The Delphi Murders: A Field Trip and a Motion to Compel

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_00]: Playing June's Journey is just like dropping straight into your own cozy mystery story.

[00:00:05] [SPEAKER_01]: Only this time, you get to hone your observational skills. You get to piece together the clues.

[00:00:11] [SPEAKER_01]: You get to be the detective.

[00:00:12] [SPEAKER_00]: June's Journey is a free-to-download hidden object game. You play as June Parker. She's

[00:00:18] [SPEAKER_00]: a flapper slash sleuth and she's all about investigating mysterious goings-on in various

[00:00:23] [SPEAKER_00]: jazz age locales. Starting with the murder of her sister and brother-in-law, June sets off

[00:00:29] [SPEAKER_00]: on a global quest to unravel mysteries and right injustices wherever they occur.

[00:00:35] [SPEAKER_01]: Each level sees you picking out hidden objects. The scenes are beautifully illustrated and

[00:00:40] [SPEAKER_01]: the gameplay is fun and relaxing. I usually play in-between tasks as sort of a way to

[00:00:46] [SPEAKER_01]: relax and recharge. The sense of accomplishment knocking out a level or two is great. It's

[00:00:52] [SPEAKER_01]: a way to feel like you're escaping reality and traveling back in time to the glamorous 1920s.

[00:00:58] [SPEAKER_00]: Can you crack the case? Download June's Journey for free today on iOS and Android.

[00:01:05] [SPEAKER_01]: Content warning, this episode includes discussion of the murder of two children.

[00:01:11] [SPEAKER_00]: So today we're going to be talking about some of the latest filings from the defense

[00:01:15] [SPEAKER_00]: in the Delphi murders case. Let's go over some of the major players.

[00:01:19] [SPEAKER_00]: Richard Allen is the man accused of murdering victims Liberty German and Abigail Williams,

[00:01:24] [SPEAKER_00]: two teenage girls in the city of Delphi, Indiana back in 2017. His defense is led by three

[00:01:31] [SPEAKER_00]: attorneys, Bradley Rosie, Andrew Baldwin and Jennifer Oje. They're the ones making these

[00:01:36] [SPEAKER_00]: filings. And on the other side is Carroll County prosecutor Nicholas McCleland and his team,

[00:01:43] [SPEAKER_00]: Stacey Diener and James Latrell. So we may see responses from them. I don't know. We'll see.

[00:01:49] [SPEAKER_00]: But these motions, these filings concern a possible jury field trip and a motion to compel.

[00:01:59] [SPEAKER_00]: My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:02:05] [SPEAKER_01]: And this is the Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting,

[00:02:10] [SPEAKER_01]: interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet.

[00:02:14] [SPEAKER_00]: And this is the Delphi murders, a field trip and a motion to compel.

[00:03:03] [SPEAKER_01]: Well, the one that was filed first was what you're the one that's calling for what you say

[00:03:08] [SPEAKER_01]: is a field trip. It's very short. So why don't you just read the whole thing and then we'll

[00:03:12] [SPEAKER_00]: talk about it? Sure. Quote, motion for jury to view scene. Richard Allen, by counsel pursuant

[00:03:20] [SPEAKER_00]: to IC 353725, asks the court to order that the impaneled jury be transported to the Freedom

[00:03:27] [SPEAKER_00]: Bridge, the Monon High Bridge and to the site where the bodies of the victims were located,

[00:03:33] [SPEAKER_00]: as well as the site of the old CPS building where the prosecution claims Richard Allen's vehicle was

[00:03:38] [SPEAKER_00]: parked between 1.30 p.m. and 4 p.m. on February 13th, 2017. The view would be requested as it

[00:03:46] [SPEAKER_00]: would greatly aid a jury's understanding of evidence presented at trial, including observing

[00:03:51] [SPEAKER_00]: and feeling the unique topography of the land, something that cannot be understood from

[00:03:56] [SPEAKER_00]: photographs and video. Specifically, the request is for the jurors one to walk the trail from the

[00:04:03] [SPEAKER_00]: Freedom Bridge to the Monon High Bridge, two to then view the opposite end of the bridge where

[00:04:07] [SPEAKER_00]: the victims were allegedly abducted. Three. Finally, to view the area where the victims

[00:04:12] [SPEAKER_00]: were found and then the location where the prosecution claims Richard Allen parked his car.

[00:04:17] [SPEAKER_00]: These locations are less than two miles from the courthouse. Juror transport and viewing could

[00:04:22] [SPEAKER_00]: easily be completed in under 90 minutes. Allen and his counsel, Andrew J. Baldwin, Bradley Rosie,

[00:04:28] [SPEAKER_00]: and Jennifer Oje, request to be present along with the prosecution and observe the viewing

[00:04:33] [SPEAKER_00]: under whatever direction and guidelines the court may order under Indiana Code Section 353725.

[00:04:38] [SPEAKER_00]: If because of any security reasons the court does not wish to allow Allen to be transported to view

[00:04:45] [SPEAKER_00]: the scene, he waives any such right and asks that the court order this jury view occur without him.

[00:04:51] [SPEAKER_00]: Respectfully submitted, Andrew Baldwin." End quote.

[00:04:53] [SPEAKER_01]: Marc Thiessen, Jr.: End quote. So I'll make the obvious point. This is not the least bit unusual.

[00:04:59] [SPEAKER_01]: This sort of thing often happens in trials where the jury will go out and look at a crime scene

[00:05:07] [SPEAKER_01]: or something of that nature in order to get a better understanding of the circumstances

[00:05:14] [SPEAKER_01]: of the crime. I imagine the defense would probably try to argue, oh, look at how rugged

[00:05:21] [SPEAKER_01]: this landscape is. How could one person do all of this? And it's not unusual. Another obvious point

[00:05:32] [SPEAKER_01]: is the crime happened in 2017. It's now 2024. The landscape is not exactly the same as it was then.

[00:05:42] [SPEAKER_00]: Katarzyn Koczko, Ph.D.: In addition to that, maybe something about the car. Could someone

[00:05:47] [SPEAKER_00]: have really gotten a good glimpse of the car if it was parked over here? They're going to give

[00:05:51] [SPEAKER_00]: their spin. The prosecution will give their spin. And so it goes. I agree with you. I think it'll be

[00:05:59] [SPEAKER_00]: how could one person do all of this? And the one thing I'm a little bit skeptical of is 90 minutes

[00:06:06] [SPEAKER_00]: seems like a little bit of a tight timeline. I know when we've gone out there a few times,

[00:06:12] [SPEAKER_00]: we have. We really haven't gone out there that much, to be honest. But I think there's a lot

[00:06:18] [SPEAKER_00]: to potentially do, especially if they're going to the actual crime scene where the girls were

[00:06:22] [SPEAKER_00]: murdered. So they might need a little bit more time than 90 minutes.

[00:06:26] [SPEAKER_01]: I'm curious, as you mentioned, you and I have been there. When you visited there,

[00:06:33] [SPEAKER_01]: has there been anything about that scene or that locale that surprised you or give you any

[00:06:38] [SPEAKER_00]: insights into what happened? I mean, I know a lot of people claim that when they visit there,

[00:06:44] [SPEAKER_00]: they're sort of, you know, transported or, you know, gives them some insights. I'm not

[00:06:49] [SPEAKER_00]: one of those people. I just it it was it just made me really upset, to be honest.

[00:06:57] [SPEAKER_00]: It just made me sad. And I you know, I think we've been more interested in

[00:07:03] [SPEAKER_00]: reporting on the case, whether that's analyzing court documents or, you know, breaking news about

[00:07:10] [SPEAKER_00]: different investigative elements than sort of trying to block out what happened to the girls,

[00:07:18] [SPEAKER_00]: because we both are of the mindset that we don't have all the information. So that's not really

[00:07:22] [SPEAKER_00]: super helpful. But I know some people, you know, I think people commented that it's it feels very

[00:07:28] [SPEAKER_00]: isolated when you're out there. And I would tend to agree with that, I suppose. You know,

[00:07:32] [SPEAKER_00]: so people often wonder, well, how could this have happened in broad daylight? But like,

[00:07:36] [SPEAKER_00]: it really feels like you're out in the middle of the woods when you're out there,

[00:07:41] [SPEAKER_01]: even if there's other people on the trail. One other thing I'd like to note is I think

[00:07:46] [SPEAKER_01]: it was interesting at the end of the document. They say, well, of course, Richard Allen would

[00:07:50] [SPEAKER_01]: love to be there on this field trip. But judge, if you think that's a bad idea, that's fine with us.

[00:07:55] [SPEAKER_01]: And I think it would really be in the best interest of the defense if this field trip happens,

[00:08:02] [SPEAKER_01]: not to have their erratic client there, because who knows how he might react?

[00:08:09] [SPEAKER_00]: He doesn't even have to blurt out a confession for it to be a problem if he's acting really

[00:08:15] [SPEAKER_00]: twitchy, as he often does in court. I wouldn't want the jury to see that in the place where this

[00:08:23] [SPEAKER_00]: allegedly happened because jurors are supposed to be dedicated to the evidence presented at trial.

[00:08:29] [SPEAKER_00]: But jurors are also human beings. If they're seeing someone behave in a really off manner,

[00:08:34] [SPEAKER_00]: that may be something that they're thinking about. So I would I think it was smart for them to say.

[00:08:41] [SPEAKER_00]: Maybe we leave him at the court that day and we all go out. I think that that would probably be

[00:08:46] [SPEAKER_01]: in their best interest. Was there anything else we wanted to say about this field trip?

[00:08:53] [SPEAKER_00]: I don't think so. It just it's not surprising. It's not that unusual. It makes sense.

[00:08:59] [SPEAKER_00]: And this is pretty par for the course, I would say.

[00:09:02] [SPEAKER_01]: OK, let's move on to the second document, which I suspect would probably end up spending a little

[00:09:06] [SPEAKER_01]: bit more time on than we did on that first one. Are you searching for a cleaning service?

[00:09:11] [SPEAKER_00]: That's both incredibly powerful and all natural and safe for your family?

[00:09:17] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, we'd strongly recommend Ultra Lux Clean. Ultra Lux Clean is a powerful,

[00:09:22] [SPEAKER_00]: safe and effective cleaning solution that relies on hypochlorous acid.

[00:09:27] [SPEAKER_01]: Murder Sheet listeners can get this at a terrific price,

[00:09:31] [SPEAKER_01]: 20 percent off. Plus, you can use this coupon up to three times per person.

[00:09:36] [SPEAKER_00]: Hypochlorous acid is what you get when you combine water, salt and citric acid

[00:09:41] [SPEAKER_00]: and send that mixture through electrolysis. It's FDA approved.

[00:09:45] [SPEAKER_00]: Ultra Lux Clean combines power and safety. Hypochlorous acid is a hospital grade cleaner,

[00:09:51] [SPEAKER_00]: but you can use Ultra Lux Clean on all kinds of surfaces, kitchen countertops, tables, toys.

[00:09:58] [SPEAKER_00]: It's even safe on your skin.

[00:10:00] [SPEAKER_01]: Ensure your house is a clean and healthy environment for you and your family.

[00:10:03] [SPEAKER_01]: Opt for Ultra Lux Clean and get the strongest all natural cleaner and disinfectant out there.

[00:10:10] [SPEAKER_00]: Ultra Lux also has plenty of other really cool products you should check out.

[00:10:14] [SPEAKER_00]: Their Red Mini device offers accessible red light therapy,

[00:10:17] [SPEAKER_00]: which studies indicate can help reduce inflammation and pain.

[00:10:20] [SPEAKER_00]: Plus, they've got these great hydrogen water tablets that offer a hydrogen concentration

[00:10:25] [SPEAKER_00]: of 12 parts per million and take only about two to three minutes to dissolve in water.

[00:10:30] [SPEAKER_00]: As they say, the best day to improve your health is today.

[00:10:34] [SPEAKER_00]: So head over to ultraluxhealth.com and use M-Sheet to get 20% off when you order the Red Mini,

[00:10:40] [SPEAKER_00]: Ultra Lux Clean or hydrogen tablets. That's ultraluxhealth.com and M-Sheet for 20% off.

[00:10:47] [SPEAKER_01]: It involves questions that were asked and not answered in depositions. And I think it is worth

[00:10:55] [SPEAKER_01]: taking just a few seconds here to explain something about depositions that maybe people

[00:11:02] [SPEAKER_01]: don't understand if they have had the good luck to never be in a deposition.

[00:11:06] [SPEAKER_01]: And that is when you are in a deposition, you are answering questions asked by an attorney

[00:11:14] [SPEAKER_01]: and maybe you have your own attorney with you, but there's no judge there.

[00:11:18] [SPEAKER_01]: So if a question is asked and your attorney says, don't answer that,

[00:11:24] [SPEAKER_01]: and you don't answer that, there's no judge to say, well, no, you should answer it. Or

[00:11:29] [SPEAKER_01]: there's no judge to say, well, you're correct. That is a bad question. Let's move on.

[00:11:35] [SPEAKER_01]: So typically in depositions, there are questions that go unanswered. And what we have here

[00:11:42] [SPEAKER_01]: is a filing from the defense in which they say, here are several questions that people were

[00:11:49] [SPEAKER_01]: advised not to answer during our depositions. And we would like the people in question to be compelled

[00:11:58] [SPEAKER_01]: to answer, to answer those queries. And we're going to go through this. It's a list of specific

[00:12:03] [SPEAKER_01]: questions that were not answered by certain parties. And before we get into the list,

[00:12:11] [SPEAKER_01]: I think it's also important that defense attorneys have developed a certain art to their questions

[00:12:20] [SPEAKER_01]: where the question in and of itself is able to be insinuating, to suggest something is wrong or

[00:12:29] [SPEAKER_01]: flawed or somehow damaging regardless of the answer. And I think we will see that

[00:12:35] [SPEAKER_01]: in some of these questions as we get into this.

[00:12:41] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK Sure. So this is the motion to

[00:12:44] [SPEAKER_00]: compel deponents to answer certified questions, and I'll read through some of the questions.

[00:12:48] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN Why don't you read the first question?

[00:12:49] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK Sure. Quote,

[00:12:51] [SPEAKER_00]: 4. On August 10th, 2023, the defense deposed Jerry Holman, and the following question was certified.

[00:12:59] [SPEAKER_00]: A. What did you talk to Sheriff Liggett about to prepare for your deposition?

[00:13:03] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN Okay. So this was a question that was asked of Jerry Holman in a deposition. He,

[00:13:10] [SPEAKER_01]: of course, is with the Indiana State Police, one of the key investigators on this case.

[00:13:15] [SPEAKER_01]: And what I was saying a moment ago where the questions tried to be insinuating. So the

[00:13:22] [SPEAKER_01]: question is, what did you talk to Sheriff Liggett about to prepare for your deposition? And so

[00:13:27] [SPEAKER_01]: the insinuation would be that they talked about something untoward.

[00:13:33] [SPEAKER_01]: It would be, oh, if Holman answers this, he'll probably say, oh, Liggett and I decided to lie.

[00:13:40] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK Jesus.

[00:13:41] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN Liggett and I decided to,

[00:13:43] [SPEAKER_01]: let's cover up for the oldness. So it's kind of a silly question because I don't think that

[00:13:53] [SPEAKER_01]: Holman and Liggett discussed anything untoward prior to the deposition. And also, I think,

[00:14:02] [SPEAKER_01]: let's imagine that you and a colleague or a friend both had depositions scheduled in the same case.

[00:14:12] [SPEAKER_01]: It wouldn't be surprising if you talked about it a little bit beforehand. So it's trying to

[00:14:18] [SPEAKER_01]: suggest something is wrong, trying to get that out there into the bloodstream.

[00:14:23] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK Is it a best practice for,

[00:14:25] [SPEAKER_00]: I'm assuming, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that the lawyers advising law enforcement in this

[00:14:31] [SPEAKER_00]: are the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and the attorneys I mentioned up top. And maybe in

[00:14:37] [SPEAKER_00]: some cases, Department of Correction folks in the cases where we're talking about their personnel.

[00:14:42] [SPEAKER_00]: But would it be best practice to say, don't answer that for that kind of question?

[00:14:49] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN Yeah.

[00:14:50] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK Why?

[00:14:53] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN Because again, it's very unlikely that there's anything untoward there.

[00:14:59] [SPEAKER_01]: Keep in mind also we don't know the context of this. At some point, these questions just become

[00:15:04] [SPEAKER_01]: argumentative.

[00:15:06] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK These questions certainly seem incredibly argumentative. So yeah.

[00:15:11] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN And one thing an attorney does when they are with a client in a deposition is

[00:15:18] [SPEAKER_01]: they are there to protect their client. And one of the things they protect them from is argumentative

[00:15:22] [SPEAKER_01]: or bullying questions. And if the defense attorney is basically insinuating, you're a terrible person

[00:15:29] [SPEAKER_01]: who planned to perjure yourself here, you would expect for the attorney to say, no, don't answer

[00:15:36] [SPEAKER_01]: that. Let's just talk about the substance.

[00:15:39] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK Right. Okay.

[00:15:39] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN Does that make sense?

[00:15:40] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK That makes a lot of sense.

[00:15:41] [SPEAKER_00]: Want to move on to the questions outlined in Section 5?

[00:15:45] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN Yes.

[00:15:46] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK Quote,

[00:15:47] [SPEAKER_00]: Five. On May 3rd, 2024, the defense deposed Jerry Holman and the following questions were certified.

[00:15:54] [SPEAKER_00]: A. Why did it take you guys so long to get a blood splatter expert in April of 2024?

[00:15:59] [SPEAKER_00]: B. Why did it take so long for the investigators to get a blood splatter expert?

[00:16:04] [SPEAKER_00]: C. Did anyone in your unified command or greater law enforcement investigative team ever suggest

[00:16:09] [SPEAKER_00]: that you should ever, that you should do that, retain someone to discuss blood splatter during

[00:16:13] [SPEAKER_00]: the investigation? End quote.

[00:16:16] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN What's your take on this?

[00:16:18] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK Very repetitive questions. So I guess the insinuation seems to be

[00:16:25] [SPEAKER_00]: they couldn't find a blood splatter expert who said what they wanted to say. Is that it?

[00:16:29] [SPEAKER_01]: DAVID RUBENSTEIN I guess.

[00:16:31] [SPEAKER_00]: LESLIE KENDRICK That's what they want us to take away.

[00:16:33] [SPEAKER_00]: Here's the problem with this. And I'm going to say this later, but I'll just,

[00:16:38] [SPEAKER_00]: the reason why this feels more like a press release to me is because we're not really

[00:16:42] [SPEAKER_00]: seeing anything substantively from the other side. So we're not seeing the context of these. We're

[00:16:47] [SPEAKER_00]: seeing sort of cherry picked questions that insinuate things. And it's very hard to analyze

[00:16:54] [SPEAKER_00]: those because it without context, they're sort of, they're not quite meaningless, but they certainly,

[00:17:01] [SPEAKER_00]: it's hard to know what to what kind of weight to assign them.

[00:17:04] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, that's fair. That's fair. And knowing what we know about the parties in this case,

[00:17:13] [SPEAKER_01]: I'm not even sure if I would take it for granted that no blood splatter expert was hired prior to

[00:17:20] [SPEAKER_01]: April of 2024.

[00:17:22] [SPEAKER_00]: RISA GOLUBOFF I think it's actually really important to stress that nothing should be

[00:17:25] [SPEAKER_00]: taken for granted. Unfortunately, this is a defense team that has had a history of,

[00:17:30] [SPEAKER_00]: I think, embellishment when it comes to some of their filings and of certainly hiding key

[00:17:36] [SPEAKER_00]: information. The thing that I go back to, and that was sort of a fundamental shift for me in my

[00:17:43] [SPEAKER_00]: thinking about some of these filings is the Professor Jeffrey Turco saga. And that was a

[00:17:51] [SPEAKER_00]: situation where we were being told in these filings that a professor of Norse mythology and among

[00:17:58] [SPEAKER_00]: other things was solidly on the side of the defense when it came to key evidence in the case.

[00:18:05] [SPEAKER_00]: And that he was making, you know, all sorts of statements and that the implication was that

[00:18:10] [SPEAKER_00]: Indiana State Police through Jerry Holman was lying about what he was saying and that the defense

[00:18:15] [SPEAKER_00]: was accurately giving us his true thoughts. And then that ended up flipping where Professor Turco

[00:18:24] [SPEAKER_00]: indicated to the prosecution team, this defense team is misrepresenting my statements. They're

[00:18:30] [SPEAKER_00]: misrepresenting what I think. And the Indiana State Police is far more accurate in their summation.

[00:18:36] [SPEAKER_00]: And that was very troubling because for me, when one party loses credibility to that extent,

[00:18:44] [SPEAKER_00]: it can be difficult to analyze anything they say going forward. So I don't take any of this for

[00:18:50] [SPEAKER_00]: granted. I also don't even take it for granted that these questions were not necessarily answered

[00:18:55] [SPEAKER_01]: in some way. Again, we don't have the context. So I would not be surprised if the same question

[00:19:03] [SPEAKER_01]: was asked repeatedly in slightly different ways. For instance, with the thing with Holman

[00:19:11] [SPEAKER_01]: talking to Liggett, I would not be surprised if that was answered in some fashion and they just

[00:19:17] [SPEAKER_01]: kept on pounding and pounding and repeating it. So we don't have the context.

[00:19:21] [SPEAKER_00]: And then the question would be...

[00:19:23] [SPEAKER_01]: Even these questions you just read, they were basically very similar questions.

[00:19:28] [SPEAKER_00]: Which is, to be clear, which is common in a deposition. In a deposition, and we can talk

[00:19:33] [SPEAKER_00]: about our experience later, but in a deposition, you often do get variations on the theme,

[00:19:41] [SPEAKER_00]: variations on the similar question again and again and again. The goal is to trip you up.

[00:19:45] [SPEAKER_01]: Yes. If you ask similar questions and you get even slightly different answers,

[00:19:52] [SPEAKER_01]: you can start poking at that. Oh, you got this little detail different. What's going on here?

[00:19:58] [SPEAKER_01]: All about insinuations.

[00:20:00] [SPEAKER_00]: So should I go to six?

[00:20:02] [SPEAKER_01]: Yes.

[00:20:03] [SPEAKER_00]: Quote six. On March 22nd, 2024, the defense deposed John Gallipo and the following questions

[00:20:10] [SPEAKER_00]: were certified. A. I'm assuming some of that talking to the prosecutor was just talking

[00:20:17] [SPEAKER_00]: about the pleadings I had filed or Andy filed, things like that. B. And so what were you asked

[00:20:25] [SPEAKER_00]: to do when you got the document affidavit signed by John Gallipo? C. Do they give you any reasons

[00:20:32] [SPEAKER_00]: why the defense could not go see where Richard Allen was living? D. Do you know why they made

[00:20:37] [SPEAKER_00]: the decision, decision for a no phone policy in Westville Correctional Facility? End quote.

[00:20:43] [SPEAKER_01]: Again, with question A, that's where they're saying, oh, you were talking to the prosecutor.

[00:20:49] [SPEAKER_00]: This is about John Gallipo, who was previously the warden of Westville.

[00:20:55] [SPEAKER_00]: Yes.

[00:20:56] [SPEAKER_00]: And this is where Allen was incarcerated. So

[00:21:00] [SPEAKER_00]: some of this seems to be about general Westville policy about no phones.

[00:21:04] [SPEAKER_01]: Again, the first one is, again, an insinuation. You were talking to the prosecutor. What's up

[00:21:10] [SPEAKER_01]: with that? And I think this is a trick, for lack of a better word, that you often see

[00:21:17] [SPEAKER_01]: where when a person testifies, an attorney would say, oh, did you talk to the attorney for the

[00:21:23] [SPEAKER_01]: other side about this testimony before you gave it? And then try to insinuate that there's something

[00:21:28] [SPEAKER_01]: wrong with that. And of course, anybody who is going to be deposed or who's going to testify

[00:21:36] [SPEAKER_01]: is going to talk to an attorney about it. The attorney, you know, what should I expect? What's

[00:21:41] [SPEAKER_01]: going to happen?

[00:21:44] [SPEAKER_00]: And that's not a problem? That's not like an ethical issue or anything?

[00:21:48] [SPEAKER_01]: It's not an ethical issue.

[00:21:51] [SPEAKER_00]: OK.

[00:21:54] [SPEAKER_01]: And the other questions, as you say, were...the second question pertains to...he got...we're

[00:22:05] [SPEAKER_01]: going to get to this in a minute as well with the next section. The warden signed an affidavit.

[00:22:11] [SPEAKER_01]: And so they're asking something about the preparation of that affidavit. And then there's

[00:22:18] [SPEAKER_01]: policy questions about security at Westville.

[00:22:24] [SPEAKER_00]: Right. So is that pretty much it?

[00:22:28] [SPEAKER_01]: Yes.

[00:22:29] [SPEAKER_00]: Let's go to section seven.

[00:22:31] [SPEAKER_01]: This pertains to Joshua Robinson. Before you read the questions, can you remind us who this is?

[00:22:38] [SPEAKER_00]: So Joshua Robinson is a sergeant and a correctional officer at Westville Correctional Facility. And

[00:22:46] [SPEAKER_00]: the defense sort of infamously accused him of being an odinist. Now, let's just do a quick

[00:22:53] [SPEAKER_00]: reminder. Heathens are people who believe...in the United States, this is not true all over

[00:22:59] [SPEAKER_00]: the world. Words are used differently. But in the United States, heathens are people who

[00:23:04] [SPEAKER_00]: worship the Norse gods, the sort of Germanic, Norse, pagan gods. And you can think of...you

[00:23:13] [SPEAKER_00]: can equate heathens to Christians because like Christians, there are many different

[00:23:18] [SPEAKER_00]: sort of subsects of belief. And it's a diverse community in terms of their beliefs. But

[00:23:23] [SPEAKER_00]: fundamentally, all Christians believe, you know, a similar...you know, this kind of

[00:23:30] [SPEAKER_00]: this foundational things there, this foundational things with heathens.

[00:23:35] [SPEAKER_00]: Odinists are specifically a white supremacist gang that takes the heathen beliefs and, you know,

[00:23:46] [SPEAKER_00]: does stuff with them. But they're essentially a criminal gang. And that's sort of like if

[00:23:52] [SPEAKER_00]: you were going to assume anyone wearing a cross is like a Christian identity or Christian

[00:23:58] [SPEAKER_00]: identitarian, which is a white supremacist gang, like that would not be terribly fair.

[00:24:03] [SPEAKER_00]: But what the defense team has done again and again is look at anyone affiliated with heathen

[00:24:08] [SPEAKER_00]: symbols or even an interest in heathenry and made assumptions that that person is an odinist,

[00:24:14] [SPEAKER_00]: meaning they're in a criminal gang. So there's a lot of conflation going on there. That's why

[00:24:18] [SPEAKER_00]: I wanted to provide the definitions once again, because it can be a bit confusing. But, you know,

[00:24:23] [SPEAKER_00]: essentially what they've gotten the media to do is without sort of fact checking or understanding

[00:24:29] [SPEAKER_00]: any of this, just roll with calling people odinists when that is a very specific thing.

[00:24:35] [SPEAKER_00]: Anyway, so that's Joshua Robinson. He was apparently wearing patches that had heathen

[00:24:42] [SPEAKER_00]: symbols on them and also the phrase in Odin we trust. So the defense took that and said

[00:24:48] [SPEAKER_00]: they're odinists and they're abusing Richard Allen. And the implication was that the guards

[00:24:54] [SPEAKER_00]: were forcing him to confess in order to cover up the odinist conspiracy, which is pretty ridiculous.

[00:24:59] [SPEAKER_00]: And also the defense in one of their own filings indicated we have no evidence from this. We're

[00:25:04] [SPEAKER_01]: just going based on vibes. And as you may or may not remember at this point, close to a year ago,

[00:25:12] [SPEAKER_01]: Joshua Robinson filed with the court or rather his attorneys filed with the court

[00:25:18] [SPEAKER_01]: an affidavit in this affidavit. He basically says he is not an odinist and he never mistreated

[00:25:27] [SPEAKER_00]: Richard Allen. Yes, he's not a part of a cult. He's not mistreated. Richard Allen,

[00:25:32] [SPEAKER_00]: he's not an odinist. He it sounds like from the affidavit he is a heathen.

[00:25:38] [SPEAKER_00]: But I want to stress with everyone, there's nothing wrong with being a heathen.

[00:25:43] [SPEAKER_00]: That's not an inherently bad. There's nothing inherently bad about the religion. It's people's

[00:25:47] [SPEAKER_00]: beliefs. And we've talked to members of the Troth, which is a great organization. They're

[00:25:53] [SPEAKER_00]: anti-white supremacist, anti-racist and pro. They're very inclusive, very nice people.

[00:26:00] [SPEAKER_00]: So there's nothing wrong with being a heathen. You should not be discriminated against for your

[00:26:04] [SPEAKER_00]: religious beliefs as long as you're not part of some sort of cult that's harming people.

[00:26:10] [SPEAKER_01]: And this affidavit he did was apparently prepared for him by Elise Gallagher, who was a staff

[00:26:20] [SPEAKER_01]: attorney with the Department of Corrections. And let me say that also is not unusual for an affidavit

[00:26:26] [SPEAKER_01]: to be prepared by someone else. You would expect a normal everyday lay person doesn't really know

[00:26:34] [SPEAKER_01]: the legal forms for an affidavit. How do I do this? So typically, a person who would need to

[00:26:41] [SPEAKER_01]: file an affidavit would go and talk with an attorney. The attorney would get from them the

[00:26:47] [SPEAKER_01]: relevant information, and then the attorney would write up an affidavit based on the information

[00:26:53] [SPEAKER_01]: provided and then would present it to the person and say, is this accurate? And if it's not accurate,

[00:27:00] [SPEAKER_01]: the person would say, well, maybe change this or this. And then once the person is satisfied that

[00:27:05] [SPEAKER_01]: it is accurate, they would sign it. When they were signing it, they're saying, this is true. I swear

[00:27:11] [SPEAKER_01]: this is true. And so these questions that Anya is about to read pertain to the preparation of this

[00:27:21] [SPEAKER_00]: affidavit by staff attorney, Elise Gallagher. So I'll get to it. Yes. Quote seven on April 18th,

[00:27:30] [SPEAKER_00]: 2024, the defense deposed Joshua Robinson and the following questions were certified.

[00:27:35] [SPEAKER_00]: A generally described to me what kind of questions these were questions for the affidavit prepared by

[00:27:40] [SPEAKER_00]: Elise Gallagher. B, I'm not asking you about what Miss Gallagher talked to you about. I'm asking

[00:27:46] [SPEAKER_00]: you what questions you answered for the affidavit. C, what were those questions for the affidavit?

[00:27:51] [SPEAKER_00]: End quote. Are they trying to imply that he didn't know what he signed or something?

[00:27:55] [SPEAKER_00]: Like, are they trying to make him recite an affidavit that he put together like a year ago?

[00:28:02] [SPEAKER_01]: Well, at the time of this, the affidavit was only about six months old. Nonetheless. But also

[00:28:08] [SPEAKER_01]: they're trying to insinuate perhaps something was untoward about the preparation by Miss Gallagher.

[00:28:13] [SPEAKER_01]: And then it also just gets dicey when you're asking for communications between an attorney

[00:28:20] [SPEAKER_01]: and someone they're doing some work for. But yet again, the insinuation would be

[00:28:28] [SPEAKER_01]: that there's something untoward here and there's nothing to back up that insinuation that I'm aware

[00:28:33] [SPEAKER_00]: of. Well, I mean, frankly, the insinuation that something is untoward is pretty much the,

[00:28:38] [SPEAKER_00]: you know. The sub deck for this whole defense is, you know, implication, insinuation and conjecture.

[00:28:46] [SPEAKER_00]: Something's wrong, but that's basically all they have. Yeah, all they have. Yeah, that's fair.

[00:28:54] [SPEAKER_00]: And this is why I've said I've said this on the show before, but, you know, I've made this kind of

[00:28:59] [SPEAKER_00]: silly observation, but I think it holds true here. If if somebody, you know, offers to take

[00:29:07] [SPEAKER_00]: me out for ice cream and I say, oh boy, let's get some ice cream. Then then that's one thing. But

[00:29:12] [SPEAKER_00]: if someone offers me to take me out for ice cream and I say, you know, you want to take me out for

[00:29:17] [SPEAKER_00]: ice cream? It's like the the action that the person is proposing remains the same. But my

[00:29:24] [SPEAKER_00]: reaction to it changes and you can kind of get what I'm thinking from that. But that doesn't make

[00:29:30] [SPEAKER_00]: someone offering to take me out for ice cream. It doesn't make that an insult. It doesn't make

[00:29:34] [SPEAKER_00]: that a bad thing. I can say it in a sneering tone as possible, but that doesn't change the underlying

[00:29:42] [SPEAKER_00]: activity. So, you know, now if I had proof that the person saying they're going to take me out for

[00:29:49] [SPEAKER_00]: ice cream really wants to take me out and murder me, then then perhaps my reaction would be

[00:29:54] [SPEAKER_00]: justified and I could show that. But I would I would need something more than just saying it in a in a

[00:30:01] [SPEAKER_00]: kind of a offended tone in order to really, I think, sell people on that. Otherwise, they just

[00:30:07] [SPEAKER_01]: sound kind of paranoid. Yes. The next question Anya is about to read is so stripped of context,

[00:30:15] [SPEAKER_01]: it is difficult to assess. But once you go ahead and read it regardless. Quote eight. On May 3rd,

[00:30:22] [SPEAKER_00]: 2024, the defense deposed Tony Liggett and the following question was certified. A. What was

[00:30:27] [SPEAKER_00]: the purpose of that unified command meeting? End quote. Yeah, that is that is hard to. Yeah,

[00:30:36] [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, there's not even much to say about that. So this next section, before we get into it,

[00:30:42] [SPEAKER_01]: this is another type of defense attorney question you would often hear. Let's say, for instance,

[00:30:51] [SPEAKER_01]: Anya were to say to me, Kevin, if you stood up in the courtroom and your shoelaces were tied

[00:30:59] [SPEAKER_01]: together and you fell flat on your face and everyone laughed at you, wouldn't you agree

[00:31:03] [SPEAKER_01]: you were a big idiot? Sorry. So so in other words. Anya is proffering there a scenario,

[00:31:17] [SPEAKER_01]: a hypothetical scenario which may or may not ever actually happen, and then using that to try to get

[00:31:23] [SPEAKER_01]: me to make a devastating admission about myself. And so defense attorneys would often do that.

[00:31:30] [SPEAKER_01]: They say, well, if this is true, then doesn't your whole case fall apart? And so we're going

[00:31:35] [SPEAKER_01]: to get some questions like that. And a point I want to make about this is that in all criminal cases,

[00:31:45] [SPEAKER_01]: or at least in most criminal cases, certainly in this one, the evidence on both sides,

[00:31:52] [SPEAKER_01]: whether you agree that the evidence on both sides of this case, whether you feel that he is innocent,

[00:31:59] [SPEAKER_01]: Richard Allen is innocent, or whether you feel he is guilty, it's cumulative. And if you believe

[00:32:05] [SPEAKER_01]: he's innocent and we say, well, what if this one fact that you know, what if this one fact

[00:32:12] [SPEAKER_01]: that you know about this case, what if that changed? Would that change your mind?

[00:32:16] [SPEAKER_01]: The odds are that would not. And if you feel he is guilty and we say, well, what if this one single

[00:32:22] [SPEAKER_01]: fact changes? Would that change your mind? The odds are that it's not because it's cumulative.

[00:32:27] [SPEAKER_01]: Whatever conclusion you have reached is not based on one single piece of evidence. You've based it

[00:32:33] [SPEAKER_01]: on amount of evidence on either side. And so in these questions, you're going to hear the defense

[00:32:41] [SPEAKER_01]: attorneys offer a hypothesis to try to get a devastating admission.

[00:32:47] [SPEAKER_00]: And the goal is in this, the goal is that if the law enforcement official in this case,

[00:32:54] [SPEAKER_00]: Steve Mullen responds, oh, yes, if this if X is true, then that would be devastating to the case.

[00:33:02] [SPEAKER_00]: The goal is to be able to then, I guess, roll that out in front of the jury and said,

[00:33:06] [SPEAKER_00]: well, we've attacked X and I think we've pretty much dismissed it. And if that's true,

[00:33:11] [SPEAKER_00]: then even the law enforcement people are saying you have to acquit. That's what the goal is,

[00:33:17] [SPEAKER_01]: correct? Yes. And also keep in mind, Anya's insulting question to me. The proper response

[00:33:24] [SPEAKER_01]: is, well, whether I'm an idiot if I have my shoelaces tied together and fall is basically

[00:33:30] [SPEAKER_01]: immaterial because that didn't happen. That's just a hypothetical at this point. If you can

[00:33:35] [SPEAKER_01]: produce some evidence that at some point I had my shoelaces tied together and that made me fall,

[00:33:42] [SPEAKER_01]: maybe we could have that conversation. But the odds are, even if that did happen,

[00:33:49] [SPEAKER_01]: that one single event wouldn't be enough to brand me as an idiot.

[00:33:53] [SPEAKER_00]: You sound so defensive right now. This didn't happen, Kevin.

[00:33:58] [SPEAKER_00]: Am I making sense? I think you are. It's

[00:34:01] [SPEAKER_00]: it's, you know, it's something that I think you just have to be aware of. Now, I mean,

[00:34:05] [SPEAKER_00]: it's common and it's their job to do this. So it's not it's not something that's like

[00:34:10] [SPEAKER_00]: bad necessarily. It's just it's important to realize that this is

[00:34:16] [SPEAKER_00]: this is largely sort of rhetorical exercises that are fishing.

[00:34:20] [SPEAKER_01]: So with that in mind, we've discussed the type of questions that are they wanted answered.

[00:34:25] [SPEAKER_00]: Once you read the questions, quote nine on September 13th,

[00:34:29] [SPEAKER_00]: 2024, the defense deposed Steve Mullen, Stephen Mullen. Mr. Mullen refused to answer questions

[00:34:35] [SPEAKER_00]: posed in subsections A through D below rather than answer the simple yes or no question.

[00:34:40] [SPEAKER_00]: Mullen repeatedly made conclusory statements to defense counsel that Richard Allen was the man

[00:34:45] [SPEAKER_00]: that Betsy Blair observed and was the man Sarah Carbaugh observed, etc. The deposition has not

[00:34:52] [SPEAKER_00]: yet been transcribed. The defense cannot be certain as to the exact questions formed at

[00:34:56] [SPEAKER_00]: the deposition. The questions certified were to the effect of A through D below or if answered,

[00:35:01] [SPEAKER_00]: would have led to questions similar to A through D below. A is your timeline and theory of the case

[00:35:08] [SPEAKER_00]: fatal to the prosecution's case against Richard Allen if the person Betsy Blair observed on the

[00:35:13] [SPEAKER_00]: bridge is not Richard Allen? B is your timeline and theory of the case fatal to the prosecution's

[00:35:18] [SPEAKER_00]: case against Richard Allen if the vehicle Betsy Blair observed at the CPS building was not

[00:35:23] [SPEAKER_00]: Richard Allen's vehicle? C, if Betsy Blair observed one person and Sarah Carbaugh observed an entirely

[00:35:29] [SPEAKER_00]: different person, is the prosecution's timeline and theory of the case as it relates to Richard

[00:35:34] [SPEAKER_00]: Allen fatally flawed? D, if neither Betsy Blair nor Sarah Carbaugh observed Richard Allen on

[00:35:41] [SPEAKER_00]: February 13th, 2017, is the state's timeline and theory of the case as it relates to Richard

[00:35:46] [SPEAKER_01]: Allen fatally flawed? And E, Kevin, if your shoelaces were tied together in court and you

[00:35:52] [SPEAKER_01]: felt flout on your face, wouldn't you agree you're a big idiot? It's the same sort of question.

[00:35:56] [SPEAKER_00]: It is the same sort of question. And, you know, one thing I'm curious about this is not one of

[00:36:03] [SPEAKER_00]: the questions, but they say or if answered would have led to questions similar to A through D

[00:36:09] [SPEAKER_00]: below. What does that mean? Are they saying like he did answer some of these or I was confused

[00:36:16] [SPEAKER_00]: about that phrasing. They're saying the question certified were to the effect of A through D below

[00:36:20] [SPEAKER_00]: or if answered would have led to questions similar to A through D below. I don't know.

[00:36:27] [SPEAKER_00]: For me, it just raises more questions about what exactly this is.

[00:36:30] [SPEAKER_01]: Adam Rafferty Well, they mentioned

[00:36:31] [SPEAKER_01]: that the deposition has not yet been transcribed.

[00:36:34] [SPEAKER_00]: Devon So they're just like spitballing here? Is that?

[00:36:38] [SPEAKER_01]: Adam Rafferty I guess this is what.

[00:36:39] [SPEAKER_00]: Devon They think happened? I don't know. Well,

[00:36:42] [SPEAKER_00]: whatever. I mean, either way, there's no there's I mean, this obviously happened recently. So

[00:36:49] [SPEAKER_00]: maybe this is just their best memory. I don't know. It just this kind of thing is.

[00:36:57] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty I mean, I'm not we don't we don't know the context.

[00:37:02] [SPEAKER_00]: But if these are the kind of questions, these are very much

[00:37:07] [SPEAKER_00]: sort of argumentative type of questions that would make sense not to answer in a deposition.

[00:37:12] [SPEAKER_00]: And I can say that because I've actually been deposed. I was not a party to the case. And also,

[00:37:19] [SPEAKER_00]: it had nothing to do with anything about my job or the murder sheet or anything like that.

[00:37:23] [SPEAKER_00]: But I have been deposed. And so

[00:37:26] [SPEAKER_01]: Adam Rafferty nothing to do with your professional life.

[00:37:29] [SPEAKER_00]: Devon Nothing to do with my professional life. Again,

[00:37:30] [SPEAKER_00]: I was not a party to the case. But I definitely experienced this. Not necessarily such aggressive

[00:37:37] [SPEAKER_00]: leading questions, but pretty close. And where the goal is to get me to say something that

[00:37:44] [SPEAKER_00]: would be either good for one side or damaging to the other side.

[00:37:49] [SPEAKER_00]: And you just have to be aware of that. There's a lot of that kind of,

[00:37:54] [SPEAKER_00]: you know, like, let's insert some kernel of the truth into this question. But then constructed

[00:38:01] [SPEAKER_00]: in a way where like, they've built a bridge for me. And if I cross it, then I'm on their side.

[00:38:06] [SPEAKER_00]: Right. And it's like, you just have to be aware of that. Like, you're not just walking into nothing,

[00:38:11] [SPEAKER_00]: you're crossing the bridge that they built for you. And I think, you know, it's like,

[00:38:17] [SPEAKER_00]: it's just kind of fascinating to watch.

[00:38:19] [SPEAKER_01]: Adam Rafferty

[00:38:19] [SPEAKER_01]: They're very good at trying to make ordinary things look bad.

[00:38:23] [SPEAKER_00]: Devon Yeah, there was stuff like that,

[00:38:25] [SPEAKER_00]: where it's like, it wasn't really directly about me. But there was stuff where I felt like I was

[00:38:29] [SPEAKER_00]: being led to condemn someone or, oh, you know, isn't this really the thing to blame here? And,

[00:38:38] [SPEAKER_00]: you know, there's a lot of that. There's a lot of repetitive questions to get

[00:38:43] [SPEAKER_00]: you to say something different. And even if you're trying to be honest, it can be

[00:38:50] [SPEAKER_00]: difficult because the thing that you don't get that's different from a deposition is a

[00:38:56] [SPEAKER_00]: conversation. If we're having a conversation, and you're asking me questions about something,

[00:39:01] [SPEAKER_00]: I'm going to be off the cuff, I'm going to be expansive in my answers, I'm going to try to

[00:39:05] [SPEAKER_00]: give you as much information as possible. But the goal in a deposition is often not to get to

[00:39:10] [SPEAKER_00]: information, it's not necessarily even to get to truth, it is to get something that helps you win.

[00:39:15] [SPEAKER_00]: And you have to be more aware and careful about your responses because having one little detail,

[00:39:23] [SPEAKER_00]: you know, come out wrong in a conversation isn't a big deal. If I describe something badly,

[00:39:29] [SPEAKER_00]: no one's going to come down on me and say, how dare you get that wrong? In a deposition,

[00:39:34] [SPEAKER_01]: that's not the case. And another thing to remember about a deposition before we move on,

[00:39:39] [SPEAKER_01]: and how it's different from a conversation is if you're talking with someone,

[00:39:43] [SPEAKER_01]: and they ask you a question, and you think you answer it, and then there was silence,

[00:39:49] [SPEAKER_01]: I think most people have the natural inclination to try to fill that silence.

[00:39:54] [SPEAKER_00]: And in a deposition, don't do that. Well, yeah, that's very true.

[00:39:59] [SPEAKER_00]: Should we move on? I'll just say this.

[00:40:02] [SPEAKER_00]: Okay. I think this definitely strikes me more as a press release than anything, because I don't

[00:40:07] [SPEAKER_00]: really see much context for this. And it seems more of like, to have the media run with a narrative

[00:40:16] [SPEAKER_00]: about law enforcement is stonewalling, they're not answering these questions. And then if you

[00:40:21] [SPEAKER_00]: look at the questions, maybe you can understand why. And when you look at the context of a

[00:40:25] [SPEAKER_00]: deposition, you can certainly understand why. But this just seems more in the realm of press

[00:40:31] [SPEAKER_00]: release versus something more substantive in terms of a filing. That's just my opinion. But

[00:40:37] [SPEAKER_00]: I'm not really seeing much here in terms of like, wow, I can't believe

[00:40:41] [SPEAKER_00]: they didn't answer that question. It's just the sort of pattern of asserting to the media,

[00:40:47] [SPEAKER_00]: you know, their case. But that's just my thought.

[00:40:51] [SPEAKER_01]: So before we go, I wanted to mention something for whatever it may be worth. And I'm going to

[00:40:57] [SPEAKER_01]: choose my words carefully here. So recently on the intranet, there has been a story circulating.

[00:41:07] [SPEAKER_01]: And this is a story that is not directly related to the facts of this case. And therefore,

[00:41:16] [SPEAKER_01]: it is not covered by the gag order. But it pertains to something that Anya and I, and I think

[00:41:23] [SPEAKER_01]: all of you listening would want to know about and would want to know if it was true and accurate.

[00:41:29] [SPEAKER_01]: And we didn't feel as if we could come on and talk about the details of this story with you

[00:41:36] [SPEAKER_01]: here on the program, unless we knew for a fact it was indeed accurate. And so we reached out via text

[00:41:45] [SPEAKER_01]: to Kathy Allen, the wife of accused killer Richard Allen. And we asked her, is this accurate?

[00:41:54] [SPEAKER_01]: And she did not reply. And then at that point, as you may or may not know, Indiana has a mechanism

[00:42:03] [SPEAKER_01]: in place which allows you to communicate electronically with people in different

[00:42:11] [SPEAKER_01]: jails and prisons across the state. And so we set up one of those communication systems,

[00:42:18] [SPEAKER_01]: and we got approved, presumably by Richard Allen, we got approved to communicate with him.

[00:42:25] [SPEAKER_01]: And so we sent him a message about this story, asking him just, is this true? Is this not true?

[00:42:34] [SPEAKER_01]: Do you have anything you can tell us about it? He did not answer. But a few days after

[00:42:42] [SPEAKER_01]: we sent that message, we got a notification that we would no longer be allowed to send messages

[00:42:51] [SPEAKER_01]: to Richard Allen and that our access had been cut off at the request of his attorneys.

[00:42:58] [SPEAKER_01]: So make of all that what you will, but we wanted to share it with you in the interests

[00:43:04] [SPEAKER_00]: of transparency. Well, I mean, our motto as journalists is if something's going on about

[00:43:11] [SPEAKER_00]: you know, we understand that there's a gag order, but if there's something circulating out there,

[00:43:16] [SPEAKER_00]: we want to give people their chance to say their side of the story. So when it's something that's

[00:43:22] [SPEAKER_00]: not about a gag order, when it's something about, you know, kind of just general stuff that's still

[00:43:28] [SPEAKER_00]: getting attention, it's our job to essentially at least try to communicate with people and get

[00:43:33] [SPEAKER_00]: their thoughts, get their side of it, get their opinions. And so, you know, that's what we do.

[00:43:41] [SPEAKER_01]: That's our job. Yes. And if this story were untrue, it would be unfair to the Allens to

[00:43:49] [SPEAKER_01]: continue spreading it. And if it was true, that's also something that's worth knowing.

[00:43:54] [SPEAKER_00]: So giving someone a chance to share their thoughts about it and kind of,

[00:43:57] [SPEAKER_00]: you know, break down. So, yeah, it's definitely something that we're always going to

[00:44:03] [SPEAKER_00]: try whatever way we can to reach out to people. And we tried and it didn't work out.

[00:44:08] [SPEAKER_01]: Well, not this time. Yes. So thank you all for listening.

[00:44:13] [SPEAKER_01]: Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we

[00:44:19] [SPEAKER_01]: cover, please email us at murdersheetatgmail.com. If you have actionable information about an

[00:44:28] [SPEAKER_01]: unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:44:33] [SPEAKER_00]: If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com

[00:44:41] [SPEAKER_00]: slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests,

[00:44:47] [SPEAKER_00]: you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:44:57] [SPEAKER_01]: Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet,

[00:45:02] [SPEAKER_01]: and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:45:07] [SPEAKER_00]: If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered,

[00:45:11] [SPEAKER_00]: you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research

[00:45:17] [SPEAKER_00]: and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account,

[00:45:23] [SPEAKER_00]: but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.

[00:45:53] [SPEAKER_01]: If you'd like to learn more about the Murder Sheet,

[00:45:56] [SPEAKER_01]: check out our website at www.vihimp.com.

[00:46:02] [SPEAKER_01]: If you'd like to learn more about the Murder Sheet,

[00:46:03] [SPEAKER_01]: check out our website at www.vihimp.com.

[00:46:24] [SPEAKER_00]: The grapefruit CBG and CBD flow state gummies help me feel energized and focused to get a lot

[00:46:30] [SPEAKER_00]: done this summer in terms of scheduling, conducting interviews, running around after

[00:46:34] [SPEAKER_01]: sources, and more. You don't need a medical card to enjoy Viahemp, and these products

[00:46:40] [SPEAKER_00]: ship legally to all 50 states. If you're 21 and older, head to viahemp.com and use the code

[00:46:47] [SPEAKER_00]: msheet to receive 15% off. That's v-i-i-a-h-e-m-p dot com and use code msheet at checkout. After

[00:46:57] [SPEAKER_00]: you purchase, they ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we

[00:47:01] [SPEAKER_00]: sent you. Enhance your every day with Viah.