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

Transcript

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

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace closing arguments and the Delphi
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: murders of Abby thirteen and Libby fourteen. Good evening, I'm
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Nancy Grace, this is Crime Stories. Thank you for being
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: with us.
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: Major Past Cicero says. There was a voluminous amount of
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: blood at the crime scene, but most of it came
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: from Libby. German.
• 0:24
  Speaker 3: Cicero says, Libby was moving and basically walking in blood.
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: Abby Williams died in the same spot where she was attacked.
• 0:33
  Speaker 4: I really believe that Abby and Libby would be proud
• 0:36
  Speaker 4: of you for standing strong even in the face of
• 0:39
  Speaker 4: immense pressure and perpetual criticism. Some of these individuals have
• 0:43
  Speaker 4: postponed retirement, passed on promotional opportunity, have dedicated personal time
• 0:49
  Speaker 4: away from their families, given up nights, weekends, and holidays,
• 0:53
  Speaker 4: all while in the pursuit of accountability for abbing Libby.
• 1:00
  Speaker 4: Today's announcement will not diminish your resolve, and I hope
• 1:04
  Speaker 4: you have found just a bit of peace in this
• 1:06
  Speaker 4: most complicated world.
• 1:07
  Speaker 5: Wow.
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: How true Those were the words of Superintendent Doug Carter
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: with the Indiana State Police months and months ago, Yet
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: it all rings true. The trial that has taken weeks
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: and years in the making culminates with closing arguments today
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: in the Delphi Court of Law. Joining me an all
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: star panelt to make sense of what we know right now.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: But first to Cheryl McCollum, forensic expert, founder of the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: Cold Case Research Institute, and star.
• 1:43
  Speaker 5: Of Zone seven podcast.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: Cheryl McCollum, when I heard the words of Indiana State
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Police Superintendent Doug Carter, it really gave me pause.
• 1:55
  Speaker 5: Did you hear what he said?
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: That facing immense pressure and perpetual criticism.
• 2:03
  Speaker 5: That l had moved forward.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: And that is what this trial has been in mince
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: pressure and perpetual criticism.
• 2:11
  Speaker 6: They have been attagged from all sides. They have stood firm,
• 2:17
  Speaker 6: they have been professional, They have been without hesitation to
• 2:23
  Speaker 6: make sure that justice is served for Abby and Libby.
• 2:28
  Speaker 5: Well.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: The judge advised everyone at the beginning of the closing
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: arguments that went down today in a court of law
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: that each side would have two and a half hours,
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: but only evidence and testimony that was actually admitted a
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: trial could be allowed. That does trying to keep out
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: theories on odinism, trying to keep out the sod defense.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: Some other dude did it because that did not come
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: into evidence. What is the point of closing arguments to
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: summarize what the jury has heard? Now, now we know
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: some of the last testimony that jury heard was the defense.
• 3:07
  Speaker 3: Listen, on the seventeenth day of testimony in the Delphi
• 3:10
  Speaker 3: murders trial, Richard Allen's defense attorney, Brad Rossey addresses the court,
• 3:14
  Speaker 3: telling the judge the defense rests. Judge franciscall was surprised,
• 3:19
  Speaker 3: as was the state. After a recess, the state called
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: three rebuttal witnesses. Two had already testified, but the state
• 3:26
  Speaker 3: called doctor John Martin, the prison psychologist who met with
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: Richard Allen at Westvield Correctional Facility.
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: Very interesting, the state puts on a rebuttal case. Now
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: let me go straight out to our legal expert, Philip Dubay,
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: renowned trial lawyer, currently a public defender in the La
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: County judicial system. Philip, thank you for being with us.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: This is how it goes down. We know that the
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: state started opening statements the defense. Of course they can
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: waive their second argument. The defense goes an act and
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: then the state finishes with a third closing argument.
• 4:04
  Speaker 5: In most jurisdictions, that is because.
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: If the defense puts up anything other than the defense testimony, anything,
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: the state gets a final closing argument. Therein lies the
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: rub for the defense. Of course, the defense put up
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: a lot of evidence, so the state gets a final
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: closing argument to the jury. That as well established across
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: the country. I believe it's because the state carries the
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: burden of proof.
• 4:30
  Speaker 5: What about you?
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah?
• 4:32
  Speaker 7: I agree. Remember, the prosecution gets an opportunity to rebut
• 4:37
  Speaker 7: what it is that the defense is saying, And if
• 4:40
  Speaker 7: you don't allow them to rebutt it, it looks as
• 4:43
  Speaker 7: if they have not carried their burden. So the prosecution
• 4:46
  Speaker 7: is allowed to a wait to see what the sum
• 4:48
  Speaker 7: total of the defense case is in their closing and
• 4:51
  Speaker 7: then in their rebuttal or sometimes we call it their
• 4:54
  Speaker 7: b argument ab they can then attack each point with
• 4:59
  Speaker 7: the evidence they've put on to rebut.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: That exactly, That is exactly why the state gets a
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: second closing argument. Of course, they have the option to
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: waive that second closing argument at the end and do
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: it all at the beginning, but that's typically a very
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: bad move. So what did the defense present to the jury.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: What will be fresh on the jury's mind? First and foremost,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: the only tangible evidence that links Richard Allen to the
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: murder scene ballistics.
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: The key piece of evidence that ty is Richard Allen
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: directly to Libyan Abbey is the unspent round found between
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: the girl's bodies. Doctor Melissa Oberg's analysis found the crime
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: scene round had been cycled through Alan's gun. Defense expert
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: doctor Eric Warren reviewed the results of ISP testing and
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: tells the jury it is an apples to Orange's comparison.
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: Warren says, Oberg compared the initial round, which had been
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: cycled not fired, to a bullet from Allan's gun on
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: the stand. Oberg said an ejector mark was an ejector
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: regardless of whether around was cycled or fired. Were in
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: disputed that testimony, saying the lab needed to identify tool
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: marks under the same conditions in which the bullet was found.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: Okay, straight out to Dave Matt, crime online dot Com
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: investigative reporter covering the case from the very beginning, and
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: to those of you naysayers, Crime Stories did not start
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: covering the case when the trial started. We started covering
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: the case years ago when Abby and Libby were murdered.
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: To Dave Matt, explain to everyone the arguments made in
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: closing statements regarding the bullet.
• 6:41
  Speaker 5: What is the defense arguing.
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: They're arguing that you could not get the actual markings
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: on that unspent cartridge without going through the firing of
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: the gun.
• 6:55
  Speaker 8: They're expert. The defense asked for expert claims.
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: That the only way the prosecution was able to get
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: the final result they wanted to say that this cartridge
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: had gone through the gun is by firing a bullet
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: from the gun and then comparing that spenshell with what
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: they found at the scene. And by the way, the
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: defense expert never touched the gun, never touched the cartridge.
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: He's doing the And by the way, it wasn't even
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: in the same room with either thing. He actually only
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: looked at pictures. And you're talking about markings on this
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: unspent cartridge. Fancy that you've really got to be able
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: to look at and study up close and personal to
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: actually match these things up.
• 7:38
  Speaker 8: He only did it with a couple of pictures.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: Okay, Philip dubay joining me, high profile lawyer out of
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: the LA jurisdiction.
• 7:44
  Speaker 5: Never a lack of business there, Philip.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: Dubay I loved it when the defense would bring on
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: an expert that had never seen the crime scene, had
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: never seen the object, had never done any testing. In fact,
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: you could do that cross examination in one question only
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: if you wanted to, by simply saying, isn't it true,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: mister Debay, you've never even held the bullet, But you're
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: in front of this jury trying to tell them your
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: expert analysis on the bullet you've never seen.
• 8:14
  Speaker 7: Well, remember the purpose, right, Yeah, The purpose of the
• 8:16
  Speaker 7: expert isn't necessarily to recreate or to do a demonstration.
• 8:21
  Speaker 7: It's to educate the jury on tool mark science. And
• 8:25
  Speaker 7: you want them to understand that merely drive cycling a
• 8:28
  Speaker 7: gun doesn't lead ejector mark. Lead ejector marks doesn't leave
• 8:33
  Speaker 7: striations and lands and grooves, et cetera. That would be
• 8:37
  Speaker 7: the argument.
• 8:37
  Speaker 5: It does leave a mark, though it leaves an ejector mark.
• 8:40
  Speaker 7: It does. But the question then becomes, is it the
• 8:42
  Speaker 7: same ejector mark that would match the barrel of his gun,
• 8:48
  Speaker 7: And that's going to be the issue. Did they actually
• 8:50
  Speaker 7: look at the gun? Because if it's match.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: Okay, Philip Dubai, you totally side stepped my question. The
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: expert is not there to administer a tutorial to the jury.
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: The expert is there to counter what the state's expert said.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: And how can an expert know anything if they've never
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: even looked at the exhibit, never held it in their hand,
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: never looked at it under a microscope.
• 9:17
  Speaker 5: Oh Hgwlno, I mean Joe.
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: Scott Morgan is with me, Professor of Forensics, Jacksonville State University,
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: author of Blood Beneath My Feet, star of Body Bags.
• 9:28
  Speaker 5: With Joe Scott Morgan.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: Joe Scott, you have to look at this under a microscope.
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: I mean, why why not take the time to go
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: look at the state's bullet and compare it to the
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: round fired and ejected at the crime left to make
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: the comparison.
• 9:49
  Speaker 5: How can you make any decision based on a picture?
• 9:52
  Speaker 9: Yeah, I can tell you've been to crime lab before, Nancy,
• 9:54
  Speaker 9: because we do use microscopes for this purpose. You cannot
• 9:58
  Speaker 9: simply look at a photo and draw a conclusion relative
• 10:02
  Speaker 9: to this. As a matter of fact, we use what's
• 10:04
  Speaker 9: called a comparison microscope. So that means you've got two
• 10:07
  Speaker 9: central ocules right here and then two separate platforms that
• 10:12
  Speaker 9: actually compare. You can take one spent or you can
• 10:16
  Speaker 9: take one cartridge and another cartridge, and you compare them
• 10:20
  Speaker 9: in real time as you're looking at it. And this
• 10:22
  Speaker 9: is not something we talk about examining something with the
• 10:25
  Speaker 9: unaided eye. This is not something you can do with
• 10:29
  Speaker 9: the unaided eye. You physically have to look at it
• 10:32
  Speaker 9: to do the assessment. And here's another thing. Listen, if
• 10:36
  Speaker 9: you've got a defense expert, that weapon can, in fact,
• 10:40
  Speaker 9: in most cases, be provided to them and they can
• 10:43
  Speaker 9: do their own experiments. Here it sounds like they really
• 10:46
  Speaker 9: took a shortcut here. I don't know, you know, maybe
• 10:49
  Speaker 9: this guy didn't have access to a comparison microscope, maybe
• 10:52
  Speaker 9: you didn't have time. But I got to tell you,
• 10:54
  Speaker 9: there's a lot riding on this, and I can't believe
• 10:57
  Speaker 9: that they would walk into court with this expert and
• 11:00
  Speaker 9: he hasn't actually put his hands on an unspent cartridge
• 11:06
  Speaker 9: like this and compared it to one that has been
• 11:09
  Speaker 9: cycled through. It doesn't make sense to.
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: Me, okay, to have an expert basically look at the
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: bullet the way we're looking at it right now. You're
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: looking at an image of a bullet. The markings on
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: a fired or cycled bullet are microscopic.
• 11:29
  Speaker 5: Microscopic you. I can't look.
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: At what Joe Scott is holding and say, oh, yeah, yeah,
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: that's not a match. You have to look under a microscope.
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: For Pete's sake, I mean, Cheryl McCollum, I find that
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: this really hurt the defense case.
• 11:45
  Speaker 5: They shouldn't have even put him up. I'm not saying
• 11:47
  Speaker 5: he's not an expert. He is an expert.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: But without having looked at the bullet under a microscope,
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: how can he make.
• 11:55
  Speaker 5: The comparison and say, yeah, that didn't come from the
• 11:57
  Speaker 5: same gun.
• 11:58
  Speaker 6: He can't legitimately for us, we're gonna take that cartridge
• 12:02
  Speaker 6: and we're gonna turn it three sixty. We're gonna look
• 12:05
  Speaker 6: at every single angle and line those striations up and
• 12:10
  Speaker 6: those markings up to show it's an absolute match. And
• 12:15
  Speaker 6: when the prosecution witness was on the stand, she was unwavering.
• 12:20
  Speaker 6: They could not attack her at all. She was solid
• 12:25
  Speaker 6: in her testimony that it was a match. And just remember,
• 12:29
  Speaker 6: whether it's ejected by firing or you know, racking that gun,
• 12:33
  Speaker 6: it's exiting the same way. So those ejection marks are
• 12:37
  Speaker 6: going to be the same regardless of how it gets
• 12:41
  Speaker 6: out of that weapon.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: So let me understand something, Bill Daley. Former FBI investigator
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: and security expert Bill Dealey break it down in simple language,
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: why it's so important that an expert look at a
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: bullet under a microscope, and what effect this is going
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: to have on the as both sides battled out in
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: these closing arguments.
• 13:03
  Speaker 5: All day long.
• 13:04
  Speaker 10: Yeah, absolutely, as And let me just point out one thing,
• 13:07
  Speaker 10: one theory here we discuss why the defenses expert didn't
• 13:11
  Speaker 10: use any techniques. It didn't examine the bullet or the
• 13:14
  Speaker 10: gun personally. Perhaps if they did, they would be led
• 13:18
  Speaker 10: to their proper conclusion, so they could only kind of
• 13:20
  Speaker 10: fire kind of put holes into this this prosecutions scheme
• 13:25
  Speaker 10: with regardless bullet, by only looking at the photo, by
• 13:28
  Speaker 10: only reading a report, by doing that type of analysis.
• 13:31
  Speaker 10: But to your point, is that the only way to
• 13:33
  Speaker 10: properly identify something, whether it's a bullet, whether it happens
• 13:36
  Speaker 10: to be you know, stridations on a knife left on
• 13:39
  Speaker 10: the victim or whatever, you need to look at the
• 13:42
  Speaker 10: actual weapon. You need to look at the physical evidence. Now,
• 13:45
  Speaker 10: absent that, of course, you're going to use photographs, you're
• 13:47
  Speaker 10: gonna use other techniques to do the examination. But when
• 13:50
  Speaker 10: that's available, there's no excuse that an expert would not
• 13:54
  Speaker 10: use techniques that are known throughout the forensic field to
• 13:57
  Speaker 10: examine those this particular bullet, this cartridge which was ejected,
• 14:01
  Speaker 10: not fired, as opposed to when the other guy said
• 14:04
  Speaker 10: it didn't go through the barrel, It came out of
• 14:06
  Speaker 10: the slide. It came out of the side of the
• 14:08
  Speaker 10: weapon when it was slid back, not fire.
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: And Joscott Morgan, you know, when the opposing side wants
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: to look at the state's evidence, they can look at it,
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: and they can even test it in the crime lab.
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: It would be over my cold dead body that I
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: would let that bullet go unattended with the defense.
• 14:28
  Speaker 5: That's not happening.
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: I wouldn't even leave the courtroom at lunchtime with all
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: the exhibits laying out. No, but you can allow the
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: defense to do whatever experiments they want to do. If
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: they want to look at the bullet under the crime
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: lab microscope, have at it. If they even want to
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: do a test fire on the same gun, do it
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: at the crime lab. So I don't see there's any
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: way that they were disallowed to do their own testing.
• 14:54
  Speaker 5: But they didn't. That is a major fill.
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: But could you explain Scott, the defense's argument that this
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: bullet did not come from Allen's gun.
• 15:07
  Speaker 5: How are they even making that claim?
• 15:09
  Speaker 9: I don't understand that. First off, we had the correct caliber.
• 15:12
  Speaker 9: This was a six hour forty cow round that they found,
• 15:17
  Speaker 9: and that goes back to the weapon that he had,
• 15:20
  Speaker 9: and the internal ejection mechanism for this weapon is very
• 15:24
  Speaker 9: distinct to the weapon itself. And the way we kind
• 15:27
  Speaker 9: of break this down is we do a general classification
• 15:31
  Speaker 9: and then we'll do specifics relative to this weapon.
• 15:35
  Speaker 10: Now.
• 15:35
  Speaker 9: I don't know how many times this individual has fired
• 15:37
  Speaker 9: this weapon over the years, but there are distinct changes
• 15:41
  Speaker 9: that take place with this weapon. Even though it's in
• 15:44
  Speaker 9: a general category, you break it down even further than that,
• 15:47
  Speaker 9: and those specific markings are unique to that weapon. You
• 15:51
  Speaker 9: could have fifty other six hours out there that fit
• 15:56
  Speaker 9: this description in a general sense, it's going to be
• 15:59
  Speaker 9: specific to this weapon. Bill brought up an excellent point, Nancy.
• 16:03
  Speaker 9: This idea that what they were afraid of finding out
• 16:07
  Speaker 9: here to put it in his hand in order to
• 16:10
  Speaker 9: test this thing could be detrimental. Isn't it fascinating that
• 16:14
  Speaker 9: they can just kind of throw this out there without
• 16:17
  Speaker 9: any substantive scientific evaluation, and you're supposed to buy it.
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Gray.
• 16:35
  Speaker 11: During ninety minutes of testimony and showing photos, Sergeant Page
• 16:39
  Speaker 11: testified about the area where the bodies were found, a
• 16:42
  Speaker 11: large area of leaves and rough ground still saturated with
• 16:45
  Speaker 11: blood the day after the girls were found, as well
• 16:48
  Speaker 11: as dry blood on a nearby tree trunk.
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: In the courtroom, as the photos were being described, noises
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: are heard throughout the courtroom, sniffles, gas, family members embracing, jurors,
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: squirming in their seats, and uncomfortable blood.
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: Evidence, of course, a major keystone in those closing arguments.
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: For those of you just joining us, closing arguments go
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: down in the Delphi double murder trial. The victims two
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: little girls, Abby and Libby. Now the defense is arguing, hey,
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: don't look at the bullet and be don't listen to
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: the confessions as we now know, and this is part
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: of the closing arguments. The defense did their best to
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: undermine those confessions, including bringing on the defendant, Richard Allen's
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: daughter and half sister. Why because in one of Allan's
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: confessions he claimed he had molested them. Big bone of
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: contention in closing arguments.
• 17:48
  Speaker 3: Listen, the defense calls Richard Allen's daughter, Britney Saponta, and
• 17:52
  Speaker 3: has half sister Jamie Jones, to the stand Before being
• 17:55
  Speaker 3: asked certain questions. Allan's attorney apologized for having to ask
• 17:59
  Speaker 3: uncomfortab questions. Each was asked, did Richard Allen ever molest you?
• 18:03
  Speaker 3: Both answered no.
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: Doctor Bethany Marshall joining us, renowned psychoanalyst out of the
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: LA jurisdiction and author of deal Breakers. You can see
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: her on Peacock Now and at Dr Bethany Marshall dot com.
• 18:15
  Speaker 5: Dr Bethany, thank you for being with us. What do
• 18:18
  Speaker 5: you make of that?
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: What do you make of the sister and the daughter
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: taking the stand to say he did not molest me?
• 18:28
  Speaker 5: Well Nancy.
• 18:29
  Speaker 12: In the prison psychologist's evaluation, he intimates that Richard Allen
• 18:34
  Speaker 12: has something called passive dependent personality disorder. And this is
• 18:38
  Speaker 12: significant to me because with that particular type of personality disorder,
• 18:43
  Speaker 12: the individual will do anything to maintain dependency on their
• 18:48
  Speaker 12: love objects. They will refuse to work, they will refuse
• 18:51
  Speaker 12: to make their own food, they will refuse to be independent.
• 18:54
  Speaker 12: Sometimes they become they become very dramatic to hold the attention.
• 19:00
  Speaker 5: Of their love objects.
• 19:01
  Speaker 12: And that could be the motivation for continually confessing and
• 19:06
  Speaker 12: then ramping it up and saying that he molested his daughters.
• 19:10
  Speaker 12: Is he's being a drama queen.
• 19:13
  Speaker 13: He's making the stories bigger and bigger so that he
• 19:16
  Speaker 13: can stay at the center of things.
• 19:19
  Speaker 12: He wants the attention of his wife now to you
• 19:22
  Speaker 12: and I, that would seem crazy to confess to molesting
• 19:26
  Speaker 12: two molesting one's daughter and killing two little girls to
• 19:30
  Speaker 12: grab the other person's attention. But he's getting his wife.
• 19:34
  Speaker 12: He draws her in again and again in these phone
• 19:38
  Speaker 12: conversations and he says, I did it. Do you still
• 19:41
  Speaker 12: love me?
• 19:42
  Speaker 5: And then she'll know you didn't do it?
• 19:44
  Speaker 12: And so this is the.
• 19:45
  Speaker 13: Dance he's doing with her to try to get her
• 19:48
  Speaker 13: to be connected to him.
• 19:50
  Speaker 5: Cheryl McCollum.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: I want to focus on the sister and the daughter.
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: Taking the stand this came up and closing arguments. Taking
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: the stand is saying he confessed molesting me, but he
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: didn't molest me.
• 20:02
  Speaker 5: Isn't it true?
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: Cheryl McCollum that Richard Allen stated in one of his
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: many confessions, Look, I didn't do all that stuff.
• 20:09
  Speaker 5: I said, I did, but I did murder Abby and Libby.
• 20:13
  Speaker 6: He said it over and over and over to multiple people,
• 20:17
  Speaker 6: and I recognized the defense didn't call his mama, who
• 20:22
  Speaker 6: he told flat out I did it. I killed him.
• 20:25
  Speaker 6: She said no, that law enforcement is messing with you.
• 20:29
  Speaker 6: And he was very clear he said, they're not messing
• 20:32
  Speaker 6: with me. I did it. And Nancy again, if you
• 20:35
  Speaker 6: look at somebody like even Ted Bundy, he used things
• 20:39
  Speaker 6: to shock people. He wanted, you know, confass all about
• 20:43
  Speaker 6: the pornography. And then when they gave him a number
• 20:45
  Speaker 6: of victims, he said, added zero to it. Sometimes they
• 20:49
  Speaker 6: will lie to further shock and just discuss people. But
• 20:53
  Speaker 6: that does not mean the sixty times that he said
• 20:57
  Speaker 6: he did it, that he wasn't telling the truth.
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: Well, we can argue to her blue in the face.
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: Did he intend to make the confessions? Was he in
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: his right mind? But the fact remains Cheryl McCollum, that
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: he gave these confessions before the public knew the facts
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: surrounding the murders, such as the purp had a gun,
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: a bullet was found on the scene, the girl's throats
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: were slashed, they were covered with branches. A van drove
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: by in the middle of the attack. He knew those
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: details before they were made public.
• 21:32
  Speaker 6: Not only did he know them, he put them in
• 21:36
  Speaker 6: chronological order, which somebody during a psychotic break would not
• 21:40
  Speaker 6: be able to do. Richard Allen and Richard Allen alone
• 21:44
  Speaker 6: gave us motive. It was a sexual assault motivated crime.
• 21:50
  Speaker 6: Richard Allen alone gave us the reason. There was a
• 21:53
  Speaker 6: lack of DNA. He made them across the river, and
• 21:57
  Speaker 6: then he got spooped and couldn't finished the crime thereby
• 22:02
  Speaker 6: not being able to leave his DNA.
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: So are you saying, Cheryl McCollum, that the motive was rape?
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: And when the white van, which is another fact the
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: public didn't know a neighbor drove home in a white
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: van in the middle of the attack. According to the state,
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: no one would have known that except the killer that
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: spooked him. He either got scared or lost his erection
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: and couldn't go forward with the rape, so he killed
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: the girls so they could never be witnesses.
• 22:33
  Speaker 5: I believe you were the first one to point that out.
• 22:35
  Speaker 6: I was the first one to say that. And I'll
• 22:37
  Speaker 6: tell you something else. When you sent me there the
• 22:40
  Speaker 6: first time, and I stood where they were murdered and left.
• 22:46
  Speaker 6: Only the killer would know that. You could even see
• 22:50
  Speaker 6: that side street, much less of vehicle. There's no way
• 22:54
  Speaker 6: Richard Allen would even know that unless he had been
• 22:56
  Speaker 6: standing in that spot.
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: And then, of course, as in many closing arguments, guess
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: who reared his ugly head, Satan, of course listen.
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: A neuropsychologist testifying for the defense says Richard Allen claimed
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: that Satan killed the girls and made up other stories
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: while in a psychotic state. Neuropsychologist Polly Westcott was hired
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: by the defense in May twenty twenty three and says
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: Alan already had depression and anxiety when he arrived in jail.
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: It was the battle of the gods throughout the day
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: in that Delpi courtroom, as closing arguments go down, first
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: the defense claiming.
• 23:34
  Speaker 5: Don't look at the bullet, and then.
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: Second, don't listen to the confessions, and third that sketch
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: doesn't prove anything. Richard Allen's not the bridge guy. Well,
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: it also boiled down to mind games.
• 23:51
  Speaker 5: Listen.
• 23:52
  Speaker 11: Neuropsychologist Polly Westcott said Richard Allen experienced hallucinations, psychosis, and
• 23:57
  Speaker 11: suicidal ideation. Corrections. Officers testified that Richard Allen would hit
• 24:02
  Speaker 11: his head on the wall, wash his face in the toilet,
• 24:05
  Speaker 11: reuse food, eat paper, smearing feces in his cell, and
• 24:09
  Speaker 11: putting feces on his face for two hours.
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: Allan was in.
• 24:14
  Speaker 11: Solitary confinement for thirteen months, and according to Westcott, that
• 24:18
  Speaker 11: can change brain chemistry.
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: When I say mind games, that's exactly what I mean.
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: Was he in charge of his mental abilities? Did he
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: know what he was saying when he made those confessions.
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: We also learn from witnesses that when he gave the confessions,
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: he seemed calm and coherent, later admitting I didn't do
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: all the things I claimed I did, but I did
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: kill Abby and Libby. You know to you, Dave Mac
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: investigative reporter Crime online dot com. We noticed that the
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: antics behind bars coincide with him confessing to his wife.
• 25:02
  Speaker 5: His wife hangs.
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: Up on him first, he said, stop talking and hangs
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: up on him, and then suddenly the lawyers come in.
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: She obviously called the lawyers. His antics. Then began explain
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: to me what he did behind bars. That gives the
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: defense fuel to claim insanity.
• 25:23
  Speaker 8: It was a he planned it out rightly.
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: Apparently he actually would like he would skip a number
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: of days of eating, okay, Like he would skip four meals,
• 25:34
  Speaker 2: because after you skip your fourth meal, it has to
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: be reported that you're no longer eating. So as soon
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: as he would skip that fourth meal, they would report it,
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: you'd start eating again. He worked the system like that.
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: But this is a guy that bathed his face and
• 25:48
  Speaker 2: toy in the toilet. I mean, he smeared pieces all
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: over himself, all over the cell. He did the most despicable,
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: disgusting things you can think of doing while you're in
• 25:58
  Speaker 2: a cell by yourself. And and it was all plotted
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: and planned at the exact time it needed to happen,
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: as you mentioned, as soon as they bring in the
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: lawyers and everything else, as you've got your confessions going on,
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: and Benstall is crazy, and then all of a sudden
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: it goes away. I mean, this was a plotted and
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: planned event for him to be able to throw out
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: these confessions.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: And this was a major point of contention in closing arguments.
• 26:25
  Speaker 3: Listen, Prosecutor Stacy Deaner challenged Polly Wescott during cross examination
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: about her claims that Allan made up stories while in
• 26:32
  Speaker 3: a psychotic state, asking Wescott of everything a person says
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: when in a psychotic state is distorted due to their psychosis.
• 26:39
  Speaker 3: After providing an answer that didn't answer the question, Deaner
• 26:42
  Speaker 3: followed up with could they say things that are accurate?
• 26:45
  Speaker 3: Wescott responds yes too.
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: Doctor Bethany Marshall renounced psychoanalyst joining us. Doctor Bethany several
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: questions for you. I didn't really crystallize these thoughts. They
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: were unmarshaled until I read some comments by someone on
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: Twitter named cajun.
• 27:07
  Speaker 5: Dvl dog Dawg.
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: And he was going through very methodically the claims by
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: the defense, and he I think it's a He points
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: out that when the defense argues he's been in solitary
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: for thirteen months, he actually had a companion sitting outside
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: the door. Okay, that was with him all this time,
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: That he had a tablet an iPad.
• 27:39
  Speaker 5: To speak to. You know, he could communicate with his
• 27:42
  Speaker 5: family and lawyers. He would eat. I believe it was
• 27:47
  Speaker 5: every fifth meal.
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: So let me understand, depression and bipolar does not insanity
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: make I know that much. Now, how can you claim
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: that because you have depended personality disorder? In other words,
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: he was very dependent on his Why right that somehow that.
• 28:06
  Speaker 5: Forces you into a psychotic break. I don't understand this, Nancy.
• 28:10
  Speaker 12: There's no true evidence of psychosis. I read the prison
• 28:14
  Speaker 12: psychologist's evaluation and assessment of him, and he makes a
• 28:18
  Speaker 12: couple important points. He says that his associations are clear,
• 28:23
  Speaker 12: so he's not having loose associations connecting things that in
• 28:27
  Speaker 12: reality don't connect. He says that there is no evidence
• 28:31
  Speaker 12: of something called.
• 28:31
  Speaker 5: Flight of ideas.
• 28:33
  Speaker 12: Flight of ideas is when you just kind of mow
• 28:35
  Speaker 12: from one idea to another to another in a way
• 28:38
  Speaker 12: that is a little bit manic. He said that he
• 28:41
  Speaker 12: was eating his meals, that he was putting on weight,
• 28:45
  Speaker 12: that he looked much improved, that he had refused to
• 28:49
  Speaker 12: wear his prison jumpsuit to the interview room instead he
• 28:53
  Speaker 12: just preferred to wear his T shirt. So I think
• 28:55
  Speaker 12: this all this stuff about, can you say something that's
• 28:58
  Speaker 12: true in a psychotics state, Yes, of course you can.
• 29:02
  Speaker 12: But I do not believe he was psychotic. And I
• 29:05
  Speaker 12: have viewed people who are making up or malingering being psychotic.
• 29:10
  Speaker 13: They always act crazy like this because in reality they
• 29:13
  Speaker 13: don't know what it means to be psychotic. So how
• 29:16
  Speaker 13: can you pretend to be something you've never been. You
• 29:19
  Speaker 13: just think of the craziest thing ever. Wash your face
• 29:23
  Speaker 13: in the toilet bowl, you know, smear feces on the wall.
• 29:26
  Speaker 13: It's like a child trying to make up a character
• 29:29
  Speaker 13: that they've never even witnessed or seen before.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: Cheryl McCollum has been in the courtroom throughout the trial. Cheryl,
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: isn't it true that during testimony an expert revealed that
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: if someone is keeping a chain of thought that goes
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: in chronological order, that that can be relied upon.
• 29:52
  Speaker 6: Nancy not only does he keep things in chronological order,
• 29:56
  Speaker 6: he's able to go before during an as for the crime,
• 30:01
  Speaker 6: So he says he's at his parents, he bought beer,
• 30:04
  Speaker 6: he stops by his house to get a jacket, even
• 30:07
  Speaker 6: though it's a warm day. He goes to the bridge,
• 30:09
  Speaker 6: he sees the girls, he follows them, he brushes a weapon,
• 30:14
  Speaker 6: he makes them go down the hill. He starts to
• 30:17
  Speaker 6: do this crime, He sees a van, gets food and
• 30:23
  Speaker 6: then leaves. And what's really critical here is he even
• 30:26
  Speaker 6: says I'm there, date and time that they were there,
• 30:30
  Speaker 6: I saw him, I did this. I part here. He
• 30:34
  Speaker 6: gives us every single thing we need in the order that.
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: It happened closing arguments in the Delphi double murder trial,
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: where Abby and Libby were both murdered out in the
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: middle of nowhere near a very high trestle bridge on
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: trial the local pharmacy tech Richard Allen.
• 30:54
  Speaker 5: Where could the jury go? Now, Well, you're always worried
• 30:56
  Speaker 5: that there.
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: Could be one zany gurror will latch on to the
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: sad some other dude did it defense including crazy theories.
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: For instance, we heard this zany theory from True Crime
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: Designs blaming sister Kelsey.
• 31:15
  Speaker 14: I have long speculated that Kelsey is the one who
• 31:18
  Speaker 14: planted this evidence on Libby's phone, because she, by her
• 31:22
  Speaker 14: own admission, had the passwords to Libby's socials.
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: Okay, that's from True Crime design Cheryl McCollum.
• 31:30
  Speaker 5: There was an.
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: All out war online when I announced after leaving the
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: courtroom that YouTubers online, not YouTubers in the courtroom, but
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: YouTubers online had actually been attacking the victim's family. Oh
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: all Hgal broke loose that that wasn't true, but we
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: just heard it.
• 31:53
  Speaker 6: It is amazing to me some of these folks that
• 31:57
  Speaker 6: have put out that Kelsey had anything in the world
• 32:02
  Speaker 6: to do with the murder of her sister and her
• 32:05
  Speaker 6: sister's friend Abby. Nancy. It also blew my mind that
• 32:10
  Speaker 6: people then started attacking you because you called them out.
• 32:14
  Speaker 6: Here's the reality. They don't have to believe me or you.
• 32:18
  Speaker 6: The defense failed to show in any way obviously that
• 32:23
  Speaker 6: Kelsey German had anything to do with these murders. This
• 32:27
  Speaker 6: is baseless, It is repugnant, and you want to talk
• 32:31
  Speaker 6: about the devil, this is the work of the devil
• 32:34
  Speaker 6: in my opinion, that you would go after Kelsey German
• 32:37
  Speaker 6: in any way when Kelsey was a hero that night.
• 32:42
  Speaker 6: She's the one that put it on social media. She's
• 32:45
  Speaker 6: the one that started calling the phones trying to see
• 32:47
  Speaker 6: if they could hear them ring it. She's the one
• 32:49
  Speaker 6: that identified the shoe that was found from that bridge.
• 32:53
  Speaker 6: A seventeen year old girl decided to call that entire
• 32:57
  Speaker 6: community to action, and Nancy, I personally appreciate you going
• 33:02
  Speaker 6: there in person the day before going into court as
• 33:06
  Speaker 6: long as you could until the judge said you couldn't
• 33:08
  Speaker 6: come back in her rule, not yours, and then you
• 33:11
  Speaker 6: went to locations that were so important. You were boots
• 33:15
  Speaker 6: on the ground, and it doesn't matter how much time
• 33:18
  Speaker 6: you spent in court. It matters that you spent time,
• 33:23
  Speaker 6: and those families appreciated Nancy Grace walking in that courtland.
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: You know what, Cheryl, We're gonna always have critics, no
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: matter how hard we try, and no matter what we do.
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: I'm not focusing on them. That means nothing to me.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: I'm focusing on what happened in closing arguments.
• 33:39
  Speaker 5: Now.
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: Speaking of blaming Kelsey as one defense, thank goodness the
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: defense didn't drag that up in court. But what will
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: the jurors come up with behind those jury deliberation doors.
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: Here's more from True Crime design Listen to this samey theory.
• 33:57
  Speaker 15: I believe she led the girls to their assailants, who attacked, subdued,
• 34:01
  Speaker 15: and abducted them before eventually killing them at the scene
• 34:04
  Speaker 15: by the creek. I also believe, based on physical evidence
• 34:08
  Speaker 15: at the crime scene, that this was in fact a
• 34:11
  Speaker 15: ritualistic killing, a blood offering to the gods or demonic
• 34:15
  Speaker 15: entities that the people of Delphi worship.
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: Oh dear Lord in Heaven, the devil is back. Let's
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: just hope he doesn't make it into the jury deliberation room. Okay,
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: this is also from True Crime Designment. Let me assure
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: you there are many people out there attacking the victims' families.
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: Is shameful that said, this theory is that there was
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: a ritualistic killing, a blood offering to God's or demonic
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: entities worshiped.
• 34:41
  Speaker 5: By the people of Delphi. That's going to be a
• 34:44
  Speaker 5: big surprise to them. But Cheryl McCollum, aside from those.
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: Zany theories supporting the sod some other du did it defense.
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: There were other people that I felt sure the defense
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: would point to, such as Ron Logan Keegan Kline.
• 34:58
  Speaker 6: What about It baffling to me that they didn't bring
• 35:01
  Speaker 6: up those two individuals for sure. Ron Logan, he owned
• 35:05
  Speaker 6: the property. Keegan Klein would contact with Libby before this occurred.
• 35:11
  Speaker 6: They that's why they went to the bridge to meet
• 35:13
  Speaker 6: this person. It's unbelievable to me the people they did
• 35:18
  Speaker 6: not call, so again they even know it is baseless.
• 35:23
  Speaker 6: In fact, this no chance they can connect these people,
• 35:27
  Speaker 6: and they knew it. It shows how little they act
• 35:32
  Speaker 6: to the points to anybody else other than Nure.
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: Now Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.
• 35:48
  Speaker 11: Shocking moment in the courtroom when former FBI forensic examiner
• 35:51
  Speaker 11: Stacey Eldridge says Libby Germans phone received a call at
• 35:55
  Speaker 11: five forty five pm February thirteenth, twenty seventeen, and within
• 35:59
  Speaker 11: millisecond a headphone jack was inserted into the phone. Eldridge says.
• 36:04
  Speaker 11: The headphone jack was removed nearly five hours later, at
• 36:07
  Speaker 11: ten thirty two pm. Eldridge says, I cannot think of
• 36:11
  Speaker 11: any explanation that doesn't involve human interaction.
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: Okay, well that was shot to HGL just Gott Morgan
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: an Sheryl McCollum forensic experts. There were claims in court
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: and of course this is going to be an issue
• 36:26
  Speaker 1: for the jury and deliberations room that one of the
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: girl's cell phone Libby's, had the earpiece a jack plugged
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: in and out after the time of death. But just
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: Gott Morgan, isn't it true? And we heard about this?
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: Did you real have this ringing in their ears? As
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: they deliberate that it came out that if water or
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: dirt gets on the port.
• 36:51
  Speaker 5: It can have the same result when you're looking at
• 36:54
  Speaker 5: the phone activity.
• 36:55
  Speaker 9: Forensically, the potential certainly exists. But again with this idea
• 37:00
  Speaker 9: that this thing is being inserted in there specifically, I
• 37:05
  Speaker 9: think is kind of interesting. Also, let's remember where this
• 37:09
  Speaker 9: found that this phone was found. The phone when it
• 37:12
  Speaker 9: was recovered, was actually found beneath the remains at that
• 37:17
  Speaker 9: point in time, and all of a sudden, the phone
• 37:19
  Speaker 9: starts pinging again and you have these messages that are
• 37:23
  Speaker 9: uploading to it. So you've got this dead time in
• 37:26
  Speaker 9: there with little or no accountability for it. I think
• 37:30
  Speaker 9: that that's certainly compelling in this case.
• 37:32
  Speaker 5: Name so bottom line, Cheryl McCollum.
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: The evidence that came in front of the jury, and
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: of course this is going to be ringing in their ears,
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: is that one of the girls had a plug in
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: by a headset or a jack of some sort after
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: the time of death, which totally skewers the state's case.
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: But then it came out that water or on the port,
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: and we know the girls had to go through the creek.
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: We know, as Joe Scott just pointed out, the phone
• 38:09
  Speaker 1: was under a body in the dirt can have the
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: same forensic appearance as plugging in a jack.
• 38:17
  Speaker 6: And Nancy, there's two things here. Not only can that
• 38:20
  Speaker 6: be true it was cold, the phone can power off
• 38:24
  Speaker 6: and own as it warms back up, just like if
• 38:28
  Speaker 6: your phone gets oberheated. The second thing here, the phone
• 38:32
  Speaker 6: was found under abbey. When you have libidity and that
• 38:36
  Speaker 6: body starts the decomposing process, that phone is going to
• 38:41
  Speaker 6: leave a pattern. There is no way that phone was moved.
• 38:46
  Speaker 6: And if Jack inserted and put it back exactly where
• 38:50
  Speaker 6: it was before, couldn't have happened.
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: And to you, Jo Scott Morgan, the blood evidence, which
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: I find extremely compelling and very probative.
• 38:58
  Speaker 5: The state presented it, the defense attacked it.
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: What will be in the gerrar's minds as they deliberate, Well.
• 39:05
  Speaker 9: They're going to have the memory of those images certainly
• 39:08
  Speaker 9: that they saw a trial that we didn't have, we
• 39:12
  Speaker 9: didn't have access to, and they're going to see the
• 39:15
  Speaker 9: volume of blood that was shed at the scene. And
• 39:18
  Speaker 9: here's one of the fascinating things about the blood evidence.
• 39:21
  Speaker 9: The blood evidence indicates movement. You know, we talk about
• 39:25
  Speaker 9: the swiping of the hand on the tree. We've heard
• 39:29
  Speaker 9: about this, that transfer of blood and again, this is
• 39:33
  Speaker 9: kind of an egregious thing when you think about it
• 39:35
  Speaker 9: over the top, that you have movement, potentially having a
• 39:40
  Speaker 9: throat cut at this particular at this particular time, and
• 39:44
  Speaker 9: this child is still moving about with this injury that
• 39:48
  Speaker 9: can be implied here as they're moving about in this environment,
• 39:52
  Speaker 9: all alone, out there in this wooded area, with this
• 39:56
  Speaker 9: monster that is tracking them along, in moving them along.
• 40:01
  Speaker 9: That's going to stay with these individuals that are seated
• 40:06
  Speaker 9: on this jury forever and ever.
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: Blockbuster closing arguments in a delified court of law. And
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: now we wait as just as unfolds. Nancy Gray signing off,
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: good night friend,