The Delphi Murders: Judge Frances Gull Issues Orders

[00:00:00] Have you ever covered a carpet stain with a rug? Ignored a leaky faucet?

[00:00:04] Pretended your half-painted living room is supposed to look like that? Well, you're not alone.

[00:00:08] We've all got unfinished home 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 a few taps.

[00:00:17] You can search, chat, and book highly rated pros right in your neighborhood.

[00:00:21] Plus,

[00:00:22] you'll know what to tackle next, because Thumbtack is the app that shows you what to do, who to hire, and when. So say

[00:00:28] goodbye to all those unfinished home projects and say hello to caring for your home the easier way. Download Thumbtack and start a project today.

[00:00:36] Man, that sunset is gorgeous.

[00:00:39] Grill, patio, sunset? Hard to get better than that, unless you're browsing Carvana's inventory while you soak it all in.

[00:00:46] Oh, burger time.

[00:00:48] So sit back, get comfortable. Carvana's got thousands of cars under $20,000 just waiting for you.

[00:00:54] I could stay here forever.

[00:00:57] Carvana, where car buying meets comfort meets convenience. Download the app or visit carvana.com today.

[00:01:06] Temp check. What kind of summer are we having this year? A family road trip summer, a beach bum summer, or a

[00:01:12] wake-me-up-when-the-sun-sets summer? With Instacart, choose your own adventure and skip the shopping side quests. Where available,

[00:01:20] you can get ice cream delivered to your hotel,

[00:01:22] sunscreen to the pool, or cold brew to your bed.

[00:01:25] Well, door, in as fast as 30 minutes. Wherever you find yourself this summer,

[00:01:30] you can get the goods. Download Instacart for free delivery on your first three orders. Offer valid for a limited time.

[00:01:37] Minimum $10 per order. Excludes restaurants. Additional terms and fees apply.

[00:01:42] Content warning. This episode includes discussion of the murder of two children.

[00:01:47] Hi everybody, thanks so much for joining us today.

[00:01:50] So it's been a little bit quiet in the Delphi murders case recently. Of course,

[00:01:54] I'm referring to the murder case against Richard Allen who stands accused currently of murdering two teenage girls,

[00:02:01] Abigail Williams and Liberty German in the town of Delphi, Indiana,

[00:02:06] back in 2017. So there was a flurry of activity. We all thought we were getting ready for a May trial.

[00:02:13] Spoiler, that did not happen.

[00:02:15] But things kind of eased off at that point.

[00:02:19] But just recently, we got two new orders from Judge Francis Gull.

[00:02:26] So today we're going to just be talking about those two orders and what they mean.

[00:02:30] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:02:33] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:02:35] And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:37] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:02:43] We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:45] And this is The Delphi Murders.

[00:02:47] Judge Francis Gull issues orders.

[00:03:36] So I don't think either of these two orders is a shock, but let's go into them.

[00:03:42] One of them is about something very fundamental, very important to the future of this case, which is which judge will be handling it because Judge Gull was asked to recuse herself.

[00:03:53] The other order is frankly much more trivial.

[00:03:58] So let's start with that one.

[00:03:59] Yeah, so let's lead with that one.

[00:04:00] Lead with the boring one.

[00:04:02] Well, it's not necessarily boring, but it's just really, really...

[00:04:05] A stupid side show.

[00:04:06] Like so much in this case.

[00:04:08] So on May 31st, but by the way, both of these actually, they were dated May 31st, 2024, but they appeared on the docket on June 3rd.

[00:04:17] And there's usually like a bit of a delay.

[00:04:19] So that's not...

[00:04:20] I'm just being overly detailed as usual.

[00:04:23] So this order was in response to David Hennessey's petition to strike gratuitous and demeaning commentary and or findings from contempt order.

[00:04:33] Although she did correct demeaning for him, so that's good.

[00:04:36] He misspelled the word demeaning when he filed this.

[00:04:38] Basically, I'm sure most of you, if not all of you remember this, there was a contempt hearing and Hennessey specifically said, I don't want you just to say whether or not you hold them in contempt.

[00:04:50] I want you to really spell out your findings.

[00:04:53] Judge Gull spelled out her findings and in those findings, she said some things that David Hennessey thinks were mean.

[00:05:01] That the defense attorneys for Allen, Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosie are basically incompetent, sloppy words to that effect.

[00:05:13] She did not find them in contempt, but she basically said that they did a bad job handling a lot of this.

[00:05:19] And so even though he asked her to be very detailed in explaining what her thinking was when it was something negative to his client, Hennessey, of course, said that's too mean.

[00:05:30] Be nice.

[00:05:31] Take out the mean stuff.

[00:05:32] Be just super nice to the boys.

[00:05:35] And Judge Gull's response to this is so short.

[00:05:38] I think you, Anya, can read it basically in its entirety.

[00:05:42] Yes, so she wrote, quote, Defendant claims the court directed the Carol.

[00:05:48] Oh, wait, I'm sorry.

[00:05:49] I'm jumping way too ahead of myself in my notes.

[00:05:52] This is this is actually even shorter than that.

[00:05:55] So, quote, The court has reviewed defense counsel's counsel's petition to strike gratuitous and demeaning commentary and or findings from contempt order filed May 8th, 2024.

[00:06:07] As the court granted counsel Hennessey's motion for specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon filed on March 12th, 2024.

[00:06:14] This motion is denied.

[00:06:15] And so basically two sentences saying this is what you asked for.

[00:06:20] Thanks for coming.

[00:06:21] You asked for it.

[00:06:23] Now you're telling me to take it back.

[00:06:24] No, you asked for it.

[00:06:25] I gave you what you want.

[00:06:26] And so long.

[00:06:27] There's a lot of hypocrisy that kind of tends to happen in this case.

[00:06:30] And this is one of those things.

[00:06:31] It's like, OK, be very detailed.

[00:06:33] But the details are something that we find somewhat unflattering.

[00:06:35] So actually, don't be detailed.

[00:06:38] It's just it's I mean, like, I guess maybe there's a perception that people aren't following this, but we are and I just think it looks bad.

[00:06:46] And all of you listening are like a lot of this wouldn't be surprising to me if it was just like there was a perception of like no one's paying attention.

[00:06:55] But again, I just think it's just it just looks it's embarrassing at a certain point.

[00:07:01] So the other order filed was the defense filed another request.

[00:07:07] I believe this may have been like the third request for Judge Gold to recuse herself.

[00:07:13] And they asked they listed some reasons why they thought she should recuse herself.

[00:07:18] And they said, we really like to have responses to each one of these.

[00:07:21] And so she goes through and gives her responses to in the order she filed.

[00:07:29] She gives her responses to these specific claims of the defense.

[00:07:33] We'll just go through the whole thing, read them and talk about the points she's making, the points that were made by the defense and sort of where everything stands here.

[00:07:40] And who we think makes the most sense there or what have you.

[00:07:43] Yeah. And kind of.

[00:07:44] And there's actually some intriguing elements to some of these that we don't really know how to interpret.

[00:07:49] So we're going to be talking about that, too.

[00:07:51] But should I give a spoiler alert?

[00:07:54] She's not she's not recusing herself.

[00:07:56] So, I mean, I don't think anyone really expected her to.

[00:07:59] No, I think I mean, you have the defense attorneys who say she's so biased against them.

[00:08:06] And I think there there's another side to that, that I think, you know, maybe she's not biased.

[00:08:15] Maybe she's trying to rein in some pretty bad behavior on their part.

[00:08:18] And I don't know.

[00:08:20] So people have their own opinions.

[00:08:21] People kind of go back and forth.

[00:08:23] But in this, she's kind of outlining why she does not believe she recused herself.

[00:08:28] Are you trying to lose weight and feeling like you're getting absolutely nowhere?

[00:08:33] Well, weight loss can be a uniquely challenging goal, one that leaves many of us feeling isolated and frustrated.

[00:08:40] The good news is that our sponsor Rowe can help you achieve your weight loss goals.

[00:08:44] Over 200000 people who've tried it can attest to this.

[00:08:48] Now, remember, when you support our sponsors, you're also supporting our show directly.

[00:08:54] To start, Rowe gets you access to one of the most popular and effective weight loss shots on the market.

[00:09:00] Next, through its special Rowe Body program, you can tailor a weight loss system that works for you,

[00:09:05] figuring out your own unique diet and exercise regimen.

[00:09:09] Rowe even gets you weekly one on one coaching sessions with a registered nurse.

[00:09:13] Lose the pounds and keep them off with Rowe.

[00:09:17] Now, Murder Sheet listeners get a special deal.

[00:09:20] With Rowe, the average weight loss is 15 to 20 percent in one year with healthy lifestyle changes.

[00:09:26] BMI and other eligibility criteria apply.

[00:09:29] Go to Rowe.co.

[00:09:31] Slash M Sheet.

[00:09:34] Sign up today and you'll pay just ninety nine dollars for your first month and one hundred and forty five a month after that.

[00:09:40] Medication costs are separate.

[00:09:42] That's R-O dot C-O slash M Sheet.

[00:09:47] Stories are at the heart of true crime, whether the spotlight centers on a detective solving a murder case,

[00:09:53] an attorney making a winning argument in court, or a wife healing from the revelation that her beloved husband is a sexual predator.

[00:10:01] We believe that if you love the immersive, in-depth reporting and storytelling that the best true crime stories bring,

[00:10:08] you'll also love the new podcast.

[00:10:10] You probably think this story's about you.

[00:10:12] This show centers the question, what if the person you thought was your soulmate never really existed?

[00:10:18] That's what kicked off this podcast, which sees host Brittany R.

[00:10:22] digging into the shattered ruins of what was supposed to be her ultimate love story.

[00:10:27] A man stole her heart.

[00:10:29] Only he was not the person he pretended to be.

[00:10:32] That's where we begin with you probably think this story's about you.

[00:10:36] But the real story comes through Britt's quest for answers.

[00:10:40] As she digs into this man's dark, twisted history, she meets other women who he lied to and strung along.

[00:10:47] She starts to see the patterns, the lies about having a wife who died by suicide or one who was struggling with drugs.

[00:10:54] The shimmering web of deception crafted to harm women.

[00:10:58] You will feel like you're there along with her as she unpacks these deceptions and forges connections to the other women she meets along the way.

[00:11:07] We think that in our truth-starved, dating app-driven world, you probably think this story's about you is a must listen.

[00:11:14] Britt's story is as relatable as it is remarkable.

[00:11:18] It's one that we think you'll find compelling.

[00:11:20] Listen and follow You Probably Think This Story's About You wherever you listen to podcasts.

[00:11:27] Man, that sunset is gorgeous.

[00:11:30] Grill, patio, sunset.

[00:11:32] Hard to get better than that.

[00:11:34] Unless you're browsing Carvana's inventory while you soak it all in.

[00:11:38] Oh, burger time.

[00:11:40] So sit back, get comfortable.

[00:11:42] Carvana's got thousands of cars under $20,000 just waiting for you.

[00:11:46] I could stay here forever.

[00:11:48] Carvana, where car buying meets comfort meets convenience.

[00:11:52] Download the app or visit carvana.com today.

[00:11:57] When she reads the first claim that she responds to.

[00:12:02] Yes, I was starting to read before and then I was like, I'm way too ahead of myself.

[00:12:06] Quote, defendant claims the court directed the Carroll County Sheriff to ignore subpoena.

[00:12:11] The court directed an email to counsel on June 14th, 2023, regarding the witness refusing to cooperate with the service of the subpoena and demonstrating willingness to fight the deputy attempting service.

[00:12:23] Court requested report of the witness's refusal to cooperate and be transported for the scheduled hearing and forwarded that report to counsel when it was received.

[00:12:31] The decision by the deputy to leave without the witness was his and was not directed by the court.

[00:12:36] End quote.

[00:12:37] So this is about what happened close to a year ago with Robert Bastogne.

[00:12:43] He is an inmate at Westville, where at the time Richard Allen was also incarcerated.

[00:12:49] He'd made some claims in a letter concerning Richard Allen's treatment.

[00:12:54] He was subpoenaed to appear at a particular hearing when the sheriff went there to get him to so he could attend that hearing.

[00:13:04] He refused to leave his cell.

[00:13:07] And so the defense says, well, even though he refused to leave his cell, he still, I guess, should have been forced to come.

[00:13:15] And it was wrong for the judge to tell the sheriff's not to forcibly remove him from the cell.

[00:13:22] And in her reply, Judge Gull is saying, no, that's not what happened.

[00:13:27] I did not tell the deputy not to forcibly remove him.

[00:13:32] The deputy made his own choice.

[00:13:36] Right. And one thing about this is that I think it's really important not to get lost before we keep on talking about this versus what the deputy says, because this discrepancy is there.

[00:13:46] But Robert Bastogne is a convicted child molester who has done things like shame his six year old victim.

[00:13:56] File frivolous and bizarre legal filings in his case, talking about how he should be released from prison for his crime because he can help win the war against covid-19.

[00:14:08] So this is a guy with very least credibility, serious character and credibility.

[00:14:13] Also, we've corresponded with him.

[00:14:14] And in my experience, he basically uses high profile cases as a bait and switch to say, hey, I can tell you all about Richard Allen.

[00:14:21] Reporters go, what's up?

[00:14:23] Actually, talk about my case.

[00:14:25] The biggest injustice here is what happened to me.

[00:14:28] That's what we're dealing with here.

[00:14:29] So, I mean, but with all of that said, that's that's that's not what the issue is.

[00:14:32] I'm not saying that's what the issue is.

[00:14:34] I'm just saying people need to keep that in mind when we're talking about this.

[00:14:37] The issue is the defense says that the sheriffs went to the cell to serve a lawful subpoena on this man.

[00:14:46] This man refused to come and appear at court.

[00:14:50] And the judge said, deputies, don't worry about it.

[00:14:53] Just leave him there and come back.

[00:14:55] And they said that's improper.

[00:14:58] That they should have been brought into the decision.

[00:15:00] And Judge Goal is saying, no, that's not what happened.

[00:15:03] What happened is the sheriff on his own made the decision not to forcibly remove this witness.

[00:15:11] So why don't you read what the deputy previously said happened?

[00:15:15] Yeah, this is this is troubling because as someone who follows this case, I was aware of the deputy's account of what happened that day.

[00:15:25] And it doesn't tally with what Judge Goal says.

[00:15:28] Quote, on June 14th, 2023, I, Special Deputy Wysaki Bryan, while on duty was conducting a court ordered transport from Westville Correctional Facility to the Carroll County Jail.

[00:15:41] Upon my arrival, I was escorted to inmate Bastone Robert, segregation unit to conduct the pickup.

[00:15:48] After waiting, a corrections officer approached me and told me Bastone is refusing to come out of his cell and told the corrections officer, F you, you can't make me go.

[00:15:58] The correction officer told me they will have to do a cell extraction to get him to my transport vehicle.

[00:16:04] I told the corrections officer to stand by.

[00:16:07] Let me make a few phone calls.

[00:16:09] I was escorted back to the main gate where I was greeted by Warden John Gallupo.

[00:16:13] I called Carroll County Jail Commander Laura Sestarek, who I explained the situation to.

[00:16:18] She then made a phone call to Chief Deputy Toll Blesenby, who contacted Judge Francis Goal's office to inform them of the situation.

[00:16:28] Judge Goal's office advised to leave Bastone there if he did not want to attend the court hearing that is scheduled for 6-15-23.

[00:16:35] I then spoke with Warden Gallupo and asked if he could provide me with a letter stating that Bastone refused to come out of his cell and that he did not want to go.

[00:16:42] Warden Gallupo agreed he would.

[00:16:44] He later advised he would bring me the letter, end quote.

[00:16:47] So the deputy is saying there I contacted through Blesenby.

[00:16:55] We contacted the judge's office and were told we could leave him at the cell and that she just wanted a letter.

[00:17:04] And Judge Goal is saying I asked for the letter.

[00:17:08] They made their own decision there about whether or not to remove him from the cell.

[00:17:14] So that's a discrepancy.

[00:17:16] I mean, I don't know that it is when I'm reading this.

[00:17:20] I think there's a possibility that both of these people could be reciting events to the best of their ability.

[00:17:25] And what I'm talking about specifically, if he said I called Judge Goal and she said this, then we would have a huge problem here in my opinion.

[00:17:33] But one thing that I'm noticing is that he called Sastarsic, who then called Lesenby, who then called vaguely Frances Goal's office.

[00:17:43] What does that mean?

[00:17:44] Is he talking with somebody who is in the room with the judge and kind of translating what she wants?

[00:17:50] Is he talking with just somebody who's like, well, I don't know.

[00:17:52] Like, I guess he can't go then.

[00:17:54] I mean, I mean, that's an interesting point.

[00:17:56] But Goal says that she requested a report of the witness's refusal to cooperate.

[00:18:02] And then we have the deputy asking for and getting such a report.

[00:18:07] So there seems to be some sort of a concession there that there was communication going on between Goal and this deputy prior to the time that this deputy left the prison without Bastogne in his custody.

[00:18:19] I'm just saying that I think when there's a game of telephone going on, I'm willing to kind of basically say, I don't know what happened until I get more information.

[00:18:28] That's fair. I don't know what happened.

[00:18:30] There's all sorts of possible explanations.

[00:18:33] She could have said, well, you do what you want to do.

[00:18:35] But if you don't get if you can't get him, get a letter.

[00:18:39] Yeah. I mean, I just it's basically impossible to say.

[00:18:42] But we always try to be completely unbiased here and point out discrepancies no matter which side they might hurt.

[00:18:51] And this is a discrepancy.

[00:18:54] Yeah, or at least it has the appearance of one.

[00:18:57] And I think that's important to point out.

[00:18:59] And I think it's also important to note that when it comes to, I guess, this, the deputy's recounting is more detailed and has more pieces.

[00:19:11] So it would have been nice to maybe have a little bit more of a sense from the judge's side about what this looks like.

[00:19:16] So then maybe we could get details where we could assess more in depth about what happened.

[00:19:22] Yeah, I agree.

[00:19:23] And I mean, at the end of the day, I'm curious what your take on this is, Kevin.

[00:19:27] But do you feel like the judge had an obligation to basically say, like, tease him and drag him out bodily or like what's what are the rules around that?

[00:19:37] Well, judging from what the deputy wrote, it sounds like the people at Westville were at least giving him the option of a cell extraction.

[00:19:46] I don't know what exactly a cell extraction is, but it seems to suggest that it would involve forcibly removing Bastogne from his cell to forcibly bring him down to Delphi to cooperate.

[00:20:01] I think problems there would be that the defense attorneys have consistently made lots of very strong arguments about prisoners being mistreated.

[00:20:10] And it is hard to imagine how you could do a forcible cell extraction without mistreating or being a bit rough with someone.

[00:20:18] So basically, they want them to brutalize this prisoner so that they can basically say, well, there you go.

[00:20:26] That's what we're talking about.

[00:20:28] Yeah, that's what it kind of reads as to me, frankly, because it's all about prisoners rights until it's something like this all of a sudden.

[00:20:36] And then it's basically like, you know.

[00:20:39] Drag him out of here and that doesn't seem like a safe situation for him if he's again, this is somebody who inserts himself into this case and I think has very minimal to contribute.

[00:20:50] It's very much a sideshow because I don't I don't believe anything he says.

[00:20:56] Yes, we had some letters we had with him as Anya mentioned, I guess, miraculously emails with him.

[00:21:02] And we've looked at his record and his previous attempts to file cases.

[00:21:07] This guy doesn't have a good record for telling the truth.

[00:21:10] I think if he had come up there and testified, he likely would have done more damage to Richard Allen's case than help.

[00:21:15] Yeah, he basically helped them out here by having them be able to complain about something.

[00:21:19] So, I mean, it is very much a side show.

[00:21:22] And to be clear, I think you're probably right.

[00:21:24] There probably is an explanation for this.

[00:21:27] I could be wrong. I mean, I just want to see more information, I guess.

[00:21:30] But on the record, based on the reports we have, there's a discrepancy.

[00:21:35] I'm sure there is probably an explanation for this discrepancy.

[00:21:38] But I'm just pointing out these accounts don't match.

[00:21:41] Yeah, they don't match.

[00:21:42] And again, I feel like the deputies is more detailed.

[00:21:45] And so it would be nice to see that from the other side.

[00:21:49] Yeah, the deputies is much more clearly written.

[00:21:52] And I think there's some like here's exactly what happened point by point.

[00:21:55] Yes.

[00:21:55] And I think later on, we read some other parts of this order from Gull.

[00:21:59] There'll be some things that we are concerned aren't as clearly written as we would have liked.

[00:22:03] That's correct.

[00:22:05] I find that some of Gull's orders can the wording can throw me off.

[00:22:09] Maybe I'm just dumb and not used to reading legal documents.

[00:22:12] But there's some things I have to read a couple of times to just be like, oh, that's what she's saying.

[00:22:17] It can be it can be it's not like necessarily I wouldn't say it's poorly written.

[00:22:21] It's not that it's just it can be a bit opaque, the meaning sometimes.

[00:22:24] And I don't know, Special Deputy Brian Wasaki, but all it took for me was just to read this once his account.

[00:22:31] And I understood it perfectly.

[00:22:32] It was very clearly written and concise.

[00:22:35] There you go.

[00:22:36] What's next?

[00:22:38] The next piece is about when you read it.

[00:22:42] Ex parte stuff.

[00:22:44] Quote, defendant claims the court engaged in ex parte communication with the Carroll County Sheriff regarding defendants housing,

[00:22:51] transportation and safety during jury selection and trial May 13th.

[00:22:57] To 31st, 2024, these communications were administrative in nature and did not address any substantive issues.

[00:23:04] Communications were directed to where the defendant would be housed during the trial and who would be conducting transportation.

[00:23:10] The court did notify counsel where defendant would be housed during the trial as he is still under the safekeeping order in an email,

[00:23:17] but did not inform counsel of the communication as nothing substantively was discussed.

[00:23:22] The court has set the defendant's motion to vacate safekeeping order for hearing, but was required to cancel the hearing upon the filing of this pending second verified motion to disqualify.

[00:23:31] End quote.

[00:23:32] So this is they were basically saying, oh, the judge communicated with Carroll County Sheriff's Department without letting us know that's improper.

[00:23:43] And she basically makes the point that we made on our earlier episode about this, which she specifically had an issue with.

[00:23:51] They I'm sorry, rather they specifically had an issue with her discussing with Carroll County Sheriff Tony Liggett, who they're saying he's a witness in the case.

[00:23:59] You can't talk to him.

[00:24:01] I thought their argument was wholly unreasonable.

[00:24:04] Sheriff Liggett is it's his job to oversee transportation of Allen during these hearings.

[00:24:12] He is serving a logistical purpose, which he was elected to do by the people of Carroll County.

[00:24:17] That's his job.

[00:24:19] It's the judge's job to help coordinate that.

[00:24:23] They have to talk.

[00:24:24] This is what I mean.

[00:24:26] Yes.

[00:24:26] So it's not so to be clear, obviously, there are many cases where if a judge talks with a sheriff, even if Judge Gold talked with Sheriff Liggett, it would be improper.

[00:24:36] Yes.

[00:24:36] Like if she if she communicated with Liggett and said, OK, here's what I think we should have Richard Allen say or do.

[00:24:43] Or hey, here's how I would change your testimony in order to be more beneficial.

[00:24:47] I mean, yeah.

[00:24:48] Yes.

[00:24:49] So if she was talking about the substance of the case with a witness that is improper, but she was not talking about the substance of the case, she was talking about administrative and logistical things related to Sheriff Liggett's job.

[00:25:02] I'll even go further.

[00:25:03] There there would be cases, cases where I would say like if the judge is suddenly talking to the main detective, it would really be a huge red flag for me because I would be like, wait, why are they talking?

[00:25:14] They have no reason to talk.

[00:25:16] That's really suspicious.

[00:25:18] But in this case, there's no mystery.

[00:25:20] Liggett's not some random detective.

[00:25:22] He's literally the guy in charge of transportation here.

[00:25:25] So they have to talk.

[00:25:26] There's nothing suspicious about that.

[00:25:28] If there was some sort of element of this that Kevin mentions is like talking about substantive case issues, then that's a different concern than that is.

[00:25:37] That is a concern, frankly.

[00:25:38] But this, yeah, it's just pretty self-explanatory, frankly.

[00:25:42] I'm going to read the next section.

[00:25:44] Quote, counsel claimed the court invited the state to limit defendants' Sixth Amendment right to present defense.

[00:25:51] The court has always required counsel in all criminal cases to follow the law relating to third party perpetrators.

[00:25:58] The court reminded counsel of their obligation to follow the law in the court's email of April 28th, 2024, end quote.

[00:26:04] So this was there was an email that Judge Gull sent to the attorneys in the case in which he mentioned something about third party perpetrators and whether or not evidence involving alleged third party perpetrators would be involved.

[00:26:20] Would be allowed into the case and third party perpetrators.

[00:26:23] This is just a fancy way of saying it deals with whether or not the oldenism stuff can come in.

[00:26:29] People might be wondering why would that even be in question?

[00:26:31] Isn't that what the defense wants to do?

[00:26:33] Shouldn't they be allowed to do that?

[00:26:36] Well, the thing is, you can't just have a situation where a person can walk into a courtroom, a defense attorney, and start blindly accusing anyone under the sun.

[00:26:47] You have to prove that the person you are accusing, if you're saying this person did did the crime instead of my client, you have to have evidence that that person did the crime.

[00:26:59] There has to be something that places them at the scene or something tying them to it.

[00:27:04] You can't just pull something out of your hat.

[00:27:07] So I can't if I'm a defense attorney, I can't just go in there and then look in the gallery and you're sitting there and say, that man did it, you know, like without anything.

[00:27:15] So in her email, she made a comment about that.

[00:27:18] Shortly after that, Nick McLean filed a motion to limit the use of third party perpetrator stuff in the trial.

[00:27:27] And they were saying, well, obviously he only did this because Judge Gold gave him the nudge to do so.

[00:27:33] And I guess they believe it wouldn't have occurred to him otherwise.

[00:27:37] But the fact is, behind the scenes, reporters, lawyers we talked to who are not involved with the case but who are qualified criminal attorneys, everyone predicted that McLean would be filing such a motion.

[00:27:52] And if you read the motion that McLean filed, it obviously was not something he hastily prepared after reading an email from the judge.

[00:28:00] So I think everybody predicted that this was coming.

[00:28:04] Yeah. What did you make of their argument that she must have inspired it?

[00:28:08] It seems like it's sort of intended to demean the prosecution, like they're just getting their cues from the judge.

[00:28:13] It's not they can't think of anything on their own.

[00:28:18] Certainly the undertone of quite a few filings from the defense, I'm trying to phrase this carefully, there's an undertone from some of their filings.

[00:28:30] They don't seem to have a lot of respect for anyone's competency other than their own.

[00:28:36] They have a lot of respect for their own, though.

[00:28:37] So I guess they make up for it with that.

[00:28:39] But they don't seem to respect Nick McLeeland and they don't seem to have a lot of respect for Judge Gold.

[00:28:46] That's very clear.

[00:28:47] But in this situation, I thought it was a rather weak argument because, as you said, this was like one of those things that was like a waterfall on the horizon.

[00:28:55] Like we're about to go over Niagara Falls.

[00:28:56] We can all see it coming.

[00:28:58] We all know that something's going to be done, whether you're going to lean into it or turn around.

[00:29:03] And when we talk with lawyers behind the scene, the good lawyers who aren't directly involved in this case, they say, no, we don't even think the judge will be allowing any of this.

[00:29:11] A lot of the whole I mean, the refrain from people that we speak to again, some of them are in Indiana.

[00:29:17] Some I mean, a lot of them will never even appear on the show.

[00:29:20] They just people we talked to on background.

[00:29:22] But a big thing we heard from defense attorneys was basically like, I don't know if they've any of this will be allowed in because there are rules about third party stuff that you want to abide by.

[00:29:34] And it's possible that some of the stuff is so frivolous it will just be thrown out.

[00:29:38] And so when you have something when you have people who are not involved, we're just kind of commenting to us and saying, like, I don't even like I wouldn't allow that in.

[00:29:46] Then I can imagine it's on everybody's mind.

[00:29:49] This is a ridiculous example, but Anya is charged with stealing cereal.

[00:29:54] And this again, and is her defense going to be I didn't do it.

[00:29:58] It was space aliens.

[00:29:59] That's not really a defense that's going to be allowed into court unless you can produce evidence.

[00:30:05] The first of all, space aliens exist.

[00:30:07] And number two, space aliens were in the neighborhood of the grocery store at the time and had the opportunity to commit the crime.

[00:30:16] You have to have some factual basis for the alleged third party to be guilty of the crime in order to rise to the bar where you can mention it in court.

[00:30:26] Otherwise, you're just potentially smearing people who had nothing to do with the crime.

[00:30:31] And you're also dragging out the process for no good reason.

[00:30:34] What if I told you the grocery store was in Rosedale?

[00:30:39] That would have been a very funny line if you remembered that the town you're thinking of is actually Roswell.

[00:30:45] Oh, my God.

[00:30:46] So you just completely blew it and embarrassed yourself.

[00:30:48] Again?

[00:30:49] Let's quickly move on.

[00:30:50] This is my new Cato Kaelin thing.

[00:30:52] I'm sorry, I don't know about aliens.

[00:30:55] I'm going to read the next section so we can forget Anya's humiliation.

[00:30:59] My blunder.

[00:31:00] Quote, counsel claimed the court has disparaged them and ruled on defense pleadings without hearings.

[00:31:08] The court's comments about counsel's performance were documented in the court's order of April 30th, 2024, regarding their handling of discovery materials.

[00:31:18] If pleadings on their face are not supported by the law or admissible evidence, judicial economy does not require hearing, end quote.

[00:31:25] So essentially, I made a record.

[00:31:27] It's up to me to decide whether or not your claims and filings rise to the rise to the level of requiring a hearing.

[00:31:33] And I mean, is that your reading?

[00:31:37] Yeah.

[00:31:38] And another thing at this point in the document, I think it's interesting she's not really rising to the level of the bluster that we've seen from some of the defense.

[00:31:46] A lot of this is very matter of fact so far.

[00:31:49] Things might get a little different later as a heads up, but I think right now it's just very matter of fact, very dry sort of filing.

[00:31:59] I'm going to read this next section, which is a section that I think we tried to read a few times to try to figure out what she is saying here.

[00:32:06] Quote, allegations the court has treated the prosecution more favorably than the defense are unsupported by any admissible evidence provided by the defense at the March 18th, 2024 hearing.

[00:32:19] The court was notified on May 20th, 2024 of an inquiry by the Indiana State Police to the court reporter via email on May 9th, 2024 regarding ex parte communication received by the court from Gary Bodette,

[00:32:34] which was previously provided to all counsel.

[00:32:36] The court is unaware of the extent of Indiana State Police investigation, end quote.

[00:32:41] So the big news there seems to be that the Indiana State Police is conducting some sort of investigation of communications sent to the court by Gary Bodette, who online uses the name Big Solves.

[00:32:59] So he wrote to the court on March 11th, 2024.

[00:33:05] And we can go over some of his letter to recap for people who are not like there's so many moving parts to this filing.

[00:33:14] So we're trying to give you as much context as possible.

[00:33:16] But with this, this is essentially a YouTuber who the defense has held up as no, you know, it wasn't the Mitch Westerman leak.

[00:33:28] You know, that happened.

[00:33:29] But also Nick McClelland was clearly leaking to this YouTuber as well.

[00:33:34] And that is kind of how he fits into this case.

[00:33:39] And what I mean, yeah, I mean, is that pretty much it?

[00:33:44] Yeah. In the letter that he wrote, he basically said that he'd done nothing wrong and he did some word salad in the letter.

[00:33:55] I'll read some of it.

[00:33:56] But that writes the allegations regarding my interactions with certain individuals online have been significantly misrepresented and possibly altered by the accusers or their associates.

[00:34:06] I wish to clarify that any of my actions, which have been incorrectly interpreted as factual by witnesses, are actually misrepresentations of the true circumstances.

[00:34:14] Unquote. So that's kind of hard to figure out what he's saying.

[00:34:17] Again, I think a lot of people could really stand taking writing lessons from Special Deputy Wysaki because what he wrote was very, very clear.

[00:34:26] A lot of people think, well, if I use words with a lot of syllables, it makes me sound smarter.

[00:34:31] And you don't sound smart if people can't figure out what you're saying.

[00:34:34] Yeah, I'm a little bit confused about this, too.

[00:34:37] I guess, you know.

[00:34:40] All right. I don't but honestly, I'm kind of confused by what the judge was saying here.

[00:34:44] So she's I think we both looked at a couple of times.

[00:34:46] We think that it means that ISP is looking into some of his correspondence.

[00:34:50] But what what exactly that means?

[00:34:52] We don't know. I mean, I will say that Mr.

[00:34:54] Beaudet also included a Google Drive folder that seemingly from what I'm reading had to do with a lot of compilation of information around Angela Sotolowski and Courtney Parsons, two other YouTubers who have been like harassing people in this case and sort of carrying on in that way.

[00:35:13] So I don't I don't know if it has something to do with that or it has something to do with possible leaks involving Mr.

[00:35:19] Beaudet. It's hard.

[00:35:21] There are all sorts of allegations that Mr.

[00:35:23] Beaudet was involved in improper leaks and was spreading information that he shouldn't have been spreading.

[00:35:29] So it's by the defense.

[00:35:30] Yeah, the defense.

[00:35:31] It's it's it's confusing.

[00:35:32] It's confusing.

[00:35:33] It's confusing. And I don't know.

[00:35:35] There may be not much to this or it may be something that we're not aware of.

[00:35:40] But why don't you read the next section?

[00:35:42] Sure. Quote, defendant blames the court for ex parte pleadings which were inadvertently directed to the prosecutor.

[00:35:48] The defense staff filed pleadings and marked them as confidential, apparently unaware that the confidential marking makes them available to the state but not the public.

[00:35:57] Counsel's staff contacted this court staff and were advised that the statewide Odyssey case management system, not DoxPOP, as alleged in the pleading, has distinct process for filing pleadings ex parte as opposed to confidential.

[00:36:11] The court did email Defense Council tutorial paper authored by JTAC explaining the process.

[00:36:18] Since that communication, Defense Council have had no issue with their staff properly filing ex parte pleadings.

[00:36:24] In quote. So quickly, what this is about is that there were some documents filed that was supposed to be filed by the defense in such a way that they didn't want the prosecutor, Nick McLean, to have access to them.

[00:36:36] He did get access to them.

[00:36:38] And so there's been a hue and cry raised largely by the defense about whose fault this was.

[00:36:43] And here, how did judge go?

[00:36:45] I mean, this this was brutal.

[00:36:47] This was a brutal paragraph.

[00:36:49] I mean, she's basically saying that they they or their staff don't know how to do their jobs properly on this Odyssey system and that, you know, basically it was their fault.

[00:37:01] They filed something under confidential when it should have been ex parte.

[00:37:06] And they have no one to blame for this but themselves.

[00:37:10] And after they were helped by getting a tutorial, the problem has not happened again.

[00:37:16] I think that it's really embarrassing.

[00:37:20] And the whole thing about the tutorials is pretty devastating when basically if I had to hand Kevin a tutorial on how to be a good podcaster and then I made that public, you'd probably be somewhat embarrassed.

[00:37:34] I sometimes feel like I have to write you a tutorial about Mike's Mike discipline because you always end up you can't see this everyone because this is an audio only program.

[00:37:43] But half the time we're talking and by the end of our conversation, he is like out in the hallway away from his Mike because he just he's just leaning away in this way and that way.

[00:37:53] And fortunately, that's what audio editing software is for.

[00:37:57] So it doesn't get picked up when I do that.

[00:38:00] So it is fool you all completely and thinking I have great discipline.

[00:38:05] But basically, Judge Gull said, this is a skill issue for you, for your team.

[00:38:09] This is a skill issue.

[00:38:11] This is on you.

[00:38:13] You know, Nick McClellan's not sneaking around the bushes, pulling a Mitch Westerman and breaking into the defense headquarters in order to figure out what filings they're doing.

[00:38:22] You just don't know what you're doing.

[00:38:24] You don't know how to handle like a basic, you know, odyssey situation and look into that before you try it again.

[00:38:30] And they did. And now it's all fixed.

[00:38:34] OK, picture this.

[00:38:35] It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[00:38:38] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever, or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road with available H-track all wheel drive and three row seating.

[00:38:48] My whole family can head deep into the wild, conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:38:55] Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details.

[00:39:00] Hyundai. There's joy in every journey.

[00:40:02] Let's move on.

[00:40:03] Quote, accusations of violating rules on access to court records have been completely explained and dealt with, including by the Indiana Supreme Court in the first writ of mandamus filed by defendant, end quote.

[00:40:16] So basically she's saying you made complaints that I filed and handled records incorrectly.

[00:40:22] That's been dealt with and basically has been dealt with because she did make some pretty she made some mistakes about how she handled the court records.

[00:40:30] And she has fixed that.

[00:40:33] I have a question because I think some people would wonder this.

[00:40:37] And frankly, I mean, I wonder this is is is a judge.

[00:40:41] How I guess how serious is a mistake like that for a judge?

[00:40:44] Is it is it something that like no, that will continue to follow her throughout this case?

[00:40:49] Or is it a situation like once it's fixed and the judge shows a willingness to correct what they were doing, that sort of the way things go?

[00:40:57] I mean, like how damaging can a mistake like that be?

[00:40:59] It's not that damaging.

[00:41:00] No one no one can reasonably expect for any trial to be perfect.

[00:41:06] No one can reasonably expect for any judge to be perfect or any prosecutor or any defense attorney where all of us human beings.

[00:41:14] And sometimes we make mistakes.

[00:41:17] Sometimes they involve us accidentally filing things the wrong way or not filing records the way we should or misremembering the name of Roswell, New Mexico.

[00:41:27] Which is especially egregious or handling the microphone in a way that appalls and shocks any professional.

[00:41:33] But it only becomes crucial and an issue if the mistakes that are made fundamentally impacts and impairs the defendant's right to a fair trial.

[00:41:44] And the ability of the public to access court records is serious and.

[00:41:51] It was worth being handled by the Supreme Court, but it didn't really fundamentally impact Richard Allen's right to a fair trial in my in my mind.

[00:42:00] And if the issue persisted and it was just one of those things that kept dragging on, then I would say that, yeah, that could be problematic for her.

[00:42:07] But if it's a situation where it's like, oh, that's an issue corrected.

[00:42:10] It's sort of it just feels like, OK, do you think it's normal for the defense attorneys to be constantly sort of bringing up issues that have essentially been litigated or resolved?

[00:42:20] In an earlier episode, I compared it to like a greatest hits album.

[00:42:24] They just seem to be going back to the same well over and over again.

[00:42:28] And one thing that does is it kind of creates the impression this is all they have.

[00:42:33] And you would think if they had some strong arguments to make either about unfairness or about evidence or what have you, they would be making those arguments instead of going back to the same well, which is.

[00:42:49] In most people's mind has gone dry.

[00:42:51] And I feel personally like it's just been a huge waste of time.

[00:42:54] A lot of this repetitiveness and repetition and repetition.

[00:42:58] And I feel personally like it's just been a huge waste of time.

[00:43:02] A lot of this repetitiveness and repetition.

[00:43:04] And because I think they should if they have an issue, I think they should get it on the record, make a filing, make a record of it for an appeals court.

[00:43:10] That is important.

[00:43:11] That is part of their jobs.

[00:43:13] So I'm not saying, oh, don't file.

[00:43:15] It's just a lot of things have been filed.

[00:43:17] I feel like five hundred times in this case.

[00:43:20] And it's sort of like.

[00:43:22] Can we can we just go to trial?

[00:43:23] Like, can we just kind of be ready?

[00:43:25] Can we be professionals and be ready to go to trial and do this and maybe like be looking at the discovery we have and trying to figure that out instead of whatever this is?

[00:43:36] That would be great.

[00:43:37] There.

[00:43:39] So.

[00:43:41] What's next?

[00:43:41] Is this I just want to make sure I'm OK, so this is about a different treatment.

[00:43:48] No, I got it.

[00:43:48] OK, quote, counsel claim their motions are treated differently than those motions filed by the state.

[00:43:55] The court has set hearings on pending motions which have now been continued due to the filing of this motion to disqualify.

[00:44:02] When defendant files pleadings, the state is entitled to file response.

[00:44:06] The court follows trial rule regarding time and gives the state 20 days to respond.

[00:44:11] Defendant is also given 20 days to reply to the state's responses.

[00:44:15] Once the issues are closed, if the hearing if a hearing is required, one will be set.

[00:44:19] End quote.

[00:44:21] So what's what's this about again?

[00:44:24] They were saying that you take a long time to grant us hearings when we request a hearing.

[00:44:30] And she is saying, well, there are rules and that if you make a request for a hearing on an earnest specific issue, I have to give the prosecutor time to respond to that.

[00:44:42] And then you're given time to respond.

[00:44:44] So I'm not going to schedule a hearing unless number one, I think it's warranted.

[00:44:48] And number two, once both sides have had an opportunity to respond to the request, I'm just following rules.

[00:44:54] And that is her argument there.

[00:44:55] I personally have felt that she has taken an awful long time to rule on certain things.

[00:44:59] That's my personal view.

[00:45:01] So I do I do somewhat share.

[00:45:04] I don't I don't I personally do not believe that it's because she's just biased against the defense.

[00:45:09] I just feel like she's often taking a long time.

[00:45:11] But I think what she's saying here makes sense.

[00:45:14] And I think ultimately she's bound by the rules and ensuring that I would prefer a judge to ensure that everybody has a chance to respond properly rather than just kind of going off and saying, well, boom, like here's what we're going to do.

[00:45:29] And then like having it be a problem later.

[00:45:31] So I tend to think that's prudent, even though I can understand the defense's perspective where it's like this is taking forever.

[00:45:38] Can we just know what's going to happen next?

[00:45:41] So I think I can.

[00:45:43] I can understand both sides there to a certain extent.

[00:45:46] Let's get back to the document, quote, Defendant asserts that the court ignored his request to set aside two weeks for the defense case while refusing to set time limits on the prosecution.

[00:45:58] On March 6th, twenty twenty four, defendant filed motion for speedy trial.

[00:46:02] The court granted that motion on March 7th, twenty twenty four and set the case for speedy trial March 13th, thirty first twenty twenty four.

[00:46:10] On April 30th, twenty twenty four, defendant filed a motion for a pretrial hearing, which the court set for hearing on May 7th, twenty twenty four.

[00:46:19] At no time prior to the May 7th, twenty twenty four hearing, the defendant advised the court that three weeks for trial was inadequate.

[00:46:27] At no time prior to May 7th, twenty twenty four, the defendant indicate belief that three additional weeks could be added to the trial without notice to the court, witnesses and more importantly, without notice to the potential jurors.

[00:46:40] While the court agrees continuance of the trial is harmful to the defendant and the state, it could have been avoided had counsel communicated prior to May 7th, twenty twenty four.

[00:46:50] Counsel represent they notified the court on or about October 4th, twenty twenty three that they would need two weeks to present defense.

[00:46:57] But the court has no record of that communication nor any recall of such communication.

[00:47:02] Counsel's assertion that between all defense of counsel with combined 70 years of experience, not one time have they been told the trial would absolutely end on certain day and not go any longer is irrational and unreasonable.

[00:47:14] The court is aware its colleagues across the state routinely give trial dates to begin on set dates and end on set dates, unquote.

[00:47:24] All right. This is where she's getting a little bit more.

[00:47:29] Fiery, I think like not. Not like super fiery, certainly compared to some of the other dramatics that have been in this case, but irrational and unreasonable.

[00:47:37] Yeah, for her, that's pretty. That's pretty intense.

[00:47:40] She's saying they said that no one ever sets exact start and end dates for trials.

[00:47:46] And she's saying, well, I'm well aware that other judges in the state do that.

[00:47:50] And I mean, so am I like you see that all the time?

[00:47:54] Yes. We've actually had a lot of defense attorneys talk to us and say, like, they're shocked that it would be given that much time.

[00:48:02] You know, I think people have a perception it's an important case is a lot of witnesses.

[00:48:06] And that's all true. But I think people who are actually in the business are thinking like this does not necessarily need to be treated extra special.

[00:48:17] I don't know. It's kind of there. There's an odd there's an odd sort of quality to some of the defense followings around this, because it's like.

[00:48:26] The way they talk, you would think that most defense attorneys were like carried into court on like velvet cushions and just completely bubble wrapped on everything.

[00:48:34] And it's these cases like people are expected to, you know, not.

[00:48:40] Not, you know, run around the courtroom like for two weeks doing everything under the sun without even really knowing if they're going to be able to put their own in this defense on.

[00:48:51] I don't know. It's just an odd discrepancy from what we see with most defense attorneys.

[00:48:56] Yeah. And she's indicating if you if they had communicated earlier that they needed more time that could have been arranged.

[00:49:02] I would tell you, like, I personally do not believe that they ever had any intent to go in May.

[00:49:08] I think the fact that they had a carte blanche, essentially a speedy trial document ready to go signed by Allen without a date on it tells you everything you need to know.

[00:49:19] I believe that tells you that they were essentially this was a strategic move.

[00:49:23] I think personally, the timing to me indicates that it was possibly linked to the fact that they were facing contempt charges and maybe had concerns about whether they'd be remaining on the case.

[00:49:35] So, OK, you file a speedy motion to say like it would be totally outrageous to throw us off now.

[00:49:40] I don't think that factored into Judge Gull's ruling to not find him in contempt, by the way.

[00:49:44] I'm just saying that I think that was calculus that they were doing.

[00:49:47] And and the result of this is that it just wasted everybody's time and her docket was cleared for no reason.

[00:49:55] And I think if if they had not, if if they had if there had been no issue around timing, they would have found another reason to continue it.

[00:50:04] That's just my personal opinion. I mean, you don't have to agree with me.

[00:50:07] I'm just I'm looking at the totality of actions by the defense in this case, and I'm looking at the fact that they were like desperately calling possible, quote unquote, Odin as experts in like mid April trial.

[00:50:19] There was a trial in mid May. And I'm saying, hmm, yeah, that was not going to happen.

[00:50:26] And of course, the defense also complained that Judge Gull was not guaranteeing they received the same amount of time to present their defense that the prosecution might receive.

[00:50:36] Her reply to that is, quote, The court is not required to guarantee equal time for both the defendant and the state.

[00:50:44] The court is required to guarantee sufficient time on the calendar and sufficient notice to jurors and the parties to present their case however long it takes.

[00:50:53] Had counsel notified the court within days of receiving the March 7th, 2024 court order setting the case for speedy trial March 13th to 31st, 2024,

[00:51:02] the time allotted on the calendar was insufficient. The court would have immediately rectified the situation and extended the trial to May 13th to June 14th, 2024.

[00:51:11] Trial is now set for October 14th to November 15th, 2024, as requested by the defendant, end quote.

[00:51:19] So she's saying, I scheduled it for a certain amount of time. If they knew that was not enough time, they could have let me know and I would have changed it.

[00:51:29] But they did not let me know until much, much later when it was too late for me to change it under the rules as I understood them.

[00:51:36] Yeah. And I mean, like, it's sort of I gave a vacation example in our in our some previous episodes.

[00:51:42] But like if you say, Anya, we're going to go on a two week vacation. I say, great. You're going to say it's going to go from this day to this day.

[00:51:48] And I say, awesome. And then like after you book the flights, I say, no, it needs to be four weeks.

[00:51:54] Then I think maybe I'm perhaps not being super reasonable there.

[00:51:59] And then frankly, it makes it look like I never really wanted to go on the vacation of you and I'm just desperately trying to get out of it.

[00:52:04] So it's get me. Yeah, I don't know where you where would you take me where I would pull a stunt like that?

[00:52:13] I don't I think I enjoy vacationing with you. So probably no work. Thank you. You're welcome.

[00:52:18] Throw me that bone. Thanks for the clarification. I don't want anyone to think that we're we're having issues.

[00:52:26] He's a delightful traveling partner and a delightful companion and a delightful person to work with.

[00:52:30] So here's one thing I want to say, though, this is more from the other section, but I think it's you and I have both criticized Gala Times for record keeping issues, especially around documents and whatnot.

[00:52:43] One thing I think is really interesting is she says she has no recollection or no record of communication from the defense for an October 4th, 2023 statement around.

[00:52:53] We need more time than two weeks. And I think that's an indication there have been record keeping issues on both sides.

[00:53:00] But that is underscores the importance of everyone putting their stuff on the record so that I think any time attorneys for the case communicate with a judge about the case,

[00:53:13] it should be written or it should be in a meeting where a court reporter is recording it or something because then issues like this could be avoided.

[00:53:23] Yes, I think that's really important.

[00:53:26] Should we move on? Yeah. So the next part is, quote, counsel accused the court of engaging in extraditial activity.

[00:53:34] Counsel is correct that on July 9th, 2023, the court commented on a Facebook post about a softball tournament her granddaughter participated in in Delphi.

[00:53:43] The court did not attend the tournament, but did say congratulations to her former daughter in law's post about their team winning the tournament.

[00:53:49] The council's allegations in this part of their motion are well-founded regarding potential witnesses, alleged social media activities and are presented to the court for ruling the court rule.

[00:53:58] Well, the court will rule accordingly. Concerns about anticipatory rulings are not reasonable.

[00:54:04] Yeah, this this unquote, this this this year, you recall they said that they alleged that a therapist of some sort in this case

[00:54:17] who might offer evidence against Richard Allen, they accuse of being involved with some Facebook groups inappropriately in their mind.

[00:54:24] And they're saying, well, we can't expect Judge Gold to rule that favorably because she once congratulated her former daughter in law about winning a game.

[00:54:36] And she's saying, no, wait until I actually make a ruling.

[00:54:41] And if what you allege is true, you know, we'll see what happens.

[00:54:44] You can't ask me to recuse myself based on how you think I might hypothetically rule about something a month from now.

[00:54:52] Yeah, it's like anyone who deals with anticipatory anxiety, you know, it's sort of like that has no place in the courtroom.

[00:54:59] We're dealing with facts. We're not dealing with what you think might happen if this eventually.

[00:55:04] And also, I mean, yeah. And just as as the ruling says or as the order says, like there's a question about whether what will even be admitted, you know, if it's a bunch of conjecture about this witnesses Facebook posts without any real basis, then that might not even be involved.

[00:55:21] If there's something concrete there, then we can cross that bridge and see what happens.

[00:55:24] But yeah, just legally speaking, that seems pretty fair and reasonable.

[00:55:31] Now, I think the next section is very interesting.

[00:55:34] I'm sure you will all remember that there was a hue and cry raised by the defense councils and their supporters online alleging that Judge Gold was refusing funding for experts.

[00:55:48] And this was seen as so egregious and so unfair that there was actually an online campaign waged where people could donate sums of money for the defense, supposedly to hire experts to work for Richard Allen because the judge was depriving them of the money to do so.

[00:56:07] Right. And so and this this this fund was being run by David Hennessey.

[00:56:13] And so all of these, I believe, close to what, fifty thousand dollars was given to David Hennessey because they need this money for experts.

[00:56:23] What did Judge Gold have to say about these claims?

[00:56:27] Quote, defendant asserts the court has denied reasonable requests for funding.

[00:56:32] This is incorrect.

[00:56:33] Council is well aware of the amount of funds the court has authorized for the defendant.

[00:56:37] The court has requested the defendant to submit proper invoices and bills for Carroll County taxpayer funding.

[00:56:43] Invoices which have been submitted without appropriate documentation have been returned.

[00:56:47] The bill council refers to is for twenty six thousand dollars for investigative services from June 4th, twenty twenty three through October 16th, twenty twenty three was in fact returned to counsel as no documentation was provided for services.

[00:57:00] No documentation was submitted until quite recently.

[00:57:03] Without proper support and documentation, court authorized that invoice for payment on May 17th, twenty twenty four.

[00:57:10] Sound effect. This is outrageous, in my opinion.

[00:57:15] So the reason they weren't getting funding was because they were handling the requests improperly.

[00:57:21] And let me just say, Carroll County is footing the bill for this.

[00:57:27] The Carroll County taxpayers are footing the bill for this.

[00:57:30] They're absolutely there absolutely should be safeguards and checks in place to ensure that they are not getting bilked for and being on the hook for a bunch of nonsense.

[00:57:41] You know, this is again, this taxpayer money is paying for this.

[00:57:46] When you're dealing with that, you need documentation.

[00:57:48] You need support for what you're asking for.

[00:57:51] In no world should anyone just be able to snap their fingers and get a big Scrooge McDuck esque bag full of money in this case.

[00:58:01] And I would think that in most instances, defense attorneys would be more than happy to properly file their documentation to ensure that they get paid and their experts get paid and that there's no issues.

[00:58:14] But this just strikes me as yet another instance of this defense team doing their jobs improperly and then turning around and blaming everyone else.

[00:58:23] And what is egregious to me in this situation is that then members of the public here, you know, they're team members going out to the media and complaining about not being you're not getting money and being mistreated by this evil judge.

[00:58:37] And then they give over thousands of dollars, which are now going to be, I guess, in David Hennessy's pockets.

[00:58:44] I mean, who's going to where's the oversight?

[00:58:46] Where's the oversight for those thousands of dollars?

[00:58:48] Where is that going?

[00:58:50] Who has that now and what are they using it for?

[00:58:53] And the thing is, with taxpayer money, there's oversight.

[00:58:56] This money is going to this specifically.

[00:58:59] But when we're talking about this shadowy, bizarre campaign that not even GoFundMe would take on, I think the whole thing has a very grifty air to it.

[00:59:13] And I find it very disturbing that now we're hearing, no, you just filed the paperwork wrong and you didn't do the work you were supposed to do.

[00:59:21] I mean.

[00:59:23] I think this is outrageous, and if I were one of the people who handed over money that I earned to this campaign, I would feel incredibly cheated.

[00:59:34] People who donated, I'm sure in good faith, felt they were donating to support the rights of the accused to receive adequate funds to conduct a defense.

[00:59:46] And apparently they were actually donating for the rights of attorneys to get funds for experts without having to do paperwork.

[00:59:54] Yeah. I mean, don't you think that that's a righteous cause?

[00:59:57] I think we should have an awareness month about that.

[01:00:01] For lazy attorneys who don't want to, who don't have the ability for some reason to do basic paperwork again and again in this case or find their own discovery or handle Odyssey correctly.

[01:00:13] Should I move on?

[01:00:13] I'm just going to say this like this is just.

[01:00:19] This is not normal.

[01:00:20] This is not normal behavior from defense attorneys, and the fact that they allowed David Hennessey to do this, unless he just unilaterally did it on his own, I think is really that that does not.

[01:00:33] That's not a good look to move on.

[01:00:37] Quote, defendant complains that public confidence in this case has eroded.

[01:00:43] Is counsel should know criminal cases are tried in courts of law, not in the court of public opinion.

[01:00:49] An independent judiciary requires the judges decide cases according to the law and facts without regard to public clamor or fear of criticism.

[01:00:58] The court continues to receive ex parte communications from the public, criticizing the court both personally and professionally and threatening the court with bodily harm and injury.

[01:01:08] The court continues to provide these communications to the parties.

[01:01:12] The court is not interested in memes and other social media content that can be easily located on the Internet.

[01:01:18] The court cannot be swayed by inappropriate and ridiculous outside influences.

[01:01:23] Quote, unquote, rather.

[01:01:25] So at least now we know exactly what the judge thinks about some of the social media stuff, including the emails she's been bombarded with.

[01:01:31] She's completely right on the money here, in my opinion.

[01:01:33] What do you think?

[01:01:34] Yeah.

[01:01:35] The judge should not be swayed by memes.

[01:01:37] And the fact that the defense cited memes is embarrassing and should be really looked askance at.

[01:01:43] It shows that the defense is spending a lot of time concerned about how the case is going on the Internet instead of how it's going in a court of law.

[01:01:52] I think the defense is really plugged into this YouTube nonsense and they don't realize that most people don't watch this.

[01:01:58] Most people get their news from actual news outlets and it's just totally a sideshow.

[01:02:03] And they're basically constructing everything in order to appeal to the dumbest people on the Internet and ignoring all the people who are reasonable.

[01:02:11] Because I mean, I'm going to tell you, there are people who are sympathetic to Alan who are not in that space.

[01:02:17] And they're losing them.

[01:02:17] They're losing them with this stuff.

[01:02:19] It's really striking to me in our real life.

[01:02:23] Obviously, we walk around, people say, oh, you guys cover Delphi and they come up and talk to us.

[01:02:27] And up until a few months ago, I would say the people who approached us were close to being evenly divided.

[01:02:35] Yeah.

[01:02:35] People say, well, I think he's guilty of people saying, well, you know, I haven't seen anything that would absolutely convince me.

[01:02:40] He's guilty.

[01:02:41] I'm on the fence.

[01:02:44] But in the last few months, I would say that most of the comments, the vast majority of people who come up and approach us now are seem pretty firmly convinced that he is guilty.

[01:02:55] And a lot of the things they say to us involve criticism of the defense team.

[01:02:59] And it's like they're so obsessed with how they come across to the media and to social media.

[01:03:04] But by doing that instead of I mean, I think the thing that would impress people would to be to put on a strong case, do what you say you're going to do and get it done.

[01:03:12] I think that would impress a lot of people.

[01:03:14] And that is consistently not been what they've done.

[01:03:16] They've it's just been basically everything else is what they're doing.

[01:03:20] And people aren't stupid.

[01:03:21] People are sophisticated.

[01:03:22] They realize that when defense attorneys are doing this, they have a very weak case.

[01:03:27] And that's what they're telegraphing right now.

[01:03:29] And I think it's a disservice to their client.

[01:03:31] And I think they've courted a lot of this crankery online, and I think it's off putting to most people.

[01:03:37] And I'm going to tell you, like everybody sending abusive things to the judge and everyone, you know, these threatening, rude emails should be embarrassed.

[01:03:46] They should be embarrassed.

[01:03:47] And frankly, their families should take them aside and tell them to stop embarrassing themselves.

[01:03:51] The more polite emails that are less abusive.

[01:03:54] I mean.

[01:03:55] I mean, I'm sure those people are well intentioned.

[01:03:58] They don't seem to understand that it's not a popularity contest.

[01:04:01] It's not American Idol, you know, texting in your vote to the judge.

[01:04:05] Your opinion does not matter.

[01:04:09] It doesn't.

[01:04:10] Nor should it.

[01:04:11] We don't want to be in a system where judges can be swayed by some, you know, highly aggrieved people on the Internet.

[01:04:18] That's I mean, it sounds good because it sounds democratic.

[01:04:21] But at the end of the day, it turns into mob rule pretty quickly.

[01:04:24] You know, if if I'm facing something, it goes both ways.

[01:04:28] I mean, like it could be something pro defense.

[01:04:30] But if hypothetically a case where a lot of people were, you know, pissed off at me on trial for serial theft, I would not want them to be able to send emails to judge being like, you know.

[01:04:44] Throw her in prison forever like that, because it's like a hot button issue for some reason like that's we don't want that.

[01:04:51] And I think it's sort of shows an embarrassing lack of understanding of the situation that you have so many people reaching out.

[01:04:59] It sort of strikes me as a lot of these people just sort of want attention from everybody.

[01:05:02] And they figured that this is a way to do it because, like, you know, people are following Delphi and it's oh, it's a it's an email from True Crime Swine 69.

[01:05:11] Let's see what he has to say.

[01:05:13] And I just I don't think I don't know.

[01:05:18] I think she absolutely should be ignoring all of this.

[01:05:20] It's nonsense. And I think it's just shocking that the defense keeps citing these people as it's as if it's supposed to be convincing somehow.

[01:05:29] And one of the last emails she received was supposedly from Hamilton Berger, who's a character in the Perry Mason story.

[01:05:36] See, I'm not mad about that one because that's a good reference.

[01:05:39] I'm not I'm not going to lie.

[01:05:40] I've started reading recently some of those old Perry Mason books and they're not good, but they're good.

[01:05:45] They're good.

[01:05:46] I mean, they're not good.

[01:05:47] You love them.

[01:05:48] You know, they're very.

[01:05:49] Oh, my God.

[01:05:50] They're not literature.

[01:05:51] Why are you trying to oh, they're not literature.

[01:05:53] So pretentious.

[01:05:54] Just enjoy your Perry Mason novels.

[01:05:57] OK, goodness gracious.

[01:05:59] Back to the document.

[01:06:00] Man, constant. No, I'm just this man constantly.

[01:06:02] You've been you've been enchanted by the storytelling of Earl Stanley Gardner.

[01:06:08] Quote, Defendant further claims the court has refused to order the state to comply with discovery rules.

[01:06:14] The court has set defendants motion to compel and motion for sanctions for hearing, which has been continued due to the filing of this motion to disqualify.

[01:06:22] The previous defense motion to compel was denied without hearing as it was unsupported by evidence, unquote.

[01:06:27] So she's saying you said you have some issues about how the prosecutor is handling discovery.

[01:06:33] You said that before.

[01:06:34] I didn't think you had enough evidence to warrant a hearing this time.

[01:06:37] I thought, well, maybe you do have enough evidence to warrant a hearing.

[01:06:40] And I scheduled that hearing, but I had to continue it because you filed this motion asking me to step down.

[01:06:46] One consistent drumbeat in her order has been, well, we would have got that, but you asked me to step down.

[01:06:53] So it's going to be delayed.

[01:06:58] That's not just the sound of that first sip of morning, Joe.

[01:07:00] It's the sound of someone shopping for a car on Carvana from the comfort of home.

[01:07:04] That's a good blend.

[01:07:05] It's time to take it easy, like answering some easy questions to get prequalified for a car in minutes.

[01:07:11] Talk about starting the morning right.

[01:07:13] Just like customizing your terms so your car fits your budget.

[01:07:18] Visit Carvana.com or download the app to experience car shopping the way it should be convenient, comfortable.

[01:07:26] At the Coca-Cola Company, Keurig Dr. Pepper and PepsiCo, our bottles might still look the same, but some of them can be remade in a whole new way.

[01:07:34] Using 100% recycled plastic, new bottles made using no new plastic except the caps and labels.

[01:07:40] You'll be seeing more of these new bottles in more places.

[01:07:43] And that's thanks to you, because when we get more bottles back, we can use less new plastic.

[01:07:48] Learn how our bottles are made to be remade at made to be remade.org.

[01:07:53] Getting the smile and confidence you've been dreaming about all from the comfort of your home isn't a total mystery with bite clear aligners.

[01:08:01] Just don't be surprised if all your friends start asking, what's your secret?

[01:08:05] Begin by ordering your at-home impression kit today for only $14.95.

[01:08:09] Bite clear aligners are doctor directed and delivered to your door.

[01:08:13] Treatment costs thousands less than braces.

[01:08:15] Plus they offer flexible financing, accept eligible insurance, and you can pay with your HSA FSA.

[01:08:21] Get 80% off your impression kit when you use code WONDERY at bite.com.

[01:08:26] That's B-Y-T-E dot com.

[01:08:28] Start your confidence journey today with bite.

[01:08:32] Next portion, quote, defense counsel alleged bias by the court only allowing cameras in the courtroom on one occasion.

[01:08:40] Court has not allowed cameras in the Carroll Circuit Court due to its limited size and layout.

[01:08:45] Court did not did allow cameras in the Allen Superior Court at the hearing conducted on October 19th, 2023.

[01:08:51] The hearing was not conducted and the media outlet providing pool coverage did not comply with the court's directives regarding coverage and broadcasting of the proceedings.

[01:09:00] Court lost confidence in the ability of the media to cover hearings appropriately, end quote.

[01:09:05] I think you have some stuff to say.

[01:09:06] And then I have something I want to say.

[01:09:08] I have some stuff to say.

[01:09:09] I'm really just I don't know.

[01:09:11] The media aspect of this case has just been something that has been consistently, frankly, frustrating for me.

[01:09:18] So Court TV was the outlet assigned to pool coverage at that hearing.

[01:09:24] We've tried to figure out what happened.

[01:09:27] And behind the scenes, I don't think anyone really knows what happened.

[01:09:31] So it would have been nice for Judge Gull to outline what exactly did Court TV do wrong here?

[01:09:38] Because I really cannot figure it out.

[01:09:40] We've heard rumors, but we've not seen anything confirmed.

[01:09:42] But we've not seen anything confirmed, and the only really way to get something confirmed would be through the judge at this point.

[01:09:48] So it's this is annoyingly vague.

[01:09:50] In addition to that, I think it is deeply unfair, even if and I'm saying if if Court TV did something wrong, I think it is a bit unfair to blame all the media for one outlet's possible mistake or bad actions.

[01:10:05] That does not seem reasonable to me.

[01:10:08] I think there are a number of media outlets in this case who've done a very good job of covering the case, and I think a lot of them are local.

[01:10:14] I believe they can be trusted to cover it in a reasonable manner through cameras in the courtroom.

[01:10:19] I think they have the ability to do that.

[01:10:21] And I just I don't like the implication of essentially saying, well, one media outlet may have messed up.

[01:10:28] I'm not going to tell you exactly what they did, but therefore all the media have lost my trust in covering it.

[01:10:34] This judge is not a media critic.

[01:10:36] She's not an expert.

[01:10:37] OK, you go. That was my part.

[01:10:39] I'll hand it on to you.

[01:10:41] I was really, really upset by that last line.

[01:10:44] The court lost confidence in the ability of the media to cover hearings appropriately.

[01:10:48] Why on earth does Judge Gull think she is a media critic?

[01:10:53] Why does she think that is her function?

[01:10:55] It is not her function is to protect the rights of the accused man, protect the witnesses who come in and try to ensure a fair trial.

[01:11:04] It is not up to her to be a media critic and decide what is appropriate or what is not appropriate.

[01:11:12] The way she has handled the media at these trials, she is really limiting the public's access to these proceedings and their ability to learn what is going on.

[01:11:24] To me, this is probably an offensive comparison, but it would be like if a judge rules that a person doesn't have to pay child support.

[01:11:34] Because the mother has misbehaved.

[01:11:37] It is the child support is for the child, not for the mother.

[01:11:40] And in this case, even if even if one member of the media did misbehave, you don't punish the whole media because the media is basically a stand in for the public.

[01:11:50] The public has a right to know what's going on in these proceedings.

[01:11:54] The public has a right to know what's going on in these trials.

[01:11:57] We don't need to have a judge say, well, you only get to find out if you do it appropriately.

[01:12:02] That I found that very troubling and very upsetting.

[01:12:06] And I think it really illustrates a lot about Judge Glow's attitude towards the press and the media in this case.

[01:12:14] I just think it's just it's I think when you have a vacuum, when you have a power vacuum, you know that the vacuum is going to be filled.

[01:12:24] And when you do not, to a certain extent, roll out the red carpet for legitimate media outlets that are doing a good job or being fair and have professional standards, that's when you get TikTokers and YouTubers who come in and do a bad job.

[01:12:38] Not saying that all TikTokers and YouTubers are going to do a bad job, but you do have a lot of them who are doing a terrible job and they basically feed conspiracy theories because people are not getting it from legitimate outlets.

[01:12:50] They're going to turn to whoever's covering it.

[01:12:52] Legitimate outlets are not going to cover something in depth that they don't have access.

[01:12:56] It creates a problem.

[01:12:58] And I just don't think I personally find this very unfair and I don't understand it.

[01:13:06] I think she could have made an argument that focused less on maligning the media and talked about the sensitivity of the case.

[01:13:14] The fact that it's already such a circus.

[01:13:17] I feel like I'd be safeguarding it by taking away cameras and I've just that's my thinking on it.

[01:13:22] There was a way to handle it in a way that kind of tells me, well, it's more about safeguarding as opposed to like I'm punishing the media because somebody made an oops at one hearing again.

[01:13:33] Maybe again, I don't I don't know what Court TV is alleged to have done, but if one maybe then they don't get to be the pool person anymore.

[01:13:43] But you can have someone else take on that role.

[01:13:45] You don't take away the ability of the public to have a full understanding of what is going on.

[01:13:51] And when the most important trials in the history of Indiana, based on something vague, you suggest that one media outlet did.

[01:13:59] And I'm interested in what Judge Gould has to say about legal issues.

[01:14:02] I'm interested in what Judge Gould wants to do to safeguard witnesses.

[01:14:07] I'm interested in what she has to say about safeguarding the rights of Richard Allen to a fair trial.

[01:14:12] I'm interested in all of that.

[01:14:14] I am not interested in her opinion of what does or does not constitute appropriate media coverage, because that is not her role.

[01:14:20] And like at this point, I'm going to tell you, I believe that there should be cameras at this trial.

[01:14:24] They're not going to be. So I'm kind of just like, OK, but I believe there should be.

[01:14:29] But I've become increasingly sympathetic over time seeing some of the grandstanding and seeing some of the nonsense in this case to the idea that maybe there shouldn't be.

[01:14:37] And that, you know, with the tick tockification of like, let's analyze this person's facial expressions.

[01:14:42] Do I want to see Delphi go through that?

[01:14:44] No, I don't.

[01:14:45] So even though I'm very much a stringent believer in cameras in the courtrooms, I'm sympathetic to the opposing point of view.

[01:14:53] But this is not a good reason.

[01:14:56] No, it's not.

[01:14:58] And I mean, also, I think it's important to note it's not like a binary choice.

[01:15:03] It's not like I would say, well, either cameras in the courtroom or no concessions for the media at all or for the public.

[01:15:09] There are all sorts of compromises.

[01:15:10] What about having audio?

[01:15:13] What about letting the public hear audio?

[01:15:14] What about guaranteeing reputable news outlets to be able to go in and take notes and provide thorough coverage of what happens?

[01:15:25] Yes.

[01:15:25] Right now is basically if you want to get in, you have to show up at like four or five in the morning and you're not even allowed to take notes on an electronic device.

[01:15:34] You have to do it on a notebook.

[01:15:35] Yes.

[01:15:37] I completely agree.

[01:15:38] To me, I think in this case, I could a reasonable outcome would be no cameras.

[01:15:44] But you have a number of rows of media seating.

[01:15:48] You curate that and ensure that people who are reputable are in that.

[01:15:54] And you make it easy for them to have assigned reserved seats.

[01:16:00] They're going to cover it.

[01:16:01] There's going to be different views in that and they're going to do a good job.

[01:16:05] And that will give the public a sense of what's going on.

[01:16:08] You don't make it this sort of anarchy, Lord of the Flies line up and worry that you're going to get punched by some deranged YouTuber who has some sort of issue with another deranged YouTuber.

[01:16:20] You have it be if you're accommodating the media in a different way, even if you don't want cameras.

[01:16:27] And I don't think there's been any will to do that.

[01:16:29] And I think that's a mistake because I think that's just going to engender more conspiracy theories.

[01:16:33] And again, the media is the surrogate for the public.

[01:16:36] Yeah. It's not about like, oh, reporters are more important than everyone else.

[01:16:40] It's reporters are going to be able to tell the public what's happening.

[01:16:42] Because you people listening now, all of you, you care passionately about this case.

[01:16:49] You're not going to be able to walk away from your jobs for weeks or for days or whatever to go and attend these court hearings.

[01:16:55] You have a right to know what's going on, though.

[01:16:57] So the way to do it is to send qualified people, qualified media to go in and report on it.

[01:17:03] And you would rather I'm just going to say this.

[01:17:04] You would rather qualified media people doing this than some guy who.

[01:17:09] Swine crime, 85.

[01:17:10] Swine crime, swine crime 69, who's going to come in and just do a horrible job and, you know, talk about how he believes Judge Gull is an odinist and all these other YouTube YouTubers he's feuding with is an odinist and his ex-wife is an odinist.

[01:17:28] That's why she's going after all his money.

[01:17:30] I mean, like that's not what we want at this point, but that is what we are going to get, because.

[01:17:36] You know, there's a decent possibility he's going to get in randomly over some like qualified reporter who's going to tell you what happened and it's not a good situation, and that is engendered by the sort of lack of media support in this case.

[01:17:53] I think it's a huge mistake.

[01:17:55] And I think, frankly, I have so many ideas about areas around media relations that have gone wrong in this case on all sides that I feel like I could write a textbook about what not to do on all sides.

[01:18:09] Well, let's move on and wrap this up.

[01:18:12] Quote, The court has issued adverse rulings against the defendant as well as against the state of Indiana.

[01:18:18] Adverse rulings do not support reasonable basis for questioning the court's impartiality nor the grounds for disqualification.

[01:18:24] They are just adverse rulings, end quote.

[01:18:27] So she's saying just because I've sometimes ruled against the defense doesn't mean I'm biased.

[01:18:31] I'm just applying the law as I see it.

[01:18:33] And it is basic law one on one that it takes more than adverse rulings to demonstrate that someone has a bias because any lawyer in any courtroom is going to sometimes make motions or such that are going to get you rule against by a judge.

[01:18:52] If it was based on adverse rulings alone, then in a world where Kevin's a terrible attorney, he could go into court, you know, trip over a bucket, write it right, send in a crayon filing and just do a terrible job.

[01:19:09] And then he'd be able to argue, well, they kept ruling against me, so obviously they just hate me.

[01:19:13] And no one would be able to be like, no, you just did a bad job.

[01:19:17] I'd like to say I like it better when the comparisons, the metaphors about you stealing cereal.

[01:19:21] Well, I think I think you need to if you're willing to dish it out, so to speak, or bowl it out to go with the cereal metaphor, then you need to be able to take it.

[01:19:31] Well, let's wrap this up.

[01:19:33] I mean, what do you think about the filing overall?

[01:19:36] I know we've criticized elements of it pretty harshly.

[01:19:38] I think we've agreed with elements of it pretty readily.

[01:19:42] How how does how do you walk away?

[01:19:44] What do you walk away with from this filing?

[01:19:48] I find it frustrating.

[01:19:50] I find it frustrating that the defense filed a third request to remove Judge Gull, because no matter what you think about Judge Gull, I think it was pretty clear she rejected previous motions to be recused.

[01:20:07] Why? She's not going to say, oh, I guess he made a point.

[01:20:09] I'm going to recuse myself.

[01:20:10] She's not going to recuse herself.

[01:20:12] There doesn't seem to be any real reason for her to do so.

[01:20:16] So it feels like we wasted time and not and.

[01:20:20] Three days worth of hearings were continued because of this, and they were important hearings that needed to be held prior to this trial.

[01:20:28] And so it just seems that we've delayed to get to a result we all expected and we just wasted time.

[01:20:36] I'm going to tell you my thoughts.

[01:20:38] I think this codifies for me what the defense is going to be doing going forward, which is delay, delay, delay, delay, delay.

[01:20:44] I mean, this is this is what they're going to do.

[01:20:47] This was not about record keeping or having a record for appeal, in my opinion, because their latest recusal attempt was completely repetitive from past attempts.

[01:20:57] They acted like it wasn't.

[01:20:58] But as Kevin said, it's the greatest hits.

[01:21:00] Right. We're hearing the same song over and over again.

[01:21:03] And I think what what you know, I believe that I certainly have criticisms of Judge Gull's handling of aspects of this case that I strongly disagree with and will continue to criticize.

[01:21:16] But generally, I did not see any reason for her to recuse herself.

[01:21:20] To me, a lot of the media issue is more of our own personal bias towards freedom of information and things like that.

[01:21:27] But they don't they don't they would not prompt me to say, and therefore the judge to recuse herself.

[01:21:31] That that has to come from like a very there needs to there's certain parameters that I think you have to cross in order for that to be recommended.

[01:21:40] And I think that the Supreme Court of Indiana essentially cleared her to a certain extent because they basically said she's been fair.

[01:21:48] We just disagreed with her taking the attorneys off when she dismissed them.

[01:21:52] We're putting them back on issue solved.

[01:21:54] I personally believe that we may see more delays because I think there is a decent chance that they are going to now turn to the I don't know, the Indiana Supreme Court or maybe like an interlocutory appeal.

[01:22:07] Yeah, I've seen some indications that at least you never know who to believe on this, but there's certainly some people online predicting or claiming that the defense's next move is to take this to the Supreme Court or a lower court demanding the judge be removed from the case.

[01:22:26] And I hope that those things, those predictions or whatever you call them are not true.

[01:22:32] It would just be a further waste of time.

[01:22:34] I think they're and I feel that the families in this case, they have waited so long for justice.

[01:22:41] And if the if the case against Richard Allen is as weak as the defense attorneys like to say it is, let's just get it tried and let's get an answer.

[01:22:52] Let's get him either acquitted or get him convicted and move on.

[01:22:56] It has been far too long of a wait.

[01:22:58] Do you think that a higher court would kick Judge Gull off based on what we've seen so far?

[01:23:03] No, I think it's a complete pie in the sky request.

[01:23:07] I think it would just be a delay tactic.

[01:23:10] I mean, I think the I think it's basically stall until we figure something else out.

[01:23:16] I think that's the name of the game now.

[01:23:18] I think we all should be braced for a very long road ahead because I think this is going to drag out and it's going to be it's going to be dragging out, not because of necessarily legitimate complaints.

[01:23:29] It's gonna be dragging out over very frivolous requests that seem just frankly outrageous to even contemplate at this point.

[01:23:37] If they if they have such an issue with Judge Gull, they've made their record for appeals.

[01:23:41] I don't think it would go anywhere because I don't think anything she's done rises to that level.

[01:23:46] But I just think it's just about delaying at this point.

[01:23:50] And that really underscores that you cannot just believe, you know, bravado when when a prosecutor, a defense attorney is talking about like we have this great case and then they're delaying or they're obfuscating or they're exaggerating.

[01:24:04] They don't have a great case.

[01:24:05] They're just saying that because you don't do that when you have a slam dunk.

[01:24:10] No.

[01:24:11] You do that when you are scrambling to figure out how the heck we're going to get around all of these incriminating statements and confessions by our client who seems very much inclined to admit guilt for whatever reason.

[01:24:25] And we're not filing anything around mental health issues around that.

[01:24:29] So, I mean, what is the explanation?

[01:24:31] And one thing I mean, we heard from our friends, the prosecutors, Brett and Alice, our friend Jason Blair asked him a great question that we were talking with him about.

[01:24:41] I shouldn't call it a great question because it was our question, but it was it was a question that I think.

[01:24:44] So fool yourself.

[01:24:45] I'm just like, I'm just overconfident over here.

[01:24:47] But I so appreciated him asking them this.

[01:24:50] And it was basically like, could there be some sort of independent counsel appointed to investigate whether or not he wants to go forward?

[01:24:57] And they indicated there are problems with that.

[01:24:59] And I totally, totally see that.

[01:25:01] But they their response was essentially it might be a situation where it might behoove Judge Gull to essentially like arrange a situation where she can talk to him and just ask him questions.

[01:25:12] Are your attorneys listening to you?

[01:25:13] Do you want to do this?

[01:25:14] Do you understand your rights?

[01:25:15] Do you understand what you're able to do and just ensure that he's on the same page?

[01:25:19] We very much could be looking at a situation where he at one point wanted to plead guilty and he was feeling that way.

[01:25:27] And then he changed his mind.

[01:25:27] It's actually I want to I want to go to a jury trial and have all of this dragged out.

[01:25:32] That is totally within his rights and he can change his mind.

[01:25:36] But I think it needs to be established that that indeed is the case and that he's not being essentially dragged through this because that is not fair to anybody involved if if he does not want this.

[01:25:48] And to me, when a man is confessing again and again and again and again, that's a sign that not only does he perhaps not want to go to trial, but that he it feels unheard.

[01:25:57] Feels that people were supposed to be listening to him or not and that he needs to.

[01:26:04] Unburden himself to whoever will.

[01:26:06] Exactly.

[01:26:07] Well, thank you all for listening and we'll talk again later.

[01:26:10] Thanks, everyone.

[01:26:13] Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet.

[01:26:16] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murder sheet at Gmail dot com.

[01:26:24] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[01:26:33] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at W.

[01:26:37] W.

[01:26:38] W.

[01:26:39] Dot Patreon dot com slash murder sheet.

[01:26:43] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at W.

[01:26:48] W.

[01:26:49] W.

[01:26:49] Buy me a coffee dot com slash murder sheet.

[01:26:53] We very much appreciate any support.

[01:26:56] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the murder sheet and who you can find on the web at Kevin TG dot com.

[01:27:06] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook.

[01:27:14] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.

[01:27:20] We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.

[01:27:27] Thanks again for listening.

[01:27:29] I normally find bras to be so uncomfortable and constricting, but Skims has changed that.

[01:27:34] You know I love Skims underwear, so I finally tried their bras and Skims has delivered again.

[01:27:39] Skims bras are worth the hype for the amazing shape and support they give.

[01:27:43] But what I wasn't expecting was how comfortable they are too.

[01:27:46] I've tried so many bras in the past, and the main issue that I have is that they weren't supportive enough to the point where they felt slouchy.

[01:27:53] I love my Skims wireless form bra because it's so comfortable and supportive.

[01:27:58] The older I get, the more I care about actually being comfortable in what I wear every day.

[01:28:02] And with my wireless form bra, I no longer have to sacrifice my comfort for the support I need.

[01:28:07] Shop Skims bras at Skims dot com, now available in 62 sizes, 30A to 46H.

[01:28:14] Plus, get free shipping on all orders over $75.

[01:28:18] If you haven't yet, be sure to let them know we sent you.

[01:28:20] After you place your order, select podcast in the survey and select our show in the drop down menu that follows.

[01:28:27] One, two, three, four.

[01:28:30] Those are numbers.

[01:28:31] But you already knew that.

[01:28:33] If you want to know what number you're going to pay each month for your car, use Kelley Blue Book My Wallet on AutoTrader.

[01:28:39] They're really good at numbers.

[01:28:41] AutoTrader.