Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / Delphi Murders: Suspect Confesses 61 Times To Girls’ Murders, Wife Says “Stop Talking!”

Transcript

Delphi Murders: Suspect Confesses 61 Times To Girls’ Murders, Wife Says “Stop Talking!” · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:01
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.
0:05
Speaker 2: To the trial and Delphi, two beautiful little girls found dead,
0:12
Speaker 2: the ground beneath them.
0:14
Speaker 1: Saturated in blood.
0:17
Speaker 2: As a digital expert and a medical examiner take the stand,
0:21
Speaker 2: we also learned the suspect confesses over sixty one times
0:28
Speaker 2: to the little girl's murders, to the point his wife
0:32
Speaker 2: says on the phone, stop talking. I'm Nancy Grace. This
0:38
Speaker 2: is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. Now
0:42
Speaker 2: we know why the girls' clothing was soaked.
0:47
Speaker 3: There were about three different areas where the clothing was
0:51
Speaker 3: in the creek. All of the clothing that was collected
0:54
Speaker 3: from the creek was inside out. The gray hoodie that
0:58
Speaker 3: you see Abbey wearing there was found submerged in the creek.
1:03
Speaker 3: Libby was completely nude, and Abby was wearing Libby's jeans
1:09
Speaker 3: and Puddy along with a gray sports fraud that we
1:13
Speaker 3: believe belonged to Abby.
1:15
Speaker 4: Forensic pathologist doctor Roland Core performed autopsies on Libby and Abby.
1:20
Speaker 4: He did Abby's autopsy first and said she suffered one large,
1:23
Speaker 4: gaping wound in the neck. It was a one inch deep,
1:26
Speaker 4: three inch long incision wound of her neck. Abby also
1:29
Speaker 4: had a faint mark under her mouth, which doctor Corr
1:31
Speaker 4: said could be from dunct tape or cloth, but she
1:34
Speaker 4: didn't show any signs of restrained wounds. She also showed
1:37
Speaker 4: no sign of blunt force trauma. Doctor Corr also said
1:41
Speaker 4: that even though a rape kit showed no overt injury pattern,
1:44
Speaker 4: that it doesn't mean that sexual contact did not occur.
1:47
Speaker 2: Believe it or not, online, all sorts of bizarre conspiracy
1:51
Speaker 2: theories are sprouting. What we learned in court, A rape
1:55
Speaker 2: kit was performed and apparently no sex tech could be
2:01
Speaker 2: proven from what was found on the bodies.
2:04
Speaker 1: Then why were the girls naked?
2:07
Speaker 2: Why were they forced a strip out in the middle
2:10
Speaker 2: of nowhere in that cold temperature. So much happening in
2:13
Speaker 2: the courtroom, and we are live at the courthouse. Joining
2:17
Speaker 2: me right now investigative reporter and court TV documentary producer
2:22
Speaker 2: Barbara McDonald. She is the co host and producer of
2:26
Speaker 2: an incredible podcast, Down the Heel Podcast. Barbara, Thank you
2:30
Speaker 2: for being with us.
2:31
Speaker 1: Now.
2:32
Speaker 2: What we are learning is the medical examiner performed one autopsy.
2:38
Speaker 2: Of course, then the next we are learning that there
2:41
Speaker 2: is no evidence on the bodies to suggest a sex assault.
2:46
Speaker 2: Of course, the girls were stripped naked, so I'm not
2:49
Speaker 2: sure where that's going. I don't need sperm or DNA
2:53
Speaker 2: to tell me that they were naked and murdered for
2:56
Speaker 2: a sexual purpose, but there was also a lot of
2:59
Speaker 2: digital information. I'll start first with the autopsies.
3:03
Speaker 5: Listen, Doctor Rowland Corer performed Libby Germans autopsy. After completing
3:07
Speaker 5: Abby Williams autopsy, doctor Corr notes that Libby had anywhere
3:11
Speaker 5: from three to five incision wounds on the right side
3:13
Speaker 5: of her neck, with the longest being about three and
3:16
Speaker 5: a half inches. Libby also shows no sign of overt
3:19
Speaker 5: sexual trauma or defensive wounds. Doctor Corr estimated Abby and
3:23
Speaker 5: Libby died about forty one hours before the autopsy.
3:26
Speaker 2: To Barbara McDonald, tell me first the jury's reaction during
3:32
Speaker 2: the medical examiner's testimony.
3:34
Speaker 3: The jury is paying very very close attention. They are
3:38
Speaker 3: able to take notes, They have notebooks. They also get
3:41
Speaker 3: copies of most of the exhibits that are shown in
3:44
Speaker 3: court and have a file folder at their chairs where
3:48
Speaker 3: they're able to keep track of all of that information.
3:51
Speaker 3: As documents are handed to them. I do notice they
3:54
Speaker 3: look them over, they make notes. They make notes during
3:57
Speaker 3: the testimony there's one jur in particular who's sitting in
4:00
Speaker 3: chair number twelve, and he has taken a lot of
4:05
Speaker 3: notes throughout this entire trial. I also see when he
4:09
Speaker 3: is not taking notes that he is studying the families
4:13
Speaker 3: of the victims, the family of the defendant as well
4:17
Speaker 3: as the defendant in both sets of attorneys. He's paying
4:20
Speaker 3: very close attention.
4:21
Speaker 2: Nancy to fellow debate joining US high profile lawyer and
4:26
Speaker 2: LA County public defender. What does that mean? It means
4:29
Speaker 2: he spends his life in the courtroom just like a prosecutor.
4:32
Speaker 2: But on the other side debay, you know, and a
4:35
Speaker 2: lot of jurisdictions judges will not let gurrors take notes.
4:40
Speaker 2: Believe it or not, I find that antiquated, but I
4:43
Speaker 2: understand what the judges are thinking.
4:45
Speaker 1: They don't want the gurrors to rely on their notes.
4:49
Speaker 2: They want them to rely on their collective memory as
4:52
Speaker 2: to the testimony and evidence.
4:53
Speaker 1: And also debay.
4:55
Speaker 2: One of the reasonings behind that, to which I disagree,
4:58
Speaker 2: by the way, But another reasoning is say number twelve
5:00
Speaker 2: takes the best notes. I guess when you were in
5:03
Speaker 2: law school, you're in a study group, and whoever had
5:05
Speaker 2: the best notes became the authority whether they were or
5:08
Speaker 2: they were not, because everybody passed around notes. Not me,
5:11
Speaker 2: of course, but a bit you did. Long story short,
5:14
Speaker 2: you don't want the jury to rely on number twelve,
5:17
Speaker 2: what if he's wrong. They are to rely on their
5:19
Speaker 2: collective memories as to the testimony and evidence. But I
5:23
Speaker 2: find it very interesting that jural number twelve, who is
5:26
Speaker 2: taking copious notes, continues to look over at the victims'
5:30
Speaker 2: families jump in, well, yeah.
5:32
Speaker 6: Of course they are, because when you really think about it,
5:35
Speaker 6: the demeanor of everybody in court has an emotional impact
5:39
Speaker 6: on the jury. What I'd like to know is if
5:43
Speaker 6: Richard Allen's family is there, because to be fair to him,
5:46
Speaker 6: they should be looking at the emotional impact that the
5:49
Speaker 6: false allegations against him are having on the family. So
5:53
Speaker 6: it works both ways. If you only focus on the
5:56
Speaker 6: victim's family, then I'm not sure that that jury is
5:59
Speaker 6: necessarily be fair. And one other quick comment. I think
6:02
Speaker 6: the theory behind not allowing note taking by the jurors
6:06
Speaker 6: is they don't feel you're going to be paying attention
6:08
Speaker 6: to the evidence if you've got your head down writing
6:11
Speaker 6: notes into a stenopad. I agree with you. It's antiquated.
6:14
Speaker 6: It's absurd and frankly, why couldn't they all put their
6:17
Speaker 6: collective notes together when they're deliberating and share their thoughts.
6:21
Speaker 6: And if there is a dispute, you can always go
6:23
Speaker 6: back into court for readback.
6:24
Speaker 2: And I can assure everyone that the grrs, even though
6:27
Speaker 2: nobody's told me this, are not allowed to take their
6:30
Speaker 2: notes or the physical exhibits of which they have copies
6:36
Speaker 2: with them at the end of the day to study
6:38
Speaker 2: when they are alone at night. They cannot discuss this
6:42
Speaker 2: or begin deliberations in any form until all the evidence
6:47
Speaker 2: is in Back to Barbara McDonald, we are live at
6:50
Speaker 2: the courthouse bringing you the very latest. So I understand
6:53
Speaker 2: the medical examiner performed Abby's autopsy first, then Libby's. Now
7:00
Speaker 2: Libby was found nude. Abby was found dressed in the
7:04
Speaker 2: wrong clothes, in some of Libby's clothes.
7:07
Speaker 1: How do you see the difference in the wounds?
7:11
Speaker 2: And I want Scott Morgan, Professor forensics, death investigator, and
7:14
Speaker 2: doctor Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst, to listen carefully right now to
7:18
Speaker 2: Barbara McDonald. I've got a lot of questions which only the.
7:22
Speaker 1: Two of you can answer. What do you hear, Barbara.
7:26
Speaker 3: We not only saw the images of these wounds, some
7:30
Speaker 3: very close up images of the wounds, but listen to
7:34
Speaker 3: that forensic pathologist, doctor Roland Core for the better part
7:38
Speaker 3: of the day testifying, and the wounds to Libby were
7:43
Speaker 3: much more brutal, rough they were larger, they went more
7:48
Speaker 3: in an up and down pattern on her neck, whereas
7:52
Speaker 3: Libby or Abby rather just had the one cut and
7:56
Speaker 3: it was a bit cleaner. It was described as a
7:59
Speaker 3: gape wound, but there were no other injuries around that.
8:04
Speaker 3: Libby did have some other injuries. She even had a
8:07
Speaker 3: cut on her right shoulder that they described as minor,
8:12
Speaker 3: but it didn't look minor to me. It looked like
8:15
Speaker 3: if you were even sustained that cut, that it would
8:18
Speaker 3: have bled quite a bit and probably been painful. They
8:21
Speaker 3: didn't offer any sort of explanation about what happened to
8:26
Speaker 3: cause that wound or why the killer would have put
8:29
Speaker 3: a wound there. It definitely was not a life threatening
8:33
Speaker 3: wound at all.
8:34
Speaker 2: One thing I heard in the testimony, Barbara, is that
8:38
Speaker 2: one of the girls hands indicated well they were bloody,
8:44
Speaker 2: and from the position of the body it appeared as
8:48
Speaker 2: if she had tried.
8:49
Speaker 1: To stop.
8:52
Speaker 2: The blood flow, try to stem the flow of blood
8:56
Speaker 2: from her neck.
8:57
Speaker 3: One of the things that doctor Corr testified to is
8:59
Speaker 3: that he believes that both girls would have lived for
9:03
Speaker 3: about five to ten minutes following the infliction of these injuries,
9:09
Speaker 3: that at some point have become unconscious from the blood
9:13
Speaker 3: loss before they actually died. But that, yes, he said
9:18
Speaker 3: that the blood on Libby's hands was evidence to him
9:21
Speaker 3: that she had put her hands at her throat to
9:24
Speaker 3: try to keep that keep the blood in. That that's
9:30
Speaker 3: a natural reaction that you would want to cover that
9:33
Speaker 3: wound and apply pressure as much as you could.
9:36
Speaker 2: So what you're telling me, Barbara McDonald is the girls
9:40
Speaker 2: did not have a quick death.
9:50
Speaker 1: Crime stories with Nancy Grace.
9:55
Speaker 2: To you, Jesseph Scott Morton, from what we hear from
9:58
Speaker 2: the witness stand that Libby, the child that was left nude,
10:06
Speaker 2: suffered much worse.
10:08
Speaker 1: Of course, they're all horrible.
10:10
Speaker 2: All the wounds are horrible to both girls, but Libby's
10:14
Speaker 2: wounds seem to be worse. And we know because there
10:20
Speaker 2: was swelling to one of the girl's brains, that they
10:25
Speaker 2: survived long enough to lie there on their backs, one naked,
10:29
Speaker 2: one had been naked, soaking wet from being forced through
10:34
Speaker 2: that creek, the ground saturating in blood beneath them.
10:39
Speaker 1: They laid there and they looked up at the sky.
10:42
Speaker 2: The last face they saw was whoever killed them. I
10:47
Speaker 2: want to hear your analysis because another thing that came
10:50
Speaker 2: up in court was that the medical examiner could not
10:54
Speaker 2: tell whether the purp was left handed or right handed.
10:59
Speaker 2: That's total bs because you can tell from a wound,
11:04
Speaker 2: for instance, which side is deeper.
11:08
Speaker 1: And then it trails off.
11:10
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know why they're saying that, but
11:12
Speaker 2: first your analysis to the wounds on Libby and Abby,
11:15
Speaker 2: and this is critical, Joe Scott.
11:17
Speaker 7: I find it interesting that Libby has got what could
11:21
Speaker 7: be termed as multiple injuries to her neck. Let's keep
11:23
Speaker 7: in mind Libby was an athlete. She had played softball
11:27
Speaker 7: and was very active. Abby is described as more passive.
11:32
Speaker 7: I think that Libby resisted probably now there's no evidence
11:36
Speaker 7: of defensive wounds per se. However, she does have this
11:40
Speaker 7: and I didn't know this until Barbara had mentioned it.
11:42
Speaker 7: This rather interesting injury that she has to the shoulder.
11:46
Speaker 7: I thought, you know, particularly, I was wondering, is this
11:50
Speaker 7: a post mortem? Injury because you know, Barbara said something
11:54
Speaker 7: interesting per her view of this image. She said, there
11:58
Speaker 7: wasn't blood, but it looked like something that had bled
12:01
Speaker 7: or should have bled. And they didn't offer much more
12:03
Speaker 7: of an explanation. But back to the wounds in the neck,
12:07
Speaker 7: you've gotten multiple multiple cuts that are here, probably three
12:12
Speaker 7: to five, and so they're kind of communicating in that area.
12:16
Speaker 7: It would give you an indication that either he was
12:19
Speaker 7: perhaps not feeling that he was hitting the correct depth
12:23
Speaker 7: as he is taking this blade and drawing it across
12:25
Speaker 7: her neck, or he was punishing her in some way.
12:29
Speaker 7: Let's keep in mind, Nancy, leave me someone that's nude here.
12:33
Speaker 7: I have always held that I felt as though that
12:36
Speaker 7: she was probably targeted in some way, and this just
12:39
Speaker 7: goes to that point.
12:40
Speaker 2: I think even further, Well, what do you here to
12:42
Speaker 2: say about it being argued in court that it cannot
12:47
Speaker 2: be determined if the part was left or right handed.
12:49
Speaker 7: Yeah, you make a good point, because if you could
12:52
Speaker 7: just keep me up just for a second, if you
12:54
Speaker 7: begin to think about, and I think this is what
12:56
Speaker 7: you're getting at, if you have a right handed individual
12:59
Speaker 7: that's with building a knife from the rear from the rear. Okay,
13:03
Speaker 7: that cut you would think is probably going to be higher.
13:07
Speaker 7: The blade is going to be drug And this is
13:09
Speaker 7: just this is just the mechanics of how we move
13:15
Speaker 7: as a blade is being drug. It starts off high
13:17
Speaker 7: and then like you said, after it crosses the center
13:20
Speaker 7: point of the neck, it'll generally trail off and that
13:24
Speaker 7: gives you an indication there's a lack of pressure at
13:26
Speaker 7: the end. Generally, the starting of this is going to
13:29
Speaker 7: have more pressure if the individual is right hand dependent
13:33
Speaker 7: that the depth here, particularly if it's on this side
13:36
Speaker 7: of the neck, is going to give you an indication
13:38
Speaker 7: of handedness. But many times forensic pathologists are hesitant to
13:42
Speaker 7: make this assessment and really hang their hat on it
13:45
Speaker 7: because it's not necessarily quantitative science. It's kind of a
13:48
Speaker 7: qualitative opinion.
13:50
Speaker 1: Well, it makes sense to me, like two and two
13:52
Speaker 1: equals four. I understand that right.
13:54
Speaker 2: And when you slash, you have naturally and everybody can
13:59
Speaker 2: try this at home. When you slash something like you're
14:01
Speaker 2: breaking into a box, your momentum is at the beginning
14:06
Speaker 2: when you start that slash and then you pull back.
14:10
Speaker 1: Think of opening up a FedEx or ups.
14:12
Speaker 2: Yes, slash and pull back right, your velocity is stronger
14:16
Speaker 2: at the beginning.
14:17
Speaker 7: Yeah, and this subject would have had if it is him.
14:21
Speaker 7: You know he worked with a box cutter regularly. We've
14:24
Speaker 7: heard this term box cutter over and over again. I
14:26
Speaker 7: think that's something interesting to explore here. But Nancy, you're
14:31
Speaker 7: doing I got to tell you, I don't necessarily you
14:33
Speaker 7: made a very quick slashing movement. I don't know that
14:37
Speaker 7: it was quick. It may have been.
14:38
Speaker 2: Drawn out joining me Dodger Bethany Marshall, Right, now it's
14:41
Speaker 2: like Oana is joining us from.
14:42
Speaker 1: Beverly Hills, Doctor Bethany.
14:46
Speaker 2: A lot of questions and if you could be concise
14:48
Speaker 2: on this one girl obviously, as Joscott Morgan said, the
14:55
Speaker 2: main target both of them, a brutally murder, both of
14:58
Speaker 2: them stripped. What does it say to you and why
15:03
Speaker 2: the half hearted effort of redressing one girl and not
15:06
Speaker 2: the other?
15:06
Speaker 8: Well, I think there this was a sexually motivated crime.
15:10
Speaker 8: There was a lot of practicing in anticipation of the crime,
15:14
Speaker 8: thinking about how he would kill the girls. So perhaps
15:17
Speaker 8: two different mos on each girl, redressing them because you
15:21
Speaker 8: wanted to come back and have sex with them. This
15:24
Speaker 8: is what them was that the infliction of cruelty caused
15:28
Speaker 8: the sexual excitement coming back was to take advantage of
15:31
Speaker 8: the girls, but he wasn't able to do that, but
15:33
Speaker 8: he had to dress them to preserve the bodies.
15:36
Speaker 7: I think that for each item that's there, there's a
15:39
Speaker 7: potential he was throwing these items in front of these children.
15:43
Speaker 8: I can imagine these Portalle girls screaming and crying and just.
15:48
Speaker 7: So distract You're watching these young girls being humiliated relative
15:54
Speaker 7: to exposure of their bodies to this creepy guy.
15:58
Speaker 9: To degrade, to.
16:01
Speaker 8: Humiliate, and to force them into sexual submission.
16:05
Speaker 7: How menacing. You're going to push these girls to do
16:08
Speaker 7: whatever you want them to do, and then afterwards, afterwards,
16:14
Speaker 7: you're going to redress bodies.
16:17
Speaker 2: Joining us at the courthouse, Barbara McDonald, core TV documentary producer,
16:22
Speaker 2: co host of Down the Hill podcast, Barbara, I want
16:26
Speaker 2: to focus very quickly on what I consider to be
16:28
Speaker 2: very very powerful evidence, and that is the digital pings
16:34
Speaker 2: and geographic pinpoints.
16:36
Speaker 1: Of the girls' phones.
16:39
Speaker 2: And also what we're hearing, and this is very significant,
16:43
Speaker 2: is that these phones can be tracked altitudinally. In other words,
16:48
Speaker 2: as the girls go down the heel, you can see
16:52
Speaker 2: an altitudinal change in the pinging information, and I'm very curious.
16:58
Speaker 2: I want everyone to hear what we're hearing in the courtroom.
17:02
Speaker 2: And I'm wondering about the defendant, Allan's phone because remember
17:07
Speaker 2: in Alex Murdog's trial, which is a great example of this,
17:11
Speaker 2: that's why keep using it. His phone travels with his
17:14
Speaker 2: dead wife's Maggie's phone briefly before her phone is thrown
17:18
Speaker 2: out of the window, and the traveling together is very
17:22
Speaker 2: very probative. So, first of all, if you could explain
17:26
Speaker 2: the crux of the digital information regarding the girls phones
17:31
Speaker 2: and what if anything, we know about the suspects phone.
17:34
Speaker 3: So we know from the digital evidence the last movement
17:38
Speaker 3: of Libby's phone was about two point thirty two pm
17:42
Speaker 3: on the thirteenth, and they were approached on the bridge.
17:45
Speaker 3: That video that she made happened at two thirteen pm.
17:49
Speaker 3: So it certainly sounds like what they're implying with this
17:52
Speaker 3: evidence is that by the time two thirty two hits
17:56
Speaker 3: that phone is at the crime scene, it no longer moved.
18:00
Speaker 3: We also heard that Richard Allen had twenty three devices
18:04
Speaker 3: that were collected in that search of his home. None
18:08
Speaker 3: of them were the phone that he was carrying back
18:10
Speaker 3: in twenty seventeen. We know that because when he gave
18:14
Speaker 3: that first statement to law enforcement days after the murders,
18:18
Speaker 3: they wrote down the unique idea of the phone that
18:22
Speaker 3: he was carrying at the time. That device was not found,
18:26
Speaker 3: they said, in the devices that were recovered. Though there
18:29
Speaker 3: were searches about the case, but they don't know who
18:33
Speaker 3: made those searches.
18:34
Speaker 2: Nancy question, So you're telling me the device that Alan
18:38
Speaker 2: carried in twenty seventeen disappeared.
18:42
Speaker 1: It was not found. Did he give any explanation about
18:44
Speaker 1: where a cell phone is?
18:45
Speaker 10: No?
18:46
Speaker 2: Okay, so his cell phone physically is gone, but can
18:50
Speaker 2: it still be pained.
18:51
Speaker 3: They have not said whether they were able to retrieve
18:54
Speaker 3: any data through his phone provider or anything like that.
18:57
Speaker 3: I don't know if other witnesses are going to come
18:59
Speaker 3: in that we'll talk about that part of the investigation.
19:03
Speaker 3: The gentleman who was on the stand yesterday, this first
19:06
Speaker 3: Sergeant Christopher Cecil, did say that over the course of
19:10
Speaker 3: these years since this murder happened, every time there's new
19:13
Speaker 3: technology or a software update in any of the programs
19:17
Speaker 3: they use, they go back and relook at this information.
19:20
Speaker 3: See if they can uncover more data.
19:22
Speaker 2: Isn't it true that an expert stated there is no
19:28
Speaker 2: indication that Libby's phone was ever turned off? Correct?
19:34
Speaker 1: So what does that mean to you?
19:38
Speaker 3: Barbara McDonald, It's interesting the phone was found at the
19:42
Speaker 3: crime scene. The defense is certainly making the argument that
19:46
Speaker 3: the girls and that phone left the scene sometime on
19:50
Speaker 3: the thirteenth and were brought back the following day. What
19:54
Speaker 3: this Apple health data shows is that that phone did
19:58
Speaker 3: not move once it got to that crime scene about
20:02
Speaker 3: two point thirty two pm. It did not move after that.
20:07
Speaker 3: I suppose it's entirely possible that the girls left the scene,
20:10
Speaker 3: if that is something the defense can prove, but the
20:14
Speaker 3: phone seems to have stayed there.
20:17
Speaker 1: But he could not.
20:18
Speaker 3: There were a lot of questions that even the jurors
20:20
Speaker 3: asked him that he did not have answers for. And
20:23
Speaker 3: he does not know when Libby's phone lost power. That
20:29
Speaker 3: is information that the jury will not ever have because
20:32
Speaker 3: they can't determine that.
20:34
Speaker 1: Hold on.
20:35
Speaker 2: What about are you saying the Apple phone or the
20:37
Speaker 2: Apple watt never left the scene.
20:39
Speaker 3: There was only one device found at the scene, and
20:41
Speaker 3: it was Libby's iPhone six.
20:43
Speaker 1: S okay and okay.
20:47
Speaker 2: So when we're hearing about the help, the help app,
20:51
Speaker 2: it's not a wat, it's just the app on the phone.
20:54
Speaker 1: It's that.
20:55
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's when you open up your iPhone and it
20:57
Speaker 3: records your steps and your movements and all of that.
21:00
Speaker 3: They're using that information from Libby's iPhone.
21:04
Speaker 1: Let me follow up with Joe Scott Morgan.
21:05
Speaker 2: Joe Scott, the earth around the girls was completely saturated
21:12
Speaker 2: with blood, and that tells me that is the location
21:17
Speaker 2: of the murders. I mean, I don't know how they're
21:20
Speaker 2: going to spin out. The cell phone going quiet and
21:24
Speaker 2: dead and then suddenly connecting to a cell phone tower
21:28
Speaker 2: and all of the earlier messages come in. I mean
21:30
Speaker 2: the messages were coming in from the relatives going hey,
21:34
Speaker 2: text me, now where are you?
21:36
Speaker 1: And those are from hours and hours before.
21:39
Speaker 2: To me, as a layperson, as it relates to digital data,
21:45
Speaker 2: it means that that is when the phone made that
21:47
Speaker 2: connection to a cell tower. It happens all the time
21:50
Speaker 2: when suddenly you connect and you get a torrent of texts.
21:55
Speaker 2: That's not that hard for me to understand. But the blood,
21:58
Speaker 2: the blood satur the earth tells me that is where
22:02
Speaker 2: the girls were killed.
22:04
Speaker 7: Yeah, it does, and there's you know, these are to
22:08
Speaker 7: say the very least, these are catastrophic injuries and this
22:12
Speaker 7: is not something that would that would facilitate them moving
22:17
Speaker 7: anywhere else. They were killed in that spot. They came
22:20
Speaker 7: to rest there, Nancy.
22:22
Speaker 1: To Barbara McDonald, one of the jurors.
22:25
Speaker 2: Well, they asked a lot of questions and they passed
22:28
Speaker 2: the questions, I guess to the bailiff, and then the
22:31
Speaker 2: judge ultimately gets the questions, and the judge asked those
22:34
Speaker 2: questions on behalf of the jury. One of the questions
22:37
Speaker 2: which I found very interesting is was the earth under
22:44
Speaker 2: the leaves under one of the girls disturbed?
22:47
Speaker 1: Tell me about that jurar question?
22:49
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I forget exactly which witness that was that
22:52
Speaker 3: they were talking to. I believe it was the lead
22:54
Speaker 3: crime scene investigator of brian Ola High and he testified
23:00
Speaker 3: that when they removed the bodies that there was nothing
23:05
Speaker 3: underneath that had been disturbed. The leaves were all in place,
23:09
Speaker 3: there were no areas of exposed dirt, whereas away from
23:14
Speaker 3: the bodies there were areas where it looked like the
23:17
Speaker 3: leaves had been moved and the dirt was exposed. He
23:23
Speaker 3: didn't really offer an explanation about why those weren't disturbed
23:27
Speaker 3: other than that the girls did not move once they
23:31
Speaker 3: were in those positions.
23:33
Speaker 1: Well, that makes perfect sense, Borba McDonald. But what do
23:35
Speaker 1: you believe the juror is getting at the jurors.
23:38
Speaker 3: Some of the questions have been very easy to understand
23:41
Speaker 3: from them, and some of them have been a little
23:44
Speaker 3: bit more perplexing. It's hard to tell exactly what the
23:48
Speaker 3: mindset of that juror is, but the jurors are paying
23:52
Speaker 3: very close attention and when they ask questions, they are
23:55
Speaker 3: very very specific. The other thing that's very differ difficult
24:00
Speaker 3: to tell is which juror is asking which question because
24:04
Speaker 3: at the end of testimony, once both sides of attorneys
24:08
Speaker 3: are done, the jurors simply submit their questions on a
24:11
Speaker 3: piece of paper to the judge. The judge meets with
24:13
Speaker 3: the attorneys behind a monitor and plays static in the
24:17
Speaker 3: court so we can't hear their conversation, and then she
24:20
Speaker 3: comes out and reads it and she does not identify
24:23
Speaker 3: which juror is asking the question, whether it's one dur
24:26
Speaker 3: or multiple jurors for those questions.
24:29
Speaker 2: Right, because the lawyers have to agree for the question
24:32
Speaker 2: to be asked. What are some of the other questions
24:35
Speaker 2: that you've heard in the court room, Barbara.
24:37
Speaker 3: One thing that was really interesting yesterday we heard that
24:40
Speaker 3: the Snapchat was posted by Libby at two o seven
24:43
Speaker 3: showing Abby on the bridge. That image was not found
24:48
Speaker 3: on Libby's device. It was not in her Snapchat that's
24:51
Speaker 3: the image. It was not found on her Snapchat account.
24:55
Speaker 3: It was not found in her phone camera. Role they
24:59
Speaker 3: looked for it, they could not fumage anywhere. He had
25:02
Speaker 3: absolutely no explanation about that. The defense tried to ask
25:07
Speaker 3: him about a cash, an encrypted cash that Snapchat keeps
25:13
Speaker 3: track of of some sort of files, and he wasn't
25:16
Speaker 3: too familiar with that. The jurors had a lot of
25:19
Speaker 3: questions though out Snapchat and whether somebody could have accessed
25:24
Speaker 3: her account from another device and somehow deleted that image,
25:29
Speaker 3: but he was not able to offer any kind of
25:31
Speaker 3: explanation for why that image was not on her phone.
25:35
Speaker 3: She had taken about four pictures and uploaded those to
25:39
Speaker 3: Snapchat in the forty five minutes before the murders, and
25:44
Speaker 3: all of those other images were there. It's just that
25:47
Speaker 3: one image of Abby that's missing, and we have no idea.
25:50
Speaker 1: Why so, did the.
25:52
Speaker 2: Jerry seem to be absorbing all of the cell phone data,
25:56
Speaker 2: the digital data, and did anyone make any show a
26:03
Speaker 2: facial expression when we learned that after twenty three devices
26:08
Speaker 2: are taken from the defendant sees pursuing the search warrant,
26:13
Speaker 2: one's missing, and it happens to me the cell phone
26:16
Speaker 2: hey would have been carrying that day.
26:19
Speaker 1: Nobody thought that was odd.
26:22
Speaker 3: You know, they all have poker faces. I've been trying
26:25
Speaker 3: to read faces and see how they're responding to various
26:29
Speaker 3: witnesses and whether or not they find them believable. The
26:33
Speaker 3: only time I got a little bit of a sense
26:36
Speaker 3: of the jurors perhaps shaking their head a bit at
26:39
Speaker 3: a witness was the witness who testified that she saw
26:43
Speaker 3: the man walking on the road muddy and bloody. She
26:47
Speaker 3: sort of fell apart on cross examination, admitting that she
26:50
Speaker 3: never mentioned blood until her third interview with law enforcement.
26:55
Speaker 3: She couldn't explain why she said she did mention it earlier,
26:59
Speaker 3: and she doesn't know why it's not in the reports.
27:02
Speaker 3: She seemed to have some credibility issues with the defense attorneys.
27:06
Speaker 6: She got very regumented.
27:08
Speaker 2: It wasn't a lot of the audio interrogation as the
27:12
Speaker 2: questioning lost because of a snassu of Elie Yes.
27:17
Speaker 3: In the first days of the investigation, they did lose
27:20
Speaker 3: many of the interviews that they did with potential suspects.
27:25
Speaker 3: Now we've never heard officially whether that includes any of
27:30
Speaker 3: these interviews with witnesses. This particular witness didn't come forward
27:35
Speaker 3: the first time until more than three weeks after the murders.
27:39
Speaker 3: That seems to be after that window when that known
27:42
Speaker 3: problem happened with some of those files being lost. But
27:46
Speaker 3: she said that one of the officers told her that
27:50
Speaker 3: about an hour to an hour and a half of
27:52
Speaker 3: one of her interviews is missing, and she said when
27:55
Speaker 3: she talked about the blood.
28:03
Speaker 1: Crime stories with Nancy Grace.
28:08
Speaker 10: It was something I've never seen before, the viciousness of
28:14
Speaker 10: the brutality.
28:21
Speaker 7: This is going to be overkilled. There's going to be
28:23
Speaker 7: mutilation to the point of a partial decapitation.
28:26
Speaker 2: Here.
28:29
Speaker 11: Defense attorney Andrew Baldwin began his cross examination of Sarah
28:32
Speaker 11: Carbough by asking questions about discrepancies in her descriptions.
28:36
Speaker 1: Of mud and blood.
28:39
Speaker 11: Carbot responded that the details were as simple as it
28:43
Speaker 11: is and that outside of this testimony, I want nothing
28:47
Speaker 11: to do with this. Baldwin continued to press, asking about
28:50
Speaker 11: Bridge Guy's hair texture and eyes. Carbot responded to the attorney, saying,
28:56
Speaker 11: you're romanticizing this.
28:57
Speaker 2: Who is Sarah Carbaugh back against the defense attorney who
29:02
Speaker 2: seemingly is making inroads with the eyewitnesses that spot the
29:05
Speaker 2: quote bridge guy. Now, it's my understanding that they're not
29:10
Speaker 2: saying Richard Allen is the bridge guy. But we do
29:15
Speaker 2: know that Richard Allen himself places himself at the trestle
29:20
Speaker 2: bridge there at Monton Park at the time the girls
29:24
Speaker 2: were killed, around the time the girls were killed, wearing
29:28
Speaker 2: the same outfit as the bridge guy.
29:33
Speaker 1: Okay, So in order to believe he's.
29:36
Speaker 2: Not the bridge guy, you have to believe that another
29:39
Speaker 2: guy was there at the very same time wearing the
29:42
Speaker 2: very same outfit.
29:44
Speaker 1: Okay.
29:44
Speaker 2: So you've got Sarah Carbaugh fighting back with the defense.
29:49
Speaker 2: But there are other witnesses that state they saw the
29:52
Speaker 2: bridge guy.
29:53
Speaker 4: Listen, after jurorsy are showing the bridge guy video from
29:55
Speaker 4: Libby Germany's phone, witnesses take the stand who are out
29:58
Speaker 4: walking the trails and crossing the high bridge the day
30:00
Speaker 4: the girl's vanished. Raley Voorhees was sixteen and a student
30:03
Speaker 4: in Delphia High School when she was out walking near
30:05
Speaker 4: Freedom Bridge the day Abbey and Libby vanished. She describes
30:08
Speaker 4: seeing an unsettling man near the bridge who glared at her.
30:11
Speaker 4: She didn't recognize the man and said he wore a
30:12
Speaker 4: mask up to his nose. When shown a blown up
30:14
Speaker 4: photograph of Bridge Guy before, he said that was the
30:17
Speaker 4: man I saw on the trail before, He's described Bridge
30:19
Speaker 4: Guy as wearing black jeans and black hoodie, black boots
30:21
Speaker 4: and a black mask. Claimed the man had a bigger
30:24
Speaker 4: build and estimated him to be twenty to thirty years old.
30:26
Speaker 4: Before He's admitted her memory may have been impacted by
30:29
Speaker 4: the photo of Bridge Guy released by police during the
30:31
Speaker 4: investigation into the murders.
30:32
Speaker 2: We're getting different versions about what Bridge Guy looked like.
30:36
Speaker 1: Well, we've got Bridge Guy on video. So what does
30:39
Speaker 1: it amount to hill of beans or confusing the jury? Now?
30:44
Speaker 1: Think about it.
30:45
Speaker 2: The one witness says she thought Bridge Guy was wearing
30:48
Speaker 2: a mask, but if you look at him, he's pushing
30:51
Speaker 2: his face down into his clothing, all right?
30:55
Speaker 1: Is that where she got that from?
30:57
Speaker 2: At one point did he pull his clothing up over
31:01
Speaker 2: his mouth or nose and listen to this.
31:04
Speaker 5: Betsy Blair said she had been out walking the trails
31:07
Speaker 5: the day that Libby and Abbey disappeared, and after hearing
31:10
Speaker 5: about the girls, spoke to police about what she saw
31:13
Speaker 5: that day. Blair was asked to help them create a
31:15
Speaker 5: sketch of the man she spotted near the bridge. She
31:18
Speaker 5: said the man had brown, poofy hair and described him
31:20
Speaker 5: as looking younger. She didn't recall him having facial hair.
31:24
Speaker 5: Betsy Blair says she was about fifty feet from bridge
31:27
Speaker 5: guy and says she thought, due to his posture, that
31:30
Speaker 5: he was looking for someone.
31:31
Speaker 2: Straight out to Doctor Bethany Marshall renounced Psycho Allison, author
31:36
Speaker 2: of deal Breakers. She's on peacock now, Doctor Bethany, I
31:40
Speaker 2: guess the name Ted Bundy rings a bell? Do you
31:44
Speaker 2: remember how he lost an incredible amount of weight so
31:47
Speaker 2: he could escape through a vent? But he changed his appearance.
31:52
Speaker 2: We saw Scott Peterson change his appearance growing a goatee,
31:56
Speaker 2: much as Richard Allen has done dyeing his hair. We
32:00
Speaker 2: see Brian Coberger charging the quadruple murder in Idaho for
32:05
Speaker 2: University Idaho students killed in their own beds. We see
32:09
Speaker 2: him changing his appearance. We see this guy, Richard Allen,
32:14
Speaker 2: changing his appearance, losing a huge amount of weight and
32:17
Speaker 2: growing a goateee, anything to separate himself from being the
32:22
Speaker 2: bridge guy. Hello, And of course I expect eyewitnesses versions
32:28
Speaker 2: to differ in some ways.
32:30
Speaker 9: Absolutely, Nancy.
32:31
Speaker 8: But of course he confesses many times in jail, so
32:33
Speaker 8: once he's incarcerated, he does.
32:35
Speaker 9: Not try to remove himself from the story.
32:37
Speaker 8: So what I think is happening is that he's changing
32:41
Speaker 8: his appearance so he won't be incarcerated, so he can
32:44
Speaker 8: go out.
32:45
Speaker 9: And commit more crimes. Right, this was his moment of
32:48
Speaker 9: glory in his life when he killed these two girls.
32:52
Speaker 9: He had been thinking about this for a long time.
32:54
Speaker 9: Perhaps fetishize the box cutter, fetishize the gun. Had a
32:59
Speaker 9: rich Man distributory life leading up to this, and now
33:03
Speaker 9: that it's over, he wants to be out and on
33:05
Speaker 9: the loose. He wants to practice what he's learned through
33:08
Speaker 9: this crime.
33:08
Speaker 1: My profile lawyer Philip Debay joining us.
33:11
Speaker 2: Phil if you could take off your defense hat just
33:14
Speaker 2: one moment and just tell me. I've seen it many
33:17
Speaker 2: times in the cases I prosecuted. When you've got eyewitnesses
33:20
Speaker 2: the defense and knows they're going to take the stand,
33:23
Speaker 2: the defendant will try to change his or her appearance.
33:28
Speaker 2: I've seen it over and over and over to make
33:31
Speaker 2: it more difficult for the eyewitness. And when you look
33:34
Speaker 2: at Bridge Guy, who we now know that Bridge Guy
33:37
Speaker 2: is the killer.
33:38
Speaker 1: He's the one that said down the hill.
33:43
Speaker 2: The more he can differentiate himself from that appearance, the
33:47
Speaker 2: more difficult it will be for the witnesses. And you
33:50
Speaker 2: see how Bridge Guy's trying to cover his face. All
33:52
Speaker 2: you can see is here to hear.
33:53
Speaker 6: Yeah, And it's quite common. I mean, obviously people want
33:56
Speaker 6: to conceal their identities, particularly when they're going to of
34:00
Speaker 6: crimes such as double murder. Now, to be Devil's advocate,
34:03
Speaker 6: there are an awful lot of people out on that
34:05
Speaker 6: remote bridge that day. The prosecution will have you believed
34:09
Speaker 6: that he's just out there skulking about looking for the
34:12
Speaker 6: right opportunity to kill two girls. Whoever did this was
34:17
Speaker 6: it was a very unplanned at tech because there was
34:19
Speaker 6: no way to know that Abby and Libby would even
34:22
Speaker 6: be out there that day, So at best, this was
34:24
Speaker 6: a crime of art.
34:25
Speaker 2: Unless you have been following them on social media.
34:28
Speaker 6: Sure, But then that means you would have to take
34:31
Speaker 6: the day off from work and decide just to hang
34:33
Speaker 6: out on a bridge and just wait for the right moment.
34:36
Speaker 6: I think that is a bridge too far. No pun intended.
34:38
Speaker 1: Guys, what are we learning now?
34:42
Speaker 2: We hear the defense is trying yet again to bring
34:46
Speaker 2: in the theory of Odinism, that the real killer worshiped
34:51
Speaker 2: Thor and odin, the mythological Norse gods.
34:56
Speaker 1: Is that true, Dave Mack? Is that true?
34:59
Speaker 2: The defense trying again to bring in Odinism as a defense.
35:03
Speaker 4: They are, and they're actually using testimony from the crime
35:06
Speaker 4: scene investigator about the sticks and branches, saying that that
35:11
Speaker 4: was actually put there as a sign, even though they
35:14
Speaker 4: were just thrown on top. They're trying to use that
35:17
Speaker 4: as their reason for bringing the Odinism argument back in.
35:20
Speaker 11: Lawyers for Richard Allen are once again asking the court
35:23
Speaker 11: to allow their Odinism theory in the Delphi murders trial.
35:27
Speaker 11: The defense claims the crime scene where the girls were
35:29
Speaker 11: found contains evidence of a ritualistic murder tied to Odinism.
35:33
Speaker 11: Odinism is a pagan Norse religion and white nationalist group.
35:39
Speaker 11: The defense tried introducing the odinism theory in September twenty
35:42
Speaker 11: twenty three, but Judge Gull blocked them from using the
35:45
Speaker 11: theory citing a lack of evidence. The defense claims testimony
35:49
Speaker 11: from crime scene investigator Brian Oli during the trial is
35:52
Speaker 11: reason enough to allow the theory.
35:55
Speaker 2: We are live at the courthouse as the double murder
35:59
Speaker 2: trial of two beautiful little girls is underway. When will
36:05
Speaker 2: the jury hear all of the multiple confessions given by
36:10
Speaker 2: Richard Allen?
36:12
Speaker 1: Straight out?
36:12
Speaker 2: To Dave mattcrimeonline dot Com investigative reporter covering the trial,
36:17
Speaker 2: Dave mac who to home? Did Allen give these alleged confessions?
36:23
Speaker 4: Probably easier to listen who he didn't give them to Nancy.
36:25
Speaker 4: We're talking sixty sixty one different confessions to He talked
36:29
Speaker 4: to police, he talked to inmates, he talked to his wife,
36:32
Speaker 4: He talked to just about anybody that would listen.
36:35
Speaker 1: He told them that.
36:36
Speaker 4: He had something to do with it. And apparently in
36:38
Speaker 4: some of these confessions, Nancy, he said things that only
36:42
Speaker 4: the actual killer would know.
36:43
Speaker 2: And that's what we were learning so far in dribbles
36:46
Speaker 2: and bits. What will we learn when we finally hear
36:49
Speaker 2: those because I mean, think about it real daily. Really,
36:55
Speaker 2: inmates and their lawyers don't know that their conversations are
36:59
Speaker 2: being rec I assume that you've heard jail house conversations before,
37:04
Speaker 2: because about every thirty seconds you say you are being
37:08
Speaker 2: called from a correctional institution, you can hear a recording
37:13
Speaker 2: on and on and on throughout all conversations from the
37:17
Speaker 2: jail or prison.
37:18
Speaker 12: Surely that is quite evident. If it's not actually heard,
37:21
Speaker 12: it's known. So the fact that anyone, any would make
37:25
Speaker 12: a confession and not knowing that somebody is either listening
37:28
Speaker 12: or it has been recorded some fashion, is kind of
37:30
Speaker 12: a bit beyond the pale. So I don't know how
37:33
Speaker 12: they could kind of convey that in fact, he you know,
37:35
Speaker 12: he wasn't aware of that, or there wasn't any any
37:38
Speaker 12: supervision of these calls. Makes no sense.
37:40
Speaker 2: Yeah, Philip D. Bay, criminal defense attorney. In some places,
37:46
Speaker 2: even the walls and the CI correctional institute have recording
37:51
Speaker 2: devices in them. Yes, that's true, but this guy wouldn't quit.
37:56
Speaker 2: How can you discount sixty one plus confession debate easily?
38:01
Speaker 6: There is a branch of forensic psychology called imagination inflation,
38:07
Speaker 6: and it is a condition regarding false memory, where somebody
38:11
Speaker 6: might be intimately familiar with some of the details, such
38:14
Speaker 6: as in this case, if he had been out on
38:16
Speaker 6: that trail, where due to delirium from being locked up,
38:20
Speaker 6: not on meds, or maybe being on improper meds, was
38:25
Speaker 6: improperly or inaccurately recounting everything that occurred. It's sort of
38:29
Speaker 6: a Kopka sque type phenomenon, it really is. It's called
38:33
Speaker 6: imagination inflation, and they recount things.
38:36
Speaker 1: You're making this up.
38:38
Speaker 2: You're having imagination inflation because nobody said anything about his meds.
38:44
Speaker 1: I'm just telling, yes, talking.
38:47
Speaker 2: And he says this in his confessions because he realized
38:50
Speaker 2: his family was turning against him. After he keeps confessing
38:53
Speaker 2: to stripping and murdering two little girls, the family is
38:56
Speaker 2: starting to turn against him. He believes the only way
38:59
Speaker 2: he will ever be reunited with his family is in heaven.
39:02
Speaker 2: That chance, but that said, to get to heaven in
39:06
Speaker 2: his mind, he has to confess.
39:08
Speaker 6: Remember we saw this in twenty sixteen with John Carr,
39:11
Speaker 6: who confessed to killing He confessed to killing Jean Benet
39:15
Speaker 6: Ramsey at a press conference in Thailand. What do they do?
39:19
Speaker 6: They get them on a plane, They extra item, and
39:22
Speaker 6: nothing matched the forensics. His DNA was nowhere.
39:25
Speaker 1: It exactly exaginating used.
39:29
Speaker 2: That example because Joscott Morgan, what intimate facts about this case?
39:36
Speaker 2: Do you believe the real killer would know? In divulge
39:40
Speaker 2: over sixty one confessions.
39:43
Speaker 7: Oh my gosh, I kill these two girls, and I
39:45
Speaker 7: covered them with branches and debris. Oh my gosh, it
39:49
Speaker 7: was so cold out there, and I can't believe I
39:51
Speaker 7: did this. Oh my gosh, I redressed a body, you know,
39:55
Speaker 7: Oh my gosh, I didn't. I didn't understand what it
39:58
Speaker 7: was going to be like to out a child's throat.
40:02
Speaker 7: That's the kind of thing.
40:04
Speaker 2: And I use most I predict we're going to hear,
40:08
Speaker 2: You're absolutely right, details of the location, the moments, the
40:14
Speaker 2: responses of the girls, his remorse, any tib like, we
40:19
Speaker 2: haven't even heard the confessions yet, and we already have
40:22
Speaker 2: been told he mentioned a box cutter and that he
40:26
Speaker 2: disposed of the box cutter outside his place of business.
40:29
Speaker 1: What plethora.
40:32
Speaker 2: Of facts are we going to hear when we finally
40:35
Speaker 2: hear those confessions in court? And remember, you don't have
40:41
Speaker 2: to give a guy the miranda rights when they're blabbing
40:46
Speaker 2: to their wife. A defendant gets Miranda rights, right to
40:50
Speaker 2: remain silent, so forth, and so on. If in state
40:53
Speaker 2: custody and speaking to law enforcement, the Constitution doesn't protect
40:57
Speaker 2: you from blabbing to your wife over the prison phone.
41:03
Speaker 2: We wait as justice unfolds, and we stay live at
41:08
Speaker 2: the courthouse. And now we remember an American hero. Deputy
41:12
Speaker 2: Sheriff Daniel Oliver, Sacramento County Sheriffs, shot and killed in
41:16
Speaker 2: the line of duty. Served fifteen years with Sacramento County Sheriffs.
41:22
Speaker 2: Survived by grieving wife Susan, daughters Jenny and Melissa. American
41:28
Speaker 2: hero Deputy Sheriff Daniel Oliver. Thank you to our guests,
41:34
Speaker 2: but especially to you for being with us as we
41:37
Speaker 2: cover the Delphi double a murder trial.
41:43
Speaker 1: Nancy Gray signing off, goodbye friend,