DELPHI, Ind. — It's been more than seven years since the bodies of Abby Williams and Libby German were found near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi. Richard Allen, the man accused of killing the two teenagers, will stand trial for the seventh day Friday.
The trial began Friday, Oct. 18.
Sixteen Allen County residents were selected to serve on the jury. Twelve of those people (eight women and four men) began the trial as jurors with four (two men and two women) serving as alternates.
From opening statements to verdict, 13News will be at the Carroll County courthouse every day of the trial to explain what happened inside the courtroom.
Follow along with the latest updates from Friday below:
12:25 p.m. - The jury just heard a tool marks expert testify that her testing concluded that a pistol seized from Richard Allen's home cycled the cartridge found between the bodies of Abby and Libby at the crime scene.
State's 26th witness, former Indiana State Police Firearm Examiner Melissa Oberg
1:35 p.m. - Defense attorney Brad Rozzi began his cross examination of Olberg.
Rozzi asked Olberg to clarify what she meant by "sufficient agreement."
Prosecuting attorney Jim Luttrell said it was an industry term based on scientific meaning and not a layman's understanding.
Rozzi asked "we're talking different languages?"
Olberg said it "appears so,"
Rozzi asked Olberg "was there ever a time you could say that bullet came from that gun."
Olberg said "I cannot say with any certainty or percentage."
Rozzi said "you told me you've never made a mistake in the lab."
Olberg read from her deposition. Rozzi had asked her if she had ever made an incorrect conclusion and Olberg responded "not that I'm aware of."
Olberg added that she wasn't aware of anyone in her lab ever failing a proficiency exam in 17 years.
Rozzi asked Olberg about the testing of examiners and changes in who administered the test. Rozzi asked if comparing the testing to paternity testing would be reckless.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi asked if there was both support for firearm testing and criticism.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi asked Olberg to define PCAST and NAS.
Olberg said that was the President's Council of Advisors on Scient and Technology, and the National Academy of Sciences, respectively.
Rozzi asked if there was debate in the firearm testing community on whether their industry is actually a science.
Olberg said yes. She cited a 2016 report from PCAST that their needed to be more "black box" studies. The report was critical that enough evidence or studies have been gathered to show how tool mark examiners perform.
Rozzi said the NAS was also critical.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi said the NAS report said that labs needed to be independent because tool mark examiners were so close to law enforcement.
Olberg pointed out that Indiana State Police examiners were connected to the Department of Toxicology and the Department of Health.
Rozzi asked if they were state employees.
Olberg said yes, they all were.
Luttrell said that the NAS study Rozzi was referencing was from 2009.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi asked Olberg if the focus of her exam was on an unspent round.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi said a fired round is subjected to additional pressure and an "entirely different environment" than an unspent round.
Olberg said yes, fired rounds are subjected to different pressure than unfired rounds.
Rozzi said there is no proficiency testing involving unfired bullets, is there?
Olberg said no, but the unspent bullet is also cycled.
Rozzi asked if her analysis is based on testing involving the fired round.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi said that the initial exam of the cartridge at the crime scene said it was not remarkable.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi asked if it had 3 injector and 3 extractor marks on it.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi asked if the first analysis of the cartridge found there was not much information from it.
Olberg said there was information there.
Rozzi said "but not as much as from a fired round."
Olberg said yes.
The defense then presented a number of exhibits including comparisons of two cartridges.
Rozzi asked if the cartridge found at the scene had multiple markings because it had been cycled at least 3 times.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi said "you can't state if that cartridge was cycled in 2017?"
Olberg said no.
Olberg said she did not use cycling information in drawing her conclusion, only used fired rounds.
Rozzi noted there were 5 years between the murders and when Allen's guns were confiscated and tested. He asked if a tool might make different marks over time.
Olberg said it was possible.
Rozzi said Olberg did not know how much the gun was used between 2017 and 2022.
Olberg said no.
Rozzi asked if Olberg would expect a quality gun to make similar marks over time.
Olberg said yes.
Rozzi said the cycling marks on the gun were different between 2017 and 2022.
Olberg said she did not feel comfortable making conclusion based on ejector marks alone.
Rozzi said "this is me saying 'show me your work.' You're saying we just have to believe you?"
Rozzi asked if it was fair for the jury to review a photo of Olberg's work product to form their own opinions.
Luttrell objected and asked if a trained toolmark examiner would use the photos to make a conclusion.
Olberg said that would be unwise.
Luttrell asked if it would be wise for the jury to draw conclusions based on the photos.
Olberg said no.
Special judge Gull sustained the objected.
Olberg said that if lab analysts don't agree on a conclusions, they conduct more tests. If there is still disagreement, they go to a supervisor.
"There is subjectivity," Olberg said.
"And this is very subjective, isn't it," Rozzi said.
Olberg said yes, and that is the cause of the scrutiny. Olberg said that some people say because there is subjectivity, toolmark analysis is not a real science.
Court took at break at 3:40 p.m.
1:20 p.m. - The jury has returned for the rest of Oberg's testimony.
Jurors were shown a video of the inside of a Sig Sauer factory.
Olberg told the jury the cartridge from the scene was tied to Allen's gun by the "quality and quantity of marks."
Olberg said the ejector, extractor and head marks all matched.
Olberg said it "helped me know it's not just one area. It's three different tool areas."
9:07 - The state's 26th witness is a former firearm examiner for the Indiana State Police laboratory.
Melissa Oberg worked for 17 years with Indiana State Police. She would inspect bullets, firearms and cartridges. She would also test firearm operation and perform tool mark examinations.
Tool marks are how the "magic bullet" near Abby and Libby's bodies was allegedly tied to a firearm owned by Richard Allen.
She is a member of the National Association of Firearm & Tool Mark Examiners.
This is the 112th court case she has testified in.
According to Oberg, state police examiners must pass annual proficiency tests.
Oberg explained that tool mark examination is "based on observation."
Oberg said the harder of two objects that come into forceful contact with one another will result in the softer object being "marked."
Oberg said there are two types of tool marks: impressed and striated.
Oberg also described the parts of a cartridge.
Oberg also explained how a cartridge is "cycled" through a firearm. With a semi-automatic handgun, you pull on the slide part of the gun to cycle a cartridge to prepare to fire it. If you pull the slide back again, without firing, the cartridge is ejected. If instead you fire the gun, the bullet shoots out the barrel and the empty case is ejected.
Oberg demonstrated this process for the jurors using a "dummy" cartridge from the ISP labs and a real handgun.
Oberg explained the kinds of marks that are left on cartridges, including lands and grooves. These are called class characteristics. She discussed the different elements that can be used to disqualify certain cartridges from certain firearms. For example, the caliber of the cartridge must match the firearm.
Oberg said subclass characteristics are features that may be produced during manufacture that are consistent among some items made by the same tool at the same time. These are not determined prior to manufacture and are more restrictive than class characteristics.
Oberg said there are then individual characteristics. These are the random imperfections and irregularities of a specific tools surface. They can come from use, abuse or corrosion. Oberg used the example of a dent in a car's door being unique to that specific car and not every car of that make and model.
Oberg walked the jury through how the analysis is done.
- Level 1 - Assessing the condition of the evidence, looking at the class characteristics
- Level 2 - Test fire a firearm multiple times to see what the inside looks like, using a comparison microscope to compare multiple objects simultaneously to find individual characteristics
Jurors were shown the evidence sent to the ISP crime lab.
Oberg explained that before analyzing tool marks, the cartridge is checked for DNA and fingerprints. Oberg called the toolmark exams DNA and fingerprint "destroyers."
Oberg said the cartridge from the crime scene was in good condition. Oberg said there were three ejector marks and three extractor marks on the cartridge.
The jury was shown an image of the cartridge with the marks that Oberg mentioned.
Oberg compared the cartridge to a Glock and "noticed there were differences in the ejector marks."
Oberg said she tested two additional firearms. One, a Smith & Wesson Model 40 did not have similar class characteristics. The second, a Sig Sauer Pistol, did have similar class characteristics but the subclass characteristics did not carry over. She said the findings were "inconclusive at that time."
Oberg said she test fired 8 cycles on all of the guns in a water tank. Oberg said they always test fire, even if a cartridge was cycled without firing, to see if they can learn more information.
On Oct. 14, 2022, Oberg received four items taken from Allen's home:
- A Sig Sauer Model P226 .40 caliber pistol
- A Winchester .40 caliber cartridge
- A Blazer .40 caliber cartridge
- Two magazines with .40 caliber Blazer cartridges
The jury was shown photos of all the items and the items themselves were entered as evidence.
Oberg said they received that evidence 5 1/2 years after the crime scene cartridge.
Oberg said after testing Richard Allen's Sig Sauer Model P226, the ejector marks matched those found on the cartridge near Abby and Libby's bodies.
Oberg showed the jury photos taken with the comparison microscope that showed the "magic bullet" had marks that matched those on a cartridge that had been fired from Richard Allen's gun.
Oberg shoed images of the inside of the gun, to identify what made the marks. Those included:
- subclass markings on the ejector
- front face of the chamber
- Extractor marks under the rim of the cartridge
Oberg spent a long time explaining the process in minute, technical detail.
Allen's defense attorney, Brad Rozzi, objected that most of the scholarly research Oberg cited did not deal with Allen's exact type of gun. Special Judge Frances Gull overruled his objection.
The prosecution tried to show the jury two videos showing how Sig Sauer firearms are made and assembled, but had technical difficulties.
Court took a break for lunch at 12:02 p.m.
6:45 a.m. - The seventh day of the trial is expected to begin at 9 a.m.