The Delphi Murders: Questions and Answers for June 2024

[00:00:00] Seeking the truth never gets old. Introducing June's Journey, the free-to-play mobile game that will immerse you in a thrilling murder mystery. Join June Parker as she uncovers hidden objects and clues to solve her sister's death in a beautifully illustrated world set in the Roaring Twenties.

[00:00:17] With new chapters added every week, the excitement never ends! Download June's Journey now on your Android or iOS device or play on PC through Facebook Games. Have you ever covered a carpet stain with a rug? Ignored a leaky faucet?

[00:00:33] Pretended your half-painted living room is supposed to look like that? Well, you're not alone. We've all got unfinished home projects. But there's an easier way. When you download Thumbtack, it's easier to care for your home from top to bottom. Pull out your phone and adjust a few taps.

[00:00:47] You can search, chat, and book highly rated pros right in your neighborhood. Plus, you'll know what to tackle next because Thumbtack is the app that shows you what to do, who to hire, and when. So say goodbye to all those unfinished home projects

[00:00:59] and say hello to caring for your home the easier way. Download Thumbtack and start a project today. Temp Check! What kind of summer are we having this year? A family road trip summer? A beach bum summer? Or a wake-me-up-when-the-sun-sets summer?

[00:01:14] With Instacart, choose your own adventure and skip the shopping side quests. Where available, you can get ice cream delivered to your hotel, sunscreen to the pool, or cold brew to your bed. Well, door. And as fast as 30 minutes.

[00:01:28] Wherever you find yourself this summer, you can get the goods. Download Instacart for free delivery on your first three orders. Offer valid for a limited time. Minimum $10 per order. Excludes restaurants. Additional terms and fees apply. Content Warning. This episode includes discussion of the murder of two children.

[00:01:47] So today on the Murder Sheet, we're going to do something a little bit different. In the past, when we've gotten a lot of questions from people on certain topics, we've done Q&A episodes. So we were thinking we could do something like that today.

[00:02:01] These are kind of questions we picked out because they're sort of common themes and topics that people often ask us about either on Facebook or in emails. So that's how we came about picking them. Thanks everyone who sent one in. We appreciate you guys.

[00:02:16] We love hearing from all of you at any time. Yes. And so today we're going to break down kind of the most common ones and give our answers. And then at the end of it, we have a few words to say.

[00:02:29] There was kind of a, I don't know what you'd call it, a leak, a mini leak, but more of another photograph that was under protective seal. Another one of those leaked out. Well, I'll say this. It's not necessarily a new leak,

[00:02:45] but it is a consequence of the Mitch Westerman leak in my view. Basically, one of the other discovery materials, as you mentioned, has come out on social media. So we've seen a lot of minimization of that leak and saying, well, nothing got out, nothing got published.

[00:02:59] Well, yet another thing has been published, unfortunately, on both Twitter and YouTube. And we're going to talk about that at the end of this episode. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:03:15] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is The Delphi Murders. Questions and answers for June 2024.

[00:04:15] So, Anya, where do you want to begin? Lead the way. One thing we've been asked about or people have commented to us and sort of discussing with us

[00:04:24] is that there's a perception that we have become more vocally skeptical and critical of the defense of Richard Allen at this point. And to that I say, yes. The answer is we have. Why? Why? That's a fair question.

[00:04:41] So when we started out, we very much, you know, really had not made up our minds about anything. And also we're coming into our coverage of the legal portion of this case. So the investigative portion refers to everything prior to Richard Allen's arrest.

[00:05:02] But once he's arrested, attorneys are appointed, everything's sort of a blank slate. And we had heard very good things about the defense team. And over time, I think our tone covering them has become increasingly skeptical and increasingly critical.

[00:05:16] And we can talk a little bit about why that is. I think for some time prior to us being vocal about it, we had been becoming increasingly skeptical about the quality and tone of the defense filings and their performance to some degree. I think that's fair to say.

[00:05:35] Are you trying to lose weight and feeling like you're getting absolutely nowhere? Well, weight loss can be a uniquely challenging goal, one that leaves many of us feeling isolated and frustrated. The good news is that our sponsor, Rowe, can help you achieve your weight loss goals.

[00:05:52] Over 200,000 people who've tried it can attest to this. Now remember, when you support our sponsors, you're also supporting our show directly. To start, Rowe gets you access to one of the most popular and effective weight loss shots on the market.

[00:06:06] Next, through its special RoweBody program, you can tailor a weight loss system that works for you, figuring out your own unique diet and exercise regimen. Rowe even gets you weekly one-on-one coaching sessions with a registered nurse. Lose the pounds and keep them off with Rowe.

[00:06:24] Now, Murder Sheet listeners get a special deal. With Rowe, the average weight loss is 15 to 20 percent in one year with healthy lifestyle changes. BMI and other eligibility criteria apply. Go to rowe.co.msheet.

[00:06:41] Sign up today and you'll pay just $99 for your first month and $145 a month after that. Medication costs are separate. That's rowe.co.msheet. Stories are at the heart of true crime.

[00:06:57] Whether the spotlight centers on a detective solving a murder case, an attorney making a winning argument in court, or a wife healing from the revelation that her beloved husband is a sexual predator.

[00:07:09] We believe that if you love the immersive, in-depth reporting and storytelling that the best true crime stories bring, you'll also love the new podcast. You probably think this story's about you. This show centers the question, what if the person you thought was your soulmate never really existed?

[00:07:26] That's what kicked off this podcast, which sees host Brittany R. digging into the shattered ruins of what was supposed to be her ultimate love story. A man stole her heart. Only he was not the person he pretended to be.

[00:07:40] That's where we begin with, you probably think this story's about you. But the real story comes through Britt's quest for answers. As she digs into this man's dark, twisted history, she meets other women who he lied to and strung along.

[00:07:54] She starts to see the patterns, the lies about having a wife who died by suicide or one who was struggling with drugs. The shimmering web of deception crafted to harm women.

[00:08:05] You will feel like you're there along with her as she unpacks these deceptions and forges connections to the other women she meets along the way. We think that in our truth-starved, dating app-driven world, you probably think this story's about you is a must-listen.

[00:08:21] Britt's story is as relatable as it is remarkable, and it's one that we think you'll find compelling. Listen and follow You Probably Think This Story's About You wherever you listen to podcasts. Okay, it's time to commit. 2024 is the year for prioritizing yourself.

[00:08:40] Begin your new smile journey with Byte, and you could start seeing results in just two to three weeks. Just order your at-home impression kit today for only $14.95 at byte.com. Byte clear liners are doctor-directed and delivered to your door.

[00:08:56] Treatment costs thousands less than braces, plus they offer financing options except eligible insurance, and you could pay with your HSA FSA. Get 80% off your impression kit when you use code WONDERY at byte.com. That's B-Y-T-E dot com. Start your confidence journey today with Byte.

[00:09:16] We were very concerned, for instance, about how in their FANX memorandum it seemed to sketch out kind of a complicated and shaky theory while also citing like YouTubers. There's no reason for that.

[00:09:33] We were increasingly suspicious that some of the more conspiratorial elements on social media were all repeating identical talking points that were all pro-defense. Like there were just things like that that didn't sit well with us.

[00:09:46] This is a theme we're going to come back to, I think, later on in this particular episode. But it became apparent that there is some sort of alliance between the cranks on YouTube.

[00:10:01] And I'm going to call them cranks on YouTube because not everybody on YouTube is a crank. That's correct. But there are a lot of cranks on YouTube. So there is some sort of an alliance between the crank elements on YouTube. A pipeline, if you will.

[00:10:16] And the defense team. There's an alliance between them. And an overt attempt by the defense team to cater to this group. That's what I don't understand. If a group of cranks decides you're their new personality cult leader, that's on them.

[00:10:31] That's not on the person who's at the center of that. But when the defense team seems to be stretching in order to cater to that group, it raises our hackles. So these are some early things that we had an issue with.

[00:10:43] But we were kind of like, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes. We have no way of knowing. We can set that aside to some extent. Maybe there's an explanation. Let me just highlight that.

[00:10:55] They do and they've seemed to for a long time to want to cater to these cranks on YouTube. And that is bizarre to me because all that does is that lessens the credibility of the defense team. It doesn't really gain them anything.

[00:11:10] Because the cranks on YouTube are already on the defense side. I'm talking particularly about the cranks who are on the pro Richard Allen is innocent side. You already have them in your corner. You don't need to bend over backwards to cater to them and please them.

[00:11:29] And when their applause, they're with you. To quote Seinfeld, you could dunk their head in a toilet and they'd be with you. I mean like you got them. What you need to do is get the general public.

[00:11:40] And there are a variety of people who are absolutely convinced have been convinced from the beginning that Richard Allen is guilty. And then there is a large portion of people in the middle who are persuadable. And you don't get to the persuadable people by catering to cranks.

[00:12:02] If anything, you turn off those persuadable people and you do yourself and your cause a great deal of harm. And that is something that to me is such an obvious principle. I met a loss to understand why they did this.

[00:12:20] And for me personally, the contempt hearing was kind of a crossing the Rubicon moment. I can make ancient history references to because it really made a lot of things very clear. Yes.

[00:12:37] One thing that it made clear to me was well, David Hennessey put on his witness list a number of crank YouTubers. He put on his witness list people we have talked about on the show before, including some person we're talking about later in this episode.

[00:12:56] People who are among the worst of the worst who have made death threats, harassed people, done a variety of ridiculous and upsetting things. And most importantly, have zero credibility in this space. Their credibility is zero.

[00:13:12] They do not have a platform that is trusted aside from other people within their sort of cult like group. So there's no benefit to courting someone like that.

[00:13:25] None whatsoever. But not only do they court them behind the scenes, they put them on their witness list because I think these are the people we can use to build our case.

[00:13:36] And I think we said all along the issue of whether or not the defense team actually was guilty legally of contempt was a close one.

[00:13:46] And when we look at what Judge Gull's ultimate decision was, she didn't say, well, I was leaning towards finding that they were guilty of contempt until I heard what Julia Melvin had to say. Said no one ever.

[00:14:00] And then, oh, it was Skip Jensen that convinced me or it was just seeing some of these other names on the list. So it was totally unnecessary.

[00:14:09] And let me just say, I think there's something very interesting about what you said about why you would do this within the people who are, I mean, stringently pro Richard Allen is innocence and a conspiracy is trying to convict him.

[00:14:20] I'm not talking about people who may lean towards innocence. I mean, people in this specific, very radical group that I would say operates a bit like a cult.

[00:14:30] When I say that, I'm not just speaking facetiously. I mean that if you are in that group and you raise any points about, well, this does look bad for Richard Allen, that is not allowed. We have heard from people who were in this and then left.

[00:14:43] Dissent is not allowed. And it makes me wonder, is the defense team maybe just more comfortable with this group because they are so virulently in the bag for them that they're not going to question any of their tactics?

[00:14:57] They're not going to question anything. And maybe that's what they want versus people who are going to offer constructive feedback.

[00:15:02] And here's the thing. You want constructive feedback. If you're Richard Allen, you want to have attorneys and you want to have voices who are aware of the most negative elements of the case against you because if you're not aware of that, you can't respond to it.

[00:15:19] If I go to a doctor and a doctor says, Kevin, you're great. You're the healthiest man I've ever seen. God bless you. Just keep on doing what you're doing. Boy, everybody should be more like you.

[00:15:29] And I'm overweight. I have high blood pressure and all these other things. The doctor is just not telling me about because he's just in my cheering section. That doesn't help me get better.

[00:15:39] He's doing a bad job. You want an attorney and a defense team that is going to be like, these are really bad. Here's how we overcome these obstacles. Here's how we clear these hurdles.

[00:15:50] You don't want someone being like, you're great, man. This is great. They got nothing. All right, let's go. We're ready to go. No, we're not. Can we do it in October? You don't want that.

[00:15:57] You want someone who's going to take a cool, hard appraisal and not get caught up in their own bravado. If you want to have bravado in front of the jury, that can be a weapon you can deploy effectively. That's one thing. But having it be the only strategy with everything is a mistake.

[00:16:16] Yes. And whether you believe Richard Allen committed these murders, whether you believe he's innocent of these murders, whether you are undecided of that, I think you would agree that there are he faces some pretty serious challenges.

[00:16:38] And it would be helpful for his defense team to at least in private acknowledge that and deal with that and not drum out people who recognize that obvious fact.

[00:16:49] Yes. And I think the fact that they are courting the elements that they're courting indicate that they're much more interested in the kind of cult-like atmosphere than anything else, frankly. But let's should we talk about what exactly happened at that hearing?

[00:17:06] Well, I mentioned one thing. I think there was something else you wanted to mention.

[00:17:11] Well, to me, this was truly the Rubicon Crossing moment because there are certain things that when you see it, you cannot unsee it. I would maybe allude, I would compare this to, and hopefully no kids are listening. Don't let your kids listen to the murder sheet. That's, you know, this is heavy stuff.

[00:17:30] They can download it. Download it all you want.

[00:17:33] Download it 500 times. Just don't listen if you're a kid. But, you know, like if you're in a situation where you're a kid and you go into a closet in your house and you find all the Santa presents wrapped up there ready to go for Christmas.

[00:17:50] Maybe you close the door. Maybe you pretend for your siblings, your younger siblings, oh yeah, Santa's real. But you know, you can't unsee that, you know. And that was this moment for us.

[00:18:05] So when David Hennessey got out, he was doing a lot of arguments based on sort of like this. Well, the other side leaked too. And one of the examples he used was us, the murder sheet people.

[00:18:21] So he came out with this whole very vague but very sinister sounding allusion to how we had published the affidavit and documents around Ronald Logan, who is an early suspect in the case or early person of interest or whatever you want to call him.

[00:18:40] He had his property searched. He was really looked into strenuously by investigators early on. He owned the property where the girls were found and he had some troubling elements in his background. So like he was certainly someone to look at.

[00:18:55] And he basically made this sound like we had received a prosecution leak. And therefore, we're basically on the same level as what was happening with the Mitch Westerman leak of discovery materials and crime scene photos of two dead children.

[00:19:16] And so the problem with this and perhaps if things were different, we would have assumed that they were just deeply confused and I don't think things would have changed as much.

[00:19:27] But we happen to know for a fact that the defense team knows that Ron Logan was passing around these documents to anybody who asked for them and that he was represented. He had an attorney, so he was able to procure documents pretty readily and that he was giving these to everyone. So we know that they know that.

[00:19:49] They know we didn't have some super secret source. And also, this is just a defense attorney thing. You try to ask questions and stuff that create impressions and don't really clear things up.

[00:20:19] And so the question is, did you leave a copy of the search warrant with Ron Logan? And I believe Lieutenant Holman said no. And so they're like, oh, there you go. If Holman didn't leave a copy of it with Logan, obviously, Logan didn't have it. So, huh?

[00:20:34] But the next question is, did you leave a copy of the warrant with Mr. Logan's attorney? And if he had asked that question, the answer would have been yes. The attorney had a copy of this document and the attorney then apparently gave a copy to Logan and then Logan gave it to anyone who wanted it.

[00:20:55] So that's another way of understanding that they knew this. They knew the source of the document. They knew it wasn't nefarious and they weren't above trying to smear us and create suspicion just because they thought it served their limited interests. And so after that, when you see them doing things and making accusations against others, it makes you think, well, wait a minute. This is what they did with us.

[00:21:25] And so I think there are things that they could have done that would have been critical of us or would have been this or that or, you know, hey, that's not really that I would not have necessarily seen as an action in bad faith. I would have seen as like, well, they don't understand that perhaps. But the fact that we knew that they knew and then we're seeing this go on.

[00:21:49] That is that is something you can't undo. And it's not because it's negative towards us. It didn't hurt us. And we got a T-shirt out of it. Frankly, arguably it helped us. Arguably. Thank you, Mr. Hennessy for our T-shirt business essentially. But because basically people were like, can we get a T-shirt with murder sheet people on it? And we're like, OK, you can. You can do sheet shop dot com. Check it out. It's a pretty dope shirt.

[00:22:13] But the thing is, it's not about whether it's harmful or beneficial to us. It's more about what it says about this defense team's relationship with the truth. And if I view a defense team is not caring about the truth at all.

[00:22:25] Then and basically being willing to do this, then I don't necessarily feel that I should or would be smart to extend the benefit of the doubt to the extent that I had in the past. That is a big shift for me because previously I might say, well, this isn't very good, but they're trying.

[00:22:47] Or maybe that's their interpretation, but maybe it's two reasonable sides disagreeing. I no longer feel comfortable necessarily going that far. And I actually feel more comfortable saying, well, I know that they don't really care about the truth. That's been our experience. So might as well just look at it through that lens.

[00:23:08] And let me just say this. This was so low stakes that I think that is another telling element of this. Hennessy essentially seemingly wanted to throw in another sort of kitchen sink example to bolster other examples that he had sort of floating around there.

[00:23:57] And it was totally unnecessary for their case. It was just petty bravado, and it changed the way we looked at this defense team.

[00:24:23] Just to be clear, if you're saying, well, maybe it was just Hennessy because he's annoyed with you all. He speaks for the defense team, so I don't really feel like that's a particularly good thing. I mean, like, I guess.

[00:24:36] Okay. I mean, he's out there. I mean, I'm assuming he's doing things with some input, so I don't. It just also matches with what we've seen in other instances where there's this sort of loose relationship with the truth, and they'll basically say anything that they think sounds good.

[00:24:53] And I feel that is a detriment to them. I think it's a stupid idea to pick a fight with the media, and we are in the media. So, you know, I think that was a… you didn't want that. That was a strategic error.

[00:25:08] It was stupid to pick a fight with the media. Stupid to involve the YouTubers.

[00:25:11] And I just, you know, that's where we are. Now, that being said, if we see things that they're doing that we feel are good, strategically good and truthful and accurate, we will continue to say that. In fact, we'll praise it because we would love to see some good lawyering in this case.

[00:25:30] The case deserves it. Richard Allen deserves it. I would love to see them turn this sad ocean liner around and go in a new route. Like, that's what I would love to see. And so consider it constructive feedback when we are being critical because I still am holding out hope that maybe something will turn around. But until I see that, we're not going to pretend like we think it's fine.

[00:25:57] And again, this witness list, one of the names on the list was Courtney Parsons. She is the one that said that Jason Blair should die. Isn't that what she said? Yes.

[00:26:09] She also, shortly before the hearing, correct me if I'm wrong, she doxed a courthouse employee and made all sorts of baseless accusations against that employee causing that employee, I believe, to at least temporarily remove her Facebook. And so this is who they think they need. Yes.

[00:26:59] examining their own internal biases. So there's that. But you can be fair and we will continue to be fair to the defense. But I think in order to be fair to our listeners, we need to tell you what our thinking is and what our opinions are, because we are so beyond the realm of normalcy that we would be remiss to tell you, yeah, this is totally normal, because then you'll go to another case.

[00:27:23] And when a defense team is not in shambles to this degree, you'll be like, well, this seems odd. Why aren't they dragging in some deranged person who's like a Twitch streamer? I mean, I think we have a responsibility as journalists to instead of whitewashing things and trying to make them look normal for you, to stop pretending the emperor is wearing a beautiful set of, you know, a beautiful new suit.

[00:27:51] That's not. That's not truthful, in my opinion. That's not honest. And we want to be truthful and honest with you. So, again, we will continue to praise them and say when we feel like they have a decent point. And we will also say when we feel like it's just the same old thing from them.

[00:28:08] And I think either way, it'll be our honest opinion. And I stress, I really do hope that they turn it around. Some remaining questions we have about this defense team at this moment that we're sort of interested in learning more about. Ultimately, was the leak of discovery materials from Mitch Westerman, was that purposeful? Was that an ordered leak by the defense team?

[00:28:33] Was that something that started out small and got out of control? Or was that truly Mitch Westerman acting on his own, burglarizing the place as a trusted strategist? I don't know. Seems like there's a kind of a couple of different theories going on out there.

[00:28:52] So I'm I'm I'm back. I've gone from being like, well, that was probably just him to truly not knowing and truly being very interested in knowing. I would be curious to know, has this defense team been leaking to some extent to YouTubers, to people who are cranks in their space? We'll talk more about that later.

[00:29:15] I'd like to know what happened with the fundraiser money. I would like to know why this fundraiser was misrepresented to the public in that essentially it was couched as like they're not going to get experts otherwise, and then it turns out that they're filing all of their paperwork incorrectly as being rejected on those grounds. I'd like to know what David Hennessey is doing with that money right now. Where is it?

[00:29:41] And this is the big question. It's when you have the bottom of your list. This is the big one. Is this defense team actually doing what Richard Allen currently wants them to do? Or is he a hostage to their own desires?

[00:29:54] Because the fact that this man has been confessing and making incriminating statements to the point that he has, that speaks to me as potentially a man who doesn't feel listened to. And that's regardless of guilt or innocence. If he's guilty, he's saying, you know, I did it. I did it. Maybe I don't want to be dragged out at trial.

[00:30:14] If he's innocent, he's basically saying I'm having a mental breakdown. And they have not filed anything to that regard about his competency. So either way, I'm very concerned about how he's being represented here.

[00:30:28] And at the end of the day, this is not about these two attorneys. This is about him and his rights. And we will continue to treat this as that being as his rights being more important than their reputations and their desires.

[00:30:49] And I think everyone should do that. You know, just like if you had a case where there was a really incompetent prosecutor who's doing all sorts of things, all sorts of Brady violations, all sorts of issues with discovery.

[00:31:03] Just because you were criticizing the prosecutor doesn't mean you don't think the person is guilty or you don't care about the victim. You can be critical of the prosecutor, you know, and tying the two so closely together is a problem. But anyways, hopefully that leads to some illumination about why our tone has shifted a bit and perhaps the reasoning behind that.

[00:31:25] Yes. Shall we move on? Let's do it. What's next on your list? Some people have asked us, some people have asked us, why have certain commentators staked their credibility so much on the performance of the defense team in this case? We've thought a lot about this.

[00:31:43] Yeah. Do you want to talk more about it? The short answer, we'll give a long answer, but the short answer is I don't know. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. Do you want to just give us some context about what this person is asking about?

[00:31:58] There's people out there who had good reputations in their fields who have tied themselves so thoroughly to the defense.

[00:32:11] And they're starting to parrot some of the themes and ideas of the defense. I think they start playing to the YouTubers. They like the attention and positive affirmation they get from YouTubers.

[00:32:25] And it's one thing I can imagine being seduced by Hollywood or something and those big glamorous dreams. But these people are getting seduced by True Crime Swine 85. And there's something kind of sad about this. It's deeply sad. Michael Osberg. Let's talk about Michael Osberg briefly.

[00:32:49] Respected attorney, he's entered into this case a couple of times. I saw on his Twitter, he said, he suggested that the picture we've seen of Abby on the bridge shortly before the murders looks fishy. So apparently he is suggesting that it was some sort of a doctored picture.

[00:33:14] I guess, did Libby send the doctored picture on Snapchat before the murders? I don't know what he is suggesting. I don't know what the point of it is, but I know he's wrong. It's not a doctored picture and I know it is stupid to suggest otherwise.

[00:33:29] I'm being blunt. It is a stupid claim. It's embarrassing. It's embarrassing to watch this because it's like, are these people just so attention starved that they have to go out and do this to get a couple of dopamine hits?

[00:33:41] I mean, truly, when you allow yourself to be hijacked by flattery to that extent, is there no bottom? Is there no basement to where you'll go? Because he's obviously not talking about something he knows anything about. It's not like I'm giving my legal opinion. Here's what's going on.

[00:33:59] We had him on to give his legal opinion. We weren't knocking down his door to get his photography takes. I mean, Jesus. I can't imagine. I can't imagine. And let's talk about Kara Wienecke. She's one of the appellate attorneys in this case.

[00:34:17] So, I mean, her job was to come in and help Richard Allen deal with this Indiana Supreme Court, ask for some things he wanted or that they say he wanted around getting his old attorneys back, having the judge recuse herself.

[00:34:33] That's her job. So her job is more based on the law of the matter rather than things like the facts of the case discovery. There's no reason that she should have been knee deep in discovery or the case. So, you know, that's OK.

[00:34:49] I mean, she did her job and they were successful in getting the attorneys back. They were not successful in getting the judge thrown off the case. You'd think that'd be the end of the matter. But she's become like a self-appointed commentator on this case as well.

[00:35:00] And has even gone to the point where she's gone on social media talking about how now she's using people who she's met through the Delphi case to help her research her other cases. Like, she's using someone named Sleuthy Goosey, aka Nicole Miller, just a random person.

[00:35:20] Can you imagine if you were like sitting in jail or prison and your lawyer came up to you and said, don't worry, we're getting you out. I got true crime swine and divorce dad detective on your case. They're going to bust the whole thing right open.

[00:35:35] Wouldn't you be like, I need another attorney. I need to get out of here. No, this is so embarrassing. Now, in fairness to Miss Wienecke, we were saying, oh, some of these people seem to have gotten seduced by cranks as a result of their involvement with this case.

[00:35:56] In fairness to Kara Wienecke, her seduction by the crank seems to have taken place a long time ago. That's true. I'm going to tell you and you'll think I'm kidding, but Kara Wienecke does not believe we went to the moon.

[00:36:11] Not only that, she believes the only reason that it's still even going on that we even think we landed on the moon is that, you know, the Soviet Union knew and they're still blackmailing us. Yes. They got us.

[00:36:28] And so we have this legal mind who thinks, yes, I think Richard Allen is innocent and he has been set up. And by the way, I also believe we didn't go to the moon. And listen, everyone gets one kooky opinion.

[00:36:41] OK, like you can have one crazy, crazy thing as long as it's not too toxic. But like looking through her social feed, I mean, like there's a bunch of really weird stuff. There's some conspiracy about fluoride in the water.

[00:36:56] Right. Yeah. Robert F. Kennedy said, let's take the fluoride out of the water because it causes brain damage or something. And she says he's absolutely right. So this is like an old time conspiracy, like from the 60s that fluoride was bad for us. That's like John Birch Society.

[00:37:14] Kara Wienecke is bringing that back. Joan Birch for her. I mean, like this is a situation where I actually do appreciate her commitment to like even the lunatic fringe of like the 1960s. You know, like she's going old timey with this.

[00:37:29] This is old school conspiracy theories because that makes us that makes our job in sort of looking into this a lot easier because certain things might be like political issues of the modern day that like some people might feel sincerely and others don't.

[00:37:43] But these are just I mean, the moon landing, the moon landing. Kara Wienecke believes we didn't go to the moon. You know what she should do? She should stop tweeting, trying to be some kind of commentator on like Karen Reed and Delphi.

[00:37:57] She should look into the death of Gus Grissom, noted Hoosier astronaut and his crew. Because what really happened there? Was Gus too close to the truth? I'm really curious to get her take on that.

[00:38:11] And in case you're wondering, her interesting take on the world can be found in her Twitter feed. She actually has two Twitter feeds. One is for her law office and one is her personal feed. She makes an interesting amount about like African-American communities, especially black fathers.

[00:38:32] That was pretty interesting, pretty bold takes for a white woman. And, you know, also about black people's health around issues with vitamin D. It the whole thing is a fascinating read. That's not just the sound of that first sip of morning Joe.

[00:38:49] It's the sound of someone shopping for a car on Carvana from the comfort of home. That's a good blend. It's time to take it easy, like answering some easy questions to get pre-qualified for a car in minutes. Talk about starting the morning right.

[00:39:01] Just like customizing your terms so your car fits your budget. Mmm, mmm, mmm. Visit Carvana.com or download the app to experience car shopping the way it should be. Convenient, comfortable. Ah. The comfort of your favorite seat is now your comfy car selling command center. Thanks to Carvana.

[00:39:22] It doesn't get any better than this. Your favorite seat's the best spot in the house. Make it even better by entering your license plate or VIN and getting a real offer in minutes. There really is no place like home.

[00:39:33] And speaking of home, Carvana will pick up your car from yours after you finalize your offer. Visit Carvana.com or download the app and sell your car from your comfy place. Okay, picture this. It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[00:39:49] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever. Or I can hop into my all-new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road. With available H-track all-wheel drive and three-row seating, my whole family can head deep into the wild. Conquer the weekend in the all-new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:40:06] Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Hyundai. There's joy in every journey. I started this out thinking, wow, Weineke should be embarrassed to have linked herself with the Kranks.

[00:40:23] And now I think the Kranks in this case should be embarrassed to have linked themselves with Carole Weineke. Yes, and I don't think it helps Richard Allen's cause that one of the legal minds out there speaking the most on his behalf,

[00:40:39] who says, yes, we got to stand up for Richard Allen. By the way, we also did not go to the moon. Yeah, you know, it's it just makes the lack of self-awareness is really amazing. It just makes claims around Richard Allen seem more lunatic and conspiratorial and ridiculous.

[00:40:56] Can't you find someone to stand up and argue that Richard Allen is innocent, who also believes we went to the moon? And who also isn't like sleazily attempting to, you know, court this community.

[00:41:10] Right, because there's a lot of people who do know better, who just continue to try to get those sweet, sweet crank clicks. Yeah. So it's like, I don't know. It's deeply there's a there's a Latin phrase. It's Nessupra Crepedom. I'm probably saying that right.

[00:41:29] It's been a while. I'm going to I'm going to give you the actual translation. It means not beyond the shoe. So you're thinking on you. What what what the hell are you talking about at this point?

[00:41:39] What it means essentially is that you should not speak beyond your expertise. And what I would argue is that I don't think Osbrooke or Wynneke know much about this case, nor should they. That's not their jobs. That's not what they're brought on to do. That's not a criticism.

[00:41:55] It's just meant to say that you can have a legal degree, you can have some experience in that space and you can still not know much about the case. And it's OK. That's OK.

[00:42:05] But just maybe don't be attempting to use your credibility in one space to try to essentially hijack a conversation in another space. It shows a distinct lack of humility and frankly, a lack of curiosity.

[00:42:19] Some of what Wynneke was posting about like other professions, about doctors, nurses, social workers, some really kind of off the wall opinions there.

[00:42:28] And she just often she seems to have a worldview where she just assumes the worst about vast swaths of people, you know, not speaking to issues.

[00:42:38] Right. But speaking to like everybody's in on it because they don't want you to do this or they're going to get money from this and that.

[00:42:45] Like I believe there's something I'm paraphrasing, but something to the effect that the only reason doctors don't want you popping ivermectin tablets for your COVID is because they don't make money from that.

[00:43:01] So in other words, the implication is that doctors are suppressing medical treatments just because doctors care more about money. Like she goes after social workers, doctors, I think nurses, just people in medicine, journalists, apparently astronauts, I guess scientists.

[00:43:18] Well, yeah, I would imagine like people like Buzz Aldrin, they must be in on the conspiracy in Ms. Wynneke's mind because she doesn't believe we went to the moon.

[00:43:28] So I invite you any time you see anything Ms. Wynneke says, just have a voice in the back of your head. OK, she says this. She also does not believe we went to the moon.

[00:43:41] Yeah, it's foolish. I think that we I mean, also just the whole paranoia about things. I mean, I'm sure she wouldn't like it if people said that defense attorneys were trying to bolster criminality in society because of some evil plot, because that's an insane and unhinged idea.

[00:43:57] Yeah, you could say defense attorneys spend ridiculous theories just to make money. But it's like defense attorneys serve a real purpose in society, and most of them are hardworking individuals who are doing their best.

[00:44:09] That doesn't mean they always get it right, but they're doing their best. They are necessary. Doctors serve an important function in society. They treat illness and such.

[00:44:18] And she's suggesting that basically every doctor in the free world is knowingly suppressing information about this hoarse treatment that can help us prevent COVID? Well, I mean, my real question, I'm sure she has. I'm sure the real question she has are for the astronauts.

[00:44:35] I mean, it's just I just I don't know. I think they've always been professionals who probably had really off the wall opinions, but they just weren't able to like embarrass themselves to this degree publicly in the past.

[00:44:46] But I really think it's shocking. And I think that people having law degrees should not necessarily mean that they should be considered expert commentators on anything in particular. See, here's the thing. Everybody has a tendency to think they know about everything.

[00:45:05] Not everybody. I think some people actually have a thing called humility. A lot of people do. But like you wouldn't trust me if you needed help building a dog house. You would be foolish to call me over and entrust me to do that.

[00:45:20] Now, the problem is that a lot of people in the academic fields, once they work hard and get a degree, they sometimes think that means they're not just smart in that field. They're smart in every field.

[00:45:36] And sometimes when people see, oh, this person has a degree, that must mean they're smart in every field. And it doesn't. It means they earned a degree in one field.

[00:45:46] Yes. And like we've all had this experience. No matter what job you have, you've probably had this experience or maybe even it's just a life experience.

[00:45:54] Maybe it's your personal background. It could be anything. It doesn't have to be a job. It could be a hobby. It could be anything. But we all know some person who comes over, maybe they're pretty smart, you know, maybe or maybe they have a good job.

[00:46:05] And they start telling you about your work or your life and you know that they are getting it completely wrong. They have some fundamental misunderstandings about what you do and how it works.

[00:46:15] And you just kind of listen to them rattle things off. And, you know, like, listen, this person can be good at their thing, but they really don't know mine. And I think that is something very important to remember in true crime commentary in general.

[00:46:32] You know, Kevin and I have been very upfront with everyone on the show. We came but I came from a retail reporting background. Kevin came from an intellectual property law background. We didn't come in here saying we know everything about the law and journalism.

[00:46:44] We came in here with a curiosity to learn along with all of you by talking to actual experts on the show. That's how you get information. That's how you actually grow your knowledge base.

[00:46:57] You don't grow it by coming in and saying, well, I bet this photo was doctored. How do I know? It looks fishy. And by the way, we didn't go to the moon. Maybe it's my hunch. Yeah. The moon landing.

[00:47:10] The moon thing really. I'm mentioning that because I can't. It's very important. I can't get past it. That's an idiotic belief. It's a stupid belief from an ignorant point of view. It isn't. I'm being blunt. We went to the moon.

[00:47:25] Well, did you know that actually NEP or NEPR is the Harvest Moon God in Norse mythology? And who's his dad? Odin. It's all linked. It all ties in. I probably said all those names wrong, so I apologize.

[00:47:42] But yeah, I just I think I think the level of commentary just has devolved into a place where it's just people are just saying whatever without any sort of consideration for the truth. And if you're saying, well, you guys are going really hard on the defense side.

[00:47:57] Well, that's fair, but I'm not seeing any level of the same thing on the prosecution side.

[00:48:01] And if a bunch of law professors and random moon deniers came up on the prosecution side tomorrow and were acting like they knew everything and that Richard Allen must definitely be guilty because, you know, these photos were doctored and, you know, Buzz Aldrin lied.

[00:48:18] Then we would be criticizing them as well. And so when that happens, we're ready. This brings us to the next question, which is why do you talk about Internet cranks? And one reason we talk about Internet cranks is I think is perhaps become increasingly apparent.

[00:48:36] It's difficult to tell the difference between an Internet crank and a member of the defense team. It's like that. It's like that meme of Pam from The Office. Like these are the same picture. I mean, it's it's like they have scary.

[00:48:51] They have catered so much to this community. They become part of the community and they're just they're linked in so many ways. And it is disturbing and it does not help the cause of Richard Allen. It is, in fact, hurt the case for Richard.

[00:49:08] Early on, we had a conversation because there's always a lot of crazy stuff going on behind the scenes in the Internet crank world. And we decided that if we were going to cover that, it's all we would cover because there's so much going on.

[00:49:22] So we decided we will only cover this if we feel it basically splashes up against the case. What do we mean by that? Well, we mean that the harassment and bad behavior gets to a really wild point.

[00:49:36] We mean if people are called as witnesses, we mean that if people are mentioned in court filings, there's there's a number of ways that it can kind of reach to that echelon.

[00:49:48] But you can be guaranteed that all we're talking about is really just the tip of the iceberg. And it's the stuff that we feel is highly relevant.

[00:49:56] And I think we've done a pretty good job not to pat ourselves on the back, but I think we've done a good job of identifying what trends are going to become relevant.

[00:50:03] Because I'll remind everybody, we did a whole report on the harassment abetted by two individuals, Angela Sobolowski and Courtney Parsons. And Sobolowski also previously filed a frivolous lawsuit against Carroll County. And they ended up being called as witnesses by the defense.

[00:50:21] We didn't know that was going to happen, but it was sort of like that tells you that if it's affecting the case, it'll probably continue to affect the case. And rather than whitewash and hide it from our audience and be like, no, no, this is all normal.

[00:50:35] We would rather you have the information that you need so that you can assess what's going on, the facts. Because if you're just getting bombarded with like, who are these people?

[00:50:46] You know, I mean, if I were following a case and people were just coming up, I wouldn't really know what to think about it or I wouldn't know what the background was. We want you to get the background. We want you to have all the information.

[00:50:56] So if we feel like something gets to that point, we will give it to you. Otherwise, we will not because I don't want I do not like covering this angle.

[00:51:03] I like I like the idea of covering a case where there's really good lawyering on both sides and smart arguments being made. That was my dream. That dream is dead, but maybe it'll come back.

[00:51:16] I don't know. Yeah, there's a lot of drama in the online world that we have not even covered or talked about. Believe me, it's not worth it, but it's certainly it's certainly I would just say brace for more of that because there has been an ideological capture seemingly.

[00:51:33] Of the defense team. I don't know who captured whom at this point.

[00:51:36] I don't know where the defense captured by the sort of cranks or did the cranks get captured by the defense and got so into the access or so into the perception that they were helping out that they became such loyal foot soldiers.

[00:51:50] I don't know, but it's really not good. No, it's not normal. This is not how things are supposed to be. So we're going to talk about this other photo leaks that I believe happened on Monday. Yeah, why don't you set us up on that?

[00:52:07] Okay, so there was a filing in the case Monday in which there was a discussion of the so-called mimicked crime scene photo that Brad Holder had posted at some point. And I thought the filing did a good job of basically minimizing the importance of that photo.

[00:52:32] And so later on Monday, a woman named Courtney Parsons, I believe works for dog food company down in Texas. Is that correct? Yep. She chose to post this so-called mimic crime scene photo on Twitter. I believe is also now been posted on YouTube.

[00:52:54] Twitter has removed it. And so it's interesting because it feels like there was a pattern here where the defense thinks they're on the bad side of an argument.

[00:53:07] Oh, this mimic crime scene thing isn't important. Oh, this description of the sticks of the crime scene, we don't think it's accurate. Something like that happens. And then suddenly, immediately thereafter, there is a leak of protected discovery material.

[00:53:25] So that there's some smoke there. I think it's odd. And Miss Parsons, as we say, she was on the witness list for the defense. I think it's been pretty well established. There's some connections and communications between her and the defense team.

[00:53:43] Did they ask her to do this? Did they supply her with a picture? I don't know. But the timing looks awful. And then there's also the fact that after she posted this image, there was a lot of self-important congratulatory talk around it.

[00:54:03] Like, oh, the pro-prosecution people don't want you to see this picture. And we think it's important that you do. Pro-prosecution people hate her for this one weird trick.

[00:54:20] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever, or I can hop into my all-new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road. With available H-track all-wheel drive and three-row seating, my whole family can head deep into the wild. Conquer the weekend in the all-new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:54:36] Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Hyundai. There's joy in every journey. Man, that sunset is gorgeous. Grill, patio, sunset. Hard to get better than that. Unless you're browsing Carvana's inventory while you soak it all in. Oh, burger time.

[00:54:57] So sit back, get comfortable. Carvana's got thousands of cars under $20,000 just waiting for ya. I could stay here forever. Carvana. Where car buying meets comfort meets convenience. Download the app or visit Carvana.com today. Okay, picture this. It's Friday afternoon when a thought hits you.

[00:55:18] I can spend another weekend doing the same old whatever, or I can hop into my all-new Hyundai Santa Fe and hit the road. With available H-track all-wheel drive and three-row seating, my whole family can head deep into the wild. Conquer the weekend in the all-new Hyundai Santa Fe.

[00:55:34] Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Hyundai. There's joy in every journey. And so the first question is, why do they think it is up to them to make that decision about what should and should not be seen in this situation?

[00:55:55] These people have no legal or journalistic background. They're just cranks. And let's also be completely accurate here. It is not pro-prosecution people who do not want you to see that picture.

[00:56:06] It is the judge in an ongoing active murder case who filed an order saying this is protected material. It should not be released to the public in order to protect everyone's rights.

[00:56:20] Well, Courtney Parsons is the same person who, in addition to saying that people like Jason Blair should be killed, has also said things about how Judge Gull, it's good that she got ill at one point and now she can suffer like Richard Adler suffers.

[00:56:32] So I don't think there's a lot of respect for the judge here or the process or how anything works in real life. Under the process, it is the judge who has the right in an ongoing active case to decide this should not be made public at this time.

[00:56:47] And if ultimately there was evidence that, oh, this photo is actually relevant and tells us something about the circumstances of the crime, then if the judge doesn't agree with you, you can appeal it. There's a process there in place.

[00:57:02] And I'll say I've seen, as everybody knows, and Anya has seen too, we've seen the actual crime scene pictures. We've seen this so-called mimic crime scene picture. I don't see much similarity there, if any. Do you? Nope.

[00:57:16] And I also want to point out something about evidence like this, which is that we all have filters. And so you can take something that actually happened or a piece of evidence that actually exists and you can interpret it in many, many different ways based upon your filter.

[00:57:40] Let me give you an example of this. Let's say there is a picture of me that appears on the Internet of me at a store buying a dozen roses in a box of candy.

[00:57:56] You could look at that and say, if you believe Anya and I are happy people and I'm a good husband, which is true. It's true. You would say, oh, Kevin's doing something romantic and nice for Anya.

[00:58:08] If you think Anya and I secretly don't get along and fight a lot, you would say, oh, Kevin did something wrong. And he's trying to make up with Anya. Never.

[00:58:19] If you think I'm just a complete cad in a rogue, you think, oh, Kevin's buying something special for his secret girlfriend. Oh.

[00:58:30] Or maybe it turns out that this picture of me was taken at a store by a hospital and I have an aunt who's having surgery and maybe I'm buying it for her. Crisscross. There's all sorts of different possibilities there.

[00:58:45] And how you interpret this one event which happened, me buying the roses, depends upon your perceptions and perhaps your ability to actually connect it to something real. And that's what this so-called mimic crime scene photo is. Maybe it means something. Maybe it breaks the case wide open.

[00:59:05] Maybe it's completely meaningless to the case. Maybe it's somebody's idea of a gag photo. I don't know. Maybe. Maybe what's more important than social media output is actual evidence linking somebody to a crime scene. Yes. Just maybe.

[00:59:22] And so if you can't prove that this photo is actually relevant to the issues of this trial, then there is no reason for it to come in and it is insignificant. And all it can do is affect other people's rights. Yep. Bill, that's the troubling issue about this.

[00:59:40] I think to me, if there was any sort of concern from this side of it that like we could be accusing people who are factually innocent. I think when I see elements of the pro-prosecution side that can be very radical and are just like, oh, he's guilty.

[00:59:59] I don't really agree with that. And I don't agree with that sort of language. Just as far as it presumes something that we have not had a trial yet. So why shouldn't Richard Allen get his chance to tell his side of it?

[01:00:10] But I've also seen a lot of people that I say I think lean towards guilt, but they're saying things like, you know, we don't want a factually innocent man to go down. We would like to see all the evidence. We'd like to have an open mind.

[01:00:21] And so I think there's a very open minded side of this and a large portion of people actually occupy that more moderate space where they might lean towards guilt. They might lean towards innocence, but they're open and they are open minded. And I think that's crucial.

[01:00:36] And I think when you have something on this defense type, they're basically decided these innocent and that they are justified in sort of maybe smearing and ruining other people's reputations and saying that they are, in fact, guilty of a double child homicide based on from what I've seen so far, very little.

[01:00:56] And I think that's very problematic.

[01:00:59] I think you're kind of I think part of the reason why this odinism was selected is because it did give people kind of a thrill to be able to go hunt down people's Facebook posts and harass them and sort of have a bit of a Salem witch trials with this group of people based on minimal evidence.

[01:01:19] And I think that is really problematic. And this picture, as I say, it could be important. It could be completely worthless to the case. We don't know. There needs to be evidence proving the validity of the picture as a piece of relevant evidence.

[01:01:34] And also we should when there is an active, ongoing murder case that has an accused person and a judge making rulings, people should respect the rulings of the judge. And if you disagree with those rulings, the attorneys have options to appeal.

[01:01:54] It is not up to self-important people online to unilaterally make the decision that, oh, no, we think people need to know this.

[01:02:03] And again, the fact that this happened right after this picture was minimized by Nick McLean and earlier in October, we had a situation where right after Barbara McDonald made a comment about the sticks on the bodies of the girls that the defense team didn't like.

[01:02:18] These things, it's just odd. It looks bad. I mean, there's no fire, but that's a lot of smoke. That's bad.

[01:02:25] And I think I mean, if it's not a situation where there's nothing purposeful going on, then it just is even more baffling because it just makes the defense look bad for no reason.

[01:02:35] Especially when the picture is posted by someone who has been shown previously to be connected to the defense team. Yeah, I think it's a really very it's a very bad look.

[01:02:46] And I'll be curious to see what kind of comes down with all of this in terms of information coming out, because I think the truth will come out eventually about how all of this went down and all this behind the scenes things.

[01:02:58] People really should realize that it will come out eventually.

[01:03:03] And I'll be curious to see how everyone looks at the end of the day about that, because I don't I think if there's been some systemic effort to influence the public and there was reliance upon people with sort of no credibility and frankly, no compunction about behaving in abusive and bad ways, then I think.

[01:03:23] It's going to be interesting. That's all I can say. Let's try to get through a few more questions before we wrap up. I like this one. This is a bit of a different one. So why are we so critical of Judge Gull now?

[01:03:37] So we talked about why you're so critical of the defense and now we're kind of getting the other side of it. Some people think we're too critical about Judge Gull. Why are we?

[01:03:46] Well, I don't I don't I don't I feel like we've mostly been sort of pretty neutral. I think the thing we've criticized Judge Gull the most about and I think what this person is probably picking up on is media strategy.

[01:04:01] How do you deal with the media? How do you give access to the courtroom to the public through the media or through other means? And for that kind of comes into play where our beliefs, I think, diverge sharply from hers.

[01:04:16] We believe that openness and transparency is the best. And so that for us, that means cameras being allowed in the courtroom and the trial being allowed to be broadcast.

[01:04:28] Now, I think both of us can see reasons why that's not that why others could disagree with that, why they could feel that that would be problematic, not sensitive enough or give to attorneys, you know, in particular a chance to basically grandstand.

[01:04:46] But we tend to think that it's still the best option, even if it comes with some risks. But ruling out cameras, which I don't think are going to ever be allowed at this point.

[01:04:56] We still think there are some concessions that could be made for the media that would improve things somewhat. That could mean assigned seating for designated media outlets. That could mean really filling up the courtroom, frankly, with media outlets. That can mean having an audio feed for media outlets.

[01:05:13] And I think that those things would be good. And it's not because we're like I mean, I don't even think we'd be considered a media outlet as podcasters at this point. It's not for us. It's because media and journalists represent the public.

[01:05:28] They represent professionals who are going there to get information to bring to you at home. And this case has attracted such a strong public interest that we think some concessions for that are necessary because people want to know what's going on.

[01:05:43] And I think essentially shutting down any media concessions is a problem because of that. What do you think? Yeah, I agree completely. I think there is so much interest in this trial and it has cost the people of the state of Indiana so much money.

[01:06:03] The public has a right to know and understand what's going on in this case. Yeah, I have a question. And also I think it's an important opportunity to educate people on the judicial process and learn about how these things work or don't work as the case may be.

[01:06:19] Do we think the judge girl is doing this because she's a secret odiness and is trying to cover things up? No. We think that in fact reasonable people can disagree.

[01:06:31] We tend to think that her views are nowhere near media friendly as they should be and that frankly being media friendly would improve a lot of things in this case. If you fill up the courtroom with reporters, guess what?

[01:06:43] The intern from the local ABC affiliate is not going to get up and start screaming about how Richard Allen is being sacrificed to the odiness cult. They're going to be professionals. So it kind of keeps things a bit safer in a trial situation.

[01:07:00] But I think that she's making decisions within the realm that is her discretion. So at the end of the day, we do have to respect what she's selecting and we do not read a sinister intent. She's within her rights here.

[01:07:15] She's within her rights to run it how she wants. So we can disagree and we can voice that disagreement. But voicing a disagreement does not mean that you need to read all sorts of sinister intent into everything.

[01:07:27] And frankly when you do that, you lose the moral high ground. You lose the ability to sound like somebody who should be taken seriously. Yes. So that hopefully answers that question.

[01:07:39] The next question is somebody asked about can family members of the victims get hit with violations of the gag order based on some stuff that has happened recently? Do you want to talk about that?

[01:07:52] Personally, I think it's a shame first of all that the family is bound by this gag order. I think they are. When you say the family, you mean the family of Libby? The family of Libby in particular, but all the families are bound by it.

[01:08:06] Yeah. So Abby's family and Libby's family are bound by a gag order. I think Libby's family is unusually articulate. They're very good at communicating. We've all seen that. All of us who follow the case, we've seen interviews with them. We've seen interviews with Becky, Mike, Kelsey.

[01:08:29] So Becky and Mike are Libby's grandparents and Kelsey is her older sister. They're great communicators. They've lost someone that was very, very important to them, someone they loved and cherished and treasured.

[01:08:42] They are embroiled in this legal process with the rest of us, only they for them, the stakes are so much higher than they are for any of us. And for them not to be permitted to speak doesn't seem fair.

[01:09:00] I think it's an overly broad gag order when it comes to them personally. Because I think it kind of violates their right to free speech. But that's just me. I don't know how they feel about it.

[01:09:12] They may be grateful for a chance where they're not being pounded by the media constantly. Who knows? I'm not trying to speak for them. I'm just telling you my opinion.

[01:09:20] But anyway, so Becky Patti, Libby's grandmother, over time has made some sort of posts on social media sort of expressing vague frustrations. She's not saying anything about anyone in particular. It's just vague.

[01:09:32] And we've had a lot of people ask us and then we've also seen other commentators kind of gleefully speculate that she's going to jail because she said this.

[01:09:42] And we would just say, this woman has shown more restraint than I think most of us are capable of in this case. Yes, that's fair to say.

[01:09:51] For years, for the not knowing, for the sort of years of just this being an investigation and for currently as it goes towards trial, the amount of delays, the amount of nonsense. The amount of just poor behavior. The fact that her granddaughter's photos got leaked onto the Internet.

[01:10:14] They came out on YouTube. Imagine that for a minute. Imagine that you went through something like that and she's allowed to vaguely post about frustrations.

[01:10:26] I mean, I think the gag order, it's frustrating to me that it applies to them because I think if Becky Patti, if Mike Patti, if Kelsey or whoever in that family, if they want to tell the world how they feel about any or all of this, then we should listen and we should give them a chance to speak.

[01:10:47] I'm just saying what she's posted does not violate the gag order. And I'm saying the gag order shouldn't even apply to them in my mind. Yeah, I agree. I'd say that some people were asking just more out of curiosity. I understand.

[01:11:00] But others were like gleefully talking about how they're going to get in trouble now. It's normal for someone to be frustrated by this process. It is not normal to be gleefully speculating about how the victim's families will be punished because they're not on your side. That's not normal.

[01:11:16] They're not punished enough. And they also have free speech and they just are not allowed to talk about the case specifically.

[01:11:24] But, you know, frankly, given the fact that we've had people like Michael Osbrook, that we've had people like Kara Winnicke, and we've had people like David Hennessey go around and talk to the press and say whatever they want.

[01:11:36] You know, I mean, that side does not seem to respect the gag order. And I think some vague expressions of frustration do not even come close to violating it. Well, I can't really say the same for the other things.

[01:11:50] I mean, I would think that people who are considered part of the defense team would be bound, but it's possible it's more nuanced than that. I don't know.

[01:11:57] But I just think it's really ironic that people who are celebrating one side are then kind of egregiously, gleefully dancing around about the other thing. I don't get it. We've been trying these good people's patience long enough. Let me do one more question. All right.

[01:12:13] Do we think the trial will go on as scheduled in October? No. I'm not sure. I'm sure. I'm sure the answer is no. Why do you say that? Because I believe the defense will delay. I don't think they'll be ready in October.

[01:12:30] They were certainly far from ready for May. We know that because their filings, because their general performance and because they didn't seem to understand things like geofencing or phone pings or what odinism is.

[01:12:43] I mean, they were calling around looking for an odinism expert, as we reported previously in April for a May trial. That's shocking. Odinism is a pretty key part of their theory. I don't think they're ready. I don't think they'll be ready for a long time.

[01:12:59] This thing, I think, is going to get delayed endlessly for a very long time. I don't want that to be true. I would like this to be done. But that is what I believe is the truth.

[01:13:09] And it's very unfortunate for everyone involved, especially Richard Allen if he doesn't want this. No. So, yeah. Why do you think it's a maybe? I give people the benefit of the doubt. I really just want to see this trial happen.

[01:13:27] Give people the benefit of the doubt in this economy? Really? After all we've said, you're giving them the benefit of the doubt about this? I think on some level they want it to be over too. I think. OK. Interesting.

[01:13:44] I think that if the opportunity costs get so great for them, that that might spur action. Because I think they're probably not getting paid as much as they could be making with private clients. So I think if this becomes a sort of a monetary thing.

[01:13:59] But I think in their minds, perhaps correctly, their honor, their reputations are bound up with the outcome in this case. They put themselves so on the line for Richard Allen. And they've gotten thrown off the case.

[01:14:12] Their reputations have been largely stained by goings on, which in my view are largely their own faults. And I think the only thing that could truly vindicate them in their minds is a victory.

[01:14:28] I would argue that if he really doesn't want to go to trial, that would actually end up damaging them further. Because it's like they dragged an unwilling man through a stupid legal farce.

[01:14:38] But if he does want to go to trial or, you know, I think basically they may have an incorrect assumption about how they're going to be remembered for this. I think a lot of the stuff we're seeing is them.

[01:14:53] They seem to want to either make preemptive excuses for losing by all of the judges unfair or they're actively trying to build a record for a possible appeal. So I almost wonder if they're looking at this case and thinking, well, we're going to lose a trial.

[01:15:12] Maybe an appeal can turn things around. And if you think you're going to lose a trial, maybe let's just get the trial over with and move on to the next stage.

[01:15:20] Yeah. I mean, do you think there's an element of like, let's make things as messy and bad as possible so it looks more appealable at the end of the day?

[01:15:27] That's possible. Generally speaking, in a criminal trial, as Perry Mason teaches us, when you confuse the issues, it makes things better for the people. It makes things better for the defendant. Right. But I think they're confusing.

[01:15:39] That was a line in a Perry Mason's thing I was reading the other day. There you go. I do think that they're confusing themselves at this point. And I think it would be better to sort of play things a little bit closer to the vest.

[01:15:49] They seem to be banking on getting a very unsophisticated jury, which is always possible, but I don't think you should bank on that.

[01:15:57] Anyways, that's sort of our thoughts on a couple of things. Thanks to people who are asking us questions. Always happy to respond and chat and appreciate it. And we will chat again soon.

[01:16:08] 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.

[01:16:27] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murder sheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murder sheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[01:16:51] 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. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook.

[01:17:09] 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.