director of the Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective with, oh, there's the video. There's the video that the girls took just before their deaths of the perp walking toward them on that trestle bridge. Chris McDonough worked over 300 homicide cases in his 25 year career. He's the host of YouTube channel The Interview Room. Chris McDonough, how insane does it make you when you hear about legal clashes in the courtroom

where evidence could very well be suppressed? The jury may never hear about these multiple alleged confessions. Yeah, I mean, that's from an investigative aspect. It's very frustrating, as you know, more than anybody, Nancy. I mean, you've done this so long. And, you know, the fact, though, that this guy, you know, we used to say, confess here, this line is recorded, right? And when an inmate does that, and then, of course, you have it with a jailer potentially hearing it and then add on top of that, you have family members who may have heard it. We can understand some of that, but you would hope that the system would work towards, you know, the the victims here in relationship to allowing that evidence in somewhere. You know, Joe Scott Morgan is joining me,

Professor of Forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon and star of a hit series, Body Bags, podcast with Joe Scott Morgan. Joe Scott, you have very carefully studied the facts surrounding the actual murders. Wait for it. And now the defendant, Richard Allen, Richard Matthew Allen,

is claiming that his alleged confessions should be thrown out because he was under, quote, mental distress when he confessed to killing Abby and Liberty, a.k.a. Libby. Let's talk about what happened to Abby and Libby. Yeah, you know, kind of dovetailing with what Chris had said there, Nancy, I'm fascinated by this aspect of this confession. Dependent upon, you know, how, you know, down, how granular he got with this statement that he made, it's one thing for somebody to say, I killed them, okay? But I wonder how much detail is included in this in this alleged confession that he made to his wife, because that's that's a damning, a damning bit of information.

If he gets into the kind of granular detail that we're talking about relative to this very complex scene outdoors out there adjacent to this trestle, how much information did he reveal about that? And is it going to be reflected in what the jury will eventually see in these images? And they're going to be absolutely ghastly because we're talking about these two precious souls who were taken by sharp force injury. And that has been plainly stated. We're talking about a knife that was involved in this. And I think to a great degree, perhaps this is going to be overkill. There's going to be mutilation that's involved with that, if I dare use that word. Joe Scott, you can't just drop a bomb and then just walk away like nothing happened. That doesn't

work on crime stories. You just say mutilation. You think, what, I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that? I heard it. What do you mean by that? I'll say it plainly. We're talking about perhaps to the point of a partial decapitation here, Nancy. And, you know, when you look at that in light of a crime scene, you think about, well, what was necessary? I hate to put it this way. What was necessary to take somebody's life? Well, you know, it's not just sufficient to merely stab

one of these angels, okay? That's not sufficient to this point. This rises to another level. We're talking about what was done with the bodies afterwards and how they were treated in this environment. And this is going to be damning, absolutely damning, because the people and the jury are going to see things there that they can't even begin to imagine in their worst possible nightmares. Who murdered Abigail and Liberty? A suspect is caught on video with his menacing instructions. Down the hill. The outcome of these hearings that are happening right now in a court of law will determine what evidence the Delphi jury will hear and what evidence will be kept away from them as if it never happened.

Joining me at the courthouse, a well-known journalist and investigative reporter, Susan Hendricks. Susan, explain to me what's being heard, what was heard yesterday, and what's going to be heard. And we just heard Nancy Richard-Allen say guys down the hill. As you know, Libby was brave enough to hit record on her phone. And her grandfather, Mike, has mentioned to me several times, look, I think if she made it home, she would have said, Grandpa, look at this creepy guy on the bridge. Look what I've recorded. The defense does not want what's on Libby's phone to be admissible in court. The reasoning they state is that it was handed over too late in terms of discovery. It'll be interesting to see if it's allowed in because

to me, this is what is going to convict Richard Allen if he is guilty. That video that she was able to get. And I'm sitting with the family members, Nancy, of day one of the hearing. It's the first time I ever saw Richard Allen walk in in person. And it was very eerie to see him sit down. He turns around, looks at me, Becky, Libby's grandmother, and Libby's grandmother's daughter, Tara, right in the eyes and just glares at us and continued to do that throughout the hearing. And I was trying to get a read on him as I'm looking at him sitting there. And part of the evidence that Baldwin, the defense attorney, handed over to the judge had the crime scene

photo on half of it. It's a split screen. He's waving it around. I'm sitting near the family. I could get a glimpse of the crime scene photos from the attorney. And I heard Tara say to Becky, close your eyes. It's that excruciating. But this is a necessary step before the trial. And I know that these families have been waiting a long time to be here. But very creepy throughout the hearing, Richard Allen turning around, staring me directly in the eyes. It doesn't move his gaze. It was something I've never seen before. How dare he turn around and look at you and the victim's families and just glare at you? And he's probably glaring at you because you're sitting with them. I mean, you know what, Chris McDonough, how many times in court, you're a veteran homicide investigator, have you been in

court to testify? You got a murder, much less double murder of teen girls allegedly sitting there. They usually won't even meet your eye, But to turn around and glare at you in open court, that's a whole nother level right there. Absolutely. And the fact that he allegedly is a child killer, that in of itself, it just gives you a little insight into potentially, you know, what the victims were seeing themselves that day at his hands. And the fact that the weapons, there are two weapons here potentially, you know, remember they found this round underneath one of the victims as well as a knife. You know, what Doc Morgan was talking about earlier, the viciousness and the brutality

of that personalization by using that type of weapon. Now you add that to children. I can understand why the defense does not want him in the Department of Corrections right now. They'd rather have him in a better spot, i.e. in the jail. Well, yes, yes, Chris McDonough, because obviously he can't control himself. Okay. Let me throw this out there. Who would be the, you know what? Let me go to you, Joe Scott. And then I'll follow it up with Karen Stark. Joe Scott, you have been in court with a lot of killers, right? Because you're a death investigator. Have you ever been on the elevator? Let's just pretend in the courthouse, somebody standing right next to you and they stare. Does anybody turn around and look you right in the eyes on the elevator? No, they don't.

Has that ever happened to you? And if so, how did it make you feel? Well, it certainly even, even someone like me that's seen the thing or two, you know, it creeps me out, uh, certainly. Um, and, And and the idea that that the Stone Cold gaze that he would sit there and stare, stare at the family in particular and and Susan as well, but sit there. And this goes to another piece, Nancy, the idea, you know, Chris had mentioned this this round that was found at the scene. He has, in my estimation at least, this thread that runs through him of what I refer to as menacing. That weapon, the firearm, was used, I believe, as an instrument of menacing with these children. It's the idea of taking that firearm and moving that slide back to rack it like this. And everybody that's ever watched a television show is familiar with that. These children that would have been there would have been menaced by that.

And I think that this is a further continuation of him glaring, leaning in, glaring and holding a gaze. It seems to be a pattern to me. I don't know. I mean, that's kind of Karen's area. But for me as an investigator, that's putting two and two together. You know what you're saying about racking the shotgun? I don't know if you remember Rifleman.

It's an old black and white show. I was just a little, little girl. And I remember my brother, my older brother would have it on Rifleman. And at some point he'd ratchet. And I didn't even know what that meant. But it's like hearing a rattlesnake or a gunshot. You never forget it. When you hear it, you instinctively know something is very wrong. Yeah, it has a very distinct pitch to it and the sound, the mechanism itself, when that slide goes back on that weapon. And we do know that, I believe, if I'm correct,

it was a Sig Sauer that he had. When that thing is racked back, it has a very definitive sound to it. That round is ejected. And of course, he forgets about it, apparently, at that point in time and leaves this behind. Idiot. Yeah. Well, there you go. Technical legal term, idiot. Hold on. Rich Schoenstein, you're a veteran trial lawyer.

Aren't you supposed to school your clients about how to behave in the courtroom? I mean, I always see defendants, murder defendants, drug lords, rapists, child molesters come in court looking like they're a Wall Street banker. I'm like, who is that? Do you remember? Let's think, um, Scott Peterson. I would watch him walk into court every morning, like the football quarterback. He'd be all puffed up in an awesome suit looking great. I didn't think he look great or handsome, but other people did. Who else? Ted Bundy, Menendez brothers. I'm hearing it in my ear. Yeah. The Menendez brothers come into courtroom looking like they're freshmen at Harvard and they have their defense attorney picking lint off them and petting them in court. You know what? Stop. And Ted Bundy even looks charming

in the courtroom. It's freaky, but their lawyers had them schooled. This idiot turns around and glares at the victim's grandma and Susan, our Susan Hendr, glares at her in the courtroom. Oh, I hope he does that to the jurors. I just hope. He has not been schooled, Schoenstein. No, not at all. And you're absolutely right. You've got to teach your defendant how to act in court because whether he testifies or not, and this guy is not testifying, so forget about that.

He's going to be watched. Every second he's in that courtroom. The jury's going to have their eyes on him. They're going to see how they act. And the bottom line, Nancy, is if they think he's creepy, if he acts creepy, he's in big trouble because this is the creepiest crime imaginable, killing two young girls in the middle of the woods. And if the jury sees him and thinks he's a creep, it's going to be so much easier for them to convict him. And if I was this guy's lawyer, I would be working with him on that extensively. Hey, and what about OJ Simpson? May he rot in hell? He would sit there and doodle the whole time. Hey, Karen Stark, this is a visceral thing,

how you don't stare at somebody on the elevator. You ever been in a restaurant and you look over and somebody's just staring at you so you don't look back. And then when you do look back, they're still staring at you. There's something weird and awkward about that. Did you hear what Schoenstein just said? He's a veteran trial lawyer and he's right. How do you hide your creepy in court? This guy can't hide his creepy. He's going to have to look down and write notes like Simpson wrote, I did it. And you know, whatever he was drawing over there. And also another thing, Karen Stark, while I've got you, it's visceral. Remember, we've been told when you're going to go feed an animal at the zoo or, uh, in various encounters, you don't look them in the eye because they perceive that as a sign of aggression. Okay.

I'm just speaking frankly and plainly to you as if I would tell a jury. I'm sure there's all sorts of, gosh, what can I say, mental and psychological analysis of what I'm saying. But the fact that this guy turns around and eyeballs in an alarming way, a menacing way, Susan Hendricks, she's just sitting there with grandma for Pete's sake and looking at the victim's family like that, it's wrong. Okay, help me out. Give me the psychological term of what I'm trying to tell you. It's nonverbal behavior, Nancy, and we have to watch that nonverbal behavior because, as Joseph Scott said, this is menacing and unfortunately if you think about these two little girls with this man who's daring in the courtroom he's boldly staring and yes you want to have eye contact under certain

circumstances you're taught not to look away but this guy he has no shame he, he actually wants to come across this way. Like, I dare you to condemn me. 24 hours after Abigail and Liberty go missing, their bodies are found beneath a train trestle. Chilling phone video reveals the suspected killer. Aside from his creepy and menacing stares right at the family of Libby and Abby, oh, when I think about them, they're just two little teen girls. And from what we hear, there may be evidence that this 13 and 14-year-old little girl were actually mutilated. Mutilated. By who? According to prosecutors, the local pharmacy tech. I mean, how many times do you think he saw them come in and out of the pharmacy? And then the bullet

that was cycled through the gun, you heard Joe the state, near the bodies. An idiot, aka the defendant, Richard Matthew Allen, age 51, left it there. Now just think about it. For so long, details about the crime scene were kept under wraps. And I've got to hand it to LE law enforcement that that didn't come out because they later pursue it to warrant. I would like to add, cause Schoenstein's listening to me, pursue it to warrant. They go into Allen's home and they find the gun still there because he didn't realize he left the bullet back there. It matches the gun in his home. That ballistics evidence is so powerful.

If what we're being told is the evidence is actually true. So much happening in the courtroom. So much. Guys, listen to this. The defense wants four sanctions. They want the court to tell jurors the prosecution violated rules with a delay in turning over exculpatory evidence. They want the judge to allow the defense to play any video that was belatedly produced without state objection. The defense also wants to prevent the state from rebutting evidence former Rushville police chief todd glick provided on may 1st 2023 and they want to prevent the prosecution from using any data or info from liberty germans phone in evidentiary presentations my stars what else do they want a shopping spree at nordstrom's

uh that's a lot hey quick answer susan hendricks when is the actual trial supposed to start it's set for october nancy but as you, it's been postponed and delayed several times, possibly another tactic. But it felt to me like it's going to go forward in October. We'll see. So let me get this. They're whining that they've gotten exculpatory evidence too late. It's hello. It's the end of July, August, September, October, three months. You've got time. OK, what else do we know? Listen, the state wants to limit what the defense can mention in front of jurors without prior approval from the judge. Prosecutors have several pages of items, including personal attacks on the prosecutor. Any attempt to introduce evidence of third party

motive that is not relevant or would unfairly prejudice jurors. This includes mentions of Odinism, ritualistic killing, references to how discovery was handed over, and any mention of an investigation conducted by former Rushville police chief Todd Click. Odinism. Okay, I think the state is making a horrible mistake right now, trying to suppress the defense theory an Odinist killed the girls. What am I talking about? Listen. Court documents allege that Abby Williams and Liberty German were ritualistically sacrificed by members of a pagan Norse religion called Odinism. The defense writes the bodies of both victims had tree branches placed on them in specific patterns, and one had small sticks in her hair to resemble horns or antlers. Odinists

are said to be enamored with Viking culture. Okay, I just wanted to pause a moment and let that sink in. That Odinists obsessed with Viking culture somehow infiltrated this small, very sparsely populated area. The Odinists infiltrated and then made two human sacrifices to the Norse god Odin. Why in the world, Rich Schoenstein, would the state want to keep that out? I would be fighting for the defense to please make that argument. I agree with you, Nancy. And forget about how ridiculous for a minute the argument is. When the defense stands up there and says somebody else did it, they're taking on a burden of proof that they don't need to take on. The defense has no burden of proof.

They just have to challenge the sufficiency of the proof and reasonable doubt. But if they make this a binary choice between either Richard Allen did it or Odinus did it, I don't see how that's going to help them at all. I think that is biting off a burden that they don't need to assume going into this trial. Well, there's more. They're connecting Odinism, the worship of the Norse gods, to something much more nefarious. Listen. Deciding what information the jury can be told at trial.

That is the purpose of hearings this week in the Delphi murders case. In earlier court filings, prosecutors requested the court bar the defense from bringing up certain terms from past arguments, like the Odinism theory. The defense argues the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German were ritualistic and done by Odinists, not Richard Allen. Odinists practice an ancient Nordic religion worshiping Norse gods such as Odin and Thor, and some claim it's common And there we have it. The defense is using some hybrid argument of the sod defense. Some of the do did it. They're claiming it's kind of a mixture between the Viking worshipers, the Odinists and white supremacists. So I guess you put that all into the blender and boom,

outcomes. You're a killer. Is that actually what they're saying, Susan Hendricks? Odinists kind of mixed with white supremacists and that's going to conjure up this evil specter to the jury. Are they really saying that? Absolutely. And well said, Nancy. It feels like they are looking for, obviously, some sort of reasonable doubt. Pick and choose as you will, depending on how the judge rules. What I think is most damaging is that Richard Allen put himself on the bridge.

This was a day before what was on Libby's phone was released. So he goes up to an officer that he knows, Dan Doolin, in a parking lot of a grocery store and says, hey, I was down there at this particular time. I didn't really see much. Fast forward to almost six years later, more than six years, and allegedly, we don't know the details of exactly what led to Richard Allen, but supposedly they went back through the files

and found that guy that put himself on the bridge a day later after the murders. Libby's cell phone evidence came out. I think if that came out earlier, he wouldn't have gone up to Dan Dutland and said, hey, I was there. Who murdered Abigail and Liberty? A suspect is caught on video with his menacing instructions down the hill. From trying to suppress cell phone data, I assume that cell phone from the little girl victims themselves, or maybe it's cell phone data from the defendant,

Richard Allen. From that to suppressing alleged statements, confessions, to the shrink, to his wife, and in front of jailhouse guards and inmates. Good luck with that. Two claims of not only some other dude did it, that being Viking worshipers, but also now the defense is roping in a white nationalist group. Listen. Attorneys for the suspect, Richard Allen, filed documents saying that their client is innocent and that members of a white nationalist group are the ones responsible for killing the teenagers as part of a, quote, ritualistic sacrifice. The defense said the group had a motive because the girl's parents was dating a person of another race.

Attorneys also requested the immediate transfer of Allen from the facility where he was being held. They say members of the white nationalist group apparently work there and are threatening his life. Okay, so Allen is claiming the Odinists did it, the Viking worshipers, and that somebody whose name is a mystery belonging to a white nationalist group, don't know which one, was angry because somebody related to the victims was dating somebody of a different race and they were that angry. Instead of taking it out on the somebody's dating, they decided to kill and mutilate two little girls. That's the defense theory. Okay. Please go with that, Richard Allen. Please, I beg you, argue that at trial. Nothing could make me happier. And I see Richard Schoenstein basically gnashing his teeth and twisting his tail right now because that is doom for the defense.

Yeah. I mean, it's a really tough sell because the theory doesn't fly just when it comes out of their mouth. First of all, is it odiness or is it white nationalists? Is it a ritual or is it because somebody was dating the wrong person? I mean, they've got to pick a theory and stick with it if they're going to go down that road. So that's a problem. I haven't seen that they have sufficient evidence to put this forward. So I'm not really convinced they're going to go down this road at trial. What they're doing now, I think, Nancy, is they're trying to keep all of that available to them at trial. They're

trying to limit what the prosecution can use. But I think we have to wait for the trial itself to see what they really argue. If they do go down that road, I think they're making a big mistake. Okay, their zany defense theories aside, let's talk about some hard evidence. This is what the defense better be worried about. Listen. Police searched Allen's home and seized a handgun, which investigators believe Allen used in the crime, and matches an unspent bullet found next to the girl's bodies. About 10 hunting and utility knives were also confiscated, along with a blue Carhartt jacket

and other clothes. Investigators also took carpet samples and swabs from the seatbelts in Allen's Ford Focus vehicle that they believe was seen on the trail that day. And Allen admitted in two separate interviews that he was on the bridge that day. He says he went out on the bridge to watch the fish. Here's a very technical legal term. I hope you're sitting down. You may need to lay down for this one. It's very complicated. It's Latin. Defense attorneys love throwing around Latin terms on the elevator in the courthouse. Of course, I couldn't be happier. Idiot. Susan Hendricks. Joining me in the courthouse.

Does Richard Allen, did he actually volunteer? Yes. That he was at the scene of the double murders the day of the murders. Quote, watching the fish from a trestle bridge. How tall is that thing over the water? Who can see a fish down in that muddy water? It reminds me of Ichikani, where I grew up. You couldn't see a thing in it. So what he actually says, he's on the bridge watching the fish. Yes. And looking down at his stock ticker as he's walking towards the bridge saying, oh, I was just there looking down.

Keep in mind, I know the panel knows this, the voice, his voice, if it is him, if he's found guilty, down the hill is in that footage on Libby's cell phone. And I believe that's why they don't want it in the courtroom. And I do want to point out, I've seen, as I mentioned, him glaring at the families and myself, but you never hear him talk. And I believe maybe that's by design because his voice is on that cell phone. Will they want to compare that even if he doesn't testify? I mean, I didn't even hear a whisper to his attorneys and I was staring at him the entire time to notice how he was reacting because he saw the crime scene photos. They were put down right across from him.

And I saw him push it away and glance down for a minute. So I was watching his every move and never did we hear him speak during the hearing. So we'll see if that is why they want that out. That is so interesting, Susan Hendricks. You know, Jessica Morgan, did I ever tell you about my slew-footed armed robber who was also couldn't spell and he gave a handwriting sample? He could not help misspelling things just like he did in the bank note, the bank robbery note. Don't touch the L-Ram. This is a Roby. Did the same thing in his handwriting sample.

But he was also duck-footed, slew-footed. And when he walked up like that to the witness stand, all 12 jurors were hanging over the jury rail. Some things you just can't hide. I think Susan Hendricks is right. They don't want him speaking in the courtroom because it's going to match to down the hill, down the hill. And not only that, the voice and the mode of walking. I think we have a video of the perp, the alleged perp, actually walking forward. If he is caught walking in the courtroom and there is anything at all unusual or identifiable in his gait, the prosecutor is going to seize on that. Yeah, they will. And as you well know, one of the things that we look for in forensics, people are compelled to give exemplars of their writing. I really wonder, Nancy, can he be compelled to give a voice exemplar relative to the statement that is being made that has been recorded?

And if so, have they done a voice comparison relative to that? You know, while they have him here, do they get a warrant to compare him, to compare his voice, to do a voice analysis on him and also his gait? And you know what else? He's not looking down at his cell phone. I wonder if they've done a forensics exam of his cell phone to determine if he was really looking at the stock market ticker. Like anybody can see that on a cell phone. I can't read a darn thing on there. How can he read that little ticker at the bottom of the screen? He's not looking at his phone. That's a lie. We can

see his gate. Does he walk like that in the courtroom? Susan Hendricks pointed out they're not letting him speak because it may watch, it may match down the hill, down the hill, the girls caught on their phone. And I've just been advised by my producer here in the studio, Jackie, that bridge is 63 feet tall. Not really conducive to fish watching, is it? Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen claims he didn't do it and that a pagan cult is at fault. It seems to me like the ballistics evidence is going to be possibly the strongest evidence in this case. But we don't know all the evidence the state is producing. Susan Hendricks joining me at the courthouse. Susan, investigative reporter and journalist.

Any idea? Oh, hey, the name of your book, Down the Hill, My Descent into the Double Murder in Delphi. Susan, what do you think is the most powerful evidence the state is going to bring out at trial and what will be the defense counter? Absolutely. And I think it has to do with the search warrant of his home. What did they find inside that home? Was there any DNA on the jacket, that blue car heart? If he wore that jacket on the bridge that day, because it appears the person on the bridge, bridge guy, is in some sort of jacket. I believe it's his voice, as I mentioned. I believe there's some evidence that we don't know about.

And, of course, the ballistics. But, again, Libby's video to me stands out. And, of course, the confessions, if they're admissible. But I think it's just stacking up against him what the prosecution can and I believe will use. Nancy Grace signing off. Goodbye. You're listening to an I Heart podcast.