Loading summary
Transcript200 lines
- [00:01]
A
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states. And Doug, there's nowhere I wouldn't go
- [00:26]
B
to help someone customize and save on car insurance with Liberty Mutual. Even if it means sitting front row
- [00:32]
A
at a comedy show.
- [00:33]
B
Hey everyone. Check out this guy and his bird. What is this, your first date? Oh, no.
- [00:37]
A
We help people customize and save on
- [00:39]
B
car insurance with Liberty Mutual together. We're married. Me to a human, him to a bird. Yeah, the bird looks out of your league. Anyways, get a quote@libertymutual.com or with your local agent.
- [00:48]
A
Liberty, Liberty.
- [00:49]
B
Liberty, Liberty. When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [01:22]
A
Hi, I'm Kevin and today we are going to talk about the recently filed defense appellate reply brief in the on ongoing Richard Allen case.
- [01:33]
B
Content warning. This episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls.
- [01:38]
A
Before we get into this, some people have asked us about our patreon, which is patreon.com murdersheet. Is that right? We'd love to have you there. It's a few bucks a month. You get early episodes, you get ad free episodes, you get a couple of extra episodes a month because we do a couple of lives where we just sit around and chat with whoever's there.
- [02:00]
B
It's fun. It's really fun.
- [02:02]
A
And if you are interested but aren't interested in Patreon, I think we're going to try to do that on some other services soon too.
- [02:09]
B
Yeah, we'll be adding more subscription service options for people at the same exact price. So kind of meeting people where they are and we're really excited to unroll that soon.
- [02:17]
A
About this brief that was filed today, this is a brief, as I mentioned, in the ongoing Richard Allen case. I want to say a couple of big picture things before we do our music and start talking about it. First of all, there's nothing really shocking or Surprising. Here. This is part of the ongoing process. And by ongoing process, I mean after a person is convicted of a serious crime, it's often appealed. And one thing that's different about appeals as opposed to a criminal case, in the criminal case, the whole issue is, did this guy do it or did he not do it? In the appellate case, that's not what the question is. The question is, did this person who was convicted get a fair trial? Because it's entirely possible for a person to have committed a terrible crime and not get a fair trial. And in that case, that person is certainly entitled to a new trial. So that's what this is about. And basically, back when they initially filed, the defense said he didn't get a fair trial, and then the state replied by saying, yes, he did. And now the defense is saying, oh, no, he didn't. And that's what this is. Nothing has really changed. And the situation for Richard Allen remains much as it was before this. By that, I mean it is very rare for a conviction to be tossed out in a new trial to be ordered. Especially at this stage of things. The odds are stacked against him. And again, to be blunt, I don't think he's going to get a new trial. I would be shocked if he did. I've been shocked before, but I don't expect it. Do you expect it, Anya?
- [04:09]
B
Well, I'm not an attorney, so I don't feel like I'm speaking from a place of expertise. I'm really speaking from a layperson, journalistic perspective. And obviously, surprising things can happen in courts of appeals. You know, there can be. There can be surprising outcomes or outcomes that maybe people don't see coming. But in general, I. I personally don't feel as a layperson that a lot of the points raised in this appeal have been particularly compelling to me. Now that I'm not a lawyer. As I said, maybe, maybe the attorneys at the court of appeals level, the, the. The. The judges and also their staff, maybe they might find this more compelling. So I'm not saying I'm speaking for everybody. I'm just saying for me, like, what I care about in a story is what's true. Did the right outcome happen? Did a guilty person go to prison? And when I see this, I just see a bunch of kind of like, I don't know, kind of senseless nitpicking that's not even particularly accurate.
- [05:09]
A
Yeah, I want to talk about some big picture things about this. I've felt that this brief, and also at the same time they filed this they also filed a request for oral argument. I felt that they kind of just asserted things and acted like they were true, even though there was no basis for believing that. I'll give you a quick example by reading part of their motion for oral argument. Quote, this also involves an issue of first impression whether Allen's statements made during a psychosis caused by his prolonged maximum security solitary confinement were voluntary and admissible, end quote. So they're saying, oh, the whole issue is we know that his confessions were caused by a psychosis which was caused by being in solitary confinement. No, we don't know that.
- [06:06]
B
We don't know that.
- [06:07]
A
So they are asserting things that simply aren't true. I also felt there were a number of places in this, which we will discuss as we go through this, where they are, if you want to be generous, they are being misleading. If you're not inclined to be generous, you might say that there are some things in this document which aren't completely true.
- [06:31]
B
Lies.
- [06:32]
A
You said it.
- [06:34]
B
I think this document is riddled. I'll be very blunt here. I think this document is riddled with what I would call lies. When I say lie, I think that's something that is untrue that you pretty much know to be untrue. And they're saying it anyway, so I find that very interesting. Can I just say one thing that I feel like sums this up? I actually felt that Stacey Uliana and Mark Lehman had a very apt sort of, I guess saying at the end of this 58 page document, they say, quote, it has been said that a half truth masquerading as a whole truth becomes a complete untruth, end quote. And I feel like that's very apt. But that is how I would describe the brief that they wrote. I don't, I think they're trying to use that to say that the, the state is perpetuating, that this thing is so riddled with just nonsense that I, I sort of, I'm. I'm kind of shocked reading it, I guess. I don't. That may be standard for weak appellate cases, I don't know. But it, it just, I, I mean, like, I feel like I shouldn't be reading this thing and shaking my head and saying, you've gotta be kidding me. I feel like I should be like, oh, okay, that's an interesting, like, legal thing to raise. Like, but instead, like, they're just asserting simply untrue and we know to be untrue.
- [07:47]
A
Yeah. And then I also wanted to say, not entirely unrelated to that, it felt to me That a lot of this, much like some of the defense briefs, was written more in a style to appeal to YouTubers than to judges. And by that there's some, like, colorful language and first metaphor. It reminds me a little bit. I'm not going to get too political here, but in our political system now, it often seems like less value is placed on actual accomplishment and more value is placed on, oh, this person said something that really makes the other side look bad.
- [08:36]
B
They're dunking on them.
- [08:37]
A
They're dunking on the other side. They're owning the libs or they're owning the conservatives. Both sides do it and both sides say, yeah, they're really going after the other side. That's great. And they value that more than accomplishment. And I got the same sort of feeling here where there's a lot of things where if you're on the side of Richard Allen, you say, yeah, they nailed it. They nailed, they're nailing them. But it's not going to lead anywhere.
- [09:03]
B
I mean, certainly if it's not true,
- [09:05]
A
it's, it's just, it's just empty, over the top rhetoric.
- [09:07]
B
I just hate that. I'm sick of the freaking rhetoric. And I just, you know, it's disappointing because I guess I was just hoping some of this stuff would be a little bit more dry and boring. Kind of just like, okay, let's talk about the, let's talk about the facts of the law. Like, what, what, what does the law say and how does that apply to this situation? Instead of like, again, it's, I don't know. And again, I don't think it's quite as bad as, I mean, to me, I will defend this. I will say that the, the appeal as a whole has certainly been far from the kind of unprofessional slop that the trial defense team produced consistently. It's far from that. It's.
- [09:43]
A
I often think back some of those documents filed by this defense team, and it feels like something I dreamed. Do you, do you remember the one where they said, oh, Judge Gold doesn't smile at us enough? She called Nick McClelland, the prosecutor, a ding dong. She never called us a ding dong.
- [10:03]
B
Didn't smile at me.
- [10:04]
A
She likes my younger brother better. They, they really filed that. It's.
- [10:09]
B
That was a thing that these adult males filed about a female judge. And listen, I'm not saying you can't criticize women in power, but I'm saying, would they have filed that about a male judge? Think about it for a minute. I'm going to say, no, she's smiling.
- [10:22]
A
She made this feel sad in our hearts.
- [10:24]
B
Oh, my.
- [10:25]
A
She called him a ding dong. She didn't call us a ding dong. The group of Richard Allen's attorneys conferred together and said, yeah, this is a good strategy.
- [10:34]
B
You got this.
- [10:34]
A
This is a good thing to file.
- [10:37]
B
They thought they cooked with that one.
- [10:42]
A
One thing also, I'll say this before we move on. When you see arguments like that that are really, really weak, it's tempting just to say, oh, those attorneys are idiots. Well, yeah, I think you also have to remember that you make the strongest arguments you have. And if the strongest argument you have for the innocence of Richard Allen is the judge is a big meanie, then you make it. But that's not a very compelling argument. It's a very weak argument.
- [11:11]
B
The strongest argument they had was to pound upon the jury, did the state prove its case? Did the State prove its case? Did the state prove its case? Not this nonsense about third party suspects. That would have been their best bet. I don't think that that would have made a difference. I think he would have still been convicted, but everything would have proceeded with a heck of a lot more dignity than it actually did in real life. I just want to say, though, like, I will say what I was trying to say was I don't feel like this appellate work has been nearly that bad at all, I think, though, so I want to give them credit where that's due. I, I don't feel like it's been anywhere near that bad. That was like the nadir. This is, though, I guess it does, it does feel tainted. It feels like, you know, kind of a, a Baldwin diet brief, you know, where it's like, you know, maybe, maybe no calories, but it's still the same thing. And is it really that healthy for you? I, I, I, I don't like, I didn't like in the first one when they were quoting Nelson Mandela. I found that deeply offensive. Quoting a civil rights leader and implying that his incarceration is similar to that of Richard Allen, a child killer, like that. There was, there's been comparisons to, I think, prisoners of war at different points. I don't, I, I guess I, throughout. And like, that's also aping what the trial defense team was doing. I, I feel like all of that's unnecessary and frankly, it, it makes, it gives this all for me. I mean, I don't feel like this is a very intellectually honest document. And for me, it's like, it's insulting to the intelligence of people who follow this case. And I, I have some resentment about that. But I also, you know, I understand that they're trying to be forceful and make their arguments. I just feel like, personally, when I look at this, I'm just like, I'm not compelled by it as a layperson.
- [13:01]
A
Yeah. So we've yammered long enough. Let's get ready to seriously yammer about this in detail.
- [13:07]
B
My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.
- [13:09]
A
And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.
- [13:12]
B
And this is the Murder Sheet.
- [13:13]
A
We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet.
- [13:21]
B
And this is the Delphi, the appellate reply Brief.
- [13:43]
A
It.
- [14:11]
B
So it's very interesting, kind of coming back into the deli case once more. We're talking about things like Dawn Perlmutter. We're talking about things like Sarah Carbaugh and Betsy Blair's witness sightings of Bridge Guy. We're talking about all these things. And the thing that I keep thinking of is when I was in high school, I was obsessed with this older television show called the Prisoner, and It starred Patrick McGoohan as a spy who is kidnapped and wakes up in this mysterious Welsh village known only as the Village. And going through all this weird, surreal stuff. And then he's always trying to escape from this prison. And he. At the end of every episode, spoiler. Well, well, the ending is ambiguous, but there's a. He's, you know, he ends up back right in at the start. You just see the opening credits start and he's back in the village. And I don't know why. I've been thinking about that a lot whenever I read this, but that opening is playing in my head. We stay busy with the podcast, so I like my wardrobe to stay comfortable, easy, and intentional. Something that I could put on that feels great while also looking super put together when we're going out to court or to an interview.
- [15:23]
A
So thank goodness for our sponsor, Quint's. We both love quints. They've got high quality products that we can actually afford. They help us elevate our look without breaking the bank.
- [15:34]
B
These are the kinds of premium everyday essentials that you can wear all the time and incorporate into your wardrobe seamlessly. All their pieces are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at competitors. They keep costs low by cutting out middlemen and partnering directly with ethical Factories and artisans.
- [15:51]
A
100% European linen shorts and shirts to keep you cool. This spring and summer from $34 clean 100% Pima cotton tees that are super soft to the touch.
- [16:03]
B
I myself love wearing Quince's 100% European linen button front dress in blue chambray stripe. It's so light and airy. We're actually going to go out and hang out with friends soon and I'm probably going to put that on. It's a perfect going out outfit and it's just so comfortable. I wear it all the time.
- [16:19]
A
Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to Quince.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet With Vrbil's last minute deals,
- [16:48]
B
you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape city break or a week at the beach, there's still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72. Select homes only. I'm Kiana and I leveled up my business with Shopify. Once I figured out that Shopify was a thing, I never turned back. I can create a site with my eyes closed. Shopify thinks ahead of us, you know, and it thinks about the customer more than anything. Every day I'm thinking about some other new business, but Shopify is doing it to me because it's so easy to use. It's like I can't stop, Stop. I'm addicted.
- [17:27]
A
Start your free trial@shopify.com so with that, with that said, both of us read this document. I think we both kind of made notes on things we each wanted to highlight and talk about. So that's how we'll do it. And it looks to me like the, the first thing is something you wanted
- [17:45]
B
to talk about, right? These are the, I think maybe some of the, I guess big points that they're sort of setting out that they want to hit going forward. Is that, you know, kind of.
- [17:58]
A
Yeah, it's kind of like they're cold opening. They're cold opening where they're saying here's what we're going to talk about in this brief.
- [18:04]
B
And I appreciate that. I mean that's. They're not saying good to include.
- [18:07]
A
They're not saying here's, here's everything that supports it. They're just saying here are the big points we're going to be making. Yes, they're cold, open, like. Like what we just did before the music.
- [18:16]
B
Yeah. So they. These are some of the big points. So one is summary of argument. So this is a summary of argument. This is like they're summarizing it and then they're going to go into the argument later. So the first one is unconstitutional search. They say, quote, the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence obtained through an affidavit built on deliberate falsehoods and material omissions, end quote. So this is attacking the probable cause affidavit that the affiant for that was Detective then Detective Tony Liggett, who is now the sheriff of Carroll County.
- [18:49]
A
And this was a probable cause affidavit for a search of Richard Allen's home. That search, of course, resulted in the discovery of some incriminating evidence tying Mr. Allen to these murders, namely the discovery
- [19:03]
B
of his Sig Sauer firearm that then produced a bullet that when ejected, or a cartridge rather, that when ejected, was consistent and ruled a match to a similarly ejected bullet or rather cartridge at the crime scene that was discovered in between the girls. So losing the search would lose that, you know, incriminating evidence that puts him at the crime scene. And. And so that. That's why they're doing that. So they're saying that, you know, this is something we've heard again and again that Liggett put falsehoods in the affidavit. And they're arguing basically that the witness, Sarah Carbaugh, her. Her stuff shouldn't have been included. That Betsy Blair, the fact that she saw what she felt was a younger man is. Is misleading. That, you know, just various. Various things around that. So then the next one. Some of my notes that I took when I was.
- [20:08]
A
Are a bit harsh.
- [20:10]
B
I wouldn't. Maybe colorful language is being used. I'm not going to.
- [20:13]
A
Yeah, I won't. I won't repeat what you said, but you use col. Language to suggest that you found their claims to be unconvincing.
- [20:21]
B
I think I said I'm sorry. This is just fill in the blank. The next one is unprecedented confinement. This is says, quote, state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Allen's confessions were a product of rational intellect rather than their deliberate indifference to his mental health. End quote. I'm sorry to laugh, but what.
- [20:42]
A
Yeah, I wanted to read part of this. Quote, Prolonged solitary confinement on a severely mentally ill detainee plainly qualifies for coercion, especially where law enforcement, upon learning of the inmate's grave disability, doubles down and starts Collecting confessions. End quote. So that is something. They're phrasing that. They're phrasing that very, very carefully. They're saying that the state, first of all, is collecting confessions. So the implication there is that the state is doing something deliberately to try to get Mr. Allen to confess. They're not out and out saying that, but that is the implication. And I think it is worth noting, first of all, that, again, that's not what happened. And anytime Mr. Allen confessed to, like, the warden or his doctor, what happened, they told him.
- [21:48]
B
Don't mean they either avoided him in the case of the warden, John Galibo, or in the case of Dr. Monica Walla, when she couldn't avoid him, she was saying, stop talking to me. Talk to your lawyers. I don't. You know, basically, everyone was running, fleeing from his confessions.
- [22:03]
A
The state was actively trying to convince him not to confess. So the state was not trying to get him to confess. But this phrase, collecting confessions, basically what the state did was they monitored his phone calls, as you do when someone's in prison. And so they. They maintained a record of his confessions, which is appropriate. They made a. Maintained a record of all of his communications. So there's nothing sinister about collecting confessions. They weren't doing anything to try to instigate or make these confessions happen.
- [22:38]
B
The way it's phrased it makes it sound like, like Jerry Holman and Nicholas McClelland are, like, sneaking around the prison, being like, oh, like. Like listening in. And it's. It's. I mean, there's. There's no. There's no interview or interrogation setting. He's in prison doing this. We all heard in court many of the phone calls where he's actually recorded as doing. Making these confessions. The jury got to hear how he sounded, the context of the conversations. I mean, it. It really. I. I feel like the coercion angle here is. Is a loser. I mean, maybe. Maybe a judge will disagree. I. I just. I don't understand how you make that argument. I certainly understand how someone could crack under pressure in different scenarios. Most of those scenarios, though, involve a overly aggressive interviewer. And here again, like, they just assert things without actually, like. I don't know. I feel like when you look at the record, it's different than how they're portraying it.
- [23:37]
A
Yeah. Or word choice to make something sound more sinister.
- [23:40]
B
I just. I hate that. I just think it's intellectually dishonest and manipulative. I wish they weren't doing that because this is like, come on. Do we really, like, do we need to like play pretend. Do we need to like, I don't know, do we need to treat the public and like everyone like we're children, like we're idiots?
- [23:54]
A
The state was actively encourage him not to confess. Talk to your lawyers. We don't want to hear this. Yeah, this was, this was Mr. Allen's own doing.
- [24:05]
B
Yeah, this is a, this is a, this is a Richard Allen problem, not a, not a state problem. And again, like, I don't, I don't know, I'm not trying to be like unfair to their arguments or just dismiss them out of hand because I don't like the way it's written. I'm really trying to like hear what they're having to say here. I just, it's like when you actually look at what happened though, I can't help but feel like this is just put together in such a misleading and dishonest way.
- [24:29]
A
I wanted to highlight something else. They're also in their summary that say, oh, Richard Allen got an unfair trial. Quote, the state's brief argues at length that the evidence against Allen was overwhelming, but the state's case was a paper tiger.
- [24:42]
B
Oh, I hate this part.
- [24:43]
A
And the trial court systematically barred Allen from lighting a match. End quote. So this is what I mean when I say this sounds like it is written for YouTubers. I could fully expect going on YouTube tonight, God help me. And seeing some of the so called law tubers like reading this and saying, oh yeah, yeah, they got them language that means nothing.
- [25:07]
B
They'll have a thumbnail of themselves looking shocked in front of a burning paper tiger. I, I, it, it, it, it's like it really does read like it's written for pats on the back on the Internet. And like you go, yeah, you get them. And again that's, this is what I was referring to when I referred to baby's first metaphor in the beginning. Because it's just like you're, it real reads like someone should be like making a public speech here versus like making a legal argument.
- [25:37]
A
I guess it sounds like something you'd hear in a closing argument. Yeah, or something too.
- [25:43]
B
I wouldn't mad, I wouldn't mind a little bit of cuteness there. I think a rhetorical flourish in the right setting can be powerful. But here it's like, no, it's not a paper tiger. Like I don't, I don't even know how you come away with that. And oh, they wouldn't light a match by what? Having the worst theory in the world that even like the die Hard Richard Allen Truthers are embarrassed to carry like, like, let's think about this for a minute. The Odinist theory, which is what they're referring to as the match here, that would have burned down the paper tiger. This is a theory that people who have made it their whole personality to defend a pedophile murderer on the Internet, they don't even like that theory because they know it sucks, it's weak, it's, it's, it doesn't hang together. They prefer other actual third party suspects. And, and you know what? I actually think they're right to. So, I mean, it's not a match. It's like a, and also, I don't think it's a paper tiger. I think it's a tiger that, you know, bit off the defense's face. Paper tigers can't do that.
- [26:46]
A
I think you have some stuff here that you wanted to respond to before. The next thing I wanted to talk about.
- [26:50]
B
Okay, let's say, okay, so here's, here's one thing and I may be reading this wrong. So I was wondering. This was something I actually wanted to post to you, Kevin, and see what you thought. Thought of it.
- [27:02]
A
Put me on the spot.
- [27:03]
B
Yeah, I'm going to ambush you like a, like a paper tiger.
- [27:07]
A
But who's got the bats today?
- [27:09]
B
Who's. It's so over dramatic. It's over. I don't like the over dramatic melodrama. So they, they talk about for the unfair trial portion, they say, quote, a criminal defendant has a federal and state constitutional right to present a complete defense. And evidentiary rules that exclude critical defense evidence on ground grounds disconnected from the rule's purpose violate that right, end quote. I understand what they, they're saying here. It almost sounded to me like, are they basically saying like there's something unfair about the rules or are they saying that the rules have been misinterpreted by Judge Francis Gull, the trial attorney. The trial judge. And, and that's the problem here.
- [27:53]
A
Your guess is, is as good as mine. But if they were smart, they would be arguing that she misunderstood the rules. Because you want to ask the judges for the, you can't not like burn
- [28:07]
B
down the evidentiary rules.
- [28:09]
A
Yeah, the whole, throughout the book make entirely new evidentiary rules.
- [28:12]
B
Those evidence rules are paper tiger. We're going to burn it down.
- [28:16]
A
That's a huge ask. It's a smaller ask to say, well, this one particular judge in this one particular case may have made a mistake.
- [28:23]
B
I think in their rhetoric it's a bit unclear. My guess is they're probably saying that this one judge made a mistake. And that would be. Again, when I read it, at first I was like, are they just saying, like, throw out the rules of evidence? But I think that they're actually saying something a little bit more nuanced about Judge Gull misinterpreting that. Which is, which is, again, that's, I think, a better, a better argument, certainly. Yeah. Gosh. Oh, my God. Can I just read this? I just, I, I, we read this, so you have to learn it from us. I'm sorry. Quote, let's see. I, I just. I, this paper towel. I'm sorry. I, I, I, I'm not gonna get, I need to get it out of my system. These are the matches that could have burned down the paper tiger, according to the Sapella team. Quote, the jury never saw the sketch that proved Blair did not see Allen. It never heard the ritual explanation that the state itself once pursued. It never heard the scientific critique of the unreliable methodology that produced the firearms match. It never heard the evidence implicating two named alternative suspects and law enforcement's failure to investigate them thoroughly. And never heard the audio of Allen's psychotic episodes, the bookend calls and clinical observations that would have impeached his confessions, or the unimpeached phone data that contradicted the state's timeline. Each ruling was reversible error. Standing alone together, they kept Allen from setting the state's case ablaze and denied him a failure of trial.
- [29:47]
A
End quote.
- [29:48]
B
Like, if you know the case, you're red flag. Like, red flag, red flag, red flag. Like, there is so much in there that's just wrong. They're, like, doing the thing that dishonest people do when they just hit you with a bunch of stuff that's nonsense, and then you, like, say, well, that's not true. Well, this other thing, you know, it's just, it's rhetorical games, and frankly, I tire of them.
- [30:08]
A
And I think in the course of the document, we'll return to some of those points and address them more fully, because this is just the summary of
- [30:15]
B
what's to come when you're focusing on poet poetic metaphors and imagery of fire over, like, actually saying things that are true. I think you've, you've certainly lost me. And I think it's a sign that somebody's kind of vamping, honestly. I mean, that's, that's what it strikes me as. And we will return to a bunch of those things later. And another thing is when we. I want people to think about Going, as we talk about this, there are things where it's like, you can raise a good point. Like, you could say, hey, this witness did this, and that makes them less reliable. And that's all fair, but. And you could have different interpretations of that. But a big important thing is like, did the jury get the chance to hear a witness impeached and. And consider and weigh that? So it's like we're. The standard isn't like, oh, these witnesses all have to be perfect or do everything perfectly or nothing, you know, can be objectionable about them. It's. Did the jury hear that? Right?
- [31:16]
A
Yeah.
- [31:17]
B
And I'm talking about specifically people like Brad Weber and people like Sarah Carbaugh, where the defense was able to raise some things that, you know, oh, well, the transcript says you said this. Well, then Sarah Carbaugh coming back and saying, no, I really said this. And then the jury can weigh both of those things. And, you know, so, like, that's another thing here where I feel like they do a lot of stuff where it's like, okay, yeah, but this has been kind of like litigated. And, you know, the jury still made a decision despite knowing that. So I guess the first thing they argue is the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence seized from the unconstitutional search and denying a Franks hearing. So we. Everything's Franks, right? We've been doing the Franks Frank stuff since what, 2023?
- [32:08]
A
Who knows? I think so.
- [32:09]
B
Forever.
- [32:10]
A
Yeah.
- [32:10]
B
For all our lives.
- [32:13]
A
Baldwin and Rosie and I guess OJ Filed numerous motions for a Frank's hearing. The most famous one is the first one, which is like 130, 140 pages where they accused some people of murder with no evidence. And it's always interesting to me when you see defense attorneys, especially these defense attorneys, they say, well, this mountain of evidence against Richard Allen proves nothing. It proves absolutely nothing. You need so much more before you can even dare to breathe a word against this paragon of virtue that is Richard Allen. But then on the other hand, they're point to somebody else and say, oh, there's this tiny bit of evidence against them. They're killers. They're obviously killers. So they have.
- [33:15]
B
They have a weird Facebook page.
- [33:16]
A
They have a much lower level to accuse others.
- [33:23]
B
And listen, like, to a certain extent, I'm sympathetic with that. Elements of that may be instrumental and important to any defense attorney's job to vigorously defend your client. You may throw other people under the bus. I think they did it at a degree that was ridiculous and stupid, but I can see in other scenarios that being done in a more responsible way, or maybe there being more evidence against other people. So I don't want to say, like, oh, we should just be critical of anyone who does this. But I think there's a difference between understanding a defense attorney's job and uncritically wholly swallowing whatever they're putting out. I think being aware of a defense attorney's job also means that we as the public can be somewhat critical of these kinds of claims. And we should be. We should be skeptical. We shouldn't just be. I mean, whenever the skepticism goes in one direction, that's a problem. And, you know, I mean, I don't know. This, this frank stuff is just. It's weak, in my opinion. But I guess we'll, we'll go into why we think that.
- [34:22]
A
Now, one thing that they talk about, you might recall, is there are very specific rules. If you want to raise something as an issue in an appellate brief, it has to have been properly preserved by trial counsel during the trial. And as the state pointed out in their brief, which the defense is now replying to, the trial counsel for, Mr. Allen did a lousy job of that. A lot of these issues that the defense team, the appellate team is trying to raise now, were not properly preserved during the trial itself by Mr. Allen's distinguished counsel, Andrew Baldwin, Brad, Rosie, and Jennifer, O.J. and I thought it interesting that one thing this team says about that, quote, courts should not apply this rule with unyielding rigidity. So we always talk about. We make jokes about Anya stealing cereal. So what if Anya gets caught stealing cereal? And she says, well, I know there's a law against stealing cereal, but you shouldn't apply that law with unyielding rigidity. Because I was really hungry. You know, it's silly.
- [35:40]
B
And I'm like a little sweetie, don't get mad at me. Can't get mad at me.
- [35:43]
A
I think you had some stuff you wanted to talk about.
- [35:45]
B
Yeah, no, it's like, okay, like, the rules don't apply to us. All right? They, they, they all, they do argue, in addition, that, you know what? So they're arguing against that. What the state said is Allen waived his Fourth Amendment challenge by stating no objection when different specific exhibits were offered at trial. And they're saying, no, this isn't true, because the, the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rules, fully satisfied. And basically they, yeah, that's where the unyielding rigidity comes from. Because they're basically saying, well, Allen's attorneys did litigate suppression issues, and they filed multiple motions and whatnot. The second point that they're trying to make is there was a recent amendment to evidence rule 103B, and the Indiana Supreme Court amended it to say that, quote, once the court rules definitively on the record, either before trial or at trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. This includes a ruling on a motion in limine. And
- [36:57]
A
what's interesting.
- [36:58]
B
Yeah, go ahead.
- [36:59]
A
Is they say this rule should apply to us even though it's a brand new rule that wasn't in effect at the time of the trial. But, hey, it's in effect now.
- [37:12]
B
Is that. I mean, is that how things work?
- [37:13]
A
I know.
- [37:14]
B
No, it doesn't seem like it would be, but, you know, I don't know. They're trying, they're hustling. And then they also talk about how, quote, the Franks hearing denial is a pretrial constitutional rule requiring no trial objection. To preserve the trial court did not merely admit evidence. It refused to hold a Franks hearing. Once the ruling was made, no further objection at trial could undo it. The state cited no authority requiring a defendant to object a trial to preserve the denial of a Franks hearing. End quote. Yeah, there wasn't a Frank's hearing, to be clear, because they didn't meet the burden at all to show the need for it. I mean, is that.
- [37:53]
A
Yeah.
- [37:53]
B
Am I making that up? I mean, that's. That's what happened, right?
- [37:56]
A
Yes. And there is no obligation for a judge to give defense attorneys all the hearings they asked for.
- [38:05]
B
I don't feel like they. I mean, that Frank's. Most of Frank's memos and, you know, hearing briefs or whatever were.
- [38:12]
A
They were a mess. I mean, let's. Let's be honest. They were a mess.
- [38:16]
B
I wouldn't. I mean, like, I don't know why the hell you would give them. I mean, like, that was the rambling. Delusional would be the word that comes to mind. You know, I. I don't. I don't feel like she erred in terms of not giving them a Frank's hearing. Yeah, I thought a lot of what they asked for was really stupid, and that was one of those things. So now they get into, you know, let's. Let's say Tony Liggett's a liar, part 500 or whatever they say that, quote, the state argues that Liggett's representation of Carbaugh's account that she reported seeing a muddy and bloody man wearing a blue colored Jacket was not a false statement and that any inaccuracy may have been a mistake. This argument also fails. Liggett did not just represent what Carbaugh said. He said he represented. When she said it, swearing she gave her description in 2017, the temporal representation added a veneer of reliability because that description, given close in time to the murders, carries an obvious weight. The state Concedes that in 2017, Carball never described the man as bloody or wearing a blue jacket. She described him as muddy and wearing a tan jacket. So, again, I. This is something where I. I understand what they're going for here. But Sarah Carbaugh repeatedly said on the stand that the initial transcript of her interview was incorrect and that she remembered saying bloody. Now, listen, you might be sitting there as a juror or whatever and saying, oh, I don't really like that because she changed her story, and that's fine. But the jury got to hear that. They got to weigh that. They got to say, okay, she says it's accurate. Baldwin says it's not. Now, that's not what the concern of this appellate team is, because they're trying to knock down probable cause in the first place. They're not dealing with how this affected a jury. But I guess I'm just saying, from, like, my perspective, this doesn't matter at all. And I mean, again, like, if. If the. If the witness themselves is saying, no, my. My words were misinterpreted and whatnot, I guess I just feel like for me personally, that's more.
- [40:18]
A
Yeah, I would tend to agree.
- [40:19]
B
Compelling. And again, like, you can say, well, I don't like that, but for trial. But it was brought up at trial. And also, frankly, with Sarah Carba, I mean, like, she. She doesn't identify Richard Allen. She's not saying, oh, Richard Allen did it. She doesn't have a dog in this fight. She doesn't have. You know, I believe her. You know, I believe her when she says that she recalls seeing blood and mud early on and that it wasn't picked up on the recording. So then they say that it's not only weaving his web of lies about Carba, but also that he, quote, falsely stated in the affidavit written the same day Allen was interviewed that Allen admitted wearing a black or blue Carhartt jacket. In fact, Allen told investigators he did not know what he was wearing that day. Even if Allen did not argue this specific falsehood in his briefing below, the court may consider it in response to the state's appellate argument that Liggett simply Forgot the common thread is plain. Liggett's affidavit forgot every fact that did not fit his theory that Bridge Guy was Allen. Okay, first of all, they don't have to put everything in a pca. And second of all, why don't we. I'll let you be the judge. Why don't we read from the transcript of the interview that Liggett and Mullen did.
- [41:34]
A
Okay. And I will play the part of both investigators. And why don't you, Anya, play the part of Richard Allen?
- [41:40]
B
Okay.
- [41:42]
A
What were you wearing that day? You said you put on a jacket.
- [41:45]
B
Blue jeans. And I'm sure I put a jacket because I think it was still fairly cool that day. I don't think it was super warm. I would have put on a jacket. I don't. I don't know.
- [41:55]
A
Do you remember what kind of jacket?
- [41:57]
B
I had Carhartt jackets over the years.
- [42:01]
A
Color is your jacket.
- [42:03]
B
The one was blue. The one was black. Probably back then would have been black one. I had a hood built into it, so it was just a black zip up. I don't even think it was a Carhartt. I think it was off brand, but it was like a Carhartt. I could have worn it. I've had sweatshirts, like what I threw on today, hoodies, jackets. I mean, I've got a little bit of everything. I mean, I don't know what they're talking about here.
- [42:25]
A
So, yeah, end quote.
- [42:26]
B
Like, I mean, like.
- [42:28]
A
So he's saying there, what were you wearing?
- [42:30]
B
Blue jeans and a jacket. What kind of jacket would it have been? A dark Carhartt, Blue or black? Yeah, I guess I'm just like, Are they saying that he needs to say in like a full sentence? On February 13, 2017 at approximately 1:00pm I put on this specific. I've been like, what? This is what I'm saying. When I feel like they're being intellectually dishonest to me in that conversation. He does say what he was wearing.
- [42:59]
A
Yeah.
- [42:59]
B
He's responsive to the question of what were you wearing? He puts himself in Bridge Guy's clothes.
- [43:07]
A
Yes.
- [43:08]
B
Also, he looks identical to Bridge Guy and sounds identical to him. Just for anyone following along at home, you know, I mean, I just want to point out, like, yes, this is about the legal documents and the legal wranglings, but tell me that that's not Fridge Guy. Tell me that's not his voice. You know, when you, when you're a person like us, where you've listened to the recording of Bridge Guy accosting the Girls so many times compared to Richard Allen's voice, when you see how he looks, it's not, it's not close. And again, that's not evidence. That's just me. But like from just a human being, like common sense perspective, I don't know, I feel like it's worth saying, all right, what's next?
- [43:54]
A
I think there's still some stuff that you said you wanted to comment upon.
- [43:59]
B
They talk about how, okay, so this is. So they talked about Carbaugh, they talked about Allen's own statements about his clothing. Now they're talking about Betsy Blair. As a reminder, as a reminder for the witnesses. Sarah Carbaugh, to be clear, was a younger woman who was driving past the area around the trails that day and happened to see a man walking covered in mud and blood. And that would have been after the murders occurred. And then Betsy Blair was an older woman doing a sort of a walk her daily or you know, her, her exercise around the trails, doing a loop. And she saw bridge guy standing on the bridge, had a brief look at him, then turned around and saw Libby and Abby walking towards the bridge. So she and Sarah Carbaugh were both unequivocally, they were very, very firm. They saw the guy in Abby's, in rather Libby's video. So Libby German obviously took a video of bridge guy on her phone. Both women, both witnesses say we saw that guy. Both witnesses also dis described a different looking guy. Sarah Carbaughs, the sketch that her interview produced was an older, scruffier man that looks very similar to Richard Allen. Betsy Blair, her sketch, it's much more baby faced, more of poofy hair. It's less resembling Richard Allen. When you look at the sketches compared to one another, a lot of the features are pretty similar actually, if you look past the kind of surface level, age difference, but you know, it's different looking. I mean, like that. I think that's fair to say. So what the appellate team is saying that Blair, by omitting. So they're like, basically that he didn't. That Liggett didn't include enough about Blair's identification that would have excluded Allen or his vehicle. And they were made with the intent to mislead. I mean, again, like he doesn't have to include everything. Also, like it doesn't, I just want to say, like it doesn't matter. Like, Betsy Blair as an older woman may have seen a guy with a big kind of round face, as Richard Allen did. And that may have read to her briefly as younger, you know, and when you're seeing something where you don't think it's that important and it's just a brief glimpse, then you might get stuff wrong. I just. What's more important to me is the totality of it, which is that she believes that that was bridge guy.
- [46:38]
A
Right.
- [46:38]
B
It's less about her individual. And let's be clear, nobody saw either sketch and said it's that guy. The sketches did not solve this case. The sketches did nothing other than so confusion.
- [46:56]
A
So like sketches often do, if you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip.
- [47:07]
B
Off off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering
- [47:10]
A
the products you need all in one place. From H VAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. Finding great candidates to hire can be like, well, trying to find a needle in a haystack. Sure, you can post your job to some job board, but then all you can do is hope the right person comes along. Which is why you should try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com Zip ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you. It finds them for you. Its powerful technology identifies people with the right experience and actively invites them to apply to your job. You get qualified candidates fast. So while other companies might deliver a lot of hay, ZipRecruiter finds you what you're looking for. The needle in the Haystack. See why 4 out of 5 employers who post a job on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. ZipRecruiter the smartest way to hire. And right now you can try ZipRecruiter for free. That's right. Free at ZipRecruiter.com zip. That's ZipRecruiter.com zip ZipRecruiter.com zip it.
- [48:28]
B
Like an artistic rendering of a witnesses frail and fleeting memory is. First of all, it's. It's not proof of anything they say all over this document. This is proof. It wasn't Richard Allen. No, it's not. That's not. That's not how witness sightings work. It's just not people. I've seen cases where people have gotten stuff even more wrong. And you know what that is because our memories are fallible. And, and frankly, if. If someone had tipped in Richard Allen of like, he looks like one of these sketches, then yeah, I think it becomes a lot more important. But to me they're a moot point. To me, the point is that both women said they saw the guy in Libby's video. So, yeah, that's kind of. I don't know, they're saying that that's, you know. And then they, they say Liggett swore under oath that he was able to corroborate information that Allen was at the trails at the same time Liberty German and Abigail Williams were. And the individual in picture on LG's phone matches the description of Richard M. Allen. I'll do you one better. On that one appellate team, he said himself he was at the trails at that time and his car, or let's say this, a car identical to his appears on video at the time he originally said he was there.
- [49:50]
A
Yeah.
- [49:51]
B
What are we talking about?
- [49:53]
A
What?
- [49:53]
B
I mean, like, what are we talking about? It's weird because at the time, then he later lied about being there later on, his car doesn't appear. It's really weird. Appears earlier at the original time he said. So I mean, can we just, can we use our common sense for like a minute? I guess. I don't know.
- [50:15]
A
And again, to repeat the obvious point, Richard Allen could be guilty, guilty, guilty, but still have received an unfair trial.
- [50:25]
B
Agreed. And I think that's an important point to make. Just because he's obviously factually guilty does not mean that everything went perfectly at trial. So we do need to be open to the arguments that his rights were violated. I think that's important. I think that is a nuance that can be difficult for people to grapple with because you're like, well, if he's guilty, he should just be punished. Who cares? But, but you should care because even if a, if a guilty person's rights are violated, anyone's rights can be violated, and that's not good. We don't want that. So we gotta be open minded here. But we also don't have to brook nonsense. We don't have to brook stuff that's just like, this is a huge stretch.
- [51:06]
A
I think you had some more stuff here.
- [51:09]
B
So this is what I got. So this was. They say that Liggett knew that Blair described someone who did not match Alan and the car did not match his. Blair described a car that doesn't exist. Okay, didn't she say like a, like a Mercury Comet or so there's something like that type of car doesn't exist. Then another witness Came out and said that he thought he saw an older model car parked around there too. And then it turned out, I mean, I think this actually happened at trial where it's sort of like it was more ambiguous about what that was. How did you interpret that with Brad Heath, who was the witness who also said, I saw an old timey car from the Fugitive? Remember him?
- [51:48]
A
I remember him. Wasn't the time he saw that car not quite the time of the murders. Am I misremembering?
- [51:56]
B
I forget, but it was like the way I interpreted that and I don't really quite remember all the details, so forgive me if I'm getting this wrong, but it almost sounded like they may have seen a different car altogether.
- [52:08]
A
That was my, that was my takeaway.
- [52:09]
B
But that's not a lie in the document. And, and, and frankly, frankly, the one of the reasons the PCA was like so widely criticized by us included was Liggett actually took the time to include a lot of the differentiating information. There's like purple PT cruisers going on. I mean, like, I feel like the document captures a level of ambiguity about the car and it's not overstating things in terms of that. So I don't even really know what they're talking about here. I mean, right. I mean the car stuff is all over the place in the pca, so I don't feel like he's misleading anyone when it's like, oh yeah, it's a perfect description of the car. No, it like it comes across like chaos. The important aspect of this, much like the important thing about Blair and Carbaugh, is that they saw the guy on Libby's video. The important thing is that a car was there and that Richard Allen and his wife both made statements about how they frequently parked at that specific building where approximately where people were seeing a car at the time of the murders anyways. So, yeah, they say that, you know, they say, oh, this messes up the whole timeline. It doesn't. I, I don't even, I, I don't even. This is, I don't know, it's just stupid. And then they say the probable cause would evaporate if you take all this out. I, I don't see how it does.
- [53:40]
A
And I don't see how it does.
- [53:41]
B
I don't, I don't think this is, you know, they're saying all the pillars are falling. I don't, Yeah, I don't know. I think we can move on.
- [53:52]
A
Are the pillars held up by the paper tigers?
- [53:56]
B
I think the paper tigers are Guarding the pillars, but they're on fire now, so the, the pillars are coming down.
- [54:01]
A
So if it's pillars, does that make Richard Allen Samson? He's gonna knock the pillars down.
- [54:07]
B
He's not a strong man. He's a weak and pathetic pusillanimous creature. So, no, he's not Samson. He's. He's. I don't know what he is. He's the mo. One of the most pathetic beings I've ever.
- [54:21]
A
He's a double murderer of two children
- [54:23]
B
who would die in prison that he tormented before murdering.
- [54:28]
A
What was the next thing? I. I think we're still a little bit away from the next thing I wanted to highlight, and I think you have a bunch of stuff here.
- [54:35]
B
Yeah, I guess it's just like they're saying, like, the timeline's all off and it's not probable cause, and probable cause is destroyed if you interpret all this from a kind of a ridiculous manner. And I, I just think they're saying that the, you know, if, if there should have been a Frank's hearing, and then they need to reverse the, the conviction and I guess have one and I don't. Yeah, I think we. I mean, I guess now we're on the confessions.
- [55:05]
A
Yes.
- [55:06]
B
All right, so we're moving on from the pca. Let's go back to the confessions, folks.
- [55:10]
A
The confessions were Richard Allen made at least 61 confessions or incriminating statements. And these were admitted at the trial. And they're saying they shouldn't have been. And one of the reasons why they shouldn't have been is because Richard Allen went crazy in prison. I wanted to read something here. Quote. Meanwhile, the prosecutor waited nine days to respond to an emergency transfer motion, mocked the defense concerns as colorful and dramatic. On the same day, Indiana Department of Corrections found Alan greatly disabled and used the delay to monitor real time phone calls and collect medical records. Ultimately, the state reviewed thousands of hours of cell video and dispatched an ISP psychologist to consult with Dr. Walla. This is not passive receipt of volunteered statements. That is active cultivation of a pipeline of confessions from a man the state knew was losing his mind. End quote. So I wanted to talk about a couple of things there. First of all, they say, well, McClelland waited to respond to a transfer motion, and he mocked the defense concerns as colorful and dramatic.
- [56:28]
B
Rightly so.
- [56:29]
A
Let's talk just for a moment. We don't need to relitigate everything. But that transfer motion that the defense filed was colorful, it was dramatic, and it contained a number of assertions that were not true.
- [56:48]
B
Yeah.
- [56:48]
A
And Judge Gull made that observation. You're saying things in here that aren't true. So his object you're.
- [56:57]
B
They so mean that he mocked them for lying.
- [57:00]
A
Yeah, I understand why they're not quoting the transfer motion in here.
- [57:05]
B
Yeah. Because it was nonsense. Just.
- [57:08]
A
It was nonsense.
- [57:09]
B
Sheer stupidity.
- [57:10]
A
He was right to say it was colorful and dramatic. And then what it was. That's what it was. And then when they say the state was involved in an active cultivation of a pipeline of confessions, end quote. That's bs that's simply not true. Because as we mentioned at the top of the episode, anytime Mr. Allen confess to the warden or to a doctor, he was told, don't do this. Talk to your lawyers. Talk to your lawyers. Even when he tried to confess to his family, they told him, don't do this. Don't do this.
- [57:47]
B
They hung up on him.
- [57:50]
A
This was not active cultivation of a pipeline of confessions.
- [57:55]
B
They're just misrepresenting. I mean, they're just lying.
- [57:57]
A
That's simply not true. It's just not true. I don't know how they're. And how many ways I can say it. Mr. Allen wrote to the warden saying, I want to confess to you. And if they wanted to have an active cultivation of a pipeline, you think the warden would drop everything he was doing and rush to Mr. Allen to be the recipient of this confession? And he did not do that. He did not meet with Richard Allen. The state was actively trying to convince him to not confess to everyone in sight. The reason he was doing so anyway, I believe, was because of a guilty conscience and because of his religious awakening, which apparently has not lasted.
- [58:43]
B
Oh, no. I mean, I don't think it was sincere, personally. I think it was, you know, trying to manipulate his wife into providing him with the unconditional love he sort of desires and that he'll never, ever receive from her. Yeah, I think that is what that was all about. I think it was just another coercion kind of controlling measure to love me, even though I love me at my worst. And it's like a lot. You know, that's a bridge too far for a lot of people, understandably, killing two kids because you're a sexual deviant. So then he had to backtrack. Right. And I think a lot of the behavior around the insanity was a matter of control. And people observed at the time they felt he was malingering, that he would be watching to see who was paying attention and then start behaving in a certain way. And then when he was stopped Get a reaction. He would not get a reaction anymore. People would move on. He would stop. People who suffer from disorders that cause psychosis don't have a button that they can press to turn it off. Okay? It's something they have to deal with. And we've talked behind the scenes and on the show to people who have things like schizoaffective disorder. They have to deal with that. You know, they, they might be on medication. They may have gone through some really scary experiences over this. And the one thing they've all told us to, to like literally everybody is when I listen to the phone calls with Richard Allen, when I look at the totality of everything, I don't believe that he was psychotic. And the reason for that is because it's not to say that psychosis has to manifest itself in a screaming out of control way. Psychosis can be quiet. It's more the logical coherence of what he is saying. And it is further than that. You know, this is something that people who around him observed. I think their observations are valid. There's a certain point though, where I think, you know, he is a person. I just, I, I think personality wise, he's just one of the most pathetic beings that you could imagine. And you know, self harm in starving himself, eating feces, having basically what I think of as a sustained hissy fit is something that I think very much matches his character and personality. Maybe a level of self punishment, maybe a level of guilty conscience, maybe a level of like, oh, look, I'm the victim, or pretending to be crazy because he feels like it'll help his case. I don't know, I think probably a stew of a bunch of reasons, but it's, it's not compelling. And you know, acting like all of this happened because he was, he was nuts or because he was getting Haldol injections is just. Also, that's just not how Haldol works, by the way, just so everyone knows.
- [61:38]
A
And of course, one of the cornerstones of their argument is that he only confessed because he was coerced to do so. These confessions happen in sessions with his doctor raving to people when he was alone in his cell, calling his family. This is not what you would think of as coors of situations, but they say, well, even though none of the usual hallmarks of police coercion are present, yeah, we still think this is coercion.
- [62:11]
B
I have a question also. Can I just like, why all this complaining? Okay. Oh, he's in solitary confinement. First of all, no, he wasn't he was in a one man cell, okay. He got like daily going out to do like showers, wreck whatever. He got individualized attention from mental health professionals. I'm not saying it was an easy life. I'm sure it was awful. But I, I am saying, like, what, at some point, what else was supposed to happen with him? Was he gonna like go out into gen pop and make a bunch of friends because he's such a nice guy? Would they have really taken to Rick or would they have seen him and said, well, that sure looks like bridge guy and he's supposed to have killed two little girls? And would they have made a freaking example of him like within two minutes? I can tell you what, what is realistic based on prison culture. And it's, it's not that they would have been having a tea party with him and then it would have been, oh my gosh, they coerced him because they put him around all these mean inmates who were screaming for him to die. And then they put him out there with them and they inevitably, you know, beat him up severely to the point where he almost died. That's what would have happened at best. At worst, he would have been brutally murdered by them. It's just like, what were they supposed to. I just like, I'm confused. Like, the reason why he was. I think, you know, why there were elements of this that are not par for the course all the time in cases is because this is like the highest profile case Indiana ever had, like in recent memory. And they're two child victims. And it's a very, very well known case. He was in severe danger. I'm sure it's hard to be in a one man cell in these circumstances. I also just think, like, at some point a lot of this just strikes me as maling.
- [63:58]
A
Was more stuff here you wanted to talk about.
- [64:01]
B
So they talked about how they didn't like, I guess there was some kind of like lawsuit that Gull didn't allow in regarding Indiana Department of Corrections, you know, and they're saying, oh, they should have let that in.
- [64:12]
A
Why?
- [64:13]
B
It doesn't have anything to do with him. They said that it's the prolonged confinement of him was coercion. The conditions were coercion. And yeah, I don't. And it's unprecedentedly harsh. That's. Yeah. I think you wanted to read something here.
- [64:35]
A
I did, but actually, before we do, why don't we give everybody a break, wrap this up and we'll come back and do a second part where we finish this up.
- [64:45]
B
Sounds good.
- [64:48]
A
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.
- [65:09]
B
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.
- [65:32]
A
Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web at Kevin Tg
- [65:42]
B
if you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much. 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.