The Delphi Murders: Motion to Correct Errors

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_00] Content Warning, this episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls. So, today is January 21st, 2025, and a number of things just came out in the Delphi case around the motion to correct errors from Richard Allen's team.

[00:00:23] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, basically a motion to correct errors is a request from usually trial attorneys. They're asking the judge who presided the trial to fix perceived errors in the trial. The next step would be appellate attorneys would ask an appellate court to review these perceived errors and rule on them. So, they filed their motion to correct errors.

[00:00:46] [SPEAKER_02] So, it's basically a list of things they think were unfair or inaccurate, and they also supplied some alleged evidence of this. And we will get to all of this in just a moment.

[00:00:59] [SPEAKER_00] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:01:02] [SPEAKER_02] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:01:14] [SPEAKER_00] And this is The Delphi Murders. Motion to correct errors.

[00:01:19] [SPEAKER_02] Well, Anya, I'd like to start by making what might be an obvious point, which is that if you have followed this case for any length of time, you have been taught by Richard Allen's defense team to view anything they say or file with extreme skepticism.

[00:02:23] [SPEAKER_02] They have a propensity for making filings that are at best misleading or leave out key facts. And so, because of that, because of our training in this, because of the training we've all had in this, I think in our discussion of this filing they did earlier today, it is very important that we be skeptical and view it with a wary eye.

[00:02:46] [SPEAKER_00] I think that context is actually super important in this case. I think in other cases with other attorney teams, I might feel differently about some of these things. But we are well past boy who cried wolf at this point. And I'm just, you know, I don't feel we do any, we're not reporting on this responsibly if we're just treating it like some sort of neutral thing. Because it's frankly not.

[00:03:12] [SPEAKER_00] There have been so many things that they have claimed that have turned out to be utter balderdash. And, yeah, so, I mean, we're coming into this with some skepticism, but we're going to talk about this, take it, you know, with as much seriousness as we feel it deserves.

[00:03:27] [SPEAKER_02] I think before we get into the meat of this, I want to mention something that occurred to me over and over again as I read this, which is most, if not all, of this alleged new evidence was stuff that was in the hands of the defense attorneys during the trial. So the fact that they had what they perceive to be relevant information, which they did not introduce during the trial, seems to me to be an indictment of their efforts on this case.

[00:03:57] [SPEAKER_00] It's, it raises, I mean, I guess it's, it raises to mind two possibilities for me. And again, this is not, this is not the appellate team, as Kevin mentioned up top. This is the trial team. So this is Andrew Baldwin, Bradley Rosie, Jennifer Auger. I mean, you even see familiar names like their investigator, Matt Hoffman, in here. Um, so this is a situation where they're doing this.

[00:04:17] [SPEAKER_00] And what I wonder is, okay, so you have two possibilities, either for some reason they sat on all of this, which doesn't make any sense when you could have brought it out at trial. If it was, if it's what they say that it is.

[00:04:34] [SPEAKER_02] Well, also, if you knowingly sit on something, you can't really file about it later. Well, well, that's, so that's a non-starter.

[00:04:41] [SPEAKER_00] So that does, okay, well, then throwing that out, so they just didn't know their own discovery well enough that this came as a surprise later on? How does that even happen?

[00:04:50] [SPEAKER_02] Which again is, in my view, an indictment of their efforts on this case. Another indictment.

[00:04:55] [SPEAKER_00] I don't feel like they ever knew the case. I'm just going to say this. I don't feel like they ever really got to know the case in the level of depth that they needed to.

[00:05:02] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, you and I sat through every day of this trial. And as I think we probably mentioned on the podcast on a pretty regular basis, I was stunned by the lack of preparation by this defense team.

[00:05:14] [SPEAKER_00] You ever watch this? Everyone who's ever been to school, you've probably seen someone, you know, go through a presentation in front of the class. And you can tell they didn't do the reading. They don't know what they're, they didn't read the book, but they're doing their book report. And they're trying and they're, you know, throwing up their hands and trying to sound like an orator. But it doesn't mean that you read the book. And that's always the vibe I've gotten from them as these hearings have gone on.

[00:05:37] [SPEAKER_02] And another thing, before we get into the meat of it, is we see more stuff here in this filing that confirms the close ties between this defense team and YouTubers. Not only close ties behind the scene, but in terms of efforts to court YouTubers. They actually posted some of the video exhibits or evidence in this case on YouTube.

[00:06:04] [SPEAKER_02] And to me, that just completely gives the game away. They are not filing this for Judge Gold to review her alleged perceived errors. They are filing it as a way to rally their crank audience on YouTube. Serious attorneys who file documents like this do not post links to their evidence on YouTube. That's not for the benefit of Judge Gold. That's not for the benefit of the other attorneys in this case. That's for the benefit of their crank audience.

[00:06:34] [SPEAKER_00] It's like, why are they acting as camp counselors for the stupidest people on the Internet? I don't understand it. Just make your argument in court and put everything you've got into it and see if you can prevail.

[00:06:46] [SPEAKER_02] And if I sound annoyed, I apologize. But I am. I am annoyed. I think this case deserves a lot more dignity and respect than it was afforded by these attorneys.

[00:06:56] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I mean, I was. It's always dismayed. I guess I feel dismayed when I see YouTube links in a legal filing. In this case, they seemingly had Michael Osbrook, a former law school professor turned sort of online defense acolyte who was part of the due process gang that we reported on.

[00:07:19] [SPEAKER_00] And he's got this on his little YouTube channel along with a list of songs that he likes, including the cast of Glee's performance of Don't Stop Believing at the X Factor semifinals. I mean, it doesn't look professional. It doesn't look good. I don't know why this case seems to, like, suck people in who have some iota of credibility and then just they squander it instead of trying to bring some credibility to the case.

[00:07:45] [SPEAKER_00] It's like I feel like this case is like one of those cursed things that drives people totally insane, I guess, because they start behaving like lunatics online whenever they get close to it. And I mean, case in point. And then the other bizarre thing is that they actually pass this on seemingly to an Internet sleuth who posted it on X or Twitter or what have you.

[00:08:09] [SPEAKER_00] And weeks ago, weeks ago, this woman, Nicole Miller, whatever the heck she calls herself these days, she's she posted a portion of it asking for input from her followers. Why the heck do they care about what?

[00:08:23] [SPEAKER_02] But this is not this is not something serious legal professionals do. And I will say that the appellate attorneys in this case, Mr. Lehman and Miss Uleana are real attorneys. They are serious attorneys. They are ethical attorneys. I mean, they are professionals. I don't think they are going to be posting excerpts from their filings on Twitter in advance to solicit opinions from strangers.

[00:08:49] [SPEAKER_00] Given our luck with the profile episodes, I'm not even going to say anything positive about any attorneys until I see them perform. But at the very least, I would hope that appellate attorneys would focus on the law and whether or not Allen's rights were violated at any point rather than this crowdsourcing nonsense, which seems to be about making very lonely people feel part of a community.

[00:09:37] [SPEAKER_02] And that's lovely. And what was that attorney's name?

[00:09:41] [SPEAKER_00] I believe it was Gibson.

[00:09:43] [SPEAKER_02] So Mr. Gibson, they say, was contacted by Kathy Allen. He was paid five thousand dollars. He then goes. He communicates with prosecutor Nicholas McClellan. He communicates, I believe, within Sheriff Toe Blasenby. They arrange for him to visit with Mr. Allen in jail.

[00:10:05] [SPEAKER_02] And Mr. Gibson emerges from that visit with the knowledge that he passes on to Kathy Allen that Richard Allen is about to be charged with murder the next day. And then the next day there is a hearing where he's charged with murder. And this gentleman, Mr. Gibson is not present. And Mr. Gibson is also not part of the business around the moving of Mr. Allen to a different facility.

[00:10:34] [SPEAKER_00] So what are they trying to do here? What? Let's let's focus on this.

[00:10:37] [SPEAKER_02] Let's focus on this. What are the problems with this? It's an it's an it's an interesting claim. But there are several problems with this. First of all, go back in the my case file and you will see that in early November of 2022, shortly after his arrest, Richard Allen writes a letter to the judge. And in this letter to the judge, he refers to his first hearing in the case.

[00:11:07] [SPEAKER_02] And he says, well, I'll just read it exactly what he says. He says, in my initial hearing, I asked to find representation for myself. So if Mr. Allen believed himself to be represented by an attorney at his initial hearing, why is he then asking the judge to let him find an attorney? Because according to Mr. Allen, he doesn't have one. So that's interesting. Also, I don't know anything about Mr. Gibson.

[00:11:36] [SPEAKER_02] I'm going to assume he's a competent professional attorney. If he has a client who he has been told is going to be charged with murder the next day, I imagine that Mr. Gibson would be there. So what do I think happened? I'm speculating.

[00:11:52] [SPEAKER_00] This is speculation. We don't know what happened.

[00:11:55] [SPEAKER_02] I am speculating that during that meeting with Mr. Allen and during the subsequent meetings or previous meetings that Mr. Gibson had with law enforcement, it was discussed the charges and Mr. Gibson and Mr. Allen decided that that it would not be ideal for Mr. Gibson to represent him for whatever reason. And so maybe Mr. Gibson was just hired for a consultation. Maybe he was just hired for an initial conference.

[00:12:25] [SPEAKER_02] I also find one other thing interesting about all of this. There's the old cliche. Where's the dog that didn't bark? Where's the dog that didn't bark in this, Anya? I will tell you they have an affidavit that they filed from Kathy Allen saying, oh, I paid the $5,000 for this man to be my husband's attorney. The dog that didn't bark is there is nothing in here from Richard Allen.

[00:12:52] [SPEAKER_02] There's no affidavit in here from Richard Allen saying this man was my attorney.

[00:12:57] [SPEAKER_00] Nope. Nope, there was not.

[00:12:58] [SPEAKER_02] That makes me very. Again, I'm sorry. I find this annoying, but that makes me very skeptical.

[00:13:08] [SPEAKER_00] Oh, you mean they're trying to conjure up an image of something without actually, you know, while talking around inconvenient facts. When have they ever done this before? I mean, it's just I don't know.

[00:13:17] [SPEAKER_02] If this man was Mr. Allen's attorney, Mr. Allen could have signed an affidavit saying this was my understanding. If this man was Mr. Allen's attorney, Mr. Allen would not be telling the judge, oh, don't worry, I'm going to find an attorney because he already would have had one.

[00:13:33] [SPEAKER_00] You know what? I just kept thinking when I was reading this. So Brett Gibson, who's the attorney, he, you know, Rosie has signs an affidavit himself saying, well, I emailed him and this is what he told me. But he's not signing an affidavit himself. The thing that in bright letters, neon letters in my mind flashing, turco, turco, turco, turco. You know, every time it seems like these defense attorneys are responsible for conveying a third party person's experience.

[00:14:03] [SPEAKER_00] They they twisted into something incredibly self-serving. And then later on, facts come out and you're like, oh, OK, well, that's not really what you said it was. But, you know, thanks for playing.

[00:14:13] [SPEAKER_02] So, yeah, I would be very interested in hearing from the attorney or from Mr. Allen saying that they believe themselves to be in a relationship where Mr. Gibson would represent him in this matter.

[00:14:26] [SPEAKER_00] I don't. Yeah. As you said, what attorney would blow off their. OK, but also let's just forget. Forget all this. It's OK.

[00:14:34] [SPEAKER_02] Why do you need an affidavit from Kathy Allen if you ask your client?

[00:14:39] [SPEAKER_00] Well, OK, here's the other thing, though, that were kind of the obvious thing when you become someone's attorney and you're representing them on a case, you file into the case. Correct. And that's something that would appear on, you know, the my case docket that we all.

[00:14:57] [SPEAKER_02] It'd be in the court file.

[00:14:58] [SPEAKER_00] It'd be in the court file. And also, can you is that a very onerous process? No. No.

[00:15:03] [SPEAKER_02] As you may or may not remember, at one point in this case, there were a number of documents that were improperly being kept by the public. And so I'm an attorney. I filed an appearance into the case so I could file a motion for those documents to be released. It was very easy to do. It's just basically you say, hey, I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. Here I am, folks. That's basically all you do.

[00:15:29] [SPEAKER_00] Do a little razzmatazz, a little dance. No, I mean, it was easy for you to do. So there was no you didn't have to, like, get permission. You didn't have to do anything crazy. You didn't have to jump through hoops. You just did it in our office just because we were like, let's get the documents. Yeah. OK.

[00:15:43] [SPEAKER_00] So, I mean, the idea that an attorney who's at all a competent professional would, first of all, blow off a client's murder hearing in a murder case, their first hearing, and then also just forget to file into the case. That doesn't make any sense. That's not how this works.

[00:16:05] [SPEAKER_00] So what they're trying to do here is my, you know, basically indicate that Allen's constitutional rights were violated and that, therefore, every bit of evidence that came from him being incarcerated at Westville should be thrown out.

[00:16:52] [SPEAKER_02] There are some unrealistic and inaccurate descriptions of his living conditions at Westville. He was not in solitary confinement at Westville. He was in a cell by himself, but he had contact with therapists. He had a tablet which allowed him communication with the outside world.

[00:17:08] [SPEAKER_00] Well, except when he was having a hissy fit and breaking it.

[00:17:10] [SPEAKER_02] Yes. But this tablet allowed him to talk to his family. He was kept there because people who are plausibly accused of committing a double homicide against children are not very popular in prison. And so he was kept there to keep him alive.

[00:17:25] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. Carroll County is a tiny county. Carroll County is not a county was a jail that can facilitate anybody with any sort of needs that rose to that level. And also Carroll County is a jail that has staffing issues. So putting him in Carroll County jail would have been a safety risk to him. And there's there's no way around that.

[00:17:52] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, I guess to me, this this this segment is is weak from them. And it feels like when you can when I can see sunlight streaming through, you know, the holes in the in the paper that they've kind of drawn up. Like and it's like, well, what about that? Why is he saying himself in the letter he wrote that he didn't have an attorney at the time? I mean, that's you know it.

[00:18:19] [SPEAKER_00] But it's not about it in my and this is what's frustrating about this legal team. Lawyers are typically arguing before a judge. They're picking arguments that are based on fact or the law because they want to impress the judge and win. These people seem to only care about winning online. And the thing is, most people online. I mean, I think at this point, public sentiment has taken a turn against a lot of this.

[00:18:46] [SPEAKER_00] I don't I don't think it's successful, but, you know, they they like to invigorate their base, which is basically just conspiracy theorists at this point. And I don't know. I just I guess I don't if any of them want to start a YouTube channel, I guess that would be a huge benefit. But other than that, I don't really see what what this is doing.

[00:19:06] [SPEAKER_02] Let's move on to the second part of this document where they they purport to have a video which they put on YouTube, which shows. Well, let me backtrack a little bit. So Richard Allen, one of his most detailed confessions, I guess his most detailed confection of the murders of Abby and Libby included a detail that he allegedly just planned to sexually assault them.

[00:19:34] [SPEAKER_02] But then he is startled by the appearance of a van driving nearby, a white van, and that this somehow scared him and prompted him to murder both girls. And. How could you know that there was a white van passing by that vicinity if you weren't there?

[00:19:53] [SPEAKER_00] So that's something only a killer would know on the prosecution was able to bring in the driver of the van and show that he would have been on the road at approximately that time. Yes. At that date.

[00:20:04] [SPEAKER_02] So and so now the defense is presenting a video which shows, yeah, here's a white van or what looks like a white van turning on that road around the time of the killings. So first of all, I guess now we all agree that there was a white van on the road around the time of the killings.

[00:20:23] [SPEAKER_00] That's new because a trial what the defense was arguing was that perhaps Brad Webber, the driver, would have been in his Subaru car that day or that he would have been running around going to service his various ATMs around the state.

[00:20:36] [SPEAKER_02] So let's not gloss over that. The defense is now contending that, yes, there was a white van on that road around the time of the killings. And again, my question would be. If we all agree that white van was there, how could Richard Allen have known it was there if he was also not there in the process of killing the girls? So there's that. The next point is what they say.

[00:21:06] [SPEAKER_02] Well, this van, we have this video footage and we believe when we look at the timestamps that it was actually driving down that road about 10 or 12 minutes later than what the prosecution theorized. And talk to us about the timestamps.

[00:21:23] [SPEAKER_00] OK, well, so they they are pretty upfront with this in fairness. They note that the timestamps are all wrong in in this. So it's a situation where they're characterizing it as essentially. The security camera is 12 hours behind. This is from an affidavit from Matt Hoffman and investigator for the defense team.

[00:21:49] [SPEAKER_00] So he's saying that instead of 12 a.m., it's really 12 p.m. And the reason we can tell that is because, you know, things like it's it's light out. Right. So you can you can tell it's daytime versus nighttime. So they're saying that.

[00:22:06] [SPEAKER_02] So if we all agree that the timestamps are wrong, then what basis are you using to determine that your own guess of what the time actually is is accurate?

[00:22:16] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. And let me note, they're saying that the whatever the vehicle, this kind of blurry thing enters the frame around 244 p.m. and 33 seconds. Right. But again, if you're saying the timestamps are wrong, I guess. How do you know it's just 12 hours, 12 hours sharp that this is off by?

[00:22:39] [SPEAKER_02] Maybe it's off by 11 hours and 50 minutes. Maybe it's off by 12 hours and 10 minutes. What basis are you using to conclude that it is exactly 12 hours? If you have any experience with security cameras, with timestamps, you will know that sometimes when there's a storm or when there's some kind of an outage that messes up the system. So there's really no way to determine, oh, it's magically 12 hours exactly different.

[00:23:10] [SPEAKER_02] So there is that.

[00:23:10] [SPEAKER_00] So if this is off by even, I don't know, approximately 20 minutes, then what it's essentially what is that what this essentially shows is something that confirms the state's case completely. And if we already can't verify the timestamps, I mean, again, they're honest about that. They're saying the timestamps are wrong, but then they're just sort of glossing over it's 12 hours. You know, it's not 2 a.m. It's 2 p.m. OK, fine.

[00:23:38] [SPEAKER_00] But if it's already wrong and we all have had that experience where we've kind of had timestamps get messed up, you know, based on based on some outside factor or storage issues or a glitch, then how confident are we that this is even that accurate?

[00:23:57] [SPEAKER_02] Let's for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that their guess is correct. Let's assume that this video does show the van and it shows it exactly 12 hours past the date or past the time indicated. So that would put the van arriving there about, I think you said 243?

[00:24:19] [SPEAKER_00] Oh, 244. Turning onto the road on 244.

[00:24:23] [SPEAKER_02] At 244. So keep in mind that the prosecution wasn't trying to prove a lot of extraneous details about the exact choreography of the murders. What they were saying is bridge guy, Richard Allen kidnapped the girls. He forced them down a hill. He made them cross the river. The phone that belonged to Libby stopped moving at 232.

[00:24:53] [SPEAKER_02] And then at some point, Richard Allen was startled by the white van and killed the girls. Can you imagine a situation where he has kidnapped the girls, made them go down the hill, has them cross the river or creek, and he has them standing in one position, terrorizing them, perhaps making them strip or what have you.

[00:25:20] [SPEAKER_02] And that this terrorizing the girls or assaulting the girls is occurring with them not moving from that location. So you could have the phone not moving. He is assaulting the girls. He's making them strip. Then he sees the van at 1244 and everything fits. So that's just off the top of my head. What do you think?

[00:25:47] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I see what you're saying. The state's case is not necessarily so bound up in specific minor details that it would be necessarily devastating. I think that's fair to point out. But generally, I'm kind of I'm just looking at this and I'm saying. I need more to even kind of get to the point where I'm like, yeah, that's definitely the right time.

[00:26:10] [SPEAKER_02] But I'm just saying, even if you think that is the right time, it doesn't lead you to a conclusion of Richard Allen not being guilty. And in fact, the defense attorneys conceding that there was a white van on that road around the time of the killings. That to me is a huge omission on their part, because how could their client have known that if he was not there killing the girls?

[00:26:35] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. And again, it's it's one of those things where it's not like they're showing the van go in at twilight or, you know, like in the like sometime where it would totally throw everything off. It's we're close enough here that if there's a couple of different, I don't know, glitches or issues with the exact time. And that that hasn't been updated by the owners in some time.

[00:26:58] [SPEAKER_00] We're we're in that frame where I guess it's close enough where I'm like, OK, I I'm surprised that they're even putting this out there based on that, because it seems to. I feel like it almost bolsters things for the prosecution. Yeah. And in a way, and I will say that they do know, you know, well, Weber's phone pings in his parents address on that road at 250 p.m. that day. But again, I.

[00:27:26] [SPEAKER_00] I. Well, first of all, I've already read some of their filings on phone pings, so I guess that makes me skeptical. I don't feel like there's a wealth of understanding on this team and around technology and listen, I mean, I don't boast that myself, so I'm not. But I mean, I think if it's pertinent to your case, you should learn. But I would say that, I mean, for that, I'm like, I don't know, is there if there's something that I mean, that certainly shows he's in there at 250.

[00:27:52] [SPEAKER_00] Right. But I don't necessarily think that that means that he wasn't in there earlier. Yeah. You know, so I don't know. Anyways, anything else we wanted to say about that?

[00:28:04] [SPEAKER_02] I think let's move on to Ron Logan. Part three of this. Oh, Jesus. OK.

[00:28:10] [SPEAKER_00] So Ron Logan, of course, was the elderly man who owned the property on which the girls were found. To give you a sense, he owned many, many acres of land around Deer Creek. So it's a huge property. And they were found on the opposite side of the creek to where he lived. He came up as a person that police looked at pretty early on. He there was a search warrant at his house in March 2017, which we reported on.

[00:28:37] [SPEAKER_00] He got a probation violation as a result of the investigation into him and was actually jailed and incarcerated for a time. So, I mean, I think it's fair to say police went at him pretty hard. And there were some things where he he lied to his cousin about going to an aquarium. You know, he he had his cousin lie for him about going to an aquarium store that day. But when you look at some of the context of that, you know, he was at that time.

[00:29:07] [SPEAKER_00] He was he was basically facing probation violations because he was not supposed to have been driving. So when people are coming up to him and asking, where were you this afternoon? You know, if you look at it very skeptically, you could say, oh, he's hiding. He's fixing an alibi for himself. But if you also look at it with more of the understanding of where he's coming from, I think it also just looks like a guy who's like, oh, no, they're going to find out I was driving when I wasn't supposed to. I mean, it could kind of go either way. So what you have to do in that situation is you maybe look into him, but you have to go where the evidence is.

[00:29:36] [SPEAKER_00] And they did not find any evidence against him in the murders, you know, that like that's kind of the basic, you know. But one thing you have to understand about Logan is that there are people who years ago, people who, you know, are not professionals. And then maybe even some people who are allegedly professionals who have made it their. Personality made it their life's mission to essentially believe strongly that Ron Logan is the real killer.

[00:30:06] [SPEAKER_00] What they get out of this, I don't really understand. But, you know, they believe that this man who was jailed for a probation violation, it was somehow also simultaneously a kingpin who managed to arrange everything in Carroll County so that he got away with murder. Even though he felt the police ruined his life because of the probation violation. So I don't know. The arithmetic's not working there.

[00:30:30] [SPEAKER_02] And let me be clear. Ron Logan was far from a perfect man, but it is not fair to him or to his family to accuse him of murder because there is no evidence connecting him to these crimes. And he certainly did not kill Abby and Libby because Richard Allen did.

[00:30:49] [SPEAKER_00] So it's like, you know, but again, he's been he's been this kind of figure for a lot of these, I'd say, the kind of original group of conspiracy theorists around it.

[00:30:57] [SPEAKER_02] So how was he brought up in this document?

[00:30:59] [SPEAKER_00] Well, the defense busts out an old favorite, which is a prison house snitch situation. Now, that's one of those kind of classic tropes in true crime where usually I mean, when you read about cases or wrongful convictions, you often kind of run into the prosecution doing this where it's like, oh, man, my cellmate was muttering in his sleep and he said he killed his wife.

[00:31:23] [SPEAKER_00] And whenever the prosecution of the state does that and it's and it's just that it's just someone's word that always makes me highly skeptical. It's one thing when you wire up the cellmate and they get a pretty clear confession of like, yes, I want to hire you to kill witnesses. I mean, that's that's fair. But when it's just like, hi, can I make a deal with you? This guy who is my cellmate was saying this, this and this. I don't find that credible. I don't also don't find it credible when the defense attorneys are doing this in this case. And this is not the first time they've done this.

[00:31:53] [SPEAKER_00] What they're saying now is this guy, Ricky Dale Davis Jr. is, you know, got a confession from Ron Logan while they were incarcerated together that he murdered the girls with a box cutter. So the thing people are hung up on now is, oh, box cutter. How do you know it was a box cutter? Um, now, I mean, to me, again, this kind of goes back to the van thing. Is the defense now conceding that the girls were killed with a box cutter?

[00:32:23] [SPEAKER_00] Because they didn't they were not happy at trial when Dr. Roland Kaur, the pathologist, came out and said, well, actually, it might have been a box cutter. They were like, you didn't tell us that.

[00:32:32] [SPEAKER_02] And if we all agree he was the girls were killed by a box cutter and that it is devastating for someone to have this information. Then how did Richard Allen know that the girls were killed by a box cutter when he said he used a box cutter to kill them?

[00:32:48] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I don't. I so again, seems to be seems to be possibly conceding something which is bizarre. The other thing.

[00:32:55] [SPEAKER_02] Can I ask one more question?

[00:32:57] [SPEAKER_00] Hit me.

[00:32:57] [SPEAKER_02] Are they if we're now pointing the finger at Ron Logan yet again? Are we conceding that the Odinism theory was a complete disaster? Are we now walking away from Odinism and say, no, it wasn't the Odinist. It was Ron Logan all along.

[00:33:16] [SPEAKER_00] I guess so. I mean, I know that the attorneys, the defense attorneys in this case have done their round. They've done their media rounds with friendly outlets and mainstream press. And they I don't recall ever. I mean, you can put a lot in a court filing and that's privileged and that's protected.

[00:33:36] [SPEAKER_00] But when you step out into the town square and start saying things about people and accusing these alleged Odinists of being murderers of two children, you are open to a defamation suit.

[00:33:51] [SPEAKER_02] Yes. So in case you were wondering why in their interviews they have not been publicly naming the people they accused of murder, it's because they are afraid of getting sued.

[00:34:02] [SPEAKER_00] So, I mean, because if you weren't afraid of getting sued, I mean, if you felt like I mean, frankly, if you felt like you would win out into some sort of discovery process, I mean, why not just be loud about it?

[00:34:13] [SPEAKER_02] But now this is, oh, it's not the Odinist. It's Ron Logan.

[00:34:17] [SPEAKER_00] I guess Ron Logan from the grave bamboozled them into selecting the Odinist because he's just that powerful.

[00:34:23] [SPEAKER_02] And so Ricky Davis apparently says, oh, Ron Logan told me this elaborate story involving burn pits and such. Ron Logan's house and property was extensively searched as part of this investigation.

[00:34:35] [SPEAKER_00] In March of 2017.

[00:34:36] [SPEAKER_02] And I would assume if anything was found during those searches, which would support these interesting allegations, then we would have heard about it long ago.

[00:34:50] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:34:51] [SPEAKER_02] And Mr. Davis himself is not a terribly trustworthy individual.

[00:34:54] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, let's let's take a look at who this guy is. So Ricky Davis has a extensive list of charges against him dating back decades. He's currently at the Newcastle Correctional Facility and he's going to be there. What I mean online on the Indiana Department of Corrections website. His earliest possible release date is listed as 2039.

[00:35:24] [SPEAKER_00] Most recently, he was sentenced for possession of methamphetamine in 2010. 2007, forgery counterfeiting and application fraud. 2002, theft receiving stolen property. 2010, conspiracy forgery counterfeiting application fraud. 2002, conspiracy forgery counterfeiting application fraud. 2002, theft receiving stolen property. 2002, attempted controlled substance registration. 2002, burglary.

[00:35:53] [SPEAKER_00] 2002, theft receiving stolen property. Another one for that. 2002, auto theft and receiving stolen auto parts. 2014, dealing in methamphetamine. Okay, so not only are we seeing a lot of drug activity, we are also seeing a lot of what I would call, I don't know, crimes that would make me concerned about someone's credibility. Forgery, forgery, stealing.

[00:36:23] [SPEAKER_00] All of these things involve dishonesty, lying. Now, I'm a person where I believe that people can be rehabilitated and can go from doing bad things and become an honest person and doing good things. That's something I fundamentally believe about a lot of people. Not everybody. But I'm not saying that everybody who's ever had a methamphetamine habit or has done bad things like stealing from others or forging stuff. I'm not saying that everyone in that group cannot be rehabilitated.

[00:36:52] [SPEAKER_00] But do I put a lot of weight in the word of Ricky Davis, barring any corroborating evidence? No. Not at all. And no one should. And frankly, if Ricky Davis had come in and said, you know, come into the trial and the prosecution trotted him out and he said, you know, I was in a cell. I was in the same cell block with Richard Allen and I heard him yelling out a confession.

[00:37:21] [SPEAKER_00] I would have said, I think we should disregard this because I don't I don't like this type of evidence. I don't think it's good evidence. I don't think it's I don't think it's credible no matter who's using it. Barring some kind of recording, barring some kind of like proof, something. I don't think you can hang your hat on this. What do you think, Kevin? Am I being too hard on jailhouse snitches?

[00:37:45] [SPEAKER_02] No, I it's difficult for me to take this stuff seriously. Other than, again, this seems to be at the very least inching away from Odinism. I feel I feel that the detour that the defense took into Odinism was unfortunate for many, many reasons. It wasted a lot of time for all of us and it accomplished absolutely nothing.

[00:38:10] [SPEAKER_02] Because, again, one thing we can say with certainty is that the girls were not killed by Odinus. They were killed by Richard Allen.

[00:38:19] [SPEAKER_00] Well, I mean, beyond that, I mean, just the whole like I mean, we have we have allegations of of prosecutorial malfeasance. We have a soft YouTube launch and now we have complaining about Ron Logan and like jailhouse snitches. I mean, this feels like some sort of like I don't know. This feels like it feels like we're back in like 2018 or something. It feels like we're on Reddit in like in like when this started.

[00:38:45] [SPEAKER_00] And it's just it's more about just bouncing a bunch of stuff around and seeing what sticks rather than actually getting with the facts. Yes. And it's frustrating because, you know, I don't know. You just want to think better of attorneys, I guess. I don't know.

[00:38:59] [SPEAKER_02] They concluded with a section about the phone.

[00:39:03] [SPEAKER_00] You sound like you really want to talk about it.

[00:39:05] [SPEAKER_02] I don't.

[00:39:06] [SPEAKER_00] Oh, my God. OK, well, set me up and I'll tell you what I feel like I I I have a strong feeling about this phone stuff.

[00:39:15] [SPEAKER_02] So they found some sort of data with this came out in the trial. There was some sort of data that discovered which indicated that headphones were plugged into her and then taken out of Libby's phone in the middle of the night. And the state suggested through an expert, Chris Cecil, that this sort of thing could happen if there was water or dirt in the headphone port.

[00:39:44] [SPEAKER_02] And again, the phone was outside and the girls had been across a body of water. Their bodies were in a area with lots of dirt. So that would seem to be a plausible explanation for why that happened. I've certainly had issues with my phone where it says a headphone is either plugged in or not plugged in when it's not. And the alternative is ludicrous.

[00:40:07] [SPEAKER_02] Why would we imagine that the killer would return in the middle of the night and somehow access the phone which was located under the body of Abigail Williams and then plug in the headphones and then unplug them all without moving the phone in a discernible fashion? That is ludicrous. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. And I sat through this entire trial.

[00:40:32] [SPEAKER_00] Let me just say, sometimes when I get annoyed, because I'm taking notes, I'm actually just reading my notes right now. And at this point, I just started writing, theory is stupid. Only stupid people believe this. This is dumb. Some curse words. Doesn't make any sense. So that's how I feel about it in a nutshell. I'll just add to what your point is here. And I've had the same issues with a headphone jack. I mean, I've had my phone near a pool and maybe some moisture, maybe something happens.

[00:41:02] [SPEAKER_00] And then it's a big pain in the butt. It's really not that surprising. Having their trotting their expert out to say, well, it's bad that the state police Googled stuff. I mean, OK, but maybe maybe they should have Googled stuff, too, because then they could have talked around that more or like figured it out. Like, I don't know. I mean, I. So when it comes to she's when it comes to this, I think you said it well, but let's just let's just talk about their scenario.

[00:41:30] [SPEAKER_00] According to them, you know, and of course now, of course, now they're on the YouTube tour. You know, you got Faraday bags. You got all sorts of things. But what they're saying is that the girls were abducted from the area around the bridge and then brought back around 4 a.m.

[00:41:50] [SPEAKER_00] Somehow walked from wherever that vehicle is to where they were killed, which is down a huge steep hill that was difficult for like police officers to get down without any. And let me just be clear. One thing we've learned is that. The search never stopped. Searchers were out there all night. The official search stopped. The official search stopped because there's liability and safety issues.

[00:42:17] [SPEAKER_00] But from what we've been hearing, people were still going around very late at night. People were looking. So so these girls, these kidnapping victims are walked down this steep area without the phone registering that that there was movement. They're somehow walked down there in the dead of night. It's pitch black out. It's it's after 4 a.m.

[00:42:40] [SPEAKER_02] People are out searching.

[00:42:41] [SPEAKER_00] People are out searching and they're returned to the scene where they were around where they were kidnapped from.

[00:42:46] [SPEAKER_02] And then the phone is for some reason, the killer says, wait a minute, I want to listen to a little bit of a song or something. Yeah. He plugs his headphones and listens to everyone's to listen to, unplugs his headphones, puts the phone on the ground and then kills the girls, kills the girls.

[00:43:03] [SPEAKER_00] So that Abby goes over the phone. Does that make any sense to anybody? Like, are people actually sitting down and thinking mad? Because, like, I would love to know what the heck they are smoking. I mean, like, like what? What what what on earth? So we're going to believe that because that's more realistic than some dirt or moisture getting in your headphone jack and messing stuff up like they like that. Like that's happened to everyone with a phone ever.

[00:43:32] [SPEAKER_00] Like, I guess I just. I don't know. There's something insulting about some of this. It's like they think the public is this dumb and the public's not dumb. The audience is not dumb. People who follow this are not dumb. They can see through this. And I just I.

[00:43:51] [SPEAKER_02] A lot of people who follow this, first of all, I don't think the mainstream press did a great job covering the trial. No, but also a lot of people who follow this had a lot of very legitimate questions and concerns. Certainly we did. If you listen to the interview we did recently with Nicholas McClellan, we talked with him about how this case began. We had a lot of serious questions and concerns, and sometimes we were hard on the prosecution.

[00:44:18] [SPEAKER_02] So there's nothing wrong with having serious questions or concerns when the government exercises its power to bring someone to trial. That's a very serious thing. We should examine that closely. This Delphi investigative team, they have been everything they've been everything they've done has been poured over with a fine tooth comb. And. Yeah.

[00:44:47] [SPEAKER_02] They did a good investigation. They found a guilty man and they convicted him properly.

[00:44:55] [SPEAKER_00] I feel like.

[00:44:58] [SPEAKER_02] And no fantasies about phones or lawyers who allegedly represented him, even though the lawyer and the client don't offer any statements indicating that such representation occurred. None of none of this changes the facts.

[00:45:13] [SPEAKER_00] I feel like the error in this case was these defense attorneys opting to come back on because I feel like they just did a bad job. And I feel like perhaps. Other attorneys would have done a better job.

[00:45:28] [SPEAKER_02] They had a bad hand and they played it remarkably poorly, but it was a vigorous defense. I don't think there's an ineffective counsel claim. And in fairness, I think particularly Mr. Scrimmon, who was one of the attorneys appointed to this case during that brief time when Baldwin and Rosie were removed. I think he would have done a much better job. He would have.

[00:45:49] [SPEAKER_00] He has a good reputation.

[00:45:50] [SPEAKER_02] He would have taken his bad hand and he would have played it very well. I still think it would have ended in a conviction.

[00:45:57] [SPEAKER_00] Maybe a conviction with more dignity than whatever the heck this is.

[00:46:00] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:46:00] [SPEAKER_00] But I mean, fewer YouTube clicks for people. So, I mean, I guess that if this I mean, like if you told me that this was more about like, you know, giving giving a tip of the hat to YouTubers like I would. I mean, I wouldn't believe that because why would you do that? But like, frankly, we're like, that's what it looks like.

[00:46:20] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah. I don't believe if Mr. Scrimmon was on this case, he'd be filing motions with links to exhibits appearing on YouTube.

[00:46:27] [SPEAKER_00] What will true crime swine 69 say about this one? I want to make sure I give him a little shout out. Maybe I'll let him read my filing beforehand to give his, you know, erudite thoughts. It's it's it's appalling. It's embarrassing. I'm I feel secondhand embarrassment when I read some of this stuff.

[00:46:44] [SPEAKER_02] When Nick McClelland, the prosecutor of Carroll County, when he files his response to this, I don't expect that it will be on TikTok. I think it would be in a proper legal filing done in a professional way.

[00:46:55] [SPEAKER_00] I guess it's just I tend to prefer professionalism from people, obviously, rather than like whatever this is. But it's just it's not even like they're it's not even like they're posing for the mainstream press. At least there's some dignity in that. It's they're they're they're posing for like their little fans. It's like these people flattered them so hard that now they're just like desperate to keep that the serotonin and good vibes going with all the little compliments about how they're all the second coming of Clarence Darrow.

[00:47:24] [SPEAKER_00] And I think when you're when you're leaning in that much, you're you're subject to kind of getting lost and not perhaps doing your best. Maybe having having surrounding yourself by yes, men and women is not not the path to, I think, doing a really good job in anything. And I just I don't know. I think it's it's really bizarre to see. I don't know.

[00:47:49] [SPEAKER_02] Well, we're wrapping up. But I think at some point it might be interesting to have a conversation about there's some sort of phenomenon here about all the people with good reputations who entered this case and then ended up destroying themselves or their reputations in some fashion.

[00:48:08] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I have like it's like it's like a it's I have a mental list.

[00:48:11] [SPEAKER_02] I'm sure you do.

[00:48:12] [SPEAKER_00] I do. It's like a horror movie. It's like it's curse. Like everyone like comes in being like really respectable and they come out just like screaming about like the oldenists are in the trees. Watch out. You know, it's like guys like, you know, it's possible to just do a job and do it as well as you can and like not do all of this. And actually, sometimes I think all of this distracted them. I think their eye went off the the prize, so to speak.

[00:48:36] [SPEAKER_00] And I think I think they they were thinking like almost like like writers, like what what's the most interesting story rather than what is the best way to defend our client? And again, I don't think it rises to ineffective counsel, but this this kind of speaks to that. You know, I just I'll be curious to see the actual appeal. I mean, that's obviously I mean, this kind of restarts the clock on that. So that's going to be coming down the pike, I'm sure. But, you know, I don't know.

[00:49:06] [SPEAKER_00] I guess on some level. It's been it's been disappointing to observe this defense in action, because, I mean, based on what we were told and based on what we understood, we sort of believe them to have very good reputations and they would come in and perform competently and do a good job for their client. And we had every expectation of seeing that. And we were happy about that because that's what you want. That's how the system is supposed to work.

[00:49:32] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, what you want is two sides that are good at their jobs doing lawyering and being honest and just kind of going going at it. And eventually the jury decides a verdict. And that's that's it. But I guess that was too much to ask for in this case.

[00:49:49] [SPEAKER_02] Are we done?

[00:49:50] [SPEAKER_00] I think we're done. Thanks for listening, everybody.

[00:49:53] [SPEAKER_02] Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:50:14] [SPEAKER_00] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:50:38] [SPEAKER_02] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:50:47] [SPEAKER_00] 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. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.

[00:51:12] [SPEAKER_02] Before we wrap up this episode, can we take just a moment to say a few more words about our great new sponsor, Acorns?

[00:51:19] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, thanks so much to Acorns. Remember, when you support our sponsors, you're supporting us, and our sponsors make it possible for us to do this job, so we really appreciate them.

[00:51:28] [SPEAKER_02] We love our sponsors.

[00:51:29] [SPEAKER_00] Absolutely. Acorns is a terrific investing app. It's the perfect thing for somebody who wants to get started with their personal finance journey. That can seem daunting. It is daunting. I'm so not financially minded. For me, it's always really hard to get started with something like this, where you're like, what am I doing? But Acorns sort of takes the guesswork out of that. It gets you started, and it will essentially help you take control of your financial future.

[00:51:57] [SPEAKER_00] You can get set up pretty quickly, and it allows you to start automatically saving and investing. That money can help you, your kids, if you have a family, your retirement, and you don't need to be rich. You don't need to be an expert to do this. It's very simple. And you can start with only $5 or whatever change you have. It's not like you need to put in some massive payment.

[00:52:17] [SPEAKER_00] So it's a great fit for people who are starting out, but they want to take the next step and improve themselves financially and make their money work for them more. So if you're interested, head to acorns.com slash msheet or download the Acorns app to start saving and investing for your future today. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns. Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involved risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor.

[00:52:45] [SPEAKER_00] View important disclosures at acorns.com slash msheet.

[00:52:48] [SPEAKER_02] Can we talk a little bit before we go about Quince, a great new sponsor for us? I think in one of the ads that we've already done for them, we talked about the compliments I'm getting on my jacket. I know you're a very modest woman, but can we talk about the compliments you're getting on the Quince products you wear?

[00:53:07] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I've got two of their Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're a brand that just does this sort of luxurious products, but without the crazy costs really well. They give you Italian leather handbags. They do like European linen sheets. You have a really cool suede jacket. And I really like the way I look in my sweaters. I like the way you look in your bomber jacket. It looks super cool.

[00:53:32] [SPEAKER_02] You've gotten a lot of compliments when you go out wearing these sweaters.

[00:53:35] [SPEAKER_00] I think I have. Yeah.

[00:53:37] [SPEAKER_02] And deservedly so.

[00:53:38] [SPEAKER_00] Also, I'm one of those people, my skin is very sensitive. So when it comes to wearing sweaters, sometimes something's too scratchy. It really bothers me. These are so soft. They're just very delicate and soft. Wearing them is lovely because they're super comfortable. It's not one of those things where you buy it and it looks great, but it doesn't feel that great. They look great. They feel great. But yeah, I really love them. And you've got your cool jacket.

[00:54:06] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, that's a little bit of a – you're the guy who wears the same thing all the time. So this was a bit of a gamble for you, a bit of a risk. You got something a bit different.

[00:54:14] [SPEAKER_02] I do wash my clothes.

[00:54:15] [SPEAKER_00] I know you wash your clothes, but I mean –

[00:54:18] [SPEAKER_02] You're filthy. You just made me sound awful. So no, I wash my clothes.

[00:54:22] [SPEAKER_00] But you don't really – I laundry them. You don't really experiment with fashion that much is what I'm saying. So this is a little bit out of the norm for you, but I think you really like it and it looks good.

[00:54:31] [SPEAKER_02] Thank you. Great products. Incredible prices. Absolutely. Quince.com.

[00:54:36] [SPEAKER_00] There you go. So you can go to Quince.com slash msheet. And right now they're offering 365-day returns plus free shipping on your order. So that's Quince.com slash msheet. That's Quince.com slash msheet.

[00:54:53] [SPEAKER_02] Before we go, we just wanted to say another few words about Vaya. This is really a wonderful product. I think it's really helped both of us get a lot better rest.

[00:55:02] [SPEAKER_00] Vaya is pretty much, I guess you'd say, the only lifestyle hemp brand out there. So what does that mean? It means that they're all about crafting different products to elicit different moods. Kevin and I really like their non-THC CBD products, products, specifically Zen, really helps me fall asleep. Some Zen can really just kind of help me get more into that state where I can relax and fall asleep pretty easily. And they've been such a wonderful support to us. They're a longtime sponsor.

[00:55:29] [SPEAKER_00] We really love working with them and they really make this show possible. I'm going to say this, like you may not realize this, but when you support our sponsors, you're supporting us. And it kind of makes it possible for us to do the show. So if you or one of your loved ones is interested in trying some of this stuff, you're going to get a great deal. It's very high, high quality, high value.

[00:55:48] [SPEAKER_01] Anya, if I want to get this discount you speak of, what do I do?

[00:55:52] [SPEAKER_00] Okay. If you're 21 and older, head to viahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off. And if you're new to Vaya, get a free gift of your choice. That's V-I-I-A hemp.com and use code MSHEET at checkout.

[00:56:07] [SPEAKER_02] Spell the code.

[00:56:08] [SPEAKER_00] M-S-H-E-E-T. And after you purchase, they're going to ask you, hey, where did you hear about us? Say the murder sheet because then it lets them know that our ads are effective and it really helps us out.