The Delphi Murders: The Defense's Verified Motion to Disqualify and the State's Response to the Defense's Motion for Transfer

[00:00:00] Content Warning This episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls. This episode also contains discussion of suicide. So this week begins for us all with several new filings in the Richard Allen case. There's actually filings from both the prosecution and the defense,

[00:00:20] and they pertain to some pretty important issues. The issues that have been at the heart of this case for a while now, namely where should Richard Allen be housed and who should preside over the case.

[00:00:34] We're going to talk about these filings, try to figure out what they say and what it all means. My name is Ania Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:00:49] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reported interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is The Delphi Murders. The defense has verified motion to disqualify, and the state's response to defense's motion for transfer.

[00:01:45] Let's start by discussing the defense's motion to disqualify. The first thing to note that it is essentially in two parts. We have their actual motion and then we have Anafa David from Richard Allen.

[00:02:02] And of course, what the defense is doing here is they are asking for a judge's goal to be disqualified or recused or removed from the case. Should we look at the verified motion to disqualify as perhaps more of the legal argument of this,

[00:02:20] of what the standard is, what should happen, what the legal expectation should be, and the affidavit as more of the Frank's memorandum to that. Yeah, more or less. That's a good way of looking at it.

[00:02:38] Right. Because the legal stuff is always going to be more relevant in a situation like this. Let's look at the legal stuff first. Yes, I think that's the goal. Because for all intents and purposes what the defense is doing here

[00:02:52] is basically trying to set up here are the rules we should follow when deciding whether or not judge's goals should be removed from the case. You know, how do you make this decision? How do you come to the conclusion that someone should be removed from the case?

[00:03:13] Where is the burden of proof? What is the standard? Absolutely. So they want to establish that, make their arguments, bring up their examples, and then go from there. So what do they say? They say that they cite Indiana criminal rules of procedure, a number of them,

[00:03:36] and note that what they're establishing is that they feel that if a rational, normal, reasonable person who's coming into this non-bias, they're just, hey, what do you think about this? If they think that there would be inherent bias in the proceedings, then the judge should be removed.

[00:04:01] Yeah, they say you don't have to prove the judge goal is actually biased. They're saying all they have to do is come up with information or arguments that might make a reasonable person say it's possible she is biased.

[00:04:20] So in some alternate universe, if Kevin is a judge and I'm a defense attorney appearing before him, would a reasonable person be concerned about bias because we are, in fact, a married couple? And the answer is yes. Doesn't matter how wise and professional that Kevin is.

[00:04:43] In that situation, a reasonable person can say that seems inherently problematic. It's kind of a stupid example because things would, I mean, I imagine things would never get that far as far as a...

[00:04:56] But maybe if we concealed our relationship, that would be something that could be a problem down the line because it would just show an inherent bias. Even if Kevin didn't necessarily make any rulings that seemingly were unreasonable,

[00:05:13] I think that's the sort of thing that would just be inherently problematic. So the defense is arguing that because judge goal through them, in their words, through them off the case... That's just one of the things that they... Well, that's a big thing. That's a big thing.

[00:05:29] Sort of like you tried to get us off the case, you wanted us off the case, you expressed that we were incompetent and negligent. That makes you biased. A reasonable person should be able to see that. So therefore, our request for your recusal should be granted.

[00:05:47] Yeah, they make the argument. That's the big thing. Everything she does from now on in the case is going to be seen through that lens. She essentially has made public her determination that Baldwin and Rosie are negligent and incompetent. So how can she...

[00:06:04] The argument would go, how can she be seen to be a neutral arbitrator? Right. I will be super curious to know more about what is the standard. Is this a fair representation of the standard as it typically plays out in these situations?

[00:06:25] Part of the problem with evaluating this, as I imagine, this is relatively rare. A lot of this sort of is happening in a way that's not typically the way things play out. So I'll be curious, what is the standard that typically happens?

[00:06:41] And near the conclusion of this particular document, the defense attorneys asked some questions, which I will now read. Will judge goals continued involvement create built in reversible error in the event defendant Allen was convicted of any one or more of the charge crimes?

[00:07:04] Will all future rulings of the court be viewed by the defense as being tainted with bias, prejudice and a lack of impartiality? Will the public be able to maintain any sense of confidence that the presiding officer judge goal is unbiased and impartial?

[00:07:20] Can judge goal process any information and or legal arguments offered up by attorneys Rosie or Baldwin knowing that she has already made an extra judicial finding that both attorneys have demonstrated gross negligence and gross incompetence in the representation of defendant Allen?

[00:07:37] Does judge goal have some ulterior reason or motivation driving her unwillingness to recuse herself from this case? Do the practical benefits of recusal far outweigh the inherent risks of judge goal remaining on the case, especially as it relates to the likelihood of protracted and expensive litigation

[00:07:57] throughout the remainder of this case and in the appellate courts if a conviction occurs? So they're saying if she stays on the case, not only is that going to look bad, but that's going to create reversible error potentially where if he is convicted,

[00:08:13] there can be appeals that everything can just drag on longer and longer and longer. And that they will keep fighting it. I mean, what they're indicating here is throughout, you know, expensive litigation throughout the remainder of the case.

[00:08:25] So it doesn't even have to wait until post conviction at this litigation. The indication is that, you know, they'll be bringing it. You know, so I think that's kind of a clue or a forecast of how things will go going forward,

[00:08:44] at least as far as the defense is concerned, prior to trial. One thing that some people might find interesting or confusing is this document, the verified motion to disqualify, as well as the affidavit of Richard Allen that goes along with that.

[00:09:04] Both are signed by Richard Allen at the end. Does that mean he wrote these? No. Yeah. Can you explain that? When you have an attorney and your attorney is representing you and preparing legal documents on your behalf, it's perfectly normal and customary for you to sign them.

[00:09:32] He's not saying, by signing this document, Richard Allen is not saying I wrote these. He's not saying I wrote every word of these. He's basically saying what's in here represents my thoughts and beliefs. So I endorse this is what he is saying. Yeah.

[00:09:50] I wanted to single that out because I think sometimes people kind of look at stuff like this and they're like, the defense attorneys are saying he wrote this whole thing. How fraudulent. That's, this is pretty standard. Yeah.

[00:10:04] So speaking of the affidavit of Richard Allen, why don't we jump to that now? Yes. I, before we get into the meat of this, I would categorize, I would divide this, I guess 22-page document into two categories. Basically it's a list of all the things that...

[00:10:24] Judge Gull has done or is said to have done that would create the appearance of bias that might make a reasonable person have doubts about her capacity to preside over an impartial trial. And I would divide these into two categories.

[00:10:40] One is items that directly have to do with the legal issues spelled out in the verified motion that get into sort of what is a violation of Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct or the criminal rules of procedure. That's one category.

[00:11:03] The other category appears to be relitigating older, you know, you didn't rule in our favor for the safekeeping order. So you're biased. So it's interesting.

[00:11:15] And I think that's something that characterizes the old defense team is that there's an element, they could basically use anything and regardless of whether it's worked or not in the past,

[00:11:29] I think that can characterize some criminal defense attorneys in general because you want to use anything in your arsenal. If you have any possible argument, whether it's strong or weak, you don't want to leave anything sitting on the table.

[00:11:42] You're going to use whatever argument is available to you. And you just hope that if I come up with a list of say 15 arguments, maybe there's seven or eight of those arguments that people will find compelling. I'm not sure which seven or eight items will do that.

[00:11:58] So I'm going to include all 15. Yeah, do you risk as an attorney ever including something that's too weak and it tanks your case? Or is it typically just you want you want to play the numbers game? I think you want to play the numbers game. Yeah, makes sense.

[00:12:13] All right. Well, that's that's definitely what that comes across strongly in this document. So yeah, I think most people reading this might find some of these points a lot more compelling than others. Yes. But that's to be expected.

[00:12:33] So in this affidavit, David defendant Alan through his attorneys is on you said is listing reasons why judge goals ability to preside over this trial should be questioned. The first one, judge goal interfered with Richard Allen's attorney client relationship. So she ordered them to cease work on October 12 2023.

[00:13:01] What they're saying is they she violated his rights under the state and federal constitutions. And also she, you know, that was a lot of stage the premeditated removal of Rosie and Baldwin.

[00:13:17] So definitely leaning into the version of events where they were forced to withdraw and coerced rather than made that strategic decision. Number two, judge goal publicly and on the record disparage defendant Allen's chosen attorneys.

[00:13:36] This was the hearing where she said the attorneys were grossly negligent and acted with gross incompetence. The argument there of course is that if so someone says basically, Anya you're a bad person, you're a bad guy.

[00:13:55] How can that person be expected to in the future act with impartiality towards you because they've already made up their minds about you. That would be the argument. Right. And why is that so important when it's coming from a judge?

[00:14:11] Suppose someone just yelling at me in the street. Which happens on a daily basis. The argument is this judge is supposed to be totally impartial.

[00:14:20] The judge is to certain extent supposed to be like an umpire calling balls and strikes in the courtroom is not supposed to have formed conclusions about the abilities of the players.

[00:14:35] So if the umpire is umpiring your beloved cubs and stands up in the middle of the game and says the cubs suck. Cubs and negligence. I have no respect for any of you. You are all bums. Then that would be, you know, a problem.

[00:14:51] And then yeah after that if the judge says I hate the cubs, anytime the umpire would make a call against the cubs I might say hey wait a minute. Kevin might be a bit concerned.

[00:15:04] So that's what they're sort of characterizing this as is basically these public disparaging remarks, these actions on the record all speak to something that's kind of insurmountable. And there's a fun footnote here.

[00:15:19] Sometimes in these legal filings the attorneys like to needle each other over things that have happened.

[00:15:28] I think we all remember that in the oral arguments Judge Gold's attorney Mr. Gutwein made the comment at one point that well yeah Baldwin and Rosie are very competent except now in this case.

[00:15:43] So there's a footnote about that saying even the judge Gold's attorney was acknowledging that these are competent people except in this case. That's kind of hard to reconcile the two.

[00:15:58] And so if even her attorney is suggesting they are good attorneys maybe that in itself is also a show of bias. Right, so that's giving them ammo.

[00:16:11] We had some commentary about this in our Facebook group and I answered it and I had a specific opinion and I'd be curious if you have a different opinion.

[00:16:19] So people seem to take that exchange of Gutwein saying something positive about them is like a fatal art fatal floss something you know that totally torpedoed his argument.

[00:16:30] I didn't really feel like it was that it was kind of amusing from the perspective of like, you know, like why would you say something nice about them if you're good wine.

[00:16:38] But from my perspective what hampered Gutwein was more of overly relying on the wheat case and taking such a procedural argument when the justices were clearly more interested in it than just having a procedural excuse to hand wave it away.

[00:16:53] To me that that the arguments weren't really about whether they were competent or not because he was just couching it in such a procedural way.

[00:17:03] And it's not like, people I think sometimes mistake stuff that sounds interesting to us with something that would sound interesting to the justices because there's not really any legal bearing on what he's saying. I don't know, that was just my take. What did you think?

[00:17:19] Yeah, I'd agree with that. It's more color than anything. But as you said it's good needle. So let's get back to this document. Item three, judge goal violated defendant Allen's due process rights. What's the argument they made there?

[00:17:38] So the argument that the defense makes in this section is that so they characterize October 19 2023 is gull giving them a quote Hobson's choice which means an impossible choice.

[00:17:51] And the choice was what they say suffer a public shaming, which would hurt Richard Allen and be removed from the case or to voluntarily withdraw and avoid compromising his defense.

[00:18:10] And they didn't, they feel that she by doing this by structuring the choices in this way, she did not give them due process to, you know, refute or address or talk about her accusations against them as far as them being grossly incompetent grossly negligent.

[00:18:32] And again, to some extent that's already been litigated by think the argument again here is that this is meant to suggest or prove that she's biased. Like if you weren't biased in this situation, why didn't you have a hearing where we could all present evidence.

[00:18:51] Item four, judge goal engaged in critical stage proceedings in defendants absence. This is the fact that she, the critical meeting took place in the judges chambers outside of the presence of Richard Allen himself. And that was a violation of his rights.

[00:19:12] And so therefore that again allegedly shows bias. The next one failed to maintain impartiality and fairness. You're probably getting a sense of a lot of these different subsection sound very similar, but they're each addressing I think subtly different elements of what happened.

[00:19:30] So, is another one of the ones that focuses on October 19 2023. And it says that by describing the defense counsel's work as in having inaccuracies and falsehoods, specifically around the safekeeping order that you know she's she's saying she's biased.

[00:19:50] Number six, judge gold demonstrated bias towards the prosecution. This is a reference to we've we've all heard that there was a phone call where the leak of crime scene photos was discussed.

[00:20:05] Judge gold asked what do you think should happen prosecutor McLean says I think they should be taken off the case and judge gold immediately agrees or indicates that's also how she thinks.

[00:20:18] And the claim here is the fact that she made that conclusion immediately without a hearing without research is also evidence that she may be biased against Rosine Baldwin. So the next one, which is point seven judge gold made public or misrepresentations on the record.

[00:20:37] What they are saying are the public misrepresentations on the record is the fact that she referred to their withdrawal as an unexpected turn of events at that hearing that lasted four minutes.

[00:20:51] And so the argument is that's not what happened it wasn't she said it was unexpected outside our control. They say well actually, it was fully within judge gold's control.

[00:21:00] And in addition to that they go into the wrangling over the transcript around the in chambers meeting and the back and forth over that I guess. Number eight, judge gold engaged in ex parte communications. What is ex parte communications and why is it a problem.

[00:21:22] Ex parte communications is where attorneys on one side of an issue or one side of a case have communications with the judge outside the presence of the other side. And that's very much not allowed correct. Yes, like that's pretty serious.

[00:21:43] And they're saying that judge goal in particular had text communications with librado and Scrimmon outside the presence of Baldwin and Rosie.

[00:21:57] I guess the argument would be made on judge gold side that at this point maybe she assumed that since Baldwin and Rosie were no longer on the case.

[00:22:08] I know it gets complicated. But the implication from the defense is that she was treating them with disrespect and not according to them, the rights they were entitled to as Alan's representatives.

[00:22:23] The next one nine is judge gold denied defendant Allen his sixth amendment rights council and doing so denied his right to speedy trial. Here's where we come back to the speedy trial element of all of it.

[00:22:41] But she basically saying he violated his sixth amendment rights by, you know, forcing them to withdraw and then also not letting them back on as pro bono council.

[00:22:51] And in addition to that, you know, they still claim that Richard Allen's intentions were to file a speedy trial motion and want you know because he wanted the January 8th 2024 trial. And that by like knocking his sixth amendment rights, she made that impossible.

[00:23:12] Number 10, judge gold changed her ruling in a prior order when attorneys Rosie and Baldwin were reinstated. So this one is a bit more complicated.

[00:23:24] But after attorney scrimmage and librado came on the case and represented Richard Allen officially judge gold issued an order or whatever you wanted to call it in which she indicated that if scrimmage and librado filed a motion that they were

[00:23:46] interesting in adopting the Frank's memorandum as their own, she would schedule a hearing to make a ruling on it and together evidence.

[00:23:57] But then as soon as Rosie and Baldwin come back on the case within days, she issues an order saying there's not going to be a hearing on this.

[00:24:08] So the implication there is she dislikes Rosie and Baldwin so much that she's going to rule against them and deny them a hearing, even though she was prepared to offer a hearing to the attorneys. She liked scrimmage and librado.

[00:24:27] And the argument is that's a pretty good case for bias. So point 11 judge gold discredited defendant Allen's defense strategy so this goes back to the Frank's memorandum and Frank's hearing again. So they note that that was the Frank's documents were filed on September 18, 2023.

[00:24:52] And then when scrimmage and librado came on she advised them to adopt those pleadings or make their own.

[00:25:02] And what defense is saying about that statement is that by giving librado and scrimmin the option to walk away from the Odinus theory, she was saying that it wasn't important and therefore she's skeptical of it. I guess it's treating the Odinus theory with not enough respect.

[00:25:35] But it deserves in their opinion. Point 12 judge gold committed violations of the access to court records act. This is something that also was discussed at the Supreme Court, not in oral arguments but in some in a separate written of man David separate rich of mandamus.

[00:25:58] Judge gold removed documents from the case record, healing them from the public things like the Frank's memorandum and that by taking documents that spell out the defense's case out of the public's purview.

[00:26:16] She is acting against the interests of the defense and therefore demonstrating what the defense team sees as bias. So part 13 judge gall engaged in additional violations of access to court records. So this is like, I guess continuation of the part Kevin just said.

[00:26:34] And that deals with specifically her decision to strike Rosie's filings from the record. So after he was withdrawn she argued he's not really an attorney. So these don't count and remove them from the docket.

[00:26:53] Eventually she reinstated them after a written mandamus was filed point 14 judge gold failed to address her administrative duties. Now we get to the money. I think this might hit home for a lot of people who've worked freelance jobs and have had to turn in requests for payment.

[00:27:14] The claim here is that attorneys Baldwin and Rosie have filed proper requests with the clerk of courts to be paid for their work.

[00:27:26] And judge goals and her team have not acted on them in a prompt manner, forcing the defense attorneys to have to wait months to get paid and then only get paid after they really really have to work to get the judge to.

[00:27:44] Approve their invoices. And then again the argument is this demonstrates bias against them because she's not acting in a more prompt manner. Interesting standouts from the section include a sentence when they say that Baldwin personally sent an email to judge girls staff essentially begging to be paid.

[00:28:00] So they argue that the issue started around May 19 2023 Baldwin submitted invoices. Things were not paid. Things are not paid. Then he was paid completely on September 18 2023.

[00:28:17] And that was a few days after judge Gall gave the order to Carol County, the defense attorneys note that the Carol County people were more communicative. The auditor said that they would pay the bill. They needed an order from judge Gall. And so they were waiting on that.

[00:28:32] And in addition to that, that was four months after the bill happened and Rosie had a similar experience. He submitted his stuff on May 10 2023 and that was not paid until September 19 2023.

[00:28:50] More recently, Rosie said he submitted two different invoices for his own services and also for his administrative staff services. Administrative expenses actually on October 4 2023. And he kept emailing the staff saying here's all that you owe me. And but those ones haven't been processed yet.

[00:29:17] And what they're saying is that some of those invoices were paid, but Rosie's two invoices are not. And they're saying that by not paying them that she's showing bias against them because she's depriving them of their income. The next one is 15. Judge Gall failed to protect the accused.

[00:29:39] So this kind of relitigates the safe, the emergency motion to modify the safekeeping order, which was filed, of course, on April 5 2023. And they say that she was too slow to do a hearing given that it was an emergency and they said so in the title on June 15 2023.

[00:30:02] They say that she did not force Westville inmate and convicted child molester Robert best stone to come to that hearing. He was supposed to come he was subpoenaed. He refused to leave his cell claiming that he was scared to.

[00:30:19] And what they argue is that they should have been forced to come. Or in in lieu of that, there should have been a hearing on the issue. Hearing where everyone decides what to do because he didn't have a choice in the matter.

[00:30:39] Yeah, they're saying that Judge Gall essentially ruled against them on the motion saying they had no evidence but at the same time perhaps best stone could have offered evidence that might have bolstered their case and she did not force him to come and testify. Yeah.

[00:30:57] So again, the argument there is that all of this shows bias on because they ignored their subpoena and it was a refusal of a compulsory process.

[00:31:09] We've noted in past episodes about best stones crimes and his credibility issues but what they're saying is that leaving all that aside, the process should have been different. Point 16 judge goals continued an ongoing failure to protect the accused.

[00:31:27] And this is again referring to him being housed in Westville or wall bash as opposed to jail. 17 Judge Gall has treated the prosecution more favorably than the defense counsel so the classic she likes them better than us argument.

[00:31:46] The big thing there is they are complaining that McLean process McLean had this letter from Todd click in which Todd click discussed his views about the real perpetrators of this crime being onus.

[00:32:02] He had this letter for I believe they say a period of months before turning it over to the defense and they say that McLean was never chastised or criticized by the judge for not training over the click letter more quickly. That indicates bias in their view.

[00:32:20] They also continue to use the word Odinite, which is our friends from the troughs have told us is a rock. Not these are Odinists that they're talking about. So just keep that in mind when you're reading these Odinist.

[00:32:36] Now I just flinch every time I see the word Odinite. Point 18 judge goal engaged in unacceptable extradition. Activity now this is interesting because this is some new stuff.

[00:32:48] We saw a lot of re litigation and stuff that you would imagine because we've all seen all you know we saw. We saw what happened on October 19th. We've seen the debates we've seen everything we've seen the drama around safekeeping and Frank's now we're getting to Facebook.

[00:33:02] Why don't you tell us about this so July 9 2023. What they describe this person as someone who's believed to be judge goals then daughter-in-law. Okay, published an entry on this former daughter-in-law's Facebook page. And this was the post.

[00:33:19] What an honor it was for the girls to play in the Abbey and Libby Memorial tournament. What a greater honor it was that Abbey and Libby's grandparents presented our girls with their championship finalist rings. Apparently on this post judge goal commented congratulations.

[00:33:34] So you may be wondering what's going on there. And the defense doesn't know that it appears to be innocuous, but they are saying that it raises questions about bias

[00:33:47] because I guess her relative had a positive interaction with the grandparents of the victims at some sort of sports tournament. Is that what you're reading? Yeah, I guess the implication is that there is some sort of relationship between witnesses in this case and judge goals family.

[00:34:21] The judge goal is aware of and encouraging and support and that said relationship could be used to call her impartiality into question. And that is me trying to read this argument in the way most favorable to the defense because they're the ones making it.

[00:34:41] That's how I interpret it. Is that how you understand it? Yeah, I think a lot of people might wonder about how strong that is.

[00:34:50] It just seems like there's a lot of, yeah, it's sort of, I wonder if other jurists would take that as a nothing burger or would take it as a concerning post.

[00:35:00] And again, all we need, all the defense says they need is for the appearance of impropriety, something to make a reasonable person wonder. And if you had a case before a judge, let's say we have a bitter professional breakup and personal breakup. Oh no, that's sad.

[00:35:23] And the judge is commenting on Facebook posts of my relatives about my grandparents and how great my grandparents are and how great the Greenleys are. You might wonder. I just think that they were being accurate. No, I'm just kidding.

[00:35:38] Yeah, I think, and also this speaks to what if I keep my list about how much you're biased to like three of my strongest points. On some level, people might look at that and say, okay, but it's like the only three here.

[00:35:58] But I think a long list of, you know, a dozen plus, even if not all of them are winners. It's still in the eyes of people. You're still making almost a better case for yourself because you're like boom, boom, boom, boom.

[00:36:18] And also when you've talked in the past about the case against Richard Allen, you talk about how maybe some of the individual pieces of evidence against him may in and of themselves may not be conclusive.

[00:36:32] But when you pile them up on top of each other, it apparently it eventually potentially creates an argument for guilt. And so you could apply the same reasoning here that if you go through this document and you can say, well, I don't find this one too compelling.

[00:36:47] I don't find this argument too compelling. But taken together with everything else, you could argue if you were the defense, it creates a picture. And I think it's important to differentiate that though between the Frank's memorandum.

[00:37:01] You know, I've been somewhat critical of the Frank's memorandum, including things that I felt were a bit weaker than maybe the fundamental arguments, right? Or pieces of evidence that didn't really pan together.

[00:37:15] But in this case, they don't have judge goal on tape saying, I'm very biased against the defense and I think, you know, I'm going to destroy their case. There's no like concrete evidence.

[00:37:27] What all all they can do is create an impression and document what they feel is an impression.

[00:37:33] And so it makes sense in that context to proceed in this way and include as much as you can, in my opinion, I think that's that's a strategic move that makes sense. Point 19, timing of judicial bias prejudice and lack of impartiality.

[00:37:50] So this gets more into the legal stuff. So they're talking about how Alan, this gets into like rules around timing.

[00:38:01] They're saying Alan basically didn't really notice the bias and like or like the idea of the bias codified in the minds of him and his attorneys during the phone call between McLean and the defense attorneys and the court on October 10th, 2023.

[00:38:21] They say that some of the issues that they disagreed with her about in the past, they didn't really want to think as biased but now looking back, they think it's biased.

[00:38:28] So this I think this gets into why this is making this is basically getting into why this was filed when it was filed, why it wasn't filed prior.

[00:38:39] And so they're saying this is why because we needed to come back on the case and all this stuff happened and we didn't have, you know, so it's this is more of explaining the timing. And so then it's signed January 27 2024 by Richard M. Allen.

[00:38:58] So shall we move on and discuss what Nick McLean filed today? Yes, do you want to start with the state's motion to compel discovery? So let's start with the state's response to defense's motion for transfer. This is very interesting document. This is a very interesting document.

[00:39:16] Can you remind us what he's responding to? Well, sort of a long like chains have formed in the case that kind of like these different kind of channels that kind of different issues that kind of keep coming up.

[00:39:32] And then sort of this is very much a link in one specific chain around Allen's housing. Where is he supposed to be located while he waits trial? The defense has argued strenuously that he should not be incarcerated in the Indian Department of Correction, aka our prison system here.

[00:39:49] They say he should be in jail in Cass County or somewhere else. Carroll County is it would have been the obvious choice, but they say that they don't feel like they can safely protect him because it's too high profile a case.

[00:40:02] And so he has been moved to Westville and recently Wabash Valley. So what McLean is specifically responding to here is Robert Scrimman and William Labrado filed something a while back saying that they tried to visit him in Wabash Valley.

[00:40:19] They ran into so many issues. They were not allowed to do this or that. And it was there. They're basically arguing that his his rights are being disrupted and kind of giving giving some comfort to what the original defense team was saying.

[00:40:38] So it was like, okay, so these new attorneys are having similar issues. This is interesting. But McLean's role in this has always been to basically say, we don't care where he is. We don't care. But you're presenting misstatements and inaccuracies in your filings.

[00:40:57] Yes, he says today exaggerations and inaccuracies are in the Scrimman filing. So basically he's saying Scrimman was lying. Yeah, that's not the legal term. Basically when you're saying someone is putting in inaccuracies and exaggerations, you're saying he's lying.

[00:41:15] And they get in. He gets into some what he what he's saying is evidence to support the argument that Scrimman was not entirely accurate or honest in his filing recently. Before we begin this, this boils down the thesis. This is point 12 in the document.

[00:41:34] Basically, this is what he's saying. The state has no opinion where the defendant is housed during the pendency of this case as long as he has kept safe.

[00:41:41] However, state believes that it is imperative for the court to have accurate information in order to make its decision, which is lacking from the defense's motion to transfer. And then he goes through and starts talking about the points that he says are exaggerated.

[00:41:57] We just talked about Baston Robert Bastone, the child molester who claims to have evidence supporting Richard Allen's claims. McLean said, you know, this guy's never been subjected to cross examination. He's not a reliable witness.

[00:42:11] Yeah, I mean, to be clear, this is a man who continues to deny to deny the fact that he molested a six year old girl despite the fact that his DNA was found all over her. And he says that was an error at the Indiana State Police laboratory.

[00:42:27] Lab errors happen, but lab error does not explain why the six year old girl identified him as her attacker and why he left a pool party with her and then returned with her crying and her bathing suit all dirty.

[00:42:41] So one thing you should also know about Baston is that he is frequently victim blamed the six year old indicating that she didn't really act like a victim.

[00:42:51] So his credibility is non existent, in my opinion. I think it's surprising that he's become such an important player in this case.

[00:42:58] I think that prison house snitches and jailhouse snitches should always be looked at skeptically, whether they'd be being used by the prosecution, which is typical or in this situation, the defense.

[00:43:12] McLean says that in this filing, they repeat the claims that Richard Allen is being mistreated by guards at Westville who practice Odinism. He says this was already addressed previously and there's been no evidence to support that.

[00:43:31] I want to throw one thing about Odinism. And this is something we've talked about with folks at the Troath recently. That's an inclusive group of heathens.

[00:43:41] So let's all keep in mind that there's different types of heathenry. There's heathenry, which is a general term, which is people who practice essentially Norse Germanic pagan religion.

[00:43:55] It's very diverse. There's a lot of range within that. But you can have inclusive heathens who are not racists. They're just normal people trying to do their thing. They're not bad people. Don't be mean to them. There's nothing wrong with being a heathen.

[00:44:12] Then we get into a satru. That is more of an exclusive form of heathenry. They believe that you really should be of Norse descent and white, so racist.

[00:44:23] That is a racist ideology, but it's not necessarily associated with any sort of violence or gang activity or anything like that. So it's problematic, but that's a different thing. Odinism is specifically very much white supremacist, very much politicized, very much connected with prison gangs and activities and violence.

[00:44:48] Mostly political violence, but violence nonetheless. So these are three disparate groups. And to my mind, labeling anybody who might have Norse symbology around them or have that be a part of the religion as Odinists is really not necessarily accurate.

[00:45:07] Odinism being a specific thing, I think you need something a bit more than just saying here are symbols that are relevant to all heathens.

[00:45:15] And so one thing that's been so concerning to me is this is just the flattening of this language and labeling everybody in a certain religion as the most extreme and awful form of our religion.

[00:45:25] I think we can all understand why that's an uncomfortable thing for the defense to be doing. And I would hope that if they had evidence of the Odinism thing, that would be something that would come to the forefront soon because I feel like, I don't know,

[00:45:41] I just I have a problem with labeling people to that extent. And I don't think that that's been proven that these guards are Odinists.

[00:45:47] I think heathens sure, but as we as we stated that can be a good thing, a normal neutral thing that that's just their religion, or it can be something where it is inherently problematic,

[00:46:00] maybe not even relevant to Richard Allen's case. But I mean, if there's white supremacist thing, then that's going to be a concerning thing for a guard to have in a prison regardless.

[00:46:08] So I guess I just feel like there's been so much ink spilled over that but not a lot of clarity. Well said. McLean also says that in this motion scremming claims that Richard Allen had been denied recreational time.

[00:46:26] He says the only time he was denied in response to that claim, McLean says when the defendant was moved from Westville Correctional Facility to Wallbatch Valley Correctional Facility,

[00:46:37] he made statements about committing suicide as a precaution. He was examined by mental health professionals and they determined that he should not be given recreational time until they can be sure that he would not hurt himself. Once he was off suicide watch, his recreational time resumed.

[00:46:54] Okay, so we're hearing once again about suicide watch suicidal ideation. So he's saying that if he was denied recreational time, it was just during the time period when he was on suicide watch and he was on suicide watch based upon his own comments about wanting to commit suicide.

[00:47:11] Also, he was on suicide watch very recently if that was between the Westville and Wallbatch Valley transfer. So this has been an ongoing issue apparently. That's concerning.

[00:47:23] In their recent motion, the former defense team of Scremming and Labrado also said that the check-in process at Wallbatch Valley when they went to see their then client Richard Allen was to burdensome and time consuming. Here is McLean's response to that.

[00:47:42] The state was able to review video footage from Council's visit with the defendant in Wallbatch Valley Correctional Facility. Council for the defendant arrived at the facility at 12.35pm and were processed to visit with their client by 12.58pm.

[00:47:58] The wait time was extended on this date due to a power outage of the facility, but in total it lasted about 23 minutes, not the nearly one hour alleged in the pleadings. How do they account for that? Did it just feel like an hour?

[00:48:15] You'd have to ask Scremming and Labrado. What do you make of that? I don't know. That's shocking to me. That's shocking to me that there is such a discrepancy. Yes.

[00:48:26] McLean goes on to say that Wallbatch Valley has done what they can to accommodate the attorney's ability to confer with their clients. He says that normally face to face visits are not even allowed at this facility.

[00:48:44] So the implication is the fact that Wallbatch Valley even attempted to have something for the defense attorneys.

[00:48:52] And they made accommodations for the defense attorneys to be able to share discovery materials with Richard Allen and the attorneys did not bring any computers or anything with them for that purpose. And why is that important that they didn't bring any computers or anything with them?

[00:49:08] Computers are something you could use to share discovery material. So, yeah. That's... And he says if they'd wanted to there was a slot where documents, papers or whatever could be passed back and forth.

[00:49:28] So, neither attorney brought a computer with them to provide defendant with review of video or audio discovery even after DOC made accommodations for them to do so.

[00:49:38] One thing that has also come up a lot is the filming of defense attorneys in this case when they're visiting Richard Allen. Yeah. And McLean says the only filming was motion detectors. So there's like footage of the attorneys entering and leaving the room. That is for safety reasons.

[00:49:56] That is something that we have heard from other defense attorneys and people who work within the correctional system that there can be film, but often it's not audio recorded. It's just to make sure that nobody gets attacked or nobody tries to commit suicide.

[00:50:14] And he knows that each request of the counsel for the defendant has made of Wabash Valley Correctional Facility has been granted. And that basically what he says the allegations are exaggerated and misleading.

[00:50:25] What are your thoughts on the discrepancy between what Scrimman claimed in his filing and what McLean's assessment of the evidence is? It's very reminiscent of the original filing and McLean's response to it.

[00:50:42] And I guess it's hard to make a final determination until we see if Scrimman and Labrado would have some sort of a response to what McLean says here. But certainly what McLean says is if there's videotape evidence and stuff, some of this stuff seems damning. Yeah.

[00:51:02] It's a bit shocking to me that they would make claims about like timing and things like that when it could be disproven so easily. But frankly again, I feel like we're, it's echoes of the past all over, all over again.

[00:51:17] It just seems to me like again and again there are these attempts to make things sound worse. But by doing so then it minimizes what actually is a concern, which is that I don't think he should be in prison.

[00:51:31] They should figure out something else for him closer to his attorneys. But when you're putting in all this stuff that then is immediately debunked it's like okay, you know maybe just focus on what matters. Here's more information about life for defendant Richard Allen at Wabash Valley.

[00:51:48] McLean knows that he has a tablet in his cell. He can communicate with his attorneys at any time through that and he's had the tablet the whole time he's been there.

[00:51:58] There's also video conferencing that he has access to so he can meet with counsel via video at any time. He has commissary in his cell, notably so commissary is where the inmates can purchase items, food, snacks, things like that. And he has it in his cell.

[00:52:16] The other people at Wabash Valley do not have that perk. McLean claims this is obviously a subjective statement but that he is being treated far better than any other inmate in the Department of Correction. So the state has been making moves behind the scene seemingly as well.

[00:52:37] Indicated that they spoke to Sheriff Dan Mahur from Adams County. Adams County is one of the counties that Labrado and Scrimmon were requesting that Allen be transferred to. It's in the northeastern portion of Indiana. It's on the border with Ohio.

[00:52:57] And so with that one, Sheriff Dan Mahur, he said he's not willing to take on Allen. He doesn't feel like he can accommodate him.

[00:53:08] He doesn't feel like he has the space and they don't have any mental health professionals available to deal with the suicidal issues and mental health needs.

[00:53:19] So in addition, McLean called up Sheriff Troy Hirschberger who's the sheriff of Allen County where of course that's Fort Wayne, that's where Scrimmon and Labrado are from. He's willing to take him on. He's willing to take Allen but there are caveats. The Allen County Jail is overcrowded.

[00:53:40] There would need to be special accommodations to house Allen and there's no face-to-face visits allowed. You have to visit this person via video and that includes attorney visits.

[00:53:52] So I don't know, maybe he should just be moved to Allen County if they're willing to take him but it sounds like there would be some drawbacks for the defense based on that.

[00:54:04] Also of course now Allen County would be out of the way for Rosie and Baldwin so that's probably neither here nor there. So a very interesting response.

[00:54:14] So generally the thing that McLean is talking about is like mental, will he get mental health help wherever he goes and will they have the ability to accommodate him? Will they have the ability to have the manpower to keep him safe?

[00:54:28] And you know what's the deal with the Carroll County Sheriff's Department? Do they have the manpower to make sure the transfer happens in a safe manner? So one thing that is an interesting aside from McLean here I think comes in .39. Which I will read.

[00:54:45] Once again for the third time the colorful dramatic language used by the defense is an attempt to curry public favor for their client and try this matter in the public eye instead of in the courtroom as has been a repetitive pattern in this case.

[00:54:59] What do you make of that? It seems very much an attempt to appeal to Judge Gull in particular because I believe Judge Gull in particular has indicated she does not want this tried in the media.

[00:55:18] She wants it tried in the courtroom so it feels like he's tailoring the argument for her.

[00:55:25] Yes. And also it does speak to what has been indeed a recurring pattern between the defense and the prosecution in this case where there's a lot of allegations made by defense attorneys about specifically his incarceration situation that then are maybe cast into some doubt by subsequent evidentiary hearings and legal filings.

[00:55:53] So be curious to see how things end up going.

[00:55:57] And we should know that there's also two states exhibits these are images of what appears to be a metal door with a slot in between where I believe that is where documents can essentially be passed through to indicate what the setup was.

[00:56:15] It's a metal door it's got like holes in it it's almost like a grill pattern and there's a large gap in between where there could be passing stuff so that's that filing. Next is the state's motion to compel discovery. And this is a much shorter filing.

[00:56:39] We've seen a lot of motions from the defense complaining about the prosecution not turning over discovery. Now we get one from the other side is McLean saying that the defense has not been turning over what they should be turning over and I'm going to read from it.

[00:56:57] Effective January 1st 2024 the Indiana Supreme Court issued rules of criminal procedure, where in rule 2.5 discovery states that the parties must endeavor to share information without court involvement subsection C disclosure by the defense states within 30 days after the prosecutor's disclosure.

[00:57:16] The defense must furnish the state with the following material and information with within the defense's possession or control. The defense may refrain from providing a witness's address or other contact information under this rule.

[00:57:31] If the defense in good faith believes the disclosure of the witness's address or other contact information may jeopardize the safety of the witness or the witness's immediate family.

[00:57:43] If the defense does not disclose the witness's address or other contact information in its possession for the reasons stated under this rule, then the defense must make the witness available to the state upon reasonable notice.

[00:57:55] B. Any books, papers, documents, photographs or tangible objects the defense intends to use as evidence.

[00:58:03] C. Any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments or comparisons that may be used at a hearing or trial.

[00:58:14] 2. The defense must disclose any statutory defense in writing by the statutory deadline or if there is no statutory deadline within a reasonable time.

[00:58:24] Today, the defense has neither turned over any discovery nor have they provided the state with a list of expert witnesses that they intend to call a trial or any other pretrial hearing. So he's saying there's stuff they need to give us too and that needs to happen.

[00:58:44] I think some people might be confused because we often talk about discovery as far as prosecution giving everything to the defense. Does the defense have to give everything to the prosecution?

[00:58:55] They don't have to give the prosecution everything but there is this rule that just became effective on January 1st that they do have to give these particular items.

[00:59:07] I guess the rule became effective January 1st and Rosie and Baldwin have only been back on the case for a relatively short time. I guess they're just putting them on notice. You guys need to give us this.

[00:59:22] Okay, so this all represents a flurry of activity in the Richard Allen case and we'll be continuing to monitor what happens going forward. But I guess big takeaways are McLean continues to push back hard on the defense attorney's characterization.

[00:59:41] And the defense team wants Judge Gull off the case and they're going to push for that. So what will happen next? How things will be ruled upon? What the process for any of this is remains to be seen. And what will happen next? Thank you so much.

[01:00:30] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:01:00] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the murder sheet and who you can find on the web at www.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.

[01:01:18] 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.