A (3:09)

I think that's really important to say.

B (3:11)

Because they're presenting this to a different audience. They're presenting this to the court of Appeals and trying to give them their own spin on it.

A (3:20)

And nor should anybody be saying things like, well, it doesn't add anything new. It's really not supposed to. It's supposed to get into what already happened in the record, pretrial and during trial. You're not going to have this. This is not a situation where they're going to be saying, well, Internet sleuth told us that aliens must have done this, so we have evidence for that. Now. This is going to be a much more contained sort of thing. And I. I think that nobody should be acting like that's a problem, because that's normal for an appeal. But at the same time, nobody should be acting like this is crazy bombshell stuff. If they're doing that, they're grifting. There's, you know, where the people are going to tell you, yeah, this is going to be pretty boring, folks. Maybe not a good content strategy, but it is honest. If anyone's acting like, you know, putting up a bunch of thumbnails about, like, explosions, oh, my God, I can't believe it. Well, then you weren't paying attention during the trial.

B (4:08)

Yeah, that's it. And the other side of it is I've seen some people online say, oh, this is boring. It's nothing new.

A (4:16)

It is.

B (4:17)

But that's not really a fair criticism because it's not supposed to be interesting to people who've been following the case.

A (4:24)

It's not a piece of entertainment. It's a legal appeal. So of course it's gonna be boring. It doesn't mean it's bad. This is bad for other reasons. Shall we get into it?

B (4:34)

Okay, hit the button.

A (4:36)

My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

B (4:38)

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

A (4:41)

And this is the Murder Sheet.

B (4:42)

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet.

A (4:50)

And this is the Delphi, the appeal.

B (5:07)

It.

A (5:38)

Before we get started, I want to ultimately center this around what the focus should be in this case is that two young girls were murdered in 2017. February 13, 2017. Liberty German, who was 14, Abigail Williams, who was 13. They went out for a walk. They were best friends. On the trails of Delphi, Indiana. They were abducted and brutally murdered. Their throats were slit. It. The crime scene was horrific. That is ultimately what happened. Richard Allen came on law enforcement's radar in 2022. In 2024, after a nearly month long trial, on November 11, 2024, he was. Richard Allen was convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 130 years prison.

B (6:25)

So with that said, this is over 100 page document, but it boils down to three issues which the appellate lawyers have identified as being the most significant. And I'm going to say those and then we're going to get into more of a discussion of the brief itself. The first issue is whether the search of Mr. Allen's home was unconstitutional and the resulting evidence inadmissible because law enforcement omitted or altered key facts in the warrant application. I'm reading this from the brief. Issue two, whether statements Mr. Allen made while gravely disabled during unprecedented pretrial solitary confinement were involuntary, the product of unconstitutional detention and inadmissible. Issue three, again reading from the brief, whether the trial court denied Mr. Allen his right to a fair trial to present a complete defense to explain the scene and impeach the investigation. With that said, the brief began with a very, very lengthy summary of the case. And the summary, as you would expect, was heavily slanted towards Mr. Allen.

A (7:39)

It was, it was pretty surprisingly dishonest in parts. And by that I mean like omitting key evidence, omitting key facts, or twisting facts around to the point where they're unrecognizable. I was a bit surprised about that because I was coming into this expecting, okay, we're going to be talking about case law, we're going to be talking about cases, we're going to be talking about where the trial court aired. And instead we get this kind of like, almost like somebody listened to Andrew Baldwin ramble about the case at a bar and then tried to like clean it up in a legal filing. Just sort of not, not very. Yeah, it just, I don't know what that added.

B (8:17)

I guess they, they, they were asking for extra pages because they had so much stuff to cover, but then they were putting stuff in. After the murders, quote, Alan then returned to his job, family and home in the small Delphi community. For the next five years. He did not sell his car, destroy his clothes, dispose of his gun or relocate it, but continued his normal routine.

A (8:41)

They're so right. We've never ever heard of a murderer who didn't change their lifestyle after the murders. I mean, famously, Dennis Raider, btk, you know, fled immediately after. I mean, like, what are we talking about?

B (8:53)

Well, first of all, I think Rosie made something very similar comments during one of the pretrial hearings and maybe during the trial. But, but also, I think it's worth noting whether you think that particular bit of information is relevant or not. And I don't think it is. It doesn't really have anything to do with, like, the judicial errors that were allegedly made. It's just filler.

A (9:16)

It. It is. A lot of this is filler. And that's, I guess, what surprised me. But before we go further, I just do want to say, when we're talking about the appellate team, the appellate lawyers, people may be wondering, is that the original trial team of Andrew Baldwin, Bradley, Rosie, Jennifer, O.J. who are the people who worked on Allen's case in the trial? The answer is no. We have two new lawyers or I guess newish in one case. These are Mark Lehman of Logansport, Indiana. He, he previously served on the appellate team in Allen's case. And you may be wondering what it was an appellate team that got Richard Allen's original trial team back on the case. So he was the one who got back Baldwin and Rosie. And then ultimately OJ Joined them at some point. So he was one of the attorneys working on that effort, that valiant effort. And then Stacey Uliana of Bargersville, she is another attorney on this case. She actually, we understand, had previously been approached to represent Allen at trial and did not. And so this is now she's coming back more on the appeal side. So that's who's doing it. And I just do want to say we talked about the three sort of three kind of pillars of this, of this situation. And I think it should, we should say what is at stake for each of them for the.

B (10:28)

Well, should we do that as we get to. I think we're still. I think we're still in the summary, right?

A (10:32)

Yeah, I just figured it's nice to boil things down for people so that they.

B (10:35)

Okay, go ahead.

A (10:36)

Yeah. So the first one is the search being unconstitutional. If you lose the search, you lose the gun, you lose Alan Sig Sauer, which is linked to a cartridge at the crime scene. If you lose the second part, if you lose the statements Allen made while incarcerated, you lose his incriminating statements, you lose his confession that included a detail only the killer would know. And then the third one, I guess the, everything kind of is called into question. If, if the, the court is found to have erred in not letting Odinism come in. So that's kind of a issue. So that's kind of where we are. So. Yeah. This summary, was there anything that stood out to you?

B (11:13)

So this summary, as I mentioned a moment ago, heavily slanted towards Mr. Allen and his team's theory of the case is. I started reading through it. I originally was, like, stopping to make a note for anything that I thought was a bit twisted or, you know, contrived to be overly favorable to him, and that just got too time consuming. I'll mention maybe one or two if you have something you want to mention. When the report about Mr. Allen was rediscovered in September 2022, law enforcement insisted Allen was ridge Guy without a single eyewitness. Over the next several years, the state built its case against Allen. That's not really what happened. The bulk of the case against Alan was actually built in the weeks prior to his arrest. There's actually several witnesses in the case, and there's also physical evidence in Allen's own words. So I. I didn't feel that was entirely fair. It.

A (12:20)

Yeah.

B (12:21)

What? You. You hit me with a couple.

A (12:24)

Okay, I got a couple. So they talk about, you know, one big thing they keep emphasizing is, you know, oh, you know, the, These. These. These witnesses have different views on what Bridge guy looked like, and they describe them differently. And, you know, that. I. I guess what's important about the witnesses is we all know that witnesses are pretty fallible. A younger person might think they see an older person. An older person might think they see a younger person. It's all based on our own perspective. What's important about the witnesses who saw bridge guy at different points in this day around the time of the murders is that they all identified him as the guy in Libby's video. They may have disparate agreement about how old he was or what his hair looked like or these other different things, but they saw. They all saw a white guy, and they all saw a guy that they were confident was the person captured by Liberty German in her video where. Where she films this guy approaching her and Abby on the trails. So ultimately, it. It matters less about what they specifically said and more about the agreement and more about Richard Allen himself being a devastating witness against himself and saying, hey, those girls who say they saw Bridge Guy, I saw them. And also they have timestamp photos showing where they were and when, and I saw them at that time. And the time I was there coincides with a car that looks exactly like mine coming to the scene. Also, none of us, including Richard Allen, sees another guy dressed similarly running around that day. You know, even with Betsy Blair, where Richard Allen isn't specifically saying, oh, hey, I saw this guy, or he's not saying, I saw this woman. She puts him on the fur, you know, the platform of the bridge. Right. And he's putting himself there. So it's like he's kind of jumping into all these positions that we know bridge guy was, all these locations, all these instances, all these situations. And so, you know, the timeline against him is pretty devastating. So I guess I just feel like they kind of are talking around what this means.

B (14:31)

Yeah, there's not a single eyewitness. There's many eyewitnesses. Yeah.

A (14:34)

Like, it's not, you know, like, I. I don't know.

B (14:36)

Another thing about the summary, we all know about the Odinism theory and that it involves two people named Brad Holder and Patrick Westfall who had nothing to do with the crime. And at one point in this summary, they say the Indiana State Police disregarded Brad Holder, and Holder's friend Patrick Westphal is promising alternate suspects because they lost evidence, mishandled interviews, and conducted a poor investigation.

A (15:06)

And I also think that's, like, your opinion, man.

B (15:08)

Well, it's also. It's flatly untrue. The reason why Holder was disregarded as a suspect was because he had an amazing alibi.

A (15:17)

Oh, but, you know, nothing's good enough for the. I mean, if you had the power to stop a crime before it happened, wouldn't you do it? What if that crime was done against yourself or your own family? Well, with Simplisafe's home security system, you can stop break ins and burglaries before they even happen.

B (15:34)

The big problem with traditional home security systems is that they react after an intruder is already breaking in or even inside. At that point, it's far too late. Your peace of mind is gone the moment someone intrudes on your space.

A (15:49)

Simplisafe is different. Thanks to their advanced home security technology, AI powered cameras can lock onto potential threats outside. If a prospective intruder approaches live, agents step in to confront the person via a camera. Now, the potential bad guys know that someone's watching and also prepared to dispatch police in an instant. The agents can also start blaring sirens and flashing lights.

B (16:10)

We have relied on Simplisafe to keep our home safe for years. We trust them with our safety. It's great knowing someone is looking out for you and your family. It does wonders for our peace of mind, especially since we've gotten threats in the past over our reporting.

A (16:27)

SimpliSafe really does have your back. No hidden fees, no long term contracts, no punishment for canceling at any time. Try it out today. You even get a 60 day money back guarantee this month.

B (16:38)

Only take 50% off any new system. This is one of the best prices you will ever see for SimpliSafe. Don't miss it. Hit simplisafe.com msheet again that's simplisafe.com msheet and lock in your discount. There is no safe like SimpliSafe.

A (16:59)

One thing that I thought was like, and again this is just, you know, they can twist it in one way to sound like something to people who don't know this case but when you actually know it, it's much less compelling. They make a big deal about then Detective Tony Leggett who's now the sheriff of Carroll county, major investigator in this and was, you know, the person, the affiant who signed the probable cause affidavit. They say he lied in it because in her 2017 interview, witness Sarah Carbaugh said that some the, the person she saw along the side of the road was only muddy. That this person that she witnessed around the crime scene who is believed to be Richard Allen is believed to be bridge guy walking away from the scene. She said he was muddy. And Liggett puts muddy and bloody in the PCA and it's like whoa, did he just add that? And then if you recall on the stand while testifying, Carbaugh was adamant that in her original interview with investigators that she said muddy and bloody. She said both. What she says is I was incredibly anxious. I was mumbling. The transcript does not accurately reflect what I said. I said muddy and bloody. They heard muddy. So it's again, the defense made a big deal of this at trial, as they should. But for the appellate team to come in and say, well, this is a sign like it's lying, that's not what the witness says. The witness says that Ligot is accurate. So it's, it's, it's again, it's about withholding information to I guess trick people who don't know better. Which is surprising because I mean ultimately the state is going to be able to debunk a lot of this stuff.

B (18:30)

Yeah, I also, I'm still hung up on this summary. There's something else I wanted to mention before we get into some of the stuff with Liga you were bringing up. They're also inventing theories out of thin air that have no evidence. I mentioned A moment ago that Brad Holder had an amazing alibi. The alibi was that he clocked out of work at 2:45 in another town. And that would be about half an hour or so after the time the girls were kidnapped. And so they make a point of mentioning, well, wouldn't it have been possible that someone else used his card and clocked out for him and nobody knew it, nobody noticed it? And that's not how evidence works. It is possible that after I fell asleep last night, Anya snuck out of the house and stole a bunch of cereal.

A (19:30)

Who told you?

B (19:31)

But if you have no evidence of that, you're just making up stories and they don't really have much value.

A (19:38)

Yeah, this isn't a Reddit forum. This isn't the comments of a particularly dumb YouTube channel. You don't get to just say, well, maybe this happened. It's. It's facetious. And also, I, again, omitting information that's probably helpful for judging this. They omit the fact that Holder didn't just have an alibi with work. He then subsequently went to a gym that was not in Delphi. So I guess maybe people, the gym's in on it, right? Like, I mean, like, at what point does this become just ridiculous?

B (20:13)

It.

A (20:14)

I mean, I think it is ridiculous.

B (20:15)

Unless there's more you wanted to say about the summary, we can move on to what you were saying about Tony Liggett and the search warrant application.

A (20:22)

I thought this was kind of funny. I mean, funny in a kind of more like, what the heck way. Less than, like, a haha way. Quote, Detective Holman tried to use Allen's depression against him, claiming it was because he killed two little girls. That did not work, end quote. They're talking about how they really seem to emphasize a lot that Allen initially, when talking to police, denied being involved in the murders. Okay. And it's like, I just feel like a whole tangent in this summary is a. Well, he says he didn't do it, so I don't know. I guess what they're trying to do is throw that into contrast with later statements he made in prison, but I guess I just find it kind of stupid. Yeah, a lot of people deny stuff, you know, that they did and using his depression against him. I. There's just, like, what? Like, I don't know. So much of this. So much of these filings on Richard Allen's behalf, like, with the trial team especially. But there's a vibe in this here, too, is like, the detectives didn't, like, read Alan a bedtime Story and make him a cup of hot chocolate and tell him he was a good boy. And, you know, like, what. What are they? You know, it's a murder investigation. Like, he killed two children. What? I mean, he's not the littlest lad in the world that everyone needs to protect. I guess I just. It's like, oh, they kept insisting they thought he did it. Well, yeah, that can. That's often how police interrogations go. Like, I don't. What were they. What's the complaint here? It's more about trying to engender sympathy for their very unsympathetic client. And again, I just find that manipulative. And I'm at the point where I understand why they're doing it to a certain extent, but it's not been effective. And as more information comes out, in my experience, as more information has come out through documents being released, through reporting that's been done, frankly, through people reading our book Shadow of the Bridge, which we, like, delved into all of this. I think people have increasingly been more immune to this sort of manipulation. I think people are kind of like, okay, like this. You can say things in aggrieved, in an aggrieved tone and be pursing your lips and shaking your head and saying, isn't this awful? But that doesn't mean it's awful. It might actually be quite normal. And maybe it's more of you just saying that to manipulate others, I guess.

B (22:36)

Yeah. And we'll get to the legal stuff in a second, but I was a little surprised that they didn't include any arguments that Mr. Allen did not get a fair trial because of ineffective counsel. I don't think they would have won on that point, But I thought Mr. Allen's trial team did an abysmal job. And the arguments for ineffective counsel were certainly stronger than anything I saw in this brief.

A (23:03)

I guess. Don't want to make anything awkward with the Indiana defense bar. Right.

B (23:07)

I mean, were you surprised not to see that in here?

A (23:09)

I wasn't surprised. I think. I think there's. I think. I don't know why they wouldn't do that, but at the same time, I imagine, you know, I think there's a certain kind of like, we need to stick together element to some of this stuff where people are reluctant to criticize people within their own field. And I can understand that. And also, I mean, it wouldn't have worked because Alan fought to have his attorneys come back on. But I feel like there's. There's this. This whole filing, I guess, it doesn't surprise me because it, this whole filing feels overly deferential to a lot of what the defense team was saying. It seems to be trying to preserve. I'm not saying this was the primary goal of the appellate team at all. I'm just saying that there seems to be efforts to preserve egos here. There seems to be efforts to preserve like, oh, no, no, they were right about that. And I, I, I just, I mean, I don't think that's effective. I do want to say one other thing. And this, this, this was in, this stuck out to me. Oh God. This stuck out to me. And this unfortunately continues. It's not, it's not like that often, but there's too many situations where, where, where this gets brought up. They say this, they talk about Westville Correctional Unit and the WCU and you know, maximum security segregation. And then they include the following insight. Quote, the movies refer to it as the whole used mostly to punish, end quote. The movies. We're citing the movies.

B (24:29)

Well, hang on, we got other things.

A (24:30)

Oh, it gets worse.

B (24:31)

I'm going to bring up some stuff later.

A (24:33)

Like movies also have people be able to like jump away from explosions without getting harmed and severely burned. And also all sorts of physics defying things. And you know, I mean, if the movies are accurate, maybe Richard Allen can tunnel out of wherever, whatever hole he's in right now with a spoon. But why are we bringing that up in a legal filing? It just sounds kind of dumb. I don't know, it's like, it's like meant to be more relatable for the layperson. But why are we doing that? This is for the appeals court. There's just, there seems to be always. What, like everyone who works on Richard Allen's side in this case seems to like, forget who the audience is. You know, the trial team forgot that they were talking to the judge and perhaps even to the jury and started talking to YouTubers. These guys are not talking to you? Well, I mean, I don't know who they're talking to, but I. Are the appellate judges gonna sit there and be like, oh, the movie said okay? Well, I mean, I, I guess it just sounds dumb. I guess I just, I was, I was disappointed in this. I thought it was gonna be more high minded, erudite.

B (25:36)

So the first pillar is, they say Tony Liggett lied and twisted and distorted things when he put together his probable cause affidavit to get a search warrant. You've already talked a little bit about some of that, about how some of the Things they claim he lied about about Sarah Carbaugh is not true. And I think the key thing to remember about the witnesses, as you already said, I'm just repeating something you said, is that even if the witnesses descriptions of who they saw differed in some small details, they all agreed that the person they saw was the picture. Was the person in the picture. That is the key point. And I also want to say that it's also inaccurate to say that now Sheriff Liggett was trying to withhold damaging or contradictory information in the search warrant affidavit because, for instance, he mentions that one person described the car in the parking lot as a purple PT Cruiser, and it was not a purple PT Cruiser. So he wasn't trying to hide anything. And I think the key thing to remember is eyewitnesses do not always get every single detail right. Mostly they don't.

A (26:57)

No. I would it. Nor is law enforcement required to mention every single detail about what they're, you know, like. I feel like a lot of this criticism has almost just been like, well, they didn't put Odinism in the pca. And it's like, why, why would they. They don't have to do that.

B (27:17)

In fairness, that wasn't what these.

A (27:18)

Not like. I mean, that was certainly what the trial attorneys were saying with. This is just like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking about the pca in a way that's. Yeah, they're. They're not in agreement, but they're in about. In agreement about what actually matters is that they saw Bridge Guy. The state didn't have these people get up on the stand and say, I saw Richard Allen. They didn't. They just said they saw Bridge Guy. And the defense had the opportunity to cross examine them and talk about their statements that they had given police. I mean, that's kind of what you want, right? And then, then the jury has the ability to say, okay, do I find these witnesses credible or not? And they did find them credible.

B (28:00)

I think the. I only caught one small reference to the fact that the original attorneys were taken off the case briefly.

A (28:09)

Yeah.

B (28:09)

And that was in this section and where the attorneys write, quote, tellingly, the trial court was willing to schedule a Franks hearing when Allen was represented by Fort Wayne attorneys but refused when the original attorneys were reinstated. Allen's constitutional protections are not contingent on who his attorneys are, end quote. So they're bringing up some of Baldwin's and Rosie's old grudges.

A (28:35)

Yeah, that's a worthwhile use of their time.

B (28:39)

I think it's important to note that a trial judge has a very broad discretion in determining whether or not to hold a hearing. And if she was perhaps more willing or more open to the idea of holding a hearing if it was requested by the other defense attorneys, I don't know. It's entirely possible she just had more faith in their judgment and their abilities and their skills. Certainly at this point, based on what I've seen in the trial, I would have very little faith in having Rosie or Baldwin represent me.

A (29:16)

I wouldn't. I wouldn't hire them to get me out of a parking ticket at this point. Somehow I'd end up getting convicted of murder.

B (29:23)

Anything else you wanted to say about this search warrant argument?

A (29:28)

Let me see. Yeah, I mean, it's. It's kind of as. As. As you're probably getting it. It's. It's definitely very repetitive.

B (29:37)

It's stuff you've heard before.

A (29:39)

They bring up the car and listen, the car is a confusing part of the pca. Betsy Blair talks about seeing a car, and she describes it. She describes it as a Ford Mercury, which is a car that does not exist. A. In fact, I think the Mercury. Oh, no, I'm sorry. A Ford Comet. It's a Mercury Comet. So she doesn't even know what car she's talking about.

B (30:01)

And as I mentioned, another guy said it was a purple PT Cruiser.

A (30:04)

But there was a person at trial. I think it was Brad Heath's testimony spurred Blair to, like. I think, like, they were able to bring her back on. And she was like. I think I was actually talking about a car that may have been somewhere else. Do you remember that? They almost cleared that up. So it was like, there's a lot of stuff here where it's like, okay, this was kind of interesting prior to trial or prior to some of this getting debunked or cleared up. Like, why. I don't know why. Bringing it up now, I. So in terms of.

B (30:31)

And this is something that, you know, was considered earlier, there's no reason to believe or conclude that Liggett misrepresented anything.

A (30:40)

I just want to say this. This is one thing I found really, like, kind of shocking. They make a big deal about how, quote, Allen told investigators he did not know what he was wearing, end quote. We've seen the footage of Tony Liggett and then Carroll County Prosecutor's office investigator Steve Mullen, who's now the Delphi Chief of police. We saw their interview with him. And in that. I looked at the quotes. In that, Alan says, this quote. I remember it was a fairly warm day or warmer than normal. So I think I just put a J on a jacket. So I think I just put a jacket on and went back to the trails, end quote. And then, quote, I'm sure I put on a jacket because I think it was still a fairly cool day. I don't think it was super warm, end quote. And then they ask him, well, what. Tell us about this. You know, like, they ask him about the jacket and he talks about his Carhartt jackets, and then the one was blue and the one was black. And then he talks about how he thinks it may have been Carhartt off brand. It may have not been actually Carhartt, but off brand, end quote. I could have worn that. So, I mean, I understand what they're saying. He's not saying, I know for a fact that I wore this Carhartt blue jacket. But in response to their questions about what he was wearing, it's pretty clear about the jacket. I mean, am I crazy? Am I losing my mind?

B (31:59)

This is why I say now, Sheriff Leggett did nothing wrong.

A (32:04)

He didn't lie. It's, it's, it's way over the top. If you want to say, oh, I think he's wrong or whatever, fine. But this is a real stretch.

B (32:14)

It feels a real stretch. They're really picking nets and I, I don't expect them to have much success.

A (32:19)

And again, they're desperate to get the Sig Sauer out because the Sig Sauer links Allen to the crime scene. So, I mean, that's the intention here. It's, it's not. If you want to throw the gun out, you have to, you absolutely have to attack Liggett's credibility and get the PCA thrown out.

B (32:38)

Yeah. So let's move on to the second argument, and this is interesting. The second argument of the trial court aired by admitting statements Allen made while gravely disabled during his unprecedented pretrial solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. And I'll admit, I think I laughed out loud because they actually have the gall to include a quote from Nelson Mandela here.

A (33:08)

I just wrote down all caps. Jesus Christ. When you told me, oh, my God, there's a Nelson Mandela quote in here, I thought you were, I thought you were kidding. I thought you were trolling me. But you weren't. It was real. And how, how dare you compare this man who, how dare you compare this man to a civil rights leader? I guess I'll just leave it at that. Like, how. How. What's wrong? What's wrong with people yeah. So why does everyone just totally lose their minds on this case? I'm sorry. This. This. In fairness, I'm gonna. I'm gonna say something nice. The appeal in general is far more professionally written than a lot of what we saw from the trial defense team. I will give them that. I will. I will tip the hat. But now I will waggle the finger and say that this is still embarrassing and stupid.

B (33:57)

In fairness, they're not comparing Mr. Allen to Mr. Mandela.

A (34:01)

That seems to be the implication, though.

B (34:03)

They're just saying, here's a bad experience Nelson Mandela had in the solitary.

A (34:08)

Okay. But they're leaving it to the reader to draw the connection. And that's embarrassing just because they're not saying our guy is basically Nelson Mandela. I guess for, like, child murderers, you know, it's still. It's still like, we don't need this. We don't need, like, the kind of 8th grader writing their first essay quotes superimposed over this nonsense. I mean, it's just. It's embarrassing.

B (34:28)

So basically, what they're trying to do here is we all know Richard Allen confessed or made incriminating statements about his involvement in the murders at least 61 times, and they're arguing those don't count because he was held in solitary confinement for a long time. They write, quote, solitary confinement is a form of punishment, and depending upon its conditions, even torture. End quote. But despite all the reference to, oh, he was held in solitary confinement. Just because you repeat something over and over again, that doesn't make it true. How many times have I said, anya has stolen cereal?

A (35:12)

Oh, wow. Finally, he admits it.

B (35:14)

I admit she's never done that.

A (35:16)

That you know of.

B (35:17)

Mr. Allen was not in solitary confinement. He was in protective custody because if other prisoners had free access to him, they would have assaulted and quite likely killed him. In other parts of this brief, they talk about how if you listen to the audio from the prison, you'd hear other prisoners yelling to Mr. Allen to kill himself. So when you include details like that, you're acknowledging that these other prisoners did not hold Mr. Allen in high esteem. And generally speaking, in prison, people do not hold child murderers such as Mr. Allen in High esteem. So it was necessary to put him somewhere where he could be protected. And it wasn't solitary confinement because he did have contact with the outside world, including seeing his wife. He also had a tablet that I think is similar to an iPad that allowed him to communicate with his family. These are not things you would see in solitary confinement.

A (36:28)

And again, these same people would Be freaking out if they put him in general population and then he got badly assaulted. And they would probably say, well, the state was trying to coerce something from him by putting him with other people. Even though we knew that everyone should have known that would be dangerous. And so it's like, you can't. If there's a situation where you can't win either way. I don't. I don't really find any of this terribly compelling. I think he would have died had he been put in gen pop.

B (36:50)

Absolutely. He would have been killed.

A (36:52)

You know, they don't take kindly to people who do stuff to kids in prison. That's a pretty common thing you will find when you talk to former or even current inmates.

B (37:00)

I wanted to read something. Something else here from the brief. Quote, statements produced through a coercive environment are involuntary, regardless of whether solicited through police interrogation. And they quote from a case where it says, months spent in solitary confinement, deprived of light, adequate food, and contact with the outside world is by itself sufficient to sustain a finding of involuntariness, end quote. And again, the argument is, if it's involuntary, it shouldn't be admitted. But deprived of light, adequate food, and contact with the outside world, that doesn't describe Mr. Allen's situation at all. He was not deprived of light, he got adequate food, and he had contact with the outside world. So if you say those are what you need in order to render statements involuntary, okay, that doesn't apply here.

A (37:52)

One of my favorite asides on this was they talk about how in the fight over safekeeping, when the defense, the trial defense wanted him out of that, and when the prosecutor was pushing back, when. When there was that fight, McCleland, Nicholas McLeland, the Carroll county prosecutor, he pushed back on a lot of the stuff that the defense was saying. He actually didn't. I don't. I don't recall. I think at some point he was basically like, I don't really care where he is as long as he's safe. But he did debunk a bunch of their stuff. And the appellate team takes issue with, quote, the prosecutor then mocked the defense concerns as colorful and dramatic, while the same day, IDOC found Alan gravely disabled, end quote. So two things on that. That filing was colorful and dramatic, and a lot of those things were immediately debunked. So, yeah, I think it was fair for him to call it that. Second, of all, the gravely disabled thing, I think this is important to note when we're talking about this and this came out of trial again. This isn't new. When we're talking about information that came out of trial, the experts who testified talked about how, hey, there's a certain point where it doesn't matter if someone's faking something or not. If they're harming themselves, it's a problem, and we're gonna. We're gonna address it as such. So when you're having people say, like, oh, you know, somehow, like, the. The IDOC's reaction is a sign that it was definitely real and he was not malingering and it was. It was just total psychosis and totally a mental issue. No, I mean, they were basically. I mean, like, it's. It's like you can be starving yourself and faking the mental illness, or you could be starving yourself and having a mental illness, but if you're not eating, we have to deal with it. Either way, it doesn't matter why at some point. And so I think a lot of their stuff kind of just blows past that. We heard from mental health experts who talked about how it was an open discussion of, like, we think he's probably faking. We heard from other people who disputed that. But again, the jury was able to weigh both sides, and they had all that information. And frankly, I personally, having reviewed this and learning more about this person, Richard Allen, through writing the book and whatnot, I absolutely believe he was, if not faking it, I think he could have control it. I think it was maybe. Maybe faking it to an extent, but also using his behavior to manipulate others and attempt to control what little he could. I think that's a good way of saying it. I think that's what he was doing. And I think at some point his behavior became dangerous regardless, and the prison had to step in. But to act as if this is some gotcha moment of, like, see, they're saying he's mentally ill. It's like, I don't. We know he had major depressive disorder. I don't think there's any. I don't think there's any concrete evidence. Like, they try to get in his head so much, you know, of like, oh, he's saying this. Or, like, he says he's confused by the world. You know, he's saying that. But is he really. They just kind of, like, take his word at face value, which. I don't know why you would.

B (40:44)

I don't know why you would. Again, their argument is, you know, typically you think of a statement being involuntary or coerced. If it's like an interrogation and the police are for lack of a better word, being, like, really mean or aggressive. And they're saying, well, no, a statement can be involuntary under other circumstances. And I want to read this other quote. When state actors use more subtle forms of psychological coercion, the defendant's mental illness is more significant in the voluntariness determination. The state must still exploit the defense illness with coercive tactics. This is generally done through aggressive interrogation, but exploitation can occur in other ways. Quoting another case. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which a defense would be less the product of a free intellect, less voluntary than when brought about by a drug having the effect of a truth serum. End quote. Obvious point. Nothing in this case even remotely like a truth serum. No, this is. This is nonsense.

A (41:51)

If you ask any medical professional, we've heard from a lot of nurses actually about this. Haldol is not a truth serum. Haldol does not work that way. That's not how anything works. And, yeah, I. Can we talk about another really dumb citation that I kind of feel was tailored to you?

B (42:07)

Can I do this one?

A (42:08)

Yes. Because I'm like, this is one of your favorite authors.

B (42:11)

Uh, I'm reading from the brief again. Quote, the prolonged nature is coercion because solitary confinement can bring a person, quote, to the edge of madness, perhaps to madness itself. This has been recognized in literature, law, and science. And then they cite Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities, citing a novel, citing a novel in an appellate brief. You know, that's like me saying, anya, I get to make all of the decisions about who's guilty or innocent and then cite the Mickey Spillane novel. I. The jury.

A (42:50)

You're.

B (42:55)

Dickens. Dickens is a wonderful writer. I don't believe his words really have the force of law or case law or really have much impact on how judges should make decisions.

A (43:11)

Yeah, I, I. So we're not going to get some dramatic moment where people are, like, switching places? No spoilers, actually. I mean, my. We're. We're citing Dickens at this point. We're citing Dickens. If we're citing Dickens, is it possible that the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future just, like, appeared to Allen and told him he was going to hell and that's why he needed to confess. Or. Or maybe. Maybe they. The ghosts actually teamed up with in, you know, the state. Maybe they're. Maybe they're working for Carroll county and they're agents of the police and they didn't Mirandize him. And maybe the app. Go on. Go into that avenue. Because, I mean, like, it just. It. This reads More sometimes, like. Like a high school essay than anything else. Like a high school persuasive essay. Like, you can't just vaguely say literature tells us, like, this. A story a guy made up tells us, like, I. He's not in the Bastille, people. Like, he wasn't some doctor who was trying to help someone who got, like, railroaded. He. He's been accused of. He was accused of murdering two kids, and then they convicted him. He's not an object of sympathy.

B (44:15)

Do you have. He's not the victim.

A (44:17)

No.

B (44:17)

Do you have anything further to say about the second pillar of the brief?

A (44:24)

They talk about, like, it's outrageous that he was placed in a strip cell, the most restrictive cell in the most restrictive solitary unit. Only the bare essentials. Oh, man, I'm sorry. That his, like, stay there was so unsatisfying. He was on suicide watch. Like, they were concerned about him killing himself.

B (44:40)

He was banging his head against the wall and things like that. So if you have extra things in the cell, who's to say he wouldn't have somehow used those as a weapon against himself?

A (44:49)

Yeah. His own behavior determined a lot of the outcomes that were less than ideal for him, including, like, murdering two kids. But beyond that, a lot of his behavior was, frankly, out of control. And so, you know, the prison staff did what? They did it. I don't know. In what universe are we expecting, you know, some sort of, like, nice Hampton Inn stay? Like, I mean, this is. I don't know. I thought it was interesting that they were talking about, like, oh, he had a toxic relationship with Dr. Walla because she controlled all aspects of his life. It's like, he's in prison. All aspects of his life are control. Like, what are we talking about? Like, oh, she got to decide if he was gonna get utensils, you know? Yeah. Because it's a safety issue. She, by all accounts, bent over backwards to do things for him. She was giving him, like, books from, like, what was it? People imprisoned by the Nazis and stuff. She was telling him, like, he had online fans. She was, like, trying to bolster him at every opportunity. She got him a meeting with his wife, which was, again, like, not something that people in that situation could really expect. So, you know, talking about how, oh, the privileges were contingent upon pleasing her. First of all, I think that's a really, like. That's twisting stuff around. I thought it was interesting that they also bring out the late Senator John McCain as someone that they were going to compare Richard Allen to, who, because he, quote, explained solitary Crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any form of mistreatment, end quote. Richard Allen is not a prisoner of war.

B (46:19)

He was not in the Hanoi Hilton. It's offensive to the late Senator McCain.

A (46:25)

I think it's offensive to any POW. I think comparing this guy to what a POW experiences is offensive to POWs and any families of POWs and anybody. I think that's disgusting, to be honest.

B (46:40)

Senator McCain was not held in the Hanoi Hilton to protect him from others. Senator McCain did not have access to an iPad. Senator McCain did not get to see his wife.

A (46:53)

It's like the over the top dramatics with how this stuff is discussed really disgusts me. I guess. I, I don't, I don't know why we're still doing it. In the appeal, I was expecting some more professionalism again. I got more professionalism than we did from the trial attorneys. But I'm, I'm disappointed. I guess I'm not really that surprised, but I am disappointed.

B (47:14)

Are we ready to move on to the third pillar?

A (47:17)

You know, at one point they talk about how Walla described Alan as more coherent or his symptoms not significant. And the state cannot have it both ways. E, G, I, E. Quote, allen decompensated to the point of forced medication, but remained rational beyond a reasonable doubt, end quote. This totally throws out any. They, the, the, the appellate team also can't have it both ways. If he's, if they think he's faking to control things or get stuff, then yeah, he's going to be forcibly medication medicated until his behavior improves. It doesn't, you know, like if, if they're, if they're seeing him behave coherently and then do bad things in order to get what he wants, then yeah, I think they would have a pretty good idea that he's malingering. You know, and frankly, people who are actually in, in the throes of psychosis don't typically like turn off that behavior because they can't, they're, they're in it. They don't have a choice. They just go into. We've interviewed people who have psychotic breaks and who've had psychosis behind the scenes and on the show. And it's not a switch. You can't turn it on and off. And this guy was doing that from testimony we heard at trial. He'd be like, oh, I'm gonna act really crazy now. Oh, is the, is the guard not watching anymore? Okay, I'll wait till he's looking again. That's not how it works. And also, I want to say one thing. I thought it was really funny that they talked about how his. His food was, quote, poisoned by fecal matter and toilet water, end quote. Yeah. Who was doing that again? Who was. Who is poisoning. Who is. Who is forcing him to eat fecal matter? I just want to know who that was. Oh, and again, they're. They're citing Dost. Dostoyevsk. How do I say that?

B (49:04)

Dostoevsky.

A (49:05)

God, I'm such an idiot.

B (49:06)

Well, you're not an idiot.

A (49:08)

I feel like I'm losing brain cells reading this thing, honestly. You know, quote, the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. End quote. That's deep, man. Like, what are we talking about here? Again, it's just meant to paper over the weakness of the argument, I think.

B (49:24)

Are we ready for the third pillar?

A (49:27)

Yes, let's.

B (49:28)

Third pillar. So they argued that the court denied Allen his right to present a complete defense to explain the scene and impeach the investigation. So the thing to remember here, the bulk of this involves certain witnesses or lines of inquiry that were not permitted by Judge Goel. The fact of the matter is, a trial court judge enjoys a very broad discretion in what they choose to allow or not allow in a trial. That's just their right. And so, generally speaking, appellate courts tend to respect that, unless that discretion is really obviously abused. And most of the stuff in here that they cite just seems to me to be typical judicial discretion calls. For instance, Judge Gull did not allow the sketches to be brought into the trial. They were said to be hearsay. But even if. Even if, for instance, like the Betsy Blair sketch is not allowed in, Betsy Blair testifies. So the defense, on cross examination, could ask her whatever they want.

A (50:53)

They can rip her apart. They can bring up her statements and how they conflict or whatever. They can do whatever they want.

B (50:59)

And there was, like, a page in here where they kept on saying, literally, the sketches are not hearsay. The sketches are not hearsay. The sketches are not hearsay. And then, well. Well, if the sketches are hearsay, do you remember that?

A (51:11)

Yeah, I remember.

B (51:12)

I love that.

A (51:12)

It was like a jump cut. It was like, I. Well, I get the narrator. The sketches were hearsay. I mean, it was just like, okay, like.

B (51:20)

But. But again, the judge enjoys a very broad level of discretion. Maybe you disagree with Judge Goal on that one, maybe you don't. But I don't feel her decision there was an abuse of her discretion, and I doubt that the appeals court will either. They also complained this witness, William Tobin, that the defense wanted to have testify about ballistics. Quote, the judge excluded him because he was not a firearms expert. He was untrained in firearms identification. He did not examine the evidence in this case, and he did not conduct a firearms examination, end quote. Those seem to me to be pretty good reasons to not allow the man to testify about firearms identification in the case.

A (52:11)

Oh, but, Kevin, he really, really doesn't like forensic firearms examination. So, I mean, like, you know, it's kind of like their number one hater, so might as well let him in to do that. I mean, again, like, some people let him in. I think they. The prosecution, I think, cited cases where he was excluded, where judges made that same decision. Like it. They had their own firearms examiner, Dr. Eric Warren, who also didn't examine the evidence in the case. He just looked at pictures, which you're not supposed to do.

B (52:40)

Gosh, I wonder why the defense didn't want their expert to actually look at the evidence in the case.

A (52:48)

It. It's obvious. I mean, it seems really extreme to be calling any of this a reversible error.

B (52:53)

Yeah. So are there any more of these? Oh, another judgment call is Judge Gol allowed the defense to show video of Mr. Allen while he was incarcerated, allegedly suffering these inhumane conditions, did not allow the audio to be included.

A (53:18)

Oh, you know what else she allowed with the videos? She allowed Brad Rosie to just randomly click around to different times he wanted the jury to see. You know, therefore it kind of. They didn't see the whole thing. He just skipped around randomly, which I was shocked that she allowed, frankly, because he's just over there, like DJ Brosie, kind of like mixing things in a way that he wants the jury to see. They're not seeing the whole context. It backfired. From what we heard, the jurors were. Were not impressed by the videos.

B (53:49)

I. I don't think including the audio would have changed any juror's mind.

A (53:54)

I mean, I think there's. I. I don't feel like people. It's like, always muttering incoherently. Yeah, we heard about that. You know, and they. They heard about all of this, and I. I guess I just. It doesn't really seem that crazy, the idea that this guy was carrying on for attention, for control, for whatever, for guilt, you know, for being in agony that his wife basically doesn't love him unconditionally. And, you know, like, that doesn't necessarily mean that that should implant, you know, specific information about the crime in his mind.

B (54:34)

Well, the argument is that the. If you played the Audio, you would have seen that he was psychotic. I'm going to read you, for instance, a quote from the brief on May 3rd. For example, Dr. Waller describes Allen's mind as more organized than he'd been. But the April 28 video puts this statement in context, showing a disjointed, tangential, nonsensical and rambling Allen. He is plainly psychotic and uncredible. End quote. First of all, how does a video from April 28th show us anything at all about Allen's state of mind on May 3rd? 3rd? And also, how would these appellate lawyers, who, the best of my knowledge, have no medical degrees, how are they qualified to diagnose a man is plainly psychotic just by watching a video? Even when the actual professionals were diagnosing him, there was a, a tendency to believe that he was faking it. But they can tell just by watching this video?

A (55:36)

Yeah, it's a little weird. Do you want to get into the Cecil thing?

B (55:43)

If you want to talk about Cecil, you do it.

A (55:45)

Yeah. So I think this was supposed to be the big razzle dazzle at trial where they brought out this former FBI forensic examiner who said, oh, well, you know, they say that the murder occurred at 2, you know, 32. But look, an aux cable was plugged in at 5:45pm and then removed at 10:32pm you know, like while searchers are, you know, all over the area and yeah, makes sense. So they, they talk about how, you know, Chris, Chris Cecil, who was the state's sort of kind of digital phone expert, he talked about how like, he just like looked that up and water damage could do the same thing. And so they're saying that shouldn't have been allowed in because it's inadmissible totem pole hearsay. And they can't let that in. And you can't, you know, it just, it's like I, I, I, I don't, I don't like, they're like, oh, it's an error. It's a harmful error because the, you know, the jury, this, this impacted the jury's decision. I think probably, if I had to guess, what impacted the jury's decision is like having a phone. And like, that's happened to me. If you get like water damage or like something's in the thing, it can, it can mess up your, your headphone jack. That's like just common knowledge. So, I mean, they're just acting like that's a big deal. I just thought it was kind of dumb. I thought that, I thought that, I thought that Whole like line of inquiry was, was stupid at trial. We didn't, we actually missed that testimony. That was like the one thing we missed. But it was, it was like, that's what they're going with, that there had to be an, like, what's more likely that the killers like return to the scene amidst the searches, like, and are hanging around plugging stuff in like for hours. Like, what are we talking about at some point? So I think acting like that's a big deal is silly.

B (57:36)

And another thing they, I mean, is.

A (57:38)

That hearsay that he like referenced that like this is talked about online. I mean, what do you, what do you think?

B (57:44)

It's, it's hearsay. But there are exceptions. Like an expert can often be allowed to testify about hearsay evidence. Yeah, I feel, I feel it's a non starter. Another issue they bring up is they played a recording of a phone call in which Richard Allen confessed. But wait a minute, here's a phone call where he didn't confess. They should have played that one too. And yeah, I don't find that too compelling. No. There's something called the idea of completeness. If in a single conversation a person confesses and then doesn't confess or say, oh no, I didn't really mean that. You can't just selectively edit a conversation. This wasn't done. They played the entirety of phone calls, several phone calls, many phone calls in which he offered confessions.

A (58:40)

Oh, but on, you know, phone calls that occurred right before, right after he didn't say it, or he said, I'm confused and I'm losing my mind. So that must negate that. I don't, I don't see how it does. I, I do, I just. Yeah.

B (58:56)

And then finally they say, golly, Don Pearlmutter, the odinism expert, should have been allowed to testify.

A (59:06)

I think any, everyone can kind of guess how I think about that when, when it comes to Don Perlmutter, this person has no credibility and has no business testifying as an expert in trial, in this trial or any trial. The, the, this, this woman went on Court TV before she worked on this case ever and said it must be ritualistic because she read the defense memorandum saying it was ritualistic. You know, she, like any expert, could be a hired gun, but this is the hired gun that can't shoot straight. Frankly, like I, I can't emphasize to you how badly her testimony went at this three day hearing. And to be trying to rehabilitate her in this appeal is frankly embarrassing and insulting to everyone's intelligence.

B (59:50)

Yeah, she said like, oh, the, there were symbols there that were obviously symbolic. Symbolic of what? Who knows?

A (59:55)

Yeah. What is the symbol?

B (59:56)

Only the killer knows.

A (59:57)

Only the killer knows. Yeah, it's a symbol which in, in, in infers that it can be recognized and interpreted in a specific way. But like, maybe it's just a made up symbol. Also, she was not able to ever point out any other ritualistic killings involving Odinists. So, I mean, that seems a bit of a problem with a ritual, you.

B (60:13)

Know, because a ritual is something that's done over and over again.

A (60:15)

When I go to Catholic mass, the priest isn't up there just freestyling, being like, what do we do? Why don't we do this today? You know, it's kind of like a prescribed set of steps that need to happen.

B (60:24)

So I don't like at the time, on the day she testified in the pretrial hearing, I think I said Nicholas McClelland's cross examination of her was the single most devastating cross examination I've ever heard. And I included episodes of Perry Mason.

A (60:40)

Yeah, he, he destroyed her on the stand, her credibility. Like, it wasn't a situation where it's like he destroyed her and like, oh, she's, she's wrong or she's misinterpreted. Like it was like, she has no credibility. She got up there and made a fool of herself. And I think it was, I think it was a reflection of the desperation of the trial defense that that's who they got, you know, like they needed somebody who was going to be a respected expert in runes or in Norse mythology or even in like modern day white supremacy. Something, something to tie this together, tie their stupid theory together. And that this we know they were calling people, like right up into the last minute be like, can you be our expert, please? Can you say what we want you to on the stand? And this is who they got. And it was embarrassing. So, yeah, I, I, that's all there is to say. I was surprised about how little they really went into the whole Odinism thing, though. Like, it felt like we took a while to get there and then they were kind of like, yeah, and they should have let Odinism in. Like, we didn't, we didn't really get into that that much. I, I guess I was surprised by that. What, what do you think, Anya?

B (61:52)

Let's say you threw a Christmas party. I don't drink, but let's say for some reason I come to your party, I drink, I knock things over, I vomit, I do all sorts of awful things. Would you be surprised If a month later, I don't bring that up a lot. The Odinism gambit was a total embarrassing failure. I'm not surprised that it got such little play.

A (62:26)

So you, you think that the peloton was smart to not focus so much in on that?

B (62:34)

Yes.

A (62:35)

Yeah. So that was a good thing that they did here, in your opinion?

B (62:38)

Yes. What about you?

A (62:40)

I agree. I think it was stupid. I think it was stupid to bring.

B (62:43)

It up at all.

A (62:44)

Definitely stupid to bring up Perlmutter. But yeah, they really kind of just glanced over Odinism and sort of were like, oh, Brad Holdner, you know, he had an alibi. But like, you know, I don't know, maybe someone clocked out for him. Forget that he went to the gym. So much of this is just going to be debunked. I mean, like in, in, in the response, I would imagine. So much of this is just kind of twisted.

B (63:12)

Some part, sometime the early part of next year, the state is going to respond. Supposedly supposed to be like in 30 days. I assume they're going to ask for extensions and those extensions would be granted. So that's why I say sometime in the early part of the year. And then the appellate team will have the opportunity to respond to that. And then the court can either say, okay, we need to have oral arguments or they can just make a decision.

A (63:37)

Can I do a couple rapid fire things that we didn't talk about that I just wanted to throw out there?

B (63:42)

Please do.

A (63:43)

Okay. Rapid fire. So they talk about. They claim that the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit was brought in by the Carroll county sheriff within the first week and that they declined to exclude pagan ritual. So, okay, there's a far cry from declining to exclude pagan ritual and it being a pagan ritual that just sort of leaves it on the table, you know, I imagine they didn't exclude a lot of things. We know that the marshals BAU was saying, basically we think it's undoing where he's trying to cover up the bodies. Of course, we gotta bring in Professor Jeff Turco of Purdue University. And they, they, they trot out this old chestnut that, quote. A Purdue professor also consulted law enforcement on whether the sticks were runically inspired. He found it quite plausible. These markings constitute an instruction inspired by Norse runes or modern recreations thereof, end quote. We've been over this a million times. He's being asked, hey, can you assume that it's runes? And he's saying, well, they don't spell anything and they aren't runes, but let's just assume they Are. So that's. That's dumb to. To bring that back. Um, yeah, I love that they. A nationally recognized expert. Dawn Perlmutter, nationally recognized in her own mind, I guess. Um, let's see what else? Oh, they talk about how Allen in November 2022, weighed 180 pounds and that by April 2023, he weighed 135 pounds. We heard testimony that he was telling people that he was trying to lose weight and exercise more. So like the constant, oh, well, that must mean he's being, you know, tortured and starved. It. We learned about this and he was telling people, this is my opportunity to lose weight. So I don't. Again, there's just so much here that's just like, hand waving away, like actual testimony. We already heard again. This. This. This kept bothering me. They kept doing things like this. They'd say, like, quote, he continued believing he was dead. End quote. He said that. He said that. Do we know what he actually believed? Are we in his mind? Are we somehow like. Like projecting into his mind and learning what, like, he's personally. I think he said and did a lot of stuff for attention, which is very much on par for the, you know, par for the course as far as things he's known to do. They kept mentioning that, oh, Allen said the girls screamed, and there's a reason for that. What they're trying to do is say, if they screamed, why did no one hear them? Ooh, maybe. Maybe he didn't do it because no one heard a scream. Nobody has presented anybody who was on the bridge, on the Monon High Bridge at the relevant. In the relevant time frame, where they would have been in a position to hear a scream. There's nobody. That's. The defense brought in a whole litany of people who were there at 3pm 30 minutes after they were dead. Nobody said, yeah, I heard something. That doesn't matter. No one was around to hear them scream. It's not a big mystery. They concede something that I thought was interesting. They say Abigail Williams was likely murdered while wearing Liberty Germans clothes. So hopefully the cranks can hear that and understand, like, this whole idea that they're being like, redressed and taken all these other places. She was. She was re. She. She was put in Liberty German's clothes, probably forced to put them on and then murdered. You know, the. The time frame on that is really not that confusing. They talk about how, despite testing the sexual assault, killed hundreds of clippings from the clothing and swabs from the girl's bodies, cartridge and cell Phone. Law enforcement found no DNA from Allan. End quote. You know what else they didn't find? DNA from any potential male offenders. Like, I don't feel like that's a big gotcha because I feel like, you know, they didn't find other things. Like, you know what I mean? Like, it's like if they'd found some, like, unidentified male DNA. Okay, yeah, that would be kind of a big deal. It's, it's in this context, it's just simply not. Those are the things that I wanted to mention is just kind of stuck sticking out in my mind as kind of being in general. I thought this was worse than it was. I thought it was worse than I thought it was going to be. I thought it was. And by worse, I mean, like, I thought it was going to be more compelling. I thought it was going to be more like, okay, they're raising some interesting points about his rights were violated. And instead I think they took up a lot of time on a really stupid summary that was poorly put together and frankly, not compelling at all. If you know the case. If you don't know the case, I'm sure people will be like, wow, I guess he's innocent. But I think anybody who actually, like, has any information is like, okay, and, and as far as the legal arguments, I guess, like, they gotta try. You gotta try to do some of this stuff. I get it, but doesn't seem like super compelling. This is like a whimper instead of a bang.

B (68:41)

I thought it was competent.

A (68:43)

Okay, that's nice.

B (68:45)

Which puts it head and shoulders above most of the defense work in this case.

A (68:49)

It makes it. It. It certainly. It is a breath of fresh air when you're comparing it. But it's been a while since I've been dealing with the defense trial stuff, so I think I'm just more neg. I'm sure if we got this, like, immediately after, like, the Frank's memo, we'd be like, wow, some professionals are here. Thank you. But it's been a while. And they lean so heavily into this kind of like, you know, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain vibe that I just, you know, it's. I think that irked me somewhat.

B (69:22)

I think the only argument they could have used, they didn't was the ineffective counsel. As I said, I think that would have been more compelling than anything they did use. I don't think it would have worked, but it would have been more compelling with what they did use. Other than that, I think they made the best possible arguments that they could, but the fact is he got a fair trial and he's a guilty man. So they not really enough there for them to really pick out.

A (69:49)

I have a question like why not do you asked me which I don't know why you would. I'm not a lawyer. Why not do incompetent or ineffective counsel? Is it, is it, oh God, I don't want to run into Brad at a cle. That would be really awkward. I mean, what is it? Thin blue line for lawyers?

B (70:05)

I, I think most defense attorneys would not necessarily be offended if you do that because the idea is you want to do anything you can for your client and that should include falling on your sword. So I don't know if that's it or if there's something else. I, I, I, I've said this repeatedly. I don't think they were prepared, the trial council were not well prepared for this. I think the obsession with the Odinism angle was a complete waste of time.

A (70:33)

Things like filming themselves, quote unquote work.

B (70:36)

I, I, I, I think Richard Allen is guilty. I think he was going to be convicted no matter what. With that said, I think they could have done a much better job. We saw Mr. Baldwin, defense attorney Andrew Baldwin, handle a murder case in Brown County, Indiana was another case where the man was obviously guilty. But I walked away from that trial thinking Baldwin did a pretty good job here. And there are many things he did in that trial that impressed me. He seemed well prepared, he seemed quick on his feet, he seemed to be able to charm the jurors. I was basically impressed with his performance in that case, even though it was in a losing cause. But he seemed much, much better prepared for that trial, which no one really knows about, than he was for the trial which was to be the biggest trial of his life. I don't understand it.

A (71:35)

You say you don't think most defense attorneys would mind. I don't think these are most defense attorneys. I think the ego that was bound up in this Odinism theory and the amount that they tried to basically manipulate the public and the media and seemingly aggrandize themselves in the form of filming themselves, then giving it to documentarians really speaks to some, dare I say problematic motivations from them. And yeah, I, I think they would mind, but I also don't know why the appellate team wouldn't bring it up. It just seems odd. But I mean, again, I also think it would have been losing because again, this, this, this defendant Richard Allen fought to get them back on. So you kind of, you know, at that point, you kind of have, you know, the judge told you she thought they were clowns and you invited the circus back to town. So that's what you get. But yeah. Anyways, that's, I guess, the appeal. And now we'll look for the, the state's response at some point. Thank you. I mean, I will say that anything can happen with an appeals court. We've been critical of this appeal. I think we should be critical of this appeal. But an appeals court can say, well, let's have oral arguments. They can say, let's do a new trial. I mean, you just don't know. There's no way to predict that. But personally, I didn't find this, any of this particularly compelling. How about you?

B (72:51)

No?

A (72:52)

All right. Thank you all so much for listening.

B (72:55)

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us@murdersheetmail.com. if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

A (73:16)

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

B (73:39)

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web@kevintg.com if you're looking to talk with.

A (73:51)

Other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.