The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen Goes to the Indiana Supreme Court: Judge Frances Gull Responds

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_00]: Seeking the truth never gets old, even when it hides in the shadows.

[00:00:04] [SPEAKER_00]: Immerse yourself in the world of June's Journey,

[00:00:07] [SPEAKER_00]: a free-to-play hidden object game set in the roaring twenties.

[00:00:11] [SPEAKER_00]: Solve the mystery of the devious gossip spreader

[00:00:13] [SPEAKER_00]: and celebrate our seventh anniversary with exclusive events,

[00:00:17] [SPEAKER_00]: never-before-seen decorations, thrilling mysteries, and exciting giveaways.

[00:00:22] [SPEAKER_00]: The adventure and the gossip awaits!

[00:00:25] [SPEAKER_00]: Are you ready for the journey?

[00:00:26] [SPEAKER_00]: Download June's Journey today for free on Android or iOS.

[00:00:30] [SPEAKER_02]: Playing June's Journey is just like dropping straight into your own cozy mystery story.

[00:00:35] [SPEAKER_01]: Only this time you get to hone your observational skills,

[00:00:39] [SPEAKER_01]: you get to piece together the clues, you get to be the detective.

[00:00:42] [SPEAKER_02]: June's Journey is a free-to-download hidden object game.

[00:00:46] [SPEAKER_02]: You play as June Parker.

[00:00:48] [SPEAKER_02]: She's a flapper slash sleuth and she's all about investigating mysterious goings

[00:00:52] [SPEAKER_02]: on in various Jazz Age locales.

[00:00:56] [SPEAKER_02]: Starting with the murder of her sister and brother-in-law,

[00:00:59] [SPEAKER_02]: June sets off on a global quest to unravel mysteries

[00:01:02] [SPEAKER_02]: and write injustices wherever they occur.

[00:01:05] [SPEAKER_01]: Each level sees you picking out hidden objects.

[00:01:08] [SPEAKER_01]: The scenes are beautifully illustrated and the gameplay is fun and relaxing.

[00:01:13] [SPEAKER_01]: I usually play in between tasks as sort of a way to relax and recharge.

[00:01:18] [SPEAKER_01]: The sense of accomplishment knocking out a level or two is great.

[00:01:22] [SPEAKER_01]: It's a way to feel like you're escaping reality and traveling back in time to the glamorous 1920s.

[00:01:29] [SPEAKER_02]: Can you crack the case?

[00:01:30] [SPEAKER_02]: Download June's Journey for free today on iOS and Android.

[00:01:35] [SPEAKER_02]: Content warning, this episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls

[00:01:40] [SPEAKER_02]: as well as the sexual assault of a child an inappropriate language.

[00:01:46] [SPEAKER_01]: So of course as we all know Richard Allen has a couple of matters before the Supreme

[00:01:52] [SPEAKER_01]: Court of Indiana and there's been some activity on those fronts this past week.

[00:01:59] [SPEAKER_01]: The most important of which is probably the fact that Judge Gull filed a response brief

[00:02:06] [SPEAKER_01]: in the first of the two cases.

[00:02:09] [SPEAKER_01]: So we're going to get into all of that in this episode and discuss it

[00:02:14] [SPEAKER_01]: and try to explain what we make of it.

[00:02:17] [SPEAKER_01]: Before we do, I think it's important to say here at the outset

[00:02:21] [SPEAKER_01]: that one thing I hope we can agree on is that there are reasonable people on both sides of this.

[00:02:29] [SPEAKER_01]: I think earlier we did an episode with Brett Nalas from the prosecutors where they

[00:02:35] [SPEAKER_01]: discussed the view from the prosecution side.

[00:02:38] [SPEAKER_01]: Earlier this week, we also did an episode with Shay Hughes, the Hoosier public defender.

[00:02:44] [SPEAKER_01]: He explained rather well, I thought how things looked from the defense side.

[00:02:50] [SPEAKER_01]: And I'm emphasizing this because there's been a lot of heated rhetoric out there

[00:02:58] [SPEAKER_01]: suggesting that the courts are somehow corrupt or there's something wrong with the process

[00:03:06] [SPEAKER_01]: for the system.

[00:03:07] [SPEAKER_01]: And during this period, we don't know.

[00:03:10] [SPEAKER_01]: We don't know how the Indiana Supreme Court is going to rule.

[00:03:15] [SPEAKER_01]: I hope we can all agree that no matter how they rule, the ruling will be legitimate

[00:03:23] [SPEAKER_01]: and that that should be the end of the matter.

[00:03:26] [SPEAKER_01]: And that a bunch of talk about illegitimacy, the courts being corrupt or overrun by odeness

[00:03:32] [SPEAKER_01]: or whatever you think, that really isn't helpful.

[00:03:38] [SPEAKER_02]: No, it's not helpful at all.

[00:03:40] [SPEAKER_02]: And frankly, it's irresponsible when you have people going around saying that with zero evidence

[00:03:46] [SPEAKER_02]: other than things are happening that they don't want to happen.

[00:03:50] [SPEAKER_02]: It's not ever based on any legal analysis that's cogent.

[00:03:56] [SPEAKER_02]: It's vibes.

[00:03:58] [SPEAKER_02]: I got a bad vibe from this so it's corrupt.

[00:04:00] [SPEAKER_02]: That's not how this works and basically giving air to people like that is just also terribly

[00:04:06] [SPEAKER_02]: irresponsible in my opinion.

[00:04:07] [SPEAKER_01]: It's heated rhetoric, wrong rhetoric.

[00:04:11] [SPEAKER_01]: A lot of the people out there saying this sort of thing are also stating facts that are simply

[00:04:14] [SPEAKER_01]: wrong and again, I hope we can all just accept the Supreme Court of Indiana's rulings.

[00:04:23] [SPEAKER_01]: Whether we personally agree with those rulings or not,

[00:04:26] [SPEAKER_01]: hopefully we can accept them and move on.

[00:04:30] [SPEAKER_01]: With that said, as I indicated, we're going to be discussing the recent developments

[00:04:34] [SPEAKER_01]: in these Supreme Court cases.

[00:04:38] [SPEAKER_02]: My name is Ania Kane.

[00:04:40] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm a journalist.

[00:04:41] [SPEAKER_01]: And I'm Kevin Greenlee.

[00:04:42] [SPEAKER_01]: I'm an attorney.

[00:04:43] [SPEAKER_01]: And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:04:45] [SPEAKER_01]: We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting,

[00:04:49] [SPEAKER_01]: interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:04:52] [SPEAKER_01]: We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:04:54] [SPEAKER_02]: And this is The Delphi Murders.

[00:04:56] [SPEAKER_02]: Richard Allen goes to the Indiana Supreme Court.

[00:05:00] [SPEAKER_02]: Judge Francis Gull responds.

[00:05:48] [SPEAKER_01]: So again, there are basically two different Supreme Court cases involving Richard Allen at this

[00:05:54] [SPEAKER_01]: point.

[00:05:55] [SPEAKER_01]: The first one revolves around record keeping issues and the second revolves around

[00:06:02] [SPEAKER_01]: whether or not Judge Gull should continue with the case, whether or not

[00:06:06] [SPEAKER_01]: defense attorneys Baldwin and Rosé should come back to the case.

[00:06:10] [SPEAKER_01]: And so today we are going to be discussing the first one.

[00:06:14] [SPEAKER_01]: We're going to be discussing the one involving records.

[00:06:17] [SPEAKER_02]: And may I say that these two cases, it's very important to draw these distinctions

[00:06:23] [SPEAKER_02]: because to me in my mind, it's sort of like the first one about the record keeping

[00:06:30] [SPEAKER_02]: includes a lot of reasonable filings and sort of discussion of more transparency,

[00:06:37] [SPEAKER_02]: more public transparency in this case.

[00:06:40] [SPEAKER_02]: And the other one wants Judge Gull to be forced off the case and original attorneys,

[00:06:47] [SPEAKER_02]: Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosé reinstated.

[00:06:51] [SPEAKER_02]: Everyone we've talked to behind the scenes about this has essentially felt that the first one

[00:06:58] [SPEAKER_02]: was a little bit more likely to result in some changes than the second writ,

[00:07:04] [SPEAKER_02]: I think is putting it mildly.

[00:07:06] [SPEAKER_01]: But we'll see what happens.

[00:07:08] [SPEAKER_02]: But it's important when we're talking people conflate these two things and it's really important

[00:07:12] [SPEAKER_02]: these are separate cases right now and there could be different rulings on each one.

[00:07:19] [SPEAKER_01]: Exactly.

[00:07:21] [SPEAKER_01]: So the first activity was earlier this week on November 14th, Judge Gull actually made an order

[00:07:31] [SPEAKER_01]: in the actual criminal case involving Richard Allo.

[00:07:34] [SPEAKER_01]: This is the the case he's on trial for in Carroll County

[00:07:37] [SPEAKER_01]: where obviously I'm going to wildly paraphrase here, but essentially she said, you know,

[00:07:44] [SPEAKER_01]: the people in the Supreme Court writ they asked for a bunch of records to be released,

[00:07:49] [SPEAKER_01]: filings to be restored.

[00:07:51] [SPEAKER_01]: Let's go ahead and restore all those filings.

[00:07:53] [SPEAKER_01]: So basically she gives them almost everything they asked for in the order except for she does

[00:08:00] [SPEAKER_01]: not. They want the Frank's memorandum to be made publicly available on the My Case website.

[00:08:08] [SPEAKER_01]: She says I'm not going to do that because there's stuff in there that shouldn't be

[00:08:13] [SPEAKER_01]: included in a court filing.

[00:08:16] [SPEAKER_01]: If you want it to be made public via the court system,

[00:08:19] [SPEAKER_01]: you need to make some redactions.

[00:08:22] [SPEAKER_01]: But other than that, it's almost like a surrender.

[00:08:27] [SPEAKER_02]: Is it a surrender or is it a strategic retreat?

[00:08:31] [SPEAKER_02]: That would be my question.

[00:08:33] [SPEAKER_01]: I'd say potato, potato.

[00:08:34] [SPEAKER_01]: It's like you can't fire me.

[00:08:36] [SPEAKER_01]: I quit situation.

[00:08:38] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:08:38] [SPEAKER_02]: But does this defang to a certain extent the writ?

[00:08:43] [SPEAKER_01]: Certainly we will see that her attorneys make that argument and we'll discuss that shortly.

[00:08:53] [SPEAKER_01]: There's also a brief file this week with a response to that argument.

[00:08:56] [SPEAKER_01]: Well, I guess since we're raising it now, why don't we just go ahead and discuss it?

[00:08:59] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, let's jump into that.

[00:09:00] [SPEAKER_01]: A group of media organizations filed a brief.

[00:09:04] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, the Indiana Broadcasters Association, which I'll just say includes

[00:09:08] [SPEAKER_02]: the Hoosier State Press Association, ABC, WRTV, the Indianapolis Star, WXIN slash WTTV,

[00:09:18] [SPEAKER_02]: WTHR, and they're represented by several attorneys from Denton's Bingham Greenbaum,

[00:09:24] [SPEAKER_02]: including Margaret Christensen, Daniel Byron, Scott Lice, and Jessica Lauren Meek.

[00:09:32] [SPEAKER_01]: So we would talk more about this brief later.

[00:09:35] [SPEAKER_01]: Since it came up, I just want to talk about one very small part of the brief

[00:09:41] [SPEAKER_01]: where they say, you know, the fact that Judge Gull ordered these documents to be released,

[00:09:48] [SPEAKER_01]: people could say, well, that means this writ isn't necessary.

[00:09:51] [SPEAKER_01]: We still think it is because if she orders it released, basically,

[00:09:56] [SPEAKER_01]: she's doing that out of the kindness of her heart and she's not doing it because

[00:10:00] [SPEAKER_01]: she's following court procedure.

[00:10:02] [SPEAKER_01]: She's not following court orders.

[00:10:04] [SPEAKER_01]: We want there to be a court order in place to mandate, basically, that this is what happens

[00:10:11] [SPEAKER_01]: going forward.

[00:10:12] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, so they're saying this situation, her release of these documents,

[00:10:16] [SPEAKER_02]: is dealing with the present.

[00:10:18] [SPEAKER_02]: We're looking at the future of the case.

[00:10:20] [SPEAKER_02]: So that's their argument, makes sense to me.

[00:10:24] [SPEAKER_01]: It makes sense to me and Judge Gull in her brief says, well, we don't need this

[00:10:29] [SPEAKER_01]: writ because I already took care of it.

[00:10:31] [SPEAKER_01]: It's all moot.

[00:10:32] [SPEAKER_02]: Are you searching for a cleaning solution that's both incredibly powerful

[00:10:37] [SPEAKER_02]: and all-natural and safe for your family?

[00:10:40] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, we'd strongly recommend Ultra Luxe Clean.

[00:10:43] [SPEAKER_02]: Ultra Luxe Clean is a powerful, safe and effective cleaning solution that relies on

[00:10:48] [SPEAKER_02]: hypochlorous acid.

[00:10:50] [SPEAKER_01]: Murder sheet listeners can get this at a terrific price, 20% off.

[00:10:55] [SPEAKER_01]: Plus you can use this coupon up to three times per person.

[00:11:00] [SPEAKER_02]: Hypochlorous acid is what you get when you combine water, salt, and citric acid

[00:11:04] [SPEAKER_02]: and send that mixture through electrolysis.

[00:11:07] [SPEAKER_02]: It's FDA approved.

[00:11:09] [SPEAKER_02]: Ultra Luxe Clean combines power and safety.

[00:11:12] [SPEAKER_02]: Hypochlorous acid is a hospital grade cleaner, but you can use Ultra Luxe Clean

[00:11:16] [SPEAKER_02]: on all kinds of surfaces, kitchen countertops, tables, toys.

[00:11:22] [SPEAKER_02]: It's even safe on your skin.

[00:11:23] [SPEAKER_01]: Ensure your house is a clean and healthy environment for you and your family.

[00:11:27] [SPEAKER_01]: Opt for Ultra Luxe Clean and get the strongest all-natural cleaner and disinfected out there.

[00:11:33] [SPEAKER_02]: Ultra Luxe also has plenty of other really cool products you should check out.

[00:11:37] [SPEAKER_02]: Their Red Mini device offers accessible red light therapy,

[00:11:40] [SPEAKER_02]: which studies indicate can help reduce inflammation and pain.

[00:11:44] [SPEAKER_02]: Plus they've got these great hydrogen water tablets that offer a hydrogen concentration

[00:11:49] [SPEAKER_02]: of 12 parts per million and take only about two to three minutes to dissolve in water.

[00:11:54] [SPEAKER_02]: As they say, the best day to improve your health is today.

[00:11:57] [SPEAKER_02]: So head over to ultraluxhealth.com and use M-sheet to get 20% off when you order the

[00:12:02] [SPEAKER_02]: Red Mini, Ultra Luxe Clean, or Hydrogen Tablets.

[00:12:05] [SPEAKER_02]: That's ultraluxhealth.com and M-sheet for 20% off.

[00:12:12] [SPEAKER_01]: As a part of this, a couple of documents she ordered to go ahead and be released that had

[00:12:17] [SPEAKER_01]: previously been sealed. Why don't you tell us about those documents?

[00:12:21] [SPEAKER_02]: Well they both had something to do with a man named Robert Paul Bastone

[00:12:28] [SPEAKER_02]: and he is currently incarcerated at Westville where Richard Allen is incarcerated.

[00:12:36] [SPEAKER_02]: He has sort of inserted himself into this case in a way.

[00:12:41] [SPEAKER_02]: I want to get into his background as well as what his role in the current proceedings are.

[00:12:49] [SPEAKER_01]: And we discuss his allegations and what's related in these documents, certainly.

[00:12:54] [SPEAKER_02]: Yes, so should I start off by talking about what he was charged and convicted with?

[00:12:59] [SPEAKER_01]: Sure. Who is this guy?

[00:13:01] [SPEAKER_02]: So this man on August 16th 2009, his mother threw a pool party at her house

[00:13:10] [SPEAKER_02]: and the number of people were over. He lived with his mother.

[00:13:14] [SPEAKER_02]: And a six-year-old girl who the court documents just referred to as AP was there along with

[00:13:20] [SPEAKER_02]: her father. So Bastone was convicted of taking this six-year-old from his mother's house,

[00:13:27] [SPEAKER_02]: driving her on a four-wheel vehicle to an undeveloped area sort of out of sight of everyone else.

[00:13:34] [SPEAKER_02]: And I'm going to read from this is from a May 27th 2011 memorandum decision regarding an

[00:13:43] [SPEAKER_02]: appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court that gets into what he did to her.

[00:13:48] [SPEAKER_02]: And keep in mind that this is graphic, but I think it's important to not look away from this.

[00:13:56] [SPEAKER_02]: And if you want to skip ahead a few minutes, go ahead.

[00:13:59] [SPEAKER_02]: Bastone stopped the vehicle and pulled the crotch of AP's swimsuit to the side

[00:14:03] [SPEAKER_02]: and performed oral sex on her genital area. Bastone then put AP on the ground and,

[00:14:09] [SPEAKER_02]: as AP later explained, rubbed his private on my private.

[00:14:12] [SPEAKER_02]: AP stated that this caused her pain and soap came out of Bastone's penis.

[00:14:17] [SPEAKER_02]: After he was finished molesting AP, Bastone placed the child back on his vehicle and drove

[00:14:22] [SPEAKER_02]: her back to the party. Meanwhile, AP's father and other adults were looking for AP after noticing

[00:14:28] [SPEAKER_02]: that she was missing. When AP saw her father, she got off Bastone's vehicle and began to cry.

[00:14:33] [SPEAKER_02]: She told her father that Bastone had touched her pee-pee and licked her pee-pee and put his

[00:14:38] [SPEAKER_02]: on hers. Bastone stated that AP was lying, to which AP responded by pointing her finger

[00:14:43] [SPEAKER_02]: at Bastone, raising her voice and saying, yes you did, you are a liar. The back of AP's swimsuit

[00:14:49] [SPEAKER_02]: was dirty when she returned home. Here's more about the investigation into Bastone.

[00:14:56] [SPEAKER_02]: AP was later taken to the Cincinnati Children's Hospital where she was examined.

[00:15:01] [SPEAKER_02]: The examination revealed that AP had abrasion on her posterior foreshad

[00:15:05] [SPEAKER_02]: and redness in two areas near her hymen. Hospital personnel notified the police

[00:15:10] [SPEAKER_02]: who recovered AP's swimsuit. Forensic analysis of the swimsuit revealed that the inside crotch

[00:15:15] [SPEAKER_02]: of the swimsuit contained two areas of mixed DNA from two individuals. In the first area,

[00:15:21] [SPEAKER_02]: Bastone was the main contributor of DNA and AP was the minor contributor. In the other area,

[00:15:27] [SPEAKER_02]: AP was the main contributor of DNA and Bastone was the minor contributor.

[00:15:32] [SPEAKER_02]: The odds of the DNA matching Bastone and also matching another unknown person were

[00:15:36] [SPEAKER_02]: one in 24 trillion. So you have the victim in this case immediately identifying him,

[00:15:43] [SPEAKER_02]: he's seen bringing her back by other witnesses at the party and his DNA is in the crotch of her

[00:15:49] [SPEAKER_02]: swimsuit. So I would say I would characterize this as a pretty good case against this man.

[00:15:54] [SPEAKER_02]: No doubt about it. Okay. And so I think it's important to kind of dwell upon that and

[00:16:00] [SPEAKER_02]: then some of what's come later with him. So let's document some of his behavior while

[00:16:04] [SPEAKER_02]: incarcerated now. Certainly. So he's what they call a prison house lawyer. I think they're often

[00:16:11] [SPEAKER_02]: called a jail house lawyer, but I'm going to call him prison house because he's in prison,

[00:16:16] [SPEAKER_02]: he's in Westville and he's filed for years, numerous handwritten motions that get pretty

[00:16:24] [SPEAKER_02]: weird to be honest. But let's go back into this is something from 2018. This is a motion

[00:16:33] [SPEAKER_02]: he filed. Petitioner Robert P. Bastone has attempted at every stage to raise the claim of

[00:16:40] [SPEAKER_02]: wrongful conviction and incarceration due to a broken justice system. Since incarceration due

[00:16:45] [SPEAKER_02]: to prison overcrowding staff and officer shortage and state of Indiana budget cuts,

[00:16:50] [SPEAKER_02]: the Indiana Department of Corrections cannot keep inmates or staff and officers safe

[00:16:54] [SPEAKER_02]: and therefore violating case laws and constitution of the state of Indiana and the United States

[00:17:00] [SPEAKER_02]: of America. Another claim that he made that I think is worth noting is that according to him,

[00:17:08] [SPEAKER_02]: doctors who examined the six-year-old child that he molested felt she did not act like a victim,

[00:17:17] [SPEAKER_01]: whatever that means. So basically he's slut shaming a six-year-old girl? Yes, that he raped.

[00:17:24] [SPEAKER_01]: Yes. So yeah. I think also before we move on to what he wrote in his letter,

[00:17:30] [SPEAKER_01]: it's worth pointing out that at one point during the process, at least at one point in the process,

[00:17:36] [SPEAKER_01]: he did have an attorney and it's an attorney with a familiar name. Karowayniki.

[00:17:42] [SPEAKER_01]: She's one of the attorneys for Richard Allen in this and she, what did she represent him on?

[00:17:48] [SPEAKER_02]: This was post-conviction relief and this occurred in, I believe it was 2018.

[00:17:56] [SPEAKER_02]: So she came on and at this point the post-conviction relief that he was asking for

[00:18:03] [SPEAKER_02]: was pretty bizarre. He was asking to be lethally injected. He wanted to be executed.

[00:18:10] [SPEAKER_02]: His was not a death penalty case but he was effectively saying to boil it down,

[00:18:16] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm so miserable in prison and my rights are so violated here in prison that I just want to die.

[00:18:23] [SPEAKER_02]: So the state should just lethally inject me. So she came on board to help him with that,

[00:18:29] [SPEAKER_02]: I guess or help him manage whatever that was and she kind of went back and forth with him

[00:18:40] [SPEAKER_02]: seemingly with letters. There were some delays because he was, I suppose, moved and

[00:18:44] [SPEAKER_02]: his letters took some time to catch up with him. That was their initial contact and then later on

[00:18:51] [SPEAKER_02]: there was a petitioner's motion to vacate post-conviction hearing. So Weyniki had investigated

[00:18:57] [SPEAKER_02]: some of Baston's claims. They're going back and forth. And these claims were going to be

[00:19:02] [SPEAKER_01]: discussed at a hearing and she's basically indicating the court, well we don't need this

[00:19:08] [SPEAKER_01]: hearing. After completion of the investigation, council informed client by letter of her remaining

[00:19:15] [SPEAKER_01]: findings and opinions regarding the merits of his claims. And after this investigation,

[00:19:21] [SPEAKER_01]: which he tells him about the merits of his claims, she's like let's just vacate the hearing.

[00:19:26] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah that seems telling at the very least that his claims did not have the evidence

[00:19:31] [SPEAKER_02]: backing them to warrant hearing. Not saying that she was necessarily skeptical of his claims

[00:19:36] [SPEAKER_02]: but just that they didn't rise to the level of there needs to be a hearing about this.

[00:19:41] [SPEAKER_02]: The fact that she went from let's have a hearing to let's not is notable I think here.

[00:19:48] [SPEAKER_01]: And do we now discuss his, well let's discuss the fact that earlier there was a letter from

[00:19:54] [SPEAKER_01]: him released alleging that Richard Allen was being subject to abuse in prison.

[00:20:03] [SPEAKER_02]: Yes that was written on April or rather filed on April 28, 2023 and he introduces himself as a

[00:20:12] [SPEAKER_02]: inmate at Westfield Correctional Facility in the same unit that Richard Allen is being housed in

[00:20:17] [SPEAKER_02]: and he said that he was being abused and essentially people were telling Allen to kill

[00:20:26] [SPEAKER_02]: himself and he's saying he has proof and evidence of the assaults by different officers.

[00:20:32] [SPEAKER_02]: And so it is a three page letter that got filed into the court.

[00:20:39] [SPEAKER_01]: You were understandably quite skeptical at that point.

[00:20:42] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah I was incredibly skeptical because then I looked up what he was in for.

[00:20:47] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm not skeptical of an inmate because they're an inmate. We've had inmates,

[00:20:52] [SPEAKER_02]: former inmates on this program and I found both of them to be highly credible gentlemen.

[00:20:59] [SPEAKER_02]: And just because you are in prison for a crime does not mean that you're lying about

[00:21:04] [SPEAKER_02]: abuses and problems that occur within a prison system. We also know that there are abuses

[00:21:10] [SPEAKER_02]: and problems that occur in the prison system so keep in mind that I'm coming from that mindset

[00:21:15] [SPEAKER_02]: of let's hear him out. So I'm not reviewing the fact that he was convicted. I'm reviewing the

[00:21:22] [SPEAKER_02]: fact that he is a prison house lawyer who is filed garbage filing after garbage filing.

[00:21:29] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean to give you a sense of one of them he said he should be let out during the COVID pandemic

[00:21:33] [SPEAKER_02]: to help fight COVID. What does this man have to offer in the fight against COVID?

[00:21:38] [SPEAKER_02]: That's my question. I'm highlighting that because that's stupid. That's a stupid

[00:21:44] [SPEAKER_02]: ask. He's not like a good prison house lawyer. He has a lot of time on his hand so he does this.

[00:21:52] [SPEAKER_02]: And in addition to that the fact that he never owned up to his crime, he maintains that...

[00:22:01] [SPEAKER_01]: Let's hit pause there for a second. I think it's also worth noting that one of his own

[00:22:05] [SPEAKER_01]: attorneys, Ms. Weineke, seemed to be skeptical of his claims in another matter after

[00:22:11] [SPEAKER_01]: investigating them. So there's some reason to be skeptical of what this gentleman says but still

[00:22:20] [SPEAKER_01]: it's... Things are worth investigating. If a claim is made there's always at least some sort of

[00:22:25] [SPEAKER_01]: possibility that it's true and so I think let's mention now something I don't think we've mentioned

[00:22:30] [SPEAKER_01]: before that we reached out to this man. Yes, we did. And in Indiana it's actually very

[00:22:35] [SPEAKER_01]: easy to reach out to people who are incarcerated. And so we reached out to him and we emailed him

[00:22:44] [SPEAKER_01]: and I want... We actually had several emails back and forth with him and I want to read an excerpt

[00:22:51] [SPEAKER_01]: from the first email we got back from him. I can provide you with a lot of information

[00:22:59] [SPEAKER_01]: concerning Richard Allen and his poor treatment but only if you're going to expose the issues

[00:23:04] [SPEAKER_01]: with all inmates and not just Richard Allen. You also may be interested in my case with DNA

[00:23:10] [SPEAKER_01]: contamination in a brand new $70 million Indiana State Police Crime Lab and Indiana has a history

[00:23:16] [SPEAKER_01]: of contamination in their labs that wrongly convicted and incarcerated people and town police

[00:23:22] [SPEAKER_01]: admitting to destroying evidence in my case and telling someone at hospital to take evidence

[00:23:26] [SPEAKER_01]: home with them instead of collecting it like they're trained to do in a jury that said

[00:23:31] [SPEAKER_01]: they did not believe the evidence or the accuser in my case and found me guilty because I looked guilty

[00:23:36] [SPEAKER_01]: when juries are to convict on evidence and reasonable doubt and also two different doctors

[00:23:41] [SPEAKER_01]: from two different hospitals documenting that there was no trauma and the accuser did not act

[00:23:46] [SPEAKER_01]: like a victim of sexual assault and there was no DNA found in the rape kit testing and perjury

[00:23:51] [SPEAKER_01]: testimony, coaching and vouching issues and many other issues in my case that has a truly

[00:23:58] [SPEAKER_01]: innocent man wrongly convicted and incarcerated. So I took that to mean basically that he would

[00:24:05] [SPEAKER_01]: only provide information about Richard Allen or alleged information about Richard Allen

[00:24:11] [SPEAKER_01]: if people helped him with his case. Classic bait and switch. He's maintaining there

[00:24:17] [SPEAKER_01]: that he is innocent, wrongly convicted. Help me and I'll help you. So yeah,

[00:24:24] [SPEAKER_02]: I guess the Indiana State Police Lab actually got to the six-year-old and had her accuse him

[00:24:28] [SPEAKER_02]: at the party where this happened. So it's fascinating. It's a ridiculous claim

[00:24:36] [SPEAKER_01]: and this certainly added, I think, to your skepticism and certainly to mine because it feels

[00:24:43] [SPEAKER_01]: like he may be using Richard Allen's case as a vehicle to pursue his own claims about his own

[00:24:52] [SPEAKER_02]: case. Let me just make this very clear because the media does not care about Robert Bestown.

[00:24:58] [SPEAKER_02]: The media does not care about his case. He was convicted on good evidence. He went away.

[00:25:02] [SPEAKER_02]: He's not going to be eligible to get out until he's like 75 and I think most people say good,

[00:25:10] [SPEAKER_02]: good for that. That's a good outcome in the justice system. Nobody cares about his case.

[00:25:15] [SPEAKER_02]: The evidence stacked up against him on all levels and the only way he can get anyone to care about

[00:25:23] [SPEAKER_02]: his case and himself, frankly, and get attention on himself is if he leeches onto a more high

[00:25:33] [SPEAKER_02]: profile case like Richard Allen's. Richard Allen is a tool for this man to hijack some

[00:25:40] [SPEAKER_02]: media clicks and that's just what's happening here. He portrays himself as a whistleblower for

[00:25:47] [SPEAKER_02]: prison abuses but again and again when we contacted him he made it very clear that

[00:25:52] [SPEAKER_02]: he didn't really want to talk about Allen. He wanted to talk about himself.

[00:25:57] [SPEAKER_01]: He'd also say things like he was going to stage a hunger strike to expose wrongdoing

[00:26:02] [SPEAKER_01]: and they said, well, second thing I'm not going to do a hunger strike.

[00:26:06] [SPEAKER_01]: I don't, he did not seem to us in this back and forth to appear especially credible.

[00:26:13] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. Information he gave us about Allen like he said in April of 2023, Allen spread feces all over

[00:26:20] [SPEAKER_02]: himself and all over his cell. That's interesting because it speaks to maybe somebody's mental

[00:26:27] [SPEAKER_02]: state or whatnot but I don't necessarily trust that.

[00:26:31] [SPEAKER_01]: And to be clear he told us this I think in August or September but he was referring to

[00:26:35] [SPEAKER_02]: an incident in April. Yeah, these messages were all exchanged in August and September so that's

[00:26:43] [SPEAKER_02]: when we were communicating with him but again there's interesting info there but I don't trust

[00:26:49] [SPEAKER_02]: it because of the source and you have a guy who is very, very obviously trying to game

[00:26:56] [SPEAKER_02]: the system here in order to get media attention and get support. And what is kind of

[00:27:04] [SPEAKER_02]: striking to me is that because his letters say some things that people like,

[00:27:11] [SPEAKER_02]: i.e. like leading up to a prison conspiracy, people are taking him completely at face value

[00:27:18] [SPEAKER_02]: without looking into his background or his other claims or anything else. I think that's a huge

[00:27:22] [SPEAKER_01]: mistake. I think context is super important here. So with all of that said let's go back to

[00:27:29] [SPEAKER_01]: April he's written a letter to the court alleging abuse and so the defense wants him to come

[00:27:37] [SPEAKER_01]: and potentially either just talk to them or perhaps even offer testimony

[00:27:42] [SPEAKER_01]: in the hearing that was held in June. And so the two documents that were recently released

[00:27:47] [SPEAKER_01]: were the Transport Order for Bastown from June and a letter from Bastown. Why don't you discuss those?

[00:27:54] [SPEAKER_02]: So let's go into the Transport Order first I believe because that would have come first.

[00:28:00] [SPEAKER_02]: So you're probably wondering wait Bastown was supposed to testify? Yes. Did he? No. Why? Well

[00:28:07] [SPEAKER_02]: we have a document signed by Carroll County Sheriff Tony Liggett where he says that on

[00:28:13] [SPEAKER_02]: June 14th 2023 they were in contact, his department was in contact with

[00:28:23] [SPEAKER_02]: Carroll County Sheriff's Special Transport Deputy Brian Weissacke and Weissacke goes to Westville.

[00:28:32] [SPEAKER_02]: He's going to pick up Bastown and take him down to Carroll County for this hearing

[00:28:38] [SPEAKER_02]: and Bastown refused to leave his cell. In fact when Weissacke was there he met a correctional officer

[00:28:50] [SPEAKER_02]: who told him that Bastown was refusing to come out of his cell and was even shouting things like

[00:28:55] [SPEAKER_02]: fuck you, you can't make me go. And there would be essentially they would have to do a cell

[00:29:03] [SPEAKER_02]: extraction which would be force him out of the cell and instead of doing that he called

[00:29:12] [SPEAKER_02]: Chief Deputy Toblesenby and there was kind of phone tag between Lesnby, Gull's office

[00:29:22] [SPEAKER_02]: and Gull ultimately said leave him there if he doesn't want to attend because

[00:29:28] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean and what's interesting to me is that's been widely criticized but these are also the same

[00:29:34] [SPEAKER_02]: people who are seemingly suddenly very concerned with prison inmate rights and if a person doesn't

[00:29:38] [SPEAKER_02]: want to testify I think dragging them to court in this situation doesn't seem like the

[00:29:44] [SPEAKER_01]: most humane mode in my opinion. So when his letter didn't Bastown offer some sort of explanation

[00:29:51] [SPEAKER_02]: for why he did not want to go to court that day? Yes so he writes a letter this is filed on July

[00:30:00] [SPEAKER_02]: 5th 2023 and he is essentially saying he was in danger for his life that's why he couldn't.

[00:30:11] [SPEAKER_02]: How so? Well he wrote due to corruption and retaliation by Westfield's restrictive housing

[00:30:15] [SPEAKER_02]: unit staff and officers I had refused to appear in the above mentioned court hearing

[00:30:20] [SPEAKER_02]: due to my safety and fear for my life so it's this letter that he's basically claiming that.

[00:30:30] [SPEAKER_01]: So basically he's saying because he has criticism to offer regarding Westville people at Westville

[00:30:37] [SPEAKER_01]: would kill him? Yeah they would kill him. So my question there is if I had criticism

[00:30:48] [SPEAKER_01]: or information that I felt put my life in danger I feel I would want to share that

[00:30:56] [SPEAKER_01]: with the widest number of people as soon as possible because getting that information out

[00:31:01] [SPEAKER_01]: would in some way protect me. He's getting the information out via letters which at this

[00:31:08] [SPEAKER_01]: point were still being sealed so if I was an evil villain twirling my mustache why not kill

[00:31:16] [SPEAKER_01]: him then? Why not kill him when all he's doing is writing letters? Why not try to protect himself

[00:31:23] [SPEAKER_01]: by going public and offering testimony does that make sense? Does my question make sense? Yeah your

[00:31:29] [SPEAKER_02]: question makes sense and this whole thing doesn't make any sense and frankly maybe I'd be a little bit

[00:31:35] [SPEAKER_02]: more okay well let's hear him out on this particular subject if we hadn't experienced

[00:31:39] [SPEAKER_02]: the same thing in August September which was I have information about Alan I want to expose it

[00:31:45] [SPEAKER_02]: and then you email him and it's this long like single sentence multi-paragraph

[00:31:52] [SPEAKER_02]: mess about how sad his life is. Because he was wrongfully convicted. Right and

[00:31:59] [SPEAKER_02]: and he certainly was not wrongfully convicted? No he certainly was not and this is a situation

[00:32:03] [SPEAKER_02]: though but again like it's the same thing like I have something to say never mind just pay

[00:32:07] [SPEAKER_02]: attention to me okay frankly I think it was an incredibly desperate move by defense to even

[00:32:13] [SPEAKER_02]: want to bring this guy in because of his low credibility I think that that looks really bad.

[00:32:17] [SPEAKER_02]: I think in some ways looking back it was probably good for Richard Allen that this guy did not come

[00:32:23] [SPEAKER_02]: in to testify on his behalf because I think he has so many problems it would have just

[00:32:27] [SPEAKER_02]: turned into a even further of a circus. He would have had the thing where oh wow this

[00:32:32] [SPEAKER_02]: guy seems great like he's saying all the things we want and then you know suddenly

[00:32:36] [SPEAKER_02]: he's he's talking about how he needs to be released so he can stop the COVID pandemic

[00:32:40] [SPEAKER_02]: that's not a good look for Richard Allen's defense or Richard Allen. That's not something you don't

[00:32:46] [SPEAKER_02]: want people who lack credibility to that extent and have a history of these petty grievance filings

[00:32:55] [SPEAKER_02]: that I mean even his own attorneys kind of end up maybe saying well I don't know if we need

[00:33:02] [SPEAKER_01]: to hearing for that so I guess. In fairness to be completely fair and lean over backwards

[00:33:09] [SPEAKER_01]: from these documents it's not clear to me if the intention was for Bastone to testify that day

[00:33:16] [SPEAKER_01]: or if it was just to have Bastone meet with the defense attorneys who were understandably interested

[00:33:23] [SPEAKER_02]: in whatever he might have to say. Yeah I think he's a person who seems smart enough to dangle

[00:33:29] [SPEAKER_02]: Richard Allen to people whether that's press or Allen's attorneys or whoever. He's not smart

[00:33:37] [SPEAKER_02]: enough to play the long game because immediately once you once you put eyes on him once you start

[00:33:42] [SPEAKER_02]: talking to him he switches he wants it's all about him and you know and Allen becomes just part of

[00:33:48] [SPEAKER_02]: the package deal as long as you're doing what I want. It's a very like crude manipulative tactic

[00:33:54] [SPEAKER_02]: it's not very effective but it is that is what I view this as. So those were the new documents

[00:34:04] [SPEAKER_01]: that were released in accordance with Judge Gold's order at the beginning of the week.

[00:34:10] [SPEAKER_02]: Yes and what do you make of his Bastone's role in this? Do you think that this is

[00:34:19] [SPEAKER_02]: this is credible? Do you think that it's good that people are just going based on this man's

[00:34:24] [SPEAKER_01]: word alum? He does not seem to me to be a very credible person and again I didn't just jump to

[00:34:36] [SPEAKER_01]: that conclusion. I reached out to him we reached out to him we had it back and forth.

[00:34:42] [SPEAKER_01]: I'm curious as to why there's a lot of people out there who are expressing support of Bastone

[00:34:50] [SPEAKER_01]: or what he says needs to be amplified and I'm not clear why they haven't reached out to him

[00:34:56] [SPEAKER_02]: as we did. Or maybe just read the 2011 memorandum that details what he did and how he's behaved

[00:35:02] [SPEAKER_02]: ever since. I think it's important to come to people with skepticism and some open-mindedness

[00:35:10] [SPEAKER_02]: that can be difficult to balance at times but when I see this level of manipulative

[00:35:18] [SPEAKER_02]: tactics from somebody and again repeated lies, exaggerations, overstatements about his own case

[00:35:27] [SPEAKER_02]: that undermines credibility in my view. I don't think you just have to take somebody's word

[00:35:34] [SPEAKER_02]: when there's something like this going on. I think it's ultimately not great for Alan

[00:35:40] [SPEAKER_02]: that people who are allegedly supporting him are trying to hitch their start of this guy's

[00:35:45] [SPEAKER_02]: wagon because this is not a wagon that's going anywhere people. This wagon is in the freaking gutter.

[00:35:54] [SPEAKER_01]: Are we ready to move on? Yes. So then not long after that as we alluded to earlier in the episode

[00:36:02] [SPEAKER_01]: a group of media organizations, Ania read the list earlier, filed a friend of the court brief

[00:36:09] [SPEAKER_01]: in this first case and again I want to emphasize the media organizations aren't filing to say Rosie

[00:36:18] [SPEAKER_01]: and Baldwin need to come back and goals should be thrown out. They're filing entirely on the issue

[00:36:25] [SPEAKER_01]: of let's have records be kept more openly, let's have records be more accessible to the public.

[00:36:35] [SPEAKER_01]: It was a relatively short brief but it was concise. I felt it made some very strong arguments.

[00:36:44] [SPEAKER_01]: Basically they made three strong points and one was the trial court's handling of court records

[00:36:52] [SPEAKER_01]: is contrary to Indiana public policy favoring open government and the Indiana and United

[00:36:59] [SPEAKER_01]: States Constitution protecting access rights. That basically means that it's important for people

[00:37:07] [SPEAKER_01]: to be able to see what their government is doing including the courts and the way a lot of these

[00:37:14] [SPEAKER_01]: documents have been kept sealed and out of public view impedes that process. We've we just gave

[00:37:21] [SPEAKER_01]: you some of our opinions about the best own letter for instance. People should be able

[00:37:27] [SPEAKER_01]: to read that letter. People should have been able to read the transport thing and form their own

[00:37:32] [SPEAKER_01]: conclusions. There's no reason for a law this stuff to have been sealed. And if for some reason

[00:37:36] [SPEAKER_02]: something has to be sealed because either the defense or the prosecution feels it will impede

[00:37:41] [SPEAKER_02]: Allen's rights or be too sensitive then those should be filed alongside motions to seal.

[00:37:47] [SPEAKER_02]: There's a process for sealing things. It's not like it's one or the other it's not a zero

[00:37:52] [SPEAKER_02]: sum game. It's just that typically there should be a process that's followed. We don't really

[00:37:57] [SPEAKER_01]: understand why it wasn't here. Another point they make is judge goes violations of trial rules

[00:38:04] [SPEAKER_01]: significantly undermine the public's access rights in the media's news gathering function.

[00:38:10] [SPEAKER_01]: Again I think that pretty much speaks for itself. The public can't know what's going on.

[00:38:15] [SPEAKER_01]: The news media can't report what's going on if virtually every document in a case is sealed.

[00:38:25] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. Yeah people need people have the right to know. And their final point was granting this

[00:38:31] [SPEAKER_01]: petition to open up the records even more would serve the significant public interest in this

[00:38:36] [SPEAKER_01]: case and denying it would have adverse consequences. There you go. So they're saying

[00:38:43] [SPEAKER_02]: on that first riddum and damas they're supporting it. They're looking at the future.

[00:38:48] [SPEAKER_02]: They're not just looking at the past and I mean yeah I think they they raised some good points.

[00:38:54] [SPEAKER_02]: I would I would hope that the record keeping is better going forward.

[00:39:00] [SPEAKER_02]: One thing if I may just sort of jump off here. Uh-oh. I still don't understand how some of

[00:39:07] [SPEAKER_02]: these record keeping issues even happened. We've heard from some folks who say that

[00:39:14] [SPEAKER_02]: sometimes special judge there can be issues with that because like a special judge

[00:39:19] [SPEAKER_02]: is not part of the county where the clerk is operating and there can be a disconnect there.

[00:39:25] [SPEAKER_02]: But I don't know. I wish we had a more of a sense of what exactly happened

[00:39:31] [SPEAKER_02]: because I think to the media's point it I it shouldn't happen again.

[00:39:38] [SPEAKER_02]: But like understanding exactly why. What were the motivations? Were their motivations? Was this

[00:39:43] [SPEAKER_02]: just a disconnect between clerk and judge? Were things being purposely put away? Is it a combination

[00:39:51] [SPEAKER_02]: of both? Like what exactly was happening? I thought it was interesting because Gull kind of in her

[00:39:58] [SPEAKER_02]: response points at the clerk. Like it's her responsibility to to put some of this out there.

[00:40:04] [SPEAKER_02]: But I just don't know. We felt when we were trying to get documents at times that

[00:40:10] [SPEAKER_02]: there was kind of a you know sort of a pinball thing where we're kind of

[00:40:17] [SPEAKER_02]: being hit back and forth between different people. Everyone who's acting like they don't

[00:40:21] [SPEAKER_02]: know what's going on. And so I just I would be very curious like what exactly broke down here.

[00:40:27] [SPEAKER_01]: It'd be nice to know and maybe if there's more public access to some of these documents

[00:40:32] [SPEAKER_02]: that we know. If it's not Judge Gull's fault, if it's essentially the clerk's fault then

[00:40:36] [SPEAKER_02]: I think that should be public too. If it's Judge Gull's fault and not the clerk's fault,

[00:40:40] [SPEAKER_02]: you know we just I'm not saying we need to scapegoat somebody. I'm just saying it would be nice.

[00:40:44] [SPEAKER_01]: I want to find out what happened so we could be ensured it doesn't happen again.

[00:40:49] [SPEAKER_02]: Yes. Yes. Or if it's nobody's fault but it's truly like these documents were put into a no-man's

[00:40:54] [SPEAKER_02]: land and nobody really complained about it until we did and then they kind of just made a

[00:40:57] [SPEAKER_02]: mistake by instead of putting it on my case they just put it all out there then that's fine.

[00:41:01] [SPEAKER_01]: But we should know about that. Yeah, Ani and I had to file into the case to ask for these documents

[00:41:09] [SPEAKER_01]: to be released 118 documents. We should not have had to do that and no one should have to

[00:41:15] [SPEAKER_01]: do that again. These documents in this case and other cases should be public. So I think

[00:41:21] [SPEAKER_02]: I would love to identify where the breakdown is so that there can be an understanding and then

[00:41:27] [SPEAKER_02]: also other cases that maybe have a special judge or maybe are high-profile they can take that and say

[00:41:33] [SPEAKER_02]: oh here's what happened in the Delphi case. Here's how we can try to avoid that. A learning

[00:41:38] [SPEAKER_01]: opportunity right? Exactly. So then after that Judge Gull and her attorney filed their brief

[00:41:48] [SPEAKER_01]: in this record keeping case and again this is basically them saying why

[00:41:55] [SPEAKER_01]: Supreme Court doesn't need to issue any rulings or what have you in this particular case.

[00:42:02] [SPEAKER_01]: Their arguments can basically be put into two different categories. The first category

[00:42:11] [SPEAKER_01]: is procedural stuff. That basically means well you shouldn't consider this motion from Richard

[00:42:19] [SPEAKER_01]: Allen at all because he didn't file it correctly. He didn't follow the process correctly so they

[00:42:26] [SPEAKER_01]: have some arguments about that and then the second category is on the substance where they say

[00:42:32] [SPEAKER_01]: well you also shouldn't grant it because he's wrong. So let's talk about some of the procedural

[00:42:40] [SPEAKER_01]: issues. They say for instance that before he filed with the Supreme Court he should have

[00:42:48] [SPEAKER_01]: sought some sort of relief from Judge Gull from the trial court before immediately going to the

[00:42:53] [SPEAKER_01]: Supreme Court. They say he has not acted expeditiously. When you file a motion like this he's supposed

[00:43:00] [SPEAKER_01]: to act very quickly and he's referring to things that happened back in June it's now November.

[00:43:08] [SPEAKER_01]: You can't say you're acting expeditiously about something that happened in June if you're

[00:43:13] [SPEAKER_02]: responding to it in November. Why is expeditiousness important in a court case?

[00:43:19] [SPEAKER_02]: In this court case you just don't want things to go astray. And as for the not skipping ahead too far

[00:43:26] [SPEAKER_02]: why is that important? Like why is it important to kind of go to the appellate court first?

[00:43:32] [SPEAKER_01]: Typically there's a process to be followed. Go to the trial court, do these other things

[00:43:37] [SPEAKER_01]: because let's say for instance that we come home tomorrow morning and we see a mouse in our house.

[00:43:49] [SPEAKER_01]: Should we then immediately say okay that's it we got to burn the house down,

[00:43:53] [SPEAKER_01]: got to buy a new house? That's what I would do. Because there's a mouse. Or would we say well

[00:43:58] [SPEAKER_01]: how did this mouse get in? Can we call an exterminator? Can we try to catch the mouse?

[00:44:02] [SPEAKER_01]: Can we reason with the mouse? Before you take the most extraordinary step possible

[00:44:08] [SPEAKER_01]: you're supposed to take smaller steps and follow a process. And if you have a situation where everybody

[00:44:16] [SPEAKER_01]: who sees a mouse in their house is immediately burning down their houses that could be a problem.

[00:44:22] [SPEAKER_01]: There's a reason why certain processes have been developed. Okay, that makes sense.

[00:44:26] [SPEAKER_01]: Let's take care of it at a lower level unless we really can't take care of it at a lower

[00:44:30] [SPEAKER_01]: level. And then escalate it further? Yes. Goal also argued that Richard Allen did not

[00:44:44] [SPEAKER_01]: demonstrate that if this petition was denied he would suffer any real harm. And she points out

[00:44:53] [SPEAKER_01]: that he, Richard Allen and his attorneys have access to all of these documents. So how is his

[00:45:00] [SPEAKER_01]: interest harmed by the fact that other people don't have access to them? Okay, that's an

[00:45:07] [SPEAKER_02]: interesting point. What do you think of that point? Well, I mean I tend to want the press to

[00:45:13] [SPEAKER_02]: be able to have documents so I don't agree with it. But it's an interesting point because

[00:45:17] [SPEAKER_02]: it does also kind of point to the fact that they've been trying this in the press.

[00:45:21] [SPEAKER_02]: Which is not a statement criticizing them that is an objective statement of what they

[00:45:26] [SPEAKER_02]: have been doing or at least what the old defense team has been doing. So he's kind of effectively

[00:45:32] [SPEAKER_02]: tying himself to that narrative in my mind with saying that. So then they also move on, as I said,

[00:45:44] [SPEAKER_01]: to the second category is that this claim should fail on its merits because basically they say,

[00:45:52] [SPEAKER_01]: well you know earlier this week Judge Gold told the clerk to make most of the stuff available

[00:45:57] [SPEAKER_01]: anyway. So what difference does it make? It's a moot point therefore. I think we discussed at the top

[00:46:00] [SPEAKER_02]: of the episode. We did and I'll just say that I actually see her point and I kind of see why she

[00:46:05] [SPEAKER_02]: did that. I tend to hope that though there's something that comes out of this that makes

[00:46:11] [SPEAKER_02]: that sure that that is permanent, again whether or not that's Gull's fault that this was happening,

[00:46:17] [SPEAKER_02]: ensuring that it is not happening going forward seems very important to me.

[00:46:22] [SPEAKER_01]: They also feel that too much emphasis is placed on whether or not something is available on my case

[00:46:29] [SPEAKER_01]: in the public docket because Judge Gold says something is considered publicly available if you

[00:46:36] [SPEAKER_01]: can go to the courthouse and use their computers to access it. That's something that's technically

[00:46:44] [SPEAKER_01]: true but the fact of the matter is there are a lot of people all over the world

[00:46:50] [SPEAKER_01]: who are justifiably interested in this case and it would be a hardship to expect anyone who's

[00:46:56] [SPEAKER_01]: interested enough in this case to want to read a court document, to hop on a plane or what have you,

[00:47:03] [SPEAKER_01]: fly to Indianapolis rent a car, drive to the Carroll County Courthouse and access documents

[00:47:09] [SPEAKER_01]: there instead of just doing it from the comfort of their own home via my case.

[00:47:13] [SPEAKER_02]: I completely agree with that on principle. I completely agree with that but legally

[00:47:18] [SPEAKER_02]: does that matter? Does it matter that it's inconvenient to us?

[00:47:22] [SPEAKER_01]: They're making the argument that it doesn't matter.

[00:47:24] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I kind of feel like it I agree with you on principle. I don't really that doesn't sound

[00:47:29] [SPEAKER_02]: like that's it that sounds like the courts are not exactly especially in this state I feel like

[00:47:35] [SPEAKER_02]: often like holding the hands of the public or journalists on this and

[00:47:39] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't think that's good. I think it's good to have things open but when we're talking

[00:47:43] [SPEAKER_02]: about just what the legal ramifications are I feel like they're going to look at that and say

[00:47:48] [SPEAKER_02]: yeah that's it that sounds like a you guys problem rather than an us problem.

[00:47:52] [SPEAKER_01]: That's true I guess just my personal opinion is our definitions of things like public access

[00:48:00] [SPEAKER_01]: should not be written in stone and never change as times change 20 or 30 years ago. Yeah if

[00:48:08] [SPEAKER_01]: something's available at the courthouse that should count because that's just it was a different

[00:48:12] [SPEAKER_01]: time you didn't have an internet. So you're not an originalist Kevin?

[00:48:19] [SPEAKER_01]: Today public access should be defined as broadly as possible. I completely agree but is that

[00:48:28] [SPEAKER_02]: in this situation isn't I guess like what should be doesn't necessarily seem like

[00:48:36] [SPEAKER_02]: like to compute much in this situation I guess. I don't think that's a good thing I wish that

[00:48:43] [SPEAKER_02]: things were different but I'm just saying like when we're thinking about like what the legal outcome

[00:48:46] [SPEAKER_02]: of something is going to be that's what I'm more interested in at this point. I think

[00:48:50] [SPEAKER_02]: I think there should be a signed seating for accredited media institutions and freelancers

[00:48:57] [SPEAKER_02]: like ourselves. I think there should be you know more access to all these documents but I

[00:49:03] [SPEAKER_02]: don't that hasn't happened so far so I don't see it happening at this point.

[00:49:11] [SPEAKER_01]: I want to read you a paragraph from this brief as it relates to the Frank's memorandum.

[00:49:16] [SPEAKER_01]: As we mentioned when Judge Gull decided to make a lot of things public she did not make the

[00:49:22] [SPEAKER_01]: Frank's memorandum public even though of course anyone can go online and get copies of it.

[00:49:28] [SPEAKER_02]: The horse is out of that barn.

[00:49:37] [SPEAKER_01]: Relator also seeks to unseal or restore public access to the Frank's memorandum.

[00:49:43] [SPEAKER_01]: The Frank's memorandum contains the full first and last names of the deceased minor children who

[00:49:49] [SPEAKER_01]: are the crime victims in this case. Names of minor children are required to be redacted

[00:49:54] [SPEAKER_01]: from court filings in federal courts. Indiana in turn excludes case records declared confidential

[00:50:00] [SPEAKER_01]: or excluded from public access pursuant to federal law. Therefore the Frank's memorandum is marked as

[00:50:08] [SPEAKER_01]: confidential because counsel failed to supply a redacted version at the time of filing. Respondent

[00:50:14] [SPEAKER_01]: has ordered new defense counsel to review the pleadings and either adopt them or make them their

[00:50:18] [SPEAKER_01]: own. If counsel adopts them they are ordered to file a redacted version. So that's

[00:50:30] [SPEAKER_01]: a bit of a word salad. It seems to be saying that because Rosie and Baldwin included the full names

[00:50:41] [SPEAKER_01]: of Liberty German and Abby Williams in the document that should be enough for it to be

[00:50:47] [SPEAKER_01]: declared confidential. And that's an argument I find interesting certainly because

[00:50:57] [SPEAKER_01]: I'm sure if you go through many other filings in this case the names of the victims are mentioned. I

[00:51:03] [SPEAKER_01]: believe I'm pretty confident the prosecutors mentioned them and many of his filings. So that's

[00:51:11] [SPEAKER_01]: I just wanted to highlight that is it seemed like a frankly a bit of a bizarre argument. What did

[00:51:18] [SPEAKER_02]: you make of it. I don't get that at all. I think like on a sort of outsider's non-legal perspective

[00:51:26] [SPEAKER_02]: there's a lot of things that one could possibly consider problematic about that Frank's memorandum.

[00:51:32] [SPEAKER_02]: You know ethically speaking it calls a man who's not been charged with anything essentially

[00:51:36] [SPEAKER_02]: Charles Manson. So I think like on the outside as people looking at that is that a responsible

[00:51:42] [SPEAKER_02]: thing to do. Some people would say no but legally speaking is it a problem. I don't really see how

[00:51:50] [SPEAKER_02]: it is. Is it a sneaky but maybe not so sneaky because it's so overt. Is it an overt dodge of

[00:51:57] [SPEAKER_02]: the gag order. Yes. Does that matter. Well I mean it's filed in the court and

[00:52:06] [SPEAKER_02]: I think the responsible thing would have been to maybe redact some of the alleged

[00:52:09] [SPEAKER_02]: odinous that they were smearing. But I don't think that's I don't really think that's

[00:52:14] [SPEAKER_01]: necessarily enough to get it taken down. It's fair to say in my opinion behind the scenes

[00:52:20] [SPEAKER_01]: we have talked about the Frank's memorandum amongst ourselves. We've talked about it with a

[00:52:26] [SPEAKER_01]: wide variety of people in the community. We've talked about it with professionals. We've talked

[00:52:31] [SPEAKER_01]: about it with attorneys. Art dealers. We've talked about it with a surprisingly large number

[00:52:38] [SPEAKER_01]: of people and a lot of those people had a lot of criticisms to make about it. So people liked it

[00:52:45] [SPEAKER_01]: but a lot of people had criticisms. The vast majority of people did not. None, no one that we

[00:52:53] [SPEAKER_01]: talked to who made a criticism of that memorandum criticized the fact that it named the murder

[00:52:59] [SPEAKER_02]: victims. No that was not the big problem with it in anyone's mind. And I really don't

[00:53:04] [SPEAKER_02]: think some people found it reprehensible from an ethical standpoint because of some of the things

[00:53:11] [SPEAKER_02]: it was doing. I don't think anybody was necessarily saying and therefore it can't be up there. And

[00:53:20] [SPEAKER_02]: in addition to that, you know, I don't know. It just seems like again the horse is out of

[00:53:26] [SPEAKER_02]: that barn and also the victims names. Nobody even I don't think anyone even referenced that. So

[00:53:34] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know maybe there's some sort of like legal trick that they're trying here where oh if you

[00:53:39] [SPEAKER_02]: know that ties into this and therefore the domino effect but I can't really see what that is at

[00:53:43] [SPEAKER_01]: this point. I don't think it's a strong argument. I think it's frankly a bizarre argument. And

[00:53:50] [SPEAKER_01]: if she says that this can't be made public because it mentions the names of the victims then

[00:53:58] [SPEAKER_01]: somebody needs to go through all the earlier filings and prepare redacted versions of those

[00:54:04] [SPEAKER_01]: which just seems to be an enormous waste of time. Yeah I mean like there's and there's sensitive

[00:54:07] [SPEAKER_02]: information. I mean they go into death on the crime scene right? I mean if they're saying that

[00:54:13] [SPEAKER_02]: the memorandum yeah the memorandum if they're saying that well he's innocent and someone

[00:54:16] [SPEAKER_02]: else did this then you know they've basically kind of destroyed any ability to like suss out

[00:54:23] [SPEAKER_02]: wrongful confessions because now everybody has a blueprint of what happened. It's like

[00:54:30] [SPEAKER_02]: there's things like that where you can maybe squint and see something but that's not one of them.

[00:54:38] [SPEAKER_01]: The brief concludes by saying should this court grant a writ to relay later the court

[00:54:45] [SPEAKER_01]: will become inundated with petitions alleging that trial courts across the state committed

[00:54:50] [SPEAKER_01]: a technical violation of the access to court record rules. Disputes of the type where later

[00:54:56] [SPEAKER_01]: raises are best resolved by the ordinary appellate process. Okay that makes sense to me.

[00:55:05] [SPEAKER_02]: If everyone you know if you let somebody cut the line everyone's going to cut the line.

[00:55:09] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah it's going to be chaos. And there is a process in place and certainly

[00:55:15] [SPEAKER_01]: that argument might sound better since it just came after that murder victim name argument.

[00:55:21] [SPEAKER_02]: I have a question minus the murder victim name argument how well reason do you think this is

[00:55:26] [SPEAKER_02]: what's your assessment of it overall minus that one? They do a good job of citing relevant cases

[00:55:34] [SPEAKER_01]: and arguing things quite well. The fact that Richard Allen didn't demonstrate through

[00:55:42] [SPEAKER_01]: the attorneys that harm would come to him through this is a valid point. If he's not going to suffer

[00:55:50] [SPEAKER_01]: extraordinary harm if this isn't granted then why are we rushing to the Supreme Court with it?

[00:55:57] [SPEAKER_01]: Why aren't we just doing it at a lower level court? Yeah yeah that's

[00:56:01] [SPEAKER_02]: that is a pretty piercing question in my mind but I guess we'll I guess with all that said

[00:56:10] [SPEAKER_01]: as we indicated we've fallen aside always of openness and transparency. I think that things

[00:56:17] [SPEAKER_02]: should be done differently going forward. I don't think this is a good way of handling this case

[00:56:22] [SPEAKER_02]: the secrecy it really needs to stop. I think we've said this but on an investigative in the

[00:56:29] [SPEAKER_02]: investigative phase of this whole case the secrecy was frustrating and I think at times

[00:56:34] [SPEAKER_02]: misguided but I think more understandable than it is now because it was not being adjudicated

[00:56:40] [SPEAKER_02]: and that enough is reason to perhaps keep a lot secret but when we're getting into the

[00:56:47] [SPEAKER_02]: judicial phase of this whole thing it needs to come out into the sunshine. I agree with the

[00:56:56] [SPEAKER_02]: Indiana Broadcasters Association because it's imperative that the press be able to report

[00:57:02] [SPEAKER_02]: on this effectively going forward because there is such a public interest in it and

[00:57:06] [SPEAKER_02]: I just hope that whatever happens here there is some kind of permanent shift in how this is dealt with

[00:57:15] [SPEAKER_02]: because the records are important and it's important that people have confidence that

[00:57:21] [SPEAKER_02]: this is being run effectively going forward and I think this is kind of like a this is a red light

[00:57:26] [SPEAKER_02]: like let's stop and fix this before we go forward so I think it's an opportunity

[00:57:31] [SPEAKER_01]: to turn things around on that front. It will be interesting to see what happens with the court

[00:57:38] [SPEAKER_01]: as we say there's a second matter before the Supreme Court related more directly to whether

[00:57:44] [SPEAKER_01]: goal Rosie and Baldwin should continue on with the case it'll be interesting to follow that I

[00:57:49] [SPEAKER_01]: believe the briefs on that aren't due until November 27th so we have time. Do we have a sense

[00:57:55] [SPEAKER_02]: of when exactly the court will make a decision on this recordings right?

[00:58:06] [SPEAKER_02]: Hopefully soon. Yeah there you go. All right well thank you all so much for listening we

[00:58:12] [SPEAKER_02]: really appreciate you and be safe and we'll talk again soon bye. Thanks so much for listening

[00:58:25] [SPEAKER_01]: to the murder sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover please email us at

[00:58:31] [SPEAKER_01]: murdersheet at gmail.com if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime please report

[00:58:40] [SPEAKER_02]: it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon that's available

[00:58:47] [SPEAKER_02]: at www.patreon.com slash murder sheet if you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests

[00:58:57] [SPEAKER_02]: you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murder sheet we very much appreciate any support.

[00:59:07] [SPEAKER_01]: Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the murder sheet

[00:59:12] [SPEAKER_01]: and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners

[00:59:19] [SPEAKER_02]: about a case we've covered you can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook

[00:59:25] [SPEAKER_02]: we mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much

[00:59:31] [SPEAKER_02]: we do try to check our email account but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages

[00:59:37] [SPEAKER_02]: thanks again for listening. Beat the summertime sluggishness and enhance your every day with our

[00:59:44] [SPEAKER_01]: wonderful sponsor Via Hemp. This is accompanied the Crafts award-winning premium THC and THC free

[00:59:51] [SPEAKER_01]: gummies with high quality hemp grown right here on American Farms all for an excellent value

[00:59:57] [SPEAKER_01]: especially for murder sheet listeners who get a special deal if you're 21 or older you can

[01:00:03] [SPEAKER_01]: experience it for yourself and get 15% off your first order with our exclusive code M

[01:00:10] [SPEAKER_01]: sheet at viahemp.com that's v-i-i-a-h-e-m-p.com each of Via's gummies is crafted to give you a specific

[01:00:22] [SPEAKER_02]: mood get creative get some rest get focused get some pleasure all with Via's delicious

[01:00:29] [SPEAKER_01]: gummies no matter what you're looking for Via has you covered their grapefruit cbg and

[01:00:37] [SPEAKER_02]: cbd flow state gummies help me feel energized and focused to get a lot done this summer in terms of

[01:00:42] [SPEAKER_02]: scheduling conducting interviews running around after sources and more you don't need a medical card

[01:00:47] [SPEAKER_01]: to enjoy Via Hemp and these products ship legally to all 50 states if you're 21 and older head to

[01:00:55] [SPEAKER_02]: viahemp.com and use the code M sheet to receive 15% off that's v-i-i-a-h-e-m-p.com and use code

[01:01:05] [SPEAKER_02]: M sheet at checkout after you purchase they ask you where you heard about them please support

[01:01:10] [SPEAKER_02]: our show and tell them we sent you enhance your every day with Via