The Delphi Murders: A Response, An Objection, and A Motion in Limine from the State

[00:00:00] Achieving a gorgeous grin from home isn't a total mystery with BiteClara Liners.

[00:00:05] Just don't be surprised if all of your sleuthing friends start asking, what's your secret?

[00:00:10] Begin by ordering your at-home impression kit today for only $14.95.

[00:00:14] BiteClara Liners are doctor directed and delivered to your door.

[00:00:18] Treatment costs thousands less than braces. Plus they offer flexible financing,

[00:00:23] accept eligible insurance, and you can pay with your HSA FSA.

[00:00:27] Get 80% off your impression kit when you use code WONDERY at BITE.COM.

[00:00:32] That's B-Y-T-E dot com. Start your confidence journey today with BITE.

[00:00:37] You can host the best backyard barbecue.

[00:00:40] When you find a professional on Angie to make your backyard the best around,

[00:00:47] connect with skilled professionals to get all your home projects done well.

[00:00:55] Inside to outside, repairs to renovations.

[00:00:59] Get started on the Angie app or visit Angie.com today.

[00:01:03] You can do this when you Angie that.

[00:01:07] Have you ever covered a carpet stain with a rug? Ignored a leaky faucet?

[00:01:10] Pretended your half-painted living room is supposed to look like that?

[00:01:14] Well, you're not alone. We've all gone unfinished on projects.

[00:01:17] But there's an easier way. When you download thumbtack,

[00:01:20] it's easier to care for your home from top to bottom.

[00:01:23] Pull out your phone and adjust a few taps.

[00:01:25] Search, chat and book highly rated pros right in your neighborhood.

[00:01:28] Plus, you'll know what to tackle next because thumbtack is the app that shows you what to do,

[00:01:33] who to hire and when.

[00:01:35] So say goodbye to all those unfinished home projects.

[00:01:37] And say hello to caring for your home the easier way.

[00:01:40] Download thumbtack and start a project today.

[00:01:44] Content warning this episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls.

[00:01:50] Well, no great surprise here.

[00:01:52] There have been more filings in the Delphi murders case or more specifically,

[00:01:57] the case against Richard Allen who as we all know has been charged with the murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams.

[00:02:06] At least for the moment, the trial in that case is set for the middle of May.

[00:02:12] So as we get closer to that date,

[00:02:14] we should expect to see more and more filings of more and more interest to us.

[00:02:19] And let's talk about the most recent ones.

[00:02:22] My name is Anya Kane.

[00:02:23] I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenley.

[00:02:25] I'm an attorney and this is the murder sheet.

[00:02:28] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:02:35] We're the murder sheet.

[00:02:37] And this is the Delphi murders, a response, an objection and emotion and lemonade from the state.

[00:02:45] So to start off with today, we'll go through the one document that's not from the state.

[00:03:33] This is actually from the defense, specifically defense attorney Bradley Rosie,

[00:03:37] who of course is half of Allen's defense lawyer duo along with Andrew Baldwin.

[00:03:45] So he filed some documentation subpoenaing a man named Lacey Patton Jr.

[00:03:51] who was one of the inmates that Richard Allen was incarcerated with

[00:03:55] who Richard Allen allegedly made incriminating statements to.

[00:03:59] And it seems like Mr. Patton is currently incarcerated in the Elkhart County Jail

[00:04:06] and Rosie is trying to depose him, noting that he would like to depose him with special prosecutor James LaTrell

[00:04:13] as well as court reporter Sharon Barrett.

[00:04:16] And now not only this, but we have some forward looking statements where Mr. Rosie wants Patton to also testify at trial on May 20th at 8am.

[00:04:30] So we're seeing not only last minute depositions, but also maybe some forecasting for what we'll see a trial.

[00:04:41] Very interesting.

[00:04:42] I'm sure Patton's testimony will be potentially of interest to us all.

[00:04:48] Yeah, you know, this seems like one of the one of the folks who he.

[00:04:52] So we know that this is somebody who heard things or is this somebody that's going to talk about bad conditions or both?

[00:04:58] Yeah, it could.

[00:04:59] I mean, the defense could use him to say, well, maybe this confession wasn't very good or accurate or maybe Richard Allen was under a lot of stress.

[00:05:08] So I mean, it's not like they can possibly twist some of the stuff around, I think to benefit them if they're thoughtful about it.

[00:05:15] But I think the sheer number of incriminating statements is definitely something that still puts Richard Allen as at somewhat of a disadvantage here in my opinion.

[00:05:24] Yeah, I think I would do.

[00:05:26] Somewhat of a disadvantage is probably a mild statement.

[00:05:28] Very mild indeed.

[00:05:31] Yeah.

[00:05:32] Do you want to move on to some documents filed by the state?

[00:05:36] Yeah, so the state's response to defendants motion to compel and request for sanctions filed April 23, 2024.

[00:05:43] So this one mouthful of a title.

[00:05:46] Yes.

[00:05:47] Basically, this is about discovery issues.

[00:05:49] And you remember that the defense said, oh, the state has done such a bad job getting us discovery materials.

[00:05:59] They need to be sanctioned and not allowed to talk about certain things at the trial.

[00:06:05] And so this document, which you've just referred to is basically the state's response to the claims that they have mishandled the discovery process.

[00:06:14] Yes.

[00:06:15] Two interesting little snippets.

[00:06:16] We're not going to use our sound effect today, but we're going to just be doing quotes, but quote, not all information gathered in an investigation is discovery.

[00:06:24] And then again, this is a portion of a quote, but quote, thousands of tips and hundreds of investigated leads.

[00:06:30] One thing that we've emphasized over time, and this is something we've gotten to know as we've covered the Delphi case.

[00:06:35] But the Delphi case is a huge case when you talk about information gathered.

[00:06:40] There's a veritable ocean of information, many, many different people who came up as persons of interest or just somebody who was like tipped into the, you know, investigators that they had to look into and cross off the list.

[00:06:54] There's a there's a ton of information in other words.

[00:06:57] And in addition to that, you know, there's there's also, you know, I mean, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's a huge amount of discovery.

[00:07:06] So we've often commented that we feel like both defense and prosecution is likely drowning in it.

[00:07:12] In addition to that, I think it's very important to what what McLean is saying in the beginning here, not all information gathered in an investigation is discovery.

[00:07:20] Discovery has to do, I believe more with you know what's going to be used to trial what could be a sculpatory things like that.

[00:07:28] You know, it's not necessarily discovery if like some random person is like pulled over that day and like it has nothing to do with anything right.

[00:07:40] Yeah.

[00:07:43] Or if I call in and say, Oh, I think my uncle Joe might have been involved with the murders.

[00:07:50] And Uncle Joe turns out was vacationing in Honolulu that weekend.

[00:07:56] Then obviously Uncle Joe has been cleared.

[00:07:59] That's not going to come up and trial doesn't really affect the innocence or guilt of Richard Allen.

[00:08:04] And so that wouldn't necessarily need to be turned over to the defense.

[00:08:09] Right.

[00:08:10] So one thing that's always struck me that a little odd about the defense when they discuss discovery is on the one hand, they seem to be complaining that, you know, they can't find certain things.

[00:08:21] Oftentimes not necessarily directly accusing the state of not handing it over but just saying they can't find it, you know, and then occasionally accusing the state directly.

[00:08:30] But that's the on the one that's coming out of one corner of their mouth.

[00:08:34] And then the opposite is basically accusing the state of drowning them in discovery and giving, you know, how are we supposed to do any of this?

[00:08:42] And it just seems like that's kind of the job.

[00:08:45] The job for them was to figure out to get their arms around discovery.

[00:08:51] They're saying you're not giving us enough in a timely fashion.

[00:08:54] And on the other hand they're saying you're giving us way too much.

[00:08:57] But it's it's not and it's like that's their job.

[00:09:00] It's their job to parse through figure out what's important to their clients defense.

[00:09:04] And I just that's always baffled me because it's like, I think it's reasonable to complain about the first one perhaps even if you're not entirely sure if it's really missing just to, you know, get some points.

[00:09:13] I don't know.

[00:09:14] I can understand that.

[00:09:16] But the latter one it's like that was always going to be the Delphi case.

[00:09:19] It was going to be dealing with a lot of discovery and figuring out how do we organize that and reading between some of the lines.

[00:09:26] I don't know that the defense is actualized upon organizing any of this and that makes me incredibly concerned for this may trial date to be perfectly frank.

[00:09:37] Because I would think you would really want to have everything have a grasp of everything that you have going into this.

[00:09:44] Yeah, I am concerned that the defense is not is fully prepared for this mid-May trial as I would like to see.

[00:09:57] And which they've asked for with their speedy trial motion.

[00:10:00] So the pressure that is being put on the defense right now time wise is coming from, you know, the calls are coming from inside the house to use the common parlance.

[00:10:08] The that they are doing this to themselves and they have proffered reasoning for this set by saying, well, their client is doing so poorly in Westville.

[00:10:16] You know, I, I don't know how compelling I find that to be perfectly blunt.

[00:10:21] I don't.

[00:10:22] I think, you know, it's definitely a better outcome for Richard Allen to be acquitted, you know, than to hurry along to trial and get convicted.

[00:10:34] Because then he's definitely going to be staying in prison for a long time.

[00:10:38] If he's if he's acquitted, they can get him out.

[00:10:42] Point five of this document gets to something you were just talking about.

[00:10:47] I'm reading from point five throughout this process, the defense has inundated the state with inquiries on where to find certain documents.

[00:10:55] The state has endeavored to assist the defense in finding documents that they are looking for and the information provided to them.

[00:11:03] Oftentimes in this endeavor, the state finds that the defense had the documents all along, but they could not locate them.

[00:11:09] The state has no idea why the defense cannot locate the documents.

[00:11:13] So this all sounds like somebody like helping out their elderly parents with like technology or something.

[00:11:21] Where's this?

[00:11:22] Where's this folder?

[00:11:23] It's like, right here.

[00:11:25] I that's I mean, this is not the prosecution's job to hold their hands through this.

[00:11:30] It seems like from what McClillan does writing here that they maybe have gone above and beyond to hold their hands through some of this.

[00:11:39] But that's that's to be very clear.

[00:11:41] That is not that is a courtesy.

[00:11:43] And McClillan in this document is indicating that they have actually spent a great deal of time and effort trying to help the defense find documents that have already been provided to the defense.

[00:12:01] I mean, that's ridiculous to me.

[00:12:03] And it's then especially ridiculous to have that be the case and then be complaining about it.

[00:12:08] McClillan writes basically the state took hours out of its week to do the defense's work for them so that it was as convenient as possible for them to access the information they requested.

[00:12:20] He further writes all the information requested by the defense was already in the possession of the defense.

[00:12:30] That's also a little embarrassing.

[00:12:32] It reminds me of some of the filings we had earlier where the defense made some assertions about geofencing and then there was a response which indicated bluntly that the defense didn't seem to know what they were talking about on that matter.

[00:12:47] And I think this gets back to what we're saying.

[00:12:49] They don't really seem to be fully prepared.

[00:12:53] And if you go into a trial when you are not fully prepared, let's be blunt, the odds go up dramatically that you're going to lose.

[00:13:03] Also, it's not fair to your client.

[00:13:05] Like, not at all.

[00:13:08] And in addition, I mean they've put their client in a position where I think he would have a heck of a time arguing incompetent counsel because he basically, I mean as far as the courts are concerned, he basically refused to go on without them.

[00:13:25] He fought for them.

[00:13:26] He brought them back on.

[00:13:28] You know, I mean, that's a self-inflicted injury at that point.

[00:13:33] That's what you're saying.

[00:13:35] And so it really is incumbent upon Rosie and Baldwin to do the absolute best job they can because I mean this guy, Alan, he put it all on the line for them.

[00:13:46] And it's not like, I mean, I don't really see how he can argue incompetent counsel at that point.

[00:13:54] I mean, that was even discussed in the Indiana Supreme Court hearing over this where, you know, I mean, I felt without necessarily directly saying this, his appellate team were basically like, oh well, you know.

[00:14:08] And let's be blunt.

[00:14:12] According to the state, this ballistics evidence links Richard Allen to the actual crime scene.

[00:14:19] Richard Allen is also by his own account put himself in that vicinity at the time of the crime.

[00:14:26] He has confessed to literally dozens of people or the release made incriminating statements.

[00:14:33] Let's say made incriminating statements because Simea Confession is a little bit more comprehensive.

[00:14:38] But nonetheless.

[00:14:39] He's made incriminating statements to dozens of people.

[00:14:44] These are what they call bad fat, the vast majority of the time if you have dozens of confessions and or incriminating statements and the defendant puts himself at the crime scene.

[00:14:57] And there is physical evidence which plausibly links him to the actual murder site.

[00:15:05] You're in the vast majority of cases you're looking at a guilty man who is going to be convicted and whatever chance you have to get an acquittal will depend entirely upon the skill of the lawyers and upon those lawyers being fully prepared.

[00:15:21] And it feels whatever chances they have to get the verdicts they feel is best for their client.

[00:15:30] Those chances go down dramatically if you go to a trial underprepared.

[00:15:36] Very well said.

[00:15:38] And I mean it doesn't I mean what Kevin and I would love to see is really good lawyering as we've said before on both sides and a you know a great a great legal combat I guess but the closer we get I mean we don't we're not benefit.

[00:15:54] We're not going to sugarcoat things for you.

[00:15:56] I mean that's not what we do here and I think our listeners understand that and and and realize that you were giving your opinions here not because we're trying to sway you to one side or another it's because we're legitimately concerned going into this.

[00:16:12] And it's taken a while for us to even get here.

[00:16:16] But there's been you know looking back in history with this case there have been times that maybe cause concern and we've said well let's give them the benefit of the doubt and that is that has been stretched to its limit.

[00:16:30] And at this point we just want to just be completely blunt about how concerned we are going into this because I don't we're not doing anybody any favors by not revealing that in my view.

[00:16:43] And we're not doing you know this is an analogy I'd use if we're talking about like a weather a weatherman you know a meteorologist.

[00:16:51] You know if you're having a sunny day and or you know just a normal rainstorm you know you can talk about that normally OK like here's the rain here's how you know bring your umbrella.

[00:17:00] But if you take that same tone and approach when there's a huge nor'easter bearing down on your town that's causing flooding that could endanger lives then you don't you don't do that.

[00:17:12] You don't say well consider taking an umbrella you say stay inside.

[00:17:16] If your house starts flooding get help like and that's kind of where I feel we're in the we're in a bit of a nor'easter right now.

[00:17:23] And I hope that the defense maybe is is is in fact quite prepared and perhaps we've gotten the wrong idea but I seeing some of these filings I really don't necessarily believe that.

[00:17:36] OK picture this it's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[00:17:41] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road with available H track all wheel drive in three row seating.

[00:17:51] My whole family can head deep into the wild conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:17:56] Visit Hyundai USA dot com or call 562 314 4603 for more details.

[00:18:01] Hyundai there's joy and every journey.

[00:18:05] OK picture this it's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[00:18:10] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road with available H track all wheel drive in three row seating.

[00:18:21] My whole family can head deep into the wild conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:18:27] Visit Hyundai USA dot com or call 562 314 4603 for more details.

[00:18:33] Hyundai there's joy and every journey.

[00:18:36] Keep your Medi-Cal coverage local Medi-Cal offices review member eligibility once per year and many members are automatically renewed.

[00:18:45] Make sure your personal information is up to date so your local Medi-Cal office can contact you and if they request information respond by the due date.

[00:18:54] Learn more at Medi-Cal dot dhcs dot ca dot gov that's Medi-Cal dot dhcs dot ca dot gov paid for by the California Department of Health Care Services.

[00:19:06] We've got a lot of ground to cover in other documents but before we move on to the next one there is one more thing I would like to highlight.

[00:19:14] In this particular document and this is where it covers Todd click as we all know Todd click sent a letter to prosecutor McLean indicating that he had concerns.

[00:19:28] He thought that perhaps Richard Allen wasn't guilty and perhaps the real guilty parties were these Odinus and he sent this material to McLean and the defense is very upset because they say McLean then took months before he passed this on to you.

[00:19:44] And Todd click to be clear for those who were like wait who's that guy.

[00:19:49] Former assistant police chief to Rushville Indiana and he I would characterize him as a star witness for the defense because he worked on the Odinus theory early on and is able to provide that sort of like I'm a law enforcement officer.

[00:20:02] I believe this theory sort of a seal of approval I think that the defense is looking for.

[00:20:07] And so as I indicated there's things the defense is complained about I want to read in full paragraph 15.

[00:20:15] When should we do that.

[00:20:16] All right sure.

[00:20:17] So quote that the state did not delay turning over evidence from Todd click state turned over a report from Todd click to the defense that was not discovery but was information gathered in the six year investigation.

[00:20:29] Further much of the information in the Todd click report was duplicative of the information in the Indiana State police reports turned over to the defense months prior.

[00:20:38] Plainly the defense had the information in the Todd click report all along because it was duplicative of what was in the Indiana State police reports.

[00:20:46] The Indiana State police had documented the same information that Dodd click documented all of which is irrelevant because the information was received in both forms by the defense well before any trial date.

[00:20:57] So that's pretty compelling they're saying whatever Todd click wrote you got well before the trial plus you already had that information in another form.

[00:21:08] We always talk about Anya's problem stealing cereal.

[00:21:13] Let's say that there are three Indiana State police reports where they interviewed witnesses who saw her stealing cereal and leaving the scene of the crime.

[00:21:27] And then later on months later the police chief of Rushville sends the prosecutor a letter saying you know those statements from the Indiana State police with those witnesses.

[00:21:40] That seems pretty important makes me think she's definitely guilty.

[00:21:44] But the fact is he's just summarizing stuff that they already have.

[00:21:48] And so if I get a letter saying oh these reports about Anya stealing cereal or interesting if I already have that raw information it doesn't seem quite so crucial that I also have this particular man's take on that information because what's important is the actual information from the actual reports.

[00:22:10] This also raised a red flag to me because of the note that basically Indiana State police already had all this information and included it in reports.

[00:22:19] And the reason for that is that I can see an argument to be made for the Odinus theory if there's really like a documented like we tried to tell the Indiana State police they just wouldn't hear us out and they didn't document any of this and that seems to do what the defense has been saying in the past.

[00:22:36] So you know that would be to me good for the defense because you could say well the Indiana State police didn't properly investigate this.

[00:22:44] But if they're if they have all this information and they don't think it's compelling and they didn't think it led to probable cause but they documented it and it's in reports then that that that narrative becomes much murkier to me.

[00:23:03] Makes a lot of sense are we ready to move on.

[00:23:05] Yeah let's go to the state's objection to defendants motion to suppressed filed April 15th 2024.

[00:23:12] And once again Anya has accurately read the mouthful of a title but let's let's just say what it's really about what it's really about is Miranda custodial interrogations Richard Allen went to the police station and he had a conversation with Jerry Holman.

[00:23:35] And the defense says we think he wasn't Miranda eyes properly.

[00:23:40] We think he was in custodial situation.

[00:23:43] We think those statements should be suppressed.

[00:23:45] Yeah so Jerry Holman is of course a lieutenant with the Indiana State police.

[00:23:49] He's one of the investigators who's been on this case for a very long time.

[00:23:52] And you know I think one thing that's important to understand with Miranda warnings is that there are certain essentially rules about when one is needed.

[00:24:03] And one of the sort of I guess points of contention between the prosecution and the defense in this case is custody.

[00:24:13] So a Miranda warning should be given when a suspect is in custody.

[00:24:19] And what does custody mean?

[00:24:21] And there can be some gray area with that it's not always you know obviously if the state police burst in here right now and arrest Kevin and me we're in custody because they've arrested us.

[00:24:33] But is it custody if you are you know in a police station giving a statement and you kind of feel like you're in custody or you feel like you can't really get out?

[00:24:45] If the police say Ania we'd love for you to come down to the police station.

[00:24:49] Let's just have a fun conversation about serial.

[00:24:52] And she comes down there on her own and she starts having a conversation.

[00:24:56] And in the course of the conversation maybe she starts making admissions or saying damaging things.

[00:25:04] As I am wanted to do.

[00:25:07] Maybe she doesn't feel free to leave and the session ends with her being formally arrested.

[00:25:13] At what point does she become in custody?

[00:25:16] That's basically what we're talking about.

[00:25:18] And so there's nuance here.

[00:25:20] So I think a lot of us including myself frankly you think like oh Miranda warning is automatic in every situation because that's what it looks like on TV.

[00:25:28] That's what I sort of thought.

[00:25:30] But there's wrinkles there's nuance and there's also nuance on the defense side where they can argue well listen maybe it wasn't like officially stated you know arrest type of custody but my guy my client felt like they couldn't leave and here's why.

[00:25:46] And then maybe it is custody so you can make arguments I guess is what I'm saying on either side.

[00:25:52] Earlier when we cover the defense filing we talked about their characterization of this interaction.

[00:25:59] Oh Jerry Holman was a really big guy Richard Allen's not.

[00:26:03] He was a little guy.

[00:26:05] There were hallways there were doors.

[00:26:07] What can you read paragraph one of this where we get another description of these interactions.

[00:26:14] Absolutely.

[00:26:16] And so I think that on October 26 2022 Richard Allen came to the Indiana State Police Post in Lafayette to talk about the return of his vehicle that had been searched.

[00:26:26] He came to the post voluntarily under his own volition once he arrived at the police post he was asked to speak with Lieutenant Jerry Holman.

[00:26:34] He was taken to an interview room where he was informed by Lieutenant Holman that he wished to speak with him about the results of the search of his home but that he was free to leave at any time.

[00:26:43] The interview room consisted of three chairs and a desk.

[00:26:47] Lieutenant Holman was the only law enforcement officer present in the room.

[00:26:51] The doors were not locked and for Richard Allen to leave he only had to exit the interview room travel down a short hallway and exit through a set of doors in the lobby.

[00:27:00] None of the doors were locked or required assistance to exit before Lieutenant Holman spoke to Richard Allen.

[00:27:05] He reminded Richard Allen that he had been advised of his rights back in October 13 2024 the last time he spoke with police.

[00:27:14] Richard Allen affirmed that he understood his rights and sat down to speak with Lieutenant Holman.

[00:27:19] The interview lasted approximately 60 minutes during which time Richard Allen was given multiple breaks where Lieutenant Holman left the room leaving Richard Allen unattended.

[00:27:27] At one specific break Richard Allen left the interview room to use the restroom and to go outside to smoke and then returned to the interview room to continue the discussion with Lieutenant Holman.

[00:27:38] At no time during the interview did Richard Allen get up to leave nor did he display signs of distress or undue influence.

[00:27:44] Richard Allen sat through the entire conversation with Lieutenant Holman and participated in the exchange even after saying he was done talking.

[00:27:52] So that doesn't paint a picture of a person who feels intimidated and in custody.

[00:28:00] If he went outside to literally smoke then yeah I mean also that shows that you absolutely know how to get out right.

[00:28:09] And also I think it's worth repeating the point we've made in earlier episodes as I think most of you know Anya and I became a part of the story when we got the crime scene pictures

[00:28:21] and ended up doing an interview with Lieutenant Holman at the police station or the state police post I guess is the technical term.

[00:28:30] So we were actually in this room.

[00:28:32] We were actually in this interview room where Richard Allen was talked to and this description is accurate.

[00:28:40] It's not a big room but it's not necessarily a tiny room and it's not hard to get to.

[00:28:46] It's just a little hallway and then you're back in the lobby and then a moment later you're back in the parking lot.

[00:28:52] I think there's an argument to be made if a person who is being interviewed really feels like they can't get out.

[00:29:00] Like how am I going to get out of here?

[00:29:02] They're going to have to unlock a door for me and then scan me out.

[00:29:06] You can make an argument that that is a custodial situation because the person is intimidated by the process of leaving right.

[00:29:13] They're locked up but I do also believe that this description of this room is accurate and if he was already leaving for smoke breaks.

[00:29:26] You know and I'm going to just say this in the defense filing they emphasize a lot about like how big and scary Jerry Holman is.

[00:29:33] And we sort of rolled our eyes about that a little bit in that hearing and I understand that they're trying to emphasize like it's scary for Richard Allen.

[00:29:40] Therefore it is a custody environment.

[00:29:43] I think they would have been better off emphasizing you know I guess Holman's status as a police officer, a state police representative, a lieutenant who's been doing this for a long time and therefore might be intimidating because like oh I'm going to do what they say because he's a police officer.

[00:30:02] I think that would have been a better move than to say he's tall and our guy is short because what's the remedy for that?

[00:30:10] I mean again what like what is the remedy for that to have a short police officer on hand in case they have a short suspect?

[00:30:16] And also again let's be blunt.

[00:30:19] Talking to a police officer in any circumstance is inherently somewhat stressful and there's nothing you can do about that.

[00:30:27] That's just the way it works.

[00:30:29] We were not under any suspicion of any crime when we went in there and talked to him.

[00:30:33] It was a little bit stressful if you get pulled over by the police for speeding that's stressful.

[00:30:38] You can't do much about that.

[00:30:41] You know you can call a lawyer that would be smart.

[00:30:44] You know that would that would be a good move but I mean but as far as like what constitutes custody that you have to rise to a level to achieve that.

[00:30:52] And it's not that doesn't come out of someone being tall.

[00:30:56] That comes out of you know I guess your status as a police officer and I didn't feel like they emphasized that enough.

[00:31:04] They mentioned in the filing that you know that when Richard Allen was given the reminder of his rights that did not get recorded.

[00:31:13] But they mentioned in the filing that this was observed by Detective Dave Vito the United States police.

[00:31:22] So then we have another witness who says he saw that and why don't you read paragraph 8.

[00:31:31] Quote that Richard Allen's demeanor in the interview is that of a person who is not under undue influence or coercion.

[00:31:38] Even when Lieutenant Holman raises his voice and makes accusations directed at Allen Richard Allen remains calmly seated continues to answer questions and does not leave the room and never attempts to leave or expresses a desire to leave.

[00:31:53] Further it is clear that Richard Allen is aware of his rights and understands his rights because at one point during the interview he tells his wife that requesting an attorney would terminate the interview.

[00:32:03] I think that's really telling.

[00:32:05] Yeah.

[00:32:06] I think Richard Allen saying that demonstrates that he had a relatively sophisticated understanding of his rights.

[00:32:16] So he knew what his rights were and he knew what he could do to terminate this interview.

[00:32:22] This whatever you want to call it.

[00:32:24] He knew he knew what his rights were.

[00:32:26] So does this damage the defense's claims that he was not properly mirandized?

[00:32:32] It feels to me that it does because number one he seems to be aware of his rights and number two they don't really paint a picture here of a person being in custody.

[00:32:44] And again for the sake of Miranda you need to be in custody for Miranda to be required.

[00:32:51] Yes.

[00:32:52] So yeah.

[00:32:53] And again it's like once again Richard Allen saying something has has harmed his cause.

[00:33:00] This is this is why people this is why lawyers emphasize that you need to to bring in a lawyer if you're in this situation.

[00:33:08] It's not just because lawyers like ourselves like getting money.

[00:33:11] No it's not because they're trying to ring every dollar from their clients.

[00:33:15] That's just a side benefit.

[00:33:17] Yeah.

[00:33:18] No it's because I mean but it is true you you know if you're I mean especially with such a serious case to I mean you don't know what you can say that could end up being you know pretty big problem later on.

[00:33:32] I think before we wrap up this document you indicated you want to talk about a couple of the cases that McLean cited.

[00:33:39] Well I thought that the defense did a good job in the in their filing citing a case that was some you know relevant where they basically talked about it was a case that Andy Baldwin actually worked on.

[00:33:52] So it was a man who was brought in on suspicion of believe of child molesting and they were able to successfully argue that that person was in custody even though he wasn't formally under arrest.

[00:34:04] And so I'm going to read some of the points that McLean sites kind of countering the case and then cases that he feels are more on point.

[00:34:15] So quote the facts in this case are quite distinguishable from the facts of E.R. presented by the defense in E.R.

[00:34:23] The court emphasized the circuitous path that the defendant would have had to navigate if he chose to leave the interview.

[00:34:29] The court described it as a labyrinthine exit route with many obstructions to egress.

[00:34:36] This would in the court's view greatly discourage the suspect from leaving the interview room.

[00:34:40] In contrast, Allen's exit involved a short walk without multiple hallways or elevators to navigate further the E.R.

[00:34:47] Court emphasized the impact of having two officers present during the interview as opposed to one officer which occurred in the interview of Richard Allen quote so that that gets into some of the differences basically like E.R.

[00:34:59] He may have understandably felt like he couldn't leave because like how am I getting out of this building whereas that's not the case here.

[00:35:05] Let's go into some cases that McLean feels are more on point quote the facts of this case are more akin to state be Diego where although the interview occurred at a police station Diego is not under arrest or in custody.

[00:35:19] He arrived at the station on his own.

[00:35:21] He was advised he could leave at any time.

[00:35:23] The path to the exit did not require assistance and he was confronted with case facts and evidence some of which was not true.

[00:35:29] After which he made incriminating statements in Diego the court determined that given the casual atmosphere exploratory and conversational line of questioning and relatively unimpeded pathway to the room.

[00:35:42] The totality of the circumstances were not indicative of a custodially interrogation of a custodially interrogation requiring Miranda think there might be a typo there but anyways so this is talking about.

[00:35:57] A different case that where basically the court said this is not you know a problem.

[00:36:06] And another one they brought up is the case of light which got into you know quote the court ruled that his interrogation was only four hours evidence showed light was of sufficient intelligence to understand his right to the room.

[00:36:29] And the court said that the police were not allowed to lie to the suspects and officers lying about certain evidence against light and even questioning that positing light skills in every question storming from the room when the interviewer did not like the answer did not amount to police coercion.

[00:36:40] So that's a that's a case where there was a four hour interview and it was very contentious and police lied to the suspect and it was still allowed to stay in.

[00:36:53] I mean as we've talked about police can lie that's within the rules of an interview not on the stand under oath obviously obviously but in in the course of an interview that's not that's been upheld held by the courts.

[00:37:09] So you know they're they're offering a different view again I thought that the defense some of the defense's points around er was were pretty good and I'll be curious to see what happens but it seems like some of these additional facts.

[00:37:24] Don't don't seem to indicate a custodial environment in my view.

[00:37:29] Car Max is putting peace of mind back in car shopping by putting you in the driver's seat to find a ride that's right for you because at Car Max we believe you shouldn't just settle for a car.

[00:37:40] You should love your car.

[00:37:42] That's why every car we sell is Car Max certified quality so you can be sure with upfront pricing that's the same for every customer.

[00:37:50] So don't settle find love at first drive and start shopping now at carmax.com.

[00:37:56] Car Max the way car buying should be.

[00:37:59] Drove into the shadows of the mind with sleeping dogs a gripping murder mystery starring Academy Award winner Russell Crowe now available on digital Crowe portrays an ex homicide detective unraveling a brutal murder he can't recall uncovering secrets from his past he learns a chilling truth it's best to let sleeping dogs lie visit sleeping dogs movie dot com slash

[00:38:27] mystery to watch sleeping dogs now on digital that's sleeping dogs movie dot com slash Wondery.

[00:38:36] Okay picture this it's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road with available H track all wheel drive in three row seating my whole family can head deep into the wild

[00:38:53] and conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe visit Hyundai USA dot com or call 562 3144 603 for more details Hyundai there's joy and every journey.

[00:39:05] What's the final document we're going to be discussing going to be states objection to defendants motion to suppress filed in April or no do we already do that no I'm lying it's actually a motion in limine motion in limine again.

[00:39:21] Anya has again given us the title of the document correctly but she has given us no useful information as to what the actual contents are so emotion in limine is that's a fancy way of saying these are things that our side doesn't feel should even be mentioned

[00:39:40] shouldn't even come up in court.

[00:39:42] Don't even worry about it.

[00:39:44] You're pretty little head about it so and let me.

[00:39:47] There is we go through this there are some things in here that I think are reasonable and there are some things in there that I think are a bit of an overreach.

[00:39:59] And I'll say this mice my my take on this document just to get started and you'll probably see it as we unspooled but I think that this document could do two things this could be the prosecution's attempt to preempt grandstanding that they anticipate from Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosie.

[00:40:18] And also if it goes a certain way could be the death knell of the Odinus theory in trial.

[00:40:24] Let's start at the beginning I'm going to read a couple of the first things here.

[00:40:30] And again this is a list of things that McLean says this should not happen in court.

[00:40:35] Don't let this happen in court judge.

[00:40:37] Number one any comments about counsel for the state that constitute a personal attack on the attorney for the state or comment on the roles of the state's attorney.

[00:40:46] Any comment which constitutes the personal opinion of defense counsel about any evidence witness outcome or penalty.

[00:40:53] Any in new window or inference that is not supported by admissible evidence and I have to say it's it feels embarrassing that you have to ask for those.

[00:41:03] I think it's reasonable to ask for those in this case though.

[00:41:06] But it's embarrassing.

[00:41:08] It's like if Anjanae are going out to a nice restaurant and she says now Kevin, I don't want you to eat with your hands.

[00:41:15] I don't want you to just throw your food around willy nilly.

[00:41:20] You're asking for things that are basically accepted standards of behavior here.

[00:41:27] Yes, but I don't think that acceptable standards of behavior in this case have been consistently met by the defense to be to be blunt.

[00:41:36] Can you read points four and five quote any attempt to indoctrinate the jury during what year by exposing the jury to substantive issue.

[00:41:45] In the case.

[00:41:47] Any attempt during what year to have the jury prejudged the credibility of a witness.

[00:41:52] So what is this referring to?

[00:41:54] Well, I think I know one thing that we when we profiled Andrew Baldwin.

[00:42:00] One thing that we heard a lot from his colleagues was that he likes to do mini openings in what year.

[00:42:05] So this is basic.

[00:42:07] We actually saw him do this.

[00:42:09] We saw him do this in the Randy small case.

[00:42:11] So what's the mini opening?

[00:42:12] Well, why don't we explain what deer is that is when you select the jury?

[00:42:17] You have an opportunity to question jurors and say.

[00:42:22] Okay, what do you do?

[00:42:24] Oh, you're a police officer.

[00:42:26] Get off my jury.

[00:42:28] Oh, you're, you know, you're another lawyer.

[00:42:30] Get off my jury.

[00:42:32] Oh, you have strong opinions on child molestation.

[00:42:34] Get off my jury.

[00:42:36] It's a fascinating process.

[00:42:37] And if you haven't listened to it, we don't often try to promote our earlier episodes.

[00:42:44] But the episode we did on the small jury trial, the of what year process.

[00:42:50] I think we go into this quite a lot with that process is like.

[00:42:53] Yeah, I was pretty impressed with Andrew Baldwin's performance in that.

[00:42:57] I think actually that was probably the strongest he was during that trial, you know, where he was really.

[00:43:04] Interacting with the jury connecting with them.

[00:43:07] You know, making them laugh in certain instances.

[00:43:11] It's a way to kind of charm the jury and also, you know, weed out people you don't want on the jury.

[00:43:17] But what's this mini opening?

[00:43:19] So what he does is he'll almost kind of present his case in what year it's like a shorter, more concise boiled down version of an opening statement.

[00:43:31] It's just like two or three minutes, right?

[00:43:32] Yeah, it's short.

[00:43:34] But I think the goal is to like start the jury early and get them on your side of like, you know, feeling like they're going to be.

[00:43:43] Oh, this guy's writing some checks and then like let's see if he caches them and it kind of hooks the jury in to your side of things early on.

[00:43:53] I think that's the goal.

[00:43:55] And furthermore, I think if you're doing a mini opening statement in front of the whole jury panel, you can look and see, oh, this person seems to be.

[00:44:06] Rolling his eyes.

[00:44:08] This person seems to be more open to it.

[00:44:11] It's a way to get more information.

[00:44:13] Yes. So maybe it's a smart.

[00:44:15] It's a clever thing to do.

[00:44:17] It's smart. It's a smart thing to do.

[00:44:19] McLean doesn't want that.

[00:44:21] No. You know, because I mean, this is something interesting.

[00:44:24] I believe in Kevin correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in Baldwin's mini opening.

[00:44:28] He alluded to things that were negative about the victim in that case that ended up not being something that were elaborated on in trial.

[00:44:39] It was just like it was like they were kind of like, oh, the victim wasn't this angel, but then they never really went that far with that.

[00:44:45] And I feel like maybe they kind of got the vibe that people didn't like that, or maybe it was a situation where the evidence didn't really quite stack up there.

[00:44:55] And so if that's any indication, there's opportunity to kind of play a little bit looser with like what you're saying.

[00:45:04] And I think McLean wants to do away with the possibility that there could be things stated there that are not backed up by admissible evidence.

[00:45:13] Is that fair to say?

[00:45:15] Which I understand in this case.

[00:45:19] So I guess this is another quote from this, any hypothetical question that includes facts that are not an evidence or questions that are not helpful in violation of rule 705.

[00:45:32] What's rule 705?

[00:45:34] So as far as rules of, you know, Indiana trials, rule 705 is rules of evidence quote disclosing the facts or data underlying an expert's opinion quote.

[00:45:45] The court orders otherwise an expert may state an opinion and give the reasons for it without first testifying to the underlying facts or data.

[00:45:53] But the expert may be required to disclose those facts or data on cross examination.

[00:45:58] So this gets into some expert stuff, I guess.

[00:46:01] Yeah. So if you have an expert on serial related crimes, they can get up and say we believe Anya has a serial related mental illness.

[00:46:14] And that can be it. They don't have to explain how they reach that conclusion.

[00:46:19] Then the witness or rather the counsel for Anya can stand up and cross examine them and say what made you conclude Anya has this embarrassing humiliating problem?

[00:46:29] Kevin Greenlee bribed me to say it. Oops.

[00:46:31] And then yeah, I've been framed the whole time folks.

[00:46:34] That's the twist.

[00:46:36] So yeah, that's something that you know, it's interesting.

[00:46:40] I think this document is especially interesting because it kind of gives a peek of what Nick McCliland is sort of anticipating going into this.

[00:46:47] And I'm going to read 0.7.

[00:46:52] Again, these are things that McCliland believes should not be mentioned during the trial.

[00:46:58] Number seven, Any attempt to introduce evidence of third party motive that is not relevant and or the probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of rule 401.

[00:47:15] Number one, before any such evidence may be permitted, the defense must show some connection between the third party and the crime. Further, it must be a direct connection based on admissible evidence and not founded in hearsay speculation rumors, conjecture or theory.

[00:47:33] The state requests such order and eliminate to include but not be limited to the following a odinism.

[00:47:40] B. Cult or ritualistic killing. C. Brad Holder. D. Patrick Westfall. E. Johnny Messer. F. Elvis Fields. G. Ned Smith. H. Rod Abrams. I. Kagan Klein. J. Jerry Klein. K. Ron Logan.

[00:48:04] Some surprising names in there, in my view.

[00:48:06] So yeah, he's saying you, they shouldn't even be allowed to mention some of this stuff unless they have evidence other than rumors that ties them to the crime.

[00:48:20] Yeah. So I mean, this is interesting. It's something that our friends, Brett and Alice from the prosecutors have said on their show, something that one of our other friends Jason Blair has said in conversations with us.

[00:48:32] You know, is there a possibility that the odinist theory will not even be admitted because the evidence there is not there.

[00:48:41] That there's not enough admissible evidence to justify essentially putting the odinist or the alleged odinist I should say on trial in a trial for somebody else.

[00:48:52] Well, I'll go to the extent of saying that I believe an argument can be made that if Judge Gold refuses to allow the odinism material into the trial, she would be doing a tremendous favor to the defense.

[00:49:11] Because my concern is if you just say it's Richard Allen or the odinist.

[00:49:20] If you frame it basically is a choice between two competing narratives of what happened.

[00:49:26] I think there's an excellent chance that a jury would look at some of the holes that are apparent in the odinism theory and say we can't buy this and if the only other choice is Richard Allen is guilty, I'll go over to that case.

[00:49:40] I think you're absolutely correct.

[00:49:42] I think she would be doing them a huge favor.

[00:49:44] Also, I think the odinist theory as presented by the defense in their filings has holes that you can just walk through.

[00:49:57] I mean like when you have a situation where you're admitting that a guy that we're comparing to Charlie Manson has an alibi in this case.

[00:50:10] There's some problems there.

[00:50:12] I mean, but on the other hand as somebody who cares about like fairness, does it seem fair to me that they might just go up there and malign people who there was like no evidence against as far as like putting them at the crime scene or committing this crime?

[00:50:32] Aside from what they presented, which is largely conjecture and frankly in some cases mischaracterized social media posts.

[00:50:44] So like do I feel good that they're going to be basically possibly putting them up there to accuse of child murder?

[00:50:52] The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable.

[00:50:54] I think it should make any person whose defense minded uncomfortable because it feels like it's become almost a witch hunt for these people.

[00:51:06] And one that has all sorts of bizarre, I guess these people have different beliefs than us.

[00:51:15] They're different.

[00:51:18] They're disturbed and the whole thing makes me deeply uncomfortable, I guess.

[00:51:22] And then I get to start to have some pretty serious concerns about overreach when we get down to names like the Clines or Ron Logan because I think it's pretty apparent to anyone who's followed the case that at different times, law enforcement was very, very actively pursuing those men because they suspected them of possibly being involved.

[00:51:49] So if law enforcement looked at those men and thought, oh, here was some evidence that might tie them to it potentially.

[00:51:56] Oh, Ron Logan's, his alibi is shaky.

[00:52:00] What was this pet store thing?

[00:52:02] Kagan Klein, was he trying to meet them that day?

[00:52:05] Those seem to be, they'll seem to me to be worth mentioning for the jury to consider and to say you can't even mention this even though we spent years working on these leads.

[00:52:17] I don't know, that makes me feel a little uncomfortable. What do you think?

[00:52:20] I think you're right. I think if they came up, I mean, frankly, I think Logan and the Clines were probably avenues that a lot of people thought the defense might go down as opposed to the oddness.

[00:52:32] We haven't really heard a lot about them recently.

[00:52:35] So it's kind of odd and it makes me wonder what's gone on behind the scenes where they're coming up now where McLean is trying to preemptively do this.

[00:52:41] I guess the only thing I'll say is I don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

[00:52:45] So it's possibly that this is a reaction to something that we're not privy to and maybe makes the action make more sense on McLean's part.

[00:52:53] But just looking at it cold, I would say that the defense should be allowed to put on anything around people who were investigated as strenuously as those three.

[00:53:04] I want to read point eight. Again, these are things that McLean said should not be brought up in trial.

[00:53:12] Any reference to an investigation conducted by Todd Click, along with any reports or investigative materials from Todd Click that is not relevant or is used for the purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of rule one, violation of rule 401.

[00:53:29] Byrne is on the opponent to show why it is relevant. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

[00:53:39] Evidence may be excluded if it confuses the issues.

[00:53:42] So this also is potentially troubling to me.

[00:53:45] I want to know first of all Todd Click, he's a assistant police chief, I believe in Russell.

[00:53:53] He was. He's retired.

[00:53:55] Yeah, he was at the time of this.

[00:53:56] Was his investigation or whatever you want to call it, was it an officially sanctioned investigation by the state police or whoever?

[00:54:09] Was it totally independent? Just something he was doing?

[00:54:12] If it's.

[00:54:14] Also, how involved was he?

[00:54:16] Were Greg Farensey and Kevin Murphy, the two men he was working with, were they the primary investigators and he was auxiliary?

[00:54:22] Was he directly helping them and there was like a trio?

[00:54:24] If he is officially involved in an official investigation, it's difficult for me to justify just saying that's totally excluded.

[00:54:34] Yeah, I agree. Also, I think, I mean, and also this kind of ties in interestingly recently, McLean found something asking for third party records from Rushville about possible Brady Giglio issues with Click.

[00:54:54] So that would, what's going on here? We don't know, but it's interesting.

[00:55:00] I think generally my inclination would be even though it makes me uncomfortable that they're possibly going to be accusing people with based on what seems to me thin evidence at best.

[00:55:12] I think the defense needs to be allowed to do what they feel they need to do to put on a vigorous defense.

[00:55:18] I tend to think that allowing them to do basically what they want precludes appeals issues down the road.

[00:55:26] And, you know, that I think that would be to the benefit of all basically let them do what they want.

[00:55:33] I mean, that's just my take.

[00:55:35] And I feel like possibly a middle ground here is that we're going to see something almost like what happened with the YouTubers at the most recent contempt hearing, right?

[00:55:48] Where judge go let them up on the stand, let them say their piece once they got completely far afield. She shut it down.

[00:55:56] That seems a prudent way of handling things where maybe there's some relevance, but maybe we're going to get way past that and maybe let it let it be while it's relevant.

[00:56:07] And then once it gets past that, maybe it doesn't maybe it needs to be shut down.

[00:56:13] What makes a life a good one?

[00:56:15] Is it the adventure you have?

[00:56:18] Or the friends you find along the way?

[00:56:21] Maybe it's pursuing your passion while striving to protect, defend and save what you believe in every single day.

[00:56:29] So, what makes a life a good one?

[00:56:33] In The Coast Guard we think it's all of the above and more, but you'll have to find out for yourself.

[00:56:39] Visit GoCoastGuard.com to learn more.

[00:56:46] Any reference to geofencing and or any testimony from Kevin Hurran about geofencing or the findings from a geofenced search that is not relevant,

[00:56:56] or is for the purpose of confusing the issues or is the potential to mislead the jury in violation of rule 401?

[00:57:02] The burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

[00:57:11] Evidence may be excluded if it confuses the issues.

[00:57:13] So I don't know what's going on there.

[00:57:16] And maybe there's more information out there that we don't have at the moment that would make this clear.

[00:57:24] But Kevin Hurran, former FBI agent, I believe he's testified in over 100 trials, seems to know a lot about geofencing.

[00:57:33] I'm not sure what the basis would be for saying we don't want him to testify.

[00:57:38] One thing that strikes me in this language is findings from any geofenced search that is not relevant.

[00:57:46] I would be curious what is considered relevant? What is considered not relevant?

[00:57:52] Are there defense geofence experiments or whatever that are getting far afield of the facts of the actual murders that are more focused on their suspects?

[00:58:04] I don't know. But I think as you said, I would think that an expert with as much experience as Kevin Hurran would be definitely allowed to testify as to the facts of the case.

[00:58:16] So we just don't know.

[00:58:18] Point 10, any reference to any prior bad acts or acts of any witnesses that plan to testify at the trial that is not relevant to what the defendant is on trial for?

[00:58:30] That is not an act that is an exception to any I will have evidence 404b and it is not those relevant under any other rules of evidence 401 and tend to negate the guilt of the defendant.

[00:58:40] We think we know what this might be about.

[00:58:42] This seems like something you would include in anticipation of having witnesses who are like inmates.

[00:58:49] So if you're incarcerated at Westville, you've been in most cases convicted of a crime and possibly a very serious one or possibly one that speaks to people's view of your character.

[00:59:05] And I think what the prosecution is asking for here is essentially like just because you're incarcerated in Westville on some like meth charges doesn't mean that the process.

[00:59:15] It doesn't mean the defense gets to like hammer that again and again and again when you're talking about what you heard Richard Allen say.

[00:59:22] Also potentially a double edged sword if the defense plans to pursue the idea that Richard Allen is held in awful conditions.

[00:59:34] So that would mean I guess in theory that if Robert Bastone, the convicted child molester who claims that Richard Allen is being abused if he testifies, I guess they don't talk about the child molesting.

[00:59:45] Yeah.

[00:59:47] And I think as you said it could be a double edged sword because the defense may also want to bring in their own inmates so we'll have to see what happens there.

[00:59:57] Point 10.

[00:59:59] Any, pardon me, point 11.

[01:00:02] Any reference to how the files were labeled that were handed over to the defense is part of the information and discovery provided to defense counsel by the state that are not relevant or there were tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury.

[01:00:18] So he's basically saying in all these motions they've been trying to create the impression that we've been doing bad stuff with discovery. We don't want them doing that in the trial.

[01:00:30] Yeah. And I mean if what the prosecution is saying in their latest filing about discovery is accurate, I think that's completely reasonable.

[01:00:37] Basically the defense is just complaining to complain and we're going above and beyond to help them even though we don't need to.

[01:00:44] Yes.

[01:00:45] So I think that's a reasonable request if that is the case.

[01:00:49] One tree, the final point, point 12.

[01:00:52] Any reference to any power points provided by the state as executive briefs during any person or persons that were investigated by law enforcement as part of the six year investigation into the murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German that are not relevant or would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of rules and

[01:01:15] in the case of legal 401 Indiana rules of evidence 401.

[01:01:19] Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant.

[01:01:23] Relevant evidence may be excluded if it is, if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

[01:01:30] Okay, we know that at different points in the investigation power points were made about the case against different aspects of the very least we know there's a PowerPoint presentation made about Keck and Klein.

[01:01:47] And so I'm concerned this is a bit of an overreach because if a year or so before the arrest of Richard Allen investigators were preparing power points outlining the case against someone else, someone who as far as we know has no connection to Richard Allen.

[01:02:05] That's something that I as a defense attorney would want to bring up in the trial.

[01:02:09] Frankly, I've been baffled by the defense's apparent from their, you know, filing lack of interest in some of these other suspects like Logan and like Klein.

[01:02:19] Because to me, they're better than Odinus theory.

[01:02:24] I mean, like, I'm just being blunt here.

[01:02:26] I think there's a lot of problems with Keck and Klein as a suspect.

[01:02:29] They think there's a lot of problems with Ron Logan as a suspect.

[01:02:32] But I think there's a little bit more, you know, steak than sizzle there.

[01:02:37] It compared to what they're running with.

[01:02:41] So I'm very curious about this is something going on behind the scenes that makes McLean think that they're going to just whip out these power points after going on and on about the Odinus endlessly.

[01:02:54] And, you know, that would almost seem counter to the defense strategy if they're trying to establish their own concrete theory of the crime.

[01:03:01] You know, saying it's got to be these Odinus.

[01:03:03] But look, these power points of these other guys and that feels a bit confused.

[01:03:07] So I'm just very this really piques my interest as far as what's going on behind the scenes is McLean covering all his bases here.

[01:03:14] Does he know about something that he's trying to preempt?

[01:03:17] Be very curious to learn.

[01:03:20] What do you think is going to happen next?

[01:03:23] I don't know.

[01:03:24] I mean, a lot of smart people that I respect have questioned whether the Odinus theory is going to be admitted at all.

[01:03:32] If it's admissible, is it is it a fair?

[01:03:35] I mean, I guess that ultimately, to me, is the most important question raised by this document.

[01:03:41] What's going to happen with that because that is the defense's case.

[01:03:45] And again, I've been highly critical of the Odinus theory.

[01:03:48] But I personally think that they should be allowed to present what they think is the best thing for their client.

[01:03:54] Do you think there's going to be a trial in a few weeks?

[01:03:56] Okay, well, I really thought there was going to be like there was a week there where I'm like, yep.

[01:04:04] You've been on over the place.

[01:04:06] I mean, well, you and other people convinced me that it was going to happen.

[01:04:10] You guys were like selling me a bill of goods.

[01:04:12] Now I'm like, I don't know how they can do it.

[01:04:17] I also strongly feel that the defense, some of the defense's latest motions seem to be some kind of like preparing the exit way of like, oh yeah, we can't do it now.

[01:04:30] But it's not our fault, judge.

[01:04:32] The prosecution is doing it.

[01:04:34] Right?

[01:04:35] You know, like they seem to be kind of making sure that their path to the exit is clear.

[01:04:40] That being said, things like Brad Rosie saying, well, be available on May 20th, Lacey Patton.

[01:04:47] I don't know.

[01:04:48] I think it could still go either way.

[01:04:51] I'm more skeptical of it now because I feel like the defense posture is of people who are not ready and who are trying to preemptively blame the prosecution for themselves being not ready.

[01:05:05] And I'm going to say this from everything we've seen so far.

[01:05:08] There could be new information that comes to light that changes my mind on this.

[01:05:12] But from everything we've seen, I do not believe that it is the prosecution's fault that the defense is not ready here.

[01:05:18] I think that they should take some personal responsibility for that at this point.

[01:05:23] You know, I think a lot of time has been wasted here from what I've seen.

[01:05:29] And that's, you know, I don't really feel like it's fair to their client if they go to trial in May and they're not ready.

[01:05:37] Because again, that is a deadline they put on themselves.

[01:05:40] No one else, no one else told them that they had to do that.

[01:05:44] So I don't know why you would rush it.

[01:05:47] Why rush it?

[01:05:48] Unless you just want to get it over with because you're concerned about your chances.

[01:05:53] That's not a good reason.

[01:05:55] There's a lot of bad facts in this case.

[01:05:57] Disaster is facts in this case.

[01:05:59] I mean, this is, this is a, I tend to think that they would have been better off like rushing a trial right in the beginning before he had the chance to confess.

[01:06:07] But obviously hindsight is 20-20.

[01:06:08] I do not blame them for that.

[01:06:10] They could not have known what was coming.

[01:06:13] But I think he would have been in a way better position had he had a very quick trial in the beginning.

[01:06:23] Yeah, enjoy this contemporary reference with all of these bad facts.

[01:06:28] The only way there is an acquittal in my judgment is if they are sandy cofacts and they pitch an absolute perfect game.

[01:06:38] Oh, baseball reference, very nice.

[01:06:40] From the Dodgers back in the 60s.

[01:06:42] Back in the 60s, very contemporary.

[01:06:44] And I would be concerned that at this point they don't seem to be prepared to pitch a perfect game because of the time crunch.

[01:06:51] I believe they're still conducting depositions.

[01:06:55] Well, if they're, if they're deposing this patent guy, they definitely are conducting depositions.

[01:07:02] You know, I mean, they're saying that they're conducting depositions.

[01:07:05] Anything you want to say before we wrap up?

[01:07:08] I just think like some of the stuff coming out, you know, I, I'm just going to say this, like, I really do feel that there has been a sort of like really embarrassing rush to judgment in this case.

[01:07:24] For a while now.

[01:07:26] And it's, you know, we've frequently criticized like, you know, maybe people on YouTube or whatnot.

[01:07:32] But I mean this, I think is, I think people with higher profile platforms are also guilty of this.

[01:07:37] And it just seems like so much of Delphi coverage is what people want wanted to be, want the story to be how they can twist the narrative to suit their own ends, whether that's to carve out a niche audience amongst people.

[01:07:53] Who are more conspiracy minded or whether it is to cobble together a book about how, you know, Ron Logan must have done it supposedly.

[01:08:02] And I, you know, and put that out there.

[01:08:05] And I think, I mean, I would, I would hope that maybe some of this information coming out has been, you know, sobering to people who were much, much too fast to basically start talking very conclusively about this case either way.

[01:08:23] But I also don't think a lot of people are capable of embarrassment.

[01:08:26] So I guess probably not.

[01:08:29] I think that's probably too much to ask.

[01:08:33] But I, you know, I'm just, I'm just flabbergasted when I see projects that kind of come out and are, you know, just this kind of mess of just trying to carve out a narrative because it will benefit a specific creator.

[01:08:49] Yeah.

[01:08:50] And I think I know, I know what you're talking about.

[01:08:53] Well, I mean, I'm just, I think I'm not the only one who sees this.

[01:08:56] I think other people see this and I think other people are disgusted and they should be because I think when you're in the true crime space, you have a responsibility to not, not just pick the narrative that's most suitable for you or your career.

[01:09:11] You have the responsibility to the truth and to be fair.

[01:09:14] And I don't think, I don't think a lot of people take that particularly seriously.

[01:09:18] I'm personally very concerned about the fairness of all this for Richard Allen because I think if I were his family, I've said this before, but I were in his family and I saw this, you know, these filings and this careening towards trial in May for essentially no reason because they can say it's for his health or whatever.

[01:09:37] But you know what would be good for his health getting acquitted.

[01:09:40] That would be very good.

[01:09:42] You know, I would be, I would be trying to scramble for some sort of emergency break.

[01:09:48] And I'm concerned things that have been stated in the past by Libreto, William Libreto, the former counsel for Richard Allen, where he has effectively said that well, Richard Allen was concerned that he'd have to pay for his new defense once he got new defense attorneys.

[01:10:11] I still want to know where the heck did he get that from?

[01:10:14] Because that was obviously not true.

[01:10:16] Libreto and Robert Scrimman would have been free of charge for Allen.

[01:10:21] There would also have been public defenders.

[01:10:23] So where was he getting this twisted information that he would have to pay unless he got Rosie and Baldwin back?

[01:10:31] I think that's a very important question right now for me as we're hurling towards May.

[01:10:36] Yeah, I'm concerned about that too.

[01:10:38] If he had a full understanding of what was a stake, was he misled intentionally?

[01:10:43] If so, by whom?

[01:10:45] Yes.

[01:10:46] I wouldn't be surprised if the defense would try to say, oh, we should delay it.

[01:10:51] But it's the state's fault.

[01:10:54] So maybe we should let him out on house arrest or something.

[01:10:56] Yeah, it's not going to happen.

[01:10:58] Yeah.

[01:10:59] Maybe he can start confessing to his neighbors then.

[01:11:02] Very well said.

[01:11:03] As always, and thank you all for listening.

[01:11:06] Thanks.

[01:11:09] Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet.

[01:11:12] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com.

[01:11:21] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[01:11:29] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com.

[01:11:39] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com.

[01:11:50] We very much appreciate any support.

[01:11:53] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the Murder Sheet

[01:11:58] and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[01:12:03] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered,

[01:12:07] you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook.

[01:12:11] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much.

[01:12:17] We do try to check our email account but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.

[01:12:23] Thanks again for listening.

[01:12:28] You know how to book flights and hotels.

[01:12:30] All you're missing is a tool to plan the travel experiences you'll have once you arrive.

[01:12:35] That's why you need Viator.

[01:12:37] Book guided tours, activities, excursions and more in one place to make your trip truly unforgettable.

[01:12:43] Viator has over 300,000 travel experiences to choose from.

[01:12:48] Everything from simple tours to extreme adventures and all the niche interesting stuff in between

[01:12:54] so you can plan something that everyone you're traveling with will enjoy.

[01:12:58] Real traveler reviews give the insight scoop from people who've already been on the experiences you're considering

[01:13:04] so you can plan with confidence.

[01:13:06] Free cancellation helps you plan for the unexpected

[01:13:09] and 24-7 customer support means you can travel worry free.

[01:13:13] Download the Viator app now and use code VIATOR10 for 10% off your first booking in the app.

[01:13:19] Find travel experiences for you.

[01:13:21] Do more with Viator.