The Delphi Murders: The Confessions Are In

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

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

[00:00:07] [SPEAKER_00]: a free-to-play hidden object game set in the roaring 20s.

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

[00:00:14] [SPEAKER_00]: and celebrate our 7th 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]: Are you ready for the journey?

[00:00:28] [SPEAKER_00]: Let's go!

[00:00:56] [SPEAKER_00]: Download June's Journey today for free on Android or iOS.

[00:01:00] [SPEAKER_03]: Content warning, this episode includes discussion of the murder of two children.

[00:01:05] [SPEAKER_02]: So as of right now, on August 30th at about 1.53pm, we have not gotten all of Judge Gull's,

[00:01:18] [SPEAKER_02]: Judge Francis Gull's orders in the Delphi case, but we've gotten a few yesterday,

[00:01:22] [SPEAKER_02]: so we're going to talk about that.

[00:01:24] [SPEAKER_03]: I hope she issues the ruling sooner rather than later.

[00:01:30] [SPEAKER_03]: I think frankly this has the potential of putting the defense in a tough spot,

[00:01:36] [SPEAKER_03]: because the trial is, I believe about six weeks away, allegedly,

[00:01:41] [SPEAKER_03]: and their whole strategy seems to be based on odinism.

[00:01:45] [SPEAKER_03]: And if they find out six weeks, five weeks or whatever beforehand,

[00:01:50] [SPEAKER_03]: that puts them in a tough spot.

[00:01:53] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm going to say something, and of course we're talking about...

[00:01:55] [SPEAKER_02]: I love how we're both so wired on this that we just immediately start talking without any sort of

[00:02:02] [SPEAKER_02]: prompting.

[00:02:03] [SPEAKER_02]: This is about the Delphi murders, the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German in 2017.

[00:02:09] [SPEAKER_02]: Richard Allen is accused, State is represented by Nicholas McClillan,

[00:02:12] [SPEAKER_02]: the Carroll County prosecutor as well as Stacey Deener and James LaTrell.

[00:02:16] [SPEAKER_02]: The defense is helmed by Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosie,

[00:02:19] [SPEAKER_02]: and Jennifer Oger, and of course the judge is Judge Francis Gull.

[00:02:24] [SPEAKER_02]: Now what's happening here is I have been personally quite critical of this defense

[00:02:32] [SPEAKER_02]: team at times when I felt that there was essentially a lot of chest thumping,

[00:02:37] [SPEAKER_02]: but not a lot of action, and I feel like they've delayed things a lot.

[00:02:42] [SPEAKER_02]: That being said, if Judge Gull throws out odinism,

[00:02:48] [SPEAKER_02]: I think it would be perfectly reasonable for them to delay this trial,

[00:02:52] [SPEAKER_02]: because that was their main strategy.

[00:02:55] [SPEAKER_02]: And if they don't have that and they don't have a backup crafted,

[00:02:58] [SPEAKER_02]: then I think it's reasonable to give them some time to figure out what they're going to do.

[00:03:03] [SPEAKER_02]: And if they have a client who still wants to go to trial,

[00:03:06] [SPEAKER_02]: I think that would be reasonable.

[00:03:08] [SPEAKER_02]: So I don't think that that would be bad on their part.

[00:03:13] [SPEAKER_02]: I think that would be the obvious thing to do.

[00:03:15] [SPEAKER_02]: So yes, I think the longer we don't have an answer on odinism,

[00:03:19] [SPEAKER_02]: the more it's unclear what's going to happen in this case.

[00:03:22] [SPEAKER_02]: And I don't think it's a binary necessarily.

[00:03:25] [SPEAKER_02]: It's not necessarily odinism in or out.

[00:03:27] [SPEAKER_02]: There could be a scenario where they're allowed to mention odinism

[00:03:31] [SPEAKER_02]: and talk about their interpretations of the scene,

[00:03:34] [SPEAKER_02]: but not necessarily accuse individuals like Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall, Elvis Fields,

[00:03:40] [SPEAKER_02]: Johnny Messer.

[00:03:41] [SPEAKER_02]: So there's a situation where they could get half of what they want.

[00:03:45] [SPEAKER_02]: I think that if they do not get odinism in,

[00:03:48] [SPEAKER_02]: they are going to probably file some kind of appeal and that will delay things.

[00:03:53] [SPEAKER_02]: I think the appeal will be a waste of time because they've not...

[00:03:57] [SPEAKER_02]: They did that thing like I don't know if anyone saw the Olympics,

[00:04:00] [SPEAKER_02]: somebody literally ran under the high jump bar,

[00:04:03] [SPEAKER_02]: like by mistake, that's what they did.

[00:04:05] [SPEAKER_02]: They have not gotten anywhere near to bringing this into trial,

[00:04:09] [SPEAKER_02]: but that's neither here nor there.

[00:04:11] [SPEAKER_02]: They're still going to probably appeal it.

[00:04:12] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't think that'll go anywhere,

[00:04:14] [SPEAKER_02]: but it will certainly drag things on more.

[00:04:17] [SPEAKER_03]: And I apologize.

[00:04:19] [SPEAKER_03]: I get sick.

[00:04:20] [SPEAKER_03]: All of our discipline breaks down.

[00:04:22] [SPEAKER_03]: We just start going right into our discussion.

[00:04:25] [SPEAKER_03]: So why don't we play our theme music,

[00:04:28] [SPEAKER_03]: come back and just get right into the nitty gritty of these new documents?

[00:04:33] [SPEAKER_02]: Sounds good.

[00:04:34] [SPEAKER_02]: My name is Ania Cain.

[00:04:35] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm a journalist.

[00:04:36] [SPEAKER_03]: And I'm Kevin Greenley.

[00:04:38] [SPEAKER_03]: I'm an attorney.

[00:04:39] [SPEAKER_03]: And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:04:41] [SPEAKER_03]: We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting,

[00:04:44] [SPEAKER_03]: interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:04:48] [SPEAKER_03]: We are The Murder Sheet.

[00:04:50] [SPEAKER_02]: And this is The Delphi Murders.

[00:04:53] [SPEAKER_02]: The Confessions are in.

[00:05:39] [SPEAKER_03]: Before we get into the discussion of Judge Goal's ruling on the Confessions,

[00:05:44] [SPEAKER_03]: there was an earlier order this week that came out that

[00:05:49] [SPEAKER_03]: I think caught a lot of people's eye if only because it had my name in it.

[00:05:57] [SPEAKER_03]: What the devil is this?

[00:05:58] [SPEAKER_03]: People said.

[00:05:58] [SPEAKER_02]: What did Kevin do?

[00:06:00] [SPEAKER_03]: What did I do on you?

[00:06:01] [SPEAKER_03]: And what was that?

[00:06:03] [SPEAKER_02]: So many, many, many months ago.

[00:06:06] [SPEAKER_02]: Over a year ago.

[00:06:07] [SPEAKER_02]: Over a year ago, we filed into the case,

[00:06:10] [SPEAKER_02]: Kevin filed into the case to essentially ask-

[00:06:16] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, I don't know if people remember this,

[00:06:17] [SPEAKER_03]: but there was a time when a lot of filings were not being made public.

[00:06:21] [SPEAKER_02]: Yes, filings were not being made public.

[00:06:24] [SPEAKER_02]: And it was a situation where we felt that they should be made public based on

[00:06:29] [SPEAKER_02]: Indiana trial rules and record keeping rules.

[00:06:32] [SPEAKER_02]: So we realized that when you have a judge coming from out of a county,

[00:06:36] [SPEAKER_02]: there's a lot of opportunities for them, the judge not to be on the same page

[00:06:42] [SPEAKER_02]: as whatever the public is seeing.

[00:06:43] [SPEAKER_02]: So we figured that it was an oversight and Kevin filed into the case to request

[00:06:50] [SPEAKER_02]: that all of these documents that ought to be made public,

[00:06:54] [SPEAKER_02]: that would normally be made public, be made public.

[00:06:56] [SPEAKER_02]: And as a result of that, a lot of documents were made public.

[00:07:00] [SPEAKER_02]: I think it was like over 100 documents.

[00:07:02] [SPEAKER_03]: There was like a big document drop.

[00:07:04] [SPEAKER_02]: There was a massive document drop.

[00:07:05] [SPEAKER_03]: It was because of what we did.

[00:07:06] [SPEAKER_02]: That was because we asked for it and because Kevin filed into the case.

[00:07:10] [SPEAKER_03]: And that was over a year ago.

[00:07:12] [SPEAKER_03]: And I guess I was still officially in the case.

[00:07:15] [SPEAKER_01]: You're still in the mix.

[00:07:17] [SPEAKER_03]: And so periodically judges, you know, and the relevant attorneys will look at a docket

[00:07:23] [SPEAKER_03]: and say, why is this person still here?

[00:07:25] [SPEAKER_02]: What's this guy doing here? Get it out.

[00:07:27] [SPEAKER_03]: So that's what they did.

[00:07:29] [SPEAKER_03]: And so they said there's no reason for Kevin and these other attorneys

[00:07:33] [SPEAKER_03]: to still be a part of this case.

[00:07:36] [SPEAKER_03]: What they filed into to do was done.

[00:07:39] [SPEAKER_03]: So see you later, guys.

[00:07:40] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, makes sense.

[00:07:42] [SPEAKER_02]: But that's why Kevin's name came up.

[00:07:43] [SPEAKER_02]: I thought that was funny because we're getting like texts and messages from people being like,

[00:07:47] [SPEAKER_02]: what's going on?

[00:07:48] [SPEAKER_02]: And it was like, oh, something happened a year ago and then we forgot about it.

[00:07:53] [SPEAKER_02]: That's what's going on.

[00:07:55] [SPEAKER_02]: But anyways, that's that now.

[00:07:59] [SPEAKER_03]: And that was not the big news of the week.

[00:08:00] [SPEAKER_02]: No, that was not.

[00:08:01] [SPEAKER_01]: Can you imagine if we just did an episode on that?

[00:08:04] [SPEAKER_01]: Oh my gosh.

[00:08:09] [SPEAKER_02]: And here's what's going on with us.

[00:08:13] [SPEAKER_02]: Good lord.

[00:08:14] [SPEAKER_02]: No, okay.

[00:08:16] [SPEAKER_02]: Let's talk about the actual important things that happened.

[00:08:19] [SPEAKER_03]: Which is in the hearings close to a month ago now,

[00:08:24] [SPEAKER_03]: one of the issues was revolved around confessions.

[00:08:29] [SPEAKER_03]: There was a couple of different categories of confessions that were being discussed.

[00:08:36] [SPEAKER_03]: Some of the more detailed confessions that Richard Allen is said to have given,

[00:08:41] [SPEAKER_03]: he said to have given to Dr. Monica Walla who was treating him while he was at Westville.

[00:08:48] [SPEAKER_03]: Ordinarily, of course, you would expect that the things you share about your health,

[00:08:54] [SPEAKER_03]: whether it's your physical health or mental health, you'd expect if you share these

[00:08:57] [SPEAKER_03]: things with someone who is treating you a medical professional, they would stay confidential.

[00:09:03] [SPEAKER_03]: And so Nick McLean requested the judge go make a decision as to whether or not

[00:09:13] [SPEAKER_03]: Richard Allen's confessions to this crime that he made to Dr. Walla could be admitted into the case.

[00:09:20] [SPEAKER_03]: And he pointed out that there was actually a relevant statute in Indiana saying that

[00:09:26] [SPEAKER_03]: if a person makes a statement about a homicide to a therapist, then that comes in and is not covered

[00:09:35] [SPEAKER_03]: by the so-called privilege. Can you read what Judge Gull said in a ruling about the

[00:09:41] [SPEAKER_03]: confessions given to Dr. Walla? Sure. Quote,

[00:09:44] [SPEAKER_02]: the statements given by defendant to Dr. Monica H. Walla are not privileged based upon

[00:09:50] [SPEAKER_02]: the exception noted in the statute, trials for homicide when the disclosure relates directly

[00:09:57] [SPEAKER_02]: to the fact or immediate circumstances of said homicide. All statements given by defendant

[00:10:02] [SPEAKER_02]: to Dr. Walla are admissible in the trial. Defendants' arguments to the contrary go to

[00:10:08] [SPEAKER_02]: the weight the jury would give such statements, not their admissibility. End quote.

[00:10:13] [SPEAKER_03]: So she's basically saying the prosecutor correctly pointed out that there was this exception.

[00:10:20] [SPEAKER_03]: This exception applies to this case, so the confessions to Dr. Walla are in.

[00:10:26] [SPEAKER_03]: What I found interesting, correct my memory, during the hearing did they really make any

[00:10:33] [SPEAKER_03]: convincing argument as to why this very clearly written exception did not apply?

[00:10:41] [SPEAKER_02]: No, because it doesn't work out for them. I don't know. I mean, that seems to be mostly

[00:10:46] [SPEAKER_02]: like the crux of this. We don't like this. It's plainly written in English in the law

[00:10:50] [SPEAKER_03]: that this is allowed, but... Instead of dealing with that, they spent a lot of time

[00:10:58] [SPEAKER_03]: attacking the professionalism and character of Dr. Walla, and maybe they made some good

[00:11:04] [SPEAKER_03]: points about her professionalism, but that doesn't really seem to apply to the issue at hand.

[00:11:10] [SPEAKER_02]: It doesn't apply at all. I think that was mostly for the press gathered there.

[00:11:16] [SPEAKER_02]: Let's put out that we don't like her so that essentially journalists look at whatever she

[00:11:22] [SPEAKER_02]: has to say as scants. It's more about trying to prime the pump for the public sphere rather than

[00:11:28] [SPEAKER_02]: any sort of legal argument, and that is mostly what they do. Mostly this is some sort...

[00:11:34] [SPEAKER_02]: Frankly, sometimes it seems like a PR shop disguised as a law firm because that's predominantly

[00:11:41] [SPEAKER_02]: what they seem to be focusing so much of their energy on. I'm saying that critically. I don't

[00:11:46] [SPEAKER_02]: think that's a good thing in this situation in case that wasn't clear. Fairness, they didn't

[00:11:52] [SPEAKER_02]: really have any argument here or anything to do here. If you can't do anything about it,

[00:11:57] [SPEAKER_02]: you can at least preemptively slam the witness. To be clear, people who are confused

[00:12:05] [SPEAKER_02]: this argument is about do the confessions to Dr. Walla come into trial or are they excluded?

[00:12:13] [SPEAKER_02]: The issue is not here, oh should Dr. Walla have looked up Kagan Klein's record?

[00:12:19] [SPEAKER_02]: That doesn't really matter in the course of this argument. What would matter is if

[00:12:27] [SPEAKER_02]: Dr. Walla had gone to police and said, hey I'm going to elicit a confession.

[00:12:32] [SPEAKER_02]: If there was evidence of that, then we could maybe see them suppressed because she was acting

[00:12:36] [SPEAKER_03]: then as an agent of the state. Or if the statements didn't apply to this exception.

[00:12:42] [SPEAKER_03]: The exception is that if the statements are about a homicide, then they can be allowed in.

[00:12:48] [SPEAKER_03]: Maybe there's a reason it wasn't about a homicide. Who knows? But I want to stress

[00:12:54] [SPEAKER_03]: Judge Gold's last lines here where she says the defendant's arguments go to the

[00:13:00] [SPEAKER_03]: weight the jury should give such statements now, their admissibility.

[00:13:04] [SPEAKER_03]: So she's saying something very similar to what Anya just said that there was no reason not

[00:13:08] [SPEAKER_03]: to allow these statements to be admitted. But if you want to attack Dr. Walla's professionalism,

[00:13:16] [SPEAKER_03]: if you want to attack her character maybe you do that and let the jury decide well

[00:13:22] [SPEAKER_03]: because she's the sort of person who looked up Kagan Klein's personal information

[00:13:27] [SPEAKER_03]: maybe we should doubt some of the things she said. Yes. So the jury can then take that into

[00:13:34] [SPEAKER_02]: consideration but the statements come in. As we've talked about in the past, this defense team

[00:13:40] [SPEAKER_02]: tends to ask for rather extreme or unusual measures to be taken instead of necessarily just

[00:13:49] [SPEAKER_02]: arguing it out in court. They often have asked for things like for example

[00:13:54] [SPEAKER_02]: there was this mistake with a recording that lost rat holders interview with police so their case

[00:14:00] [SPEAKER_02]: should be dismissed. And if you wanted to say in trial in front of the jury, hey isn't it sloppy

[00:14:07] [SPEAKER_02]: that they lost this recording? I don't think these guys did such a good job. Then that's fine.

[00:14:12] [SPEAKER_02]: You can make that argument and the jury can weigh that against what they're seeing from the

[00:14:15] [SPEAKER_02]: prosecution. So it's not like it doesn't benefit the defense at all. It could in that way.

[00:14:19] [SPEAKER_02]: But to get the case thrown out there were so many thresholds that they needed to cross in order

[00:14:25] [SPEAKER_02]: for that to even be a possibility that they didn't get anywhere near. So I see this as yet another

[00:14:31] [SPEAKER_02]: sort of asking for something completely wild and I understand that you never want to negotiate

[00:14:36] [SPEAKER_02]: against yourself. You will always want to ask for perhaps more than you think you'll get.

[00:14:41] [SPEAKER_02]: I think that's good strategy. But I think there's a point where it's less a good strategy because

[00:14:52] [SPEAKER_02]: you're actually just telegraphing all of your talking points to the prosecution throughout

[00:14:56] [SPEAKER_02]: the process. No surprises are left at trial and they have essentially been able to accumulate

[00:15:01] [SPEAKER_02]: all of your complaints and figure out ways to diffuse them pretty readily in front of a jury.

[00:15:06] [SPEAKER_03]: So I think this could very well backfire. Can you read the next paragraph of the judge's order please?

[00:15:13] [SPEAKER_02]: Sure.

[00:15:16] [SPEAKER_02]: Quote, haven't taken the state's motion to dismiss the motion to suppress filed April 2nd, 2024

[00:15:24] [SPEAKER_02]: under advisement at the hearing. The court agrees with the state that the defendant has failed

[00:15:28] [SPEAKER_02]: to comply with the criminal rules of procedure by neglecting to clearly state which specific

[00:15:33] [SPEAKER_02]: statements he is seeking to suppress nor the legal braces for the suppression. Despite these

[00:15:39] [SPEAKER_02]: deficiencies, the court has been able to determine that the statements given to the defendant's family

[00:15:44] [SPEAKER_02]: members were voluntary, not coerced by any state action and were not made under threats of violence

[00:15:49] [SPEAKER_02]: or improper influence. Although the defendant is clearly in custody, he initiated the

[00:15:55] [SPEAKER_02]: communication with his family and was not subject to custodial interrogation when

[00:15:58] [SPEAKER_03]: he spoke to his family. So let's talk about that. So you will remember that the defense team

[00:16:09] [SPEAKER_03]: said we want all of the confessions out and what the prosecutor said and what judge Gold says here

[00:16:16] [SPEAKER_03]: is that's not the way you do it. What you do is you list the specific confessions you want

[00:16:22] [SPEAKER_03]: to be stricken from being admitted and in that list you explain exactly why

[00:16:30] [SPEAKER_03]: and they didn't do that. And I'm not sure why they didn't do that, but they didn't do that.

[00:16:36] [SPEAKER_03]: I don't understand why they didn't do that. It is a clear violation of the criminal rules

[00:16:43] [SPEAKER_02]: of procedure. So the defense violated the criminal rules of procedure?

[00:16:49] [SPEAKER_03]: Because they did not specify which statements they went and stricken.

[00:16:54] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm not trying to be overly harsh here, but that just seems like a really basic fumble.

[00:16:59] [SPEAKER_02]: How does that even happen? When you have people boasting consistently about their

[00:17:05] [SPEAKER_02]: seven decades of combined legal experience, you would think that something like this

[00:17:09] [SPEAKER_02]: would be something that they would not have an issue complying with. So I'm surprised

[00:17:14] [SPEAKER_02]: to see that. It just seems it strikes me as sloppy unless the goal was not to actually get

[00:17:20] [SPEAKER_02]: the confession thrown out, unless the goal was to just simply stand on a soapbox and complain

[00:17:25] [SPEAKER_02]: about the confessions in front of the press, which I think judging from the reaction of

[00:17:30] [SPEAKER_02]: the public to the confessions, I think did not mitigate their circumstances too much.

[00:17:36] [SPEAKER_03]: And as Judge Gull indicates, no evidence was presented to suggest that these were coerced

[00:17:46] [SPEAKER_03]: or that Richard Allen was pressured or threatened by violence to make these confessions.

[00:17:53] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. And there's a possibility that some of the confessions buried within here could be

[00:18:00] [SPEAKER_02]: problematic for any number of reasons. And it would behoove the defense to pick those,

[00:18:07] [SPEAKER_02]: specifically talk about why they're problematic, whether there's some sort of they can make an

[00:18:11] [SPEAKER_02]: argument about coercion or make another argument and single those out. But as usual, again,

[00:18:18] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm sorry to keep going back to the same old themes, but we see this again and again.

[00:18:22] [SPEAKER_02]: We see it again and again that this defense team, instead of being specific

[00:18:27] [SPEAKER_02]: and granular and detailed and bringing out something that they can really win the day on,

[00:18:34] [SPEAKER_02]: they overstate, they over exaggerate. They sometimes, I would even say, stretch the truth

[00:18:39] [SPEAKER_02]: to the point of snapping. And they don't drill down in the way that they need to in order to get

[00:18:46] [SPEAKER_02]: the outcome they want. And I just, I don't understand that, especially in this situation

[00:18:55] [SPEAKER_02]: where it's like they, like it went against the actual rules of what they were supposed to do with

[00:19:01] [SPEAKER_02]: something like this. I mean, that's just embarrassing. I don't know what to tell you.

[00:19:09] [SPEAKER_03]: I would have expected them to list the specific statements they wanted taken out along with

[00:19:14] [SPEAKER_02]: explanations. But this sort of thing just feels like an astronaut showing up to a

[00:19:19] [SPEAKER_02]: space shuttle launch, not to date myself without wearing their astronaut suit,

[00:19:23] [SPEAKER_02]: their space suit. It's like, you needed to get into that in order to even be able to go to the

[00:19:28] [SPEAKER_02]: next step and you didn't even bother. So why the heck are you here? What are you doing?

[00:19:33] [SPEAKER_03]: But Judge Rose says despite their mistakes, despite those deficiencies,

[00:19:38] [SPEAKER_03]: she still took a look at them and she didn't see any evidence of coercion or threats or what

[00:19:45] [SPEAKER_02]: happened. So by rules here, she didn't even need to, she could have just thrown this out on its

[00:19:49] [SPEAKER_02]: face by saying you didn't even like do the right thing here. She could have said,

[00:19:54] [SPEAKER_03]: she could have turned down on procedural matters and said you need to go back,

[00:19:59] [SPEAKER_03]: list the specific instances, the specific statements that you want thrown out along with the

[00:20:06] [SPEAKER_02]: reasons and then I will consider that. Okay. So she was being, to put it in the everyday person

[00:20:13] [SPEAKER_02]: parlance, she was being nice to them by even hearing this out to the extent that she did.

[00:20:16] [SPEAKER_03]: People often complain that Judge Goal takes a long time to make her rulings.

[00:20:23] [SPEAKER_03]: We certainly have complained about that. In this case, she very easily could have

[00:20:29] [SPEAKER_03]: stretched out this process by sending this back to them and saying you need to do this,

[00:20:34] [SPEAKER_03]: this and this before I'll even look at that. She didn't do that. She said,

[00:20:39] [SPEAKER_03]: I'm going to go ahead and look at it anyway. And she did and said, well,

[00:20:43] [SPEAKER_03]: there's no case here for any of what you're claiming.

[00:20:46] [SPEAKER_03]: What's the next paragraph?

[00:20:48] [SPEAKER_02]: Quote, further, the statements given by defendant to the correctional officers

[00:20:53] [SPEAKER_02]: inmate companions, the warden, mental health personnel, medical personnel and the Indiana

[00:20:59] [SPEAKER_02]: State police were unsolicited by any of those individuals and were voluntarily given without

[00:21:04] [SPEAKER_02]: coercion or interrogation. The defendant has not shown that he suffered from psychological

[00:21:09] [SPEAKER_02]: coercion by the state which caused him to make these statements. To the contrary,

[00:21:13] [SPEAKER_02]: the evidence shows he specifically sought out the warden by written communication he initiated

[00:21:18] [SPEAKER_02]: and verbal statements he offered to guards, inmate companions, mental health professionals and

[00:21:24] [SPEAKER_02]: medical personnel. The defendant has failed to show any of these statements were the result of

[00:21:30] [SPEAKER_02]: coercive interrogation by the state or that they were the result of his pretrial detention.

[00:21:35] [SPEAKER_02]: The totality of the circumstances of defendants pretrial detention were not intended to force

[00:21:39] [SPEAKER_02]: confessions from the defendant. The defendant's pretrial detention is to protect him from harm.

[00:21:43] [SPEAKER_02]: The court is not persuaded that the detention caused the defendant to make incriminating statements.

[00:21:48] [SPEAKER_02]: While the defendant does suffer from major depressive disorder and anxiety,

[00:21:52] [SPEAKER_02]: those are not serious mental illnesses that prevent the defendant from making

[00:21:56] [SPEAKER_02]: voluntary statements. End quote. I also just want to know earlier, I said April 2nd, 2024,

[00:22:01] [SPEAKER_02]: the file must have copied and pasted weird. So I'm not sure if that's

[00:22:05] [SPEAKER_02]: second or 11, but just wanted to flag that possible mistake.

[00:22:08] [SPEAKER_03]: Their whole argument was that he just being in prison itself was somehow coercive.

[00:22:17] [SPEAKER_02]: Okay.

[00:22:18] [SPEAKER_03]: And she says that doesn't make sense. I don't buy it.

[00:22:21] [SPEAKER_02]: It's a bizarre argument.

[00:22:25] [SPEAKER_03]: It's a bizarre argument and I noticed that the member of the so-called due process gang,

[00:22:32] [SPEAKER_02]: the defense team, yeah.

[00:22:33] [SPEAKER_03]: None other than attorney Michael Osbrook called this argument that they were making in a tweet

[00:22:39] [SPEAKER_03]: he referred to it as novel and unconvincing. Those are not really words of encouragement.

[00:22:47] [SPEAKER_03]: And I would agree with him that it was a novel argument. I don't mean that as praise

[00:22:54] [SPEAKER_03]: and it was an unconvincing argument.

[00:22:55] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I think again.

[00:22:57] [SPEAKER_03]: If you saw me saying, Anya, I've designed a plane out of cardboard and I'm going to

[00:23:07] [SPEAKER_03]: wheel it off the roof and by God, I'm sure it's going to fly with me in it.

[00:23:13] [SPEAKER_03]: And you don't want to just say you're really, really stupid, Kevin.

[00:23:17] [SPEAKER_03]: You say, oh, Kevin, your cardboard airplane, that's novel.

[00:23:21] [SPEAKER_02]: It's like when I say things are interesting.

[00:23:24] [SPEAKER_02]: No, I don't always mean interesting. It's a bad thing, but I sometimes do.

[00:23:28] [SPEAKER_02]: Why can I also completely see you doing that?

[00:23:30] [SPEAKER_02]: Why can I see you as one of those old-timey guys who's trying to build a flying contraption?

[00:23:35] [SPEAKER_02]: Goes horribly wrong.

[00:23:39] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm sorry. Let's get back to the topic here.

[00:23:43] [SPEAKER_02]: So I wanted to talk about false confessions.

[00:23:45] [SPEAKER_02]: I think false confessions are something that a lot of people have finally begun

[00:23:49] [SPEAKER_02]: to understand do happen and they can happen for all sorts of reasons.

[00:23:53] [SPEAKER_02]: They can be unprompted and go back to a mental illness or to attention seeking

[00:24:00] [SPEAKER_02]: or bragging in prison or jail or bragging to one's friends and families.

[00:24:05] [SPEAKER_02]: And they can go back to coercion where you have potentially state actors,

[00:24:10] [SPEAKER_02]: namely police officers interrogating someone, pushing them,

[00:24:14] [SPEAKER_02]: feeding them details of a crime that they can repeat back.

[00:24:19] [SPEAKER_02]: So they do happen and I think it's important to talk about what they look like.

[00:24:26] [SPEAKER_02]: But I really feel like it was a bad move for this defense team to argue this coercive element

[00:24:32] [SPEAKER_02]: by essentially just saying, well, he's having a bad time in prison.

[00:24:36] [SPEAKER_02]: Part of me feels like it was more for the press than anything because it'll allow them to

[00:24:41] [SPEAKER_02]: explain here's how bad he's doing and here's how awful it is.

[00:24:44] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, feel bad for him essentially go for the pity vote essentially.

[00:24:49] [SPEAKER_02]: And I don't know how well that has worked though legally as a result of all this because we

[00:25:00] [SPEAKER_02]: heard all this testimony, all this evidence in court that essentially pointed to

[00:25:06] [SPEAKER_02]: almost everyone around him who was getting these confessions, whether we're talking about

[00:25:11] [SPEAKER_02]: the warden, whether we're talking about his wife, Kathy and his mother Janice,

[00:25:15] [SPEAKER_02]: whether we're talking about Dr. Monica Walla. Everyone that we heard about and heard from

[00:25:22] [SPEAKER_02]: was essentially trying to get the heck out of dodge the minute he opened his mouth and started

[00:25:27] [SPEAKER_02]: blubbering about how he killed those kids. They were trying, we don't want to hear it, man.

[00:25:34] [SPEAKER_02]: Get out of here. So when you're arguing that this situation is coercive and you know,

[00:25:41] [SPEAKER_02]: you would expect for that to be borne out at all, even if it's a novel argument,

[00:25:46] [SPEAKER_02]: you would expect there to be some level of Dr. Monica Walla checking in. Hey, did you do it?

[00:25:51] [SPEAKER_02]: Let me write down what you're saying. Oh, Dr. Warden Gallapo was going to come to your cell

[00:25:57] [SPEAKER_02]: and hear, you know, and then write it down in detail, make sure he's filming it.

[00:26:01] [SPEAKER_02]: You would expect a lot of different behavior. You would expect his wife and mother to have

[00:26:05] [SPEAKER_02]: teamed up with the prosecutor in order to get him to confess like you would expect

[00:26:09] [SPEAKER_02]: there to be some level of interest from the parties he's confessing to in getting a confession.

[00:26:16] [SPEAKER_02]: And in fact, what we heard was the complete opposite. Basically people like, don't tell me this,

[00:26:21] [SPEAKER_02]: talk to your lawyers, his wife hanging up on him, you know, telling him stop talking.

[00:26:27] [SPEAKER_02]: That's not what you that's not a that is not a coercive confession. Now,

[00:26:35] [SPEAKER_02]: a confession can be false without being coerced. Okay, we actually there's plenty of instances

[00:26:41] [SPEAKER_02]: of this where someone comes forward and says I did this and then it turns out they didn't,

[00:26:45] [SPEAKER_02]: they were just, you know, whatever was happening that does happen. So how do we assess them? Well,

[00:26:52] [SPEAKER_02]: one thing we heard from Detective Brian Harshman at the three day hearing was that

[00:26:57] [SPEAKER_02]: he included specific details of the crimes in his confessions, maybe not all of them,

[00:27:02] [SPEAKER_02]: but certainly some of them. So psychosis does not plant inside information in one's mind.

[00:27:10] [SPEAKER_03]: And psychosis, well keep in mind what I've been talking about psychosis at this point.

[00:27:14] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, yeah, I'm just well psychosis and coercion. If you had a situation like that,

[00:27:19] [SPEAKER_02]: the one I go back to is Donald Forrester in the Burger Chef murders, he confessed to those

[00:27:24] [SPEAKER_02]: murders twice. And there is reason to believe that he was let into a a Marion County Sheriff's

[00:27:30] [SPEAKER_02]: Department war room where he saw crime scene pictures and he saw all these things and was likely fed

[00:27:38] [SPEAKER_02]: information inadvertently or advertently by authorities in that situation. He's still got a lot of

[00:27:43] [SPEAKER_02]: details wrong, but there's reason to believe in that situation that you know, that can happen.

[00:27:49] [SPEAKER_03]: But in this situation, I think it's important to stress a lot of people

[00:27:53] [SPEAKER_03]: in discussing this a lot of pro defense people have seen talking about it seem to talk about

[00:27:58] [SPEAKER_03]: all of these confessions are wrong because he was psychotic. He was in an episode of psychosis.

[00:28:04] [SPEAKER_03]: That's not the argument they made in court. That is not the argument they made in court.

[00:28:08] [SPEAKER_03]: In the tweet from Michael Osbrook, he's saying they should have argued psychosis.

[00:28:15] [SPEAKER_03]: He said this other argument they actually did make was novel and relatively unconvincing.

[00:28:20] [SPEAKER_03]: I said novel and unconvincing earlier. He actually said novel and relatively

[00:28:24] [SPEAKER_03]: unconvincing. There's nothing relative about it. So a lot of people have been responding to an

[00:28:29] [SPEAKER_03]: argument the defense never actually made, which is the psychosis argument. And I think that is

[00:28:35] [SPEAKER_03]: interesting because the fact that so many people's minds immediately go to the psychosis

[00:28:41] [SPEAKER_03]: argument, I think tells all of us that at least at first blush, that seems like a more

[00:28:48] [SPEAKER_03]: interesting, more fruitful argument to make. If I say, oh, this guy was in prison,

[00:28:56] [SPEAKER_03]: you really didn't like it. And so because of that, he decided to make false confessions.

[00:29:01] [SPEAKER_03]: That seems kind of silly. But if I say, oh, this guy was in prison, he had a mental breakdown.

[00:29:07] [SPEAKER_03]: And because of the mental breakdown, he was incompetent and said things he didn't mean

[00:29:12] [SPEAKER_03]: that that I still think in this case, if they'd made that argument, they would have lost.

[00:29:16] [SPEAKER_03]: But I think they would have much more of a chance of success than with this novel and

[00:29:23] [SPEAKER_03]: relatively unconvincing argument that they actually did make. So again, they did not claim

[00:29:28] [SPEAKER_03]: that these confessions were the result of a psychosis.

[00:29:33] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm so glad you said that, Kevin, because my mind keeps going back to psychosis too.

[00:29:38] [SPEAKER_02]: That's not what they argued. But even I'm trying to bolster their argument for them in

[00:29:43] [SPEAKER_02]: my mind. I'm bringing in the psychosis because it's like, okay, well, that does resonate with me

[00:29:48] [SPEAKER_02]: somewhat. Let's talk about it. But you're completely right. Why would they not make that

[00:29:55] [SPEAKER_03]: more of the centerpiece of their argument? I can offer some wild and unfounded speculation.

[00:30:01] [SPEAKER_03]: Please do. If you want. And keep in mind, this is wild and unfounded speculation. We talked

[00:30:09] [SPEAKER_03]: a lot about how in the Frank's motion at one point, they say, well, what if the guards had

[00:30:15] [SPEAKER_03]: threatened him to make confessions? And that's why he did it. And then they had a footnote

[00:30:19] [SPEAKER_03]: that where they said, well, we have no proof this happened. So this is this is my equivalent

[00:30:23] [SPEAKER_03]: of that. This is just me speculating. I have no inside information here. Complete guesswork.

[00:30:32] [SPEAKER_03]: But when I look at this, one explanation for them not making the obvious argument,

[00:30:40] [SPEAKER_03]: the argument that Osbrook thought they should make, the argument that a lot of us assumed that

[00:30:44] [SPEAKER_03]: they had made about psychosis is they're just too incompetent to make it.

[00:30:50] [SPEAKER_02]: Okay.

[00:30:50] [SPEAKER_03]: That doesn't seem credible to me because they have had 70 years of experience.

[00:30:57] [SPEAKER_03]: I would expect them to make the obvious argument. But what if, and again, this is just wild,

[00:31:04] [SPEAKER_03]: irresponsible speculation. What if at some point Richard Allen told Rosie and or Baldwin, oh,

[00:31:14] [SPEAKER_03]: by the way, I'm faking psychosis. I'm not really mentally ill. If he had done that,

[00:31:21] [SPEAKER_03]: if he gave them that information, then they could not argue in court that he was mentally ill.

[00:31:28] [SPEAKER_03]: And that's why he did the confessions because they would be presenting false information to the

[00:31:32] [SPEAKER_03]: court. What they could do, they could have people come up on the stand and offer their

[00:31:37] [SPEAKER_03]: assessments. A Dr. Waller could come up and say, oh, he had a depression disorder or this or

[00:31:43] [SPEAKER_03]: that. They could do that. But they couldn't make an argument that they knew was false.

[00:31:47] [SPEAKER_03]: They couldn't write into filing that he was mentally ill if they knew he was not.

[00:31:53] [SPEAKER_03]: They couldn't write into filing that he was psychotic and that explained the confessions

[00:31:59] [SPEAKER_03]: if they knew he was not psychotic. Again, just irresponsible speculation. I've long

[00:32:08] [SPEAKER_03]: suspected that a lot of the things that the defense in this case has done that looks like

[00:32:15] [SPEAKER_03]: bad lawyering is actually them being put into a terrible spot by the actions of their client.

[00:32:23] [SPEAKER_02]: Okay, I follow what you're saying. And even though it is just speculation, it certainly

[00:32:29] [SPEAKER_02]: matches the fact pattern that we've seen and would explain a lot. I don't know if I agree

[00:32:38] [SPEAKER_02]: with you about the competence versus the competence issue. I'm just being blunt,

[00:32:45] [SPEAKER_02]: but you are the attorney, so I would defer to you on that. But I feel like I've seen a lot of

[00:32:51] [SPEAKER_02]: complete own goals just from the PR side of things and that seems to be the main thing

[00:32:56] [SPEAKER_02]: that they're focusing on. So you would think that if winning over the public is the main

[00:33:02] [SPEAKER_02]: goal here, not doing even lawyering, there's been so many mistakes in that alone that I'm

[00:33:08] [SPEAKER_02]: like, that is a competence issue. That is a skill issue. So I don't know, but

[00:33:15] [SPEAKER_02]: what you're saying makes sense. And it also goes back to let me throw something out there that

[00:33:21] [SPEAKER_02]: we're going back in time a little bit. But let's look back when he's making these confessions.

[00:33:27] [SPEAKER_02]: One thing that does not make sense to me at all is the fact that they didn't file anything

[00:33:34] [SPEAKER_02]: at the time around competency. So one thing we've heard from attorneys, I know we talked to attorney

[00:33:41] [SPEAKER_02]: Tim Sled at one point about competency issues and mental health in prison, we learned that

[00:33:47] [SPEAKER_02]: filing competency saying my client is incompetent, that can be alienating to a client

[00:33:52] [SPEAKER_02]: if they don't agree. Okay, so there are risks to doing that. It's not a neutral event. You

[00:34:00] [SPEAKER_02]: know, my client is incompetent and cannot assist with his own defense. And what happens then is the

[00:34:08] [SPEAKER_02]: client if declared incompetent has to go through a process to where they can become competent again

[00:34:15] [SPEAKER_02]: through mental health treatment or whatnot. This is what happened in the Lori Valow case.

[00:34:19] [SPEAKER_02]: So we've seen it happen in a high profile case recently. That's how it goes. It's not saying

[00:34:24] [SPEAKER_02]: my client was insane when they did the crime. It's not admitting guilt or anything like

[00:34:29] [SPEAKER_02]: that. It's just saying currently they cannot help. They're having these issues. They are not

[00:34:35] [SPEAKER_02]: competent to stand trial. Am I right? Okay. So if they had done that, the situation I see

[00:34:43] [SPEAKER_02]: would be a lot better for them. And the reason is because they'd be essentially like throwing

[00:34:48] [SPEAKER_02]: a flag down on the field and saying like hold the presses stop, like we need to fix this.

[00:34:52] [SPEAKER_02]: They're getting him help, perhaps even like stopping the number of confessions that happen.

[00:35:01] [SPEAKER_02]: And it also very early on throws into doubt what he's saying. Okay, well, you know, if he is

[00:35:08] [SPEAKER_02]: declared incompetent, maybe we shouldn't take what he's saying as seriously. But instead,

[00:35:15] [SPEAKER_02]: they filed an emergency transport order that was frankly included a lot of overstatements

[00:35:24] [SPEAKER_02]: that didn't work. And then they left him to essentially torpedo his own case.

[00:35:30] [SPEAKER_02]: And what I don't understand is why not just file a comp? I mean, wouldn't that have been the

[00:35:38] [SPEAKER_02]: thing to do? Am I crazy? Like, that just seems like such an obvious move at that point for

[00:35:44] [SPEAKER_02]: them or at least to try it. Maybe it doesn't work. Maybe he is competent. And he's just faking it.

[00:35:49] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know, maybe that's the reality or maybe he's not. But either way, I would have expected

[00:35:53] [SPEAKER_02]: them to try. I don't know. But what I'm saying is that would also fit in with him early on telling

[00:36:01] [SPEAKER_02]: him, Oh, no, I'm just I just feel really guilty about this. I'm totally I'm not. This is

[00:36:06] [SPEAKER_02]: voluntary. Because then you can't say, Well, he's incompetent because you know,

[00:36:12] [SPEAKER_02]: he is competent. He is just doing this. But I mean, I almost I almost hope that you're right in a

[00:36:21] [SPEAKER_02]: way because I would prefer it to be I would prefer this story to be about attorneys doing their best

[00:36:28] [SPEAKER_02]: with a very bad situation rather than like just missing obvious moves and doing the wrong thing

[00:36:36] [SPEAKER_02]: for their client. My bias would be toward that my bias would be toward like a better

[00:36:44] [SPEAKER_02]: better story about professionals trying their best. Yeah, that's what I would prefer. So

[00:36:50] [SPEAKER_02]: but you know, it's not always the case. What we prefer is not always the case.

[00:36:56] [SPEAKER_03]: Final paragraph quote, the court finds these statements given by the defendant to Dr. Walla,

[00:37:01] [SPEAKER_03]: the warden inmates, guards, medical personnel, mental health professionals,

[00:37:07] [SPEAKER_03]: and law enforcement personnel were not coerced. We're voluntary. We're not the result of

[00:37:12] [SPEAKER_03]: interrogation by the state or its actors or the product of his confinement and therefore

[00:37:16] [SPEAKER_03]: denies the defendant's motion to suppress statements in quote. So that says it all.

[00:37:22] [SPEAKER_02]: So to go full circle, Kevin, to what we're talking about in the beginning,

[00:37:28] [SPEAKER_02]: people have asked us, is there some sort of deadline that Judge Gull has to rule on the odynism?

[00:37:36] [SPEAKER_03]: I believe that she has 30 days, which the hearing was what on the first. So that would be

[00:37:45] [SPEAKER_03]: certainly by September 1st Labor Day is coming up. So hopefully today or Monday or Tuesday.

[00:37:54] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah. So I mean, it should be coming up pretty fast, but this judge does have a history of taking

[00:38:00] [SPEAKER_02]: a while with these rulings. So it's anybody's guess. But once those drop, we will certainly

[00:38:07] [SPEAKER_03]: be covering them. Yes. For all I know they're probably dropped like five seconds after you

[00:38:13] [SPEAKER_02]: released this episode. You know that's going to happen. I'm actually literally scrolling back

[00:38:18] [SPEAKER_03]: through my head. I am too. It is 2.31pm and right now there's no other orders. Anya is now going to

[00:38:27] [SPEAKER_03]: put this episode together and I'll do haste and hopefully it will get to you soon. And now you

[00:38:32] [SPEAKER_03]: know exactly how long it takes on you to do it because it's 2.31. Let's see what time it gets

[00:38:37] [SPEAKER_01]: released. Oh, no, don't do that to me. This is going to be the day I really mess everything up.

[00:38:43] [SPEAKER_03]: Now Anya, the reason she does the editing needs because if I do the editing,

[00:38:47] [SPEAKER_03]: yeah, it would take at least if I started editing now, I'd have this episode ready by probably 7 o'clock

[00:38:52] [SPEAKER_02]: tomorrow. That's not true. You're not that slow. You're slower than you. You are slower than me,

[00:38:57] [SPEAKER_02]: but you've gotten a lot faster. So I give you kudos. I tip my hat to you. My proverbial hat.

[00:39:08] [SPEAKER_03]: All right. 2.32pm. Have a good weekend. Hopefully you won't hear from us until Monday

[00:39:15] [SPEAKER_03]: or Tuesday. Thanks everyone. Bye. Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet.

[00:39:25] [SPEAKER_03]: If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com.

[00:39:34] [SPEAKER_03]: If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime,

[00:39:38] [SPEAKER_03]: please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon,

[00:39:45] [SPEAKER_02]: that's available at www.patreon.com. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests,

[00:39:56] [SPEAKER_02]: you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:40:05] [SPEAKER_03]: Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet,

[00:40:10] [SPEAKER_03]: and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners

[00:40:18] [SPEAKER_02]: about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook.

[00:40:24] [SPEAKER_02]: We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.

[00:40:29] [SPEAKER_02]: We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a

[00:40:35] [SPEAKER_02]: lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. Beat the summertime sluggishness and enhance

[00:40:43] [SPEAKER_02]: your every day with our wonderful sponsor, Viahemp. This is accompanied the Crafts Award-winning

[00:40:49] [SPEAKER_03]: Premium THC and THC Free Gummies with high quality hemp grown right here on American farms,

[00:40:56] [SPEAKER_03]: all for an excellent value, especially for Murder Sheet listeners who get a special deal.

[00:41:01] [SPEAKER_03]: If you're 21 or older, you can experience it for yourself and get 15% off your first order

[00:41:08] [SPEAKER_03]: with our exclusive code MSheet at Viahemp.com. That's V-I-I-A-H-E-M-P.com.

[00:41:19] [SPEAKER_02]: Each of Viah's gummies is crafted to give you a specific mood. Get creative, get some rest,

[00:41:25] [SPEAKER_02]: get focused, get some pleasure. All with Viah's delicious gummies.

[00:41:31] [SPEAKER_03]: No matter what you're looking for, Viah has you covered.

[00:41:35] [SPEAKER_02]: Their grapefruit CBG and CBD flow state gummies help me feel energized and focused to get a lot

[00:41:41] [SPEAKER_02]: done this summer in terms of scheduling, conducting interviews, running around after

[00:41:45] [SPEAKER_03]: sources, and more. You don't need a medical card to enjoy Viahemp, and these products ship

[00:41:51] [SPEAKER_02]: legally to all 50 states. If you're 21 and older, head to Viahemp.com and use the code

[00:41:58] [SPEAKER_02]: MSheet to receive 15% off. That's V-I-I-A-H-E-M-P.com and use code MSheet at checkout.

[00:42:07] [SPEAKER_02]: After you purchase, they ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show

[00:42:11] [SPEAKER_02]: and tell them we sent you. Enhance your every day with Viah.