The Delphi Murders: Objections, Replies, and a Second Motion to Dismiss

[00:00:00] Keep your Medi-Cal coverage.

[00:00:02] Local Medi-Cal offices review member eligibility once per year,

[00:00:06] and many members are automatically renewed.

[00:00:09] Make sure your personal information is up to date

[00:00:12] so your local Medi-Cal office can contact you.

[00:00:15] And if they request information, respond by the due date.

[00:00:18] Learn more at Medi-Cal dot DHCS dot CA dot GOV.

[00:00:22] That's Medi-Cal dot DHCS dot CA dot GOV.

[00:00:25] Paid for by the California Department of Healthcare Services.

[00:00:29] Have you ever covered a carpet stain with a rug?

[00:00:32] Ignored a leaky faucet?

[00:00:34] Pretended your half-painted living room is supposed to look like that?

[00:00:37] Well, you're not alone.

[00:00:38] We've all got unfinished home projects.

[00:00:40] But there's an easier way.

[00:00:41] When you download Thumbtack,

[00:00:43] it's easier to care for your home from top to bottom.

[00:00:45] Pull out your phone and adjust a few taps.

[00:00:47] You can search, chat, and book highly rated pros

[00:00:50] right in your neighborhood.

[00:00:51] Plus, you'll know what to tackle next

[00:00:53] because Thumbtack is the app that shows you what to do,

[00:00:56] who to hire, and when.

[00:00:58] So say goodbye to all those unfinished home projects

[00:01:00] and say hello to caring for your home the easier way.

[00:01:03] Download Thumbtack and start a project today.

[00:01:06] Man, that sunset is gorgeous.

[00:01:09] Grill, patio, sunset?

[00:01:11] Hard to get better than that.

[00:01:13] Unless you're browsing Carvana's inventory

[00:01:15] while you soak it all in.

[00:01:17] Oh, burger time.

[00:01:19] So sit back, get comfortable.

[00:01:21] Carvana's got thousands of cars under $20,000

[00:01:23] just waiting for ya.

[00:01:25] I could stay here forever.

[00:01:27] Carvana, where car buying meets comfort meets convenience.

[00:01:31] Download the app or visit carvana.com today.

[00:01:36] Content warning.

[00:01:37] This episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls.

[00:01:42] Well, there was a time not too long ago

[00:01:44] where we all thought that we would be spending today

[00:01:48] and the next couple of days in a courtroom

[00:01:52] in Carroll County as there was a multi-day hearing

[00:01:56] scheduled to help resolve some of the issues

[00:01:58] still outstanding in the Richard Allen case.

[00:02:02] But we are not in that courtroom in Delphi, Indiana today

[00:02:06] and we will talk about why

[00:02:08] and talk about some other filings in just a few minutes.

[00:02:12] My name is Anya Kane.

[00:02:13] I'm a journalist.

[00:02:14] And I'm Kevin Greenlee.

[00:02:16] I'm an attorney.

[00:02:17] And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:19] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting,

[00:02:22] interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:02:25] We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:27] And this is The Delphi Murders.

[00:02:29] Objections, replies, and a second motion to dismiss.

[00:03:19] So there are a bunch of filings in the case,

[00:03:22] most of them from the defense, one from the prosecution.

[00:03:25] Before we get into those filings,

[00:03:29] for some reason as I was reading these,

[00:03:31] especially the ones from the defense,

[00:03:33] it reminded me of an experience I had years ago.

[00:03:37] Maybe you're too young to have such an experience, Anya.

[00:03:40] Do you remember record stores?

[00:03:41] No.

[00:03:42] I remember going into a record store

[00:03:45] and seeing what I thought was a new album

[00:03:48] by a performer I liked.

[00:03:50] And I would go, I said, oh boy,

[00:03:51] it's a new album by a performer I liked.

[00:03:54] And I take it home and I open it up

[00:03:56] and it turns out it's not a new album.

[00:03:58] It's a Greatest Hits album.

[00:03:59] A lot of the same songs,

[00:04:00] maybe like one or two new songs at the most.

[00:04:03] And I was always very frustrated by that.

[00:04:05] I don't know what made me think of that.

[00:04:07] But why don't we...

[00:04:08] Apropos of nothing.

[00:04:11] Why don't we start talking about the filings?

[00:04:14] Yes, I guess to start off with,

[00:04:17] we can talk about the prosecution filing,

[00:04:20] which is the objection to defendant's motion to continue.

[00:04:23] Obviously, since we're not at the hearing,

[00:04:25] this one didn't work out for Nick.

[00:04:27] And it's the state's objection to continuaines,

[00:04:30] whoops, typo there, filed by the defense.

[00:04:33] And this is, I would say, in my view,

[00:04:37] before we get started,

[00:04:39] so this is the state saying,

[00:04:41] I want the hearing to go on.

[00:04:43] I don't want it to be delayed.

[00:04:45] And whether or not we agree with that statement,

[00:04:47] let's set that aside.

[00:04:48] Let's just note that I don't think

[00:04:50] this was necessarily one of McLean's

[00:04:52] strongest filings recently.

[00:04:54] Yeah, and as an example of this,

[00:04:56] I want to read a little bit of it.

[00:04:58] He says,

[00:04:59] the state does not believe the court

[00:05:01] loses its jurisdiction once a motion

[00:05:03] to recuse is filed.

[00:05:04] That only applies when the recusal

[00:05:07] is mandatory.

[00:05:08] In this instance, it is not, in quote.

[00:05:10] So he's saying,

[00:05:11] well, the defense said you have

[00:05:13] to do the continuance.

[00:05:15] I don't think you have to.

[00:05:16] I don't believe that.

[00:05:18] But then he doesn't cite any case law

[00:05:21] to back that up other than his own belief.

[00:05:23] Right.

[00:05:24] And I mean,

[00:05:26] when we talk about the actual,

[00:05:28] I guess,

[00:05:29] argument beneath all this,

[00:05:31] you know,

[00:05:32] whether or not Judge Gull should have

[00:05:34] to recuse herself.

[00:05:35] I think the Indiana Supreme Court

[00:05:38] made that pretty clear when they

[00:05:40] did not have her recuse herself

[00:05:42] back when all this,

[00:05:44] a lot of this drama went down

[00:05:46] between the defense and Judge Gull.

[00:05:48] But of course,

[00:05:49] last week in their filings,

[00:05:50] the defense said,

[00:05:51] well,

[00:05:52] the Indiana Supreme Court didn't have

[00:05:54] all the information they needed.

[00:05:55] And then they proceeded to cite

[00:05:56] a lot of information

[00:05:57] that the Indiana Supreme Court

[00:05:58] already had,

[00:05:59] including some other very nitpicky stuff.

[00:06:01] Yes.

[00:06:02] So not exactly super compelling.

[00:06:03] I believe that it looks more

[00:06:04] like a stalling tactic than anything.

[00:06:06] If you keep asking for her

[00:06:08] to recuse herself.

[00:06:09] I mean,

[00:06:10] let's look at the I mean,

[00:06:11] we'll look at the breakdown later,

[00:06:13] but I don't believe there's really

[00:06:15] any merit there.

[00:06:16] And I think I understand

[00:06:18] where McClellan is coming from here,

[00:06:20] but I think it could have benefited

[00:06:22] from some case law here as well.

[00:06:24] Yes.

[00:06:25] And this is one another quote

[00:06:29] kind of describing McClellan's feelings

[00:06:31] on the matter.

[00:06:32] Quote that,

[00:06:33] how can the defense be prepared

[00:06:34] to not at least go forward

[00:06:35] with the state's motion in Lemonnet

[00:06:37] when it was prepared on May 7th, 2024?

[00:06:39] End quote.

[00:06:40] So he's commenting about like,

[00:06:41] we've all had this for a while.

[00:06:43] How how are they not ready

[00:06:45] to go at this point?

[00:06:47] I think this underscores

[00:06:48] the amount of stalling

[00:06:49] that is becoming clear

[00:06:51] in terms of what this defense team

[00:06:53] is prepared to do going forward.

[00:06:54] McClellan says the state believes

[00:06:56] the only reason the defense

[00:06:57] is attempting to continue

[00:06:58] these hearings

[00:06:59] is an attempt to delay the proceedings.

[00:07:03] I believe that is correct.

[00:07:04] And I think that's obvious

[00:07:05] to anyone who's viewing

[00:07:06] this situation.

[00:07:08] And then McClellan makes

[00:07:09] a factual error.

[00:07:11] He says the defense

[00:07:12] did contact the state

[00:07:13] and the state did notify the defense

[00:07:15] that they objected

[00:07:16] to this continuance,

[00:07:17] but the defense did not state

[00:07:18] that clearly in their motion

[00:07:20] and end quote.

[00:07:21] And actually the defense

[00:07:23] did.

[00:07:24] They stated that very clearly

[00:07:25] in their motion, in my view.

[00:07:26] So I don't I don't know.

[00:07:27] I don't know what he's

[00:07:28] talking about there.

[00:07:29] That's a that's a seems

[00:07:30] to be an error

[00:07:31] because the defense noted

[00:07:33] that he objected.

[00:07:34] So I don't really know

[00:07:35] what else they're

[00:07:36] supposed to do there.

[00:07:38] And yeah, I think.

[00:07:42] Do we?

[00:07:43] That's kind of it.

[00:07:45] So he says the the defense

[00:07:47] wants to continue this

[00:07:49] because they have asked

[00:07:50] you to recuse yourself

[00:07:51] and they say

[00:07:52] you can't be making motions

[00:07:54] and ruling on motions

[00:07:55] when you've been asked

[00:07:56] to recuse until that's settled.

[00:07:58] I don't think that's so.

[00:08:00] And then that was his filing.

[00:08:02] And then the defense

[00:08:04] pretty quickly filed back

[00:08:06] a reply, defendant's reply

[00:08:08] to state's objection

[00:08:09] to defendant's motion

[00:08:10] to continue.

[00:08:11] And like the first thing

[00:08:12] they do in this,

[00:08:13] I believe, is they say

[00:08:14] McClellan made a mistake.

[00:08:16] We did clearly put

[00:08:18] the fact that he objected

[00:08:19] in our original filing.

[00:08:20] You also critique him

[00:08:21] for not citing any case law,

[00:08:22] which I think is fair.

[00:08:24] And then I'll read

[00:08:25] a quote from this quote.

[00:08:27] Furthermore,

[00:08:28] on May 15th, 2024,

[00:08:30] prosecution provided

[00:08:31] a new phone extraction

[00:08:33] that the defense believes

[00:08:34] will be useful

[00:08:35] for the defense

[00:08:36] at the motion and lemonade hearing

[00:08:37] but needs additional time

[00:08:38] to review this voluminous extraction

[00:08:40] as well as anticipated report

[00:08:42] that will be filed

[00:08:43] by First Sergeant Christopher Cecil

[00:08:45] will also be useful

[00:08:46] in the motion of lemonade hearing.

[00:08:48] So who is First Sergeant

[00:08:50] Christopher Cecil?

[00:08:51] We've heard this name before,

[00:08:52] but if you don't remember,

[00:08:53] that's OK

[00:08:54] because there's a lot

[00:08:55] of moving parts

[00:08:56] in this case.

[00:08:59] Cecil is an officer

[00:09:02] with the Indiana State Police

[00:09:04] and he worked

[00:09:05] on the Kagan-Klein case.

[00:09:07] He was responsible

[00:09:09] for digging out

[00:09:11] all the data,

[00:09:12] all the information

[00:09:13] from Kagan-Klein's devices

[00:09:16] and specifically digging

[00:09:18] into the child's

[00:09:19] sexual abuse materials on there.

[00:09:21] So he's an expert

[00:09:22] when it comes

[00:09:23] to extracting phones,

[00:09:24] getting information

[00:09:25] off of phones.

[00:09:27] And so some of the more details

[00:09:29] about this phone extraction

[00:09:31] that they refer to

[00:09:33] would be discussed

[00:09:34] in later filings.

[00:09:35] So kind of stick a pen

[00:09:36] in that for now.

[00:09:37] Yeah.

[00:09:38] Next, let's get

[00:09:39] to the order issued

[00:09:40] from Judge Frances Gull.

[00:09:41] And the upshot

[00:09:42] of this is that

[00:09:43] she canceled

[00:09:44] all the hearings this week

[00:09:45] as the defense requested.

[00:09:46] I'm going to read from it.

[00:09:47] She writes,

[00:09:48] quote,

[00:09:49] as the court is now

[00:09:50] required to review

[00:09:51] and rule upon

[00:09:52] the 42-page pleading,

[00:09:54] the court is compelled

[00:09:55] to cancel

[00:09:56] the pretrial hearing

[00:09:57] previously set

[00:09:58] with counsel's agreement.

[00:10:00] So this is interesting, Kevin.

[00:10:02] A few people have asked us this

[00:10:04] and so I wanted

[00:10:05] to answer them

[00:10:06] and even, you know,

[00:10:07] people who covered

[00:10:08] the case have asked us,

[00:10:09] like, I think the sense is,

[00:10:10] well, the judge ordered it

[00:10:11] so this is the judge

[00:10:12] delaying things, right?

[00:10:14] Who's responsible

[00:10:15] for this delay?

[00:10:16] Well, this is basically

[00:10:17] done in response

[00:10:18] to a request

[00:10:19] from the defense

[00:10:20] and you can say,

[00:10:21] well, this is

[00:10:22] a legitimate request

[00:10:23] by the defense

[00:10:24] in order to protect

[00:10:25] Richard Allen's rights

[00:10:26] or you can say

[00:10:27] it's a stalling tactic

[00:10:28] but it's done

[00:10:29] at the request

[00:10:30] of the defense.

[00:10:31] And I would just like

[00:10:32] to, again,

[00:10:33] reread what I just said.

[00:10:34] The court is now

[00:10:35] required to review

[00:10:36] and rule upon

[00:10:37] the 42-page pleading.

[00:10:38] The court is compelled

[00:10:39] to cancel

[00:10:40] the pretrial hearing

[00:10:41] previously set

[00:10:42] with counsel's agreement.

[00:10:43] I think there's a lot

[00:10:44] of stuff in there.

[00:10:45] I think she's

[00:10:46] clearly unhappy

[00:10:48] with the length

[00:10:49] of the pleading

[00:10:51] and she's making it clear

[00:10:53] we set this hearing

[00:10:54] with everybody's agreement

[00:10:55] and now you're

[00:10:56] making us delay it.

[00:10:57] I want to say something

[00:10:58] before we get

[00:10:59] into our next...

[00:11:00] So she's not too happy?

[00:11:01] No, she's obviously

[00:11:02] not too happy.

[00:11:03] I don't think

[00:11:04] anyone's too happy

[00:11:05] about this.

[00:11:06] Again, we have

[00:11:07] the prosecution

[00:11:08] ready to go,

[00:11:09] we have the judge

[00:11:10] ready to go,

[00:11:11] the defense lags behind.

[00:11:12] Now that might be confusing

[00:11:13] to some people

[00:11:14] who are listening

[00:11:15] to this.

[00:11:16] I think the court

[00:11:17] is going to have

[00:11:18] to make a thesis

[00:11:19] to their

[00:11:20] tough guy rhetoric,

[00:11:21] right?

[00:11:22] The tough guy

[00:11:23] rhetoric is

[00:11:24] we're ready to go,

[00:11:25] we're going to do this,

[00:11:26] we're going to get

[00:11:27] him out of prison.

[00:11:28] That's never been

[00:11:29] the actions

[00:11:30] that have followed up.

[00:11:31] I mean,

[00:11:32] I think withdrawing

[00:11:33] speedy trial,

[00:11:34] you know,

[00:11:35] whiffing on this

[00:11:36] latest three-day

[00:11:37] hearing when it's

[00:11:38] basically like

[00:11:39] let's talk about

[00:11:40] your theory

[00:11:41] of the case

[00:11:42] and then you have

[00:11:43] a continuation

[00:11:44] of a playbook

[00:11:45] that will continue

[00:11:46] for a long time.

[00:11:47] I believe that

[00:11:48] we're in for

[00:11:49] a lot of delays,

[00:11:50] a lot of future delays

[00:11:51] and that

[00:11:52] we're going to see

[00:11:53] tactics like this

[00:11:54] where,

[00:11:55] you know,

[00:11:56] if you file

[00:11:57] something requesting

[00:11:58] the judge recuse herself

[00:11:59] then you know

[00:12:00] that if you file

[00:12:01] that a couple of days

[00:12:02] out of a,

[00:12:03] you know,

[00:12:04] before hearing

[00:12:05] then you'll be able

[00:12:06] to not have

[00:12:07] to go to the hearing.

[00:12:08] I think

[00:12:09] this is just

[00:12:10] what we're going

[00:12:12] to see.

[00:12:13] I think the more

[00:12:14] this drags out

[00:12:15] the more painful

[00:12:16] it is for everyone

[00:12:17] involved but

[00:12:18] that is what

[00:12:19] I believe will

[00:12:20] happen and it

[00:12:21] will be coming

[00:12:22] from the defense

[00:12:23] and they will

[00:12:24] be saying

[00:12:25] repeatedly

[00:12:26] it's the judge's

[00:12:27] fault or it's

[00:12:28] the prosecution's

[00:12:29] fault or it's

[00:12:30] police's fault

[00:12:31] it's everybody

[00:12:32] but our fault

[00:12:33] but that won't

[00:12:34] necessarily be

[00:12:35] the case

[00:12:36] unless circumstances

[00:12:37] change for some

[00:12:38] reason but

[00:12:39] I really think

[00:12:40] that when you're

[00:12:41] in a situation

[00:12:42] like this

[00:12:43] where you have

[00:12:44] to go to the

[00:12:45] hearing

[00:12:46] and you're

[00:12:47] not prepared

[00:12:48] for it

[00:12:49] it's really

[00:12:50] hard to

[00:12:51] get out of

[00:12:52] that situation

[00:12:53] and I think

[00:12:54] that's

[00:12:55] one of the

[00:12:56] things

[00:12:57] that we need

[00:12:58] to be careful

[00:12:59] about

[00:13:00] and I

[00:13:01] think

[00:13:02] that's

[00:13:03] something

[00:13:04] that we

[00:13:05] need to

[00:13:06] be careful

[00:13:07] about

[00:13:08] and I

[00:13:09] think

[00:13:10] that's

[00:13:11] a really

[00:13:12] important

[00:13:13] thing

[00:13:14] motion to

[00:13:15] dismiss

[00:13:16] and you

[00:13:17] see baffled

[00:13:18] is why I

[00:13:19] was talking

[00:13:20] about the

[00:13:21] unexpected

[00:13:22] greatest hits

[00:13:23] collection

[00:13:24] and it's

[00:13:25] because of

[00:13:26] this motion

[00:13:27] because as

[00:13:28] we will

[00:13:29] discuss

[00:13:30] probably in

[00:13:31] too much

[00:13:32] detail

[00:13:33] in a few

[00:13:34] moments

[00:13:35] most of

[00:13:36] the contents

[00:13:37] of this

[00:13:38] filing

[00:13:39] are important

[00:13:40] because

[00:13:41] you know

[00:13:42] whether you're

[00:13:43] a lay

[00:13:44] person

[00:13:45] or a

[00:13:46] lawyer

[00:13:47] like

[00:13:48] Kevin

[00:13:49] all of

[00:13:50] us

[00:13:51] who are

[00:13:52] not

[00:13:53] a party

[00:13:54] in this

[00:13:55] case

[00:13:56] it's

[00:13:57] important

[00:13:58] to

[00:13:59] scrutinize

[00:14:00] the goal

[00:14:01] of a

[00:14:02] filing

[00:14:03] for instance

[00:14:04] in the

[00:14:05] McLean

[00:14:06] filing

[00:14:07] we just

[00:14:08] don't

[00:14:09] have a

[00:14:10] lot of

[00:14:11] time to

[00:14:12] talk about

[00:14:13] the

[00:14:14] goal

[00:14:15] of a

[00:14:16] filing

[00:14:17] for instance

[00:14:18] in the

[00:14:19] McLean

[00:14:20] filing

[00:14:21] we just

[00:14:22] don't

[00:14:23] have

[00:14:24] time to

[00:14:25] talk about

[00:14:26] the

[00:14:27] goal

[00:14:28] of a

[00:14:29] filing

[00:14:30] for instance

[00:14:31] in the

[00:14:32] McLean

[00:14:33] filing

[00:14:34] we just

[00:14:35] don't

[00:14:36] have

[00:14:37] time

[00:14:38] to

[00:14:39] talk about

[00:14:40] the

[00:14:41] goal

[00:14:42] of a

[00:14:43] filing

[00:14:44] for instance

[00:14:45] in the

[00:14:46] McLean

[00:14:47] filing

[00:14:48] we just

[00:14:49] don't

[00:14:50] have

[00:14:51] time

[00:14:52] to

[00:14:53] talk about

[00:14:54] the

[00:14:55] goal

[00:14:56] of a

[00:14:57] filing

[00:14:58] for instance

[00:14:59] in the

[00:15:00] McLean

[00:15:01] filing

[00:15:02] we just

[00:15:03] don't

[00:15:04] have

[00:15:05] time

[00:15:06] to

[00:15:07] talk about

[00:15:08] the

[00:15:09] goal

[00:15:10] of a

[00:15:11] filing

[00:15:12] for instance

[00:15:13] in the

[00:15:14] McLean

[00:15:15] filing

[00:15:16] we just

[00:15:17] don't

[00:15:18] have

[00:15:19] time

[00:15:20] to

[00:15:21] talk

[00:15:22] about

[00:15:23] the

[00:15:24] goal

[00:15:25] of a

[00:15:26] filing

[00:15:27] for instance

[00:15:28] in the

[00:15:29] McLean

[00:15:30] filing

[00:15:31] we just

[00:15:32] don't

[00:15:33] have

[00:15:34] time

[00:15:35] to

[00:15:36] talk about

[00:15:37] the

[00:15:38] goal

[00:15:39] of a

[00:15:40] filing

[00:15:41] for instance

[00:15:42] in the

[00:15:43] McLean

[00:15:44] filing

[00:15:45] we just

[00:15:46] don't

[00:15:47] have

[00:15:48] time

[00:15:49] to

[00:15:50] talk

[00:15:51] about

[00:15:52] the

[00:15:53] goal

[00:15:54] of a

[00:15:55] filing

[00:15:56] for instance

[00:15:57] in the

[00:15:58] McLean

[00:15:59] filing

[00:16:00] we just

[00:16:01] don't

[00:16:02] have

[00:16:03] time

[00:16:04] to

[00:16:05] talk

[00:16:06] about

[00:16:07] the

[00:16:08] goal

[00:16:09] of a

[00:16:10] filing

[00:16:11] for instance

[00:16:12] in the

[00:16:13] McLean

[00:16:14] filing

[00:16:15] we just

[00:16:16] don't

[00:16:17] have

[00:16:18] time

[00:16:19] to

[00:16:20] talk

[00:16:21] about

[00:16:22] the

[00:16:23] goal

[00:16:24] of a

[00:16:25] filing

[00:16:26] for instance

[00:16:27] in the

[00:16:28] McLean

[00:16:29] filing

[00:16:30] we just

[00:16:31] don't

[00:16:32] have

[00:16:33] time

[00:16:34] to

[00:16:35] talk

[00:16:36] about

[00:16:37] the

[00:16:38] goal

[00:16:39] of a

[00:16:40] filing

[00:16:41] for instance

[00:16:42] in the

[00:16:43] McLean

[00:16:44] filing

[00:16:45] we just

[00:16:46] don't

[00:16:47] have

[00:16:48] time

[00:16:49] to

[00:16:50] talk

[00:16:51] about

[00:16:52] the

[00:16:53] goal

[00:16:54] of a

[00:16:55] filing

[00:16:56] for instance

[00:16:57] in the

[00:16:58] McLean

[00:16:59] filing

[00:17:00] we just

[00:17:01] don't

[00:17:02] have

[00:17:03] time

[00:17:04] to

[00:17:05] talk

[00:17:06] about

[00:17:07] the

[00:17:08] goal

[00:17:09] of a

[00:17:10] filing

[00:17:11] for instance

[00:17:12] in the

[00:17:13] McLean

[00:17:14] filing

[00:17:15] we just

[00:17:16] don't

[00:17:17] have

[00:17:18] time

[00:17:19] to

[00:17:20] talk

[00:17:21] about

[00:17:22] the

[00:17:23] goal

[00:17:24] of a

[00:17:25] filing

[00:17:26] for instance

[00:17:27] in the

[00:17:28] McLean

[00:17:29] filing

[00:17:30] we just

[00:17:31] don't

[00:17:32] have

[00:17:33] time

[00:17:34] to

[00:17:35] talk

[00:17:36] about

[00:17:37] the

[00:17:38] goal

[00:17:39] of a

[00:17:40] filing

[00:17:41] for instance

[00:17:42] in the

[00:17:43] McLean

[00:17:44] filing

[00:17:45] we just

[00:17:46] don't

[00:17:47] have

[00:17:48] time

[00:17:49] to

[00:17:50] talk

[00:17:51] about

[00:17:52] the

[00:17:53] goal

[00:17:54] of a

[00:17:55] filing

[00:17:56] for instance

[00:17:57] in the

[00:17:58] McLean

[00:17:59] filing

[00:18:00] we just

[00:18:01] don't

[00:18:02] have

[00:18:03] time

[00:18:04] to

[00:18:05] talk

[00:18:06] about

[00:18:07] the

[00:18:08] goal

[00:18:09] of a

[00:18:10] filing

[00:18:11] for instance

[00:18:12] in the

[00:18:13] McLean

[00:18:14] filing

[00:18:15] we just

[00:18:16] don't

[00:18:17] have

[00:18:18] time

[00:18:19] to

[00:18:20] talk

[00:18:21] about

[00:18:22] the

[00:18:23] goal

[00:18:24] of a

[00:18:25] filing

[00:18:26] for instance

[00:18:27] in the

[00:18:28] McLean

[00:18:29] filing

[00:18:30] we just

[00:18:31] don't

[00:18:32] have

[00:18:33] time

[00:18:34] to

[00:18:35] talk

[00:18:36] about

[00:18:37] the

[00:18:38] goal

[00:18:39] of a

[00:18:40] filing

[00:18:41] for instance

[00:18:42] in the

[00:18:43] McLean

[00:18:44] filing

[00:18:45] we just

[00:18:46] don't

[00:18:47] have

[00:18:48] time

[00:18:49] to

[00:18:50] talk

[00:18:51] about

[00:18:52] the

[00:18:53] goal

[00:18:54] of a

[00:18:55] filing

[00:18:56] for instance

[00:18:57] in the

[00:18:58] McLean

[00:18:59] filing

[00:19:00] we just

[00:19:01] don't

[00:19:02] have

[00:19:03] time

[00:19:04] to

[00:19:05] talk

[00:19:06] about

[00:19:07] the

[00:19:08] goal

[00:19:09] of a

[00:19:10] filing

[00:19:11] for instance

[00:19:12] in the

[00:19:13] McLean

[00:19:14] filing

[00:19:15] we just

[00:19:16] don't

[00:19:17] have

[00:19:18] time

[00:19:19] to

[00:19:20] talk

[00:19:21] about

[00:19:22] the

[00:19:23] goal

[00:19:24] of a

[00:19:25] filing

[00:19:26] for instance

[00:19:27] in the

[00:19:28] McLean

[00:19:29] filing

[00:19:30] we just

[00:19:31] don't

[00:19:32] have

[00:19:33] time

[00:19:34] to

[00:19:35] talk

[00:19:36] about

[00:19:37] the

[00:19:38] goal

[00:19:39] of a

[00:19:40] filing

[00:19:41] for instance

[00:19:42] in the

[00:19:43] McLean

[00:19:44] filing

[00:19:45] we just

[00:19:46] don't

[00:19:47] have

[00:19:48] time

[00:19:49] to

[00:19:50] talk

[00:19:51] about

[00:19:52] the

[00:19:53] goal

[00:19:54] of a

[00:19:55] filing

[00:19:56] for instance

[00:19:57] in the

[00:19:58] McLean

[00:19:59] filing

[00:20:00] we just

[00:20:01] don't

[00:20:02] have

[00:20:03] time

[00:20:04] to

[00:20:05] talk

[00:20:06] about

[00:20:07] the

[00:20:08] goal

[00:20:09] of a

[00:20:10] filing

[00:20:11] for instance

[00:20:12] in the

[00:20:13] McLean

[00:20:14] filing

[00:20:15] we just

[00:20:16] don't

[00:20:17] have

[00:20:18] time

[00:20:19] to

[00:20:20] talk

[00:20:21] about

[00:20:22] the

[00:20:23] goal

[00:20:24] of a

[00:20:25] filing

[00:20:26] for instance

[00:20:27] in the

[00:20:28] McLean

[00:20:29] filing

[00:20:30] we just

[00:20:31] don't

[00:20:32] have

[00:20:33] time

[00:20:34] to

[00:20:35] talk

[00:20:36] about

[00:20:37] the

[00:20:38] goal

[00:20:39] of a

[00:20:40] filing

[00:20:41] for instance

[00:20:42] in the

[00:20:43] McLean

[00:20:44] filing

[00:20:45] we just

[00:20:46] don't

[00:20:47] have

[00:20:48] time

[00:20:49] to

[00:20:50] talk

[00:20:51] about

[00:20:52] the

[00:20:53] goal

[00:20:54] of a

[00:20:55] filing

[00:20:56] for instance

[00:20:57] in the

[00:20:58] McLean

[00:20:59] filing

[00:21:00] we just

[00:21:01] don't

[00:21:02] have

[00:21:03] time

[00:21:04] to

[00:21:05] talk

[00:21:06] about

[00:21:07] the

[00:21:08] goal

[00:21:09] of a

[00:21:10] filing

[00:21:11] for instance

[00:21:12] in the

[00:21:13] McLean

[00:21:14] filing

[00:21:15] we just

[00:21:16] don't

[00:21:17] have

[00:21:18] time

[00:21:19] to

[00:21:20] talk

[00:21:21] about

[00:21:22] the

[00:21:23] goal

[00:21:24] of a

[00:21:25] filing

[00:21:26] for instance

[00:21:27] in the

[00:21:28] McLean

[00:21:29] filing

[00:21:30] we just

[00:21:31] don't

[00:21:32] have

[00:21:33] time

[00:21:34] to

[00:21:35] talk

[00:21:36] about

[00:21:37] the

[00:21:38] goal

[00:21:39] of a

[00:21:40] filing

[00:21:41] for instance

[00:21:42] in the

[00:21:43] McLean

[00:21:44] filing

[00:21:45] we just

[00:21:46] don't

[00:21:47] have

[00:21:48] time

[00:21:49] to

[00:21:50] talk

[00:21:51] about

[00:21:52] the

[00:21:53] goal

[00:21:54] of a

[00:21:55] filing

[00:21:56] for instance

[00:21:57] in the

[00:21:58] McLean

[00:21:59] filing

[00:22:00] we just

[00:22:01] don't

[00:22:02] have

[00:22:03] time

[00:22:04] to

[00:22:05] talk

[00:22:06] about

[00:22:07] the

[00:22:08] goal

[00:22:09] of a

[00:22:10] filing

[00:22:11] for instance

[00:22:12] in the

[00:22:13] McLean

[00:22:14] filing

[00:22:15] we just

[00:22:16] don't

[00:22:17] have

[00:22:18] time

[00:22:19] to

[00:22:20] talk

[00:22:21] about

[00:22:22] the

[00:22:23] goal

[00:22:24] of a

[00:22:25] filing

[00:22:26] for instance

[00:22:27] in the

[00:22:28] McLean

[00:22:29] filing

[00:22:30] we just

[00:22:31] don't

[00:22:32] have

[00:22:33] time

[00:22:34] to

[00:22:35] talk

[00:22:36] about

[00:22:37] the

[00:22:38] goal

[00:22:39] of a

[00:22:40] filing

[00:22:41] for instance

[00:22:42] in the

[00:22:43] McLean

[00:22:44] filing

[00:22:45] we just

[00:22:46] don't

[00:22:47] have

[00:22:48] time

[00:22:49] to

[00:22:50] talk

[00:22:51] about

[00:22:52] the

[00:22:53] goal

[00:22:54] of a

[00:22:55] filing

[00:22:56] for instance

[00:22:57] in the

[00:22:58] McLean

[00:22:59] filing

[00:23:00] we just

[00:23:01] don't

[00:23:02] have

[00:23:03] time

[00:23:04] to

[00:23:05] talk

[00:23:06] about

[00:23:07] the

[00:23:08] goal

[00:23:09] of a

[00:23:10] filing

[00:23:11] for instance

[00:23:12] in the

[00:23:13] McLean

[00:23:14] filing

[00:23:15] we just

[00:23:16] don't

[00:23:17] have

[00:23:18] time

[00:23:19] to

[00:23:20] talk

[00:23:21] about

[00:23:22] the

[00:23:23] goal

[00:23:24] of a

[00:23:25] filing

[00:23:26] for instance

[00:23:27] in the

[00:23:28] McLean

[00:23:29] filing

[00:23:30] we just

[00:23:31] don't

[00:23:32] have

[00:23:33] time

[00:23:34] to

[00:23:35] talk

[00:23:36] about

[00:23:37] the

[00:23:38] goal

[00:23:39] of a

[00:23:40] filing

[00:23:41] for instance

[00:23:42] in the

[00:23:43] McLean

[00:23:44] filing

[00:23:45] we just

[00:23:46] don't

[00:23:47] have

[00:23:48] time

[00:23:49] to

[00:23:50] talk

[00:23:51] about

[00:23:52] the

[00:23:53] goal

[00:23:54] of a

[00:23:55] filing

[00:23:56] for instance

[00:23:57] in the

[00:23:58] McLean

[00:23:59] filing

[00:24:00] we just

[00:24:01] don't

[00:24:02] have

[00:24:03] time

[00:24:04] to

[00:24:05] talk

[00:24:06] about

[00:24:07] the

[00:24:08] goal

[00:24:09] of a

[00:24:10] filing

[00:24:11] for instance

[00:24:12] in the

[00:24:13] McLean

[00:24:14] filing

[00:24:15] we just

[00:24:16] don't

[00:24:18] have

[00:24:19] time

[00:24:20] to

[00:24:21] talk

[00:24:22] about

[00:24:23] the

[00:24:24] goal

[00:24:25] of a

[00:24:26] filing

[00:24:27] for instance

[00:24:28] in the

[00:24:29] McLean

[00:24:30] filing

[00:24:31] we just

[00:24:32] don't

[00:24:33] have

[00:24:34] time

[00:24:35] to

[00:24:36] talk

[00:24:37] about

[00:24:38] the

[00:24:39] goal

[00:24:40] of a

[00:24:41] filing

[00:24:42] for instance

[00:24:43] in the

[00:24:44] McLean

[00:24:45] filing

[00:24:46] we just

[00:24:47] don't

[00:24:48] have

[00:24:49] time

[00:24:50] to

[00:24:51] talk

[00:24:52] about

[00:24:53] the

[00:24:54] goal

[00:24:55] of a

[00:24:56] filing

[00:24:57] for instance

[00:24:58] in the

[00:24:59] McLean

[00:25:00] filing

[00:25:01] we just

[00:25:02] don't

[00:25:03] have

[00:25:04] time

[00:25:05] to

[00:25:06] talk

[00:25:07] about

[00:25:08] the

[00:25:09] goal

[00:25:10] of a

[00:25:11] filing

[00:25:12] for instance

[00:25:13] in the

[00:25:14] McLean

[00:25:15] filing

[00:25:16] we just

[00:25:17] don't

[00:25:18] have

[00:25:19] time

[00:25:20] to

[00:25:21] talk

[00:25:22] about

[00:25:23] the

[00:25:24] goal

[00:25:25] of a

[00:25:26] filing

[00:25:27] for instance

[00:25:28] in the

[00:25:29] McLean

[00:25:30] filing

[00:25:31] we just

[00:25:32] don't

[00:25:33] have

[00:25:34] time

[00:25:35] to

[00:25:36] talk

[00:25:37] about

[00:25:38] the

[00:25:39] goal

[00:25:40] of a

[00:25:41] filing

[00:25:42] for instance

[00:25:43] in the

[00:25:44] McLean

[00:25:45] filing

[00:25:46] for instance

[00:25:47] in the

[00:25:48] McLean

[00:25:49] filing

[00:25:50] we just

[00:25:51] don't

[00:25:52] have

[00:25:53] time

[00:25:54] to

[00:25:55] talk

[00:25:56] about

[00:25:57] the

[00:25:58] goal

[00:25:59] of a

[00:26:00] filing

[00:26:01] for instance

[00:26:02] in the

[00:26:03] McLean

[00:26:04] filing

[00:26:05] we just

[00:26:06] don't

[00:26:07] have

[00:26:08] time

[00:26:09] to

[00:26:10] talk

[00:26:11] about

[00:26:12] the

[00:26:13] goal

[00:26:44] of a

[00:26:45] filing

[00:26:46] for instance

[00:26:47] in the

[00:26:48] McLean

[00:26:49] filing

[00:26:50] for instance

[00:26:51] in the

[00:26:52] McLean

[00:26:53] filing

[00:26:54] for instance

[00:26:55] in the

[00:26:56] McLean

[00:26:57] filing

[00:26:58] for instance

[00:26:59] in the

[00:27:00] McLean

[00:27:01] file

[00:27:02] we just

[00:27:03] don't

[00:27:04] have

[00:27:05] time

[00:27:06] to

[00:27:07] talk

[00:27:08] about

[00:27:09] the

[00:27:10] goal

[00:27:11] of a

[00:27:12] filing

[00:27:13] in a looser way than if they were making formal public statements.

[00:27:16] Why don't you explain that statement, why you said that?

[00:27:21] They make a lot of hay out of the fact that Doug Carter referred to Brad Holder as a suspect

[00:27:26] in emails to FBI agent Jay Abbott.

[00:27:30] Who was then, I think, the head of the Indianapolis FBI. And yeah, I guess I'm just like,

[00:27:37] OK, I would say like who is a suspect in the case in 2017?

[00:27:41] I would say Ron Logan. Ron Logan was the man who owned the property where the bodies were found.

[00:27:46] He had allegations in his past about abusing female partners.

[00:27:52] He was heavily investigated by authorities. They served search warrants on his house.

[00:28:00] He got thrown in jail over probation violations.

[00:28:03] They came at that man hard and perhaps for good reason.

[00:28:08] If he had a violent history and he was there and he lied about where he was,

[00:28:13] he had some story about his cousin driving him to a fish store and then that didn't pan out.

[00:28:18] So, I mean, I could understand why he would be. I would call that a suspect.

[00:28:22] But we're not aware of any probable cause that was gotten on Brad Holder.

[00:28:29] I think you have to talk to everyone who gets tipped in, at least in those early days.

[00:28:33] You don't want to miss anything, but that doesn't mean everyone's rising to the same level.

[00:28:37] They also find it odd that there was no phone extraction of Brad Holder's phone,

[00:28:44] but his son Logan's phone is the subject of a phone extraction.

[00:28:50] His son Logan is in some sort of a personal relationship with Abby Williams.

[00:28:56] It is an unfortunate fact, but a true fact that often when a woman or a girl in this country

[00:29:04] undergoes violence or murder, the person responsible for it is someone close to her,

[00:29:10] like a boyfriend or a husband. And so it's kind of a basic investigative 101.

[00:29:17] In those circumstances, you look at the boyfriend, you look at the husband pretty carefully.

[00:29:23] It makes the most sense in the world that they would want her

[00:29:26] alleged boyfriend's information more so than his father, who had an alibi.

[00:29:31] Like, let's not forget the alibi, folks. I mean, that's pretty.

[00:29:36] That is pretty bad. That is pretty bad for this defense argument.

[00:29:40] I'm going to read the concluding paragraph from this particular section.

[00:29:45] The defense believes that the above information provides strong circumstantial evidence the law

[00:29:50] enforcement did extract the data from Brad Holder's phone on February 17, 2017,

[00:29:55] and has not turned it over to the defense. Logic and common sense support this belief.

[00:30:00] If law enforcement failed to extract suspect Brad Holder's phone data while it was in their hands

[00:30:05] on February 17, 2017, then the only other explanation would be the law enforcement

[00:30:10] was completely and utterly inept. So in other words, we don't know if they have it,

[00:30:16] but they should be punished for not giving it to us. And if they don't have it, well,

[00:30:19] they're just dumb. I really feel like this these paragraphs sort of creep into maybe something

[00:30:26] that you could just find to be like a vehement argument into conspiratorial thinking. You're

[00:30:31] saying without evidence that they must have. They must be hiding this crucial evidence,

[00:30:37] what's your evidence for that, that you didn't get it, then there's an alternate

[00:30:41] perspective that it just was never collected because it was never considered as important

[00:30:45] because this is a bad theory and law enforcement dismissed it quickly, which they're very much

[00:30:51] have the right to do. So it's like most of their argument around this just is you don't agree with

[00:30:58] our theory and you think it sucks and that's you shouldn't you should think it's great like we do.

[00:31:03] And it's like they're not obligated to do that. They're obligated to go where the facts lead them.

[00:31:08] And if you're going to take the huge step of dismissing a case, you need there to be

[00:31:15] solid evidence of wrongdoing. And that has to rise above a level of saying, well, we think

[00:31:22] they might have this information and if they do have it, they didn't give it to us.

[00:31:26] Yeah, it's it's it this is

[00:31:28] That's just speculation.

[00:31:30] This is very, very weak and disturbing to again, to see it lapse into such

[00:31:36] conspiratorial thinking because I just feel like that has never served this defense team

[00:31:41] particularly well.

[00:31:43] Along similar lines where they're upset about things where they seem to have little evidence

[00:31:48] behind them. Brad Holder says that he was interrogated at some point for an extended

[00:31:58] period at the Logan's Port Police Station. He said it took about an hour and a half.

[00:32:05] And the police have not turned over to the defense any records about this interrogation.

[00:32:15] And essentially, as far as I can tell, the only evidence we have to this interrogation

[00:32:24] ever happened was the word of Brad Holder, who the defense generally says is not someone

[00:32:29] to be trusted.

[00:32:31] Or who doesn't seem to exactly have a firm recollection on what happened to his phone

[00:32:35] during that initial interview. I mean, like if he's not even completely sure about that,

[00:32:41] then I wonder, is it possible he's making an error here? He's conflating two events.

[00:32:45] Is it possible that it happened? But it was with you know, we've heard about kind of almost

[00:32:51] splinter groups from the investigation, like the one involving Todd Click, Greta Ferenczi

[00:32:56] and Kevin Murphy. They were looking into the Odinism thing. So were there other groups

[00:33:01] going around doing that? I mean, I would hope not. That feels like it would be getting pretty

[00:33:04] disorganized, which I think is worthy of criticism. But I also, you know, I don't,

[00:33:12] I don't know. It just, this all seems like reaching.

[00:33:16] And again, Jerry Holman, who is one of the people running the investigation for the

[00:33:23] Indiana State Police, according to this document, he doesn't really seem to know

[00:33:28] about this alleged interview between Mr. Holder and whoever I'm quoting from the document,

[00:33:36] quote, in a recent deposition when Unified Command's Jerry Holman was asked about how

[00:33:41] the defense could obtain any information about this second interview. Holman said he had no

[00:33:46] idea but encouraged the defense to reach out to the Logan Sport PD to find out, end quote.

[00:33:52] So it appears that Holman doesn't have information about this alleged interview.

[00:33:56] And again, the only reason we have to think that it happened at all is Brad Holder.

[00:34:01] Kim Steele Yeah. I guess I would want more than

[00:34:05] his statement at this point to conclusively lock down that because I don't...

[00:34:11] David Schoenfeld I would think if it happened,

[00:34:14] your suggestion that maybe it was Click and Ferenczi and Murphy would make sense. I would also

[00:34:20] assume there would be some sort of record at Logan Sport over who is being talked to in their

[00:34:27] interrogation rooms. Police are professionals. They know that most things they do may potentially

[00:34:34] be discussed in a courtroom, in a trial setting. So they keep very good records. So I would assume

[00:34:41] the Logan Sport PD would have a record of who was in certain interrogation rooms at

[00:34:46] their police station at certain times. Kim Steele

[00:34:48] I'm just not convinced this even happened. Anyways, so there's a lot of hay made about

[00:34:58] discrepancies, alleged discrepancies about Holder meeting Abby Williams.

[00:35:02] David Schoenfeld He apparently at different times has had

[00:35:05] slightly different recollections of the number of times he met Abby Williams.

[00:35:12] Kim Steele And quote,

[00:35:14] also at said May 2nd, 2024 deposition, Brad Holder told a third different story concerning how many

[00:35:20] he met victim Abigail Williams two times, and that one of Brad Holder's meetings with Abby

[00:35:25] Williams took place at Patrick Westfall's house. David Schoenfeld

[00:35:29] So from an odinous did it standpoint, that's potentially chilling. But keep in mind that

[00:35:35] Abby and Libby were friends with the sons of Holder and Westfall. So it's not really

[00:35:40] surprising that they might be at their homes. Kim Steele

[00:35:43] The side that's saying they're friends with those kids is the defense side. So they kind

[00:35:47] of explain their own, you know. I mean, I don't know. Somebody going to somebody's house is not

[00:35:53] exactly bombshell to me. I think some of these things they kind of, I mean, we can get into it

[00:35:59] later if you want. But I mean, I think I should say here a lot of these feel like the defense

[00:36:03] intends to have these punctuated by like scary organ music behind it. And I think that there

[00:36:09] may be a reason for that strategically. David Schoenfeld

[00:36:11] Man, that sunset is gorgeous. Kim Steele

[00:36:14] Grill, patio, sunset. Hard to get better than that. Unless you're browsing Carvana's inventory

[00:36:20] while you soak it all in. David Schoenfeld

[00:36:22] Burger time. Kim Steele

[00:36:24] So sit back, get comfortable. Carvana's got thousands of cars under $20,000 just waiting

[00:36:29] for you. David Schoenfeld

[00:36:30] I could stay here forever. Kim Steele

[00:36:32] Carvana. Where car buying meets comfort meets convenience. Download the app or visit

[00:36:37] carvana.com today. David Schoenfeld

[00:36:42] Okay, picture this. It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you. I can spend another

[00:36:48] weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit

[00:36:53] the road. With available H-track all wheel drive and three row seating, my whole family

[00:36:58] can head deep into the wild. Conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:37:03] Visit hyundaiusa.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Hyundai. There's joy in every journey.

[00:37:12] Okay, picture this. It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you. I can spend another

[00:37:18] weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit

[00:37:23] the road. With available H-track all wheel drive and three row seating, my whole family

[00:37:28] can head deep into the wild. Conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:37:33] Visit hyundaiusa.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details.

[00:37:39] Hyundai. There's joy in every journey.

[00:37:41] We're coming up on a argument about whether odinism is even going to be allowed into this

[00:37:47] trial at all. So I think you suggested this when we were talking earlier when we were

[00:37:52] planning this episode. Yeah, if the judge ultimately makes rulings limiting the discussion

[00:37:58] of odinism in this proceeding, it might be more challenging for them to include details

[00:38:05] about the odinism theory in their filings. So there's an argument like let's go for broke now.

[00:38:11] Let's jettison all this so we can stir up our online base that we seem to be catering

[00:38:16] most of these arguments to and go for broke at the last minute because we might – this

[00:38:23] theory may be so flimsy that it's actually not – it's literally laughed out of court.

[00:38:28] And again, this is a team that has been very intent on optics and managing optics, managing

[00:38:35] a narrative, managing the press, managing the online cranks. And we know that the court

[00:38:40] of public opinion is very, very important to them. So how do you get some of this stuff

[00:38:45] out there? You do some filings before the curtain falls.

[00:38:48] And again, they make an awful lot of hay out of the fact that Brad Holder at different

[00:38:54] times had said, oh, I met Abby once. No, I met her twice. Maybe I met her three times.

[00:39:00] And so they asked Lieutenant Holman in the deposition about this. And I'm going to read

[00:39:07] from the document, quote,

[00:39:09] Holman showed no curiosity, no interest whatsoever about why Holder's stories have changed.

[00:39:16] This attitude supports an argument which defense will later make in this motion.

[00:39:20] The law enforcement have acted intentionally or in bad faith to conceal evidence to such

[00:39:25] a degree that they cannot even admit obvious factual inconsistencies that point the finger

[00:39:31] at third-party suspects, end quote.

[00:39:34] So Holman in this situation basically not thinking it's a big deal that a guy doesn't

[00:39:38] remember how many times he met his teenage son's girlfriend or alleged girlfriend years

[00:39:44] ago is a sign that Holman is lying and acting in bad faith, I guess, to cover up for Brad

[00:39:49] Holder and presumably the other Odinus. That seems like a stretch.

[00:39:53] I posit that maybe you agree with Holman that it's not a big deal if a guy misremembers

[00:40:00] how many times he met his son's friend. He said Holman says that's not a big deal.

[00:40:06] Maybe you agree with Holman, maybe you disagree with Holman. But I think that's not an

[00:40:11] unreasonable position.

[00:40:12] I think you can make an argument whether or not you agree with Holman. I think that

[00:40:16] either way, I mean, I can understand thinking, no, it would be a big deal. It's a big case.

[00:40:20] Why wouldn't you remember that? I mean, in my own experience, we've talked to people

[00:40:23] on other high-profile cases and you would be shocked by how selective memory can be,

[00:40:30] frankly. And that's not always because someone's sketchy, but it's because they have other

[00:40:34] stuff going on in their lives and it's not necessarily top of mind for them or what

[00:40:39] have you. There's any number of reasons that can happen.

[00:40:42] So you can be skeptical or you could believe it's suspicious or you could believe it's

[00:40:45] not a big deal. But I guess my issue here is that when you're taking that, I think

[00:40:51] if I'm arguing that both sides could be reasonable, I could see both sides, then acting like having

[00:40:57] one opinion must be a sign of bad faith, I think itself is a sign of bad faith because

[00:41:02] I think it's, again, it's like this like trying to crucify people for not agreeing with

[00:41:07] your Odinus theory, which...

[00:41:08] Marc Thiessen And if they don't agree with your theory,

[00:41:11] then that somehow proves that they themselves are part of the conspiracy.

[00:41:14] They're part of the Odinus conspiracy.

[00:41:16] David And the problem with that is that when you

[00:41:19] look at the number of people who don't agree with the theory, are they all covering for

[00:41:24] their friends in the conspiracy? It's like you can never disprove a conspiracy because

[00:41:30] the fact that there's no evidence of the conspiracy is itself proof that it's a good

[00:41:33] conspiracy. But meanwhile, in order for it to work, the conspiracy has to grow larger

[00:41:39] and larger and larger. And it's not at all clear to me as to why Holman or Carter or

[00:41:46] Lezenby or Liggett, why they would be so interested in potentially jettisoning their whole careers

[00:41:54] to protect Brad Holder. Are they that into Odinism?

[00:41:57] Marc Thiessen Yeah, is everyone into Odinism? Are we into

[00:41:59] Odinism? I mean, is anyone who's expressed any skepticism about Richard Allen's innocence

[00:42:06] into Odinism at this point? I mean, there's only so many times you can trot that out before

[00:42:11] it starts to sound ridiculous. And this is what I have an issue with. If you want to

[00:42:15] go and say, hey, law enforcement made these mistakes. They're bumbling fools. You know,

[00:42:20] if they made these mistakes, what other mistakes did they make? You know, I mean,

[00:42:23] that's a good argument. I mean, like, you could do that. That's fine. You know, but

[00:42:27] when you're attributing malice, you know, when you're attributing everything to some

[00:42:31] malice or some kind of barely implied conspiracy theory, it just makes your argument just look

[00:42:37] stupid. It's just not this is not how you should do this. And frankly, it's not even

[00:42:42] how you should unroll a lot of these this information because I think you'd be better

[00:42:47] holding some of these things that you could trot out as really big mistakes that you could hang

[00:42:52] around law enforcement's neck at trial and make them look bad. And they won't be prepared for

[00:42:57] it in the same way as when you're just endlessly repeating things in filings. I mean, it's not

[00:43:02] even about like what's fair or what's good. It's about what's good for your client. And I really

[00:43:07] don't see how, you know, there's a concept of like, hold your fire, you know, like, don't just

[00:43:12] start shooting randomly and give away your position. The next thing they discuss is Patrick

[00:43:20] Westfall, who after he was contacted by the police in August of 2023, apparently deleted all the data

[00:43:28] of his phone. I have two minds about this one. These guys have made so many errors talking about

[00:43:36] technology that I'm actually not even willing to necessarily just take that at face value. I mean,

[00:43:42] they didn't know what geofencing was. They didn't know what phone pings are. I'm just

[00:43:46] I don't know then that if they're correct, if he did delete that, I think that's sketchy and I

[00:43:51] don't like that. It's odd. And that's not a good look. I mean, and also it's not very smart to turn

[00:43:57] in your phone having just deleted everything. So, I mean, either just don't turn it in like you can't

[00:44:02] have it both ways. You know, just say my privacy is being violated. I'm not going to do it or

[00:44:07] or do it and have it all in there. So are you saying this in your mind proves that Westfall

[00:44:12] had information on his phone about the murders? No, there's a lot of reasons why you would

[00:44:16] delete stuff off your phone before turning into police. You can have, you know, drug stuff, nudes,

[00:44:22] porn, otherwise embarrassing things, proof of some personal indiscretions. I mean, it's definitely

[00:44:29] it's a terrible look. I don't that doesn't prove Odinism. That doesn't prove the Odinist theory.

[00:44:34] It's just something that is not good. And I can understand why they're making a big deal about it.

[00:44:43] There was another point I had a little bit trouble following. So David Vito of the ISP

[00:44:51] re-interviewed Brad Holder on August 30th, 2023. And at that interview, he did not extract Holder's

[00:45:01] phone data. And that's supposed to be a suggestion that Vito, I guess, is also part of the conspiracy.

[00:45:07] And so my question here is, didn't the defense just argue a page or two ago that this phone

[00:45:15] information was actually extracted years ago and then covered up? So if they already had the phone

[00:45:21] extraction, according to the defense, why would they need it again? And alternatively,

[00:45:27] if the investigators are pretty convinced that Holder has a really solid alibi, why would they

[00:45:35] need to extract the phone? Don't you find it suspicious that police didn't take the cell

[00:45:41] phones of every male in Indiana back in 2017 and extract all of their data? Isn't that kind

[00:45:46] of weird? Do you think they just didn't want to find where the Odinists were? That's what I think.

[00:45:50] Nathan Reifenberg

[00:45:51] He's being sarcastic.

[00:45:52] Tess Terrible People are going to be like,

[00:45:53] Ania's lost it.

[00:45:54] Nathan Reifenberg

[00:45:55] Sometimes it's important to point it out when we're being sarcastic.

[00:45:58] Tess Terrible That's fair.

[00:45:58] Nathan Reifenberg

[00:45:58] Because there's certainly been things I've said on the show.

[00:46:00] Tess Terrible I think you have a more dry

[00:46:01] sense of humor than I do. I think I'm more ridiculous, hopefully. But either way, I just

[00:46:07] think there's a concept that people have privacy rights. And if you're very much on the radar,

[00:46:16] then there's ways of getting information, whether it's voluntary or you have a warrant or whatnot.

[00:46:21] But in the early days of an investigation, if someone comes up because they have some

[00:46:25] sketchy Facebook posts and because their son may or may not be dating Abby Williams,

[00:46:31] that's not necessarily a green light to go kick down their door,

[00:46:38] seize their phone, drag everything about them out into the sunlight. If they're cooperating,

[00:46:47] I don't know. It's like they wanted a more draconian reaction to some of this stuff,

[00:46:50] just because now they think that these guys are guilty.

[00:46:53] Nathan Reifenberg

[00:46:55] The next point is the so-called mimicked crime scene photos. Do you want to discuss that?

[00:47:00] Tess Terrible So I don't really want to get into anything.

[00:47:04] Nathan Reifenberg What is it? What are the

[00:47:05] mimic crime scene photos?

[00:47:06] Tess Terrible These were crime scene photos

[00:47:08] that apparently were on Brad Holder's Facebook.

[00:47:11] Nathan Reifenberg They were mimicked.

[00:47:11] Tess Terrible Mimicked. Okay, let's not even call them that because they're,

[00:47:14] I'll talk about how I feel about it. What they're talking about is an image that the defense claims

[00:47:19] is a mimicked image that resembles the crime scene photos or the crime scene images of the

[00:47:29] girls. And what they're talking about is, I mean, should I explain what it is? Is that what you

[00:47:38] wanted me to say? So I don't really want to get that much into this because this gets into

[00:47:42] the leak of crime scene pictures, which never should have happened from the defense.

[00:47:47] And —

[00:47:47] Nathan Reifenberg We don't have to get into all the details,

[00:47:49] but basically they posit that these so-called mimic crime scene pictures have girls lying down

[00:47:56] with sticks on them and supposedly in positions similar to the bodies of Abby and Libby.

[00:48:03] Tess Terrible I'm going to just say it's my opinion that

[00:48:05] it's not just that mimicked is doing heavy lifting in this sentence. It's that it actually

[00:48:09] mimicked — the word mimicked is crushed under the sheer weight of the burden it is attempting to carry.

[00:48:16] So that's how I feel about that.

[00:48:18] Nathan Reifenberg Can you elaborate on that?

[00:48:19] Tess Terrible I think it's a stretch to say that. I think

[00:48:22] what they're claiming is a stretch. I mean, if you want an example of what I'm talking about,

[00:48:26] when we previously did an episode with somebody who did an amazing job, who just basically went

[00:48:31] through Holder and Fields — and Elvis Fields of social media, they're two people who are

[00:48:35] allegedly in this odinous ring. And he basically compiled all of the images referenced by the

[00:48:42] defense in the first Franks memorandum and went through it. And so many things that they claimed

[00:48:50] looked identical did not. Some of them had superficial similarities, and some of them

[00:48:56] really look different. And I'm talking about there was one instance where Fields and Holder both had

[00:49:01] pictures where they were holding arrowheads. They look totally different. It's like that's a pretty

[00:49:06] common style of picture if you're into finding arrowheads, which some people are. I mean,

[00:49:12] I have a picture that's like that on my Facebook. I swear to God, I'm not an odinous here.

[00:49:21] This defense team is willing to stretch the facts to the point where it just almost becomes

[00:49:25] ridiculous. And I guess stretch the facts is probably a nice way of putting it as far as

[00:49:30] I'm concerned. This is just my opinion. David Scheffer

[00:49:32] And then it just is a bit of color. This really isn't super relevant. The defense found out

[00:49:38] about this photo, however you want to describe it, from an internet sleuth in Georgia,

[00:49:47] at which point the defense drove down to Georgia to get the picture from this internet sleuth.

[00:49:55] And why didn't they just have the guy email it to them?

[00:49:58] Emily Cernich Maybe they think the

[00:49:59] odinous are running the email too. They'll intercept it.

[00:50:02] David Schaffer It seems odd. If I need like a

[00:50:05] receipt from a business in like Chicago for something I bought, I'm not gonna like drive

[00:50:11] up to Chicago to get the receipt. I'm going to have it either mail or email to me.

[00:50:15] Emily Cernich Well, I guess when you don't

[00:50:17] drive to Georgia, then you can't expense a Georgia hotel.

[00:50:20] David Schaffer It just seems odd.

[00:50:22] Emily Cernich I think it's bizarre. I think it's embarrassing

[00:50:25] that they continue to cite internet sleuths in their filings. I don't think that's necessary.

[00:50:32] I just think that's been something that's baffled me for a long time. They've cited

[00:50:37] YouTubers, they cite this guy. This is not what you really want from a defense team.

[00:50:44] They have their own investigators. Maybe just even if you're getting it from internet sleuths,

[00:50:51] maybe just talk about what your investigator uncovered. I just think it looks inept.

[00:50:56] David Schaffer Then they have a list of,

[00:50:59] there's a bunch of evidence that we think might exist. We don't have proof it exists,

[00:51:03] but we think there's evidence exists like this alleged phone extraction.

[00:51:08] We haven't gotten it. Isn't it odd that all this information that we think exists,

[00:51:13] that we haven't gotten it, it all relates to Bradley Holder?

[00:51:21] Brad Holder is their suspect.

[00:51:23] Emily Cernich I don't think they're going through

[00:51:24] and cataloging everything involving Keg and Klein here.

[00:51:28] David Schaffer If they did, I'm sure they could make a case that,

[00:51:30] oh, we think this particular bit of evidence must exist about Keg and Klein. So yeah,

[00:51:34] I didn't find that too compelling. Emily Cernich

[00:51:36] And I'm going to just say this. This is one issue I've had with this defense team.

[00:51:40] I think they've actually made some okay points in here, believe it or not. I mean,

[00:51:43] it's the different aspects of this. You could say the law enforcement was sloppy. They didn't

[00:51:48] preserve this right. They didn't handle this right. They should have been more aggressive.

[00:51:52] You can make that argument. I don't think that's necessarily a bad argument. I think

[00:51:56] you could do that and you can make some hay of it. You're not going to get the case dismissed over

[00:52:00] it, but you could actually go somewhere with that. But the problem that I have is they take

[00:52:04] the kernels of a good idea that could be helpful for Croft, that could be helpful with explaining

[00:52:09] the situation to the jury, could be actually helpful to Richard Allen. And then they mix it

[00:52:13] into this big batter of logical leaps, logical fallacies, extreme assumptions, bad faith

[00:52:21] assumptions, and they just lose it. They just lose whatever point they were trying to make

[00:52:29] because they're putting too much weight on it, on what they have. And I think that's a problem.

[00:52:37] I don't think that's good for Richard Allen. I don't think that's good defense work. I think

[00:52:43] when you're losing kind of the point of what you're even getting at because you're just

[00:52:47] falling into this conspiracy theory, I think you're just doing a bad job and you're failing

[00:52:52] your client. That's my opinion. I'm not going to pretend like I feel otherwise.

[00:52:56] Nathan Rees Right. So what's next?

[00:52:58] Tess Terrible Next, we get into, well, we talked about

[00:53:04] the Doug Carter thing. We talked about suspect versus person of interest. Oh, this is why are

[00:53:10] they – okay, this made me feel like I was hurtling back in time. So –

[00:53:16] Nathan Rees The greatest hits album.

[00:53:17] Tess Terrible The greatest frigging hits album. I actually,

[00:53:19] I grew up on my parents' best of the 80s, best of the 70s CDs. That's why my musical taste is the

[00:53:26] way it is, I think. And I remember I loved our best of ABBA and our best of Fleetwood Mac CDs. So

[00:53:33] I have a more positive view of those. But I think when you're expecting new stuff and you're just

[00:53:39] getting the same old thing, it's very frustrating. So this is – they bring up Tobe Lesenby,

[00:53:46] the former sheriff of Carroll County. So what do they have to say about him?

[00:53:50] Nathan Rees Oh, before that, yeah, they talked about –

[00:53:52] Tess Terrible Oh, before that. I'm sorry.

[00:53:53] Nathan Rees You completely –

[00:53:54] Tess Terrible I'm skipping some tracks, if you will.

[00:53:55] Nathan Rees Yes, they brought – they talked

[00:53:57] about the Click letter. They talk about Jeff Turco. So these are the things that were the

[00:54:01] greatest hits. Tess Terrible

[00:54:02] So the Click letter was Todd Click wrote a letter to the prosecutor saying, hey,

[00:54:07] I think it's actually the Odinists. And they're claiming they didn't give that to us quickly.

[00:54:12] And as we've talked about on the show in the past, if McLeelan turned over – the Click letter is

[00:54:18] just essentially citing other things that were in investigative files. It's just a guy's opinion.

[00:54:26] So having that other information and the ability to contact Click themselves,

[00:54:33] it's not a discovery violation, seemingly. What they've described, it's just – they continue to

[00:54:39] make a big deal of this, and then they make a big deal. This is inexplicable.

[00:54:43] Nathan Rees It'd be like if Anya went shopping,

[00:54:45] and she shows us a receipt showing everything she bought, and everybody gets a copy of that receipt.

[00:54:54] And then I say, well, I think Anya made some foolish purchases here. And so I send a letter

[00:55:00] to someone saying, I think Anya made foolish purchases. That's just my opinion. What's

[00:55:05] more important is that people have the receipt showing exactly what Anya did. And then they can

[00:55:10] all independently decide that she spent money foolishly.

[00:55:13] Tess Terrible How dare you?

[00:55:15] Airing out all our dirty laundry as usual. This is one that baffles me. I mean, because I like – I

[00:55:21] think that's a stupid argument with the Click thing, but I can kind of understand it. They bring

[00:55:25] up Purdue professor Jeff Turco again. Can you explain why I'm surprised by that?

[00:55:30] Nathan Rees They suggested earlier that

[00:55:33] this was a witness who supported them and that Jerry Holman, who summarized an interview he did

[00:55:41] with Jeffrey Turco, prepared the summary in a misleading way. And then they offered, here's how

[00:55:47] we would summarize it. And then subsequently, Turco said, well, no, I think Holman's summary

[00:55:52] was better. Tess Terrible

[00:55:55] I think the Indiana State Police are telling the truth, not the defense. And if I got embarrassed

[00:56:01] that badly in a filing, I would – you couldn't waterboard the name Jeff Turco out of me

[00:56:08] afterwards. I just would not – that would be not in my vocabulary. Who is Jeff Turco? I don't know.

[00:56:14] I don't understand why they continue to bring this guy up when he basically called them liars.

[00:56:19] Tess Terrible That is embarrassing. I know it caused a lot

[00:56:22] of people to lose faith in this defense team when they heard from the person at the center of this

[00:56:27] that he felt that they were misleading, he felt that they were misinterpreting his words.

[00:56:32] And then it came out that the whole thing was just like a logical exercise for Turco anywhere

[00:56:38] where he's saying, well, if we start from the assumption that these are Nordic runes,

[00:56:42] then here's what I think. He's not even saying, yeah, I think they're – I mean,

[00:56:46] the whole thing is just crazy that they're continuing to drag this man into it. And I'm

[00:56:51] shocked by it because they don't need to. They could just kind of move on on that subject.

[00:56:55] But it's the greatest hits album, so they got to include everything. This is a team that will –

[00:57:00] it doesn't matter how badly something damages their credibility. They will continue to bring

[00:57:04] it up because it's a point on the list. And I guess they feel if they have a long list,

[00:57:08] then that means they have a good argument. But I would say that that's not always the case.

[00:57:12] Adam Rippe So before I stop you,

[00:57:14] you were about to talk about this Tolb-Lesenby thing.

[00:57:16] Danielle Pletka Yes.

[00:57:17] Adam Rippe And here's what this is. So

[00:57:20] Tony Liggett, who's the current sheriff of Carroll County, and Jerry Holman, who we seem to be

[00:57:25] talking about a lot today, Liggett and Holman both have said they believe that Richard Allen acted

[00:57:31] alone in the murder of the girls. Tolb-Lesenby, who is the former sheriff of Carroll County,

[00:57:37] has indicated that he believes Allen did not act alone. And so this is supposed to suggest

[00:57:44] something. I think one thing it suggests to me is I think they'd been earlier trying to create

[00:57:50] the impression that law enforcement is a monolith who acts much like the Borg, I guess, on Star Trek,

[00:57:59] where their only interest is acting as one to protect Odinism wherever it lurks. But this

[00:58:07] to make pretty clearly that this seems to make very clear that people in law enforcement can have

[00:58:13] different conclusions. Now, keep in mind, these three men all believe Richard Allen is guilty,

[00:58:18] is charged. They have differing ideas as to whether or not he had any help. And that's not

[00:58:24] uncommon. One of the best true crime books of recent years was one called The Last Stone by

[00:58:30] Mark Bowden. He tells the story of the investigation of a crime by some very skilled investigators.

[00:58:35] Yeah, the disappearance and murder of the Lyons sisters.

[00:58:38] And in the end, he reveals that those investigators, even though they believe the person

[00:58:42] ultimately convicted of that crime is guilty, these people had differing views as to whether

[00:58:49] or not other people were involved in the extent of that. People have their own ideas. People

[00:58:55] have independent thought. And so the fact that these men disagree on some elements doesn't

[00:59:03] necessarily render any of their opinions void. It just shows diversity of thought. And again,

[00:59:09] they all agree that Richard Allen is guilty, is charged.

[00:59:11] Which again, the diversity of thought thing, because if you had a situation where everyone

[00:59:18] was answering the exact same thing and stonewalling and saying, no, no, no, it must be all this way,

[00:59:23] then maybe they just agree, but maybe you could make a case for like, oh, they're all just taking

[00:59:27] the company line. But when, I mean, when people have to, doesn't that like point away from a

[00:59:33] conspiracy? Because they're not, they're not in the last step.

[00:59:35] If there was a conspiracy, I would think, yes, they would all have the same company line. But

[00:59:40] the problem with conspiracy thinking is that you can never disprove a conspiracy because I could

[00:59:46] say, well, Anya, maybe they're just being smart conspirators and maybe they know that doing this

[00:59:51] makes...

[00:59:53] They're going to have Tobe Lesenby throw him off with his old,

[00:59:56] who is a group of people doing it. And then they can't say, yeah, it's all according to plan with

[01:00:02] the conspiracy. Those Odinists are pretty clever, Kevin. And in addition to that, I mean, one thing

[01:00:08] you might be wondering as well, is it a big deal if they have different opinions about this?

[01:00:11] It's a big deal if Tobe Lesenby thinks, I don't think Allen did it. That's a big deal.

[01:00:16] It's not a big deal if they all agree he's guilty, is charged because all they have to prove is that

[01:00:20] he killed those kids. They don't need to... And he's doing a lot of work helping them with that

[01:00:26] by confessing to everybody. So I think it's a matter of, it doesn't really matter some of

[01:00:32] the trappings. It matters to all of us because we want to know what happened and we want to know,

[01:00:38] are other people responsible that need to be punished? So it's not like it's unimportant

[01:00:41] in the scheme of things, but legally speaking, as long as prosecution side is convinced that

[01:00:48] we have evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Richard Allen kidnapped and killed

[01:00:55] those kids, it's kind of a moot point. It's kind of irrelevant.

[01:00:59] Tom Hanks And then they talk about Dan Doolin.

[01:01:04] Some of these points, I apologize, our analysis is going to be pretty similar. Dan Doolin is

[01:01:12] an officer of the Department of Natural Resources who early on in the investigation

[01:01:18] had an important interview with Richard Allen. Doolin has recently said he did not record

[01:01:24] that interview.

[01:01:25] Amy Quinton Which is a problem for the prosecution,

[01:01:28] in my view, to a certain extent.

[01:01:29] Tom Hanks It'd be nice if he recorded it, certainly.

[01:01:32] But Dan Doolin says he did not record it. The defense says, well, we bet he did record it.

[01:01:37] And the fact that it hasn't been turned over to us is the sign that they're shenanigans and

[01:01:43] they're up to no good. And so, as we've said in other instances, you can't dismiss a case

[01:01:49] based on that. If you had evidence that a recording of that interview existed and had,

[01:01:56] in fact, been suppressed or destroyed, maybe now we're talking. But you can't just conjure

[01:02:02] up something and say, oh, he says there never was a recording, but we think there was. And

[01:02:07] because of that, you should throw out the case.

[01:02:09] Amy Quinton We get the vibe that there was a recording,

[01:02:11] though. Let's put that in a filing and submit that in public. I mean, it's one thing if Dan

[01:02:16] Doolin is on camera somewhere holding a big box that said Richard Allen's recording and then

[01:02:20] sneaking around and burning it in a parking lot somewhere, then maybe you have something. Or if

[01:02:25] you have him bragging to friends at the bar about how he destroyed Allen's... I mean, there's

[01:02:30] evidence that could exist for him destroying it.

[01:02:32] David A. Well, there's also evidence that could exist. Is there anybody in law enforcement

[01:02:38] who recalls listening to this recording?

[01:02:40] Amy Quinton Right, right. Or what happened to it or where

[01:02:43] it was filed or whatnot or what deposed Doolin himself? I mean, obviously, if he's saying that

[01:02:51] he doesn't think he recorded it. But here's what bothers me about this. I feel like it looks sloppy

[01:02:56] that Doolin didn't record it. I feel like that, you know, I mean, listen, the guy was probably

[01:03:01] running around a lot as was everyone in those early days of the case. I'm not trying to fault him

[01:03:07] specifically. But that could that's I mean, I think we can agree that that's a mistake. And

[01:03:12] it would have been good to record it even if you didn't know it was going to be important later.

[01:03:15] So again, hindsight is 20-20. But you can make a big deal about that. And if you're the defense,

[01:03:19] you could say, hey, they didn't record this. So how do we know what he really said? Maybe it wasn't

[01:03:23] that bad. And like, duh, duh, duh, like it shows how sloppy they are. And how are we supposed to

[01:03:27] take them seriously? They could do a lot with that. I think that would be a good move. And

[01:03:31] it could sway some jury members. But they lose that when they say no, no, he's not sloppy. He's

[01:03:37] very meticulous. But but it's a conspiracy. You know, I mean, it's like you kind of actually

[01:03:43] lose the good point you have in that because you're just trying to stretch everything to

[01:03:47] be this stupid odinous theory. Like I'm I can't pretend to think that I think this whole thing is

[01:03:54] just baffling that they've taken this approach to this extent. And this filing, in my opinion,

[01:03:59] is probably in some portions, one of the better written ones we've seen recently. It's not like

[01:04:06] it has no merit. There are pieces of it that I think, hey, they're spot on here. Let's go.

[01:04:11] And it is just completely any of that is drowned out by the through line. That is this

[01:04:19] conspiracy with with no evidence other than what we feel. And, you know, their feelings on the

[01:04:25] matter doesn't matter. I mean, like that's irrelevant. What matters is what do they

[01:04:30] have evidence for? But they don't seem to get that. Welcome to Fail Better. David Duchovny's

[01:04:37] new podcast with Lemonada Media. On Fail Better, David, who has experienced both low and high

[01:04:43] profile failures throughout his life, explores the vast world of failure, how it holds us back,

[01:04:50] propels us forward and ultimately shapes our lives. Each week he'll chat with guests like Ben

[01:04:56] Stiller, Bette Nidler and more about how our perceived failures have actually been our

[01:05:01] biggest catalysts for growth, revelation and even healing. Through these conversations,

[01:05:06] he hopes listeners can learn how to embrace the opportunity of failure and fail better together.

[01:05:12] Fail Better is out now wherever you get your podcasts.

[01:05:18] The comfort of your favorite seat is now your comfy car selling command center.

[01:05:22] Thanks to Carvana. It doesn't get any better than this. Your favorite seat's the best spot

[01:05:27] in the house. Make it even better by entering your license plate or VIN and getting a real offer

[01:05:31] in minutes. There really is no place like home. And speaking of home, Carvana will pick up your

[01:05:37] car from yours after you finalize your offer. Visit Carvana.com or download the app and sell

[01:05:42] your car from your comfy place. Okay, picture this. It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[01:05:52] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever or I can hop into my all new Hyundai

[01:05:57] Santa Fe and hit the road with available H-track all wheel drive and three row seating. My whole

[01:06:02] family can head deep into the wild, conquer the weekend in the all new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[01:06:08] Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Hyundai, there's joy in every journey.

[01:06:17] Are we done with that? Yeah, let's move on. So the next one is a memorandum of law in support

[01:06:23] of defendant's second motion to dismiss based upon newly discovered, destroyed and or missing

[01:06:28] exculpatory or potentially useful evidence. The problem with this memorandum is they haven't

[01:06:34] proven what they're arguing for. I think it's a pretty well-written memorandum. And just to do

[01:06:39] a very quick basic summary, they cite cases which says basically, well, if the prosecution does what

[01:06:49] we accuse them of, then the case probably should be thrown out. But the fact is they didn't offer

[01:06:56] any proof that the prosecution did what they said they did. Again, it's like with the Dan Doolan

[01:07:00] interview. If the recording existed and was intentionally destroyed or suppressed, then

[01:07:07] maybe that's something and maybe other things are something. But they make these claims and they

[01:07:12] don't provide evidence for them. And I guess I just wonder at this point, at this late time,

[01:07:18] this late stage of the game, is it a matter of they're just saying whatever to see what sticks?

[01:07:25] Is it a matter of they're like essentially OK with maybe outright lying in filings or going up to

[01:07:31] that point to the point where like you're definitely not telling the truth or you're

[01:07:35] stretching things to the point where it's like the truth is not even in the room with us anymore?

[01:07:40] I mean, is it is it that is it incompetence? Is it rushing? I mean, I want to know what the heck

[01:07:44] is going on with this defense team, because again, I've said this before, but if I were

[01:07:48] Richard Allen or if I were Richard Allen's friends or family, I would you don't want to see this.

[01:07:55] You don't want to see this level of stretching. You want to see people who are filing,

[01:08:02] making on point filings that are resonant with the case law. I mean, they criticize Nick McLean for

[01:08:08] not citing case law in the past filing. And I think that was an appropriate criticism. But

[01:08:12] in this, the case law doesn't match what they're saying at all. You know, it's like, wow, in a

[01:08:17] dream world, if what you were saying were true, this would be completely perfect. But it's not.

[01:08:22] And this is not what you were able to claim because you don't have any evidence for it.

[01:08:25] And I would be concerned. I think conspiracy theorizing is that is the last resort. That

[01:08:30] is the last stop on the road to defeat. I think you you're that's a desperate move. And I think

[01:08:39] it concerns me that they seem to be going further down that road because I don't think that's a

[01:08:45] place of strength. I think that's a place of that's a retreat. And again, I think we've talked about

[01:08:52] this before. The fact that Richard Allen has repeatedly made incriminating statements and

[01:09:00] or confessions seemingly to anyone that would listen makes me wonder if he is even interested

[01:09:10] in a trial or if he wants to plead out. And given some things we've seen in this case,

[01:09:18] I would have concerns about his level of understanding of what's going on and

[01:09:25] whether or not his wishes are being respected and followed by his attorneys.

[01:09:30] 05.05 At the risk of sounding something like Cato the elder, I will just say that I feel

[01:09:34] that independent counsel needs to be brought in to assess Richard Allen's wishes and confirm

[01:09:39] that he's happy and content with what his defense team is doing and that he, in fact, wishes to go

[01:09:45] to trial. It's OK if he changed his mind. It's OK if he confessed a bunch of times and said, oops,

[01:09:50] well, never mind. And then he wants to go forward with this. That's fine. But I don't

[01:09:55] necessarily know that that's the case. And it makes me really uncomfortable.

[01:09:59] And if this whole thing is being dragged out so that people can LARP as Clarence Darrow or because

[01:10:06] other people do not want Allen to confess or to plead guilty, then that's a violation of his

[01:10:13] rights just as much as anything else. You know, you can't force people to go to trial for stupid

[01:10:19] reasons like that. It's got to be the person's choice. And so I think the only way you really

[01:10:23] get to the bottom of that is by having independent counsel who can verify that and just check with

[01:10:29] him because it would be nice if this whole thing was not a tragic, ridiculous farce.

[01:10:34] In addition to that, we should talk a little bit about some things we've seen online recently.

[01:10:39] 06.05 Yes.

[01:10:39] 06.05 So I would say I'm just always curious about what the public,

[01:10:44] the court of public opinion is doing, not because it's necessarily important to the case. Ultimately,

[01:10:50] the most important thing is how the jury finds everything, but mostly because this defense team

[01:10:55] has made it so clear that the court of public opinion is very important to them personally.

[01:11:00] And I would say that I tend to kind of categorize people into different groups about the case. And

[01:11:07] there are almost two axes. I think it's guilt or innocence of Richard Allen himself and views on

[01:11:13] the attorneys. So on the guilt or innocence side, you see people who are convinced Allen is guilty

[01:11:20] and that it's a slam dunk case. And then there's people who feel Allen is guilty, but they don't

[01:11:24] think it's a slam dunk case. People who are currently unsure if Allen is guilty or innocent,

[01:11:29] people who are deliberately waiting until trial, until the trial, and we get more facts to decide

[01:11:34] people who feel Allen may be innocent, but there's a good case against him.

[01:11:38] People convinced Allen is innocent. People convinced Allen is innocent and is actively

[01:11:42] being railroaded by a conspiracy. So those are the different groups. And then

[01:11:47] Venn diagram with some of these opinions, but people convinced the defense team are

[01:11:51] willfully dishonest and not doing a good job. People convinced that the defense team is simply

[01:11:57] inept. People convinced that the defense team is fine. People convinced that the defense team are

[01:12:02] the second comings of Clarence Darrow. Those are the various groups. Some people are in a couple

[01:12:09] of those groups. You yourself may kind of align with some of them, this Venn diagrams that overlap,

[01:12:14] but I'd say that's what I've seen. Since the contempt hearing, I think we've seen a pretty

[01:12:21] significant online at least boost in skepticism towards the defense team and their performance.

[01:12:28] And I would say that in addition to that, more recently, more coinciding with the talk about

[01:12:37] confessions and incriminating statements, we've seen more skepticism about loud claims that Allen

[01:12:42] must be factually innocent. Not necessarily people assuming he must be guilty, but certainly like

[01:12:48] skepticism towards some of the more egregious statements about how he must be being railroaded.

[01:12:54] So one thing that's interesting about that is as we've seen that happen. And again, this isn't like

[01:13:00] we're not statisticians. This is not statistical analysis. We're just talking anecdotally.

[01:13:07] We've seen a rise in public and behind the scene attacks on the victim's families. And I'm speaking

[01:13:16] particularly about Libby German's family. And I think one of the ugliest aspects of this case

[01:13:22] is some of the abuse online that they've experienced and some of the rumors, the harassment,

[01:13:29] the creepiness. I mean, it's gotten bad at points and I see it creeping back in that direction.

[01:13:37] And I think that that will continue because you do have people who I would say are kind of beyond

[01:13:45] the pale of reason and are more, I would characterize as maybe pro-defense conspiracy

[01:13:51] theorists. This does not incorporate everyone who thinks Allen's innocent. Plenty of people like

[01:13:55] that are just rational and that's their opinion. And that's great. I mean, that's not an issue.

[01:14:02] This is a small subset where I would think they kind of take it to an extreme and it becomes more

[01:14:07] of a conspiracy theory thing. And I'm just concerned because I think we're going to see a

[01:14:12] new effort to smear others as these more virulent pro-defense people feel that their base is shrinking.

[01:14:20] And I think we should be aware of that. And I think it's a situation of victim blaming where

[01:14:28] they cannot blame the actual victims of this crime, Abby and Libby, because that would be

[01:14:33] too heinous and that would be extremely unpopular. But they basically take it out then on the

[01:14:39] victims' families because they can be a target. And I just hope that doesn't continue to happen.

[01:14:44] But I feel like we should at least speak out on it to note that we're concerned.

[01:14:48] I think it's outrageous. The reason we care about this case is because we care about Abby and Libby.

[01:14:58] No one in this world loves and cares about those girls more than their families. And they're the

[01:15:05] ones that have to deal with this loss and will continue to deal with it for the rest of their

[01:15:10] lives, even after the attention of the world has moved on. And I think it is absolutely

[01:15:15] outrageous to be criticizing them. And it's not just criticizing. It's outright smearing.

[01:15:23] It's outright attacks, accusations that they're part of the Odinus cover-up. I mean,

[01:15:29] it's ridiculous. It's not just like, oh, I don't like what they said. It gets very dark and nasty

[01:15:35] very fast. And I'm just going to say, I feel like for most people who follow this case,

[01:15:42] it's people want to know. People want to be informed. It's a good impulse to want to know

[01:15:47] and be informed. It's a good impulse to care. It's a good impulse. And so when I say this,

[01:15:52] I think maybe like 95% of people are absolutely fine who are interested in this case.

[01:15:57] But I think there's like that 5% where it's just kind of twisted itself into this hobby

[01:16:03] where it's about like, oh, how clever can I be on the internet? And I can piece together the clues.

[01:16:08] I'm Sherlock Holmes. And I feel like in those people's minds, the girls, their families,

[01:16:15] and any actual sincere care about Richard Allen's right to a competent defense,

[01:16:20] those are just long forgotten afterthoughts. And that concerns me because I think unfortunately,

[01:16:25] while they're very much the minority, they're very loud. They're very, very loud. And they

[01:16:31] have the power to harass people. They've certainly harassed people in the past. And

[01:16:36] I just do not want to see that being directed at this family again, because I feel like they've

[01:16:39] been through enough. And if this case continues to drag on, we're all in for a long haul.

[01:16:45] And it's going to, I'm just concerned it's going to get darker and nastier as we go along.

[01:16:50] 06.06 Yes. And if you're attacking the family, you've lost the plot.

[01:16:54] 06.07 Agreed. Anyways, is that all we wanted to talk about?

[01:16:59] 06.08 Yeah, I was trying to think of a good Cato Kaelin quote, but...

[01:17:03] 06.08 I mean, Cato Kaelin? What?

[01:17:06] 06.09 Well, I mean, usually on a true crime podcast, we talk about Cato Kaelin,

[01:17:09] you're talking about another Cato, I'm just all confused. But I'll spend some time trying

[01:17:13] to piece all that together. 06.21 Can I ask who is Cato Kaelin?

[01:17:16] 06.22 So what you've done just now on a true crime podcast is you've humiliated and shamed yourself.

[01:17:23] So don't say who Cato Kaelin is. Don't say who Cato Kaelin is. I will have a long, long

[01:17:28] conversation with Anya about this after the show. So thank you so much for listening.

[01:18:33] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered,

[01:18:37] you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and

[01:18:44] reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask

[01:18:50] for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.