Hidden True Crime - DELPHI TRIAL DAY 16: Headphones in Libby's Phone?!

Episode Date: November 20, 2024

Lauren Matthias is inside the Courtroom in Delphi, Indiana for the trial of Richard Allen, and bringing us the very latest from Carroll County as the trial has no audio or video recording. Richard Allen is charged with murdering 13-year-old Abigail Williams and 14-year-old Liberty German in 2017. About Hidden True Crime: Lauren Matthias, a former television reporter, and her husband Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, started Hidden True Crime in 2020 with their Season, 'Beyond the Veil,' a psychological deep dive into the doomsday murders and prophet. What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a forensic psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime Our Sponsors:* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Armoire and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.armoire.style* Check out Effecty and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.effecty.com* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://happymammoth.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/hidden-a-true-crime-podcast1836/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-e-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. I'm continuing to report from Delphi, Indiana, spending long nights in line and sitting in court each day to bring you detailed reports from the Richard Allen trial. Alan is charged with murdering best friends, 13-year-old Abigail Williams, and 14-year-old Liberty German in February of 2017. And the judge has actually decided to not only

not televise this trial, but to also not even share audio. Thus, I am here to be the eyes and ears of the courtroom. These episodes are nightly live streams that I record on YouTube shortly after court ends each day. And if you notice these episodes are a bit more choppy than are other episodes, please understand why. We are working around the clock to bring you the very latest on the trial with a quick turnaround. And if you would like to catch the full unedited live stream, you can always head over to Hidden True Crime on YouTube. Hello, Hidden Jems. I have my phone ready just in case we have wireless problems today. We got a hot spot. It wasn't ideal. We're back. I have a new computer, all this stuff. So if there's something happens with this

live and I need to switch over. I have my phone ready. We'll just do that. Delphi. You know, every place has its problems and that's our problem here. It was an interesting day of defense today. Forgive me for being a little bit late. I was tired. And so I crashed for a bit. I ate and here we are. So thanks for being with me. And again, for our listeners in the United States, it's a big day. Everybody's watching election results. And so, Trust me, I'm honored that anybody is here with me tonight. And I think it's wonderful, too, because we need to talk about what happened in court. And, you know, it was interesting because it is election day.

The court offices were closed. You know, nobody could go visit the Carroll County Courthouse for anything except for the Richard Allen trial. The day started, by the way, with me not almost getting into court. And it was just like another reminder, even though I. I had a number in line. I was safe to get in. I had gone from the steps to the courthouse to right in front of the courtroom.

You know, we just keep getting transferred on the third floor. We just go from one place to another. All was well. I had to run to the restroom. And when I came back, they were like, you've got to go to the back of the line. And that never happened before. But my point being, it just reminded me again that being in that courtroom is a privilege, or is a, yeah, a privilege every day.

and I'm grateful for the bailiff that let me in and that there was some room. So yeah, you know, every day. I guess the point is every day we wonder, am I going to be able to get in? You never, ever totally know. So, all right. So we had, I don't even have my notes right here. Let me get them all. Another day of defense, of course, another day of defense.

of course another day of defense it's uh Tuesday um both families there very full very very full courtroom another again another reason i was glad i got in the kathy allen was there she was back and then richard allen's uh dad mom and dad who were you know and his sister so all four of his family members not his daughter uh but his daughter did after she testified yesterday she stayed the rest of her time in court. She did stay there, Brittany, but she was not there today. So other family members were. And then on the, in the prosecution side, you had Abby's mother, Abby's grandparents, you had the, the patties that were there, and you had Carrie as well, Libby's mother and her daughters, Libby's sisters. Everybody has support here in the courtroom.

Prosecution, they started with a prosecution filed a motion in limine for limiting instruction for defense witness. Deiner brought it up. And before court, Richard Allen walked in. And he actually looked pleasantly surprised to see all four family members. He said, oh, wow, and smiled. Or at least it looked like he mouthed the words, oh, wow, and looked happy. The state cites Indiana rule 704B.

They don't want the witness to give opinions on guilt, innocence, truth, falsity, the defense, the defense witnesses, or any of those falsity. statements or legal conclusions or intent. The prosecution wants judge-gold to admonish witness of these rules. And the defense says no discovery has been done by the state. And the defense actually feels like the prosecution is trying to handcuff them so that they can't ask their witnesses certain things. And Rosie reminds everyone that he will ask the witnesses before testifying

and make sure to make this clear. And Judge Gold tells the defense that she does trust the defense not to go on that. Like they don't, she won't handcuff them. But if they, if it doesn't work out, then she's going to send the jury out and have this conversation once again with the defense and prosecution

and it will be much harsher. So she's saying, look, I trust you, move forward. I know that you won't have your defense witnesses talk about this stuff. but if just let's let's just do this right. So they have a conversation and then the jury walks in. And once the jury walks in, they have the defense calls their first witness and that is Betsy Blair. And Betsy Blair's been on the stand before.

She was a witness for the prosecution. And just to remind everyone who Betsy Blair is, Betsy Blair is somebody that was a witness at the trail who says that she believes that she saw bridge guy. And she was walking around the track multiple times. She did two loops. She left at one moment to use the restroom, came back. And she had all the timestamps and everything because of her health fitness or where she went or a fitness app. And she saw a man on the trail on the first platform of the bridge.

So that's Betsy, just to refresh your memory. And now she is back for the defense as a defense witness. So her name is Elizabeth. actually she goes by Betsy and Baldwin is doing the questioning and Baldwin says so how many questions did the prosecution ask you when you're on the stand about a car you saw and she says they did not ask me and they say well how many times and what time did you go to the trail again on this February 13th 2017 day and Betsy says well I went two times I first walked around and then I left and then I came back around 145 p.m.

And then she left around 145 p.m. And then she came back around 2.15, give or take a few minutes. Well, how many cars were by the Mears lot? She said one. And then which route did you take to leave? And she said, well, I turned left on 300 north. I passed a business on the north side and a house on the left side on the corner where you turn. And on the corner where you turn, there is an empty.

government building and then you pass Anderson's grain. And then they ask her when you pass the CPS slot, what did you see? And she says, I saw one vehicle. And why did you notice this vehicle? She says that she noticed it because it was parked weird. It was parked with the front towards the county road. In other words, it was backed into this, you know, abandoned CPS building. She didn't say abandoned at this moment. She just said the old government building, the CPS building. And what else did you notice about this car? She said, she noticed overall shape. It looked like it had sharp angles.

And they asked, did it remind you of any vehicles that you know? And she said, well, yeah, after I thought about it later, it reminded me of my dad's 65 comet. And then she said, so she sees this car that's parked in and they, and she says, did it remind you of another vehicle that you know? Like, how did you recognize this? And she said, yeah, after I thought about it, it later reminded me of my dad's 65 comet. And what color was it, they asked? She says, it wasn't bright.

I know that it was not a bright color. It was not red. It was not yellow. Well, did you say that it wasn't black? And she says, I don't know if I said it wasn't black. They gave her then, the defense, then gave her a statement that she made on April 2nd in 2019. So this is actually two years after the murders. and they show her page 7, line 25, and it states that in 2019, when speaking to investigators,

I said it was a nondescript in color. And she's actually reading at this moment the paper in front of her that they handed her to refresh her memory. And so at this moment, the state objects because Betsy's actually reading a piece of paper. So they're supposed to take, you know, the paper away. So did it look in 2019, she then answers again, I said that it could not have been black. And then they asked a question, did it look like a hatchback? She said, I didn't see the back. I only saw the side.

And did you draw the car that you saw for law enforcement or a sketch of the car? And she says, yes, she did. And there is a pick admitted into evidence. And the paper is given to the jury. And then there is a cross-exam by the prosecution with Deiner. And she says, Betsy, you also talked to police in February of 2017, correct? And she said, yes. So again, February 17, February 2017, of course, is the month of the murders of Abby and Libby.

And she said, so do you remember that on February 17th, 2017, that you said you noticed it was odd that you saw an odd car that was. was parked. She said, yes, I remember. And did I contact you and say that someone else also saw an older car? And she said, yes. The objection is that the prosecution is testifying. It's overruled. And then, and then Baldwin says, okay, well, can I put the prosecutor on the stand then for her testimony? It was quite the abrupt, like, okay, well, if you're going to, if you're going to overrule this, let's just put the prosecutor on the stand. So it was kind of a moment from Baldwin. And then they continue on with Cross.

And she says, do you feel certain that it was the old CPS building? She says, yes. And what was your vision like in 2017? She said that she wore contact lenses, but when she wore them, she could see. And then now we have the jury questions. I actually thought the jury questions were interesting because this is a jury that knows details that I don't even know. I'm like, how do you guys know that?

Like you guys are studying, but these were kind of like they didn't realize this. So the question from a jury is, is it possible that the car parked at the CPS lot was a person working there? And she explained that, no, it was a building that was abandoned. And I thought that that was kind of known, but maybe they didn't make that that clear in trial. And then the next question was, did anyone check to see if it belonged to an employee? And her answer was, I don't know. But again, there were no employees in this building. Again, kind of that's, I'm like trying to go back in court now.

I'm wondering, like, did they not make that clear? Because clearly the two jury questions didn't fully understand that this was an abandoned building, that nobody was working there. And then we have the next witness. The next witness is Dr. Stuart Grasian. I believe that's how you spell it. He was, he was an interesting looking, distinguished older man. He had this, I don't know how to explain it. It's a very distinguished look to him and very big nose that even helped him just like look more distinguished to me.

Short hair, older gentlemen. He introduces himself as a psychiatrist and I thought, there you go, there you go. And he did his undergrad at Harvard. He also went to Harvard Medical School. And he actually was faculty at Harvard Medical School for 25 years. He still gives lectures and seminars there. He is board certified. He is in good standing.

And he's been a doctor for a very long time because he completed his residency in 1977. So he said a long time. That was his answer. And he specializes in memory of traumatic events and false memories, which that was really intriguing. I want to read some of his thoughts on false memories now. He says that his testimony today is very important.

regarding solitary confinement and he also has done a lot of studies on solitary confinement. He has worked on both sides of the aisle for the defense and the prosecution, and he has testified in court before. He worked on one case hand in hand with the FBI about a terrorist that was cooperating, and then he stopped, and then he conducted large studies, evaluated several hundred people that had been in solitary. And they asked him what he does on a daily basis. He has a practice outside of his home. Sometimes he goes into the hospital. He gets called about lawsuits, helping with those.

He does, oftentimes he does things pro bono. He gets called for forensic work and to give lectures at Harvard. And they ask him, what did, what did I ask when I called you? And then the doctor says, Hold on, that Mr. Allen made potentially incriminating statements while in solitary. And what did I give you? And he said that this is what I read about it, that I read Dr. Westcott's reports, records, videos.

And the question, did you recall, did you also listen to audio and phone calls? And he's like, oh, yeah, definitely. Thank you for reminding me, he said. He had transcripts of interrogations, of interviews, and all of the info from October 2022. through March of 2024. Was there anything that stood out to you? They asked him. He said, no doubt that Mr. Allen, then there's an objection and a sidebar.

They went back to have Rosie reached out. He said, what did I say to you? And Rosie explained to him that Mr. Allen had made some statements and his question, and he had questions about his mental state during those statements. And he reviewed Dr. Westcott's report, video of the notes, et cetera. A lot of the reports, audio. transcripts and also as well as the inmates that had been S companions from November 22 to April or June 23 and then he was transferred and he received reports after that as well and then the

prosecution approaches and the question is let's talk solitary confinement explain in general terms what solitary confinement means and he says well confinement solitary confinement means that you're in a small cell with minimal opportunities for sensory stimulation or social interaction. It is lonely. It is toxic. It is helpless. The people in solitary confinement can be confused, disoriented, and they can become psychotic.

It's lonely. And then he said, so this is important though. Okay. So back, focus now. He said, let's talk solitary confinement. He explains what it is. And then he explains it's lonely, toxic, helpless. And they can be confused, disoriented, and they can become psychotic.

Um, the prosecution object at this moment, then they're able, the prosecution interrupts completely and starts questioning. They're like, we've got to set some boundary, you know, some foundation here. So the prosecution jumps in. And they're like, okay, look, what is solitary confinement to you, doctor? And he says, well, it means a small. And do you know that the situation that, um, that Richard Allen was in? Let's talk if you even know the situation that Richard Allen was in. And they say, well, we know that he. knows that it was a small cell barren. There was a mattress on the floor. There were mouse droppings. That's the first I've heard of those that he never got never visited. But I have seen plenty. He explains of solitary confinement. The doctors then asked, but you've never seen his one man cell,

correct? And he's like, well, I've seen, you know, videos and I've seen circumstances from Dr. Walla. And they're like, but do you understand the difference between a one man cell and you know, the fact and what solitary confinement, like the difference between these two things for safety reasons. And it almost at this moment feels like a cross exam, you know, but because the prosecution keeps going, but it's not cross exam. Yeah. It's just like setting foundation. And then the, the, she's sort of questioned and the prosecution explains. And this is Dina. She says, well, look, I'm just wondering if the sources here are reliable. Like does she really know the circumstance, or does he really know the circumstances that Richard Allen was in?

And they sort of set the stage there and they continue on. And Deiner asks, who regulates this? And unfortunately, who regulates what solitary confinement is? Unfortunately, it's not totally regulated. And then Deiner is going to object and her objection is sustained. And then... He explains that symptoms one might suffer once again in solitary confinement in most severe cases are delirium, confusion, memories of events, and the most frightening is no memory at all during that time, having absolutely no memory. That smearing feces is something that could be common or acting out sexually.

That is as bad as it gets. So smearing feces and acting out sexually is bad as it get. not knowing where they are, there's a very high rate of self-harm, 7 to 9%. And then they ask, what is delirium? And delirium is when a person doesn't have a idea of where they are. It's a super fog, everything close by. Nothing makes sense. There's total bewilderment.

Causes of delirium, inadequate external stimulation or stressors, and deprivation of external situations or medical conditions. So he explains again, I'm listening to phone. calls. And so did you see symptoms of delirium? They asked the doctor when it comes to Richard Allen. And by the way, we're back at now he is being questioned by the defense. I hope I made that clear. The prosecution had this moment. We're back to the defense questioning their own witness. And he said there was an objection. It was overruled. He said, yes, he saw things that were consistent with a delirious state. And it's an absolute inability to remember and being frightened. And

he said this is absolutely classic delirium. And he explains now what false memories are. And false memories are something that many people develop. And there are many studies that have done to the show false memories start as beliefs. So what they start with is many people will start a false memory with, I think I saw or I think I did this. This was really interesting to me. I want to ask John about this. So if it's a false memory, it'll start with someone saying, I think this happens.

or I think I may have or I think I did this. And the memories develop over time almost like a game of telephone. When it comes to hold on one second, but when it comes to not false memory. So after they explain false memories, they're like, yeah, false memory starts a thought and then they become a memory. They shift over time when a person starts thinking,

I think, I think. And then we get to prosecution or and then it's cross-exam. And Diener asks, What is it? I just realized, is my mic close enough? Oh, someone asked, what does it mean by the telephone game? So you know the gaming you played when you were little. They didn't explain this.

This is what I think he meant by the telephone game. So let me be clear. All he said is it's like the telephone game. What I think he meant by that is that when you whisper to someone, I think I might have done this. Or, you know, when you're whispering to someone something and they whispered something to someone else, they whisper something to someone else, and then you hear something completely different that it originally started.

You do that in your brain, I assume is what he means. Like you're like, I think I might have done that, and then it becomes more solidified, and you create an entire false memory in your brain. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere.

That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. Again, ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service.

Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. What's one financial lesson you learned the hard way? I'll go first. It's not too late to start saving. Today's episode is sponsored by Acorns. Acorns is a financial wellness app that makes it easy to start saving and investing for your future. You don't need to be an expert. Acorns will recommend a diversified portfolio that matches you and your money goals. You don't need to be rich.

Acorns lets you get started with the spare money you have right now. And one of the best things about Acorns is they allow you to see projected growth on their website. Simply go online, type in how much money you'd put in and see the potential future balance of your account. Sign up now and join the over 13 million all-time customers who have already saved and invested over $22 billion with Acorns. Head to Acorns.com slash hidden true crime or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorn's Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involves risk, acorns advisors, LLC and SEC registered investment advisor.

A few important disclosures at acorns.com slash hidden true crime. Hormonal changes are so hard to see the least. Hot flashes, anyone else. Add in the thousands of hormone disruptors that are in our environment. and it is even worse. From our water food, the air we breathe and the clothes we wear, they are everywhere. But the good news is that when hormone harmony enters the picture, it can help reduce hormonal symptoms in women of all ages.

Hormone harmony is a supplement that contains science-backed herbal extracts called adaptogens. The best thing about adaptogens, they help the body adapt to any stressors like chaotic hormonal changes that happen naturally throughout a woman's life. Hormone harmony is actually part of my personal 2024 playbook. Hormone Harmony makes no compromises when it comes to quality and it shows. For a limited time, you can get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com. That's happy H-A-P-P-P-Y mammoth, M-A-M-M-A-M-M-T-H.com. Just use the code hidden true crime at checkout.

That's code hidden true crime. Use that with happy mammoth.com for 15% off today. Does anyone else find themselves saying, I feel way older than I actually am, or I feel way younger? Did you know there might be some truth behind that feeling? That's where true diagnostic comes in. With their true age test, you can discover your true biological age, plus get insights into health risks for heart disease or Alzheimer's, even your mortality. I just ordered my true diagnostic test, and while nervous, I'm looking forward to what it may tell me about my own health so I can take control of things now. When taking tests pertaining to my health, I want to make sure it's scientifically backed

and true diagnostic is. Their true age test is based on peer-reviewed research from scientists working at Harvard, Duke, and Yale. And by tracking your biological age, you can actually see how the changes you make, whether that's exercise, diet, or sleep will affect your health over time. Ready to find out your biological age? Right now, our listeners can get 20% off their entire order at true diagnostic.com by using code hidden true crime at checkout.

That's true diagnostic, T-R-U-D-I-G, and O-T-I-E-E-E-E-S-T-I-E-E-E-E-E-E. dot com just use code hidden true crime to save 20% off plus if you subscribe you'll get an additional 20% off discover your true age today so then the cross starts and cross exam is what did you provide your people and subjects um that uh that you reviewed that became a false memory and he has a hard time. He's kind of confused because he's not, that's not really his study. He's like, oh, that's not really our study or what we did. Our study was that people who didn't have memory of traumatic events and then they remembered something and they later recanted the study. It showed that people started with a belief in a vague memory. He's like, this is what my study is. And so he's like,

he's kind of like, oh, it doesn't really make sense. So she, she tries to explain him. Okay, sorry, I'm switching between two sets of notes, too. I have some notes that I rewrote, and then I just go to my original, like, really eligible ones. He's like, okay, so it's, the prosecution explains that it's not our study. Real memories, it would be enormously vivid. So this is the difference between a real memory. A real memory is vivid. You have sights. You have sounds. That's how you can tell the difference between a real memory. Their study, though, is about people who had a traumatic event, created a memory and blocked it out. But people who recovered real memories vivid. So that's really important. They're talking about the recovery of old memories versus complete false memories. How do you tell

the difference? And I've actually wondered this so much just in general. So I was like listening even beyond the Richard Allen case like or trial like wondering really interesting. So according to this doctor, if if it's a false memory, it starts with I think. If it's a recovered old memory that's like been blocked in your mind and all of a sudden you recover it, the sights, the sounds, the feelings, like it's very, very vivid. You remember everything and it doesn't start with, I think this happened or I think that happened. It would be enormously vivid.

Those who create false memories, again, he reiterates this multiple times. It starts with, I think. So then the prosecution says, so would a real memory be insight and feelings and how they felt? does that not lend itself to a true memory? And then again, he reiterates, reiterates, I think we're not kind of on the same page.

What you're asking is kind of different than what our study is. He says it once again. And so she, so Diener tries it again, a different way. Are you aware of why people need to be kept in safekeeping? So she's sort of implying like, this is again,

she's clearly trying to imply there's a difference between solitary, confinement and safekeeping, which is what the prosecution claims Richard Allen was in was safekeeping while the defense is, of course, trying to claim, you know, solitary confinement. So she explains, are you aware of why people need to be kept in safekeeping? And his answer is yes. But I'm not really aware of prison protocol or management per se. He focuses on the reaction to prison, not really, you know, why people are put in certain places. In solitary confinement, she asks then, do you differentiate between a safekeeping for punishment for someone and keeping in a one-man cell and the difference between that and solitary confinement?

And he said, well, whatever the reason isn't really my, that's not really my job to differentiate between those two things, she said, but you acknowledge the difference between the two of them. Do you not? And then, uh, Rosie jumps in with redirect and his key questions, look, whatever the reason for between, you know, whether it's a safety reason or solitary confinement, what you do is you figure out how it impacts the brain. Is that right? And the doctor says, yes, whatever the reason it affects the brain, that's what I study. So he clarifies this is what he studies and his job there today was to explain just how bad

solitary confinement was in what he saw and what he observed of Richard Allen. So now we have the jury questions. So here are the jury questions. You ready for this? Do you believe psychotic behavior can go back to normal after solitary confinement? And the answer to that is yes. A next question, do you believe that a normal person can be completely psychotic after six months in solitary confinement? And his answer is, absolutely, I have seen it. So, new witness, the new witness is Dr. Eric Warren. He is from Memphis, Tennessee. And he is the owner of business.

He has his own business, SED forensic consultants. He also does crime scene reconstruction. He has an undergrad in molecular biology. He has a doctorate in biochemistry, hence his doctor, Dr. Eric Warren. And he worked for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation as a forensic scientist. He does firearm and toolmark. He is a firearm and toolmark examiner or certified one. Yeah.

So now we know why he's here. right? He was also part of a violent crimes response team and he worked with law enforcement. He has a background in academics that was all research-based. He was transferred to forensics and then he studies things that were external. So, okay, I remember. So at his time with the FBI, he did research-based stuff. Then he was transferred to forensics and he did do some external things like bullets in a crime lab with law enforcement, excuse me, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, not FBI. He's not FBI. Forgive me.

He is part of the American Federation of Firearms and he served as a board and active member. He testified for the state and defense. He, and they just continue on with more and more background. And then the first question, the defense asks them, is, is there a critical community of your firearms identification. He says, yes, we defend our industry, and a lot of people, a lot of criticism comes from the President's Council

of Science and Technology, or P-CAST, and NAS, which is the National Academy of Science. These are groups that contract a number of people who review our data very critically. And the criticism, though, he explains is actually helpful. It's peer review and the criticism of, of firearms toolmark actually allows a dialogue and a perspective and you can discuss both sides and then it pushes the science forward to improve the field. And then they asked, did I ask you? And so then the defense

asks, did I ask you to review material? And he says, yes, you asked me to review Ms. Melissa Oberg's conclusion to determine the basis of her opinion. And so he explains, Dr. Warren explains that he reviewed the case file, the micro photographs, the transcript of the deposition she gave, and everything I asked for in the review, Dr. Warren received. He reviewed photographs and one aspect of the documentations, he received the law. the lab preservation and probably the most important thing is some of the photos that he wanted to illustrate and show were to illustrate were shown on the microscope. So they explained

that the photo is like a three-day movie. It's a microscope that has a narrow depth of field. And switch into my other notes. Forgive me, guys. I'm sorry. And I was late or I'll say would have gotten this more organized, but I thought I've been. just got to start. So generally documentation, they've done documentation of photography since is important so you can show your work. This is how you can say that I know how I came to my conclusion. So photography is very important and they say this is documentation, that photography of tool marks is vital to explain your findings. They explain subclass characteristics. there are, and this was explained actually to remind all of you when Dr. Melissa, or not Dr.

Oberg, when she testified she was a firearms toolmark examiner, impressive background, she also explained this the difference between class, subclass, and individual characteristics. And so Dr. Warren is essentially going over that again. They're asking them again to reiterate the difference. And Dr. Warren is explaining it to the jury that how important class characteristics versus subclass characteristics, and individual characteristics. And to remind all of you, subclass or class characteristics are more broad. You know,

there are things that are all created in the same factory that have these kind of class characteristics. And then there's subclass characteristics where maybe all of these things made in the same factory at the same months or to have maybe some unique, more unique features. There are these subclass and individual characteristics or if you own something or you own a car or a gun

and it gets dinged and it has this very, individual mark on it because someone hit your car in a certain way and it's unlike any other car now because it has this individual characteristic. So we're going over all of these things. And some class can't tell you one specific tool something came from, but the individual can. So he has seen that video of the six hour manufacturing. He didn't find it relevant because it didn't discuss specific tools. That was shown during Dr. Melissa Oberg's testimony. It only showed the slide in frame, not the extractor or the ejector. So defense asks them, have labs been shut down for only identifying subclass

characteristics? And he said, yes, most recently the Rhode Island State Lab was shut down. And he mentioned something about a Wyoming State Lab. And then they got into cycled rounds versus fired rounds. And I want to remind you, this was one of the biggest confusing things with Dr. Melissa Oberg's testimony is how she explained that in order to test if a certain cycled round came from a gun, she would fire around. And there were a lot of questions about that. I want to remind everyone that I did go on duty Ron to ask, um, his expert, his toolmark expert more

about this. And for anyone that wants to understand this more, I recommend heading to duty Ron's channel and watching where I was on as a guest. I think it was a week ago. It was a week ago Sunday. Um, it was very important to this. So go watch that later. Um, But they're getting into, okay, let's talk cycle rounds versus fire rounds and how we compare these two things. And Dr. Warren explains that in a unified cartridge, in an unfired cartridge in a semi-automatic like firearm, it ejects the case and it auto-reloads the next live round. So ejecting the live round from it leaves a mark.

on the brass case. And so if you fire around and is experiencing a higher pressure, the forces from the extractor and ejector tool, you sort of have this explosive reaction so they will leave like stronger marks on it, like they're deeper because of the pressure, but it still is ejected. So he is aware, Dr. Warren is aware that several guns were tested

and that this certain item 314, which was a Sigsawr gun from Richard Allen's house was tested with the, you know, the cartridge that was found at the crime scene. So he's aware of this. And is it appropriate to examine, here's a question for him. Is it appropriate to examine cycle versus fired rounds?

And he said, it's a process that's done. Generally, because of different pressures, generally I would expect to see apples to apples, not apples to oranges. And this research is going back to 2010. And he explained that he said that even a 15 degree angle change would not produce the same marks. And found differences in pressure could possibly cause a different looking mark.

And so the next question, did Oberg use cycle test round to draw conclusion about item 316? No, she says the marks on the cycled were on the cycled round were not prominent or they were they were not prominent enough and they were not there at all. And so or they were not prominent marks. And so are you generally okay with that they ask if they're not prominent? And he explains that in order to identify a gun, it has to be repeatable and reproducible across fired and unfired cartridge. So it has to be repeatable against both. So item 314, which is the same. sour gun that was found at Richard Allen's home. Was that not the case? They asked him. And it was never established apples to apples. And, oh, he explained that it was not established apples to apples. And then they ask, are error rate studies that compare cycle, are there error rate studies

that compare cycled rounds to unfire rounds? Answer, no. So there were three tool marks in play when it comes to identifying a, you know, a Melissa Oberg's work when it came to identifying the unspent cartridge, the cartridge at the crime scene with the six-hour gun. There were three specific toolmarks. And he received the macro and micro photographs. And he explained that with the ejector,

there are possible submarks. And he explained that Oberg documented the ejector well when compared to 316. She noted a high characteristic of subclass of computer controlled, and these have the highest propensity for subclass marks. There was an extract, there was an extractor, though, that didn't have any documentation about subclass marks. And so he explained that he didn't see documentation from Melissa Oberg about subclass marks and that there was no direct examination that he could see.

And they said, okay, well, what about the barrelhood? Well, the barrel hood and chamber face has even less research behind it. There's not much out there even on it. So most commonly, we study the extractor and the injector to look for potential subclass characteristics. And so was there potential for subclass for all three? Yes, subclass marks. Yes, there was potential. Is it possible to draw conclusions on characteristics? You said, well, not unless you've identified subclass marks and individual characteristics. and Oberg did this only for the ejector. And the witness is using a large defense to demonstrate and show the jury with the photograph, too. Just, you know, he has a photograph. We can't really see it, but it's clearly from like a microscope. He explained that subclass mark characteristics are larger and equally spread out. for example, mountains versus valleys.

There's a light explanation. You should look between mountains and valleys for individual characteristics. And he explains other striations are the mountains and the valleys. The defense asks was Rhode Island lab having trouble? Objection. We didn't get to know what that was about. So CMS, it was consecutive matching the striator marks is what is known as CMS. And he gets really into CMS.

That sort of like becomes I'm learning like, oh, this is like your specialty. Because he says that there's a body of critical experts that say examiners need to determine specific agreement. Crisis is an answer to those critiques to numerically, numerically define so you can say it's okay. there's a major objection by of Luttrell at this moment. He explains, so by Luttrell, so the, so the prosecution is like, objection, hold on, pause, let's go back. And he says, most state labs do not use CMS. Is that right? And, and he says, and a sidebar is called by Judge Goal during this.

This time they come back, it explains that CMS is recognized by AFTI and that there are major critiques, though, of how subjective results are by different examiners. So now we have like a lot of back and forth about CMS. I mean, and if you guys are kind of confused following this,

welcome to the club as I read the notes. I was really trying to understand and pay attention and get good notes for everyone. It was difficult to follow. along with this and we were all trying to understand in the gallery. So did you apply CMS to Oberg's findings? The extractor had also I want to point this out he the expert a witness like he wouldn't answer yes or no questions directly and it really bothered the prosecution. We'll get to that in just a minute. But they asked did you apply CMS to Oberg's findings like his CMS specialty? And he

said it was not sufficient because the extractor had one run of four, so it was not sufficient. And the ejector, if you ignore all subclass characteristics, he wasn't able to conclude sufficient agreement. And so his conclusion is, his conclusion would be that there would be, that there is insufficient agreement. So then we all had a break at that moment. There was also an interesting time during that, too, though, where I want to go back where he said, are you aware that most crime labs do not use this? So back when the prosecution's like,

let's talk about this. He said, yes or no, are you aware? Yes or no? And he just would not, he wouldn't answer. And there was a type of, there was a moment where things kind of got heated. He's like, just answer yes or no. And the expert witness would not answer like yes or no. He was, he always wanted to explain something and people got really frustrated. So that was that was kind of a heated moment right before lunch and then we come or not lunch excuse me the break there's a morning break for 15 minutes then there's lunch then there's an afternoon break so this was morning break we come back from morning break and now it's cross-exam with uh let let's lutral and uh first question is he he asked and so follow along with you guys I'll be honest I was again once again

trying to get all the information I could. I was trying to process it all. The fire, the toolmark examining is an really interesting thing. I'm learning a lot about it, but even I get confused sometimes. So follow along with me here and forgive me if I'm reading my notes for the first time since I wrote them today. And usually I try to go through them before we all jump on. So question, mechanical fingerprints. You learned and applied the term after the time with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

Is that right? Yes. So why don't you have that, have a written report on this, on this at all? And his answer is, Dr. Warren's answer is, well, it didn't come up. Well, aren't we talking about tool marks? Correct. And then he explains, well, studies show that the first bullet that comes out of a gun, you know, the first bullet that's, you know, can be compared to the 10,000th bullet. Is that right? In other words, it would keep the same mark from the first to 10,000s. And he said, correct. And so Lutral says, so the six hour mark of two, it would stay consistent over the years. Is that right? And he said, correct. That's right. So subclass characteristics, is subclass characteristics a new study?

No, it is not. Right. So Lutrell says, it's been around for 90 years. It's been studied for a very long time. Is that right? His answer, like... Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records

and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. Ora actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, You get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN.

ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. Close to that. he doesn't the doctor warn did a very good job of vading questions and being like oh maybe or i don't know or possibly but never saying yes or no it drove the prosecution batty so subclass a subclass then this thing that's been studied for 90 years subclass characteristics breaks it down is that correct yes he says so what is a class characteristic example and he explains that

There's something with the relationship to the extractor, relationship to the extractor to the ejector. Things got a little confusing here for me, forgive me. But then he gets into factories and he explains that a firearm is assembled by someone. This is questions by Littrell saying. He's like a firearm that's assembled in a factory. It's assembled by someone. And an individual is doing an individual is doing the assembling. Is that right?

And it may or may not come from a different company, this person. And he said, yeah, that's correct. And he goes through all of the things. So all of these different things can happen in a factory and different people can manage this, right? Yes. And, okay, so this is, this was a moment that was interesting. They said that, so LaTrell explained, they got to a point where they explained that Melissa Oberg noted her concerns or findings in her report in that she allegedly

checked everything and Lutrell asks, did she document any concerns that she had about subclass characteristics of the extractor or injector? So after all these questions about subclass characteristics and the studies and how defined these studies are, did she document any concerns she had about subclass characteristics of the extractor or injector? And the. And the The answer was finally no, but he actually had to ask many times to get him to answer yes or no. So this was now like three or four times as it happened with the witness and this was the most intense time. He had to ask him multiple times to get him to say no. In other words, she had no concerns about the subclass characteristics.

Lutrell's next question, would it surprise you to learn that Melissa Oberg has so much more time than you as a toolmark examiner? Zing. And he said, no, it would not surprise him. Sir, does Apnea encourage its membership to continue research? He actually says no to that, which is weird. And he asks again in a different way. And then he says, yes, correct. Like he was just kind of really, you know, he's working for the defense.

He would really go out of his way to not answer directly. Are you suggesting then that she forgot about subclass characteristics during her research by claiming that she didn't document them well. And he is saying it's possible because she didn't document them. So in other words, anything's possible. What he's saying is she didn't document some subclass characteristics, document them well. And so he's saying, are you suggesting that she forgot about subclass characteristics

during her research? And his answer was, I'm saying it's possible because she didn't document them. So everything you've ever learned is attached to, this report and Dr. Warren says no but every time I've had a case I've attached it to this report of mine and Oberg says Oberg has determined three tool marks is that correct not one not two but three he says that's correct and by basing her opinion on three separate tool marks does that not improve her determination of the marks and then there's a major objection and they come back,

she knows of three different distinct tool marks. Does that not strengthen the results that she obtained? So again, he's saying she found not just one, not just two, but three marks. Does that not strengthen her determination? And he says, no, there was some agreement on the subclass and some on the extractor and no on the barrel. And they say, but did she not find sufficient agreement in her documenting?

And he says, no, she said some below that she said, that she said there was some sufficient, but that doesn't illustrate sufficient agreement. The task of the examiner is to look and see if there are similar markings. Yes. So it's not apples to oranges. And she can test it's adequate to compare. Can't she test that it's adequate to compare? and his answer is she actually found that she could not determine the fired to the

cycle, the fired round to the cycled. She found the test fired round suitable. So pause, I've got to go over this because I feel like I'm giving wrong information here if I don't clarify what I have in my notes here. So let me read my quasi shorthand stuff. So the task of the examiner is to look and see if there are similar markings. That is correct. And then he says, but then why is this not apples to oranges then,

prosecution says. This is apples to apples. She can absolutely test and it's adequate to compare these two things because the study is done so long. And so Dr. Warren is trying to claim, well, no, she found that she cannot determine the fire to the cycle. And then the prosecution is saying, but she said she found the test fired round suitable. And then he says, yes, that was her conclusion, correct? Okay, so I'm glad I read it. I understand it more now.

Forgive me. Sometimes I just have to do it twice. Like, let's make sure we have this right. So again, he's trying to say it's not apples to oranges. The prosecution is trying to say this is not apples to oranges. This is apples to apples. Like, come on. And Dr. Warren is trying to say, well, I don't know that that's necessarily true, fired

around the cycle round. They are essentially agreeing to disagree there. And then he does admit that she found the test fired round suitable in her conclusion and that's where they can both agree. Luttrell asks Dr. Warren, did you document for the jury that you could use ejector marks and it was suitable to compare? And he said, no, he didn't document that. And then they asked, well, do you actively use CMS?

And he said, yes, in 2021 October, he goes, yeah, I do actively use CMS. And then Lutrell says to say, really? Well, because in October of 2021, you testified that you did not use CMS. So what's that about? And he said, well, that's only applicable to strident marks. And so I was probably testifying about a case where I didn't use CMS because he was all about CMS at first, remember, like CMS is like the bomb.com. And so now he's like, well, it depends.

It's not applicable unless it's distrident marks. And so then there's a question, you know, you receive training in 2022 or 2023 with CMS training. So this is like a pretty new thing for you. He said, well, that was just my most recent training. And then Luttrell asks them like, well, could you go into court and testify in CMS with another examiner's photos? And he said, yes, that occurs regularly. Well, did you indicate that you did not use CMS technology when it comes to this?

Like, when it comes to this, like, you're all about CMS, but you didn't even use that here. And he goes, well, there's some, it was, his answer did not make it easy for me to record his answers. he was always kind of just, he would sort of avoid the answer. So I can't even tell you what his answer really was to that. The next question by Luttrell is, have you testified in court? Haven't you testified in court and have said that you cannot ever offer a conclusion just based on photos alone, on another examiner's photos? So he, according to Lutrell, has testified in court before that he cannot offer a conclusion

based on another examiner's photographs alone. And his answer is, I'm sure I have at a time said something like that, yes. And so Lutrell says, are those your words that you cannot come to a conclusion with photographs alone? And then his answer is, well, in that particular case, yes. And then Lutrell said, but you said it as in a general rule that you cannot look at photos of another examiner and make any conclusions. Then Lutrell asks if he is accredited. Luttrell says, so you own your own lab. Yes.

So are you affiliated with all of these, with the toolmark examiners? And he says he's not accredited. He says he's not accredited in what he has to do in order to become accredited is pay, appear to look at his procedures, five different cases that he's done and accurately reflect, and they have to accurately reflect what the policies say about toolmark examining. And so then Luttrell asks them, so you don't have a confidence in accreditation? Like, why aren't you accredited? And his answer is that would be fair.

Yeah, he doesn't have confidence in accreditation. And then Lutrell asks him, what is the most important tool in a firearm tool examiner's pocket? This was an interesting answer. Ready for this? What is the most important tool, Dr. Warren, in a firearm tool examiner's pocket? And he goes, well, that would be myself. And so Lutrell said, well, how valuable is. is your microscope.

And he said, it's valuable at times. And he said, well, how crucial is it? And his answer is, well, if you're going to do a comparison, then you need it. You need the microscope to compare the different cartridge for the toolmarks, you know, the gun. And it's called a comparison microscope. And so then Lutro asks, well, why is your comparison microscope so important

to toolmark examination? And his answer is, well, when you do use it and you need it to compare, it's important. Like that's his answer. I'm like, that's okay. So Luttrell keeps pushing. So you can use that tool or can you use another tool? And his answer is, well, no, I could use another tool like a 3D microscope and not a comparison microscope.

And so then Luttrell moves on, were you trained on Gaffney? And he says, well, he was trained another way, but it was based on. off of Gaffney. Don't, whatever that is. And so then he goes back, so Lutrell goes back. So can you take or leave a comparison microscope? You don't need it. And he says, yeah, I don't need it.

And then Lutrell says, let the evidence speak for itself. You use that term often. He says, yes. I, and then Lutrell said, and you firmly believe in documenting evidence to the best of your ability. It says, yes. And you offer services for consulting. Yes, I have a website email for people to call.

And so Lutrell says, so if by Mr. According to Mr. Rosie, you're asked here if you have anything. So the prosecution, Lutrell says, so if by Mr. Rosie asking, if you have everything that you need to determine some conclusions on Ms. Oberg's reports, you didn't ask for any additional evidence to make a conclusion. and his answer is that he didn't receive any other evidence. And so Lutrell says, well, did you ask attorneys for additional items,

like more items like the cartridge or other items to compare? Like, did you ask him for the actual items and evidence? And he says, I can't recall. And Lutrell says, well, if you were asked to compare the different items, would you use your comparison microscope for these different items and evidence? He says, yes, I would. And so Lutrell says, if you're looking at this. under your microscope, under your personal microscope, wouldn't it change? Wouldn't the picture be

different? Because he has this big picture up, you know, of, of Melissa Oberg's microscope. And he said, no, it wouldn't change. So the photo would not look any different if you put it under a microscope. There wouldn't be any lighting difference or anything. He goes, that's correct. Oh, he goes, it would not look any different at all because of certain lighting or anything. And he goes, oh, well, that's correct. It could look, it could look different. He goes, it could. look different. And so he's implying, why didn't you do your own analysis then on the tool marks? So redirect with Rosie, he gets up.

And he says, you started working with the defense for more than a year, correct? Did I request you to make any additional reports on evidence? And Dr. Warren says, no, I do not recall you asking me to do that. In other words, he did what he was asked to do, and that's why he did it. And then we have jury questions. There were so many jury questions, so many. Question one is how would CMS be used? I love this question by the jury, by the way, because one of his big talking points was this new thing that people need to use CMS.

It's so important and two marks. but then he never explained how he used it. So the jury asks, so the jury asks, how would CMS be used? And they say that it would be applied the same way, but it would meet CMS threshold. So in other words, he would essentially apply it the exact same way

that Melissa Oberg does her work, but it would meet CMS threshold, not like the other way. Next question. Does removing and cleaning your gun change gun marks? He says it would not, change individual characteristics. Does the manufacturer keep track of subclass characteristics? Answer, no. Is there a reason that you did not do your own report? And his answer is it was

just requested of me to go over the documents of Melissa Obergs and educate the attorney and explain the conclusion. Next question by the jury. Would doing your own analysis be more conclusive? He wrote, potentially I could agree or disagree with her analysis. It could be changed by examination. Are you certified as a toolmark examiner? Yes, he is certified. Did you look at the subclass characteristics of the cartridge? Did you look at subclass characteristics of the cartridge?

And his answer, I didn't really get the possible for the cartridge to have subclass characteristics. And then Lutrelle jumps in and he goes, well, did you look under a microscope under this cartridge for subclass characteristics? And he did not. And next question, what is the relevance of the cartridge having similar subclass characteristics?

And he explains that you're funneling the potential firearms that match. And so it's really important, you know, so you have to funnel them. So you have to see which ones have similar marks, which ones have different marks. and you have to funnel them through until you get to something more specific. Are you aware, the next question by the jury, I thought this was interesting by the jury, are you aware that Ms. Oberg's findings have been verified by a second party? He says yes. I was like, wow, jur.

The next question, have you read Oberg's deposition? Yes. She testified that she had all her examinations and all conclusions were verified by a verifier. And his answer is, I don't recall that's what she said. Next question, were you here when Ms. Oberg testified? She was not there. Are you aware the extraction mark matches? His answer is generally, that is the way it works.

The question, though, is the lack of documentation. So there you go. And then we had lunch. And lunch, lunch, lunch. Exactly. The witness is there to confirm. the jury and bring unreasonable doubt. I was really impressed by the jurors questions on that one.

Because like I said, it's been a hard one for me to follow very clearly, and it seems like they have a really good grasp on it. And they had some really interesting questions. After lunch, it was cell expert Stacey Eldridge. And we're now, it's nearly 2 p.m. at this time. and she has a bachelor's in science and computer information management, and she has a master's degree in computer info. She worked at the FBI as a forensic examiner.

It was chief examiner at one point, specifically for phones, tablets, iPads, etc. She was with the FBI for 10 years. She was a part of there, the computer evidence response team that preserves and examines digital evidence. And what she did there is, you know, laptops, smart, cell phone. phone, smart watches, et cetera.

And she also trained the new FBI examiners. And she was the senior forensic examiner and instructor at the FBI when she left after 10 years. She's also a private detective in Nebraska. And now she consult as an expert witness for the court and is an adjunct professor at two different universities. She has testified for both government and defense. And she owns Silicon Prairie Services LLC. She works with local law enforcement and as a special agent in FBI to examine digital data.

She usually charges $400 an hour. But for this case, she tells us that she is charging $300 an hour. She's worked 65 hours doing examinations and 15 hours in prep for testimony. She reviewed Libby's iPhone. and as she reviewed it, she reviewed it. She, hold on, she reviewed the Libby's iPhone. And she reviewed it after it was examined in October 2017 by Brian Bunner,

with the Indiana State Police. And so as you guys, just to like refresh your memory, Brian Bunner reviewed it using Cell Bright reports and written reports. So she's explaining everything she used to look at, of Brian Bunners to look at everything. And she reviewed Brian Bunner's reports from October 2017. She reviewed the Cell Bright reports,

the written reports, Chris Cecil's reports, everyone's report. She also reviewed Cecil's depositions. So she has done a lot of review, in other words. And what she does is she gets under the hood, she explains.

And under the hood means the iOS. The iOS is sort of like going under the hood of the car. I actually appreciated how she explained this. It's the operating system. And she gets under the hood of the car or under the hood of the phone using forensic software. And they ask her what forensic software

has been used in this case? So many, she explains, I can't even name all of the main ones, but Cellbrite, Axiom, Ileaf, and others. She primarily uses Axiom for the bulk of analysis. And she also uses DB browser and forensic browser, which is forensic examining software, and she uses CB to review previous reports. She extracts data.

She copies the data that she's extracted, and then she analyzes it. And she also says that she doesn't ever get on like a phone immediately because it starts changing things on the phone. And you know what? Bunner testified to this as well, that like the moment you start jumping on a phone and extracting stuff, you start to lose data every time.

So you have to be careful, like don't jump on a phone right away. And so she says that she doesn't. She doesn't extract it right away. She's very careful about how to jump on. She explains that there are three different extractions that are really important to understand from SELBright. And these extractions are commonly used by law enforcement. The first one is the full file system. The full file system is what they want to analyze.

That's like the head honcho. Like if you're law enforcement and you're assessing a case, the full file system is just as it sounds, the full file system. The middle one is the advanced slash logical. And then the bottom one is the logical. And she refers to that as like the bare bones extraction. And the best practice is to get a full file system first,

even if it takes one, two, three, or four times to do. You just need a document it all. And again, you want to do it sooner than later because the phone data changes. So on 2015, so February 15th, 2017, that would be the day after the bodies were found, the day after the phone was found, Brian Bunner performed logical extraction. He could have, he could have gone, she claims the full. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet,

and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. but ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring,

and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. file. Yes, he could have, but he only got the logical off of Libby's phone. And the only exception would be if you couldn't get, you couldn't get the full file system. This is interesting. The only reason you wouldn't maybe be able to get a full file system is if there was an iTunes backup that was

encrypted. That's like a thing. But other than that, if that wasn't a thing on Libby's phone, there's no reason he couldn't have gotten the full file system. And so when she received the full file system extraction. It was six months had actually passed from the first one. And it was October, 2017 was when law enforcement got it. And so, of course, some data was lost. And specifically a file called the current power log. That one only lasts for one cycle after you turn the phone off and on.

So like that one specifically was lost, the current power log. And you also won't have any information. on the current power log if the phone is in airplane mode, but that wasn't the situation. And so she had some data from October 2017, but she did not have that info from the. Hey, everyone, sorry, we're just making, I'm just trying to decide if I should jump on my phone again,

Delphi, Delphi Wi-Fi. It's an adventure, an adventure. Yep, I'm buffering. All right. So one of the reasons, So I'll go back to where we were before the buffering issues. Okay, so there was some data that had been lost, specifically the current power log. And so she didn't have any info from the power cycle before that time.

And she did want to check the Apple health data and why the 4.43am text messages happened. So let me remind all of you, because this has been a big deal always. with the defense that they have explained that Libby's phone, that it was somehow was not connected to a tower for a time and that all of these texts came into Libby's phone at 4.43 a.m. And there was a possibility was the phone turned off? Like what happened during this time? Did somebody do something to her phone where the prosecution has kind of implied that after a certain time her phone stopped moving. It was discovered under Abby's body. So here we go. And that's, so she is

saying being hired by the defense that she really wants to check the Apple health data and why the 443am messages came in at that time and what happened. So she downloaded the Knowledge C database. We've also heard of the Knowledge C database before two. Other, the prosecution. sell experts testified to that. It tracks pretty much everything. It tracks what you are doing. It records when your screen goes on and off. When it turns off, when it turns on,

it actually records your app usage activity, timestamps for everything. It's like it has, hence the knowledge, knowledge C database. So she examined Cecil's timeline and reviewed his 81824 report. his August 18th, 2004 report. And in that report,

she does not agree that there were messages or FaceTime or apps or voicemails or calls coming in during that time, which is what Cecil's original report says. And this is also interesting because during Cecil's testimony, during prosecution, the defense brought this up. And now they're bringing it up again.

And this is their expert. So now we're going to understand what they're So the prosecution claimed, well, even if text messages didn't come in, FaceTime calls and other things came in. But here we go. It doesn't mean, she says she disagrees that FaceTime messages or voicemails came in at that time during the course of the afternoon. There were times Libby's phone was not connected to the tower. And the last time it connected to the cell tower was at 545 p.m. and then it next did not connect until 4.43 a.m.

And that was on February 14th, 2017. So again, let me reiterate that. The last time it connected to the cell tower was February 13th at 543. And then the next time it connected was 443am on February 14th. So what happened between that time? Well, she reviewed the AT&T cell logs and ping information. It's the historical precision, it's the historical precision location information. It's the data that's the same basic format as where she learned the information at the FBI.

And the AT&T actually does a log of the historical precision location info. And it says the date and time and the approximate location longitude and latitude of when Libby's phone was last connected. The data between 544 p.m. and 4.43 a.m. showed no data between this time frame. So here's a question then from the defense. Cecil's timeline, Christopher Cecil, shows messages coming in during that time. So why then does she disagree with this part of the report? And she explains that it's because I message is not, when I message, it's not sending. as a text message. If you send an I message, Apple records the I message as the time the user sent the message, not the time it was delivered. So in other words, it looks like the time came in when the user sent it, but it did not come in according to Stacey until that 4.43am time. So that's

why she disagrees that there were other things coming in. It makes sense to me. So she explains then that there are three data points that show the phone was not connected at all during this time. The location, the phone log, which was off, it showed it was off, and the data usage. If the phone was under Abby's body between 5.44 p.m. and 4.43am. do you have info on why the phone didn't connect to the cell tower? The answer is that they could find no evidence of why. or her answer. Stacey's answer is, it's interesting, she could find no evidence of why. I can only conclude something external. I want to just say that's really interesting because that's also

what the, the prosecutor, what law enforcement said too when they were testifying for the prosecution, they could find no evidence as to why. Nobody can figure out why. She says she can only conclude that it's something external, not internal in the phone. Maybe. Maybe. So now there's a question from the fence. Well, maybe something was blocking the signal. Yeah, maybe, she says, maybe something metal. Yeah, maybe something metal. Sorry, one second.

Yeah, maybe something metal. Then we get into the Apple Health data. There is research from the Netherlands right now from Apple Health data that has shown that steps are the most accurate. So like when we take our steps, right, steps are the most accurate in requirements. according our motion and what we're doing. A distance can be off, though, by 30 to 40%. I knew it. I knew it.

Don't tell me that, though. Sometimes I'm like, I did not go that long, that many steps. I want to think it's accurate. More movement or exercise can make vigorous movement or things look like bouncing up and down may register more or less movement. So in other words, it's not accurate. she saw the same information on the steps on data on Libby's phone so how can the phone move and not be recorded in the health data she explains well health data does not recognize when

you're in a car so that's a way that a phone could move and not be recorded in health data so remember the prosecution has always said the phone did or the witnesses for the prosecution have said the phone did not move. And she's saying, well, technically a phone could move and not be recorded and help data if, for example, you're in a car. The iPhone 6S does not record steps or movements when a phone is off as well. So the phone was powered off when it was found, but she was still missing, while the phone was powered off when she was found, she was still missing that log. There were no data logs to suggest the phone was on during that period, the time frame that we keep referring to. The last audio output at 5.21 p.m. was recorded on Libby's phone,

and Cecil wrote in his report that the audio output was unknown and the research was incomplete. Now, the research in 2024 now is complete. And today, it gives some known numeric values. For example, number one means headphones. So this gets interesting. At 2.1317 at 10.32 p.m. a record was created. And it first started happening at 5.44 p.m. So on February 13th, 2017, at 1032 p.m., a record was created. And this first started happening at 544 p.m. on February 13th.

And this record shows that there were wired headphones. This was also shown in another location in the Knowledge See report where it was hard to see, but it actually literally says, quote, wired headphones. So then the defense asks. So when it says that the audio output starts at 5.45 p.m. on February 13th, what does that mean? and Stacey's answer is, so it means that somebody inserted the headphone jack into the hole or the auxiliary of the phone.

And that happened at 10.32 p.m. on February 13th, the defense asks. And she states, it definitely says that something was inserted. Question, can you think of any explanation of this that does not involve. human interaction? She says, I cannot come up with any explanation. Question. The auxiliary cord headphones, when you plug it in, by doing that, would you stop sound from coming out of a phone?

And her answer is milliseconds before the cable was inserted, there was a call coming in. that's that's chilling to me milliseconds before the cable was inserted there was a call coming in so now we do cross-exam with the cross-exam with uh it's mcleeland so prosecution mcleland is up and he first goes off to her education her training her background kind of drills her asks her when it all was and then he asked Stacey, when you talk about testifying four times before, did that deal with computers? And she says yes. And there was one time in 2011 and that was a cell phone, but you don't have a case number for that. And she says yes. So then McLean asked, is this the first time that you've testified about cell phone analysis or knowledge C database? And she says, well, I did in July, but not before that.

well, did you get any other information from the case to review, like facts involved in this case, for example, where the bodies were found or how the phone was found under the body? And she said, no, I just have this. And did you go to the location of the crime scene? McLean asks her. No. Do you agree with the timestamp and the GPS location of the Snapchat video? Her answer is yes.

So question, you reviewed the. Apple Health data, and did you agree with it? She says, I agreed with the numbers he's extracted, but not any opinion he's testified to because I don't know what he said in his testimony. Question then. Okay, so in Apple Health data, it showed that it was last recorded at 2.32 p.m. Is that right? Yes.

So, and you agree that the phone did not move them between 2.32 p.m. until it was found. And she said, what I agree with is that the phone didn't log movement. She can't agree that it didn't move. She just can only agree that it didn't log any movement. So then McLean asked, well, before 544, was it in service?

Answer, it was in and out of service. So questions. So if a phone can go in and out of service, can it go in and out of service if you are stationary? She says yes. Okay. Well, is it reasonable for the jury to believe that between 2.32 and 544 p.m. that the phone received calls, texts, and then it went out of service? She says yes.

Question then. Then at 4.43 a.m. it received a lot of calls and texts. Could this, could it be an explanation that the phone bounced in and out of service? Yes. Well, it seems to me to put in headphones that you would have to be. have to move the phone so that so wouldn't that record the data or the data it could she says yes it could McLeeland then asked so you said there could be a signal blocker she said yeah there could be metal from a building yeah metal from a building but that would require movement wouldn't it she says yes it would well then he asked McLeel and asked so it seems most likely that the phone was just going in and out of service answer to that is that she cannot give an expert opinion on that

well let me ask this again in another way mcclulin says could this be a likely explanation if the phone turned off at 43 a.m. Would it log movement data answer no. Okay so now we have jury questions and it gets interesting. Question did you write your own report of the timeline? No. Would an iPad have its own knowledge? see database. Yes. Would water or moisture affect movement? No. So then, after that, McLean jumps in. What would water affect the port or plug-in for the phone? McLean asks. She states, I have no

knowledge that it would log. McLean says, you don't know? And she says, well, it would make something non-functional, but it would not record info on its own. Next jury question. Can you tell on data if the phone, can you tell from data if the phone was on loud or silent vibration? She did not look at that. If you know, could there be a phone scrambler plugged in? I actually researched that, but I could not find that information. Question, could you use a historical precision location?

Answer. Oh, excuse me. The question is, could you use a historical precision location info on the movement, a Google pixel using, could you use, I got it now, guys, could you use the historical precision information on using the Ting for Richard Allen's movement on his phone, on his Google Pixel Ting phone for self-service? And her answer is yes, if they have that data.

And do you have to have a phone to look at that? And our answer is no. So that they don't even need a phone to look at the historic precision location of Richard Allen's movement that day. Are there any other apps that record movement? She says yes. One of them is WhatsApp. Did you look at any other apps? She says no.

So before we move on to some really interesting testimony, Judge Gull says, reminds everyone that she said no talking to. in the gallery that you will be removed from the courtroom if you were talking and the courtroom security will come tap you on the shoulder and you will be removed from the proceedings. I will say during the afternoon it was a very full courtroom. They had some chairs in the back. There were people that were there. So I think it was a little bit noisier.

So then the next witness is Christopher Cecil. It was also a prosecution's witness. again, phone data expert. And now, Oje is going to question him now for the defense. So he is back on the stand. He is the first sergeant with the Indiana State Police. Again, he's already testified. And she just wants to talk about his report that we've already heard about.

So, Ajay asks, there is a log on your report about audio output. What is that? And he says, I don't know. her next question, are you able to tell us why a cell phone would not connect to a tower? He says, I don't have that education. And now we have cross-exam by McLeeland. So that was it for the defense. Cross-exam by McLeeland.

He questions, you researched about headphone log? Yes, he says. Well, there was a jury question about water, right? Yes, he said there was a jury question about water. And were you able to look up on Google why that is during the break? And he says, yes. And you found that water or dirt can impact something. And it's really kind of hard to hear at this moment.

And, but in other words, they're saying, so you found water or dirt can impact something. So now there's redirect by OJ. And so she says, this is a pretty good moment, of course. she goes, what Google sites did you visit? And his answer, Google sites. Well, any credible sites? Yes, a bunch of sites. He mentions like Apple, some sites and some other maybe chat sites.

And then she says, well, do you normally do your research by looking stuff up on Google? She says, no. He says no. Question by OJ. So you usually research using pure. reviewed things, right? And he says, yes. So are there things on the internet that aren't reliable? Yes. And they aren't accurate? Yes. And they are false? Yes. Was there proof of water damage on Libby's phone? No, we didn't check. And you've had this phone. It's been with law enforcement custody this whole time, correct? Yes.

And law enforcement could have checked for water damage? Yes. And did law enforcement check for dirt? and water damage, he says, I don't know. Christopher Cecil says, I don't know. And you and the Indiana state police have had seven and a half years to do this. And you're coming here after a Google search. Christopher Cecil, yes. No further questions. Hold on.

Hold on one second. And then they have one more witness for the day. And it's Brian Bunner. And again, that's the other cell phone, uh, data expert that has testified for the state and now the defense has them up. Al Jays says, do you know what audio output start is? He says no. Next question.

Did you do any Google searches on the break? No. There is no cross and there are no jury questions. And that was the end of the day. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers.

It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors

charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.