The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen Goes to the Supreme Court: The Decision

[00:00:00] Content Warning, this episode contains discussion of murder. So Anya I think just literally hit publish on the episode we recorded about the oral arguments that took place today at the Supreme Court.

[00:00:18] And just as she did that, we got an email from the Supreme Court indicating that they had reached their decision. This was much, much, much, much quicker than anyone expected. Living the dream here.

[00:00:31] So we will read the order and discuss it, but briefly the decision is that Rosie and Baldwin are back on the case and Judge Gold remains on the case as well.

[00:00:45] So we'll give you some of our first three actions to all of this and talk about it in just a moment. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:00:59] 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. Richard Allen goes to the Indiana Supreme Court. The decision. So why don't I start off by just reading this? It's very, very brief.

[00:02:06] Yeah, do it. Published order. The relator Richard Allen seeks relief from this court under the rules of procedure for original actions. Relator has requested a permanent writ of mandamus asking this court to one,

[00:02:22] order the trial court to reinstate his former trial counsel, attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rosie as his court appointed counsel. Two, order the trial court to commence relator's trial within 70 days from the issuance of this writ.

[00:02:36] And three, remove the special judge from relator's case and appoint a new special judge.

[00:02:43] Having considered the written submissions and having heard the arguments of counsel, a majority of the court votes to grant the petition for writ as to relator's request to reinstate attorneys Baldwin and Rosie as his court appointed counsel. The court unanimously denies all other relief sought.

[00:03:01] The court will promptly issue a written opinion explaining its reasons. The pendency of this matter in this court does not stay the proceedings in the trial court. It is signed by Judge Justice Loretta Rush, the Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.

[00:03:19] So first of all before we even discuss the order, it's very unusual for an order to come out this quickly in a case of this nature. It shows same day delivery. This was same day delivery. It shows how incredibly seriously they take this.

[00:03:39] There was a lot of talk this morning from the justices about not wanting there to be delays, when to get things on track, getting things moving. But like everybody says that but they actually did it. Yeah, obviously that was not empty rhetoric. No. They really meant it.

[00:03:57] It's also interesting that they note that there will be a written opinion later. The written opinion is going to make for very interesting reasons or reading.

[00:04:09] I remember in law school they said basically judges can do pretty much anything they want but they have to explain it and they have to explain it because there's always similar cases that come up.

[00:04:25] And so it's helpful for other justices to read written opinions and see how this was handled in the past, what the precedents are. So the written opinion is going to explain why they made this ruling. All we know now is the result.

[00:04:41] What do you think about the result? Well, I don't want to sound flippant but I think the Indiana Supreme Court shows chaos. You know, you're basically forcing people to work together who don't trust each other. So I just am surprised that they're not going to separate them.

[00:05:08] They're basically saying all right you guys now get along but I don't know if that's going to work. The trust has been lost between these two parties just speaking as a neutral observer here not saying who is the right or wronged party.

[00:05:26] But I'm just observing a situation where the defense has been strenuously arguing for a long time actually. Oh, she's a prosecutor's judge. She's terrible for the defense. She's so biased against us all this stuff. She ruled against us. She's so biased she should be removed.

[00:05:43] Yes and the judge, well you go ahead. The judge literally did remove the defense because she says they're negligent. They don't know what they're doing. They lie in their motions, blah, blah, blah.

[00:05:53] So no matter who you think is right, no matter who you think is wrong, these sides don't like each other. They don't get along. Yeah, it's not just not liking each other. It's like she also, I mean in her view, she may feel that they lied to her.

[00:06:08] They withdrew from the case. They did not mean that. Every, both sides are not in a place where I feel like there's a lot of room for coming back from that. Maybe I'm wrong.

[00:06:21] So I think a lot of people behind the scenes who just observe this case and maybe have some legal expertise often noted like, oh man it'd be really crazy if they brought them all back but why would they do that?

[00:06:35] So maybe we talked to, I think to a person, treated this as an either or. They would assume that either judge goal would go or the defense attorneys would go.

[00:06:46] But I guess and obviously this is just speculation because we have not seen the opinion of not read the opinion. We don't know what the reasoning is but I would guess they ultimately concluded that whatever judge goal did that was wrong,

[00:07:01] did not rise to the level of requiring her to be removed and whatever Rosie and Baldwin did that may have been wrong. Also did not rise to the level of them being removed.

[00:07:12] And you can't necessarily say, well neither side did anything to warrant removal so we're still going to remove one of them anyway. Because the other side doesn't like them. I get, I see that reasoning.

[00:07:22] Most of the people we talk to behind the scenes who are like lawyers who just follow this and just know things. It's not like they said, it's not like people were saying, oh judge goal so badly bungled this that they're going to you know,

[00:07:32] punt her into the sun. It was more like well, you know, they probably have to bring them back and if they bring them back then they probably have to remove her. But I guess they basically said no we don't.

[00:07:47] So I'm, I'm this is like in a way the most surprising outcome because it's it's the one that gets us back to the status quo. But the status quo has been blown to smithereens. There is no status quo anymore. The status quo is insanity.

[00:08:03] So, you know, I really I thought that she was gone. I thought that they were going to kick her off to bring them back on. Not because I not because the justices felt that she really did anything super wrong.

[00:08:16] It was just because they needed to safeguard Alan's rights and that would be the correct thing to do. Is this going to make us at risk for a tremendous appeal because they're going to say, oh look, she tried to kick us off so she didn't like us.

[00:08:30] I mean she's biased against us every time she rules against them from here on out. That's that's certainly possible. Excuse me. It's a situation where it's hard to guess what's going to happen next.

[00:08:45] Is she going to choose to have a formal hearing to determine whether or not the two attorneys were grossly language that need to be removed? Like does she get a second shot at them now almost, you know, like maybe it's not like, okay everyone back to work.

[00:09:02] Maybe it's like now I'm going to actually make a record and throw you off in a way that can't be challenged. I don't know because there's been points made that you can't do that by the defense side of things.

[00:09:13] You can't do that even when, you know, that they're like that's not necessarily clear that that would work. I'd wonder would McLean file a motion saying they should be disqualified. We've heard that in a phone conversation back in October he indicated that he believed they should be disqualified.

[00:09:34] Never filed a form of motion to that effect. No, no. Will he do so now? Well the B of hearing are they brought back public defenders I assume if everything is just reinstated. He said reinstated. Okay, well that's confusing but another question.

[00:09:49] My guess is they're public defenders again. My guess is they're public defenders again. You know the attorney Lehman indicated that he felt they came back from a pro bono. It would basically be some sort of punishment. And another question I have it revolves around the speedy trial motion.

[00:10:12] They originally as we all know they requested for the Supreme Court to order the trial begin in 70 days and the argument on the other side was that's really something you need to file in a trial court.

[00:10:23] So will Baldwin and Rosie go to court first thing tomorrow morning and file a speedy trial motion? Or is that just going to be? I'm calling it no unless they're pro bono which I don't think they are because why wouldn't it say that?

[00:10:39] I don't think they're gonna, I think the speedy trial thing was just, I mean that was probably the weakest element of that writ of mandamus honestly.

[00:10:48] It was just, it just seemed like a perfunctory thing of like and this is all important because we need to do it fast because look we thought about doing it fast earlier.

[00:10:57] And that means that was a part of we're gonna get, as Lehman's favorite phrase was we're gonna get Nick McLean on the back foot. Okay, that's very, that's like, I don't think they really care about that. I'm not saying they want to drag this out forever.

[00:11:11] I think this is probably the quickest. I think this path that they've chosen is probably the fastest like outcome potentially but I still don't think, I mean 70 days do they, I mean they're just coming back into it. Maybe there was stuff they didn't finish up.

[00:11:25] I don't know. That just seems a little bit unrealistic. Well, I just wanted to stress that even though the Supreme Court didn't grant that relief. They can still do it. Yeah. Rosie and Baldwin can still file such emotion. As you say, they haven't been working on the case.

[00:11:40] They were ordered to stop working on the case was it October 12th? Yeah. So that's over. I'm not even criticizing them if they don't want to do it in 70 days.

[00:11:48] That just seems unrealistic but I think, you know, I think that aspect of it was somewhat insincere and just maybe just a talking point. I didn't really see that.

[00:11:56] You know, I just think they needed to show why it was so important to bring it to the Supreme Court. There's also whether there's a speedy trial or not. There's a lot of outstanding motions that Baldwin and Rosie filed that we're still waiting to be moved.

[00:12:15] Imagine all of that will come back online because before it was like, oh, he's not an attorney anymore. So boot, you know, it's knocked out of the my case and there was issues with that with the other riddimendamus.

[00:12:27] So the things that pop up obviously we're going to need some sort of Frank's hearing. We're going to need some sort of hearing on they filed.

[00:12:39] I believe all the way back in June of last year they filed a motion and eliminate trying to limit the admissibility of ballistics evidence. That's correct. Yes. And I mean, with the Frank's hearing, we don't, I mean, it's not clear if there's going to be a Frank's hearing.

[00:12:54] There's going to be, it sounds like that would be up to her to decide that if there's even a Frank's hearing. She hasn't made a ruling on this. She indicated there's a lot of supporting documents and recording she hadn't read or listened to.

[00:13:07] And presumably she hasn't been reading it or pursuing that in the last few months because as far as she was concerned, the Frank's motion was off the table because the attorneys were no longer on the case. And oh my gosh, who are we forgetting? Screamin' in the vibrato.

[00:13:24] What are they going to do? They're gone. They're the ones who are gone. Is that right? Uh. They're like the characters in the first Star Trek movie who just get introduced and then killed awfully in a transporter accident.

[00:13:38] I feel it's unlikely that Carol County would want to pay for, for defense attorneys. Oh really? Jesus Christ. I mean we've heard that it's unusual that he has two because it's not a death penalty case.

[00:13:55] You know there's always, I remember when Screamin' in the vibrato came onto the case, there was a question, are they going to adopt some of the motions and stuff made by the previous attorneys? Are they just going to discard it?

[00:14:08] I would not be surprised if Baldwin and Rosie adopted the recent motion for moving Richard Allen to somewhere closer. Oh yeah. I'm sure that they share those concerns and feel that Richard Allen needs to be transported. Mm-hmm.

[00:14:30] Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised and also it makes their side look good because it's like look these other adult attorneys agreed that you know people have odonist tattoos.

[00:14:40] Well there was, there were some implications that some of the stuff in the original motion that Brad Rosie wrote all the way back in April of last year was not entirely true.

[00:14:51] And now we have Screamin' in the vibrato making not identical claims but very similar claims basically that Richard Allen is not being treated as well as he should in prison.

[00:15:04] And I think what we're most concerned about is Richard Allen's abilities to meaningfully confer with his counsel in prison are less than a person's rights to confer with clients or an attorney if they were injured.

[00:15:23] Yeah, I think it's less about, I think Rosie and Baldwin focused more on like you know, is he being treated nice in Westville and these other guys treated it more like,

[00:15:32] is he able to defend himself? Is this conducive to him defending himself? And I think that ended up that being more of the thrust of their arguments.

[00:15:41] So I think that would make sense for them to adopt that. But I mean, I mean, I mean, I guess they have to stop working now.

[00:15:48] So I wonder what the heck's gonna happen next. I guess for me, the fact that they ruled on this so quickly. I mean hours.

[00:15:56] I mean, I literally just hit publish on the other episode we did. Like that means to me that this was very much very important, very, very urgent in the minds of these justices that we need to come down on this fast.

[00:16:14] Yes. Justice Rush, in particular during the oral argument is kept on saying, we need that quickly, we need to get things moving. And if they took a week or a month or however long to wait for an opinion to be formally prepared, that would just delay everything further.

[00:16:33] And ultimately, whether you're Richard Allen, whether you're a family member of one of the victims, delaying things isn't helpful.

[00:16:41] No, it's really not. I wonder what this means for the timeline of the case. Is it going to be in October? Are they going to surprise me and actually go for something like the 70 days?

[00:16:51] It's possible. Again, I've been I've been dismissive of that but anything's possible. They may listen. I mean with Rosie and Baldwin, their reputations and I imagine, you know, just personal feelings have taken a battering in this whole situation.

[00:17:05] You know, they basically it kind of comes down to like these guys, you know, when there's a professional debate about are these guys totally negligent or just did they, you know, mess it up, but they shouldn't be fired.

[00:17:16] That's not a good that's not what I would want to be in for months and months. I would want to, you know, do it do a good job and then move on with my life.

[00:17:24] They've had months of people saying, oh, are they incompetent? Are they are they bad at their job? That's not a fun. That's not a fun position.

[00:17:33] I we've seen Andy Baldwin in court. You and I watched in the Randy Small murder trial. We've heard things about Brad Rosie. These are professionals who care deeply about their clients. And I'm sure they care very deeply about Richard Allen.

[00:17:52] Yeah, we can disagree or agree about strategy but still that could be true. But I think things take on an added meaning when it's not just your client's interest is stake, but in some extent it's your own.

[00:18:05] Yeah, because they have been really battered and now this trial offers them a chance not only to exonerate a client they believe in, but also vindicate themselves in their reputation.

[00:18:18] Because yeah, that would be rough coming back and then losing. You know, because then it's like why did you, you know, then almost like you could be like, well maybe if someone else had taken it they would have won and you fought so hard to lose.

[00:18:31] Well, also I think it's you want to prove that all these people who said you were incompetent or negligent you want to prove them wrong.

[00:18:38] Yeah, you want to prove that so there's like a personal angle there I imagine not that you know not that we know that but it just human nature.

[00:18:45] And this I think looks like a vindication for them partially but not a complete one because the justices are basically the way I'm reading the outcome although we'll have more clarity when there's opinions that we can read.

[00:18:59] Not saying yeah that big mean judge was mean to you fellas and you guys are good boys and here's an apple and go along your way. They're saying no, no, no you all have to get back in the car together and take this road trip together.

[00:19:11] And to me that speaks to like a mixed bag for both parties and I don't know.

[00:19:19] I think it's a worse outcome for Gull because it was her move that removed them so it's like they're undoing her action but at the same time, they don't seem to accept the defense's arguments that she crossed the line to a degree that she should not be in charge anymore.

[00:19:39] Just as she crossed the line enough to her decision that basically cost us all three months of delay needs to be undone. Right. It's rolling back a decision it's not rolling back her entire leadership in this case.

[00:19:51] So that's got to be a bittersweet thing for the defense side because I think I imagine what they're hoping for or what they were hoping for is Rosie and Baldwin back on but then definitely judge go out.

[00:20:06] And another thing that Rosie and Baldwin are likely going to need to respond to pretty quickly, perhaps the top item on their agenda is something we mentioned at the end of today's earlier episode.

[00:20:19] Namely that there's new charges being filed or rather the state wants to amend the charges. Are Rosie and Baldwin okay with that? Are they going to try to object? Are they going to try to fight it? We'll see.

[00:20:34] And the Cleland's filing is like we're nine months out to trial so that should be enough time but if they want to supercharge ahead, I don't know, that might delay them.

[00:20:44] If they say we want to have a speedy trial, you knew we wanted to have a speedy trial, why did you wait until today? I believe in the motion, Cleland says we believe these charges are proper based on the information that was in the PCA.

[00:21:00] Of course the PCA was written over a year ago. Right. Interesting stuff. So there's interesting arguments ahead there.

[00:21:10] But are they, again I guess my concern is if a big concern of the court is that we don't want an appeal that's like basically what Lehman said renders the first trial a practice trial.

[00:21:25] If they don't want that, is there concern that we will get, I mean is there a, I don't understand, I'm not a lawyer. Is there something where it's like oh this judge hates us so the trial should be thrown out because she didn't like us.

[00:21:41] Maybe we can't point to anything specific. Maybe some of her rulings against us, maybe every other judge would have done that or almost every other judge would have done that. And I think that's what we're going to do.

[00:21:52] I'm not going to say that we don't want to be like, but the vibes are bad with this judge between us and the judge. Well it's certainly possible that if Judge Gull and Rosie and Baldwin all remain on the case throughout the trial, I'm just speaking theoretically now,

[00:22:09] as a record is being created, there will be evidence that she is in fact biased against them which if they lose would possibly be grounds for an appeal.

[00:22:20] There's also every reason to believe that maybe that's not true and maybe once a trial record is created maybe it'll establish that there is no bias.

[00:22:29] How can one look at a record and determine whether or not a judge is fairly denying one party's rulings because they think they suck or not personally,

[00:22:42] or because they just think that the filing wasn't good or that the law doesn't support that or the facts don't support that. How do you even parse that? It's not easy because if there were hard and fast, clear rules say, oh this light is green.

[00:23:01] That means bias. Oh this light is red. That means everything is okay. Then you wouldn't have lawyers arguing with each other over whether or not someone is biased and you wouldn't have to take it to the Supreme Court.

[00:23:12] Every decision a judge makes in the course of a trial by and large is the result of that judge's discretion. It would take more than just a few of those discretionary decisions going against you to prove bias.

[00:23:29] Even though I felt that I was concerned about the lack of record, concerned about the lack of hearings and concerned about, let's have a hearing or you can withdraw. I didn't find it very compelling on the defense side arguing, oh well she denied our motion here.

[00:23:46] Judges deny motions. That seemed like a stretch, but looking forward, it'll be really interesting to see how you unpack that. I doubt there's cases like this, but I doubt in most situations the judge will be like, Rosie and Baldwin sent this?

[00:24:07] Yeah, I mean they're not in those bozos. It's not going to be like that. It's going to be just like denied or accepted. Where's the line? I talked earlier about how at this point the trial for Baldwin and Rosie is not just about Richard Allen.

[00:24:26] It's also to some extent about their reputation because their reputation and their professional competency has been maligned. By the same token, the trial for Judge Gull takes on a new meaning because there are a number of voices out there,

[00:24:42] whether it's the defense attorneys or some of their partisans online who are largely arguing that she is really biased and that her decisions are not to be trusted.

[00:24:54] And so that would likely inspire her, one would imagine, to really take a hard look and make sure even more so that everything is played exactly by the book and if she denied something that she had a really good reason.

[00:25:08] Yeah, I would hope that maybe everybody kind of just plays it by the book going forward. I mean just everybody plays it by the book going forward because we've been throwing out the book.

[00:25:19] We've been thrown out the window. Let's pick the book, dust it off and have the book at hand at all times going forward because the whole thing is just... We've lost three months.

[00:25:31] We've lost three months and again I joked in our last episode it's been like a fight at the omelet factory. Everyone has egg on their face except for Nick McLean right now because it doesn't make anybody look very good when we have a...

[00:25:47] Frankly, you can downplay it all you want but really disturbing leak of graphic crime scene photos involving two dead children and then that's followed up by decisions that are made behind closed doors

[00:26:03] and maybe they're okay or maybe they're not... turns out they're not according to the Indiana Supreme Court and three months wasted and now no clear indication about when anything's even going to happen

[00:26:17] because even if you say well this is good because now things will happen quickly, I don't know that because we have additional charges now and also they're not gonna... I mean I just don't see the 70 day thing happening.

[00:26:31] To some extent Baldwin and Rosie are showmen they like to do flashy things. Oh yeah. It would be flashy and get a lot of attention if they filed this speedy motion.

[00:26:43] Well given their history which tends to actually put flash over strategy in my opinion, in my personal opinion at times that would make a lot of sense based on their history because I mean they've put stuff in filings that probably shouldn't have gone in filings

[00:26:57] and that would be the sort of thing that you would do like to prove a point and maybe it's not an idea but maybe it makes you feel better at the moment or you think it'll look good in the media so I guess that's not out of the question.

[00:27:12] I don't know what they're going to do. All I can say is I think all of us who follow the case really want it to reach an end point no matter what the verdict is. I don't think everybody does.

[00:27:26] I think some people want it to go on forever. Most of us want it to see it. Most normal people want some sort of yeah. Would love to see an end point.

[00:27:34] So if they feel that they can be ready to try this case in 70 days I would really hope that they would file for that. What's interesting is like why didn't they file it back when they wrote up that paperwork?

[00:27:47] I mean I don't really understand the delay and that makes me question. In the oral arguments this morning there was talk that they had some strategy in mind and they were contemplating filing it I believe was they mentioned like early November or something.

[00:28:04] Yeah I've gotten the sense and this may be incorrect but I've gotten the sense that the prosecution has been ready to go.

[00:28:10] And so this talk of catching anybony on the back foot I don't really know what that means that doesn't really that just sounds like something you say to explain a delay. I don't even know what a back foot is. Exactly.

[00:28:22] I think maybe it's a fencing term but it's not... One of the first things I said to you when we reunited after your argument was what's a back foot? What are they trying to catch him doing?

[00:28:35] It's one of those things that just sounds like nonsense to me again I think the prosecution has been ready to go. I don't... If I keep on telling you like oh Kevin okay I'm almost ready, I'm almost ready to go out with you.

[00:28:51] I'm almost ready to go out with you and then I'm like yeah I'm gonna go downstairs and he's not gonna be ready but you're waiting in the car. It's like that's... I'm the problem there. I'm the person delaying it.

[00:29:01] I can kind of write a little fan fiction about what you're doing in my head but that doesn't really make it so. To me they've provided no evidence that Nick McClune's been sitting there like oh we gotta go now? Oh jeez you know that doesn't make any sense.

[00:29:15] I don't think they're... But again maybe they will because that would be the flashy thing to do. That would get a lot of attention. And then people would be like wow they must really be confident in it and it's like okay.

[00:29:26] And it would also result in a very busy 70 days for us all because as we mentioned there's a lot of outstanding business to conduct prior to a trial. I hope... The most important thing is for Richard Allen to get competent effective representation.

[00:29:48] If they believe they can be ready for a trial 70 days from tomorrow. I hope they file for that and I hope it's granted. I agree because I don't want to see this thing drag out forever. I mean it already feels like it has and if they really...

[00:30:05] If they've got it flaunted you know I mean just go for it. I mean what... They've outlined their entire case with the odinous thing. I'm sure they held some things back in fairness but I mean we kind of got it. Let... I mean just go.

[00:30:21] I would hope they would do that. I just am very skeptical at this point about you know promises being made and then not kept.

[00:30:29] Also in fairness if they decide not to it's possible that the three months ago they were in a place where they would have been ready within 70 days but then being away from it for so long. Maybe it takes a little more time to get back up to speed.

[00:30:44] I don't know. Yeah maybe 70 days is unrealistic but if they don't do it... Maybe 90 days. Yeah if they don't do it within like a short period then I think we can just chalk that up to bluster.

[00:30:54] The one thing that I will say though is I mean would there be a... Like this is going to sound like such a dumb question but I'm going to ask it.

[00:31:03] You know my non-lawyer mind sees kidnapping and murder being added to the charges and sees like well that's basically what they were already defending him against because it was felony murder kidnapping. But will that require additional work being done because they are technically different charges?

[00:31:23] It's likely that it might although according to McLean these charges aren't based on anything new. It's based on the same basic information that was in the PCA according to McLean and so if that's the case then you've already seen the evidence.

[00:31:40] So if you're going to try to disprove this evidence... Okay it's like nothing's new so there shouldn't be a delay over that necessarily although I think they're... That's what McLean is saying.

[00:31:51] I'm sure that if Baldwin or Rosie or even Scribman and L'Bredo were here they would say no, no that's not true. These charges aren't supported by the previous PCA blah blah blah. Endlessly. Lawyers like to argue at everything. Oh really? Yeah I mean I'm just...

[00:32:07] Are you surprised by this outcome? I'm not surprised by the outcome. I'm surprised by the speed. Are you surprised? So you're not surprised that they're bringing them all... They're all staying on. I'm not surprised by the outcome. I'm surprised by the speed.

[00:32:23] I really... I can't... I thought they were coming back and that they were going to get a new judge.

[00:32:27] That's what I thought was going to happen based on conversations but you know ultimately it's going to be as we said what the Indiana Supreme Court thinks is the right thing to do. What they think is going to be defending his rights and be best for the case.

[00:32:41] So they're saying we think Judge Gull is the best for the case, her staying on but we also think that bringing them back is the best for the case and defense his rights. So interesting day.

[00:32:53] So we don't know... Did they vote unanimously? Do we know anything like that? I'll look at the order again. I believe they did. So they all said this. Because I literally only read this moments before we came here and started talking about it.

[00:33:07] Yeah, we literally just ran in here. Okay, no it wasn't unanimous. Oh okay. A majority of the court votes to grant returning Baldwin and Rosé. Okay. But it was unanimous to deny everything else.

[00:33:27] So this also means that not only are we going to get an opinion explaining why this was the right thing to do in the mind of the court where I start likely to get a dissenting opinion from someone who says no it wasn't the right thing and here's why I believe that.

[00:33:42] So that person will be anti-Gull or anti-Baldwan Rosé. Yeah. So they'll be saying here's why you should have kept them kicked off. Yeah. That's going to sting. So interesting opinions to read. Yes. I think that's about it right? Yep.

[00:33:59] I will note before we go that we have an episode of the cheat sheet coming out tomorrow in case you haven't heard enough of us today. We say this on the episode, I'm going to say it again. We recorded it yesterday.

[00:34:15] And you're going to tell because we're going to sound younger, happier, more carefree. I feel like that meme of Russ Cole smoking where he's just like wide eyed and smoke. I'm just this whole thing and have it all happen in one day. We didn't even get it.

[00:34:30] This is, I mean, I'm glad they did it quickly. I think that was the right call. Good for them for figuring it out. I'm just shocked. And I think we're going to put out this episode very quickly with minimal editing. So if it sounds a bit more fun.

[00:34:42] There's no sounds effects. It's just we're putting it out and it's just, that's it because we, I mean, we just put out an episode of being like wonder what they'll do. So we got to put this out guys. Hope you understand.

[00:34:57] Well, thank you so much for listening and you will hear our dispatch from yesterday sometime tomorrow. Thanks everybody. Bye. 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 murder sheet at gmail.com.

[00:35:18] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com.

[00:35:44] We very much appreciate any support. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the murder sheet and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:36:00] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much.

[00:36:14] 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.