Delphi murders: Expert says headphone jack inserted into Libby’s phone, removed in dead of night

DELPHI, Ind. — A computer analysis expert testified on Tuesday and claimed that her findings revealed that a headphone jack was plugged into Libby German’s phone only 10 minutes after it stopped moving.

The jack then disconnected nearly five hours later in the dead of night.

This shocking revelation was revealed to jurors for the first time and caused a stir within the courtroom that eventually led to Special Judge Fran Gull scolding the gallery for talking.

Day 16 of testimony began with the defense team continuing to poke holes and cast doubt on the prosecution’s case against Richard Allen. Allen is charged with murdering Abby Williams and Libby German on Feb. 13, 2017. He was arrested five years after the girls vanished while out hiking on the Monon High Bridge in Delphi.

The first half of the day involved testimony about Allen’s mental state and the detrimental effect incarceration had on his psyche. The defense team then turned to the critical “unspent bullet” as they called in an expert to refute the findings previously presented to the jury that laid out how tool marks on the unspent cartridge were matched to Allen’s Sig Sauer handgun.

But Tuesday afternoon unveiled a significant development in the case as an intriguing new detail was revealed for the first time.

Headphone jack manipulation

Stacey Eldridge is a former FBI forensic examiner with a degree in computer information management. She worked for the FBI for 10 years and was part of the computer analysis response team. Eldridge is also a certified mobile device examiner and a licensed private detective in Nebraska.

The defense called Eldridge to the stand on Tuesday after asking her to analyze the data state police pulled from Libby German’s cell phone. State police experts Brian Bunner and Chris Cecil previously presented this data to jurors laying out a timeline for the phone’s movement along with showing video and audio extracted from the phone.

Eldridge’s testimony agreed with several aspects of the state police findings, though she criticized them for not doing a better job of extracting data from Libby’s phone which could have led to better findings.

A key piece of missing evidence included a power log. Power logs reveal when a phone was last turned off or on. The data collected from Libby’s phone did not include a power log, however, so experts cannot say for sure when Libby’s phone was turned off.

Eldridge stated that every time a phone is turned on/off, it loses some data files.

While Eldridge stated she generally agreed with the timeline laid out by Cecil’s ping data of Libby’s phone, she did disagree with some of his findings — including when the phone last connected to service and last received messages.

Eldridge said her analysis of the findings led her to the conclusion that the phone last connected to a cell phone tower at 5:44 p.m. on Feb. 13, 2014. This is a little over 10 minutes after Libby’s phone quit moving.

The phone then connected again in the early morning at 4:33 a.m. This is when police said Libby’s phone received several messages sent 12 hours or more before, including from frantic family members trying to contact her.

Eldridge said that data shows that after 5:44 p.m. the phone attempted to reconnect to the tower and that no data was being used by any apps between 5:44 p.m. and 4:33 a.m.

The defense team asked if Eldridge could provide an explanation for why the phone stopped receiving signal during that near 11-hour gap if the phone was stationary, as the prosecution has claimed.

Eldridge said she had no explanation outside of movement of the phone or the signal being blocked.

But the biggest new takeaway from Eldridge’s findings was that while the phone was not logging data due to lack of signal, it still logged mechanical manipulation.

At 5:45 p.m. on Feb. 13, 2017, Eldridge said a phone call came into Libby’s phone and that within “milliseconds” a headphone jack was inserted into the phone.

“By plugging in the cable, you would stop sound,” Eldridge pointed out.

According to Eldridge’s findings, the headphone jack was removed from Libby’s phone nearly five hours later at 10:32 p.m.

“I cannot think of any explanation that doesn’t involve human interaction,” she said.

Eldridge cross-exam

McLeland was quick to question Eldridge’s expertise, pointing out that she’s had no cell phone extraction training between 2009 – 2024. She’s also never testified about cell phone extractions until she did so in July for the first time.

Eldridge conceded that she didn’t have a chance to review all of Cecil’s data and cell phone findings. She agreed with the time stamps on the videos and photos and that the lost logged movement of the phone was at 2:32 p.m. – but did not agree that it meant it was the last time the phone moved.

She conceded she didn’t know the service in the area of Deer Creek and that it was possible the phone was just going in and out of service.

McLeland asked if plugging in a headphone would have made the phone log a movement.

“It could, it could not,” Eldridge said.

When asked if someone picked up the phone and carried the phone through the woods, would it log movement?

“Yes,” she answered.

Eldridge also conceded that she found no data suggesting the phone was ever turned off.

The jurors asked several follow-up questions to Eldridge including if she ever wrote her own timeline of Libby’s phone.

“No,” she said.

Jurors asked if she could tell if Libby’s phone was on silent or set to vibrate.

Eldridge said she didn’t know.

Jurors also asked if water or moisture on the phone could register as movement.

She said she did not know.

State police return

Cecil and Bunner briefly returned to the stand after Eldridge stepped down as the defense sought to push on their lack of reporting the headphone jack data.

Cecil stated he Googled the jurors’ question about water or moisture on the phone during break and read that a headphone jack could register as being interacted with if water or dirt is in the port.

“Do you normally Google search when conducting research in a criminal investigation?” the defense asked.

“Not normally, no,” Cecil said.

“You normally look at peer-reviewed articles, right?”

“That’s correct.”

Bunner’s questioning was even briefer as he was asked if he knew what audio output means.

“No,” he said.

He was asked if he did any Google searches.

“No,” he said.