[00:00:00] Have you ever covered a carpet stain with a rug? Ignored a leaky faucet? Pretended your
[00:00:04] half-painted living room is supposed to look like that? Well, you're not alone. We've
[00:00:08] all gone unfinished on projects, but there's an easier way. When you download Thumbtack,
[00:00:13] it's easier to care for your home from top to bottom. Pull out your phone and adjust
[00:00:17] a few taps. You can search, chat, and book highly rated pros right in your neighborhood.
[00:00:22] Plus, you'll know what to tackle next because Thumbtack is the app that shows
[00:00:25] you what to do, who to hire, and when. So say goodbye to all those unfinished home
[00:00:29] projects and say hello to caring for your home the easier way. Download Thumbtack
[00:00:34] and start a project today. Ophthalmologist Dr. Strauss has seen firsthand how the
[00:00:41] Metaverse is helping surgeons practice the procedures to treat cataracts.
[00:00:45] Cataracts are the primary cause of avoidable blindness. He works with
[00:00:50] the Virtual Reality Training Platform developed by FundamentalVR and
[00:00:53] Orbis International to help surgeons develop the muscle memory they need.
[00:00:57] The result? More confident, capable surgeons and even more importantly,
[00:01:02] patients who can see. Explore more stories like Dr. Strauss's at meta.com
[00:01:06] slash Metaverse Impact. Keep your MediCal coverage. Local MediCal offices
[00:01:13] review member eligibility once per year and many members are automatically
[00:01:18] renewed. Make sure your personal information is up to date so your
[00:01:22] local MediCal office can contact you and if they request information,
[00:01:25] respond by the due date. Learn more at
[00:01:28] MediCal.DHCS.ca.gov. That's MediCal.DHCS.ca.gov. Paid for by the
[00:01:36] California Department of Healthcare Services. Content warning. This
[00:01:41] episode includes discussion of the murder of two children. So recently in
[00:01:47] the Delphi Murders case which of course is the case against Richard Allen
[00:01:51] who stands accused of murdering Delphi Teenagers Liberty German and
[00:01:56] Abigail Williams back in 2017. There's been a lot of discussion about a
[00:02:03] filing from the prosecution namely Carroll County prosecutor Nick
[00:02:07] McClillan which got into some responses to the defense's third
[00:02:15] Frank's memorandum, third Frank's motion. So what we have here is two
[00:02:19] sides arguing about Frank's issues within the case. The defense is
[00:02:24] claiming that essentially law enforcement has lied in the case
[00:02:29] which means that evidence should be dismissed on Frank's grounds
[00:02:34] whereas the prosecution is saying that actually the defense is lying and
[00:02:39] either over exaggerating or misleading the public on some of its
[00:02:44] statements. So a lot of this has come to a head recently and now we have
[00:02:50] the latest volley in this back and forth between both sides from the
[00:02:54] defense clarifying some things that the prosecution knocked down earlier.
[00:02:59] So we're going to be talking about this going through this document
[00:03:02] point by point and discussing what it all means for the case.
[00:03:06] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenlee.
[00:03:10] I'm an attorney and this is the murder sheet. We're a true crime
[00:03:14] podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep
[00:03:18] dives into murder cases. We're the murder sheet. And this is the
[00:03:23] Delphi murders. Defense replied a prosecution's response to third
[00:03:27] Frank's memorandum.
[00:03:44] So where do you want to start?
[00:04:14] Where to start indeed? I mean, that title is a mouthful, isn't it?
[00:04:18] Replies to response to the third memorandum. I hope that underscores
[00:04:23] to everyone. I was trying to think of something snappier and then
[00:04:26] I was like this pretty much says it all. This is where we are.
[00:04:29] We're in like the third Frank's memorandum and we're in
[00:04:35] you know, a reply to a response. That's where this is.
[00:04:40] So if you're confused, you're not alone.
[00:04:44] And not only that but in their reply to the response is we're
[00:04:50] seeing a moment they mentioned issues from the first and second
[00:04:54] Frank's memorandums issues which the judge made clear at
[00:05:00] the time that she didn't find terribly compelling or at least
[00:05:03] not compelling enough to grant a Frank's hearing.
[00:05:06] I've been you know, I've been for some reason like nonstop
[00:05:10] listening to Atlantic City by Bruce Springsteen recently and
[00:05:14] the lyric Everything Dies Baby That's a Fact but maybe
[00:05:16] everything that dies someday comes back feels like it applies
[00:05:19] to these Frank's memorandum because the judge will
[00:05:22] essentially again and again rule against the defense on this
[00:05:26] and they will keep on bringing it up in subsequent filings
[00:05:32] sort of like it feels like people getting into an argument
[00:05:35] and you feel like someone's not quite understanding you.
[00:05:37] So you just keep on repeating the same thing and maybe at some
[00:05:40] point they did understand you.
[00:05:41] They just don't agree.
[00:05:43] So it's kind of interesting.
[00:05:46] So where do they start?
[00:05:47] Well, we start.
[00:05:49] Well, should we maybe should we back up a tiny bit and talk
[00:05:52] about what the prosecution said in their last thing just
[00:05:55] for people may not be caught up entirely.
[00:05:58] The bombshell thing in the most recent prosecution
[00:06:01] response. Okay.
[00:06:03] Two bombshells.
[00:06:04] So one bombshell was that the prosecution essentially accused
[00:06:09] the defense of not understanding the concept of
[00:06:11] geofencing at all and misinterpreting a lot of data.
[00:06:15] And so basically if you don't understand geofencing,
[00:06:18] you're talking about these mysterious three phones
[00:06:21] that nobody knows who those are and you're basically
[00:06:23] misrepresenting that entirely and you don't even seem to
[00:06:26] understand how geofencing works.
[00:06:28] You're talking about it like it's pinpointing people at
[00:06:30] the crime scene.
[00:06:30] It can't do that.
[00:06:31] It's a much more inexact science.
[00:06:34] So that's one.
[00:06:36] So in that is frankly embarrassing.
[00:06:40] Oh yeah.
[00:06:41] Embarrassing to the defense, but it is not quite as
[00:06:45] embarrassing as the second bombshell and what was that?
[00:06:49] Okay.
[00:06:49] So the defense has made a really big deal over time
[00:06:53] about a Purdue professor named Jeffrey Turko.
[00:06:56] He specializes among other things in sort of medieval
[00:06:59] Norse literature.
[00:07:00] He's a guy who knows what runes are knows what they mean.
[00:07:04] And there's a lot of the defense has been banging a
[00:07:08] drum for for a long time about this and essentially
[00:07:12] saying that Lieutenant Jerry Holman of the state police
[00:07:16] lied that, you know, he interviewed Turko at some
[00:07:20] point and misrepresented his findings on the runes
[00:07:25] that they're crime scene and basically indicated he
[00:07:27] doesn't think they're really runes.
[00:07:29] He doesn't think this is connected to Odinism and
[00:07:31] what the defense is saying, we listened to the
[00:07:34] interview and that's not true.
[00:07:36] Turko is completely on our side and here's how.
[00:07:39] And so Holman lied and therefore if you lied then
[00:07:42] this is a Frank's issue.
[00:07:43] So that's their logic.
[00:07:44] Okay.
[00:07:44] So interesting people have really dug into that
[00:07:47] and been curious about that.
[00:07:49] Well, the last prosecution thing of the last
[00:07:51] prosecution filing to use a more technical term got
[00:07:55] into it and essentially said, we talked to Turko
[00:07:58] again.
[00:07:59] And again, he agrees with our interpretation of what
[00:08:03] he said, not the defense's interpretation of what
[00:08:06] he said.
[00:08:07] So essentially Holman wasn't lying.
[00:08:11] The defense was about what Turko said.
[00:08:15] And to me that was really alarming because the
[00:08:19] defense sort of unilaterally seemingly chose to
[00:08:21] focus an awful lot about this.
[00:08:23] And I would think that if you're going to focus on
[00:08:25] something, you would ensure that the man who's at
[00:08:28] the center of that focus is going to be definitely
[00:08:30] on your side or at least mostly on your side when
[00:08:33] it comes time to unpack everything.
[00:08:37] And it just.
[00:08:38] So this is why I say it's even more embarrassing
[00:08:40] because it's certainly embarrassing to apparently
[00:08:44] not understand geofencing and then mention it
[00:08:47] and discuss it at length in the filing.
[00:08:49] But geofencing is complicated.
[00:08:52] So maybe maybe that's certain.
[00:08:54] Maybe that's understandable to some extent, but they
[00:08:58] on their own chose to highlight Turko.
[00:09:02] They on their own chose this is a very important
[00:09:05] witness for us and they really seem to put a lot
[00:09:10] on his back.
[00:09:11] They didn't need to.
[00:09:12] He that was their choice.
[00:09:13] That was a choice.
[00:09:14] You would think they wouldn't put all that
[00:09:16] stuff on him unless they knew he would support
[00:09:19] it and it appears that he does not support it.
[00:09:23] A bluff was called and it seems like the cards
[00:09:26] they had didn't add up and maybe were like
[00:09:29] uno cards instead of poker cards, frankly.
[00:09:31] That's what that's what I feel this is.
[00:09:33] And frankly in this response, what I was looking
[00:09:36] for and we can discuss at the end if it achieved
[00:09:38] this, but I was looking for some sort of
[00:09:40] explanation of Turko addressing that maybe saying,
[00:09:44] OK, well, maybe we exaggerated a little bit,
[00:09:46] but we're mostly right and here's why.
[00:09:50] To me, if they do that successfully, then they're
[00:09:53] still in the game credibility wise because maybe
[00:09:55] maybe the prosecution over exaggerated in their response.
[00:09:58] So I was looking at how are they going to thread
[00:10:02] this needle here with Turko?
[00:10:03] And so at the end we can discuss and further
[00:10:06] in we can discuss.
[00:10:07] We'll get back to that.
[00:10:08] But for now let's move on.
[00:10:09] We will get back to that.
[00:10:10] We will certainly get back to that.
[00:10:11] Where did this document start?
[00:10:13] So oddly, they kind of kick off with discussion
[00:10:16] of Sarah Carbaugh and Betsy Blair.
[00:10:19] These are two witnesses in the case.
[00:10:21] And they claim that law enforcement misrepresented
[00:10:25] the substance of the interviews conducted
[00:10:29] with these two women.
[00:10:31] And this is kind of a deja vu situation.
[00:10:34] This is something they put in their earlier
[00:10:37] motions or some of the things that the judge
[00:10:40] did not find compelling enough to grant
[00:10:42] a Frank's hearing over.
[00:10:44] And certainly these alleged inconsistencies
[00:10:47] are something that could be exploited at trial, perhaps.
[00:10:52] But it didn't seem to rise to the level of granting
[00:10:54] a Frank's hearing and some of these alleged
[00:10:57] inconsistencies perhaps aren't inconsistency at all,
[00:11:01] frankly, because they talk a lot about how, oh,
[00:11:04] one of these witnesses did not say this
[00:11:06] in an interview in 2017.
[00:11:09] And well, maybe she was interviewed more than once.
[00:11:12] And maybe she supplied those details in a later interview.
[00:11:15] Yes.
[00:11:16] So it's not like that was being invented out of whole clause.
[00:11:20] There's a lot of lorally wording in some of these
[00:11:22] of like this 2017 interview doesn't say this.
[00:11:24] OK, but were there other interviews?
[00:11:27] And again, you could say, well, maybe her 2017 interview
[00:11:30] is the best interview because it was the closest
[00:11:32] to the time of the event.
[00:11:35] So her memory would be best then.
[00:11:37] So we should put more reliance on that.
[00:11:39] And if that's the argument you want to make,
[00:11:41] you can certainly make that in front of a jury.
[00:11:44] And you can certainly do some pretty aggressive
[00:11:47] cross examination with these witnesses.
[00:11:49] Well said. And I'm going to tell you this.
[00:11:50] It to me, some of these points are good for them.
[00:11:53] And as you said, could really work in front of a jury.
[00:11:56] They're just not going to rise to the level
[00:11:57] of getting a case thrown out or getting a Frank's hearing
[00:12:00] or getting, you know, someone to find Frank's issues
[00:12:03] in the case in this case, Judge Gull.
[00:12:05] It's there's a difference between something that's good
[00:12:07] for you and then something that's going to like completely
[00:12:09] blow apart the case that the prosecution has.
[00:12:12] Those are two different things.
[00:12:14] And to me, it's like if somebody,
[00:12:16] a young man inherited, let's say, a thousand dollars
[00:12:19] from an elderly relative who passed away.
[00:12:21] OK, that's good, right?
[00:12:23] It's good to have a thousand dollars
[00:12:24] that you didn't before.
[00:12:26] That's wonderful.
[00:12:27] He can he can do stuff with that.
[00:12:28] But it's like that young man then decides,
[00:12:30] I'm going to buy a house with this.
[00:12:32] You know, you're not going to be able to buy a house
[00:12:33] for a thousand dollars in this economy,
[00:12:35] in this real estate market.
[00:12:37] That's not going to happen.
[00:12:38] So you're you're projecting your needs and wants
[00:12:41] onto this a thousand dollars and trying to buy too much.
[00:12:44] It's not enough to accomplish that goal,
[00:12:47] but it can still be helpful and accomplish other goals.
[00:12:49] And if you have a lot of one thousand dollar goals,
[00:12:52] you're going to build up enough that you could buy a house.
[00:12:54] Perhaps you can put it in the bank
[00:12:56] to ultimately buy a house.
[00:12:58] In this case, I think buying a house is getting getting an acquittal,
[00:13:01] but you're not going to necessarily get a house right now,
[00:13:04] which is having the case thrown out.
[00:13:05] Like does that make sense?
[00:13:06] I hope that makes sense to people
[00:13:07] because something can be generally good for the defense,
[00:13:11] but that this defense team is for some reason
[00:13:14] trying to take to the bank in a way that it's not going to work.
[00:13:18] And also the problem with that is that then
[00:13:21] you are essentially giving the prosecution
[00:13:24] a sneak peek at some of the points you may be making
[00:13:27] and giving them time to figure out what their witness is,
[00:13:30] how they're going to get over that issue in front of a jury.
[00:13:34] So it's like you're not you're kind of not holding your fire
[00:13:38] and therefore you're giving away your position.
[00:13:40] What's more fun than living out your own cozy mystery?
[00:13:44] You know, Kevin, and I love to explore real life mysteries.
[00:13:47] Well, sometimes it's a nice break
[00:13:49] to get immersed in a fictional mystery story
[00:13:51] and playing the free to download hidden object game,
[00:13:54] June's journey is just like starring in your own caper.
[00:13:58] This game is a great way to sharpen your observational skills
[00:14:01] and encourage yourself to take quick,
[00:14:04] re-energizing breaks throughout the day.
[00:14:06] You play as June Parker, a flapper slash sleuth
[00:14:11] who navigates jazz age mysteries with a plove.
[00:14:13] In between levels, you can also build up your own fancy island estate.
[00:14:18] And you know I'm all about that.
[00:14:20] You can plant flowers, float on swan ponds
[00:14:22] and even set loose a beautiful horse.
[00:14:24] It's very fun.
[00:14:26] We enjoy playing this game when we're waiting around for a source
[00:14:29] to call us back or when we're stuck outside
[00:14:31] waiting for a courthouse to open up.
[00:14:33] It's great fun.
[00:14:35] Discover your inner detective
[00:14:36] when you download June's journey for free today on iOS and Android.
[00:14:41] At the murder sheet, we're all about immersive audio experiences.
[00:14:46] That's why we love Audible.
[00:14:48] An Audible subscription gives you access to thousands of audiobook titles.
[00:14:53] We especially enjoy their robust selection of mysteries,
[00:14:57] thrillers and true crime.
[00:14:59] I love Audible.
[00:15:00] I really enjoyed listening to A Wicked Snow by Greg Olson.
[00:15:05] This story is all about a CSI investigator with a dark past
[00:15:09] and a terrible family secret.
[00:15:10] When I'm listening to Audible, it plunks me right down in the middle of the story.
[00:15:15] It's so spine-tingling that I can practically feel the cold air on my skin.
[00:15:19] Audible is your one stop destination for thrillers and mysteries.
[00:15:23] Just be prepared to get spooked in the best possible way.
[00:15:27] Listening to audiobooks offers a wonderful respite from the day.
[00:15:31] Audible allows you to listen on the go.
[00:15:34] I love taking a walk or a drive and just getting lost in a story.
[00:15:39] My favorite audiobook on Audible so far is Presumed Innocent,
[00:15:43] the book track edition.
[00:15:45] This classic legal thriller by Scott Turrell is enhanced by a grip
[00:15:49] in musical soundtrack that amplifies the story's suspense
[00:15:52] and profound emotional beats.
[00:15:55] As a new member, you can try out Audible for free for 30 days.
[00:15:59] This is such a valuable membership and you get access to so many
[00:16:02] new listening experiences, including podcasts, Audible originals
[00:16:07] and Audible exclusives like the Words Plus music series.
[00:16:11] Visit Audible.com slash M-sheet or text M-sheet to 500-500.
[00:16:21] CarMax is putting peace of mind back in car shopping by putting you
[00:16:25] in the driver's seat to find a ride that's right for you.
[00:16:28] Because at CarMax, we believe you shouldn't just settle for a car.
[00:16:32] You should love your car.
[00:16:33] That's why every car we sell is CarMax certified quality
[00:16:37] so you can be sure with upfront pricing that's the same for every customer.
[00:16:41] So don't settle.
[00:16:42] Find love at first drive and start shopping now at CarMax.com.
[00:16:47] CarMax, the way car buying should be.
[00:16:50] And another instance of them reprising some of their greatest hits
[00:16:55] from earlier Frank's filings is they are still a very upset
[00:17:02] that in the PCA for the Allen Search warrant, Tony Liggett
[00:17:06] did not mention Brad Holder.
[00:17:09] And it's not clear to me why they think that when you prepare a search warrant
[00:17:18] for someone, you have to include a capsule history of the entire
[00:17:23] history of the investigation and all the other people who may have
[00:17:26] been suspected and cleared.
[00:17:29] I would love to see some case law on that.
[00:17:32] I'm not aware of any.
[00:17:34] I yeah.
[00:17:36] That because you may disagree with the investigation, but I think it is fair
[00:17:42] to say that at the time this probable cause affidavit to search Richard
[00:17:47] Allen's home was prepared.
[00:17:50] The investigators on this case all believed that Brad Holder had been
[00:17:56] cleared because he had a very compelling and convincing alibi.
[00:18:00] I feel like the pearl clutching rhetoric about how could we not include
[00:18:04] Brad Holder on this?
[00:18:05] Come on, guys is more of about like trying to train the public
[00:18:10] and the media to think of Brad Holder as a really good suspect
[00:18:13] more than anything.
[00:18:15] When people read that enough, maybe they're like, well,
[00:18:17] yeah, Brad Holder's pretty important.
[00:18:19] And I mean, I think that's, you know, not necessarily a given
[00:18:24] considering this theory.
[00:18:26] I think that's definitely what the defense wants people to think
[00:18:28] and wants the jury to take away.
[00:18:30] But I don't necessarily think that everyone needs to agree with that.
[00:18:36] Let's just say that they also there's some question from the
[00:18:44] prosecution that they respond to where the point of the Frank's
[00:18:48] hearing is to allegedly establish that law enforcement essentially
[00:18:57] did corrupt things in 2022 when they were preparing the search warrant.
[00:19:01] But a lot of the things in the various Frank's memoranda
[00:19:05] highlight things that were done in 2023.
[00:19:09] So the question the prosecution had was why do you believe that
[00:19:16] things that occurred in 2023 have any relevance to inquiry as
[00:19:23] two things that happened in 2022?
[00:19:26] What was the defense's reply?
[00:19:29] Essentially, the defense says, you know, if the law enforcement was
[00:19:35] corrupt in 2023, then we can assume they were also corrupt in 2022.
[00:19:42] And let me just say assuming law enforcement in this case is
[00:19:45] corrupt in 2023.
[00:19:47] Do I believe that they have proven that?
[00:19:49] No.
[00:19:50] Do I believe that that is a huge leap at this time?
[00:19:53] Yes.
[00:19:54] But that's what they're saying.
[00:19:56] If they were corrupt in 2023, I think it is fair to say that the
[00:20:03] defense has not as of yet provided any evidence of that.
[00:20:08] Let me just say this.
[00:20:10] When you're making legal arguments, when you're making
[00:20:12] any kind of arguments in your life, overstating can be a problem.
[00:20:16] It can become a problem.
[00:20:17] If I am annoyed because maybe Kevin once left me to do
[00:20:22] the dishes by myself and he didn't help me and I felt that
[00:20:24] was inconsiderate.
[00:20:27] If I go to him and said, Kevin, you are an evil, evil man.
[00:20:31] You are standing here twirling your mustache and tying people
[00:20:36] to railroad tracks and being a dastardly villain.
[00:20:39] And I hate you.
[00:20:40] And I mean, we can't be together after this.
[00:20:44] Then that's not really like that's not a way of getting what
[00:20:47] I want, which is potentially to have him help me with the
[00:20:51] dishes in the future.
[00:20:52] So that's a silly example, obviously.
[00:20:54] But with this, it's like I'm concerned from Richard Allen's
[00:20:59] perspective that if they're putting law enforcement on trial
[00:21:02] in this way, arguing incompetence is a lot easier to prove
[00:21:07] and a lot easier to sell to a jury than arguing a vast
[00:21:11] odiness conspiracy, in my opinion, or even any sort of
[00:21:15] vast conspiracy.
[00:21:16] I think you all you have to do to prove some incompetence
[00:21:20] or major incompetence is to list mistakes that were made,
[00:21:23] which there are certainly going to be mistakes made in this
[00:21:25] case. I mean, no doubt of that.
[00:21:27] No doubt of that.
[00:21:28] There are in every case, but this is a high profile case.
[00:21:30] And so the mistakes are going to shine brightly.
[00:21:33] And it also is a case that's lasted seven years, seven years.
[00:21:36] And so in the course of a multi-year investigation,
[00:21:40] there are obviously going to be mistakes made by law enforcement.
[00:21:43] And some of them can make can look bad in front of a jury
[00:21:46] and could be highly effective.
[00:21:48] So I would say arguing incompetence is effective, easier.
[00:21:54] And, you know, the only thing that arguing maliciousness has
[00:21:59] on its side is that it's frankly sexier.
[00:22:02] It's cooler if there's a big old conspiracy that you're up
[00:22:04] against fighting against that.
[00:22:07] That's like a cool thing in a storytelling atmosphere,
[00:22:10] I guess, in a storytelling mode that's going to make for
[00:22:14] an more interesting antagonist.
[00:22:16] But we're not in a fictional world, obviously.
[00:22:20] We're very much in the real world.
[00:22:22] And so I don't I don't understand why you do this, I guess,
[00:22:26] with with basically.
[00:22:29] I mean, most of their examples seem like they don't agree
[00:22:31] with us about Brad Holder and.
[00:22:34] These like little bits of minutia that probably could be
[00:22:38] explained and interpreted differently.
[00:22:40] And then I want to jump back before we move on.
[00:22:44] And highlight this argument where they say, well, we believe
[00:22:47] if we prove they were corrupt in 2023, then that proves
[00:22:53] they were also corrupt in 2022.
[00:22:56] And I just want to take a moment and stress how bizarre
[00:23:00] it feels to me to hear defense attorneys make that kind of argument
[00:23:05] because typically defense attorneys would really, really rebel
[00:23:10] against that sort of argument.
[00:23:12] If you have, for instance, a client who is accused of
[00:23:17] committing some sort of domestic violence.
[00:23:20] The last thing you want is for witnesses to come in and talk
[00:23:24] about his history of domestic violence.
[00:23:27] You would say, oh, just because he may have committed
[00:23:30] domestic violence on these other dates doesn't mean he did it
[00:23:33] on this date.
[00:23:34] And they would usually try to stress that if you want to
[00:23:38] convict him of committing domestic violence on June 16th, 20,
[00:23:43] whatever, then you have to find evidence to prove that particular
[00:23:47] charge.
[00:23:47] You can't go into the past and pull things from his criminal
[00:23:50] record and use those to try to sway a jury or a judge.
[00:23:55] So it just seems very surreal to hear defense attorneys make
[00:24:00] that sort of argument when I would, I fully would expect
[00:24:05] Baldwin and Rosie to have made just the opposite argument.
[00:24:08] Many, many, many, many, many times throughout their career.
[00:24:12] Yeah.
[00:24:12] And those are cases that would be that hypothetical would
[00:24:15] involve cases that were actually adjudicated as opposed to
[00:24:19] just like the vibe is bad, which frankly it feels like a
[00:24:23] lot of this is.
[00:24:24] And again, you can use it to your advantage in a trial
[00:24:29] in front of a jury that doesn't mean that it's going
[00:24:31] to serve its purpose in whatever specific filing or what
[00:24:35] not, in whatever specific goal you have that you're asking
[00:24:38] for in that filing.
[00:24:39] In this case, Frank's Frank stuff.
[00:24:41] So I don't I don't know.
[00:24:43] I don't get it.
[00:24:45] Should we should we go on to the order?
[00:24:48] The drafted order?
[00:24:49] Let's talk about this drafted order.
[00:24:51] And before we really get into the meat of it, let me just
[00:24:54] say what it is in the middle of their reply.
[00:25:00] They include a draft of an order, I guess they're proposing
[00:25:05] for the judge to sign.
[00:25:07] And it's not unusual for lawyers to prepare drafts
[00:25:11] of orders for judges to sign.
[00:25:14] That's totally normal.
[00:25:16] This this particular draft seems a bit more unusual
[00:25:22] because of how detailed it is.
[00:25:25] And frankly, at least to my ear, parts of it seem sort
[00:25:32] of condescending to Judge Gull.
[00:25:35] And also it was striking to me how in this this draft
[00:25:42] motion they have Judge Gull not only agreeing to a hearing
[00:25:50] but also seeming to reach all sorts of conclusions
[00:25:54] including basically all the conclusions that Rosie and Baldwin
[00:25:59] in their hearts of hearts on their wish list of things
[00:26:02] they want Judge Gull to find.
[00:26:06] All of the stuff she agrees with, for instance, I'm going
[00:26:11] to quote here.
[00:26:12] They have Judge Gull in their draft that they want Judge
[00:26:16] Gull to say quote those facts materially affect the
[00:26:20] timeline in such a way as to show that Richard Allen was
[00:26:23] not on the bridge nor was his car parked the CPS lot
[00:26:27] and was therefore not the man that committed the murders
[00:26:30] in quote. So they are essentially wanting Judge
[00:26:33] Gull to sign a motion saying that their client is
[00:26:37] innocent of the crimes of which he's charged.
[00:26:40] And why is that weird?
[00:26:42] Why explain that?
[00:26:43] What is that weird?
[00:26:44] But yeah, between you and me, a judge is not going
[00:26:47] to sign a motion for a hearing in which he just
[00:26:50] casually mentions, oh, by the way, the man accused of
[00:26:53] these crimes has to be innocent.
[00:26:55] Yeah.
[00:26:57] It's the very least if she thought there was some sort
[00:27:00] of meat on the bones here, she would want a hearing
[00:27:03] with some of these things could be addressed.
[00:27:06] And this sort of thing really highlights something
[00:27:09] to me. One thing you are taught in law school
[00:27:14] pretty early on and maybe you're taught this
[00:27:16] in other professions too.
[00:27:18] Maybe you're taught this in life where know your
[00:27:21] audience, figure out who it is you are talking to
[00:27:26] and try to tailor your requests and such to them.
[00:27:31] And in this case, they are addressing Judge
[00:27:34] Gull and they want certain motions and decisions
[00:27:38] from Judge Gull.
[00:27:39] And so you would expect for them to address her
[00:27:43] respectfully and prepare motions which she could
[00:27:47] plausibly sign.
[00:27:49] And the fact that she is not being addressed
[00:27:52] respectfully and they are preparing motions
[00:27:56] which in no reality would she ever signs.
[00:28:00] It really makes me think that their true audience
[00:28:03] here is not Judge Gull, that it is the media
[00:28:06] or perhaps more specifically that tiny subset of
[00:28:10] people online who are hyper, hyper pro conspiracy
[00:28:16] pro Richard Allen innocence.
[00:28:19] And I feel frankly that that crowd in particular
[00:28:23] has had an undue influence on how Rosie and Baldwin
[00:28:28] and others have handled this case.
[00:28:30] And I feel that is to the detriment of Richard Allen.
[00:28:33] I concur. I will say in my view, this defense
[00:28:37] team has essentially alienated the judge from
[00:28:39] the jump to a certain extent.
[00:28:41] I think that we first see that concretely sort of
[00:28:46] indicated when they apparently tell the judge
[00:28:50] in chambers that they are not going to try this
[00:28:53] case in the press under any uncertain terms.
[00:28:56] And we're all in agreement on that and then
[00:28:59] turn around and release a press release shortly
[00:29:01] thereafter.
[00:29:02] That is not the action of attorneys who are
[00:29:04] concerned with, you know, a relationship
[00:29:08] with a judge who are concerned about showing
[00:29:09] respect, who are concerned about basically
[00:29:13] tailoring their case to a judge to a certain
[00:29:16] extent. I just that that feels like.
[00:29:22] I don't know.
[00:29:23] I think that I think that gives a pretty good
[00:29:24] indication into how they feel about her.
[00:29:27] And I guess I know that we all have to work
[00:29:30] with people that we, you know, don't get along
[00:29:33] with her whatnot.
[00:29:34] But I think it's there's an imperative to
[00:29:36] somewhat at least not go out of your way to
[00:29:39] alienated judge in a case you're trying,
[00:29:41] especially one this high profile.
[00:29:42] And I would have mentioned again that let me
[00:29:44] just say this predates this predates by a lot
[00:29:47] her kicking them off.
[00:29:48] Yeah.
[00:29:49] And I just want to mention again, we remember
[00:29:51] that David Hennessey, another attorney on
[00:29:54] this case has been very vocal, apparently
[00:29:59] in violation of the gag order.
[00:30:00] I don't know.
[00:30:00] Maybe it doesn't apply to him.
[00:30:02] I don't know.
[00:30:03] But he's certainly given interviews on YouTube
[00:30:05] and elsewhere where he's very critical of the judge.
[00:30:07] At one point, he compares her to Gollum.
[00:30:09] These are not the sorts of things you do
[00:30:12] if you're trying to reach a particular person.
[00:30:16] And I think if I were Richard Allen
[00:30:19] or someone who cared about Richard Allen,
[00:30:22] I would prefer for the focus of my attorneys
[00:30:25] to be on reaching that judge in this courtroom
[00:30:27] and not trying to please a bunch of people
[00:30:30] on YouTube or Twitter with excessive rhetoric.
[00:30:34] Who you've already won over.
[00:30:36] I mean, that's what that's what I mean.
[00:30:39] These people who have decided to make their
[00:30:42] entire personality feeling a certain way about this case,
[00:30:46] they're not going to change their minds.
[00:30:47] They're probably going to follow you anywhere.
[00:30:48] You got them.
[00:30:49] So maybe then it's time to brought him when
[00:30:52] you have people who are already at the point
[00:30:53] where they're embarrassing themselves online
[00:30:55] by calling you like the defense daddies.
[00:30:58] I think you got him.
[00:30:59] You can maybe move on.
[00:31:01] Yeah, we should stress that there are
[00:31:03] a lot of intelligent, goodhearted people out there
[00:31:08] who either believe that Richard Allen
[00:31:10] is not guilty of these crimes or who believe
[00:31:15] that they have not seen evidence to prove his guilt.
[00:31:18] Yeah, those are reasonable positions.
[00:31:21] Those are not the people we're talking about here.
[00:31:23] I'm talking about people who again have essentially
[00:31:29] kind of joined a kind of a cult like sort
[00:31:31] of group that exists online, that is like spreading
[00:31:35] conspiracy theories in the case and behaving
[00:31:37] in all sorts of embarrassing ways.
[00:31:39] That's what I'm talking about.
[00:31:40] Think of it this way.
[00:31:41] Let's let's say I don't know what your job is.
[00:31:44] Whatever your job is, let's say you really feel
[00:31:47] you deserve a raise and maybe the person who
[00:31:50] makes the decision as to whether or not you get
[00:31:53] the raise, maybe that's not your favorite person
[00:31:55] in the world.
[00:31:56] When you address that person to ask for your raise,
[00:31:59] I'm going to guess you're not going to be
[00:32:01] insulting. You're not going to be condescending.
[00:32:03] You're going to bite your tongue and try to
[00:32:07] ask your question in such a way as to maximize
[00:32:10] your chances of getting what you want from that person.
[00:32:13] And you certainly wouldn't want your friends
[00:32:15] or your family to go around on YouTube or
[00:32:18] elsewhere making frankly offensive comments
[00:32:22] about your boss and your boss's judgment.
[00:32:25] That's not what you would do if you wanted
[00:32:28] your boss to give you what you hoped for.
[00:32:30] But it's what you might do if you thought it
[00:32:33] would appeal to some wider audience, I guess.
[00:32:38] It's what you would do if your goal was not
[00:32:40] to get your boss to give you the raise.
[00:32:42] But if your goal was for some reason to try
[00:32:44] to publicly humiliate and embarrass your boss.
[00:32:47] Yeah, it's bizarre.
[00:32:48] I mean, I'm going to.
[00:32:49] So the rest of this document, they get into again
[00:32:53] the Turco thing.
[00:32:56] They're still trying to accuse Holman
[00:32:58] of lying about what Turco said under oath.
[00:33:01] Again, Turco himself has said that they were misrepresenting him
[00:33:05] and the Holman's description of what he said
[00:33:07] and his general opinions was far more accurate
[00:33:09] than what the defense put out there.
[00:33:11] I'm going to tell you personally.
[00:33:15] OK, so this this is a problem for me
[00:33:18] because as I mentioned at the top, I was a lot.
[00:33:23] I was I was hoping for something
[00:33:25] a little more concrete from the defense
[00:33:26] about how this could have happened,
[00:33:29] that they put out something
[00:33:30] that Turco himself is completely disavowing
[00:33:34] in these filings and why they put so much pressure on
[00:33:38] like this one interview with a person
[00:33:41] who doesn't even specialize in current
[00:33:44] white supremacy movements or Odinism.
[00:33:46] Like his specialty is in again medieval Norse.
[00:33:50] So I was hoping for for something
[00:33:53] that was a little bit more like a explanation
[00:33:56] of what happened here, and they don't really address
[00:33:58] much of it other than to say the same thing
[00:34:01] that they've been repeating that Turco has now disavowed and debunked.
[00:34:05] So I don't know.
[00:34:08] To me, that's that's very problematic.
[00:34:11] It's an own goal
[00:34:12] because they didn't need to make Turco a big thing.
[00:34:15] They could have easily found an expert,
[00:34:17] I believe, who would have at least, you know,
[00:34:19] gone in the general direction
[00:34:21] that they were trying to go with with this
[00:34:24] selecting Turco and then making a big deal of it
[00:34:27] before they knew what he was actually thinking.
[00:34:29] Seems incredibly sloppy.
[00:34:31] And I can tell you from my personal perspective,
[00:34:34] this incident paired with perhaps other things,
[00:34:37] but certainly this being a final straw,
[00:34:40] I don't think from my personal opinion,
[00:34:43] and again, this is my personal opinion,
[00:34:45] you don't have to agree with me.
[00:34:46] I'm just being completely candid here.
[00:34:49] Their credibility
[00:34:51] isn't dead from where I stand,
[00:34:53] but it is on life support with me.
[00:34:56] And maybe there are difficult conversations
[00:34:59] ahead with the doctors.
[00:35:01] That's how I feel.
[00:35:02] And I don't understand.
[00:35:06] It all just seems totally unnecessary.
[00:35:10] Staking your credibility on something that.
[00:35:15] I mean, I don't know whether they didn't look into it
[00:35:17] or they just assumed or I don't know.
[00:35:21] But it's very disturbing to me.
[00:35:24] I was concerned by the issues you raise.
[00:35:27] I'm concerned about just the way things are presented.
[00:35:32] They complain a lot about how they got Turco's name.
[00:35:37] They say, well, you know, on September 6,
[00:35:39] Nick McLean wrote us an email saying,
[00:35:42] we're not entirely sure who this Purdue professor is.
[00:35:46] But apparently at some point prior to that,
[00:35:50] Lieutenant Holman had told McLean,
[00:35:52] well, it might be this guy.
[00:35:54] But if I tell Anya, oh, it might be this guy.
[00:35:59] And Anya then tells someone else,
[00:36:01] we don't know for sure who it is.
[00:36:03] Anya is not lying because I haven't told her
[00:36:06] it's definitely this person.
[00:36:07] I've told her it might be this person.
[00:36:09] Yeah, that's that's I mean, also who cares?
[00:36:12] I'm sorry.
[00:36:12] Like this delay.
[00:36:14] I mean, there's so much haranguing about it.
[00:36:16] What is the material effect of this?
[00:36:19] And again, that does not explain why they seemingly mischaracterized
[00:36:26] this professor's words, opinions, analysis.
[00:36:32] And the fact that, again, the professor was essentially
[00:36:35] doing an exercise at that, you know, basically in the
[00:36:40] prosecution's filing, it notes that the professor's report
[00:36:42] had essentially a statement to the effect of I'm going
[00:36:45] to assume that these are runes.
[00:36:48] You know, I can't know that for sure.
[00:36:50] But in that, you know, to kind of do this exercise,
[00:36:53] I'm going to just assume that they are so like
[00:36:57] that would have been in what they received.
[00:36:59] That would have been what they heard.
[00:37:00] I don't understand why they would characterize it
[00:37:03] in the way that they did.
[00:37:04] And here's here's a point I want to make and really stress.
[00:37:12] Obviously, at least in our opinions,
[00:37:15] there are a lot of troubles with the Frank's memorandum
[00:37:19] and the arguments made therein.
[00:37:22] But even if we criticize these arguments about Turco or what have you,
[00:37:29] that doesn't mean that it makes Richard Allen guilty.
[00:37:35] Richard Allen could still be a factually innocent man.
[00:37:41] And he could just have attorneys who are arguing side issues
[00:37:46] for whatever reason that they are doing poorly with.
[00:37:51] And that doesn't mean that he is guilty of the crime.
[00:37:55] That's what's disturbing to me about this whole thing
[00:37:57] is what what they're doing on his behalf in my view seems to be.
[00:38:04] A mess, it's becoming unglued.
[00:38:06] And I I I don't feel like that is setting him up to
[00:38:14] receive the the defense he needs at trial.
[00:38:18] As I've said before, you know, strenuous defense running around,
[00:38:21] yelling, getting mad, being aggressive.
[00:38:25] That's what we're told is a good defense by television shows.
[00:38:28] But in real life, often it looks a little bit calmer
[00:38:31] and a little bit more close to the vest,
[00:38:35] a little bit more picking apart the prosecutions,
[00:38:38] you know, knocking down their Jenga tower, essentially,
[00:38:41] instead of constructing a whole new theory that then you have to prove.
[00:38:47] I mean, they don't have to prove anything.
[00:38:49] They don't they just have to essentially establish reasonable doubt.
[00:38:52] And I think it's a lot easier to knock down what the prosecution has
[00:38:56] in this case than to construct a whole problematic theory
[00:39:00] that's like naming people and I don't know.
[00:39:04] It's certainly better for the Hollywood version of the story,
[00:39:07] but it's not necessarily better for his defense.
[00:39:10] So I think a nightmare scenario and I'm not I don't know what to make of all this.
[00:39:15] But I think a nightmare scenario would be what if Richard Allen is factually innocent,
[00:39:20] but he ends up getting convicted because the the defense does such a poor job
[00:39:27] and their odinism argument just falls apart under its own weight.
[00:39:32] If I were someone who cared about Richard Allen,
[00:39:35] I would be very concerned about that.
[00:39:38] Whether you're working out, walking or running errands,
[00:39:41] Audible can help you keep your heart rate up month after month
[00:39:44] with their pulse pounding collection of thrilling audio books
[00:39:48] that you can't hear anywhere else.
[00:39:50] As an Audible member, you can choose one title a month to keep
[00:39:53] from their entire catalog, which includes thousands of titles.
[00:39:57] This month, check out the Audible original, The Space Within.
[00:40:00] It's a chilling eight part story about a psychiatrist, Dr.
[00:40:04] Maddie Weill, voiced by Academy Award winner Jessica Chastain,
[00:40:08] who is tasked with unlocking the memories of a child
[00:40:10] who went missing for seven hours.
[00:40:13] Maddie soon discovers that there are more who have faced similar experiences
[00:40:17] and the truth of what is happening to them may impact the fate of humankind.
[00:40:21] New members can try Audible free for 30 days.
[00:40:24] Visit audible.com slash thrill or text thrill to 500 500.
[00:40:30] You can host the best backyard barbecue.
[00:40:34] When you find a professional on Angie to make your backyard the best around,
[00:40:43] connect with skill professionals to get all your home projects done well.
[00:40:48] Inside to outside, repairs to renovations.
[00:40:51] Get started on the Angie app or visit our website.
[00:40:55] Visit our website.
[00:40:57] Get started on the Angie app or visit Angie.com today.
[00:41:02] You can do this when you Angie that.
[00:41:07] What makes a life a good one?
[00:41:10] Is it the adventure you have?
[00:41:12] Or the friends you find along the way?
[00:41:16] Maybe it's pursuing your passion while striving to protect,
[00:41:19] defend and save what you believe in every single day.
[00:41:24] So what makes a life a good one?
[00:41:27] In the Coast Guard, we think it's all of the above and more.
[00:41:32] You'll have to find out for yourself.
[00:41:34] Visit go Coast Guard dot com to learn more.
[00:41:40] One weird thing about this filing is that it talks about how three investigators,
[00:41:45] namely Todd, click, Greg Ferencine, Kevin Murphy were convinced by the Odinist theory
[00:41:55] and that like making a big deal frequently about like three investigators thought this was a good theory.
[00:42:00] I don't know why they keep emphasizing that.
[00:42:02] I get the sense that given that they arrested Richard Allen and charged him with the crime,
[00:42:06] probably more than three investigators think that he did it.
[00:42:09] So getting into some bizarre numerical contest about this just seems odd to emphasize that.
[00:42:15] And in addition to that, the only one we've seen really speak to this is Todd click so far.
[00:42:20] Todd click being the former assistant chief, police chief of Rushville, Indiana,
[00:42:25] who assisted Kevin Murphy of the state police and Greg Ferencine,
[00:42:30] who was an FBI task force member and police officer out of Terre Haute, Indiana with this angle.
[00:42:38] We don't know what Murphy's stance is.
[00:42:41] And unfortunately, Greg Ferencine is deceased.
[00:42:44] He was murdered.
[00:42:45] You were talking early about the things you hoped for from the defense in this document.
[00:42:50] One thing I'm very curious to see from the prosecution is I would love to find out what
[00:42:58] Kevin Murphy thinks of the Odinism angle.
[00:43:01] I honestly don't know.
[00:43:02] I don't know either.
[00:43:03] I'd be curious.
[00:43:04] Listen, if he if he's like, yeah, I still think that's the correct one,
[00:43:07] then that's a boon for the defense.
[00:43:09] If he has a more muted reaction to it as something we looked into and had some
[00:43:14] promising leads but didn't go anywhere, then obviously that's not going to be as good.
[00:43:18] But we don't know.
[00:43:19] There's no way of knowing that at this time before he comes out on either side.
[00:43:24] I just thought it was odd that they kept on making like three investigators.
[00:43:28] It was kind of interesting because they have a lot of findings in this motion
[00:43:32] that they prepare for the judge to sign.
[00:43:35] And like I say, it has the judge say, oh, by the way, Richard Allen is not guilty.
[00:43:40] It has all sorts of findings about Holman and Liggett and all these other things.
[00:43:46] It's like their wish list of things they want the judge to say about the case
[00:43:51] and their conclusions about the case.
[00:43:54] And it's like, it made me think it'd be like back when I was trying to romance Anya.
[00:44:01] If I sent her an email invitation to dinner and included with that invitation
[00:44:07] something for her to send me back, which he says, yes, I'll go out to dinner with you
[00:44:11] because you are charming and witty and absolutely perfect in every way.
[00:44:16] You wouldn't need to draft that for me.
[00:44:18] I would have already thought that.
[00:44:21] But yeah, that is sort of what it is, the kind of fantasy filings.
[00:44:28] I don't know.
[00:44:28] It just seems kind of like they don't really know.
[00:44:33] I mean, it seems like they know who they're writing for.
[00:44:35] It's just not the judge.
[00:44:36] Should we jump ahead and cover what they say about geofencing?
[00:44:41] Sure.
[00:44:42] All right.
[00:44:42] Let's get into geofencing.
[00:44:44] One thing that is, there's many things interesting in this.
[00:44:51] They don't claim to know for sure to understand geofencing.
[00:44:57] So they're not saying, oh, by the way, the prosecution is wrong.
[00:45:00] And we were right.
[00:45:01] Yeah, they're just saying, yeah, we don't do it.
[00:45:03] We don't know.
[00:45:04] But they do acknowledge in there that they had a geofencing expert.
[00:45:07] Yeah, let's get into this because this also touches on the freaking crowd funding.
[00:45:11] I mean, geez.
[00:45:15] Okay.
[00:45:15] So I'll quote, so on or about October 6th, 2023, the defense received geofencing evidence.
[00:45:22] Prosecutor requested the defense kicked off the case only days after it,
[00:45:27] the defense received this evidence.
[00:45:28] So they got the geofencing stuff on October 6th.
[00:45:33] They seem to be saying there that we weren't able to really do much with geofencing
[00:45:38] because we got kicked off shortly thereafter.
[00:45:40] Meanwhile, it is.
[00:45:41] Tell us about the expert.
[00:45:42] Well, it's April right now.
[00:45:44] But so the expert notes, well, let's get the quote where they mentioned it.
[00:45:51] So quote after the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated the defense team,
[00:45:55] the defense team received the geofencing data in the form of charts in a map on or
[00:45:59] about January 30th, 2024.
[00:46:02] The defense then took that information to its expert for review.
[00:46:05] Okay.
[00:46:06] So that's they have an expert and they're working with them as of,
[00:46:10] let's say early February.
[00:46:12] So then why by mid-March did they not have a full understanding of geofencing?
[00:46:21] Are you asking me or?
[00:46:22] I'm asking you.
[00:46:23] I don't know.
[00:46:25] I don't know why they're not having at least a little bit of a grasp of the concepts,
[00:46:31] which again pretty clearly hold that in them, you know, basically in no way does it show
[00:46:37] people's exact locations.
[00:46:39] It's an approximation of general area that can vary by up to thousands of yards.
[00:46:48] That's that could vary quite a lot at least.
[00:46:50] I don't know the exact calculations and everything, so I'm not going to.
[00:46:53] But it's a wide, it's a, it's a, it's not an approximate specific tool necessarily.
[00:46:59] I'm going to read another quote.
[00:47:01] After getting back on the case, the defense has now had just over two months to analyze
[00:47:05] this important evidence along with all the other evidence it has received in quote.
[00:47:11] So first of all, they say they've had two months to discuss geofencing with this expert and
[00:47:18] they're suggesting that is not enough time for us to fully understand geofencing.
[00:47:23] So let's say, okay, sure, maybe you need more time.
[00:47:27] Then why on earth are they rushing towards a trial in mid-May?
[00:47:33] Why are there other experts out there too that they need to talk to?
[00:47:38] Well, why are they just slap a dashing all of this into a filing if they don't know what
[00:47:43] they're talking about and admitting that.
[00:47:45] That's what I want to know.
[00:47:46] And that goes back to, well, oh, there's a trial in May.
[00:47:50] Well, guess who's whose idea that is?
[00:47:52] Guess who wants that?
[00:47:54] I would love for there to be a trial in May because I just,
[00:47:59] I just want this to be over.
[00:48:02] But I don't think that's going to happen.
[00:48:04] And it's filings like this that give me the sense of looming dread that there's no way this
[00:48:10] is going to happen.
[00:48:12] They're not ready.
[00:48:14] They don't seem to really have anything together.
[00:48:22] I mean, honestly, I'm a little skeptical.
[00:48:23] I know they're busy and they have to do a lot, but like two months to not even
[00:48:27] understand anything about geofencing, they seemingly got money to pay an expert to a certain
[00:48:32] extent, although we'll get into that in a minute.
[00:48:35] I don't know.
[00:48:37] It's like on the one hand you could say, well, if they don't have a geofencing expert,
[00:48:40] then maybe the filing makes sense.
[00:48:42] But then you can also say, I mean, but if they have a geofencing expert,
[00:48:46] then it really doesn't make any sense why how that got filed.
[00:48:49] Yeah.
[00:48:50] Because again, you can, you maybe you don't have the geofencing expert for everything
[00:48:55] you want and you want more money.
[00:48:56] I can understand that, but you would think that they would come away with like a little bit
[00:48:59] of an understanding about the concepts of geofencing.
[00:49:04] So let's read another quote.
[00:49:05] They're kind of explaining why they don't really know geofencing, I guess.
[00:49:10] Quote, this court has since denied funds for the defense technology expert to conduct
[00:49:14] further analysis on geofencing evidence.
[00:49:18] Uh, unquote.
[00:49:20] So they had the geofencing data.
[00:49:22] They had some kind of geofencing expert.
[00:49:24] They completely misinterpreted it.
[00:49:27] I mean, I don't know whether this is a case where, uh,
[00:49:32] I mean, the judge does not owe them unlimited funds for everything.
[00:49:37] That's that's one thing we hear from pretty much anyone who's worked criminal defense.
[00:49:42] Like that's not that's not going to happen for a case like this.
[00:49:47] But I don't know.
[00:49:49] It's really hard to assess exactly the validity or the lack thereof of what they want without
[00:49:57] knowing exactly what they're asking for and also what they have received money to do in the past.
[00:50:02] So I don't know if we can know much, but it seems like they've been cut off
[00:50:08] the lease on this defense expert.
[00:50:10] It's hard again.
[00:50:11] It's hard to assess.
[00:50:12] It's hard to assess whether that's reasonable of the judge or whether that's unreasonable.
[00:50:15] I just don't know.
[00:50:19] And there's a lot of back and forth about, oh, the prosecution hasn't told us about their who
[00:50:25] who specifically their geofencing expert is.
[00:50:28] And if we if we knew that, then we could depose them.
[00:50:33] That also raises the issue.
[00:50:35] You can't really depose their experts until you understand the data yourself
[00:50:40] and you've had two months.
[00:50:41] So that's not enough time for you to understand it.
[00:50:45] So how long is it going to take you to understand it well enough to prepare for these depositions?
[00:50:51] And keep in mind there is a trial in mid-May.
[00:50:54] I wanted to read something else from this.
[00:50:57] You remember that according to the geofencing supposedly,
[00:51:02] there are three phones in the vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the crime.
[00:51:08] And the prosecution said that's very misleading because of the way geofencing works.
[00:51:14] These phones were actually a considerable distance away.
[00:51:19] And we interviewed those people who own those phones and were satisfied they had nothing to do with the crime.
[00:51:25] So this is now I'm going to be quoting from Andrew Baldwin's filing quote.
[00:51:32] In his response motion, the state of Indiana claims that the owners of the phones found on
[00:51:36] the geofencing map in and around the crime scene were interviewed and then dismissed as suspects.
[00:51:43] The defense has requested the state of Indiana to provide any report, video or document memorializing
[00:51:49] any and all interviews of those persons whose phones were found on the geofencing map.
[00:51:54] The state of Indiana still is now provided set information or indicated where such
[00:51:58] information may be found in the vast discovery.
[00:52:01] The first the defense has heard that these people were interviewed is in the state of
[00:52:04] Indiana's response motion filed April 3rd, 2024 unquote.
[00:52:09] So that to me gave the impression that the defense doesn't know who owns those phones.
[00:52:16] I got that impression as well.
[00:52:18] Let's go back to their original filing for Frank's three.
[00:52:22] And I'm going to quote from this when Tony Liggett quote when Tony Liggett drafted his affidavit
[00:52:27] for search warrant of Richard Allen's home, he Liggett concealed from Judge Deane or the
[00:52:32] fact that at least three phones and the people using those phones were moving in and around
[00:52:37] the crime scene at times when their murders would have been taking place according to law
[00:52:41] enforcement timelines and that Richard Allen was not in any way connected with those phones.
[00:52:47] Unquote so to me you cannot say Richard Allen is not connected to those phones
[00:52:54] unless you have information about who those phones belong to because otherwise you could be really
[00:52:59] badly mistating.
[00:53:01] Yes. So to me there's a conflict there and I don't know how to reconcile it.
[00:53:08] I don't either. I guess like devil's advocate maybe they know the numbers and they have like
[00:53:15] asked him and he said I don't know whose numbers those are and I mean I don't know.
[00:53:20] I don't know.
[00:53:25] You know oh and there's going to you know from this filing we definitely know that one thing
[00:53:31] that will be on the horizon there's going to be more crowdfunding judging from this so here's
[00:53:37] the quote. Additionally because the defense has no further funds for our tech expert
[00:53:43] reliance on the prosecutor to provide reports and to provide the name of the correct
[00:53:47] geofencing expert is even more vital should be noted that the defense is attempting to raise
[00:53:52] funds to the variety of experts needed for Richard Allen's defense and does not know if the tech
[00:53:56] expert can be afforded even with the money raised thus far. So they're going to need more money
[00:54:00] folks you know the the coffers that they've raised already have apparently not even enough
[00:54:06] for one geofencing expert who's already done some work seemingly funded by the state and
[00:54:13] I will say with with the with the complaints about discovery with McLean he does need to tell them
[00:54:21] what expert he's going to use if geofencing is something he's going to use in court
[00:54:26] but he does not need to hold their hands through discovery. He doesn't need to give them indexes
[00:54:32] and help them find everything in discovery. No. And maybe they have some valid complaints
[00:54:37] about the pace at which they've been given discovery. I think the problem is when you overload
[00:54:44] these filings with a lot of complaints that frankly seem frivolous then it is hard to separate
[00:54:50] the wheat from the chaff maybe if they just focus on some of those complaints that may perhaps be
[00:54:54] valid they'd have more success. Focus on valid complaints what a novel concept that's that does
[00:55:00] not seem to be their strategy in this their strategies seem to be to throw everything
[00:55:04] but including the kitchen sink at the wall and hope that something sticks. But I think again
[00:55:11] when you hurt your credibility by doing that it's very difficult to get that back.
[00:55:18] And I some of the stuff is again maybe valid but it's incredibly hard to assess
[00:55:26] when you consider the source. And that's where I am with analyzing this I would prefer
[00:55:32] to be in a place where I'm saying both sides are doing a good job and are doing normal things
[00:55:39] with this case. And we can expect some very good lawyering in court as they square off
[00:55:44] against each other and hopefully this comes to a fair verdict. And there's no I mean we're not
[00:55:52] going to say that if that's not how we feel and what how we feel is we're very concerned
[00:55:55] about the state of Richard Allen's defense and what he's getting out of all this.
[00:56:03] Is that is that pretty much it have we gone through.
[00:56:05] I think that's pretty much it.
[00:56:06] All right well thank you all so much for listening stay tuned and we'll try to cover
[00:56:11] other Delphi updates as they happen.
[00:56:14] Thank you so much.
[00:56:17] Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet if you have a tip concerning one of the cases
[00:56:22] we cover please email us at murder sheet at gmail.com if you have actionable information
[00:56:31] about an unsolved crime please report it to the appropriate authorities.
[00:56:37] If you're interested in joining our Patreon that's available at www.patreon.com
[00:56:46] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com
[00:56:56] slash murder sheet we very much appreciate any support.
[00:57:01] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the murder sheet
[00:57:06] and who you can find on the web at kevinthg.com
[00:57:11] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered
[00:57:15] you can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook.
[00:57:19] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much.
[00:57:24] We do try to check our email account but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.
[00:57:31] Thanks again for listening.
[00:57:34] Support for this podcast and the following message come from Corriant.
[00:57:37] Corriant provides wealth management services centered around you.
[00:57:41] They focus on exceeding your expectations and simplifying your life.
[00:57:45] Corriant has been helping high achievers just like you enjoy their lives more fully,
[00:57:49] preserve their wealth and provide for the people causes and communities they care about.
[00:57:54] As one of the largest integrated fee only registered investment advisors in the U.S.
[00:57:59] Corriant has deeply experienced teams in 23 strategic locations.
[00:58:04] Corriant has extensive knowledge spanning the full spectrum of planning, investing,
[00:58:08] lending and money management disciplines. Leverage Corriant's exclusive network of experts
[00:58:14] to craft custom solutions designed to help you reach your financial goals no matter
[00:58:19] how complex they may be. Real wealth requires real solutions.
[00:58:24] For more information connect with a wealth advisor today at corriant.com