Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - DELPHI VERDICT WATCH: JURY DELIBERATES MURDERS OF ABBY, 13, LIBBY, 14

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

Richard Allen's fate is now in the hand of the jury. Twelve men and woman have been tasked with determining, back on the evidence presented, whether or not Allen is guilty  beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the state.   The judge told the jury in their instruction that "beyond all possible doubt” is not their guidepost. She said defendants are not convicted on suspicion, and that the jury decision must be unanimous. The defense surprised the courtroom yesterday by resting their case, not calling as many witnesses as expected.   Closing arguments today were completed by lunchtime. Just after 1pm the jury went behind closed doors to pick a fore person. Deliberations will continue until 4pm today, unless the jury chooses to stay and deliberate longer. Sunday is the only day, deliberations won't take place.  Joining Nancy Grace today:  Philip Dubé  – Court-Appointed Counsel, Los Angeles County Public Defenders: Criminal & Constitutional Law; Forensics & Mental Health Advocacyy Dr. Bethany Marshall – Psychoanalyst, Author – “Deal Breaker,”  featured in hit show: “Paris in Love” on Peacock;, Instagram & TikTok: drbethanymarshall, X: @DrBethanyLive Sheryl McCollum  – Forensics Expert & Cold Case Investigative Research Institute Founder; Host of Podcast: “Zone 7;” X: @149Zone7 Bill Daly – Former FBI Investigator and Forensic Photography, Security Expert Joe Scott Morgan – Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, “Blood Beneath My Feet,” and Host: “Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan;”X: @JoScottForensic Dave Mack - CrimeOnline Investigative Reporter   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Closing arguments in the Delphi murders of Abby, 13, and Libby, 14. Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. Major Pat Cicero says there was a voluminous amount of blood at the crime scene, This is Crime Stories. Thank you for standing strong, even in the face of immense pressure and perpetual criticism. Some of these individuals have postponed retirement, passed on promotional opportunity, have dedicated personal time away from their families,

given up nights, weekends, and holidays, all while in the pursuit of accountability for Abby and Libby. I know that today's announcement will not diminish your resolve, and I hope you have found just a bit of peace in this most complicated world. Wow, how true. Those were the words of Superintendent Doug Carter with the Indiana State Police months and months ago, yet it all rings true. The trial that has taken weeks and years in the making culminates with closing arguments today in the Delphi Court of Law. Joining me, an all-star panel to make sense of what we know right now, but first, to Cheryl McCollum, forensic expert, founder of the Cold

Case Research Institute and star of Zone 7 podcast. Cheryl McCollum, when I heard the words of Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter, it really gave me pause. Did you hear what he said? That facing immense pressure and perpetual criticism that L.E. had moved forward. And that is what this trial has been. Immense pressure and perpetual criticism. They have been attacked from all sides. They have stood firm. They have been professional. They have been without hesitation to make sure that justice is served for Abby and Libby. Well, the judge advised everyone at the beginning of the closing arguments that went down today in a court of law that each side would have two and a half hours. But only evidence and testimony that was actually admitted at trial could be allowed. The judge trying to keep out theories on Odinism, trying to keep out the SOD defense. Some other dude did it because that did not come into evidence.

What is the point of closing arguments to summarize what the jury has heard. Now, we know some of the last testimony that jury heard was the defense. Listen. On the 17th day of testimony in the Delphi murders trial, Richard Allen's defense attorney, Brad Rossi, addresses the court telling the judge the defense rests. Judge Francis Gull was surprised, as was the state. After a recess, the state called three rebuttal witnesses. Two had already testified, but the state called Dr. John Martin, the prison psychologist who met with Richard Allen at

Westfield Correctional Facility. Very interesting. The state puts on a rebuttal case. Now, let me go straight out to our legal expert, Philip Dubé, renowned trial lawyer, currently a public defender in the L.A. County judicial system. Philip, thank you for being with us. This is how it goes down. We know that the state started opening statements. The defense, of course, they can waive their second argument. The defense goes next, and then the state finishes with a third closing argument. In most jurisdictions, that is because if the defense puts up anything other than the defendant's testimony, anything, the state gets a final closing argument. Therein lies the rub for the defense. Of course, the defense put up a lot of evidence. So the state gets a final closing argument to the jury. That is well established across the country.

I believe it's because the state carries the burden of proof. What about you? Yeah, I agree. Remember, the prosecution gets an opportunity to rebut what it is that the defense is saying. And if you don't allow them to rebut it, it looks as if they have not carried their burden. So the prosecution is allowed to await to see what the sum total of the defense case is in their closing. And then in their rebuttal, or sometimes we call it their B argument, A, B, they can then attack each point with the evidence that they've put on to rebut that. Exactly. That is exactly why the state gets a second closing argument. Of course, they have the option to waive that second closing argument at the end and do it all at the beginning,

but that's typically a very bad move. So what did the defense present to the jury? What will be fresh on the jury's mind? First and foremost, the only tangible evidence that links Richard analysis found the crime scene round had been cycled through Allen's gun. Defense expert Dr. Eric Warren reviewed the results of ISP testing and tells the jury it is an apples to oranges comparison. Warren says Oberg compared the initial round, which had been cycled, not fired, to a bullet from Allen's gun. On the stand, Oberg said an ejector mark was an ejector mark, regardless of whether a round was cycled or fired. Warren disputed that testimony, saying the lab needed to identify tool marks under the same conditions in which the bullet was found. Okay, straight out to Dave Mack, CrimeOnline.com investigative reporter, covering the case from the very beginning. And to those of you naysayers, crime stories did not start covering the case when the trial started. We started covering the case years ago when Abby

and Libby were murdered. To Dave Mack, explain to everyone the arguments made in closing statements regarding the bullet. What is the defense arguing? They're arguing that you could not get the actual markings on that unspent way the prosecution was able to get the final result they wanted to say that this cartridge had gone through the gun is by firing a bullet from the gun and then comparing that spent shell with what they found at the scene. And by the way, the defense expert never touched the gun, never touched the cartridge. He's doing the, and by the way, it wasn't even in the same room with either thing. He actually only looked at pictures. And you're talking about markings on this unspent cartridge, Nancy, that you've really got to be able to look at and study up close and personal to actually match these things up. He only did it with a couple of pictures. Okay. Philip Dubé joining me, high profile lawyer out of the LA jurisdiction,

never a lack of business there. Philip Dubé, I loved it when the defense would bring on an expert that had never seen the crime scene, had never seen the object, had never done any testing. In fact, you could do that cross-examination in one question only if you wanted to by simply saying, isn't it true, Mr. Dubé, you've never even held the bullet, but you're in front of this jury trying to tell them your expert analysis on the bullet you've never seen? Well, remember the purpose, right? Yeah. The purpose of the expert isn't necessarily to recreate or to do a demonstration. It's to educate the jury on tool mark science.

And you want them to understand that merely dry cycling a gun doesn't leave ejector marks, doesn't leave striations and lands and grooves, etc. That would be the argument. It does leave a mark, though. It leaves an ejector mark. It does. But the question then becomes, is it the same ejector mark that would match the barrel of his gun? And that's going to be the issue. Did they actually look at the gun to see if it's a match? Okay. Philip Dubé, you totally sidestepped my question. The expert is not there to administer a tutorial to the jury. The expert is there to counter what the state's expert said. And how can an expert know anything if they've never even looked at the exhibit, never held it in their hand, never looked at it under a microscope. O-H-E-L-L-N-O. I mean, Joe Scott Morgan is with me, professor of forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood

Beneath My Feet, star of Body Bags with Joe Scott Morgan. Joe Scott, you have to look at this under a microscope. I mean, why? Why not take the time to go look at the state's bullet and compare it to the round fired and ejected at the crime lab to make the comparison? How can you make any decision based on a picture? Yeah, I can tell you've been to a crime lab before, Nancy, because we do use microscopes for this purpose. You cannot simply look at a photograph and draw a conclusion relative to this. As a matter of fact, we use what's called a comparison microscope. So that means you've got two central oculars right here and then two separate platforms that actually compare. You can take one spent or you can take one cartridge and another cartridge and you compare them in real time

as you're looking at it. And this is not something we talk about examining something with the unaided eye. This is not something you can do with the unaided eye. You physically have to look at it to do the assessment. And here's another thing. Listen, if you've got a defense expert, that weapon can in fact, in most cases be provided to them and they can do their own experiments here. It sounds like they really took a shortcut here. I don't know. You know, maybe this guy didn't have access to a comparison microscope. Maybe he didn't have time, but I got to tell you, there's a lot riding on this. And I can't believe that they would walk into court with this expert, and he hasn't actually put his hands on an unspent cartridge like this

and compared it to one that has been cycled through. It doesn't make sense to me. Okay, to have an expert basically look at the bullet the way we're looking at it right now, you're looking at an image of a bullet. The markings on a fired or cycled bullet are microscopic. Microscopic. I can't look at what Joe Scott is holding and say, oh, yeah, yeah, that's not a match. You have to look under a microscope for Pete's sake.

I mean, Cheryl McCollum, I find that this really hurt the defense case. They shouldn't have even put him up. I'm not saying he's not an expert. He is an expert. But without having looked at the bullet under a microscope, how can he make the comparison and say, yeah, that didn't come from the same gun? He can't legitimately. And Nancy, for us, we're going to take that cartridge and we're going to turn it 360.

We're going to look at every single angle and line those striations up and those markings up to show it's an absolute match. And when the prosecution witness was on the stand, she was unwavering. They could not attack her at all. She was solid in her testimony that it was a match. And just remember, whether it's ejected by firing or, you know, racking that gun, it's exiting the same way. So those ejection marks are going to be the same, regardless of how it gets out of that weapon. So let me understand something. Bill Daley, former FBI investigator and security expert, Bill Daley, break it down in simple language why it's so important that an expert look at the

bullet under a microscope and what effect this is going to have on the jury as both sides battle it out in these closing arguments all day long. Yeah, absolutely. And let me just point out one thing, one theory here. We discussed why the defense's expert didn't use any techniques. It didn't examine the bullet or the gun personally. Perhaps if they did, they would be led to their proper conclusions. So they could only kind of fire, kind of put holes into this prosecution's scheme with regard to this bullet by only looking at the photo, by only reading the report, by doing that type of analysis. But to your point, you said the only way to properly identify something, whether it's a

bullet, whether it happens to be, you know, stridations on a knife left on a victim, whatever, you need to look at the actual weapon. You need to look at the physical evidence. Now, absent that, of course, you're going to use photographs. You're going to use other techniques to do the examination. But when that's available, there's no excuse that an expert would not use techniques that are known throughout the forensic field to examine those, this particular bullet, this cartridge, which was ejected, not fired, as opposed to what the other guest said. It didn't go through the barrel. It came out of the slide.

It came out of the side of the weapon when it was slid back, not fired. And, Jessica Morgan, you know when the opposing side wants to look at the state's evidence, they can look at it and they can even test it in the crime lab. It would be over my cold, dead body that I would let that bullet go unattended with the defense. That's not happening. I wouldn't even leave the courtroom at lunchtime with all the exhibits laying out. No, but you can allow the defense to do whatever experiments they want to do. If they want to look at the bullet under the crime lab microscope, have at it. If they even want to do a test fire on the same gun, do it at the crime lab.

So I don't see there's any way that they were disallowed to do their own testing, but they didn't. That is a major fail. But could you explain, Joe Scott, the defense's argument that this bullet did not come from Allen's gun? How are they even making that claim? I don't understand that. First off, we have the correct caliber. This was a 6-hour, 40-cal round that they found, and that goes back to the weapon that he had. And the internal ejection mechanism for this weapon is very distinct to the weapon itself. And the way we kind of break this down is we do a general classification and then we'll do specifics relative to this weapon. I don't know how many times this individual has fired this weapon over the years, but there

are distinct changes that take place with this weapon. Even though it's in a general category, you break it down even further than that. And those specific markings are unique to that weapon. You could have 50 other Sig Sauer's out there that fit this description in a general sense. It's going to be specific to this weapon. Bill brought up an excellent point, Nancy. This idea that what they were afraid of finding out here to put it in his hand in order to test this thing could be detrimental. Isn't it fascinating that they can just kind of throw this out there without any substantive scientific evaluation. And you're supposed to buy it.

Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. During 90 minutes of testimony and showing photos, Sergeant Page testified about the area where the bodies were found, a large area of leaves and rough ground still saturated with blood the day after the girls were found, as well as dry blood on a nearby tree trunk. In the courtroom, as the photos were being described, noises are heard throughout the courtroom. Sniffles, gasps, family members embracing, jurors squirming in their seats and uncomfortable. Blood evidence, of course, a major keystone in those closing arguments.

For those of you just joining us, closing arguments go down in the Delphi double murder trial. The victims, two little girls, Abby and Libby. Now, the defense is arguing, hey, don't look at the bullet, and B, don't listen to the confessions. As we now know, and this is part of the closing arguments, the defense did their best to undermine those confessions, including bringing on the defendant Richard Allen's daughter and half-sister. Why? Because in one of Allen's confessions, he claimed he had molested them. Big bone of contention in closing arguments. Listen. The defense calls Richard Allen's daughter, Brittany Sopanta, and his half-sister,

Jamie Jones, to the stand. Before being asked certain questions, Allen's attorney apologized for having to ask uncomfortable questions. Each was asked, did Richard Allen ever molest you? Both answered no. Dr. Bethany Marshall joining us for now, psychoanalyst out of the L.A. jurisdiction and author of Deal Breakers. You can see her on Peacock now and at drbethanymarshall.com. Dr. Bethany, thank you for being with us. What do you make of that? What do you make of the sister and the daughter taking the stand to say, he did not molest me? has something called passive dependent personality disorder. And this is significant to me because

with that particular type of personality disorder, the individual will do anything to maintain dependency on their love objects. They will refuse to work. They will refuse to make their own food. They will refuse to be independent. Sometimes they become very dramatic to hold the attention of their love objects. And that could be the motivation for continually confessing and then ramping it up and saying that he molested his daughters. He's being a drama queen. He's making the stories bigger and bigger so that he can stay at the center of things. He wants the attention of his wife. Now to you and I, that would seem crazy to confess to molesting one's daughter and killing two little girls to grab the other person's attention, but he's getting his wife, he draws

her in again and again in these phone conversations. And he says, I did it. Do you still love me? And then she'll say, no, you didn't do it. And so this is the dance he's doing with her to try to get her to be connected to him. Cheryl McCollum, I want to focus on the sister and the daughter taking the stand. This came up in closing arguments, taking the stand and saying, he confessed to molesting me, but he didn't molest, taking the stand and saying, he confessed to molesting me, but he didn't molest me. Isn't it true, Cheryl McCollum, that Richard Allen stated in one of his many confessions, look, I didn't do all that stuff I said I did, but I did murder Abby and Libby. He said it over and over and over to multiple people. And I recognize the defense didn't call his mama, who he told flat out, I did it.

I killed him. She said, no, that law enforcement is messing with you. And he was very clear. He said, they're not messing with me. I did it. And Nancy, again, if you look at somebody like even Ted Bundy, he used things to shock people. He wanted to confess all about the pornography. And then when they gave him a number of victims, he said add a zero to it.

Sometimes they will lie to further shock and just disgust people. But that does not mean the 60 times that he said he did it, that he wasn't telling the truth. Well, we can argue till we're blue in the face. Did he intend to make the confessions? Was he in his right mind? But the fact remains, Cheryl McCollum, that he gave these confessions before the public knew the facts surrounding the murder, such as the perp had a gun, a bullet was found on the scene, the girl's throats were slashed, they were covered with branches, a van drove by in the middle of the attack. He knew those details before they were made public. Not only did he know them, he put them in chronological order, which somebody during a psychotic break would not be able to do.

Richard Allen and Richard Allen alone gave us motive. It was a sexual assault, motivated crime. Richard Allen alone gave us the reason there was a lack of DNA. He made them cross the river, and then he got spooked and couldn't finish the crime, thereby not being able to leave his DNA. So are you saying, Cheryl McCollum, that the motive was rape, and when the white van, which is another fact the public didn't know, a neighbor drove home in a white van in the middle of the attack, according to the state. No one would have known that except the killer. That spooked him.

He either got scared or lost his erection and couldn't go forward with the rape. So he killed the girls so they could never be witnesses. I believe you were the first one to point that out. I was the first one to say that. And I'll tell you something else. When you sent me there the first time and I stood where they were murdered and left, only the killer would know that you could even see that side street, much less a vehicle. There's no way Richard Allen would even know that unless he had been standing in that spot. And then, of course, as in many closing arguments, guess who reared his ugly head? Satan, of course. Listen. A neuropsychologist

testifying for the defense says Richard Allen claimed that Satan killed the girls and made up other stories while in a psychotic state. Neuropsychologist Polly Westcott was hired by the defense in May 2023 and says Allen already had depression and anxiety when he arrived in jail. It was a battle of the gods throughout the day in that Delphi courtroom as closing arguments go down. First, the defense claiming, don't look at the bullet. And then second, don't listen to the confessions. And third, that sketch doesn't prove anything. Richard Allen's not the bridge guy. Well, it also boiled down to mind games. Listen. Neuropsychologist Polly Westcott said Richard Allen experienced

hallucinations, psychosis, and suicidal ideation. Corrections officers testified that Richard Allen experienced hallucinations, psychosis, and suicidal ideation. Corrections officers testified that Richard Allen would hit his head on the wall, wash his face in the toilet, reuse food, eat paper, smearing feces in his cell, and putting feces on his face for two hours. Allen was in solitary confinement for 13 months, and according to Westcott, that can change brain chemistry. When I say mind games, that's exactly what I mean. Was he in charge of his mental abilities? Did he know what he was saying when he made those confessions? We also learn from witnesses that when he gave the confessions, he seemed calm and coherent, later admitting,

I didn't do all the things I claimed I did, but I did kill Abby and Libby. You know, to you, Dave Mack, investigative reporter, CrimeOnline.com, we noticed that the antics behind bars coincide with him confessing to his wife. His wife hangs up on him. First, she said, stop talking and hangs up on him. And then suddenly the lawyers come in. She obviously called the lawyers. His antics then begin. Explain to me what he did behind bars that gives the defense fuel to claim insanity. It was a, he planned it out rightly, apparently. He actually would, like, he would skip a number of days of eating, okay? Like, he would skip four meals.

Because after you skip your fourth meal, it has to be reported that you're no longer eating. So as soon as he would skip that fourth meal, they would report it. He'd start eating again. He worked the system like that. But this is a guy that bathed his face in the toilet. I mean, he smeared feces all over himself, all over the cell. He did the most despicable, disgusting things you can think of doing while you're in a cell by yourself.

And it was all plotted and planned at the exact time it needed to happen. As you mentioned, as soon as they bring in the lawyers and everything else, you've got your confessions going on and it's all this crazy. And then all of a sudden it goes away. I mean, this was a plotted and planned event for him to get to be able to throw out his confession. And this was a major point of contention in closing arguments. Listen. Prosecutor Stacey Diener challenged Polly Westcott during cross-examination about her claims that Allen made up stories while in a psychotic state, asking Westcott of everything a person says when in a psychotic state is distorted due to their psychosis. After providing an answer that didn't answer the question, Diener followed up with, could they say things that are

accurate? Westcott responds, yes. To Dr. Bethany Marshall, renowned psychoanalyst, joining us, Dr. Bethany, several questions for you. I didn't really crystallize these thoughts. They were unmarshalled until I read some comments by someone on Twitter named CajunDVLDawg, D-A-W-G. And he was going through very methodically the claims by the defense. And he, I think it's a he, points out that when the defense argues he's been in solitary for 13 months, he actually had a companion sitting outside the door, okay, that was with him all this time, that he had a tablet, an iPad to speak to, you know, he could communicate with his family and lawyers. He would eat, I believe it was every fifth meal. So let me understand, depression and bipolar does not insanity make. I know that much. Now, how can you claim that because you have dependent personality disorder, in other words, he was very dependent on his wife, that somehow that forces you into a psychotic break?

I don't understand this. Nancy, there's no true evidence of psychosis. I read the prison psychologist's evaluation and assessment of him, and he makes a couple important points. He says that his associations are clear. So he's not having loose associations, connecting things that in reality don't connect. He says that there is no evidence of something called flight of ideas. Flight of ideas is when you just kind of mow from one idea to another, to another in a way that is a little bit manic. He said that

he was eating his meals, that he was putting on weight, that he looked much improved, that he had refused to wear his prison jumpsuit to the interview room. Instead, he just preferred to wear his t-shirt. So I think all this stuff, can you say something that's true in a psychotic state? Yes, of course you can. But I do not believe he was psychotic. And I have viewed people who are making up or malingering being psychotic. They always act crazy like this because in reality, they don't know what it means to

be psychotic. So how can you pretend to be something you've never been? You just think of the craziest thing ever. Wash your face in the toilet bowl, you know, smear feces on the wall. It's like a child trying to make up a character that they've never even witnessed or seen before. Cheryl McCollum has been in the courtroom throughout the trial. Cheryl, isn't it true that during testimony, an expert revealed that if someone is keeping a chain of thought that goes in chronological order, that that can be relied upon? Nancy, not only does he keep things in chronological order, he's able to go before, during, and after the crime. So he says he's at

his parents. He bought beer. He stops by his house to get a jacket, even though it's a warm day. He goes to the bridge. He sees the girls. He follows them. He branches a weapon. He makes them go down the hill. He starts to do this crime. You see a van get spooked and then leave. And what's really critical here is he even says, I'm there, date and time that they were there. I saw them. I did this. I parked here. He gives us every single thing we need in the order that it happened. Closing arguments in the Delphi double murder trial where Abby and Libby were both murdered out in the middle of nowhere near a very high trestle bridge. On trial, the local pharmacy tech Richard Allen. Where could the jury

go now? Well, you're always worried that there could be one zany juror that will latch on to the sod some other dude did it defense, including crazy theories. For instance, we heard this zany theory from True Crime Designs blaming Sister Kelsey. I have long speculated that Kelsey is the one who planted this evidence on Libby's phone because she, by her own admission, that YouTubers online, not YouTubers in the courtroom, but YouTubers online had actually been attacking the victim's family. Oh, all H-E-L-L broke loose that that wasn't true. But we just heard it. to me some of these folks that have put out that Kelsey had anything in the world to do with the murder of her sister and her sister's friend, Abby. Nancy, it also blew my mind that people then started attacking you because you called them out. Here's the reality. They don't have to believe me or you. The defense failed to show in any way, obviously,

that Kelsey German had anything to do with these murders. This is baseless. It is repugnant. And you want to talk about the devil? This is the work of the devil, in my opinion, that you would go after Kelsey German in any way when Kelsey was a hero that night. She's the one that put it on social media. She's the one that started calling the phones trying to see if they could hear them ringing. She's the one that identified the shoe that was found. From that bridge, a 17-year-old girl decided to call that entire community to action. And Nancy, I personally appreciate you going there in person the day before, going into court as long as you could

until the judge said you couldn't come back in, her rule, not yours. And then you went to locations that were so important. You were boots on the ground. And it doesn't matter how much time you spent in court. It matters that you spent time. And those families appreciated Nancy Grace walking in that courtroom. You know what, Cheryl, we're going to always have critics, no matter how hard we try and no matter what we do. I'm not focusing on them. That means nothing to me. I'm focusing on what happened in closing arguments. Now, speaking of blaming Kelsey as one defense, thank goodness the defense didn't drag that up in court. But what will the jurors come up with behind those jury deliberation doors? Here's more from True Crime Design. Listen to this zany theory. I believe she led the girls to their assailants who attacked, subdued, and abducted them before eventually killing them at the scene by the creek. I also

believe, based on physical evidence at the crime scene, that this was in fact a ritualistic killing, a blood offering to the gods or demonic entities that the people of Delphi worship. Oh, dear Lord in heaven, the devil is back. Let's just hope he doesn't make it into the jury deliberation room. Okay, this is also from True Crime Design, but let me assure you, there are many people out there attacking the victims' families. It's shameful. That said, this theory is that there was a ritualistic killing, a blood offering to gods or demonic entities worshipped by the people of Delphi. That's going to be a big surprise to them.

But Cheryl McCollum, aside from those zany theories supporting the SOD some other dude did at defense, there were other people that I felt sure the defense would point to, such as Ron Logan, Keegan Klein. What about it? It's baffling to me that they didn't bring up those two individuals for sure. Ron Logan, he owned the property. Keegan Klein would contact with Libby before this occurred. That's why they went to the bridge to meet this person. It's unbelievable to me the people they did not call. So again, they even know it is baseless. In fact, there's no chance they can connect these people, and they knew it. It shows how little they act to point to anybody else other than Richard Allen. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

Shocking moment in the courtroom when former FBI forensic examiner Stacey Eldridge says Libby German's phone received a call at 5 45 p.m. February 13, 2017, and within milliseconds, a headphone jack was inserted into the phone. Eldridge says the headphone jack was removed nearly five hours later at 10.32 p.m. Eldridge says, I cannot think of any explanation that doesn't involve human interaction. Okay, well, that was shot to H-E-L-L, Joe Scott Morgan and Cheryl McCollum, forensic experts. There were claims in court, and of course, this is going to be an issue for the jury in deliberations room, that one of the girls' cell phone, Libby's, had the earpiece, a jack, plugged in and out after the time of death. But Joe Scott Morgan, isn't it true, and we heard about this,

did you all have this ringing in their ears as they deliberate, that it came out that if water or dirt gets on the port, it can have the same result when you're looking at the phone activity forensically. That potential certainly exists. But again, with this idea that this thing is being inserted in there specifically, I think is kind of interesting. Also, let's remember where this phone was found. The phone, when it was recovered, was actually found beneath the remains at that point in time. And of a sudden the phone starts pinging again

and you have these messages that are uploading to it so you've got this dead time in there with little or no accountability for it I think that's certainly compelling in this case. So bottom line Cheryl McCollum the evidence that came in front of the jury, and of course, this is going to be ringing in their ears, is that one of the girls had a plug-in by a headset or a jack of some sort after the time of death, which totally skewers the state's case. But then it came out that water or dirt on the port and we know the girls had to go through the creek. We know, as Joe Scott just pointed out, the phone was under a body in the dirt. Can have the same forensic appearance as plugging in a jack. And Nancy, there's two things here.

Not only can that be true, it was cold. The phone can power off and on as it warms back up, just like if your phone gets overheated. The second thing here, the phone was found under Abby. When you have lividity and that body starts the decomposing process, that phone is going to leave a pattern. There is no way that phone was moved and a jack inserted and put it back exactly where it was before. Could not have happened. And to you, Joe Scott Morgan, the blood evidence, which I find extremely compelling and very probative. The state presented it. The state presented it.

The defense attacked it. What will be in the jurors' minds as they deliberate? Well, they're going to have the memory of those images, certainly, that they saw at trial that we didn't have access to. And they're going to see the volume of blood that was shed at the scene. And here's one of the fascinating things about the blood evidence. The blood evidence indicates movement. You know, we talk about the swiping of the hand on the tree. We've heard about this, that transfer of blood. And again, this is kind of an egregious thing when you think about it over the top, that you have movement potentially having a throat cut

at this particular time, and this child is still moving about with this injury. That can be implied here as they're moving about in this environment, all alone out there in this wooded area with this monster that is tracking them along and moving them along. That's going to stay with these individuals that are seated on this jury forever and ever. Blockbuster closing arguments in a delphi court of law. And now we wait as justice unfolds. Nancy Grace signing off. Good night, friend. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.