The Delphi Murders: Three Days of Pretrial Hearings: Day One

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

[00:00:11] and enhance your every day with our excellent sponsor, Via Hemp. This is a company that crafts award-winning premium THC and THC-free gummies. Each of these gummies is especially designed to cultivate a specific mood. Whether you're looking to get relaxed, get quality sleep,

[00:00:29] get creative, or just to get focused. If you're 21 or older, you can experience it for yourself and get 15% off your first order with our exclusive code, MSHEET at viahemp.com. That's V-I-I-A-H-E-M-P.com. I personally enjoyed their Grapefruit Flowstate gummies. This CBG and CBD powerhouse really helped

[00:00:55] me tap into my productivity. Like, we have had an extremely busy summer, and I feel Flowstate got me over the finish line a few times when I was editing multiple episodes a day, digging through

[00:01:05] documents, and knocking out a bunch of interviews. Via Hemp does not require a medical card, and it ships legally to all 50 states. It's also affordable, and even more so for Murder Sheet

[00:01:16] listeners who get a special deal. If you're 21 and older, head to viahemp.com and use code MSHEET to receive 15% off. That's V-I-I-A-H-E-M-P.com and use code MSHEET at checkout. After you purchase,

[00:01:34] they ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Enhance your every day with Viah. Content warning. This episode includes discussion of the murder

[00:01:46] of two children. So today is the first day of three different hearings, or I guess days of hearings in the Delphi murders case. Of course, we're talking about the murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams, two Delphi teenagers from Indiana who were murdered in 2017. And the man

[00:02:09] accused of murdering them is a man named Richard Allen. So today, basically we had like a marathon pre-trial session. Basically, today we basically had three different hearings, and tomorrow we'll have another couple, and the day after that we'll have another couple. And we're going to tell you

[00:02:30] about what we saw and heard. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting,

[00:02:43] interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is The Delphi Murders. Three days of pre-trial hearings, day one. So when we do these court reports, I think we often try to

[00:03:43] start by giving you what the headlines would be. And I think that it's really kind of tough to find a headline today because I think a lot of what we heard is very similar to stuff we've heard before,

[00:03:55] although I think you'll find as we go along there's some more details here and there that are very interesting. Yeah, I agree with Kevin. I think the details here are going to be really interesting

[00:04:06] for some of you to chew on and consider. We're going to hear from some new people. But as far as the sort of as the kids say TLDR, as far as the big groundbreaking news that everyone can take

[00:04:20] away from it, I don't think there was any. In fact, I feel like I've heard essentially 99% of what was discussed today before ad nauseum. So that was my takeaway. But keep listening, folks. Well, keep listening because you might find some interest within the details. But we also don't

[00:04:40] want to set you up to think, oh, wow, this is going to be such a huge revelation. No, that's not what we that's not in our opinion. That's not what we experienced in the very least. Maybe I'm

[00:04:50] very tired and jaded right now, but that's just my take. This is trivial. But speaking of new details, the very first thing on my in my notes is Nick McClellan now has a mustache.

[00:05:03] What? Why is that the first thing in your notes? Well, I mean, before the hearing started, we actually had quite a bit of time before the hearing started, because first of all,

[00:05:11] of course, because Ania and I are crazy. We got in line at 5 a.m. for a 10 a.m. hearing. And then unfortunately, Judge Gull got caught in some construction traffic. And so she didn't arrive to open court until after 11. So while we were waiting, especially between 10 and 11,

[00:05:32] all of the attorneys and stuff were buzzing around the courtroom. So I had plenty of time to notice things like that. Yes. And we noticed it's kind of two teams have sort of formed when

[00:05:43] it's the prosecution and the defense at this point. So I'm going to mention them all here so you don't get confused when we talk about them. Heaven mentioned the now mustachioed Nick McClellan. He is the Carroll County prosecutor. He is assisted by James Latrell, one of the other

[00:05:58] prosecutors, and Stacey Diener, another prosecutor. And at the other table, we have Andrew Baldwin, as well as Bradley Rosie, and now Jennifer Oje, who's been added to their team. So it's three v

[00:06:10] three. And I guess two men and one woman in each team. They're kind of balanced out. And that's who we saw. I also believe that we saw Matthew Hoffman in the first row of sort of in

[00:06:26] front of us in terms of people who are there kind of supporting the defense, along with some assistants and people like that. And of course, Kathy Allen and Richard Allen's mother were there. They're typically there at these hearings to support Richard Allen. Richard Allen came in.

[00:06:42] Oftentimes, people want to know sort of how he appeared because there's been, you know, in the past, unfortunately, drastic changes to his appearance that were very alarming to behold. This time around, I would say no huge changes. His sort of beard and hair all kind of shaved.

[00:06:58] He was wearing an orange jumpsuit with the words with the letters XL on the back and marker. And as he came in, he was sort of he does this thing where he's kind of like looking around

[00:07:10] and everybody's looking up. He's kind of I think if you were being unkind, you could call it shifty. Maybe if you were being more sympathetic, he just kind of nervous in an odd way. But that was sort of

[00:07:24] what he was doing coming into things. When he sat down, he was given a pen and there were a couple of times where he seemed to be writing something. Obviously, he had no idea what he was writing.

[00:07:35] He also at times was like looking up at the ceiling. He was like nodding his head vigorously even before there was any court hearings beginning, like almost as if he was like

[00:07:46] bopping along to some music that only he could hear. That's what I thought, too. And they also, I should note, they uncuffed him for this. So once he sat down, his wrist manacles were removed.

[00:07:58] Another thing about Richard Allen is that sometimes in these hearings, he seems almost to be in a world of his own. But before the hearings even began, there were a couple of people a row

[00:08:11] so behind us who started like loudly laughing. I'm not sure why, but both Andrew Baldwin and Richard Allen like turned and glared at them. So at the very least, Richard Allen was cognizant

[00:08:24] of his surroundings to that extent. Yeah, Richard Allen sometimes seems to look out of the crowd whether or not there's any sort of external stimuli. And I would say glare. I don't know if

[00:08:33] that's the intent. I don't know if there's any sort of like negative intent with it or if it's just more of a squint. But it looks like a glare to me. He'll kind of glare out and stare at people

[00:08:43] who are sitting there. And you know, it's interesting. I've caught his eye a few times. I know I think other people have. It's just you don't know if he's feeling what he's feeling.

[00:08:53] I mean, is he feeling embarrassed? Is he feeling upset that people are there to see this? Is he just looking out and maybe he's having a hard time seeing and is just trying to kind of focus?

[00:09:03] I don't know, but it's interesting. When Gull came in, court opened at 1114, I believe. She blamed the construction traffic and she got things moving pretty quickly. And she actually started by doing something that I found incredibly helpful. She basically gave us kind of a scorecard or a

[00:09:23] schedule for the next couple of days. So today she announced we would be handling the motion for safekeeping, motion to compel and sanctions, and motion to dismiss. Tomorrow, Wednesday, we will be handling two different motions to suppress. And then on Thursday, the final day

[00:09:41] of these three days of hearings, we'll be hearing the motion of admissibility and some motions and limiting. So before we get started, I'm just like, let's go over the checklist of what is what both

[00:09:54] sides want from today. So should we do that by each motion as we start? I'm going to give him a little I'll give him a little teaser, you know, give him a razzle dazzle. So, number one,

[00:10:05] safekeeping order. The defense is asking for Richard Allen to be moved to the Cass County jail. Once again, this may sound familiar to some of you. Number two, what was the second one again?

[00:10:19] This is why I wanted to do it one at a time. Motion to compel and sanctions, discovery issues. Discovery issues. And motion to dismiss is obviously throw the case out. Right. So why don't we

[00:10:32] just talk about the motion to vacate the safekeeping order, which is on you so eloquently described is basically means the defense wants to move Richard Allen to Cass County jail as opposed to being in the Department of Corrections where he is now. Yes. Department of Corrections, for those

[00:10:50] of you who need some refresher, that is prison. So typically, prison is reserved for people who have been convicted of a crime and jail is for people who have not yet been convicted of a crime.

[00:11:01] Oversimplifying it, there are different exceptions to that rule, but that is typically how it goes. So because of the safekeeping order, Allen early on in the case was handed over to the Indiana

[00:11:13] Department of Correction. And first he was housed in Westville. Then he was later moved to Wabash Valley. That's where he is now. So the defense has long argued that this isn't fair. The

[00:11:23] prosecution has indicated at times that they don't really care where he is, but they don't want him to be assaulted or harmed in some sort of general population situation, either in a prison or a jail.

[00:11:35] And that they've also indicated that he has been on suicide watch at different times. So that would also mean that he has special requirements to keep him safe, not only from others, but himself.

[00:11:49] So the first witness they called to consider this was Sheriff Tony Liggett of Carroll County. Do you want to discuss what he said or do you want me to go through that or how do you want to do that?

[00:11:59] Yeah, I mean, we can kind of go back and forth. Why don't you start? So the defense calls Tony Liggett. And this back and forth was really not as contentious as one would expect. Tony Liggett over time has been one of the main targets law enforcement-wise from this

[00:12:20] defense team, where they're saying he did a bad job with the investigation. Allegations have swirled from the defense towards him. But in this, it really was more about his status as sheriff and as sheriff being the one to basically Carroll County is responsible for Richard Allen. And so

[00:12:39] he's there to speak to in his capacity of sheriff what works for him, what doesn't. And basically, he was saying, as has been said before, that Carroll County does not have the

[00:12:51] facilities to keep Richard Allen and keep him safe in their jail. And so Brad Rosey was the one handling the direct examination. He was saying things like, well, you know, when Richard Allen

[00:13:06] was turned over to the care of the Department of Corrections, of course, that was done without a hearing, wasn't it? And Sheriff Liggett agreed with that. Sheriff Liggett indicated he hasn't visited Richard Allen's cell at Westville. He's not visited his cell in Wabash. Currently,

[00:13:25] during these hearings, Richard Allen is being housed at the Cass County Jail. And Sheriff Liggett indicated that was probably an arrangement that could be made permanent without much fuss. He had a couple of logistical concerns. Apparently, if correct me if I misunderstood this,

[00:13:46] but apparently if Cass County has a Carroll County prisoner in their custody and there's some sort of medical issue, then typically Cass County would call Carroll County and say, you got to deal with

[00:14:00] this. And they say, well, Sheriff Liggett said, well, we couldn't deal with it if it was like Richard Allen. But that seemed like a minor thing. And overall, I think my impression was Sheriff Liggett would be fine if Richard Allen stayed at Cass County.

[00:14:16] This is a direct quote. Quote, I don't care where he's at. So Sheriff Liggett there was indicating that he has no strong preference for Allen being anywhere in particular as long as he's safe. And one thing to note, and this is something that became clear in this exchange,

[00:14:37] is that Richard Allen currently as part of these hearings is being held in Cass County Jail. So he is there now. And what the defense is saying, listen, if he's there now for this three-day

[00:14:47] hearing, why don't we just keep him there permanently? And again, Liggett didn't seem to mind that. And what Kevin mentioned, I got the sense almost like if Cass County takes on a Carroll County prisoner and there's like a violent incident or some sort of mess is created, Cass

[00:15:07] County will call them and say, come get your man basically. And Liggett saying, is there a way we could do this where that couldn't happen? Where if there was a problem, he would be once again sent

[00:15:17] back to Indiana Department of Correction. And so interestingly, Rosie indicated, well, actually, we would be fine with instead of taking away the safekeeping order to modify it to allow for that. So much more of a- Yeah. It seems like there's some compromise possible there.

[00:15:36] There wasn't the typical contentiousness here. And actually, Rosie indicated that he and Liggett had been speaking about this previously. So there seems to have been some discussion of this. So it wasn't the kind of fiery open that you might expect.

[00:15:51] But when it came time for Prosecutor McClellan to make his argument based on all of this, he did point out, well, we've kind of discussed all of this last June in June of 2023. Nothing's

[00:16:05] really changed since then. We don't really care where he is, but we feel that nothing has really changed since June of last year. And for that time, the decision was made to keep him where he is in

[00:16:19] the Department of Correction. Why does there need to be a change? And then he went on to say, basically, I believe the only reason the defense wants him to be moved to Cass County would be because that would make it more convenient for Brad Rosie to visit him.

[00:16:34] Yes. And Rosie did kind of acknowledge that. But he also indicated that that's important because it will help Richard Allen, the assistant in his defense more. He also acknowledged, Rosie acknowledged that putting him in GenPOP would be a disaster. And McClellan did raise an

[00:16:53] issue, I believe, around GenPOP about if we basically nullify, if we take away the safekeeping order now, he automatically goes to Carroll County GenPOP. And that's where he'll have to go first until arrangements are made for Cass County. And basically, that would be super dangerous.

[00:17:14] He also indicated that, according to McClellan, that, and this has all been, again, litigated before, this is nothing new, that Cass County has significantly less robust mental health resources for Richard Allen and less medical resources for Richard Allen. I believe in some

[00:17:33] cases there's no assigned staff and maybe someone's on call for 12 hours a day and they might come if you call them. And the cells would be significantly, no significant increase in size

[00:17:45] or anything like that. So I think his indication is that Cass County could be worse. I got the sense that McClellan's role in this was not so much to say don't change anything as much as it

[00:17:56] was to essentially push back against the defense's earlier contention that the state, be it the Carroll County Sheriff's Office or McClellan himself or IDOC, is doing something horrible and wrong by keeping him in the Department of Correction. I think it's mostly to push back against that for

[00:18:19] the record because if he just says, if the defense basically comes out and says they're doing this to torture him and drive him insane and McClellan's like, we have no objection, then it's sort of,

[00:18:29] you know, maybe letting that go unchallenged. And also I think it's kind of easy to like almost laugh and make fun of Rosie. Oh, Rosie just wants him moved because that'd be making it easier for Rosie.

[00:18:42] But I think Brad Rosie did actually make, to my mind, a very good point, which is that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel and your right to counsel is something that, you know,

[00:18:56] it's absolute. But at some point, your right to counsel, what does it mean if you're being kept so far away from your attorney that he can almost never visit and consult with you? At some point,

[00:19:07] it becomes meaningless. I don't know where that point is, but at some point it becomes meaningless. So, well, yeah, I think so. And I think actually Rosie did a pretty good job with this overall. I think I think McClellan's response was good. It was very clear headed,

[00:19:22] but I feel like Rosie overall made a good argument. And I think honestly, going with a more conciliatory approach allowed him to really hammer the law more and allowed him to really hammer the sort of this works in everybody's favor. This doesn't have to be a problem approach.

[00:19:39] So I thought he handled that well. Sometimes it's actually better to just come at it from that angle rather than to be very aggressive about it, because I think when he came at it from a more aggressive angle, it became a question of, well, is Richard Allen really

[00:19:55] being abused in Westville or is he being given like, you know, replacement tablets when he's breaking them, which no other prisoner is afforded? So you're losing the point there. Here, he's just making the point of like, this doesn't hurt anybody. This is better for him,

[00:20:11] better for us, better for everyone. Let's do it. So I think that was a solid move for him. Then at the end, Judge Goel had a question. She said, well, basically, I think we can all agree

[00:20:23] that the statutes and the laws of Indiana give me the power to move a person from the custody of the county to the custody of the state. But do I even have the power to do the reverse and take someone

[00:20:37] from the state and give them back to the county? And Rosie cited some laws and indicated that yes, she does. So I would not be surprised if Richard Allen ended up in Cass County for the duration. HOST 1 Dare I include my own opinion in this, but I think

[00:20:55] that seems like it was well argued, and I don't really see the downside of him being in Cass County based on what was argued here and based on the fact that no one from Liggett to McClellan

[00:21:06] made any serious objections about like, oh, that would be bad. It sounds like Cass County Sheriff Edward Schroeder is up to the challenge. And it also sounds like there could be a way of doing

[00:21:17] this so you're not accidentally sending him to Carroll County GenPOP for a day that could turn into something disastrous. You don't want that happening, obviously. HOST 1 Should we move on to the next one? HOST 2 Let's do it. So

[00:21:30] next one is the motion to compel motion for sanctions. This, as we indicated earlier, involves discovery issues. The defense is saying they're not giving us everything they should be giving us, make them give that to us. That's what the motion to compel part is. The motion for

[00:21:48] sanction is well, a lot of this stuff that they should have given us, you know, they gave it to us really, really late. And they did so in a bad way. So they need to be punished.

[00:22:00] Yeah, is that basically it? Yeah. I don't know how much you want to get into the weeds. HOST 2 Let's get into the weeds, babe. That's what this show's about. HOST 1 Okay, why don't you tell us about the Google stuff that Miss OJ was talking about,

[00:22:15] Miss OJ for the defense. HOST 2 Yeah, Miss OJ, Jennifer OJ took on the role of sort of leading this one for the defense. And she started off talking about how in seven years, you can expect there to be a lot of discovery to

[00:22:29] go through. And in this case, she said there are 26 terabytes and listed all the different like hard drives, DVDs, etc. And she stressed, that's fine. You know, this is all fine. But basically what her arguments boiled down to were one about the organization of the information

[00:22:49] and two about the timeliness. So one of the files, this was discussed a lot at times, honestly, I had a hard time following. HOST 2 Which is why I suggested not getting quite into the weeds on it. It's about what some sort of data from Google. HOST 1

[00:23:04] Yeah, this is a Google warrant. This is all sort of the devices, I believe in the area during a certain time span and by the era, I believe it was the crime scene. I believe that's what

[00:23:15] they were talking about. So you go to Google and you get, you know, this information. HOST 2 Wasn't there talk about how in one particular drive or disk, there was over 48,000 files, and over 600 of them were named only by numbers. HOST 1

[00:23:32] Yes, they're making a point about how difficult this is to navigate. And based on what they said, I can understand why they feel that way. It's a lot. It's a lot. And it's not necessarily, it's certainly not labeled as here's the important thing you need guys. It's labeled

[00:23:48] by number. It's kind of all thrown in together. That's the way it is. So a lot of her discussion of the Google warrants and whatnot were along those lines. They talk about at one point,

[00:24:00] they got six spreadsheets of data that just was from the FBI. And they were looking through that, and it wasn't necessarily even clear what that is. So she wanted to stress, she made a very

[00:24:16] she made a very much a point of stressing that it's not through lack of effort. They're trying to organize all this. They just, you know, they try to go through everything. But then she actually

[00:24:26] at one point said, quote, I don't want to sound as if we're whining, end quote. And yeah, so there's a kind of a defensiveness here. Like we're not whining. We're not just asking them to do our jobs

[00:24:40] for them for us, but, you know, we're really having trouble. And as you mentioned, besides organization, the other issue she raised was timeliness. An example she cited was that in one case, they were deposing a particular witness. And in the

[00:24:57] course of that deposition, they found out that he was preparing like another report that they didn't have, obviously, because it was in the process of being prepared. And so because of that, that would now mean, well, we probably after we get that other report, we'll probably have

[00:25:12] more questions to ask this witness. And so that means we have to do more work. And so wouldn't it make more sense for us to get all these reports in a very timely fashion, so we just do one

[00:25:22] deposition? Yeah. And that was Sergeant Christopher Cecil, who is, of course, with the Internet Crimes Division for the Indiana State Police. So it's my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin, but it's my understanding from all the testimony that he has essentially gone over

[00:25:38] devices in this case, but that sometimes the programs he's using, either there's an update or alternatively, there's new programs to put them through and possibly get some new information. So I want to be very clear. It's not like Cecil is just getting to this now and oh, whoops,

[00:25:55] we forgot that. It's more of like you have to continuously do these things. Is that how you heard it? That's how I heard it. OK. And then the other thing about that, when you're talking about discovery, there's going to be certain pieces of discovery that are continuously coming

[00:26:08] in through the case. And those are not bound by the same rules. What I'm talking about is Valin makes a phone call tomorrow and confesses. You know, the defense can turn around and say, well, you missed the deadline because that evidence didn't exist at the time of the

[00:26:22] original deadline. So stuff that is kind of continuously happening, new information, that is all fine for the prosecution to be kind of continuously giving the defense. Exactly. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was at this part of Ms. OJ's presentation

[00:26:39] that things both literally and figuratively went south. Yeah, that's correct. And let me just say, because I think you and I were talking about this and you kind of indicated that you felt like after a strong start by Rosie that maybe

[00:26:55] this didn't go very well. And I agree with you. I don't think it was Jennifer OJ's fault, though. I think this was an inherently weak argument and I don't. And to be clear, it's the argument that we're about to talk about. Yes.

[00:27:07] After this point, I thought she was doing good. She was doing good and she actually sounded really reasonable. She was selling it. I thought she was doing a good job. And then this school, yeah. So she talks about the story you're probably familiar with where Andrew Baldwin traveled

[00:27:22] down to Georgia to get a picture that had been found by a web sleuth. And this picture is the picture that subsequently has been described as the mimicked crime scene that appeared on Brad Holder's Facebook page. Apparently, it appeared on his Facebook page in 2012. So Andrew Baldwin

[00:27:45] went down to Georgia to get this, did not get it from the discovery. And she was talking about what that's awful. And that really confused, understandably, Judge Gold because at one point Judge Gold said, so you have a photo the state doesn't have and you're questioning that?

[00:28:05] And then another time she literally said, you lost me. And so the defense was very upset that they had to go down to Georgia to get this picture, which frankly, it baffles me because we're not living in the 1920s. If you want something that can be reduced

[00:28:29] to a digital file, all you have to do is have the capacity to receive email. I mean, I didn't want to even go that far because I was wondering, is there some chain of custody

[00:28:38] thing that we're not thinking of? But I can't really think of a good reason why travel to Georgia was necessary given that Zoom and email exist. And of course, this is an internet sleuth.

[00:28:49] And I'm just going to say this, this is an internet sleuth named Ryan Boshay. I don't know how to pronounce his name. This is a guy who apparently was following the case and tipped

[00:28:59] this in. I understand why they're putting importance on this image, but there's a lot of just this stuff where people are just sleuthing things. I think, I don't know, that seems like it

[00:29:13] could have been an email, I guess is what I'm saying. This is not like a case witness. Or even like a registered mail. I understand why they're putting emphasis on it. I'm not sure the

[00:29:24] image has much value. I don't believe it does personally, but that doesn't mean that they're not... I mean, they can do whatever they want. When it comes to, I don't understand why thousands

[00:29:33] of dollars were necessary to... Again, you don't need to send a pony rider or send the stage coach down to get it. There could have been an email. They want to be compensated for the cost of this

[00:29:47] trip of Andy Baldwin going down to Georgia to retrieve this photo and guess how much you think they say it costs to go down to Georgia to get that picture. And I'm going to tell you no matter

[00:30:01] how... What you guess is probably not high enough. They believe they need to be compensated $12,600 to make the drive to Georgia to pick up a picture. I don't understand that. And I also, again, I don't... I just don't understand it. So then McLeelan responds and he says,

[00:30:25] a lot of the stuff that they are asking for, that they want to compel us to give them, we've actually already given them. Here's proof of that. He presented screenshots, I believe. He said, we sent them what they want. When they make a request,

[00:30:40] we try to appease them and help them find whatever it is they are looking for. Nick McLeelan said, I've done everything I can to spoon feed them, i.e. to let them know where exactly specific things are. As McLeelan was saying all of this

[00:31:02] sort of things, it's worth noting perhaps that Andrew Baldwin kept on shaking his head. He was. Yeah, I noticed that. That was pretty noticeable. But McLeelan went into specifics. He wasn't just saying, oh yeah, we just give them everything. He talked about actually going through

[00:31:17] and putting together files in a way where essentially they're labeling everything for the defense so they can get exactly what they need. Which to be clear, my understanding is that that is not McLeelan's job to do that. It's interesting because OJ in the beginning was

[00:31:36] saying, well, we're not asking them to do our jobs for us. But it sort of sounds like that is what is happening here. I mean, it does. McLeelan said, here's another quote that I wrote down.

[00:31:49] We're doing the job for the defense. He says the defense is basically issuing them orders saying, go find this for me because I can't find it. And again, he stressed that the motion to compel

[00:32:00] they were arguing was moot because they already have all the stuff they are asking for. And McLeelan actually opined that there was a reason that the defense was doing some of this. And basically that they are not able to beat the burden for introducing third party suspects.

[00:32:20] So they're essentially trying to almost get around that with this sort of strategy. Yeah, because one of the sanctions they requested was basically let us introduce third party suspects.

[00:32:32] Yeah. One of the prizes for if you go with this, you know, if a judge, if you let us do this, one of the sanctions should be we automatically get third party. And the state can't respond. Yeah, and the state can't respond to any of it.

[00:32:47] It seemed a little, I mean, that was pretty out there, to be honest, as far as sanctions went. And one odd thing is that the sanctions that were discussed today didn't really match what was

[00:32:56] actually in the filings. In the filings, it was like all sorts of different things that didn't really get discussed here. It's odd. So then there was a lunch break. And then after the lunch break,

[00:33:08] McClellan came back and said, before we go into the next motion, there's a couple more things I want to say about the previous motion. He said, during my lunch break, I actually did a bit of

[00:33:19] research. And he was able to produce basically receipts indicating the stuff the defense was asking for they already had. And it was listed literally on receipts that they had signed. And Jennifer Raje, I remember she said it was very kind of McClellan to find those bits of proof.

[00:33:39] Yeah, I wonder if she really felt that. And like, you know, it's funny because I, you know, I didn't go out to lunch. I just sort of sat in the, I don't know,

[00:33:47] the kind of the balcony atrium area. I don't know what you call it in the courthouse. And just sort of stared off into space and, you know, reconsidered my life choices.

[00:33:56] And I saw at one point McClellan like hurrying downstairs, going into a room. So I think he was, I think he and, I think he mentioned that he and Detective David Vito were looking

[00:34:07] up that and then providing that to show that this is how it actually happened. I just, you know, that whole thing just seemed frankly like a huge waste of everyone's time, including Jennifer including the defenses. I understand on some level that it is very difficult to go through

[00:34:26] that much discovery. I get that. It sounds like they're really having problems with it, but at the end of the day, it's kind of like everyone's in the same boat with that. So I guess, I don't know. You just have to sort of work through it, I think.

[00:34:45] Shall we move on? I'll say this at the end, Jennifer OJ said, quote, we don't expect to be spoon fed anything and quote, I don't think we're being overly petty or not trying to do our work, end quote. But I think that's how it did come across.

[00:35:01] Yes. And if you have to say things like that, that's usually not a good sign. No. And again, I'm not blaming Jennifer OJ. This is on the whole defense team. This seems to be something that they really are having trouble with, but they've been on the case for

[00:35:14] months and a certain point you have to organize your own stuff, even if it's a lot. I mean, if I said, we know, Anya, I don't think I'm lazy. There's a pretty good chance. I might have the same thing to say about that.

[00:35:27] Yes. So after that, the rest of the afternoon was devoted to arguing the second motion to dismiss. And so I just want to briefly say what that was about. Basically, they were saying that there

[00:35:43] were three particular pieces of evidence that were kept from the defense by the state. And because they did so allegedly maliciously as bad actors, the case should be thrown out. So what the defense needed to prove was, first of all, that those three pieces of evidence existed

[00:36:07] and then that it was maliciously kept from them in bad faith. And those three pieces were a phone extraction of Brad Holder's phone. The second one was the record of an interview that Brad Holder

[00:36:24] had with some law enforcement officers in the Logan's Port Police Department. For some reason, I'm blanking on the third. What was the third? Oh, man. Now I'm blanking too. Let me check my notes. But yeah, it was these three different pieces of it. And we're stalling here.

[00:36:50] The third one was the mimicked crime scene. Well, God, we're back to the frigging Ryan Boschee. And again, let me just say this. The defense will basically use highly salient or salacious language to describe something. But I think even if we repeat that, let's just keep in

[00:37:10] mind that that is their spin on this. If I start calling Kevin instead of Kevin my big doofus husband and he starts using that language, he probably doesn't necessarily think that. That's my interpretation of him that I'm throwing out there to the world. You don't necessarily have to

[00:37:28] join me on that. So that's something to keep in mind. So mimicked crime scene photo is very like, whoa. I mean, like the instinct I think everyone has is be like, wow, case solved. We got it. But

[00:37:41] that is what they're describing it as. You might describe it as a weird coincidence or even something that's not even that interesting, maybe not even that weird. Just more of like when you're

[00:37:54] looking for something, you know, when you're a hammer, everything's a nail. So they have to prove that those things actually existed, that they were important, that they were exculpatory for Richard

[00:38:06] Allen, that the state had possession of them. The state didn't share them. So do you want to begin by, I'll let you begin. There you go. So which one are we doing first? Which one did they talk

[00:38:19] about first? Well, the Baldwin started offering different pieces of things into evidence. You want me to discuss that? Yeah. He talks about emails between Jay Abbott, who is then the chief of the FBI Indianapolis. I don't know why I said it like that. FBI Indianapolis office and

[00:38:34] Doug Carter, who of course is the superintendent of the Indiana State Police and including one from Greg Massa, who's with the FBI as well. This is on February 17th, 2017 at 702 p.m. Quote,

[00:38:47] over the past 48 hours. And then he goes on to talk about how suspect number six was being, I guess, worked on by the team and may have some connections with Vinlanders and that the BAU, the Bureau Behavioral Analysis Unit would be involved in different things.

[00:39:08] I believe he also indicated that suspect may have ties to Bradley Holder. Yeah. And also pagan rituals. And there was also an email from Jay Massa or Greg Massa of the FBI to Doug Carter saying, quote, we've exhausted every lead and utilized every technique available. And I think

[00:39:28] the argument we're supposed to make from that is, well, golly, they're mentioning Brad Holder and the FBI saying we've exhausted every lead and used every technique available. So doesn't that

[00:39:39] mean they probably did a phone extraction? And one thing I'm just going to say is that like a lot of this relies on leaps of logic like that, like because this one email is worded this way,

[00:39:53] that means that this definitely existed. And I think that's just important to keep in mind. That's the thing to remember about this alleged phone extraction is that there's no evidence that this even exists. So the defense may be being upset about having something withheld

[00:40:12] from them that doesn't even exist. It's sort of like if I came back home and smelled, I guess, chocolate chip cookies in the air and then accused Kevin of baking and then eating chocolate chip cookies without me, without any evidence, not finding any pots and pans or any

[00:40:30] ingredients anywhere. And he's saying I didn't do that. But I'm saying, no, I got a little indication that you did and I'm going to assume that you did and that it's gone because you ate it without me

[00:40:41] maliciously. It's sort of I mean, is that a stupid example? It is a stupid example. Is that an apt example, Kevin? Sure. Don't just yes man me. You love it when I yes man you. Oh my god.

[00:40:54] We got a look at the theatrical side of Andrew Baldwin during this because at one point he brought out three stacks of paper that were what a foot tall. Yeah. And in addition that a binder

[00:41:11] that was about four inches. And he said these represent just six of the phone dumps that were done by the law enforcement. So let's let's explain. So if law enforcement is looking at you,

[00:41:24] they have the power to potentially take your phone and extract all the data from it so they can review that and look into if there's any evidence there. So that happens sometimes if they see fit

[00:41:36] to do that. And just think all the information about you that is on your phone, like probably everywhere you go, all the people you call, all the texts you send, all the emails you send,

[00:41:46] all of that stuff is on there. And to be clear, my understanding from not only looking at this case, but from just understanding how things work in other cases and just sort of from speaking with

[00:41:57] people who are knowledgeable about such things, not connected with this case, is that you don't extract the phone of everybody you talk to because if you did that, then you might not have anything,

[00:42:08] any room for anything. And also there's a level of, you know, in order to do that and possibly invade someone's privacy, you have to feel like this is definitely necessary and this is definitely

[00:42:19] worth doing. So that's the crux of the matter. The defense is saying, well, there was reason to do this, this phone extraction or phone dump, if you will, on Bradley Holder's phone. So they probably did it and are keeping it from us. And the prosecution is saying, well,

[00:42:36] all the evidence we really had was that Brad Holder's son knew one of the victims and that didn't really seem to be enough to justify this. And so we didn't do it. And so perhaps you could

[00:42:49] argue that maybe they should have, but they're saying we didn't do it. So there was nothing to give. Right. It didn't exist. It never existed. There can be no violation and no punishment over evidence that never existed. And so the defense is literally accusing law enforcement of lying,

[00:43:11] of saying, well, it does exist and it's been deliberately hidden or erased or destroyed or what have you. Yes. Which seemed like a huge stretch to me, especially based on what was

[00:43:22] presented here today. I would be prepared to believe that if I saw some hard evidence of it and all I saw was just supposition and speculation. Yeah, it was a lot of building

[00:43:33] castles in the air, I felt, and not a lot of, I mean, yeah. I mean, one of their big points in their favor for the phone extraction is that Brad Holder himself at one point in an interview

[00:43:46] and deposition, I believe, indicated, oh, well, yeah, they took my phone and they got stuff from it and they took it on the same day as my son's phone. And they did that together in the lobby of

[00:43:57] the Delphi Police Department. And then McCloughan fires back with Logan Holder, Brad Holder's son, had his phone extracted on February 14th around noon at the Logan's Ward High School, because at that point it was still a missing persons investigation. And the state police

[00:44:19] trooper who went there had not realized that the bodies were found around that time. So he took the phone, got permission from Logan's mom to do it and did it there. There's no mention of Brad

[00:44:28] Holder being involved in that. It doesn't seem like he was even there. So Brad Holder is very clearly wrong about the circumstances. And also when McCloughan reads back the notes from the deposition, there's a lot more uncertainty with Holder's statements where it's like, don't quote

[00:44:44] me. I don't know. It was a long time ago, but I think it's like a lot more equivocation than what the defense was portraying it to be. If you believe the defense, you would think the guy was

[00:44:54] just saying, oh yeah, I did it then. But it seems more like someone who's scrambling to remember and is perhaps reacting to suggestions that something happened rather than somebody coming forward with a concrete memory of it. I know this happened. Here's what happened. And maybe with knowing that

[00:45:09] the defense actually played a brief snippet of an interview that law enforcement did with Brad Holder where Holder doesn't, in just that snippet says don't quote me on that a few times. And also in that snippet, Holder clearly makes an effort to downplay his son's relationship with Abby.

[00:45:33] He even goes so far as to claim that he doesn't remember if his son was talking to Abby or to Libby. Yes. So yeah. And then there was a moment where Baldwin said the next witness, Kevin Murphy.

[00:45:54] And that was something that got my attention because of course Kevin Murphy is the former ISP officer who worked with Todd Glick and Greg Ferenczi on the investigation of the Onist

[00:46:07] Angle. So I was very curious to see what he would say about that investigation and if he would come down on the side of the defense and how they view it or if he would side with his old friends and

[00:46:21] colleagues on the Indiana State Police. But had a little bit of delayed gratification there because they went out to get Kevin Murphy and he'd stepped out. He wandered away. So then we had to do something else in the meantime. So instead they called another witness. They called

[00:46:40] Roland Richard Purdy. Do you want to talk about his testimony? Yes. So Roland Purdy came up at one point in sort of a mysterious way earlier in this case. And that was because there seemed

[00:46:56] to be some sort of mysterious police interview with Brad Holder that no one knew about. So everyone, you know, did this happen? Was he confused? Who did this? What agency? And it turned out it was state police, but it was not people associated with the Unified Command.

[00:47:13] It was Roland Purdy who along with another investigator met with Holder I believe in 2018. He only worked the case between March 2017 and then sometime in 2018, I believe he said. Yeah, it may have been late 2017. Yeah. So late 2017, somewhere around then,

[00:47:32] he interviews Holder. And this was not an interview actually about the murders. He was looking into the case with the lens of being interested in a possible Odinist connection, a possible pagan connection. And he actually relied upon Holder as a subject matter expert and asked him general

[00:47:50] questions. So, you know, just like when Kevin enjoys comic books, I might talk to him and get a sense of what's up with comic books. How can I assess this different topic that I'm not familiar

[00:48:04] with before I go in and investigate something more? It's informational, not necessarily that Kevin has anything to do with comic books in a way that is actually truly relevant to my case. It's more of a background situation. And so when you're an investigator and you talk to someone

[00:48:20] who is a witness in a case or might have information in a case, you're supposed to document it, make a report or record it. But when you're doing it for a talking to a subject matter

[00:48:31] expert, you're not required to take those steps. And of course, it's human nature. If you're not required to do a specific bit of paperwork, you don't do it. And so because of that, Purdy,

[00:48:44] Detective Purdy did not record this interview with Holder and he did not take notes on it. So again, that is an issue because he says, well, it was just about subject matter.

[00:49:01] But the defense for them to win, they need to make the case that no, it was actually about the murders. They were actually talking to Brad Holder about the murders. And this interview was so important that now we have been hurt by not having this record of it.

[00:49:21] Yeah. And Baldwin did scold Purdy saying, this was important. You should have done this. You should have done that. Purdy sort of gently pushed back a few times. I felt being like, no, it was just informational. I thought it was interesting. Baldwin started off this exchange

[00:49:35] by saying, thank you for this surprise appearance. So there's some more tension seeping out here. But Purdy kind of just said like, this was not about the case. This was about

[00:49:47] just the general topic. And I was told that this guy knew about it. So I wanted to talk to him, talk to a couple of other people too, that he mentioned, including an Indianapolis Metropolitan

[00:49:56] Police officer. Purdy also said prior to him talking to Brad Holder, he'd been told by his colleagues that Brad Holder had been cleared of any culpability in the murders. Which would not be surprising for somebody with an alibi. And we'll discuss the alibi a little bit later.

[00:50:15] There's actually a lot more details about the alibi. And Purdy says, if someone told me someone was cleared, I would trust their judgment. And so he's saying, I didn't ask him about the murders because in my mind,

[00:50:26] he'd already been cleared of the murders. I just thought he might be able to help me understand this odinism stuff. Yes. And so, again, that's not something that really fits the bill. And let's all just,

[00:50:39] because sometimes it's easy to get lost in the weeds. And this is why I tend to view some of what the defense does here as more like a glorified press conference than an actual

[00:50:49] hearing. I think the idea is to kind of get their talking points out there, get their facts out there that they want the press to run with. And I think that is the strategy.

[00:51:00] But what they're asking for here in this specific instance is for the case against Richard Allen to be thrown out based on a police coverup. This is a pretty tall task. This is a pretty extensive ask

[00:51:13] for them when you're talking about a murder trial involving two dead children and a man that they are representing who keeps confessing to the matter. So they really need to come up with

[00:51:24] something very, very solid here to get what they want, which is for the case to be thrown out. And you can argue that some of these things might be helpful for them in a jury trial where they can

[00:51:37] tell the jury, hey, police didn't do this right or they didn't look into this as extensively as they should have. They can do all that. That could be a boon to them. Could it convince a juror to.

[00:51:47] But as far as does it get them what they want in this instance, like it's, you know, stuff like this, it does matter. The details do matter. And then we got to see Kevin Murphy finally. Yes. Kevin Murphy came in. How would you describe Kevin Murphy? Very terse.

[00:52:08] Yeah. You get an idea of Kevin Murphy's personality. He's called to the stand by the defense. Baldwin says, you know, what is your job? And he says, well, I'm a police officer in Beverly

[00:52:22] Shores, Indiana. And Baldwin says, OK, well, what did you do before that? And he says, well, before that, I worked briefly in court security. And Baldwin says, and I was like an auto shop teacher.

[00:52:33] He said before that, what did you do? So I was an auto shop teacher. And finally, Baldwin's Baldwin wanted him to say was what was relevant, which was the fact that this man worked with the Indiana State Police for 26 years. Kind of the relevant detail here.

[00:52:50] I didn't yeah, I didn't understand. I didn't even feel like Murphy was being like purposely to just think that it was a weird exchange because everyone's kind of like, wait, he's here to talk about auto shop or like what? But this is so they said at one point,

[00:53:09] Baldwin said, well, was Brad Holder a suspect? I think I wrote down pretty close to Murphy's answer to that. And you can correct me if I made a mistake here. But he says, well,

[00:53:24] Holder was a subject of interest in the case. He was not considered a suspect in some circles, but in the circle I was in, he was considered a suspect. Yeah, no, that's correct.

[00:53:36] Have an odd way of phrasing it. Basically, he was saying that the team I was working with, largely independent of the Unified Command, thought he was a suspect. Unified Command didn't think he was a suspect. Yes. And this is where it comes down to being something important.

[00:53:53] We've seen other cases where you have different agencies with different suspects or different even players within the same agency with different suspects. And for me, what it comes down to is

[00:54:06] not necessarily how do I say this? When you have your own team with your own suspect that runs it down very hard, that's all well and good. But did you get probable cause? What happened with

[00:54:22] the investigation? You know, leaving the case with a hunch that no, I think I got it right is not going to really carry the day for me as much as a group of different people from different

[00:54:32] agencies saying, here's probable cause. We've arrested someone who is now in prison and confessing. I think that tends to be stronger for me. And so when I'm looking at someone like Kevin

[00:54:45] Murphy or Todd Click coming in and saying, no, it's our guy, I kind of look at it through a lens of skepticism there because I understand the emotional toll of digging into a case like this.

[00:54:55] You work so hard and you maybe find people you think did it. And that's all well and good. And perhaps you have lingering suspicions. That's fine. But where's the concrete evidence? Why did

[00:55:09] nothing happen in terms of probable cause here? To me, it boils down to, I don't know if you want to cover much of the direct examination, but what it boils down to me was a question that prosecutor McClelland asked Murphy on cross-examination, which basically was during

[00:55:28] all the course of your investigation of Brad Holder, were you ever able to place him in Delphi at the time of the murder? Which obviously would be a pretty crucial and necessary step to do

[00:55:43] if you wanted to implicate Brad Holder. And Murphy indicated no, he had never been able to place Holder in Delphi at the time of the murder. Yeah, that's pretty important. And he also indicated similar issues for people like Elvis Fields, right? Where there wasn't...

[00:56:03] So yeah, so... So basically the direct evidence you care about is lacking? Yeah, I don't know. Let's talk about what he said overall, I guess. Okay. I'll let you cover that. Well, I mean, essentially they worked on this.

[00:56:23] It was him, Farency, Greg Farency, who's unfortunately been murdered and Todd Click and sort of what we heard before. I appreciated getting to hear some of this from a new voice from Murphy because that's been lacking in the past. I've often wondered, what does Murphy think

[00:56:40] about all this? Because he is somebody who is directly tied into this, but we've never heard from him. So having him be in the mix here was a welcome addition. That being said, did he say

[00:56:52] anything particularly new? No, not really. It's sort of what we've already seen before. And I guess it sort of struck me that he seemed to at the very least... I believe that he viewed these men as suspects and that he was looking for this sort of Rushville connection.

[00:57:23] And he actually is the one who heard Elvis Fields as he was dropping Fields off from a meeting with him and Holman say, hey, if my spit's at the crime scene and they have a good reason, am I in

[00:57:36] trouble? And so he looked into this hard. But one thing, the other thing that I found bizarre, he didn't look into any of the social media evidence. He indicated that Farency was behind

[00:57:52] all of that. The thing that baffled me was he reiterated this thing where he was saying Elvis Fields was connected to Brad Holder in a way because he was posting similar things to Brad

[00:58:02] Holder and Patrick Westfall. We looked into that. We actually had a wonderful guest on who compiled screenshots, who came into a totally open-minded, compiled screenshots of all the things. And a lot

[00:58:15] of it is just stuff that you see people posting. I think, I mean, there are pictures of arrowheads that I have similar pictures of those on my Facebook and I'm not going around murdering

[00:58:27] anybody or practicing odinism. So I felt they kind of glanced over that, but some of what he said just so I was like, I don't know if really that has been established to my satisfaction.

[00:58:42] But that's just one thing. He also noted this is my understanding that this is true, that Johnny Messer was sort of a common link between Elvis Fields and Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall. So there's definitely people who may have known them in common. All of that is

[00:58:57] fine. And yeah, then they talked about how Murphy was subpoenaed on August 10th, 2023. And they made a big deal about sort of what they allege was a statement that Holman made to him after his deposition where he was mad that they had something. So did you follow that?

[00:59:23] I don't know if I did. Basically, as I understood it, after Murphy talks to someone, he makes kind of rough notes, which he then uses to prepare his formal reports and then he attaches the rough notes to the formal reports when he submits them.

[00:59:43] And so there was some sort of compilation of his rough notes which were collected and shared with the defense attorneys. And this came to be known to the detectives during a deposition. And Murphy indicated that Holman was surprised by this.

[01:00:03] Yeah, he seemed to downplay it in his answer saying, oh, we're just two football coaches talking to each other. But the defense took it. I mean, I don't really I mean, maybe I'm just

[01:00:13] tired, but I didn't really understand what they're trying to get at here. But the defense- They were trying to say that Holman was surprised by this, which they took, which they wanted the judge to believe means that Holman didn't think the defense should have this

[01:00:27] information, which they want the judge to think means that Holman was actively suppressing information. That seems like a huge leap. Seems like a huge leap. That's an actually that's a Grand Canyon size leap. You wish in a situation like this that

[01:00:42] they were almost saving some of this information for a trial so that they could use it as it might actually be properly used instead of just litigating everything to the point where

[01:00:57] we've heard this all before so many times that I guess I feel like the prosecution could very well easily answer a lot of this in front of a jury. And then where is the defense?

[01:01:12] You know, I mean, like they're not left with any because, again, some of this stuff could be helpful for them, but not in terms of getting a case thrown out because, you know, Jerry Holman

[01:01:22] and the gang are going around and, you know, doing it. It's just it's like trying to see someone like warp a tool into something like trying to use a screwdriver as a sledgehammer. It's like that's not what this is for.

[01:01:37] Let's move on to the final witness of the day, which was the aforementioned Jerry Holman, who's part of the unified command of this case. He indicated that to the best of his knowledge,

[01:01:50] there was no phone extraction or phone dump of Brad Holder's phone. So therefore, there was nothing to withhold from the defense. He also indicated that he had no knowledge of the Purdy-Intel interview with Holder and, in fact, indicated that at the time that it happened, he was away

[01:02:12] at FBI training. He also indicated that he believes it was Richard Allen who told the girls to go down the hill that day. And he said that the murders occurred between 2.30 and 3.30 p.m. on February

[01:02:27] 13, 2017 on Ron Logan's property. And then he gave some more details about Brad Holder's alibi. He said Brad Holder was working in Buffalo, Indiana, which is about a 30 to 35 minute drive

[01:02:47] away from Delphi. And he clocked out there at 2.45. And then he arrived at a gym in the area at 4.08 p.m. So if you take those times and you compare them to the timeline of the murder,

[01:03:09] it's hard to understand how Holder could be in Delphi at that time. And I'm just going to be honest, when I hear stuff like this, I have to, as someone who's been

[01:03:21] sitting there for hours waiting for this thing to get started and then seeing it go on, I just have to think to myself, what am I doing here? What are we doing here? What is the defense doing here?

[01:03:31] Why construct a defense around a man with an alibi unless you have some good, solid, and provable information that he somehow got someone to clock in to work for him and then go

[01:03:50] to a gym at a specific time and he was organizing this? Or they throw out Charles Manson in their Franks memorandum about Brad Holder. Fine, OK? You don't actually have to be... You have conspiracy

[01:04:03] murderers, right? You have people who are the brains behind the murder who are not at the murder site. I understand that. That can happen. Where is the paper trail? How does one orchestrate this kind of horrible crime and seemingly leave nothing behind? And not only that, but

[01:04:23] I've never heard anything about his phone being at the scene. I've never heard anything about any of the other alleged Odinus cult members' phones being at the scene. How are they communicating? How are they arranging this if they're all at different

[01:04:36] locations in different cities? How are they doing this without leaving a trace is what I'm asking. And again, when you have this alibi, if you don't have an explanation for the alibi,

[01:04:49] that's sort of what it all boils down to for me. I don't care that some guy has a weird Facebook presence or that he's part of some possible Vinlander underground or whatever. All that could be interesting, but without anything actually putting him at the scene that day,

[01:05:06] it doesn't matter. I'll quickly tell you about some of the cross-exam questions that Andrew Baldwin asked Jerry Holman. He said, well, John Doe... He used the person's name, but I won't. He said, John Doe, he had his phone extracted even though he never dated Abby and didn't have

[01:05:25] these so-called mimic crime scene photos. So why did you do his phone and not Holder's? And basically, Holman indicated that they didn't feel there was a reason to do Holder's because Brad Holder was just the father of a boy who dated one of the victims. That's not enough

[01:05:40] to make him a suspect. And Baldwin also said, well, wouldn't you agree that Detective Purdy should have recorded that interview? And Holman said no, because the state does not require to document an interview with a subject matter expert. So then there was a 15-minute break.

[01:06:02] And whenever there was one of these breaks, they would lead Richard Allen out of the courtroom. And then as the break was coming to an end, they would bring him back in. And so obviously during

[01:06:16] the break, a lot of the people who were in the courtroom would get up, walk around, sometimes go out into the outer area to stretch their legs, what have you. And during this 15-minute break,

[01:06:28] one of the people who left the courtroom briefly was Mike Patti. Do you want to? DeGraw Yes. So when everyone started coming in to, I guess, return to their seats, one of those people was also Mike Patti. And it was interesting

[01:06:45] because at that moment, Richard Allen was being brought back in by deputies. And so he's being walked in by these deputies. Other deputies have to kind of stop Mike Patti. He's not trying to barrel through. They're just saying, wait a minute. So he's just standing there waiting.

[01:07:00] Marc Thiessen So these two men are just inches apart. DeGraw They're inches apart. And that was a really striking scene for me because everyone wants to focus on all the legal wranglings. It's certainly

[01:07:12] interesting to us as case watchers. And that seems to be the defense's main strategy to essentially say, look over here. But at the end of the day, what we were seeing unfold in that moment was a

[01:07:25] grandfather who lost a granddaughter inches away from the man who is accused of viciously murdering her. And I didn't really, I wasn't actually really watching Mike Patti. I was watching Richard Allen. And I know immediately afterwards, he seemed to be bothered by that reaction. It would be my

[01:07:44] interpretation of his facial expression, his body language. Of course, that's my interpretation. I don't know what was in his head. But he immediately is blinking. He is kind of fidgeting. He's looking up at the ceiling at one point. He's just rapidly blinking. Afterwards, when he's

[01:08:03] sitting, he was holding his head, kind of smoothing his hand over his scalp. He just seemed to have been bothered by that sort of momentary incident where he comes into close contact. And that was

[01:08:19] just kind of, again, just kind of, it reminds you of why we're here. We're here to watch what happens with Richard Allen's life. We're here to watch what happens in terms of the girls and their

[01:08:31] families. So it just, that was just striking to me. As long as we're talking about the family, let's jump back just for a moment. At different points in the hearings, some of the attorneys would brandish crime scene photos. And sometimes they would wave them around the room,

[01:08:51] wave them around such they would be visible to people in the gallery, including, I believe, the family. Yeah, they got pretty close. I mean, I guess we don't know exactly what was seen,

[01:09:00] but I know to me it looked like there may have been some sort of, I don't know. I felt that was getting really close. And I was surprised that the defense team was even doing that. But I mean,

[01:09:15] I think these things may be shown at trial, certainly. But I mean, I would hope that there would be an opportunity for people to look away, especially loved ones of the girls.

[01:09:26] Sort of waving around these things. I know some of the witnesses were asked, can you identify this? Well, it's Libby's body. Can you identify this? It's Abby's body. Things like that. They were

[01:09:35] doing side by sides. And yeah, I would have hoped they'd be a little more careful with that, to be honest. So there's just a little bit left here. Andrew Baldwin then had to make his argument

[01:09:47] in support of his motion. He indicated that he, common sense would tell you they did do this phone extraction despite what the witnesses say. Common sense would tell you that Purdy and his interview did talk about the Delphi murders despite what they say. And then the Georgia stuff.

[01:10:09] He even acknowledged at one point that he was beating a dead horse. But I thought he started out strong and then kind of, I don't know, I feel like kind of lost the plot at some point. But

[01:10:18] at one point he says, you know, he kept on emphasizing, like, why would all these other people have had their phones extracted and not Brad Holder? You know, at one point even,

[01:10:27] like, he may have just misspoke here. I think it was just a misstatement. But it was like, you know, they didn't date Abby. Well, neither did Brad Holder. His son seemingly did, although it's

[01:10:36] not even clear to us how close these two kids were and what the nature of the relationship was even really, truly like. But I mean, the thing about those phone extractions that that whole kind of

[01:10:47] theatrical pile of paper that he printed out to make a huge point here, it's possible that the people whose phones were extracted did not have alibis for the day of the murders and the afternoon

[01:11:01] when the girls were killed. So to me, I feel like the theatricality goes both ways. On the one hand, people love it, right? It's kind of that's what you expect from the defense attorneys, like the

[01:11:14] kind of over the top. You know, when I first saw them all wheeling in like these suitcases and trays and carrying big posters, I was like, oh, here we go. And so that can be good. That can

[01:11:28] be powerful. It can make people feel really convinced. But to me, when it's not really backed up by a core of facts and truth, it feels very empty and it feels a little bit more like a

[01:11:42] distraction than anything. So they didn't clear the level for me where I felt like this was anything other than a distraction at this point, at least. And James Luttrell argued for the state. He indicated that there's no evidence of phone extraction if Brad Holder was ever done.

[01:11:56] He said there was no record made of Brad Holder's second interview with law enforcement. And he said the so-called mimic crime scene photos is actually something that the defense has. So what's the problem? And then he says this motion should fail.

[01:12:12] He said it is clear that Brad Holder has no connection to this crime and he has an alibi. 00.30 A couple of other things I just wanted to step back because I think this also reveals

[01:12:22] something greater with the defense rhetoric. So this is what Baldwin said at one point, quote, we win these cases on the little nuanced differences and stories, end quote. So what he's talking about is when we don't get all this information that we're asking for,

[01:12:40] when we don't get the interview with Brad Holder, with Purdy, when we don't get his phone extraction, we lose because we can't pick apart little nuances, little intricacies that we can make a big

[01:12:54] deal of to the jury. And I understand what he was saying there, and I understand that they need a story to win, but I couldn't help but feel that they're hypothesizing and they're sort of their

[01:13:10] hypothetical story here is very powerful in their minds. But I guess it just feels a little bit weak to be saying like, you know, the whole case could have been solved if only Purdy had written

[01:13:27] stuff down and done a report at the time. It just feels like or it could have just been a boring informational interview. You know, they picked up a couple of intricacies when they were talking

[01:13:37] about this. There's like the first time Brad Holder was talked to, he indicated he didn't meet the girls, but later on he admitted to doing it once and then again twice another time. You know, that's inconsistent. I mean, I can understand wanting to pick that apart,

[01:13:51] but at the same time, I mean, I want to know the context of those statements initially being like not remembering something and then being pushed and remembering it and being pushed again and okay, well maybe it was actually twice and confronted with more information. I mean,

[01:14:05] that to me is only truly interesting if I'm talking about somebody who cannot account for their whereabouts when this is happening. Yeah, great point. And I would like to wrap with a brief preview of coming attractions because at the end of the hearing, they indicated that

[01:14:23] tomorrow we will be hearing from Dr. Monica Walla, that of course is the medical professional who is said to have treated Richard Allen at Westville and apparently may have heard some incriminating statements or confessions from him. So tomorrow should be an interesting day.

[01:14:41] Absolutely. Allen walked out seemingly looking over at his family and mouthing, love you. And I guess Kevin, having seen the first day, who do you think did well? Who did badly? Who did okay? What arguments carried the day with you? What fell flat?

[01:15:00] I think it was probably a draw on the motion for safekeeping. I think the motion to compel motion for sanctions, that's not going to go the defense's way. And obviously the case is not going to be dismissed. Yeah, I think that's fair.

[01:15:16] What about you? Yeah, listen, I'll actually give it to the defense on the motion for safekeeping. I mean, do I think that means that the prosecution did a bad job? No, I just, you know,

[01:15:26] let Cass County sounds fine. It sounds like everyone's in agreement. Just do this, you know, modify the safekeeping order. Although I'll say this, if he doesn't get that, then I don't necessarily think that's the greatest travesty of all time. That being said, the whole discovery

[01:15:40] thing was a hot mess. That was not well argued and it seems like they didn't even have their facts straight on that. And then the last bit about this Odinus theory and these issues with

[01:15:55] Holder and the evidence around there, that didn't really carry water with me. It seemed like a lot of conjecture and it seemed like ultimately, I guess there's a problem with the defense where

[01:16:07] it relies more on trying to connect dots that may not exist rather than really looking at explaining what their client was doing and why the case against him is weak. So it will be an interesting couple of days ahead. Absolutely. Thank you so much for listening.

[01:16:25] Thanks. Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[01:16:48] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:17:11] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered,

[01:17:25] you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for

[01:17:38] patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. Before we wrap, let's take another moment to just shout out our wonderful sponsor, Via Hemp. Sponsors make it possible for us to do this work, so when you're supporting them,

[01:17:55] you're really supporting us. Via Hemp crafts THC, THC-free, CBD, and CBN gummies for every mood. Truly, there's something for everyone, whether you're looking to experience more pleasure, get your focus on, or just enjoy and vibe. I love their CBD and CBN options. Zen is a yummy

[01:18:14] blueberry gummy, and it really helps me settle down before bed. I tend to have some trouble with that. Via's new Dreams formulations can also really help you improve your rest. These Dreams formulations also just allow for a fully tailor-made sleep journey, featuring two, five, or

[01:18:31] 10 milligram options. And with Via Hemp, there's no hassle. These gummies are legal to ship to all 50 states. Head to viahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off, plus get one free sample of

[01:18:44] their award-winning gummies. That's V-I-I-A hemp.com and use code MSHEET at checkout. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Get the rest you deserve with Dreams from Via.