The Delphi Murders: The State Pushes Back Against the Defense's Request for an Interlocutory Appeal

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

[00:00:04] [SPEAKER_00]: Immerse yourself in the world of June's Journey, a free-to-play hidden object game set in the roaring 20s.

[00:00:11] [SPEAKER_00]: Solve the mystery of the devious gossip spreader and celebrate our seventh anniversary with exclusive events,

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

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

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

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

[00:00:30] [SPEAKER_00]: Don't let the end of summer get you down.

[00:00:32] [SPEAKER_01]: Our amazing sponsor, Viya Hemp, has a way for all of you to enhance your every day.

[00:00:37] [SPEAKER_02]: Viya Hemp is a company that crafts award-winning THC and THC-free gummies

[00:00:43] [SPEAKER_02]: made with ingredients grown on American farms.

[00:00:46] [SPEAKER_01]: When you support our sponsors, you're directly supporting us

[00:00:50] [SPEAKER_01]: and our mission to produce a quality true crime podcast.

[00:00:53] [SPEAKER_01]: Plus, you'd be getting a terrific deal from Viya.

[00:00:55] [SPEAKER_01]: If you're 21 and older, you get 15% off their first order with our exclusive code MSHEET

[00:01:01] [SPEAKER_01]: when you go to viyahemp.com.

[00:01:03] [SPEAKER_01]: That's V-I-I-A-H-E-M-P dot com.

[00:01:06] [SPEAKER_02]: Each Viya gummy is created for a specific mood or activity.

[00:01:11] [SPEAKER_02]: Boost your focus, sleep better, get creative.

[00:01:16] [SPEAKER_02]: Whatever you want to do, Viya has you covered.

[00:01:19] [SPEAKER_02]: And with so many options and combinations of THC, CBD, and more,

[00:01:24] [SPEAKER_02]: no matter what you want from your hemp experience, Viya's got you.

[00:01:28] [SPEAKER_01]: Plus, Viya Hemp is so accessible.

[00:01:30] [SPEAKER_01]: Your gummies ship legally to all 50 states.

[00:01:33] [SPEAKER_01]: You don't need a medical card to enjoy.

[00:01:35] [SPEAKER_01]: I've talked before about how their Viya Grapefruit CBG and CBD Flowstate gummies

[00:01:39] [SPEAKER_01]: were a real standout for me because they help me focus more and get a lot done.

[00:01:43] [SPEAKER_02]: If you're 21 or older, head to viyahemp.com

[00:01:47] [SPEAKER_02]: and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off.

[00:01:51] [SPEAKER_02]: That's V-I-I-A-H-E-M-P dot com and use code MSHEET at checkout.

[00:01:58] [SPEAKER_02]: After you purchase, they ask you where you heard about them.

[00:02:02] [SPEAKER_02]: Please support our show and tell them we sent you.

[00:02:05] [SPEAKER_02]: Enhance your every day with Viya.

[00:02:08] [SPEAKER_02]: Content warning, this episode includes discussion of the murder of two children.

[00:02:13] [SPEAKER_01]: So very recently, we heard from the Delphi defense team in this case

[00:02:17] [SPEAKER_01]: filing a request to make an interlocutory appeal.

[00:02:21] [SPEAKER_01]: And this is over the fact that the defense's main strategy, their main theory of the case,

[00:02:28] [SPEAKER_01]: the theory that a Odinus cult sacrificed the two victims, Abigail Williams and Liberty German,

[00:02:35] [SPEAKER_01]: in the woods of Delphi, and that's how they were murdered,

[00:02:37] [SPEAKER_01]: was thrown out by the judge for lack of evidence.

[00:02:40] [SPEAKER_01]: So what we saw from them was basically saying,

[00:02:43] [SPEAKER_01]: we'd like to go to a different court, a higher court,

[00:02:47] [SPEAKER_01]: and request that that be looked at and see if we can get Odinism back in.

[00:02:53] [SPEAKER_02]: And not only that, but their motion included a lot of talk,

[00:02:57] [SPEAKER_02]: oh, wouldn't it be awful if there was a second trial

[00:03:01] [SPEAKER_02]: because this decision ended up being wrong and a court of appeals threw it out.

[00:03:05] [SPEAKER_02]: As I said in that program, I'm not at all certain there would be a second trial necessitated by this

[00:03:11] [SPEAKER_02]: because as someone who sat in court for three days and listened to the evidence they presented,

[00:03:17] [SPEAKER_02]: I think Judge Gold quite literally ruled the only way she could

[00:03:21] [SPEAKER_02]: based on the evidence that was presented to her.

[00:03:23] [SPEAKER_02]: They also said things like, well, if they don't do this,

[00:03:26] [SPEAKER_02]: if they don't do this interlocutory appeal, we'll make that trial pretty hard

[00:03:29] [SPEAKER_02]: by having really lengthy offers to prove that would annoy everybody.

[00:03:33] [SPEAKER_02]: But again, there's ways Judge Gold can limit an offer to prove other than just

[00:03:39] [SPEAKER_02]: giving the defense everything they wanted, but I interrupted you.

[00:03:42] [SPEAKER_01]: No, no, I appreciate it. And I will just say that I think it's so important what you just said

[00:03:48] [SPEAKER_01]: because I think a lot of people that we've heard from when they're talking about this,

[00:03:52] [SPEAKER_01]: they're like, yeah, but wow, it's taking away their whole theory and

[00:03:57] [SPEAKER_01]: what are they going to do? And they knew this theory was weak and evidence light,

[00:04:03] [SPEAKER_01]: to put it kindly, going into this.

[00:04:05] [SPEAKER_02]: Let's be blunt. We've been told these are great lawyers, the defense lawyers are great lawyers.

[00:04:12] [SPEAKER_02]: Let's assume a certain level of competency. If they're competent attorneys,

[00:04:16] [SPEAKER_02]: they had to know going into court that they had no evidence to back up this odinism theory.

[00:04:25] [SPEAKER_02]: They had to know that. If they don't know that, if they were sitting there and presenting

[00:04:31] [SPEAKER_02]: this very weak evidence, and I use the word evidence very loosely there,

[00:04:37] [SPEAKER_02]: and believe that there was merit to it, then there was something wrong about competency.

[00:04:42] [SPEAKER_02]: They had to know that when the investigators who worked on this odinism theory got up on the stand

[00:04:51] [SPEAKER_02]: and said, well, we tried really hard, but we were completely unable to establish a link between

[00:04:59] [SPEAKER_02]: these suspects and the crime. We couldn't prove that they were even in the city of Delphi

[00:05:04] [SPEAKER_02]: on the day the murders happened. They had to know that that wasn't good for their theory,

[00:05:12] [SPEAKER_02]: because the very first thing you need when you have a theory about someone being responsible for

[00:05:17] [SPEAKER_02]: a crime is any evidence that the person was even in town when the crime happened.

[00:05:24] [SPEAKER_02]: If you can't prove even that, you've got a problem. Again, I'm getting ahead of myself.

[00:05:30] [SPEAKER_01]: CARRIE GANNON Well, yeah, I just think it's important to state. I'll also note,

[00:05:33] [SPEAKER_01]: oftentimes, I feel like the arguments I see on behalf of the defense online are actually stronger

[00:05:38] [SPEAKER_01]: and make more intuitive sense than some of what we actually saw where people are trying to say, well,

[00:05:44] [SPEAKER_01]: maybe this is the reason for the confessions and statements. It's like, yeah, but they didn't argue

[00:05:49] [SPEAKER_01]: that. I think sometimes people try to war game this in their heads and try to almost bolster the

[00:05:56] [SPEAKER_01]: defense by having almost a better version of what they stated, but that's just not what we saw.

[00:06:01] [SPEAKER_01]: The judge has to rule based on what she saw, which was a mess and a failure on the part of

[00:06:09] [SPEAKER_01]: this defense team to make Odinism work, to make it even come close, I would argue. So that's where

[00:06:15] [SPEAKER_01]: we are. Now that the defense has had their time to say, hey, we'd actually like this to be

[00:06:19] [SPEAKER_01]: reconsidered by an appeals court, now we've actually seen the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office, of

[00:06:26] [SPEAKER_01]: course led by Prosecutor Nicholas McClelland, file something back. This is very short and sweet,

[00:06:32] [SPEAKER_01]: but it's the state's objection to certification of orders to allow for interlocutory appeal.

[00:06:37] [SPEAKER_02]: ANDREW WEISS And we will be discussing that in today's episode.

[00:06:40] [SPEAKER_01]: My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:06:43] [SPEAKER_02]: KEVIN GREENLEE And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:06:45] [SPEAKER_01]: ANYA KANE And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:06:47] [SPEAKER_02]: KEVIN GREENLEE We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting,

[00:06:50] [SPEAKER_02]: interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:06:55] [SPEAKER_01]: ANYA KANE And this is The Delphi Murders. The state pushes back against the defense's request

[00:07:02] [SPEAKER_01]: for an interlocutory appeal.

[00:07:48] [SPEAKER_02]: And before we get into it, not to repeat myself, but I do want to stress that the defense did an

[00:07:59] [SPEAKER_02]: absolutely terrible job in those three-day hearings of establishing any connection between their

[00:08:08] [SPEAKER_02]: ownism theory and this reality. And so it's important to keep that in mind, just because

[00:08:17] [SPEAKER_02]: someone asserts a defense, even if they assert it strongly, if there is no evidence behind it,

[00:08:25] [SPEAKER_02]: ultimately at some point considering that defense not only is a waste of time, but is also potentially

[00:08:33] [SPEAKER_02]: unfair to the people who are being implicated by that defense. I know many of you out there surely

[00:08:42] [SPEAKER_02]: are parents and imagine if you caught your child doing something wrong and your child just strongly

[00:08:51] [SPEAKER_02]: maintains, oh, I didn't do it. It was actually done by Jimmy who lives three towns away.

[00:08:59] [SPEAKER_02]: And even if your child asserts that very strongly and very vigorously, if there's no evidence of it,

[00:09:06] [SPEAKER_02]: you as the parent realize, well, no, this wasn't done by Jimmy three towns away. It was done by you.

[00:09:10] [SPEAKER_01]: Yes. And I think also when you look at this more from, if we assume some level of competence,

[00:09:18] [SPEAKER_01]: which I'm sure is controversial at this point amongst some of you on this defense team, then

[00:09:23] [SPEAKER_01]: looking at it as a futile effort legally speaking, but perhaps a fruitful effort in trying to

[00:09:31] [SPEAKER_01]: kick up a lot of dust, get people not talking about what Richard Allen has said about the

[00:09:36] [SPEAKER_01]: confessions, or said about the crime rather, get people who are more conspiratorially minded,

[00:09:43] [SPEAKER_01]: because in my experience, the people who are more conspiratorial minded

[00:09:47] [SPEAKER_01]: view this theory much more favorably because it scratches that itch of, wow, it's a big group

[00:09:56] [SPEAKER_01]: of guys and it's a scheme and it's all a lot more elaborate than just one guy who worked at CVS and

[00:10:03] [SPEAKER_01]: then did something awful one day. So when you look at it like that, where it's just essentially

[00:10:08] [SPEAKER_01]: trying to poison the well in terms of how the public views this case, I think it makes more

[00:10:16] [SPEAKER_01]: sense if we assume some baseline level of competence from that perspective. It's manipulation

[00:10:24] [SPEAKER_01]: of the public and the media. Are you searching for a cleaning solution that's both incredibly

[00:10:31] [SPEAKER_01]: powerful and all-natural and safe for your family? Well, we'd strongly recommend Ultralux Clean.

[00:10:38] [SPEAKER_01]: Ultralux Clean is a powerful, safe, and effective cleaning solution that relies on hypochlorous acid.

[00:10:45] [SPEAKER_02]: Murder Sheet listeners can get this at a terrific price, 20% off. Plus you can use this coupon up to

[00:10:52] [SPEAKER_01]: three times per person. Hypochlorous acid is what you get when you combine water, salt, and citric

[00:10:58] [SPEAKER_01]: acid and send that mixture through electrolysis. It's FDA approved. Ultralux Clean combines power

[00:11:05] [SPEAKER_01]: and safety. Hypochlorous acid is a hospital-grade cleaner, but you can use Ultralux Clean on all

[00:11:12] [SPEAKER_01]: kinds of surfaces, kitchen countertops, tables, toys. It's even safe on your skin. Ensure your

[00:11:18] [SPEAKER_02]: house is a clean and healthy environment for you and your family. Opt for Ultralux Clean

[00:11:24] [SPEAKER_02]: and get the strongest all-natural cleaner and disinfectant out there. Ultralux also has plenty

[00:11:29] [SPEAKER_01]: of other really cool products you should check out. Their Red Mini device offers accessible red

[00:11:34] [SPEAKER_01]: light therapy, which studies indicate can help reduce inflammation and pain. Plus they've got

[00:11:39] [SPEAKER_01]: these great hydrogen water tablets that offer a hydrogen concentration of 12 parts per million

[00:11:45] [SPEAKER_01]: and take only about two to three minutes to dissolve in water. As they say, the best day

[00:11:50] [SPEAKER_01]: to improve your health is today. So head over to ultraluxhealth.com and use M-Sheet to get 20%

[00:11:56] [SPEAKER_01]: off when you order the Red Mini, Ultralux Clean, or hydrogen tablets. That's ultraluxhealth.com

[00:12:03] [SPEAKER_02]: and M-Sheet for 20% off. Yeah, and we know from things that have been said by people closely

[00:12:10] [SPEAKER_02]: affiliated with this defense team, certainly Kara Wienecki who represented Richard Allen in

[00:12:18] [SPEAKER_02]: the action before the Supreme Court and who, as you may or may not know, doesn't believe we landed

[00:12:25] [SPEAKER_02]: on the moon. She's indicated that there can be a certain value in putting a lot of stuff like this

[00:12:32] [SPEAKER_02]: out to create a narrative because maybe a person who's on a jury who might be inclined to believe

[00:12:39] [SPEAKER_02]: things of a more conspiratorial nature could point to some of this stuff already being out there and

[00:12:44] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm not alone. And also generally speaking, a lot of people think that, oh, if there was a lot

[00:12:51] [SPEAKER_02]: of smoke somewhere, there must be a fire. And that's not always true because sometimes people

[00:12:59] [SPEAKER_02]: will run through a building with a little smoke bomb or people will run through and spray cans of

[00:13:06] [SPEAKER_01]: fake smoke. I was thinking, you know what this reminds me of? And we were on a documentary for

[00:13:13] [SPEAKER_01]: Investigation Discovery about the Burger Chef murders. And it was really interesting because

[00:13:18] [SPEAKER_01]: we got to learn all about how true crime documentaries are made and it was really

[00:13:22] [SPEAKER_01]: enlightening. We had a great time working with that team. We think they did an excellent job

[00:13:25] [SPEAKER_01]: and you should check it out on ID if you get the chance. But what I'm trying to refer to here is

[00:13:31] [SPEAKER_01]: the director, a wonderful guy named Jeremy. At one point he wanted us, we were standing in the actual

[00:13:39] [SPEAKER_01]: kind of shell of the Burger Chef and to get an interesting shot, he literally grabbed this spray

[00:13:46] [SPEAKER_01]: can of I guess something that's supposed to create the effect of smoke and just ran around the room

[00:13:52] [SPEAKER_01]: spraying it. And it was just a surreal moment because we had to stand there looking really

[00:13:55] [SPEAKER_01]: serious and still and he's just running around with this like fake smoke like a madman. And

[00:14:02] [SPEAKER_01]: that's sort of what I imagine the defense is doing on some level here.

[00:14:06] [SPEAKER_02]: Yes, sometimes when there is smoke, yes, there is a fire. Other times when there's smoke it's

[00:14:12] [SPEAKER_02]: because someone is running around with a can of artificial smoke. I've used this analogy before

[00:14:17] [SPEAKER_01]: too but I think it benefits and we hear this repeated back in from media people and from other

[00:14:23] [SPEAKER_01]: people who are in the public but there's this kind of call response thing going on where they're like

[00:14:28] [SPEAKER_01]: wow they're complaining a lot something must be wrong in Delphi. And I think it's important to

[00:14:33] [SPEAKER_01]: it's the difference between going into a Denny's where everything's kind of a mess when you get

[00:14:39] [SPEAKER_01]: there and it's just not a very well run Denny's and it's just kind of gross and you want to get

[00:14:44] [SPEAKER_01]: out of there versus me going into the Denny's, you know harassing customers flipping over a table

[00:14:50] [SPEAKER_01]: pouring syrup on the floor spilling drinks and then saying wow what a dump and walking out.

[00:14:55] [SPEAKER_01]: And I think the defense has been doing that they've essentially been just causing chaos

[00:15:01] [SPEAKER_01]: leaking to YouTubers extensively and doing all sorts of you know things that engender more chaos

[00:15:07] [SPEAKER_01]: and then acting like oh isn't it doesn't seem like everything's out of control does that make

[00:15:12] [SPEAKER_01]: you question what's going on here? And I don't really think that's fair to say that the Delphi

[00:15:17] [SPEAKER_01]: case is in disarray. I think the defense is in disarray and it benefits them when that is sort of

[00:15:24] [SPEAKER_01]: then extrapolated onto the whole case. That's just my opinion but I think that's a strategy

[00:15:30] [SPEAKER_02]: trying to implement here. Yeah I would agree with that and let's get to this filing prepared by

[00:15:39] [SPEAKER_02]: Nick McLeeland and his team which of course includes Stacey Diener and James Luttrell.

[00:15:46] [SPEAKER_02]: It's a great team he has assembled there and I think before we really get into it I think

[00:15:52] [SPEAKER_02]: it's worth noting there's really a crucial tonal difference between this and some of the defense

[00:15:59] [SPEAKER_02]: stuff. For one thing it is a filing that doesn't have any fat on it and for another thing it's not

[00:16:08] [SPEAKER_02]: one of those filings the defense as I indicated in their filing said well you know if things don't go

[00:16:15] [SPEAKER_02]: our way we're sure make the trial difficult. Don't you like that judge just vaguely threatening to

[00:16:23] [SPEAKER_02]: derail things again? And oh there surely this will just be a test trial and all this other stuff.

[00:16:28] [SPEAKER_02]: Be a shame if anything happened to this trial. There's really nothing like that in this filing.

[00:16:35] [SPEAKER_02]: This filing just states facts dryly and professionally. It's three pages and one

[00:16:42] [SPEAKER_01]: page is the signature. Yeah. So I mean it's definitely getting to the point a lot faster

[00:16:47] [SPEAKER_01]: and it doesn't re-litigate things. I think the defense you know anytime they can they throw in

[00:16:53] [SPEAKER_01]: the boilerplate version of the Frank's memorandums that they put out there. So

[00:16:58] [SPEAKER_01]: I think this doesn't have that and I think this is more typical what you'd see in a case I think

[00:17:05] [SPEAKER_01]: than what they've been doing in terms of their filings. So how do you want to read some of this?

[00:17:15] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah let's read it. I mean it's really short so I mean what do we have to lose?

[00:17:20] [SPEAKER_01]: Okay. Okay do you want me to start from the top go to you know first couple points? Okay.

[00:17:25] [SPEAKER_01]: Now comes the state of Indiana by prosecuting attorney Nicholas C. McLeeland and respectfully

[00:17:31] [SPEAKER_01]: objects to certification of the court's orders dated August 28th, 2024 and September 4th,

[00:17:37] [SPEAKER_01]: 2024 for interlocutory appeal. In support of the objection the state would ask the court

[00:17:42] [SPEAKER_01]: to consider the following. One that on August 28th, 2024 the court issued an order denying

[00:17:48] [SPEAKER_01]: the defendant's motion to suppress statements filed April 11th, 2024. That on two that on

[00:17:54] [SPEAKER_01]: September 23rd, 2024 the court issued an order granting the state's motion in limine in its

[00:17:59] [SPEAKER_01]: entirety filed April 29th, 2024. Three that the defense is now asking the court to certify those

[00:18:06] [SPEAKER_01]: orders to allow for interlocutory appeal and delay the trial setting. Four that under appellate

[00:18:12] [SPEAKER_01]: procedure rule 14b1 which outlines the grounds for an interlocutory appeal it states that if

[00:18:18] [SPEAKER_01]: the order involves a substantial question of law the early determination of which will promote a

[00:18:23] [SPEAKER_01]: more orderly disposition of the case the court can certify that order for interlocutory appeal.

[00:18:30] [SPEAKER_01]: Five that in both the August 28th and the September 3rd orders from the court there is no

[00:18:36] [SPEAKER_01]: question of law to be debated. The law concerning the motion to suppress and the motion in limine

[00:18:41] [SPEAKER_01]: is well established and clear. The orders in no way involve a substantial question of law

[00:18:46] [SPEAKER_01]: rather the issues presented and decided which are the basis of the orders which are the basis of the

[00:18:52] [SPEAKER_01]: orders are questions of fact. Questions of fact are appropriately determined at the trial level

[00:18:57] [SPEAKER_01]: by the presiding judge applying controlling law to the evidence presented and accepted at

[00:19:02] [SPEAKER_02]: the hearing on both issues end quote. Should we talk a bit about questions of fact versus

[00:19:09] [SPEAKER_01]: questions of law? Yeah I think as a lay person I think I kind of understand that but I don't want

[00:19:16] [SPEAKER_01]: to just assume and I think it would be good for everyone if we went over that because it raises

[00:19:22] [SPEAKER_02]: the question of what exactly what are we talking about here. So a question of fact involves it's

[00:19:30] [SPEAKER_02]: ultimately the trial court's decision or the jury's decision in an actual trial it is up to

[00:19:38] [SPEAKER_02]: them to decide what is fact because it was what happened here. If someone testifies I saw this

[00:19:46] [SPEAKER_02]: happen and the judge and jury watch that witness they can make a determination well I find that

[00:19:53] [SPEAKER_02]: witness credible I don't find that witness credible what have you. Now a question of law would get into

[00:20:03] [SPEAKER_02]: should that testimony have even been admissible under law if let's say for instance

[00:20:13] [SPEAKER_02]: you know the witness has some sort of criminal background and that's either allowed or not allowed

[00:20:21] [SPEAKER_02]: that comes more into questions of law. It's more like think about a baseball game

[00:20:29] [SPEAKER_02]: and umpire basically gets to decide whether or not a pitch is a ball or a strike and determine

[00:20:37] [SPEAKER_02]: the facts of whether that pitch was a ball or a strike but ultimately the rule book was written

[00:20:44] [SPEAKER_01]: by someone else. Okay so what he's saying is that because what the defense is arguing here boils

[00:20:52] [SPEAKER_01]: down to questions of fact i.e did the odinous do this is there evidence of the odinous you know

[00:20:58] [SPEAKER_02]: committing these murders. Or to put it crudely was it a ball or a strike that's up to the trial judge

[00:21:04] [SPEAKER_02]: it is not a question of oh something happened in this ball game and it is unclear what the rules

[00:21:11] [SPEAKER_02]: are and let's go to a higher umpire or something like this because the rules as written are clear.

[00:21:18] [SPEAKER_01]: The established rules are that you have to reach a certain level of evidence in order to get a third

[00:21:25] [SPEAKER_01]: am i babbling or does that make sense? I think it makes sense but like let me just break it down

[00:21:29] [SPEAKER_01]: and tell me if i'm right or if i'm wrong. Like the the rules the law clearly support there needing to

[00:21:36] [SPEAKER_01]: be a level of evidence a nexus between a third party suspect and the crime that was clearly

[00:21:45] [SPEAKER_01]: not achieved especially with odinism. I think I would argue that the Kagan-Klein side of things

[00:21:53] [SPEAKER_01]: came closer and that may have been more of a toss-up but I also still think that given some

[00:21:59] [SPEAKER_01]: of the facts revealed there that that was still within the judge's right not have that go forward.

[00:22:06] [SPEAKER_01]: But so okay so that the fact that that happened there's no underlying question of law because

[00:22:13] [SPEAKER_01]: the law is very much clear on that matter that that is up to the judge's discretion

[00:22:18] [SPEAKER_01]: and there's no sort of well what were we supposed to do we don't really know.

[00:22:22] [SPEAKER_02]: Is that is that a dumb version of what you're saying? Yeah so so basically the law indicates

[00:22:29] [SPEAKER_02]: what should be a ball or a strike and Judge Galt indicated well I think this was a strike or I think

[00:22:35] [SPEAKER_02]: this was a ball and there's no question of what the strike zone should be. I'm not back to using

[00:22:41] [SPEAKER_01]: my baseball. I think it's helpful baseball metaphors we just we just went to a baseball

[00:22:45] [SPEAKER_01]: game so I'm not surprised but I think yeah okay I mean that makes sense and I'm curious in terms of

[00:22:56] [SPEAKER_02]: this situation I mean do you find this argument compelling? Yeah I do again I sat in that hearing

[00:23:09] [SPEAKER_02]: as did you this was their this was the defense team's moment to shine. This was their moment

[00:23:18] [SPEAKER_02]: to make a case that their theory held water and met the standard of the law and they completely

[00:23:30] [SPEAKER_02]: failed to do that. They did not even come close. Their investigators basically acknowledged that

[00:23:38] [SPEAKER_02]: by indicating they couldn't establish a connection between their suspects and the murders.

[00:23:44] [SPEAKER_02]: In fact to me sitting there it wasn't even entirely clear to me if some of those investigators still

[00:23:50] [SPEAKER_02]: believe this theory and their ex their so-called expert witness uh Dodd Perlmutter she was a

[00:24:00] [SPEAKER_02]: disaster. They completely failed they completely bobbled the ball back to sports and that's not

[00:24:09] [SPEAKER_02]: the fault of prosecutor McLeelan that's not the fault of the judge it is their own fault.

[00:24:16] [SPEAKER_02]: They put forth this theory they worked it for a year I assume they investigated you know they

[00:24:23] [SPEAKER_02]: didn't they I certainly didn't see any evidence of it at the hearing and it was a failed theory

[00:24:28] [SPEAKER_02]: they they could not come up with anything too supportive that's not on anyone but themselves

[00:24:36] [SPEAKER_02]: and if they're if they're still interested in defending Richard Allen they need to come

[00:24:43] [SPEAKER_02]: up with something else and you don't necessarily it's worth noting uh criminal defense attorneys

[00:24:50] [SPEAKER_02]: do not necessarily have to go into court and say oh I've solved the crime no it wasn't my client

[00:24:56] [SPEAKER_02]: it was actually this other person. That makes for a more entertaining story though. Yes but it doesn't

[00:25:02] [SPEAKER_01]: necessarily make for the best defense. No it obviously doesn't a defendant is innocent until

[00:25:09] [SPEAKER_01]: proven guilty the state has to prove guilt the defense doesn't have to do anything I would argue

[00:25:15] [SPEAKER_01]: that it's not unusual you know in usual circumstances it's probably not a good idea for

[00:25:20] [SPEAKER_01]: the defense to literally do nothing and not present a case although they're allowed to that's fine if

[00:25:25] [SPEAKER_01]: they want to do that but I would argue in this situation that this this odinist thing and their

[00:25:32] [SPEAKER_01]: and their sort of desperation to control the narrative has led them in some very unfruitful

[00:25:38] [SPEAKER_01]: directions and I really think that they want a good story more so than they want to actually do

[00:25:45] [SPEAKER_01]: some good lawyering I think they want a good story because you know like it's people are going to be

[00:25:52] [SPEAKER_01]: excited about them solving the case and maybe that benefits them in some ways that we're not

[00:25:57] [SPEAKER_01]: talking about but I don't I don't think it's worked out for them. I don't think it's worked out for them

[00:26:03] [SPEAKER_02]: and you'd have to ask why they chose this course rather than just doing a more traditional thing

[00:26:12] [SPEAKER_02]: of basically poking holes in the investigation and trying to find flaws in the investigation

[00:26:20] [SPEAKER_02]: because that's really all you have to do is just examine the investigation of the crime try to find

[00:26:27] [SPEAKER_02]: holes and flaws in it and suggest those create reasonable doubt that's really all you have to do

[00:26:32] [SPEAKER_02]: and the fact that they are not doing this and they're trying to solve the crime by pointing

[00:26:39] [SPEAKER_02]: their fingers at these individual men who have been cleared of involvement in the crime

[00:26:46] [SPEAKER_02]: that really makes me wonder is the investigation so good you can't poke holes in it is the case

[00:26:55] [SPEAKER_02]: against Richard Allen this man who says he was in the vicinity this man who has confessed to

[00:27:03] [SPEAKER_02]: the crime 61 times this man whose gun has been linked to a bullet found in the crime scene

[00:27:10] [SPEAKER_02]: is the case against him just so incredibly devastating that all they can do is try to

[00:27:17] [SPEAKER_02]: change the subject and not talk about that and say look over here let's look at the odinous let's

[00:27:23] [SPEAKER_02]: look at all of this fallen or this other stuff months and months ago I would say not necessarily

[00:27:29] [SPEAKER_01]: now based on only what is publicly known I'm not talking about anything that we don't know about

[00:27:34] [SPEAKER_01]: I'm just talking about what is publicly known in this case the answer to your question is yes

[00:27:40] [SPEAKER_01]: the case against him is devastating he has confessed dozens of times and included specifics

[00:27:48] [SPEAKER_01]: of the crime in his confessions and I think it's very difficult to imagine a way around that

[00:27:55] [SPEAKER_01]: and I think a normal defense team would be considering their options at this time

[00:28:00] [SPEAKER_02]: and to be blunt in this case anytime we're talking about odinism or about judge goal

[00:28:09] [SPEAKER_02]: allegedly being corrupt or blackmailed or or Nick McClellan maybe being involved in some

[00:28:16] [SPEAKER_02]: dark conspiracy anytime we're talking about that the defense is winning and because we're not

[00:28:22] [SPEAKER_02]: talking about their clients yes and anytime we are talking about Richard Allen this man

[00:28:28] [SPEAKER_02]: who owns a gun that has been linked ballistically to the crime scene this man who says he was in

[00:28:34] [SPEAKER_02]: the vicinity this man who says he owns clothes similar to what was worn by the man in the video

[00:28:40] [SPEAKER_02]: this man who has confessed to this crime 61 times anytime we're talking about that

[00:28:48] [SPEAKER_02]: the defense is losing so they don't want us to talk about that they want us to talk about this

[00:28:55] [SPEAKER_01]: odinism nonsense it is nonsense it's nonsense there's no point listen we were willing to give

[00:29:02] [SPEAKER_01]: it a shake at first and we've always been critical of it but after that three-day hearing I'm done

[00:29:07] [SPEAKER_01]: holding back this is nonsense this is not true and they should be embarrassed to have brought

[00:29:14] [SPEAKER_01]: it this far because this has led to a year delay in this case as we've gone down this stupid rabbit

[00:29:20] [SPEAKER_01]: hole that they didn't even bother to get to the point where it could even be used in court that

[00:29:27] [SPEAKER_01]: was a waste of everybody's time this has been a waste of everybody's time they did not do a good

[00:29:32] [SPEAKER_01]: job there were plenty of off ramps for them to go down and as you said it just indicates that

[00:29:39] [SPEAKER_01]: they don't feel like confident in their case because you wouldn't do this if you did if odinism

[00:29:45] [SPEAKER_02]: is the best they can do they have no case and richard allen will be convicted but once you get

[00:29:52] [SPEAKER_01]: back to the document because we uh should finish that up yes let's see i think i was on i want to

[00:29:59] [SPEAKER_01]: say six yeah all right quote six that evidence as to both issues was presented at length by the

[00:30:06] [SPEAKER_01]: defense that the defense was not able to meet its burden on the suppression issue or in any of the

[00:30:11] [SPEAKER_01]: issues outlined in the motion in lemonade concerning third-party motive geofencing or

[00:30:15] [SPEAKER_01]: any other topic outlined in the motion that the burden on the defense is well established by law

[00:30:21] [SPEAKER_01]: in both of these areas seven that the defense has not shown that the orders from august 28 2024 or

[00:30:28] [SPEAKER_01]: september 3 2024 contain a substantial question of law eight that an interlocutory appeal would delay

[00:30:35] [SPEAKER_01]: the trial for a second time the delay of the long complex trial so close to the start day is

[00:30:40] [SPEAKER_01]: burdensome on the state and on the family of the victims as well as financially as well as

[00:30:45] [SPEAKER_01]: financially burdensome on the county end quote so let's talk about some of this so mcclelland is

[00:30:53] [SPEAKER_01]: certainly i think accurate in saying that this would lead to another delay it sounds like the

[00:31:00] [SPEAKER_01]: defense in their filing we're trying to say like hey that's not what we want but i mean with the

[00:31:07] [SPEAKER_02]: events basically in their filing it was saying uh yeah they weren't explicitly saying it would

[00:31:13] [SPEAKER_02]: lead to a delay but of course it would but they're saying well what we're asking for would be superior

[00:31:19] [SPEAKER_02]: than having what they call a practice trial that's this uh frankly absurd narrative they have put out

[00:31:27] [SPEAKER_02]: there which you will hear some members of the due process gang and their acolytes uh echo which is

[00:31:35] [SPEAKER_02]: that judge goal's decision so obviously flawed that this uh trial based on this decision will go

[00:31:44] [SPEAKER_02]: so uh in such crazy directions that it will obviously be thrown out and become a practice

[00:31:50] [SPEAKER_02]: trial we just waste all of our times and i don't i have not seen any indication that that will happen

[00:31:58] [SPEAKER_02]: again i think judge goal's decision was frankly in terms of odinism was the only decision she could

[00:32:05] [SPEAKER_02]: make because of the failures of the defense team and i i think that they talk about a practice

[00:32:12] [SPEAKER_02]: trial that is nonsense and they're just trying to to scare people yeah i also want to talk about

[00:32:20] [SPEAKER_01]: this mentions geofencing and that's been something that we've been trying to figure out and i think

[00:32:24] [SPEAKER_01]: a lot of people have been trying to figure out and i think talking with others i've gotten the sense at

[00:32:28] [SPEAKER_01]: times where people are like wait they're not a lot they're almost conflating geofencing with like

[00:32:33] [SPEAKER_01]: all phone data or you know all phone you know tower dumps of all the phones in the area at the

[00:32:39] [SPEAKER_01]: time and i i think i think one thing it's important is not to fall into the defense's trap of sort of

[00:32:47] [SPEAKER_01]: conflating all different manners of phone when they described geofencing in their filing we noted

[00:32:54] [SPEAKER_01]: at the time that they were deeply incorrect about a lot of things and didn't seem to understand the

[00:32:59] [SPEAKER_01]: fundamental technology so their claims about what's not allowed because geofencing is not

[00:33:05] [SPEAKER_01]: allowed should be taken with a huge platter of salt and in addition to that my understanding

[00:33:11] [SPEAKER_01]: is that what this motion what's not allowed in terms of the geofencing is what was specifically

[00:33:17] [SPEAKER_01]: talked about uh in mcclellan's motions in his responses to the frank's motion and noting that

[00:33:26] [SPEAKER_01]: you know the the pings that the defense kept talking about were not reflective of a person

[00:33:33] [SPEAKER_01]: or a phone's actual location and they could have been off by many many yards and that the phone

[00:33:38] [SPEAKER_01]: owners in those situations had been investigated and fully cleared so it's don't bring in that

[00:33:46] [SPEAKER_01]: and be suddenly accusing these people who were actually on the other side of town

[00:33:50] [SPEAKER_01]: and we proved that and so when i see you know people talking about well you know

[00:33:57] [SPEAKER_01]: geofencing is not allowed so they can't bring in any phone information that's not true my

[00:34:02] [SPEAKER_01]: understanding is that they just can't bring in the geofencing the sort of unreliable let's just

[00:34:08] [SPEAKER_01]: throw in all these pings even though people have obviously been cleared so i think i think that's

[00:34:16] [SPEAKER_01]: important to state because it doesn't mean that they can't bring in libby's phone

[00:34:23] [SPEAKER_01]: it doesn't mean that they can't look at at phone information for other people and frankly i think

[00:34:29] [SPEAKER_01]: it's really important to state that in in the tower dumps and the geofencing and all the talk

[00:34:35] [SPEAKER_01]: about phones we never heard about any of the alleged odinous phones we never heard a peep

[00:34:41] [SPEAKER_01]: from the defense and don't you think that would have been really helpful to hear about had you

[00:34:47] [SPEAKER_01]: know say one of the alleged odinous had their phone pinged off a tower like that would have

[00:34:53] [SPEAKER_01]: been something that they could have included even early on saying hey this guy was in the area or

[00:34:58] [SPEAKER_01]: at least his phone was we never got any of that that should tell us something sometimes what they

[00:35:03] [SPEAKER_01]: don't say is also didn't bark is just as important as what they are saying and you know that's that

[00:35:11] [SPEAKER_01]: requires a little bit of a leap and a little bit of an assumption on our part but i think it's a

[00:35:15] [SPEAKER_01]: fair one to say because that would be very foolish if there was existing evidence in that capacity

[00:35:20] [SPEAKER_01]: that they did not mention at all because that that would be a real barn burner of a filing and

[00:35:26] [SPEAKER_01]: that would be something they think you and i would give credit to and say like hey maybe there is

[00:35:30] [SPEAKER_02]: something there but they didn't do that and let me say one more thing about this practice trial

[00:35:37] [SPEAKER_02]: nonsense keep in mind that to my mind what they're really saying when they talk about the first trial

[00:35:45] [SPEAKER_02]: being a practice trial or what have you is they are acknowledging that the first trial or the only

[00:35:54] [SPEAKER_02]: trial is likely to end in richard allen being convicted and they are trying to prime their

[00:36:02] [SPEAKER_02]: supporters to think well him being convicted isn't the end of it and don't give up keep giving us

[00:36:09] [SPEAKER_01]: support time energy maybe even a second fundraiser who knows if we can figure that out that's that's

[00:36:16] [SPEAKER_02]: that's what it's about based on there's not going to be a second trial based on judge gold's decision

[00:36:25] [SPEAKER_02]: there's always the possibility for strange things happening in a trial that cause a second trial

[00:36:31] [SPEAKER_02]: to be necessary none of those things has happened so far the talk of a second trial is nonsense and

[00:36:39] [SPEAKER_02]: it's just them acknowledging that the person whose cause they have championed is likely to

[00:36:46] [SPEAKER_02]: go down in defeat at the trial and it ended in conviction but let's get back well no let me

[00:36:51] [SPEAKER_01]: actually say it's like this if you've ever been a very competitive and sort of prideful little kid

[00:36:57] [SPEAKER_01]: or you've known a very competitive and prideful little kid you know that sometimes if you're if

[00:37:02] [SPEAKER_01]: you're playing a board game and that kid is losing they might start rattling off defensively all the

[00:37:08] [SPEAKER_01]: reasons they lost well the sun was in my eyes when that happened or you know you were making a face

[00:37:12] [SPEAKER_01]: at me and it made me mess up or you know you were talking and that distracted me it's like

[00:37:17] [SPEAKER_01]: they start preemptively listing well this is why okay it was unfair and you cheated and it was

[00:37:23] [SPEAKER_01]: rigged against me it's like a kind of a childish sort of preparing everyone here's why i'm gonna

[00:37:29] [SPEAKER_01]: lose which is funny because it kind of goes against the sort of like very assured you know

[00:37:36] [SPEAKER_01]: we're gonna win thing that they do at the same time but then there's also this like let's prepare

[00:37:41] [SPEAKER_01]: everyone for if we crash and burn it's not our fault it's everyone's mean and the judge didn't

[00:37:47] [SPEAKER_01]: call us ding-dongs and all our little theory was thrown out in the rain and you know it's like okay

[00:37:53] [SPEAKER_01]: i mean it's just it's more rhetorical flourishes i think yeah and again based on what we heard

[00:38:00] [SPEAKER_02]: that hearing i believe any other judge in this country would have made the same decision judge

[00:38:08] [SPEAKER_01]: gold did in regards to the odinism are you saying that all judges are part of a vast odinous

[00:38:13] [SPEAKER_01]: conspiracy get back to the document let's finish this thing up quote nine that given the fact that

[00:38:20] [SPEAKER_01]: the law is so well established in these areas there is a high unlikelihood of a different outcome

[00:38:24] [SPEAKER_01]: at the appeals level 10 therefore the burden on the state the families of the victims

[00:38:29] [SPEAKER_01]: and the county of continuing a long complex trial so close to the start date is greatly outweighed

[00:38:35] [SPEAKER_01]: by the limited chance of a different outcome in an interlocutory appeal 11 that the motion

[00:38:41] [SPEAKER_01]: to certify the orders for interlocutory appeal should be denied 12 that this filing should be

[00:38:46] [SPEAKER_01]: shown as a waiver of the 15 days permitted for any response as set for in appellate procedure rule

[00:38:52] [SPEAKER_01]: 14 b 1 d and no additional response will be submitted where for the state of indiana by

[00:38:59] [SPEAKER_01]: prosecuting attorney nicholas c mcleeland respectfully request this court to deny the

[00:39:03] [SPEAKER_01]: motion by the defendant to certify the orders for interlocutory appeal further the state would ask

[00:39:09] [SPEAKER_01]: the court to maintain the current trial dates and for all other relief just and proper in the

[00:39:15] [SPEAKER_02]: nicolas c mcleeland prosecuting attorney yeah so unquote so in the past uh again the defense of

[00:39:24] [SPEAKER_02]: their acolytes have suggested that nick mcleeland and his team are not ready for trial they say

[00:39:31] [SPEAKER_02]: they're we're ready we don't want it to be delayed well let's look at it this way i think words are

[00:39:36] [SPEAKER_01]: less important than actions there's one side that has been consistently saying let's go

[00:39:41] [SPEAKER_01]: we're ready can we go now stop delaying and then there's one side that's consistently delayed

[00:39:46] [SPEAKER_01]: so i don't know you be the judge here's another thing i think i don't know i mean we've heard from

[00:39:53] [SPEAKER_01]: people behind the scenes who have no connection to this case defense attorneys prosecutors people

[00:39:58] [SPEAKER_01]: who just have experience with this stuff and what we heard from a lot of them including most of the

[00:40:05] [SPEAKER_01]: defense attorneys is that they don't think that the judge necessarily should certify

[00:40:12] [SPEAKER_01]: the interlocutory appeal because it's so weak and that it is just a waste of time it's a waste

[00:40:18] [SPEAKER_01]: of time and resources and it's just a stalling measure but in fairness we've talked to other

[00:40:23] [SPEAKER_02]: defense attorneys and they've indicated that they think perhaps she will if only to give another

[00:40:29] [SPEAKER_02]: court a chance to uh swat this down i think it boils down to uh is it preferable to have judge

[00:40:37] [SPEAKER_02]: gold be the only person swatting this down or do we want to give other courts that opportunity

[00:40:44] [SPEAKER_02]: the law is well established and they did not come close to meeting their burden so i think

[00:40:48] [SPEAKER_02]: it's kind of a coin toss as to what will happen i agree and i know what will happen if she does

[00:40:52] [SPEAKER_01]: not certify you have you know the the defense sided people will you know flip out but i mean

[00:40:59] [SPEAKER_01]: they kind of do that about everything but i think a lot of people that cover this case on the

[00:41:04] [SPEAKER_01]: journalism side they don't really understand how some of this works so there'll be a lot of

[00:41:09] [SPEAKER_01]: hand wringing i think of like well what do they not want them to know the truth or like you're

[00:41:14] [SPEAKER_01]: trying to hide this from the appeals court but i think it's pretty clear that this is not necessarily

[00:41:18] [SPEAKER_01]: something that should even be certified so and it's based on the law it's not based on vibes it's

[00:41:24] [SPEAKER_01]: not based on like what looks good or what looks bad so i mean personally i think either way it's

[00:41:29] [SPEAKER_01]: whatever but if she does certify it this thing is definitely getting delayed and if she doesn't

[00:41:36] [SPEAKER_01]: it's probably getting delayed because the defense can still request a continuance or they might even

[00:41:42] [SPEAKER_01]: try to go to the supreme court again yay okay so we have we have a lot to look forward to so anything

[00:41:47] [SPEAKER_01]: else i think we covered it but yeah thanks everyone for listening we always appreciate

[00:41:51] [SPEAKER_01]: your great questions and engagement and just uh you know appreciate you guys as an audience because

[00:41:58] [SPEAKER_01]: you um are very informed and uh we enjoy sort of chatting with you via this podcast and we'll talk

[00:42:05] [SPEAKER_02]: again soon thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet if you have a tip concerning one of

[00:42:12] [SPEAKER_02]: cases we cover please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com if you have actionable information

[00:42:21] [SPEAKER_02]: about an unsolved crime please report it to the appropriate authorities

[00:42:28] [SPEAKER_01]: if you're interested in joining our patreon that's available at www.patreon.com

[00:42:37] [SPEAKER_01]: murdersheet if you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests you can do so at

[00:42:42] [SPEAKER_01]: www.buymeacoffee.com murdersheet we very much appreciate any support special thanks to kevin

[00:42:53] [SPEAKER_02]: tyler greenlee who composed the music for the murder sheet and who you can find on the web at

[00:42:58] [SPEAKER_01]: kevintg.com if you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered

[00:43:05] [SPEAKER_01]: you can join the murder sheet discussion group on facebook we mostly focus our time on research and

[00:43:11] [SPEAKER_01]: reporting so we're not on social media much we do try to check our email account but we ask for

[00:43:18] [SPEAKER_01]: patience as we often receive a lot of messages thanks again for listening beat the summertime

[00:43:25] [SPEAKER_01]: sluggishness and enhance your every day with our wonderful sponsor via hemp this is a company the

[00:43:31] [SPEAKER_02]: crafts award-winning premium thc and thc free gummies with high quality hemp grown right here

[00:43:38] [SPEAKER_02]: on american farms all for an excellent value especially for murder sheet listeners who get

[00:43:44] [SPEAKER_02]: a special deal if you're 21 or older you can experience it for yourself and get 15 off your

[00:43:50] [SPEAKER_02]: first order with our exclusive code msheet at viahemp.com that's v-i-i-a-h-e-m-p.com each of

[00:44:03] [SPEAKER_01]: via's gummies is crafted to give you a specific mood get creative get some rest get focused

[00:44:10] [SPEAKER_01]: get some pleasure all with via's delicious gummies no matter what you're looking for

[00:44:16] [SPEAKER_01]: via has you covered their grapefruit cbg and cbd flow state gummies help me feel energized and

[00:44:23] [SPEAKER_01]: focused to get a lot done this summer in terms of scheduling conducting interviews running around

[00:44:28] [SPEAKER_02]: after sources and more you don't need a medical card to enjoy via hemp and these products ship

[00:44:34] [SPEAKER_01]: legally to all 50 states if you're 21 and older head to viahemp.com and use the code msheet to

[00:44:42] [SPEAKER_01]: receive 15 off that's v-i-i-a-h-e-m-p.com and use code msheet at checkout after you purchase they

[00:44:52] [SPEAKER_01]: ask you where you heard about them please support our show and tell them we sent you

[00:44:56] [SPEAKER_01]: enhance your every day with via