The Delphi Murders: Three Days of Pretrial Hearings: Reflections

[00:00:00] Summer can be a bit of a slog. For us, it's often for some reason a rather busy time and I'm sure we're not alone. Well, you can beat the summertime sadness and the August angst and enhance your every day with our excellent sponsor Viahemp.

[00:00:15] This is a company that crafts award-winning premium THC and THC-free gummies. Each of these gummies is especially designed to cultivate a specific mood. Whether you're looking to get relaxed, get quality sleep, get creative or just to get focused.

[00:00:32] If you're 21 or older, you can experience it for yourself and get 15% off your first order with our exclusive code M-sheet at Viahemp.com. That's V-I-I-A-H-E-M-P.com. I personally enjoyed their grapefruit flow state gummies.

[00:00:52] This CBG and CBD powerhouse really helped me tap into my productivity like we have had an extremely busy summer and I feel flow state got me over the finish line a few times.

[00:01:03] When I was editing multiple episodes a day, digging through documents and knocking out a bunch of interviews. Viahemp does not require a medical card and it ships legally to all 50 states. It's also affordable and even more so for murder sheet listeners who get a special deal.

[00:01:19] If you're 21 and older, head to Viahemp.com and use code M-sheet to receive 15% off. That's V-I-I-A-H-E-M-P.com and use code M-sheet at checkout. After you purchase they ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you.

[00:01:39] Enhance your every day with Viah. Content warning. This episode includes discussion of the murder of two children. It also touches upon the topic of suicide.

[00:01:51] So for the past few days or I guess last week for three days, we were covering the pretrial hearings in the Delphi murder cases.

[00:02:03] Of course the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, a 13 year old and a 14 year old who went missing and were found murdered in the town of Delphi, Indiana in 2017.

[00:02:16] Currently a man named Richard Allen is facing trial for those murders and we learned even more about the evidence against him last week. There are a lot of pretty major revelations, twists and turns.

[00:02:33] And now that we've slept a bit more and have gotten a chance to sort of write down some of our takeaways and get some questions from our wonderful listeners,

[00:02:43] we thought we'd sit down and just chat about this a little more casually. Now that we've had some time to process. My name is Ania Cain. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is the murder sheet.

[00:02:57] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We are the murder sheet. And this is the Delphi murders three days of pretrial hearings, reflections.

[00:03:11] So one thing I remember when we were driving home from Delphi, I believe it was close to four in the morning on Thursday night slash Friday morning of last week.

[00:04:08] I had one of those moments, those old ad campaign where a person would have something other than a vegetable drink and then they would suddenly slap their forehead in dismay and so I could have had a V8.

[00:04:20] And I started thinking of things that I wish I had said in these episodes that I had for some reason hadn't. And one thing that popped into my head right away was some comments about James Luttrell.

[00:04:34] James Luttrell is one of the prosecutors working with Nick McLean on this case and James Luttrell handled the direct examination of Patrick Cicero, who was the blood expert who testified on the final day of the hearings, who revealed all sorts of very dramatic and disturbing information about the last moments of these girls.

[00:05:01] And that's kind of a thankless job for a prosecutor to do because you want to be sure you present this sensitive information in a sensitive way.

[00:05:13] You don't want to get in the way of the witness because if you hear, if the jury hears a witness and they come away thinking about the lawyer, then the guy who's doing the direct examination has failed.

[00:05:27] You don't want to get in the way, you want to organize it well. And I just thought the manner in which he handled that witness, that witness was handled by James Luttrell was quite good and deserves to be combated upon and praised.

[00:05:42] I think we can concur. I think we definitely praised Stacey Deener, the other deputy prosecutor and certainly Carroll County prosecutor Nick McLean last week, but I think Luttrell does deserve credit for that too.

[00:05:55] That was perhaps the most powerful witness and I felt he handled it in a really sensitive but thorough way. Fairness, we also praised defense attorney Brad Rosie. Yes. His direct examination of detective David Vito was outstanding. Compelling.

[00:06:14] And I also thought the portions of his examination of Dr. Monica Walla were very well done. Yes, as far as the defense team, I thought he was head and shoulders above the other two in terms of performance for those three days.

[00:06:26] I didn't, I don't think it was even close and I... He was the star of that team. He was definitely the star of that team. And I'll also say... He's not, he's not as flashy. Anger of Baldwin gets a lot of attention for being flashy.

[00:06:39] But Brad Rosie was the star of the defense team last week. And frankly, we didn't see any of that flash for the three days and I'm not, I'm not trying to be mean or critical. I just, we didn't see that. That was a bit surprising.

[00:06:50] This is their, essentially their mini trial where they get to pull out all the stops, tell us why it's Odin is. We did not see that from Baldwin. I think Baldwin is capable of being a lot more compelling and flashy.

[00:07:03] It's not that I think that he's not capable of that. It's just that that's not what was brought to these particular hearings. Yes. As long as we're saying some nice things, I want to say some nice things about the city of Delphi, Indiana.

[00:07:18] Well actually, do you mind if I go with one more legal figure in this case? Oh please do. I think Judge Gall, Judge Francis Gall, I think a lot of people were pretty annoyed when the first day got started late because she was late.

[00:07:27] She was stuck in traffic or something. But I think generally she did quite a good job being very even-handed. A number of times, she very much backed up what the defense was saying, even contradicting the prosecution team saying, no, no, he said what he's saying. You're incorrect.

[00:07:44] I thought she ran things pretty smoothly. I think she gave the defense an awful lot of leeway to the point where I think my joke is that I think you have phone calls or meetings that could have been texts or emails.

[00:07:59] I think some of these hearings could have been just a motion and sort of just a dismissal from her because I really didn't think the defense had a lot of compelling information for some of these motions. But I think she really heard them out.

[00:08:13] I know a lot of people in the press were remarking that things in general seemed a lot more collegial between everyone. We did see things end on a more contentious note, but we have no idea what they were talking about when everyone approached the bench.

[00:08:26] So I don't know if that's going to change now, but I just want to say I think she ran a pretty even-handed and collegial set of hearings. In theory we could speculate as to what that was about. We're not going to do that.

[00:08:40] That's not what the show is about. So we are very curious. Can I talk about the town of Delphi? Please do. You go to some quarters of the internet, the corners where the cranks hang out and you will hear awful things about the city of Delphi, Indiana.

[00:08:58] You were here that is one of the most corrupt places on earth, just a veritable den of inequity. I just want to say and I think I've probably been derelict in not saying this before, it's a great town. The people there are friendly.

[00:09:15] We had a great meal at a Mexican restaurant. We had some nice people. There's a great business right on the courthouse square called the Delphi Depot, which God bless them. They sell Mr. Pib or Pib Extra as I think it's called now.

[00:09:32] The deputies I talked with were very, very friendly recommending places for me to go to eat. I'm always concerned about where I can go to eat and where I can go get sodas. People were very, very friendly.

[00:09:43] It's just a classic Indiana small town and something terrible happened there but that doesn't mark the town for life. It's a great town and please remember that and don't think of it as a den of inequity.

[00:10:01] I hate when true crime podcasts and true crime creators in general just steamroll over an actual place with real human beings living there and getting stuff wrong or boiling things down to cliches. It's a town where no one locked their doors, that sort of thing.

[00:10:20] Having more of a nuanced view of it, it's a city actually, it's technically a city. It's a county seat of Carroll County. It's a place with problems just like anywhere else in the world but it is not defined by those things.

[00:10:34] It's defined by its people and when we go there, we meet a lot of really, really nice wonderful people, just tremendous people.

[00:10:41] And so that's what we think of when we go there and I'm going to guarantee you a lot of these cranks where they act like it's so corrupt and there's all these mysterious things going on.

[00:10:52] They have no idea about what's going on in their own backyards because whatever they list is quote unquote evidence is either not true or stuff that just happens everywhere. Like, oh, there are drug problems? Yeah, that's very much concentrated in Delphi, Indiana. I'm being sarcastic.

[00:11:09] Obviously, everywhere has that discourage. So I just feel like I just roll my eyes when I see that and it's just not accurate. I grew up in a town bigger than Delphi, Indiana but not by a huge amount. Although it's much bigger than Delphi now.

[00:11:25] It was smaller when I was a kid but I just feel very comfortable there. It makes me feel at home. Yeah, I like it and also it's got a cute downtown with the courthouse and stuff so it's nice to spend some time there.

[00:11:37] Before we move out of our nice segment, is there anything else you wanted to say nice about people? Before we start listing grievances. No, no. I think that sums it up.

[00:11:49] I think generally I will say that despite a few moments of what I felt that was really good work by Rosie, if I'm going to say something nice about either side, the prosecution carried the day. It was not close. It was a route.

[00:12:04] This was perhaps the most disastrous series of hearings yet for the defense team. I don't know how they come back from this on some level. That's not very nice but that's at least saying the prosecution demolished them.

[00:12:19] I do know there is something else in your nice segment you specifically told me you wanted to mention. Oh yeah, no this is something you're right. This is something we often do criticize a lot of creators in the Delphi space in general.

[00:12:39] Just on a general level because there's a lot of really bad stuff out there. But there are a lot of case observers, creators, people who are active in the online space who do go to these things.

[00:12:50] They're always very respectful in my view and I feel like they're all just interested in getting what's happening. It's always nice to see this group there and interact with them. I always want to emphasize them because I never want to be unfair and just say,

[00:13:10] oh everyone who's interested in this case on the internet is awful. I don't think that actually know the vast majority of them are fine and in fact oftentimes very nice.

[00:13:20] So I just wanted to praise that group because I feel like it's nice to see people who are just kind of coming into this looking for trying to get at the truth,

[00:13:29] trying to get information and we always end up interacting with them and it makes standing in line for hours in the early morning. A lot more interesting and fun when you get to talk to some nice people and kind of chat rather than just standing in silence.

[00:13:46] So I just want to commend them and they know who they are but yeah that's what I want to say. Is it time to segue into some not nice things?

[00:13:56] Yeah, I mean it's not this is less not nice. This is more, I wanted to say this because I have a journalism background and we got a lot of emails about this asking questions about this and I figured I could maybe shed some light on the situation.

[00:14:11] People were asking us, you know, why do different media outlets sort of maybe cover this case in different ways? Notably in a way that's just perhaps not really quite getting at the sort of gravity of certain things or for instance a lot of people wanted to know

[00:14:34] why did a lot of media outlets run with Don Pearlmutter who is the defenses expert who I feel personally and I said this on our show has no business calling herself an expert in anything related to crime.

[00:14:50] Yeah, anything related to crime. Why would they just kind of accept the defense and just call her an expert? Why not question that more? And I think it's a really good question. I think it gets at something about the media

[00:15:03] and I wanted to break that down because I think it's a little bit complicated. So when you are working for a more traditional media outlet there are more limits to what you can say opinion wise, you know, that your editors are frankly going to accept.

[00:15:21] There's a school of journalism that very much emphasizes what's called objectivity and boiling it down not the technical definition but what that essentially means is

[00:15:33] keeping any sort of opinion or what's perceived as an opinion out of it. And that means essentially oftentimes taking people's word at things and not necessarily scratching the surface,

[00:15:46] especially when we're talking about a situation where you are on deadline and you are expected to get back copy very quickly that day.

[00:15:55] So I think that's part of what's going on here. I think personally and this is my personal view, I think worshipping at the altar of objectivity leaves a lot to be desired in journalism.

[00:16:08] I think fairness is fine. Hearing someone out essentially like, you know, not making up your mind at the start of things just saying, tell me your credentials and I'll make up my mind based on the information you give me.

[00:16:21] That's all good. That's certainly what we do. But I think that when you are sacrificing everything for objectivity, accuracy actually gets lost.

[00:16:31] Here's an example. If this kind of focus on objectivity, if you had a situation let's say the Titanic sinking, right? And you're onboard the Titanic, like a fair reporter might be like, this is really bad.

[00:16:46] This is a bad situation. We're all in danger. And someone focused more on objectivity might be like, you know, well the captain says that things are fine for now but the main engineer indicated else, you know, otherwise.

[00:16:59] And I think both are fine. I mean, I think you just have to keep that in mind when you are reading stuff from more traditional press. It's not that they're, I don't think it's like people trying to be unfair or not accurate.

[00:17:12] I think it's more of a matter of just that's the different style. We getting information from a range of places where maybe you're looking at us and other more new media creators, and as well as traditional media outlets, I think that can give you a full comprehensive picture of something

[00:17:30] and you're getting more of the analysis, you're getting more of the kind of just straight news. And that's probably a good news diet for everyone to have. Now there's another phenomenon here though that I want to talk about that does not really apply in this situation.

[00:17:47] And it's that in some situations there are certain outlets that absolutely for whatever reason essentially carry defense talking points no matter what.

[00:17:57] And I don't know if there's we're speculating if there's any reasons for that other than but it's true that it happens. It has happened. I think one reason for that that I will speculate about is that it's in the interest of media for a story to continue and for a story to be dramatic.

[00:18:17] And I think good defense attorneys recognize that and they can sometimes contrive to come up with good dramatic stories to get that attention kind of tangentially related to this.

[00:18:34] I we talk about new media a little bit there's certainly new media who are in the courtroom, not just us but others and sometimes it can be difficult. Are they being objective are they even being fair or honest.

[00:18:50] We did some episodes a few weeks ago that I'm sure you probably remember about the hidden messages or the secret messages of the new process team, where we reveal that people who present themselves a certain way or actually the in private they are referring to themselves as the voice of Richard Allen.

[00:19:11] And so I think it is important to to recognize that and take that into account when you are listening to these people's presentation of what happened in court. They're not interested in being fair they're interested in being the voice of Richard Allen.

[00:19:29] And then also someone sent me another member of the due process gang was there taking notes and someone sent me like a segment of an episode where that person appeared.

[00:19:43] And I was struck by the number of basic errors in fact about what was said. And so that's something that could be difficult to evaluate when you're listening to new media people as well is what they're saying even true.

[00:20:01] I tend to think and when we're talking about new media we're talking about YouTube we're talking about podcasts people going live. I tend to take I tend to believe that people should take a very unforgiving view of this.

[00:20:13] I don't think there's I say there's no there's no baby in that bathwater if someone is basically just revealed themselves to be a crank then you don't need to waste your time with that and frankly you're just giving them clicks.

[00:20:24] And that's that's where I stand. I think people have different views sometimes people like the spectacle to watch this stuff but yes some people are there not to get to the truth they are there to lie and spin for their preferred out for their preferred side in their preferred outcome.

[00:20:41] And for whatever reason this case in this case well I can think of some reasons actually but in whatever in whatever case in this case a lot of these Internet cranks and sort of grifters have drifted to the defense side.

[00:20:55] And I'm sure there could be we could conceive of cases in the future and hypothetical cases where that could happen where they're favoring the prosecution side. So it's not a our you know it's not a referendum on defense attorneys or defense teams it's just this is the state of true crime and we all should be aware of this and regardless of whose team they're denigrating or favoring it's not acceptable.

[00:21:19] And in my opinion I'm disgusted with it.

[00:21:24] And I think it is also interesting to recognize that even the defense themselves can try to put out information that's not entirely accurate and I hope you were on your fainting couches when I said that one thing that came out in these hearings was that the behavior analysis unit of the

[00:21:48] FBI reached the conclusion that this crime scene was not perpetrated by someone doing a ritual murder. And in the Frank's motion it was suggested just the opposite the Frank's motion prepared by the defense it seemed to suggest that no the BAU said it was a ritual homicide.

[00:22:09] But when you go back and you look at that Frank's motion what the defense attorney said was they did not say the BAU said that they said the Todd click said the BAU said that.

[00:22:26] And so now when you look at that with what we know now they said that because they knew it was wrong.

[00:22:34] Yeah. They didn't want to say oh we know for a fact the BAU said this because that would be a lie but Todd click believed this thing that wasn't true and so they could say well Todd click said this and that way it gets the lie out there.

[00:22:49] It's weasley. It gets the lie out there without them having to commit to the lie. Yes. Does that make sense. They're very good at this and I'm going to say this like I mean you like this is why people don't like lawyers I mean like like because I'm right here.

[00:23:03] I am literally right. You like I mean you know this though because their lawyers are very very good at manipulating language in order to put together something that is while technically accurate is completely misleading.

[00:23:18] Yes it is technically accurate to say Todd clicks as the BAU concluded this. But it puts out the wrong spirit because then that makes people think oh the BAU actually said that no Todd click was wrong and they knew he was wrong.

[00:23:35] But here's let's just dig deeper here. What's the point of that right because what you're probably thinking as a rational person listening to this show is well how does that even help them because for a minute I'm going to say well OK that maybe the BAU thinks this because I'm going to read it and assume why would they say that unless Todd click was right.

[00:23:54] And then when it comes out that he's not right then I'm going to just be like are you kidding me. But what you're what you're underestimating is the fact that first of all they've cultivated this community that just spreads their talking points and they're trying to I think embolden them.

[00:24:09] But second of all it gets the media all riled up and more on their side and wow the BAU said this. It's about it's about just polluting the water and dumping toxic waste into the water so people basically run with misinformation that turns out to not even be accurate.

[00:24:27] So that's I believe what it is about and it's all about I feel this this defense team has been all about temporary gains in sort of the public sphere over even my new legal gains in court.

[00:24:45] And I think the reason for that is what we heard Kara Weineke describe you know of course Alan's appellate attorney describing the due process gang where she talked about you know putting out so many stupid conspiracies.

[00:24:57] She didn't say this but I'm paraphrasing putting up putting adding a little bit of my own.

[00:25:01] No you'd be fair Kara Weineke doesn't believe any conspiracy theory is done. No Kara Weineke maybe some of you have forgotten this I think it's probably worth noting Miss Weineke believes that we did not land on the moon and that the Russians may be blackmailing us over this but please continue.

[00:25:20] Yeah not just a moon landing denier but actually there's a whole conspiracy around it so she she member of the defense team. Yes she writes briefs for them folks.

[00:25:30] And I think it's probably a pine that it was it was good to do this because essentially if they put a bunch of conspiracy theories out there they can get a conspiracy theorist on the jury to be a hold out and get a mistrial which frankly is not a winning strategy but it is something that would just drag this whole thing on even longer.

[00:25:45] And that's that's kind of the that's the aim so it serves that aim in my opinion doesn't serve a quiddle it doesn't serve established you know getting to the truth it certainly.

[00:25:57] Yeah and so I think that's something that's important to remember and yet that was pretty eye-opening again I.

[00:26:06] It this I understand when you're a lawyer whatever and trying to maybe get around some uncomfortable facts but it just seems like the only intent with putting that in the Franks memo was to mislead was to mislead the public.

[00:26:22] And I once you start doing that once you start going down that road to me for me it's very hard to extend immediate credibility to a team that is documented as having done that.

[00:26:36] Either mislead the public or mislead judge goal who was ostensibly the audience for it and we know judge goal has indicated that she believes these attorneys have credibility problems with things they put in their final.

[00:26:48] And she is absolutely correct on that matter. That's not even an issue anymore this should be enough proof because there's no reason to do this is not them being like well we assume the BAU I mean this is them carefully wording the language to get around what they know to be the.

[00:27:04] I mean it's it's it's shocking I don't even understand it and I mean I do but it's just not we don't have to sit here and act like this is just normal and good.

[00:27:13] It's you know it's defense attorneys are going to fence attorney I don't know where the line is I don't know where you can say this is OK and this isn't so we're just noting a lot of things defense attorneys may defense attorney and I respect the work that defense attorneys do.

[00:27:29] But when we have essentially credibility issue after credibility issue on one side then as a member of the public I have no obligation to continue being the Charlie Brown trying to kick the football and having it pulled away from me by the defense teams Lucy here.

[00:27:46] I refuse to do that. There's been too many times and frankly I don't believe anyone should be continuing to just take them at their word. I just I think if they say something and it's borne out by everything else great then they're telling the truth.

[00:28:00] If they're using weasel words in legal filings and then it turns out that they're just completely misrepresenting things I think that's a pretty good.

[00:28:08] And of course it's worth noting that Miss Weineke in one of those messages that we read on the program a few weeks back indicated that sometimes these legal filings are basically written for the public and not for the judge so that is an admission that she made.

[00:28:24] I'm saying that skepticism towards what they're putting out there in filings as a result of that fact should be par for the course.

[00:28:33] It should not just be something we're occasionally applying it's something that we should say OK well you're saying this but let's see what else develops and giving them the giving them enough benefit of the doubt to say this may turn out to be true and we're not going to dismiss it completely but not immediately jumping on and saying oh boy this is huge because it often isn't.

[00:28:56] I went to mention something I've seen mentioned online and then you can respond to it and maybe I can respond to it.

[00:29:04] Everybody's been saying oh sure he's made confessions but you know the gold standard is has he made any confessions that contain information only the killer would know. And it was asserted repeatedly in court last week. Yes he did.

[00:29:19] He did make some confessions that only the contained information only the killer would in fact know but some people online have said what isn't it possible that he did make those confessions with those facts but he made that those confessions after he saw crime scene photos or things like that and that perhaps gave him some information that only the killer would know.

[00:29:44] First of all we don't know what details that he knew. We don't know exactly what were the details that only the killer would know that he knew so I don't know that number one.

[00:29:54] I don't even know what is in the discovery and if that aligns with what he said so I mean like you know if it's like something about the crime scene where maybe he can just look at the visuals and say that that's one thing but if it's other details then that's kind of thrown out but we just don't have that information at this time.

[00:30:13] In addition to that when. There were claims that the man the defense wants us to believe that when he made these confessions. He was in a state of psychosis he was psychotic he was not in his right frame of mind.

[00:30:27] And if he is in fact so psychotic is it really credible that he would also be. In a lucid enough state of mind that he could construct a false narrative based on information in front of him. Yeah that's a good question.

[00:30:44] Also psychosis is definitely something that in my view should be taken into account where you're saying well people absolutely when when in a psychotic episodes say things that are not true.

[00:30:55] That's not that's not like you know that's part of it right so I think if they were saying well he said he did it a bunch but there are no details there are no confirming details and I would say well listen he may just be under stress and just breaking down.

[00:31:10] But psychosis is obviously not going to put in his mind details of the crimes that investigators are going to look at and say. That's true that's true and only the killer would know that in addition just from the defense performance side of it.

[00:31:24] And then the other side of things. If they felt that he got information about details of the crime from the discovery materials they handed over to him and from the maybe conversations with them. Then in my view. I think they were humiliated essentially.

[00:31:46] I don't know they were negligent at this hearing in which they put on Dr. Perlmutter for two hours to essentially just be humiliated by cross examination.

[00:31:58] You know that time could have perhaps been better spent with the defense refuting this this line by documenting what they gave him and when. And they could have literally taken us through we gave him this discovery on this date the next date he's he's parroting it.

[00:32:16] Or we had this conversation on this date the next day he's repeating those details and I'm going to tell you they could have actually gone a step forward farther than that.

[00:32:25] His cell has a camera in it it has no audio but it does have video and this is a safety measure to ensure that he's not harmed essentially they doesn't harm himself. And they could have shown him actually in there looking at his discovery materials.

[00:32:43] And said look he's flipping through it and then an hour later he's he's making these claims allegedly and that batch there were these details they could have actually done a whole anatomy of this they could have like broken it down piece by piece.

[00:32:58] And I think that would have been a powerful and compelling defense. That is not what they did. And I imagine that if they did not do that then it's possible that they could not do that.

[00:33:08] Because I again I don't know why you would be having like this this other these other random. Assides that go on forever when you have the opportunity to essentially shoot down the most compelling thing that the state had. Yes. I mean am I right.

[00:33:26] Am I giving I mean like could they just forgotten to do that. With this team. I don't know. It wasn't it hasn't been an impressive performance by this crew.

[00:33:39] They've been spending their time doing things like writing motions where they're drying their eyes because Judge Gold did not call them ding dong and writing motions they knew would not be granted for Judge Gold to be removed from the case.

[00:33:54] And another thing from those due process getting messages their investigator is going around telling people that the state has absolutely no case against Richard Allen. And if that's really the belief of the criminal defense team then they are. They are living in another reality.

[00:34:17] Even if you want to believe that Richard Allen is innocent I think you have to face facts that the state has a strong case against him. And I would I would I would even go further than that and say it's an incredibly strong case.

[00:34:33] People often talk about the case against Brian Coburger the man who stands accused of the slangs at the University of Idaho and people say oh that's a really strong case in my mind based on what we know now especially after the year.

[00:34:47] And I would say that these three days of hearings I would say that the case against Richard Allen is far stronger than the case against Brian Coburger. And I and I would agree with people who say the case against Brian Coburger is pretty strong.

[00:35:01] Yeah this is devastating this past few days these past few days were devastating for Richard Allen and his defense and I'm just going to say that just beyond any sort of commentary on the case just from a strategic perspective.

[00:35:13] Imagine the jury coming in for this long trial and hearing again and again in his own words in his own voice Richard Allen saying what he did to those kids saying here's what happened here's what I did I'm so sorry please forgive me.

[00:35:31] That is going to be very difficult for a jury to get around that it's going to be very difficult for a jury to drop an unhear and they can certainly put on.

[00:35:43] Mental health experts to talk about how psychotic people can say things that are not true and they can do this but if there are details in addition to just outright statements which there are based on what was said at court then the jury is going to be left wondering what you and I are wondering well how could a psychotic man just conjure up details that match exactly what detectives know to be true.

[00:36:07] And I don't see I don't know how you get around that at this time I think it would be very difficult in a normal case I think people would be scrambling for some sort of plea at this point I don't know what kind of deal could be reached I don't even know it could be offered to him but I think going to trial.

[00:36:27] In a trial of two murdered children where they're going to be seeing what was done to those kids which is horrifying and they're gonna be hearing this guy you know again and again crying and saying he did it.

[00:36:39] Hearing his family say shut up and hang up on him because they don't want to hear it and I don't know how you get around that I really don't. We got some questions from Facebook some we don't really have answers to.

[00:36:55] Actually we're gonna do like a whole bunch because you guys always ask great questions but half the time it's like we don't know.

[00:37:02] So we love thanks so much to all the Facebook group members and listeners who put something together here because we love to answer your questions and hopefully. There was one thing I'll go ahead I'll do it later.

[00:37:14] You're gonna do it later. Oh you're gonna a little bit of a surprise later. So one question someone had was is Richard Allen upset with his attorneys.

[00:37:21] We didn't really get any indication of that other than at one point I believe doctor Monica Walla his psychologist indicated that he felt his attorneys were not in touch with him enough.

[00:37:32] So that's interesting because on one hand it kind of gives some credence to Rosie and Baldwin's contention that they're too far away from their client but on the other hand what was stated by detective Brian Harshman is that he had a very strong sense of.

[00:37:46] His employees his attorneys can and you know are capable of calling him at the prison.

[00:37:53] So there's a ability to have contact even without requiring them to go up that far and to be clear their calls with him are not recorded the system works in a way where if they call him on their number that is immediately. It's not recorded it's just that's.

[00:38:10] In North should it be obviously no that would be huge violation of his rights.

[00:38:13] There the defense attorneys were making the argument that the prison itself was somehow a state actor and that the harsh conditions the alleged harsh conditions that Richard Allen is has endured at the prison are somehow so coercive that they have forced him to confess 61 times.

[00:38:34] And so therefore those confessions should be discounted. What do we think of that argument? I frankly don't find it persuasive.

[00:38:43] I think the thing to keep in mind is that yeah even under the best of circumstances being incarcerated is not going to be as nice as staying even at a motel six.

[00:38:56] No let's not even be facetious being incarcerated is a horrifying nightmare and conditions in prison are terrifying it would terrify any of us if we were incarcerated.

[00:39:05] Let's just I mean let's just be blunt but there are there are additional considerations here because what we all know that people who have done harm to children or have been alleged to have done harm to children are treated very badly at prison and in jails.

[00:39:25] And in fact one of the things we heard in court is that Richard Allen is able to overhear other inmates at the prison calling him a baby killer and saying he should kill himself.

[00:39:39] And it's bad enough to hear people say those things but if those people who want Richard Allen to die were able to gain access to him in the prison it's very likely that he would come to harm. And would perhaps even be killed. Yeah.

[00:39:57] And so it's important that in addition to the already harsh prison conditions that they have to take extra measures to protect him from the other people there. And from himself. I'm getting to that. He's also has a history of depression.

[00:40:16] There was some reason to believe that he could be considering suicide. He's behaved in a number of bizarre ways we've all heard this he's eating his own feces he's eating paper. So in addition to all of this you need to make sure that he's not harming himself.

[00:40:36] And so those things all come together to create situations where for instance they say oh isn't it bad that he sleeps on a mat on the floor.

[00:40:48] And the reason he sleeps on a mat on the floor is if you had him in a bed a traditional bed like you and I have it would be possible that he could hide underneath the bed and do harm to himself before a guard could intervene. Yes.

[00:41:02] So there are logical reasons for all of the conditions he's in. It's not like some prison guard in an old World War two movie trying to break somebody.

[00:41:14] There are legitimate reasons and it's also worth noting that according to the testimony in whatever ways they can the people at the prison are going out of their way to treat him as well as possible. They got he broke his tablet and they got him a new tablet.

[00:41:35] The tablet is what he uses to communicate with his family and they didn't make him pay for it. Typically if a prisoner there breaks his tablet he has to pay for it.

[00:41:44] He couldn't look out his window because it was scratched up so they got him a new window. So they are trying to do what they can within the limits of protecting him from others and protecting him from himself.

[00:41:59] So I think when you take all of those things into consideration I don't find the argument persuasive. What do you think on you? I concur. I will say we did hear from a former inmate at Westville who has spent time on that maximum security unit.

[00:42:14] He indicated that one point of clarity is that there was debate about whether or not Alan could control the lights in his cell. This former inmate who again has been since released and was on that MCU unit for I believe behavioral reasons.

[00:42:30] Sometimes if someone breaks the rules or is said to break the rules then they can be sent here as a punishment. In other cases it's for protective custody. In other cases it's because someone is just so violent.

[00:42:43] There's just different reasons that you could end up in this situation. But he indicated that he in his experience they did not have control over the lights in their cell.

[00:42:52] So I will say as somebody who is a bit of a light sleeper I need my blackout blinds and stuff like that. So I think that would be very difficult to adjust to. What he said is that essentially this MCU is supposed to, it's about control.

[00:43:08] It's about getting people's behavior under control. It's about kind of getting people to change that. And so it is a very harsh place. I think it's nightmarish. It certainly doesn't plant information about a crime that you didn't commit in your head.

[00:43:24] But it is certainly I think worth talking about his mental state in this setting like that. Especially when we learn he's being drugged with howl doll and things like that. I think that's all worth talking about. I think that's a legitimate course for the defense to explore.

[00:43:38] But as for the prison being a state actor and this whole thing being an ongoing custodial interrogation. That just doesn't hold water to me when you have instances where former warden John Gallapo is getting letters from him saying, come on down.

[00:43:57] I'm ready to confess and not going down and not associating with him because he doesn't want to hear it essentially. He doesn't want to be involved in something like that. When Dr. Walla is telling him stop, stop confessing just talk to your lawyers and him saying,

[00:44:10] no, I want to do it with him unilaterally going out and calling his wife and mother even when they're yelling at him and hanging up on him and rejecting him over what he's saying.

[00:44:20] I think I don't know how you make an argument that this is a custodial interrogation. I understand how you make an argument that he's under a lot of stress in doing poorly. Yeah. Yeah, I wouldn't expect these confessions to be thrown out.

[00:44:37] Maybe the Walla stuff, that's the only one that's marginal but I don't think that would damage the case too much. There's so many. It's like if you knock a few out then who cares? Speaking of these confessions, Anya, they were the confessions were testified to by a detective.

[00:44:54] Detective Brian Harshman. Yes. Did Detective Harshman indicate that there were recent confessions? Not doctors, sorry, Detective Harshman indicated that the most recent, it's not clear if it was a confession or an incriminating statement. I don't remember.

[00:45:11] I believe you went into detail about this and I'm sure it's in my notes but the most recent activity around this was February of 2024. While they mostly occurred in 2023, there have been mentions since the defense counter that some of the mentions were him referring to.

[00:45:28] Well, I guess I confessed in the past but what Detective Harshman indicated was that there have been things that are more incriminating than that since. So it's ongoing. One person asked if the McLean alluded to Alan having possibly, or people were speculating.

[00:45:47] I don't even know if anyone alluded to this about if Alan had a criminal past that maybe was never adjudicated could that influence his outcome? I mean we just don't know. We need more information.

[00:46:00] Alan, some people wanted to know in the courtroom Alan was often glaring at people. I know at one point he and I lock eyes and he looked like he was glaring. I know a couple of other people experienced that.

[00:46:13] I know that Susan Hendricks, an excellent journalist and author who wrote the book Down the Hill which is really a very good book if you want to read a book about the case.

[00:46:21] She was sitting with Libby German's family in the front row and she indicated that a number of times Alan was glaring at the family. And so someone wanted to know understandably did the lawyers try to redirect his behavior from glaring at people?

[00:46:37] And I'll say I'm pretty sure they must have seen it because they're sitting next to him. They can see him turn around and do this, but we did not see overt attempts to redirect him.

[00:46:46] They would pat him on the back a lot and in fairness it's possible that he doesn't feel he's glaring at people. It's possible he thinks he's just staring at people, but either way it's creepy and off-putting.

[00:46:54] So it would probably be good for them to redirect that in the presence of a jury. That's just my take. Free advice. Bad optics. And then somebody asked if only the killer would know details, how do we know they're true?

[00:47:06] Well, we don't know they're true, but they also didn't get into detail about what they were. All we know is that police believe them to be... And police are the ones who know all the details.

[00:47:15] So if the police stand up and say this fits with what we know about the case, then you have to take that seriously and keep in mind the information that the police have, which enables them to say that Alan knows details only the killer would know.

[00:47:33] The defense also has that information. Yeah, so the defense could contradict that if they were like, you guys didn't have that. They know what they're talking about. And then these are a series of questions and the answer to all of these is,

[00:47:46] we don't have any further information from the hearings or otherwise to report it this time. That's the answer. These are the questions. Any other mention of Alan's daughter from Lieutenant Jerry Holman? Next question.

[00:48:00] Did the CSI expert explain how Alan controlled the girls and killed them without them screaming? Next question. Do we know the timeline of Alan getting discovery and confessing? Next question. Do we know the cause of death is from a box cutter? Definitely. Next question.

[00:48:18] What's the reason for discrepancies between Abby and Libby's deaths? So we don't know any of that. Wanted to read them out because I didn't want you guys to feel like we were ignoring you, but you guys ask good detailed questions, but sometimes there's just really not enough information.

[00:48:32] We're not comfortable speculating to that level. And I always tell Anya behind the scenes, there's no point in us asking questions that we don't know the answers to and just saying we don't know over and over again, but Anya doesn't want any listener to feel neglected.

[00:48:44] It's not only that, I want to make it clear like we're still in the middle of this story. These are good questions, but you know, maybe we'll get there eventually, but you know, I want people to understand it's like an ongoing process

[00:48:55] and we're all kind of learning together. And I don't want you, I mean, like we're not just sitting on a heap of secrets. It's like there's a level of we're all learning together. Yeah, that's fair. So next question. Anya, what happens next? So...

[00:49:10] Well, I'll tell you one thing that's not going to happen. The case is not going to get thrown out. That was one of the motions that the defense asked for the case to be thrown out. And even in the due process gang, one of the attorneys there,

[00:49:24] the one who I think believes we landed on the moon and Michael Laws work, he said, well, he thinks the case is a fair chance it will get thrown out. I am telling you definitively this case is not going to get thrown out.

[00:49:36] It is an incredibly strong case. And these past three days, the three days of the hearing have underscored just how strong it is. And keep in mind, even now, even after all the revelations from last week,

[00:49:53] we have seen only a small percentage of the actual case against Richard Allen. What the prosecution presented in court last week was not their case against Richard Allen. It was their response to specific points raised by the defense

[00:50:09] or to discuss things like the confessions and things of that nature. It was not them sitting down and saying, here's everything we have to prove that Richard Allen committed these crimes. It's a tiny portion of what they have and it feels devastating.

[00:50:24] And I have not seen any indication or any evidence that there has been anything done by the prosecution or by the state in this case to come anywhere near throwing out this case. It's a ridiculous notion.

[00:50:39] Yeah, I tend to agree completely and this case is significantly stronger than I thought it was. My opinion from pre-hearing last week to hearing right now, it has shifted in terms of how I think about this case in terms of what it means,

[00:51:00] in terms of how strong it is, I suppose. So the next kind of future-looking prediction or whatnot, what about discovery? One of their motions was complaining about how the prosecution is mishandling discovery. It's very important if a prosecution bungles discovery an entire case could be thrown out.

[00:51:23] So that's a very important issue. You can't hide information from the defense team. That's a violation of Allen's rights. You can't do it. So what we learned is that in this hearing, it appeared that the discovery issues seemed to be largely coming from the defense, if not entirely.

[00:51:40] Jennifer... And you can say that in more than one way because they seem to have trouble even figuring out what they are getting from the prosecution. So the problem is not that the prosecution is not handing over information. The problem was coming from the defense.

[00:51:58] They're not processing that information. I thought it was downright humiliating that in court, they said, oh, we haven't gotten these specific items. And then Nick McLeanland is able to produce receipts showing, guess what? You did receive these items and you signed something acknowledging that you received these items.

[00:52:15] Yes. Jennifer Ojet's portion here was downright embarrassing. And I think that it seems like from what was argued, McLean's team has been going above and beyond to try to help this defense team whenever possible, sort through their own information,

[00:52:35] provide them carefully labeled folders so that they can look through them easier. I don't believe that McLean's team is hiding the ball. I believe that the defense team is desperate to complain about everything. So when they're basically failing to do their own jobs, that suddenly becomes everyone's problem.

[00:52:51] It's not like Nick McLean is supposed to be a law professor or a mentor to this defense team to help them out. No. We keep on hearing about how this defense team, the criminal defense team of Andy Broadwin and Brad Rosie's firm, how much experience they have.

[00:53:09] And if they have this much experience, it's difficult to understand why they have not taken the time to go through the discovery in an efficient and thoughtful way.

[00:53:19] But for whatever reason as we all know, they apparently have not and they're doing things like the famous ding dong motion. And in fairness, I get how people make mistakes.

[00:53:28] I get how you can have a nightmare scenario where you think you haven't gotten something and then it turns out you signed for it. Like there's a huge amount of discovery to wade through. Everyone makes mistakes.

[00:53:38] And if this happened in isolation and not as part of things like the BAU report, then perhaps I would be a little bit more sympathetic. But I'm not because this team consistently shoots in filings and essentially asks questions later.

[00:53:54] And I am just done accepting, you know, not questioning defense claims like this, especially when immediately after a break, McClendon proves that they're not accurate. At the very least, they're not telling the truth about what they got. That's not acceptable and frankly it's embarrassing. What about Georgia?

[00:54:16] We definitely want to know more about that $12,000 trip to Georgia. Many people have pointed out that they've gone on significant resort vacations for a lot less money. So again, the defense said we had to go down to Georgia to get a photograph.

[00:54:33] It couldn't have been emailed to us. It couldn't have been mailed to us. We had to go down to Georgia to get this picture and it cost us over $12,000. Why would it cost $12,000?

[00:54:44] Even now as we're sitting here and recording, I have my phone in my hand on you. I'm paying attention, but I did Google the airfare from Indianapolis to Atlanta, Georgia. I'm sure this will shock you. Far less than $12,000. How much is it? $118.

[00:55:05] Maybe they flew out a lot of people. I don't know. I don't know. The whole jamboree's coming. I don't understand this. If you know what's going on here, please let us know because I'd love to know. I'd love to understand this.

[00:55:20] They must have been paying for more things when they were in Georgia. It must have not just been airfare and hotels. What was it? If you're just going there to pick up a picture, you don't even necessarily need a hotel. You just go to the guy's house.

[00:55:35] Oh, thank you for the picture. Then get back on your cab back to the ... The fact that they brought this up and thought this was a good idea bringing it up in the Delphi case where everyone picks apart everything, I think is remarkable in telling.

[00:55:47] I don't know if it's worth discussing, but certainly there's been a lot of speculation, including among the people in the courtroom about what ... Assuming they really did spend $12,000 and we know how cheap an airfare is, there's been speculations about what that other money went for.

[00:56:04] Yeah, we really want to know. So if you have any information on that, please, we're at murdersheetatgmail.com. So moving on. Dr. Walla. Dr. Walla. Well, Dr. Monica Walla's testimony or I guess information in the case get thrown out of the case.

[00:56:20] And so I think the arguments here are that she heard several of his confessions, but there are ethical issues with her looking up, kegging client, a different former suspect in the case's information. So ... She also was a member of several Facebook groups devoted to the Delphi case. Correct.

[00:56:45] And she took information from those Facebook groups and she passed it on to Richard Allen. So without even commenting about ... I think the biggest ... Okay, so just my own opinion. And again, I would defer to mental health experts on this.

[00:56:59] My biggest issue here is it seems concerning that she looked up kegging client's information because she had no professional reason to do so. And that's more though a problem for kegging client in my opinion than Richard Allen.

[00:57:14] As for joining Facebook groups that are devoted to the Delphi case, I think in this current media environment that is truly just how some people get news. I don't really have a problem with that. I think that's sort of like listening to a podcast.

[00:57:28] I don't think ... If we had sort of a 1950s style media thing, would anyone fault the psychologist for reading a local newspaper that's doing extensive granular detailed coverage of a case? Oh, you read this newspaper so therefore you're obsessed with it.

[00:57:47] I kind of think that ... I just think that's the way our media landscape is now. So I didn't find that compelling. I would have found it more compelling had she been hinting at information that she had from him.

[00:57:59] But that seemingly was not happening because I think that would have been brought up. For me, there were a number of things there that make me have concerns about whether or not I would want to use this woman for my therapist.

[00:58:16] But there was nothing I saw that would make me think that she was using improper means to get information from Richard Allen or that she was lying in her reports about what Richard Allen said. If anything, she seemed to be friendly to Richard Allen.

[00:58:32] I thought she was very compassionate towards him. Say don't tell me anything about your case but he would insist. So it's ... She seemed compassionate toward him. She seemed to be looking out for him and that's just not my impression.

[00:58:44] A lot of the questions from the defense actually got to that. They asked questions about like, didn't Dr. Monica Walla ask for this to happen so that he would have a better experience, so that he would do better? Like she was consistently intervening to try to benefit him.

[00:59:00] And so if this was a situation where she was going around on Facebook and being like, I think he did it and then was like soliciting confessions from him, we'd have a huge problem. But in fact, it sounds like he's trying to give this to her.

[00:59:13] She's basically saying don't tell me this. And again, I don't think the problems with her practice touch upon the veracity of her comments and her reports about his confessions. It's like at the same time I was making ...

[00:59:31] In my oven, I was cooking some fish and I was cooking some chicken. And maybe I put some wrong ingredients in the chicken. That doesn't necessarily mean the fish is bad. What are you doing? Okay, moving right along. I'm making chicken for you, fish for me. God.

[00:59:50] So I have a question. Are there grounds in your opinion for her information to get thrown out, not used in court? I really don't think so. But of all the confessions, if anywhere thrown out it would be hers.

[01:00:07] But basically you're just not seeing there the conflict or the problems with her.

[01:00:13] I think the defense can, as they did in this hearing, they can tear her apart on the stand and basically encourage the jury to perhaps cast a side eye perhaps as the kids say at her testimony. But I don't see how it gets omitted from trial.

[01:00:29] They can say, well she did a bad job so can we really trust her? Even though again they seemingly need her to establish that he was psychotic. So like they kind of, they can't go too hard against her. They kind of need her for other things.

[01:00:43] So I think it stays in. They can give her a really hard time on the stand. But generally it doesn't sound like it went far enough. And I'm going to say this. This at this point has turned into a rock slide.

[01:00:55] Well a number of confessions is like a rock slide. If you dislodge a boulder or two, you still have a big mess on your hands. It's not going to change that much. So even if they manage to do that.

[01:01:04] And no matter what happens with Dr. Walla, do you agree that the other confessions are coming in? Oh yeah, geez. I don't see how you stop the other confessions.

[01:01:13] I mean it's possible that there's problems with individual ones that we've not heard about and perhaps those get tossed out. But these are so ubiquitous and there's so many of them that I don't see it. They're not all going to get thrown out.

[01:01:25] I think it's important to note we heard a big fuss a few months ago when they filed a motion saying, Oh Jerry Holman and attentionally intimidated poor Richard Allen. So those statements need to be thrown out and they completely walked away from that motion. Yeah.

[01:01:42] And it wasn't that he said or did anything. Or I think maybe like they were like, like Terry picked a few excerpts from their conversation and also said that Jerry Holman is a big guy.

[01:01:51] And Allen is a little guy and aren't little guys scared of the big guys. It was a stupid, I mean it was pretty dumb. That was basically what it was. I mean like I sound like I'm being facetious about this but boiling it down to its essence.

[01:02:05] The little guys are scared of the big guys and it was very, it was embarrassing and I was not surprised that they dropped it. But I think this is also what we mean when we talk about the goal of some of these filings

[01:02:15] is not to actually have a moment in court. The goal is to have a moment in the press where they can denigrate or go after specific people like Holman and say they're bad and kind of give that impression.

[01:02:28] And then they don't have anything to really back that up so then they withdrawed. Anya, do you think Odinism is going to be allowed in the trial? I think if it's allowed in the trial, it's allowed in without naming the alleged Odinists perhaps

[01:02:45] and it's more of disgust as like, well we interpret the sticks as being runes. I don't, as the Odinist theory as a whole I think is dead. I think you could maybe squeeze in elements of it in a very limited fashion.

[01:03:04] As I said this was put up or shut up time for the defense when it comes to Odinism. They have been working on this theory for at least a year investigating it, exploring it and they made clear this court hearing that they have nothing.

[01:03:22] Basically all they have is what Todd Klick said in his letter over a year. They haven't added to that. They haven't moved the ball. They, by the admission of their own investigators or their witnesses, there is nothing to tie these men to the crime directly.

[01:03:40] There is no evidence whatsoever placing them in the city of Delphi on the day of the crimes. They have nothing. That theory has nothing. My guess is that it is thrown out entirely and Judge Gull to be very clear would be well within her rights to do so.

[01:03:58] But there's a possibility it ekes in a significantly reduced capacity in my view. That's a possibility but I think the more likely thing is that it gets thrown out. Judge Gull may be more cautious right now because she's under scrutiny for having thrown them off the case earlier

[01:04:15] so there might be an instinct with her to just let them have it to a limited extent. I do not believe it's going to get in the trial in its totality and I'm going to just also say Kevin,

[01:04:25] some people were like, and I understand this line of thinking they're like, well you know wouldn't she just let them like isn't it kind of mean to take away their ball and make them go home and start again.

[01:04:36] Shouldn't everything be transparent and essentially like have it all out? Why are there limits to what you can do in saying a trial on the defense side? You don't want to have a situation where the defense team can come in and say,

[01:04:55] Bigfoot did it. That doesn't get us anywhere closer to the truth. It doesn't even help us form a defense because if you get in the trial and say Bigfoot did it, then ultimately the prosecution is going to go to great lengths to explain why Bigfoot didn't do it.

[01:05:14] So it's just a matter of what submissible evidence is about protecting people's rights. You wouldn't want to say, oh John Smith is a terrible child killer and he's the one that really did this without considering the rights of John Smith.

[01:05:30] And if there's no evidence connecting that person to the crime, it infringes upon his rights. So typically when there's a third party defense, there's like a baseline of some pretty decent evidence to go that way. It's not just random.

[01:05:42] It's not that they picked random names out of a hat. It's that there's some establishment there. If you have someone who you believe was murdered by, maybe the husband is on trial for killing the wife, but then there's some evidence pointing to a serial killer.

[01:05:57] And that guy was on CCTV footage in the neighborhood at the time and gave a confession that matched something. You can have that, but just pointing out some random delivery guy who you can't even prove was in the town who said hi to the wife once.

[01:06:15] Yeah, you turn the trial into a farce if you just allow everything in the life. It seems to be the goal here, Kevin. I think there is a decent chance that Kagan Klein will be allowed in. And one reason I say that is because Brad Rosie, again,

[01:06:32] I thought he did a great job with the Kagan Klein information and he brought out even after the arrest of Richard Allen, even after the prosecution was convinced that Richard Allen was their guy. They were still expending resources trying to prove that there was a connection

[01:06:51] between Kagan Klein and Richard Allen. And so that kind of established as well if even the police thought this guy was involved and they saw that even after the arrest, I find that compelling. Yeah, that makes sense.

[01:07:07] And obviously it sounds like police put Kagan and his father Tony Klein in their house on the day of the murders in Peru and that Kagan's story of the crime did not ultimately have any evidence cooperating it, did not hold water.

[01:07:21] But there's still enough there, there's enough evidence there, there's enough work done there that it makes sense to go with that. Frankly, I don't understand why they didn't in the first place when Odinism was the other explanation,

[01:07:34] which has just frankly turned out to be just a ridiculous farce as far as evidence towards that. But I also just like, I don't know, this is inside baseball, but I want to say it. So it will be very amusing to me personally

[01:07:52] if they end up going and are allowed to go with Kagan Klein because it will be amusing to watch all of the pro-defense internet cranks who have been so against the Klein theory. I mean, just universally, most of these people come from originally

[01:08:07] a group that believe very strongly that Ronald Logan, the property owner did this. They hated the Klein theory, they were angry at anyone even talking about it. And if they're forced to essentially choose between supporting Richard Allen and going with the Klein theory or dropping it entirely,

[01:08:25] I think that's going to be a very interesting thing to see what people do. What do you think? Yeah, that's a good point. I don't know if it's inside baseball, but let's watch and that will be something to look at.

[01:08:37] And then as for Ron Logan, he was barely brought up. Jennifer O'Jay kind of stood up and was like, well, Ron Logan. And then sat down and that was pretty much it. So there was very little, it seems like they are very uninterested in Ron Logan

[01:08:49] just based on that because they could have done a lot more with that, but they seemingly chose not to. I want to say that last week and going to these hearings was, as I'm sure you heard it was kind of rough on Anja and I

[01:09:03] and a number of you sent kind notes and expressed concern. And we very much appreciate all of that. Thank you so much. And thank you for the lovely messages on Facebook and comments on Facebook and everything. It meant a lot to us, but I think in fairness

[01:09:20] we should state the obvious, which is whatever Anja and I went through is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what the family has gone through since this terrible crime and what they continue to go through. Yes.

[01:09:35] Libby and Abbey's families, I hope are in all of your, if you pray, pray for them. If you do not pray, just keep them in your thoughts. And that was a very hard three days to sit through, I'm sure for them.

[01:09:49] Anja and I care very deeply about this case and we're going to continue covering it until there is a resolution. But with that in mind, we don't have to. We, if we woke up tomorrow and said it's too much,

[01:10:05] we could stop covering the case and we could walk away from it. But this family, these families, these families, they don't have that option. They can't walk away from this for the rest of their lives, long after this case is resolved, there's always going to be

[01:10:21] an empty seat at the family table. And that is something they're going to carry with them forever. Well said. So keep them in your thoughts. And thank you for listening. Thanks. Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet.

[01:10:40] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com.

[01:11:04] 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. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet,

[01:11:25] and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.

[01:11:44] 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.