The Delphi Murders: A Flurry of Defense Filings

[00:00:00] The world is a complicated place, troubling issues often echo throughout history. That's something we know all too well from reporting on various crimes. But often it's really helpful to engage with the show that can take you back in time to help unspool the pressing issues of today.

[00:00:30] The firestorm of victim blaming over the murder of Roseanne Quinn, or the longstanding rumor about poison happy waiters in early 20th century Chicago. If you like coverage like that, you'll love NPR's through line.

[00:00:43] NPR's through line tackles some of the most pressing issues of the day, but it goes in depth. We'd love their recent episode to get all into the history of public defenders of the United States.

[00:00:53] They've covered plenty of topics we love like Abraham Lincoln's politicking, the true history of Halloween and one nineteen thirties Oklahoma bank robbers impact on second amendment rights.

[00:01:06] In today's internet age, we're constantly bombarded with hot tags and outright misinformation NPR's through line is a show we trust for in depth research and cogent thoughtful opinions. It's a show where we go to learn even more about history to hear about the all too human tales that continue to shape our world today.

[00:01:26] Go back in time learn something new emerge more knowledgeable about today's headlines listen now to through line from NPR wherever you get your podcasts.

[00:01:38] Across America BP supports more than 275,000 jobs to keep energy flowing.

[00:01:46] Jobs like building grid scale solar energy in Ohio and producing gas with fewer operational emissions in Texas.

[00:01:56] It's and not or see what doing both means for energy nationwide at BP.com slash investing in America.

[00:02:08] Welcome to your next true crime obsession don't miss new Britbox original drama the sixth commandment which the Guardian calls as a macular to piece of TV as you will ever see.

[00:02:19] You will hear evidence of extreme gaslighting help me please I am going to be waiting on you hand and foot.

[00:02:26] Dream this plus the best selection of British true crime series anywhere only on Britbox once you start investigating you won't be able to turn away.

[00:02:35] Start streaming today with a free trial at Britbox.com content warning this episode includes discussion of the murder of two girls.

[00:02:44] So since the last time we've spoken with you there has been a rash of new filings in the cases associated with Richard Allen and I say cases because some of the filings relate to the contemporary.

[00:03:01] I'm hearing it's coming up on Monday and and other filings relate more directly with the murder charges against Richard Allen and in addition to that there've also been a number of letters inexplicably sent to the court by some YouTubers and we will discuss it all with you as best we can.

[00:03:23] My name is Anya Kane I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenley I'm an attorney and this is the murder sheet.

[00:03:30] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:03:37] We're the murder sheet and this is the Delphi murders a flurry of defense filings.

[00:04:00] So let's start by talking about the murder.

[00:04:29] Let's start by talking very briefly about the letters Gary Bodette who is known online by his YouTube persona FIG solves.

[00:04:43] He of course was named as filings last week in which it was suggested he may have been working in some fashion with Nick McClelland and that was based on screenshots from Mr. Bodette in which Mr. Bodette perhaps was suggesting that I have not seen the screenshots but I think that seems to be the implication subsequent to that Mr. Bodette

[00:05:11] and another YouTuber named Frank Wessling wrote letters to the judge which have subsequently been entered into the court file, the case file if you will.

[00:05:24] And frankly I don't think these letters amount too much I don't think they don't have a great deal of significance.

[00:05:32] I also think that when you look at them it seems to indicate the people who wrote these letters may not really understand the role of the judge in our criminal court system.

[00:05:47] They seem to be under the impression that the judge is like a teacher that you paddle to or they seem to think that the judge is someone who is going to put on a deer stalker cap and grab a magnifying glass and go out and personally investigate things.

[00:06:03] I say this because Mr. Bodette says he sent a link to the judge to a Google Drive which he says has all sorts of information about other people in it.

[00:06:14] Those are not the things a judge does the role of a judge is to apply the law she is not a fact finder she is not an investigator in addition to that I mean just it seems like with Mr. Bodette's letter it was initially emailed to Carol County Georgia so there seems to be a lot of confusion and scrambling with some of these YouTubers.

[00:06:36] And yeah as you said it's not really clear what what these letters clarify because they're both written in such a way that.

[00:06:44] Quite unclear a lot of the I don't know I sometimes I sometimes feel that there's been a YouTubeification of this case where you have.

[00:06:54] You tubers with relatively small platforms who have none the less because of their willingness to insert themselves into cases and outside influence obviously I think anybody who cares about this case or other high profile cases in the future should be somewhat concerned about that because I don't think it's going to end with Delphi there are too many incentives.

[00:07:15] To do things like this because it gets eyeballs on you.

[00:07:19] Yes and it's troubling it's troubling because.

[00:07:24] We are not in a position to know the truth or falsity of what the defense is suggesting.

[00:07:32] Maybe the relationship between Mr. Bodette and law enforcement or Mr. Bodette and prosecutor Nick McLean but the very least because of Mr. Bodette's words and sometimes some of his green shots and such.

[00:07:46] He's created a situation where he plausibly can be accused of receiving information that should be kept private.

[00:07:57] He's in a situation where he could plausibly be accused of sending lots of information to the prosecutor.

[00:08:07] He's in a situation where it could be suggested that he's acting at the behest of the prosecutor when he posts certain things.

[00:08:14] I'm going to tell you my own personal opinion.

[00:08:18] This is based on our own interactions with Mr. Bodette and of course it could be wrong would be open to evidence pointing against my theory here but I tend to think that the defense is vastly over exaggerating the contact between him and McLean.

[00:08:34] I think that can be very much true and I think that from what I know about Mr. Bodette this was likely unsolicited one-way street stuff where he's sending in tips that may not even be super relevant to the prosecution.

[00:08:49] I think this is the defense essentially saying but they did it too regarding leaking and not really necessarily having the facts to back that up.

[00:08:59] That's what it strikes me as a bit of a desperate gambit on their part.

[00:09:03] That being said if what the defense is sort of insinuating happens to be on the money which again I very much doubt but if what they're saying is basically true and that Nick McLean has been prolifically leaking to a YouTuber.

[00:09:19] For reasons unbeknownst to anyone then that's the kind of thing they could get a case thrown out so the idea that a YouTuber could get a case thrown out is just I mean the idea that that's not a 0% possibility is disturbing.

[00:09:37] I don't think it's going to come to that because I don't think I think the defense is just you know I mean let's be honest the defense has a history of overstating their points sometimes.

[00:09:46] They don't hold back they don't say like let's make this is as perhaps as accurate as possible they say let's make this sound as crazy as possible that's that's been their strategy this whole time that's what they're doing that's not a criticism that's just that's just what I've observed so I tend to think that this is this is blown out of proportion.

[00:10:07] And both defense and prosecution are allowed to receive tips and communications with other people who are outside the case they just can't treat it as a two-way street and then give information to those people so I tend to think that this is likely in that category again that's just based on our own dealings with Mr. Bo Dett but if it's not if the defense is again on the money then it's it's I mean it's like one of those things that could have a huge impact but I just don't like it's there in fairness.

[00:10:37] This to the defense if what you're saying is true and Mr. Bo Dett's interactions with prosecuting the Cleveland and others has been exaggerated it is worth noting that the first person to exaggerate those interactions was not Andrew Baldwin it was not David Hennessy it was not Brad Rosie the first person to exaggerate those interactions would have been Gary Bo Dett himself that is fair

[00:11:07] he created a situation which the defense and the prosecution in all of us it's interesting because you have people like this who I know in the case of in the case of like Angela said Lowsky Courtney persons

[00:11:52] and you read it like this is your team then when you don't really have any of the skill sets necessary to treat it with any sort of like confidentiality or professionalism then you end up interestingly enough probably most likely hurting whatever side that you are advocating for.

[00:12:11] I don't think anybody who's like a fair minded adult in this wants to see either side derailed by nonsense no because that's not good for the case that's not fair to Richard Allen and it's not fair to the victims families so I mean the fact that this is happening again is surreal.

[00:12:30] Yeah and I think it's worth knowing there are people in certain camps and they tried to act as if everybody else is in camps as well we have a time spent accused of being pro prosecution other times we're been accused of being pro defense we didn't episode I believe last week mentioning the boat that stuff and talking about our interactions with the dead and because of that I've seen people online saying where does she very well known.

[00:13:00] To be very, very pro defense we're famous for it and then there are other people out there who say murder sheet is violently biased towards the prosecution is very anti-defense I want these people to all get together and fight each other do a rumble.

[00:13:15] You talking about you're talking about the commenters not at the prosecution defense yeah although frankly that would mean it's some of the breakdown of relations in this case almost indicates that both might happen but yeah it's stupid.

[00:13:30] My bias is I want there to be a fair trial for Richard Allen that's what I want I want the process to work as it should so that the evidence for and against Mr Allen can be weighed and a verdict can be reached that reasonable people can have confidence in faith.

[00:13:50] Amen.

[00:13:51] That's my bias that is what I want and so it times if I think something that the defense is doing jeopardizes that we might criticize that if there are times that we think something the prosecution or a fan of the prosecution is doing the might jeopardize that we will question that so that is our bias that is where we are coming from.

[00:14:11] I'm going to at some point do a episode I think about the the fandom of true crime and how we've really gone too far like it's great to be a fan of a talented musical artist it's great to be a fan of a television show that's fictional or even non fictional.

[00:14:30] I mean there's a lot of things that's wonderful to be a fan of but being a fan of one party or another in an ongoing murder case is not healthy in my opinion.

[00:14:43] I love the people in our social media groups and whatnot who kind of say like you know I have an opinion but I'm you know that's like that's based on my own opinion and that's fine like people can have an opinion I think Allen's guilty I think Allen's innocent that's great.

[00:14:59] You know people are allowed that I also love it when people say listen I have questions and I'm going to be interested to see what happens a trial like all of those people who are sort of behaving normally with their opinions or they're lack there of.

[00:15:11] Then that's all great but when people take it to this really like almost tying their identity to their their fandom over again one side of an ongoing murder case then there's something very toxic about that and we've seen that proliferate on you.

[00:15:28] We've seen that proliferate on different social media sites and it's it's not healthy. It's not good. It's not I don't think it's healthy for those individuals, frankly but more importantly it's not healthy for the case that you have such virulent rhetoric such just bizarre antics and it encourages the kind of behavior I think that you don't want to see you don't want to see I also don't feel like our criminal justice system is really equipped to deal with any of this and you know what I'm saying is that I'm not going to be a criminal justice system.

[00:15:56] I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I

[00:16:26] 'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm not going to be a criminal justice system. I'm

[00:16:56] not going to be a man who was not a man who was not a man who was meant to be treby., He's not treby. He's not treby. But 23 could already come to the police notice. In case of the trial and that process whether that someone is Andrew baldwin or Nick McClelland or judge Golden or Gary Bohat, we're going to call them out.

[00:17:06] something. I mean, I don't think we'd be serving our audience by being like, this is

[00:17:12] fine. This is good because it's not. It's just ridiculous. The whole thing has become

[00:17:16] such a three-ring circus and you know, I mean people can get upset with us about saying,

[00:17:23] well, this is clonery but if we think it is, we're going to say that regardless of what

[00:17:28] quote unquote side it is because it shouldn't be about that at this point. And people who again

[00:17:34] are so invested in one side, I think that's something to question. Like it, you know,

[00:17:40] is that clouding your judgment in terms of how you're behaving online or what you're doing in the case?

[00:17:46] I think people need to ask themselves those questions. If you don't feel like it's re-rising

[00:17:50] to that level, then you're probably fine. If you feel like it is, then I don't know.

[00:17:55] Mysteries are the heart of everything we do here on the murder sheet.

[00:17:58] But sometimes it's more fun to dive into a fictional paper. That's why we love the

[00:18:04] free-to-download hidden object game, June's Journey. This game is our daily escape from waiting

[00:18:10] around in line, getting stuck on hold and just general doldrums. It is great to be able to just

[00:18:17] knock out a few levels here and there. You get to discover your inner sleuth and sharpen

[00:18:21] your observational skills by finding clues in each level. Plus, it's like dropping straight into

[00:18:28] your own cozy mystery novel. You play as June Parker, an amateur detective with a nose for trouble.

[00:18:35] You get to tackle all kinds of bizarre crimes across a series of elegant and memorable locales.

[00:18:41] Also, you have a side hustle decorating your own island estate. I love that. I bought a swan pond.

[00:18:49] She really did. Download this game for a built-in work break. It's a great mental health boost

[00:18:56] to makes you feel accomplished before you get back to tackling whatever task you have at hand.

[00:19:01] And remember, when you support our advertisers, you're supporting our show. June needs your help

[00:19:06] detective. Download June's Journey for free today on iOS and Android.

[00:19:14] Hey, it's Kaylee Cuoco for Priceline. Ready to go to your happy place for a happy price?

[00:19:18] Well, why didn't you say so? Just download the Priceline app right now and save up

[00:19:22] 60% on hotels. So, whether it's cousin Kevin's Kuzu concert in Kansas City, go Kevin!

[00:19:27] Or Becky's Bachelor at Bash and Bermuda. You never have to miss a trip ever again.

[00:19:31] So download the Priceline app today. Your savings are waiting.

[00:19:35] Go to your happy place for a happy price. Go to your happy price, price line.

[00:19:45] Welding instructor Alex DeClaire knows VR training platforms like ForgeFX helps students

[00:19:51] master their skills. There's big learning curve with welding, virtuality,

[00:19:54] simulates that exact muscle memory that they need. Learn more at meta.com slash metaverse impact.

[00:20:02] So let's move on and talk about the filings in the case that were actually made by attorneys.

[00:20:09] The first one is a doozy. Sorry to use that legal term but it is a doozy. Wow, that's

[00:20:16] the original Latin. It's a motion to compel and request for sanctions. This is filed by the

[00:20:23] defense very briefly. They're indicating that we believe there's some evidence that should be

[00:20:29] handed over to us. That hasn't been handed over to us. That's what the motion to compel

[00:20:33] us make them handed over to us. And then the request for sanctions, I think that is something

[00:20:38] I want to highlight really hugely, another legal term hugely. Right here at top, the defense

[00:20:46] recently filed a motion for a speedy trial. We want this trial to happen within 70 days.

[00:20:54] So I'm mentioning that because in this request for sanctions, the sanction is, well,

[00:21:01] if the trial gets delayed, who should you blame it on? Don't blame it on us, blame it on the state.

[00:21:06] So they are already contemplating the possibility that the trial will not happen in May.

[00:21:13] Or even indicating that, I mean from what I'm reading here, their request is that sanctions

[00:21:18] be in the form of... Let's talk about this. Yeah.

[00:21:22] So they're saying if the trial is delayed because we haven't gotten this evidence, which

[00:21:27] we'll discuss the evidence in a moment, if the trial is delayed because we haven't gotten this

[00:21:31] evidence, the time should be charged against the state. The delay should be credited to the state

[00:21:38] and not to us. What does that mean? Well, the rule for a speedy trial indicates that it's complicated.

[00:21:48] But if you follow request for a speedy trial, and then that trial doesn't happen within a certain

[00:21:54] time frame, is the delay in the trial caused by the defense? If it is, well, there you go.

[00:22:03] Not much you can do about it. But if the delay in the so-called speedy trial is caused by the state,

[00:22:10] at some point there are remedies for that up to and including the defendant being released from

[00:22:16] custody and charges being dismissed. So they're saying we're asking for all this stuff.

[00:22:22] If the reduction of this stuff causes the trial to be delayed, blame it on the state and then maybe

[00:22:30] the delay will be so big that Richard Allen has to be released or the charges dismissed.

[00:22:37] To me, for all its 18 pages, that is the most important thing within this document,

[00:22:45] that sort of final point of what they're essentially requesting.

[00:22:50] They say that at the top and at the bottom.

[00:22:51] Yes, and I think that to me, that's the point of this. I mean, frankly,

[00:22:58] the whole thing also calls into question even the strategy of speedy trial. I think

[00:23:03] this is an indication that that is not going to happen for what? Because the people who are asking

[00:23:09] for it are saying essentially that, well, when this inevitably doesn't happen,

[00:23:16] when we inevitably say that we're not, we haven't gone all the discovery.

[00:23:22] We're going to ask for a continuance, but don't blame us. So I don't think May is going to happen.

[00:23:29] I think May is out the window. I mean, I could be wrong, but that's just how I hope you are.

[00:23:34] I hope I'm wrong, but this is not a filing by people who expect to go to trial in May. I'm sorry.

[00:23:42] And I think that it mostly seems like it makes the speedy trial request, frankly,

[00:23:49] just look like maybe another desperate gambit to remove Richard Allen from incarceration.

[00:23:57] Well, if they, for some reason, Judge Goll aligns with us on this,

[00:24:00] maybe we have the chance to get him out. I mean, I don't know.

[00:24:05] The rest of it to me and we'll go into the points, but the rest of it to me reads a bit.

[00:24:10] With some new additions, a grocery list of grievances that the defense has brought up in the past

[00:24:19] about the prosecution. One thing that's kind of in notable about the defense is like

[00:24:25] nothing is ever I think adjudicated to their satisfaction. They will kind of include

[00:24:32] the same thing again and again and again in filings.

[00:24:36] It's also interesting to me that a lot of this document is them saying,

[00:24:43] we haven't received certain bits of evidence and we don't even know if that evidence exists.

[00:24:48] We're guessing that it does. We have a hunch that it does. We have an educated...

[00:24:53] We have the vibe that it exists. But we haven't gotten it. Therefore,

[00:24:59] the state may be doing something to fair it.

[00:25:02] It just seems odd to me at this point at this stage that they're...

[00:25:07] I mean, because here's the thing. So they're going through and saying we don't have this.

[00:25:12] But shouldn't they have done this? But the state's saying they don't have it.

[00:25:17] And that it doesn't exist. But I mean, we'd like it. So why doesn't it exist?

[00:25:22] The reasoning here, I'm not really fully following it.

[00:25:25] In some cases, they're saying the state hasn't even told us whether something exists or

[00:25:30] doesn't exist. And that's reasonable then to be pushing on that. But other things,

[00:25:34] they're saying the state has responded saying we don't have this.

[00:25:39] And like... But I mean, I think it does speak to a breakdown in trust between the sides

[00:25:45] that we've discussed before. Since the leak you get the sense from the court filings that

[00:25:52] relations are really soured, peers that McLean is only communicating with them via email so as

[00:25:57] to make sure everything is put in writing and can't be twisted around. It seems like they're saying

[00:26:02] we don't believe McLean when he says that he doesn't have these things because what if he's lying?

[00:26:08] And it's like... I don't know. The whole thing has that tone of it.

[00:26:14] Almost a paranoia of like maybe they're lying. Maybe they hit it.

[00:26:18] You know, I don't... But then again, when things are that bad, how much of this is based on

[00:26:26] reality and how much is it based on paranoia? Of stuff must be deleted.

[00:26:36] They had evidence of we believe he deleted this because of this. It made sense when they were

[00:26:43] talking about Brad Holders interview getting taped over because they're saying

[00:26:47] that interview is referenced in these other documents and we don't have it. And then they learn

[00:26:52] it was taped over. So that makes sense when you're making a big deal about that because you say

[00:26:57] there was a thing it existed now it doesn't. In those same filings when they were talking about that,

[00:27:02] they also had frankly the less compelling point of like also Patrick Westwell was interviewed and

[00:27:08] that must have been taped over. And then it came out that no he was never interviewed on tape. They

[00:27:12] talked to him and it wasn't recorded. You can't be... Nothing can be destroyed if it never existed.

[00:27:19] Yes. So this kind of document flits in between those two things a lot. And frankly, in some cases

[00:27:29] in my opinion conflates them. And there are two different issues. Yeah, you bring up the

[00:27:35] Odinism and the Brad Holder interview getting recorded over. And that brings up an interesting issue.

[00:27:43] In this document they say there are several things related to Odinism and the Odinism

[00:27:52] investigation by the state that we did not receive until after the depositions we took in August.

[00:28:01] And I was in those depositions that essentially we made it clear to the state that Odinism was going

[00:28:07] to be a big part of our defense strategy. And then after we did that then they turn over all this

[00:28:13] Odinism stuff for us and they say why did they wait? Why did they wait? If I could speculate.

[00:28:21] So when you have a major case like this the state gets all sorts of crazy leads. They also get

[00:28:33] some good leads but they get crazy leads and they also get leads for things that might sound

[00:28:40] interesting and then they investigate and the state humps to the conclusion there's nothing to

[00:28:46] do this. So you don't necessarily as the prosecutor have to turn over every single tip you get.

[00:28:55] If someone calls the police and say this crime was committed by Bigfoot, you don't have to

[00:29:03] send that over to the defense. And if you investigate leads and you are satisfied in your mind there's

[00:29:12] nothing about this lead that is relevant to the prosecution or defense of this case you can

[00:29:20] make the determination. I don't think I need to send this over. So to speculate I might guess

[00:29:28] that it was possible that McLeanland and the state did not send over the Odinism stuff because

[00:29:34] they'd investigated it and concluded this was a bomb lead there's nothing here. But then once the

[00:29:41] depositions happened and they realized oh this is going to be a big part of their defense therefore

[00:29:47] we should send it all over to them than they did. So that would be my speculation as to what might

[00:29:54] have caused the initial delay and sending the Odinism leads and then the flurry of Odinism leads

[00:30:00] sent to the defense after the depositions. Yeah the defense wanted to make it out to be that this

[00:30:06] is such a good lead that they hid it from us and the obvious and the counterpoint would be that

[00:30:12] the prosecution just looked into it. It kind of went nowhere like many of the thousands of tips

[00:30:22] that they got and did not consider it to be one of the main investigatory tracks.

[00:30:30] Now obviously you have men like Todd Klick, Kevin Murphy and Greg Ferencie who were looking into it

[00:30:38] on the side but it's not really clear to me when you have a large investigation with multiple agencies

[00:30:48] I do think some of those sidetracks can kind of go on but it doesn't seem like there was ever

[00:30:54] really like probable cause where they were able to make much happen there and so the defense is

[00:31:02] very much within its rights to go with a theory like that but it also it's not necessarily sinister

[00:31:08] or crazy for the prosecution to not feel like it was there was much to it and not really

[00:31:17] prioritize a lot of that. I mean a lot of the defenses complaints about the prosecution

[00:31:22] and law enforcement throughout this strike me is like you don't agree with us isn't that crazy?

[00:31:26] Isn't that wild? And it's like maybe they just don't think the odonism theory is very good

[00:31:31] because there wasn't a lot of evidence to follow. I mean that's you know kind of dressing

[00:31:38] everything up as a conspiracy sort of at some point becomes a bit repetitive.

[00:31:44] There's talk in here about geo-fensing and have they turned over all the information they have

[00:31:53] about the phones from people who were said to be in the area. They indicate that they are in

[00:32:00] possession of a map prepared by someone by this indicator in possession of a map which was

[00:32:07] prepared by someone on the state side of things which indicates these are people whose phones were

[00:32:15] there and none of those people according to the defense had in the association with Richard Allen.

[00:32:21] Certainly if there's more evidence about the geo-fensing the defense is entitled to it but it

[00:32:28] may be worth noting that Richard Allen by his own account indicates that he was in that area

[00:32:33] and was using his phone I believe he was looking at stocks that day. A stock ticker?

[00:32:39] So he puts his own phone at the scene. Now reading through this document are they saying

[00:32:46] that his phone is actually not picked up on the geo-fensing? Well one thing that they do say is

[00:32:51] I'm going to read paragraph 38 again specifically someone prepared a map which tracked the February

[00:33:00] 13th 2017 afternoon movements of multiple phones in and around the place where the victims

[00:33:06] were ultimately found the following day particularly some of these movements appear to have occurred

[00:33:12] between 3.02 pm and 3.27 pm either at the scene where the victims were ultimately found on

[00:33:18] February 14th 2017 or within 1600 yards from the site and none of the phones or people associated

[00:33:25] with the phones have any affiliation with Richard Allen. If I'm reading that correctly it is

[00:33:32] suggesting that Richard Allen's phone was not in the vicinity of the crime scene between 3.02 and

[00:33:40] 3.07 although it's not explicitly saying that it's saying like I mean is could it be just saying

[00:33:46] nobody went anything to do with him is there that's not really saying he's not there none of the

[00:33:52] phones or people associated with the phones have any affiliation with Richard Allen. Okay I guess

[00:33:57] maybe they're saying the phone wasn't there and why why would he say they're saying the phone wasn't

[00:34:01] there from 3.02 on. Could have been feasibly honest phone 3.01 but it had it turned off is that

[00:34:08] is that what we're reading into that? It seems to be suggesting is that Richard Allen's phone was not

[00:34:15] in the vicinity of the crime scene between 3.02 and 3.27 it doesn't indicate what phones may have been

[00:34:23] within the vicinity of the crime scene even as late as 3.01 so there's also gets down to

[00:34:29] the time of the crime things of that. Yeah it's bizarre if he was saying that his phone was at the scene

[00:34:37] with him you know that afternoon and it's not appearing. Again I think the the important

[00:34:45] thing here is they're talking about between 3.02 and 3.27. Okay which is after the abduction.

[00:34:53] The abduction I believe took place at 2.13. Right so I guess why are they honing it on that time?

[00:35:01] Perhaps if you want me to speculate they're honing it on that time because that's a time frame

[00:35:05] where Richard Allen's phone is not present. Okay okay yeah I hear what you're saying interesting.

[00:35:12] You mean most people would say instead of saying oh 3.02 and 3.27 they might say oh

[00:35:17] between 3.30 was Richard Allen's phone present it's 3. Was it present at 2.55?

[00:35:25] Or if for some reason I don't know how geofencing works but maybe like the geofencing is what is

[00:35:32] causing those time stamps because it's like here's what we can see at 3.02 here's

[00:35:37] what we can see at this time you know like that that gets almost like that's the time when

[00:35:42] they're able to collect it from like that's the time that the data is stamped for.

[00:35:48] If there's experts in geofencing out there please reach out to us

[00:35:52] murtorsheetgmail.com.

[00:35:57] VR training platforms like the one developed by fundamental VR and Orbis International are helping

[00:36:02] surgeons train over and over before operating on real patients. As you practice each skill

[00:36:07] the muscle memory starts to develop. Learn more at meta.com slash metaverse impact.

[00:36:13] I normally find bras to be so uncomfortable in constricting but skims has changed that you know

[00:36:19] I love skims underwear so I finally tried their bras and skims has delivered again.

[00:36:24] Skims bras are worth the hype for the amazing shape and support they give

[00:36:28] but what I wasn't expecting was how comfortable they are too.

[00:36:31] I've tried so many bras in the past and the main issue that I have is that they weren't supportive enough

[00:36:36] to the point where they felt slouchy. I love my skims wireless form bra because it's so comfortable

[00:36:41] and supportive. The older I get the more I care about actually being comfortable in what I wear

[00:36:46] every day and with my wireless form bra I no longer have to sacrifice my comfort for the support

[00:36:51] I need. Shop skims bras at skims.com now available in 62 sizes 30A to 46H plus get free shipping on

[00:37:00] orders over $75. If you haven't yet be sure to let them know we sent you. After you place your order

[00:37:06] select podcast in the survey and select our show in the drop down menu that follows.

[00:37:12] A new year is a new chance to focus on you. You're probably already picturing yourself struggling

[00:37:17] at the gym but not all self-help has to mean suffering. Squeeze.com is making it easier than ever

[00:37:23] to elevate your wellness by delivering a juice cleanse right to your doorstep. It's the easiest

[00:37:29] juice cleanse you'll ever do that may aid in weight loss eliminating bloating, clearing your

[00:37:34] skin boosting your energy levels improving sleep and breaking bad eating habits. Meet all your

[00:37:40] health goals from the comfort of your home. Get free same day local delivery or fast free

[00:37:46] delivery nationwide with code Wondery today at squeeze.com. Another big item mentioned in here is

[00:37:56] the whole episode with the Purdue professor. They call it a debacle. This is the Purdue professor

[00:38:05] Jeffrey Turko who made some comments to investigators at some point about whether or not the sticks left

[00:38:15] at the crime scene were ruins associated with autism. Yes, so this is a kind of very much a recurring

[00:38:29] complaint from the defense about how state police essentially hid this professor from them?

[00:38:38] I've always found this a bit confusing because the defense sites a full transcript or recording

[00:38:53] of the professor's interview that was seemingly turned over to them. If authorities wanted

[00:38:59] to hide this man, why would they send them that? I guess. I mean, I guess I would want to frankly,

[00:39:06] I would be so curious to hear from professor Turko himself because when he was cited by the

[00:39:12] defense, it seemed like two small citations from a much larger interview and I would be very

[00:39:20] curious if he feels that that was an accurate depiction of his opinions and words. And whether

[00:39:28] he's the man himself who could clear up, you know, oh yeah, that was weird. They were kind of hiding

[00:39:34] versus there was some sort of scheduling error or some sort of miscommunication. He could shed a

[00:39:40] light, a lot of light onto whether this was indeed a sinister attempt to I guess disappear him,

[00:39:46] you know, versus some kind of more innocent explanation. But the fact that they keep on hammering

[00:39:54] on this guy in particular is interesting to me. I guess I went again. I read that when we were

[00:39:59] initially talking about him, his role in this is he allegedly said something to the effect of like,

[00:40:04] well, this could be these could be runes. The sticks atop the bodies could be runes. And that's,

[00:40:12] you know, certainly very interesting for the defense. That's what they're arguing. But I guess

[00:40:18] to me there's a difference between could be runes and our runes. There's also a difference

[00:40:23] between could be runes and therefore a group of odonists must have committed the ritual sacrifice.

[00:40:33] I mean, honestly when you look into this, there's not odonous ritual sacrifices in general are not

[00:40:39] something that have like a precedent in the modern world. White supremacist committing murders,

[00:40:47] oftentimes political murders do have a precedent but not sacrificing white children. That's just not,

[00:40:55] you know, and so going to a person who seemingly studies ancient Norse culture and runes doesn't

[00:41:03] like that's there are experts who might have a bit more to add with like modern day odonism

[00:41:11] and like the white supremacist movement frankly we've talked to some of them on the show they're great.

[00:41:16] But I feel like, I don't know it's hard to know what to make of any of this but it's,

[00:41:22] what do you make of them continuing to bring it up constantly?

[00:41:26] There sometimes I think I understand their point and sometimes I'm confused and I'm going to

[00:41:33] give you an instance of me being confused by reading paragraph 55.

[00:41:40] However since getting back on the case the defense has learned that Jerry Holman did in fact

[00:41:45] one of the identity of the Purdue professor Jeffrey Turko on August 12, 2023 through the Purdue

[00:41:52] police department and Turko's identity was confirmed a few days later by other law enforcement.

[00:41:57] Holman even had possession of Turko's report which contradicted Holman's August 10, 2023

[00:42:03] sworn testimony during the same time frame. If I'm reading this correctly they're saying

[00:42:10] on August 10, 2023 Holman seems to indicate he doesn't know the name of Turko.

[00:42:17] On August 12 he does know the name so therefore since he knew the name two days after his testimony

[00:42:23] he must have been lying two days earlier. Isn't it possible maybe Jerry Holman learns the

[00:42:32] identity of this professor on August 11th? Maybe he learns the identity of the professor on August 12th.

[00:42:40] How does him knowing a fact on August 12th prove that he also knew that fact two or three days earlier?

[00:42:50] I didn't even pick that up but yeah that is a good question.

[00:42:55] Yeah it's hard to parse what they're getting. I know what they're getting at

[00:43:01] we can't trust law enforcement or the prosecution because they've hid the ball in the house

[00:43:04] that's what they're trying to make happen here but I don't know if this incident necessarily

[00:43:12] reflects that it seems to be ultimately I really don't I just don't see what the

[00:43:18] what like I don't know like the significance of this is in the scheme of things I guess.

[00:43:24] And then they make a big deal so Jerry Holman of course is one of the investigators for the

[00:43:31] Indiana State Police. He interviewed Jeffrey Turko the professor and then Holman prepares a report

[00:43:40] or is summary based upon that interview and reading this filing one thing is clear it's clear

[00:43:49] that the defense has Holman's report has his summary of the interview and it also has a recording

[00:43:56] of the interview itself and that they try to suggest that because Holman summarized it in a way

[00:44:05] differently than we would have summarized it and highlights points differently than we would have

[00:44:11] this means he's lying and I'm not sure if that follows because if

[00:44:18] lying is an act of intentional deceit and why would you intentionally deceive someone

[00:44:26] about the contents of an interview and then also supply them with the contents of that interview

[00:44:32] or recording of that interview. I think it's possible that Holman and the defense attorneys to

[00:44:39] give everyone the benefit of the doubt they both look at things through different filters

[00:44:45] and both of them would choose to highlight different things but what is ultimately important

[00:44:52] is not Baldwin and Rosie's summary of the interview or Holman's summary of the interview.

[00:44:58] What's important is the recording of the interview itself.

[00:45:01] I mean, and it also seems to me like I would want to see the entire transcript because I

[00:45:07] mean academics are known for hedging and saying, well this is possible or plausible.

[00:45:17] I don't think... I'm not... anything... what I'm reading from Tercoh here is not this is definitely

[00:45:23] an odinistic sacrifice. It's allowing for the possibility as well in some poetic sources

[00:45:30] people do sacrifices. Maybe if they were on Google Books, they could have found that and done

[00:45:36] this. I mean, I don't know. A lot of this just seems like a huge stretch on their part

[00:45:42] and a lot of it seems to be like a difference-interpreterive interpretation which is not the same thing as a lie

[00:45:49] and I just... I would want to know just as an academic does Jeffrey Tercoh stand by

[00:45:55] what the defense is characterizing him as having said that this must be an odinistic sacrifice.

[00:46:01] Then before we move on to the filings related to the contempt thing, there's at least one other

[00:46:09] section of this that really jumped out at me and this is in paragraph 69. It's F-G-N-H and I'm

[00:46:23] going to read this. This is when they're discussing some of the things they want from the state.

[00:46:30] F-All of Derek Germans' law enforcement interviews including video, audio and or notes,

[00:46:36] reports memorializing in the law enforcement interview. If he was never interviewed,

[00:46:42] the defense would ask for confirmation of that fact. G-For purposes of establishing a timeline,

[00:46:48] all of Kelsey Germans' phone dumps of all phones attributable to Kelsey German. If her phone

[00:46:54] was never collected, the defense would request confirmation of this fact. Furthermore,

[00:46:59] every law enforcement interview of Kelsey German including video, audio and or notes reports

[00:47:05] memorializing any law enforcement interviews. If she was never interviewed, the defense would ask for

[00:47:10] confirmation of that fact. H-All of Cody Paddy's phone dumps of all phones are treated

[00:47:16] with a Cody Paddy. If his phone was never collected, the defense would request confirmation of

[00:47:21] this fact. Furthermore, every law enforcement interview of Cody Paddy including video, audio

[00:47:27] and or notes reports memorializing any law enforcement interviews. If he was never interviewed,

[00:47:33] the defense would ask for confirmation of that fact. So this certainly raises the possibility

[00:47:41] that is part of their defense strategy. They may choose to be blunt, they may choose to attack

[00:47:49] the family. It jumps out at least go after them in some way. H-It jumps out at me. They say,

[00:47:55] well, we want Kelsey stuff but we want that just to establish a timeline. That's all we're saying

[00:48:00] about Kelsey. We just want her information for the timeline. There's no such caveats when it comes

[00:48:06] to Derek German and Cody Paddy. Derek German is of course the grieving father of Liberty German.

[00:48:13] It'll be, that'll be an interesting strategy if they do that. I mean, if they on top of everything,

[00:48:20] obviously we're in a moment right now where their facing contempt charges because

[00:48:28] the prosecution argues that they essentially allowed the leak of graphic crime scene photos of

[00:48:34] these two girls to get out of the internet. So if they start also maybe trying to tie in

[00:48:42] the Paddy family, the German family with the odoness, I mean, I imagine that would certainly add

[00:48:48] insult to injury for this family. Yeah, I think this family has suffered enough.

[00:48:54] Oh yeah, I mean they're gonna do whatever though. I think it is, I think that is something

[00:49:03] that I picked up on to that that that may be up their sleeve. They don't necessarily have to go

[00:49:09] down that path but they can and it sounds like they very well might. I will be, uh,

[00:49:18] it's just it's hard to it's hard to assess some of this because the language they use at all times

[00:49:24] is so extreme and in the past when they've done that then sometimes it turns out to either

[00:49:31] the situation is not as they described or much more nuance than they described. And and therefore

[00:49:38] it's hard for me to just necessarily take any of this at face value. Certainly the witness list

[00:49:44] for the contempt hearing clues names of people who've been very critical of the family.

[00:49:49] That is true. And in certain quarters of the internet there are some ridiculous and frankly

[00:49:55] offensive conspiracy theories, alleging family involvement in this. So I don't know if they've

[00:50:01] been convinced of family involvement or what or I don't know what's going on there but I think

[00:50:11] it's worth highlighting. I also think that it's worth saying that if there are no phone dumps

[00:50:18] of the family members in particular, I don't that that's not I mean if they weren't suspects

[00:50:26] from the jump there they're entitled to privacy. So like I would I wouldn't necessarily expect that

[00:50:32] their phones were like seized and gone through. That's not you know again just because you're

[00:50:38] relative, your child, your sister is murdered does not mean that the police of the right to

[00:50:44] seize your phone. I mean am I am I wrong there? The police need probable cause or the family member

[00:50:52] needs to volunteer or agree. When it comes to this case all Derek German did was agree to

[00:51:00] pick up his daughter and Abby at the park and then he was the one that initiated the search.

[00:51:05] So I don't know if it would have been necessary to go through his entire phone to get

[00:51:12] there's no or to download his phone. I mean I think like going through it like your hand over

[00:51:16] your phone and people swipe through it then that's one thing but like having all of your

[00:51:22] stuff downloaded that's not necessarily something I would expect to happen. Unless there was a

[00:51:26] reason at some point to suspect Derek Germans involvement or he explicitly said hey here's my

[00:51:33] phone download everything. I just I guess I'm just like I just don't know if those things would exist.

[00:51:39] Should we move on to the flurry of filings from David Hennessy? Yes and let me just say that

[00:51:48] just from a PR standpoint I think the timing of these was a mistake because I think whenever you get

[00:51:57] a large filing from the defense, you know the headlines are you know defense strikes back a prosecution

[00:52:04] or defense says we didn't get everything they're hiding the ball and that's good for the defense

[00:52:09] that furthers are narrative. That's a positive thing but then essentially these were all like

[00:52:14] dumped out in the late afternoon last night and it ended up frankly cannibalizing some of the coverage

[00:52:19] of the motion to compel and request for sanctions. So I don't know what they were thinking with

[00:52:25] that but from a PR standpoint, you know that's you got to give stuff air, you got to let it breathe

[00:52:31] a little bit and then do this because otherwise you're just going to swamp everybody with this

[00:52:38] and these were all filed by David Hennessy. The previous one was filed by Baldwin.

[00:52:43] Let's talk about some of these filings. One is he is objecting to change a venue. So again this

[00:52:52] is important to be clear these filings refer to the contempt hearing that is scheduled to take place

[00:52:59] on Monday and that contempt hearing. Now the vast majority of hearings in this case have been

[00:53:08] conducted in Carroll County. For some reason, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe Judge Goza

[00:53:14] has made it clear but for some reason she's chosen to have this hearing at her court in Fort Wayne

[00:53:22] in Allen County and in this motion, Hennessy is basically saying, huh while you're doing that

[00:53:29] there's a Carroll County case, it should be heard in Carroll County. Why do we have to go to Fort Wayne

[00:53:37] in Allen County? Right, it's a fair question. It's a very fair question. Maybe Judge Goza

[00:53:46] hasn't answered to that. I don't know but I don't understand why the hearing is taking place in Allen

[00:53:51] County. I don't either but I think it is a fair question. So in this motion he's indicating he

[00:54:02] objects to this and that's certainly his right. In addition, each one of these is sort of picking

[00:54:14] out, picking at an aspect of the contempt hearing. So that includes the other parties. He filed

[00:54:23] a verified petition for recusal prosecutor from contempt proceedings as well as a verified petition

[00:54:31] for recusal from contempt proceedings for Judge Goza herself. Let's talk about the prosecutor first.

[00:54:43] He brings up the fact that as we've mentioned, Nekba Kleeland admits that he by his account he

[00:54:50] accidentally accessed an exparte filing that the defense did. These exparte filings should not

[00:54:57] have been seen by the prosecutor. And he says that was an innocent mistake and this is given

[00:55:04] Hennessey an opening. Well, if you can make innocent mistakes and not immediately notify people of it,

[00:55:11] maybe you shouldn't be critical of Andrew Baldwin for making innocent mistakes such as sending

[00:55:18] discovery information to the wrong person. And he further indicates that

[00:55:24] that Nekba Kleeland is expected to be called as a witness in the contempt hearing. And he says if

[00:55:32] a person is being called as a witness, doesn't really make sense for them to be the prosecutor. So we

[00:55:38] need a different prosecutor for this. Right. So even though McLean is the one bringing the charges

[00:55:48] he's saying, basically someone else needs to take it over now. Yeah. If McLean is a witness,

[00:55:55] Mr. Hennessey writes that McLean was present in unrecorded conferences with the court

[00:56:01] that impact his allegations and would be part of any evidence. So typically it would be unusual

[00:56:08] for a person to be a prosecutor and a witness. Right. So that also seems like a fair concern to me.

[00:56:16] And now the judge that's saying this has an interesting paragraph. The one about the judge's

[00:56:24] recusal that ties back to the YouTubers that we mentioned earlier. Again, it pains us to discuss

[00:56:30] YouTubers on this program. But the second they're in court filings, they become relevant. So I feel

[00:56:36] like we're kind of our hands are tied on this one because again, when you're in a court filing,

[00:56:41] something happened. And we need to talk about it. Your repair graph eight. Yeah.

[00:56:47] Defense counsel will be offering admissible evidence that Gary Boetet aka FIG, aka FIG solves.

[00:56:52] A person who has involved himself in this case on the internet claimed to have received and

[00:56:57] disseminated confidential documents. And that his source for the documents was an employee of the court

[00:57:02] protesting too much. Mr. Boetet has now written a fawning letter to the court denying allegations

[00:57:08] that have not yet even been made under the circumstances with the allegation of court involvement

[00:57:14] that will not go unsubstantiated. The court should not be ruling on the immiscibility defense counsel's

[00:57:19] evidence regarding Mr. Boetet and his activities, much less assessing what value to give it.

[00:57:28] Again, that frankly seems to me to be a very fair point. They're saying that because of Mr. Boetet

[00:57:37] saying my source is someone who worked for the judge, it doesn't make sense for the judge to be in

[00:57:43] charge of deciding what evidence should or should not be discussed or admitted in an evidence,

[00:57:52] in an investigation of her own staff. Right. Well, and it also seems like whatever Mr. Boetet's

[00:58:00] intentions were with that letter, it's not didn't work. Didn't work. Maybe made it worse.

[00:58:05] Because basically it includes a lot of non-denial denials. I don't currently have anybody who's a source

[00:58:13] in the judge's office, well, you know, that's not really what they're alleging. If it turns out

[00:58:19] that my suspicions are correct and that Mr. Boetet did not receive leaks from people affiliated

[00:58:28] with this case and did not was not really as sourced up as he claimed, I think this is going to go down

[00:58:35] as just a massive headache on a lot of people's parts for nothing. Also, maybe highlights for

[00:58:40] people in future cases, if anyone's listening who's a prosecutor or a defense attorney or

[00:58:45] part of a judge's staff that you don't need to engage with YouTubers, you just don't. It's too much

[00:58:50] of a risk. Unless they're doing something that really highlights them as the credible exception

[00:58:58] to the rule, getting into any sort of conversation with people who are basically passing on internet

[00:59:04] rumors is not worth your time. And Mr. Hennessy also notes that Judge Goal herself participated

[00:59:11] in different stages. Mr. Hennessy also notes that Judge Goal has indicated already in statements

[00:59:21] her views of Baldwin and Rosie's actions in all of this. And so it to be suggested that she has

[00:59:30] essentially prejudged and already made up her mind about these allegations. So when you have

[00:59:37] someone who arguably has already formed conclusions, whether or not you believe those conclusions

[00:59:42] are right or wrong, and when you have that person also having someone on their staff being

[00:59:51] at least plausibly suggested to be sharing information with a YouTuber such as Mr. Boetet

[00:59:58] in the interest of fairness, would it make sense to have a different judge evaluate the facts

[01:00:03] in this case? And again, I think that's a very fair point. What do you think? Because I don't find

[01:00:10] Mr. Boetet's claims about being sourced up credible and frankly, I believe a lot of them to be

[01:00:16] just outright exaggerations or even maybe fabrications. You know, I think it's possible that he's

[01:00:24] talked to court staff. I think certainly, I imagine he has, I mean, he divulged to many people

[01:00:30] that he was in contact with MacLeanland. I just have a hard time believing that those professionals

[01:00:35] would leak anything to him. But that being said, the charges are serious. So like, I don't think it's

[01:00:43] true. And therefore, I don't really think anything's going to come out of this. But

[01:00:48] and therefore, maybe I have a less of an issue with MacLeanland and especially Gull,

[01:00:55] more so staying on on this. I still think that this is raised up enough of a hollow blue to

[01:01:03] I understand why they're asking for this. And I think maybe I'm a cautious person. So out of

[01:01:09] an abundance of caution, I would prefer if people would recuse themselves.

[01:01:14] Yeah, and we mentioned earlier in another context that our bias in this case is we want there to be

[01:01:22] a fair trial, a fair process, fair hearings to reach a result that we can all have confidence in.

[01:01:29] And I think frankly, if someone who's has a staff member who's been accused of leaking is

[01:01:37] the arbiter, I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who would have less confidence in

[01:01:43] their results of the hearing. I just think when there's something so messy, it's just better to

[01:01:51] to tackle it in as clean a way as possible. Now, I suppose we should talk about the motion for

[01:01:57] specific findings of fact and conclusions there on what does this mean? What are findings of fact?

[01:02:03] Well, when Judge Goll threw them off the case back in October, but she didn't issue any findings of fact.

[01:02:10] She just said, well, I think they're negligent. Actually, she didn't even say I think they're negligent.

[01:02:14] She said, well, they're off the case. That was unexpected. See you guys next week or whatever it was she said.

[01:02:20] And so the problem is if someone, if you want to appeal something, you need to have a record that

[01:02:29] you can appeal from. And if there's no record, if you don't know why something has happened to you,

[01:02:36] if I just say, Anya, you're going to be sent to prison for a year. So long, Anya, how do you

[01:02:44] of how do you appeal that? How do you deal with that? If I say, Anya, you're being sent to prison

[01:02:49] for a year because of your persistent habit of stealing cereal boxes, then you can challenge. I

[01:02:55] give you something to challenge. So there's saying, whatever happens, Judge, explain yourself.

[01:03:03] Absolutely. Explain your findings. Explain your findings together. Explain your findings.

[01:03:09] Okay. And then finally, there's the motion to stay all insularious proceedings and get this case

[01:03:15] to trial. Sure. So this is, this is David Hennessey saying basically, let's just let's just set

[01:03:24] aside this little contempt hearing situation until after the case is adjudicated. It's just going

[01:03:30] to delay things anyway. It would be a shame if things got delayed. To those were the filings. Yeah.

[01:03:37] Several different attempts to get this off. They're obviously trying a lot of different strategies.

[01:03:42] Some of them seem pretty solid and well-founded. Others seem.

[01:03:47] Lassa. Extremely Lassa. I think it's great to have a bunch of defense attorneys get up there

[01:03:53] and say, here's why this isn't contempt or speak to their experiences potentially as expert witnesses.

[01:04:00] I don't think that a bunch of YouTubers with histories of completely unhinged behavior

[01:04:07] is carries the same weight. But I guess, you know, I don't necessarily think the tendency to throw

[01:04:16] everything but the kitchen sink in is necessarily a good one because I think you kind of end up

[01:04:23] clouting the good with the bad. But generally it's possible that they won't even use some of those

[01:04:29] people in which case, I think it would be a stronger performance. Well, I think that's it for now.

[01:04:34] Can't wait for there to be five more filings by the time we're about to finish editing this,

[01:04:39] but we'll try to keep you posted as best we can. And just thanks very much for listening and

[01:04:44] hopefully you find some of this discussion helpful. Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet.

[01:04:50] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheetatgmail.com.

[01:04:59] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate

[01:05:05] authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patrion.com

[01:05:15] slash murder sheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so

[01:05:22] at www.bimeacoffee.com slash murder sheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:05:31] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenley, who composed the music for the murder sheet

[01:05:36] and who you can find on the web at kevantg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about

[01:05:44] a case we've covered, you can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our

[01:05:50] time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email

[01:05:56] account but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.