July 31, 2024 • 40 mins
Special Judge Frances Gull is hearing arguments on several motions in the Delphi Murders trial of Richard Allen. The judge will consider six topics: Richard Allen's safekeeping, psychologist statements, suppression of some of Richard Allen's previous statements, discovery issues that continue to plague the case, a defense request to dismiss the case, and what both sides can say in front of jurors without specific permission from the judge.
The defense seeks four sanctions. They want the court to inform jurors that the prosecution violated rules by delaying the turnover of exculpatory evidence. They also want the judge to allow the defense to play any video that was "belatedly produced" without state objection. Additionally, the defense aims to prevent the state from rebutting evidence provided by former Rushville police chief Todd Click on May 1, 2023, and they want to bar the prosecution from using any data or information from Liberty German's phone in evidentiary presentations.
The state wants to limit what the defense can mention in front of jurors without prior approval from the judge. Prosecutors have several pages of items they seek to restrict, including personal attacks on the prosecutor and any attempt to introduce evidence of third-party motive that is not relevant or would unfairly prejudice jurors.
This includes mentions of Odinism, ritualistic killings, names of others the defense might claim are connected to the killings, geofencing, references to how discovery was handled, and any mention of an investigation conducted by former Rushville Police Chief Todd Click.
JOINING NANCY GRACE TODAY:
- Rich Shoenstein - Trial Attorney, Partner with Tarter Krinsky & Drogin; X:@LawfulRiches
- Caryn L. Stark – Psychologist, Renowned TV and Radio Trauma Expert and Consultant; Instagram: carynpsych/FB: Caryn Stark Private Practice
- Chris McDonough – Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel: “The Interview Room”
- Joseph Scott Morgan – Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, and Author: "Blood Beneath My Feet,” and Host: “Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan;” Twitter/X: @JoScottForensic
- Susan Hendricks - Journalist, Author of “Down the Hill: My Descent into the Double Murder in Delphi;" IG @susan_hendricks, X @SusanHendicks
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The Delphi murders, Little Abby
and Liberty both murdered, the eerie ritual sacrifice murder claims.
What is that a ritual sacrifice murder? Is that the
(00:21):
defense and a mighty clash in court over the suspects confessions.
Good evening, I'm Nancy Grace, this is Crime Stories. Thank
you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Abigail Williams and Liberty Germans set out to walk along
the popular Delphi historic trail, but the two miss They're
appointed pitcup time.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
What happened to Abby and Libby?
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Right now? Hearings are going on in that courtroom. And
joining us at the courthouse my longtime friend and Collie
Susan Hendrix, journalist, author of Down the Hill, my to
sent into the double murder in Delphi. You may know
her from my old TV home hl M. Well here
she is now with us with the latest. Susan, welcome,
(01:11):
what's happening. I'm hearing that there is a mighty clash
of the titans in the courtroom over alleged confessions statements
that the suspect made, and also the state is trying
to quash the defense that odonists, which are kind of
like they worship Thor and the Valkyrie. They're actually claiming
(01:38):
that they did it. I think it's a horrible move
by the state. In fact, if I were prosecuting this,
I would be mad if the defense didn't claim odinists
did the deed.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Really some heated moments, as you mentioned in the courtroom.
What will be admissible, what will the judge rule on this?
What will be left out? But huge I'll start with
the confessions, the alleged confessions that Richard Allen made to
his wife Kathy and his mother, who by the way,
our front row there in the hearings, and he mouthed
(02:09):
the prisoner Richard Allen, the suspect, I love you when
leaving the courtroom. So back to the oness theory. There's
been several Frank motions and the judges yet to rule
on that, but that is where they're going. We're getting
a taste of the defense theory during these hearings. Will
it be admissible? And you bring up such a good point,
(02:30):
why not let it in? Because the one name they
do want in, which is one of the Frank's motions,
Brad Holder of the prosecution saying, look, he has an alibi.
We don't want to allow this, but that does make sense.
Let them have their theory. If he has an alibi.
The jurors are going to see that. But several key
decisions have to be made after this week, and I
(02:50):
think it will give us an indication of what we'll
hear during the trial in October.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
On my first talk, we'll get to the oldest claim
that worse hers Thor and the Valkyrie, they committed the
double murders. I'm going to get to that in a moment,
But first, something that I understand a little bit better
the legal concept of confessions and confessions. Guys joining me
(03:17):
in addition to Susan hendrickson an All Star panel is
Rich Schoenstein. He's a renowned trial attorney partner with Tartar,
Krinsky and Drogan. Rich. Thank you for being with us.
He knows his way around a courtroom. Confessions, in my mind,
come in all manner of modes. It doesn't have to
be a videotaped confession where you get your Miranda rights
(03:39):
first and you're sitting there with your lawyer or like
you see on TV. It's not like that. Very often,
a defendant such as this guy Richard Allen, the local
pharmacy tech, says to his wife on the phone from
(04:00):
the jail basically, yeah, I did it. Okay, that's the confession.
Rich Schoenstein, that's right, That's absolutely right.
Speaker 5 (04:07):
You know, jurors have common sense, they apply their life experience.
They understand a husband talking to his wife. So those
words are to a jury perhaps more meaningful than something
he would say under police interrogation. That's him telling the
truth to his own wife. And you can certainly see
why the defense wants to keep out any version of
(04:29):
a statement like that.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Okay, quick question, and remember this is ping pong, not
just I know you're used to standing up and making
all sorts of legal, comic complicated legal arguments. But what
about the claim? And I certainly don't want to give
the defense any ideas that this was a marital communication
protected by husband wife privilege, even though it was over
(04:53):
a jail house phone.
Speaker 5 (04:55):
I think there might be some credit. I think there
might be some credit to that it is a communication,
It is a private communication between husband and wife. So
I'd have to look at local law on the marital privilege,
which I don't know in that state to really understand
if they have a shot at that. But he is
talking to his wife.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
Rich I've got a way to defeat it. Okay, he
got a way to defeat it. Here. It is if
you utter a confidential communication, such as you tell your lawyer,
I did it. I'm up as creek without a battle,
that's protected under attorney client privilege. But what if you
say it at a cocktail party and everybody's standing around
(05:36):
again to hear everything you say, You yourself by saying
it around other people have waived your attorney client privilege
and you cannot claim that at trial. Same thing here,
This is how I would defeat husband wife. He said
it on a jail house phone and everybody knows, and
there's a sign up there says these are being recorded,
(05:56):
so he willingly gave up that confidentiality. That's how I
would attack it.
Speaker 6 (06:02):
I like the argument.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
You're absolutely right about a cocktail party. If you say
something to your lawyer in front of other people, there
is no privilege. You've waived it because you've shared it
with people you don't have a privilege with. So I
think that's a pretty good argument. That the phone was
recorded and he knew that, and he didn't have any
expectation of privacy or expectation of a private spousal conversation.
Speaker 6 (06:26):
It's a good argument.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Okay, we're learning a lot about the emotions being filed. Guys.
This is so critical because based on the outcome of
these hearings, what evidence will or not or will not
be presented in front of the jury is going to
be determined. Back to Susan Hendricks is joining us. Susan
(06:48):
is joining us from the courthouse steps. She's been in
the hearings. Explain to me the content of the alleged confessions.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Yes, with doctor Monica Wallery her name, who treated Richard
Allen in prison and she is key for the prosecution.
Will the judge allow her to testify during the trial?
Speaker 7 (07:09):
And what specifically did she hear?
Speaker 4 (07:11):
We are hearing that doctor doctor Monica Walla heard incriminating
statements from Richard Allen himself and maybe even confessions. So
as we spoke of confessions to the wife in the
jail house phone call, the mother in the jail house
phone call, now the doctor in the prison, will that
be admissible.
Speaker 7 (07:30):
We'll see what the judge rules on this.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
I go out to Chris mcdona. He's the director of the
Cole Case Foundation, former homicide detective with oh, there's the video.
There's the video that the girls took just before their
deaths of the perp walking toward them on that trestle bridge.
Chris mcdonnaugh worked over three hundred homicide cases in his
(07:55):
twenty five year career. He's a host of YouTube channel.
In the interview room, is McDonough how insane does it
make you when you hear about legal classes in the
courtroom where evidence could very well be suppressed. The jury
may never hear about these multiple alleged confessions.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
Yeah, I mean that's from an investigative aspect, is very frustrating,
as you know more than anybody, Nancy. I mean, you've done.
Speaker 8 (08:25):
This so long and you know the fact that this guy,
you know, we used to say confess here. This line
is recorded, right and when an inmate does that, and
then of course you have it with a jailer.
Speaker 6 (08:41):
Potentially hearing it.
Speaker 9 (08:42):
And then add on top of that you have family
members who may have heard it. We can understand some
of that, but you would hope that the system would
work towards you know, the victims heare and relationship to
allowing that evidence in.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Somewhere you know. Jessica Morgan is joining me Forensics Jacksonville
State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon
and star of a hit series body Bags. Podcast with
Joe Scott Morgan. Joe Scott, you have very carefully studied
(09:18):
the facts surrounding the actual murders wait for it. And
now the defendant, Richard Alan Richard Matthew Allen, is claiming
that his alleged confessions should be thrown out because he
was under quote mental distress when he confessed to killing
(09:44):
Abby and Liberty aka Libby. Let's talk about what happened
to Abby and Libby?
Speaker 10 (09:53):
Yeah, you know, kind of dovetailing with what Chris had
said there. Nancy. I'm fascinated by this aspect of the
of this confession depended upon you know, how you know,
down how granular he got with this, with this statement
that he made. It's one thing for somebody to say
I killed them, okay, but I wonder how much detail
(10:17):
is included in this, in this alleged confession that he
made to his wife, because that's that's a damning, a
damning bit of information. If he gets into the kind
of granular detail that we're talking about relative to this
very complex scene outdoors out there adjacent to this trestle.
(10:38):
How much information did he reveal about that? And is
it going to be reflected in what we're what the
jury will eventually see in these images, and they're going
to be absolutely ghastly because we're talking about these two
precious souls who were taken by sharp force injury, and
that has been plainly stated. We're talking about a knife
(10:59):
that was involved than this, and I think to a
great degree, perhaps this is going to be overkilled. There's
going to be mutilation that's involved with that, if I
dare use that word.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Joe Scott. You can't just throw drop a bomb and
then just walk away like nothing happened. That doesn't work
on crime stories. You just say mutilation. You think what
I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that. I heard it.
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 10 (11:23):
I'll say it plainly. We're talking about perhaps to the
point of a partial decapitation here, Nancy. And you know
when you look at that in light of a crime scene,
you think about, well, what was necessary, I hate to
put it this way, what was necessary to take somebody's life. Well,
(11:43):
you know, it's not just it's not just sufficient to
merely stab one of these angels. Okay, that's that's not sufficient.
To this point, this rises to another level. We're talking
about what was done with the bodies afterwards and how
they were treated in this environment. And this is going
(12:03):
to be damning, absolutely damning, because the people in the
jury are going to see things there that they can't
even begin to imagine in their worst possible nightmares.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
Who murdered Abigail and Liberty. A suspect is called on
video with his menacing instructions down the hill.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
The outcome of these hearings that are happening right now
in a court of law will determine what evidence the
Delphi jury will hear and what evidence will be kept
away from them as if it never happened. Joining me
at the courthouse, well known journalists and investigative reporter Susan
(12:59):
Hendrix explain to me what's being heard, what was heard yesterday,
and what's going to be heard.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
And we just heard Nancy Richard Allen say, guys, down
the hill. As you know, Libby was brave enough to
hit record on her phone and her grandfather Mike has
mentioned to me several times. Look, I think if she
made it home, she would have said, Grandpa, look at
this creepy guy on the bridge. Look what I've recorded.
The defense does not want what's on Libby's phone to
(13:26):
be admissible in court. The reasoning they state is that
it was handed over too late in terms of discovery.
It'll be interesting to see if it's allowed in because
to me, this is what is going to convict Richard
Allen if he is guilty.
Speaker 7 (13:42):
That video that she was able to get.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
And I'm sitting with the family members Nancy of day
one of the hearing. It's the first time I ever
saw Richard Allen walk in in person, and it was
very eerie to see him sit down. He turns around,
looks at me Becky, Libby's grandmother, and Libby's grandmother's daughter Tara,
right in the eyes and just glares at us and
(14:05):
continue to do that throughout the hearing. And I was
trying to get a read on him as I'm looking
at him sitting there. And part of the evidence that Baldwin,
the defense attorney, hands it over to the.
Speaker 7 (14:17):
Judge, had the crime scene photo on half of it.
It's a split screen.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
He's waving it around. I'm sitting here the family. I
could get a glimpse of the crime scene photos from
the attorney, and I heard Tara say to Becky, close
your eyes.
Speaker 7 (14:28):
It's that excruciating.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
But this is a necessary step before the trial, and
I know that these families have been waiting a long time.
Speaker 7 (14:37):
To be here.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
But very creepy throughout the hearing, Richard Allen turning around
staring me directly in the eyes.
Speaker 7 (14:42):
It doesn't move his gaze. It was something I've never
seen before.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
How dare he turn around and look at you and
the victim's families and just glare at you. And he's
probably glaring at you because you're sitting with the I mean,
you know what, Chris mcdona, how many times in court
you're a veteran homicide investigator have you been in court
(15:08):
to testify you got to murder, much less double murder
of teen girls allegedly sitting there, They usually won't even
meet your eye. But to turn around and glare at
you in open court, that's a whole other level right there. Yeah.
Speaker 6 (15:26):
Absolutely, And the fact that he allegedly is a child killer,
that in of its shelf. The It just gives you
a little insight into potentially, you know, what the victims
were seeing themselves that day at his hands, and the
fact that the weapons there are two weapons here potentially
(15:47):
you know they remember they found this round underneath one
of the victims as well as a knife. You know
what Doc Morgan was talking about earlier, the viciousness and
the brutality of that personalization by using that type of weapon.
Now you add that to children. I can understand why
the defense does not want him in the Department of
(16:09):
Corrections corrections right now. They'd rather have him in a
better spot, i e. In the jail.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Well, yes, yes, Chris McDonough because obviously he can't control himself. Okay,
let me throw this out there. Who would be the
best you know what? Let me go to you, Joe Scott,
and then I'll follow it up with Karen Stark. Joe Scott,
you have been in court with a lot of killers,
right because you're a death investigator. Have you ever been
on the elevator. Let's just pretend in the courthouse somebody's
(16:37):
standing right next to you, and does anybody turn around
and look you right in the eyes on the elevator. No,
they don't. Has that ever happened to you? And if so,
how did it make you feel?
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Well?
Speaker 10 (16:51):
It's certainly even someone like me that's seeing the thing
or two, you know, it creeps me out certainly. Uh.
And the idea that that the stone cold gaze, that
he would sit there and stare, stare at the family
in particular and Susan as well, but sit there U.
And this goes to another piece, Nancy, the idea. You know,
(17:14):
Chris had mentioned this round that was found at the scene.
He has, in my estimation at least, uh, this thread
that runs through him of what I refer to as menacing.
That weapon. The firearm was used I believe as an
instrument of menacing with these children. It's the idea of
taking that firearm and moving that slide back to racket
(17:40):
like this, And everybody that's ever watched the television show
is familiar with that.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
These children that would have.
Speaker 10 (17:47):
Been there would have been menaced by that. And I
think that this is a further continuation of him glaring,
leaning in, glaring and holding a gaze. It seems to
be a pattern to me. I don't know, I mean,
that's kind of Karen's area. But for me as an investigator,
that's putting two and two together.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
You know what you're saying about racking the shotgun. I
don't know if you remember Rifleman. It's an old black
and white show.
Speaker 7 (18:11):
I was just a.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Little little girl, and I remember my brother, my older brother,
would have it on Rifleman and at some point he'd ratchet,
and I didn't even know what that meant. But it's
like hearing a rattlesnake or a gun shot. You never
forget it. When you hear it, you instinctively know something
(18:35):
is very wrong.
Speaker 10 (18:36):
Yeah, it has a very distinct pitch to it and
the sound the mechanism itself when that slide goes back
on that weapon, and we do know that, I believe,
if I'm correct, it was a six hour that he had.
When that thing is racked back, it has a very
definitive sound to it, that round is ejected, and of
course he forgets about it apparently at that point time
(18:58):
and leaves this behind. Yeah, well there you.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Go, technical legal term idiot. Hold on, Rich Schoenstein. You're
a veteran trial lawyer. Aren't you supposed to school your
clients about how to behave in the courtroom. I mean
I always see defendants, murder defendants, drug lords, rapist, child
molesters come in court looking like they're a Wall Street banker.
(19:22):
I'm like, who is that? Do you remember? Let's think
Scott Peterson. I would watch him walk into court every
morning like the football quarterback. He'd be all puffed up
in an awesome suit, looking great. I didn't think he
looked great or handsome, but other people did. Who else,
Ted Bundy, Menendez brothers. I'm hearing it in my ear. Yeah,
(19:45):
the Menandez brothers come into courtroom looking like their freshman
at Harvard, and they have their defense attorney picking lint
off them and petting them in court. You know what,
stop and Ted Bundy looks charming in the courtroom. It's freaky,
but their lawyers had them schooled. This idiot turns around
(20:09):
and glares at the victims' grandma and Susan our Susan
Hendricks glares at her in the court of Oh. I
hope he does that to the gurrrs. I just hope
he has not been school showing sane.
Speaker 5 (20:25):
No, not at all. And you're absolutely right. You got
to teach your defend in how to act in court,
because whether he testifies or not, and this guy's not testifying,
so forget about that. He's going to be watched every
second he's in that courtroom. The jury's going to have
their eyes on him. They're going to see how they act.
And the bottom line, Nancy, is if they think he's creepy,
(20:50):
if he acts creepy, he's in big trouble because this
is the creepiest crime imaginable, killing two young girls in
the middle of the woods hoods. And if the jury
sees him and thinks he's a creep it's going to
be so much easier for them to convict him. And
if I was this guy's lawyer, I would be working
with him on that extensively.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Hey, and what about oj Simpson? May he rot Hill?
He would sit there in doodle the whole time. Hey, Karen,
start this is a visceral thing. How you don't stare
at somebody on the elevator. You ever been in a
restaurant and you look over and somebody's just staring at you,
so you don't look back, and then when you do
look back, they're still staring at you. There's something weird
(21:32):
and awkward about that? Did you hear what Schoenstein just said.
He's a veter on trial lawyer, and he's right, how
do you hide your creepy in court? This guy can't
hide his creepy. He's gonna have to look down and
write notes like Simpson wrote, I did it, and you
know whatever he was drawing over there. And also another thing,
Karen start, well, I've got you. It's visceral. Remember we've
(21:57):
been told when you're going to go feed an animal
at the zoo or in various encounters, you don't look
them in the eye because they perceive that as a
sign of aggression. Okay, I'm just speaking frankly and plainly
to you as if I would tell a jury. I'm
sure there's all sorts of gosh, what can I say,
(22:22):
mental and psychological analysis of what I'm saying. But the
fact that this guy turns around and eyeballs in an
alarming way, a menacing way, Susan Hendrix, She's just sitting
there with the grandma for Pete's sake, and looking at
the victims family like that. It's wrong. Okay, help me out.
(22:43):
Give me the psychological term of what I'm trying to
tell you.
Speaker 11 (22:47):
It's nonverbal behavior in Nancy, and we have to watch
that nonverbal behavior because Asseph Scott said, this is menacing.
And unfortunately, if you think about these two little girls
with this man who's daring in the courtroom, he's boldly
staring and yes, you want to have eye contact under
(23:09):
certain circumstances, you're taught not to look away. But this guy,
he has no shame. He's he actually wants to come
across this way, like I dare you to condemn me.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Twenty four hours after Abigail and Liberty go missing, their
bodies are found beneath a train trestle. Chilling phone video
reveals the suspected killer.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Aside from his creepy and menacing, stars right at the
family of Libby and Abby off when I think about then,
they're just two little teen girls. And from what we hear,
there may be evidence that this thirteen and fourteen year
old litle girl were actually mutilated. Mutilated by who, according
(23:59):
to prosecutors, the local pharmacy tech. I mean, how many
times do you think he saw them come in and
out of the pharmacy and then the bullet that was
cycled through the gun. You heard Joe Scott describing racking
the gun. That bullet fell, according to the State, near
(24:20):
the bodies, an idiot aka the defendant, Richard Matthew Allen,
aged fifty one, left it there. Now, just think about it.
For so long, details about the crime scene were kept
under wraps, and I've got to hand it to l
E law enforcement that that didn't come out because they
(24:41):
later pursue it to warrant. I would like to add,
because Schoenstein's listening to me, pursue it to warrant. They
go into Allen's home and they find the gun still
there because he didn't realize he left the bullet back there.
It matches the gun in his home. That ballistics evidence
(25:07):
is so powerful. If what we're being told is the
evidence is actually true, so much happening in the courtroom,
so much, guys listen to this.
Speaker 12 (25:19):
The defense wants four sanctions. They want the court to
tell jurors the prosecution violated rules with a delay in
turning over exculpatory evidence. They want the judge to allow
the defense to play any video that was belatedly produced
without the state objection. The defense also wants to prevent
the State from rebutting evidence former Rushville Police Chief Todd
Glick provided on May first, twenty twenty three. And they
(25:41):
want to prevent the prosecution from using any data or
info from Liberty German's phone in evidence, Jerry presentations, my stars.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
What else do they want? A shopping spree at nordstroms Uh,
that's a lot. Hey, quick answer, Susan Hendricks. When is
the actual trial supposed to start?
Speaker 4 (25:58):
It's set for October, Nancy, but as you know, it's
been postponed and delayed several times, possibly another tactic. But
it felt to me like it's going to go forward
in October.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
We'll see, So let me get this. They're whining that
they've gotten exculpatory evidence too late. It's hello, it's the
end of July, August, September, October, three months. You've got time. Okay,
what else do we know? Listen?
Speaker 12 (26:25):
The state wants to limit what the defense can mention
in front of jurors without prior approval from the judge.
Prosecutors have several pages of items, including personal attacks on
the prosecutor, any attempt to introduce evidence of third party
motive that is not relevant or would unfairly prejudiced jurors.
This includes mentions of Odinism, ritualistic killing, references to how
(26:46):
discovery was handed over, and any mention of an investigation
conducted by former Rushville Police Chief Todd klick O Dennism.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Okay, I think the state is making a horrible mistake
right now, trying to suppress the defense theory an odinist
killed the girls. What am I talking about? Listen?
Speaker 13 (27:06):
Court documents alleged that Abby Williams and Liberty German were
ritualistically sacrificed by members of a pagan Norse religion called Odinism.
The defense rights the bodies of both victims had tree
branches placed on them in specific patterns, and one had.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Small sticks in her hair to.
Speaker 13 (27:25):
Resemble horns or antlers. Odinists are said to be enamored
with Viking culture.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Okay, I just wanted to pause a moment. Let that
sink him that Odinists obsessed with Viking culture somehow infiltrated
this small, very sparsely populated area. The Oldness infiltrated and
then made two human sacrifices to the Norse god Odin.
(27:56):
Why in the world, Rich Show and statee would the
state want to keep that out. I would be fighting
for the defense to please make that argument.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
I agree with you, Nancy, and forget about how ridiculous
for a minute. The argument is when the defense stands
up there and says somebody else did it, they're taking
on a burden of proof that they don't need to
take on. The defense has no burden of proof. They
just have to challenge the sufficiency of the proof and
(28:26):
reasonable doubt. But if they make this a binary choice
between either Richard Allen did it or Odinists did it,
I don't see how that's going to help them at all.
I think that is biting off a burden that they
don't need to assume going into this tribe.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Well, there's more. They're connecting Odinism, they worship of the
Norse gods, to something much more nefarious.
Speaker 14 (28:52):
Listen deciding what information the jury can be told a trial.
That is the purpose of hearings this week in the
Delphi murders case. In earlier court fight, links prosecutors requested
the court bar the defense from bringing up certain terms
from past arguments, like the odinism theory. The defense argues
the murders of Abby Williams and Libby Jerman were ritualistic
and done by Odinists, not Richard Allen. Odinists practice an
(29:14):
ancient Nordic religion, worshiping Norse gods such as Odin and four,
and some claim it's common among white supremacists prison gang
members in Indiana. The defense uses the Odinism theory appoint
to other possible suspects, and there we have it.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
The defense is using some hybrid argument of the sad defense.
Some of the dude did it. They're claiming it's kind
of a mixture between the Viking worshippers, the oldness, and
white supremacists. So I guess you put that all into
the blender, boom outcomes your killer. Is that actually what
(29:52):
they're saying, Susan Hendrix Odniss kind of mixed with white
supremacists and that's going to consrupt this evil specter to
the jury. Are they really saying that?
Speaker 4 (30:03):
Absolutely? And well said Nancy. It feels like they are
looking for, obviously, some sort of reasonable doubt. Pick and
choose as you will, depending on how the judge rules.
What I think is most damaging is that Richard Allen
put himself on the bridge.
Speaker 7 (30:18):
This was a day before what was on Libby's.
Speaker 4 (30:21):
Phone was released, So he goes up to an officer
that he knows, Stan Dulan in a parking lot of
grocery store and says, hey, I was down there at
this particular time. I didn't really see much. Fast forward
to almost six years later, more than six years and
allegedly we don't know the details of exactly what led
to Richard Allen, but supposedly they went back through the
(30:42):
files and found that guy that put himself on the bridge.
A day later after the murder's Libby's cell phone evidence
came out.
Speaker 7 (30:50):
I think if that came out earlier, he wouldn't.
Speaker 4 (30:52):
Have gone up to Dan dulm and said, hey, I was.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
There who murdered Abigail and Liberty. A suspect is called
on video with his menacing instructions down the.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Hill from trying to suppress cell phone data. I assume
that cell phone from the little girl victims themselves, or
maybe it's cell phone data from the defendant Richard Allen.
From that to suppressing alleged statements confessions to the shrink,
(31:29):
to his wife and in front of jailhouse guards and inmates.
Good luck with that. Two claims of not only some
other dude did it that being Viking worshipers, but also
now the defense is roping in a white nationalist group. Listen.
Speaker 13 (31:51):
Attorneys for the suspect, Richard Allen, filed documents saying that
their client is innocent and that members of a white
nationalist group are the ones responsible killing the teenagers as
part of a quote ritualistic sacrifice. The defense said the
group had a motive because the girl's parents was dating
a person of another race. Attorneys also requested the immediate
(32:12):
transfer of Allan from the facility where he was being held.
They say members of the white nationalist group apparently work
there and are threatening his life.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
Okay, so Alan is claiming the oldness did it, the
Viking worshippers, and that somebody whose name is a mystery
belonging to a white nationalist group, don't know which one,
was angry because somebody related to the victims was dating
(32:42):
somebody of a different race and they were that angry.
Instead of taking it out on the somebody's dating, they
decided to kill and mutilate two little girls. That's the
defense theory. Okay, please go with that, Richard Allen, Please,
(33:02):
I beg you argue that at trial, nothing can make
me happier. And I say, Richard Schoenstein basically gnashing his
teeth and twisting his tail right now, because that is
doom for the defense.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
I mean, it's a really tough sell because the theory
doesn't fly just when it comes out of their mouth.
First of all, is it odness or is it white nationalists?
Is it a ritual or is it because somebody was
dating the wrong person. I mean, they've got to pick
a theory and stick with it if they're going to
go down that road. So that's a problem. I haven't
seen that they have sufficient evidence to put this forward,
(33:40):
so I'm not really convinced they're going to go down
this road at trial. What they're doing now, I think, Nancy,
is they're trying to keep all of that available to
them at trial. They're trying to limit what the prosecution
can use. But I think we have to wait for
the trial itself to see what they really argue. If
they do go down down that road, I think they're
(34:01):
making a big mistake.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Okay, there's any defense theories aside, let's talk about some
hard evidence. This is what the defense better be worried
about listen.
Speaker 13 (34:10):
Police searched Allan's home and seized a handgun, which investigators
believe Alan used in the crime, and matches an unspent
bullet found next to the girl's bodies. About ten hunting
and utility knives were also confiscated, along with the blue
carhart jacket and other clothes. Investigators also took carpet samples
(34:30):
and swaps from the seat belts in Allan's Ford focused
vehicle that they believe was seen on the trail that day,
and Alan admitted in two separate interviews that he was
on the bridge that day.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
He says he went out on the bridge to watch
the fish. Here's a very technical legal term. I hope
you're sitting down. You may need to lay down for
this one. It's very complicated. It's Latin. A defense attorney's
love throwing around Latin terms on the elevator in the courthouse.
Of course, I could and be happier, idiot Susan Hendricks
(35:06):
joining me in the courthouse. Does Richard Allen did he
actually volunteer? Yes, that he was at the scene of
the double murders the day of the murders. Quote watching
the fish from a trestle bridge. How tall is that
thing over the water? Who can see a fish down
in that muddy water? It reminds me of Ichikani where
(35:30):
I grew up. You couldn't see a thing in it.
So what he actually says, he's on the bridge watching
the fish.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
Yes, and looking down at his stockticker as he's walking
towards the bridge, saying, oh, I was just there looking down.
Keep in mind, I know the panel knowses the voice.
His voice if it is him.
Speaker 7 (35:50):
It'd be sound guilty.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
Down the hill is in that footage on Libby's cell phone,
and I believe that's why they don't want it in
the courtroom. And I do want to point out I've seen,
as I mentioned, him glaring at the families and myself,
but you never hear him talk. And I believe maybe
that's by design because his voice is on that cell phone.
(36:11):
Will they want to compare that even if he doesn't testify.
I mean, I didn't even hear a whisper to his attorneys,
And I was staring at him the entire time to
notice how he was reacting because he saw the prime
scene photos they were put down right across from him,
and I saw him push it away and glance down
for a minute, so I was watching his every move
and never did we hear him speak during the hearing.
(36:32):
So we'll see if that is why they want that out.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
That is so interesting, Susan Hendricks. You know, Jesscott Morgan,
that I ever tell you about my slew footed armed
robber who was also couldn't spell, and he gave a
handwriting sample. He could not help misspelling things, just like
it did the banknote, the bank robbery note, don't touch
(36:54):
the al ram. This is a robie. Did the same
thing in his handwriting sample. But he was also duck footed,
slew footed, and when he walked up like that to
the witness stand, all twelve yer hours were hanging over
the jury rail. Some things you just can't hide. I
think Susan Hendrix is right. They don't want him speaking
in the courtroom because it's going to match to down
(37:15):
the hill, Down the hill, And not only that, the
voice and the mode of walking. I think we have
a video of the perp, the alleged purp, actually walking forward.
If he is caught walking in the courtroom, and there
is anything at all unusual but unusual or identifiable in
(37:38):
his gait. The prosecutor is going to seize on that.
Speaker 10 (37:43):
Yeah, they will. And as you well know, one of
the things that we look for in forensics, people are
compelled to give exemplars of their writing. I really wonder, Nancy,
can he be compelled to give a voice exemplar relative
to this statement that is being made, that has been recorded,
And if so, have they done a voice comparison relative
(38:06):
to that? You know, while they have him here, do
they get a warrant to compare him, to compare his void,
to do a voice analysis on them, and also his gate?
Speaker 1 (38:15):
And you know what else, he's not looking down at
a cell phone. I wonder if they've done a forensics
exam of his cell phone to determine if he was
really looking at the stock market ticker, Like anybody can
see that on a cell phone. I can't read a
darn thing on there. How can he read that little
ticker at the bottom of the screen. He's not looking
at his phone. That's a lie. We can see his gate.
(38:37):
Does he walk like that in the courtroom? Susan Hendrix
pointing out they're not letting him speak because it may
want it may match down the hill down the Hill,
the girls caught on their phone, and I've just been
advised by my producer here in the studio, Jackie, that
bridge is sixty three feet tall, really conducive to fish watching?
(39:02):
Is it?
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Delphi Murders Suspect Richard Allen claims he didn't do it
and that a pagan cult is at fault.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
It seems to me like the ballistics evidence is going
to be possibly the strongest evidence in this case. But
we don't know all the evidence the state is producing.
Susan Hendrick joining me at the courthouse, Susan investigative reporter
and journalist. Any idea, Oh hey, the name of your
book Down the Hill, My Descent into the double murder
(39:39):
and Delphi? Susan, what do you think is the most
powerful evidence the state is going to bring out at trial?
And what will be the defense counter?
Speaker 7 (39:50):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (39:51):
And I think it has to do with the search
worm of his home. What did they find inside that home?
Was there any DNA on the jacket? Blue Carhark if
he wore that jacket on the bridge that day, Because
it appears the person on the bridge, fridge guy is
in some sort of jacket. I believe it's his voice
As I mentioned, I believe there's some evidence that we
(40:11):
don't know about, and of.
Speaker 7 (40:12):
Course the ballistics, but.
Speaker 4 (40:14):
Again Libby's video to be stands out, and of course
the confessions if they're admissible. But I think it's just
stacking up against him what the prosecution can and I
believe will use.
Speaker 1 (40:25):
Nancy Grace signing off good night
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The Delphi murders, Little Abby
and Liberty both murdered, the eerie ritual sacrifice murder claims.
What is that a ritual sacrifice murder? Is that the
(00:21):
defense and a mighty clash in court over the suspects confessions.
Good evening, I'm Nancy Grace, this is Crime Stories. Thank
you for being with us.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Abigail Williams and Liberty Germans set out to walk along
the popular Delphi historic trail, but the two miss They're
appointed pitcup time.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
What happened to Abby and Libby?
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Right now? Hearings are going on in that courtroom. And
joining us at the courthouse my longtime friend and Collie
Susan Hendrix, journalist, author of Down the Hill, my to
sent into the double murder in Delphi. You may know
her from my old TV home hl M. Well here
she is now with us with the latest. Susan, welcome,
(01:11):
what's happening. I'm hearing that there is a mighty clash
of the titans in the courtroom over alleged confessions statements
that the suspect made, and also the state is trying
to quash the defense that odonists, which are kind of
like they worship Thor and the Valkyrie. They're actually claiming
(01:38):
that they did it. I think it's a horrible move
by the state. In fact, if I were prosecuting this,
I would be mad if the defense didn't claim odinists
did the deed.
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Really some heated moments, as you mentioned in the courtroom.
What will be admissible, what will the judge rule on this?
What will be left out? But huge I'll start with
the confessions, the alleged confessions that Richard Allen made to
his wife Kathy and his mother, who by the way,
our front row there in the hearings, and he mouthed
(02:09):
the prisoner Richard Allen, the suspect, I love you when
leaving the courtroom. So back to the oness theory. There's
been several Frank motions and the judges yet to rule
on that, but that is where they're going. We're getting
a taste of the defense theory during these hearings. Will
it be admissible? And you bring up such a good point,
(02:30):
why not let it in? Because the one name they
do want in, which is one of the Frank's motions,
Brad Holder of the prosecution saying, look, he has an alibi.
We don't want to allow this, but that does make sense.
Let them have their theory. If he has an alibi.
The jurors are going to see that. But several key
decisions have to be made after this week, and I
(02:50):
think it will give us an indication of what we'll
hear during the trial in October.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
On my first talk, we'll get to the oldest claim
that worse hers Thor and the Valkyrie, they committed the
double murders. I'm going to get to that in a moment,
But first, something that I understand a little bit better
the legal concept of confessions and confessions. Guys joining me
(03:17):
in addition to Susan hendrickson an All Star panel is
Rich Schoenstein. He's a renowned trial attorney partner with Tartar,
Krinsky and Drogan. Rich. Thank you for being with us.
He knows his way around a courtroom. Confessions, in my mind,
come in all manner of modes. It doesn't have to
be a videotaped confession where you get your Miranda rights
(03:39):
first and you're sitting there with your lawyer or like
you see on TV. It's not like that. Very often,
a defendant such as this guy Richard Allen, the local
pharmacy tech, says to his wife on the phone from
(04:00):
the jail basically, yeah, I did it. Okay, that's the confession.
Rich Schoenstein, that's right, That's absolutely right.
Speaker 5 (04:07):
You know, jurors have common sense, they apply their life experience.
They understand a husband talking to his wife. So those
words are to a jury perhaps more meaningful than something
he would say under police interrogation. That's him telling the
truth to his own wife. And you can certainly see
why the defense wants to keep out any version of
(04:29):
a statement like that.
Speaker 1 (04:30):
Okay, quick question, and remember this is ping pong, not
just I know you're used to standing up and making
all sorts of legal, comic complicated legal arguments. But what
about the claim? And I certainly don't want to give
the defense any ideas that this was a marital communication
protected by husband wife privilege, even though it was over
(04:53):
a jail house phone.
Speaker 5 (04:55):
I think there might be some credit. I think there
might be some credit to that it is a communication,
It is a private communication between husband and wife. So
I'd have to look at local law on the marital privilege,
which I don't know in that state to really understand
if they have a shot at that. But he is
talking to his wife.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
Rich I've got a way to defeat it. Okay, he
got a way to defeat it. Here. It is if
you utter a confidential communication, such as you tell your lawyer,
I did it. I'm up as creek without a battle,
that's protected under attorney client privilege. But what if you
say it at a cocktail party and everybody's standing around
(05:36):
again to hear everything you say, You yourself by saying
it around other people have waived your attorney client privilege
and you cannot claim that at trial. Same thing here,
This is how I would defeat husband wife. He said
it on a jail house phone and everybody knows, and
there's a sign up there says these are being recorded,
(05:56):
so he willingly gave up that confidentiality. That's how I
would attack it.
Speaker 6 (06:02):
I like the argument.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
You're absolutely right about a cocktail party. If you say
something to your lawyer in front of other people, there
is no privilege. You've waived it because you've shared it
with people you don't have a privilege with. So I
think that's a pretty good argument. That the phone was
recorded and he knew that, and he didn't have any
expectation of privacy or expectation of a private spousal conversation.
Speaker 6 (06:26):
It's a good argument.
Speaker 1 (06:27):
Okay, we're learning a lot about the emotions being filed. Guys.
This is so critical because based on the outcome of
these hearings, what evidence will or not or will not
be presented in front of the jury is going to
be determined. Back to Susan Hendricks is joining us. Susan
(06:48):
is joining us from the courthouse steps. She's been in
the hearings. Explain to me the content of the alleged confessions.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Yes, with doctor Monica Wallery her name, who treated Richard
Allen in prison and she is key for the prosecution.
Will the judge allow her to testify during the trial?
Speaker 7 (07:09):
And what specifically did she hear?
Speaker 4 (07:11):
We are hearing that doctor doctor Monica Walla heard incriminating
statements from Richard Allen himself and maybe even confessions. So
as we spoke of confessions to the wife in the
jail house phone call, the mother in the jail house
phone call, now the doctor in the prison, will that
be admissible.
Speaker 7 (07:30):
We'll see what the judge rules on this.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
I go out to Chris mcdona. He's the director of the
Cole Case Foundation, former homicide detective with oh, there's the video.
There's the video that the girls took just before their
deaths of the perp walking toward them on that trestle bridge.
Chris mcdonnaugh worked over three hundred homicide cases in his
(07:55):
twenty five year career. He's a host of YouTube channel.
In the interview room, is McDonough how insane does it
make you when you hear about legal classes in the
courtroom where evidence could very well be suppressed. The jury
may never hear about these multiple alleged confessions.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
Yeah, I mean that's from an investigative aspect, is very frustrating,
as you know more than anybody, Nancy. I mean, you've done.
Speaker 8 (08:25):
This so long and you know the fact that this guy,
you know, we used to say confess here. This line
is recorded, right and when an inmate does that, and
then of course you have it with a jailer.
Speaker 6 (08:41):
Potentially hearing it.
Speaker 9 (08:42):
And then add on top of that you have family
members who may have heard it. We can understand some
of that, but you would hope that the system would
work towards you know, the victims heare and relationship to
allowing that evidence in.
Speaker 1 (08:56):
Somewhere you know. Jessica Morgan is joining me Forensics Jacksonville
State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon
and star of a hit series body Bags. Podcast with
Joe Scott Morgan. Joe Scott, you have very carefully studied
(09:18):
the facts surrounding the actual murders wait for it. And
now the defendant, Richard Alan Richard Matthew Allen, is claiming
that his alleged confessions should be thrown out because he
was under quote mental distress when he confessed to killing
(09:44):
Abby and Liberty aka Libby. Let's talk about what happened
to Abby and Libby?
Speaker 10 (09:53):
Yeah, you know, kind of dovetailing with what Chris had
said there. Nancy. I'm fascinated by this aspect of the
of this confession depended upon you know, how you know,
down how granular he got with this, with this statement
that he made. It's one thing for somebody to say
I killed them, okay, but I wonder how much detail
(10:17):
is included in this, in this alleged confession that he
made to his wife, because that's that's a damning, a
damning bit of information. If he gets into the kind
of granular detail that we're talking about relative to this
very complex scene outdoors out there adjacent to this trestle.
(10:38):
How much information did he reveal about that? And is
it going to be reflected in what we're what the
jury will eventually see in these images, and they're going
to be absolutely ghastly because we're talking about these two
precious souls who were taken by sharp force injury, and
that has been plainly stated. We're talking about a knife
(10:59):
that was involved than this, and I think to a
great degree, perhaps this is going to be overkilled. There's
going to be mutilation that's involved with that, if I
dare use that word.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Joe Scott. You can't just throw drop a bomb and
then just walk away like nothing happened. That doesn't work
on crime stories. You just say mutilation. You think what
I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that. I heard it.
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 10 (11:23):
I'll say it plainly. We're talking about perhaps to the
point of a partial decapitation here, Nancy. And you know
when you look at that in light of a crime scene,
you think about, well, what was necessary, I hate to
put it this way, what was necessary to take somebody's life. Well,
(11:43):
you know, it's not just it's not just sufficient to
merely stab one of these angels. Okay, that's that's not sufficient.
To this point, this rises to another level. We're talking
about what was done with the bodies afterwards and how
they were treated in this environment. And this is going
(12:03):
to be damning, absolutely damning, because the people in the
jury are going to see things there that they can't
even begin to imagine in their worst possible nightmares.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
Who murdered Abigail and Liberty. A suspect is called on
video with his menacing instructions down the hill.
Speaker 1 (12:36):
The outcome of these hearings that are happening right now
in a court of law will determine what evidence the
Delphi jury will hear and what evidence will be kept
away from them as if it never happened. Joining me
at the courthouse, well known journalists and investigative reporter Susan
(12:59):
Hendrix explain to me what's being heard, what was heard yesterday,
and what's going to be heard.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
And we just heard Nancy Richard Allen say, guys, down
the hill. As you know, Libby was brave enough to
hit record on her phone and her grandfather Mike has
mentioned to me several times. Look, I think if she
made it home, she would have said, Grandpa, look at
this creepy guy on the bridge. Look what I've recorded.
The defense does not want what's on Libby's phone to
(13:26):
be admissible in court. The reasoning they state is that
it was handed over too late in terms of discovery.
It'll be interesting to see if it's allowed in because
to me, this is what is going to convict Richard
Allen if he is guilty.
Speaker 7 (13:42):
That video that she was able to get.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
And I'm sitting with the family members Nancy of day
one of the hearing. It's the first time I ever
saw Richard Allen walk in in person, and it was
very eerie to see him sit down. He turns around,
looks at me Becky, Libby's grandmother, and Libby's grandmother's daughter Tara,
right in the eyes and just glares at us and
(14:05):
continue to do that throughout the hearing. And I was
trying to get a read on him as I'm looking
at him sitting there. And part of the evidence that Baldwin,
the defense attorney, hands it over to the.
Speaker 7 (14:17):
Judge, had the crime scene photo on half of it.
It's a split screen.
Speaker 4 (14:20):
He's waving it around. I'm sitting here the family. I
could get a glimpse of the crime scene photos from
the attorney, and I heard Tara say to Becky, close
your eyes.
Speaker 7 (14:28):
It's that excruciating.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
But this is a necessary step before the trial, and
I know that these families have been waiting a long time.
Speaker 7 (14:37):
To be here.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
But very creepy throughout the hearing, Richard Allen turning around
staring me directly in the eyes.
Speaker 7 (14:42):
It doesn't move his gaze. It was something I've never
seen before.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
How dare he turn around and look at you and
the victim's families and just glare at you. And he's
probably glaring at you because you're sitting with the I mean,
you know what, Chris mcdona, how many times in court
you're a veteran homicide investigator have you been in court
(15:08):
to testify you got to murder, much less double murder
of teen girls allegedly sitting there, They usually won't even
meet your eye. But to turn around and glare at
you in open court, that's a whole other level right there. Yeah.
Speaker 6 (15:26):
Absolutely, And the fact that he allegedly is a child killer,
that in of its shelf. The It just gives you
a little insight into potentially, you know, what the victims
were seeing themselves that day at his hands, and the
fact that the weapons there are two weapons here potentially
(15:47):
you know they remember they found this round underneath one
of the victims as well as a knife. You know
what Doc Morgan was talking about earlier, the viciousness and
the brutality of that personalization by using that type of weapon.
Now you add that to children. I can understand why
the defense does not want him in the Department of
(16:09):
Corrections corrections right now. They'd rather have him in a
better spot, i e. In the jail.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
Well, yes, yes, Chris McDonough because obviously he can't control himself. Okay,
let me throw this out there. Who would be the
best you know what? Let me go to you, Joe Scott,
and then I'll follow it up with Karen Stark. Joe Scott,
you have been in court with a lot of killers,
right because you're a death investigator. Have you ever been
on the elevator. Let's just pretend in the courthouse somebody's
(16:37):
standing right next to you, and does anybody turn around
and look you right in the eyes on the elevator. No,
they don't. Has that ever happened to you? And if so,
how did it make you feel?
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Well?
Speaker 10 (16:51):
It's certainly even someone like me that's seeing the thing
or two, you know, it creeps me out certainly. Uh.
And the idea that that the stone cold gaze, that
he would sit there and stare, stare at the family
in particular and Susan as well, but sit there U.
And this goes to another piece, Nancy, the idea. You know,
(17:14):
Chris had mentioned this round that was found at the scene.
He has, in my estimation at least, uh, this thread
that runs through him of what I refer to as menacing.
That weapon. The firearm was used I believe as an
instrument of menacing with these children. It's the idea of
taking that firearm and moving that slide back to racket
(17:40):
like this, And everybody that's ever watched the television show
is familiar with that.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
These children that would have.
Speaker 10 (17:47):
Been there would have been menaced by that. And I
think that this is a further continuation of him glaring,
leaning in, glaring and holding a gaze. It seems to
be a pattern to me. I don't know, I mean,
that's kind of Karen's area. But for me as an investigator,
that's putting two and two together.
Speaker 1 (18:04):
You know what you're saying about racking the shotgun. I
don't know if you remember Rifleman. It's an old black
and white show.
Speaker 7 (18:11):
I was just a.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
Little little girl, and I remember my brother, my older brother,
would have it on Rifleman and at some point he'd ratchet,
and I didn't even know what that meant. But it's
like hearing a rattlesnake or a gun shot. You never
forget it. When you hear it, you instinctively know something
(18:35):
is very wrong.
Speaker 10 (18:36):
Yeah, it has a very distinct pitch to it and
the sound the mechanism itself when that slide goes back
on that weapon, and we do know that, I believe,
if I'm correct, it was a six hour that he had.
When that thing is racked back, it has a very
definitive sound to it, that round is ejected, and of
course he forgets about it apparently at that point time
(18:58):
and leaves this behind. Yeah, well there you.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
Go, technical legal term idiot. Hold on, Rich Schoenstein. You're
a veteran trial lawyer. Aren't you supposed to school your
clients about how to behave in the courtroom. I mean
I always see defendants, murder defendants, drug lords, rapist, child
molesters come in court looking like they're a Wall Street banker.
(19:22):
I'm like, who is that? Do you remember? Let's think
Scott Peterson. I would watch him walk into court every
morning like the football quarterback. He'd be all puffed up
in an awesome suit, looking great. I didn't think he
looked great or handsome, but other people did. Who else,
Ted Bundy, Menendez brothers. I'm hearing it in my ear. Yeah,
(19:45):
the Menandez brothers come into courtroom looking like their freshman
at Harvard, and they have their defense attorney picking lint
off them and petting them in court. You know what,
stop and Ted Bundy looks charming in the courtroom. It's freaky,
but their lawyers had them schooled. This idiot turns around
(20:09):
and glares at the victims' grandma and Susan our Susan
Hendricks glares at her in the court of Oh. I
hope he does that to the gurrrs. I just hope
he has not been school showing sane.
Speaker 5 (20:25):
No, not at all. And you're absolutely right. You got
to teach your defend in how to act in court,
because whether he testifies or not, and this guy's not testifying,
so forget about that. He's going to be watched every
second he's in that courtroom. The jury's going to have
their eyes on him. They're going to see how they act.
And the bottom line, Nancy, is if they think he's creepy,
(20:50):
if he acts creepy, he's in big trouble because this
is the creepiest crime imaginable, killing two young girls in
the middle of the woods hoods. And if the jury
sees him and thinks he's a creep it's going to
be so much easier for them to convict him. And
if I was this guy's lawyer, I would be working
with him on that extensively.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Hey, and what about oj Simpson? May he rot Hill?
He would sit there in doodle the whole time. Hey, Karen,
start this is a visceral thing. How you don't stare
at somebody on the elevator. You ever been in a
restaurant and you look over and somebody's just staring at you,
so you don't look back, and then when you do
look back, they're still staring at you. There's something weird
(21:32):
and awkward about that? Did you hear what Schoenstein just said.
He's a veter on trial lawyer, and he's right, how
do you hide your creepy in court? This guy can't
hide his creepy. He's gonna have to look down and
write notes like Simpson wrote, I did it, and you
know whatever he was drawing over there. And also another thing,
Karen start, well, I've got you. It's visceral. Remember we've
(21:57):
been told when you're going to go feed an animal
at the zoo or in various encounters, you don't look
them in the eye because they perceive that as a
sign of aggression. Okay, I'm just speaking frankly and plainly
to you as if I would tell a jury. I'm
sure there's all sorts of gosh, what can I say,
(22:22):
mental and psychological analysis of what I'm saying. But the
fact that this guy turns around and eyeballs in an
alarming way, a menacing way, Susan Hendrix, She's just sitting
there with the grandma for Pete's sake, and looking at
the victims family like that. It's wrong. Okay, help me out.
(22:43):
Give me the psychological term of what I'm trying to
tell you.
Speaker 11 (22:47):
It's nonverbal behavior in Nancy, and we have to watch
that nonverbal behavior because Asseph Scott said, this is menacing.
And unfortunately, if you think about these two little girls
with this man who's daring in the courtroom, he's boldly
staring and yes, you want to have eye contact under
(23:09):
certain circumstances, you're taught not to look away. But this guy,
he has no shame. He's he actually wants to come
across this way, like I dare you to condemn me.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
Twenty four hours after Abigail and Liberty go missing, their
bodies are found beneath a train trestle. Chilling phone video
reveals the suspected killer.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Aside from his creepy and menacing, stars right at the
family of Libby and Abby off when I think about then,
they're just two little teen girls. And from what we hear,
there may be evidence that this thirteen and fourteen year
old litle girl were actually mutilated. Mutilated by who, according
(23:59):
to prosecutors, the local pharmacy tech. I mean, how many
times do you think he saw them come in and
out of the pharmacy and then the bullet that was
cycled through the gun. You heard Joe Scott describing racking
the gun. That bullet fell, according to the State, near
(24:20):
the bodies, an idiot aka the defendant, Richard Matthew Allen,
aged fifty one, left it there. Now, just think about it.
For so long, details about the crime scene were kept
under wraps, and I've got to hand it to l
E law enforcement that that didn't come out because they
(24:41):
later pursue it to warrant. I would like to add,
because Schoenstein's listening to me, pursue it to warrant. They
go into Allen's home and they find the gun still
there because he didn't realize he left the bullet back there.
It matches the gun in his home. That ballistics evidence
(25:07):
is so powerful. If what we're being told is the
evidence is actually true, so much happening in the courtroom,
so much, guys listen to this.
Speaker 12 (25:19):
The defense wants four sanctions. They want the court to
tell jurors the prosecution violated rules with a delay in
turning over exculpatory evidence. They want the judge to allow
the defense to play any video that was belatedly produced
without the state objection. The defense also wants to prevent
the State from rebutting evidence former Rushville Police Chief Todd
Glick provided on May first, twenty twenty three. And they
(25:41):
want to prevent the prosecution from using any data or
info from Liberty German's phone in evidence, Jerry presentations, my stars.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
What else do they want? A shopping spree at nordstroms Uh,
that's a lot. Hey, quick answer, Susan Hendricks. When is
the actual trial supposed to start?
Speaker 4 (25:58):
It's set for October, Nancy, but as you know, it's
been postponed and delayed several times, possibly another tactic. But
it felt to me like it's going to go forward
in October.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
We'll see, So let me get this. They're whining that
they've gotten exculpatory evidence too late. It's hello, it's the
end of July, August, September, October, three months. You've got time. Okay,
what else do we know? Listen?
Speaker 12 (26:25):
The state wants to limit what the defense can mention
in front of jurors without prior approval from the judge.
Prosecutors have several pages of items, including personal attacks on
the prosecutor, any attempt to introduce evidence of third party
motive that is not relevant or would unfairly prejudiced jurors.
This includes mentions of Odinism, ritualistic killing, references to how
(26:46):
discovery was handed over, and any mention of an investigation
conducted by former Rushville Police Chief Todd klick O Dennism.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Okay, I think the state is making a horrible mistake
right now, trying to suppress the defense theory an odinist
killed the girls. What am I talking about? Listen?
Speaker 13 (27:06):
Court documents alleged that Abby Williams and Liberty German were
ritualistically sacrificed by members of a pagan Norse religion called Odinism.
The defense rights the bodies of both victims had tree
branches placed on them in specific patterns, and one had.
Speaker 1 (27:23):
Small sticks in her hair to.
Speaker 13 (27:25):
Resemble horns or antlers. Odinists are said to be enamored
with Viking culture.
Speaker 1 (27:31):
Okay, I just wanted to pause a moment. Let that
sink him that Odinists obsessed with Viking culture somehow infiltrated
this small, very sparsely populated area. The Oldness infiltrated and
then made two human sacrifices to the Norse god Odin.
(27:56):
Why in the world, Rich Show and statee would the
state want to keep that out. I would be fighting
for the defense to please make that argument.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
I agree with you, Nancy, and forget about how ridiculous
for a minute. The argument is when the defense stands
up there and says somebody else did it, they're taking
on a burden of proof that they don't need to
take on. The defense has no burden of proof. They
just have to challenge the sufficiency of the proof and
(28:26):
reasonable doubt. But if they make this a binary choice
between either Richard Allen did it or Odinists did it,
I don't see how that's going to help them at all.
I think that is biting off a burden that they
don't need to assume going into this tribe.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Well, there's more. They're connecting Odinism, they worship of the
Norse gods, to something much more nefarious.
Speaker 14 (28:52):
Listen deciding what information the jury can be told a trial.
That is the purpose of hearings this week in the
Delphi murders case. In earlier court fight, links prosecutors requested
the court bar the defense from bringing up certain terms
from past arguments, like the odinism theory. The defense argues
the murders of Abby Williams and Libby Jerman were ritualistic
and done by Odinists, not Richard Allen. Odinists practice an
(29:14):
ancient Nordic religion, worshiping Norse gods such as Odin and four,
and some claim it's common among white supremacists prison gang
members in Indiana. The defense uses the Odinism theory appoint
to other possible suspects, and there we have it.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
The defense is using some hybrid argument of the sad defense.
Some of the dude did it. They're claiming it's kind
of a mixture between the Viking worshippers, the oldness, and
white supremacists. So I guess you put that all into
the blender, boom outcomes your killer. Is that actually what
(29:52):
they're saying, Susan Hendrix Odniss kind of mixed with white
supremacists and that's going to consrupt this evil specter to
the jury. Are they really saying that?
Speaker 4 (30:03):
Absolutely? And well said Nancy. It feels like they are
looking for, obviously, some sort of reasonable doubt. Pick and
choose as you will, depending on how the judge rules.
What I think is most damaging is that Richard Allen
put himself on the bridge.
Speaker 7 (30:18):
This was a day before what was on Libby's.
Speaker 4 (30:21):
Phone was released, So he goes up to an officer
that he knows, Stan Dulan in a parking lot of
grocery store and says, hey, I was down there at
this particular time. I didn't really see much. Fast forward
to almost six years later, more than six years and
allegedly we don't know the details of exactly what led
to Richard Allen, but supposedly they went back through the
(30:42):
files and found that guy that put himself on the bridge.
A day later after the murder's Libby's cell phone evidence
came out.
Speaker 7 (30:50):
I think if that came out earlier, he wouldn't.
Speaker 4 (30:52):
Have gone up to Dan dulm and said, hey, I was.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
There who murdered Abigail and Liberty. A suspect is called
on video with his menacing instructions down the.
Speaker 1 (31:08):
Hill from trying to suppress cell phone data. I assume
that cell phone from the little girl victims themselves, or
maybe it's cell phone data from the defendant Richard Allen.
From that to suppressing alleged statements confessions to the shrink,
(31:29):
to his wife and in front of jailhouse guards and inmates.
Good luck with that. Two claims of not only some
other dude did it that being Viking worshipers, but also
now the defense is roping in a white nationalist group. Listen.
Speaker 13 (31:51):
Attorneys for the suspect, Richard Allen, filed documents saying that
their client is innocent and that members of a white
nationalist group are the ones responsible killing the teenagers as
part of a quote ritualistic sacrifice. The defense said the
group had a motive because the girl's parents was dating
a person of another race. Attorneys also requested the immediate
(32:12):
transfer of Allan from the facility where he was being held.
They say members of the white nationalist group apparently work
there and are threatening his life.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
Okay, so Alan is claiming the oldness did it, the
Viking worshippers, and that somebody whose name is a mystery
belonging to a white nationalist group, don't know which one,
was angry because somebody related to the victims was dating
(32:42):
somebody of a different race and they were that angry.
Instead of taking it out on the somebody's dating, they
decided to kill and mutilate two little girls. That's the
defense theory. Okay, please go with that, Richard Allen, Please,
(33:02):
I beg you argue that at trial, nothing can make
me happier. And I say, Richard Schoenstein basically gnashing his
teeth and twisting his tail right now, because that is
doom for the defense.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (33:17):
I mean, it's a really tough sell because the theory
doesn't fly just when it comes out of their mouth.
First of all, is it odness or is it white nationalists?
Is it a ritual or is it because somebody was
dating the wrong person. I mean, they've got to pick
a theory and stick with it if they're going to
go down that road. So that's a problem. I haven't
seen that they have sufficient evidence to put this forward,
(33:40):
so I'm not really convinced they're going to go down
this road at trial. What they're doing now, I think, Nancy,
is they're trying to keep all of that available to
them at trial. They're trying to limit what the prosecution
can use. But I think we have to wait for
the trial itself to see what they really argue. If
they do go down down that road, I think they're
(34:01):
making a big mistake.
Speaker 1 (34:02):
Okay, there's any defense theories aside, let's talk about some
hard evidence. This is what the defense better be worried
about listen.
Speaker 13 (34:10):
Police searched Allan's home and seized a handgun, which investigators
believe Alan used in the crime, and matches an unspent
bullet found next to the girl's bodies. About ten hunting
and utility knives were also confiscated, along with the blue
carhart jacket and other clothes. Investigators also took carpet samples
(34:30):
and swaps from the seat belts in Allan's Ford focused
vehicle that they believe was seen on the trail that day,
and Alan admitted in two separate interviews that he was
on the bridge that day.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
He says he went out on the bridge to watch
the fish. Here's a very technical legal term. I hope
you're sitting down. You may need to lay down for
this one. It's very complicated. It's Latin. A defense attorney's
love throwing around Latin terms on the elevator in the courthouse.
Of course, I could and be happier, idiot Susan Hendricks
(35:06):
joining me in the courthouse. Does Richard Allen did he
actually volunteer? Yes, that he was at the scene of
the double murders the day of the murders. Quote watching
the fish from a trestle bridge. How tall is that
thing over the water? Who can see a fish down
in that muddy water? It reminds me of Ichikani where
(35:30):
I grew up. You couldn't see a thing in it.
So what he actually says, he's on the bridge watching
the fish.
Speaker 4 (35:39):
Yes, and looking down at his stockticker as he's walking
towards the bridge, saying, oh, I was just there looking down.
Keep in mind, I know the panel knowses the voice.
His voice if it is him.
Speaker 7 (35:50):
It'd be sound guilty.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
Down the hill is in that footage on Libby's cell phone,
and I believe that's why they don't want it in
the courtroom. And I do want to point out I've seen,
as I mentioned, him glaring at the families and myself,
but you never hear him talk. And I believe maybe
that's by design because his voice is on that cell phone.
(36:11):
Will they want to compare that even if he doesn't testify.
I mean, I didn't even hear a whisper to his attorneys,
And I was staring at him the entire time to
notice how he was reacting because he saw the prime
scene photos they were put down right across from him,
and I saw him push it away and glance down
for a minute, so I was watching his every move
and never did we hear him speak during the hearing.
(36:32):
So we'll see if that is why they want that out.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
That is so interesting, Susan Hendricks. You know, Jesscott Morgan,
that I ever tell you about my slew footed armed
robber who was also couldn't spell, and he gave a
handwriting sample. He could not help misspelling things, just like
it did the banknote, the bank robbery note, don't touch
(36:54):
the al ram. This is a robie. Did the same
thing in his handwriting sample. But he was also duck footed,
slew footed, and when he walked up like that to
the witness stand, all twelve yer hours were hanging over
the jury rail. Some things you just can't hide. I
think Susan Hendrix is right. They don't want him speaking
in the courtroom because it's going to match to down
(37:15):
the hill, Down the hill, And not only that, the
voice and the mode of walking. I think we have
a video of the perp, the alleged purp, actually walking forward.
If he is caught walking in the courtroom, and there
is anything at all unusual but unusual or identifiable in
(37:38):
his gait. The prosecutor is going to seize on that.
Speaker 10 (37:43):
Yeah, they will. And as you well know, one of
the things that we look for in forensics, people are
compelled to give exemplars of their writing. I really wonder, Nancy,
can he be compelled to give a voice exemplar relative
to this statement that is being made, that has been recorded,
And if so, have they done a voice comparison relative
(38:06):
to that? You know, while they have him here, do
they get a warrant to compare him, to compare his void,
to do a voice analysis on them, and also his gate?
Speaker 1 (38:15):
And you know what else, he's not looking down at
a cell phone. I wonder if they've done a forensics
exam of his cell phone to determine if he was
really looking at the stock market ticker, Like anybody can
see that on a cell phone. I can't read a
darn thing on there. How can he read that little
ticker at the bottom of the screen. He's not looking
at his phone. That's a lie. We can see his gate.
(38:37):
Does he walk like that in the courtroom? Susan Hendrix
pointing out they're not letting him speak because it may
want it may match down the hill down the Hill,
the girls caught on their phone, and I've just been
advised by my producer here in the studio, Jackie, that
bridge is sixty three feet tall, really conducive to fish watching?
(39:02):
Is it?
Speaker 3 (39:08):
Delphi Murders Suspect Richard Allen claims he didn't do it
and that a pagan cult is at fault.
Speaker 1 (39:16):
It seems to me like the ballistics evidence is going
to be possibly the strongest evidence in this case. But
we don't know all the evidence the state is producing.
Susan Hendrick joining me at the courthouse, Susan investigative reporter
and journalist. Any idea, Oh hey, the name of your
book Down the Hill, My Descent into the double murder
(39:39):
and Delphi? Susan, what do you think is the most
powerful evidence the state is going to bring out at trial?
And what will be the defense counter?
Speaker 7 (39:50):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (39:51):
And I think it has to do with the search
worm of his home. What did they find inside that home?
Was there any DNA on the jacket? Blue Carhark if
he wore that jacket on the bridge that day, Because
it appears the person on the bridge, fridge guy is
in some sort of jacket. I believe it's his voice
As I mentioned, I believe there's some evidence that we
(40:11):
don't know about, and of.
Speaker 7 (40:12):
Course the ballistics, but.
Speaker 4 (40:14):
Again Libby's video to be stands out, and of course
the confessions if they're admissible. But I think it's just
stacking up against him what the prosecution can and I
believe will use.
Speaker 1 (40:25):
Nancy Grace signing off good night
Host
Nancy Grace
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com