The Delphi Murders: An Emergency Motion for Continuance and Another Franks Notice

[00:00:00] In-depth journalism is more important than ever in a complicated chaotic time. That's why we listen to NPR's

[00:00:07] throughline. This is a podcast that appeals us on so many levels. As history buffs,

[00:00:12] we love their historical contextualization of important ongoing issues. As storytellers,

[00:00:18] we love the engaging way they approach and often humanize complicated tales. As news consumers who

[00:00:24] want to stay informed, we love the way they give the story behind the big stories of the day.

[00:00:29] We try to take a similar approach on the murder sheet and we feel confident that our listeners would

[00:00:34] enjoy giving NPR's throughline a try. We've been going through their entire backlog recently

[00:00:40] at listening to them as we drive to source meetings. One favorite of mine was their episode about

[00:00:45] Andrew Johnson's impeachment. Threwline's coverage didn't disappoint, delving in depth into one of

[00:00:50] history's worst US presidents. They also did an episode which is rather pertinent to our work,

[00:00:55] and that was the one they did about the proliferation of conspiracy theories and how they've

[00:01:00] always been part of America's DNA. That's something I think about quite a lot given the creep of

[00:01:05] misinformation and manipulation in online true crime spaces. NPR's throughline is a source we trust.

[00:01:12] They're all about nuance and depth and unpacking the messiness behind outwardly simple stories.

[00:01:18] Go back in time, learn something new, emerge more knowledgeable about today's headlines.

[00:01:23] Listen now to throughline from NPR wherever you get your podcasts.

[00:01:30] Keep your Medi-Cal coverage. Local Medi-Cal offices review member eligibility once per year

[00:01:36] and many members are automatically renewed. Make sure your personal information is up to date

[00:01:41] so your local Medi-Cal office can contact you. And if there are questions for information

[00:01:46] respond by the due date. Learn more at Medi-Cal.dhcs.ca.gov. That's Medi-Cal.dhcs.ca.gov.

[00:01:55] Paid for by the California Department of Healthcare Services.

[00:02:01] Welding instructor Alex DeClaire knows firsthand how VR training platforms like

[00:02:06] 4GFX can help meet the demand for skilled workers.

[00:02:10] Anywhere you go look there's going to be a shortage of welders.

[00:02:12] VR training can help welding students learn the skills they need to begin and advance in their

[00:02:17] career. The beauty of virtuality is it simulates that exact muscle memory that they need.

[00:02:24] Explore more stories like Alex's at Medi-Cal.dhcs.ca.gov.

[00:02:32] Content warning this episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls.

[00:02:38] It also contains discussion about suicide.

[00:02:42] So I'd like to start this episode with an apology. There is not going to be an episode of the cheat

[00:02:50] sheet this week. The reason for that is the time we are spending with you right now talking

[00:02:58] is the time we had planned and had set aside to record this week's cheat sheet.

[00:03:04] But there have been more filings in the Delphi case that are worth talking about in our opinion.

[00:03:12] Including a filing that actually mentions us.

[00:03:15] So by name we're at least close enough.

[00:03:18] So we are going to discuss those with you instead.

[00:03:22] My name is Ania Kane, I'm a journalist.

[00:03:25] And I'm Kevin Greenley, I'm an attorney.

[00:03:27] And this is the murder sheet.

[00:03:29] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reported interviews

[00:03:33] and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:03:36] We're the murder sheet.

[00:03:38] And this is The Delphi Murders, an emergency motion for continuance

[00:03:43] and another Frank's notice.

[00:04:03] There's something interesting that I want to talk about concerning this.

[00:04:33] Emergency motion for continuance.

[00:04:37] Of course, as we all know, this emergency motion for continuous applies to the contempt hearing

[00:04:44] that's now scheduled for Monday, March 18th.

[00:04:48] And at the heart of that contempt hearing or allegations that certain materials

[00:04:55] may have been improperly leaked to YouTubers.

[00:05:00] And what's interesting is that this motion was first reported on last night

[00:05:05] by Russ McQuade of Fox 59.

[00:05:09] But it was also reported on extensively last night

[00:05:14] by a variety of pro-defense YouTubers, all of whom seem to have gotten the motion

[00:05:21] prior to the time it officially appeared on the court docket.

[00:05:25] So that's interesting.

[00:05:27] That might be what they call in the business a red flag.

[00:05:30] So draw whatever conclusions.

[00:05:32] No, let's actually line this up.

[00:05:34] So a document, a verified emergency motion for continuance that only exists

[00:05:40] because of a catastrophic leak from the defense was then subsequently leaked to YouTube

[00:05:47] is the what this appears to be.

[00:05:51] To me personally, just given all that has happened with this defense team,

[00:05:57] that is shocking.

[00:05:58] Not because, I mean, it's been pretty clear to us for a while now that there seems to be some

[00:06:03] sort of pipeline of information going on on the pro defense side of YouTube.

[00:06:07] But I think if you're subtle with that, what's the worst that can happen?

[00:06:11] But when you're actually giving these people documents that they're then reporting on before

[00:06:16] they're even appearing on my case, they obviously, I mean, I don't know whether

[00:06:20] there was supposed to be an embargo or something, but it's shocking to me that they would want

[00:06:25] to look that way. And I would be very curious, like one note, one thing I noticed here is

[00:06:30] obviously this is a filing from David Hennessy who's a lawyer for the lawyers.

[00:06:35] Maybe he feels he's not bound by the gag order. Maybe that's the explanation.

[00:06:39] But nonetheless, the optics of that are ungodly bad.

[00:06:45] And the benefit of that is that you make some YouTubers happy, which should be nobody's goal in

[00:06:51] any of this, because that doesn't matter. And they also they're going to say it nice thing.

[00:06:56] Like this is already a captive audience. These people who are like, virantly pro defense

[00:07:01] YouTubers are going to say nice things about the defense no matter what you don't have to

[00:07:06] you don't have to attempt them. So and I don't see if there's much an advantage of the pro defense

[00:07:12] YouTubers reporting on something Wednesday night as opposed to Thursday morning.

[00:07:19] I'm just so embarrassed. I mean, it's embarrassing to watch this unfold.

[00:07:23] Like I get secondhand embarrassment sometimes because again, like you're you're like

[00:07:28] destroying your own credibility for YouTube. And again, this is why we have

[00:07:34] it pains us to talk about YouTube. But their YouTube is kind of inserted itself into this case.

[00:07:42] And in some cases, you know, in this case, it almost appears that one of the legal teams

[00:07:47] is playing along with that. And it shocks me. So with all that said, we're going to read some

[00:07:51] of this document to you and discuss our thoughts on it. So one minor thing we're going to do as we

[00:07:58] read it, there is a gentleman, of course, who received photos from Mitch Westerman.

[00:08:06] And then subsequently shared them with Mark Cohen. This gentleman also ended up taking his own

[00:08:13] life tragically because of this out of respect to his family. We have declined to name him and

[00:08:21] have always referred to him as R and we will continue to do so. And also, there's another individual

[00:08:28] named in this who we are going to refer to by her initials only out of respect for her privacy.

[00:08:35] So with that said, let's let's get right to it.

[00:08:38] On March 1st, 2024, counsel took the deposition of First Sergeant Holman at which time it was learned

[00:08:45] that there were recorded interviews that had not been provided to the prosecutor or council.

[00:08:51] It was also learned that the attachments to First Sergeant Holman's report and not been

[00:08:55] provided to the prosecutor or council, Mr. McLeanland promised to get them. Two, on March 11th, 2024,

[00:09:02] council first received the recorded interviews of TI, R, Rick Snay, Onyukane and Kevin Greenley

[00:09:10] together. Mark Robert Cohen and Kyra DeBroon as well as the omitted attachments to the report.

[00:09:18] I think the thing to mention from this first section is whether it's two things. One thing

[00:09:23] and this will become more important later, David Hennessy does appear to know how to spell your name.

[00:09:31] I'm loving that. I was so excited when I saw this because he nailed it.

[00:09:35] Spell your name correctly in this paragraph.

[00:09:37] Things get a little bit complicated grammatically because based on the comma placement,

[00:09:41] it almost seems like we met with all the people who were mentioned ahead of us when you and I just met

[00:09:46] both of us at the same time. Yeah, that's what definitely I wanted to clear up.

[00:09:49] When he says that Kevin Greenley and Onyukane were interviewed together,

[00:09:54] the comma placement is confusing. He means that the two of us were interviewed together.

[00:09:59] Kevin Onyuk, no one else. It wasn't us.

[00:10:02] And a group. Rick Snay, G-I-R, it's not.

[00:10:06] DeBroon all in one room together. No.

[00:10:08] It was just Ony and I together.

[00:10:11] Yes, and so this is a breakdown of all the people I suppose who were interviewed.

[00:10:17] I don't know who Kyra or Kyra DeBroon is. To be honest, that's the name that's not familiar to me.

[00:10:23] So I apologize if I pronounced her name wrong but everybody else on this list is familiar to me.

[00:10:30] Was that said? Let's get back to it.

[00:10:34] The recorded interviews contain a wealth of information that beg independent investigation

[00:10:39] of the source of various photographs that were posted on the internet and traded between people

[00:10:43] on the internet. Additionally, had council had the omitted materials prior to first Sergeant

[00:10:48] Holman's deposition, he would have asked many, many more questions which need to be asked for

[00:10:53] proper preparation and representation. Five, the recorded interview of Miss I revealed

[00:10:59] that she recognized that Libby's sweatshirt was on Abby. She had confirmed that she received

[00:11:04] photos from a Tyler Carpenter and there was some connection to a screenshot from George Rye,

[00:11:10] a former law enforcement officer. This was the first council I had heard of those people

[00:11:14] in the first time he heard anything about Miss I. She also confirmed that she had corresponded

[00:11:19] with Mr. McLeanland. She also indicated that she had been part of a small Facebook group,

[00:11:23] Reddit group, and YouTube channel as well as a public discourse server with private chats.

[00:11:27] She also revealed that a person known to her had hired a private investigator to follow Mr. McLeanland.

[00:11:32] She also identified other persons possibly involved in the dissemination of photographs

[00:11:36] and named Paul Manion, which is another name council had never heard.

[00:11:40] Lastly, she agreed to provide screenshots to first Sergeant Holman and they agreed to do that later.

[00:11:45] Council has not received any screenshots and first learned of their existence when listening

[00:11:49] to that recording. So there's a lot of things to unpack here. First of all,

[00:11:56] when TI referred to a person who had hired a private investigator to follow, prosecutor Nick McLeanland,

[00:12:04] it is very, very likely that TI was referring to Angela Slodowski, who actually appears on

[00:12:12] David Hennessey's witness list. So that's interesting. If you want to learn more about that whole

[00:12:18] situation and how how bizarre the Delphi side of the internet can get, listen to our episode,

[00:12:25] the Delphi murder is the unacceptable. We'll link to it here, but it should actually give you a,

[00:12:29] I mean, we don't mean to do things that are prophetic, but we did that episode and now people from

[00:12:34] the episode are appearing on this witness list. So it should give you a good view of maybe

[00:12:39] the credibility or lack thereof of some of those witnesses. And another thing I really wanted to

[00:12:44] highlight is that David Hennessey says that Paul Manion is a name which council has never heard

[00:12:53] and that is a very, very to say the least an interesting claim for a couple of reasons. One of

[00:13:00] which is Paul Manion is an individual who posted on the internet a copy of a communication he had

[00:13:09] received from Andrew Baldwin. So whether or not David Hennessey has heard of Paul Manion is the very

[00:13:17] least Andy Baldwin is the very least Andrew Baldwin had one communication with him and in fairness,

[00:13:24] it's entirely possible. Andrew Baldwin has so many communications with so many different people

[00:13:29] that maybe that slipped his mind and maybe he never even mentioned it to David Hennessey.

[00:13:36] But if you want to talk about David Hennessey's knowledge or lack thereof about Paul Manion,

[00:13:43] then you should consider something else. Paul Manion has a YouTube channel which he runs with two

[00:13:51] other people. The two other people he runs it with are Andrew Siddowsky and Courtney Parsons.

[00:13:59] Andrew Siddowsky and Courtney Parsons both appear on David Hennessey's witness list. So

[00:14:07] is it credible that he is so familiar with two thirds of the channel that he puts them on his

[00:14:13] witness list but has never heard of the final third of the channel? Is that credible? I don't know.

[00:14:20] I mean, well, I guess it kind of it either weighs a bad option. I guess it is credible if he's not

[00:14:24] paying attention to who his witnesses are. But then that's concerning because both of them have

[00:14:30] Parsons and Siddowsky have extreme credibility issues and have made disgusting statements in this case

[00:14:37] have Siddowsky claims to have hired a PI to follow around a prosecutor, like just really bizarre

[00:14:42] behavior. Not exactly people that I would think have a lot of credibility within this space.

[00:14:50] Why are you calling them as witnesses that kind of hurts your own cause, frankly?

[00:14:56] That's just like sloppiness then that sloppiness or it's it just feels hard to believe

[00:15:00] that you wouldn't vet your witnesses. And if you're vetting your witnesses then his name has to

[00:15:06] come up because they're working together, they're all on a YouTube channel together. They appear

[00:15:10] alongside one another on the YouTube channel. Yes, they're in different locations but you see all

[00:15:15] three faces on the vast majority of their videos and it would be as if someone called Anya

[00:15:22] in a case to talk about Delphi and then profess to have no knowledge whatsoever of me.

[00:15:29] Who's this Kevin Greenley person? Who cares?

[00:15:34] So either David Hensie doesn't know, they've never mentioned their colleague to him or there's

[00:15:39] something going on here. I don't know. I don't know. It's either a lack of due diligence or it's

[00:15:43] just simply very hard to believe. I was surprised by that. Also, I should note that George Rye,

[00:15:52] his last name is not a type of bread. It's actually George Nye. That's another YouTuber who

[00:15:57] comes up in this because this is the YouTube show now. Mysteries are at the heart of everything we

[00:16:02] do here on the murder sheet but sometimes it's more fun to dive into a fictional paper. That's why

[00:16:08] we love the free to download hidden object game, June's Journey. This game is our daily escape from

[00:16:15] waiting around in line getting stuck on hold and just general doldrums. It is great to be able to

[00:16:22] knock out a few levels here and there. You get to discover your inner sleuth and sharpen your

[00:16:27] observational skills by finding clues in each level. Plus, it's like dropping straight into your

[00:16:33] own cozy mystery novel. You play as June Parker an amateur detective with a nose for trouble.

[00:16:40] You get to tackle all kinds of bizarre crimes across a series of elegant and memorable localals.

[00:16:47] Also, you have a side hustle decorating your own aisle in the state. I love that. I bought a swan pond.

[00:16:54] She really did. Download this game for a built-in work break. It's a great mental health boost

[00:17:01] that makes you feel accomplished before you get back to tackling whatever task you have at hand.

[00:17:07] And remember when you support our advertisers, you're supporting our show. June needs your help

[00:17:12] detective. Download June's Journey for free today on iOS and Android.

[00:17:20] VR training platforms like the one developed by fundamental VR and Orbis International are helping

[00:17:25] surgeons train over and over before operating on real patients. As you practice each skill,

[00:17:30] the muscle memory starts to develop. Learn more at meta.com slash metaverse impact.

[00:17:35] And we should also mention that in that, what Anya just read, there's a reference to a discourse

[00:17:45] server. Discord server. I think you met discord with a D server. It's got discourse.

[00:17:52] Serving up the discourse. Now Anya is going to read the next paragraph which details

[00:17:58] the interactions that investigator Jerry Holman had with a man we call R. Again, this is the man

[00:18:07] who has said to have received crime scene photos from Mitch Westerman and then passed them on

[00:18:13] to Mark Robert Cohen and R took his own life a few days after the interactions described below.

[00:18:20] Six. During the interview with R, he invoked his right to counsel more than half a dozen times

[00:18:26] and first Sergeant Holman acknowledged that he had a fourth amendment right to counsel,

[00:18:30] even though that is the wrong amendment but continued to question him. First Sergeant Holman

[00:18:35] referenced a guy from Texas Mark Robert who we now know is Mark Robert Cohen and a K Smith

[00:18:41] which was a name council had never been made aware of in preparing for the contempt proceedings.

[00:18:46] There's no indication that Miss Smith was ever interviewed by first Sergeant Holman.

[00:18:50] First Sergeant Holman told Mr. R that the judge isn't very happy and he could be charged with

[00:18:55] the contempt of court. He also told him that if he didn't give a statement that would be

[00:18:59] obstruction of justice and possibly contempt of court when Mr. R indicated to first Sergeant Holman

[00:19:04] that he was not comfortable speaking with him until he was able to seek consultation.

[00:19:08] First Sergeant Holman told him if he didn't cooperate and delete whatever he had that

[00:19:12] if he called the judge and told her he's not willing to cooperate I'm going to make

[00:19:16] a phone call and see if she wants to issue that order or not. This is when first Sergeant Holman

[00:19:22] also referenced that Mr. R could be charged with obstruction of justice and contempt.

[00:19:26] First Sergeant Holman then said let me call the judge real quick and we will go from there.

[00:19:31] He then left the room for several minutes. He then returned and told Mr. R that he had talked

[00:19:35] to the prosecutor and if he was not willing to turn over any pictures or information basically

[00:19:39] that there would be consequences. First Sergeant Holman also said that the judge had said

[00:19:43] if they have photographs get them and get information about where they got them.

[00:19:47] First Sergeant Holman then told Mr. R his lack of cooperation was going to ruin Richard

[00:19:51] Allen's rights to a fair trial and going to really mess some things up for him.

[00:19:56] Then said doesn't bother me any because it's all bullshit in my opinion.

[00:20:00] First Sergeant Holman also told Mr. R that this is some serious shit

[00:20:05] and that the judge's adamant that he get the photos out of circulation. Mr. R then confirmed

[00:20:10] that he didn't have anything like that in his possession and that there was nothing for him

[00:20:14] to delete or anything like that at all.

[00:20:17] So one thing I think it's worth noting at the top of this is that both in that section and

[00:20:24] some sections to follow we're going to hear references to Jerry Holman talking about the judge

[00:20:32] being upset and threatening contempt and things of that nature. And I think it's important to stress

[00:20:39] that this is not something that Holman cooked up on his own to make empty threats.

[00:20:46] The judge at this time was in fact very very upset and one of the ways we know that is that

[00:20:52] some emails of the judges written during that time have been released and in these emails

[00:20:57] the judge went so far as to threaten to potentially put even Ania and I in jail.

[00:21:02] Love that for us. So he's not making stuff up.

[00:21:06] He is accurately reporting on the mindset of the judge and whatever the people he speaks with

[00:21:17] choose to do with that information is obviously up to them. They could talk to an attorney.

[00:21:23] They could do what what have you. But if you're in a situation where you're possibly dealing with

[00:21:29] a judge who is considering making contempt charges against you, I think it's good to know that information.

[00:21:38] I'm not trying to be harsh and I certainly want to focus on the substance on the style but it strikes

[00:21:42] me how loosely some of this is written. It's I don't know if I had a kind of odd and off-putting

[00:21:48] to read some of this because it's just like it's very casual language. It just doesn't feel

[00:21:53] like a legal filing at times. It kind of goes into this like quoting people and using pronouns

[00:22:00] in a way that I'm just kind of baffled by. I will say that one thing that's interesting to me here

[00:22:06] is it almost seems like and I don't know if they're going to go fully with this because you do have

[00:22:13] an affidavit from Mitch Westerman stating what happened but it almost sounds like the

[00:22:20] defense is maybe starting to toy with the idea of disputing the facts behind the leak here because

[00:22:26] they're saying well our said he didn't have anything like this. So I'm kind of interested to see

[00:22:31] if they go down that path because that's obviously a different kind of defense then this is not

[00:22:38] definitionally contempt, you know it's it's kind of the actual innocence defense of contempt.

[00:22:45] So I don't know whether we'll see more of that. How that's going to actually I know we're

[00:22:50] going to see more of that in this document. We're definitely going to see more of this document.

[00:22:53] But I don't know if like this document is the high water mark of that but it seems like an

[00:22:56] interesting strategy when you do have people admitting to what happened. It also strikes me that

[00:23:02] this is all from David Hennessy and then the most detailed recounting of what happened with

[00:23:06] Westerman is from Bradley Rosie. It's interesting that Andrew Baldwin doesn't seem to wish to speak

[00:23:11] for himself on this matter. Yeah. So why don't we move on to the next section.

[00:23:17] Ony is going to read is going to be about a Holman's interview with the host of Delphi After Dark

[00:23:24] Rick Snay. Six, Rick Snay was interviewed by telephone. Mr. Snay indicated he had received four

[00:23:30] photos from Kira DeBroon or Kyra sorry if I pronounced it wrong. Mr. Snay also indicated that

[00:23:37] he had heard that other people had received photos from Mark Robert and K Smith. Mr. Snay indicated

[00:23:43] he had gotten the photographs Thursday but no date was provided in his interview. First Sergeant

[00:23:48] Holman told Mr. Snay that the judge was very adamant that if any got released by anybody she was

[00:23:53] going to issue contempt of court. March 13th, 2024 was the first time counsel heard the name Kira

[00:24:00] DeBroon. So I think just the main thing to note here is that over the course of the month since

[00:24:09] October, I believe Mr. Snay has offered several different versions of how he got the pictures

[00:24:15] and when he got the pictures. And so this is another version. This is an early version. So who knows?

[00:24:23] Let's keep reading and see what is next.

[00:24:29] Seven, in the interview with Kira DeBroon she indicated that her source was through Reddit from a

[00:24:35] Lordless warrior who she believed was Ron something. First Sergeant Holman then asked if it could be

[00:24:42] R and she indicated that sound of familiar. She never firmly identified R whether Lordless

[00:24:47] warrior was Ron someone or R. Mr. Broon indicated that the person had deleted an entire conversation.

[00:24:55] First Sergeant Holman told Mr. Broon that the judge was pretty upset and had said that if they do

[00:25:00] get shared she was going to issue warrants for contempt of court. Council has been provided no

[00:25:06] information identifying Lordless warrior as R. True identity of Lordless warrior needs to be

[00:25:11] investigated. Now here's where that that's what you're talking about. That's what I was getting at,

[00:25:16] you know, disputing well maybe he wasn't behind the Reddit. I don't know it seems pretty.

[00:25:24] I think there's pretty compelling evidence that R was Lordless warrior. I don't think that's

[00:25:31] really in dispute and I'm not really sure I even understand what the alternative theory would be

[00:25:38] are we to believe that Mitch Westerman by his own account, by his own admission,

[00:25:45] it literally took photos of crime scene materials left on Andrew Baldwin's desk or conference

[00:25:53] table and then shared them with his friend R. And then at the very same time by a remarkable

[00:25:59] coincidence someone using the name Lordless warrior happened to get access to the same photos

[00:26:04] to a completely different channel and then shared them with people. Is that the theory?

[00:26:10] It's I don't know, I feel like you don't want to write checks that you can't cash later on

[00:26:18] and this feels like they're starting to do that frankly. You don't want to just throw up but what if

[00:26:24] it's this and then like later on it's like no because there's no evidence for that. I don't know,

[00:26:30] it just seems like I guess I was impressed when the initial filings from Hennessy came out and

[00:26:37] it described having a bunch of defense attorneys come be the witnesses here because it seemed

[00:26:42] like they were going for a defense that was this does not qualify as contempt. Mitch Westerman was to

[00:26:48] blame here Baldwin didn't do anything wrong he was the victim of a crime. Now you can agree with

[00:26:56] that you cannot agree with that you can be ambivalent towards that but that is

[00:27:00] that's something that I feel like you're going to be able to argue pretty effectively

[00:27:04] and maybe the judge sees it your way maybe they don't but once you're kind of getting like it's

[00:27:09] like that's not enough so we got a kind of slap a bunch of youtubers on the equation and also

[00:27:13] ooh maybe this guy wasn't really unread it I just don't know where the I don't know where the

[00:27:18] thinking or the strategy is. Let's get back to the document. 8. Mark Robert Cohen in his

[00:27:26] interview indicated his source who was R and that R had told him to delete everything.

[00:27:32] Mr. Cohen had the impression that Mr. R was in attorney. Mr. Cohen also indicated that Mr. R had

[00:27:38] made a $500 donation to his daughters make a wish fund which first Sergeant Holman then referred

[00:27:43] to as a go fund me. The donation was done before and was unrelated to any conversation about

[00:27:49] or receipt of any photographs. First Sergeant Holman told Mr. Cohen that the judge had told

[00:27:54] the prosecutor who had told him that if anybody doesn't produce these or isn't willing to

[00:27:59] delete or give up she's going to issue orders for it to contempt of court and whoever released them

[00:28:04] will get charged with contempt of court. So I mean is our understanding that Mr. Cohen's daughter

[00:28:12] had some pretty severe health issues going on and that R donated something so that you know

[00:28:20] just kind of to make her life better essentially as you know they were planning like a family

[00:28:27] trip essentially. So I think it's possible that he was just trying to be I don't I feel really

[00:28:35] bad for R given all that has happened. I think he's been kind of dragged into this mess and also his

[00:28:44] family and also there's been so much speculation and conspiracy theories around him. I imagine

[00:28:50] that's incredibly painful for people who cared about him. I just feel I just feel bad for him.

[00:28:54] I mean I'm not a conspiracy theorist on this. I do feel like he was probably just trying to be

[00:28:59] nice to somebody he met on the internet who he realized was having a hard time in some respect.

[00:29:03] So I don't I mean it's certainly I guess maybe deserve some scrutiny but that I'm just saying

[00:29:09] like I've never seen any credible information or tip about oh this is this is somehow

[00:29:17] you know paying for the photographs because that wouldn't really make any sense

[00:29:23] because R gave the photos to Cohen so why would the money be also going in that direction?

[00:29:30] Yeah I've never understood that aspect of it. So I mean I don't know maybe this

[00:29:34] theory is that explaining that but that's just my opinion. Why do we get to the part of the document

[00:29:40] which discusses the two of us? 10. Ina Cain and Kevin Greenley of the Murder Sheet podcast were

[00:29:48] interviewed together. They provided printed copies of photographs to first Sergeant Homan.

[00:29:52] They identified their sources Mark Robert but they only had seven photographs while the prosecution

[00:29:58] has alleged that nine photographs were disseminated. They did reference a cursor on the photograph

[00:30:03] of a close-up of Appie's head which is curious and belies the theory that they were photographs of

[00:30:08] photographs. Miss Cain and Mr. Greenley indicated the close-up of the head was to document something

[00:30:14] in her hair which was supposed to be antlers or horns. That indicates some source other than what

[00:30:19] has been alleged. The end of the interview Miss Cain and Miss Greenley told first Sergeant Homan that

[00:30:24] they would provide him 100 plus screenshots. Council has not received and screenshots that were

[00:30:30] provided to first Sergeant Homan. So first of all I think it's worth pointing out a lot of people

[00:30:36] misspell Anya's first name or her last name. This is an instance where your first name and your last

[00:30:43] name were misspelled. I have no I mean when people are misspelling my first name listen we live in

[00:30:51] the United States this is a thoroughly angle-sized country. Gaelic Irish that people do not

[00:30:59] people do not understand it and like I respect that I've been dealing with this name for my whole

[00:31:04] life so I I'm not going to get mad if people put the accent on the wrong name on the wrong letter

[00:31:10] or put the wrong and it means kind of odd that he got my name right in the first and then just

[00:31:14] completely butchers it throughout the rest of the dog. It's spelled her first name A-I-N-A

[00:31:19] But I think people need to understand my last name people get my first name right and then they

[00:31:26] like will mess up my last name and it makes me sad because they're messing it up on the last letter

[00:31:30] they spell C-A-I-N-E and it's like no you're overthinking it you're you're duplicating Anya within

[00:31:36] the last name they're both four letters and plus just Cain it's like spelled like the murderer

[00:31:42] Cain the biblical Cain the Cain who was exiled after killing his brother Abel it's on brand for me

[00:31:50] just go with that you know like that people are just over the people are out here in these streets

[00:31:54] overthinking this that's what I that's what I hate to see because it's like you in many cases

[00:31:59] you get the nail the first name and then it's just a disaster on this on the on the last name

[00:32:04] and all you do is remember remember your scripture remember your Old Testament

[00:32:08] and also I just want to make the pretty obvious observation that when you're preparing a legal document

[00:32:14] and referring to people in a case it's really worth taking that extra 10 seconds extra 15 seconds

[00:32:21] to look at how their names are actually spelled and say what you will about Anya Cain she has

[00:32:29] never made a secret about how to spell her name it i'm sure it's spelled in a certain

[00:32:35] homers report it's spelled in the name of the podcast if you go to the podcast servers

[00:32:41] it's spelled correctly everywhere so I just find that frankly a little slop. A lot of this document

[00:32:48] reads is very sloppy to me and i'm not just salty because my name is spelled wrong because I have

[00:32:51] a friggin weird name so I'm mostly just kidding about that but I do think a lot of the language

[00:32:57] just doesn't sound like a legal document at points I feel like a lot of this feels very rushed

[00:33:01] I don't know that it is being rushed i'm just saying like it reads like it was written in a hurry

[00:33:07] so to get to the actual substance of this section he's basically relating what we reported and

[00:33:13] shared with you all at the time we told you at the time that we wait is not mentioned here but we

[00:33:20] mentioned the leak at the time to both the state and the defense of whatever reason the state

[00:33:26] seemed to be a lot more interested in it than the defense was and so we told you at the time

[00:33:32] that we ended up going and having a conversation and an interview with it with Sergeant Holland

[00:33:38] and we certainly turned over all the pictures we received. Hennessey is suggesting here there's

[00:33:45] some discrepancy that we turned over seven pictures and the prosecution apparently somewhere

[00:33:53] said there were nine photos I don't know how to explain that discrepancy other than to say we

[00:33:59] turned over every picture we received then there's this bit about the cursor that appears in one

[00:34:07] of the pictures. That is true there is a cursor that appears in one of the pictures we had

[00:34:13] questions about it at the time and it was explained to us that this was part of some sort of effort

[00:34:21] to disguise the source of the pictures. Who was that explained to us by? It was explained to us by

[00:34:28] Mark Robert Cohen. Correct. In other words they didn't want the pictures to just simply be oh here's

[00:34:34] a picture of a photograph that was on a table they didn't want it to be that clear so instead

[00:34:43] that it is a picture of a photo that was then displayed on a screen with a cursor and then that

[00:34:49] was taken a picture of so it was an effort to off-seescape the origin of the picture and that was a

[00:34:57] deliberate effort to make it harder for people to figure out where the picture originally came from

[00:35:05] and then again we have always tried to say is little about the content

[00:35:12] of these images as we possibly could and we're going to continue to do that but we are going to

[00:35:17] allude to things that are included in this filing. It's indicated that we suggested that one picture

[00:35:29] seemed to have been taken in order to document something in Abby's hair that could be said by some

[00:35:39] to resemble Antlers or Horn and Hennessy says oh if that's the case then that means it had to come

[00:35:47] from a different place, a different source than what we've been told and as to that I suggest we all

[00:35:54] go back to the Frank's memorandum and look at page 30 of that document and I'm going to read from

[00:36:03] that now above Abby's head were smaller sticks that had been placed over her hair,

[00:36:09] crudely mimicking horns or antlers the amount of blood that were perhaps to be expected

[00:36:14] the crime scene based upon the location of the injuries of both girls was not visible in the

[00:36:19] crime scene photos. The defenses provided the court with 12 crime scene autopsy photographs

[00:36:26] marked as exhibits five through sixteen is confidential these photographs support the description

[00:36:31] provided in the previous paragraphs so what it's saying there is we believe there was something in

[00:36:37] Abby's hair and we are including with this memorandum something a photograph which we believe documents

[00:36:45] that and what we've been told since then is that the photographs that were leaked were prepared by

[00:36:53] the defense for the Frank's memorandum so it sounds indeed like the photograph that we saw

[00:37:01] showing something in the hair is the photograph referred to on page 30 of the Frank's memorandum

[00:37:08] and so it would seem that it actually supports the idea of it coming from the defense side

[00:37:13] so I met a loss to understand why Mr. Hennessy is suggesting otherwise yeah I'm at a loss for a lot

[00:37:20] of this honestly when it gets into this I when you when you say that we have heard that these

[00:37:29] these came from the Frank's memorandum attachments where did we hear that to be clear court filings

[00:37:35] yeah yes so you're not you're not alluding to some secret source that we're getting information

[00:37:39] from you've got to be careful these days gotta be yeah we're like that's that's plain plainly

[00:37:45] stated in in the court filings but yeah it seems kind of I don't know it seems bizarre this

[00:37:51] as this late date to suddenly be oh well you know who knows reddit what are these pictures maybe

[00:37:58] they're from a different source it's just like I don't know it's pretty weak it's weak

[00:38:04] there's a reference there to us saying we had over a hundred screenshots to

[00:38:10] share uh Mark Cohen gave us the entirety of his communications with our we said that at the time

[00:38:16] on our show we also said it on the show that we had provided screenshots of all of those two

[00:38:24] investigators at the request of mr. Cohen so that was no secret it's something we reported and shared

[00:38:35] and so if if due diligence had been done I don't think that bit of information would come as news

[00:38:42] to mr. hennesey on March 13th obviously we have no knowledge as to whether or not those screenshots

[00:38:51] were shared with mr. hennesey no yeah we even know I mean if they weren't shared then obviously

[00:38:57] that's a problem if they were then I don't know what's going on with due diligence in general

[00:39:02] with him because that would be a pretty huge oversight on his part and I guess at this stage in

[00:39:09] this uh like it's kind of this like like kind of trend with hennesey but also the people he's

[00:39:16] representing rosy embald one there's a lot of like we didn't even get this until then or like we

[00:39:22] don't even know if we have this and it's like I just want to know like how much of that is

[00:39:27] is actually oversight on the prosecutors part and is it possible that some of it is that they're

[00:39:31] they're drowning in discovery and they're unable to find their own stuff in which case that's a

[00:39:35] them problem I'm just not like it they seem to have a lot of trouble getting a whole of stuff and

[00:39:41] it kind of like if there's one explanation that's bad for the prosecution there's also another

[00:39:45] explanation that's bad for them and I just don't I don't really have any insight on which it is but

[00:39:50] I don't feel like I should make the mistake of taking whatever they say for granted anymore

[00:39:54] let's read another paragraph in this document 11 had these interviews been timely provided council

[00:40:01] would have had many many more questions first sergeant home and during his deposition

[00:40:06] and would have engaged in additional investigation such as the people never before known alternate

[00:40:12] sources of photographs the true identity of lordless warrior and more so that's not a sentence but okay

[00:40:19] this goes back to what you were saying before they seem to be saying well maybe there's a different

[00:40:23] theory for all of this oh I think you made a point when we were talking earlier about this

[00:40:31] um off off the microphones that like I don't know there's like a there's a bravado

[00:40:39] that hennessey and rosy involved with all share but something you notice when people have a lot of

[00:40:45] I what I would you know would kindly call bravado there's a tendency to kind of explain a way why

[00:40:51] why you're having problems because if things were just so automatically if the facts automatically

[00:40:57] backed you up then you kind of have to explain well why would you still lose if I'm as tough as

[00:41:03] I say I am and if the facts are all on my side if I lose it must be because the fight was fixed

[00:41:08] if exactly I if I if I go up and threaten somebody in a bar and challenge them to a fight and then

[00:41:13] I start saying but my ankles busted and I recently have had a lot of breathing issues and uh

[00:41:19] I have a history of chronic health issue you know it's like I'm trying to explain why this might not

[00:41:25] go my way and so this paragraph strikes me with that if only we'd had more time to um find the

[00:41:31] mysterious identity of a man who is clearly identified again and again if only we had uh known

[00:41:39] about people that we should know about if we did our due diligence if only we uh you know

[00:41:44] if only there were alternate sources of photograph so that we could you know come up with something else

[00:41:48] it's just it's just weakness it's I mean I just see this as weakness on their part it's

[00:41:53] and I'm going to say something at the end but I'm going to save it for that because like there's

[00:41:56] something about this whole situation with how they are dealing with the contempt hearing that really

[00:42:00] kind of sticks in my mind I'm very curious which I have to say but before we do I want to jump down

[00:42:06] to they are asking in this document to continue the the contempt hearing to delay the contempt hearing

[00:42:13] and I thought the way they concluded the document was very interesting indeed can you read paragraph 17

[00:42:19] 17 in Ramirez v State 186 northeast 3d89 in diana 2022 the indiana supreme court on transfer

[00:42:30] reverse the denial of a continuance by this very court when counsel specifically

[00:42:34] and identified the late discovery of interviews and new allegations the effect upon counsel's theory

[00:42:39] and preparation and what counsel needed to do further due to the late discovery that is exactly

[00:42:45] this case I think it's an interesting strategy to conclude by saying hey judge remember when the court

[00:42:53] said you messed up on another case I think this is the same you know what I messed up again do we

[00:42:58] out I think that's an interesting strategy is kind of a slap in the face yeah yeah it's and also

[00:43:06] it says that this is in that case there were new allegations I'm not sure what the new allegations

[00:43:12] are here there are none I think one takeaway for me from all of this and from earlier filings and

[00:43:18] going all the way back to october when there was an opportunity to have a hearing on this is that

[00:43:24] these attorneys really are not interested in having a hearing on this issue I was going to say they

[00:43:30] are tear why are they terrified of this why are they terrified of this contempt hearing they're

[00:43:34] terrified the okay in another universe I have the way I would expect them to deal with this if they

[00:43:41] were not terrified is to run through it to bulldoze it get it over with fight like hell defend yourself

[00:43:51] bring in all the experts bring in all the exhibits explain why it's not contempt explain why

[00:44:00] even if it is contempt maybe Mitch Westerman is at fault not the attorneys you know fight it

[00:44:05] being incredibly aggressive about it but just at some point just putting it off continuously just

[00:44:12] I mean these are men who quit the case rather than be criticized essentially in a hearing

[00:44:19] I mean they withdrew themselves from the case and we can argue like that wasn't an appropriate

[00:44:23] use of judge gulls power those are fair arguments but I'm just saying like they ultimately

[00:44:28] they would have rat they they chose to withdraw rather than go and face the music

[00:44:32] and in this situation with with that at least I think it was such a bizarre circumstance I can kind

[00:44:38] of understand why you might do that especially if there is any validity to the argument that you don't

[00:44:44] that it could hurt your client in this case I don't really see how any of this blows back on Richard

[00:44:49] Allen there's a specific they mean Hennessy himself recommended the remedy of contempt of court so I

[00:44:58] don't feel like we're in uncharted waters anymore and why not just fight it out and then move on

[00:45:04] but they really do not want this hearing happening they're continuing to delay it oh you know

[00:45:10] maybe we should bring contempt charges against you guys you know we want the judge in the prosecutor

[00:45:16] removed I mean this is desperation this is desperation and especially given that the team

[00:45:22] you know at least has stated that they want a speedy trial like if that is your number one goal

[00:45:28] at this point then I don't know why you're doing any of this because it's not about fighting it it's

[00:45:32] about the delay tactics these are delay tactics and what are they so afraid of coming out don't we

[00:45:39] already know what happened or it does is there more that is going to make them look really bad I just

[00:45:46] don't even understand this and it's it's mystifying to me because we've heard from all sorts of

[00:45:52] attorneys on all sides of this and it doesn't seem to be crystal clear if what Rosie and Bald when

[00:46:01] did in this case even should be considered content and so when Hennessy filed a witness list

[00:46:07] indicating that they're going to have attorneys come in great that is really to discuss that very

[00:46:12] issue that could be an interesting discussion and it could be something that could be potentially

[00:46:17] windable for them you could have an argument and that successful argument is that

[00:46:23] that what these two attorneys did did not amount to contempt and that makes it so baffling to me if

[00:46:29] if and also this is something we've heard we heard it from a attorney Mark Inman but also other

[00:46:33] people buying the scenes other attorneys behind the scenes in a situation like this what are

[00:46:38] the punishments could they be thrown off again that's not what we've heard I don't I don't believe

[00:46:43] they could I think the punishments would range from maybe some financial penalty to one thing

[00:46:50] that mr. Inman said that I thought was interesting it's like maybe when they're handling certain

[00:46:53] evidence they have to be supervised certainly embarrassing but certainly not the end of the world

[00:47:00] and certainly not getting kicked off the case again so it's not like they're staving off some

[00:47:04] um it's not like they're staving off some disaster it would be it would be bad and I mean I'm sure

[00:47:12] it would be upsetting to lose but as Kevin said it I don't nothing what I've heard from attorneys

[00:47:18] is indicated that it's a definite loss so just just go through it and move on but I I mean I

[00:47:24] don't know why they're behaving this way at this point because again like everyone's aware of the

[00:47:29] leak it's not like this is going to be the first time anyone's hearing about it so what's what is

[00:47:33] there to be scared of at this point then I want to note before we wrap up this section the attorney

[00:47:41] hennessey filed a supplement to this motion this morning which I think gets to some of the things you

[00:47:47] were talking about earlier I'm going to read it comes now counsel for defense counsel and supplements

[00:47:54] with the fact he had a lot going on and was rushed which led to him admitting that mr. McLean

[00:47:59] objects to a continuance which he does so he's indicated that when he prepared that motion

[00:48:05] that we've been reading from he was rushed yeah this whole thing is just incredibly sloppy I mean

[00:48:09] it just is I agree with mr. hennessey on some of his points I'm uncomfortable with elements of

[00:48:18] gall overseeing this and McLean being the prosecutor on it I think there's I think there's

[00:48:23] something to be said for what he's arguing there I also think on some level on some level despite

[00:48:27] what I just said I think there's some argument for doing all this after the trial is adjudicated

[00:48:34] I don't necessarily I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of this I just see those points and

[00:48:37] I feel like they're good ones I feel though that like I don't know it's like

[00:48:44] they've had a long time to prepare for this to prepare for possible contempt charges you know again

[00:48:51] again given that that's something that hennessey himself proposed so this should not I mean

[00:48:55] the fact that this is all being rushed so much is just maybe the focus should be on fighting it

[00:49:01] at the hearing rather than trying to stave it off indefinitely so let's move on and discuss

[00:49:08] the other filing in this case and this was the third Frank's notice and request for a Frank's hearing

[00:49:18] can you tell us about that right so this is from Andrew Baldwin and it represents yet another attempt

[00:49:28] to get a Frank's notice Frank's motion through in this case there have been past unsuccessful attempts

[00:49:35] at that from what I'm reading this mostly recaps elements already adjudicated in past discussions

[00:49:44] about Frank's so there's not a lot new here to be honest

[00:49:51] they talk about some of the geo-fencing and some of the stuff with that's new with turquoise

[00:49:55] that was also raised in a filing we discussed yesterday right I think it's interesting I mean

[00:50:05] to me from what we've understood from speaking with experts is that it's it's uh there's a barrier

[00:50:12] there's a hurdle to clear with Frank's that you know really really requires like this is alive

[00:50:18] this is a deception this is a shocking omission and they've not been successful clearing that bar in

[00:50:24] the past one thing that I always go back to is just because something doesn't necessarily rise

[00:50:30] the level of Frank's or throwing the case out it doesn't mean it's useless for the defense

[00:50:35] they can bring it up in front of a jury through their experts or you know basically saying here's

[00:50:42] how the the prostitution or law enforcement messed up a case or they didn't they didn't look

[00:50:47] enough at this they'd look too much at this like they can bring all that up it's not when they lose

[00:50:52] a when they lose emotion on this or the judge denies it that doesn't mean that it can't be part

[00:50:57] of their overall defense strategy or use during trial it just means that it's not rising to level

[00:51:03] of having anything done about it. Yeah they could certainly use these things if they wish to try to

[00:51:09] attract to try to attack the credibility of witnesses such as a home and if that's what they want

[00:51:15] to do. Yeah so it's like I mean but I guess what I'm saying is that there there has to be it has

[00:51:21] to reach a level for something as extreme as a Frank's motion or a you know a motion to dismiss

[00:51:29] to succeed I think. And what's interesting is that a lot of this the new stuff is about the

[00:51:36] geofencing and turco and the turco stuff is largely home and prepared a summary of an interview

[00:51:45] with turco and he also gave us a recording of the interview and we believe that the summary he

[00:51:53] prepared was not the summary we would have prepared he highlighted different things what have you

[00:52:00] but he also gave them audio of the interview and so if you're really trying to hide something

[00:52:10] why give audio of the interview that you're trying to hide or distort and they make the claim in

[00:52:17] here well you know most attorneys aren't like us most attorneys are sloppy idiots and they wouldn't

[00:52:24] listen to the audio they just read the report and I think oh there's nothing to be seen here

[00:52:30] and move on so that so they're making the argument that yes they turned over the recording but

[00:52:36] that doesn't make any difference because they were still trying to deceive us in the summary

[00:52:42] and I think it really is worth noting everybody in this world has internal filters and such

[00:52:50] so that if you are a diehard Republican and you have a friend who's a diehard Democrat and you both

[00:52:59] go and hear a speech by Donald Trump or President Biden or whoever both of you afterwards would

[00:53:07] probably pick different things from that speech to highlight if you were to prepare a summary of it

[00:53:14] but the main issue is is the raw material still available in other words if I had this summary

[00:53:20] from a Republican and a summary from a Democrat would I still be able to watch the speech and draw

[00:53:24] my own conclusions and in here yeah I'm sure a home and pick some things to highlight and the

[00:53:32] the defense yeah here doesn't agree with yeah and I'm sure the defense would prepare a summary

[00:53:38] the home and didn't agree with but as long as we have the raw material of the actual interview

[00:53:43] and as long as turco is around and able to give his analysis I'm not sure what the huge issue

[00:53:50] there is no I don't understand this it seems incredibly it's like it's it's not a strong argument

[00:53:56] it's not a strong example frankly niner is what what they're saying again repeating with

[00:54:03] Tony Liggett the current sheriff of Carroll County where they're saying that he didn't include

[00:54:09] evidence that they would have included in the PCA you know he doesn't have to um like you know

[00:54:16] you get that that's the first thing that you hear about PCAs when you start reporting on them

[00:54:21] they don't have to put in everything they put in things they get them to probable calls with a

[00:54:25] specific person that's what they're for uh it you know and you can absolutely bring up things

[00:54:34] that go counter to the PCA and fight that in court but that doesn't rise to Frank's like that is

[00:54:41] a specific request and people sometimes I think they think that well you know it's it's a it's a

[00:54:47] zero sum game it's either you know it's not it's like you can bring it up and you can certainly use

[00:54:53] a tear advantage in court but it has to rise to a level there there were so many this was such

[00:54:58] an expansive investigation there were so many theories and suspects that came up Liggett cannot

[00:55:04] be expected to include all of that in his PCA like the if that was true then where was any

[00:55:10] discussion of Ron Logan where was any discussion of Kagan Klein where was any discussion of the other

[00:55:15] suspects who I'm sure came up that we've never heard of like that that's just ridiculous

[00:55:21] that's it that's I don't understand what I mean I just don't understand that argument

[00:55:25] yeah if I were to prepare a probable cause affidavit summarizing the case against Lee Harvey Oswald

[00:55:31] for the assassination of President Kennedy you wouldn't expect me to mention every single theory

[00:55:37] that's come up over the years and yeah I also note on a much smaller level uh I would encourage

[00:55:46] the defense team to give some of these filings another careful read before they file them because

[00:55:53] there was often small little errors in them uh and this one there's a reference to for instance

[00:56:00] February 13th 2023 as to when the murders might have happened obviously they met February 13th

[00:56:08] 2017 you we often see things like that in the defense filings and so it looks a little sloppy

[00:56:17] and I think these things could be called if you just give it more of a careful read before you uh

[00:56:21] file it I just feel like we all make mistakes but a lot of this just gives you I feel like so much

[00:56:27] of what the defense has done especially recently has just been completely improvisational

[00:56:33] and I do again I don't know if that's I mean ultimately their job is not to court the media

[00:56:42] or tell the most interesting story that is media friendly it is to defend their client

[00:56:49] and get him the best defense that he can get and when there's so much looseness and

[00:56:57] sloppiness that comes out again and again you know that doesn't make me feel better as far as the

[00:57:04] defense that he is receiving and the representation that he is receiving and and this is a concern

[00:57:10] that a lot of people have voiced around them getting kicked off you know is them coming back to the

[00:57:16] case good for him one thing that I think is interesting is there's a discrepancy to me between

[00:57:23] the bravado that the defense team projects publicly in media in media appearances previously when

[00:57:31] when that was still allowed and and then certainly in filings which are often tailored to speak to

[00:57:37] the media directly in my opinion so there's there's that there's that side of it our client is actually

[00:57:44] innocent you know everything's wrong with the investigation these people are all lying

[00:57:49] but then when you look at things from a bird's eye view a lot of the posturing seems to be actually

[00:57:54] incredibly defensive reactionary flying by the seat of their pants because they're had

[00:58:01] they're put on the back foot by their own client who made incriminating statements

[00:58:06] not really damage them but instead of just dealing with that there's just been almost like

[00:58:11] a kind of a continued effort to distract from that and you know to me the best way

[00:58:18] the best way to move forward is to move forward is to is to look at the mental health aspect of

[00:58:23] that to look at the effects of incarceration on mental health and perhaps kind of deal with it in

[00:58:28] that way that makes sense to a lot of people he was despairing he was mentally ill

[00:58:35] yeah he said things he didn't mean fine okay like we can we can all run with that I think

[00:58:40] but but this stuff it again it just seems like kind of the kind of classic shiny keys look over here

[00:58:48] and I mean I guess like I I just feel like I there's no really reason to pretend otherwise at this point

[00:58:54] and also it's like again so much of this is just like

[00:58:58] the same stuff again and again and again and it keeps not working

[00:59:02] at some point maybe the strategy needs to be looked at

[00:59:06] I guess maybe maybe the idea is that if we keep doing it

[00:59:09] maybe it makes judge go look biased even though she's already ruled on most of this most

[00:59:14] these facts I think that might be maybe like a long term thing of like let's use

[00:59:20] the leak in order to kind of make this as disastrous of a trial and a lead up as possible so

[00:59:27] that we can then get a new trial right I mean in which case it would be ironic because then the

[00:59:33] side that leaked ultimately benefits from the leak interesting well we will obviously keep an eye

[00:59:39] on all this and apologies again for no cheat sheet this is the time we would have been recording

[00:59:44] cheat sheet I personally am disappointed because I was about looking at cases this week and I

[00:59:49] found some really interesting ones we'll definitely talk about those next week though well next

[00:59:53] week there probably be new interesting cases well let's just while it's just holding on the ones

[00:59:57] that we already have well we're see I always enjoy finding cases so we may have these cases next week

[01:00:06] or we may have different one next week maybe we'll do two cheat sheet next weeks but who maybe

[01:00:11] maybe every episode next week will be a cheat sheet well we have at least one episode next week

[01:00:16] is going to be about whatever happens on March 18th yeah well that's nothing I should mention

[01:00:22] we usually try to release an episode on Tuesday I don't think we're going to release an episode next

[01:00:28] Tuesday because we will be releasing probably a long episode on Monday about whatever happens in

[01:00:35] four way also Monday might be nuts because there's going to be a well unless it's continued

[01:00:40] this can be a morning hearing and then an afternoon hearing so I don't if we want to hold our spot

[01:00:44] in line in the courthouse we probably won't get to all that until late in the afternoon because

[01:00:52] it's like there'll be a pause in between but we might not be able to get out of there so our Monday

[01:00:56] episode will be our Tuesday episode yes maybe everything else is a cheat sheet with she it's all

[01:01:03] cheat sheets to me you're on out thanks for listening everybody

[01:01:09] thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet if you have a tip concerning one of the cases

[01:01:14] we cover please email us at murder sheet at gmail.com if you have actionable information about

[01:01:23] an unsolved crime please report it to the appropriate authorities if you're interested in joining

[01:01:31] our patreon that's available at www.patrion.com slash murder sheet if you want to tip us a bit of

[01:01:41] money for records requests you can do so at www.bimiacafi.com slash murder sheet we very much appreciate

[01:01:51] any support special thanks to kevin tyler greenley who composed the music for the murder sheet

[01:01:58] and who you can find on the web at kevantig.com if you're looking to talk with other listeners about

[01:02:05] a case we've covered you can join the murder sheet discussion group on facebook we mostly focus our

[01:02:12] time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much we do try to check our email

[01:02:18] account but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages thanks again for listening