The Delphi Murders: The State Responds

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_00]: Content Warning, this episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls.

[00:00:05] [SPEAKER_02]: Well it so often happens in this case. It seems that on another Friday afternoon we have gotten

[00:00:11] [SPEAKER_02]: another group of filings in the Richard Allen matter and we're going to take a few minutes

[00:00:18] [SPEAKER_02]: and go through them all with you as we start our weekend.

[00:00:23] [SPEAKER_00]: My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:00:25] [SPEAKER_02]: And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:00:27] [SPEAKER_00]: And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:00:30] [SPEAKER_02]: We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting,

[00:00:33] [SPEAKER_02]: interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:00:38] [SPEAKER_00]: And this is The Delphi Murders, The State Responds.

[00:01:25] [SPEAKER_00]: So as you probably can tell from that rather vague episode title, we are going to be talking about

[00:01:32] [SPEAKER_00]: quite a number of responses from both the state in the form of Carroll County prosecutor

[00:01:37] [SPEAKER_00]: Nicholas McCliland as well as actually the Indiana Department of Correction

[00:01:41] [SPEAKER_00]: who are represented by additional attorneys in this matter. So we're going to be getting a lot

[00:01:47] [SPEAKER_00]: of responses, most of them all of them actually in response to some issues raised by the

[00:01:54] [SPEAKER_00]: defense previously. So we'll be harkening back to some previous conversations as well.

[00:01:59] [SPEAKER_02]: So the first motion that we're going to talk about pertains to the defense's earlier motion,

[00:02:07] [SPEAKER_02]: that they wanted certain questions from the depositions of various parties that were not

[00:02:13] [SPEAKER_02]: answered. They want them answered. And so can you give us a quick reminder as to why not all

[00:02:20] [SPEAKER_00]: questions in a deposition get answered? So in a deposition, no judge is present. You have

[00:02:26] [SPEAKER_00]: the person being deposed, you have the attorneys and then you have attorneys for the person

[00:02:31] [SPEAKER_00]: being deposed or representing that side of things. And so in a deposition, if an attorney

[00:02:38] [SPEAKER_00]: asks a question and the person being deposed, their attorneys say don't answer that,

[00:02:45] [SPEAKER_00]: no one is there to play referee in a court in a trial, a judge will say, answer the question

[00:02:50] [SPEAKER_00]: or actually, you know, that that is a that's a reasonable objection. I'm not going to make

[00:02:55] [SPEAKER_00]: you answer that question, but you can't do that in a deposition. So essentially, they have to put it

[00:03:00] [SPEAKER_00]: on pause and bring it before the judge if they want it answered later on. So that's my understanding

[00:03:07] [SPEAKER_02]: is what happened here. Yes. And I'm going to give just a brief reminder of some of the particular

[00:03:15] [SPEAKER_02]: questions that weren't answered. The defense wanted answered. And then why don't you read what

[00:03:21] [SPEAKER_02]: the prosecution says in response as to whether or not it should be answered. And before we even get

[00:03:29] [SPEAKER_02]: into that, I just want to mention there is kind of an overall sentence at the top of this, which

[00:03:35] [SPEAKER_02]: kind of indicates where things are going and what arguments they're going to be making,

[00:03:42] [SPEAKER_02]: which is quote, the state believes the information that the defense is asking the

[00:03:46] [SPEAKER_02]: court to compel is privileged information as it is work product or pertains to

[00:03:53] [SPEAKER_02]: communication between the state and one of their witnesses, or it is not relevant to the guilt

[00:03:58] [SPEAKER_02]: or innocence of Richard Allen. And quote. So the first question that you may recall they were

[00:04:04] [SPEAKER_02]: interested in is that at one point during a deposition of Jerry Holman who of course is

[00:04:11] [SPEAKER_02]: one of the lead investigators on this case, and he's with the Indiana State police,

[00:04:15] [SPEAKER_02]: they asked him, oh, you talked with Tony Liggett and I guess prosecuted Nick McLean

[00:04:23] [SPEAKER_02]: about this deposition. What did you guys say? And he didn't answer that. And here is why the

[00:04:31] [SPEAKER_02]: prosecution feels he shouldn't be compelled to answer it. And this is point two or point one.

[00:04:41] [SPEAKER_00]: Okay. Quote point two. That is to August 10 2023 deposition of Jerry Holman substance of

[00:04:48] [SPEAKER_00]: conversations had between Sheriff Tony Liggett and Jerry Holman while the prosecutor is present

[00:04:54] [SPEAKER_00]: to discuss trial strategy is work product and therefore confidential. And quote.

[00:04:59] [SPEAKER_02]: So they're basically saying the prosecutor is talking, excuse me, to one of his witnesses

[00:05:06] [SPEAKER_02]: that's strategy, that's work product. That is an information that the defense has the right to.

[00:05:15] [SPEAKER_00]: So just for people who may not know how this works, myself included, if this was just Tony

[00:05:23] [SPEAKER_00]: Liggett and Jerry Holman chatting in the hallway, would it be privileged? Or is it just the

[00:05:28] [SPEAKER_00]: presence of the prosecutor that makes it privileged? Well, the argument they're making

[00:05:33] [SPEAKER_02]: here is that it's a discussion of trial strategy. And ultimately, the arbiter of trial strategy

[00:05:40] [SPEAKER_02]: is Nick McLean. If you and I have a conversation about strategy we think they should use in the

[00:05:46] [SPEAKER_02]: trial, that's not privileged because who cares? Fair, fair. Very true. So it's basically the

[00:05:54] [SPEAKER_02]: presence of the attorney that becomes an issue there. Okay. And then my other thing is,

[00:06:01] [SPEAKER_00]: in terms of that, so they don't have to turn over things that are quote unquote trial strategy or

[00:06:09] [SPEAKER_00]: work product to the defense that's exempted from. That's privileged. Okay. Okay. Yeah. It's okay.

[00:06:17] [SPEAKER_00]: Does that make sense? I guess. I mean, it's kind of hard. I mean, honestly, as a non-attorney

[00:06:21] [SPEAKER_00]: it can be hard to keep track of what's privileged, what's not privileged, what's okay,

[00:06:27] [SPEAKER_00]: what's not okay. So, but it's, you know. Well, in some sense the prosecutor, they have to hand over

[00:06:34] [SPEAKER_02]: facts and things of that nature to the other side. They don't necessarily have to hand over

[00:06:42] [SPEAKER_02]: how they intend to analyze or use those facts. So they have to hand over all their evidence,

[00:06:47] [SPEAKER_00]: they don't have to hand over, here's my draft for my opening statement. Yeah. You know,

[00:06:51] [SPEAKER_00]: the points I'm going to hit and hear the different ways I'm going to, you know, kind of

[00:06:57] [SPEAKER_00]: try to convince the judge. Okay. So that makes sense. Are you searching for a cleaning solution

[00:07:01] [SPEAKER_00]: that's both incredibly powerful and all-natural and safe for your family? Well, we'd strongly

[00:07:08] [SPEAKER_00]: recommend Ultra Luxe Clean. Ultra Luxe Clean is a powerful, safe, and effective cleaning solution

[00:07:14] [SPEAKER_02]: that relies on hypocloric acid. Murder sheet listeners can get this at a terrific price,

[00:07:21] [SPEAKER_02]: 20% off. Plus, you can use this coupon up to three times per person. Hypocloric acid is what

[00:07:28] [SPEAKER_00]: you get when you combine water, salt, and citric acid and send that mixture through electrolysis.

[00:07:34] [SPEAKER_00]: It's FDA approved. Ultra Luxe Clean combines power and safety. Hypocloric acid is a hospital grade

[00:07:41] [SPEAKER_00]: cleaner, but you can use Ultra Luxe Clean on all kinds of surfaces, kitchen countertops,

[00:07:46] [SPEAKER_00]: tables, toys. It's even safe on your skin. Ensure your house is a clean and healthy environment

[00:07:52] [SPEAKER_02]: for you and your family. Opt for Ultra Luxe Clean and get the strongest all-natural cleaner and

[00:07:59] [SPEAKER_00]: disinfected out there. Ultra Luxe also has plenty of other really cool products you should check out.

[00:08:04] [SPEAKER_00]: Their red mini device offers accessible red light therapy, which studies indicate can help reduce

[00:08:09] [SPEAKER_00]: inflammation and pain. Plus, they've got these great hydrogen water tablets that offer

[00:08:14] [SPEAKER_00]: a hydrogen concentration of 12 parts per million and take only about two to three minutes to dissolve

[00:08:20] [SPEAKER_00]: in water. As they say, the best day to improve your health is today. So head over to ultraluxhealth.com

[00:08:26] [SPEAKER_00]: and use M-sheet to get 20% off when you order the red mini Ultra Luxe Clean or hydrogen tablets.

[00:08:33] [SPEAKER_00]: That's ultraluxhealth.com and M-sheet for 20% off.

[00:08:38] [SPEAKER_02]: Okay, so the second point or part of this is actually point three of the document.

[00:08:43] [SPEAKER_02]: The second set of questions they wanted answered was they had a bunch of questions.

[00:08:47] [SPEAKER_02]: They wanted Jerry Holman, who again is of the Indiana State Police.

[00:08:52] [SPEAKER_02]: They wanted him to answer a series of questions pertaining to exactly when a blood spatter

[00:08:58] [SPEAKER_02]: evidence was hired. Why wasn't this expert hired a lot earlier? Did you think about hiring an

[00:09:03] [SPEAKER_02]: expert earlier? Why was it hired at this particular date? What was the prosecution's response to that?

[00:09:10] [SPEAKER_00]: Quote three, that as to May 3, 2024 deposition of Jerry Holman, the decision of when to hire a

[00:09:17] [SPEAKER_00]: blood spatter expert for trial is at the discretion of the prosecutor. Not only is

[00:09:22] [SPEAKER_00]: Jerry Holman not in a position to answer that, but the state's strategy as to when to hire

[00:09:26] [SPEAKER_00]: a blood splatter expert is work product and is confidential.

[00:09:31] [SPEAKER_02]: So they're saying basically Jerry Holman, number one, he had it wasn't his decision to make.

[00:09:38] [SPEAKER_02]: Why are you asking him about something that's not his decision to make? It'd be as if I asked

[00:09:44] [SPEAKER_02]: Anya why did you kill Mr. Spock in Star Trek II? She had no role in that. It wasn't her decision

[00:09:51] [SPEAKER_02]: to make. Why would I be asking her that? It was ultimately, in this case, it was the decision

[00:09:58] [SPEAKER_02]: of the prosecutor as to when to hire this expert. Do you have any thoughts as to why

[00:10:05] [SPEAKER_02]: the Cleveland did not hire this expert until relatively recently?

[00:10:11] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I do. This underscores for me also, I should say that Jerry Holman is a lieutenant

[00:10:17] [SPEAKER_00]: with the Indiana State Police. He's certainly one of the more well-known investigators on the case in

[00:10:22] [SPEAKER_00]: terms of being the public facing side of things, but it's important to stress that this is a huge

[00:10:28] [SPEAKER_00]: investigation. Law enforcement and crime solving and investigations are team effort.

[00:10:37] [SPEAKER_00]: Oftentimes the public, we might have one or two detectives that we see a lot of or

[00:10:42] [SPEAKER_00]: everyone sees the prosecutor, but there's a lot of people working behind the scenes that you

[00:10:46] [SPEAKER_00]: might not know about. Putting every single decision on somebody who just happens to be

[00:10:51] [SPEAKER_00]: more public facing is not necessarily going to get to the truth or accuracy of anything.

[00:10:56] [SPEAKER_00]: It makes sense that this would be a prosecutorial decision. The reason is when law enforcement

[00:11:01] [SPEAKER_00]: initially approached this, I imagine they had crime scene technicians at the site who were

[00:11:06] [SPEAKER_00]: telling them, okay, well here's a transfer stain of blood on the tree. The blood splatter

[00:11:12] [SPEAKER_00]: expert served and in this case, it was Pat Cicero for the prosecution. He served to explain to the

[00:11:20] [SPEAKER_00]: judge why the defenses claim that the blood was painted on as some sort of odinous ritual sacrifice

[00:11:30] [SPEAKER_00]: was very unlikely and why in his expert opinion, it was more likely that it was the stain left

[00:11:37] [SPEAKER_00]: from the hand of a dying child, one of the two victims. They wouldn't be preemptively

[00:11:47] [SPEAKER_00]: having a blood splatter expert to counter odinous related claims because they didn't know

[00:11:53] [SPEAKER_00]: in 2017 or 2018 or so on what the defense's argument was going to be. It would make more

[00:12:02] [SPEAKER_00]: sense that that was done later in order to explain to the judge what was what because in

[00:12:08] [SPEAKER_00]: the beginning I would imagine just they weren't necessarily thinking in that direction. It's

[00:12:13] [SPEAKER_00]: not really, it's not an oversight. It's just the purpose of the blood splatter expert

[00:12:17] [SPEAKER_00]: is to come in a trial. It's not to be hanging out there the whole time.

[00:12:23] [SPEAKER_00]: Because again, you have those initial analysis, you have the initial analysis from the crime

[00:12:27] [SPEAKER_00]: scene technicians and I imagine they probably just said we think this is transfer. I mean,

[00:12:32] [SPEAKER_00]: I'm speculating there to a certain extent. You're speculating? So yeah, so maybe there

[00:12:36] [SPEAKER_02]: wasn't really a reason to hire a blood spatter expert until closer to trial.

[00:12:42] [SPEAKER_00]: If their own experts who were crime scene technicians said well we think this is this,

[00:12:48] [SPEAKER_00]: then that would be what they were operating on and there would be no reason to necessarily

[00:12:53] [SPEAKER_00]: that's just speculation. It's speculation but I mean, I guess I just think it's

[00:12:59] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know, I think it makes sense. I want to skip if it's okay with you points four and five

[00:13:04] [SPEAKER_02]: because they pertain to department of correction employees and we'll get a whole

[00:13:09] [SPEAKER_02]: filing about them later. Point six this refers to they wanted Tony Liggett to answer a question.

[00:13:20] [SPEAKER_02]: They wanted the the sheriff of Carroll County to explain what the purpose was of a specific

[00:13:28] [SPEAKER_00]: meeting. What was the response to that? And this is number six quote six that as to May 3rd 2024

[00:13:37] [SPEAKER_00]: deposition of Tony Liggett, the purpose of the unified command meeting is not only not relevant

[00:13:43] [SPEAKER_00]: to the guilt or innocence of Richard Allen but also confidential as the prosecutor was

[00:13:47] [SPEAKER_00]: involved in those conversations which included work product end quote.

[00:13:51] [SPEAKER_02]: So we're seeing a lot of this work product argument so keep that in mind. Finally,

[00:14:00] [SPEAKER_02]: there was a whole series of questions they wanted answered by Steve Mullen who is one of the

[00:14:07] [SPEAKER_02]: investigators on the team and these questions were of I think the example I used in our

[00:14:15] [SPEAKER_02]: earlier episode was if Anya asked me Kevin, if you were to fall down flat on your face in front

[00:14:22] [SPEAKER_02]: of everyone in the courtroom would you agree that would make you a foolish man?

[00:14:27] [SPEAKER_02]: And in other words it's a question where she offers a premise which may or may not be true

[00:14:34] [SPEAKER_02]: and then tries to get me to draw the most adverse possible conclusion from that.

[00:14:43] [SPEAKER_02]: They wanted Mullen to answer questions like that. I believe the questions in specific they

[00:14:48] [SPEAKER_02]: wanted answered were things of the nature. Fatal flaw to the prosecution. If this person doesn't

[00:14:53] [SPEAKER_02]: agree with this point would you agree that that is a fatal flaw to your entire case?

[00:15:00] [SPEAKER_02]: And so what is the prosecution's response to whether or not Mullen should answer those

[00:15:05] [SPEAKER_02]: questions?

[00:15:06] [SPEAKER_00]: 7. That as to the September 13th, 2024 deposition of Stephen Mullen, Mr. Mullen answered the questions

[00:15:14] [SPEAKER_00]: that the defense posed to the best of his ability simply because he did not answer them the way the

[00:15:19] [SPEAKER_00]: defense wanted is not a valid reason to ask for court intervention. So as a little sassy but

[00:15:28] [SPEAKER_00]: it's a way of saying like just because you didn't get the answers you wanted did not mean that

[00:15:34] [SPEAKER_00]: he didn't answer them.

[00:15:35] [SPEAKER_02]: It makes me curious because the defense attorney said he didn't answer these questions

[00:15:40] [SPEAKER_02]: and McLean wanted to say well he did answer them he just didn't like the answers so I would love

[00:15:43] [SPEAKER_02]: to see the transcripts.

[00:15:45] [SPEAKER_00]: I would too. I mean having I mentioned this in our previous coverage of the defense's

[00:15:49] [SPEAKER_00]: initial filings but having been through a deposition myself that I should note

[00:15:52] [SPEAKER_00]: I was not a party to and did not involve anything related to the murder sheet or my work

[00:15:58] [SPEAKER_00]: but that Kevin was actually present at as my attorney.

[00:16:01] [SPEAKER_02]: As your attorney had nothing to do with anything I did.

[00:16:03] [SPEAKER_02]: No connection to any aspect of my life whatsoever.

[00:16:07] [SPEAKER_00]: It was not your fault that we were involved in this but you know attorneys do this I experience

[00:16:14] [SPEAKER_00]: questions like that where they would essentially try to build a bridge for you to cross over onto

[00:16:18] [SPEAKER_00]: jumping to a conclusion that benefited them and oftentimes you're not going to agree with

[00:16:26] [SPEAKER_00]: it.

[00:16:29] [SPEAKER_00]: That is a situation that I think happens pretty frequently.

[00:16:32] [SPEAKER_00]: Attorneys are good at crafting those questions.

[00:16:36] [SPEAKER_00]: Sometimes they're more overt than others and you just are often aware of that before you're

[00:16:41] [SPEAKER_00]: just mindlessly saying oh yes yes because they want you to do that in order so they

[00:16:48] [SPEAKER_00]: could score a point essentially but it doesn't you're not in those depositions you're not

[00:16:53] [SPEAKER_00]: really looking at attorneys to be like the arbiters of you know reasonability or you know

[00:16:59] [SPEAKER_00]: truthfulness frankly is that fair to say?

[00:17:04] [SPEAKER_02]: Shall we move on to the next filing?

[00:17:06] [SPEAKER_02]: Let's do it.

[00:17:07] [SPEAKER_02]: So you also remember that the defense filed a motion asking that during the trial at some point

[00:17:15] [SPEAKER_02]: the jury be transported to the Freedom Bridge, the Monon High Bridge, the site where the

[00:17:20] [SPEAKER_02]: bodies of the victims were located and the site of the old CPS building to view those areas.

[00:17:28] [SPEAKER_02]: It's not super common for jurors to visit crime scenes is also not unheard of didn't

[00:17:35] [SPEAKER_02]: it happen in the Murdoch case?

[00:17:36] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah I believe it did.

[00:17:37] [SPEAKER_02]: So that was their request and the defense made that request and prosecutor McLean

[00:17:47] [SPEAKER_02]: indicated he had some concerns about it.

[00:17:52] [SPEAKER_02]: You want to read starting from point two?

[00:17:55] [SPEAKER_00]: Sure quote two that the state objects to the jury going out to view those areas requested

[00:18:01] [SPEAKER_00]: by the defense for the following reasons a the terrain where the bodies were found is very

[00:18:06] [SPEAKER_00]: difficult to traverse and would be dangerous for the jury to get to b the traveling to

[00:18:12] [SPEAKER_00]: where the bodies were found and to the opposite end of the Monon High Bridge would involve

[00:18:16] [SPEAKER_00]: encroaching on two private landowners property c that would require a substantial amount of time

[00:18:22] [SPEAKER_00]: and resources to take the jury to those areas while ensuring that they are sequestered from

[00:18:26] [SPEAKER_00]: the public and outside influences d that the areas of where the bodies were found were found along

[00:18:33] [SPEAKER_00]: the with the site of the old CPS building are substantially different from the time

[00:18:38] [SPEAKER_00]: the crimes occurred.

[00:18:39] [SPEAKER_02]: So which of those points do you find most persuasive or you find any of them persuasive?

[00:18:46] [SPEAKER_00]: Well I don't find it persuasive that the there's been a change to the areas because

[00:18:52] [SPEAKER_00]: I certainly understand what he's saying but I think they're I mean I

[00:18:56] [SPEAKER_00]: maybe I'm maybe I'm being correct on this but I imagine that there are oftentimes

[00:19:01] [SPEAKER_00]: jury trips that can occur even though a place has changed

[00:19:05] [SPEAKER_00]: and then that can still be pointed out I don't I don't necessarily know if that's

[00:19:10] [SPEAKER_00]: a huge deal as long as it's kind of identified and the differences are described.

[00:19:16] [SPEAKER_00]: I think that he's completely accurate when it talks about the substantial amount of time

[00:19:23] [SPEAKER_00]: and resources because you know if the public knows the jury is going out that day you're

[00:19:28] [SPEAKER_00]: going to have people who are rubber-necking and how do you prevent them from yelling at

[00:19:34] [SPEAKER_00]: the jury or you know I it it feels like it this is something that I kind of indicated in our last

[00:19:41] [SPEAKER_00]: episode but the more time I've had to think about it you know the defense predicted we only need 90

[00:19:46] [SPEAKER_00]: minutes in and out we'll do it you know that quickly that's not going to happen and given

[00:19:51] [SPEAKER_00]: the terrain given the amount of what they want to do and given all those logistical concerns

[00:19:55] [SPEAKER_00]: this is a logistical nightmare so I mean that's that's completely fair in terms of

[00:20:04] [SPEAKER_00]: the private landowners property I find that less compelling because again I imagine they're

[00:20:09] [SPEAKER_00]: probably been have been jury trips to crime scenes that can you know require permission from

[00:20:15] [SPEAKER_00]: private landowners that is secured in advance and then the difficult to traverse that is

[00:20:22] [SPEAKER_00]: something that I didn't really think about when we were first recording but people have brought this

[00:20:27] [SPEAKER_00]: up to us and I tend to agree with the listeners who brought this to our attention and kind of

[00:20:31] [SPEAKER_00]: raised this point but you know a jury is a collective body you can't just say well that

[00:20:37] [SPEAKER_00]: one juror is going to sit this one out because he can't handle the hike they all have to go

[00:20:41] [SPEAKER_00]: or none of them go so if you have anyone who is less abled than others when it comes to

[00:20:48] [SPEAKER_00]: hiking if you have an older person if you have someone who is dealing with some kind of disability

[00:20:53] [SPEAKER_00]: in some way this can turn into a pretty I have a hard time envisioning what that would look like

[00:21:01] [SPEAKER_00]: and that could cause some real problems so I think that is I think those points are quite

[00:21:07] [SPEAKER_00]: reasonable um and I'm not sure how they would get around that to be honest I think the logistics

[00:21:16] [SPEAKER_00]: of this are much more difficult than the defense was making them out to yeah I would I would agree with

[00:21:20] [SPEAKER_02]: that it is a difficult place to get to uh I think I find it a bit more persuasive than you do the

[00:21:27] [SPEAKER_02]: fact that it has changed because what is the point of showing them here's where it happened

[00:21:35] [SPEAKER_02]: now you know how it was then if it is different I mean I think the point is an attempt at

[00:21:41] [SPEAKER_00]: showmanship by the defense I mean that's like anything else but the point I find least persuasive

[00:21:47] [SPEAKER_02]: probably be the fact that it's owned by some private property I think that can probably be

[00:21:51] [SPEAKER_02]: worked out I don't know how you could guarantee that the juror could get there visit these areas

[00:21:59] [SPEAKER_02]: walk around and really examine them without being exposed in some fashion to the public

[00:22:07] [SPEAKER_02]: you couldn't I don't know how you can completely seal that area off you can't I mean I just don't

[00:22:12] [SPEAKER_00]: think you can I mean I don't think I think they I think the the deputies that they bring out to

[00:22:18] [SPEAKER_00]: these court hearings do a good job and they keep people safe and they keep everything organized

[00:22:23] [SPEAKER_00]: but I mean there's a limit to the manpower they have and you know what are they supposed

[00:22:29] [SPEAKER_00]: to do guard the whole woods I don't you know people are so wild in this case that I could

[00:22:34] [SPEAKER_00]: see people camping out and you know waiting in waiting in the forest for these poor jurors you

[00:22:39] [SPEAKER_00]: know so they can come out and tell them their theory of the case and why why they're being

[00:22:43] [SPEAKER_00]: silenced I mean it could be could be a real security problem yeah over and above the issue

[00:22:48] [SPEAKER_02]: he raises of them perhaps being subjected to people like yelling whatever add them I would

[00:22:56] [SPEAKER_02]: not be surprised if there were people there even at a distance taking pictures of the jury

[00:23:04] [SPEAKER_02]: oh my gosh yeah that and then posting them yeah oh here's a picture showing the jurors visit to

[00:23:12] [SPEAKER_02]: the crime scene and the jurors are recognizable so that would be that would be it could be

[00:23:18] [SPEAKER_02]: genuinely unsafe you'd have to like completely shut down a pretty significant part could

[00:23:25] [SPEAKER_00]: they do it at a time where no one knew when they were gonna do it like like could they like

[00:23:31] [SPEAKER_00]: blitz it you know just kind of go for it no announcements I don't know I mean I probably

[00:23:37] [SPEAKER_00]: would a night or something I don't know like sneak the jury out there at a time that they

[00:23:41] [SPEAKER_00]: don't disclose to the public beforehand I mean the whole thing would have to be really

[00:23:45] [SPEAKER_00]: cloak and dagger frankly it's it's just it's it's troubling but that's the reality of this

[00:23:51] [SPEAKER_00]: case and if you think wow you guys sound really paranoid that's unfortunately this case you know

[00:23:56] [SPEAKER_00]: you have this strong public interest which is mostly fine which is mostly people who just

[00:24:01] [SPEAKER_00]: care about the case and they're not doing anything bad but you do have a small amount of

[00:24:05] [SPEAKER_00]: bad actors who use this case as some sort of I don't know like you know opportunity to work

[00:24:11] [SPEAKER_00]: out their anger or their other issues and they they they do disruptive things all the time and

[00:24:16] [SPEAKER_00]: it's not I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that I would have safety concerns about this

[00:24:23] [SPEAKER_00]: to your point about the region you know the area changing I know the moan on high bridge has been

[00:24:28] [SPEAKER_00]: sort of changed a lot there's been like I think you know refurbishments done and what not maybe

[00:24:36] [SPEAKER_00]: bolstering it I do kind of question the point of this but you know I mean some people do find

[00:24:45] [SPEAKER_00]: it helpful to see a scene and you know I I think you know yeah that's that's that's a good point

[00:24:52] [SPEAKER_02]: certainly I think I felt like I had a better understanding of this case after you and I

[00:25:02] [SPEAKER_00]: went out there to the bridge my initial reaction honestly when I went out to the bridge was like

[00:25:07] [SPEAKER_00]: yes some individual someone one person could have done this because it is so isolated

[00:25:12] [SPEAKER_00]: and if you control two kids by fear which is very possible and has happened in a number of

[00:25:18] [SPEAKER_00]: double homicides of children in public places during the daytime which we've documented on our show at

[00:25:24] [SPEAKER_00]: times that does happen it's rare but it does happen you know I that was that was what struck me

[00:25:30] [SPEAKER_00]: that this is very isolated you get control of these kids with fear and then you take them to

[00:25:36] [SPEAKER_00]: somewhere in the woods and do this I thought that was somewhere where it's difficult to get to

[00:25:41] [SPEAKER_02]: yes and so I mean I think but that's a comment I've heard from a lot of people

[00:25:46] [SPEAKER_02]: who have journeyed to Delphi and gone and visited this site they say oh now I understand this or

[00:25:53] [SPEAKER_00]: now I understand that I think the defense wants you to have the opposite reaction I think they

[00:25:57] [SPEAKER_00]: want to say look how rugged it is Richard Allen's just a kind of a middle-aged guy he's not like

[00:26:02] [SPEAKER_00]: super fit at this time could he really have done it all but you know I think that's what

[00:26:08] [SPEAKER_00]: they want and I don't I don't know if everyone would have that reaction but maybe some people

[00:26:13] [SPEAKER_02]: would I don't know the people would I imagine some people wouldn't why don't you tell us about the

[00:26:18] [SPEAKER_00]: next filing sure so the next filing is the state's motion in limine regarding defense witness

[00:26:23] [SPEAKER_00]: so we have another motion in limine oh joy let's see what this one's about

[00:26:28] [SPEAKER_00]: and it's about um the testimony of mr. William Tobin a listed defense witness

[00:26:35] [SPEAKER_00]: regarding firearm examination in general or the fire examination specifically in this case

[00:26:43] [SPEAKER_00]: and they're saying that they want his testimony prohibited until a hearing may be held outside

[00:26:49] [SPEAKER_00]: the presence of the jury to determine the relevance of mr. Tobin's testimony and then

[00:26:54] [SPEAKER_00]: they get into why so they want to bar another a witness previously they wanted to bar the

[00:27:00] [SPEAKER_00]: odinous defense pretty much you know like throw that out and now they're saying this witness

[00:27:06] [SPEAKER_00]: we don't think uh he's any good you know or we don't think this is relevant to the trial

[00:27:13] [SPEAKER_00]: or whatnot we don't think he's any good it's more on the we don't think he's any good side

[00:27:17] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean that's kind of what they're saying so I'll be curious to see what the defense's response

[00:27:21] [SPEAKER_00]: defending mr. Tobin is um so we're not going to draw any conclusions but basically they're saying

[00:27:28] [SPEAKER_02]: so uh quote mr. Tobin stated he is not examining the evidence in this case though

[00:27:33] [SPEAKER_02]: he testified he has reviewed some of the reports and notes of the state's firearm examiner miss

[00:27:40] [SPEAKER_02]: melissa oberg mr. Tobin testified that though he is not reviewed all of miss oberg's materials

[00:27:46] [SPEAKER_02]: he has what he typically needs to be able to opine on the methodology methodology that is used

[00:27:53] [SPEAKER_02]: Tobin went on to explain that states firearm witnesses conclusions are based on a flawed

[00:28:00] [SPEAKER_00]: methodology well maybe maybe we should explain who this guy is to as well we can't but let me let me

[00:28:06] [SPEAKER_02]: just say I thought that was a funny way of putting it because he is saying well I don't have all the

[00:28:13] [SPEAKER_02]: information about this case but I know that the methodology was flawed and that's only all I

[00:28:20] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't need to have everything in order to make that determination and I think the unspoken

[00:28:26] [SPEAKER_02]: implication of what mcleland is writing there is perhaps it is mr. Tobin's methodology that's flawed

[00:28:32] [SPEAKER_02]: if he is drawing conclusions like that without all of the evidence one thing that I think I mean

[00:28:40] [SPEAKER_00]: I've done some research on this person and I think there tends to be people in in this space where

[00:28:46] [SPEAKER_00]: they are very critical of ballistics evidence and two mark evidence um writ large and that may be

[00:28:55] [SPEAKER_00]: some sort of thing going on here I think it's possible but I did find that amusing as well I

[00:29:01] [SPEAKER_00]: feel like some of these violins can be a little bit sassy you know where you can kind of see that

[00:29:05] [SPEAKER_00]: you know digging digging into the defense a little bit about like I mean and this would be the

[00:29:10] [SPEAKER_00]: second witness that they possibly brought in I think you kind of when we were talking about

[00:29:16] [SPEAKER_00]: this beforehand you mentioned like that was an issue where don pearl mutter who is the

[00:29:21] [SPEAKER_00]: defense witness sort of trying to salvage the odinous theory she was had to say on the stand

[00:29:28] [SPEAKER_00]: well I didn't really look at anything other than what they gave me and what they gave me was very

[00:29:32] [SPEAKER_00]: selective that's but that's all I needed to see that's all I need don't worry about that's all

[00:29:36] [SPEAKER_02]: I need I would think the very least if I was paying someone to be an expert witness the very

[00:29:43] [SPEAKER_02]: least would be that they examine all the materials and notes from the person who's

[00:29:51] [SPEAKER_02]: who's testing they are talking about because I wouldn't want there to be any surprises

[00:29:57] [SPEAKER_02]: and he said I don't need to look at all the notes to know that it's flawed

[00:30:01] [SPEAKER_02]: and that that seems like not a very confidence inspiring way of doing business but you said I've

[00:30:09] [SPEAKER_02]: jumped the gun no pun intended god and you wanted to explain a little bit who this guy is so he's

[00:30:15] [SPEAKER_00]: listed I was able to find more information but in this filing he's listed as a forensic

[00:30:20] [SPEAKER_00]: metallurgy metallurgist and a material scientist who has a bachelor of science degree in metallurgy

[00:30:25] [SPEAKER_00]: and master of arts degree in special studies and he testified that that was primarily

[00:30:30] [SPEAKER_00]: the study of law and he was deposed by the state on september 20th of this year

[00:30:37] [SPEAKER_00]: and he also testified in his deposition he's been recognized as an expert in court

[00:30:41] [SPEAKER_00]: and it has always been as a forensic metallurgist or material science scientist so here's what I found

[00:30:48] [SPEAKER_00]: on him he previously kind of was described seemingly by himself as the de facto chief

[00:31:00] [SPEAKER_00]: metallurgist for the federal bureau of investigation for the FBI that was many years ago

[00:31:06] [SPEAKER_00]: in 1984 in the tyler morning telegraph which I access via newspapers.com he was listed as

[00:31:15] [SPEAKER_00]: testifying in the case of lester leroy bower who was accused of killing a number of men and

[00:31:26] [SPEAKER_00]: then stealing a aircraft actually and he testified that in the you know suspect's car was found I

[00:31:36] [SPEAKER_00]: trace evidence microscopic fragments from a sledgehammer and the more controversial piece comes up in

[00:31:46] [SPEAKER_00]: 2005 so let's go to the august 16th 2005 edition of the boston globe and this is in the case of

[00:31:58] [SPEAKER_00]: it was the murders of robert and patricia paglia and this was a couple that was murdered

[00:32:07] [SPEAKER_00]: and toben's you know like I think was not allowed to testify here it looks like so this is this is some of

[00:32:16] [SPEAKER_00]: what you know this is some of what was said so I mean he was no I pardon me he was seemingly

[00:32:24] [SPEAKER_00]: allowed to testify but he was sort of attacked by the judge for going too far so esic superior

[00:32:31] [SPEAKER_00]: court judge richard e welch the third um criticized one fbi agent for misleading testimony but then

[00:32:40] [SPEAKER_00]: also criticized toben who had attacked that agent um for his testimony saying he was going too far

[00:32:47] [SPEAKER_00]: by calling the bullet analysis junk science and um he said that toben quote sounded more like a

[00:32:59] [SPEAKER_00]: partisan crusader rather than a dispassionate scientist um so he ended up finding him less

[00:33:09] [SPEAKER_00]: than compelling in that situation um and this judge can think of no expert witness he has found

[00:33:17] [SPEAKER_00]: less credible welch said of toben so uh now they the the defendants uh the defendants the defendants

[00:33:26] [SPEAKER_00]: attorneys were saying they had this to say so one of them said quote for the judge to find bill

[00:33:32] [SPEAKER_00]: toben without any credibility is shocking here's a guy who was the expert for the fbi for 24 years

[00:33:38] [SPEAKER_00]: and um toben said he was upset by the personal attack by the judge

[00:33:44] [SPEAKER_02]: and um yeah it's uh it's definitely the defense has a knack seemingly for finding expert witnesses

[00:33:55] [SPEAKER_00]: who are interesting yeah I mean I'm not like with this situation I think it's too soon to tell

[00:34:01] [SPEAKER_00]: it's possible he he's just very passionate about his issues with forensic science and that he

[00:34:08] [SPEAKER_00]: may have rubbed that judge the wrong way but maybe he has something relevant to say here I don't I don't

[00:34:14] [SPEAKER_00]: necessarily discount that but at the same time it's certainly you know seems um like there's

[00:34:22] [SPEAKER_02]: certainly a history of some controversy here I want to read point six in this quote mr toben is

[00:34:30] [SPEAKER_02]: not an expert in the field of firearms examination unlike another listed defense expert dr

[00:34:37] [SPEAKER_02]: eric warren dr warren like the state's expert witness miss oberg is not only a member of afta

[00:34:45] [SPEAKER_02]: but hold aft e but holds or has held lewiship positions within afte mr toben's expected testimony

[00:34:55] [SPEAKER_02]: would be that all firearm examiners including miss oberg and dr warren follow a flawed methodology

[00:35:01] [SPEAKER_02]: and their opinions are not scientifically reliable unquote so he's not an expert in the field

[00:35:07] [SPEAKER_00]: but he's there to condemn the field I guess he says no one's an expert in the field it doesn't exist

[00:35:13] [SPEAKER_00]: so the at afte is the association of firearm and toolmark examiners now I want to note that others

[00:35:21] [SPEAKER_02]: have well I also want to know that it says there that the defense has another witness

[00:35:27] [SPEAKER_02]: who is a member of that organization who does do this sort of testing and so does that mean

[00:35:33] [SPEAKER_02]: basically that toben would be saying that the defense's other witness is just a quack

[00:35:39] [SPEAKER_00]: we've all heard of dueling witnesses before but I think dueling defense witnesses would

[00:35:44] [SPEAKER_00]: be a little much even for this case I think that um we've had on uh people who have

[00:35:52] [SPEAKER_00]: roundly criticized forensics as a whole but specifically ballistic specifically toolmark

[00:35:58] [SPEAKER_00]: identification I think Bradley balco is a journalist we've had on he's been very critical

[00:36:02] [SPEAKER_00]: of the field so I don't I think that some people do feel like you know at least traditionally there

[00:36:09] [SPEAKER_00]: have been problems in terms of how this evidence has been presented to juries I think others

[00:36:13] [SPEAKER_00]: feel that yes there used to be issues but those have largely been corrected and now

[00:36:17] [SPEAKER_00]: people are trained to speak properly on this so I mean I understand that there's a range of opinions

[00:36:22] [SPEAKER_02]: on this but that is kind of amusing yeah and and I would I would hope that my expert would actually

[00:36:30] [SPEAKER_02]: be an expert and then if you're going to condemn an entire area of scientific inquiry

[00:36:36] [SPEAKER_02]: that you'd be an expert in that field so then your your opinion would hold more weight

[00:36:43] [SPEAKER_00]: yeah it sounds like Tobin sort of builds himself in in sort of newspaper coverage of some kind of

[00:36:49] [SPEAKER_00]: almost whistleblower on the FBI's ballistics issues and has been quoted in the press on that but

[00:36:56] [SPEAKER_00]: as we're going to see that's not always translating well into

[00:37:00] [SPEAKER_02]: success in cases I want to read I think I know what you are alluding to point nine quote

[00:37:07] [SPEAKER_02]: the state believes that the question of whether or not Mr. Tobin should be permitted to testify in

[00:37:14] [SPEAKER_02]: this case is very similar to a recent case out of Marion County the state of Indiana versus

[00:37:20] [SPEAKER_02]: Caden Smith in the Smith case Judge Harrison ruled that Mr. Tobin would not be permitted to

[00:37:27] [SPEAKER_02]: testify and in her order dated January 29 2024 said quote the witness Mr. Tobin was being

[00:37:35] [SPEAKER_02]: called by the defense to testify only as to the shortcomings of firearm examination in general

[00:37:41] [SPEAKER_02]: this witness has not tested or reviewed any of the evidence in this case

[00:37:45] [SPEAKER_02]: the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine the state's witness to present

[00:37:49] [SPEAKER_02]: his defense as the shortcomings of firearm examination the court now grants the state's

[00:37:54] [SPEAKER_02]: motion in limine paragraph five paragraph related specifically to Mr. Tobin and quote

[00:38:00] [SPEAKER_02]: and that is interesting because that is another it's another kind of sassy moment from Nick McLean

[00:38:06] [SPEAKER_02]: and I say that for a couple of reasons most notably is that Caden Smith case he refers to

[00:38:14] [SPEAKER_02]: where the defense attorney wanted to use Mr. Tobin and was not allowed to do so

[00:38:20] [SPEAKER_02]: those defense attorneys were Andrew Baldwin and David Hennessey

[00:38:24] [SPEAKER_02]: and it wasn't a case of the judge being biased against the defense because that judge earlier in

[00:38:30] [SPEAKER_02]: the Caden Smith case made a rather controversial decision in favor of the defense throughout

[00:38:35] [SPEAKER_02]: some crucial evidence that decision was later overturned so he's he's saying here is an instance

[00:38:42] [SPEAKER_02]: where you earlier Andrew Baldwin tried to get this expert used and you weren't allowed to

[00:38:49] [SPEAKER_02]: and it's also interesting that he mentions Caden Smith in a filing today because just today

[00:38:59] [SPEAKER_02]: Caden Smith who was found guilty about a month ago received his sentence and that sentence was

[00:39:06] [SPEAKER_02]: 189 years so he's kind of reminding Andrew Baldwin not only did you have a prior case where you

[00:39:14] [SPEAKER_02]: tried and failed to use this expert who is no expert you lost that case and your client today

[00:39:22] [SPEAKER_02]: was sentenced to 189 years so a little sassy there I think it's definitely sassy I just so we

[00:39:28] [SPEAKER_00]: so we're completionists I want to read a little bit from what the prosecution requested in their

[00:39:34] [SPEAKER_00]: motion eliminating Caden Smith and then the judge's response okay and again this judge is

[00:39:40] [SPEAKER_00]: judge Jennifer Harrison her decision to remove the gun in that case was controversial and I know

[00:39:48] [SPEAKER_00]: that there was criticism of her because people are saying she's so biased for the defense but I mean

[00:39:52] [SPEAKER_00]: she was certainly within the realm of you know I thought yeah I thought she was within the

[00:39:57] [SPEAKER_00]: realm of possibility there so I didn't feel like that was necessarily fair criticism but she

[00:40:01] [SPEAKER_00]: she's not a former prosecutor she's a former defender and I think you know it's important

[00:40:08] [SPEAKER_00]: to note that things can be judges are supposed to rule based on the law and their understanding of

[00:40:13] [SPEAKER_00]: the law so I you know things things like that I think people tend to group judges too too much but

[00:40:19] [SPEAKER_00]: anyways let me read this so this is from deputy prosecuting attorney in Marion County Amy Jacobson

[00:40:26] [SPEAKER_00]: quote any testimony of William Tobin regarding firearms examination in general and specifically

[00:40:32] [SPEAKER_00]: in this case based on his testimony at a pretrial hearing held in this court he is not

[00:40:37] [SPEAKER_00]: a qualified expert in the field of firearms examination and his testimony will not help

[00:40:41] [SPEAKER_00]: the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact an issue as the court has

[00:40:47] [SPEAKER_00]: already made a determination that the status met its burden to present the testimony of Michael

[00:40:52] [SPEAKER_00]: Putsk as it is based on reliable scientific principles any testimony of Mr. Tobin will

[00:40:57] [SPEAKER_00]: undermine the court's determination of law regarding the expert testimony of Mr. Putsk

[00:41:02] [SPEAKER_00]: additionally Mr. Tobin did not examine any evidence in this case as he is not a qualified

[00:41:07] [SPEAKER_00]: firearms examiner end quote and then this is the response the order from judge Jennifer Harrison

[00:41:15] [SPEAKER_00]: quote the state moved in a motion in limine power graph five to exclude the testimony of

[00:41:20] [SPEAKER_00]: defendants at witness William Tobin the court heard argument on January 26 2024 at a pretrial

[00:41:26] [SPEAKER_00]: hearing defendant intends to call the witness to testify only as to shortcomings of firearms

[00:41:31] [SPEAKER_00]: examination in general this witness has not tested or reviewed any of the evidence in this

[00:41:37] [SPEAKER_00]: chaos the defense defendant will have the opportunity to cross examine the state's witness

[00:41:41] [SPEAKER_00]: to present his defense as to the shortcomings of firearms examination the court now grants

[00:41:46] [SPEAKER_00]: the state's motion in limine paragraph five it is so ordered end quote so this is important

[00:41:51] [SPEAKER_00]: to note i mentioned before that some people feel strongly that there are a lot of issues

[00:41:56] [SPEAKER_00]: with forensics and ballistics in particular but the defense will be able to put that on in the form

[00:42:03] [SPEAKER_00]: of cross examination of the prosecution's witnesses and it sounds like they have an expert who

[00:42:10] [SPEAKER_00]: who is a forensic examiner who may be able to introduce some of that too right Kevin yeah so

[00:42:16] [SPEAKER_00]: you know when you see something like this having a witness basically just to be like

[00:42:20] [SPEAKER_00]: it's all nonsense you know i that may not really go over that well with some judges

[00:42:26] [SPEAKER_00]: so i would not be surprised if maybe this witness didn't make it in here either because if

[00:42:32] [SPEAKER_00]: if judge Harrison was not about it then i feel like i don't know if it'll match it'll

[00:42:37] [SPEAKER_00]: reach that threshold in this case too yeah i would i would share your concerns again i mean

[00:42:42] [SPEAKER_00]: if it's like if it's if it's someone who i don't know is is an expert in that particular

[00:42:47] [SPEAKER_00]: field saying it that's one thing but if it's to somebody who kind of maybe it's more marginal

[00:42:53] [SPEAKER_00]: and they're really just there to attack ballistics as a whole that might not be seen as a good use

[00:43:00] [SPEAKER_02]: of everybody's time uh the final filings i assume you ready to move on yeah let's move on

[00:43:08] [SPEAKER_02]: come from the department of corrections and they are specifically in response to those questions

[00:43:16] [SPEAKER_02]: from the depositions where the defense wanted department of correction employees to answer

[00:43:22] [SPEAKER_02]: specific questions and those questions were questions directed to warden John Gallupo

[00:43:30] [SPEAKER_02]: is that how you pronounce that i thought it was Gallup oh okay and uh the the former guard who uh

[00:43:39] [SPEAKER_02]: Josh josh joshua robbins joshua robbins apart jesus okay but a long day folks uh

[00:43:49] [SPEAKER_02]: and so they they essentially it goes into some detail and it makes the case repeatedly that in

[00:43:58] [SPEAKER_02]: essence the particular questions that those uh men were advised not to answer pertain to

[00:44:08] [SPEAKER_02]: legal advice or decisions or actions that they were advised to take or advise not to take

[00:44:14] [SPEAKER_02]: based on comments from attorneys and so they're taking the position that that is also privileged

[00:44:22] [SPEAKER_02]: and protected and it's uh it goes into those points in some detail what is interesting

[00:44:31] [SPEAKER_02]: is that they also this filing also includes as exhibits some excerpts from the depositions

[00:44:40] [SPEAKER_02]: in question so we can actually see the context these particular questions were asked in

[00:44:48] [SPEAKER_02]: and what the responses were and you might hope all there's like what 15 or so pages of deposition

[00:44:56] [SPEAKER_02]: transcript here that must be pretty fire but it's it's not really boring it's basically

[00:45:02] [SPEAKER_02]: questions being asked and attorneys saying oh he shouldn't answer that because it pertains to

[00:45:09] [SPEAKER_02]: information he got from attorneys so that is the argument they they made essentially a very

[00:45:15] [SPEAKER_02]: similar argument to what a mcleland made in the first document perhaps with the trifle more detail

[00:45:23] [SPEAKER_00]: yes exactly so you have anything to say no i don't it's a it's all pretty straightforward um

[00:45:33] [SPEAKER_00]: i guess my question for you is what do you think happens next uh i i think they made a pretty

[00:45:40] [SPEAKER_02]: strong case for those questions uh not to be answered i agree so you know but i i you know i think

[00:45:48] [SPEAKER_00]: i mean in terms of all these documents i think the prosecution i feel like that

[00:45:53] [SPEAKER_00]: their their stand on the um the questions is pretty reasonable i i don't see anything coming

[00:46:00] [SPEAKER_00]: out of that in terms of the trip for the jury i kind of feel like maybe i don't know

[00:46:08] [SPEAKER_00]: maybe there's some kind of compromise that can be come up with in terms of keeping everybody safe

[00:46:13] [SPEAKER_00]: making sure all the jurors get to see things and nobody you know like

[00:46:17] [SPEAKER_00]: i feel like something might be able to be arranged but it may not be the comprehensive

[00:46:21] [SPEAKER_00]: sort of easy breezy trip that the defense you know purported to envision in their initial

[00:46:26] [SPEAKER_00]: filing i don't think that's possible but i don't i think maybe something could be

[00:46:31] [SPEAKER_00]: i don't know what that looks like i can understand why they want to go i

[00:46:35] [SPEAKER_00]: you know i don't think it's i don't think it's unreasonable but i just don't know if it's gonna

[00:46:38] [SPEAKER_02]: be possible an argument could be made the the defense made the jury trip sound a lot easier

[00:46:44] [SPEAKER_02]: than it would be and the prosecution made it sound a lot harder than it would be i don't think that

[00:46:49] [SPEAKER_00]: i actually don't think the prosecution exaggerated here i think they're only i mean like

[00:46:53] [SPEAKER_00]: they can ask landowners for permission i assume so i felt like that wasn't a great reason but

[00:46:58] [SPEAKER_00]: i mean i guess landowners could deny the permission but let's get to that bridge

[00:47:02] [SPEAKER_00]: first so to speak no pun intended i i inadvertently pun a lot i don't know why

[00:47:08] [SPEAKER_00]: and then you know but i think you know it is treacherous terrain it's it would take a long time

[00:47:14] [SPEAKER_00]: and then i would be really concerned about the safety of the jury not i'm not just saying like oh

[00:47:20] [SPEAKER_00]: some you know some bad things gonna happen but as you mentioned even just people lolly gagging

[00:47:24] [SPEAKER_00]: and taking pictures of individuals that's just not that's not good you know and it would be

[00:47:29] [SPEAKER_00]: very difficult i think to really lock everything down to the extent that you would really want to

[00:47:36] [SPEAKER_00]: so i have i would have concerns but i can again understand where the the defense is coming from

[00:47:41] [SPEAKER_00]: on this one too right so hopefully there can be some hopefully someone smarter than me can figure

[00:47:46] [SPEAKER_00]: that out and you know maybe make an arrangement that works for everybody but um i definitely

[00:47:53] [SPEAKER_00]: understand where the prosecution is coming from as well with these concerns

[00:47:58] [SPEAKER_00]: and i'm gonna say something i mean the closer we get to october you've always maintained i i've

[00:48:07] [SPEAKER_02]: said from the beginning i thought there was a a good shot the trial would happen in october

[00:48:12] [SPEAKER_02]: and you've maintained that you do not think it would happen yeah i've maintained a real

[00:48:18] [SPEAKER_00]: jaded uh view of things i i'm increasingly coming to the opinion of yeah we we actually might go to

[00:48:28] [SPEAKER_00]: trial in october the closer we get without any some you know without anyone saying actually

[00:48:35] [SPEAKER_00]: give us some more time the more i'm like no well maybe i mean it's possible i mean the the

[00:48:41] [SPEAKER_00]: second this episode comes out then it's gonna i'm gonna be wrong right like they're gonna come

[00:48:45] [SPEAKER_00]: out like month first thing monday morning continuance but um i kind of feel like maybe maybe this time

[00:48:52] [SPEAKER_00]: maybe i'm i'm more open to it now so i just wanted people to know that kevin's opinion is unchanged

[00:48:58] [SPEAKER_00]: and mine is changing more more in the direction of we might have a trial with this case you always

[00:49:06] [SPEAKER_02]: have to recognize that the unpredictable will always happen so i wouldn't be surprised if

[00:49:14] [SPEAKER_02]: it got delayed but there was a lot of reasons for it not to be and i think the defense has many

[00:49:22] [SPEAKER_00]: reasons to go forward and get this over with i concur they do and at a certain point you know

[00:49:32] [SPEAKER_00]: i don't know how much further delay would benefit them yes i would agree with that after

[00:49:41] [SPEAKER_02]: the may delay you can think well maybe they've really you know hit the books gotten the investigators

[00:49:47] [SPEAKER_02]: out and are really making progress on this odinism defense but but you'd be wrong it became obvious

[00:49:55] [SPEAKER_02]: of that hearing uh back in july and august that wasn't the case so i don't know what additional

[00:49:59] [SPEAKER_02]: work they would do one thing that is interesting is that prior to that hearing we all knew

[00:50:08] [SPEAKER_02]: what the defense attorney's defense would be yeah now it's more of a surprise we don't know we don't

[00:50:15] [SPEAKER_02]: know what it's going to be now we can speculate that it has something to do they've made a big deal

[00:50:20] [SPEAKER_02]: about libby's phone uh receiving text messages at 4 33 am and trying to suggest something

[00:50:27] [SPEAKER_02]: from that is that what they're going to use do they have something else up their sleeve is it

[00:50:33] [SPEAKER_02]: going to be a situation where they don't try to solve the case they just try to poke holes in

[00:50:41] [SPEAKER_02]: the prosecution and the police investigation of the case i don't know at this point after a year of

[00:50:51] [SPEAKER_02]: us all feeling we knew exactly what the defense was and what their strategy was

[00:50:55] [SPEAKER_02]: we're in a unique position because we have no idea yeah well said and it'll be interesting

[00:51:00] [SPEAKER_00]: to see what they come up with um you know i think we've both said for a time that

[00:51:05] [SPEAKER_00]: odinism was fatally flawed um i guess to seal their terminology and that perhaps the defense

[00:51:12] [SPEAKER_00]: where it's a little bit uh more down to earth a little bit less conspiratorial and a little bit

[00:51:17] [SPEAKER_00]: more focusing on the state's case and raising reasonable doubt that way could be a little

[00:51:23] [SPEAKER_00]: bit more successful so i you know if they go that way then i think it's probably better than

[00:51:31] [SPEAKER_02]: odinism well unless something really awful happens you won't hear from us for a few days

[00:51:38] [SPEAKER_02]: so uh enjoy your weekend and if you're dealing with this hurricane or any of its

[00:51:44] [SPEAKER_02]: aftermath uh our thoughts are with you yeah stay safe out there thanks so much for listening

[00:51:50] [SPEAKER_02]: to the murder sheet if you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover please email us at

[00:51:56] [SPEAKER_01]: murder sheet at gmail.com if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime please report

[00:52:06] [SPEAKER_00]: it to the appropriate authorities if you're interested in joining our patreon that's available

[00:52:13] [SPEAKER_00]: at www.patreon.com slash murder sheet if you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests

[00:52:22] [SPEAKER_00]: you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murder sheet we very much appreciate any support

[00:52:32] [SPEAKER_02]: special thanks to kevin tyler greenlee who composed the music for the murder sheet

[00:52:37] [SPEAKER_02]: and who you can find on the web at kevin tg.com if you're looking to talk with other listeners

[00:52:45] [SPEAKER_00]: about a case we've covered you can join the murder sheet discussion group on facebook

[00:52:50] [SPEAKER_00]: we mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much

[00:52:56] [SPEAKER_00]: we do try to check our email account but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages

[00:53:03] [SPEAKER_00]: thanks again for listening eat the summertime sluggishness and enhance your every day with our

[00:53:10] [SPEAKER_02]: wonderful sponsor via hemp this is accompanied the crafts award-winning premium thc and thc free

[00:53:17] [SPEAKER_02]: gummies with high quality hemp grown right here on american farms all for an excellent value

[00:53:23] [SPEAKER_02]: especially for murder sheet listeners who get a special deal if you're 21 or older

[00:53:28] [SPEAKER_02]: you can experience it for yourself and get 15% off your first order with our exclusive code

[00:53:35] [SPEAKER_01]: msheet at via hemp.com that's v i i a h e m p .com each of vias gummies is crafted to give you a

[00:53:47] [SPEAKER_00]: specific mood get creative get some rest get focused get some pleasure all with vias delicious

[00:53:55] [SPEAKER_01]: gummies no matter what you're looking for vias has you covered their grapefruit cbg and cbd flow

[00:54:03] [SPEAKER_00]: state gummies help me feel energized and focused to get a lot done this summer in terms of scheduling

[00:54:08] [SPEAKER_00]: conducting interviews running around after sources and more you don't need a medical card to enjoy

[00:54:13] [SPEAKER_01]: via hemp and these products ship legally to all 50 states if you're 21 and older head to via

[00:54:21] [SPEAKER_00]: hemp.com and use the code msheet to receive 15 off that's v i i a h e m p .com and use code

[00:54:31] [SPEAKER_00]: msheet at checkout after you purchase they ask you where you heard about them please support our

[00:54:36] [SPEAKER_00]: show and tell them we sent you enhance your every day with via