The Delphi Murders: Admissibility and "Demeanig" Commentary

[00:00:00] Winding down at night can be rough for some of us, especially those of us who never stop

[00:00:04] thinking about chilling crimes.

[00:00:06] Thankfully, our terrific new sponsor can help us all chill out of it.

[00:00:10] We're talking, of course, about Via Hemp.

[00:00:13] They offer a range of delicious gummies of both the THC and THC-free CBD varieties.

[00:00:20] These gummies legally ship to all 50 states, so you can get started on improving your focus,

[00:00:26] recovery, sleep, pleasure, and creativity.

[00:00:30] Or you can just try one to enjoy.

[00:00:32] I've tried their THC-free CBD, CBN, and CBG gummies.

[00:00:37] Their Zen Blueberry Gummy helped me fall asleep and unwind at the end of a busy day.

[00:00:42] And their Flow State Grapefruit Gummy helped me get through a lot of work stress-free.

[00:00:47] When I want to get productive, I try a Flow State Gummy and get after it.

[00:00:51] Via Hemp has plenty of THC, THC-free, and microdosing options to choose from, whether

[00:00:57] you're looking to vibe or focus or sleep.

[00:01:00] Head to viahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off plus one free sample of

[00:01:07] their award-winning gummies.

[00:01:10] That's viiahemp.com and use code MSHEET at checkout.

[00:01:17] Please support our show and tell them we sent you.

[00:01:20] That's your Every Day with Via Hemp.

[00:01:21] Again, if you're over 21, you can get 15% off and a free pack of award-winning gummies

[00:01:27] with our exclusive code MSHEET at viahemp.com.

[00:01:32] That's viiahemp.com.

[00:01:37] BP added more than $130 billion to the U.S. economy over the past two years by making

[00:01:44] investments from coast to coast.

[00:01:47] That's like building EV charging hubs in Washington State and starting up new infrastructure

[00:01:53] in the Gulf of Mexico.

[00:01:55] It's and, not or.

[00:01:57] See what doing both means for energy nationwide at bp.com slash investinginamerica.

[00:02:08] We all have that friend who wakes up early to go get everyone McDonald's breakfast while

[00:02:12] the rest of us sleep in.

[00:02:15] This is your sign to thank them.

[00:02:17] And if you're that friend, this is us saying thank you.

[00:02:22] Just a friendly reminder that right now get any size iced coffee before 11am for just 99

[00:02:28] cents and a satisfying sausage McMuffin with egg is just $2.79.

[00:02:32] Price and participation may vary cannot be combined with any other offer or combo meal.

[00:02:39] Content warning.

[00:02:40] This episode includes discussion of the murder of two children.

[00:02:44] Today on the murder sheet, we're going to be going over some of the recent developments

[00:02:47] in the Delphi case that concerns a very, very interesting filing from prosecuting attorney

[00:02:54] Nicholas McCleland as well as another somewhat less interesting document from attorney for

[00:03:01] the attorneys David Hennessey.

[00:03:04] My name is Anya Kane.

[00:03:05] I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenlee.

[00:03:08] I'm an attorney and this is the murder sheet.

[00:03:11] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting interviews and deep dives into murder

[00:03:16] cases.

[00:03:17] We're the murder sheet and this is the Delphi murders admissibility and demeaning commentary.

[00:04:09] Before we get to the filings that Anya mentioned, let's just hop back for a moment to the hearing

[00:04:15] that was held last week.

[00:04:17] The hearing of course that Anya and I were not able to attend to our regret.

[00:04:22] I think there's still some confusion about what exactly happened there.

[00:04:32] Essentially the defense came in and said we need longer than the scheduled time for the

[00:04:39] trial and the fact is the trial had been scheduled for a two week duration all along in the process

[00:04:49] from the first time it was originally put on the calendar and inevitably postponed probably

[00:04:54] a year ago.

[00:04:55] It's just always been a two week time frame and they did not indicate that there were

[00:05:02] any issues with that until almost literally the very last minute.

[00:05:06] I think you had something.

[00:05:07] Yeah, and let me just before I have my little analogy, I feel like it's important to stress

[00:05:14] that most murder trials are not necessarily that long, even ones that seem complicated.

[00:05:21] So people often express surprise about two weeks.

[00:05:24] How could they possibly do everything in two weeks?

[00:05:27] Well, most cases seem to manage to get by with that amount of time or even less.

[00:05:34] One could argue perhaps correctly that Delphi poses some unique challenges.

[00:05:38] I'm not really disputing that, but there is a certain point where duplication of witnesses

[00:05:45] and making the same point again and again and again and leaving less room for grandstanding

[00:05:51] on both sides does become something that is actually desirable.

[00:05:58] But anyways, we can argue that Delphi, again, given the scope of it, perhaps needs some

[00:06:02] extra time.

[00:06:04] To me, what really has stuck with me as I've been thinking about it afterwards is how

[00:06:11] the defense went about doing this, how they went about asking for more time.

[00:06:15] And I guess I came up with what I feel is an analogy that kind of describes perhaps

[00:06:20] how I take away how this all went down.

[00:06:24] Let's say Kevin and I are a couple.

[00:06:26] I mean, we are.

[00:06:27] But let's say in this version of reality, we're hoping to take a vacation and both of

[00:06:32] us have agreed and understand that a vacation is two weeks long.

[00:06:36] And that's what we've always discussed.

[00:06:38] And that's what we've defined as a vacation.

[00:06:41] And those discussions have been going on for months.

[00:06:43] We've been talking about this vacation for a while, planning it.

[00:06:47] And so at some point I'm really stressed out.

[00:06:50] I turn around and tell Kevin, I need a vacation in May.

[00:06:55] We got to fast track this thing or I'm going to have a meltdown.

[00:06:59] So Kevin clears his schedule and we make room for it.

[00:07:03] Then a few days prior to us heading out to our vacation, I suddenly object saying that

[00:07:08] I really need a much longer vacation because I'm not going to be able to fit in all the

[00:07:12] activities I want to.

[00:07:15] So the issue there is not the fact that I asked for a longer vacation.

[00:07:20] Maybe it's reasonable.

[00:07:21] Maybe my activities are freaking dope and we're going to have a great time.

[00:07:24] And I need this.

[00:07:25] I need more time to relax because I'm really burnt out.

[00:07:27] So it's not really the fact that I asked for more time that's the issue here.

[00:07:32] But doing so at the last minute and then getting mad if Kevin has stuff booked for, you know,

[00:07:40] after the two weeks where that would basically prevent us from going on a longer vacation.

[00:07:46] That does seem unreasonable.

[00:07:47] Perhaps Kevin is slightly at fault for not asking me or not checking in and double checking

[00:07:52] earlier.

[00:07:53] But it seems a little bit arbitrary for me to be suddenly objecting to that in May.

[00:08:00] So yeah.

[00:08:01] Yeah.

[00:08:02] And I think that's an important distinction to make because there's two different issues

[00:08:05] here.

[00:08:06] One is how long does the defense need to present its case?

[00:08:12] And everyone agrees that they should have a fair amount of time to properly present their

[00:08:17] case.

[00:08:18] And I frankly felt that a two week time frame for the entire trial was a bit short.

[00:08:25] So with that said, if the defense shared the concerns I had about that being too short,

[00:08:32] then perhaps they could have informed the judge of those concerns earlier in the process

[00:08:38] because she put the two week trial on the schedule some months ago.

[00:08:44] And also they wait, they conveniently wait till the moment, you know, where it's too

[00:08:48] late because the jury questions have been sent out.

[00:08:53] And the judge indicated that her understanding of the rules is that once she has sent these

[00:08:59] forms out to the jurors saying a two week trial, then that can't be stretched out or changed.

[00:09:06] I've seen people say, well, maybe Judge Kohl is not right about that.

[00:09:09] Maybe she is.

[00:09:10] But that does seem to be her interpretation of the rule and it seems to be a fair interpretation

[00:09:15] of the rule.

[00:09:17] And so once those questionnaires have gone out, her hands in her mind at least are tied

[00:09:23] and she can't change the length of the trial.

[00:09:25] But again, the defense knew what the scheduled length of the trial was prior to her sending

[00:09:32] out that questionnaire.

[00:09:35] And so if they had those concerns, they could have shared them then.

[00:09:41] It's difficult to believe they suddenly woke up on the morning of April 30th and realized

[00:09:45] they need more time.

[00:09:47] I'm just going to say this, and please keep in mind, this is my personal opinion.

[00:09:51] I'm not speaking as somebody who has all the answers here.

[00:09:54] I'm just viewing this from the lens of an outsider who's just familiar with what's going

[00:10:02] on here.

[00:10:03] And I feel like the two weeks issue was somewhat, at least partially, pretext to ensure that

[00:10:11] May did not happen for trial.

[00:10:14] I don't think that this team was ready.

[00:10:17] I think there's been a lot of sort of obfuscating discussions online about how they were tricked

[00:10:23] into October.

[00:10:25] I think the defense team made this call because they realized that they were not in any way

[00:10:30] ready and could not become ready within the course of a few days, and they needed more

[00:10:35] time.

[00:10:36] And listen, from the perspective of wanting this to be a fair trial for Richard Allen,

[00:10:41] that's a good decision.

[00:10:44] You shouldn't be racing into this.

[00:10:45] I think the whole thing about the two weeks thing, I mean, I'm sure they do feel they

[00:10:50] need more time.

[00:10:51] I don't think that's insincere.

[00:10:53] I just think the way they went about doing this was to basically delay trial.

[00:11:00] And honestly, I question whether or not they were ever sincere about May.

[00:11:05] So I guess I'm very skeptical here.

[00:11:10] And I think some of the discussions I've seen have really missed the point where people

[00:11:16] seem to think this was like the judge's trump card of like, haha, we're delayed.

[00:11:22] I think out of everybody involved, I think my guess, and again, I don't know this, but

[00:11:27] I have a feeling that Judge Gull probably wants this done and to be over with.

[00:11:34] I think the prosecution's ready to go.

[00:11:37] I do not think the defense is.

[00:11:38] My own observations when I look at the judge, when I look at the prosecution team, certainly

[00:11:46] when I look at the family members, when they were in court for the hearings, none of these

[00:11:51] people are having fun.

[00:11:53] None of these people are like, oh, let's prolong this great experience.

[00:11:56] I think they're ready for it to be over.

[00:11:59] I think the defense is probably not having fun.

[00:12:01] I think their reputations have been tanked by this whole situation, frankly.

[00:12:05] Whether that's rightly or wrongly, we can debate.

[00:12:08] But I think they are looking to not humiliate themselves at a trial.

[00:12:13] And I think had they gone forward in May, they would have.

[00:12:17] So you're saying in your mind, this was a face-saving attempt by them to delay the trial?

[00:12:22] 100 percent.

[00:12:23] And they're very much about saving face because sometimes it seems like that's all they have.

[00:12:29] The journey to adopt healthy habits can be a lonely one, but you don't have to do it

[00:12:34] alone.

[00:12:35] Weight loss in particular can be a hard road.

[00:12:38] Eating healthy and adopting life-affirming exercise routines can be terrific steps, but

[00:12:43] it's hard to sometimes know how to do all of that in a safe and sustainable manner.

[00:12:47] And it's also difficult to figure out how to keep the weight off once you do achieve

[00:12:52] results.

[00:12:53] The good news is that our new sponsor, Rowe, can help.

[00:12:56] Over 200,000 people can already attest to this.

[00:12:59] Rowe helps you get access to one of the most popular and effective weight loss shots on

[00:13:04] the market.

[00:13:05] Then, through their Rowe Body Program, you can set up a comprehensive, sustainable, and

[00:13:09] safe weight loss program.

[00:13:12] It's all tailored to your specific lifestyle, health status, and goals.

[00:13:16] Add to that one-on-one weekly coaching with a registered nurse who can help you with lifestyle

[00:13:21] changes, exercise routines, and maintaining a nutritious diet.

[00:13:26] On average, the program sees participants lose 15-20% of their weight in a year.

[00:13:31] Plus, they get to keep it off.

[00:13:33] We only wish the Rowe Body Program had been around when we started our own weight loss

[00:13:37] journeys.

[00:13:38] With Rowe, the average weight loss is 15-20% in one year with healthy lifestyle changes.

[00:13:43] BMI and other eligibility criteria apply.

[00:13:46] Go to rowe.co.msheet.

[00:13:50] Sign up today and you'll pay just $99 for your first month, and $145 a month after

[00:13:56] that.

[00:13:57] Medication costs are separate.

[00:13:59] That's r-o-dot-c-o-slash-m-sheet.

[00:14:05] Have you ever covered a carpet stain with a rug?

[00:14:07] Ignored a leaky faucet?

[00:14:08] Pretended your half-painted living room is supposed to look like that?

[00:14:11] Well, you're not alone.

[00:14:13] We've all gone unfinished on projects.

[00:14:15] But there's an easier way.

[00:14:16] When you download Thumbtack, it's easier to care for your home from top to bottom.

[00:14:20] Pull out your phone and adjust a few taps.

[00:14:22] You can search, chat, and book highly rated pros right in your neighborhood.

[00:14:26] Plus, you'll know what to tackle next because Thumbtack is the app that shows you what to

[00:14:30] do, who to hire, and when.

[00:14:32] So say goodbye to all those unfinished home projects and say hello to caring for your

[00:14:36] home the easier way.

[00:14:38] Download Thumbtack and start a project today.

[00:14:42] The Coca-Cola Company, Keurig Dr. Pepper, and PepsiCo are bringing consumers more choices

[00:14:48] with less sugar than ever before.

[00:14:50] In fact, nearly 60% of beverages sold contain zero sugar.

[00:14:55] Visit BalanceUS.org to learn more.

[00:15:01] Should we move on to the state request for pretrial ruling on admissibility?

[00:15:06] This one's one of those rules.

[00:15:08] This is one of those filings where you read it and you're like, oh my goodness.

[00:15:12] It's a pretty short filing.

[00:15:14] You seem to be in fine voice.

[00:15:15] Do you want to just read the whole thing?

[00:15:17] Sure.

[00:15:18] So, quote, comes now the state of Indiana by prosecuting attorney Nicholas C. McCleeland

[00:15:24] and hereby requests a pretrial ruling as to the admissibility of certain communications

[00:15:29] made by Richard Allen to a psychologist.

[00:15:32] In support of this request, the state submits the following.

[00:15:35] One, that Richard Allen has access to mental health services at the Indiana Department of

[00:15:40] Corrections where he has been housed for safekeeping pursuant to court order.

[00:15:45] Two, the mental health personnel employed by the Centurion Health provide psychologists

[00:15:51] and or counselors to whom Richard Allen has made statements.

[00:15:54] Three, that in particular, Dr. Monica H. Walla, a psychologist licensed to practice in the

[00:16:01] state of Indiana, has documented statements of Richard Allen which the state believes

[00:16:06] fall within an exception to confidentiality pursuant to Indiana Code 2533.

[00:16:11] 117.

[00:16:12] Four, Indiana Code 2533.

[00:16:16] 117, privileged communications between psychologists and clients states in part, a psychologist

[00:16:23] licensed under this article may not disclose any information acquired from persons with

[00:16:28] whom the psychologist has dealt in a professional capacity except under the following circumstances.

[00:16:34] One, trials for homicide when the disclosure relates directly to the fact or immediate

[00:16:40] circumstances of said homicide.

[00:16:43] Five, the state intends to offer into evidence the testimony of Dr. Monica Walla as documented

[00:16:49] in her reports entitled Department of Corrections Behavioral Health Suicide Observation.

[00:16:54] Six, that the state seeks this ruling for the sole purpose of expediting in the presentation

[00:17:00] of evidence during trial to put the defendant on notice as the evidentiary exception and

[00:17:06] to obtain a pretrial ruling on admissibility.

[00:17:09] Wherefore, the state requests the court provide a ruling as to the admissibility of Richard

[00:17:12] Allen's statements through testimony of Dr. Walla, testimony per the exception cited in

[00:17:17] IC 2533.

[00:17:18] 117.

[00:17:19] One, and for all other just and proper relief in the circumstances.

[00:17:24] Quote.

[00:17:26] So that's a lot of words, many of them with multiple syllables.

[00:17:31] So let's parse this out a bit.

[00:17:34] They're saying that they want this doctor, Dr. Walla, to come in and talk about some

[00:17:39] statements she received from Richard Allen.

[00:17:42] And then we look and we see that basically under Indian law, she's only allowed to do

[00:17:48] this if these statements relate directly to the fact or immediate circumstances of said

[00:17:54] homicide.

[00:17:55] So it seems pretty clear.

[00:17:57] We don't know this for a fact, obviously, but it seems pretty clear that we're talking

[00:18:01] about a confession.

[00:18:02] We're you know, I mean, this is one of those things where you don't need to you just need

[00:18:06] to read the filing and it basically tells you what's happening here.

[00:18:11] He's made a criminating statements or he's confessed to this psychologist.

[00:18:15] He's made statements related directly to the facts of the homicide.

[00:18:19] Yeah.

[00:18:20] And let's go a step further.

[00:18:22] We know that this is not the only confession he's made.

[00:18:27] He's made confessions reportedly to as many as 30 different people repeatedly.

[00:18:33] So why are they trying so hard to get this particular confession in?

[00:18:40] And an educated guess would be that maybe this confession is a really, really good one,

[00:18:47] a really strong one.

[00:18:49] And so then you say, Kevin, what do you mean?

[00:18:51] Aren't all confessions created equal?

[00:18:54] And I'll tell you what I mean.

[00:18:57] Let's say for instance that Anya comes on the show and in a fit of remorse says, I stole

[00:19:02] cereal.

[00:19:03] OK, that's interesting.

[00:19:05] It's incriminating.

[00:19:08] But does it really give us a lot of information?

[00:19:11] What if Anya comes on the show and says, I stole cereal at this particular supermarket

[00:19:17] at this particular time.

[00:19:19] As I was walking in, I saw my neighbor who was wearing this particular piece of clothing.

[00:19:24] I saw these other people in the store and so on.

[00:19:28] If she gives a lot of detail about what she saw and experienced as she was stealing the

[00:19:35] cereal, that makes the confession a stronger one.

[00:19:39] Does that make sense?

[00:19:40] It does.

[00:19:41] And I'd like to add a little bit of a caveat here because you've been using the word confession

[00:19:45] a lot and what the documentation in the filing so far has described these often as incriminating

[00:19:52] statements.

[00:19:53] What is the difference?

[00:19:54] I see a confession as somebody sitting down and saying, I did this.

[00:19:59] Here's what I did.

[00:20:01] An incriminating statement could be something that aligns with a confession or certainly

[00:20:05] points to guilt, but it's not necessarily quite as bombshell.

[00:20:11] So I would say reading this document, my inclination would be that this is more on the confession

[00:20:20] side of the spectrum than incriminating statement.

[00:20:23] If you're going around saying, I feel so, so bad about what happened on February 13th,

[00:20:29] 2017, that's somewhat incriminating, but it's not necessarily a confession.

[00:20:35] Maybe you're complaining about something else.

[00:20:37] But this to me strikes me as...

[00:20:40] And also the setting of a psychologist where you're unpacking your trauma, your concerns,

[00:20:48] your anxiety, your depression, what have you.

[00:20:54] This seems like it could be very, very bad for Richard Allen.

[00:20:58] Yeah.

[00:20:59] Whatever Dr. Walla documented from Richard Allen seems like it would be especially bad

[00:21:05] for him and for the case.

[00:21:07] Yeah, for his case.

[00:21:09] But very good for the prosecutor's case.

[00:21:11] Yeah.

[00:21:12] And again, I think it must be something important for them to try to get something in from a

[00:21:17] psychologist.

[00:21:18] There is clearly that exception written into the law, but I think some people have...

[00:21:27] We like to think of when we talk to a therapist or psychologist that it's private and we value

[00:21:33] confidentiality very highly, and we do.

[00:21:37] But it's also important to remember that in society, we don't value...

[00:21:44] It's always a balance of interests.

[00:21:45] We don't always value everything the highest possible way it could be valued.

[00:21:50] I'm a huge fan of the First Amendment.

[00:21:52] I'm a free speech absolutist, but that doesn't mean that I believe Anya has the right to

[00:21:59] come on the podcast and broadcast my social security number.

[00:22:03] Oh, well, what are we going to talk about for the rest of the episode then?

[00:22:06] Because that was my plan.

[00:22:07] So in other words, the things we value, they have to be balanced against other values.

[00:22:14] And the state of Indiana, you may agree with them, you may not agree with them.

[00:22:18] They have written it into law that getting information about a murder from the murderer

[00:22:25] trumps patient confidentiality.

[00:22:27] It is so brutal how aptly that fits this situation, that one exception of just like trials for

[00:22:34] homicides specifically, where the disclosure relates to the facts or immediate circumstances

[00:22:39] of said homicide.

[00:22:41] And yeah, that's exactly what...

[00:22:44] Not saying any felony, it's talking about homicide.

[00:22:47] And obviously we have a double homicide here.

[00:22:50] I think this is...

[00:22:53] To me, there has been so many disastrous moves by Richard Allen himself in this.

[00:23:02] You could argue they're disastrous.

[00:23:04] But if he's somebody who wants to confess, if he's someone who wants to unburden himself

[00:23:08] because he is guilty, then it's not disastrous from his point of view.

[00:23:11] It's like he's trying to possibly do the right thing if that's the situation.

[00:23:15] Yeah, that's something I'm struggling with because I think when we look at the case

[00:23:19] against Richard Allen, it has become a lot stronger than it has been in the past.

[00:23:24] And the reason it's become stronger is because Richard Allen is making all of these incriminating

[00:23:29] statements or confessions or what have you.

[00:23:34] And we haven't seen anything to indicate that he is severely mentally ill.

[00:23:39] There hasn't been any question that he's competent to stand trial.

[00:23:42] We've seen details about alleged breakdowns and stuff.

[00:23:46] But unless he is severely mentally ill, if he's rational at all and he is repeatedly

[00:23:53] admitting complicity in this crime, then we have to...

[00:23:58] At some point, does he want a trial?

[00:24:03] Does he want a trial?

[00:24:05] Does he just want to plead guilty and have this be over with?

[00:24:09] I want to unpack that for a minute.

[00:24:11] But first, I'll say this.

[00:24:13] I think you're completely right.

[00:24:14] I think that I would go as far as saying at this point, from what we know publicly and

[00:24:19] what we're putting together from some of these filings, this is a very strong case against

[00:24:23] Richard Allen.

[00:24:24] And it would take a detailed and reasonable explanation that would undo a lot of the damage

[00:24:33] he's done in order for me to say otherwise.

[00:24:36] It would take...

[00:24:37] We've talked about situations, you almost never want to put your client on the CM when

[00:24:42] you're a defense attorney in a case like this.

[00:24:44] Almost always a bad move.

[00:24:45] It's almost always a bad move.

[00:24:47] Pretty much, most of the time it is a bad move.

[00:24:50] The one reason we've heard from defense attorneys that it can be helpful is if there's something

[00:24:54] kind of inexplicable to the jury and you think your client can explain it and kind of almost

[00:25:00] undo it.

[00:25:02] I feel like you'd almost need to hear from Richard Allen, why the heck were you saying

[00:25:06] this the whole time, man?

[00:25:08] What are you doing?

[00:25:09] And if he says, listen, I have this specific psychotic situation, I feel really guilty,

[00:25:14] I didn't do it, but I just feel horrible about the whole thing.

[00:25:18] We can maybe hear him out on that.

[00:25:21] But at this time, barring something like that, something along those lines, it becomes very

[00:25:26] hard to explain all of this in my view, because we're not talking about one or two incriminating

[00:25:32] statements made in a moment of darkness or weakness.

[00:25:35] We're talking about a prolonged pattern that is sort of baffling from anything other than

[00:25:45] a mental health issue standpoint.

[00:25:48] And I'm going to say this about whether he wants a trial or not.

[00:25:52] I am so baffled and concerned about that issue in particular right now.

[00:25:59] And I'll explain what I mean.

[00:26:02] This is a man who seemingly is telling everyone who will listen incriminating details about

[00:26:06] what he says he did.

[00:26:09] And we've seen, you know, a very much factual innocence basis from the defense team from

[00:26:17] the beginning, even before they even got to most of the discovery.

[00:26:26] There's a problem there.

[00:26:28] And what I want to know is, is he allowed to plead guilty at this point?

[00:26:36] Does he have that freedom at this point to do what he wants to do?

[00:26:42] Those are questions that concern me.

[00:26:43] In a normal case, I would say obviously he does.

[00:26:46] But at this point, I mean, is he being listened to as a client?

[00:26:51] Now, you never want to, as a defense attorney, you can never go in and say, hey, did you

[00:26:55] do it?

[00:26:56] Do you want to plead guilty?

[00:26:58] That's not that's not a good idea.

[00:27:00] That's not how it's done.

[00:27:01] You let the client come to you.

[00:27:03] But my question is, if he if he goes to this team and says, you know what, I did it.

[00:27:07] Let's let's let's change the plea here.

[00:27:12] Are people open to that?

[00:27:14] Are people receptive to that information?

[00:27:17] Because I can't imagine what it would be like to want to have something be over with and

[00:27:22] to be dragged through this experience regardless.

[00:27:29] That sounds like perhaps something out of a nightmare.

[00:27:34] And if we assume for the sake of argument that he is guilty and he has any remorse whatsoever,

[00:27:41] do you imagine it would be helpful to him to take responsibility and stop putting the

[00:27:46] families through this nightmare?

[00:27:47] Yeah.

[00:27:48] And his own family, frankly.

[00:27:50] And I'm going to say this.

[00:27:54] Things that have come out about his relationship with his attorneys concern me.

[00:28:01] The thing that I keep going back to is William Labrado, who at one point was his defense

[00:28:06] attorney who is now off the case.

[00:28:09] He made a comment to Court TV indicating that.

[00:28:14] Allen seemed to be under the impression that he would have to pay for the services of William

[00:28:18] Labrado and Robert Scrummon.

[00:28:21] And unless he got his old attorneys, Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosie back, he'd be out

[00:28:27] of pocket.

[00:28:28] That's obviously not true.

[00:28:31] Not true at all.

[00:28:32] Where was he getting that?

[00:28:34] Is that is that him trying to save face and not wanting to hurt Scrummon and Labrado's

[00:28:38] feelings?

[00:28:39] Or is that him honestly telling them what he thinks?

[00:28:42] And if so, where is he getting that misinformation from?

[00:28:45] Like where is that coming from?

[00:28:47] It's it's.

[00:28:50] He does not strike me based on a comment like that.

[00:28:53] He does not necessarily strike me based on the fact that, you know, the judge gold did

[00:28:58] not have an initial hearing or did not have him in her chambers to discuss what was going

[00:29:02] on.

[00:29:03] Did this cause a real disservice when she did not have Richard Allen come into her chambers

[00:29:10] in October or barring that having an open hearing in October where it was clearly explained

[00:29:17] to Richard Allen exactly what the issues were?

[00:29:21] Yes, we have a letter from him saying I absolve my attorneys of wrongdoing.

[00:29:25] But it only gets into the fact that Mitch Westerman took images of discovery and distributed

[00:29:34] them. It doesn't get into strategy leaks by Andrew Baldwin.

[00:29:37] It doesn't get into anything else.

[00:29:38] So I'm not necessarily confident that Richard Allen is an informed client and is a client

[00:29:44] who is empowered by all the information he needs to make decisions in this situation.

[00:29:48] I'm just not. He could be.

[00:29:50] He could be.

[00:29:51] No, he could know everything and be fine with everything, in which case.

[00:29:54] Great, because that's how he should be.

[00:29:56] And that would make me feel a lot better if I knew that he was.

[00:29:59] But I'm not confident.

[00:30:02] I just want to know, what does he want to do?

[00:30:05] Is he being dragged through a charade at this point or is he saying, I made those incriminating

[00:30:11] statements, but I changed my mind.

[00:30:13] Let's go for it. Let's roll the dice.

[00:30:16] When a man makes that many incriminating statements, you do have to wonder, does he want a

[00:30:21] trial? Does he want another outcome to this?

[00:30:23] And again, I can't get over.

[00:30:24] I mean, we've learned through filing after filing from the defense, oftentimes themselves,

[00:30:28] that they've, you know, only recently gotten to certain aspects of discovery.

[00:30:33] So the fact that they were putting out, you know, from the jump, it has to be factual

[00:30:38] innocence. Well, I mean, you haven't read anything at this point, so it's pretty easy to say

[00:30:42] that immediately.

[00:30:44] But then the fact that they're sticking with that, OK, well, that's fine.

[00:30:47] But I it just feels like.

[00:30:51] Having an open mind when you're a defense attorney is important, and also there's ways to

[00:30:55] zealously represent a client that.

[00:30:59] Are also very important, it's not like it's not like a good defense attorney gets there and

[00:31:03] the client wants to plead guilty and it's like, all right, well, you deserve everything

[00:31:06] that's coming to you, like you still have to do advocacy, you still have to ensure that

[00:31:09] they're getting the best deal possible or that there's you know, you're maybe arguing it

[00:31:14] from a murder to a manslaughter.

[00:31:17] Like there's there's there's avenues there to continue to advocate that that don't just

[00:31:23] necessarily conform to the media friendly, exciting trial of the century narrative, let's

[00:31:29] just say. So I'm concerned.

[00:31:33] Shall we move on?

[00:31:34] Let's move on.

[00:31:37] So next, OK, yeah, this is the move on to this section.

[00:31:44] We're going to have some demeaning things to say.

[00:31:47] Yeah, David Hennessey filed a motion about demeaning comments from the judge.

[00:31:54] And as you can note, we he in the very title of the document, he misspelled the word

[00:32:00] demeaning. And this is really characteristic of the sloppiness and lack of care we've seen

[00:32:05] in a lot of his filings and frankly, in some of his performances in court.

[00:32:10] We're talking about this filing.

[00:32:11] Basically, it is the judge said some mean things.

[00:32:15] I want them. I wanted to take them back.

[00:32:17] Can you just tell me how unusual it is to have this is not if we're not trying to be

[00:32:22] jerks, if this was a singular error in a in a title, I don't think we would make that big

[00:32:28] of a deal of it because everyone does typos.

[00:32:30] I mean, we're not above that, but his filings have been peppered with errors since the

[00:32:36] jump to a degree that I find surprising as a non-attorney.

[00:32:39] How do you feel about it?

[00:32:41] I find it surprising as an attorney.

[00:32:43] And when we when we first started seeing we first heard filing into the case and having

[00:32:47] some typos, I think we didn't mention it because, as you say, everybody makes typos, but

[00:32:53] he makes so many of them.

[00:32:55] You once said memorably in my mind that he his filings read like he wrote them as he was

[00:33:01] rushing to catch a bus.

[00:33:03] David Hennessey knows lawyers who use spellcheck and they're all cowards.

[00:33:07] I mean, like I don't I do not understand this.

[00:33:10] And it's it's sloppy.

[00:33:13] It looks bad.

[00:33:14] It's not just typos, though.

[00:33:16] It's not just misspelled words.

[00:33:18] He's gotten names wrong.

[00:33:20] Dates wrong.

[00:33:20] I mean, the whole year is wrong.

[00:33:22] Yeah, this is not this is not good work.

[00:33:26] I mean, like I so and so what is the service of this, you know, disastrous.

[00:33:33] Filing in terms basically, Judge Gall said mean things, take him back, please.

[00:33:39] This is a guy who compared the sitting judge in this case to Gollum from Lord of the Rings.

[00:33:44] So not even a particularly good burn, to be honest, but I don't think he really expects

[00:33:50] her to take those things back.

[00:33:52] And after all, he did win.

[00:33:53] She did not find his clients in contempt.

[00:33:56] I think he's trying to build a record for an appeal here.

[00:34:00] But along the way, he makes some truly nonsensical arguments.

[00:34:04] And I'm going to tell you my interpretation is that he won not because of anything this

[00:34:09] doddering hanger on did, but because McLean did not get to the level of proving beyond a

[00:34:14] reasonable doubt that Andrew Baldwin ordered his former employee and close friend Mitch

[00:34:19] Westerman to leak images of dead children on social media beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:34:24] I don't I don't think that I don't think the prosecution achieved that.

[00:34:28] I think Hennessy played patty cakes with a bunch of YouTube cranks.

[00:34:32] And that's what his contribution was.

[00:34:34] But I think the it was McLean's failing rather than Hennessy's win as far as I'm

[00:34:41] concerned. And honestly, strategically, it makes sense for the judge to do this at this

[00:34:45] point because.

[00:34:48] It makes it harder for them to complain on appeal.

[00:34:50] One of his more nonsensical arguments is point seven, where he basically says the judge

[00:34:57] this judge has never represented a client in a criminal case.

[00:35:01] So I guess the implication is therefore she's not qualified to rule on the behavior of

[00:35:08] criminal defense lawyers.

[00:35:10] Obviously, there are many judges who have never represented defense clients.

[00:35:16] There are judges who have been defense attorneys who never prosecuted a client.

[00:35:20] You don't prosecute your own clients, but never prosecuted a defendant.

[00:35:24] I mean, there are some lawyers who do both.

[00:35:26] They go into the prosecutor's office, then they do defense or vice versa sometimes.

[00:35:30] But you don't have to have specific qualifications to be able to work as a judge.

[00:35:37] You don't have to have check specific items off a resume.

[00:35:41] It's not like I say, I mean, you call yourself a podcaster.

[00:35:43] You don't have to be a podcaster.

[00:35:44] You call yourself a podcaster.

[00:35:46] You've never worked on a motorcycle engine.

[00:35:49] You know, it's ridiculous.

[00:35:51] And also one of the whole precepts of our legal system is, you know, if Anya is

[00:35:56] prosecuted for stealing all of this cereal, can she only be judged by cereal loving

[00:36:02] podcasters? Or do we imagine that other people who are intelligence, who've had a

[00:36:06] wide range of experience, can also judge and convict her?

[00:36:10] I'm going to say this.

[00:36:11] There's one thing I come back to with Hennessy.

[00:36:13] I remember when he interviewed with us, there was a lot of there were a lot of

[00:36:16] bitter complaints about a certain female prosecutor that seemed a lot more personal

[00:36:21] than some of his complaints about other attorneys that he's come into contact with

[00:36:26] over time. And so that's something that I think about when whenever I'm seeing stuff

[00:36:31] like this, it's just it's just something to note, I think.

[00:36:35] And I guess I don't really understand why he's still here.

[00:36:39] I mean, the contempt hearing is over.

[00:36:41] I guess he told us he was nearing retirement, need some activities perhaps.

[00:36:46] But I if I were Rosie and Baldwin, I would probably be in a position where.

[00:36:53] I might say thank you for your help, bye, because I don't I don't see what he's

[00:36:58] adding to this team, aside from.

[00:37:01] A bunch of embarrassing filings at this point, and I think it makes sense on some

[00:37:06] level to create a record for appeal.

[00:37:09] But I also don't see that working out because the judge has discretion with which

[00:37:14] to say that their behavior was appalling, even if I don't find them in contempt.

[00:37:19] I think what a higher court is going to look at is the not finding them in contempt

[00:37:23] aspect of that, because ultimately that matters more.

[00:37:30] Anything else you want to say about that?

[00:37:32] Nope, I think I'm good.

[00:37:34] How about you?

[00:37:34] I think I'm good, too.

[00:37:36] So thank you so much for listening and we will chat again soon.

[00:37:41] Thanks. Bye.

[00:37:45] Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet.

[00:37:48] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at

[00:37:53] MurderSheet at Gmail dot com.

[00:37:56] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the

[00:38:02] appropriate authorities.

[00:38:03] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at

[00:38:07] www.patreon.com slash murder sheet.

[00:38:13] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at

[00:38:18] www.buymeacoffee.com slash murder sheet.

[00:38:24] We very much appreciate any support.

[00:38:27] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the murder

[00:38:31] sheet, and who you can find on the web at KevinTG.com.

[00:38:37] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you

[00:38:41] can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook.

[00:38:45] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media

[00:38:49] much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often

[00:38:55] receive a lot of messages.

[00:38:57] Thanks again for listening.

[00:38:58] Audible is the destination for thrilling audio entertainment.

[00:39:04] Allow your imagination to be piqued by stories that are brought to life through

[00:39:08] captivating sound design, eerie soundscapes, and dynamic performances.

[00:39:12] As an Audible member, you'll be able to keep your heart rate up month after month

[00:39:16] because you can choose one title a month to keep from the entire catalog, including

[00:39:21] the latest bestsellers and new releases.

[00:39:23] If you're in the mood for a shocking psychological thriller, check out None of

[00:39:27] This Is True.

[00:39:28] Embrace brand new exclusive thrillers from bestselling authors who are guaranteed to

[00:39:33] keep you gripped.

[00:39:34] New members can try Audible free for 30 days.

[00:39:37] Visit audible.com slash thrill or text thrill to 500-500.

[00:39:42] That's audible.com slash thrill or text thrill to 500-500.

[00:39:47] Having choices is good and checking accounts are no exception.

[00:39:52] At Sandy Spring Bank, we have a variety of great choices for you.

[00:39:56] At Sandy Spring Bank, we have a variety of checking options and make it easy to

[00:40:00] choose based on your needs.

[00:40:02] Mobile deposits and payments, interest checking, or checking with no fees or

[00:40:07] minimums.

[00:40:08] Best of all, we'll help you select the account that suits your life.

[00:40:12] What's your next financial destination?

[00:40:14] Sandy Spring Bank.

[00:40:16] Visit sandyspringbank.com slash checking.

[00:40:18] Member FDIC.