The Delphi Murders: Continuances, Dismissals, and Recusal Requests

[00:00:00] Keep your Medi-Cal coverage.

[00:00:02] Local Medi-Cal offices review member eligibility once per year,

[00:00:06] and many members are automatically renewed.

[00:00:09] Make sure your personal information is up to date

[00:00:12] so your local Medi-Cal office can contact you.

[00:00:15] And if they request information, respond by the due date.

[00:00:18] Learn more at Medi-Cal dot DHCS dot CA dot GOV.

[00:00:22] That's Medi-Cal dot DHCS dot CA dot GOV.

[00:00:25] Paid for by the California Department of Healthcare Services.

[00:00:29] Have you ever covered a carpet stain with a rug?

[00:00:32] Ignored a leaky faucet?

[00:00:34] Pretended your half-painted living room is supposed to look like that?

[00:00:37] Well, you're not alone.

[00:00:38] We've all got unfinished home projects.

[00:00:40] But there's an easier way.

[00:00:41] When you download Thumbtack,

[00:00:43] it's easier to care for your home from top to bottom.

[00:00:45] Pull out your phone and adjust a few taps.

[00:00:47] You can search, chat, and book highly rated pros

[00:00:50] right in your neighborhood.

[00:00:51] Plus, you'll know what to tackle next

[00:00:53] because Thumbtack is the app that shows you what to do,

[00:00:56] who to hire, and when.

[00:00:58] So say goodbye to all those unfinished home projects

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

[00:01:03] Download Thumbtack and start a project today.

[00:01:06] Man, that sunset is gorgeous.

[00:01:09] Grill, patio, sunset?

[00:01:11] Hard to get better than that.

[00:01:13] Unless you're browsing Carvana's inventory

[00:01:15] while you soak it all in.

[00:01:17] Oh, burger time.

[00:01:19] So sit back, get comfortable.

[00:01:21] Carvana's got thousands of cars under $20,000

[00:01:23] just waiting for ya.

[00:01:25] I could stay here forever.

[00:01:27] Carvana, where car buying meets comfort meets convenience.

[00:01:31] Download the app or visit carvana.com today.

[00:01:37] Content warning.

[00:01:38] This episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls.

[00:01:44] Well, there has been a flurry of new filings

[00:01:48] in the Richard Allen murder case,

[00:01:50] of course, the Delphine Murders case.

[00:01:52] And so we are going to discuss them with you now

[00:01:56] and maybe between all of us,

[00:01:57] we can try to figure out what some of it might mean

[00:02:00] and maybe get some idea

[00:02:01] about where things might be going from here.

[00:02:04] My name is Anya Kane.

[00:02:06] I'm a journalist.

[00:02:07] And I'm Kevin Greenlee.

[00:02:08] I'm an attorney.

[00:02:10] And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:12] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting,

[00:02:15] interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:02:18] We are The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:20] And this is The Delphine Murders,

[00:02:22] continuances, dismissals, and recusal requests.

[00:02:26] So before we get into the many,

[00:03:12] many things that were filed today.

[00:03:14] On a Friday afternoon slash evening.

[00:03:16] I'd like to actually jump back

[00:03:19] and talk about a couple of things

[00:03:21] that were filed yesterday on Thursday, May 16th, 2024.

[00:03:27] Judge Gull actually issued on that date yesterday

[00:03:32] three separate refusals to various media outlets

[00:03:36] who had asked to record court proceedings.

[00:03:40] And she has pretty consistently been refusing these requests.

[00:03:45] And this has always bothered me.

[00:03:48] I think this is one of the more important criminal trials

[00:03:52] that's ever happened in the state of Indiana.

[00:03:55] I think there are a lot of people

[00:03:57] who have an extraordinary level of interest in the case

[00:04:01] and how it is being handled.

[00:04:03] And for me, it seems like it would be appropriate

[00:04:07] to make these proceedings as open as feasible.

[00:04:12] Obviously, everyone in the world who's interested

[00:04:15] can't go into the courtroom.

[00:04:17] But we could turn on our computers

[00:04:19] and watch a feed from it or listen to an audio feed.

[00:04:23] So I've always been troubled by this.

[00:04:26] Yeah, I mean, I'll inject a little bit

[00:04:28] of analysis of my own here.

[00:04:30] I do feel like, you know,

[00:04:32] I certainly am for cameras in the courtroom.

[00:04:35] But I believe we were going to get those before the leak.

[00:04:39] That's my belief.

[00:04:40] I don't necessarily have any evidence to back this up.

[00:04:43] But I think that it was full steam ahead with cameras.

[00:04:46] And then the leak happened and then considerations changed.

[00:04:49] And now we're not going to get them.

[00:04:51] So that's just yet another fallout

[00:04:53] from how much of a circus some people have made this case into.

[00:04:57] And I would say that while I don't agree

[00:05:00] with the judge's conclusions,

[00:05:02] I certainly understand that perhaps there's a sense of,

[00:05:08] how do we not make this into a three-ring circus?

[00:05:11] It's perhaps already a one-ring circus.

[00:05:13] But how do we not make this Barnum & Bailey?

[00:05:16] Because a lot of people seem to want to.

[00:05:18] And I think there's a perception

[00:05:20] that the cameras will exacerbate that.

[00:05:22] And I think, in my opinion,

[00:05:25] the cameras might not exacerbate it

[00:05:28] because it might prompt some people

[00:05:30] who are going to be especially clownish

[00:05:32] to just stay at home.

[00:05:34] But nonetheless, I guess I strongly disagree

[00:05:38] but perhaps understand it.

[00:05:40] Yeah, I'd actually think cameras in the courtroom

[00:05:42] might make it less of a circus

[00:05:44] because right now it's not even clear

[00:05:47] what kind of media passes or anything would be given.

[00:05:50] A number of people have been saying,

[00:05:52] oh, I'm going to come in.

[00:05:53] It's like, good luck with that, friends.

[00:05:55] I don't know if we're going to get in, man.

[00:05:58] I'm going to come in.

[00:05:59] I want to watch some of the trial or what have you.

[00:06:02] And so there is a scarcity mindset around this.

[00:06:09] And when you have a scarcity mindset

[00:06:11] and a lot of people want it,

[00:06:13] there's going to be more of a circus.

[00:06:15] Can you imagine being the families of the victims

[00:06:17] where all these people are clamoring

[00:06:19] to get into what's going to be perhaps

[00:06:22] the hardest several weeks of your life

[00:06:25] and it's just a thing to go to for some people?

[00:06:28] I mean, it's hard.

[00:06:30] I imagine it's difficult for them

[00:06:35] to understand the level of interest here

[00:06:37] and I think most people's interest

[00:06:39] is very well-intentioned.

[00:06:40] I don't think it's meant as rubbernecking

[00:06:44] but I can also imagine it must be

[00:06:46] really surreal for them to see that.

[00:06:49] And then there's the matter of what you mentioned

[00:06:51] of media access.

[00:06:53] That would be, see I think if you're going

[00:06:55] to not have cameras, it would be great

[00:06:57] to really bend over backwards for the media

[00:07:00] that is going to be there because then

[00:07:02] I think you can have people who are going

[00:07:03] to accurately record what's happening

[00:07:06] and tell the public.

[00:07:08] I think you should have one or the other.

[00:07:10] And unfortunately we have neither at this point

[00:07:12] and I hope that changes but who's to say?

[00:07:15] It probably won't.

[00:07:16] With all that said, why don't we get

[00:07:19] to the first of the filings that happened today?

[00:07:22] You want to read from this?

[00:07:24] It's a motion for a continuum.

[00:07:26] From Richard Allen's defense team.

[00:07:28] So I'll be reading three paragraphs

[00:07:30] starting with paragraph number three.

[00:07:33] Quote,

[00:07:34] The defense has recently conducted discovery

[00:07:37] in the form of deposition of Dr. Monica Walla,

[00:07:40] the psychologist assigned to Richard Allen

[00:07:42] at the Westfield Correctional Facility.

[00:07:44] The deposition commenced on Wednesday,

[00:07:46] May 8th, 2024 and has yet to be concluded

[00:07:49] due to time restraints.

[00:07:51] The parties are in the process of scheduling

[00:07:53] the remainder of the deposition,

[00:07:54] which is likely to take place in early June of 2024.

[00:07:58] There were questions posed during the deposition

[00:08:00] that were not answered by deponent Dr. Walla

[00:08:04] at the direction of her legal counsel.

[00:08:07] The defense moved to certify these questions

[00:08:09] and therein preserved the right to seek

[00:08:11] the court's intervention in obtaining answers

[00:08:13] to the certified questions.

[00:08:15] Additional time is necessary

[00:08:17] to not only conclude the deposition,

[00:08:19] but to attain certified transcript

[00:08:21] that might otherwise be used as evidence

[00:08:23] in the hearings on both parties' motions.

[00:08:25] This could assist in shortening

[00:08:27] the presentation of evidence

[00:08:28] regarding said motions.

[00:08:30] Okay, so there's a lot to unpack there.

[00:08:32] First of all,

[00:08:34] the thing that struck me immediately

[00:08:36] about this motion is

[00:08:39] this defense team clearly was not ready

[00:08:42] for a trial on May 13th.

[00:08:44] They're not even ready for a pre-trial hearing

[00:08:46] that takes place next week.

[00:08:48] This is a person who heard perhaps

[00:08:50] a very important confession in this case

[00:08:53] and they hadn't talked to her yet?

[00:08:55] They hadn't even talked to her

[00:08:56] until a few days before the trial

[00:08:57] was scheduled to begin on May 8th.

[00:08:59] How is that possible?

[00:09:00] How is that even possible?

[00:09:01] That's what I want to know.

[00:09:02] How is that possible?

[00:09:03] How can you claim to be ready for May

[00:09:05] and then, yeah.

[00:09:07] So when we hear them say things like,

[00:09:09] oh, we were definitely ready to go

[00:09:11] and it was just, oh, the mean judge

[00:09:13] didn't give us the time we wanted.

[00:09:15] Otherwise, we would have gone.

[00:09:16] No.

[00:09:17] I'm not sure I credit that

[00:09:18] because it seems like

[00:09:19] they really were not prepared.

[00:09:20] I'm going to tell you this.

[00:09:21] I don't credit that at all.

[00:09:22] I don't understand why

[00:09:25] they waited until May 8th, 2024

[00:09:29] to depose this witness.

[00:09:30] I don't understand that.

[00:09:31] I don't understand how a thing like this happens.

[00:09:34] What was this?

[00:09:35] If they went in May,

[00:09:36] if they had gone in May,

[00:09:37] would this have just been

[00:09:38] some sort of reverse Perry Mason moment?

[00:09:41] I mean, I don't understand it.

[00:09:44] Thank goodness they didn't go in May

[00:09:47] from that perspective

[00:09:48] because they were obviously not prepared.

[00:09:50] Not prepared to defend their client,

[00:09:52] which is sort of their whole job.

[00:09:54] So that's interesting.

[00:09:57] This is also really interesting

[00:09:58] from the perspective

[00:09:59] of what's going on with Dr. Walla.

[00:10:01] Right?

[00:10:02] So we have,

[00:10:03] we find out that she has legal representation

[00:10:06] there with her at this deposition.

[00:10:08] One thing that comes to mind

[00:10:10] is she as a mental health professional

[00:10:12] needs to consider things like confidentiality.

[00:10:15] So I don't know if that's something.

[00:10:18] I would assume that Richard Allen

[00:10:20] through his lawyers

[00:10:21] could waive confidentiality

[00:10:23] if he's competent to do so.

[00:10:24] If they just learned about her,

[00:10:26] then maybe that paperwork was incoming.

[00:10:29] Maybe they weren't ready with that either.

[00:10:31] So I don't know

[00:10:32] if we can really necessarily

[00:10:33] read too much into any of this

[00:10:34] because this is not

[00:10:35] like a typical defense team

[00:10:36] and this is not a typical situation.

[00:10:38] So it's really hard to understand

[00:10:40] what exactly,

[00:10:41] why does she have legal representation?

[00:10:43] What specifically

[00:10:44] is she declining to answer?

[00:10:45] Is it about,

[00:10:46] is it about stuff with her?

[00:10:49] Is it about stuff with him?

[00:10:50] I'm very curious.

[00:10:51] I wouldn't read anything

[00:10:52] into her having legal representation

[00:10:54] because it is common sense.

[00:10:56] If you are going to be deposed

[00:10:59] in a murder trial,

[00:11:00] even if you have nothing to do

[00:11:02] with the murder

[00:11:03] and even if you have not done

[00:11:04] anything to put yourself

[00:11:05] in any legal jeopardy whatsoever,

[00:11:08] it still makes sense

[00:11:10] to have a lawyer sitting by you

[00:11:12] to protect your interests

[00:11:14] because it's like

[00:11:15] you're going into a dark

[00:11:17] and dangerous jungle without a map.

[00:11:19] I mean,

[00:11:20] think about Professor Jeffrey Turco

[00:11:22] who of course

[00:11:23] is not implicated in anything.

[00:11:25] He's just a witness

[00:11:26] who happens to know

[00:11:27] about Norse culture,

[00:11:28] runes,

[00:11:29] things like that.

[00:11:30] It almost sounds like

[00:11:31] reading between the lines

[00:11:32] he might regret

[00:11:33] not bringing in a lawyer

[00:11:34] to depositions

[00:11:35] because what he said

[00:11:36] was then seemingly twisted around

[00:11:38] by the defense team later on.

[00:11:40] And when you're a professional

[00:11:41] who is an expert

[00:11:42] in something,

[00:11:43] I imagine that's painful

[00:11:44] to have your expertise

[00:11:45] and words twisted around publicly.

[00:11:47] So always have a lawyer.

[00:11:49] We salute the lawyers

[00:11:51] because they will

[00:11:52] protect your interests.

[00:11:53] But yeah,

[00:11:55] I mean,

[00:11:56] so it's interesting

[00:11:57] she's declined to answer

[00:11:58] some things,

[00:11:59] but Judge Gull

[00:12:00] can force her to answer.

[00:12:02] If her lawyer says,

[00:12:04] oh,

[00:12:05] she shouldn't

[00:12:06] answer that question

[00:12:07] because it's irrelevant

[00:12:09] or it's immaterial,

[00:12:10] the judge in theory

[00:12:11] can say,

[00:12:12] well, no,

[00:12:13] I think it is relevant.

[00:12:14] You should answer that.

[00:12:15] All right.

[00:12:16] It's also interesting

[00:12:17] to note

[00:12:18] that Nick McLeeland

[00:12:19] objected to this continuance.

[00:12:21] So it's interesting

[00:12:22] because oftentimes

[00:12:23] I've seen speculation

[00:12:24] that, you know,

[00:12:25] the defense really wants

[00:12:26] to go ahead,

[00:12:27] but the judge

[00:12:28] and the prosecutor

[00:12:29] are dragging their feet.

[00:12:30] In the motions,

[00:12:31] I read the opposite.

[00:12:33] And that's at this point

[00:12:35] that could shift

[00:12:36] at some point,

[00:12:37] but that's what I'm reading.

[00:12:38] I feel like

[00:12:39] there is one party

[00:12:40] that does not want to

[00:12:42] move forward

[00:12:43] in terms of timing.

[00:12:45] And I think that

[00:12:46] while the defense rhetoric

[00:12:47] tends to center

[00:12:48] around speedy trial,

[00:12:49] speedy trial,

[00:12:50] we wanted a speedy trial.

[00:12:51] I don't believe

[00:12:52] that their actions

[00:12:53] have indicated that.

[00:12:54] The journey

[00:12:55] to adopt healthy habits

[00:12:56] can be a lonely one.

[00:12:58] But you don't have

[00:12:59] to do it alone.

[00:13:00] Weight loss in particular

[00:13:01] can be a hard road.

[00:13:03] Eating healthy

[00:13:04] and adopting

[00:13:05] life-affirming exercise routines

[00:13:07] can be terrific steps,

[00:13:09] but it's hard

[00:13:10] to sometimes know

[00:13:11] how to do all that

[00:13:12] in a safe

[00:13:13] and sustainable manner.

[00:13:14] And it's also difficult

[00:13:15] to figure out

[00:13:16] how to keep the weight off

[00:13:17] once you do achieve results.

[00:13:18] The good news

[00:13:19] is that our new sponsor,

[00:13:20] Rowe, can help.

[00:13:21] Over 200,000 people

[00:13:23] can already attest to this.

[00:13:25] Rowe helps you get access

[00:13:26] to one of the most

[00:13:27] popular and effective

[00:13:28] weight loss shots

[00:13:29] on the market.

[00:13:30] Then,

[00:13:31] through their Rowe Body Program,

[00:13:32] you can set up

[00:13:33] a comprehensive,

[00:13:34] sustainable,

[00:13:35] and safe weight loss program.

[00:13:37] It's all tailored

[00:13:38] to your specific lifestyle,

[00:13:39] health status,

[00:13:40] and goals.

[00:13:41] Add to that

[00:13:42] one-on-one weekly coaching

[00:13:43] with a registered nurse

[00:13:45] who can help you

[00:13:46] with lifestyle changes,

[00:13:47] exercise routines,

[00:13:48] and maintaining

[00:13:49] a nutritious diet.

[00:13:51] On average,

[00:13:52] the program sees

[00:13:53] participants lose

[00:13:54] 15-20% of their weight

[00:13:55] in a year.

[00:13:56] Plus,

[00:13:57] they get to keep it off.

[00:13:58] We only wish

[00:13:59] the Rowe Body Program

[00:14:00] had been around

[00:14:01] when we started

[00:14:02] our own weight loss journeys.

[00:14:03] With Rowe,

[00:14:04] the average weight loss

[00:14:05] is 15-20%

[00:14:06] in one year

[00:14:07] with healthy

[00:14:08] lifestyle changes.

[00:14:09] BMI and other

[00:14:10] eligibility criteria apply.

[00:14:12] Go to

[00:14:13] www.rowe.co

[00:14:14] slash msheet

[00:14:15] Sign up today

[00:14:16] and you'll pay

[00:14:17] just $99

[00:14:18] for your first month

[00:14:19] and $145

[00:14:20] a month after that.

[00:14:22] Medication costs

[00:14:23] are separate.

[00:14:24] That's

[00:14:25] www.rowe.co

[00:14:26] slash msheet

[00:14:27] Worried about

[00:14:28] letting someone else

[00:14:29] pick out the

[00:14:30] perfect avocado

[00:14:31] for your

[00:14:32] perfect

[00:14:33] impress-them-on-the-third-date

[00:14:34] guacamole?

[00:14:35] Well,

[00:14:36] good thing

[00:14:37] Instacart shoppers

[00:14:38] are as picky

[00:14:39] as you are.

[00:14:40] They find ripe avocados

[00:14:41] like it's

[00:14:42] their guac on the line.

[00:14:43] They are

[00:14:44] milk expiration

[00:14:45] date detectives.

[00:14:46] They bag eggs

[00:14:47] like the 12

[00:14:48] precious pieces

[00:14:49] of cargo they are.

[00:14:50] So let Instacart shoppers

[00:14:51] overthink

[00:14:52] your groceries

[00:14:53] so that you

[00:14:55] can overthink

[00:14:56] what you'll wear

[00:14:57] on that third date.

[00:14:58] Download the

[00:14:59] Instacart app today

[00:15:00] to get free delivery

[00:15:01] on your first

[00:15:02] three orders

[00:15:03] while supplies last.

[00:15:04] Minimum $10

[00:15:05] per order.

[00:15:06] Additional terms apply.

[00:15:07] CarMax is putting

[00:15:08] peace of mind

[00:15:09] back in car shopping

[00:15:10] by putting you

[00:15:11] in the driver's seat

[00:15:12] to find a ride

[00:15:13] that's right for you.

[00:15:14] Because at CarMax

[00:15:15] we believe

[00:15:16] you shouldn't

[00:15:17] just settle for a car.

[00:15:18] You should love

[00:15:19] your car.

[00:15:20] That's why

[00:15:21] every car we sell

[00:15:22] is CarMax

[00:15:23] certified quality

[00:15:24] so you can be sure

[00:15:25] with upfront pricing

[00:15:26] that's the same

[00:15:27] for every customer.

[00:15:28] So don't settle.

[00:15:29] Find love

[00:15:30] at first drive

[00:15:31] and start shopping

[00:15:32] now at CarMax.com.

[00:15:33] CarMax.

[00:15:34] The way

[00:15:35] car buying

[00:15:36] should be.

[00:15:37] So let's move on

[00:15:38] to the next filing.

[00:15:40] This one is

[00:15:41] filed by

[00:15:42] the state of Indiana

[00:15:43] through prosecutor

[00:15:44] Nick McCleland

[00:15:45] and it is

[00:15:46] a motion

[00:15:47] to dismiss

[00:15:48] the defense's

[00:15:49] motion

[00:15:50] to suppress

[00:15:51] certain statements.

[00:15:52] That was filed

[00:15:53] on April 11, 2024.

[00:15:54] You may remember

[00:15:55] the defense

[00:15:56] filed a motion

[00:15:57] that said

[00:15:58] oh

[00:15:59] Richard Allen

[00:16:00] confessed

[00:16:01] to a whole bunch

[00:16:02] of people

[00:16:03] or at the very least

[00:16:04] made incriminating

[00:16:05] statements

[00:16:06] to a ton of people

[00:16:07] while he was

[00:16:08] incarcerated

[00:16:09] and by the way

[00:16:10] we don't think

[00:16:11] any of those

[00:16:12] should come

[00:16:13] into the trial

[00:16:14] and they didn't

[00:16:15] really go

[00:16:16] into any

[00:16:17] details

[00:16:18] about why

[00:16:19] they thought

[00:16:20] specific statements

[00:16:21] should not

[00:16:22] be used

[00:16:23] in the trial.

[00:16:24] Right.

[00:16:25] Do you

[00:16:26] Anya

[00:16:27] want to read

[00:16:28] a few relevant

[00:16:29] paragraphs

[00:16:30] from Nick McCleland's

[00:16:31] response?

[00:16:32] Certainly.

[00:16:33] Quote

[00:16:34] that the defense

[00:16:35] seems to imply

[00:16:36] that there are

[00:16:37] statements

[00:16:38] made by the

[00:16:39] defendant

[00:16:40] while he was

[00:16:41] incarcerated

[00:16:42] that were coerced

[00:16:43] by state actors

[00:16:44] during a custodial

[00:16:45] interrogation.

[00:16:46] That the defense

[00:16:47] fails to put

[00:16:48] the state on notice

[00:16:49] which state actors

[00:16:50] coerced the defendant

[00:16:51] to do in a custodial

[00:16:52] interrogation setting

[00:16:53] and fails to outline

[00:16:54] the basis

[00:16:55] for their motion.

[00:16:56] That under

[00:16:57] Criminal Rules of

[00:16:58] Procedure

[00:16:59] 2.7b

[00:17:00] when the defendant

[00:17:01] files a motion

[00:17:02] to suppress

[00:17:03] the defendant

[00:17:04] must clearly state

[00:17:05] the items or statements

[00:17:06] to be suppressed

[00:17:07] and the basis

[00:17:08] for the suppression.

[00:17:09] That the state

[00:17:10] contacted the defense

[00:17:11] and requested

[00:17:12] that they fix

[00:17:13] the deficiency

[00:17:14] in their motion

[00:17:15] but the defense

[00:17:16] refuses to give

[00:17:17] the state any guidance

[00:17:18] on their motion

[00:17:19] to suppress

[00:17:20] 2.7b

[00:17:21] That the defense

[00:17:22] has failed to outline

[00:17:23] which statements

[00:17:24] they wish to be suppressed

[00:17:25] who the state actors

[00:17:26] are that coerced

[00:17:27] the statements

[00:17:28] and the basis

[00:17:29] for the suppression."

[00:17:31] So that's basically

[00:17:32] what we were saying.

[00:17:33] They said

[00:17:34] the defense

[00:17:35] said originally

[00:17:36] we just want

[00:17:37] all of these

[00:17:38] statements suppressed

[00:17:39] and didn't give

[00:17:40] any reasons why

[00:17:42] instead of saying

[00:17:43] oh this particular

[00:17:44] statement

[00:17:45] was given in

[00:17:46] a way

[00:17:47] that is unfair

[00:17:48] to Richard Axte.

[00:17:49] To Richard Allen.

[00:17:50] Like he may have

[00:17:51] been manipulated

[00:17:52] into this particular

[00:17:53] statement so

[00:17:54] this particular

[00:17:55] statement shouldn't

[00:17:56] be used.

[00:17:57] They didn't do that

[00:17:58] they just said

[00:17:59] everything should

[00:18:00] be thrown out

[00:18:01] like it's an

[00:18:02] all or nothing thing

[00:18:03] and I think

[00:18:04] quite frankly

[00:18:05] I wouldn't be

[00:18:06] surprised if we

[00:18:07] got detailed

[00:18:08] information about

[00:18:09] each one of

[00:18:10] these dozens

[00:18:11] of confessions

[00:18:12] or incriminating

[00:18:13] statements.

[00:18:14] I wouldn't be

[00:18:15] surprised if

[00:18:16] perhaps some

[00:18:17] of them were

[00:18:18] I'm going to say

[00:18:19] this.

[00:18:20] This is my

[00:18:21] opinion

[00:18:22] some analysis

[00:18:23] but I believe

[00:18:24] that they didn't

[00:18:25] want to go

[00:18:26] into detail

[00:18:27] about what

[00:18:28] exactly they

[00:18:29] wanted suppressed

[00:18:30] because it

[00:18:31] would be

[00:18:32] in their mind

[00:18:34] damaging

[00:18:35] to the public

[00:18:36] perception

[00:18:37] of their client

[00:18:38] so good luck

[00:18:39] with that

[00:18:40] but I mean

[00:18:41] if it's

[00:18:42] going to be

[00:18:43] damaging

[00:18:44] they treat

[00:18:45] many of their

[00:18:46] filings

[00:18:47] sort of like

[00:18:49] they're

[00:18:50] being

[00:18:51] used

[00:18:52] as a

[00:18:53] tool

[00:18:54] to

[00:18:55] get

[00:18:56] their

[00:18:57] client

[00:18:58] to

[00:18:59] understand

[00:19:00] what

[00:19:01] they're

[00:19:02] saying

[00:19:03] and

[00:19:04] if

[00:19:05] they

[00:19:06] don't

[00:19:07] want to

[00:19:08] do

[00:19:09] that

[00:19:10] then

[00:19:11] I think

[00:19:12] it's

[00:19:13] going

[00:19:14] to be

[00:19:15] a

[00:19:16] disaster

[00:19:17] for

[00:19:18] them

[00:19:19] and

[00:19:20] I think

[00:19:21] it's

[00:19:22] going

[00:19:23] to be

[00:19:24] a

[00:19:25] disaster

[00:19:26] for

[00:19:27] them

[00:19:28] and

[00:19:29] I

[00:19:30] think

[00:19:31] it's

[00:19:32] going

[00:19:33] to

[00:19:34] be

[00:19:35] a

[00:19:36] disaster

[00:19:37] for

[00:19:38] them

[00:19:39] and

[00:19:40] I

[00:19:41] think

[00:19:42] it's

[00:19:43] going

[00:19:44] to

[00:19:45] be

[00:19:46] a

[00:19:47] disaster

[00:19:48] for

[00:19:49] them

[00:19:50] and

[00:19:51] I

[00:19:52] think

[00:19:53] it's

[00:19:54] going

[00:19:55] to be

[00:19:56] a

[00:19:57] disaster

[00:19:58] for

[00:19:59] them

[00:20:00] and

[00:20:01] I

[00:20:02] think

[00:20:03] it's

[00:20:04] going

[00:20:05] to be

[00:20:06] a

[00:20:07] disaster

[00:20:08] for

[00:20:09] them

[00:20:10] and

[00:20:11] I

[00:20:12] think

[00:20:13] it's

[00:20:14] going

[00:20:15] to

[00:20:16] be

[00:20:17] a

[00:20:18] disaster

[00:20:19] for

[00:20:20] them

[00:20:21] and

[00:20:22] I

[00:20:23] think

[00:20:24] it's

[00:20:25] going

[00:20:26] to be

[00:20:27] a

[00:20:28] disaster

[00:20:29] for

[00:20:30] them

[00:20:31] and

[00:20:32] I

[00:20:33] think

[00:20:34] it's

[00:20:35] going

[00:20:36] to be

[00:20:37] a

[00:20:38] disaster

[00:20:39] for

[00:20:40] them

[00:20:41] and

[00:20:42] I

[00:20:43] think

[00:20:44] it's

[00:20:45] going

[00:20:46] to be

[00:20:47] a

[00:20:48] disaster

[00:20:49] for

[00:20:50] them

[00:20:51] and

[00:20:52] I

[00:20:53] think

[00:20:54] it's

[00:20:55] going

[00:20:56] to be

[00:20:57] a

[00:20:58] disaster

[00:20:59] for

[00:21:00] them

[00:21:01] and

[00:21:02] I

[00:21:03] think

[00:21:04] it's

[00:21:05] going

[00:21:06] to be

[00:21:07] a

[00:21:08] disaster

[00:21:09] for

[00:21:10] them

[00:21:11] and

[00:21:12] I

[00:21:13] think

[00:21:14] it's

[00:21:15] going

[00:21:16] to be

[00:21:17] a

[00:21:18] disaster

[00:21:19] for

[00:21:20] them

[00:21:21] and

[00:21:22] I

[00:21:23] think

[00:21:24] it's

[00:21:25] going

[00:21:26] to be

[00:21:27] a

[00:21:28] disaster

[00:21:29] for

[00:21:30] them

[00:21:31] and

[00:21:32] I

[00:21:33] think

[00:21:34] it's

[00:21:35] going

[00:21:36] to be

[00:21:37] a

[00:21:38] disaster

[00:21:39] for

[00:21:40] them

[00:21:41] and

[00:21:42] I

[00:21:43] think

[00:21:44] it's

[00:21:45] going

[00:21:46] to be

[00:21:47] a

[00:21:48] disaster

[00:21:49] for

[00:21:50] them

[00:21:51] and

[00:21:52] I

[00:21:53] think

[00:21:54] it's

[00:21:55] going

[00:21:56] to be

[00:21:57] a

[00:21:58] disaster

[00:21:59] for

[00:22:00] them

[00:22:01] and

[00:22:02] I

[00:22:03] think

[00:22:04] it's

[00:22:05] going

[00:22:06] to be

[00:22:07] a

[00:22:08] disaster

[00:22:09] for

[00:22:10] them

[00:22:11] and

[00:22:12] I

[00:22:13] think

[00:22:15] that

[00:22:16] it's

[00:22:17] going

[00:22:18] to be

[00:22:19] a

[00:22:21] disaster

[00:22:22] for

[00:22:23] them

[00:22:24] and

[00:22:25] I

[00:22:26] think

[00:22:27] it's

[00:22:28] going

[00:22:29] to be

[00:22:30] a

[00:22:31] disaster

[00:22:32] for

[00:22:33] them

[00:22:36] and

[00:22:37] I

[00:22:38] think

[00:22:39] it's

[00:22:40] going

[00:22:41] as it has in its previous three motions, that Sheriff Tony Liggett failed to

[00:22:45] advise the judge of material facts, and that without these omissions, search

[00:22:50] warrant would not have been issued. The events consistently in the three

[00:22:54] previous Franks motions have misstated and mischaracterized facts surrounding

[00:22:58] this case. That trend continues in this most recent Franks motion."

[00:23:03] I think the thing that really is crystal clear there, I think it's probably been

[00:23:09] clear to most of us for quite a while, is there is no love lost among the

[00:23:13] different figures in this case. That's a pretty brutal opening, yeah, I agree.

[00:23:17] You don't understand the law, and you know, repeatedly, four times.

[00:23:24] And then he goes even further, because then he's talking about...

[00:23:30] He's talking about basically phone pings, which we've heard before.

[00:23:37] You remember a while ago, the defense filed a motion about geofencing, and Nick

[00:23:43] McLellan responded by saying you clearly don't understand what geofencing is.

[00:23:47] And then proceeded to explain in detail all the things they had wrong about

[00:23:50] geofencing, which then the defense conceded essentially in a following

[00:23:54] filing where they said, well we just didn't have enough time to learn about

[00:23:57] geofencing, sue us. So there's some deja vu here, only instead of geofencing it

[00:24:04] is phone pings. Because you remember, they filed this motion in which they

[00:24:10] tried to suggest, oh Libby's phone was pinging hours after it was supposed to

[00:24:17] be dead, therefore something nefarious is going on.

[00:24:22] Yeah, which of course, you know, like everyone loves because, you know, online

[00:24:26] loves the idea that this case is far more complicated than the prosecution seems

[00:24:31] to believe it is. So got a lot of buzz, got a lot of excitement from a PR

[00:24:36] perspective, that's good. But now what McClellan is saying is that I have the

[00:24:41] facts on my side and that indicates that the technology and the findings here are

[00:24:46] not at all what you've described in your filings.

[00:24:49] Because you're misunderstanding them.

[00:24:50] Or misrepresenting them.

[00:24:53] He says here that these phone pings were... The phone pings from Libby's phone

[00:25:00] were historical in nature. The question is, what does that mean? And he does

[00:25:04] explain that. You want to read that section, please?

[00:25:07] Yes. He talks about, quote, historical... Well, before I get into the quote, he

[00:25:14] talks about how essentially the last known location where service is good

[00:25:20] counts as a historical ping.

[00:25:23] So then he talks about what...

[00:25:25] And yeah, he talks about what exactly that can mean and talks about how it's not a

[00:25:30] pinpointed location and accuracy can range from 400 meters to 25,000 meters.

[00:25:37] And that can basically be coming... Several factors can influence how wide a

[00:25:42] range that is.

[00:25:43] But the big issue here is, how was a phone that may not have been in working order

[00:25:49] generating these historical pings?

[00:25:52] Yes. So, quote, and this gets into, by the way, a law enforcement officer, Sergeant

[00:25:57] Edwards, who's involved in the investigation.

[00:25:59] So, quote, Sergeant Edwards later says, with AT&T, part of the reason why it says

[00:26:04] historical here is that if they say, all right, we're going to ping that phone, but

[00:26:08] they can't get to the phone, well, then they'll use the last known location from

[00:26:12] the historical records.

[00:26:14] That is different than the live ping.

[00:26:16] It's going back to the historical records saying we can't find the phone right now,

[00:26:19] but here's where we know it was last.

[00:26:21] The ping emails collected all show historical data.

[00:26:25] That means that the tower could not find the phone at the moment the ping was

[00:26:28] initiated. So it just gave the service provider the historical data location.

[00:26:32] That doesn't mean the phone wasn't in the area or that the phone wasn't in working

[00:26:36] condition. It means that the tower could not contact the phone.

[00:26:39] The historical data continues through all the pings.

[00:26:42] So essentially what they're saying here, in my interpretation, Kevin, correct me if

[00:26:47] you have a disagreement on this, but Libby's phone dies or has, you know, a

[00:26:55] stops working, goes offline.

[00:26:57] The tower cannot find it when it's trying to ping her after the search is initiated

[00:27:03] or, you know, after a certain point.

[00:27:05] So it draws from the historical pings where the phone was last connected to

[00:27:11] something, connected to the, I guess, service.

[00:27:14] These were not live pings.

[00:27:16] These were pings to a phone with a dead battery, which is in no way inconsistent

[00:27:22] with anything the prosecution has claimed.

[00:27:26] And so if we take this at face value, again, it means that the defense filed a

[00:27:31] motion about pings in which they didn't really understand what the technology

[00:27:37] meant.

[00:27:38] And this is what's interesting to me because I mentioned before there's this

[00:27:41] discrepancy between the defensive strategy around media and legality.

[00:27:47] And when you have a situation like this, you get the momentary serotonin boost of

[00:27:52] having a lot of people get excited on your behalf online, which can feel really

[00:27:56] nice.

[00:27:56] I imagine having supporters, but at the same time when there's not necessarily

[00:28:03] that, when that's not necessarily backed up by the facts, then it just causes a

[00:28:07] loss of credibility in my opinion.

[00:28:09] And I think that's concerning.

[00:28:12] And in my opinion, it feels like a lot of the things the defense has been

[00:28:16] alleging in some of these motions, like this phone ping motion.

[00:28:19] If the phone ping motion had come out a year, year and a half ago, I think it

[00:28:24] would have generated a lot of interest and suspicion from huge members of the

[00:28:29] public.

[00:28:29] I would be intrigued and like, wow, this could really be a huge deal.

[00:28:34] But at this late date after we who have been following the case have read a lot of

[00:28:40] filings from this defense team, I think a lot of the reaction I saw online was

[00:28:46] sure this probably isn't going to pan out the way they think it will.

[00:28:50] Yeah, they really damage their credibility with the public.

[00:28:55] And as I've said before, one would hope that they don't do some sort of version of

[00:29:03] damaging their credibility like this in front of a jury.

[00:29:07] Yeah.

[00:29:07] What I mean, right now we can all say, you know, my opinion doesn't matter.

[00:29:10] Kevin's opinion doesn't matter.

[00:29:11] It's going to be the jury's opinion that matters.

[00:29:13] So it could go either way.

[00:29:15] If they if they play a clean game, so to speak, in trial and do a good job, you know,

[00:29:20] maybe they can make something happen.

[00:29:21] I don't know.

[00:29:21] It depends on how bad those confessions are, I think.

[00:29:24] But they can at least not embarrass themselves.

[00:29:27] That being said, we see the same pattern again and again, overstatement and checks

[00:29:34] that bounce.

[00:29:35] And they can't have that happen in trial.

[00:29:38] It's really important.

[00:29:39] I'm concerned about the quality of representation that Ellen is getting here.

[00:29:44] If they're making mistakes about basic technology that at this point they should

[00:29:48] understand. And if they're just mischaracterizing it to get one over on the judge,

[00:29:53] then that just sort of seems like a waste of everybody's time.

[00:29:58] Do we move on? We move on.

[00:30:00] Next thing is an order from Judge Gull, who is responding to the request for a

[00:30:06] continuance. Basically, she said, well, if you guys aren't ready to proceed with Dr.

[00:30:11] Walla, go ahead.

[00:30:12] We're continuing the hearings that pertain to that.

[00:30:15] But for the rest of the hearings, let's just go ahead and have them.

[00:30:17] I see this as the judge being reasonable with the defense saying, if you need more time

[00:30:21] for that, take it. But let's do everything else.

[00:30:23] There's no reason to put that off.

[00:30:25] Right? Right.

[00:30:28] Well, the next filing is a motion to continue hearings on all matters currently set to be

[00:30:35] heard May 21st through May 23rd, 2024.

[00:30:39] As the title suggests, in this motion, the defense is asking for everything to be

[00:30:45] continued. And the reason they say they're doing this is because pretty much

[00:30:50] simultaneously with this filing, they were also filing a motion for Judge Gull to

[00:30:57] remove herself from the case.

[00:30:59] And the idea here is.

[00:31:05] Let's say I'm about to sell my house, should I have the power to make decisions about

[00:31:12] how the house is going to be painted for the new owners or different furniture for the

[00:31:17] house? Or does it make sense for at some point for me to say, well, these decisions can

[00:31:22] be made by the next owner?

[00:31:24] And here they're saying, if there's a chance there's going to be a new judge on the

[00:31:28] case, why not let that new judge make all those rulings?

[00:31:33] And they cite some case law for that.

[00:31:35] Right. And in addition to that, they talk about how they recently received from the

[00:31:41] state some sort of phone extraction and that they need to they believe that the witness

[00:31:48] who extracted the phone data will be important for their third party theory of

[00:31:51] Odinism. So one thing about a case like this is if there's continuous threads sort of

[00:31:58] unfurling, discovery will come up.

[00:32:01] That's not surprising.

[00:32:03] It's also not a discovery violation necessarily as long as it's new and the state

[00:32:08] cannot sit on it. But the fact that they continue to give the defense this stuff indicates

[00:32:13] that there's still more coming down the pipeline.

[00:32:15] So it's very vague about what this is.

[00:32:17] We don't know what it is and they want more time to dig into that so they can present it

[00:32:23] for why they believe that the Odinism theory is valid for, you know, presentation in

[00:32:29] court. Personally, I think that this filing to me shows an indication that we're going to

[00:32:35] get a lot of delays in this case.

[00:32:37] I when I saw this, I kind of.

[00:32:40] I don't know about October anymore.

[00:32:42] I thought that perhaps if we didn't get May, we'd do October now.

[00:32:46] If we get a lot more like this, I'm going to say now this is just going to drag on

[00:32:49] endlessly. Point 15.

[00:32:52] The trial has been continued until October 14th, 2024, which should provide an abundance

[00:32:58] of time to find new dates to conduct said hearings.

[00:33:01] One would hope. So are we going to bounce along to let's bounce along to the big one?

[00:33:09] Yes. So it's got it's a big one.

[00:33:11] It's got a big title defense, second verified motion to disqualify judge and request for

[00:33:17] findings of fact and conclusions of law upon denial of this request.

[00:33:21] If this court denies this request.

[00:33:24] OK, what does that mean?

[00:33:26] What are they asking their judge?

[00:33:28] Go leave.

[00:33:29] And if you don't leave, tell us why exactly you don't want what you don't think you

[00:33:33] should have to leave based on the facts and the law.

[00:33:36] If you don't if you don't do what we say, is that is that a good legalese translation?

[00:33:43] Yeah, that's good. OK, so.

[00:33:46] They talk a lot in this word, I mean, this is this is 40 pages and we're going to be

[00:33:51] trying to go point by point, so keep in mind, we're going to be on this document for a

[00:33:54] while. This is going to be most of the rest of the episode.

[00:33:58] So strap in. They start out talking about how the rules of court say essentially that

[00:34:05] a reasonable person, if a reasonable person could infer bias in a judge and the judge

[00:34:11] much recuse themselves.

[00:34:12] A lot of things in the legal world come down to what kind of a burden you have.

[00:34:19] Reasonable doubt, for instance, is a burden.

[00:34:22] You can't find a person guilty of a crime unless it's been proven to you beyond a

[00:34:28] reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high burden.

[00:34:31] The burden they're suggesting being used here is a much lower burden, much easier to

[00:34:37] meet. Reasonable person, someone who's not biased themselves, somebody who's just kind

[00:34:41] of coming into it maybe doesn't know everything about the law, but they're just they

[00:34:46] they're willing to hear everybody out.

[00:34:47] Yes. So.

[00:34:50] You know, I mean.

[00:34:52] It's it's going to be interesting and we can talk a little bit about that at the end, but

[00:34:56] I want to just say and state that that's sort of what they're bringing up in the

[00:35:00] beginning, that in their opinion, a reasonable person would find that Judge Gull is

[00:35:05] biased against them and their client.

[00:35:08] That's also an important distinction here.

[00:35:10] Let me read point eight.

[00:35:12] After the Supreme Court quickly reinstated the defense following oral arguments on the

[00:35:17] same day, the Indian Supreme Court did not grant Allen's request for Judge Gull to be

[00:35:22] recused based upon the limited record set out at the time by Allen's appellate

[00:35:28] counsel. Why are they firing shots at the appellate people who literally got them back

[00:35:32] on the case? I guess the implication there is they didn't do a good enough job explaining

[00:35:37] why Judge Gull has been unfair.

[00:35:40] That surprised me when I read that, because again, the appellate team got them back on

[00:35:44] the case. And the appellate team.

[00:35:49] Obviously, if you're in a situation where you've.

[00:35:56] Had a long term relationship with someone and you want to discuss them, how they've

[00:36:02] been bad to you, you're not going to sit down and list all the hundreds of things they

[00:36:07] did that upset you, you're going to go through the record and find what you think are

[00:36:11] the strongest arguments, the strongest things they did that were most upsetting to you.

[00:36:15] Actually, that's a strategy of boiling down your best points and leaving out all the

[00:36:18] extraneous nonsense that I think this defense team could really benefit from.

[00:36:22] So I would I would argue that the appellate counsel did not include every single thing

[00:36:29] they could. But I would argue that they went through the record and pulled out the most

[00:36:36] compelling, strongest arguments.

[00:36:38] And if those arguments weren't enough to win, I'm not sure if the result would have been

[00:36:45] different if you'd included another dozen or two lesser arguments.

[00:36:48] Quantity does not beat out quality when it comes to legal arguments, I think in this

[00:36:53] situation. And actually prioritizing quantity consistently actually just looks like

[00:36:59] nitpicking at the end of the day.

[00:37:03] There was one quote we wanted to pull out here that gets into sort of the federal side

[00:37:09] of this and then the legal side of this point, number six, before we move on.

[00:37:14] So, quote, the accused has federal due process rights to an unbiased judge under the 5th

[00:37:20] and 14th Amendment to the U.S.

[00:37:22] Constitution. Judicial bias is one of the narrow classes of constitutional violations that

[00:37:27] implicate structural error.

[00:37:29] Cases of judicial bias involve denial of the most fundamental constituents of due

[00:37:34] process. So fundamental, that conviction in their absence is indecent, even if the

[00:37:38] defendant is plainly guilty.

[00:37:40] Structural errors render criminal trial fundamentally unfair and are not subject to

[00:37:44] harmless error analysis.

[00:37:46] So they're saying it's a judge's bias.

[00:37:47] That's so serious. Automatic new trial.

[00:37:50] And the sentence that really jumped out at me from what Anya just read.

[00:37:56] Even if the defendant is plainly guilty.

[00:37:58] Even if the defendant is plainly guilty, and I've said this before, part of me wonders,

[00:38:04] are they abandoning their claims that Richard Allen is factually innocent?

[00:38:08] I think that they will go down with that ship no matter what, because I believe that this

[00:38:13] is a legal team that is focused on a specific narrative and they are focused on a

[00:38:16] specific image, not only of their client, but more fundamentally of themselves.

[00:38:21] And I do not believe that they will abandon that.

[00:38:25] I believe they'll go down with it.

[00:38:27] I mean, and that's possibly to the detriment of their client.

[00:38:33] Well, at this point, why don't we read the list saying all the things they say Judge

[00:38:38] Gull has done wrong and then we'll go through it point by point and discuss it in more

[00:38:43] detail. Yeah, this is the case against Gull, according to this defense team.

[00:38:47] Anya's going to read it for us.

[00:38:48] Yeah. In addition to the reasons cited in his January 28th, 2024 motion, Judge Gull has

[00:38:55] revealed rational inference of bias towards the defense based on the following.

[00:39:00] A. Judge Gull engaged in ex parte communications with the state of Indiana.

[00:39:05] B. Judge Gull interfered with properly subpoenaed defense witnesses.

[00:39:09] C. Judge Gull treats the prosecution more favorably than the defense.

[00:39:14] D. Judge Gull engaged in the act of prosecuting Richard Allen by inviting the prosecutor

[00:39:19] to file pretrial motions seeking limitation of evidence of third party culpability and

[00:39:24] also forecasting the outcome of such a request by the state.

[00:39:28] E. Judge Gull continues to make disparaging comments about the defense counsel in open

[00:39:33] court and in orders issued by the court.

[00:39:36] F. Judge Gull's handling of defense pleadings versus her handling of prosecution

[00:39:41] pleadings. G. Judge Gull placed blame on defense counsel and its staff for administrative

[00:39:48] failures in maintaining confidentiality of ex parte defense filings, whereas evidence

[00:39:53] revealed that failures were on the court side of the filings.

[00:39:57] H. Judge Gull failed to conduct her own internal investigation into allegations of leaks

[00:40:02] coming from her own staff while facilitating contempt proceedings against Richard Allen's

[00:40:07] chosen attorneys for leaking confidential information related to this case.

[00:40:11] I. Judge Gull effectively denied Richard Allen his right to a speedy trial by not requiring

[00:40:17] the prosecution to follow the same time restrictions at trial as she was forcing the defense

[00:40:22] to follow, which forced the defense to see continuance of the May 13th, 2024, speedy

[00:40:28] trial date. End quote.

[00:40:30] OK, so that's that list sounds pretty bad.

[00:40:36] Yeah, if you just take that list of faith value, that list sounds pretty bad.

[00:40:41] Is that fair to say?

[00:40:42] I completely agree.

[00:40:45] But let's go into it.

[00:40:48] Fortunately, they provide more details about what exactly they're talking about so we can

[00:40:52] analyze. So we can evaluate these things point by point.

[00:40:56] And it's important to realize where there's smoke, there is not always fire.

[00:41:02] Well, as we found out with a lot of different filings in this case, claiming things does

[00:41:08] not make them true. Important thing to remember here.

[00:41:13] OK, so the first thing on that list is ex parte communications and interfering with defense

[00:41:21] witnesses. This involves largely Robert Bastogne.

[00:41:26] This just can't get rid of this guy in this case.

[00:41:31] Just definitely.

[00:41:32] Can you give us like a 30 second primer just on who this guy is?

[00:41:36] Robert Bastogne is a convicted child molester turned prison house attorney who has filed

[00:41:43] frivolous claim after frivolous claim against various parties.

[00:41:50] Westville, Indiana Department of Correction, various people there about how awful they're

[00:41:56] making his life.

[00:41:57] He also is known for slut shaming effectively the child, the small child that he molested.

[00:42:07] His DNA was found all over her swimsuit.

[00:42:09] She identified him as her attacker.

[00:42:12] And I believe and I think most people would agree with me that he has extreme credibility

[00:42:19] issues. The reason the defense is all over this guy is because at one point he seemingly

[00:42:25] was willing to come in and talk about how Richard Allen was being treated worse than

[00:42:29] anyone else in Westville.

[00:42:31] So he was useful to the defense at that point, but his calculus changed and sort of that

[00:42:39] didn't happen. Defense wanted him to appear.

[00:42:43] They filed for him to appear when the sheriffs came to get him from his cell to bring

[00:42:52] him down to appear at a pretrial hearing.

[00:42:55] He refused.

[00:42:57] Yes. Strenuously refused to participate.

[00:43:00] He was scared.

[00:43:01] All this, you know, excuses.

[00:43:03] We've had communications with him and we found that he was ultimately more interested in

[00:43:07] pulling a bait and switch where he would claim knowledge about things regarding Allen,

[00:43:12] but then ultimately wanted us to more focus on the injustice he was facing.

[00:43:16] So this is something that he does.

[00:43:19] This is a pattern of behavior.

[00:43:21] And so he refuses to leave the cell, strenuously refuses to leave the cell.

[00:43:27] Sheriff Tobe Blesenby, who is trying to get him from the cell, contacts Judge Gull, says

[00:43:32] this potential defense witness, he's refusing to leave the cell.

[00:43:35] What do I do?

[00:43:36] And Judge Gull says, well, if he refuses, there's not much you can do.

[00:43:40] Let's just forget about it.

[00:43:42] And so there's a couple of issues there they're claiming.

[00:43:45] First of all, they're saying that.

[00:43:49] If the defense wanted Bastogne to come and testify, even if he refused, then law

[00:43:58] enforcement should have been required to, quote, use whatever means necessary to

[00:44:03] transport the inmate, end quote.

[00:44:07] That's an ominous phrase.

[00:44:09] So I guess that includes violence, like tase the guy and drag him bodily out of his

[00:44:15] cell and force him into a transport and then force him up on the stand.

[00:44:19] Is that what they're asking for?

[00:44:21] Because that's sort of what it sounds like.

[00:44:24] And that's a little bit surprising given how concerned they are for Richard Allen's

[00:44:27] rights in prison.

[00:44:28] It doesn't seem like that necessarily extends to anybody else.

[00:44:31] I mean, I think this is a bit shocking given that, I mean, as you can probably

[00:44:37] hear from my voice, I find this Bastogne character rather not credible and rather

[00:44:43] you know what he's accused of doing is just horrific and does not seem I'm not

[00:44:48] saying he's not credible because he's an inmate.

[00:44:51] I'm saying he's not credible because he doesn't seem to have actually taken any

[00:44:54] accountability for what he did to a child who he attacked and traumatized.

[00:44:59] But that being said, I don't believe that people should be dragged around and forced

[00:45:06] to testify if they change their mind.

[00:45:08] I think that in his position and ultimately all of this is over nothing because this

[00:45:14] guy is not believable.

[00:45:16] He's not.

[00:45:16] I mean, he was going to make some talking points for them, but this is not he's

[00:45:20] going to say whatever he says, whatever he thinks people want to hear so he can get

[00:45:24] involved in a high profile case and get more attention on his own case.

[00:45:27] That's what happened here.

[00:45:29] And to be acting as if this is some kind of like they should have beaten him into

[00:45:33] submission in order to make this happen, that's just preposterous.

[00:45:37] So they're upset that she didn't require them to use whatever means necessary to

[00:45:41] get the guy out of a cell.

[00:45:43] They're also upset that she communicated with Tole Blesenby about this.

[00:45:48] And then in another point here, they say that Tony Liggett, who's now the sheriff,

[00:45:54] has been communicating with the judge about the logistics of where to house

[00:45:59] Richard Allen during the trial.

[00:46:01] They say, hey, she was talking to Tole Blesenby.

[00:46:04] She's been talking to Tony Liggett.

[00:46:06] They're both witnesses in the case.

[00:46:08] That's ex parte.

[00:46:09] That's bad.

[00:46:11] But from what they're saying, she's not talking with them about the substance of

[00:46:17] their testimony.

[00:46:19] She's talking with them about the logistics of what these people are doing to do their

[00:46:26] jobs, the jobs they were elected to do.

[00:46:28] And I'm not aware of any case where if like a police chief or a sheriff is going to be

[00:46:35] a witness in the case, the judge can't ask them questions about logistical matters,

[00:46:41] about how the jail is being run or things like that.

[00:46:43] Yeah, it's not how it works.

[00:46:45] That's not just the sound of that first sip of morning joe.

[00:46:50] It's the sound of someone shopping for a car on Carvana from the comfort of home.

[00:46:54] That's a good blend.

[00:46:55] It's time to take it easy, like answering some easy questions to get pre-qualified for

[00:46:59] a car in minutes.

[00:47:00] Talk about starting the morning right.

[00:47:02] Just like customizing your terms so your car fits your budget.

[00:47:07] Visit Carvana.com or download the app to experience car shopping the way it should be.

[00:47:12] Convenient, comfortable.

[00:47:15] Welcome to Fail Better, David Duchovny's new podcast with Lemonada Media.

[00:47:21] On Fail Better, David, who has experienced both low and high profile failures throughout

[00:47:26] his life, explores the vast world of failure, how it holds us back, propels us forward

[00:47:32] and ultimately shapes our lives.

[00:47:35] Each week he'll chat with guests like Ben Stiller, Bette Midler and more about how our

[00:47:40] perceived failures have actually been our biggest catalysts for growth, revelation and

[00:47:45] even healing.

[00:47:46] Through these conversations, he hopes listeners can learn how to embrace the opportunity of

[00:47:51] failure and fail better together.

[00:47:53] Fail Better is out now wherever you get your podcasts.

[00:47:58] OK, picture this.

[00:48:00] It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[00:48:03] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new

[00:48:07] Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road.

[00:48:10] With available H-track all wheel drive and three row seating, my whole family can head deep

[00:48:15] into the wild. Conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:48:19] Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details.

[00:48:25] Hyundai. There's joy in every journey.

[00:48:28] It's just not. In addition to all this, the defense also suggests that rather

[00:48:37] interestingly, they suggest that Nick McClelland, the prosecutor.

[00:48:41] So you remember there was an email that Brad Rosi included in a filing where Judge

[00:48:49] Gohl said something about, oh, I'm well aware of the rules about suggesting that third

[00:48:55] parties might be the actual guilty people in a case.

[00:48:59] In other words, she's aware of the law and when it's OK for defense attorneys to come in

[00:49:05] and say, well, my client isn't guilty.

[00:49:07] Anya Cain is guilty or what have you.

[00:49:11] And so they are saying that when the judge said this, I think the implication is Nick

[00:49:19] McClelland was very naive.

[00:49:23] And the idea of filing a motion suggesting to limit their ability to introduce the

[00:49:30] evidence about Odinism had never even occurred to him until Judge Gohl had this offhanded

[00:49:37] remark in an email.

[00:49:39] And that's what gave him the idea.

[00:49:41] Therefore, she's giving him strategy.

[00:49:44] I think that's a bit disingenuous.

[00:49:46] I think certainly we've talked to many defense attorneys and prosecutors of other cases

[00:49:51] behind the scenes.

[00:49:53] Everybody has been expecting that he'd be filing that at some point.

[00:49:56] This has been I mean, are we going to have the Salem witch trials, Odinism redux or are we

[00:50:01] going to have, you know, the defense will be forced to do something else like pick apart the

[00:50:06] prosecution's case?

[00:50:07] I mean, that that has been the central question for a long time.

[00:50:10] I mean, you've probably if you follow this case online, you've probably seen discussion of

[00:50:14] this before. It's not like it's been some secret strategy that only Judge Gohl could have

[00:50:19] cooked up. I think that also seems disingenuous.

[00:50:22] I don't think it's a strong point.

[00:50:24] Next point, Judge Gohl has repeatedly disparaged Richard Allen's appointed public

[00:50:29] defenders. What's your take on that?

[00:50:31] I mean, this is basically a section that says Judge Gohl is very mean to the defense

[00:50:34] attorneys and that is not fair because they are very good.

[00:50:38] I mean, that's pretty much the the vibe here.

[00:50:42] Interestingly enough, I mean, we've certainly seen her call them sloppy and incompetent, I

[00:50:49] think within within the within what she's talking about, I think people can maybe

[00:50:56] understand that. I think it's interesting that they don't mention that.

[00:51:03] I mean, one thing that's kind of like lacking the smoking gun here is that I think a

[00:51:07] judge who is purely out to get two defense attorneys, she had them in her sights with

[00:51:13] contempt. I mean, she had a clear shot at them with that.

[00:51:17] Had she wanted to just punish them, embarrass them, fine them, throw them in prison,

[00:51:24] throw them in jail rather, not prison.

[00:51:25] But that would have been an opportunity to do that.

[00:51:29] And she didn't take that.

[00:51:31] So that complicates their narrative that they're putting here.

[00:51:33] You know, I think a lot of I think a lot of people would rather be criticized than put in

[00:51:39] jail or fined thousands of dollars.

[00:51:42] And so the fact that she ruled with them on that, to me, for a reasonable person, I think

[00:51:50] it complicates that.

[00:51:51] It harms their ability to make this work to the same extent.

[00:51:55] So I don't know. It's kind of like when you're just getting into when you're talking about

[00:51:59] having a person be able to walk into an attorney's office and get access to a ton of

[00:52:06] sensitive discovery and then disseminated all over the Internet.

[00:52:10] It sort of feels like maybe you don't agree that it's the attorney's fault, but I think we

[00:52:15] can also understand where a judge is coming from when she feels like your handling of

[00:52:19] that was incompetent and sloppy.

[00:52:21] So I don't know.

[00:52:24] I don't know how compelling I find these points about her being mean.

[00:52:28] The next point is rather vague.

[00:52:31] Other examples of Judge Gold treating the prosecution more favorably than the defense and

[00:52:36] the example they bring up is the example of a YouTuber named Gary Baudet, who online

[00:52:44] uses the name Big.

[00:52:46] He, according to their allegations, had some interactions with prosecutor Nick McLeeland.

[00:52:55] Also, Gary Baudet had some information about the bullet found at the crime scene.

[00:53:01] And so the inference they're drawing is that Baudet got that information from prosecutor

[00:53:08] McLeeland. Therefore, prosecutor McLeeland is also a leaker and should face whatever

[00:53:14] they're facing, I suppose.

[00:53:16] So the defense team in this situation, led by its own counsel, David Hennessey, had an

[00:53:24] entire hearing, an entire contempt hearing to convince the world that McLeeland was

[00:53:29] leaking to Gary Baudet.

[00:53:31] He did not do that.

[00:53:34] There is a difference between taking information from individuals like Gary Baudet, you

[00:53:42] know, which McLeeland and other investigators are certainly allowed to do, and they're

[00:53:46] also allowed to respond to them in the context of that versus leaking information.

[00:53:52] It's a one way street versus a two way street.

[00:53:54] A one way street's fine.

[00:53:56] A two way street is problematic.

[00:53:59] And I don't feel like they were able to give any concrete evidence of that.

[00:54:06] And in addition to that, I think it's interesting that they continue to harp upon

[00:54:14] their own leak to a certain extent, like they're, I guess it's not enough to be found

[00:54:19] innocent of contempt or to not be found in contempt here.

[00:54:22] They have to keep bringing it up.

[00:54:23] I don't believe a lot of this seems reads as face saving to me about their own leak.

[00:54:28] And I think that's if I were them, I just wouldn't bring it up again.

[00:54:32] You know, I wouldn't they don't have to bring it up.

[00:54:34] I wouldn't.

[00:54:35] Let's let's be blunt.

[00:54:38] If they really think that Gary Baudet was receiving leaked information from Nick

[00:54:46] McLeeland, produce some evidence.

[00:54:48] Maybe that evidence is testimony under oath from Mr.

[00:54:51] Baudet. I don't know.

[00:54:53] But by all means, go ahead and pursue that if you think that's what happened and you

[00:54:58] think that's relevant.

[00:55:00] But with that said, I really think it is worth stressing that there's really no moral

[00:55:06] equivalence between a piece of information leaking and graphic crime scene photos

[00:55:13] leaking.

[00:55:14] I completely agree.

[00:55:16] I mean, I'm not convinced that I don't.

[00:55:19] I'm not convinced that what they're saying about the alleged Baudet leak is even.

[00:55:25] Pertinent to anything or irrelevant or even what they're claiming it is, I'm just not

[00:55:29] convinced at this point, but if it was or there's some truth to that, I also completely

[00:55:34] agree. The fact that images of murdered children got out and were published ultimately

[00:55:42] on YouTube is a disgrace and everyone involved in that.

[00:55:47] I mean, it was a disaster.

[00:55:50] It affected people, it affected this case, it's been problematic for everyone involved.

[00:55:56] And to me, that is there's no moral equivalent of that with anything they're even

[00:56:02] claiming at this point.

[00:56:03] And just, you know, certain things are going to be worse.

[00:56:08] A department store is going to make a bigger deal about the theft of like a very

[00:56:12] expensive handmade sable coat versus some cheap costume jewelry earrings.

[00:56:17] They're both bad, they're both theft.

[00:56:19] One is going to set off more alarms, understandably so, because it's more problematic

[00:56:24] and the sensitive nature of what Mitch Westerman put out there through his friend

[00:56:30] Andrew Baldwin, you know, the claim is that it was without Baldwin's knowledge that.

[00:56:36] That had that had a real world impact on people, and I just I mean, it caused so

[00:56:41] much harm and so much hurt, just untold amounts.

[00:56:44] So I'm just going to say that, yeah, that I guess that's why I'm surprised they

[00:56:49] continue to bring it up.

[00:56:50] It sort of feels like they're trying to say, oh, it's all the same.

[00:56:52] And I get why they're doing that PR wise, but like legally, I just don't understand.

[00:56:58] I mean, I don't know. It just seems like a mess.

[00:57:00] Yeah. They also say that there didn't seem to be much interest shown in another

[00:57:05] investigation because Mr.

[00:57:08] Baudet also supposedly claimed that he had a source who was working for the judge.

[00:57:17] Why didn't the judge believe Mr.

[00:57:19] Baudet and conduct a full scale investigation?

[00:57:22] I don't know.

[00:57:22] Why don't they?

[00:57:24] Yeah, they can conduct an investigation.

[00:57:25] They could easily if they want.

[00:57:26] If they wanted to subpoena and depose Baudet.

[00:57:29] I mean, if they truly feel like this is a good use of their time, they're able to do

[00:57:34] that. The fact that they haven't sort of indicates that perhaps this is more of a.

[00:57:41] Faint side issue, they write, quote, the fact that Judge Gull has treated the defense

[00:57:47] differently when the defense is accused of a leak than it has treated her own staff or

[00:57:52] the prosecution creates rational inference of bias against the defense and quote, I

[00:57:59] would respectfully suggest if she's treating them differently, it is because, again, the

[00:58:04] leak of graphic crime scene photos of deceased children is a lot different than the leak

[00:58:11] of a piece of information.

[00:58:14] No one is suggesting to the best of my knowledge that Mr.

[00:58:17] Baudet received like actual secret court documents or anything of that nature.

[00:58:22] I'm going to say this with the Westerman leak.

[00:58:25] You have graphic crime scene images of children and other discovery pieces get out

[00:58:33] there and then very quickly, Mr.

[00:58:35] Mitch Westerman comes in with this bizarre story about sneaking into his friend, his

[00:58:40] good dear friend and former employer's office and doing this.

[00:58:45] It it sets off a lot of alarms, frankly.

[00:58:49] On the Baudet side, you have.

[00:58:53] Possible contact between McClelland and Baudet, and maybe Baudet knew something he

[00:58:59] shouldn't have, but we can't prove where exactly that came in, and he's not exactly

[00:59:03] explaining where that came in and we don't know how to verify what he even claims.

[00:59:08] So those two things are not the same thing.

[00:59:12] And so I don't believe a judge, regardless of who's doing it, it's I don't know.

[00:59:17] You would need a lot more with the Baudet situation for me to say that that is a red

[00:59:21] alert situation.

[00:59:23] The next point, Judge Gull wrongly blamed the defense for ex parte filings which were

[00:59:29] inadvertently directed to the prosecutor.

[00:59:32] This, you will recall, refers to an incident where Nick McClelland received and

[00:59:39] subsequently referred to ex parte filings made by the defense, which were not intended

[00:59:47] for the public and certainly not for McClelland to see.

[00:59:52] And they're saying, well, after this came out, Judge Gull in an email.

[00:59:59] Apparently suggested that it was the fault that someone on the defense team might must

[01:00:03] have done something improper.

[01:00:06] Yeah.

[01:00:07] And this is a little bit familiar to me because I don't know how many of you remember

[01:00:11] it, but in the middle of that whole business of the leak, there was a point where Judge

[01:00:16] Gull sent an email saying that Anya and I should be thrown in jail.

[01:00:23] And anytime the audio is weird on this show, you should just assume that we're in jail.

[01:00:28] So she said that, but she never threw us in jail.

[01:00:31] And I would note that if she in this email that they referred to said that this filing

[01:00:39] confusion was the fault of the defense, but then she never took any action based upon

[01:00:45] that. I'm not sure what the long term harm is.

[01:00:49] In addition to that, this is a defense team that has lied directly to her about their

[01:00:54] intent to try this in the public court of public opinion.

[01:00:58] This is a defense team that has accidentally sent emails to convicted felons who then put

[01:01:03] it on their YouTube channels.

[01:01:05] This is a defense team that allowed their competent strategist slash mortal enemy slash

[01:01:12] dear friend Mitch Westerman saunter into their main office and leak stuff all over the

[01:01:20] Internet. You know, actually, I can completely understand why you would be perhaps first

[01:01:25] to scrutinize their actions when something goes wrong in terms of something being released

[01:01:30] publicly that wasn't supposed to, because they do have a history of that.

[01:01:33] I'm not saying that's fair.

[01:01:35] I think it's better to just hold your tongue until you have evidence against somebody.

[01:01:39] But in the situation of like the logistical how this all has been handled, I can

[01:01:43] understand that. The next point, accusations of violating rules on access to court

[01:01:50] records. They say, well, you know, earlier, Judge Gould didn't do a good job of

[01:01:55] maintaining court records.

[01:01:57] And so some appellate attorneys filed with the Supreme Court and so basically put her

[01:02:03] in a position where she had to correct the court records.

[01:02:07] And she calls us sloppy.

[01:02:09] So isn't that basically a judge Gould made a mistake?

[01:02:13] And how dare she?

[01:02:15] Whomst amongst us?

[01:02:16] Yes, she.

[01:02:17] So it's true. The court records weren't being kept as well as they should have.

[01:02:21] And then it was corrected.

[01:02:23] So I'm not really sure I understand how this shows a bias.

[01:02:28] I don't. It doesn't.

[01:02:29] It's just a lot of these things are.

[01:02:31] This is actually why I think the appellate attorneys were, you know, maybe more choosy

[01:02:35] about what they put out there, because some of these things you can you can sort of

[01:02:40] understand or you can see a kernel of something or maybe you find compelling either

[01:02:44] way. I think others are very weak and you shouldn't include stuff that is very weak

[01:02:49] because it just undermines your overall you're just kitchen sinking.

[01:02:53] Defense motions are treated differently than those of the prosecution.

[01:02:58] Their big complaint here is that and I call it a big complaint because they make it

[01:03:05] over and over and over and over again in this section, they say that when Nick

[01:03:10] McLeelan filed a motion for contempt, a hearing got scheduled pretty quickly.

[01:03:16] When we file motions, they usually are either turned down or there's no hearing at

[01:03:22] all. So unfair judges have discretion.

[01:03:26] It's important for a judge to be allowed to use that discretion to make rulings and

[01:03:32] ruling for or against somebody.

[01:03:34] A party does not typically is not typically considered to show bias.

[01:03:39] It can be many reasons to rule against somebody.

[01:03:42] Perhaps they're doing a bad job and filing sloppy and poorly done filings.

[01:03:46] Perhaps you don't agree with their interpretation of the law.

[01:03:48] Perhaps this or that.

[01:03:50] I mean, there's this is not a lot of this at this point.

[01:03:56] I felt like they started with some ones where I could understand where they're coming

[01:03:59] from. At this point, I feel like this is to be blunt, I believe scraping the bottom of

[01:04:05] the barrel. Judge Gull ignored the defense's request to set aside two weeks to present

[01:04:10] Mr. Allen's defense while refusing to set any time limits on the prosecution.

[01:04:16] This is about the hearing on May 7th where they were upset because they did not feel

[01:04:23] like they're going to get enough time to present their case at trial.

[01:04:26] Yes. And they said because she didn't give us what we wanted, therefore we had to delay

[01:04:31] the trial and that violated Allen's right to a speedy trial before you say whatever you

[01:04:38] have to say. And I'm sure you have some things to say.

[01:04:40] I just like to repeat what we said earlier, that they plainly were not ready for this

[01:04:45] trial. And I strongly suspect that even if she had granted them whatever time they

[01:04:52] wanted, they would have found another reason to seek delay.

[01:04:56] And I'd also like to repeat the judge goal indicated that based upon her reading of the

[01:05:04] rules, she didn't have the power to extend the length of the trial to that late date

[01:05:09] based upon the facts that she had already promised the jury.

[01:05:12] It would be like a two week trial.

[01:05:14] I go back and forth a lot in this situation between and by this situation, I mean this

[01:05:18] whole case between dishonesty and incompetence, which is worse, right?

[01:05:23] Dishonesty would be not intending to ever go in May and just having it be some sort of

[01:05:29] pretext in order to stave off getting thrown off the case again or perhaps posturing so

[01:05:38] that your online fans could think that you're really tough and you're making it all

[01:05:42] happen. And I don't know.

[01:05:46] That's dishonesty.

[01:05:47] Incompetence is thinking that we can maybe do May when you really should be realizing

[01:05:52] that there's no way May is going to happen.

[01:05:54] You can't effectively defend somebody when you're not ready and there's no way you're

[01:05:57] going to be ready by then.

[01:05:59] And you're just wasting a bunch of time on other things.

[01:06:01] And you're like deposing important witnesses two minutes before this thing is supposed to

[01:06:06] start. So those are the two options.

[01:06:10] And I guess I don't know which is worse at this point.

[01:06:14] I mean, I guess dishonesty is better because it shows at least some strategic input.

[01:06:20] I'll say this about this time limit thing and the you know, I think it's interesting that

[01:06:26] the defense frames it as the entire onus of the delay is on Gull.

[01:06:30] I do agree to a certain extent that in my opinion, from what I'm reading in the filings,

[01:06:35] Gull did not check in about this at any point.

[01:06:37] I think that would have been good.

[01:06:39] You know, how long do we need again?

[01:06:42] Are we sure two weeks is enough?

[01:06:44] Those are questions that I think a lot of people would have asked.

[01:06:47] I think a lot of people would have asked that prior to sending out the jury.

[01:06:51] I think that would have been good to ask.

[01:06:53] That being said, I don't believe the entire onus of the delay belongs on her shoulders.

[01:06:57] I think that if they wanted it to go in May, it had been scheduled for two weeks for a

[01:07:03] long time and they had plenty of time to sneak in there and say, actually, we need four

[01:07:09] weeks or we need three weeks or here's exactly how long we need.

[01:07:13] They didn't do that seemingly.

[01:07:15] A lot of their behavior does not match the rhetoric that they put out there.

[01:07:19] They can be saying May, May, May.

[01:07:21] Oh, my gosh, speedy trial.

[01:07:23] And if they're not actually working to get there, then I have a hard time believing that

[01:07:29] is either sincere or or you could just assume that there's some catastrophic breakdown within

[01:07:35] their team where they're not doing what they're not functioning as they're supposed to be

[01:07:38] functioning. So, I mean, personally, I think given what we've seen from this defense team,

[01:07:43] there is a legitimate concern about them grandstanding and wasting a lot of time during

[01:07:48] this trial. I believe that they deserve the time they need and not a minute more because

[01:07:55] that's not justice.

[01:07:57] That's not effective defense of their counsel.

[01:07:59] That is that is posing for the cameras.

[01:08:03] I mean, that's it's not it's not the same thing.

[01:08:06] So, I mean, I wish that there had been more conversations between the parties going into

[01:08:10] this about what exactly they need.

[01:08:13] But I don't feel like May was ever going to happen.

[01:08:17] And I certainly do not feel that Judge Gull somehow manipulated them into October.

[01:08:22] At this point, if things continue to go at this rate, October seems like a long way away.

[01:08:27] But I don't know if I don't know if they're going to be ready for October at this rate.

[01:08:33] Ready for the next one?

[01:08:34] Yes.

[01:08:35] OK. Judge Gull engaged in extrajudicial activities that raise a rational inference of bias,

[01:08:43] especially when Judge Gull may have to rule on how the extrajudicial activities of a key

[01:08:50] state's witness will impact the admissibility of Richard Allen's purported confessions.

[01:08:57] So that's a big mouthful.

[01:08:59] I'm going to start by Judge Gull's extrajudicial activity on July 29th, 2023.

[01:09:08] She left a post on a Facebook page about a softball tournament at the Abbey and Libby

[01:09:16] Memorial Park.

[01:09:17] Which one of her relatives, I believe, participated in.

[01:09:20] Yeah.

[01:09:20] Somebody posted, what an honor it was for the girls to play in the Abbey and Libby Memorial

[01:09:26] tournament.

[01:09:27] What a greater honor it was that Abbey and Libby's grandparent present our girls with

[01:09:32] their championship finalist rings.

[01:09:34] And Judge Gull commented, congratulations.

[01:09:38] OK.

[01:09:39] So they're saying that this sporting event at a park, the fact that she commented on

[01:09:50] something, a one-word comment pertaining to who won the sporting event, she's commenting

[01:09:57] on something that I guess is somehow an issue in the case.

[01:10:02] Right.

[01:10:03] That's a little hard to understand.

[01:10:05] I think that's a stretch.

[01:10:06] I can understand where they're coming from here, but I do think it is a stretch.

[01:10:10] If there was some sort of rally being held saying, let's lynch Richard Allen and the

[01:10:17] judge posted underneath it, that sounds great.

[01:10:21] Yeah, that'd be more of a problem.

[01:10:22] That would be a problem.

[01:10:24] Yeah.

[01:10:25] I mean, I guess it has to do with the park itself.

[01:10:29] That seems, you know, it's a park.

[01:10:32] I mean, it's memorializing these girls.

[01:10:35] That's true whether or not you think Richard Allen did that.

[01:10:37] Hopefully, you don't have a problem with it.

[01:10:39] Although, frankly, a lot of people who are, I would say, defense conspiracy theorists seem

[01:10:43] to have an extreme problem with the victim's families and anything actually memorializing

[01:10:48] these kids.

[01:10:49] So unpack that as you will.

[01:10:51] Let's get on to the fact that some of the victim's grandparents were involved in this.

[01:10:56] I feel like they've been pretty quiet since the arrest.

[01:11:00] I don't feel like they've been out there advocating for one thing or another.

[01:11:04] I mean, when you're looking at their social media, it's like, remember the girls.

[01:11:09] You know, we hope to get justice at some point.

[01:11:12] They're not out there being like, this guy did it and here's why.

[01:11:15] I mean, so I guess I—

[01:11:16] And this sporting event in particular was just a sporting event at the park named after

[01:11:21] the ones they've lost and congratulating people for winning an event.

[01:11:25] You could also argue that the congratulations is about winning.

[01:11:28] It's not, you know, I mean, like, it's so vague.

[01:11:31] It's not like, congratulations.

[01:11:32] I find these people very inspiring and I hope to do a good job ruling in their case, you

[01:11:36] know, wink, wink.

[01:11:39] Like, it's too vague.

[01:11:40] It's again, there's something here.

[01:11:42] I understand why they're doing it.

[01:11:43] I'm not—I don't think this is one of the dumber ones.

[01:11:46] I just think it's not a lot of meat there.

[01:11:50] So here's why they're bringing it up now.

[01:11:53] We spoke earlier about Dr. Monica Walla, who it appears heard or somehow received a statement

[01:12:04] or confessions from Richard Allen.

[01:12:09] It has come out that Dr. Walla was a member of several Facebook groups devoted to discussing

[01:12:20] the Delphi case.

[01:12:21] We've not confirmed this independently, we should say.

[01:12:23] I'm going to say allegedly because it seems like—and we've reviewed screenshots of

[01:12:29] somebody with that name seemingly being involved.

[01:12:33] Do we know that that's exact—do we know for a fact that that must be her?

[01:12:37] No.

[01:12:38] But it certainly has gotten a lot of buzz.

[01:12:40] I think that's fair to say.

[01:12:41] It's gotten a lot of buzz.

[01:12:42] We haven't mentioned it because we couldn't confirm it.

[01:12:44] But now the defense is mentioning it.

[01:12:46] So we ought to talk about it.

[01:12:47] Yes.

[01:12:47] We need to talk about it because the defense is saying she's a member of all of these

[01:12:51] groups.

[01:12:52] She seems like she was even a member of the murder sheet group.

[01:12:55] Yeah.

[01:12:56] And I've seen what purports to be a screenshot from Dr. Walla in which she talks about some

[01:13:04] of her favorite YouTube channels devoted to discussions of the case.

[01:13:07] I think she mentioned actually mostly pro-defense-sided people, interestingly enough.

[01:13:13] So make of that what you will.

[01:13:15] She's not just in our group.

[01:13:16] She's in a lot of different Delphi groups, if that is the same person.

[01:13:20] And if it's the same person, it raises some interesting questions that a person so

[01:13:28] interested in the case, a case buff happens to be the one who receives a reported confession.

[01:13:35] I guess it depends on what you consider a case buff.

[01:13:38] And to me, I think to me what the difference is, some people get their news from Facebook,

[01:13:45] from social media.

[01:13:45] That's the landscape we live in.

[01:13:47] If a newspaper, a local newspaper was doing a really good job of covering a local crime

[01:13:52] and you were consistently reading that, I don't think many people, you know, it would

[01:13:55] be hard to make a big issue of that.

[01:13:58] I think, you know, you wouldn't be in any sort of like online thing where everyone can

[01:14:01] see you.

[01:14:03] To me, belonging to groups and sort of being passive in that respect doesn't seem like

[01:14:09] a huge deal.

[01:14:11] If you are actively sleuthing and talking and theorizing with people, that's where I

[01:14:17] think things can start to become uncomfortable.

[01:14:19] I think it's a worthy subject of inquiry for the defense.

[01:14:23] I concur.

[01:14:24] And I can tell you, I've been members of Facebook groups.

[01:14:29] You've been members of Facebook groups.

[01:14:34] Oftentimes when you're a member of a Facebook group, you meet people.

[01:14:38] And even if you don't comment publicly, you might have private conversations with

[01:14:42] people in the group.

[01:14:42] Or you get even just get interested in a subject briefly, join a bunch of groups and

[01:14:48] then mute them and already don't really go on Facebook much and you don't really pay

[01:14:53] much attention to it.

[01:14:55] I guess what I'm trying to say is the...

[01:14:57] I understand what you're saying.

[01:14:58] Yeah, no, I'm just saying the scope of behavior here could be very concerning for the

[01:15:02] prosecution to not really concerning at all.

[01:15:06] And we don't have all the information.

[01:15:08] Yeah, if you would go on my Facebook profile and look at all of the groups I've joined,

[01:15:13] it's like some sort of bizarre museum of things.

[01:15:15] Like excavating your past interests.

[01:15:19] Things I was interested in for a few minutes one day.

[01:15:21] And again, some things would be really problematic, in my opinion.

[01:15:24] Some things would be maybe iffy, borderline, and then others would be innocuous, frankly.

[01:15:30] Yeah, so this could be a big deal.

[01:15:31] It could be no deal at all.

[01:15:33] It could be anywhere in between.

[01:15:35] But again, I definitely feel like this is a worthy subject of inquiry.

[01:15:38] It could be bad for her and not necessarily bad for the case against Allen.

[01:15:42] There's so many possibilities.

[01:15:43] There's so many different possibilities.

[01:15:45] So they're raising it here in this context because they're saying, can Judge Gull be

[01:15:51] expected to make fair rulings about people commenting extra judiciously on Facebook

[01:15:58] when she's done the same thing herself?

[01:16:00] Yeah, I think it's a valid line of inquiry for the defense around Walla.

[01:16:05] I think the link to Judge Gull's highly innocuous post seems a stretch.

[01:16:11] So in the context of this filing, I don't really find this super compelling.

[01:16:16] In the context of they could maybe make a lot of hay about the Walla situation,

[01:16:20] they might they could do something with that if the facts align with what they want.

[01:16:26] That's not just the sound of that first sip of morning joe.

[01:16:29] It's the sound of someone shopping for a car on Carvana from the comfort of home.

[01:16:33] That's a good blend.

[01:16:34] It's time to take it easy, like answering some easy questions to get pre-qualified for

[01:16:38] a car in minutes.

[01:16:39] Talk about starting the morning right.

[01:16:41] Just like customizing your terms so your car fits your budget.

[01:16:46] Visit Carvana.com or download the app to experience car shopping the way it should be.

[01:16:50] Convenient, comfortable.

[01:16:53] Ah.

[01:16:55] Okay, picture this.

[01:16:56] It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[01:17:00] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all-new

[01:17:04] Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road.

[01:17:07] With available H-track all-wheel drive and three-row seating, my whole family can head

[01:17:11] deep into the wild.

[01:17:12] Conquer the weekend in the all-new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[01:17:16] Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details.

[01:17:21] Hyundai.

[01:17:22] There's joy in every journey.

[01:17:25] Okay, picture this.

[01:17:26] It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[01:17:30] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all-new

[01:17:34] Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road.

[01:17:37] With available H-track all-wheel drive and three-row seating, my whole family can head

[01:17:41] deep into the wild.

[01:17:42] Conquer the weekend in the all-new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[01:17:46] Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details.

[01:17:52] Hyundai.

[01:17:52] There's joy in every journey.

[01:17:54] Yeah, and you know, you could also make the argument if Judge Gull saying congratulations

[01:18:01] is relatively innocuous, that doesn't mean that she therefore is obligated to rule that

[01:18:07] anything anybody says on Facebook is also innocuous.

[01:18:10] Yeah, I mean if Dr. Wala in some hidden group or in some secret discord was saying like

[01:18:18] this guy is totally guilty, you know, there's a difference.

[01:18:22] And I think what the problem here is they're using this to try to get Judge Gull to recuse

[01:18:27] herself.

[01:18:28] That is the point of all of this.

[01:18:29] That's all of this information that they're giving you.

[01:18:32] It all goes towards that.

[01:18:33] But from that perspective, I don't think this is compelling from the perspective that

[01:18:38] they could have some, you know, they could try to discredit Wala as a witness if there's

[01:18:43] information there.

[01:18:45] That would be possible if the facts again align with what they want.

[01:18:50] Judge Gull has impaired Richard Allen's ability to defend himself by denying his reasonable

[01:18:55] requests for expert and administrative staff funding.

[01:19:00] And then they admit that they've been filing bills wrong.

[01:19:02] Oops.

[01:19:03] So, quote, for example, the defense has paid $26,000 for the work its investigator performed

[01:19:10] in the spring, summer and fall of 2023.

[01:19:12] When Judge Gull was not satisfied with the format of the investigators bill, the defense

[01:19:16] tendered new bills to meet the court's expectations because the investigator deserved to be paid

[01:19:21] for their work he performed.

[01:19:22] The defense paid the investigator out of its own law firm account.

[01:19:27] End quote.

[01:19:28] So, yeah.

[01:19:30] So they've been filing bills wrong, and that seems to indicate what's been going on there.

[01:19:37] That's that just seems like prudent maintenance and making sure that people are spending

[01:19:42] money as they should be instead of just getting blank checks to do whatever they want.

[01:19:45] So I'm surprised that they even put that in there.

[01:19:53] Let me read this next one.

[01:19:55] Evidence.

[01:19:56] Gosh, this one.

[01:19:57] Evidence that public confidence in Judge Gull has eroded due to continued improper conduct

[01:20:03] and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety.

[01:20:07] And what they're citing here is we've all all of us who've been following this case and

[01:20:11] following the docket know that for the last couple of months, periodically people will

[01:20:17] send Judge Gull emails basically telling her she's no damn good.

[01:20:22] And then she dutifully enters them all in the docket because that's the appropriate thing

[01:20:26] to do.

[01:20:27] And they're saying, well, the fact that she's getting mean emails means that people don't

[01:20:32] like her.

[01:20:33] And there's many, many responses to that.

[01:20:36] You want to start?

[01:20:36] You want me to start?

[01:20:37] You start.

[01:20:39] I can tell you that if you were to look at our inbox, yes, there would be people in our

[01:20:44] inbox who hate Judge Gull.

[01:20:46] There's also people in our inbox that really think the world of Judge Gull.

[01:20:51] So even if you jump to the conclusion that the way to make legal decisions and determinations

[01:20:57] is based on emails, the people who write Judge Gull, that's not a scientifically valid sampling.

[01:21:06] Sometimes I wonder if the defense wants to have the trial replaced with one of those

[01:21:11] American Idol style things where you can text in what you want the verdict to be.

[01:21:15] Because sometimes it just seems like they're really more trying to play to what they perceive

[01:21:20] the crowd to be rather than the laws or anything else.

[01:21:25] And I think what's interesting about that is that, and this is something that they may

[01:21:29] not realize, it's very easy to fall into an online bubble.

[01:21:32] It's very easy.

[01:21:34] Algorithms are created by very smart people in order to get us in online bubbles and to

[01:21:39] kind of show us things that we agree with and to make us increasingly extreme in our

[01:21:44] views.

[01:21:45] And what's interesting is that what we found is that there's a lot of all over the place

[01:21:53] thinking about this case.

[01:21:54] Some people are very virulently pro-defense.

[01:21:57] Some people are mildly pro-defense.

[01:21:58] They're open to disagreement.

[01:22:00] Some people are mildly pro-prosecution, open to disagreement.

[01:22:03] Some people are quite convinced that Allen is guilty.

[01:22:05] Many people who are actually on both sides of that equation believe that the defense

[01:22:10] are doing a terrible job and messing things up left and right.

[01:22:14] Others think that they're, you know, the second coming of Clarence Darrow.

[01:22:18] So people are all over the place.

[01:22:21] I will say that it's been our observation that I believe that there is evidence that

[01:22:26] indicates that social media personalities that are aligned to the defense side of thinking

[01:22:31] encourage people to reach out and sometimes send very hostile and sometimes frankly rather

[01:22:37] uncivil emails to Judge Gull.

[01:22:39] So the fact that that's happening, I think kind of puts the thumb on the scale to a

[01:22:44] certain extent.

[01:22:45] And I also would argue that these are not everyday citizens who are sending these emails.

[01:22:49] These are people who are obsessed with the Delphi case and that they to the point where

[01:22:53] they think that they can take a stand and their voice needs to be heard.

[01:22:57] And I don't think everyday people are doing that.

[01:23:00] I think everyday people go to work and maybe follow the case on social media or the news.

[01:23:05] Or excellent podcasts.

[01:23:07] Like the one you're listening to now.

[01:23:12] They're not doing that because they realize they have enough self-awareness to realize

[01:23:15] that, you know, we can send as many emails as we want.

[01:23:19] That's not going to affect anything nor should it, frankly.

[01:23:21] You know, we should not have judges who are looking and saying, oh my gosh, you know,

[01:23:28] like Smoking Joe from True Crime 99 on YouTube is mad at me.

[01:23:33] Like I better do things a lot differently.

[01:23:36] That's not how it's supposed to work, folks.

[01:23:39] Like we don't want to live in that society.

[01:23:41] We want to live in a society where trained legal professionals are making decisions.

[01:23:47] And yeah, so I don't think these are everyday citizens.

[01:23:50] I think this is semi-coordinated.

[01:23:53] And I also I think it's also like you have people who seek attention in the case.

[01:23:59] And we've seen some emails that strike me as that.

[01:24:04] I mean, again, many of them may be very well intentioned, but I don't think they don't

[01:24:09] read as if they come from people who understand how the legal process in this country works.

[01:24:13] Marc Thiessen We're getting close to the end, folks.

[01:24:15] I promise.

[01:24:16] Judge Gull has refused to order the state to comply with discovery rules to the detriment

[01:24:21] of Richard Allen.

[01:24:22] Taryn Yeah, I mean, we've heard a lot about how

[01:24:24] they admit that they don't really know where anything is and that they think the state

[01:24:27] should do their job for them.

[01:24:28] So I'm kind of not really super enthusiastic about this line.

[01:24:33] Marc Thiessen Judge Gull has only allowed cameras in the

[01:24:36] courtroom once at the hearing when she knew one way or another that she was kicking attorneys

[01:24:41] Rosy and Baldwin off of the case.

[01:24:44] Taryn This is something that I know behind the

[01:24:45] scenes we've talked about a lot, and I know this has stuck with you in particular.

[01:24:49] Marc Thiessen This has always bothered me.

[01:24:50] It feels like that.

[01:24:54] It's always bothered me that that's not felt to me entirely proper.

[01:24:58] Like that was plausibly a way to try to put pressure on Baldwin and Rosy.

[01:25:05] The fact that this was the only time she allowed cameras, and since then she hasn't allowed

[01:25:10] cameras for reasons she's never really fully explained.

[01:25:14] So this has always bothered me.

[01:25:17] I don't think it's bothered you as much as it botherss me.

[01:25:19] Taryn It would be nice, in my opinion,

[01:25:22] to get an explanation of why then and not now.

[01:25:24] Get it on the record.

[01:25:26] I completely see your point.

[01:25:28] I don't know if it's hit me as hard as it has you, but I think there's a point to be

[01:25:33] made there.

[01:25:33] And I think having clarity on that is important because, again, why now?

[01:25:40] Why not now?

[01:25:41] If it was okay then, why was it okay at that point?

[01:25:44] Why wasn't it okay before then?

[01:25:46] Having some clarity on the issue would be helpful for me to assess it.

[01:25:50] There could be some...

[01:25:51] I guess I come from the perspective of certain things I don't necessarily know,

[01:25:55] and there might be other considerations that I'm not even thinking of.

[01:25:59] But I think the optics on that are bad.

[01:26:02] Marc Yes.

[01:26:02] Okay.

[01:26:04] I think that's pretty much it for this filing, right?

[01:26:05] Taryn We made it.

[01:26:08] Thanks for sticking with us.

[01:26:09] Marc Final filing, Richard Allen's affidavit in

[01:26:12] support of his second verified motion to disqualify Judge Gohl and request for findings of fact and

[01:26:17] conclusions of law upon denial of this request if the court denies this request.

[01:26:21] This is basically a signed statement from Richard Allen saying, yeah, I agree with all of this.

[01:26:28] At first glance, Allen's signature looked a little bit blurry and dotted to me.

[01:26:33] But then again, Rosie's signature also looked blurry and dotted a little bit.

[01:26:38] I don't know if that last page was faxed or something.

[01:26:41] Taryn Well, yeah.

[01:26:42] Let's talk about that last page.

[01:26:45] They also don't have a date next to Allen's name, which I think is significant.

[01:26:49] I don't generally want to read too much into this.

[01:26:51] I don't want to mean like too many people have treated this case like it's like the

[01:26:54] frickin Da Vinci code or something, and I'm not trying to do that.

[01:26:58] I do find it a little interesting that the font is obviously larger and clearer on the

[01:27:02] first page than the second page, which is smaller, more cramped, less clear font.

[01:27:07] And then page one, the bottom number 41 is typed in a font, like typed on a computer.

[01:27:14] Page two seems to be hand-lettered 42.

[01:27:17] So it's just odd.

[01:27:20] I wouldn't care about that, except we're dealing with the signature page of a man

[01:27:25] who in my mind really needs to understand what's going on here.

[01:27:30] And I hope to goodness understands what's going on here, but I am not convinced

[01:27:35] understands what's going on here.

[01:27:36] Nathan I would love for there to be some sort

[01:27:38] of independent third party verification that Richard Allen fully understands the situation.

[01:27:44] I strongly believe that Judge Gull should immediately appoint an independent counsel

[01:27:50] that can speak with Richard Allen and determine that these attorneys, that Bradley Rosie and

[01:27:58] Andrew Baldwin are in fact complying with his wishes and that he in fact does approve

[01:28:03] of their strategy and wishes to go to trial.

[01:28:05] And the reason I say that is because he seems to have at least at one point been confessing

[01:28:09] to just about everyone who had listened that he was in fact guilty of these murders.

[01:28:13] And that makes me wonder, is this what he wants?

[01:28:16] Because this horrible, sad situation becomes an even more tragic farce if this is a man

[01:28:23] who is being dragged through this in order to satiate the egos of others.

[01:28:29] Anyways, thank you all for sticking with us.

[01:28:31] We appreciate you listening and we hope you enjoyed the episode and we'll probably be

[01:28:36] back sooner or later with some more Delphi stuff.

[01:28:41] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet.

[01:28:44] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at

[01:28:51] gmail dot com.

[01:28:53] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate

[01:28:59] authorities.

[01:29:02] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash

[01:29:10] murdersheet.

[01:29:11] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com

[01:29:20] slash murdersheet.

[01:29:22] We very much appreciate any support.

[01:29:25] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and

[01:29:30] who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[01:29:35] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the

[01:29:40] Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook.

[01:29:43] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.

[01:29:49] We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot

[01:29:54] of messages.

[01:29:55] Thanks again for listening.