The Delphi Murders: The Defense's "Ding Dong" Document

[00:00:00] We are super excited to shout out our sponsor, Via Hemp. Their gummies deliver great results, no matter what mood you're trying to create. I find that Ani and I can have trouble winding down after a day running around reporting, podcasting, and getting embroiled in cereal-related capers.

[00:00:17] That's where Via Hemp comes in. They offer a range of gummies of the THC and THC-free CBD and CBN varieties. They are delicious and legal to ship all 50 states. The folks at Via Hemp craft

[00:00:32] each gummy based on a mood or goal. Try them now to improve your sleep, recovery, focus, pleasure, or creativity, or just to enjoy and vibe. I really love their THC-free CBD, CBN, and CBG gummies.

[00:00:47] Specifically, Zen is a nice blueberry treat that also helps me relax and rest at the end of the day. For anyone looking for other sleep-focused Via options, their new Dreams formulations also allow for a fully customizable sleep journey featuring 2, 5, and 10 milligram options.

[00:01:05] Head to viahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off plus one free sample of their award-winning gummies, if you're 21 and older. That's V-I-I-A hemp.com and use code MSHEET at

[00:01:20] checkout. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Get the rest you deserve with Dreams from Via. Again, head to viahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off plus one free sample of their award-winning gummies.

[00:01:36] Content warning. This episode includes discussion of the murder of two children. It also contains some profanity from me about Elvis Presley. So we're definitely in for an interesting episode today. The defense just released a new document in the Delphi

[00:01:51] murders case. Of course, we're talking about the case against defendant Richard Allen, who stands accused of murdering two Delphi teenagers, Liberty German and Abigail Williams, all the way back in 2017. This case has a lot of legal developments at this point as well as investigative developments.

[00:02:08] And the most recent legal development comes from the defense. They just filed accused response to this court's May 31st, 2024 order or judgment of the court and notice of conflict. So we're going to talk about this document, probably going to curse about Elvis and we'll move on.

[00:02:28] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:43] And this is the Delphi murders, the defense's ding dong document.

[00:03:32] This, this document. So you may remember a few weeks ago or at some point, fairly recently, I said that the defense filings reminded me a bit of greatest hits albums that musicians used to put out where they had all their number one hits in a new album.

[00:03:53] And they're just to recycle it over and over again, the same material. So there was a bootleg recording out there a bootleg collection, a bootleg compilation of like the worst songs Elvis ever did.

[00:04:12] Love Elvis, hate him, did some great stuff. He also did some awful songs in the movie. So somebody took his most embarrassing, worst songs, put them together on one CD, and called it Elvis's greatest shit.

[00:04:27] And for some reason, that's what came to me when I was reading this document, this ding dong document, which we will now discuss. Are you trying to lose weight and feeling like you're getting absolutely nowhere? Well, weight loss can be a uniquely challenging goal,

[00:04:46] one that leaves many of us feeling isolated and frustrated. The good news is that our sponsor Rowe can help you achieve your weight loss goals. Over 200,000 people who've tried it can attest to this. Now remember, when you support our sponsors, you're also supporting our show directly.

[00:05:04] To start, Rowe gets you access to one of the most popular and effective weight loss shots on the market. Next, through its special RoweBody program, you can tailor a weight loss system that works for you, figuring out your own unique diet and exercise regimen.

[00:05:18] Rowe even gets you weekly one-on-one coaching sessions with a registered nurse. Lose the pounds and keep them off with Rowe. Now Murder Sheet listeners get a special deal. With Rowe, the average weight loss is 15 to 20% in one year with healthy lifestyle changes.

[00:05:36] BMI and other eligibility criteria apply. Go to rowe.co.msheet. Sign up today and you'll pay just $99 for your first month and $145 a month after that. Medication costs are separate. That's ro.co.msheet. We live in a world where the truth is often in question.

[00:06:01] We're all about getting at the truth. That's why we love the new podcast, You Probably Think This Story's About You. This show sees host Brittany R. digging into a highly personal mystery. The person she thought was her soulmate never truly existed.

[00:06:17] A man named Kanan stole her heart after a chance meeting on Hinge, but Kanan was not the person he said he was. You Probably Think This Story's About You follows Britt's quest to unravel a dark web of lies. But the real story, a story about healing, about community,

[00:06:36] about self-discovery, comes about when she meets up with the other women that Kanan deceived. Britt's journey is relatable and her quest to discover why she was susceptible to Kanan's charms is commendable. You Probably Think This Story's About You is a must-listen for anyone seeking out a new,

[00:06:54] twisty, immersive podcast to listen to. Listen and follow You Probably Think This Story's About You wherever you listen to podcasts. Cringe this much reading a legal document. So this one really, I hold out hope that at some point the filings will get better from the defense

[00:07:37] and that things will improve and maybe... Things aren't going in that direction. No, maybe this is them getting it out of their system, but I sort of doubt that. Is this them hitting bottom? I don't know. This document, spoilers, this is embarrassing. This is embarrassing. I'm an attorney.

[00:07:52] I have a lot of respect and love for the legal profession. This document deeply embarrasses me. I don't understand it, and I just don't know why things don't improve. I mean, I wish I knew. I wish I knew some of the mindset behind this because I really...

[00:08:10] It's like, is this a cry for help? What is happening? Well, let's get to it. The worst part is the ding-dong part. That made me so sad. We will get to that in a few moments. Let's take it in chronological order.

[00:08:28] So what is the point of this document? What are they asking for, first of all? Basically, say, well, we don't want this document... This is our response to Judge Gohl saying she's not going to recuse herself.

[00:08:40] We don't want her to have any more hearings about that because we don't want to delay things. But you know, folks, if something in here we say is so compelling, Judge Gohl says, well, I'll go ahead and recuse myself. They don't have any objection to that. Oh, OK.

[00:08:55] Very, very genteel of them. I think it also kind of underscores... It has a sort of defensiveness in the opening talking about, quote, "...the defense files this response and notice for purposes of maintaining a record and does not

[00:09:08] wish for this pleading to delay future hearings from taking place, particularly hearings related to the defense's request to transfer Richard Allen out of the Department of Corrections, which is the most urgent of all of the pending matters that need litigated."

[00:09:22] That is one of the few times in this 21-page document we hear about Richard Allen. Yeah. That's... Oh, God, that is so true. Geez. This case is supposed to be about Richard Allen. Are you sure it's not about Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosie's feelings?

[00:09:39] Are you sure that's not what's on trial here? What this case is about has gotten lost in these defense filings. And if you're someone who cares about Richard Allen, that should give you cause for concern. I concur.

[00:09:57] And when I see defense attorneys file 21-page motions where they talk about embarrassing trivia and minutiae and don't talk that much about the actual facts of the case or the defendant in the case, the meaning I take from that, frankly, is they don't have much of a case.

[00:10:15] Yeah. Defense attorneys don't do this when they're riding high, frankly. And listen, I'm all about keeping a record. I think we saw from one of Judge Gull's failings when she kicked them off the case originally was she didn't create a good record of that.

[00:10:30] So it's important for everyone to create a record. But one would imagine that one would most likely want to create a record about things that are important rather than whatever the heck this is. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this.

[00:10:42] It's not really worth it. Let's get right to it. This is not an important document. We feel the need to, at this point, create a record and explain. Because also, it's easy when you're coming into a legal document cold to think,

[00:10:56] OK, this is important because no one would file something like this unless it was important. And we want to talk our audience through it and explain what is important or what's not important. So emphatically, this is just stupid, frankly.

[00:11:08] And it does not behoove us to pretend anything otherwise. So we start out by relitigating. There's a return to the whole Robert Bastogne thing. You know about this. We know about this. I'd like to give a quick recap. Very, very quick recap.

[00:11:27] Robert Bastogne is a convicted child molester with severe credibility problems who wrote a letter to the court alleging that he observed Richard Allen being abused in Westville. The defense subpoenaed him to come and testify.

[00:11:48] When Mr. Bastogne got the chance to back up his claims in court, he refused to leave his cell. Again, this is a man with serious credibility problems. He refuses to leave his cell. And the sheriff's deputies who have been assigned to remove him from his cell

[00:12:13] are confronted with him not wanting to leave his cell. And so there is some communication between them and the office of Judge Gold. That is memorialized in a report at the time where Sheriff Lesenby, then Sheriff Lesenby,

[00:12:32] indicates that it is his recollection that Judge Gold or Judge Gold's office told him, if he's not willing to come, you don't have to force him. And Judge Gold says her recollection was that that was their decision not to force him to come.

[00:12:51] But she said, if you don't bring him, get some sort of a letter or a record that he was unwilling to come. So there's a small discrepancy there. I don't think it's a huge discrepancy.

[00:13:04] You pointed it out at the time and you said it troubled you, in fairness. And to me, it troubled me less because it seemed like one of those things that could be a game of telephone where, you know, there's some explanation for the discrepancy and it's

[00:13:17] not necessarily sinister. It didn't strike me as a huge deal. And I kind of was surprised that they're making such hay of it here. It was something troubling, but it's not a huge deal. It's really not. There's, I mean, I don't know.

[00:13:33] And it's also something that it feels like it could be straightened out, as you say, it could be a game of telephone. I don't think the goal here is to straighten anything out and figure things out.

[00:13:43] I think the goal here is to make hay of everything they can. And to a certain extent, that is the role of a defense attorney. But to another extent, when you're stretching that hard, it kind of starts to look ridiculous.

[00:13:53] And it's also becomes harder for everyone to assess what are credible claims and what are not. So, as I said in the original sheriff's report from last year, the sheriff said, Judge Gold told us we didn't have to bring him.

[00:14:08] He said the court, the judge's office told him that. That's a notable thing that I think could contribute to the game of telephone here. And so now the defense is saying, oh, when the judge saw that report,

[00:14:21] the judge should have realized that the sheriff was lying and should have notified the defense of this lie. HOFFMAN Yeah, I mean, like, I don't know. I mean, what do you think? BAKER I think... HOFFMAN You said you were concerned about the discrepancy in a previous episode.

[00:14:44] What makes it concerning for you but not rising to this level? BAKER I think it's something that if it were me, I'd want to clear it up. I don't think I would jump to the conclusion that Judge Gold saw a report, said, oh, the sheriff is lying here.

[00:15:05] I'll be sure not to tell the defense. I think it might be a situation where things were slightly misunderstood. It is concerning enough to me, I would have liked to have seen a couple of emails or something about it to clarify it.

[00:15:20] I don't think it rises to the level they're rising it. They're bringing it to here. They're saying this whole incident means that Judge Gold basically was complicit in covering up a lie from the sheriff's department.

[00:15:34] They're saying Judge Gold now shouldn't be presiding over this trial because now she is a witness as to the credibility of the sheriff because now she knows he is a liar. And also, this somehow backs up their theories about the lies in general of the sheriff's department.

[00:15:51] So this is an issue of amplification. What you're saying is that something can be worth looking at or worth talking about, but it doesn't necessarily launch or springboard one into the land of conclusion. It reminds me of what was that the Phantom Tollbooth, they jumped to conclusions, they

[00:16:09] jumped to the island of conclusions. We can stand with our feet firmly planted on the ground here and discuss it like adults. We don't need to necessarily say, thus, we have a massive conspiracy between the judge and the sheriff's department.

[00:16:24] DAVID A. THOMPSON, MD, PhD I'd like to be a bit crass. It would be like if I left the toilet seat up in the house and Anya got upset about that, maybe she should be concerned. Maybe I'm a bit thoughtless.

[00:16:36] But is she going to file court documents and say that this shows something innately wrong about me as a human being? Who told you? Who told you? Which one of you snitches did it? No, I mean, yeah.

[00:16:49] So this is something I see a lot from the defense where they have a germ of something small and instead of just dealing with it, they try to create confusion. They tried to create impressions that aren't really there.

[00:17:06] And what's what's irritating about this is that I think that a bunch of small germs, a bunch of maybe small pebbles can add up to a greater weight. And this goes for maybe not this setting, but you could say, well, oh, things were sloppy with the police.

[00:17:22] They made this mistake. You know, let's talk about it. And that can add up to a jury. But when you're holding out a pebble and saying, look, look at this great boulder, how will we ever overcome it? People are like, it's just a pebble.

[00:17:36] You know, what are you doing when you're overselling what you have? It makes what you have seem weaker and makes it have less utility to you because it just first of all, you're telegraphing your strategy to the other side, which can be pretty problematic.

[00:17:50] And then second of all, you're over exaggerating what you have. So it hurts your credibility in general. It seems needless. And I still don't understand why they're doing it. I think it behooves a defense attorney to make a big deal about stuff, but you don't

[00:18:06] have to overstate it or draw the conclusion yourself. You can just sort of document it without necessarily saying thus a conspiracy. And then it also leaves me feeling a bit embarrassed because I try really hard to be fair.

[00:18:21] And if I see something that could be a good point for the defense, I really try to highlight it. And so maybe I bent over a little bit too far backwards to try to say, oh, this is concerning

[00:18:33] because when I see them take something relatively small and blow it up to this level, it's just... You see, that's why I mean, we've talked about this in our Q&A episode, but that's a

[00:18:44] big part of why I've shifted from giving them the benefit of the doubt to not because I'm sick of taking something seriously. And then the facts come out and it turns out they don't know what geofencing means or, you know, it's just they're misconstruing something. They're misrepresenting something.

[00:19:01] And I've been through that. So it's embarrassing to me. Yeah, it's embarrassing on several levels, not to you or to anyone who buys this stuff, but just to what they're doing here, frankly. And then there's like even a section in here where they suddenly say, well, here's some

[00:19:17] really great cross-exam questions. Oh my god. We've... Yeah, why? Oh, yeah. They said, we're so upset over this Bastogne business. We wrote this fan fiction for you. These are our imaginary cross-exam questions that we want to hit Toblezenby with. So specifically, this section deals with...

[00:19:35] They're saying, you know, this is so severe that Judge Gull is now a witness in the matter. So she can't be the judge. She's a witness in what the Sheriff's Department did. Yeah, Judge Gull quote, had a ringside seat to the intentional behavior of the Carroll

[00:19:49] County Sheriff's Office and or the bad faith of the Carroll County Sheriff's Office in that it intentionally ignored a valid defense subpoena for a defense witness and then fabricated a story in a police report claiming that the sitting judge on the case authorized the Carroll

[00:20:04] County Sheriff's Office to ignore the valid defense subpoena. Can I read these little... Questions? Yeah. Do you want to go back and forth and read one? Why don't you read one question? Okay. Attorney, Mr. Lezenby, the defense attempted to bring a witness named Robert Bastone to

[00:20:23] testify at a hearing concerning his observation of guards abusing Richard Allen in a variety of ways at Westville. But your office ignored a valid subpoena to bring that witness to a hearing. Isn't that right?

[00:20:35] I would imagine that if then Sheriff Lezenby were on the stand, he'd say that is completely fictitious. That is false. We did not ignore the subpoena. We actually went to Westville and attempted to serve the subpoena on this man who, when

[00:20:54] given the opportunity to make his story count, decided to sit in the cell. And again, this is a man, a child molester who has serious credibility issues on every issue under the sun. What's the next question?

[00:21:09] Attorney, you did not want the judge to hear the testimony of that witness because it would support the defense's contention that Richard Allen was being abused and should be moved to the Cass County jail closer to both his family and attorneys and away from the abuse.

[00:21:23] I would imagine that Sheriff Lezenby would say he doesn't really care about whether or not that evidence is heard. I would think, frankly, I would imagine, to be completely blunt, that Prosecutor McClellan would prefer for that evidence to be heard because, again, this man Bastone is such a

[00:21:47] damaged witness with such severe credibility problems. If he got on the stand, made some wild claims about how Richard Allen is being treated, it would be child's play for Nick McClellan or anyone else to cross-examine him and highlight

[00:22:05] how big of a liar this man is and make those claims of abuse seem ridiculous. So I imagine they would have preferred for this man to testify. Kat Kerlin As people have talked to Bastone, we know

[00:22:18] that Bastone tries to insert himself in other cases in order to bring attention to his own case. His goal is to showcase the injustice that he is facing about how he was framed for doing the crime that he is incarcerated for.

[00:22:31] His goal is to not help Richard Allen. His goal is to help himself. I don't think he has any compunctions about lying or exaggerating. Neil DeGrasse Tyson And again, do they want the sheriffs to do

[00:22:43] a forcible extraction and drug or physically force this person to come when he did not want to testify? I suspect that perhaps one reason he didn't want to testify is because he knew his claims were bogus. Kat Kerlin Yeah, I mean—

[00:22:57] Neil DeGrasse Tyson And he didn't want to have to deal with that and the possibility of perjury and other stuff. Kat Kerlin He has a history of making bogus claims. He has a history of just kind of being a prison house attorney for himself and filing things

[00:23:10] saying that, you know, he should be let out early after molesting a child because he can help fight on the front lines of the COVID pandemic. It's just nonsensical. The whole thing is stupid.

[00:23:21] Frankly, the best thing he could have done for them was do this because then they can make a big deal about it later on. Neil DeGrasse Tyson And I say this to highlight this.

[00:23:29] This is not like this is a key witness who would have saved the day if only the nefarious forces of Carroll County hadn't interfered. This was a liar who was given a chance to come and offer testimony and who refused.

[00:23:48] And if they had, in fact, physically forced him to come there and compromised his rights in that way, I can't imagine he would have given whatever testimony they hoped to get from him because he would have been upset with them for forcing him to be.

[00:24:02] Kaitlin Luna Well, then the attorneys would have turned around and said, well, this proves that these guards are abusive because they dragged this poor man out of his cell screaming in order to come testify for us. So, I mean, it doesn't improve the point.

[00:24:13] It's like just it's so facetious at this point. And I don't know, I guess. Neil DeGrasse Tyson They say Judge Gullo, she didn't admonish them for lying. So this means that other law enforcement is going to lie. I'm not even sure I follow that one other than.

[00:24:31] Kaitlin Luna I think if anybody would cause law enforcement to believe that they can create fabricated stories in this case with no consequences, it would be the defense attorneys inspiring them to do that because that seems to be a large part of what they're doing at this point.

[00:24:46] Just kind of either taking a germ of an idea and exaggerating or just saying whatever based on what they think sounds good. And I think that has been the track record that they have established.

[00:24:58] I don't feel like that is the track record that we've seen from Prosecutor Nicholas McLeeland at this point. And I think that is, I think it's, I don't know, some of the lack of the tone of this whole thing is just so ridiculous and self-aggrandizing, frankly.

[00:25:16] It really it baffles me at this point that we're seeing this. Adam Draper And then there is a lengthy discussion of the ex parte episode. This is the defense team filed something that they intended to be ex parte.

[00:25:33] This means that Prosecutor McLeeland should not have been able to see it and McLeeland was able to see it and subsequently quoted from it in a filing. Kaitlin Luna Which we said at the time was a problem and looked bad.

[00:25:46] And that was a mistake that McLeeland made that we, I think, got pretty critical about. Adam Draper At this point, I think it's fair to say the weight of the evidence indicates that either Baldwin and Rosie or someone in their office

[00:26:02] improperly filed their documents which allowed them to be seen by McLeeland. And if they had, in fact, filed those documents properly, they would have not been seen by McLeeland. And they continue to re-litigate this. Kaitlin Luna And say no, it wasn't them and their staff,

[00:26:21] it was Judge Gull's fault? Adam Draper I'm not sure what they're claiming. Kaitlin Luna Well, I mean, they're claiming here that, oh, she gave us the wrong advice and the tutorial she sent was for court staff and clerks and, you know, it just, I don't know. Who cares?

[00:26:41] I mean, this is such a minor issue. Just some technical failing. Presumably, I mean, I don't know. Is it normal to make such a big deal about any of this? Adam Draper I think if someone has seen something that's

[00:26:59] supposed to be ex parte and they're not supposed to have access to it, that's a potentially big deal. I would say that's troubling to use that word again, and it needs to be worked out.

[00:27:09] And again, from the weight of the evidence, it appears to me as if this was made available to the prosecutor and others because of an error on the part of the people filing it. Is that your assessment? Kaitlin Luna I've never used any of these programs before.

[00:27:27] I don't really understand any of this, so I'm not going to even level a judgment on who is definitely to blame here. I know what Judge Gull says. I see what they're saying. They're saying, no, it wasn't us.

[00:27:41] At this point, if it's a situation where it would be a problem with the system, then you would imagine it would have happened again. Adam Draper And Judge Gull in her order said, after I reminded the defense on the proper methods to file ex parte, it hasn't happened

[00:27:58] again. Kaitlin Luna Well, they're mad because they said she sent them a tutorial that didn't help them and that they couldn't use the site. So they're saying she didn't help at all. Adam Draper Judge Gull has failed to admonish Prosecutor McLean for improperly reading ex parte pleadings.

[00:28:24] Again, obviously he should not have read ex parte pleadings. But if he gets a notice that something is filed and it's available to him, it's not necessarily if I leave a key out. The fault lies in the fact that it was improperly filed.

[00:28:48] Kaitlin Luna That's what it seems to be. I guess what would be the other conclusion that Judge Gull went in and gave it to McLealand is some sort of evil plot. They're saying somehow court staff must have erred in how it was processed and then

[00:29:09] McLealand got access to it. Even if what they're saying is completely accurate and it's not their fault and it was court staff's fault, then it's court staff's fault. I don't see why McLealand should be admonished for that. Adam Draper Hopefully it's been remedied.

[00:29:22] In fairness, if something says ex parte, an alarm bell probably should have gone off. Kaitlin Luna I agree. Adam Draper I shouldn't be looking at this. The fact that it's available to me is a sign that there's a problem. I should tell somebody about this.

[00:29:35] Kaitlin Luna Yeah, I think it's reasonable to critique him over that. I think it's not necessarily to the level of what they're claiming it is. I just think, you know, I mean, I don't know.

[00:29:49] It seems like it very well could have been their fault, in which case it's kind of like that's sort of on you. Kaitlin Luna So should we talk about this court offered its hand pick picked public

[00:30:01] defenders an opportunity for a hearing on the Franks motion but denied the same opportunity for attorneys Baldwin and Rosy. What's ironic about this is that I believe Judge Gull picked Baldwin and Rosy in the beginning of all this as well.

[00:30:13] Adam Draper So they're also her hand pick picked. Kaitlin Luna Maybe they're just hand picked, and the other ones are doubly picked, so they're hand pick picked. Adam Draper That's what it says here. It says Lilly hand picked.

[00:30:23] Kaitlin Luna Yeah, we're not just having a nervous breakdown, believe it or not. So they're saying, well, the court says, you know, the judge says she has no bias against us, but she responded to her, you know, hand pick public defenders quicker than she did

[00:30:44] with us about the Franks motion. Adam Draper Well, in fairness, what they're saying is that she indicated to them that if you wish to adopt the arguments in the Franks motion, let me know and we'll see if we can schedule a hearing.

[00:30:58] And then when Rosy and Baldwin came back on the case, she didn't give them the hearing. So they're like, why would you give them the hearing and not us the hearing? That's not fair. Kaitlin Luna I don't know. What do you think?

[00:31:13] Adam Draper Well, what do you think? Kaitlin Luna Well, to me, part of the hearing is perhaps to do with the fact that they're totally new to the case and figuring out if they want to do this whole third party defendant

[00:31:26] thing or third party suspect thing that the previous defense had set up. So it kind of makes sense that you'd have a hearing to clarify all that. I mean, I don't know. What do you think? Adam Draper I think, again, it's interesting.

[00:31:47] I don't think when she said, oh, if you adopt that, let me know and we'll have a hearing. That was necessarily a promise or a contract to have a hearing. Kaitlin Luna It all seems very nitpicky. OK, here's the part. Are we done with that section?

[00:32:03] Adam Draper Yeah. Kaitlin Luna Here's the part. I've come to cringe internally to a really strong degree whenever they start bringing up their combined 70 years of experience and how judges always love them and they've always

[00:32:19] been coddled and celebrated and carried on the shoulders of jurors through the streets because they are so beloved and they are just so good at their jobs. I wish they would stop doing that. The more they do that, there's something very embarrassing and unprofessional about it.

[00:32:36] I don't think McLeeland has needed to come out and be like, you know, I've done such a great job in all my years as a prosecutor and back when I was a defense attorney, my clients loved me. Here's what they have to say.

[00:32:47] I mean, it just feels like a bad commercial at some point. Adam Draper Well, if you want to create the impression you're a good lawyer, do a good job. Kaitlin Luna Yeah, that's a very good. That's an easy branding technique to be perceived as competent.

[00:33:01] Endlessly stating that you have almost a century's worth of experience, frankly, just calls into question what the heck is going on at this point. So when they say in its order, this court claimed that it is irrational and unreasonable

[00:33:15] for the defense to assert that as lawyers with 70 years of combined experience, they've never had a judge provide a hard end date for a trial. Calling defense counseling rational and unreasonable shows bias, especially when the court is wrong in its understanding of jury rule four.

[00:33:29] You could just say the last part. I mean, just an idea. I'm sick of I'm just like the self-aggrandizement, you know, it's just getting to a point. Adam Draper This is just basically trying to relitigate the May 7th hearing. I think it still smarks for them.

[00:33:47] It still stings them that they are being seen as the ones that delayed the trial that they said they wanted to have right away. Kaitlin Luna Seen correctly as the ones who delayed the trial because they are the ones who delayed the trial.

[00:34:00] You know, this trial was never going to happen in May. They were calling around Odinist experts, you know, or people they perceived could be their Odinist experts in mid-April. They were in no way ready for trial.

[00:34:11] That's been exposed, and it's frankly ridiculous to keep relitigating it because they've already I think they've lost the narrative on that. And the better thing to do instead of relitigating that is to focus on what's going to happen allegedly in October.

[00:34:28] Adam Draper Again, like I said at the beginning, there's not a heck of a lot in here about Richard Allen. Kaitlin Luna No. Adam Draper You're right. Judge Gull's May 31, 2024 explanation for her denial of defense motions without a hearing provides a rational inference of bias.

[00:34:47] When explaining why the court denied several defense motions without hearing, the court stated, if pleadings on their face are not supported by the law or admissible evidence, judicial economy does not require a hearing, end quote.

[00:34:59] And then they try to say, well, how can she say what is admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence without a hearing? But typically when you file a motion for a hearing, you're basically making your case for a hearing.

[00:35:16] And she is saying in your motions for hearings, you did not make good arguments. You did not offer good evidence. Kaitlin Luna You did a bad job. Judge Gull So it did not even get to the point where we needed a hearing.

[00:35:33] Presumably in the motions, you put your best foot forward and make the best argument you can for why you need a hearing to discuss and analyze these matters. And she is indicating that in such motions, I didn't see enough to warrant a hearing.

[00:35:51] Kaitlin Luna At the double hearing, that was half contempt and then half, was that a motion to dismiss the case? When they had Todd Click come out? Judge Gull Yeah, I think so. Kaitlin Luna Yeah, something. I'm sorry. I'm like losing my mind.

[00:36:05] But they basically brought out people to present evidence on their theory. And again and again, and I'm not talking about the contempt side of things. I'm talking about what Baldwin was doing when he was talking to Todd Click, who, of

[00:36:20] course, is a law enforcement official who was a big part of their case because he put together the Odinus Theory in part. And again and again, they weren't getting to the point where they needed to in order to essentially secure what they wanted.

[00:36:38] I forget whether that was like they wanted evidence dismissed because evidence was lost. It was just like question after question and Gull continuously saying, what is the relevance here? Where are you going with this? And I think that is a problem for them.

[00:36:56] And if they can't even get there in a filing, you know, in a motion, then they're going to be in huge trouble in terms of bringing in the Odinus Theory at all, in my view, and doing what other things they want to do.

[00:37:12] Because they seem to often be getting very distracted with minutiae or perhaps attempting to distract us all with minutiae instead of really getting to the point and really digging

[00:37:24] in and saying, here is what we need to do and here's why we need to do it in a compelling way. So this next section, up to this point, I didn't really feel that this was much worse or much different from earlier defense motions.

[00:37:42] I felt it was pretty bad. It seemed to be even more minutiae than we're used to. But that's just my take. You had a different take. I had a different take. It wasn't until this next section that I really got embarrassed and thought I might have to

[00:38:00] talk about Elvis Presley in this one. Even concerning something as basic as a request for a recess, Judge Gold shows favoritism to the prosecution. In paragraph 85, they say, oh, sometimes Judge Gold makes angry faces or mean faces to us. That sounds like something a kindergartner would say.

[00:38:21] That does sound—when I read that, I stopped and then I re-read it again because I'm like, surely I missed something. Surely there's something else in here that is relevant and this isn't just some sort

[00:38:33] of elementary school complaint that some kid goes home and says, Mrs. G was mad at me today. She made sad faces. And then the mom asked, well, what were you doing? Oh, well, I was drawing markers on the wall.

[00:38:47] Well, well, little Andy and Brad, maybe you need to not do that in the future. I mean, just how deeply, deeply embarrassing. And so then there are a couple of excerpts from transcripts.

[00:39:01] And in the first one, McClellan in the middle of a hearing or after a witness finishes, he says, can we have a recess so I can use the bathroom? And Judge Gull says, how long do you think you'll be? He says downstairs and right back up.

[00:39:19] And he says—she says, no, no, no. I mean in your other witnesses with your evidence, ding-dong. I don't care how long it takes you to go to the bathroom. I don't care about that.

[00:39:32] So she refers to him as a ding-dong, obviously in a playful and kidding way. Well, I'm sure if she called the defense a ding-dong, they would say that that was a horrifying slur. No, no, because later— No, I know where this is going.

[00:39:47] I'm just saying if the shoe were on the other foot, I'm sure it'd be fun. They have an excerpt from a transcript where Rosie, Brad Rosie, asked for a recess and she grants it. But I'm reading this directly from a document filed with the court.

[00:40:04] Quote, Judge Gull did not playfully call Brad Rosie ding-dong. But instead questioned his reason for seeking a recess, end quote. So they are upset. It is a sign of bias that she did not call him a ding-dong.

[00:40:23] And yes, in this case, she asked him what his reasons were for seeking a recess. She didn't ask McLeelan what his reason was. But because when he asked for the recess, he said it was because he wanted to go to the bathroom. This is embarrassing. This is embarrassing.

[00:40:37] They are suggesting that a judge should be removed because she did not call me a playful name. This is in a court document in an important case. There's something so childlike and pathetic about this that that's what I meant when I

[00:40:52] said pathetic, because it's like, why don't you like us? Why don't you give us little nicknames? It's like, are they for real? And also just misconstruing the whole thing, as you said, McLeelan gave his statement immediately explaining the whole thing. Rosie didn't. But either way, who cares?

[00:41:13] And she called him a ding-dong because he misunderstood a question and it was a little bit awkward. So let's cover up an awkward moment with a little joke. But I think this is appalling. We heard bottom of the barrel. No, no, no, no.

[00:41:28] We're we're underneath the barrel at this point. We're underneath the barrel. The barrel is we are in Jules Verne territory. We're burning to the center of the earth underneath the barrel. We heard from Andy Baldwin's friends and colleagues in a profile episode we did on him where we

[00:41:47] were told that things he did things in a very collaborative team manner. Where were the other members of the team here? Why didn't someone say this is stupid? The cliche is, you know, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

[00:42:02] The ding-dong argument is the weak link. It is an incredibly embarrassingly weak link. And so everybody who reads this, their takeaway is, oh, they're upset because she didn't call him a ding-dong. This whatever good arguments they think they have in here are going to be overshadowed by

[00:42:20] this stupidity and the triviality of this. Well said. My takeaway from this was to sit quietly on the couch for a minute and hold my head in my hands because I was so I got such I have a problem where I have very bad secondhand embarrassment.

[00:42:34] Like I have a real reaction physically to it. And this triggered it. That is how bad this just made me feel like did this almost feels like a first draft that you wrote in anger and hurt that then somehow got filed by accident because I guess that's

[00:42:54] a consistent issue. And, you know, you didn't mean to include that part. It was just like, why didn't anyone say this is stupid? Don't put this part in. It's going to overshadow other things. It's going to make us look ridiculous. Leave this out. This ding-dong business.

[00:43:10] Look at look at who the defense is actively courted in this in this case, in the social media environment. And you will see that they have actively courted people who are sort of abusive, harassing

[00:43:25] people on social media who whose only really redeeming value to the defense team is that they are so in the bag for them and so much committed to supporting the attorneys themselves, even perhaps at the expense of Richard Allen's rights, that they will just cheerlead for them

[00:43:42] no matter what. So you have already a very overt tendency to seek out sycophantic voices rather than people who are going to be critical. And that's just on the surface. So you can only imagine what the hell is going on behind the scenes that something like this

[00:43:56] would happen, because this is a time to say, if you're watching this, don't include that. And if they say why we think it's good, say no, it freaking sucks. It's embarrassing and you're going to look incredibly petty and whiny and it doesn't

[00:44:12] even prove the point you think it proves. And that's what you need when you're doing something so high stakes. That's what Richard Allen needs. Richard Allen doesn't need you to throw every random ingredient in your fridge into the pot.

[00:44:24] He needs you to scrutinize the ingredients, check the expiration date, throw some stuff out and then focus on what you have that's fresh that could actually cobble together a decent meal.

[00:44:36] If you don't have anyone on your team who is able to see and recognize and say you will look stupid if we argue that the judge needs to recuse herself because she did not playfully

[00:44:51] call Brad Rosie a ding dong in one particular exchange, you need a new team. I have a question. There has been this is the most egregious example by far. So I'm certainly not saying anything has risen to the level of this previously.

[00:45:08] But my question for you, Kevin, is have you also gotten the sense in past filings around the judge that there is this kind of like, oh, you know, like you need to basically baby us and coddle us. We will continue attacking you based on nothing.

[00:45:22] But, you know, we need to be treated with kid gloves and carried around on velvet cushions. There's this entitlement to it in the tone that I find very off-putting and strange. And it seems to go beyond anything that's professional.

[00:45:36] Seems to be just kind of some hurt feelings whining. And I don't really get it. And I think there's you know, there's situations where you had have a judge who could be very biased against a defendant and would be that would be obviously a disaster and really should

[00:45:55] be looked at. But in this, it's like all about the attorneys. It's not actually about Richard Allen. And they're completely centering themselves and their own experiences here. And it's to the detriment, I think, of their credibility in their case. But then again, what else is new?

[00:46:10] It's a Tuesday. I want to finish this up. So get out of here. The next, the court failed to address the appearance of bias which exists in this case. They're saying here is we quoted from people from members of the public who believe and

[00:46:26] perceive that there is a bias. That doesn't mean that there actually is a bias. But the fact that people think there's an appearance of a bias, that in and of itself should be enough.

[00:46:37] And we cannot stress enough that this defense team has worked hand in hand with the worst elements on YouTube or social media, whatever, to spread disinformation and so confusion about this case. So they're saying we created our team, our allies who've worked with us have created

[00:46:58] an appearance of bias. And because of that, because of what we did to create this appearance of bias, reality doesn't matter. Our work to create the appearance of bias should be enough to get you removed from the bench in this case.

[00:47:15] That would be like me saying Anya should actually be arrested for stealing cereal because I've made people think that she steals cereal. I thank you for finally admitting it. No, it's true. It's a bad argument. It's a very bad argument.

[00:47:31] And it's not you don't want to judge if a bunch of people emailed judge saying, hey, actually, don't put Alan on trial. Let's just, you know, let's just take matters into our own hands. You wouldn't want her. You don't want her to listen to random crazy people.

[00:47:47] The point to make is that if there is a public appearance of bias in this case, it is largely the results of the defense team and their close allies. They are creating a bad situation, and they've done so in a dishonest way.

[00:48:04] And now they seek to profit from it. Yeah, that's very true. Well said. So you do not that would be bad, a bad policy to let that work. Reward that. Because that would basically encourage people in other cases. Oh, if we don't like this judge, let's sow confusion.

[00:48:23] Let's create the appearance of bias. So this judge has to leave. Let me also just say that with with this whole thing, with with the YouTubers. Yeah, it's it's it's definitely it's been pretty overt for a while now that this is a purposeful method.

[00:48:41] And I think to some degree, sometimes the mainstream media buys into it. And I think as consumers around this case, you know, I think the people who listen to these Delphi episodes, you're probably a pretty high information person on the case.

[00:48:54] You're not you're not coming into it casually. You're coming into it with a lot of, you know, of the minutia in your mind, perhaps. And that's not necessarily the case for the general public all the time.

[00:49:05] But I think I saw recently a headline about the case is a legal disaster or something. And it made me think like, has anything the judge has done or the prosecution's done risen to the level of legal disaster in my mind?

[00:49:19] And I would say I see mistakes that McCleland has made. I certainly think Judge Gall badly handled the removal of the attorneys initially. But other than that, they've pretty much been doing things relatively by the book. Now, can I say the same for the defense team? No.

[00:49:41] That yet they're the ones who benefit from this kind of narrative that everything is a disaster and everything is a dumpster fire. I would argue that that is a bit like me going into a Denny's and proceeding to punch the

[00:49:55] cashier, spill orange juice all over the place, fill maple syrup all over the place, knock over a bunch of tables, threaten local families trying to enjoy their pancakes, and then looking around and being like, wow, this Denny's dining experience really sucks. I'm not going back here.

[00:50:12] It's like, whose fault is that? Whose fault is that? And when I then just criticized Denny's for it, maybe I benefit because maybe I'm trying to cover up my own bad actions.

[00:50:22] And I think when we see kind of the easy narrative starting to form as informed people on the case, we need to step back and say, things are chaotic. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is that truly?

[00:50:37] Because I think to do otherwise is to buy into whatever narrative that they've attempted to set, and I think that benefits them. I think confusion tends to benefit the defense. And in most cases, I would say defense attorneys are attempting to create confusion in a way

[00:50:54] that is reasonable and raising a reasonable doubt, and there's nothing wrong with that. But when you're doing it in a way that is essentially working hand-in-hand with misinformation specialists on the internet to spread stuff around and set the narrative and sending your

[00:51:11] acolytes out to the press to try to spin things, then that is problematic. That doesn't sit well with me. That doesn't seem honest. That doesn't seem ethical. And I think we all need to really question that.

[00:51:25] A quote, this motion is intended to respond to Judge Gull's order for purposes of preserving the issues for the record and so that Judge Gull may consider whether or not she feels obligated on her own to recuse herself from this case, which remains an ongoing obligation

[00:51:42] whether or not the defense is seeking her recusal, end quote. So they're basically saying, yeah, we're just doing this to do this. What they've done is they've wasted everyone's time, including ours. And in my mind, that ding-dong argument makes them look ridiculous.

[00:51:58] And I would hope for the sake of all of us who want to see a trial based on actual evidence and the merits of the case, I hope at some point very soon they return to the issue of

[00:52:12] Richard Allen and his guilt or innocence instead of worrying about whether or not Judge Gull may have made a mean face to them. I have a question. Where was Richard Allen on February 13th, 2017? That's something we haven't heard about. I'd be curious. Was he doing anything that day?

[00:52:28] Anyone see him? What was his... Was he at work? Was he not at work? Did he have the day off? It would be nice to kind of understand maybe something about like the facts of a case involving two murdered children, you know? Yes.

[00:52:41] Might be nice to get back to that. Two children died and we're getting motions about mean faces and ding-dong. It's a waste. It's like a preschool at this point. We're not in high school anymore. This is preschool. Teacher didn't call me ding-dong.

[00:52:57] She called Nick ding-dong and it made me sad. It's like, OK, well, that sounds like a you problem. Two girls died. Yeah, two kids died and we are sitting here wasting our time with this and I just... I really want...

[00:53:11] I want things to roll in October so we can just be done with all this nonsense. But stuff like this makes me think that there's no way that's happening. Well, I'm done with this for today. Are you? Yeah. Ding-dong. Thanks for listening.

[00:53:27] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:53:48] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:54:11] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook.

[00:54:29] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.