In the latest Delphi filing, the defense addresses the prosecution's assertions that attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi have misunderstood basic geofencing concepts and misled the court and the public about the nature of Purdue Professor Jeffrey Turco's assertions.
Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.
The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC .
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
[00:00:00] Have you ever covered a carpet stain with a rug? Ignored a leaky faucet? Pretended your
[00:00:04] half-painted living room is supposed to look like that? Well, you're not alone. We've
[00:00:08] all gone unfinished on projects, but there's an easier way. When you download Thumbtack,
[00:00:13] it's easier to care for your home from top to bottom. Pull out your phone and adjust
[00:00:17] a few taps. You can search, chat, and book highly rated pros right in your neighborhood.
[00:00:22] Plus, you'll know what to tackle next because Thumbtack is the app that shows
[00:00:25] you what to do, who to hire, and when. So say goodbye to all those unfinished home
[00:00:29] projects and say hello to caring for your home the easier way. Download Thumbtack
[00:00:34] and start a project today. Ophthalmologist Dr. Strauss has seen firsthand how the
[00:00:41] Metaverse is helping surgeons practice the procedures to treat cataracts.
[00:00:45] Cataracts are the primary cause of avoidable blindness. He works with
[00:00:50] the Virtual Reality Training Platform developed by FundamentalVR and
[00:00:53] Orbis International to help surgeons develop the muscle memory they need.
[00:00:57] The result? More confident, capable surgeons and even more importantly,
[00:01:02] patients who can see. Explore more stories like Dr. Strauss's at meta.com
[00:01:06] slash Metaverse Impact. Keep your MediCal coverage. Local MediCal offices
[00:01:13] review member eligibility once per year and many members are automatically
[00:01:18] renewed. Make sure your personal information is up to date so your
[00:01:22] local MediCal office can contact you and if they request information,
[00:01:25] respond by the due date. Learn more at
[00:01:28] MediCal.DHCS.ca.gov. That's MediCal.DHCS.ca.gov. Paid for by the
[00:01:36] California Department of Healthcare Services. Content warning. This
[00:01:41] episode includes discussion of the murder of two children. So recently in
[00:01:47] the Delphi Murders case which of course is the case against Richard Allen
[00:01:51] who stands accused of murdering Delphi Teenagers Liberty German and
[00:01:56] Abigail Williams back in 2017. There's been a lot of discussion about a
[00:02:03] filing from the prosecution namely Carroll County prosecutor Nick
[00:02:07] McClillan which got into some responses to the defense's third
[00:02:15] Frank's memorandum, third Frank's motion. So what we have here is two
[00:02:19] sides arguing about Frank's issues within the case. The defense is
[00:02:24] claiming that essentially law enforcement has lied in the case
[00:02:29] which means that evidence should be dismissed on Frank's grounds
[00:02:34] whereas the prosecution is saying that actually the defense is lying and
[00:02:39] either over exaggerating or misleading the public on some of its
[00:02:44] statements. So a lot of this has come to a head recently and now we have
[00:02:50] the latest volley in this back and forth between both sides from the
[00:02:54] defense clarifying some things that the prosecution knocked down earlier.
[00:02:59] So we're going to be talking about this going through this document
[00:03:02] point by point and discussing what it all means for the case.
[00:03:06] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenlee.
[00:03:10] I'm an attorney and this is the murder sheet. We're a true crime
[00:03:14] podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep
[00:03:18] dives into murder cases. We're the murder sheet. And this is the
[00:03:23] Delphi murders. Defense replied a prosecution's response to third
[00:03:27] Frank's memorandum.
[00:03:44] So where do you want to start?
[00:04:14] Where to start indeed? I mean, that title is a mouthful, isn't it?
[00:04:18] Replies to response to the third memorandum. I hope that underscores
[00:04:23] to everyone. I was trying to think of something snappier and then
[00:04:26] I was like this pretty much says it all. This is where we are.
[00:04:29] We're in like the third Frank's memorandum and we're in
[00:04:35] you know, a reply to a response. That's where this is.
[00:04:40] So if you're confused, you're not alone.
[00:04:44] And not only that but in their reply to the response is we're
[00:04:50] seeing a moment they mentioned issues from the first and second
[00:04:54] Frank's memorandums issues which the judge made clear at
[00:05:00] the time that she didn't find terribly compelling or at least
[00:05:03] not compelling enough to grant a Frank's hearing.
[00:05:06] I've been you know, I've been for some reason like nonstop
[00:05:10] listening to Atlantic City by Bruce Springsteen recently and
[00:05:14] the lyric Everything Dies Baby That's a Fact but maybe
[00:05:16] everything that dies someday comes back feels like it applies
[00:05:19] to these Frank's memorandum because the judge will
[00:05:22] essentially again and again rule against the defense on this
[00:05:26] and they will keep on bringing it up in subsequent filings
[00:05:32] sort of like it feels like people getting into an argument
[00:05:35] and you feel like someone's not quite understanding you.
[00:05:37] So you just keep on repeating the same thing and maybe at some
[00:05:40] point they did understand you.
[00:05:41] They just don't agree.
[00:05:43] So it's kind of interesting.
[00:05:46] So where do they start?
[00:05:47] Well, we start.
[00:05:49] Well, should we maybe should we back up a tiny bit and talk
[00:05:52] about what the prosecution said in their last thing just
[00:05:55] for people may not be caught up entirely.
[00:05:58] The bombshell thing in the most recent prosecution
[00:06:01] response. Okay.
[00:06:03] Two bombshells.
[00:06:04] So one bombshell was that the prosecution essentially accused
[00:06:09] the defense of not understanding the concept of
[00:06:11] geofencing at all and misinterpreting a lot of data.
[00:06:15] And so basically if you don't understand geofencing,
[00:06:18] you're talking about these mysterious three phones
[00:06:21] that nobody knows who those are and you're basically
[00:06:23] misrepresenting that entirely and you don't even seem to
[00:06:26] understand how geofencing works.
[00:06:28] You're talking about it like it's pinpointing people at
[00:06:30] the crime scene.
[00:06:30] It can't do that.
[00:06:31] It's a much more inexact science.
[00:06:34] So that's one.
[00:06:36] So in that is frankly embarrassing.
[00:06:40] Oh yeah.
[00:06:41] Embarrassing to the defense, but it is not quite as
[00:06:45] embarrassing as the second bombshell and what was that?
[00:06:49] Okay.
[00:06:49] So the defense has made a really big deal over time
[00:06:53] about a Purdue professor named Jeffrey Turko.
[00:06:56] He specializes among other things in sort of medieval
[00:06:59] Norse literature.
[00:07:00] He's a guy who knows what runes are knows what they mean.
[00:07:04] And there's a lot of the defense has been banging a
[00:07:08] drum for for a long time about this and essentially
[00:07:12] saying that Lieutenant Jerry Holman of the state police
[00:07:16] lied that, you know, he interviewed Turko at some
[00:07:20] point and misrepresented his findings on the runes
[00:07:25] that they're crime scene and basically indicated he
[00:07:27] doesn't think they're really runes.
[00:07:29] He doesn't think this is connected to Odinism and
[00:07:31] what the defense is saying, we listened to the
[00:07:34] interview and that's not true.
[00:07:36] Turko is completely on our side and here's how.
[00:07:39] And so Holman lied and therefore if you lied then
[00:07:42] this is a Frank's issue.
[00:07:43] So that's their logic.
[00:07:44] Okay.
[00:07:44] So interesting people have really dug into that
[00:07:47] and been curious about that.
[00:07:49] Well, the last prosecution thing of the last
[00:07:51] prosecution filing to use a more technical term got
[00:07:55] into it and essentially said, we talked to Turko
[00:07:58] again.
[00:07:59] And again, he agrees with our interpretation of what
[00:08:03] he said, not the defense's interpretation of what
[00:08:06] he said.
[00:08:07] So essentially Holman wasn't lying.
[00:08:11] The defense was about what Turko said.
[00:08:15] And to me that was really alarming because the
[00:08:19] defense sort of unilaterally seemingly chose to
[00:08:21] focus an awful lot about this.
[00:08:23] And I would think that if you're going to focus on
[00:08:25] something, you would ensure that the man who's at
[00:08:28] the center of that focus is going to be definitely
[00:08:30] on your side or at least mostly on your side when
[00:08:33] it comes time to unpack everything.
[00:08:37] And it just.
[00:08:38] So this is why I say it's even more embarrassing
[00:08:40] because it's certainly embarrassing to apparently
[00:08:44] not understand geofencing and then mention it
[00:08:47] and discuss it at length in the filing.
[00:08:49] But geofencing is complicated.
[00:08:52] So maybe maybe that's certain.
[00:08:54] Maybe that's understandable to some extent, but they
[00:08:58] on their own chose to highlight Turko.
[00:09:02] They on their own chose this is a very important
[00:09:05] witness for us and they really seem to put a lot
[00:09:10] on his back.
[00:09:11] They didn't need to.
[00:09:12] He that was their choice.
[00:09:13] That was a choice.
[00:09:14] You would think they wouldn't put all that
[00:09:16] stuff on him unless they knew he would support
[00:09:19] it and it appears that he does not support it.
[00:09:23] A bluff was called and it seems like the cards
[00:09:26] they had didn't add up and maybe were like
[00:09:29] uno cards instead of poker cards, frankly.
[00:09:31] That's what that's what I feel this is.
[00:09:33] And frankly in this response, what I was looking
[00:09:36] for and we can discuss at the end if it achieved
[00:09:38] this, but I was looking for some sort of
[00:09:40] explanation of Turko addressing that maybe saying,
[00:09:44] OK, well, maybe we exaggerated a little bit,
[00:09:46] but we're mostly right and here's why.
[00:09:50] To me, if they do that successfully, then they're
[00:09:53] still in the game credibility wise because maybe
[00:09:55] maybe the prosecution over exaggerated in their response.
[00:09:58] So I was looking at how are they going to thread
[00:10:02] this needle here with Turko?
[00:10:03] And so at the end we can discuss and further
[00:10:06] in we can discuss.
[00:10:07] We'll get back to that.
[00:10:08] But for now let's move on.
[00:10:09] We will get back to that.
[00:10:10] We will certainly get back to that.
[00:10:11] Where did this document start?
[00:10:13] So oddly, they kind of kick off with discussion
[00:10:16] of Sarah Carbaugh and Betsy Blair.
[00:10:19] These are two witnesses in the case.
[00:10:21] And they claim that law enforcement misrepresented
[00:10:25] the substance of the interviews conducted
[00:10:29] with these two women.
[00:10:31] And this is kind of a deja vu situation.
[00:10:34] This is something they put in their earlier
[00:10:37] motions or some of the things that the judge
[00:10:40] did not find compelling enough to grant
[00:10:42] a Frank's hearing over.
[00:10:44] And certainly these alleged inconsistencies
[00:10:47] are something that could be exploited at trial, perhaps.
[00:10:52] But it didn't seem to rise to the level of granting
[00:10:54] a Frank's hearing and some of these alleged
[00:10:57] inconsistencies perhaps aren't inconsistency at all,
[00:11:01] frankly, because they talk a lot about how, oh,
[00:11:04] one of these witnesses did not say this
[00:11:06] in an interview in 2017.
[00:11:09] And well, maybe she was interviewed more than once.
[00:11:12] And maybe she supplied those details in a later interview.
[00:11:15] Yes.
[00:11:16] So it's not like that was being invented out of whole clause.
[00:11:20] There's a lot of lorally wording in some of these
[00:11:22] of like this 2017 interview doesn't say this.
[00:11:24] OK, but were there other interviews?
[00:11:27] And again, you could say, well, maybe her 2017 interview
[00:11:30] is the best interview because it was the closest
[00:11:32] to the time of the event.
[00:11:35] So her memory would be best then.
[00:11:37] So we should put more reliance on that.
[00:11:39] And if that's the argument you want to make,
[00:11:41] you can certainly make that in front of a jury.
[00:11:44] And you can certainly do some pretty aggressive
[00:11:47] cross examination with these witnesses.
[00:11:49] Well said. And I'm going to tell you this.
[00:11:50] It to me, some of these points are good for them.
[00:11:53] And as you said, could really work in front of a jury.
[00:11:56] They're just not going to rise to the level
[00:11:57] of getting a case thrown out or getting a Frank's hearing
[00:12:00] or getting, you know, someone to find Frank's issues
[00:12:03] in the case in this case, Judge Gull.
[00:12:05] It's there's a difference between something that's good
[00:12:07] for you and then something that's going to like completely
[00:12:09] blow apart the case that the prosecution has.
[00:12:12] Those are two different things.
[00:12:14] And to me, it's like if somebody,
[00:12:16] a young man inherited, let's say, a thousand dollars
[00:12:19] from an elderly relative who passed away.
[00:12:21] OK, that's good, right?
[00:12:23] It's good to have a thousand dollars
[00:12:24] that you didn't before.
[00:12:26] That's wonderful.
[00:12:27] He can he can do stuff with that.
[00:12:28] But it's like that young man then decides,
[00:12:30] I'm going to buy a house with this.
[00:12:32] You know, you're not going to be able to buy a house
[00:12:33] for a thousand dollars in this economy,
[00:12:35] in this real estate market.
[00:12:37] That's not going to happen.
[00:12:38] So you're you're projecting your needs and wants
[00:12:41] onto this a thousand dollars and trying to buy too much.
[00:12:44] It's not enough to accomplish that goal,
[00:12:47] but it can still be helpful and accomplish other goals.
[00:12:49] And if you have a lot of one thousand dollar goals,
[00:12:52] you're going to build up enough that you could buy a house.
[00:12:54] Perhaps you can put it in the bank
[00:12:56] to ultimately buy a house.
[00:12:58] In this case, I think buying a house is getting getting an acquittal,
[00:13:01] but you're not going to necessarily get a house right now,
[00:13:04] which is having the case thrown out.
[00:13:05] Like does that make sense?
[00:13:06] I hope that makes sense to people
[00:13:07] because something can be generally good for the defense,
[00:13:11] but that this defense team is for some reason
[00:13:14] trying to take to the bank in a way that it's not going to work.
[00:13:18] And also the problem with that is that then
[00:13:21] you are essentially giving the prosecution
[00:13:24] a sneak peek at some of the points you may be making
[00:13:27] and giving them time to figure out what their witness is,
[00:13:30] how they're going to get over that issue in front of a jury.
[00:13:34] So it's like you're not you're kind of not holding your fire
[00:13:38] and therefore you're giving away your position.
[00:13:40] What's more fun than living out your own cozy mystery?
[00:13:44] You know, Kevin, and I love to explore real life mysteries.
[00:13:47] Well, sometimes it's a nice break
[00:13:49] to get immersed in a fictional mystery story
[00:13:51] and playing the free to download hidden object game,
[00:13:54] June's journey is just like starring in your own caper.
[00:13:58] This game is a great way to sharpen your observational skills
[00:14:01] and encourage yourself to take quick,
[00:14:04] re-energizing breaks throughout the day.
[00:14:06] You play as June Parker, a flapper slash sleuth
[00:14:11] who navigates jazz age mysteries with a plove.
[00:14:13] In between levels, you can also build up your own fancy island estate.
[00:14:18] And you know I'm all about that.
[00:14:20] You can plant flowers, float on swan ponds
[00:14:22] and even set loose a beautiful horse.
[00:14:24] It's very fun.
[00:14:26] We enjoy playing this game when we're waiting around for a source
[00:14:29] to call us back or when we're stuck outside
[00:14:31] waiting for a courthouse to open up.
[00:14:33] It's great fun.
[00:14:35] Discover your inner detective
[00:14:36] when you download June's journey for free today on iOS and Android.
[00:14:41] At the murder sheet, we're all about immersive audio experiences.
[00:14:46] That's why we love Audible.
[00:14:48] An Audible subscription gives you access to thousands of audiobook titles.
[00:14:53] We especially enjoy their robust selection of mysteries,
[00:14:57] thrillers and true crime.
[00:14:59] I love Audible.
[00:15:00] I really enjoyed listening to A Wicked Snow by Greg Olson.
[00:15:05] This story is all about a CSI investigator with a dark past
[00:15:09] and a terrible family secret.
[00:15:10] When I'm listening to Audible, it plunks me right down in the middle of the story.
[00:15:15] It's so spine-tingling that I can practically feel the cold air on my skin.
[00:15:19] Audible is your one stop destination for thrillers and mysteries.
[00:15:23] Just be prepared to get spooked in the best possible way.
[00:15:27] Listening to audiobooks offers a wonderful respite from the day.
[00:15:31] Audible allows you to listen on the go.
[00:15:34] I love taking a walk or a drive and just getting lost in a story.
[00:15:39] My favorite audiobook on Audible so far is Presumed Innocent,
[00:15:43] the book track edition.
[00:15:45] This classic legal thriller by Scott Turrell is enhanced by a grip
[00:15:49] in musical soundtrack that amplifies the story's suspense
[00:15:52] and profound emotional beats.
[00:15:55] As a new member, you can try out Audible for free for 30 days.
[00:15:59] This is such a valuable membership and you get access to so many
[00:16:02] new listening experiences, including podcasts, Audible originals
[00:16:07] and Audible exclusives like the Words Plus music series.
[00:16:11] Visit Audible.com slash M-sheet or text M-sheet to 500-500.
[00:16:21] CarMax is putting peace of mind back in car shopping by putting you
[00:16:25] in the driver's seat to find a ride that's right for you.
[00:16:28] Because at CarMax, we believe you shouldn't just settle for a car.
[00:16:32] You should love your car.
[00:16:33] That's why every car we sell is CarMax certified quality
[00:16:37] so you can be sure with upfront pricing that's the same for every customer.
[00:16:41] So don't settle.
[00:16:42] Find love at first drive and start shopping now at CarMax.com.
[00:16:47] CarMax, the way car buying should be.
[00:16:50] And another instance of them reprising some of their greatest hits
[00:16:55] from earlier Frank's filings is they are still a very upset
[00:17:02] that in the PCA for the Allen Search warrant, Tony Liggett
[00:17:06] did not mention Brad Holder.
[00:17:09] And it's not clear to me why they think that when you prepare a search warrant
[00:17:18] for someone, you have to include a capsule history of the entire
[00:17:23] history of the investigation and all the other people who may have
[00:17:26] been suspected and cleared.
[00:17:29] I would love to see some case law on that.
[00:17:32] I'm not aware of any.
[00:17:34] I yeah.
[00:17:36] That because you may disagree with the investigation, but I think it is fair
[00:17:42] to say that at the time this probable cause affidavit to search Richard
[00:17:47] Allen's home was prepared.
[00:17:50] The investigators on this case all believed that Brad Holder had been
[00:17:56] cleared because he had a very compelling and convincing alibi.
[00:18:00] I feel like the pearl clutching rhetoric about how could we not include
[00:18:04] Brad Holder on this?
[00:18:05] Come on, guys is more of about like trying to train the public
[00:18:10] and the media to think of Brad Holder as a really good suspect
[00:18:13] more than anything.
[00:18:15] When people read that enough, maybe they're like, well,
[00:18:17] yeah, Brad Holder's pretty important.
[00:18:19] And I mean, I think that's, you know, not necessarily a given
[00:18:24] considering this theory.
[00:18:26] I think that's definitely what the defense wants people to think
[00:18:28] and wants the jury to take away.
[00:18:30] But I don't necessarily think that everyone needs to agree with that.
[00:18:36] Let's just say that they also there's some question from the
[00:18:44] prosecution that they respond to where the point of the Frank's
[00:18:48] hearing is to allegedly establish that law enforcement essentially
[00:18:57] did corrupt things in 2022 when they were preparing the search warrant.
[00:19:01] But a lot of the things in the various Frank's memoranda
[00:19:05] highlight things that were done in 2023.
[00:19:09] So the question the prosecution had was why do you believe that
[00:19:16] things that occurred in 2023 have any relevance to inquiry as
[00:19:23] two things that happened in 2022?
[00:19:26] What was the defense's reply?
[00:19:29] Essentially, the defense says, you know, if the law enforcement was
[00:19:35] corrupt in 2023, then we can assume they were also corrupt in 2022.
[00:19:42] And let me just say assuming law enforcement in this case is
[00:19:45] corrupt in 2023.
[00:19:47] Do I believe that they have proven that?
[00:19:49] No.
[00:19:50] Do I believe that that is a huge leap at this time?
[00:19:53] Yes.
[00:19:54] But that's what they're saying.
[00:19:56] If they were corrupt in 2023, I think it is fair to say that the
[00:20:03] defense has not as of yet provided any evidence of that.
[00:20:08] Let me just say this.
[00:20:10] When you're making legal arguments, when you're making
[00:20:12] any kind of arguments in your life, overstating can be a problem.
[00:20:16] It can become a problem.
[00:20:17] If I am annoyed because maybe Kevin once left me to do
[00:20:22] the dishes by myself and he didn't help me and I felt that
[00:20:24] was inconsiderate.
[00:20:27] If I go to him and said, Kevin, you are an evil, evil man.
[00:20:31] You are standing here twirling your mustache and tying people
[00:20:36] to railroad tracks and being a dastardly villain.
[00:20:39] And I hate you.
[00:20:40] And I mean, we can't be together after this.
[00:20:44] Then that's not really like that's not a way of getting what
[00:20:47] I want, which is potentially to have him help me with the
[00:20:51] dishes in the future.
[00:20:52] So that's a silly example, obviously.
[00:20:54] But with this, it's like I'm concerned from Richard Allen's
[00:20:59] perspective that if they're putting law enforcement on trial
[00:21:02] in this way, arguing incompetence is a lot easier to prove
[00:21:07] and a lot easier to sell to a jury than arguing a vast
[00:21:11] odiness conspiracy, in my opinion, or even any sort of
[00:21:15] vast conspiracy.
[00:21:16] I think you all you have to do to prove some incompetence
[00:21:20] or major incompetence is to list mistakes that were made,
[00:21:23] which there are certainly going to be mistakes made in this
[00:21:25] case. I mean, no doubt of that.
[00:21:27] No doubt of that.
[00:21:28] There are in every case, but this is a high profile case.
[00:21:30] And so the mistakes are going to shine brightly.
[00:21:33] And it also is a case that's lasted seven years, seven years.
[00:21:36] And so in the course of a multi-year investigation,
[00:21:40] there are obviously going to be mistakes made by law enforcement.
[00:21:43] And some of them can make can look bad in front of a jury
[00:21:46] and could be highly effective.
[00:21:48] So I would say arguing incompetence is effective, easier.
[00:21:54] And, you know, the only thing that arguing maliciousness has
[00:21:59] on its side is that it's frankly sexier.
[00:22:02] It's cooler if there's a big old conspiracy that you're up
[00:22:04] against fighting against that.
[00:22:07] That's like a cool thing in a storytelling atmosphere,
[00:22:10] I guess, in a storytelling mode that's going to make for
[00:22:14] an more interesting antagonist.
[00:22:16] But we're not in a fictional world, obviously.
[00:22:20] We're very much in the real world.
[00:22:22] And so I don't I don't understand why you do this, I guess,
[00:22:26] with with basically.
[00:22:29] I mean, most of their examples seem like they don't agree
[00:22:31] with us about Brad Holder and.
[00:22:34] These like little bits of minutia that probably could be
[00:22:38] explained and interpreted differently.
[00:22:40] And then I want to jump back before we move on.
[00:22:44] And highlight this argument where they say, well, we believe
[00:22:47] if we prove they were corrupt in 2023, then that proves
[00:22:53] they were also corrupt in 2022.
[00:22:56] And I just want to take a moment and stress how bizarre
[00:23:00] it feels to me to hear defense attorneys make that kind of argument
[00:23:05] because typically defense attorneys would really, really rebel
[00:23:10] against that sort of argument.
[00:23:12] If you have, for instance, a client who is accused of
[00:23:17] committing some sort of domestic violence.
[00:23:20] The last thing you want is for witnesses to come in and talk
[00:23:24] about his history of domestic violence.
[00:23:27] You would say, oh, just because he may have committed
[00:23:30] domestic violence on these other dates doesn't mean he did it
[00:23:33] on this date.
[00:23:34] And they would usually try to stress that if you want to
[00:23:38] convict him of committing domestic violence on June 16th, 20,
[00:23:43] whatever, then you have to find evidence to prove that particular
[00:23:47] charge.
[00:23:47] You can't go into the past and pull things from his criminal
[00:23:50] record and use those to try to sway a jury or a judge.
[00:23:55] So it just seems very surreal to hear defense attorneys make
[00:24:00] that sort of argument when I would, I fully would expect
[00:24:05] Baldwin and Rosie to have made just the opposite argument.
[00:24:08] Many, many, many, many, many times throughout their career.
[00:24:12] Yeah.
[00:24:12] And those are cases that would be that hypothetical would
[00:24:15] involve cases that were actually adjudicated as opposed to
[00:24:19] just like the vibe is bad, which frankly it feels like a
[00:24:23] lot of this is.
[00:24:24] And again, you can use it to your advantage in a trial
[00:24:29] in front of a jury that doesn't mean that it's going
[00:24:31] to serve its purpose in whatever specific filing or what
[00:24:35] not, in whatever specific goal you have that you're asking
[00:24:38] for in that filing.
[00:24:39] In this case, Frank's Frank stuff.
[00:24:41] So I don't I don't know.
[00:24:43] I don't get it.
[00:24:45] Should we should we go on to the order?
[00:24:48] The drafted order?
[00:24:49] Let's talk about this drafted order.
[00:24:51] And before we really get into the meat of it, let me just
[00:24:54] say what it is in the middle of their reply.
[00:25:00] They include a draft of an order, I guess they're proposing
[00:25:05] for the judge to sign.
[00:25:07] And it's not unusual for lawyers to prepare drafts
[00:25:11] of orders for judges to sign.
[00:25:14] That's totally normal.
[00:25:16] This this particular draft seems a bit more unusual
[00:25:22] because of how detailed it is.
[00:25:25] And frankly, at least to my ear, parts of it seem sort
[00:25:32] of condescending to Judge Gull.
[00:25:35] And also it was striking to me how in this this draft
[00:25:42] motion they have Judge Gull not only agreeing to a hearing
[00:25:50] but also seeming to reach all sorts of conclusions
[00:25:54] including basically all the conclusions that Rosie and Baldwin
[00:25:59] in their hearts of hearts on their wish list of things
[00:26:02] they want Judge Gull to find.
[00:26:06] All of the stuff she agrees with, for instance, I'm going
[00:26:11] to quote here.
[00:26:12] They have Judge Gull in their draft that they want Judge
[00:26:16] Gull to say quote those facts materially affect the
[00:26:20] timeline in such a way as to show that Richard Allen was
[00:26:23] not on the bridge nor was his car parked the CPS lot
[00:26:27] and was therefore not the man that committed the murders
[00:26:30] in quote. So they are essentially wanting Judge
[00:26:33] Gull to sign a motion saying that their client is
[00:26:37] innocent of the crimes of which he's charged.
[00:26:40] And why is that weird?
[00:26:42] Why explain that?
[00:26:43] What is that weird?
[00:26:44] But yeah, between you and me, a judge is not going
[00:26:47] to sign a motion for a hearing in which he just
[00:26:50] casually mentions, oh, by the way, the man accused of
[00:26:53] these crimes has to be innocent.
[00:26:55] Yeah.
[00:26:57] It's the very least if she thought there was some sort
[00:27:00] of meat on the bones here, she would want a hearing
[00:27:03] with some of these things could be addressed.
[00:27:06] And this sort of thing really highlights something
[00:27:09] to me. One thing you are taught in law school
[00:27:14] pretty early on and maybe you're taught this
[00:27:16] in other professions too.
[00:27:18] Maybe you're taught this in life where know your
[00:27:21] audience, figure out who it is you are talking to
[00:27:26] and try to tailor your requests and such to them.
[00:27:31] And in this case, they are addressing Judge
[00:27:34] Gull and they want certain motions and decisions
[00:27:38] from Judge Gull.
[00:27:39] And so you would expect for them to address her
[00:27:43] respectfully and prepare motions which she could
[00:27:47] plausibly sign.
[00:27:49] And the fact that she is not being addressed
[00:27:52] respectfully and they are preparing motions
[00:27:56] which in no reality would she ever signs.
[00:28:00] It really makes me think that their true audience
[00:28:03] here is not Judge Gull, that it is the media
[00:28:06] or perhaps more specifically that tiny subset of
[00:28:10] people online who are hyper, hyper pro conspiracy
[00:28:16] pro Richard Allen innocence.
[00:28:19] And I feel frankly that that crowd in particular
[00:28:23] has had an undue influence on how Rosie and Baldwin
[00:28:28] and others have handled this case.
[00:28:30] And I feel that is to the detriment of Richard Allen.
[00:28:33] I concur. I will say in my view, this defense
[00:28:37] team has essentially alienated the judge from
[00:28:39] the jump to a certain extent.
[00:28:41] I think that we first see that concretely sort of
[00:28:46] indicated when they apparently tell the judge
[00:28:50] in chambers that they are not going to try this
[00:28:53] case in the press under any uncertain terms.
[00:28:56] And we're all in agreement on that and then
[00:28:59] turn around and release a press release shortly
[00:29:01] thereafter.
[00:29:02] That is not the action of attorneys who are
[00:29:04] concerned with, you know, a relationship
[00:29:08] with a judge who are concerned about showing
[00:29:09] respect, who are concerned about basically
[00:29:13] tailoring their case to a judge to a certain
[00:29:16] extent. I just that that feels like.
[00:29:22] I don't know.
[00:29:23] I think that I think that gives a pretty good
[00:29:24] indication into how they feel about her.
[00:29:27] And I guess I know that we all have to work
[00:29:30] with people that we, you know, don't get along
[00:29:33] with her whatnot.
[00:29:34] But I think it's there's an imperative to
[00:29:36] somewhat at least not go out of your way to
[00:29:39] alienated judge in a case you're trying,
[00:29:41] especially one this high profile.
[00:29:42] And I would have mentioned again that let me
[00:29:44] just say this predates this predates by a lot
[00:29:47] her kicking them off.
[00:29:48] Yeah.
[00:29:49] And I just want to mention again, we remember
[00:29:51] that David Hennessey, another attorney on
[00:29:54] this case has been very vocal, apparently
[00:29:59] in violation of the gag order.
[00:30:00] I don't know.
[00:30:00] Maybe it doesn't apply to him.
[00:30:02] I don't know.
[00:30:03] But he's certainly given interviews on YouTube
[00:30:05] and elsewhere where he's very critical of the judge.
[00:30:07] At one point, he compares her to Gollum.
[00:30:09] These are not the sorts of things you do
[00:30:12] if you're trying to reach a particular person.
[00:30:16] And I think if I were Richard Allen
[00:30:19] or someone who cared about Richard Allen,
[00:30:22] I would prefer for the focus of my attorneys
[00:30:25] to be on reaching that judge in this courtroom
[00:30:27] and not trying to please a bunch of people
[00:30:30] on YouTube or Twitter with excessive rhetoric.
[00:30:34] Who you've already won over.
[00:30:36] I mean, that's what that's what I mean.
[00:30:39] These people who have decided to make their
[00:30:42] entire personality feeling a certain way about this case,
[00:30:46] they're not going to change their minds.
[00:30:47] They're probably going to follow you anywhere.
[00:30:48] You got them.
[00:30:49] So maybe then it's time to brought him when
[00:30:52] you have people who are already at the point
[00:30:53] where they're embarrassing themselves online
[00:30:55] by calling you like the defense daddies.
[00:30:58] I think you got him.
[00:30:59] You can maybe move on.
[00:31:01] Yeah, we should stress that there are
[00:31:03] a lot of intelligent, goodhearted people out there
[00:31:08] who either believe that Richard Allen
[00:31:10] is not guilty of these crimes or who believe
[00:31:15] that they have not seen evidence to prove his guilt.
[00:31:18] Yeah, those are reasonable positions.
[00:31:21] Those are not the people we're talking about here.
[00:31:23] I'm talking about people who again have essentially
[00:31:29] kind of joined a kind of a cult like sort
[00:31:31] of group that exists online, that is like spreading
[00:31:35] conspiracy theories in the case and behaving
[00:31:37] in all sorts of embarrassing ways.
[00:31:39] That's what I'm talking about.
[00:31:40] Think of it this way.
[00:31:41] Let's let's say I don't know what your job is.
[00:31:44] Whatever your job is, let's say you really feel
[00:31:47] you deserve a raise and maybe the person who
[00:31:50] makes the decision as to whether or not you get
[00:31:53] the raise, maybe that's not your favorite person
[00:31:55] in the world.
[00:31:56] When you address that person to ask for your raise,
[00:31:59] I'm going to guess you're not going to be
[00:32:01] insulting. You're not going to be condescending.
[00:32:03] You're going to bite your tongue and try to
[00:32:07] ask your question in such a way as to maximize
[00:32:10] your chances of getting what you want from that person.
[00:32:13] And you certainly wouldn't want your friends
[00:32:15] or your family to go around on YouTube or
[00:32:18] elsewhere making frankly offensive comments
[00:32:22] about your boss and your boss's judgment.
[00:32:25] That's not what you would do if you wanted
[00:32:28] your boss to give you what you hoped for.
[00:32:30] But it's what you might do if you thought it
[00:32:33] would appeal to some wider audience, I guess.
[00:32:38] It's what you would do if your goal was not
[00:32:40] to get your boss to give you the raise.
[00:32:42] But if your goal was for some reason to try
[00:32:44] to publicly humiliate and embarrass your boss.
[00:32:47] Yeah, it's bizarre.
[00:32:48] I mean, I'm going to.
[00:32:49] So the rest of this document, they get into again
[00:32:53] the Turco thing.
[00:32:56] They're still trying to accuse Holman
[00:32:58] of lying about what Turco said under oath.
[00:33:01] Again, Turco himself has said that they were misrepresenting him
[00:33:05] and the Holman's description of what he said
[00:33:07] and his general opinions was far more accurate
[00:33:09] than what the defense put out there.
[00:33:11] I'm going to tell you personally.
[00:33:15] OK, so this this is a problem for me
[00:33:18] because as I mentioned at the top, I was a lot.
[00:33:23] I was I was hoping for something
[00:33:25] a little more concrete from the defense
[00:33:26] about how this could have happened,
[00:33:29] that they put out something
[00:33:30] that Turco himself is completely disavowing
[00:33:34] in these filings and why they put so much pressure on
[00:33:38] like this one interview with a person
[00:33:41] who doesn't even specialize in current
[00:33:44] white supremacy movements or Odinism.
[00:33:46] Like his specialty is in again medieval Norse.
[00:33:50] So I was hoping for for something
[00:33:53] that was a little bit more like a explanation
[00:33:56] of what happened here, and they don't really address
[00:33:58] much of it other than to say the same thing
[00:34:01] that they've been repeating that Turco has now disavowed and debunked.
[00:34:05] So I don't know.
[00:34:08] To me, that's that's very problematic.
[00:34:11] It's an own goal
[00:34:12] because they didn't need to make Turco a big thing.
[00:34:15] They could have easily found an expert,
[00:34:17] I believe, who would have at least, you know,
[00:34:19] gone in the general direction
[00:34:21] that they were trying to go with with this
[00:34:24] selecting Turco and then making a big deal of it
[00:34:27] before they knew what he was actually thinking.
[00:34:29] Seems incredibly sloppy.
[00:34:31] And I can tell you from my personal perspective,
[00:34:34] this incident paired with perhaps other things,
[00:34:37] but certainly this being a final straw,
[00:34:40] I don't think from my personal opinion,
[00:34:43] and again, this is my personal opinion,
[00:34:45] you don't have to agree with me.
[00:34:46] I'm just being completely candid here.
[00:34:49] Their credibility
[00:34:51] isn't dead from where I stand,
[00:34:53] but it is on life support with me.
[00:34:56] And maybe there are difficult conversations
[00:34:59] ahead with the doctors.
[00:35:01] That's how I feel.
[00:35:02] And I don't understand.
[00:35:06] It all just seems totally unnecessary.
[00:35:10] Staking your credibility on something that.
[00:35:15] I mean, I don't know whether they didn't look into it
[00:35:17] or they just assumed or I don't know.
[00:35:21] But it's very disturbing to me.
[00:35:24] I was concerned by the issues you raise.
[00:35:27] I'm concerned about just the way things are presented.
[00:35:32] They complain a lot about how they got Turco's name.
[00:35:37] They say, well, you know, on September 6,
[00:35:39] Nick McLean wrote us an email saying,
[00:35:42] we're not entirely sure who this Purdue professor is.
[00:35:46] But apparently at some point prior to that,
[00:35:50] Lieutenant Holman had told McLean,
[00:35:52] well, it might be this guy.
[00:35:54] But if I tell Anya, oh, it might be this guy.
[00:35:59] And Anya then tells someone else,
[00:36:01] we don't know for sure who it is.
[00:36:03] Anya is not lying because I haven't told her
[00:36:06] it's definitely this person.
[00:36:07] I've told her it might be this person.
[00:36:09] Yeah, that's that's I mean, also who cares?
[00:36:12] I'm sorry.
[00:36:12] Like this delay.
[00:36:14] I mean, there's so much haranguing about it.
[00:36:16] What is the material effect of this?
[00:36:19] And again, that does not explain why they seemingly mischaracterized
[00:36:26] this professor's words, opinions, analysis.
[00:36:32] And the fact that, again, the professor was essentially
[00:36:35] doing an exercise at that, you know, basically in the
[00:36:40] prosecution's filing, it notes that the professor's report
[00:36:42] had essentially a statement to the effect of I'm going
[00:36:45] to assume that these are runes.
[00:36:48] You know, I can't know that for sure.
[00:36:50] But in that, you know, to kind of do this exercise,
[00:36:53] I'm going to just assume that they are so like
[00:36:57] that would have been in what they received.
[00:36:59] That would have been what they heard.
[00:37:00] I don't understand why they would characterize it
[00:37:03] in the way that they did.
[00:37:04] And here's here's a point I want to make and really stress.
[00:37:12] Obviously, at least in our opinions,
[00:37:15] there are a lot of troubles with the Frank's memorandum
[00:37:19] and the arguments made therein.
[00:37:22] But even if we criticize these arguments about Turco or what have you,
[00:37:29] that doesn't mean that it makes Richard Allen guilty.
[00:37:35] Richard Allen could still be a factually innocent man.
[00:37:41] And he could just have attorneys who are arguing side issues
[00:37:46] for whatever reason that they are doing poorly with.
[00:37:51] And that doesn't mean that he is guilty of the crime.
[00:37:55] That's what's disturbing to me about this whole thing
[00:37:57] is what what they're doing on his behalf in my view seems to be.
[00:38:04] A mess, it's becoming unglued.
[00:38:06] And I I I don't feel like that is setting him up to
[00:38:14] receive the the defense he needs at trial.
[00:38:18] As I've said before, you know, strenuous defense running around,
[00:38:21] yelling, getting mad, being aggressive.
[00:38:25] That's what we're told is a good defense by television shows.
[00:38:28] But in real life, often it looks a little bit calmer
[00:38:31] and a little bit more close to the vest,
[00:38:35] a little bit more picking apart the prosecutions,
[00:38:38] you know, knocking down their Jenga tower, essentially,
[00:38:41] instead of constructing a whole new theory that then you have to prove.
[00:38:47] I mean, they don't have to prove anything.
[00:38:49] They don't they just have to essentially establish reasonable doubt.
[00:38:52] And I think it's a lot easier to knock down what the prosecution has
[00:38:56] in this case than to construct a whole problematic theory
[00:39:00] that's like naming people and I don't know.
[00:39:04] It's certainly better for the Hollywood version of the story,
[00:39:07] but it's not necessarily better for his defense.
[00:39:10] So I think a nightmare scenario and I'm not I don't know what to make of all this.
[00:39:15] But I think a nightmare scenario would be what if Richard Allen is factually innocent,
[00:39:20] but he ends up getting convicted because the the defense does such a poor job
[00:39:27] and their odinism argument just falls apart under its own weight.
[00:39:32] If I were someone who cared about Richard Allen,
[00:39:35] I would be very concerned about that.
[00:39:38] Whether you're working out, walking or running errands,
[00:39:41] Audible can help you keep your heart rate up month after month
[00:39:44] with their pulse pounding collection of thrilling audio books
[00:39:48] that you can't hear anywhere else.
[00:39:50] As an Audible member, you can choose one title a month to keep
[00:39:53] from their entire catalog, which includes thousands of titles.
[00:39:57] This month, check out the Audible original, The Space Within.
[00:40:00] It's a chilling eight part story about a psychiatrist, Dr.
[00:40:04] Maddie Weill, voiced by Academy Award winner Jessica Chastain,
[00:40:08] who is tasked with unlocking the memories of a child
[00:40:10] who went missing for seven hours.
[00:40:13] Maddie soon discovers that there are more who have faced similar experiences
[00:40:17] and the truth of what is happening to them may impact the fate of humankind.
[00:40:21] New members can try Audible free for 30 days.
[00:40:24] Visit audible.com slash thrill or text thrill to 500 500.
[00:40:30] You can host the best backyard barbecue.
[00:40:34] When you find a professional on Angie to make your backyard the best around,
[00:40:43] connect with skill professionals to get all your home projects done well.
[00:40:48] Inside to outside, repairs to renovations.
[00:40:51] Get started on the Angie app or visit our website.
[00:40:55] Visit our website.
[00:40:57] Get started on the Angie app or visit Angie.com today.
[00:41:02] You can do this when you Angie that.
[00:41:07] What makes a life a good one?
[00:41:10] Is it the adventure you have?
[00:41:12] Or the friends you find along the way?
[00:41:16] Maybe it's pursuing your passion while striving to protect,
[00:41:19] defend and save what you believe in every single day.
[00:41:24] So what makes a life a good one?
[00:41:27] In the Coast Guard, we think it's all of the above and more.
[00:41:32] You'll have to find out for yourself.
[00:41:34] Visit go Coast Guard dot com to learn more.
[00:41:40] One weird thing about this filing is that it talks about how three investigators,
[00:41:45] namely Todd, click, Greg Ferencine, Kevin Murphy were convinced by the Odinist theory
[00:41:55] and that like making a big deal frequently about like three investigators thought this was a good theory.
[00:42:00] I don't know why they keep emphasizing that.
[00:42:02] I get the sense that given that they arrested Richard Allen and charged him with the crime,
[00:42:06] probably more than three investigators think that he did it.
[00:42:09] So getting into some bizarre numerical contest about this just seems odd to emphasize that.
[00:42:15] And in addition to that, the only one we've seen really speak to this is Todd click so far.
[00:42:20] Todd click being the former assistant chief, police chief of Rushville, Indiana,
[00:42:25] who assisted Kevin Murphy of the state police and Greg Ferencine,
[00:42:30] who was an FBI task force member and police officer out of Terre Haute, Indiana with this angle.
[00:42:38] We don't know what Murphy's stance is.
[00:42:41] And unfortunately, Greg Ferencine is deceased.
[00:42:44] He was murdered.
[00:42:45] You were talking early about the things you hoped for from the defense in this document.
[00:42:50] One thing I'm very curious to see from the prosecution is I would love to find out what
[00:42:58] Kevin Murphy thinks of the Odinism angle.
[00:43:01] I honestly don't know.
[00:43:02] I don't know either.
[00:43:03] I'd be curious.
[00:43:04] Listen, if he if he's like, yeah, I still think that's the correct one,
[00:43:07] then that's a boon for the defense.
[00:43:09] If he has a more muted reaction to it as something we looked into and had some
[00:43:14] promising leads but didn't go anywhere, then obviously that's not going to be as good.
[00:43:18] But we don't know.
[00:43:19] There's no way of knowing that at this time before he comes out on either side.
[00:43:24] I just thought it was odd that they kept on making like three investigators.
[00:43:28] It was kind of interesting because they have a lot of findings in this motion
[00:43:32] that they prepare for the judge to sign.
[00:43:35] And like I say, it has the judge say, oh, by the way, Richard Allen is not guilty.
[00:43:40] It has all sorts of findings about Holman and Liggett and all these other things.
[00:43:46] It's like their wish list of things they want the judge to say about the case
[00:43:51] and their conclusions about the case.
[00:43:54] And it's like, it made me think it'd be like back when I was trying to romance Anya.
[00:44:01] If I sent her an email invitation to dinner and included with that invitation
[00:44:07] something for her to send me back, which he says, yes, I'll go out to dinner with you
[00:44:11] because you are charming and witty and absolutely perfect in every way.
[00:44:16] You wouldn't need to draft that for me.
[00:44:18] I would have already thought that.
[00:44:21] But yeah, that is sort of what it is, the kind of fantasy filings.
[00:44:28] I don't know.
[00:44:28] It just seems kind of like they don't really know.
[00:44:33] I mean, it seems like they know who they're writing for.
[00:44:35] It's just not the judge.
[00:44:36] Should we jump ahead and cover what they say about geofencing?
[00:44:41] Sure.
[00:44:42] All right.
[00:44:42] Let's get into geofencing.
[00:44:44] One thing that is, there's many things interesting in this.
[00:44:51] They don't claim to know for sure to understand geofencing.
[00:44:57] So they're not saying, oh, by the way, the prosecution is wrong.
[00:45:00] And we were right.
[00:45:01] Yeah, they're just saying, yeah, we don't do it.
[00:45:03] We don't know.
[00:45:04] But they do acknowledge in there that they had a geofencing expert.
[00:45:07] Yeah, let's get into this because this also touches on the freaking crowd funding.
[00:45:11] I mean, geez.
[00:45:15] Okay.
[00:45:15] So I'll quote, so on or about October 6th, 2023, the defense received geofencing evidence.
[00:45:22] Prosecutor requested the defense kicked off the case only days after it,
[00:45:27] the defense received this evidence.
[00:45:28] So they got the geofencing stuff on October 6th.
[00:45:33] They seem to be saying there that we weren't able to really do much with geofencing
[00:45:38] because we got kicked off shortly thereafter.
[00:45:40] Meanwhile, it is.
[00:45:41] Tell us about the expert.
[00:45:42] Well, it's April right now.
[00:45:44] But so the expert notes, well, let's get the quote where they mentioned it.
[00:45:51] So quote after the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated the defense team,
[00:45:55] the defense team received the geofencing data in the form of charts in a map on or
[00:45:59] about January 30th, 2024.
[00:46:02] The defense then took that information to its expert for review.
[00:46:05] Okay.
[00:46:06] So that's they have an expert and they're working with them as of,
[00:46:10] let's say early February.
[00:46:12] So then why by mid-March did they not have a full understanding of geofencing?
[00:46:21] Are you asking me or?
[00:46:22] I'm asking you.
[00:46:23] I don't know.
[00:46:25] I don't know why they're not having at least a little bit of a grasp of the concepts,
[00:46:31] which again pretty clearly hold that in them, you know, basically in no way does it show
[00:46:37] people's exact locations.
[00:46:39] It's an approximation of general area that can vary by up to thousands of yards.
[00:46:48] That's that could vary quite a lot at least.
[00:46:50] I don't know the exact calculations and everything, so I'm not going to.
[00:46:53] But it's a wide, it's a, it's a, it's not an approximate specific tool necessarily.
[00:46:59] I'm going to read another quote.
[00:47:01] After getting back on the case, the defense has now had just over two months to analyze
[00:47:05] this important evidence along with all the other evidence it has received in quote.
[00:47:11] So first of all, they say they've had two months to discuss geofencing with this expert and
[00:47:18] they're suggesting that is not enough time for us to fully understand geofencing.
[00:47:23] So let's say, okay, sure, maybe you need more time.
[00:47:27] Then why on earth are they rushing towards a trial in mid-May?
[00:47:33] Why are there other experts out there too that they need to talk to?
[00:47:38] Well, why are they just slap a dashing all of this into a filing if they don't know what
[00:47:43] they're talking about and admitting that.
[00:47:45] That's what I want to know.
[00:47:46] And that goes back to, well, oh, there's a trial in May.
[00:47:50] Well, guess who's whose idea that is?
[00:47:52] Guess who wants that?
[00:47:54] I would love for there to be a trial in May because I just,
[00:47:59] I just want this to be over.
[00:48:02] But I don't think that's going to happen.
[00:48:04] And it's filings like this that give me the sense of looming dread that there's no way this
[00:48:10] is going to happen.
[00:48:12] They're not ready.
[00:48:14] They don't seem to really have anything together.
[00:48:22] I mean, honestly, I'm a little skeptical.
[00:48:23] I know they're busy and they have to do a lot, but like two months to not even
[00:48:27] understand anything about geofencing, they seemingly got money to pay an expert to a certain
[00:48:32] extent, although we'll get into that in a minute.
[00:48:35] I don't know.
[00:48:37] It's like on the one hand you could say, well, if they don't have a geofencing expert,
[00:48:40] then maybe the filing makes sense.
[00:48:42] But then you can also say, I mean, but if they have a geofencing expert,
[00:48:46] then it really doesn't make any sense why how that got filed.
[00:48:49] Yeah.
[00:48:50] Because again, you can, you maybe you don't have the geofencing expert for everything
[00:48:55] you want and you want more money.
[00:48:56] I can understand that, but you would think that they would come away with like a little bit
[00:48:59] of an understanding about the concepts of geofencing.
[00:49:04] So let's read another quote.
[00:49:05] They're kind of explaining why they don't really know geofencing, I guess.
[00:49:10] Quote, this court has since denied funds for the defense technology expert to conduct
[00:49:14] further analysis on geofencing evidence.
[00:49:18] Uh, unquote.
[00:49:20] So they had the geofencing data.
[00:49:22] They had some kind of geofencing expert.
[00:49:24] They completely misinterpreted it.
[00:49:27] I mean, I don't know whether this is a case where, uh,
[00:49:32] I mean, the judge does not owe them unlimited funds for everything.
[00:49:37] That's that's one thing we hear from pretty much anyone who's worked criminal defense.
[00:49:42] Like that's not that's not going to happen for a case like this.
[00:49:47] But I don't know.
[00:49:49] It's really hard to assess exactly the validity or the lack thereof of what they want without
[00:49:57] knowing exactly what they're asking for and also what they have received money to do in the past.
[00:50:02] So I don't know if we can know much, but it seems like they've been cut off
[00:50:08] the lease on this defense expert.
[00:50:10] It's hard again.
[00:50:11] It's hard to assess.
[00:50:12] It's hard to assess whether that's reasonable of the judge or whether that's unreasonable.
[00:50:15] I just don't know.
[00:50:19] And there's a lot of back and forth about, oh, the prosecution hasn't told us about their who
[00:50:25] who specifically their geofencing expert is.
[00:50:28] And if we if we knew that, then we could depose them.
[00:50:33] That also raises the issue.
[00:50:35] You can't really depose their experts until you understand the data yourself
[00:50:40] and you've had two months.
[00:50:41] So that's not enough time for you to understand it.
[00:50:45] So how long is it going to take you to understand it well enough to prepare for these depositions?
[00:50:51] And keep in mind there is a trial in mid-May.
[00:50:54] I wanted to read something else from this.
[00:50:57] You remember that according to the geofencing supposedly,
[00:51:02] there are three phones in the vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the crime.
[00:51:08] And the prosecution said that's very misleading because of the way geofencing works.
[00:51:14] These phones were actually a considerable distance away.
[00:51:19] And we interviewed those people who own those phones and were satisfied they had nothing to do with the crime.
[00:51:25] So this is now I'm going to be quoting from Andrew Baldwin's filing quote.
[00:51:32] In his response motion, the state of Indiana claims that the owners of the phones found on
[00:51:36] the geofencing map in and around the crime scene were interviewed and then dismissed as suspects.
[00:51:43] The defense has requested the state of Indiana to provide any report, video or document memorializing
[00:51:49] any and all interviews of those persons whose phones were found on the geofencing map.
[00:51:54] The state of Indiana still is now provided set information or indicated where such
[00:51:58] information may be found in the vast discovery.
[00:52:01] The first the defense has heard that these people were interviewed is in the state of
[00:52:04] Indiana's response motion filed April 3rd, 2024 unquote.
[00:52:09] So that to me gave the impression that the defense doesn't know who owns those phones.
[00:52:16] I got that impression as well.
[00:52:18] Let's go back to their original filing for Frank's three.
[00:52:22] And I'm going to quote from this when Tony Liggett quote when Tony Liggett drafted his affidavit
[00:52:27] for search warrant of Richard Allen's home, he Liggett concealed from Judge Deane or the
[00:52:32] fact that at least three phones and the people using those phones were moving in and around
[00:52:37] the crime scene at times when their murders would have been taking place according to law
[00:52:41] enforcement timelines and that Richard Allen was not in any way connected with those phones.
[00:52:47] Unquote so to me you cannot say Richard Allen is not connected to those phones
[00:52:54] unless you have information about who those phones belong to because otherwise you could be really
[00:52:59] badly mistating.
[00:53:01] Yes. So to me there's a conflict there and I don't know how to reconcile it.
[00:53:08] I don't either. I guess like devil's advocate maybe they know the numbers and they have like
[00:53:15] asked him and he said I don't know whose numbers those are and I mean I don't know.
[00:53:20] I don't know.
[00:53:25] You know oh and there's going to you know from this filing we definitely know that one thing
[00:53:31] that will be on the horizon there's going to be more crowdfunding judging from this so here's
[00:53:37] the quote. Additionally because the defense has no further funds for our tech expert
[00:53:43] reliance on the prosecutor to provide reports and to provide the name of the correct
[00:53:47] geofencing expert is even more vital should be noted that the defense is attempting to raise
[00:53:52] funds to the variety of experts needed for Richard Allen's defense and does not know if the tech
[00:53:56] expert can be afforded even with the money raised thus far. So they're going to need more money
[00:54:00] folks you know the the coffers that they've raised already have apparently not even enough
[00:54:06] for one geofencing expert who's already done some work seemingly funded by the state and
[00:54:13] I will say with with the with the complaints about discovery with McLean he does need to tell them
[00:54:21] what expert he's going to use if geofencing is something he's going to use in court
[00:54:26] but he does not need to hold their hands through discovery. He doesn't need to give them indexes
[00:54:32] and help them find everything in discovery. No. And maybe they have some valid complaints
[00:54:37] about the pace at which they've been given discovery. I think the problem is when you overload
[00:54:44] these filings with a lot of complaints that frankly seem frivolous then it is hard to separate
[00:54:50] the wheat from the chaff maybe if they just focus on some of those complaints that may perhaps be
[00:54:54] valid they'd have more success. Focus on valid complaints what a novel concept that's that does
[00:55:00] not seem to be their strategy in this their strategies seem to be to throw everything
[00:55:04] but including the kitchen sink at the wall and hope that something sticks. But I think again
[00:55:11] when you hurt your credibility by doing that it's very difficult to get that back.
[00:55:18] And I some of the stuff is again maybe valid but it's incredibly hard to assess
[00:55:26] when you consider the source. And that's where I am with analyzing this I would prefer
[00:55:32] to be in a place where I'm saying both sides are doing a good job and are doing normal things
[00:55:39] with this case. And we can expect some very good lawyering in court as they square off
[00:55:44] against each other and hopefully this comes to a fair verdict. And there's no I mean we're not
[00:55:52] going to say that if that's not how we feel and what how we feel is we're very concerned
[00:55:55] about the state of Richard Allen's defense and what he's getting out of all this.
[00:56:03] Is that is that pretty much it have we gone through.
[00:56:05] I think that's pretty much it.
[00:56:06] All right well thank you all so much for listening stay tuned and we'll try to cover
[00:56:11] other Delphi updates as they happen.
[00:56:14] Thank you so much.
[00:56:17] Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet if you have a tip concerning one of the cases
[00:56:22] we cover please email us at murder sheet at gmail.com if you have actionable information
[00:56:31] about an unsolved crime please report it to the appropriate authorities.
[00:56:37] If you're interested in joining our Patreon that's available at www.patreon.com
[00:56:46] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com
[00:56:56] slash murder sheet we very much appreciate any support.
[00:57:01] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the murder sheet
[00:57:06] and who you can find on the web at kevinthg.com
[00:57:11] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered
[00:57:15] you can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook.
[00:57:19] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much.
[00:57:24] We do try to check our email account but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.
[00:57:31] Thanks again for listening.
[00:57:34] Support for this podcast and the following message come from Corriant.
[00:57:37] Corriant provides wealth management services centered around you.
[00:57:41] They focus on exceeding your expectations and simplifying your life.
[00:57:45] Corriant has been helping high achievers just like you enjoy their lives more fully,
[00:57:49] preserve their wealth and provide for the people causes and communities they care about.
[00:57:54] As one of the largest integrated fee only registered investment advisors in the U.S.
[00:57:59] Corriant has deeply experienced teams in 23 strategic locations.
[00:58:04] Corriant has extensive knowledge spanning the full spectrum of planning, investing,
[00:58:08] lending and money management disciplines. Leverage Corriant's exclusive network of experts
[00:58:14] to craft custom solutions designed to help you reach your financial goals no matter
[00:58:19] how complex they may be. Real wealth requires real solutions.
[00:58:24] For more information connect with a wealth advisor today at corriant.com