INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — Day 16 in the trial of Delphi Murders suspect Richard Allen begins Tuesday at the Carroll County Courthouse in Delphi.

Allen, 52, is charged with murder and murder while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping in the deaths of 13-year-old Abigail “Abby” Williams and 14-year-old Liberty “Libby” German. The girls’ bodies were found near the Monon High Bridge near Delphi on Feb. 14, 2017, a day after they went missing.

Allen was first investigated in 2017 and again in October 2022. After a second police interview, he was taken into custody.

The trial began Oct. 18 and was expected to continue through mid-November. Originally, 16 Allen County residents sat as the jury on the case, but one juror was dismissed on Oct. 25.

Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom.

Tune into News 8 and follow our daily live blogs throughout the trial for the latest developments.

NOTE: The times listed in the blog headers are the times which the entries were added. Specific times for courtroom events will be listed in the entries if available. These notes are compiled from photographs of written notes provided by reporters in courtroom and emailed to the WISH-TV news desk.

For a brief summary of Day 15 in the Delphi Murders trial (Monday), scroll to the bottom of the page.

To view all of our previous trial coverage, click here, and follow News 8’s Kyla Russell on X as she covers the trial live from Delphi.

• More Delphi Murders trial on WISHTV.com

5:37 p.m.

At 4:07 p.m. court is back in session. Judge Gull starts off by scolding the jury, saying officers informed her of people in the jury talking and says anyone talking will be kicked out.

The defense calls to the stand First Sergeant Chris Cecil from ISP. Defense attorney Jennifer Auger asks him what an “audio output start” means. He says he does not know. Cecil says he doesn’t have the education to know why a cell phone would or wouldn’t connect to a tower.

McLeland begins cross examination at 4:08 p.m. Cecil says he Googled the water question asked by the jury before the break. He said a Google search said that a phone could register water or dirt in the headphone port as having headphones plugged in.

Auger begins redirect and asks Cecil, “do you normally Google search when conducting research in a criminal investigation?” Cecil says “not normally, no.” Auger asks “you normally look at peer reviewed articles, right?” Cecil says “that’s correct.”

Auger asks, “You and the state have had 7.5 years to research this?”

“That’s correct,” Cecil responds.

The defense then calls Brian Bunner, a lieutenant with the Indiana State Police.

Auger asks “Do you know what audio output means?” Bunner says no. She then asks, “Have you done any Google searches?” He says “no.”

Defense says nothing further.

No cross.

Jury leaves the courtroom at 4:25 p.m.

4:11 p.m. Testimony from forensic cellphone expert.

Court is back in session at 1:47 p.m. The state says the next defense witness is a phone expert and they request that two previous witnesses who examined Libby’s phone be able to sit in the court room for rebuttal purposes.

The jury is back in the court room at 1:52 p.m. The defense calls Stacy Eldridge. Eldridge is an expert in computer information management. She worked for the FBI for nearly 10 years as a forensic examiner and later a senior examiner. She also worked as an instructor on digital evidence.

Eldridge says she left the FBI and is now a license private detective in Nebraska. She tells the jury she used to have a license in Cellebrite, the software used to forensically examine cell phones. She says she is a consultant now and an adjunct at two universities.

Eldridge tells the jury she has testified 3 times for the government and owns a business called Silicon Prairie Cyber Services.

Eldrige tells the jury the defense is paying her $300 per hour to testify. She says she has worked 65 hours in examination for this case and 15 hours prepping for testimony.

Eldridge says she reviewed the October 2017 cell phone extraction, as well as the Cellebrite report and the report from Chris Cecil. She says she also reviewed Cecil’s deposition.

She tells the jury that ISP used Cellebrite, Axiom and other forensic tools to examine Libby’s phone. Eldridge says she primarily used Axiom and used two others. She explains to the jury that every tool can do the work a little differently or display it differently.

She tells the jury that an extraction is getting all data off of a phone so you can examine it later. Eldridge says everything she examined came from ISP. She says there are “three level 6 extractions you can do, each one of them pulls different amounts of info.” Eldridge explains that “logical” extraction covers the basic user information, and “that’s what Libby’s phone had in early 2017.”

Eldridge says ISP had the capacity in early 2017 to do a full extraction of Libby’s phone, but only did it in October of that year.

She tells the jury this caused issues and caused the loss of a specific piece of data called “the current power log.” She tells the jury that log only stays saved in between a phone being turned all the way off and on.

Eldridge says that log can also say if the phone went into airplane mode. She said her priority was figuring out what was going on with the phone at 4:34 a.m. on Feb. 14, 2017 to make the phone receive multiple text messages.

Judge Gull calls for a sidebar after the prosecution says they had not examined an exhibit showing Eldridge’s report on Libby’s phone’s database. First they say they have not examined the exhibit, then say they have no objection.

Eldridge leaves the witness stand and goes to a screen showing the report. She explains many of the columns and rows, the reporter describes the exhibit as similar to an Excel spreadsheet.

Eldridge says she generally agrees with the state expert’s examination of the timeline of Libby’s phone but there are things she does not agree with.

She says she does not agree with some of the times, some of the texts, calls and facetimes that were delivered between Feb. 13 and Feb. 14.

Eldridge tells the jury there were times on the 13th and the 14th that the phone was not connected to a cell tower. She says the last time it connected on the 13th was at 5:45 p.m. and reconnected at 4:33 a.m. on the 14th.

She tells the jury she reviewed cell phone pings from AT&T. She shows AT&T historical precision location logs. The state objects and points out that Eldridge does not have training on the network capability in Carroll County. They say the log isn’t complete and Eldridge is not qualified.

Defense attorney Jennifer Auger says the page admitted into evidence is the one pertinent to the investigation, but there are several hundred more.

Gull admits the exhibit over the state’s objection.

Eldridge says Libby’s phone last connection time was Feb. 14 at 4:33 a.m. and before that, 5:45 p.m. on Feb. 13.

She says the phone was not using date in between those times. Cecil’s report said there were messages coming through during that time frame. Eldridge says there is evidence that the phone did not have messages delivered in between those times.

Eldridge says that some of those messages did have time stamps in between the two times, but they weren’t delivered. She says voicemails between the two times were not delivered until Feb. 17.

Auger asks Eldridge to explain what a “ping” is. She says it is a technical way to have one device see if another device is there. She says AT&T is repeatedly trying to ping Libby’s phone after 5:44 p.m. on Feb. 13, but is not successful until 4:33 a.m. on Feb. 14.

Eldridge says she doesn’t know why the phone did not ping in that time frame, even though it was under Abby’s back and was stationary. She says “I can only conclude something external happened to the phone.” That it could have been moved, blocked by metal or have been blocked from the tower.

Eldridge is asked about the phone’s health data. She says she agrees with what Cecil found about the data on the steps. She says iPhones will not log steps if you are in a car or if the phone is powered off.

Eldridge says she now knows that at 5:45:44 p.m. on Feb 13. to 10:32 p.m. that night that the phone had wired headphones plugged in. She demonstrates headphones being plugged into an iPhone 6S.

She says it could also have been an auxiliary cord for a car that was plugged into the phone. “I cannot think of any explanation that does not involve humans,” she tells the jury.

Eldridge says that right before the headphones were plugged in, there was an incoming call, she says the headphones would have stopped that call.

At 3:09 p.m. prosecutor Nick McLeland starts cross-examination. He asks Eldridge about her training on cell phone extraction. She says this is the first time she has testified about cell phone extraction, other than in July.

She tells the jury she got a “rough location” on where the bodies were found and where the phone was found. She says she did not go to the crime scene.

Eldridge says she did not review every bit on info gathered by Cecil and focused most on health data. She says she did review the bridge guy video and agreed with the video’s time stamp and GPS location. She says she did not examine it enough to know the GPS location changed four seconds into the video.

Eldridge explains that there has to be up and down movement to track motion by the phone, but still says the phone would not have logged it if it were in a car. She says she did not find evidence that the phone had been turned off.

She says the phone was in and out of service before 5:45 p.m. on Feb. 13. She says it “could be an explanation” that Libby’s phone was just “hopping in and out of service and got service at 4:33 a.m. on Feb. 14.”

McLeland asks Eldridge if the phone would have had to be moved to plug in headphones. He asks if it could have registered it in the health data. Eldridge says that could be the case, but she did not test that.

She says there also could have been a signal blocker, like metal in a building.

On re-direct Eldridge says she “reviewed the most important information in the number of hours she had.” Auger asks her if the FBI ever did a “drive study,” which is a study that includes driving around to see what signal you get in what places. Auger asks if the FBI knew how to do this in 2017. Eldridge says, “Theoretically.”

Eldridge tells the jury that in order to plug in an auxiliary cable in, the phone would have to be moved. She says the phone would not have had to log movement if it was powered off after 4:33 a.m.

At 3:35 McLeland starts cross-examination again. Eldridge says that it takes “a little bit of movement” for a phone to start logging movements.

The jury asked the following questions:

1. Did you ever write your own timeline? Eldridge said “no, not enough time.”
2. Could any of this be related to Libby’s iPad? Eldridge says they were not synced.
3. Would water impact movement? Eldridge says no, that water would not impact the port.
4. Can you tell if the phone was on silent or vibrate? Eldridge says no.
5. Could you review Allen’s historical location timeline if he was using a “Ting” phone? She says she could if it was available.
6. Are there other apps that measure movement? She says yes, but did not look to see if Libby had them.

Court is in recess at 3:45 p.m.

1:52 p.m. Continued testimony of Eric Warren

Court is back in session at 11:31 a.m. There have been delays in getting the pool notes from Delphi today.

Defense attorney Brad Rozzi is continuing his questioning of Eric Warren. He asks “do firearm manufacturers take into account the force of the slide?” Warren responds, “yes, it’s a blueprint characteristic.”

Rozzi asks, “Is there research on integrity of the slide over time?” Warrens responds, “not specifically.”

Rozzi asks, “How would you describe Sig Sauer’s quality?” Warren says “generally perceived as high quality, the slide should maintain its integrity over time.”

At 11:36 a.m. attorney for the prosecution James Luttrell begins his cross examination.

He asks Warren, “you have no written report in this case, why?” Warren says “it is not something that came up.”

Luttrell asks, “You would expect took marks to persist over years, even with heavy use?” Warren says yes.

Luttrell goes through class, sub-class and individual characteristics, focusing on sub-class being from the manufacturing process.

He asks Warren, “Even sequential serial numbers may not share sub-class characteristics?” Warren says, “correct but it depends.”

Luttrell asks, “Will a trained examiner always look for sub-class?” Warren says yes.

Luttrell asks, “Did Oberg have any concern of sub-class on the extractor or chamber?” Warren says no.

Luttrell asks, “Do you know how many years of experience Oberg had as a firearms and tool mark examiner? Are you suggesting to the jury that Oberg forgot about sub-class of the extractor or chamber?” Warren says, “I’m saying it is possible because there is no documentation. I make every effort to document to the best of my ability.”

Luttrell asks, “Oberg noted three different tools making strengthened results, right?” Warren responds, “no.”

Luttrell asks if Warren agrees on the chamber hood in the report? Warren says, “Some argument, which is not sufficient.”

Luttrell asks Warren, “The test fired cartridge in this case was suitable in Oberg’s conclusion?” Warren says “yes, that was her conclusion.”

Luttrell asks, “do you actively use CMS (firearm training methods)?” Wheeler responds, “Yes. Only applicable to striated marks not in impressed marks.” He says he does not use in every case.

Luttrell asks “Were you trained to use another examiner’s photographs to testify about CMS in court?” Warren says yes.

Luttrell asks, “In 2021 did you indicate that you did not use CMS?” Warren says, “it might not have been applicable in that case, but I do not recall.”

Luttrell says that Warren’s lab is not accredited and asks, “what is the most important tool in your lab?” Warren says, “myself.”

Luttrell asks, “how valuable to you is your comparison microscope?” Warren says, “you need to use it if you’re making a comparison. Luttrell asks, “When asked by Rozzi if you received everything you needed, that didn’t include the cartridge or gun?” Warren says, “I received all documentation I needed.”

Pool reporter’s notes say at this point that Luttrell is “hammering into Warren on why he didn’t request/physically examine cartridge and gun.”

At 12:15 p.m. Rozzi begins his re-direct.

Rozzi asks, “Did I ask you to write a report?” Warren says no. Rozzi asks, “Did you make yourself available to the prosecution they wanted to depose you?” Warren says, “Yes, but it was a few weeks ago and I was in Morocco.”

At 12:24 p.m., the jury questions Warren:

1. How would CMS or objective testing be used when testing a firearm with a change in slide and racking angle? Warren says it would still need “significant agreement.”
2. Would removing, cleaning, disassembling change individual characteristics of a firearm? Warren says, “no, only if there was some sort of damage.”
3. Do you know if manufacturer keeps track of sub-class? Warren says, “no, they don’t.”
4. Is there a reason you didn’t verify the results of Oberg’s test by doing your own test? Warren says, “my role here was to educate attorneys on what documentation was and see if it supported the concession.”
5. Would doing your own analysis have been more conclusive? Warren says, “hard to say.”
6. Is CMS criteria the gold standard? Pool notes do not indicate an answer.
7. Are you a certified firearm and tool mark examiner? Warren says yes.
8. Would individual markings be different depending on who cycles? Warren says, “documentation of Oberg does not support conclusion.”
9. Did you look at the sub-class marks of the cartridge? Pool notes do not show an answer.
10. What is the relevance of cartridges having similar sub-class characteristics? Warren says, “Depends on if it is from manufacturing or cycling.”
11. Are sequential serial numbers made in the same lot? Warren says, “generally accepted that close serial numbers have parts made at similar times, but may be in different lots.”
12. Are you aware that Oberg’s conclusion was unfired by another expert? Warren says yes.
13. Are you aware Allen’s gun’s ejector was recessed and had similar markings to markings made on the cartridge? Warren says that is common in many guns like it.
14. Is it normal practice to not issue a report when consulting? Warren says yes.
15. What are the chances that the cartridge at the scene matches the test bullets? Warren says, “higher likelihood of guns just in Indiana.”

The court is in recess and breaks for lunch at 12:42 p.m.

11:33 a.m.

Janice Allen, Richard Allen’s mother, arrived in the courtroom around 9 a.m. She has been gone while recovering from a fall coming into the courthouse last week.

Richard Allen entered a few minutes later in a turquoise button-down shirt.

Court began at 9 a.m. The state filed a motion in limine requesting Dr. Grassian’s testimony not be considered, presuming guilty or innocence of Richard Allen, or opinions/legal conclusions of Richard Allen.

Defense said it had reservations about the timeline of their request, saying that a witness already can’t testify to guilty or innocence, but can disagree without other testimony. Allen’s legal team argues that this could, in this case, “handcuff” Allen.

In response, prosecutors said that they filed the motion because Westcott made a comparison to Allen’s innocence in her testimony Monday.

Allen’s legal team argued that the motion’s request is too  broad and asked for something that “doesn’t exist at this point.”

Gull said that, as long as the doctor has been told not to testify inappropriately, they should not have to worry about this. The judge added that if their witness “crosses the line,” then they will be having a different discussion.

Defense then called Betsey Blair, a witness who told police she saw “Bridge Guy”

Blair said the prosecution did not ask her what car she was driving on Feb. 13, 2017, earlier in the trial.

She testified that she went to the trails near the Monon High Bridge on Feb. 13, 2017, and then left after a while. She returned to the trails at 1:45 p.m. and left for good at 2:15 p.m.

Blair told the court she left the Mears entrance and turned left. She saw one car in the CPS lot. It had been backed into a parking spot and its front was pointing toward the county road. She said the car was not a bright color like red or yellow. 

Defense attorney Andrew Baldwin asked Blair if it was not a black car. She said she didn’t recall. 

Baldwin handed Blair a statement she made on April 2, 2019. In the statement, she says the car could not have been black.

Blair said she only saw the side of the car and couldn’t tell if it was a hatchback, adding that she even drew the profile of the car for police.

The jury was then shown a defense exhibit — Blair’s drawing of the car.

The defense ended its questioning and cross-examination began at 9:30 a.m.

Blair told the prosecution that she told police on Feb. 13, 2017, about the car that she saw in the CPS lot.

Prosecutor Stacey Diener said she told Blair that a similar vehicle had been seen around the same time, parked off the road and asked Blair if that changed her recollection. Blair said that she felt certain about the car she saw.

When cross-examination ended, the jury asked Blair two questions. 

• Q1: Is it possible the car at CPS belonged to someone inside?
• A: The building was abandoned.
• Q2: Do you know if anyone checked to see if the car belonged to an employee?
• A: I don’t know.

Next on the stand was Dr. Stuart Grassian. Grassian is Harvard-educated and has been on faculty at the Harvard University School of Medicine for 25 years.

Dr. Grassian told the court he has a special interest in what solitary confinement does to someone’s mental health and that he has evaluated “several hundred people” in those conditions.

Grassian said that the defense reached out to him about whether solitary confinement played a role in the incriminating statements Allen was making in prison.

The doctor was given videos, reviewed Westcott’s report, Wala’s notes, and several other records. He said he also listened to audio of Allen’s phone calls from Westville Correctional Unit.

All information was from Nov. 2022 to the spring of 2023. Grassian also said he was given info on Allen’s behavior inside Wabash Valley Correctional Facility up to February 2024. At this point, the prosecution asked for a sidebar.

After the sidebar, defense attorney Bradley Rozzi asked Grassian about solitary confinement in a clinical/professional cell.

Grassian said that when a person is confined to a small cell, there’s limited availability for mental stimulus. He told the court it’s “toxic for a mental state” and people cannot function: “In the worst cases, people can become psychotic.”

The doctor said that Allen’s cell “totally”  met those requirements.

Diener objected and said she needed more info on the sources the doctor is pulling from. 

Grassian responded, “The United Nations considers anything more than 15 days in solitary confinement ‘torture.’”

Diener objected, saying that doesn’t apply to the Indiana Department of Correction. The judge sustained.

Grassian told the jury that solitary confinement can cause behaviors including “smearing feces” and “acting out sexually” and that there is a high rate of suicide.

When Rozzi asked about “delirium,” Grassian described it as “a fog with everything floating by, nothing makes sense” that can be caused by internal factors (sepsis, heart failure) or external factors.

Grassian said Allen “absolutely” displayed symptoms of delirium in his phone calls from jail.

Grassian testified that false memory is a “big component” in Allen’s evaluation. He said false memory begins looking like memory over time. It’s like a game of telephone in your brain and starts with “I think I saw.”

He told the court that Richard Allen’s case looked like false memory.

Direct questioning ended and cross-examination began. Grassian said a real memory is “extremely perceptual” when compared to a fake memory. He added that it was “always about the conditions” when it came to solitary confinement and protective custody.

Diener ended, and after a quick mention about conditions by Rozzi, the jury asked questions.

• Q1: Do you believe psychotic behavior can go back to normal after being removed from solitary confinement?
• A: Yes.
• Q2: Do you believe a completely normal person can become psychotic after being in solitary confinement for more than 6 months to a year?
• A: Yes, I have seen it happen.

Grassian left the stand, and the defense called Dr. Eric Warren. Warren lives near Memphis, has a doctorate in biochemistry, and owns SEP Forensic Consultants, which helps with toolmark identification and crime scene reconstruction.

He previously worked for the state of Tennessee as a special agent in firearms, but left the job to pursue more toolmark work. Warren said his industry has a “critical community” with professionals, and said community work can be helpful because it’s like peer review.

Warren told the jury he was asked by Rozzi to review conclusions made by Melissa Oberg, a former firearms analyst who examined the bullet found by Libby and Abby’s bodies and Richard Allen’s gun.

He explained the process of reviewing Oberg’s reports, including her deposition and photographs of the cartridge. He then explained what class, subclass, and individual characteristics are when they come to bullets.

Class is general, like the make of a car, Warren said. Subclass is in between, larger than individual. Individual would be fine details, like “hair scratches.” He mentioned that labs have been shutdown over subclass and individual characteristics.

Warren said he was shown a 5-minute video of Richard Allen’s Sig Sauer, but couldn’t find anything significant in the video. He then explained the difference between cycling and firing a bullet, and said firing a bullet would make stronger marks. According to Warren, it isn’t appropriate to compare a fired cartridge to a cycled cartridge. “Apples to apples” is what Warren said he would expect, not “apples to oranges.”

Warren confirmed to the jury that Oberg used a fired round to compare the cycled round to, which he said wasn’t right as it isn’t repeatable and reproducible.

James Luttrell began his cross examination, asking if Warren only looking at the report and photos and not physical evidence would impact his ability to draw conclusions. But Warren disagreed.

He said Oberg didn’t examine the actual extractor in the gun to determine if there were potential subclass characteristics.

Rozzi then showed Warren a picture of triangular marks on the cartridge, which are ejector marks. He says those were “hallmark of subclass characteristics.”

Luttrell objected to Rozzi mentioning a lab that had been shut down over subclass characteristics, but Gull sustained. The two went back and forth on if “most” labs use CMS, which is an objective identification process.

Warren said some labs do not, but he wouldn’t classify it as “most,” but said he would have said there was an insufficient agreement in the cartridges.

Court recessed for a short break at 11:10 a.m.

9:06 a.m.: State motions to prevent testimony

Around 9:06 a.m., state prosecutors filed a motion to limine against defense expert Stuart Grassian.

Grassian was expected to testify about the effects of solitary confinement on an inmate, but the prosecution’s motion is an attempt to limit or prevent evidence, or in this case, a testimony, from the jury.

Gull later ruled to allow testimony from Grassian.

9 a.m.: Court resumes for Tuesday

Brief summary of Day 15 in the Delphi Murders trial

Monday’s court session featured testimonies from Richard Allen’s sister, daughter, neuropsychologist, and several others. The jury also viewed two video compilations of footage taken from Allen’s security camera inside his cell at Westville Correctional Facility.

The first witness was Dr. Polly Westcott, a neuropsychologist based out of Carmel who performed a psychological evaluation on Allen while in prison. Westcott shared the process of her assessment, which she performed over two days. She came to six conclusions:

• Allen has an extensive history of mental health issues
• Allen was not faking or exaggerating his symptoms
• Allen is slower to understand, process, and respond to things
• Allen experienced a complete mental health decrease in Westville
• Allen has major depressive disorder and slipped into psychosis due to stress
• Allen’s brain chemistry was changed while in prison, due to no contact with wife and family

She also mentioned that Allen has had severe anxiety and depression through his childhood and adulthood, and has struggled with suicidal ideation. She also commented on previous reports from Dr. Monica Wala, Allen’s psychologist in Westville, saying that Wala’s summaries of Allen’s murder confessions were “story-like,” and that videos of Allen around the same time weren’t logical.

Following questions from the prosecution about Allen’s mental health, the jury chimed in with their own questions. One of the questions asked was if Allen was depressed as a child if it would cause him to commit crimes as an adult. Westcott said no and it depended on the personality type.

After a short break, the jury viewed two video compilations of footage taken from the security camera inside Allen’s solitary confinement cell. The courtroom TV was faced away from the gallery, so only the jury, Special Judge Fran Gull, and the witness stand could see. The defense and prosecution had to move closer to see. Richard Allen did not watch the videos.

The videos ended, leaving jurors with raised brows and throwing glances at Allen. State prosecutor Nick McLeland commented that the defense intern Max Baker, who had compiled the footage, showed “what he viewed as his worst condition in Westville” and that Baker “showed the jury (the video) to try to show that Richard Allen is the victim.”

A back-and-forth ensued between Baker, McLeland, and defense attorney Brad Rozzi. Rozzi eventually jumped in to ask: “You picked what you picked to show them the truth?”

Baker said, “Yes.”

After multiple objections and another snippy back-and-forth, court recessed for lunch around 12:22 p.m.

Court’s afternoon session began with testimonies were from Jaime Jones, Allen’s half-sister, and Brittany Zapanta, Allen’s daughter.

Before Jones was called to speak, Judge Gull said the report from Westcott was “totem pole hearsay” and explained that unless the state can cite specific hearsay, she’ll admit the report.

The jury entered the courtroom, and Jones approached the witness stand. Jones said Richard Allen was five years her senior and they lived together through childhood. She told the jury Allen never touched her inappropriately. She told defense attorney Jennifer Auger she loved her brother, but would never lie for him.

Prosecutor James Luttrell started his cross examination, asking Jones if “the name Chris rang a bell?” Auger objected as they were discussing other neighborhood kids while Allen and Jones were growing up. The objection was sustained, and Luttrell moved on.

Jones left the stand and was replaced by Brittany Zapanta. Allen was reportedly nodding his head as she took the stand.

Zapanta said she moved out of the family home in 2015 for a job. She attended Ball State then went to Indianapolis. She currently works in urgent care. The defense asked her the same question they asked Jones: “Did your father molest you?” and “Would you lie for him?”

Zapanta said “no” to both questions.

Luttrell stepped in for his cross, asking if she and her father went to the Monon Trail and the High Bridge often. Auger objected to both questions.

The first was sustained, the second overruled. Zapanta then said she went to the bridge with her dad but only crossed it once or twice. He asked if Allen changed his appearance after she left for Ball State, and she said no. Luttrell asked about Allen’s height and weight, and Auger objected.

He then showed Zapanta photos of her father. Auger approached the bench, and after the sidebar ends, Luttrell showed Zapanta more photos and asked if specific ones looked like her dad in February 2017. Zapanta said yes.

The gallery did not see the pictures.

Auger objected to the photos, saying they were outside the scope of questioning and there was another sidebar. Gull sustained the objections.

The jury asked Zapanta about her visits to the bridge, and she confirms she only visited it and crossed the bridge with her dad a few times in her teens.

The reporter noted Allen was seen smiling as Zapanta left the stand.

The next set of witnesses were Shelby Hicks, a realtor who was on the trail on the day of the murders, and Steve Mullin, the former Delphi police chief.

Hicks said she took her car for repairs and went for a hike with her boyfriend. They arrived there at 2:30 p.m. and parked in the connector lot. She told attorney Andrew Baldwin that there were other cars parked there, as well.

Hicks said while they were walking, they saw an “older gentleman,” two girls from school, and a few other kids. She also saw an older man with a camera, and she said hi to the girls from high school.

They were there for around 15 – 20 minutes before they returned to her car. The next day, Hicks said her boyfriend wanted to tell law enforcement what they saw, but when they went to police, they were asked to come back at another time. Hicks said she met with law enforcement twice, in February and March 2017. Her cell phone data was never extracted.

She later said during her cross examination that she never walked across the high bridge and left the platform before her friends returned.

Steve Mullin was then called to the stand. The defense showed him a list of white Ford Focus SEs registered in Cass, Carroll, and Tippecanoe counties between 2011 and 2017. Baldwin said these were cars similar to Allen’s. Prosecutor McLeland objected, but Baldwin continued.

Baldwin asked if he knew how many people owned cars similar to Allen’s in Carroll County and the surrounding area. Mullin said no. Baldwin commented that Mullin created a log of missing interviews, but said Mullin didn’t say that at the hearings in March. Mullin admitted there was no log at that time, but he has since found it.

Baldwin asked if Mullin had investigated if there were any mentions of a van on social media. Mullin said no, which Baldwin remarks there were “many mentions of a van.”

The final testimony from Brad Weber, a Delphi resident who owned the property where Libby German and Abby Williams were killed. He had testified earlier in the trial and became frustrated with the court after questioning what he did after work on Feb. 13, 2017. The reporter noted Weber seemed “extremely disheveled” on Monday.

Defense’s Andrew Baldwin handed Weber a transcript of an interview he did with the FBI in February 2017. Baldwin then asked Weber about his ATM machine business, which Weber said he made money off of them through surcharges. He couldn’t remember how many ATMs he had during 2017.

Weber said he attended to his ATMs daily, checking how much money they have and gets the money from the bank. He said his ATMs were in gas stations, bars, restaurants, etc. He said he used a black Subaru to drive around and service his ATMs.

He added that on the day of the murders, he went straight home from his other job at the Subaru plant near Lafayette, and the “only time I used my van was when I was pulling a trailer.” Weber’s white Ford Econoline van was brought to question during his previous testimony, as News 8’s Kyla Russell has mentioned that Richard Allen kidnapped the girls and became scared after seeing a van, which pushed him to kill them. The van has not been directly connected to Weber.

Baldwin asked Weber if trespassers ever when onto his party, to which he said yes. He also said he didn’t hear any screaming on that day. Weber added he gave law enforcement permission to search his house but it wasn’t on Feb. 13, 2017.

McLeland’s cross-examination was short, but the jury asked Weber several questions about his ATMs, his route home, the process of clocking out of work, and if any of his ATMs would have photo or video of servicing.

The jury left the courtroom, and the defense said they planned to have former State Trooper Kevin Murphy testify and that he would have said that incident command always said there were more than one person involved in the investigation. The prosecution objected to that testimony. Baldwin also said he had an offer of proof for third party suspects, and Gull answered, “We’ve had this discussion a thousand times, you have no evidence to tie these people to the crime.”