Content warning, this episode contains discussion of the brutal murder of two girls.So today is, what day is it?Monday, October 28th, 2024.And it was the, I believe it was the ninth day of the Delphi murders trial in Delphi, Indiana.
Of course, this is Richard Allen, who was accused of murdering Delphi teenagers, Liberty German and Abigail Williams back in 2017. And he is he's on trial for four counts of murder related to those two killings.
And today we heard from two experts, one who we've never heard from before and another who we heard from in the pre-trial phase of this whole whole saga.But we're going to talk about it today.My name is Anya Kane.I'm a journalist.
And I'm Kevin Greenlee.I'm an attorney.
And this is The Murder Sheet.
We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.We're The Murder Sheet.
And this is The Delphi Murders.Richard Allen on trial.Day nine.Crime scene analysis. Well, before we get started, we just wanted to take a moment to thank our latest murder sheet lifesaver, a lovely woman named Beth Nielsen.
Yes, this is very difficult to do, even under the best of circumstances.And our emergency lifesavers get out there and stand in line so that we don't have to stand in line all night.
And so we can sound a little bit less crazy and perhaps a little bit more logical and intelligent, in theory, when we do the show.If you're interested in helping, send us an email.
Yes.Thank you.Thank you so much to to Beth.
And she really helped us out a lot.And she was a very, very nice woman.
As all murder she people are.
Yes.That's obviously given when we're talking about the murder.She people, lovely people, very smart people.And we really appreciate her and appreciate all of you for listening.
And then I want to say something else before we get too far into it.There were two witnesses today and then there was something interesting that happened after the second witness.
So before we get to the second witness, I think we should do another content warning because the second witness is
is a tough witness, and it was difficult to hear, and it may be difficult for you to hear about, but we will give you a warning before we get to that witness, and then maybe even before we get to that witness, we can tell you what happened after that witness.
Yeah, I'm just gonna be honest, it was genuinely, in some ways, worse than other stuff I've seen.
I don't know, I don't know why, maybe it just hit me, I don't know, but we'll talk about it then.
But we will give you warning before we get to that material.
So the first witness up today, unless it was any pre, you know, pre stuff.
I always I'm not trying to be funny.For some reason, I really struggle to say this name correctly.
I think actually not not being funny, but you when you start saying a word a certain way, it's hard for you to pivot.Is that fair to say?I think it's hard for everyone to pivot, but I think it's really hard for you to pivot.
And so the man who presented the witnesses today was this assistant prosecutor, James Latrelle.Yeah, I think that's it.
Yeah.And he's he's a very I find him to be I mean, I like his style.It's kind of low key.It's kind of a kind of quiet.But I thought. I don't know the word.It's like he gets meticulous in a way.And I like that.
I like the way he kind of he seems to be the guy handling all the sort of technology and complicated stuff for the state.
Yeah, all the science stuff and also some of the more some of the emotional stuff as he did today Well, he doesn't really he'd say he just lets the witness Speak to that almost and yeah I think he's a guy who's for whatever reason is okay with being in the background and letting the witness take center stage and
And those occasions when he does take center stage for a minute, he can have kind of a dry sense of humor.At one point today, there was a talk about, oh, Earthagen's taking too long.
And he said, well, I'll take this next witness, and I'll do it expeditiously.
Yeah, because I think he disappeared for a while to go get like copies of something.So everyone's like, literally, I think we were just waiting for Latroll in kind of like, OK, let's go.And so then, yeah, I agree.
Does seem to have a dry sense of humor.It's kind of interesting to get to know all the different attorneys styles and sort of contrast and see where they're doing well, maybe where they're struggling.And, you know, just kind of look at that.
So I may try to avoid saying his last name today and just call him the prosecutor.
Oh my God, that's rough.Yeah, I was like, maybe you should just call him James, but that feels too familiar.So maybe that's better.I don't like mispronouncing people's names, obviously, given my first name.So that might be best.
But I think you got it right.I think it's Latrell.
Latrell. And I think we're bantering a little bit here because we're reluctant to get started because when we get started we're gonna eventually have to get to this testimony at the end.
Yeah, but let's get started.So first witness up today was Stacey, speaking of names I'm gonna mispronounce, Stacey Bosinowski, and she is a She is with the Indianapolis-Indiana State Police Laboratory.She is a DNA analysis and a forensic examiner.
And so as a DNA analyst, she works in the biology section at the lab. There are a lot of different sections at these ISP labs.We already heard from Melissa Oberg, who worked at the same lab, but she was in the forensics firearms department.
So, you know, there's just, there's different specialties, there's different opportunities for people to kind of do this work that's important to forensics, but might have a completely different component.So we kind of got into Ms.Boschinovsky's
resume and things like that, and her degrees in science and biology.
And as Anya mentioned, Ms.Bozomatsky works at the Indiana State Police Lab, and she said that lab is accredited, and the accreditation process helps ensure the quality of the techniques they use, and therefore the results they use.Right.
And she was a very good witness.She obviously knows this stuff forwards and backwards,
She's so she was very meticulous too.She was very precise and would, you know, maybe over explain, but in a way that did contribute to everyone's understanding.
And I thought she seemed a little bit nervous, but in a relatable way, not in like a bad way.I thought she seemed like she just seemed like she cared a lot and wanted to really get it right.
I thought she was a very good witness.I liked any time somebody asked her a question, she'd pause for just a second as she was thinking, and then she'd choose her words very, very carefully.
And one thing I took away from this witness is the sheer amount of effort this team doing the DNA at the lab.They really, really tried very hard, and they tried everything they could.
And let me just, before we get into DNA, let me just, can I throw something out there, just some research that I was doing on this, because I was just curious.Like, we all know DNA is a huge deal in crime now and crime solving.
And I tried kind of to figure out, like, how many cases are cracked by DNA?How many cases even use DNA?And I was only able to find one really unsatisfying number online that, like, I want to contextualize.
But the number I saw was like 10 percent of cases, like basically even like might have DNA like that that's usable in the sense that it could be.Impact the outcome, I guess, and weirdly enough, that was actually from the Innocence Project's website.
The reason the Innocence Project wants people to know about how DNA is in everything is because it that
people basically only using DNA to clear crimes or bring about exonerations would mean that a lot of people that might be innocent and currently incarcerated would not be exonerated because there's no DNA evidence.
But in fact, if witness testimony falls apart or other things happen, you can still get to an exoneration.So they're trying to raise the word as well.It's not just like,
you know, what people... But the thing is, like, the 10% number, when I'm looking at, first of all, I'm sure that includes firearm homicides, which is a different deal than someone using a sharp-edged weapon, so there'd be, like, less opportunity for DNA.
In addition, it seems like that number comes from the latest, maybe, like, 2003, so it may have gone up since.But on their website, it says, quote, attackers leave behind DNA evidence in less than 10% of murders.
So even if it has gone up since and even if we're taking into account firearms, I think this is a pretty good indication that not all homicides leave usable DNA.And it's unreasonable to expect that.And yet people do.
And I see this all over the web, all over discussion of this case.People absolutely expect it.And that is what we call the CSI effect.
That means people watch a lot of shows where DNA becomes important and we just assume, you know, we hear about it so often it's like, well,
you know, we hear about remarkable situations where like the, you know, the perpetrator spits out a wad of gum on the floor and suddenly the case is solved after 30 years.
And we think how wonderful it, you know, this little mistake by the killer foiled him and, and, and we can go forward.But that does not mean that every scene is the same and that every scene will produce results.
A couple of other things we should realize is that outdoor scenes in particular pose a challenge because not all, not all surfaces are going to be good for getting offender DNA.
And there's other elements of the Delphi murders in particular that kind of made it so that offender DNA was going to be a long shot.And we'll talk about those.
But I just wanted to preface that because I'm with the people who are affected by the CSI effect.I always assume I'm the one who throws out, what about DNA?Can they do investigative genetic genealogy?
I'm often influenced by that too, but it's important to take a step back sometimes and remember that there are a lot of cases where that's just not going to be a factor, unfortunately, as much as we want it to be.
And we can't expect it to be because that not only harms prosecutions of potentially very guilty people, but it also harms the fate of people who could be wrongfully incarcerated and deserve an exoneration.
But maybe there's no DNA evidence clearing them.
So let's talk about the DNA tests and such that they did do.As we've mentioned in some earlier episodes these last couple of weeks, they did do the Indiana sexual assault kits for each girl.
This involves vaginal swabs, anal swabs, oral swabs, and such of that nature. There was no semen found.A vaginal cervical swab did indicate possible semen, but there was no male DNA present.
They didn't do a confirmatory test because that would risk destroying some material, which might help get a DNA profile somewhere down the road.And also, apparently, she said,
Oftentimes you get these indications of possible semen and it doesn't mean anything.It turns out to be nothing.
Yes.So serology.So she does DNA analysis and serology and their serology is the detection and study of bodily fluids.And then DNA analysis is obviously procuring DNA. and then analyzing it to see if you can get a profile.
So those are similar, but ultimately sometimes different, because sometimes by detecting the bodily fluids, you could end up destroying samples of DNA.So one thing that became very clear over time was that because Ms.
Bojanovski was dealing with such limited samples and precious samples, This was not going to be something where she was just going to be willy-nilly trying to throw everything at it.
She was being strategic by limiting what she was doing to emphasizing the procurement of a offender DNA profile. And that meant in certain cases not analyzing, you know, looking for like what would be present, whether it's semen or whatnot.
Another thing that should be noted is that Ms.Bozhinovsky testified that early on, This was being couched as, like, we're looking at this as, like, there very well could have been a sexual assault because of the nature of the crime.
Two young girls out in the woods abducted, one of them left nude.At the very least, it has the hallmarks of a possibly sexually motivated crime.
Now, it could be a sexually motivated crime and not lead to a sexual assault.But they were they were very concerned about doing that, so.
One thing that perked up a lot of ears in the courtroom, Ms.Bosanowski indicated that these tests came back with results for mostly no male DNA.
And by that, she means that some male DNA did show up in some external genital swabs, and also one set of fingernails from each, I believe, had some male DNA. in it.Was that your recollection?
That was my recollection.I know Abby, like myself, was a nail-biter and so they had more trouble with hers, but I think they ended up getting it from both.
but there was not enough male DNA to test, to create a profile.And she indicated that this male DNA might not even belong to the killer.
It was such a small amount that she said it could have been picked up in fingernails just in the course of ordinary life.And the male DNA that was on the external Genitals could have come from their clothes.
There's a very, very tiny, infinitesimal amount.
And this is something I think we also garnered from the pathologist, is my understanding, that there were no signs of sexual assault.
that doesn't always mean that there was no sexual assault, but it's just that there can't, we can't, there wasn't semen or something like that.
And with the male DNA and the external genital swabs, I think that definitely, definitely like concerned a lot of people in the audience.You can kind of see the audience reaction to things, but what, what Ms.
Boshinofsky said was basically that this could be,
just from being in like the same household with like a male like it really it doesn't it was so minuscule it was like through through laundry through clothes like it just it does not indicate sexual contact necessarily it's um it because it was just so tiny in amount so it's not really something to read into as much as as you might think
She talked a little bit about the procedure that I wanted to go up in terms of the process that her lab follows in terms of DNA analysis.One is extraction.That involves adding chemicals to a possible sample to break open cells and release the DNA.
Two, quantification.That seems to be trying to determine how much they have almost.Is that what you wrote? see if they have some DNA amplification, which is like using PCR, which is some sort of technique to really multiply copies of DNA.
Well, sorry about that, everybody.We had to take a moment to step away from recording to go deal with the situation with the line.
We have wonderful, wonderful linesitters, or lifesavers as we like to call them, who've been helping us kind of get in every day essentially without completely losing our minds.
And as we were sitting here recording, Anya was talking about DNA and I get a notification from someone saying... A wonderful person who really helped us out here.
There's already like 20 people in line, even though it was like what, it was like eight or 7.30 the night before.
So I pushed the stop button and said, Anya, we gotta do something.So I think we did something and we'll see if it was successful.
I think it was successful and we have a wonderful line saver there now.
So then we came back here.
Here's the thing.Here's the thing about this whole situation.It's like every time you think you've figured it out and you're going to do it and you're just going to figure this is the way we're doing it.
It's like it just twists around like a crazy snake and then suddenly you're dealing with it from a whole other angle.And you know that's just kind of what we're doing.So that that's That's to explain why this transition is really inelegant.
I was talking about, I think, STR, it's a process where it's, you know, basically like looking at multiplying DNA and I don't know. Basically, this expert went on to define some things.Genes, she defined as small, non-coding segments of DNA.
A locus is a specific location of a gene on a DNA strand, I believe.Quote, DNA in general is highly variable amongst individuals.We all have unique DNA profiles, end quote. talked about single source terminology used to express DNA profile.
And then she's also talked about like there can be a mix of DNA profiles.
So if like two people get hurt and there's blood recovered from the scene, it could theoretically be from either the victim or a mixture of both victims, or in theory, even a mixture of both the victims and their assailant.
But in some cases, there's so little information that you can't tell.You know that the main source is a victim, but then there might be a minor source that's like, you can't even determine how many people contributed to it because it's so vague.
And you may remember, I'm sure you do, that in the mini opening statement way back at the beginning of this process, it feels like months ago, defense attorney Andrew Baldwin mentioned something about hair being found in the hand of victim Abigail Williams.
And I think the implication a lot of people took from that was that might have been hair grabbed from her killer.
Well, that was artfully phrased, frankly.
Yes, but we learn more about that today.The expert referred to it as fibrous material from the hand and arm of Abigail Williams.
So apparently when they tested it originally seven some years ago, they saw pretty quickly that it was female hair and that it did not belong to either Abigail Williams or Liberty German, but it
had some characteristics that were similar to Liberty Germans, and so they concluded that it was familial.And I believe they also, as part of that process, they analyzed some DNA they took from Derek German, who of course is Libby's father.
Yes.So they, I mean, I guess I understand what the defense was trying to do here.And Kevin, if you can, if you, if you disagree, let me know, or if you agree, let me know.Also.
I mean, it seems like the defense was sort of saying, Hey, it's sloppy to kind of come in and not know who this is right now.And it's like, yeah, that, I mean, that, that seems fair, but, but it sounds like
they did know that it was a close family member related to both Libby and Derek which pretty much narrows it to Libby's very close female relatives and I don't know.
I mean, it seems like they wouldn't be really spending a lot of time and resources on that unless they were
Their attitude was, there's no suspect who is a female member of the German family.So we don't need to go any further.Maybe you agree with that.Maybe you don't.
Right.And it's like, you know, it's like, I agree with the idea that like, female DNA at a scene could be important.Look at the Long Island serial killer case.
The suspect in that, Rex Huberman, his wife, her hair was found at the scene and they used that to identify him.So it's like a woman could not even be involved directly, but her female, you know, her hair could indicate something.
Um, but you know, in, in this situation, it seemed like they just kind of did the normal thing.It's hair, which is very, very easy to spread around.And it's one of her very close family members.
So let's put our time and resources, which are limited into something else.And I mean, I guess I understand that too, but, uh,
They did do testing recently and they did confirm that the hair that was found on Abby was indeed the hair of Kelsey.
Did they say that explicitly?
They did.They said that in court today.
All right.Yeah.Okay.So that mystery solved.I wish the defense had not done what they did if Wadir.If I were them, I would be worried that the jury basically like heard this incredible fact and like, oh my gosh, she was clutching this unknown hair.
And because that's how they made it sound.And then if I were on a jury, I'd be feeling like, wait, you really overstated that just to make a point?
Like and then it feels like backtracking to be like, oh, but actually we were just trying to say they were sloppy It's like but you were kind of acting like it was something more than that I don't know.
I mean, it just kind of seems like- And as a reminder, when Abby was found, she was wearing a sweatshirt that belonged to Libby.
And that had been in the wash with some other clothes belonging to the family.And she'd also just recently ridden in a car driven by Kelsey German.
So there were a number of very logical and easy to understand ways how that hair could have gotten on her.
So let's talk about some other reports that, um, Ms.Boshnovsky did.Um, this was a report from, I believe it was, um, there was, was there one from like March 7th, 2017? That was the first one.
I don't know how much detail we need to go into here, frankly, because she went through a long list of different things she tested, and things like a black bra, shoes, sweatshirts, underwear, and weren't the results from all of those basically the same?
That they didn't get anything?
That they didn't get anything.
Was the 7th when they were doing all the kind of, frankly, sexual assault kit stuff where they were kind of taking swabs from intimate parts of the girls' bodies?I thought that was in the initial report.Was that from February of 2017?
I'm just trying to lock this down so we put out the information correctly.Okay, and then March 7th was when they went into more detail on the clothing and things like that?
So there were kind of I guess what we're trying to convey is there were several levels of this where there were like multiple reports being done as they're going through from going over the body specifically to going over, you know, kind of getting broader and broader in terms of what they're actually looking at.
So which makes sense because obviously if you have, you know, something in a murder case where you have semen on a body, then that's going to tie someone more closely.
Whereas if you have like a hair on a shoe that could have been picked up elsewhere.So you want to focus on what might actually be more relevant first.Um, you know, I,
They talked about, you know, quote, this was a thing we heard about a lot, you know, just generally insufficient.So they would find something and then there would be insufficient amount of DNA to test.
That could be from hair, it could be from other types of DNA.
But there was a time when they thought they had something.They took a swab, I believe, from the black sweatshirt, if my memory is correct.
My understanding is that that is true, yeah.
And they found enough male DNA in there to get a profile. And so they thought they had a profile of the potential killer.And they even put that DNA information into CODIS.And what happened next, Anya?
Um, eventually it went into an employee database and it was identified as somebody who, from my understanding, from what Ms.Boshinovsky testified to, was in fact a lab personnel person.
So somebody working at the lab.
So it had inadvertently contaminated a sample.
Yeah.And how that exactly happened was frustratingly vague.That was one part of testimony where I was kind of like, why can't we learn when and how exactly that happened?Because I feel like the jury wanted to know about that too.
But it sounds like there was some, you know, because Ms.Boshinovsky was the only person actually really handling anything in terms of examining.
things like it wasn't like this was a team effort where you have like three people pouring over the dna like she's the supposed to be so you know but she also noted there's a lot of evidence clerks there's a lot of people who kind of pass things through so there's opportunities for things to go wrong but um
You know, I don't know.I guess like I would have liked to I would have personally really like to have that cleared up on some level just so.And I was actually kind of surprised the defense didn't push that harder.But that's that's in the future.
That's in the future.There was some talk at some point, I believe, Ms.Bostonowski sent 72 hairs to the FBI.
Again, they didn't find much, but they indicated a willingness that they would be willing to compare those hairs under a microscope, I guess, with other people's hairs.
Which is my understanding, and I'm going to look that up on my phone to see if that's actually true, is that that is kind of debunked.People don't really do that anymore, the microscopic comparison of hairs.
Certainly, that was the implication that the witness gave under cross-examination on that topic when it came up, to get ahead just a little bit.She said, oh yeah, I believe the lab used to do that, but not in my career there.
Yeah, because it sounds like, okay, so what, so, okay, it seems like what the consensus is, or at least what she alluded to is, this is possibly an okay thing to do. if you're just using it as an investigative tool, but you can't identify anything.
So what this ended up doing for these 72 hairs was that you can, um, like basically the FBI ended up thinking that all but three of the hairs had, uh, were linked to Abby and Libby themselves just through microscopic.
They can't, they can't know that for sure, but that's what they said it looked like for those three extra hairs then. You know, that's where you wonder, could that be the perpetrator?Could that be something totally unrelated?But it's unknown.
And there's no, you know, like with a lot of these hairs, there was either no root, meaning no skin associated.You know, if you pull out your hair, there's like a little root at the end that kind of, you can get DNA from.
But when there were rootless hair, that's not as easy. There's kind of developing technology where they're trying to do that, and it's possible in some cases, but it's all very complicated.
And, you know, in addition to that, sometimes there is a root, and it's still not enough.One thing I learned today is, Boschinovsky said that when you're shedding hair, the root kind of shrinks and degrades quickly.
So naturally shed hair is like terrible for that kind of DNA.Hair that gets yanked out is different.That's better. You can't pick and choose what you're going to get at a crime scene, obviously.
Then there was kind of a fun moment where the prosecutor kind of goes up to the table.
in front of the witness, and he just kind of drops his hand on the table, thump, and then lifts it again, and he says, okay, so did I just leave some DNA on the table?
Because I think we've all heard about touch DNA, and the implication is that any time we touch something, we're leaving behind all of this DNA, and the witness explained it's not really that simple.
No, it's really not.There are so many factors apparently that can go into this.And like some people might be more likely to leave it in certain temperatures or certain times or like, you know, how many skin cells you happen to leave at that moment.
And it's all very variable.So basically what she said when he thumped his hand on the table, it was maybe, maybe not. So you can't just know.
I guess as somebody who, again, has probably been affected by the CSI effect, I often think if I go into a room and maybe I touch the wall or I touch the table, I'm leaving DNA everywhere.
If I did something, I'd get busted immediately because I guess that's how I think.But that's not necessarily the case.
So, I mean, it was just interesting to learn about some of this stuff because I think I tended to have more of a feeling about DNA that was like... It's abundant everywhere.It's falling from the sky.You know, it should be easy to do.
And it's it's it's more it's more of a crapshoot, depending on the specifics of the case.And as we're going to learn, there was a lot about Delphi and the murders of Abby and Libby that really was not conducive to getting good DNA of any kind.
Exactly.And that came up in another question pertaining to touch DNA.The prosecutor.Latrone. He said to the witness something to the effect of, would you expect to see touch DNA on Abby and Libby if the killer touched them on their neck or shoulder?
And the witness said there was so much blood.She said trying to detect a touch sample in that overwhelming amount of blood is just about impossible.
At that point, Jennifer Auger, a member of the defense team, objected and said, you know, that speculation, those facts are not in the record.And Prosecutor Luttrell said, I'm just being just a hypothetical.So it makes me wonder.
And that was sustained.No, that was overruled, right?He got to keep that.
Yeah, it makes me wonder if one of these confessions we're going to hear about later in this week might include a detail of the killer touching Abby or Libby on the neck or shoulder.
Interesting, interesting speculation.And, you know, one thing, you know, I'm going to go into that for it with a stupid analogy in a moment, but because it helped me think about it.
But another thing we saw Bosinowski do is at one point she was actually holding up the bullet, the spent, not the bullet, no, the cartridge that was found at the scene.
And there was a discussion of like, she got that first before the forensics people so she could look at it in terms of DNA. nothing, you know.And what she indicated, like, is that unusual?Because the killer would have been putting that in his gun.
So, like, why no touch DNA?And what she said is that it's a very, very small surface area, and that is not conducive to what they would be looking for.You know, if you want to get a bunch of touch DNA, like, touch DNA is not the best kind of DNA.
First of all, because there might be innocuous reasons for someone's touch DNA to be somewhere in many instances.But second of all, there's also the fact that, you know, it really just depends on how many skin cells you happen to
get on whatever surface that, you know, and is the surface something that then could be swabbed easily to get it?So there's just a lot of factors that go into that.But she talked about the competitive nature of DNA.
So what Kevin was talking about there, it's like,
It's like, you know, I used to, when I was a kid, I would swim competitively and there would be, you know, like you might be in a heat of swimmers and there was this one girl who was like super good named Rachel.
If she was in your heat, you were not going to win that heat.She was going to win no matter, like you, you might, you might shoot for second, but you're not going to, you're not going to beat her because she was really good.
So it's like certain types of DNA are like that.So blood is like that.If you have a big mess of blood and then someone touched the skin of the victim underneath that, the blood is going to win.
The blood of the victim is going to be very loud in the results.And it's very likely that it will essentially drown out the other weaker type of DNA.So it's like, you're not gonna get it all necessarily.
unless somebody happened to leave a ton of skin cells.Obviously, this is all variable depending on the circumstance, but it's something to keep in mind.
The fact that there was so much blood, the fact that the crime scene was very bloody, the bodies were very bloody, it made it ultimately so it was harder to, I think, detect any offender DNA.And there was another problem with the scene.
Do you remember what that was?
The dirt caused a lot of problems.The clothing was dirty.And this also kind of does say something about how this crime unfolded.People have been like, how did he get them down a hill, across a creek, up a bank?All of that's kind of a lot.
But I mean, it sounds like they were covered in dirt.The clothing was covered in dirt. And that basically was something that was, I believe she referred to it as almost like inhibiting some of the readings.Was that kind of the way she described it?
That's the way I understood it.
It's kind of blocking it, kind of getting in the way.So those two things were especially problematic when it came to this scene.So I feel like we're at the very least like,
I mean, on the one hand, like none of this is good for the prosecution where you have like no DNA.But on the other hand, like it was important for the prosecution.And I thought it was done ably by Mr. Luttrell.
to basically kind of get that all the way and be like, here's how much we tried to get DNA.And maybe here's some reasons why we didn't get any DNA of a male offender.
There was a lot of DNA, obviously, of Abby and Libby and different things like that.And actually, can I just say something that, like, it makes sense.Weren't there comments from law enforcement that confused everybody for years alluding to DNA?
This is what they were referring to?
They thought they had it, but they didn't. They thought they had it, but it was a lab tech or whoever.
I don't know the person's position, but somebody associated with the lab, a personnel member, and they thought they were going to do something with that.And then eventually it got corrected and then back to square one.
So that was the end of direct examination, and before Cross began, there was a break, I believe right before the break.It was such a tough day, and you'll find out more about that a little bit later.
I feel like we're obligated to mention every light moment. What did the judge do right before the break?
Well, she admonished the public in kind of an amusing way.I don't have my note open to that page because we're kind of flying by.But she essentially said something to the effect of, I don't conduct court in your bedroom, but don't come
So don't sleep in my courtroom.She said she'd seen some people sleeping, and you said it would not be dignified for us to mention the name of a person we saw with their eyes closed.
Well, I can't know if that person was actually sleeping, but you know.
I will say this, it's who you think it is.
Yes, it is.And even with reserved seats, you know, sometimes you just got to nap.And it's one of those things where, I mean, in fairness to a lot of the people, though, some people have been waiting in line for a long time.So I can see.
But, you know, she's the judge and I could see her being concerned of like, I don't want the jury to see people dozing off because maybe it'll make them pay less attention.So, I mean, I can kind of see all sides there.
Before we get into the cross, the cross-examinations today were done by Jennifer Ogier from The Defense, and we were still critical last week of a cross-examination done for The Defense by Brad Rosey that I really feel it's worth mentioning that in both of Jennifer Ogier's cross-examinations, they were tight, they were focused, and they had a map that
you could follow and understand the points she was making or trying to make.So even if you didn't necessarily agree with her points, you could understand what they were.
And frankly, with Rosie's cross-exam last week of the ballistics expert, you know, I've been following this case, I'm an attorney, I had trouble trying to figure out what his points were. So that was a real step up with OJ's cross exams.
Yeah, his last cross exam.And he should be good at that because he's supposed to be the bulldog.But like, I mean, she was far better, I thought, because it was just like, OK, I mean, I get what she's saying.
She's making tight points and like, let's go from there as opposed to like, let's spend half a day you know, just yelling.I mean, like, I don't even know what, I mean, like, it's almost like he was improv-ing.
I don't think he was, but this was much better.It just, it felt like it was going somewhere.Right.You don't have to, you don't have to want to go where it's going, but it's going somewhere.
So she began her cross-examination by talking about how DNA technology is always advancing.And Jay mentioned there's some new types of analysis, SNP analysis, which can be, in theory, used to extract DNA from shafts of hair without roots.
And so this perhaps could be used for the three hairs that the FBI was unable to identify.And the witness kept on saying, well, this is a very new technology.It's only being used by like one lab and it's proprietary of nature.
So it's not really available and so on and so forth.But OJ kept on saying it should really, really be used in this case.
Yeah, this defense definitely always pushes pretty hard on witnesses when they aren't answering exactly how they want them to.Like, but it it sort of seemed like what Bochnowski was saying was like, that's not something that would really help here.
It's not even an option at this stage of the game.And plus, it would destroy the hairs in question.So if technology improved later, you couldn't test.
And then RJ said, well, the FBI said they could do microscopic exams of the hair and that wouldn't destroy the hairs.And the witness, as we mentioned earlier, suggested that that's not really a good way.
That is yeah, that is not a credible way.It's a it's an investigative tool.
It's not like you shouldn't do it at all, but like you can't do it with the mind of solving a crime because it's not going to give you something that's and she said that's not for identification.That is just for comparison.
And, you know, I at one point was am I just tired at one point was OJ yelling of like Richard Allen is on trial now is a little bit overdramatic.
But, you know, she's, you know, making the point that, like, all the stops should be pulled out because man's on trial.
It seems like I understand what she's saying, but it also seems like some of the stops she wanted to pull that would, you know, possibly be unscientific or, you know, bad to do.
So I think Boszanowski was very, you know, very much pushing back on stuff, kind of acknowledging certain things, but also, like, saying, like, that wouldn't really be a good fit.
I think at one point, you know, Luttrell kind of, like, gets animated, I feel like, when people are pushing around as witnesses a bit.And so at one point he was, like,
know basically let her finish because like that that's been something I've seen from OJ and Rosie like if if they say yes or no like they really like yes or no and like sometimes that when you're dealing with an expert you kind of need something a little more nuanced like yes but um and and so that was an instance where Gull sustained it and allowed her to finish.
She also was very upset that more testing wasn't done on the female hair found on Abby earlier.The witness was saying, you know, the suspects were male.
There was no female suspects, but OJ was saying, well, we don't know for sure if the perpetrator was male or female.So maybe Bridge Guy was a woman, I guess.
Or maybe she also indicated that multiple people could have been involved in the murders, one of whom, I guess, could be a woman.
I get where she was going with that.I think maybe Like I kind of rolled my eyes at the bridge gal concept to be honest.
Um, and I think maybe a more powerful way to say it, not to Monday morning quarterback, but I mean like, let's be honest, that's what this is like.
I think bringing it back to the fact that hairs are transitory and if somebody's girlfriend's hair ends up at a scene and that doesn't make any sense well you can tie the boyfriend then to it.
I'm not saying like women can't be involved in horrific brutal crimes but OJ's kind of
frankly, like over the top, you know, shock at the idea that they were looking at a male offender when a male is caught on camera abducting the girls seemed a little bit ridiculous.
You know, I mean, like I'm not saying a woman can't be involved in something like this.It just felt like, I think she could have handled that as like more as like any investigative lead should be followed.So why not focus more on the women?
Because that could lead you somewhere.And, you know, the I think they're just trying to continue this idea of like some like massive group of people was involved in this.
And presumably if they're having the girls in their version be abducted, taken away, maybe a woman can be involved in that.And it just I think they're thinking a little bit too big.I think the defense as a whole could benefit from
thinking a bit smaller and just more of like attacking the state's case, as opposed to like trying to build this whole other universe.And, you know, I don't know.What do you think about that?
Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. The witness indicated that she has examined hundreds of items in this case, including items recovered from Richard Allen's home, and she could find no DNA connection between Richard Allen and these murders.
And then OJ asked the question, can you obtain DNA from spit?And the answer was yes.And I assume that's a reference to Elvis Fields.
Elvis Fields, yeah.But, you know, I mean.
Remind us who Elvis Fields is.
Elvis Fields is one of the people that the defense accused of doing the murders.They allege that he's part of an Odinist cult, even though, frankly, there's not really much concrete evidence that he even is an Odinist.
And he made some bizarre comment to Indiana State Police detective at, you know, at the time, uh, Kevin Murphy saying like, if my spit were on the bodies, you know, but I had a good reason.Would that be okay?
And, and, you know, obviously that's pretty disturbing, but when you find out the context that he had just given them a saliva sample and also that he may have had some pretty severe, um,
mental impairments, I guess, then perhaps it takes on a slightly different context.
I mean, certainly interesting, certainly something to look into, but I think the defense, I think the fact, I think their performance at the three-day so-called mini trial where they put on the odinism stuff, personally, I was not impressed.
And I don't really see it coming back in unless somebody opens a pretty massive door.
I'm trying to think in terms of, in terms of that portion, you know, I thought, I thought Boshanovsky held her own, even though, you know, I think Auger was definitely turning up the pressure at points.
And one thing that people were curious about, like, there were cuttings taking, there were, you know, Richard Allen's blue coat, his blue Carhartt jacket, no DNA.The car, cuttings from his car, no DNA, no DNA anywhere.
I think, and let me just look, because I pulled up an article about this, but I think there was one case, because I was like, well, you know, if he's covered in blood and he's in his car, couldn't that last for a number of years?But there was the,
murder of, I think it was Jeff Gurman, a reporter in Las Vegas.And what I read in some local news articles was, bizarrely enough, even though they caught the guy pretty quickly, Robert Telles, there was no blood found in his vehicle.
And I'm just curious, like that surprises me because you would think if someone was splattered with, you know, completely covered in it or like dripping with it.But I guess I don't know.
I mean, I would think you wouldn't even be able to clean that away.But I guess if someone has a bunch of blankets in their car, you can envision it being possible to wrap yourself in a way?I mean, I'm just speculating here.
It's just more interesting to think about.I would be curious from actual forensic examiners how common that is.How do people get around that?
Is it possible to clean it away, or is it just possible to kind of manipulate the situation in a way so you're not just tracking it in in the first place?Because I don't know the answers to that, but it poses some interesting questions.
Those are excellent questions. There is at least one moment I wanted to spotlight from the redirect examination.And that is Jennifer OJ had suggested there were other things that the witness could have done to test DNA in this case.
And she said, I feel like I have exhausted the resources of the lab on this case.In other words, she is saying she feels she did everything she possibly could with the massive resources of the Indiana State Police.
It really sounded like she did.I mean, I felt for her.It seemed like she put a lot of work into this. At one point it almost sounded like O.J.was gloating, like, you've worked so hard and then you have nothing.
And it's, you know, I mean, I imagine that's frustrating, but I mean, ultimately, it's not their job to pull something from thin air if there is nothing.
And it seemed like they were, with the amount of blood, with the fact that some of the items were in the water, with the fact that everything was covered in dirt, You know, it would have been a tall order to get DNA, I think.
You know, even in a case where people often say, well, people cut themselves stabbing and slashing others with sharp edged objects.I mean, yeah, they do.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that there's going to be usable DNA from it if it's all mixed up. it's just not always gonna work out that way.
I think sometimes people almost want there to be DNA, because it removes uncertainty of any kind, and it also is like, it's comforting to think that like, that'll tell us everything that happened, but it's just, I just don't think that's, from what I was reading, that just doesn't unfortunately seem like it's the case most of the time.
You wanna talk about juror questions?
Yes, so juror questions, were interesting.In one case, they wanted to know about the quality control necessary in testing reagents.
I think this talked about some of the chemical processes of how, you know, what solutions they're adding to the samples in order to, you know, fulfill certain functions.Is that kind of what they're referring to?
And they talked about how they prepared it in the lab and they go through like specific steps and it's all very complicated and Exactly.They wanted to know, I guess, you know, do they do repetitive testing to validate results?
That's something that, you know, can be part of some sort of scientific method.
She said, not really, but when they're going through their validating processes and tests, they will test multiple samples then as kind of a way to verify things.
It makes sense you wouldn't do that, because I mean, this limited sample.If you keep repeating something with a hair, then when the hair is gone, the evidence is gone, I don't know.
Do you want to give this question about, is it shimmers?
I think Judge Gould pronounced it as shimera.
She said shimera, which I thought it was too, but then Vashonovsky was like chimera and I was like, oof.
Like, how do you account for chimeras, which I guess are people who like might have different DNA profiles for different fluids? Is that okay?I'm looking this up.I'm sorry.I'm not talking about this with that.
That was the question where I was like, wait, what's going on now?God, I never heard.I've never heard of this in my life.Also, I'm looking up PCR to make sure I didn't define that wrong.Cause I'm just, I'm haunted by that and I'm worried I did.
So I'm good.Okay.Okay.So chimera DNA.Um, I guess there can be an organism or tissue that contains at least two different sets of DNA? What?Okay.We're all learning now.
This jury is on the ball.They're like bringing up things that no one knows what's going on.And actually, Boshnovsky was like, great question.She was impressed.She was impressed that somebody knew what that was.
And she, I think she said something to the effect of like, sometimes they run into that issue with donors, people who receive blood. Like as a donation because then there might be there'd like transfusions and whatnot and you
Basically, they just have to kind of roll with it, and if they know that that might be a factor, then they can be aware of it.But it doesn't really sound like there's any way to deal with that in advance.
While you look up PCR, I'll talk about another one of the juror questions.I think this one may indicate that someone there may have been concerned about the contamination issue.The question was, are your storage refrigerators in the lab?
always locked even though they are in fact in a locked lab?And the answer was not necessarily because they have the attitude that the lab itself is a secured area.
Yeah, it sounds like they were a bit, I felt like the juror questions reflected concern about the contamination issue, which I would have probably hit harder if I was OJ.
Now, the last question from a juror was what is PCR?And Anya is about to explain that to us in some detail.
Well, I think I said PCR was when you duplicate like DNA and like amplify it.Oh, and I'm right.Wow.That's shocking.Okay.Let me read through, this is from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension out of Minnesota.Okay.So it's quantitation.
One of the standards of all DNA laboratories, basically you, you assess the quality and quantity of DNA, measure it, assess it.Amplification is accomplished through the use of polymerase chain reaction, or PCR.
That's when millions of copies of a specific sequence of DNA could be made in a few hours.It involves electricity.And okay, so I was actually not totally wrong, and I'm shocked by that.
So we are going to talk in some detail about the second witness, but I know we're probably going to lose some of you before then, and I don't want you to miss something that happened at the end.
So we're going to jump ahead, discuss what happened at the end, probably say goodbye to some of you, and then we'll hop back and discuss this witness.
So after the second witness stopped, after his testimony ended, there was a conference with the attorneys and Judge Gull.And I believe after that conference, Jennifer OJ came and she spoke with Kathy Allen. And this was like two feet in front of us.
And OJ said to Kathy Allen, I'm going to need you to testify like we talked about, which is interesting.And so what it was about was McClellan said, apparently in one of the interviews with police, Richard Allen gave his Google account.
Is it Foo Jack Zero?Is that what it is?
Something like that, Foo Jack.
He gave that name and McClelland has gotten Google to authenticate that and McClelland wants to enter into the record Richard Allen's Google search history.
Yeah, what is that?I wonder what's in there.
We don't know what's in there.
If he wants to enter it in, nothing good.
If McClellan wants to enter it, we can presume that it's for a reason, namely that it would help his case against Richard Allen.
And we can say that the defense very much does not want to have it in, which also seems to indicate whatever is in this man's search history does not make Richard Allen look good.
Can I just say, like, He's from Delphi.He's living in Delphi if he's just looking up facts on the case I feel like that makes him no different than many people in the town who were not involved in the murders.So I
If it's just that, then that doesn't seem like a big deal.If it's something worse than that, then yeah.
I would assume if he was just looking up facts about the case, who cares?
Yeah.I almost imagine it would have to be worse than that because that just doesn't seem like even like, you know, because again, like people are interested in this also.It's his town.So it's like, you'd want to know more about it.So I don't know.
So then Jennifer OJ says, she cites a case, Watson versus State, and she claims that that case says that in order to enter in this search history, the State needs to show that only Richard Allen and no one else but Richard Allen had access to the account.
And McClellan said, well, I think that's not what it says.I think it's just saying that it would be reasonable for the state to assume only one person would have access to it.
And OJ then said, well, Kathy Allen will testify about access to the account.So I guess presumably Kathy Allen might suggest that if there's incriminating searches they were made by her or
Or I guess at least if all they need to do is show that two people had access to it, she could just say, I also had access to it.
We both have a Facebook account that we share for work.
You and I do.So that would be a situation where if, you know, something were to happen, we could say, well, Anya and Kevin have it, but there's also- But if there's something problematic about it, it would probably be you.
That's where I plan all my serial related heists.There's also been situations where I've had to access your email or you've had to access my email for different things that we were doing. but that wouldn't mean that you always have my email.
And I think if you wanted to log into my email now, you'd probably have to be like, wait, what's your new password?
And there'd have to be some kind of specific thing going on there and you wouldn't have ready access, nor would I have to you, even if we could do some password guessing.So it's, yeah, it's interesting.I wonder what she'll say.
I wonder if she'll go as far as saying, I did whatever was done on that account or just, hey, I had access.
It'd be very interesting if she takes the stand, the cross-examination would probably be quite interesting.
Yeah, I'd be curious about how far she goes.
Yeah. Okay, so that was how things ended, and I'm going to repeat what we said at the top of the show.This next witness happens to be Patrick Cicero.
Major Patrick Cicero of the La Porte County Sheriff's Office.
And he testified in some detail about the circumstances of the deaths of these two girls. and maybe you listened to us discuss the testimony he gave at the three-day hearing over the summer, and if so, you know what you'd be in for.
So what we're about to discuss is we're going to be as delicate as we can and not linger too long on some gruesome details, but it's an unpleasant subject matter.And if you think that might bother you, drop out.
Yeah, there's no shame in it.It's awful.I wasn't expecting this today, I don't know why.One of our friends who we saw at the courthouse, Thomas Frost, I remember told, he was like, I think I saw Pat Cicero in the elevator, and I was like, oh God.
And I'd say a lot of people in court, there was a break in the middle of his testimony.A lot of people left because it was too much for them.
It was awful, it was awful.I don't blame him for leaving.I don't know, for some reason it hit me harder.It hit me pretty hard today.
It's just, I mean, and like, God, I just, I don't know how these families that are, I mean, I don't know how they're like, I mean, I just, they're very, very strong people.
This is, to see these images, I feel like there's stuff I'm seeing that I'm never going to get out of my head no matter how much I want to forget.And, and this, these were their babies, you know, like this, like,
It's never, you know, I just I feel so bad for them and I feel so bad for these girls and learning more about how they died.It's just always very upsetting.
So Pat Cicero, expert on blood spatter.They ran through his, frankly, very impressive resume. He's a sheriff major with the LaPorte County Sheriff's Department.He works with the body farm people down in Tennessee.Very qualified man.
He said the point of someone like him is to examine bloodstains and try to provide the best explanation for the events that produce the bloodstains.
Blood is a fluid, therefore it can react in some specific and predictable ways and can be recreated.So if you keep that in mind, you can sort of map out what happened at a crime scene.
Yes, it will involve some conjecture, but it can be sort of an informed opinion ultimately because you are looking at what makes sense based on what the blood is doing.
He was first contacted to work on this case on February 12th of 2024.After that, he reviewed crime scene photographs, reports, diagrams, lab reports, autopsy photos, autopsy report. On April 4th, 2024, he went to the crime scene.
On April 5th, 2024, he examined the clothing worn by Abigail Williams, or as he called her, Miss Williams.He really took care to try to refer to Abby and Libby with as much respect as possible.
And that like that, that like that alone makes me cry because it's like that's what they deserved.And that's not what they got.You know, like it's like,
And one thing, oddly, all sorts of awful details, but I think what got to me the most was this man, Major Cicero, this is his career, he's seen all sorts of awful things, and you have to imagine that to some extent, as much as possible, he's gotten used to it, but there were moments in his testimony today it felt like he was choking up a bit.
And that got me, the fact that this obviously very tough, serious professional, that this case emotionally got to him.That certainly got to me.
Yeah, he talked about just the topography and visiting the scene.
One thing that I don't feel has been like fully spelled out yet is that the girls were killed and where they were is almost like he described as like almost a little bowl, a little depression.
So it's a little bit lower and there's parts within it like a bowl that are higher up than others.So keep that in mind.It's like a little sallow indentation in the ground. Not like a hole, but that's kind of the visual that we're getting.
They put a diagram of the crime scene on their big screen television for the jurors in the gallery to see.
And this initial diagram was an illustration, a line illustration of the bodies of the two girls, I believe a couple of trees, some large bloodstains, and of course the sticks on top of the bodies.And one thing, this diagram was on the screen a lot.
And sometimes in between other images they would return to it. And most of the time when it was on the screen, Richard Allen would just stare at it transfixed.
I felt like before we got into the crime scene pictures during the DNA discussion, he seemed like he had mostly a normal affect from what I saw.
Now, I was at an angle where I don't think I saw him as much as other times, but I felt like it's kind of like, okay, he's not really, he didn't really seem to be staring at people.
And it was like, okay, this, you know, again, like we don't read into that.We're just trying to describe to you what we're seeing.I mean, people who are nervous or neurodivergent or,
There can be any number of reasons someone's doing something like staring at people.It doesn't make someone guilty.It is something to note.
And it is something that, you know, defense teams don't necessarily want their client doing in front of a jury because it might creep people out.But it doesn't mean anything factually.It's not evidence against somebody.
Just like being really calm and smiling and acting normal doesn't make you not guilty.But I felt he had been kind of having a good day in that sense. at least from what I saw, which was limited.
And then, yeah, I think he seemed less stressed out this time with the crime scene photos.Even with some of the really graphic, horrible ones, I saw him just kind of with his head slightly tilted, just staring right at the screen.
Yeah, and a couple of times I saw Andrew Baldwin had his arm on the back of Richard Allen's chair.
It was the sort of gesture that you often might see a couple, a guy and a couple, you know, when we sit in chairs next to each other, sometimes I put my arm around the back of the chair.
Yeah, he, he, at one point I saw, I saw Alan like alone and then I looked back and like Baldwin was like leaned over, like really like very much, um, leaned over kind of to comfort him or something.That's almost how it appeared.
I don't know, but like that was something I noticed too, just kind of like, it almost looked like a gesture of comfort.I don't know how it was really intended, but that, that persisted for some time.
So they started showing pictures of the body Talk about how there was a larger tree and a smaller tree I believe is the smaller tree that has some blood on it about four feet up from the base and Liberty Germans body was a few feet away from it and it was near a large tree and
He talked about the blood stain.
It was, I believe, 1.37 inches by 5.9 inches, so not huge, and he referred to it as a transfer stain, and he says it's in the shape of an upside-down L. This is the image that some people say looks like an F, and in his testimony over the summer, he indicated his belief that it was, in fact, a transfer stain from Libby's hand and perhaps some of her arms.
where she's been injured and is trying to steady herself, essentially, before she falls down and dies.
And you talked about how the crime scene investigators put a chemical on the tree that stains blood in order to bring out the contrast, because it can be difficult to see blood stains on a dark tree, and so this made the blood more visible.
I mean, I'm not a blood scene expert, but to me when they showed some of these pictures, it really did not look painted on to me.I don't know what your impression was.
I would agree with that.We showed some pictures of some blood stains under Libby's right leg. There was a photo shown looking towards the girls and there was a large pool of blood in the foreground that was just disturbingly clear.
Yeah, that was really the most vivid I've seen it because it can be hard to see with all the leaves.
There's layers and layers of leaves on the ground and it just, you know, it's not like a floor indoors where you can see a pool of blood, but in that picture I really saw it.
Yeah, I really, really saw it.There was a closeup of the bottom of one of Libby's feet, and that picture was shown because it had blood, transfer blood stains on it, which he said indicated that she walked on her blood before she passed away.
And there was all sorts of close-up pictures looking down on Libby.And he was showing, you know, blood stains on her and blood flow patterns.
Because if you want to try to figure out a position someone was in when they received one of these injuries, you look at these blood flows and how they either stay the same or change.
I think he indicated at one point it looked like she may have been sitting when she received one of her wounds.
Yeah, sitting, um, and that she was, she was at least mobile for some of the attack based on the blood flow and, and the kind of the way it all looked to him and her hands, the, he described, I, I, I'll never like it, the blood on her hands had congealed and dried, um, so that they almost resembled scabs on her cuticles.
There was a close-up of Libby after the branches had been removed and the wounds on her neck were unspeakably horrible. And he pointed to, he said he could see where Libby had, he saw a tear on Libby's face.
Yeah, there was some kind of, with her face, some kind of, I guess, like break in the blood. Asked him what would cause that and he said absent a raindrop it would be consistent with a tear and I'm not gonna lie.
I just like I thought like Like after seeing some of the stuff we saw in this trial so far I didn't think like I had anything like else to be You know what I mean?Like I thought I'd kind of cried it out and I, I just lost it at that point.
It's just so horrible.Like the idea that somebody would do this to these kids and like what they went through is just the worst thing I can think.
It's, it's, it's horrifying.It's horrifying.
It's really, um, it's awful.I feel, and like their families have to be adhered, hear this and it's, it's a circus and all this ridiculous speculation online and it's just, It's a nightmare.This whole thing's a nightmare.
There were smears of blood on her hands and wrists.And he said this is very, very, very common in situations like this because if someone is wounded in such a way that produces this flowing amounts of blood, their instinct is to try to stop it.
And so they're like desperately putting their hands or their wrists or whatever up to their neck in order to stop the flow of blood.
I thought the worst picture for me was a picture of Libby's face and it was covered in blood on her cheeks, her chin, her nose and that was to show that there was likely movement after her death or after she fell unconscious because
It almost looked like a nosebleed or something.Not really, but it was like, is there blood coming from her nose?And the answer was no, there was no injury to her nose.
It was just her head probably tilted back when she was being moved, and then that made blood flow from the injury to her face. So it's like trying to clarify everything for the jury.
I couldn't really see their reactions because of where we were sitting.But I mean, this is a jury that's had to look at some really horrible stuff.So my heart goes out to them too.
Then he started talking about Abby.He said there was small pool of blood to the right of her, injury to the left side of neck.Her sweatshirt was saturated with blood.Her hands were up, bent at the elbows close to the body.
He said it was almost like a pugilistic pose, like a boxer or something. And he pointed out that this was something he considered unusual, that there was no blood on Abby's hands, also none on her sleeves or her arms.
And we just saw with Libby, she was trying to staunch the flow of blood, so it was all over her hands and arms.So it's a bit of a mystery as to why that didn't happen with Abby.
He actually said he'd never seen that before, right?
And he said, he speculated on reasons it could have happened.
Yeah, he said, well, maybe she was unconscious.Maybe she was restrained or bound in some way, although there was no indication that she was bound.
There would have been ligature marks if she was bound.
So, I mean, you know, but restrained if she's being held.And I think back through the marks around her mouth, there's someone like pushing her down.
And she's like in the pugilistic pose because she's almost trying to grapple with them, but then loses consciousness and then it's over.But it seems like she might have taken a long time to succumb to that.
Again, he offered his explanation for the blood on the tree.
He said when Libby was wounded the blood flow would be immediate It's normal for victims to instinctively put their hands to the wound and attempt to stop the bleeding This accounts for the blood on her hands and wrists and she must have like leaned against the tree with her hand or something
Oh, and Abby, as we mentioned, Abby had none of that on her hands or arms.But after she was moved up the hill, she did.But that was probably because the blood dripped down because her body had to be moved up a very steep hill.
So it was flowing downward, but that wasn't there at the scene.
He believes that Libby was dragged a short distance to the location where her body was found, and apparently in the position where she was found, she would actually be less visible to people in the creek than where she passed away.
And her one of her arms was kind of up at an unnatural angle So he believes that the killer basically dragged her by the arm a short distance a short distance I think just a few feet just a few feet and then with Abby he talked about He thought the body might have been manipulated after death but not really moved from what like she he thought that she was basically
Injured and killed right where she lay what he indicated though was that there was some manipulation because of the blood flow So it almost looked like someone even kind of tilted her over maybe to check if she was still alive Something to that effect but not some sort of major movement and certainly not moved like Libby was I
And he did come back a couple of times to the idea that it was incredibly unusual that there was no blood on her hands because he said, uh, Abby's death would not have been immediate.It would have taken some time.
So, um, he talked about predation.
Um, basically lunch roll was asking him, is it really weird that there wouldn't be any, Entomology activity with bugs or any sort of animal activity.
This is something the defense has made an issue of the men issue of it So he said You know, basically you'd see with the blowfly they'd come in and He said he was not surprised at all to not see blowfly activity after 22 hours in the woods in Indiana in Winter in February basically not surprised that they didn't see that
It's just that time, basically what he said is that they don't really come out at night, and a lot of the time they would have been there overnight, and then they don't really come out until it's above 50 degrees, I think he said.
And it was February, it was cold.And in addition to that, animals specifically in Indiana, there would be concerns about rats, possums, turkey vultures, and coyotes.
and he said the cool temperature and the cold could also dampen odor so with the fact that they were right near a body of water and in a little valley and it it was not surprising that after that amount of time there was no predation just that's not what you'd necessarily expect.
He dealt with the issue, was Abby dressed after she died?
And he said that he believed she was dressed when she died, because there was so much saturation of blood on the inside of the sweatshirt, and if she was dressed after death, there was so much blood, it would have been
smeared and wiped all over her body.And there was a picture of her torso and it was completely clear of blood.
And that was interesting because at one point earlier, Ogier had said something about bodies being dressed and Latroll objected and said there's nothing in evidence to indicate that. Either one was, you know, like anyone was dressed after death.
So the state clearly strongly believes that Abby was wearing those exact clothes when she died.
And that's supported by seemingly blood evidence being, you know, having those sweatshirt being completely saturated and the lack of there would be just more of a mess if if somebody had killed her and then dressed her because the blood would have gotten everywhere.
And really with Abby, it was kind of in the ground beneath her.It was around her neck, a little bit on her face, but it was not anywhere near anything like what with Libby.
Cicero was also asked about the core body temperature because the thinking is you take the core body temperature of a corpse and it could help you determine when death occurred and he said the most accurate way to take the core body temperature is rectally
but this could create injury and it could also affect any DNA if there had been a sexual assault.
And when the bodies were found, there was the thought or the concern, if you will, that there may have been a sexual assault, so that's why they didn't do that particular temperature.He was asked, could one person have committed this crime?
Yeah. And then OJ immediately started on at least one, but maybe more.
And then also she started saying, well, they didn't ask you to do this until 2024.
I thought this was kind of a stupid argument.I mean, like, I get what she's saying.Like, I think it's just like, oh, wow, they're so slapdash.They only ever thought to bring you in now.
But they had crime scene investigators who were saying very similar things.They wanted a guy who just brought more expertise to it and could also talk specifically about the blood.
I mean, I don't feel like we're hearing, having heard some of the forensics guys, it doesn't sound that different.It's just, he's bringing all these disciplines together in a way that's easy for the jury to understand.So it just, I don't know.
It seems kind of like not super relevant.
She also brought up that Libby weighed 200 pounds.I think the implication was that maybe that's too big of a weight for Richard Allen to drag.
Forget Richard Allen for a minute, but like for a man dragging a body that he's not concerned about injuring at all because it's a dead body as somebody he killed a few feet doesn't doesn't really seem like Impossible to me.What do you think?
Also, there was a big discussion with Ogier about, like, drag marks, where are the drag marks?
And what Cicero pointed out was that blood is adhesive, it's sticky, and when there was photographs shown of Libby's back, and it was covered in blood, leaves, mud,
and basically like there's no drag marks because or limited drag marks limited visibility drag marks because there's all these layers of leaves and the leaves are getting stuck to her and kind of sliding along with her but it's not like she's just on the ground where like there'd be dirt and like you know drag marks on that it's it's just the scene is a bit different
But she was, you know, where are the drag marks on the, you know, what was it, diagram and complaining about that.
So, you know, they're just pointing out, like, what the defense thinks is that she wasn't dragged was that she was deposited by a group of men or at least two men, I guess.
Who, I guess, picked her up and moved her.
Who picked her up and moved her.But then I don't know.I mean, there was
She also tried to suggest that maybe the lack of blood on Abigail's hands could be explained by multiple people holding her down or perhaps someone washing her hands post-mortem.
I think the holding her down thing is more compelling for me than the washing, because that just seemed kind of dumb.
She tried to get him to say that if you take a picture of a cartridge at a crime scene, you really should try to get a picture of the entire cartridge.And Cicero maintained you should get a picture of the entire cartridge at the lab.
At the crime scene, you don't want to do anything that might damage fingerprints or other types of evidence.So the important thing is that the crime scene simply to document where it was when it was discovered.
And this was one thing that OJ liked that had been set up in the prosecution's initial direct was the possibility that the girls could have been killed in different times.
Now, when when Luttrell was kind of talking about it, he was it was more of like it almost sounded and tell me if you think the same thing, Kevin, like that maybe Libby was slashed once.
or twice, and then Abby, and then he went back to Libby to kind of kill her, like finish it.Like there might've been some different order to it, right?
But then it seemed like what OJ was kind of hinting at was like totally different times, or like kind of like she made a big deal of that too, I don't know.
She said, did you find anything that links Richard Allen to the crime scene?He said no. On redirect, they brought up again that Libby's left arm was in the position it was because she was dragged by it.
Was that basically it for the key points in the redirect?
Augé and Henri Cross said, you shared your hypothesis about the blood on the tree.That's just a supposition.You have no idea for sure how that blood got on that tree.
I could say that about any witness.I mean, no one was watching this happen or we wouldn't be here right now.
But yeah, he is an expert in his.
He was a very good witness.He's always compelling and heartbreaking.And, you know, we'll have to see.
I'm sure the defense will have their own blood splatter expert who might be able to kind of say something, you know, more more in line with what they think happened.And so we'll have to see what happens there. But yeah, it was a difficult day.
It was very sad and just, you know, just depressing.
But we'll tell you about tomorrow then.Next time.
Thank you so much for listening.
Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet.If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com.
If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.
If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet.If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet.
We very much appreciate any support.
Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at KevinTG.com.
If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook.We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.
We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.Thanks again for listening. Thanks so much for sticking around to the end of this Murder Sheet episode.
Just as a quick post-roll ad, we wanted to tell you again about our friend Jason Blair's wonderful Silver Linings Handbook.This show is phenomenal.
Whether you are interested in true crime, the criminal justice system, law, mental health, stories of marginalized people, overcoming tragedy, well-being, like, he does it all.This is a show for you.
He has so many different conversations with interesting people, people whose loved ones have gone missing, other podcasters in the true crime space, just interesting people with interesting life experiences.And
Jason's gift, I think, is just being an incredibly empathetic and compassionate interviewer, where he's really letting his guests tell their stories and asking really interesting questions along the way, guiding those conversations forward.
I would liken it to like you're kind of almost sitting down with friends and sort of just hearing these fascinating tales that you wouldn't get otherwise, because he just has that ability as an interviewer to tease it out and really make it interesting for his audience.
On a personal level, Jason is frankly a great guy.He's been a really good friend to us.And so it's fun to be able to hit a button on my phone and get a little dose of Jason talking to people whenever I want.It's a really terrific show.
We really recommend it highly.
Yeah, I think our audience will like it.And you've already met Jason if you listen consistently to our show.He's been on our show a couple times.We've been on his show.He's a terrific guest.
I say this in one of our ads about him, but I literally always am like, oh yeah, I remember when Jason said this.That really resonated.I do quote him in conversations sometimes because he really has a good grasp of different
She quotes him to me all the time.
I do.I'm like, remember when Jason said this?That was so right.So, I mean, I think if we're doing that, I think, and you like us, I think you should give it a shot.Give it a try.I think you'll really enjoy it.
And again, he does a range of different topics, but they all kind of have this similar theme of compassion, of overcoming suffering, of dealing with suffering, of mental health, wellness, things like that.
There's kind of a common through line of compassion and empathy there that I think we find very nice.And we work on a lot of stories that can be very tough and we try to bring compassion and empathy to it.
But this is something that almost can be like if you're kind of feeling a little burned out by true crime, I think this is kind of the life affirming stuff that can be nice to listen to in a podcast.
It's compassionate, it's affirming, but I also want to emphasize it's smart.Jason is a very intelligent, articulate person.This is a smart show, but it's an accessible show.I think you'll all really enjoy it.
Yeah, and he's got a great community that he's building.So we're really excited to be a part of that.We're fans of the show.We love it.And we would strongly encourage you all to check it out.Download some episodes, listen.
I think you'll understand what we're talking about once you do.But anyways, you can listen to The Silver Linings Handbook wherever you listen to podcasts.
Wherever you listen to podcasts.Very easy to find.
Sign in
