The Delphi Murders: The State's Response to Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss

[00:00:00] Seeking the truth never gets old. Introducing June's Journey, the free-to-play mobile game that will immerse you in a thrilling murder mystery. Join June Parker as she uncovers hidden objects and clues to solve her sister's death in a beautifully illustrated world set in the roaring 20s.

[00:00:17] With new chapters added every week, the excitement never ends! Download June's Journey now on your Android or iOS device, or play on PC through Facebook Games. At the Coca-Cola Company, Keurig Dr. Pepper and PepsiCo, our bottles might still look the same,

[00:00:35] but some of them can be remade in a whole new way using 100% recycled plastic. New bottles made using no new plastic except the caps and labels. You'll be seeing more of these new bottles in more places, and that's thanks to you.

[00:00:48] Because when we get more bottles back, we can use less new plastic. Learn how our bottles are made to be remade at madetoberemade.org. Temp Check! What kind of summer are we having this year? A family road trip summer? A beach bum summer? Or a wake-me-up-when-the-sun-sets summer?

[00:01:06] With Instacart, choose your own adventure and skip the shopping side quests. Where available, you can get ice cream delivered to your hotel, sunscreen to the pool, or cold brew to your bed. Well, door, in as fast as 30 minutes.

[00:01:20] Wherever you find yourself this summer, you can get the goods. Use Instacart for free delivery on your first three orders. Offer valid for a limited time. Minimum $10 per order. Excludes restaurants. Additional terms and fees apply. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of the murder of children.

[00:01:38] Hello everybody. Today we're going to talk about the latest filing in the Delphi murders case. Of course, this is the case against Richard M. Allen, who stands accused of murdering two Delphi, Indiana teenagers, Abigail Williams and Liberty German, back in 2017.

[00:01:54] So the latest filing in this came from the prosecution side, came from prosecutor of Carroll County, Nicholas McCleeland. And it is the state's response to defendants' second motion to dismiss based on newly discovered, destroyed, and or missing exculpatory or potentially useful evidence.

[00:02:11] Bit of a mouthful, but it's only eight pages. So we're going to just take you through the whole thing and discuss what they mean. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:24] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is the Delphi murders, state's response to defendants' second motion to dismiss.

[00:03:23] So we're going to go through this and we're going to take it all seriously because court filings in a double homicide case deserve to be taken seriously, obviously.

[00:03:34] But I wanted to start with I don't know if you would call this a spoiler or a thesis or a highly educated guess or speculation.

[00:03:46] The defense, as we all know, and Anya is going to remind us what was in it, but the defense filed a motion to dismiss the case. And this is the prosecutor's response to that. And I just want to make clear the case is not going to be dismissed.

[00:04:01] The case is not going to be dismissed. Judge Cole is not going to dismiss this case. And when Baldwin and Rosie filed that motion for the case to be dismissed, they knew the case would not be dismissed. They knew they were basically, well, I don't know.

[00:04:22] A charitable reading would be while they're trying to build a record for appellate courts.

[00:04:30] A less charitable reading would be that they are continuing to do what we have seen them do time and time again, where they are focusing their efforts seemingly on pleasing the ultra pro innocent YouTuber community. I don't know why. So ridiculous when you say it out loud.

[00:04:58] I don't know why. I don't know why they're doing that.

[00:05:02] But at some point in the course of their representation of Richard Allen, they made the choice seemingly that it was very, very important to court and win and please the extreme pro innocent pro conspiracy pro ridiculous pro fringe YouTube community. And that's who they have consistently played to.

[00:05:31] And that's who they've sometimes put on their witness list and like in the contempt hearing.

[00:05:36] I think when the history of this case comes to be written, I predict that that decision on their part will be seen as a catastrophic error that truly ill served the interests of Richard Allen. In my opinion, this is my opinion.

[00:05:59] I think Richard Allen would be better served by having discussions of the evidence as it pertains to Richard Allen. And if Richard Allen happens to be guilty of this crime, I think his interest would be served by reaching some sort of plea agreement with the prosecutor.

[00:06:22] If he's not innocent or if he is innocent of the crime or the evidence against him is weak, I think his interest would be served by focusing on the weaknesses of the evidence against him or the strength of his alibi.

[00:06:39] Repeatedly filing the same motions over and over again, asking for things you're not going to get, making complaints that frankly are often nonsensical. That doesn't help anybody. All it does is make the most extreme members of the online community cheer you. But you're not representing true crime swine 95.

[00:07:08] You're representing Richard Allen. So we're going to talk about what they filed. We refresh your memory about what they filed, and then we're going to talk about McLean response. But keep in mind, it's basically like a little play because we all know how it's going to end.

[00:07:29] There is not a basis here to dismiss this case. I want to add two things. And I think you I completely agree with everything you just said.

[00:07:38] I think we're in the delay era of this case because, you know, maybe if and maybe the maybe the thinking is if it gets delayed, they'll be able to come up with something better than this. But I guess two things.

[00:07:49] I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense.

[00:07:53] The reason I think that they are going for the YouTube vote, so to speak, even though it's very fringe and most people don't take it seriously, is that they know that the mainstream media is not going to carry water for them to the extent that a YouTuber has who has no professional backing and no professional ethics will they'll be able to kind of inject that narrative straight into the bloodstream.

[00:08:14] The problem that they don't seem to contend with is that most people are disgusted by those by that group. And they're not they don't they're not they don't have a lot of credibility. They don't have much going for them.

[00:08:27] So it's they're a lot less influential than one would think. I mean, they're important because they seem to be influencing the defense position to this extent. But they're not important from the perspective of actually getting the word out. Here's the other thing.

[00:08:41] When you're saying that it's not going to be, you know, the case is not going to be dismissed. I know that you don't mean that Judge Frances Gull is just so in bed with the Odinus conspiracy that she'll force this to trial no matter what.

[00:08:53] You're saying that basically for something to rise to the level of having charges dismissed against a defendant, there needs to be a solid backing, a solid interpretation of the law, solid set of facts to have such an extreme outcome come about.

[00:09:09] And again and again, they have not been close to that threshold. Are you trying to lose weight and feeling like you're getting absolutely nowhere? Well, weight loss can be a uniquely challenging goal, one that leaves many of us feeling isolated and frustrated.

[00:09:25] The good news is that our sponsor Rowe can help you achieve your weight loss goals. Over 200,000 people who've tried it can attest to this. Now remember, when you support our sponsors, you're also supporting our show directly.

[00:09:39] To start, Rowe gets you access to one of the most popular and effective weight loss shots on the market. Next, through its special RoweBody program, you can tailor a weight loss system that works for you, figuring out your own unique diet and exercise regimen.

[00:09:54] Rowe even gets you weekly one-on-one coaching sessions with a registered nurse. Lose the pounds and keep them off with Rowe. Now, Murder Sheet listeners get a special deal. With Rowe, the average weight loss is 15 to 20 percent in one year with healthy lifestyle changes.

[00:10:11] BMI and other eligibility criteria apply. Go to Rowe.co.msheet. Sign up today and you'll pay just $99 for your first month and $145 a month after that. Medication costs are separate. That's R-O-dot-C-O-slash-M-sheet. Stories are at the heart of true crime.

[00:10:35] Whether the spotlight centers on a detective solving a murder case, an attorney making a winning argument in court, or a wife healing from the revelation that her beloved husband is a sexual predator.

[00:10:47] We believe that if you love the immersive, in-depth reporting and storytelling that the best true crime stories bring, you'll also love the new podcast. You probably think this story's about you. This show centers the question, what if the person you thought was your soulmate never really existed?

[00:11:03] That's what kicked off this podcast, which sees host Brittany R. digging into the shattered ruins of what was supposed to be her ultimate love story. A man stole her heart. Only he was not the person he pretended to be.

[00:11:17] That's where we begin with, you probably think this story's about you. But the real story comes through Britt's quest for answers. As she digs into this man's dark, twisted history, she meets other women who he lied to and strung along.

[00:11:32] She starts to see the patterns, the lies about having a wife who died by suicide or one who was struggling with drugs. The shimmering web of deception crafted to harm women.

[00:11:43] You will feel like you're there along with her as she unpacks these deceptions and forges connections to the other women she meets along the way. We think that in our truth-starved, dating app-driven world, you probably think this story's about you is a must-listen.

[00:12:00] Britt's story is as relatable as it is remarkable. It's one that we think you'll find compelling. Listen and follow You Probably Think This Story's About You wherever you listen to podcasts. Achieving a gorgeous grin from home isn't a total mystery with BiteClear Aligners.

[00:12:17] Just don't be surprised if all of your sleuthing friends start asking, what's your secret? Begin by ordering your at-home impression kit today for only $14.95. BiteClear Aligners are doctor-directed and delivered to your door. Treatment costs thousands less than braces.

[00:12:33] Plus, they offer flexible financing, accept eligible insurance, and you can pay with your HSA FSA. Get 80% off your impression kit when you use code WONDERY at bite.com. That's B-Y-T-E dot com. Start your confidence journey today with Bite.

[00:12:49] And usually there's a lot of gray areas in the law. That's the reason why things get appealed and different judges have different opinions. And so where exactly the line is where, okay, a case now needs to be dismissed. That's not always clear where exactly that line is.

[00:13:10] And it's possible that one judge may look at a set of facts and say, okay, I think these facts are just a little bit over that line. Let's dismiss the case.

[00:13:19] And I think another judge may look at those same facts and say, well, these facts don't quite reach that level. Let's keep the case going. But what I'm saying here is the facts in this case are not even within 100 miles of the line. I agree.

[00:13:35] And it's and I really think delays and speaking to the fringe social media side of things. And I don't know. I mean, I guess you have more billable hours if you keep this going.

[00:13:49] I would say that I imagine that both attorneys, Bradley Rosie and Andrew Baldwin, probably be making more money doing private client sort of cases. So I don't I don't necessarily see that there's a monetary reason to do this. I just I don't think a monetary reason makes sense.

[00:14:03] No problem is I can't think of any reason. Yeah, that really makes sense. It really does. I think I've said this on the program before, and I apologize if I'm repeating myself. But obviously people think of us as being people who know about Delphi.

[00:14:16] So that means people write us emails and texts about their opinions about the case. When we go out in our day to day life, people often stop us and ask about the case or speak about their opinions about the case.

[00:14:32] And for the longest time, I would say that opinions were pretty closely divided as to whether or not Richard Allen could be found guilty of the crime.

[00:14:43] I would actually say maybe a little bit on the innocent side, because the refrain we heard was like, well, there's some evidence against him. But I don't know if it quite reaches that level. That was something we heard a lot.

[00:14:52] And that was a very valid point, in my opinion. But the last couple of months, things have changed since David Hennessey made the bewildering choice. I think we're going to talk about this a little bit later in the week.

[00:15:08] He made the bewildering choice to call YouTubers as witnesses and to make it really crystal clear that the defense is aligned with fringe YouTubers. Once that became clear, people – it changed the way people look at the defense.

[00:15:27] They have begun to look at the defense, in my experience, as just being the equivalent of another fringe YouTuber. And so a lot of people that we speak with are at the point where they're just dismissing everything the defense says is crazy and ridiculous.

[00:15:43] And I didn't see that happening a few months ago. Nope. I feel they have lost the public. They have. And if this behavior continues in front of a jury, it's very difficult to see how they could get a verdict they would like.

[00:16:01] You don't think it's just like some 5D chess, Kevin, where they're going to razmataz everyone at the end? Yeah, no. I think the whole thing has been really embarrassing to watch, frankly.

[00:16:10] And I hope that they get it together because Alan deserves some good representation, not people playing patty cakes on YouTube with some live streamer who has no credibility.

[00:16:23] So it's important to us to be honest with our audience and tell them what we believe is going on based on what we're hearing and impressions and stuff.

[00:16:32] And so I wanted to – I didn't want people to be listening to this and think, oh, it's possible the case is going to get dismissed. It's not.

[00:16:40] Sometimes journalism requires you to actually state your opinion because things have gotten so bizarre and so bewildering and so, frankly, far from the norm that it would be neglectful to not at least state that.

[00:16:55] And it would be neglectful for us at this point to pretend like this is fine, this is a good strategy because that would not be the truth. That would not be the truth as we see it.

[00:17:05] And so we're going to be perfectly blunt with you and we anticipate that some may disagree. That's fine. Reasonable adults can disagree on things, but we're going to be telling you strategically we think there have been some disastrous moves on this defense side. And here's the problem.

[00:17:21] The defense has made some baffling decisions that I feel has really negatively impacted their credibility. This does not mean that there's not a good defense to be made. Yes. This does not mean that everything the defense says should be automatically dismissed or disregarded.

[00:17:40] But the fact that they have created such a credibility problem for themselves, if there are any pearls of wisdom or any gems in their arguments, a lot of people, including potentially jurors, are going to disregard those gems because they're surrounded by so much nonsense.

[00:17:58] They have really done Richard Allen a serious disservice in my judgment. I concur. And as you said, this has nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

[00:18:06] And that's what's truly tragic about it, that you have a lot of people who seem to conflate support for these particular defense attorneys with support for Allen.

[00:18:14] And I think at this point those are completely separate issues because the interests in my view seem to diverge quite a lot. But anyways, shall we get to why the defense wanted this? Why don't you remind us why the defense said that the case should be dismissed?

[00:18:31] So I took bullet points from the last filing from the defense where they outlined why this is the second time they're asking for the case to be dismissed. And they're outlining their big reasons why. So one, they cite missing phone extraction data from Brad Holder's phone.

[00:18:48] Brad Holder is a man who is seemingly at some time practiced some sort of heathenry. It's not really clear. And he is one of the central defense suspects for the case. So they are saying he participated in the murders, not Richard Allen.

[00:19:04] So in addition to that – so there's a lot of focus on Holder. They talk about how all evidence of Holder's second interview with law enforcement was missing. There was some allusion to Holder mentioning that he had been interviewed at the Logan's Port police department.

[00:19:20] That's a town, a city not too far from Delphi. And so defense is saying we never got that audio. What the heck happened to that? They talk about a mimicked crime scene image found on Brad Holder's social media that that was destroyed. They never got that.

[00:19:38] They get into – and then they also talked about the exculpatory nature of all that missing evidence. And they note that this will be important later. The missing destroyed evidence in their view is exculpatory, meaning it helps – points towards Allen's innocence.

[00:19:55] But even if it is not, it should be – the case should be dismissed because the missing or destroyed evidence is considered potentially useful and that they believe it was destroyed in a bad faith attempt by law enforcement to, I guess, hide the truth.

[00:20:11] Right. And so because of this, the case against Richard Allen is so tainted it must be dismissed. Correct. Absolutely. So I'm going to read sort of the opening from Prosecutor McClelland. This is his response. This is his response.

[00:20:29] Quote, now comes the state of Indiana by prosecuting attorney Nicholas C. McClelland and respectfully objects to the defendant's second motion to dismiss based upon newly discovered destroyed and or missing exculpatory or potentially useful evidence and would ask the court to deny the same.

[00:20:46] There is no basis in the law or fact to support the defense's motion, and it should be denied. Further, there is no exculpatory evidence and or potentially useful evidence that the state has not turned over or is missing or that the state destroyed.

[00:20:59] Finally, Brad Holder is not a third party suspect, and there's no evidence tying Brad Holder to the murder of the victims in this case. End quote. OK, so. What we're seeing here is people often people often confuse when they're reading a legal filing.

[00:21:16] You know, I think in the past in some of the filings, the defense has made good points. I think at times they're saying, you know, this shouldn't have been destroyed. This is an issue. And I think that's valid.

[00:21:28] I think when you have something that's good for the defense, though, that does not mean it necessarily rises to the level of getting a case thrown out.

[00:21:35] What I'm talking about is if the defense wanted to bring up missing or destroyed evidence or the fact that police didn't go hard enough at Holder in cross examination of law enforcement witnesses, that could be a useful tool to show the jury, hey, they didn't consider our suspect enough.

[00:21:51] That can be a beneficial thing for the defense. But there are specific parameters that you have to clear in order to have a case thrown out.

[00:21:59] So one thing that I've seen from this defense team is oftentimes even if they have some good points scattered amidst everything, they're not anywhere near the kind of like scale that basically gets them what they're asking for in a specific filing.

[00:22:13] And I think that mismatch is unfortunate because you're essentially expending your ammo at a target that you won't hit.

[00:22:21] So now the prosecution knows what your cross strategy is probably going to be or like what kind of damaging evidence you might put before a jury or damaging information, rather. But, you know.

[00:22:32] So you're saying a lot of this stuff maybe isn't super relevant here in this motion, but you think it could be a useful thing for the defense to use in cross examination or to put in front of a jury to make some sort of conclusions about law enforcement's inept.

[00:22:49] Look, they didn't record this. They didn't record that. They're not doing a good job. Listen, is that super compelling? Not really if you don't really have a lot of evidence against Holder, which I don't think they do.

[00:23:01] But I think that's more useful than how they're deploying it here. Yeah. So that's just my thinking. So as we said, the bars that they need to clear to get the outcome they want.

[00:23:17] The evidence that was destroyed or lost must be either materially exculpatory or deemed by the judge so potentially useful to the defense and that the destruction was in bad faith. So it's either actual exculpatory evidence or potentially useful plus destroyed in bad faith.

[00:23:36] Is this a good time to start defining terms? I actually think McClellan sort of helpfully does that, too. Okay. Why don't we hear his definition and then we can talk about it. And then if I'm confused, you can help me. Well, no, I'll be the one.

[00:23:50] You're the lawyer. Don't ask me. I should get that on a shirt. So here we go. Quote.

[00:24:01] That the law is clear, a dismissal of charges due to the state destroying or losing evidence is only permitted when the evidence is materially exculpatory or when the evidence is deemed potentially useful to the defense and the destruction of evidence was done in bad faith.

[00:24:15] The defense have not alleged any example of missing or lost evidence that is materially exculpatory or potentially useful to the case against Richard Allen, nor has the defense filed cited any example of the state acting in bad faith and destroying any kind of potentially useful evidence.

[00:24:31] That exculpatory evidence is defined as evidence that tends to establish a criminal defendant's innocence. Evidence is exculpatory if it clears or tends to clear the defendant from alleged fault or guilt.

[00:24:43] The destruction of materially exculpatory evidence to support a dismissal, the materially exculpatory evidence must be evidence that possesses an exculpatory value.

[00:24:52] It was apparent before the evidence was destroyed and must be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. End quote. So a couple of things there. So it has to be exculpatory.

[00:25:08] That means it has to be something that would help clear Richard Allen of the crime. It has to have been destroyed in bad faith, and it has to be something that the defense would not be able to get on their own through their own investigation.

[00:25:24] So let's say, for instance, Anya is accused of a crime. As usual. And my great, great grandfather, by some miracle, is still alive. And he writes a letter saying Anya didn't do this.

[00:25:44] I know for a fact that Anya was somewhere else at the time and I did it. And he provides a detailed confession in a letter. And then he dies. And then I find this letter and I think, well, I want Anya to go to prison.

[00:25:59] That's been your goal this whole time. That's why you're doing all this. So I burn and destroy the letter. So that letter was exculpatory because it tended to clear you. Right. It was destroyed by me in bad faith.

[00:26:15] And since the person who provided it is deceased, there's no way to get it back. That makes a lot of sense. And so what? So if I was the prosecutor in the case and I did that, the case against you should be dismissed. Should be dismissed. Yes.

[00:26:29] And I would even argue that if what they're saying with exculpatory evidence is if you destroyed that by accident, you were trying to destroy some random office documents and then you pop that in the shredder with it.

[00:26:46] You know, let's say for some reason I cite, oh, this letter. I want to carbon date it. Yeah. And so I'm trying to take a little bit of the letter to carbon date it and I accidentally burn it. That was accidental.

[00:27:01] But let's say the person who wrote it is still alive. That's no big deal. Go get another letter. And I didn't do it on purpose. So you're saying that that would be what are you saying? I'm saying all these things need to be met. Right. Right.

[00:27:18] Well, the difference is exculpatory versus potentially useful. What's that difference? Well, let's get into the next portion of this. So quote that for evidence to be potentially useful evidence, it must be evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that.

[00:27:31] It could have been subjected to tests, results of which might have exonerated the defendant to be subject to dismissal. Law enforcement must have destroyed that potentially useful evidence in bad faith.

[00:27:41] Bad faith is defined as prevailing as failing to preserve evidence pursuant to a conscious doing of wrong because of a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. Unquote. Yeah. So I have to destroy I being the state, I have to destroy something on purpose.

[00:27:57] It has to be something that would clear you and it has to be something you can't get through another way unless you have those three requirements. You don't have a reason to dismiss. No, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm reading. I'm reading it a little bit differently.

[00:28:12] I just want to get your take on it. My thought was I thought exculpatory evidence. It's either exculpatory. That's one where it's just so helpful to Alan and so much points away from his guilt that it's just golden on its own.

[00:28:28] And that does not have to be destroyed under bad faith. If that gets destroyed, then the case might just get thrown out no matter what. Yeah, that's fair. That's fair. I'm sorry to be unclear. And then two potentially useful. It's not quite that good, but it's good enough.

[00:28:41] And it has to be destroyed with bad faith intentions. Yeah. So, I'm going to get to got to hit one or the other. And and McClellan saying none of this applies. So first he gets at the issue of phones. And talk about Brad Holder's phone.

[00:29:01] Quote in regards to Brad Holder's phone extraction. There is no reliable evidence that the state ever extracted data from Brad Holder's phone. The only support that the state ever possessed Brad Holder's phone is in the May 2nd, 2024. Brad Holder deposition.

[00:29:18] The defense in their motion report that Holder indicated that he was pretty sure he turned his phone over to police. In addition to saying that he was pretty sure Holder went on to say, I'm not going to say that positively, but I'm pretty sure they took my phone.

[00:29:30] They took my son's and my phone deposition page 13. The state believes that Holder is referring to February 17th, 2017, when he and his son were both interviewed at the Delphi police station at the Delphi Police Department on at least two occasions in the deposition.

[00:29:46] Holder states that the police took both his phone and his son's phone while father and son were in the lobby of the police station on the day they were questioned by the police.

[00:29:54] When asked how he knew the police took Logan's phone, Holder said, I'm pretty sure they did it right there in the lobby. I'm pretty sure they took both of our phones. Don't quote me on that because that was a long time ago.

[00:30:06] However, as documented in records previously provided in Discovery, Indiana State Police Sergeant Brian Bunner collected Logan Holder's phone at Logan's Fort High School on February 14th, 2017 at 1245 p.m. Logan's mother signed the consent to search form as the parent of Logan. Brad Holder was not present.

[00:30:25] Sergeant Bunner traveled to Logan's Fort High School and initiated contact with Logan and his mother prior to the victim's bodies being recovered in hopes data on the phone may assist the police in locating the victims.

[00:30:37] Brad Holder's account of the police taking his phone is unreliable since Logan Holder's phone was seized three days earlier, not as Holder insisted contemporaneous with the taking of Brad Holder's phone. Brad Holder never says the police maintained possession of his phone or extracted data from it.

[00:30:52] The state is aware of no evidence that the police extracted data from Brad Holder's phone or ever had possession of it. Therefore, there's no evidence that the police destroyed or lost Brad Holder's phone extraction data, much less did so in bad faith.

[00:31:06] Further, even if there had been an extraction of Brad Holder's phone that was destroyed or lost by law enforcement, there's no evidence to support the argument that data on Brad Holder's phone constitute a potentially useful evidence for the defense, much less material exculpatory evidence.

[00:31:22] Despite the defense's claims, there is no evidence, either physical evidence or witness statements that connect Brad Holder to the murders or to the crime scene. There exists no nexus connecting Brad Holder to the crimes.

[00:31:35] The defense is relying on pure speculation that data on Brad Holder's phone was potentially useful to exculpate the defendant." End quote. OK. What that boils down to is they were saying there was information, evidence taken from Holder's phone that we didn't get, therefore dismiss the case.

[00:31:57] And they don't have any evidence or proof that anything was ever taken from Brad Holder's phone. That's a guess on their part. And you can't ask for somebody to be punished for their behavior around a piece of evidence that may never have existed in the first place.

[00:32:23] Find proof that a phone extraction was done. Find proof that whatever was extracted from the phone was relevant to the case. Find proof that that was suppressed. And then we're talking. But McLeeland is saying there's no proof that a phone extraction was ever done on Holder's phone.

[00:32:44] We don't believe it was ever done. Holder's recollection of the relevant events is very murky. And even if a phone extraction was done, which it wasn't done, that still wouldn't help Richard Allen since there's no evidence tying Brad Holder to the crime.

[00:33:02] And in fact, he has a great alibi for the crime. Yeah. This is how you read it. Yeah, this all just reminds me of the that odd couple episode where you know what happens when you assume right there.

[00:33:15] There seems to be a consistent pattern of defense filings making vast assumptions based on minimal information. And then when you actually look at the real raw data behind what they're saying, it becomes a lot less clear. Professor Jeffrey Turco from Purdue.

[00:33:29] The defense basically cherry picked statements from him that made it look like he was siding with their interpretation over the crime scene over law enforcement. Then we hear from Turco himself and he's like, they're just lying. You know, like they're completely misrepresenting what I'm saying here.

[00:33:44] They were making it sound like Holder was saying, yeah, there was a phone extraction. And then you look and he's like, I don't know. Don't quote me. It was a long time ago. You know, it becomes a lot less forceful.

[00:33:54] And frankly, to have a phone extraction in this case, I would think that somebody would have to be either very important or very much a suspect or have some specific information police were looking for.

[00:34:10] They're not going to extract everybody's phones that you get to a level where that happens and Holder having an alibi, not no information really tying him to the crime scene or the crime. It makes sense that he might have handed over his phone.

[00:34:25] They look through it and then give it back to him. That's not surprising to me. Yeah, not to me either. You can't say I've got a hunch that evidence exists and I never got it. Therefore, dismiss a lot of a lot of the defense arguments at this point.

[00:34:41] You seem to like we have the vibe that law enforcement's lying to us or like they give us bad vibes. So can we, you know, like assume that there was a phone extraction that they then destroyed and hid from us?

[00:34:52] And it's like, no, that's not how this works. You can't go based on your own personal vibes. I mean, right. That's not the law. That'd be like saying I've got a vibe that John Doe must have written a detailed confession to the murders. We haven't received that confession.

[00:35:11] Therefore, the defense is being hindered because the prosecution is keeping evidence from us. You can't just have a hunch or a guess. You have to have proof. Your Honor, the witness is giving sketch vibes. Motion to dismiss. I mean, yeah, it's just not it's not good.

[00:35:31] It's it's not it's not good lawyering in my opinion to do this because it's just it's weak. It looks so weak. I don't think you want to look this week in public when you're them. I think you want to maybe keep your cards closer to the vest.

[00:35:48] And that sunset is gorgeous. Grill patio sunset hard to get better than that unless you're browsing carvanha's inventory while you soak it all in. Oh, burger time. So sit back, get comfortable. Carvana's got thousands of cars under twenty thousand dollars just waiting for you.

[00:36:06] I could stay here forever. Carvana where car buying meets comfort meets convenience. Download the app or visit carvana.com today. OK, picture this. It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[00:36:24] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road with available H-track all wheel drive and three row seating. My whole family can head deep into the wild.

[00:36:36] Conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe. Visit hyundaiusa.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Hyundai, there's joy in every journey. OK, picture this. It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[00:36:53] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road with available H-track all wheel drive and three row seating. My whole family can head deep into the wild.

[00:37:05] Conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe. Visit hyundaiusa.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Hyundai, there's joy in every journey. Anyways, the next portion of this document gets into the mysterious second interview with Brad Holder. Yes. Yeah, from police from 2017.

[00:37:26] Quote, in regards to a second interview of Brad Holder done by law enforcement.

[00:37:31] In his deposition, Brad Holder stated that sometime he believed maybe a year or two after his first interview, he was interviewed at the Logan's Port Police Department by two Indiana State Police officers, a man and a woman. The state was unaware of any such interview.

[00:37:46] The state was unaware of any such interview. In the weeks following the deposition, the state made effort has made efforts to determine if an interview of Brad Holder occurred at the Logan's Port Police Department recently, specifically May 28th, 2024.

[00:37:59] ISP Detective Roland Purdy reported to investigator Steve Mullen that he and Detective Lori Lendler interviewed Brad Holder in the fall of 2017 at the Logan's Port Police Department.

[00:38:10] Detective Purdy stated that he had learned that Holder had previously been interviewed and the investigation had ruled him out as a suspect. He said he said he and Detective Lendler met with Holder to learn more about what Holder knew about Odinism.

[00:38:24] Detective Purdy said the interview was not recorded, nor was a formal report written. There's no support for the argument that the evidence related to Brad Holder's interview at the Logan's Port Police Department was destroyed or lost.

[00:38:35] Neither is there any evidence that the Holder interview at the Logan's Port Police Department resulted in any potentially useful evidence, much less material exculpatory evidence. End quote. So again, more of the same.

[00:38:50] There is speculation that some bombshell was dropped by Holder in this lost interview that would really help Richard Allen. I don't know what that bombshell was, but I do know Brad Holder is still alive and we've seen quotes from a deposition with him.

[00:39:09] So whatever information he had in 2017, presumably he still has. And furthermore, I think you noted something that this also proves something.

[00:39:19] Well, to me, the fact that two ISP detectives who were not part of the sort of triumvirate of Greg Ferency, Kevin Murphy and Todd Click, who are, of course, the people who seemingly look the most into the Holder angle were interviewing Holder and interested in that sort of seems to go against this idea that the defense has tried to establish that state police and and sort of the authorities in the case just completely ignored that possibility.

[00:39:49] If they went back and talked to him again, it seems like at least there wasn't necessarily a rush to just dismiss it or throw it out. We don't know why they interviewed him again in fall of 2017.

[00:40:00] We don't know what they were going for, but at the very least, I think there's something to the defense sort of saying, like, well, they didn't give this theory a chance. They should have put more resources into it.

[00:40:09] But when when you see stuff like this, it kind of dissipates that a little bit. I personally kind of confused as to why more of these interviews wouldn't just be automatically recorded.

[00:40:20] I think I know the reason why I'm a person who likes to have everything sort of taped and locked down and notes taken. On your Nixon. Shut up. You're the worst. Go on. Go on.

[00:40:36] I also am in an increasingly paranoid spiral that it's going to see me disgraced and thrown out of this podcast. But no, in addition. So what I'm saying is.

[00:40:46] That's how I tend to do things. That's how I was taught in journalism. You want everything recorded unless it's off the record. So I guess that makes me kind of like, why don't they do that?

[00:40:58] I think my guess is that this is such an expansive investigation and so many hundreds of people were talked to and looked at that things had to get to the point of more of a formal interview for tapes to exist, because otherwise it would just be insurmountable.

[00:41:13] That's my guess. But listen, I could see making a big deal of this in front of the jury. Yeah. And keep in mind, this detective who did this interview with Holder indicates that before he did it, he was told this guy's not a suspect.

[00:41:26] So if he thought the guy was a suspect, presumably either he wouldn't have talked to him at all or he would have made a much better record.

[00:41:36] Yeah. I imagine maybe something where he's interested in some sort of odinism angle and feels this guy could fill them in on information. I don't know. I mean, who knows? We have no inside knowledge here.

[00:41:46] It's just it's definitely interesting, but I just think it doesn't state what the defense is trying to use it to state. So. On to the next piece, on to the next piece.

[00:41:59] Quote, Finally, the defense claimed that a key piece of evidence is missing an image purportedly from Brad Holder's social media that mimics the crime scene.

[00:42:08] However, the defense not only acknowledged in their motion to dismiss that the image is in their possession, but that they showed it to multiple police officers and depositions, which the officers identified as coming from Brad Holder's social media.

[00:42:20] Therefore, the defense is arguing that the change that the charges should be dismissed based upon the destruction or loss of evidence. The defense currently possesses. There's no case law supporting such an argument as stated in Chisel v. State materially exculpatory evidence.

[00:42:36] That is evidence which possesses an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed and must be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. Quoting from California v. Trumpetta, end quote.

[00:42:55] So we were talking about, you know, the letter from your great great grandfather exonerating you that's destroyed and he's dead. You can't get that back. This is something that not only. Could they get back this this photo?

[00:43:10] They did get it back and they've used it in their defense. Yeah. So it's hard to see. If you jump to the conclusion that this photo. Is relevant to the case and that's quite a conclusion to jump to.

[00:43:27] But if you do jump to that conclusion, then they have not been harmed by a lack of access to it because they have access to it and they're showing it to people in depositions.

[00:43:38] And I would also note that there's a key part here where the evidence has to be obviously exculpatory prior to its destruction. So some random Internet sleuth tipping in a guy for having a creepy Facebook page with creepy images on it is not obviously exculpatory.

[00:43:56] I would argue that it's. Not really useful at all in this situation. Yeah, I'm not sure. I did not. I really see what the relevance is. But the fact is if it is relevant, they have it. They got it.

[00:44:11] So but on both grounds, this is a weak argument. Yes. Yes, it is. All right. What's the next part?

[00:44:20] OK, so now sort of summing some things up, quote that none of this evidence that the defense says is missing and or destroyed is exculpatory evidence for the case against Richard Allen. Brad Holder is not a third party suspect.

[00:44:31] There's no evidence that ties into the murder of the victims in this case. The evidence ties Richard Allen to the murder of the victims in this case. End quote. This ties back for me to something you said at the top of the show.

[00:44:42] And that's about the defense might be doing a better job for their client if they were to focus more on Richard Allen himself. The evidence against him, elements of his story that clear him, for instance, where was he that day? Was he at work? Did he meet anyone?

[00:45:02] What time was he seen in the morning? What time was he seen at night? Like what? Talk us through his day.

[00:45:09] Like if he is accused of doing the murders between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. and then at 430 p.m. he's, you know, pristinely dressed and having a nice time and seemingly totally normal at a child's birthday party across, you know, across town.

[00:45:25] Then that's something where it makes the timeline really tight or maybe impossible. Let's hear about that. Let's hear about the bullet. What are the problems with ballistics evidence, which is being increasingly called into question by defense attorneys around the country?

[00:45:39] What are the problems with this specific type of ballistics evidence? What accounts for him telling all of these people that he's guilty and did this? You know, is there a men?

[00:45:51] I mean, one thing I'm struck by never seeing from them is if I felt my client was actually innocent. And was telling everyone under the sun a lie that he did it.

[00:46:04] Wouldn't there be some sort of like motions to I don't know, like explain that or say that he's not competent right now because he can't assist in his own defense like something. And we've not seen anything like that. I mean, it. You want to focus on your client.

[00:46:21] You don't want to just focus on the conspiracy theories. And I think it's really notable that this defense team seems like it would more more rather focus on an extremely weak theory against a man with an alibi than all of the issues facing their own client.

[00:46:38] And it makes me think that they have an extremely weak case in a reaching because that's when you do that. This guy has an alibi. The broad holder has an alibi. He wasn't at the murder scene.

[00:46:51] It's like that. I mean, it's like the equivalent of the defense yelling smoke bomb and like no one don't look over here. I mean, pay no attention to the guy confessing, you know, in his prison cell, essentially. I mean, it's it's that's what it looks like.

[00:47:05] It looks like all distractions. And I don't feel like that is the mark of strength for defense attorneys. I think a strong move by a defense team is to basically look at the brick wall that the defense that the prosecution has built and start chipping away at it.

[00:47:22] All the little cracks, all the little pieces where it doesn't quite fit together. Just chip chip chip. And I think that is where you can really do a lot of good for a client like Alan because you are dismantling the case against him.

[00:47:35] You're not focused on sloppily building your own crappy brick wall across the street and saying, huh? Pretty good, right, folks. I mean, maybe that's maybe you think that the people are more impressed by that.

[00:47:49] But I think people would be I think it would be better to go a little bit more on the offensive with with the prosecution in a real way. Do I read the next part? Sure. Quote, the state did not destroy or lose evidence purposely in bad faith.

[00:48:16] The motion to dismiss is replete with unfounded allegations and distorted and misinterpreted facts. The defense make allegations that are not true and are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. The state's responses to those false allegations are as follows.

[00:48:32] A, that the fact that Brad Holder gave different answers to how many times he met Abby Williams does not somehow make items A through H exculpatory. End quote.

[00:48:44] This is we you may remember in the last filing they said over the course of several years, Brad Holder was asked at different points how often he met Abby Williams. And his answers varied slightly. Therefore, that proves something.

[00:48:58] I'm not sure what it was meant to prove, but it proves something. And. I was thinking of this if you ask me how many times I've met your sisters, I'm sure at different times I might remember different numbers and that doesn't mean anything nefarious. No, hopefully.

[00:49:15] What are you doing? No, it's like something like that. I mean, I could see saying, oh, I met her once and then it turns out, oh, no, she came over the house briefly. I just didn't remember that. That's not a to me.

[00:49:28] Like when there are suspicious things of memory where people claim not to remember anything on a date that should be really important to them. So I do I do sometimes think, like, why wouldn't you remember that in a true crime case?

[00:49:39] But this is one of those things where I years later, that's I mean, that's ridiculous to kind of infer some sinister meaning in that, in my opinion. Quote B, there is no evidence to support the rune on Brad Holder's hand mimics the sticks found on Abby.

[00:49:57] Further, there's no evidence to support the facts outlined in the first Frank's motion. C, no portion of the October 26, 2022 interview of the defendant is missing. The defense has been provided with the entire recording.

[00:50:11] D, Lieutenant Jerry Holman did not lie in his August 10th, 2023 deposition when he answered the question, was Brad Holder a suspect with not really?

[00:50:21] No, Lieutenant Holman went on to state on the following page that Brad Holder wasn't really a suspect because the police had encountered him through Holder's son, who was a friend of the victim.

[00:50:31] And was interviewed and the investigation revealed he was at work at the time of the murders, in quote. So, yeah, Lieutenant Jerry Holman has repeatedly been attacked by the defense and accused of lying. And Prosecutor McClellan is pointing out he didn't lie. This man was not a suspect.

[00:50:52] He was had an alibi. He was at work. He was not there. The alibi holds up. We just think your suspect sucks defense.

[00:51:03] And I guess in fairness, the defense would say, well, maybe Brad Holder wasn't there, but we think it could be like a Charlie Manson sort of thing where he was still directing it somehow, even though he wasn't physically present at the crime scene.

[00:51:16] And for me that I just personally, I have a I wonder, is it a chicken or the egg first situation?

[00:51:23] Did they always assume he was Charlie Manson and he wasn't physically there or did they just jump to that conclusion after they already decided he must be guilty and then realized he wasn't there? It's brutal.

[00:51:38] Yeah, Charles Manson, of course, head of the Manson family cult notably was not present at the murder sites where he's like he's not actively participating in the murders. He just told his followers to go kill people. He was still convicted. They got him.

[00:51:53] But this is a situation where I do wonder what came first. And also, frankly, like if you're going to be a Charlie Manson in this situation, I don't know why we're calling him Charlie.

[00:52:07] If you're going to be a Charles Manson in this situation, what does that even look like? Do you tell everybody to choreographic ahead of time? Do you? I mean, we have geofencing data.

[00:52:18] Are you like texting or calling in to your fellow conspirators in the woods while they're doing it? Because if that's the case, where are their phones?

[00:52:29] And then also my question is, if you're Charles Manson and you're organizing this big ritual murder, you think there should be a pretty big deal for your faith. Why wouldn't you want to be there? It's all part of the conspiracy, Kevin.

[00:52:44] It's just to throw off some future intrepid defense attorneys who are going to bust the whole thing wide open. There's lots of things, and we'll get to another one in a minute.

[00:52:52] There's lots of things which they seem to be like hinting at and suggest something nefarious that I don't quite understand. Do you think they quite understand it? Or is it just like grasping at straws at this point? I read the next one.

[00:53:04] I feel we've talked about this click letter so many times. I can just like push a button and have you say the reply to the click letters. I'm going to push the Anya Kane click button. Click. Go.

[00:53:36] So my understanding is that Todd Click's letter, as it's described, is a product of Discovery in the sense that it is essentially summarizing things that were in police reports and other reports that are part of Discovery and stating his opinion on it. So that is not exculpatory.

[00:53:55] So if I have a bunch of evidence provided to the defense in the case where I'm accused of stealing cereal that says, well, actually, we think Anya's husband Kevin is the real thief.

[00:54:12] Right. And then I get my friend or my friend comes in and writes a letter saying, here's why I think Kevin's the real thief based on these reports. They're not adding anything new. They're just adding their voice, their opinion. That's fine. But that doesn't make it exculpatory.

[00:54:26] Did I do the button thing correctly? Is that right? I was terrified you were going to set me up of like Anya's and she knows all about this so automatic. And then I'd get it completely wrong. Get ready. There's another button push. No.

[00:54:39] Quote, The state did not attempt to conceal the identity of the Purdue professor, nor does his testimony contradict the testimony of Lieutenant Holman. This professor, Dr. Turco, has stated under oath that it is the defense who has mischaracterized his testimony rather than Lieutenant Holman.

[00:54:57] In quote, I'm going before I push the Turco button, just in fairness, sometimes we point out typos and the defense things. Prosecutor McClain did spell Professor Turco's name wrong with that said, in fairness, you also said Lieutenant as Lieutenant. So everybody, everybody, everybody messes up mistakes.

[00:55:16] But the spelling of Turco on the Turco button is accurate. So I'm going to push the onion cane Turco button now go. Jesus comes so high stakes. So I would say, oh, my God. Okay, this baffles me.

[00:55:33] Turco basically came out in a previous prosecution filing and said that the defense completely misrepresented everything he said. And that Lieutenant Holman more accurately described his feelings on matter. The fact that the defense continues to trot out somebody who basically called them liars is so baffling to me.

[00:55:53] I don't know what to make of it. If that happened to me, I'm not a lawyer, but if that happened to me, I would be so embarrassed. I would just like forget that guy's name. Who's Turco? I don't know. Don't worry about that and find someone else.

[00:56:06] They continue to bring him up like it's like, oh, yeah, this guy. And it's like the guy who said you basically misrepresented what he said. So I mean, like, I'm so I don't I guess I don't know if it's like a I don't get it.

[00:56:19] I really don't get it. I don't know why you would bring in someone so damaging continuously. And then you're allowing the prosecution to also bring him in response to you and remind everyone that you got it wrong at the very least.

[00:56:30] At the at the best, the best explanation is that you were just so enthralled by like two sentences that Turco said that you just blacked out for the rest of his conversation and then put that in.

[00:56:43] And it was an innocent mistake, even though, you know, it was negligent. And then the other explanation is that you just completely twisted around what he was saying because he wanted to give a false impression of what he was saying. Why do you keep bringing that up?

[00:56:55] The state had no reason to hide someone who is essentially backing them up. I don't understand. I think you press the wrong button. You press the button that gives me a mental breakdown whenever I think, you know, too much about some of the stupidity in this case.

[00:57:13] The mental breakdown button is also known as the let's do an episode of the latest court filings. Yeah. I mean, I don't know. I told you what I think about Turco. You're a man of the law. What do you think about this? Why would you do this?

[00:57:33] Why would the defense keep why would the defense keep Turco's name in their mouth as the as the kids say? I don't know. There's no reason. There's no reason. It doesn't make any sense. Just stop. It's like it.

[00:57:48] I mean, there's certain things that the defense has done where I'm like, listen, I don't I don't really think that's true, but I can understand why they're going for that or like I can see their point.

[00:57:59] And and then there's things like this where it's just like my head spins because I just don't understand it. I don't know why you would be bringing up a guy who basically shattered your credibility. Yeah. And also made it clear for other possible expert witnesses like be careful.

[00:58:17] You know, because, you know, you might talk to them and say something completely nuanced and that's not what they'll hear. And I think we did an episode recently in an interview with Lauren Crow, who's part of the Troth, a wonderful heathen organization.

[00:58:33] They the defense team reached out to her obviously because they needed an expert witness to replace Turco to replace Turco. So they had Turco in the bag and they don't.

[00:58:42] So I'm not even sure it feels like a lot of their theories about the case are founded on their understanding of Odin ism and whatever their understanding of Odin ism is, it doesn't seem to be based on anything they've heard from any experts.

[00:59:01] They've had this problem in other areas to a less extreme degree, I believe. They didn't seem to understand what geofencing was or what it entailed. They have had a lot of problems with phone pings and phone location data.

[00:59:13] And it makes me wonder if some of the kind of extreme things they're claiming are just based on their own misinterpretation of data. This is why you do want to have experts, you know, to help you. Right. I mean, you and I are not attorneys.

[00:59:31] You're an attorney, but I'm not. We're not doing any cases.

[00:59:33] But when when some technical thing comes up or like DNA comes up and we don't really have that background, we often try to talk to people who do behind the scenes or on the show so we can improve our own understanding of it.

[00:59:45] So we don't just come out and be like phone pings. And then people be like, that's not how it works. Even when we're trying our best, sometimes we may miss a nuanced detail.

[00:59:53] Sometimes we might say something and then people in the field reach out and say, well, I understand why you thought that, but it's actually this. And you have to be open to that feedback and you have to be open to the kind of, you know, experts.

[01:00:07] And some of this stuff makes me wonder what. And not even just in a legal situation, all of us in our day to day life, there are things we know about. There are things we don't know about. And we rely on experts to help guide us.

[01:00:23] God knows if something ever goes wrong with my car, I have no idea what the problem is. I'll just say, oh, it done broke and I need someone to come and assess it and help me figure out what the problem is and get it repaired.

[01:00:36] Anya would never trust me to go under the hood and try to fix a car. You come out and tell us, tell me that an odinous broke our motor, then I'm definitely, there's definitely be some issues.

[01:00:46] You know, it's one of those things where, as you said, you know, think back to your job. You know, like what sort of ins and outs do the general public not know about your specific job?

[01:00:58] And then think of a bunch of people were constantly on the Internet saying, well, my feeling about this person's job or people in this job would do this. And they have no idea what they're talking about.

[01:01:07] That is, unfortunately, a large degree true crime discourse where it's like people being like that seems bad. And then you look into it and it's totally normal. Or like I mean, and that's that's an issue with the law, with law enforcement, with investigation, with everything.

[01:01:22] The science. It's not new. But when you have people who have, first of all, access to the discovery in a high profile case, but also the access to experts and the ability to do that,

[01:01:38] then it really is pretty baffling some of what's happened in this case on the defense side, particularly. I'm going to move on. Quote, G, the state did not intentionally delay providing the extraction data from the Germans phone nor did the state conceal exculpatory evidence from said phone.

[01:01:57] H, the state did not conceal a report involving documented communication between Carroll County Prosecutor Office Investigator Steve Mullen and Indian State Police Trooper Blocker. Nor is the information in the communication in any way exculpatory or even potentially useful.

[01:02:14] I'll admit I will. I did not remember what this blocker communication was. So I said, Anya, tell me what the blocker communication is. And you whose your mind is like a computer, you just push a button and any detail will come up.

[01:02:30] I said, Anya, I'm pushing the blocker button. What is this blocker communication? They were referring to. I didn't remember it either. And also I'm trying to build you up here to build me up under falsehoods. Then you're no different from the defense of this case.

[01:02:45] You know, I think I the button that I pressed was command find in the defense's previous motion. So they talked about on April 26, 2024, the defense received a report from the state of Indiana concerning the findings of Indiana State Police Sergeant Mitch Blocker.

[01:03:03] And they claim that it contained exculpatory information concerning ping information that supports that on February 13th, 2017. The victims were not located at the same scene as they were found on February 14th, 2017. So they're saying that this was exculpatory.

[01:03:19] Honestly, this is something that would have really interested me probably like six months ago, perhaps maybe maybe a year ago.

[01:03:27] At this point, I don't have trust in this defense team to basically accurately represent what data says in this case, based on some of the things with geofencing and phone pings. So I guess I you know, there's a lot of theorizing that goes on in Delphi.

[01:03:42] I'm sure you all know that some people who are really, really adamant that the bodies had to be moved. I'm incredibly skeptical of their claims, but I guess they get a little thrill of a lifetime from stuff like this.

[01:03:53] So I think that probably is behind some of it. That's not just the sound of that first sip of morning Joe. It's the sound of someone shopping for a car on Carvana from the comfort of home. That's a good blend.

[01:04:07] It's time to take it easy, like answering some easy questions to get prequalified for a car in minutes. Talk about starting the morning right. Just like customizing your terms so your car fits your budget.

[01:04:19] Visit Carvana.com or download the app to experience car shopping the way it should be. Convenient, comfortable. That's not just the sound of that first sip of morning Joe. It's the sound of someone shopping for a car on Carvana from the comfort of home. That's a good blend.

[01:04:37] It's time to take it easy, like answering some easy questions to get prequalified for a car in minutes. Talk about starting the morning right. Just like customizing your terms so your car fits your budget.

[01:04:49] Visit Carvana.com or download the app to experience car shopping the way it should be. Convenient, comfortable. Okay, picture this. It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[01:05:03] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever, or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road. With available H-track all-wheel drive and three-row seating, my whole family can head deep into the wild.

[01:05:16] Conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe. Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Hyundai. There's joy in every journey. Well, the defense's conclusion that six and a half years after a complex criminal investigation began,

[01:05:36] officers had different recollections of what other officers believed during the investigation is somehow proof of a conspiracy to conceal officers' actual belief is very strange. The state does not know how that would ever be exculpatory or even potentially useful in the prosecution of Richard Allen for murder."

[01:05:56] This feels like the state through McCleland is sort of indicating in a much more outright way than normal that they feel like the defense is lapsing into conspiracy theory territory. I don't even understand. I'm with McCleland here.

[01:06:11] I don't understand if people have, if I don't remember what you thought about something three years ago, how does that prove a conspiracy about anything? It doesn't.

[01:06:25] I mean, I think they are lapsing into conspiracy theory territory, and I think it's a lot more overt than they seem to think. I think they feel that if they kind of do things that are perceived as aggressive, like dismiss the case, let our client go,

[01:06:40] then people will see them as operating from a place of strength. But when you actually read the filings, that's not at all my interpretation of what they're doing. This last bit refers to, we all remember that officer of the DNI, Dan Doolin,

[01:06:58] did an interview shortly after the murders with Richard Allen. This refers to that, quote, Department of Natural Resources officer Dan Doolin testified that he prepared a written report of his interview of the defendant,

[01:07:13] but could not locate any evidence that he had recorded his interview with the defendant and therefore believes he did not record it. However, he testified that he prepared his written report very soon after his interview and would have had no reason to destroy the recording. End quote.

[01:07:28] So I'm very, this is one of the things that confuses me, is what exactly is the defense's allegation here? Are they saying there was no interview? Dan Doolin and the police fabricated this interview years after the fact.

[01:07:48] Are they saying, oh, there was an interview and in that interview, Richard Allen said some very exculpatory things. Yeah, that's it. And there's no record of that. So in the dismissal, in the dismissal, the defense writes, quote,

[01:08:03] The defense believes that Richard Allen was tape recorded and that the missing tape supports intentionality on the part of law enforcement and or evidence of bad faith. End quote. So they're saying we do believe that Doolin interviewed Allen and he tape recorded it.

[01:08:16] And there is a tape that was then lost or destroyed on purpose by law enforcement. But what are they saying? Why they would do that is what I'm asking.

[01:08:23] If there was an actual interview, are we asked to believe that Richard Allen said something so exculpatory on this recording that years before the arrest, Dan Doolin said, oh, I better delete this and destroy this. What do they imagine?

[01:08:40] What do they want us to believe Richard Allen said in this interview that is so exculpatory that officers had no choice but to destroy it? And then also Richard Allen is still, as far as we know, the defense hasn't suggested otherwise. He's still a sound mind.

[01:09:00] Why not just talk to him and say, Richard, right? They call him Rick. Richard, why don't you tell us what it was that you said in this interview so they can still get that information and depose Doolin? What what do they what are they suggesting?

[01:09:16] Richard Allen said in this interview that was so important and so incendiary that it had to be destroyed. Hey, Dan, remember I saw you there that day and we watched a parade of high profile figures in Odin's garb walking down the trail. Wasn't that wild? Anyways, bye.

[01:09:32] Yeah, I mean, that that would be the dream of the conspiracy theorists, I guess. But the whole thing seems incredibly weak. I think if Doolin was going around telling people, yeah, I taped him and then I destroyed the tapes. I don't know. Maybe that would be something.

[01:09:47] But barring barring there being any indication that there ever was a tape. I mean, here's the thing. Doolin can say I was tape recording most of my interviews. I remember tape recording some of them. Well, guess what? We all we all make mistakes. And we all have.

[01:10:02] I mean, certainly I've been in situations just prior to. Doing the podcast, I remember I was working on a story for my previous employer and tape a call failed on one of my calls.

[01:10:15] It was a nightmare and I had to redo an interview, but I didn't realize it until later on when I was looking for it. And I'm like, where is this? And then it was the whole thing. So it's happened with podcasts that's happened with podcast interviews.

[01:10:27] There can be issues. There can be critical failures.

[01:10:29] There can just be it's early in the morning and I kind of forgot, you know, I mean, and again, those are all things that you can criticize the law enforcement on in trial that can maybe win over a jury of saying, well, they did this kind of sloppily.

[01:10:40] So maybe we have some reasonable doubt. You can do that, but evidence of a conspiracy to the point where you need to throw out charges. No. And then I'm also curious. This whole thing really, really confuses me.

[01:10:53] If there is a conspiracy to frame Richard Allen because he happened to say he was there and then somewhere were close. If this conspiracy existed, why wasn't he framed seven years ago right after the Stan Doolittle interview? I'm sure there's some dumb explanation that people put.

[01:11:17] Did they say, oh, we have a hunch that a few years from now, there's going to be a share of selection. Yeah, they were saving in the bank so they could they could win the share of selection, obviously. And we're being sarcastic here.

[01:11:29] This honestly, honestly, I just don't understand it. I think you're not really supposed to think too much about it. I think you're just supposed to go based on vibes. I think that's what they want. Well, we've said this for the case to be dismissed.

[01:11:43] The evidence has to be either materially exculpatory or potentially useful. You can't get it from any other source. So what was it that they think he said in this interview that was so important and would be so helpful to them, they no longer able to get?

[01:11:58] And is the implication Richard Allen is no longer of sound mind? He's not able to tell us what he said? Well, you know what?

[01:12:04] If he's no longer of sound mind, then they have an obligation to file that into the case, create a record and explain his incriminating statements, his litany of incriminating statements, and explain why he can no longer participate in his own defense.

[01:12:17] Because that needs to be then taken care of. And the fact that they haven't done anything around that makes me think that he is of sound mind and there's no reasonable mental health explanation for this.

[01:12:28] If you want me to believe there is a conspiracy, not just in this case, but in any case, I want you to point to the specific acts that further the conspiracy and explain they did this and they did this for this reason.

[01:12:44] And I'm not sure I understand why Doolin destroying a recording of an interview with Richard Allen would benefit the conspiracy. Yeah, it seems like most explanations that one could come up with would be extremely far fetched and based on no evidence, based on speculation.

[01:13:02] And we do have a written record of it. So are they suggesting that the written record is inaccurate or I don't even know? It gives me a headache. Well, frankly, this is the problem with conspiracy theories.

[01:13:15] When you are attacking law enforcement, I feel like incompetence is a better route to go in general unless you have evidence of some sort of conspiracy because incompetence can account for mistakes and can lessen a jury's confidence in law enforcement to get the right guy.

[01:13:30] And that can be helpful to a defense team. But it doesn't require some sort of intentionality because it feels like half the defense is like these bumbling Keystone cops are just they don't know what they're doing.

[01:13:40] And then half of it is like this is kind of alluding to a sinister, odinous led conspiracy or conspiracy to seize power in a county and like and it's like, which is it? It can't be both. Yeah.

[01:13:57] And then there's like people who try to do it both ways and they're like, no, no, the conspiracy is to cover up the incompetence. Yeah.

[01:14:03] OK, so we have like like multiple different law enforcement departments in on that so that a couple of people won't get yelled at or maybe like not get promoted. I mean, like what? Like what? Like, do you hear yourselves? Like, that's not how this works.

[01:14:22] No one's going to go on the line to save somebody else from I mean, like from what? I mean, like getting told that they did a bad job. I don't know. The whole thing doesn't make any freaking sense. So much. I don't understand. Yep.

[01:14:40] Let's get back to the document. K quote K. The image of the defense believe is a mimicked crime scene image is not missing. The defense is in possession of the image is quote. Yeah, it is important of this.

[01:14:56] This mimicked crime scene image is a mimicked crime scene in image in the minds of the defense. Mimic is doing a lot of work in that sentence. It is not clear if it isn't actually is a mimicked crime scene picture. Yeah, that's worth stressing.

[01:15:16] I'm surprised he even the thing is one thing that's been interesting in this in this and actually true crime in general is like sometimes I'll see headlines like in another case and it'll the headline will run completely with the defense wording or the defense phraseology that they use like prosecutors throws a temper tantrum or like you'll see it run with like the police's statements like criminal was a total monster and that kind of gives you a sense of like.

[01:15:41] It gives power to whatever side is language you're running with.

[01:15:44] So I think it's a mistake for McClellan frankly to be calling this a mimicked crime scene image because that gives credence to what the defense is claiming which is that only the killer would know to put this on his Facebook and I really think that that for me personally is doubtful back to the document.

[01:16:08] Quote the Brad holder is a key third party suspect is false. Again, there is no evidence time Brad holder to the crime. The defense cannot meet its burden to even alleged that he is a third party suspect unquote.

[01:16:24] So basically he's saying this guy is not a suspect and it's also a bit of a warning shot because he's saying you can't meet the burden to even say this guy is a third party suspect.

[01:16:37] So that is an indication that McClellan is really going to fight to keep holders name out of the trial because you can only mention him in the trial. If there was evidence suggesting he could be involved in the crime and he is saying there's not.

[01:16:55] I mean, I think there is something that makes me very, very uncomfortable about dragging in alternate suspects into a high profile case like this based on what in my view based on reading all these filings and really trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[01:17:17] Sparse evidence, I would even argue maybe less than that. And I think when you have someone who is a reasonable alternate suspect. You have to do what you have to do in order to defend your client, but something like this. It feels like.

[01:17:35] They had better suspects available to them. You know, I mean, sitting right there and they went with this and they've named a bunch of people and it's not even clear that they will even be allowed in trial because it's that week.

[01:17:51] And there's something I think regardless of how we feel about. Needing to go, you know, put in a lot of passion and effort to defend your client.

[01:18:00] I think there's something a bit morally at the very least ambiguous to me about that basically accusing other people of child murder. Based on what on basically.

[01:18:13] Creepy Facebook presence plus like marginal relationship with one of the victims and not based on anything around like being at the crime scene or not having an alibi. I think I don't know. It just seems like ethically dubious on some level.

[01:18:30] No matter what your feeling is about the actual innocence or guilt of Richard Allen. I think one thing is clear and that is that the evidence we've seen tying Richard Allen to the crime is a lot more substantial and a lot more convincing than any evidence.

[01:18:54] We've seen time Brad holder the crime. I completely agree. I'm not saying that means Richard Allen is guilty of the crime. I'm just saying if you're going around saying all the evidence against Richard Allen is so weak.

[01:19:09] It has to be this guy in the evident in that guy. The evidence is weaker. That's a difficult argument to make in my mind, but you know, but frankly, this underscores the issue with third party suspects in general.

[01:19:21] If you have a really good third party suspect, that can be a huge boon because the jury doesn't necessarily want to let anyone off the hook for child murder. So you're giving them someone else to say, hey, it's this one and you can blame someone.

[01:19:36] But in the absence of a really, really solid third party perpetrator, I think it's better to attack the state's case. Keep it in the state's court, force them to justify each little mistake. They made force them to justify each piece of evidence that maybe doesn't quite get there.

[01:19:56] So that's that's why we have an issue because when you stack up Brad holder against Richard Allen, it's not even close. It's not even close. Obviously, Allen isn't a significantly stronger suspect than holder. And it's frankly ridiculous to act otherwise.

[01:20:16] And this feels like people working on this case don't really realize how bad Richard Allen situation is if they think that let's throw him holder, you know, throw in some Odin ism, razzmatazz. And then, oh, well, he's confessing constantly and his bullets at the scene and all.

[01:20:33] And he says he was there. That's fine. And he basically looks and sounds like the guy on the video. I mean, yeah, that's not gonna.

[01:20:44] That's not going to that doesn't seem like it would cut it unless you really happen to do a really good job in voir dire picking people who like conspiracy theories, which maybe is the goal. But I think that seems a little bit desperate.

[01:21:00] I think you shouldn't necessarily rely on that. Oh, that's putting it kindly. Yes. Anything else we wanted to say? No, maybe I conclude with repeating what I said early on. This case is not going to be dismissed. So it's important to talk about filings and take them seriously.

[01:21:21] And obviously, Nick McLeelan had to spend time preparing and researching and writing this filing. But it's. To some extent, it's a waste of time because we all know it's not going to be dismissed. Do you think the real conspiracy here is to waste all of our time?

[01:21:37] There you go. Well, thank you all so much for listening. We really appreciate you guys and we'll be back soon, I'm sure, with more discussions. Thank you. Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet.

[01:21:55] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murder sheet at Gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:22:36] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the murder sheet and who you can find on the Web at Kevin TG dot com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook.

[01:22:54] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.