The Delphi Murders: A Contempt of Court Filing

[00:00:00] Content Warning. This episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls as well as suicide. If you or someone you know in the United States is struggling with suicide or suicidal ideation, please contact 988. That is the crisis hotline.

[00:00:17] So here we are again. We spoke earlier today about some new filings in the Richard Allen case because there were actually three filings in the case this morning. And naturally, the very important one wasn't released at the time and is dropped in the late afternoon.

[00:00:36] And this is a filing that is on you said it is an important one important enough that we are taking the time to chat with you about it.

[00:00:46] And we're going to cover it in some detail and try to figure out what it means. It is a filing by the state for contemptuous conduct. My name is Ania Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenley. I'm an attorney. And this is the murder sheet.

[00:01:02] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reported interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the murder sheet. And this is The Delphi Murders, a contempt of court filing.

[00:01:55] So in this filing, which is a verified information of contemptuous conduct, prosecutor Nick McClendon, who represents, of course, the state is providing information about conduct by attorneys Brad Rosie and Andrew Baldwin that he believes merits a finding of contempt.

[00:02:17] Yes. Now, this is interesting because it's not quite the first time we've heard about contempt of court. Being a factor in this case, this is actually something that Andrew Baldwin's own attorney David Hennessy threw out as a possible way to mitigate the situation.

[00:02:35] We'll get more to that later. We're getting more of that a little bit later. This is cited as a traditional way to deal with conflicts when you have issues between parties and the judge. This is what you would typically see before you would see people get thrown off.

[00:02:50] Is that fair to say? Sure. I mean, not that you see it a lot. It's just, yeah. Do you want to quickly go through this? Yes. I think the so this is against both Baldwin and Rosie. It's about their conduct.

[00:03:07] So Bradley Rosie and Andrew Baldwin are the targets of this. And initially it kind of gets into just introducing them. Yeah. And it goes into conduct that actually dates back to November 22, 2022. That's correct. So what happens then?

[00:03:28] So November 22, 2022 was when the state of Indiana, Nick McClendon, filed a motion for an order prohibiting the parties, counsel, law enforcement officials, court personnel, coroner and family members from disseminating information or releasing any extra judicial statements by means of public communication commonly referred to as a gag order.

[00:03:53] And so what's interesting here is that McClendon is giving out some new information. He's giving out some information of what happened behind the scenes. We didn't see this hearing. Nobody went. This was not public.

[00:04:06] And behind the scenes, it sounds like attorneys Rosie and Baldwin said, well, there's no reason for a gag order because we have no intention of trying this case in the public. Oh, wow. OK, yeah.

[00:04:18] So this is interesting because frankly, in the past, when people have been talking about the press release that Rosie and Baldwin released, which of course happened on December 1st, 2022. We got a copy of it. Other media personnel got a copy of it.

[00:04:33] I haven't really seen what the big deal is because the gag order was not in place at that time because it just felt like, well, they weren't breaking a rule. You can't retroactively be mad at them for that.

[00:04:43] But what we're hearing here is that actually there had been an in chambers hearing. Is that what you call it? Like a kind of a discussion where the defense attorney said they had no intention of trying this case in public.

[00:04:58] No, I would need a gag order because that's not something we would do. And then shortly thereafter, they issued this press release. Yeah, that's interesting. Well, it contextualizes some of the frustration over that more for me because I really didn't understand when people were criticizing them for that.

[00:05:13] Because like, OK, I mean, the states had a long time to do their own thing, so maybe they should be allowed to as well.

[00:05:19] But if you tell a judge that you're going to do one thing and then you if you zig instead of zag, there's going to be problems there and maybe a question about issues of honesty, I guess, trust. So the gag order is put in place.

[00:05:33] And then the next thing that prosecutor McLean brings up happens shortly thereafter, sometime in December of 2022. Defense counsel Baldwin violates this gag order by, according to him, accidentally sending some protected materials to a man named Brandon Woodhouse. Brandon Woodhouse is well, he's not an attorney on this case.

[00:06:05] That's for sure. He's not an attorney on this case. He's not a part of the case. He had no right to this material. Andy Baldwin says he sent this to him accidentally.

[00:06:18] As far as I know, there's no reason to doubt that because I can't think of a rational reason why Attorney Baldwin would choose to send this to Brandon Woodhouse. But what is interesting is after he realizes his error, he does not notify the court.

[00:06:37] He does not notify anyone. It's not even clear when he notified Brad Rosie of this mistake. Because in the chamber's transcript that was released as part of like the instance where Judge Gall spoke to the attorneys and they withdrew from the case, they say she forced them off.

[00:06:55] You know, she says they withdrew rather than face an embarrassing hearing. So at that time Baldwin added some clarity and said Rosie didn't know. He didn't know. I knew. And so that's kind of interesting because you would think that that would be an issue

[00:07:13] that would probably come up between co-counsel at least to kind of figure out how to deal with it. And you would also expect for the state to be notified, the judge to be notified. But according to Prosecutor McCliland, that did not happen.

[00:07:28] He writes that this leak of information was not discovered until the state uncovered it on Brandon Woodhouse's YouTube channel in March of 2023. And it was for the discovery that Woodhouse was sharing this information with other people who were themselves sharing it with other people.

[00:07:47] So it was being spread pretty quickly. Yeah, it got out there pretty fast. We were pretty skeptical about it at first to be honest. I think our initial instinct was like, this sounds like nonsense. Why would the defense leak anything like this?

[00:08:04] Also, it's like some kind of weird index discovery product rather than actual discovery. But we were wrong about that. It was it was real and it was it was tied back to the defense directly.

[00:08:16] Is there any way that Andy Baldwin didn't know that he sent it to this guy? I don't know. The whole thing is so baffling. So the next thing that we talk about in this in this information filing is prosecutor McCliland talks about that there was

[00:08:34] a protective order governing discovery materials that was granted so that when the state turned over discovery materials, most of which is of a highly sensitive nature that the defense would be obligated under this order to protect it.

[00:08:54] He says in an effort to prevent the defense from disseminating evidence in this case to people outside the case and or the public, indicating that at that point, maybe the trust had already broken down pretty extensively. The fact that they needed that.

[00:09:10] So then, of course, there is the leak of crime scene photos. This was in October of twenty twenty three. So what happened here and McCliland describes this. But one thing it's important to remember is we discussed in our leak episode

[00:09:27] when this first started happening before we got the images, there was the publication of a bloody tree photo on Facebook. That came out first. And from this, the families were very aware of that and in communication with the prosecutor.

[00:09:46] I also think that this explains Brad Rosie and one of his communications accuses the state of knowing about the leak before them and not disclosing it. I think what's all being referred to there is the bloody tree image coming up.

[00:10:01] People seeing that, the family saying, what is this? And again, once again, I remember when we first saw that image, I thought it was just some creep in their backyard. I really didn't think it was going to turn out to be.

[00:10:13] I remember being astonished then and I remain astonished that so many people took this image which showed the blood of a murder child and republished it and spread it around everywhere. Yeah, garbage. Also, I mean, we talked about it in our recent episode and clarified it.

[00:10:35] But we've since been made aware that Mark Cohen, one of the people directly involved in this leak, who is behind the publication of that image, lied to us. He initially told us that we were the only ones he sent anything to.

[00:10:48] Then came clean about actually he sent them to a YouTuber several days before us. So at this point, I don't know exactly the timeline because we can't hack into these people's email accounts. But essentially it's very likely that around this time,

[00:11:05] you had YouTubers, online skulkers and miscreants with these images saying nothing to anybody, but they had them and they just sat on them because this is fun for them. So to get back to this filing, McLean writes, Indiana State police

[00:11:22] began an investigation into how the photos were leaked. It became immediately obvious that the leaked photos came from the defense. On September 18, 2023, the defense filed a Frank's motion with a memorandum in support. The memorandum described the crime scene in gory graphic detail.

[00:11:42] As part of that memorandum, the defense attached exhibits that were provided in hard copies to the state and the court. Some of the exhibits were side by side photos that the defense created and photos of the crime scene that the defense had altered.

[00:11:57] These photos were the photos that would leak to the public. So I think that's interesting because it spells out exactly what pictures were leaked and it spells out what made investigators immediately realize where they came from. Right. And you know, when we saw what we saw,

[00:12:17] we didn't have any context about what it, you know, exhibits that have been filed because that's all sealed. But it sounds like that from people who were in the know about what had been sealed recently, what had been filed, it became apparent fast.

[00:12:33] So the next paragraph here is, frankly, a bit confusing. I'm going to read it and then let's try to puzzle it out together. The investigators were led to a podcaster who said he got the pictures from an individual that he knew. The investigation led officers to determine

[00:12:56] the podcasters got the photo from a man that he knew who got them from R. R received the photos from Mitch Westerman, who is tied to the defense. So are we the podcaster and why are we one person with male pronouns?

[00:13:10] Yes. And also also we didn't nobody was led to us. We called it in that day on October 5th. And judging from the shocked reaction of the investigator that we spoke with, it was clear that this was the first they had heard about

[00:13:28] graphic crime scene photos being leaked to be clear. When we spoke to that investigator, he was well aware of the bloody tree photo. They were not aware of the graphic crime scene photos that Anya and I had been leaked. Yep. So that's also if

[00:13:45] I assume this is us, it says the podcaster got the photos from a man that he knew. I don't know if we had we knew of Mark Cohen at that point because he had been he had been a big part of the Woodhouse leak.

[00:14:01] So we had communicated with him before, but we did not very minimal communication, minimal communication, casual communication. So we were aware of him more so than we knew him. But yeah, so I mean, that's not entirely accurate. Again, why make us one person?

[00:14:19] I'm trying to rack my brain in case this isn't us and it's somebody else that's involved. But I don't I don't know. And else really fits because. The timing. Yes. And again, we we were the ones that uncovered

[00:14:35] and reported to police and the Defense Party how that something was happening. Yes, that is very true. So that day. So I they weren't led to us. We went to them. Nobody know who would have led them?

[00:14:53] All these YouTubers who just were sitting on these images for their own sick reasons. I mean, I don't know. Not it's just it's just weird. And you know, it's going to you know, in an inaccurate in exact language like this is just going to spawn more conspiracy theories.

[00:15:09] So I love that for us. This is also interesting. McClillin writes that on October 10th, Andy Baldwin on a conference call with all parties reveals that Mitch Westerman misappropriated crime scene photos and shared them with others, primarily are. And McClillin writes ironically, this conversation was hours after investigators

[00:15:39] spoke to our and determined that Mitch Westerman leaked the photos and he was the connection to the defense. So he's saying that at the time Andrew Baldwin was revealing this, Andrew Baldwin was actually not revealing anything at all to investigators because they already knew.

[00:15:57] So this is also interesting because it was Monday, October 9th that Mitch Westerman confessed to Andy Baldwin that he had done this. And Andrew Baldwin sent an email to Brad Rosie, who didn't see it and didn't attempt to call or otherwise notify Brad Rosie of this.

[00:16:21] So this is all. And so and presumably from what I'm reading here and I could be wrong, but presumably Westerman at that point had already been contacted by investigators. So he's getting ahead of it with his friend.

[00:16:34] And then sometime is passing before this is all being fully disclosed for some reason. McClillin further writes that on October 12th, 2023, Brad Rosie in writing in a letter admits that he and Baldwin had agreed to store the discovery materials in the conference room at Baldwin's office,

[00:16:54] where, of course, as we know, Mitch Westerman is said to have access to them and that by doing this, he was admitting a shared responsibility for this. So this is McClillin tying Rosie into it because you could argue that Rosie doesn't know Westerman didn't let him in.

[00:17:15] This isn't his office. So this is him saying, but you admitted to it. So you're you're culpable as well. And I also thought it was interesting that about McClillin points out that Mitch Westerman was given a copy of the Frank's memorandum to review prior to it being released.

[00:17:37] And he notes that the Frank's memorandum and exhibits contain protective discovery information that included very sensitive crime scene photos that were leaked by Mitch Westerman. So he had access to this. So he had access to those images even. That's I'm not sure if that's what McClillin is suggesting.

[00:17:56] I'm not sure if that's what the actual facts are. Well, it certainly raises the possibility. It sounds bad given the fact that what we think was written about us wasn't quite right. So I'm not. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think that's fair to be questioning that because that

[00:18:11] that's that's a creasious if true. But also if it's like we know that on some level, on some level, although, frankly, it's been described to me in so many different conflicting ways that I'm kind of more confused than ever.

[00:18:23] So, you know, I think we need to talk to more attorneys, even though everyone keeps us telling us different things. Like some people act like this is so crazy that he even brought this guy in here and it's a huge breach and a huge egregious thing

[00:18:39] even to be opening up and being a confiding in Mitch Westerman. Other people are telling us that's OK. If he's a trusted colleague, you can bounce ideas off of a bit of that is OK. And Westerman responded by really messing things up for Baldwin.

[00:18:55] But the act is not necessarily that bad, you know, unless that happens. And unfortunately it did here. And so I don't I don't know. I think part of how we read him sharing the Frank's memorandum with him

[00:19:09] really depends on, I guess, how bad it is to do that at all. I just but frankly, I keep going back and forth because we've been told so much conflicting. Do you have a sense of like how bad that is or is it OK?

[00:19:24] I think it's OK to discuss strategy with trusted associates. Right. At some point it does cross a line. And if he's literally giving copies to people and if those copies include crime scene photographs, I don't think it's necessary for a strategy discussion to provide your associates

[00:19:46] who don't even work in the office with crime scene photos. It just seems like that's so negligent, if that happened, if that happened. I'm not sure that that happened, frankly, it's not clear from the language. And I'm not necessarily going to assume the worst here.

[00:19:59] It's just one side of the story. Yes, that's very important. I think that's important to stress is, as you said, you know, in this we appear to be one single entity. And I know we have a bit of a hive mind between us. But, you know, we're not.

[00:20:14] We're just two people. So I also wanted to read this part that I found very interesting. The investigators were able to retrieve messages between our and another individual that showed that our had detailed real time knowledge about when evidence was submitted to the defense

[00:20:33] and the contents of that evidence for weeks before the photos were leaked are also knew the actions defense took in trial preparation. Leading law enforcement to believe that this was not a one time act of one person, but a consistent leak of information and discovery in the case.

[00:20:51] The investigation showed that Westerman would get information about the case and give it to our who then distributed to other individuals. OK, so that is illuminating one aspect of the leak that I think has generally been under discussed. It's more than just the crime scene pictures.

[00:21:10] It is not a one time bad decision on Westerman's part. This was an ongoing relationship that was leading to a lot of information getting out there in a relatively short period of time, but a lot of information is spilling out.

[00:21:25] So I think that elevates it in terms of what Westerman did from perhaps giving into temptation and doing something horrible once versus like I don't know, just a compulsion of like continuing to do something again and again, despite the fact that

[00:21:46] it could have horrible repercussions, which unfortunately it did. If we want to play devil's advocate, we don't know what Westerman knew. In other words, we don't know if Westerman knew that are was sharing this information with others. No, we don't. But.

[00:22:05] But we know and maybe this makes us jaded that you cannot trust anybody with with anything about this case. You just can't. We mean, we've learned that the hard way over and over and over again because we're stupid and we're way too trusting.

[00:22:23] But it's like, oh, you're you're nice to us. Let's chat. You don't do that. You can't do that because there is such a economy of information in this case where people trade and sell information as far as like it's cloud.

[00:22:39] You know, it's like if you're in the know, then then people want to be around you. So it's you really just can't talk to people. And I'm surprised because to me. Are to not have a legal background. Yeah, let's stress that from it.

[00:22:53] Let's get a legal background. Yeah. We can there is arguably a legitimate reason for Andy Baldwin to turn to Mitch Westerman and say, I'd like to have some advice on this. Tell me what you think about the strategy.

[00:23:08] Now, we can argue maybe at some point that crossed the line and he gave too much information, but the underlying purpose was arguably legitimate and and something he'd done with Westerman before as documented in our profile. So that's how he works.

[00:23:22] There is no purpose whatsoever for Mitch Westerman to share then share this information with other people. No, and he knows that he worked in a law office for a long time and understands how the system works. So I'm just so baffled at why he thought that was OK.

[00:23:41] And I think he ended up, you know, it got out of control and it put other people in harm's way. And it's cost us months and months on this case. Yeah, it's been a disaster for the case.

[00:23:54] And I just don't understand how something like this can happen when I mean, like it's like I don't I don't know what what what he was thinking or why this didn't need to happen. And it's just caused undue pain and suffering and misery.

[00:24:09] And I just I hate that. I think this case was already horrible, depressing and grueling enough for everybody involved that the fact that then this happened on top of it is just it feels very unfair because it's like everybody's been through enough, frankly.

[00:24:27] And now we have to deal with this and it's and it's it's going to we're going to be feeling repercussions about this for a while. And we could talk about that at the end, but this is not this is only the beginning, I think.

[00:24:39] Let's get back to this document. This is something else that I believe is some new information. A search warrant on the iCloud account of Mitch Westerman revealed screenshot photographs of conversations between Mitch Westerman and Defense Council, Andrew Baldwin, wherein they candidly

[00:24:58] discussed the Richard Allen case and candidly talk about the court and the state displaying a free flow of information that is protected by the court's gag order and the order protecting discovery. So there's a couple of implications there. Yes.

[00:25:14] If Andrew Baldwin is being very candid about the case, we assume he's talking about strengths and weaknesses and what have you. Now he shared that information and now it's been shared with the prosecution. So that doesn't seem like something that would be the best interest of Richard Allen.

[00:25:36] It's not. One other implication more on the Westerman side of things. He has screenshots of his friends text like that. Like, what's the purpose of what's the purpose of screenshotting your friend's text to send it to other people?

[00:25:48] Yes. So I would be curious, did he send those screenshots to art? Did he send them to other people? Was he showing them to people? Yeah. So the screenshot thing is also interesting. When when McLean said candidly discusses the state, does this mean that in these conversations,

[00:26:07] Baldwin and Westerman are candidly offering their opinions of Nick McLean? Oh, yeah, almost certainly. And the court. So the judge. Yes. So all of this is now out there. So this does not seem to be in the best interests of Richard Allen.

[00:26:24] That's another thing keeping in this case, putting things in writing can get you tripped up. I've seen that with people. Attorneys will always say don't put anything in writing unless you absolutely have to. Unless you want to be on the front page in New York Times.

[00:26:39] Yeah. Like don't write anything that you would have a problem with. And this is good advice for everybody for life. Don't put something in writing, you know, that you that you wouldn't want out there.

[00:26:49] You have to be judicious about what you put in writing, how you phrase things because you might be very angry and it feels very justified right now. But, you know, in the cold light of morning, it's going to look a lot different

[00:26:59] and may look different out of context. So I'm surprised with the level of putting possibly damaging things about the case in writing going on here in general. It just seems like not what you would expect. McLean says the investigation shows of the Defense Council

[00:27:18] failed to secure evidence and discovery materials in this case, specifically graphic crime scene photos which were then distributed to the public and put on the internet in violation of the court order. So I have a question there.

[00:27:33] Yes, certainly the crime scene photos were distributed to members of the public to the best of my knowledge with the exception of the bloody tree picture. I'm not aware of the other pictures being put on the internet. I'm not either.

[00:27:49] Could you just be counting the bloody tree picture? You could be counting the bloody tree picture. I don't mean to minimize. No, no, no, no. It is outrageous that the blood of a murdered child is being shared images of this is being shared.

[00:28:06] Yeah, about like it's frigging entertainment. It's sick. No, it's not to minimize that. It's just to say we're not aware of any of the other ones getting published in any form. That being said, I don't know. There's there's I don't really understand things like the dark web.

[00:28:21] I've not heard about anything about those being out there, but I do know that the people who had these early on are not trustworthy individuals. And so I'm sure they spread them around to one another, you know, in emails and chats and whatnot.

[00:28:34] So could it be a reference to that likely outcome? And here's a point you mentioned earlier at the top of our discussion. Baldwin's attorney, David Hennessey, told the court that both attorneys basically deserve to be sanctioned for their actions.

[00:28:54] He acknowledged that and MacLillan writes those sanctions have yet to be addressed. So he says, well, even your attorney, even the guy representing you, thinks that what you did deserves sanctions. So let's see those sanctions. Was that a mistake for Hennessey to say that when you're looking at

[00:29:12] like how that could impact his client now? I don't think so. I mean, obviously today it's easy to easy to look at that and say, yeah, maybe he shouldn't have said that. But at the time, if you are facing.

[00:29:30] If you've done something so egregious that the court is saying, Ania needs to be put to death. Oh, geez, what did I do this time? And I say, no, no, no, don't put her to death. Sure, she did something wrong, but just throw her in prison for 20 years.

[00:29:46] Yeah. So that's what was happening here. That's because when the prospect of them being removed from the case was on the table, those basically the death penalty for their continued representation of Richard. Right. So now it could be they could get sanctions, but not necessarily.

[00:30:01] So Hennessey didn't want to be in the position of saying, no, this is nothing at all. Yeah, because that would look like minimizing and ridiculous at the time. So he was being a good advocate. And I don't think it was a mistake for him to do that.

[00:30:16] I remember thinking he did a very good job in that in that speech before the court, you know, where he made some good points and sounded reasonable. So I guess this was part of that. But yeah, I'll be curious. We'll look more into this.

[00:30:31] We're kind of just recapping things now. What would be the penalties for contempt? Is this McCliland saying I want them off or is this McCliland saying we got to live with them, but they need to answer for what happened here? Well, Hennessey was suggesting like financial penalties

[00:30:46] or things of that nature. OK, financial penalties. Now, because of the gag order, the families of the victims have had to be silent and they're very eloquent people. And you might wonder what they make of all of this.

[00:31:05] We get sort of a glimpse at how this has affected the families in this document. And I will read what McCliland wrote. The state was notified in the beginning of the leak by the defense, by the families of the victims.

[00:31:21] Since that time, the state has had an opportunity to talk to the families of the victims about the photos and information that was leaked. The amount of harm and re victimization that this has caused the families of the victims is unmeasurable and impure.

[00:31:39] Yeah, I think one thing that's disgusted me and I know that's a strong word, but it's just how I feel about some of the discussion around the leak is the minimization of the impact of this real world, real impact on people. People lost their kids.

[00:31:59] People two children were murdered horribly. And now their families have to worry about seeing the crime scene whenever they log on in case some freak wants to send it to them. So I think it's very, very important to talk about the legal implications

[00:32:19] and whether or not people should or should not have been thrown off. That's all well and good. It's also very important to stretch Richard Allen's rights in all of this, because ultimately he is the central figure of the trial.

[00:32:29] We cannot forget that our Constitution is set up in a way to protect his rights and ensure things go smoothly. So all of the discussion around that, all the debate, people having very strong opinions on both sides, that is all well and good, in my opinion, great even.

[00:32:42] But the way some people talk about the leak, they try to come up with like funny names for it. Yeah, like it's a little joke. It's a fun little joke. This is why we talked with representatives of the parents of murdered

[00:32:54] children recently, because something like this really does victimize the families and it puts them in an awful position. And like prosecutor McLean says, it's incurable. Yeah, there's no fix. There was no way to fix this from now on. These families are aware that those pictures are out there

[00:33:14] and they could pop up at any time, at any place. There's no way to fix that. So don't minimize it. Yeah, there's no. Don't try to make it a joke. It's not funny. It's not a joke. And there's no reason to do that because I think you can

[00:33:28] strenuously advocate for, hey, they shouldn't have been thrown off about this. Here's the law. Here's how we can defend his rights. I think all of that is absolutely fine. We've had on people who've done that and we will continue to do that

[00:33:40] because I think they all made their points in a very zealous way that didn't necessarily minimize people's emotional suffering. But to indicate that this is no big deal is to erase the suffering of two families. And that's that's not right. We don't need to do that.

[00:33:59] We can be nuanced. We can say this was bad, but this shouldn't have happened. We can we can all hold different opinions in our heads and try to be compassionate when talking about serious issues. I just don't think I think this aspect has been so lost,

[00:34:15] mostly because the family is gagged. You know. And also let's go back to the point McClellan made earlier in this document that this leak was not a one time leak of a few photographs. It was an ongoing leak for an extended period of time,

[00:34:31] revealing all sorts of confidential information that it was not in Richard Allen's interests to be revealed. Yeah. And the letter that he wrote from prison does not indicate that he was made aware of the extent of this. And it doesn't really indicate anything more than just the kind

[00:34:49] of very, very broadest outlines of this. This is why I think I agreed with Mark Lehman. I believe he made a point during the open, you know, the hearing of the the the arguments with with the justices that essentially.

[00:35:05] I mean, he didn't want there to be a hearing for Richard Allen, because that would have in his view damaged his rights. But that would have at least served letting him know what was going on. And he was basically kept in the dark by certainly by the judge

[00:35:21] in this by not having him come into the chamber's meeting. But also I would be wonder. I would really strongly wonder what he knows. What is the extent of what he knows? I would certainly hope his attorneys totally came clean to him

[00:35:36] and gave every detail about what had happened. I just don't know if we know that from the letter because it's so short and short. So I really wish that there'd been a hearing where it could have been made clear to one and all in open court.

[00:35:49] Just what Richard Allen deserves. I mean, this man is on trial for his life, essentially. He deserves to know and make an informed choice and say, OK, I'm going to weigh the options. Here's here's what happened. Here are the implications. Here's what my choices are going forward.

[00:36:04] Again, much like the families have been forgotten in this, much like the girls have been forgotten in this and they have been forgotten. People can use whatever hashtags they want. It doesn't mean that they actually care about justice for Abby and Libby.

[00:36:16] But also caring about rights for Richard Allen doesn't always mean what people seem to think it means either. I think he's been forgotten in a lot of this. It's basically become a legal courtroom drama and a lot of the people at the heart of it have been discarded.

[00:36:34] So I'm going to read Prescott McLean's conclusion. The press release and the two occasions of leaked information show a trend by defense councils Brad Rosie and Andrew Baldwin of not being completely honest with the court, violating the court's gag order set in place

[00:36:52] to protect the integrity of the case and failing to comply with the protective order put in place to protect the discovery in the case. So essentially those are the reasons he believes they have acted in a way that deserves some sort of sanctions for contempt.

[00:37:06] Okay, so what happens next? We don't know. We'll see I guess. I'm sure whatever that will happen it'll be just some long grueling ordeal that will take forever and delay the case invariably. And hopefully there won't be any other emergency episodes

[00:37:24] between now and the time we go to bed tonight. Thank you all for listening and we'll chat again soon. 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 murdersheetatgmail.com.

[00:37:47] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon that's available at www.patreon.com.slashmurdersheet. If you wanna tip us a bit of money for records requests

[00:38:09] you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com.slashmurdersheet. We very much appreciate any support. 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

[00:38:31] about a case we've covered you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account but we ask for patience

[00:38:46] as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.