The Delphi Murders: The State's Brief of Appellee: Part Two

Summary

Podcast Summary: Murder Sheet – "The Delphi Murders: The State's Brief of Appellee: Part Two" (March 26, 2026)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, hosts Áine Cain (journalist) and Kevin Greenlee (attorney) continue their detailed breakdown and analysis of the State’s appellate brief in the high-profile Richard Allen/Delphi Murders case. Focusing on the State’s response to Allen's defense appeals, they provide legal analysis, key takeaways from court documents, and commentary on the strategies and claims from both sides. Cain and Greenlee examine the main legal issues reviewed on appeal, including the scrutiny of Allen’s confessions, the handling of evidence, defense strategies, and the broader implications for the case's outcome and public perception.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Richard Allen’s Confessions: Involuntariness and Causation

• Defense Argument: Allen’s appellate team claims his confessions should be excluded as they resulted from involuntary, coercive state action and mental illness.
• State’s Counter: The State argues Allen's confessions were not caused by coercive conditions or psychosis, highlighting a timeline that shows he began confessing both before and after episodes of psychosis; confessions were internally consistent and logical.
  • Quote – Kevin Greenlee (04:52): “The point they're making here though is that these confessions happened before the alleged psychotic state and after the alleged psychotic state, really demolish the hollowness of the defense argument.”
• Host Commentary: The theme of the defense’s argument being “hollow” is echoed by both hosts, who find the timeline and logic of the confessions more compelling than the mental illness defense.
  • Quote – Anya Cain (05:42): “It's so hollow. ... when you actually break down the timeline ... it just doesn't add up to what they're claiming.”

Timestamp: 02:37–06:41

2. Motivations for Confession

• State’s Theory: The State attributes Allen's confessions to stress caused by confronting incriminating discovery material and a religious conversion, rather than mental health issues or coercion.
  • Quote – Anya Cain reading from State’s brief (06:52–08:49): “A new convert's fresh concern with the status of his soul ... would lead to a desire to confess his sins, particularly when the conversion happened in close proximity to the inescapable confrontation with the sin through legal discovery.”
• Host Reactions: Hosts praise the strength and clarity of the State’s arguments.
  • Quote – Anya Cain (08:50): “Can I just say that was fire. Oh my goodness. Like I'm sorry, whoever wrote this part did it.”

Timestamp: 06:52–10:20

3. Alleged Coercion and State Action

• State’s Position: No evidence the State exploited Allen’s psychotic state; he was provided medical attention and no one (guards, warden, etc.) sought to elicit confessions.
  • Quote – Kevin Greenlee (11:10): “Once he became allegedly psychotic the state did not try to exploit that ... They got him medical attention.”
  • Quote – Anya Cain (11:29): “No one was like asking him ... everyone was basically like, okay dude, like whatever, talk to your attorneys.”

Timestamp: 11:10–12:08

4. Harmless Error Doctrine – Explaining Legal Concepts

• Legal Principle: Not every trial error requires reversal; only those that would have affected the outcome. State argues even if confessions were admitted in error, the remaining evidence rendered the error harmless.
  • Quote – Kevin Greenlee (16:34): “A defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial ... but they're entitled to a fair trial.”
• Analogies: Lemonade (sweetness/salt) and tequila (sugar/salt) to illustrate harmless vs. non-harmless errors.
• Jury Insights: Timeline and non-confession evidence were decisive for conviction, as confirmed by an interviewed juror.
  • Quote – Anya Cain (25:32): “The timeline convicted this man ... and so what they are saying here is absolutely true.”

Timestamp: 15:52–26:29

5. Excluded Sketches Evidence

• State's Position: Sketches of "Bridge Guy" were investigation tools and not essential to trial. Key witnesses testified as to their observations; sketches not needed for jury.
  • Quote – Anya Cain (28:00): “The sketches were ultimately pretty useless. They're also a artist rendering of a witness's fleeting memory.”
  • Witnesses reliably identified the man in Libby’s video.

Timestamp: 26:57–29:48

6. Ballistics and Expert Testimony

• Ballistic Evidence: Ballistics tied .40 caliber cartridge at crime scene to Allen’s gun. Defense challenge failed due to effective cross-examination and exclusion of an expert (Bill Tobin) who argued ballistics is not a science.
  • Hosts Explain: Judge’s role is to validate science for jury; jury cannot dismiss whole scientific fields.
  • Quote – Kevin Greenlee (31:06): “It is not up to the jury as lay people to say, you know what? Ballistics is completely worthless.”
• Media and Public Discourse: Hosts lament that true explanations are "boring," leading to public fascination with sensational defense claims.

Timestamp: 29:48–36:01

7. Admissibility of Prison Audio, Doctrine of Completeness

• Prison Video/Audio: Exclusion of Allen’s recorded prison comments due to hearsay; any statements could have been brought in only if Allen testified himself.
• Selective Presentation of Calls: Only incriminating phone call presented; “completeness” doctrine doesn't require all calls that day.
  • Quote – Kevin Greenlee (41:47): “A phone call should not be selectively edited or cherry picked in order to create a false impression ... That does not require them to offer into evidence all other statements he may or may not have made that day in other calls.”

Timestamp: 36:01–41:47

8. Odinism, Ritual Motive, and Alternative Suspects

• Odinism Theory: Defense tried to introduce testimony from Dr. Dawn Perlmutter about ritualistic Odinism killings; she was excluded as unqualified and speculative.
  • Quote – Anya Cain (43:51): “She’s the living embodiment of the meme source. I made it up. I mean, that’s who she is as a person.”
  • State’s Brief: No credible evidence of ritual motive or Odinist involvement; such evidence would have confused rather than aided jury.
• Exclusion of Alternate Suspects: Alleged Odinist suspects had solid alibis; defense could not connect them factually to the crime.
  • Quote – Kevin Greenlee (51:33): “So it’s a good alibi. ... if he has a good alibi, obviously it makes no sense to accuse him of the crime.”

Timestamp: 42:50–54:03

9. Other Evidence Issues (Audio Output, Cell Phone Data)

• Cell Phone Evidence: Defense tried to use an "Audio Output" code as exculpatory; State’s expert said water/dirt could cause such readings. Court found all such technical disputes were immaterial to the verdict.
  • Quote – Anya Cain (56:53): “How are you getting the phone under her body without moving it at all after 2:32. Like. It just doesn't make any sense ... That whole thing was just stupid.”

Timestamp: 54:30–57:53

10. Final Analysis: Strength of the State’s Brief and Appeal Outlook

• Host Opinions: Both hosts found the State’s appellate response thorough and devastating to the defense’s arguments; believe the appeal will be denied.
  • Quote – Kevin Greenlee (57:53): “Well, they're gonna ... dismiss the appeal.”
  • Both maintain that Allen received a fair trial, and barring extraordinary new evidence, further appeal or post-conviction efforts are unlikely to succeed.

Timestamp: 57:53–61:36

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "The confessions happened before the alleged psychotic state and after the alleged psychotic state." – Kevin Greenlee (04:52)
• "Can I just say that was fire. ... whoever wrote this part did it." – Anya Cain (08:50)
• "The timeline convicted this man." – Anya Cain (25:32)
• "She's the living embodiment of the meme source. I made it up." – Anya Cain (43:51)
• "[The public/media] ... gravitate towards something more entertaining. ... The truth is boring." – Anya Cain (34:32)
• “He got a fair trial.” – both hosts (58:50)
• "He's never getting out." – Kevin Greenlee (60:15)
• “Justice for Richard Allen to die behind bars.” – Kevin Greenlee (61:07)

---

Structure & Flow

• Opening: Content/stress warning, episode context, quick recap.
• Body: Sequential breakdown of each major appellate issue with excerpts and host commentary.
• Legal Explanations: Clear analogies, demystifying technical legal concepts for lay listeners.
• Jury Insight: Unique value from direct conversation with a trial juror.
• Critical Perspective: Frequent critique of both defense strategies and public/media tendency for sensationalism.
• Final Thoughts: Both hosts argue the appeal will fail, Allen received a fair trial, and that the State's brief was “very well done.”

---

Useful Timestamps for Important Segments

• Confessions & Causation: 02:37–11:10
• Religious Motive for Confession: 06:52–10:20
• Harmless Error Doctrine/Jury Focus: 15:52–26:29
• Sketches Evidence Excluded: 26:57–29:48
• Ballistics, Expert Testimony: 29:48–36:01
• Prison Audio/Completeness: 36:01–41:47
• Odinism Testimony/Alternative Suspects: 42:50–54:03
• Cell Phone/Audio Code: 54:30–57:53
• Appeal Analysis & Conclusion: 57:53–61:36

---

Tone

• Analytical, direct, occasionally irreverent.
• Unflinching in critique (particularly of defense arguments and media discourse).
• Occasional humor/sarcasm to make complex legal topics relatable.

---

Takeaway

This episode provides a thorough, well-argued, and at times scathing analysis of the recent State appellate brief in the Delphi Murders case, highlighting why the hosts (and, by their read, the appellate court) find the defense’s arguments unconvincing and the verdict unlikely to be overturned on appeal. Anyone seeking to understand the current legal standing and media/public misconceptions around the Allen trial will find this breakdown essential.

Transcript

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the Name youe Price Tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match, limited by state law. Not available in all states.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

And every day there's a new headline,

[Kevin Greenlee]

a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

For me, it's about staying connected to my sports.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I can follow the teams I care about, get real time, scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I'm Kevin, and we're going to continue to discuss the brief filed by the state in the appellate case of Richard Allen for the Deli Murders.

[Anya Cain]

Content Warning this episode contains the discussion of the murder of two girls.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I should also say this is part two of our discussion of this brief. So if you've not already listened to it, go back and listen to the first episode.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. As a recap, this is the State responding to the appellate brief from Richard Allen's appellate team. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[Kevin Greenlee]

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

[Anya Cain]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[Kevin Greenlee]

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

[Anya Cain]

And this is the Delphi the State's Brief of Appelli Part 2. It's.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, we've both been refreshed. The pause that refreshes. And so I think, why don't we just pick up right up where we left off? How's that sound?

[Anya Cain]

That sounds perfect.

[Kevin Greenlee]

We were talking about the confessions in this case, and of course, Mr. Allen's appellate team is arguing that those confessions should not have been admitted into the trial. And they're saying the reason why they should not have been admitted is because they were involuntary. And in our previous discussion, we had the state argue, well, they're allegedly not voluntary because, of course, of state action. And the state was saying, hey, there was no coercive action. But as we said in an appellate brief, it's important to argue everything. So now they're saying, well, even if it was coercive, the confession should not have been thrown out. Anya, can you start reading with Allen's confessions?

[Anya Cain]

Yes. Allen's confessions were not caused by the allegedly coercive conduct. For a confession to be involuntary, the coercive state action must be causally related to the confession. The confinement conditions did not cause Allen's confessions. Conditions not become more oppressive before the confessions began, nor did they become more benign before Allen stopped confessing. And the state never made any threats or promises regarding those conditions predicated on his cooperation or willingness to confess. Moreover, the confessions were not coextensive with Allen's period of psychosis. He began confessing before he was psychotic, and he continued confessing after he was no longer psychotic. Alan was already confessing in early April 2023, but it was not until April 13 that Allen became gravely disabled and in April 14 that his psychosis and manic behavior became significant and he was involuntary. Started on an antipsychotic medication. By May 2nd and 3rd, 2023, Allen no longer exhibited significant symptoms of psychosis, manic behavior, or lack of impulse control. And he never thereafter presented any significant symptoms of psychosis or mania, but he continued confessing. Allen's most detailed confessions to Dr. Walla occurred on April 5 and May 3, before and after his psychosis. His desire to confess was not correlated to either a change in his confinement conditions or the onset of psychosis.

[Kevin Greenlee]

End quote. Just let's pause there for a minute because I think this is crucial. The Allen defense has consistently said he only confessed because he was mentally ill. Yeah. And was in a period of mental illness. And for one thing, you can look at the confessions themselves and they don't support that thesis because if you are in a psychotic state and you're making statements, they don't make sense, they don't flow, they seem illogical. And the confessions and incriminating statements he made did seem logical and flow. And I think the point they're making here though is that these confessions happened before the alleged psychotic state. And after the alleged psychotic state really demolish the hollowness of the defense argument.

[Anya Cain]

It's so hollow. Thank you. That is the word for it. It's hollow. And you have these almost. And we see this in the online discourse, we see this in, you know, even people talking about it in the media. At times. There's this like, oh, if we kind of boil everything down and have a pithy statement, then that sounds good, but then that like, that's never reflective of the reality of, oh, he was mentally ill cuz he was doing crazy stuff. First of all, many of the people who were mental health professionals who were dealing with him directly thought that he might be malingering. And it became to a point where if you're malingering so much that you're like not taking care of yourself at some point, it doesn't matter if you're malingering or not cause you could be harming yourself regardless. But whatever. Like in this case, it's just like, I don't know when you actually break down the timeline of everything, when you really look at everything in a granular fashion and kind of piece it all together. Like it just doesn't add up to

[Kevin Greenlee]

what they're claiming The State in this brief presents their view of why he started confessing Ana, can you start reading with the word moreover?

[Anya Cain]

Absolutely. Moreover, the record provides a reason why Allen began confessing in early April 2023 that has nothing to do with the conditions of confinement or their impact on his mental First, Allen experienced a markedly stressful event around the beginning of April. He received his legal discovery at the end of March beginning of April, and he had a meeting with his attorneys on April 3, 2023. His behavior began to change and worsen immediately after these two events. The discovery materials forced Allen to face the horrifying evidence of what he did to Abigail Williams and Liberty German images and events he had been able to ignore and repress over the five years in which his guilt had gone undiscovered. He was also confronted by the realization that the state had sufficient evidence for a jury to convict him and that he was likely going to spend the rest of his life in prison and he had to confront the realization that his family would be seeing these graphic images of what he had done. These realizations would be stressful regardless of whether one was already in pre trial detention, the conditions of that detention, or one's mental health. Second, after spending time in Bible study, Allen said he found Jesus and accepted God into his heart. On March 21, 2023, he became preoccupied with religious matters and increasingly concerned about whether he would be reunited with his family in heaven and whether they would still love him if he had committed the crimes. Acknowledgment and repentance of sin is an important teaching in the Christian faith. A new convert's fresh concern with the status of his soul and the will of his God would lead to a desire to confess his sins, particularly when the conversion happened in close proximity to the inescapable confrontation with the sin. Through legal discovery, it is at least plausible, if not more so, that the combined effect of his religious conversion and his receipt of discovery with its co commitment concomitant realities to be faced is what caused his confessions, not the conditions of his confinement or his mental health.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Let's stop there.

[Anya Cain]

Can I just say that was fire. Oh my goodness. Like I'm sorry, whoever wrote this part did it.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Kudos.

[Anya Cain]

Dang. Like whoa. Go off. I mean like it's so true, like it's so friggin like I can't even, this is all this frickin nonsense and hand wringing. He wasn't confessing because he was mentally ill. Okay. He was confessing because he was, you know, saw those pictures.

[Kevin Greenlee]

You saw what he did to those girls. He saw the evidence. He understood it. He understood what he was facing. And yeah, that did it.

[Anya Cain]

Sure. I'm sure the conversation with Rosie and Baldwin, you know, who knows, right? Who knows what was said there? I'd love to know. They'll never say I'm sure. But I, you know, I, I, I, this, it's, it's, it's stunning. It's stunning to think of the amount of like subterfuge that went on because, and you know what? Like you know, I, I, I'm sure I, I'm, I'm, I'm sure he does maybe, sure he never will listen to this show but like you're not going to heaven, you know, you're done talking about Richard Allen. This guy's going straight to hell.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah.

[Anya Cain]

And I, he's gonna burn in hell for what he did. I saw those pictures too. What he did was so evil to these kids. What he did was so disgusting to these kids. This guy will never see heaven's light.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I, I, I agree and I think it's worth worth noting, although I don't believe it's explicitly noted here that attorneys Baldwin and Rosie did not start complaining about Richard Allen's conditions in prison until shortly after he started making confessions.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, I wonder. Wow, that's interesting. It's almost like they're totally full of it and just doing it as a strategy in order to manipulate the media and the public did not believing what their lying client is saying. You know, it's so unusual. It's almost like when you look at the facts and the details of this case, a pattern of behavior of, of trying of this defense team at the trial level trying to paper over the cracks emerges very clearly.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I don't think if we need, we need to actually read this next section here. But basically what they're saying is also once he became allegedly psychotic the state did not try to exploit that to make him continue to confess. They got him medical attention and things of that nature.

[Anya Cain]

Also everyone he tried to confess to the warden, Dr. Monica Walla, prison guards, no one was like asking him fault. Everyone was basically like, okay dude, like whatever, talk to your attorneys. His family was like bullying him on the phone. You know, shut up, don't say it. You know they're putting poison in your food. You know, I mean like nobody wanted to hear this. Nobody was trying to be like, yeah, tell us more, give us some details. Nobody wanted to hear it. If anything, people were trying to push him not to say anything. The idea that these were coerced and that the state was exploiting the situation makes no sense when you actually see how everything went down.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Save money, look better, Shop our sponsor quints today and refresh your wardrobe for with some new styles for spring.

[Anya Cain]

Quint is our favorite clothing brand. They are all about getting you luxury styles at affordable prices. No markups, no middlemen, just high value, high quality fashion pieces that will transform your look.

[Kevin Greenlee]

They've got everything organic cotton and Mongolian cashmere sweaters, breathable linen, soft Pima cotton that looks great and doesn't pill washable silk pieces. I mean Quint is a go to for me at this point. I love their work shirts and sweaters and I can't wait to try out some of their new pieces for spring.

[Anya Cain]

Same here. I'm really looking to try out their linen pieces as the temperatures turn warmer, but since it's still pretty chilly out, I'm relying on my Quince Mongolian cashmere sweaters to weather the changing seasons. I'm regularly wearing all of them and they've held up so great despite my constant use. These things are great.

[Kevin Greenlee]

A wardrobe refresh does not need to break your budget. All you need is a few quality pieces that pair well with and hold up pieces that don't go out of style. Quint has got you there. Check out their website today because Murder Sheet listeners will get a great deal right now.

[Anya Cain]

Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it and you will now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q U I n c d e.com msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet one of the best and scariest parts of running your own business is you have to be Everything, all at once. It's always interesting, but we've got to be your charming hosts. Dogged reporters, savvy producers, engaging scriptwriters, diligent marketers, et cetera. All the time, all at once. All the while lavishing attention on our pup Nick and teasing each other incessantly. It's fun, but it's a lot.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Fortunately for all small and upcoming business owners, there's Shopify.

[Anya Cain]

They can help you wear all the hats at once. They're there to take stuff off your plate so you can drill down and focus on what moves you, what drives you forward, what you're really good at. I really wish we'd been working with Shopify when we first started. They're a game changer, a one stop commerce platform that lets you do so much fast and conveniently.

[Kevin Greenlee]

There's a reason 10% of all E commerce in the United States alone uses Shopify as well as millions of businesses around the world. It works. It powers your business forward.

[Anya Cain]

One thing that would have really helped us early on is their design studios for beautiful online stores that fit your brand's personality to the T. You don't

[Kevin Greenlee]

need to bounce from website to website. You can tackle the important tasks like inventory management, marketing and returns all in one spot. So you're seeing the big picture for your business.

[Anya Cain]

Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.commsheet Go to shopify.commsheet that's shopify.commsheet that's my cat, Lulu. She's perfectly healthy, but I'm not waiting for issues to pop up. I'm feeding her new Purina One whole body support, proactive nutrition supporting her five key systems. It's Purino one's most advanced formula, helping us stay ahead at mealtime so we can stay ahead for a lifetime.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Purina One a difference from day one. Try new Purina one whole body support. Just say alexa, add to cart.

[Anya Cain]

Alexa, add to cart.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So I think let's skip down to the discussion of harmless air. And I want to talk first of all about the concept of harmless error. Anything that is done by human beings in this world, by the nature that human beings are involved in, the process is going to be imperfect. None of us are perfect. When I go back and listen to some podcasts, I actually say and things

[Anya Cain]

like that, and we get facts wrong, sometimes we make mistakes, we might get a legal thing wrong. Like we make mistakes. I mean People are often saying, hey, you spelled this wrong in the show notes. You know, I mean, so there's always

[Kevin Greenlee]

going to be mistakes, including in trials. And so the thing to remember is that a defendant is not entitled to a perfect trial because that simply doesn't exist. But they're entitled to a fair trial where their rights are protected. And so what you want to do is you want to look at the alleged errors that occur in a trial and determine whether or not the error is of such a nature that it would have changed the verdict that, oh, if this thing had been done correctly, perhaps the verdict would have changed. And if that is the case, then, yes, he deserves a new trial. But if it's something relatively minor, then, well, that's considered a harmless error because this is an error that did not alter the outcome of the trial. Does that make sense?

[Anya Cain]

Yes.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I'll tell a silly little story that maybe illustrates this. This is a true incident. Once I and a friend went to, I believe it was North Carolina, and we order a lemonade. And I remember thinking my lemonade might have been just a little sweet. And that's okay. That's not something that would negate the lemonade. That doesn't entitle me to a new lemonade or the apologies of the shop. That's just life. It's not a perfect glass of lemonade. Live with it, Kevin.

[Anya Cain]

Just deal with it.

[Kevin Greenlee]

My companion, on the other hand, had a different experience because when they made her lemonade, the person making it accidentally mistook the container of salt for the container of sugar. And so instead of putting sugar in her lemonade, they put in salt. That is an error. That is not a harmless error because that completely changed her lemonade drinking experience.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. Yeah. She needs a new lemonade.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. So that's. Does that generally. Am I just babbling here?

[Anya Cain]

You're not babbling. Can I also just add a silly story of my own? In college, we were at a frat party, me. And for some reason, we were doing a mixer between the college newspaper and a frat. I don't know how that happened, but anyways, I'm the editor in chief, and I'm, like, leading my team, so we're all doing tequila shots. This is bad. I don't drink anymore. But with tequila shots, you put. Put salt on your hand, and then you do that and you do the shot. Somehow. Somehow, who knows? I ended up giving everyone sugar, and it tasted awful. It was a nightmare. So that was another situation where that's not harmless.

[Kevin Greenlee]

That's not a harmless error.

[Anya Cain]

I got like, yeah, I don't know why. It just didn't. It was when you're expecting salt and you get sugar, or when you're expecting sugar and you get salt, it's not a pleasant situation.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So, yeah, and I, I bring this up because, as we've been discussing, when you're preparing an appellate brief, you don't give ground on anything and you make all the arguments, you can't. And you say, well, they were wrong on this point. But then you also say, well, even if they are right, even if this was an involuntary confession, in your opinion, it still shouldn't change the verdict because we're going to say that it's a harmless error. In other words, we're saying that even if these confessions, even if these confessions are found to be involuntary and should not have been admitted, we don't believe that taking the confessions out of the trial would have changed the verdict. And Anya, why don't you read their argument as to why the confessions did not change the verdict? And it starts with the timeline. Eyewitness evidence, quote, the timeline.

[Anya Cain]

Eyewitness evidence, including Allen's initial statements to police alone, creates an overwhelming certainty that Allen was Bridge Guy and thus the murderer. Allen admitted he parked near the Freedom Bridge entrance and began walking to the trail about 1:30pm which was corroborated by the surveillance video capturing a car matching the appearance of his focus driving toward the Freedom bridge entrance at 1:27pm he admitted he was likely wearing a dark Carhartt jacket with a hood, blue jeans and either tennis shoes or work boots and had a hat with him which matched the clothing worn by Bridge Guy. Allen identified himself as the man who walked past the Wilbur Voorhees group on the trail about 1:30pm Wilbur and Voorhees both immediately recognized the picture of Bridge Guy as the man who would walk past them. Allen also admitted that when he reached High Bridge, he walked out to the first platform and stayed there for a few minutes. Blair entered the trail at the mirrors entrance at or just after 1:46pm when she reached the High Bridge, she saw a man on the platform whom she immediately recognized as Bridge Guy. Neither Blair, Wilbur or Voorhees saw anyone on the trail who could have been Bridge Guy or Allen, and Allen acknowledged seeing no one else who could have been Bridge Guy. As she walked back toward the entrance, Blair passed Abigail Williams and Liberty German on their way to the High bridge. And by 2:13pm the man, Blair Wilburn Voorhees, saw the man Allen had effectively identified himself as was following Abigail Williams and Liberty German across Highbridge and ordering them down the hill while armed with a gun. By 2:32pm Liberty German's phone had stopped moving and by 1:30 by 3:11pm Liberty German was not answering the phone when her father called. She and Abigail Williams had failed to meet him when he arrived to pick them up. Shortly before 4pm car boss saw a man she recognized as Bridge Guy walking westbound on CR300 north. That is toward where Allen had admitted he parked his car. His clothes were covered in mud and fresh blood spatter. Given Allen's admissions placing him on the trail and on the High Bridge platform at the right times to be the man seen by Blair, Wilbur and Voorhees, their certainty that the man they saw was Bridge Guy, the absence of anyone else on the trail who could have been Allen or Bridge Guy, and the tight timeline this combined evidence created in connection to the abduction of murders, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn was that Allen was Bridge Guy, the person who murdered Abigail Williams and Liberty German. Other evidence corroborated this conclusion. Most Significantly, the unfired Winchester.40 caliber cartridge found by the girl's bodies was forensically matched, having been cycled through Allen's.40 caliber handgun. Allen had an identical I unfired cartridge, the only piece of Winchester ammunition found in his house in a keepsake box. Allen had no possible innocent explanation for how a cartridge that had been in his gun could have ended up at the murder scene. Bridge Guy had a gun and used it to compel Abigail Williams and Liberty German to go down the Hill. An ISB trooper who had listened to that over 700 of Allen's phone calls opined that it was Allen's voice heard on the video saying down the hill. Although Allen had 12 old cell phones in his bedroom closet, he did not have the cell phone he told police he had with him on the trail in 2017, creating a reasonable inference that he destroyed the phone because he knew it contained evidence of his guilt, Allen also displayed consciousness of guilt by lying to police. Although he originally told police he was on the trail from 1:30 to 3:30pm and the testimony of Wilbur and Voorhees proves he was arriving at the trail, not leaving it at 1:30pm when police re interviewed him in October 2022, Allen claimed he was at the trail much earlier, from 12pm to 1 to 1:30pm showing he understood the damning implication of the initial timeline he had admitted. While police executed the search warrant at his house, Allen said multiple times it's over. In the face of this powerful evidence of guilt, the jury did not seem to need to rely on the confessions at all to return its verdicts. End quote. I want to add something. We know for a fact that this is true because we interviewed one of the jurors.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, we know what. Yeah, we know what. They based their decision.

[Anya Cain]

I want to. I want to make clear there were jurors who immediately voted to convict. There were jurors who did not. They were undecided. Nobody was voting for acquittal folks. There were some people who were undecided. They were not firmly convinced. Immediately they had to talk things through. They had to look at the evidence. The way this juror foreman went through everything was. They were all looking at stuff. But if somebody had a real problem, seemingly with a piece of evidence, like most people, I take it on the jury were compelled by the firearms evidence. But there were people who were like, I just, I don't know, I can't necessarily get there. There was at least one person, I think the juror we talked to who was like, listen, there's some, you know, I'm having some concerns about ballistics. And they set that aside. When you look at what they convicted on, when you looked at what they set aside, because some of the jurors were not quite convinced and what they had everyone look at of like, can we. Can we look at what you do believe and see if you could still convict when you look at that. It's the timeline.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's the timeline.

[Anya Cain]

The timeline convicted this man. The timeline which was outlined in the PCA that everybody doubted you and I included that everyone, you know, oh, I don't know about this. That was so compellingly put together. The witness testimony was so compellingly put together. And Alan's own freaking statements were so damning. They convicted on the timeline. The timeline carried the day. And so what they are saying here is absolutely true.

[Kevin Greenlee]

They outlined there a very damning case against Richard Allen that does not require the confessions. Yes, I believe the confessions were properly admitted, but I agree they were not needed. And also, I would make another Obvious point, Nick McClelland the time he decided that, yes, we have enough evidence to pursue charges against this man. Richard Allen at that point had not made any confessions.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, he thought it was good enough of a case. Barring that, which he was correct.

[Kevin Greenlee]

He was correct.

[Anya Cain]

He was absolutely correct. And you know, I mean, but again, I also strongly think that the confessions were not made because of his mental illness. And I also think they were totally Properly included, because I think all this nonsense about coercion is nonsense.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, I agree.

[Anya Cain]

You know, like, I don't know what. You know, if they'd kept him in Carroll County Jail, he probably would have gotten shaved, and then it would have been a whole other issue. So, I mean, safety first.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The next issue is, you may recall that the sketches we've all seen of Bridge Guy, those were not admitted into the trial. I don't know if we need to go into this particular issue in great detail. The defense appellate team for Richard Allen, they said, well, it should have been admitted because, you know, some. Some things in the pictures didn't quite look like Richard Allen. I. I think basically what it boils down to is the sketches were not admitted, but the people who provided. The people who provided the descriptions that were the foundation for the sketches that they testified. So if you thought as a defense attorney that the sketch doesn't look like them, you can talk to the people who provided the description that the sketch was based on, and you can confront them in front of the jury. So I have no problem with the sketches being excluded. What do you think? Do you want to talk about this issue more?

[Anya Cain]

I don't think we need to. This was covered in the final pretrial hearing. Right. And then, you know, I mean, what. What's important about. I mean, the sketches are an investigative tool to try to solicit information from the public. You know, to a large degree, it did not. It did not work at all, actually. The sketches didn't do anything. No one came forward and said, hey, I think that looks like Richard Allen. You know, I mean, the sketches were ultimately pretty useless. They're also a artist rendering of a witness's fleeting memory. What was important about what the witnesses said was that the witnesses all identified the person they saw, including Carbaugh and Blair, who gave the information that led to the sketches that were released publicly that they saw Bridge Guy. They saw the guy in. In Libby's video. Oh, like, the. The video is what's truly important, not the sketches. You know, I know from the public's perspective, the sketches were like, what we were all looking at forever. Like, I get why people would be like, hey, why wouldn't that be important? I get it. But when we're looking at, like, what's truly important about the witness testimonies, it's that they identify. They both identify. They both describe different guys. Blair is, like, thinks he's younger. The kids who saw the. You know, the young women who saw him on the trail think he's older. That's pretty par for the course for witness statements, frankly. An older woman might see a younger. Like it's just all relative, right. And witnesses are, could be wobbly, but they were firm on one thing. The one thing that counted was that the guy who was captured on Libby's video confronting the girls on the bridge is the person they saw. I mean, they didn't use it to identify Allen. They didn't point to Allen in court and say, I saw that guy. But it, it ties back to bridge guy. So yeah, it's, I don't know.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Then we can talk a little bit about another issue that was raised is some of the crucial evidence in this case. Rather one piece of crucial evidence in case, in this case was the ballistics evidence. This of course refers to the fact that there was an unspent cartridge found at the murder site. And this cartridge was ballistically linked to a gun owned by Mr. Allen, a gun which he basically indicated had not been out of his possession in years. So this is damning evidence against him. It puts him at the murder site as the girls died. It's a very important evidence. And there was an expert who, for the state, Melissa Oberg, who testified that, yes, this is a match, this bullet came from his gun. And then they had a defense expert named Eric Warren who said, well, I don't think it was from Mr. Allen's gun. Even though Mr. Warren acknowledged he did not personally examine or do any tests on it. And Mr. Warren's credibility, to be blunt, was really destroyed effectively in trial through a withering cross examination by James Luttrell.

[Anya Cain]

That's right.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And so the jury, ultimately those who were persuaded, you know, tended to favor Ms. Oberg's analysis. The defense also wanted someone named Bill Tobin. Bill Tobin to testify. And his testimony was basically going to be, I'm oversimplifying, but his testimony was going to be. The whole science of ballistics is worthless. And the judge rather did not allow him to testify. And the appellate team for Mr. Allen says this isn't fair. This was a mistake. This could have changed the verdict. And what the state here says is it is up to the trial court judge using very specific tests to determine whether or not an expert is qualified to testify. And if a judge makes a determination that the underlying science that the expert is going to be testifying to is valid, then that is sufficient. Because ultimately, if Judge Goal had determined, you know what, folks, I don't think ballistics is worth anything, then she wouldn't have allowed Oberg to testify. She wouldn't even have allowed Mr. Warren to testify. She was, I don't believe in the science, my understanding of the legal principles as to how it should be determined whether or not an expert can testify, that convinces me that this doesn't meet the test. But she said, no, I believe it does meet the test, and these ballistics experts should be allowed to testify. And so then there was no reason for Mr. Tobin to testify before the jury. Because it is not up to the jury to make a determination about an entire body of science. It's not up to the jury, as lay people, to say, you know what? Ballistics is completely worthless. That's not their role. So therefore, Mr. Tobin's testimony argues the state would have been irrelevant. Now, certainly, if there's a case to be made that the way Ms. Oberg used that science was flawed, if her analysis was flawed, that's something that could have been brought out by their ballistics expert, the defense's ballistic expert. Mr. Warren, I know this is kind of confusing, but am I, does that make sense?

[Anya Cain]

Makes sense to me. Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So that's what that argument is about. Anything to say to that?

[Anya Cain]

No, I think you summed it up pretty well. It seems kind of, you know. Yeah, I think I, I, I, some of these things, I'm just like, yeah, you know, I don't know.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And also, I admit some of this stuff isn't exactly riveting. And that's, that's a problem. That's a problem because throughout the history of this case, the defense team has been very good, frankly, at making riveting sounding statements.

[Anya Cain]

Oh, yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And because of that, they get a lot of attention. And hearing the truth is boring.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, the truth is boring. The truth is complicated. The truth is not sexy. The truth is just, you know, like, oh, okay. And that's a problem because people who view true crime as entertainment are not by, are not entertained by the truth sometimes, and they want to gravitate towards something more entertaining. And they're not using their critical thinking skills. They're not using logic to assess any of this. They're using what do I think sounds good in my story head. You know, I mean, it's like, it's stupid, but it's true. And frankly, the media is susceptible to this. It's been extremely susceptible to this. You know, it's not a criticism of an individual journalist. It's just saying that, like, you know, the shiny keys trick that you can use on a baby to entertain them to a certain extent also, it goes on to Adults because it's like, you know, Odin is cult in the woods. Sacrifice. Whoa. It sounds like a pulp novel versus like no, it's, that's not what happened. Like I had an alibi and this guy doesn't really have, you know, this, this, you know, the trial court is allowed to exclude a witness that they don't think is going to be, you know, meeting their standards and relevant enough. And you know that like that's not sexy. It's just not. And you want it to not be about what's cool or what's sounds interesting. You want it to be what about what's true. But unfortunately that's not the reality we live in.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The next thing that is responded to here and again I really say is not exactly riveting. There was a video made of Mr. Allen moving throughout the Department of Corrections. And this video includes, you know, video. It also included sound and judge goal after an objection by the state determined that well, okay, I'll show, I'll let the jury see the video. I don't want them to hear the audio. I don't want to hear what Mr. Allen is saying while he's being moved throughout the Department of Corrections and the, the defense of peloton. The Peloponnese from Mr. Allen said no, that that's, that was wrong, that that should have been included. And so the reason why it was not included is because of something we've discussed before called hearsay. What is hearsay? Hearsay are statements made outside of court and therefore are not generally speaking allowed into court. Why is that? That is because if a statement is made in court, if it's a sworn statement, that means first of all it's a sworn statement, you're on the hook for perjury. Also, if it's made in a court or in a court setting or in front of attorneys for the other side, there's an opportunity for cross examination. If you let defendants include hearsay statements they've said outside of court, if you let them admit those into court, then you're giving them an advantage, basically. You're giving them an opportunity to game the system. You're giving them an opportunity to get self serving statements before the court, before the jury without being subject to cross examinations. If Anya was going to be charged with stealing cereal boxes and she decided not to testify, but she wanted to include an episode of this show called why I Didn't do it, that would obviously be unfair because basically she would be offering testimony without having to subject herself to cross examination. Does that make sense?

[Anya Cain]

It does, yes.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So the argument that the state makes here is, well, whatever he was saying on the audio in these videos would have been hearsay. And if there's information that Mr. Allen thought was so crucial for the jury to hear, then no one was stopping him from testifying. And he could have gotten up and said, here's what I was saying in these videos. Here's what was going through my mind at the time. And he could have said those things and subjected himself to cross examination. That makes sense.

[Anya Cain]

Makes sense. What's next? Hit us again. Hit us again.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, again. I, I, I, I, I understand.

[Anya Cain]

I'm sorry, but it's just, I don't know, it's just like, just like endless. And this is the nature of an appeal, right? I'm not, I'm not criticizing anybody. I'm not criticizing Allen's appellate team. I'm not criticizing the state, but it's just endless minutia. It's, you know, it's not, it's not a, it's not cinematic. Right. It's just, it's just they're kind of going over this minutiae. Did the trial court mess up? Did it deprive him of his rights? Should he get a new trial? So it's not surprising. But we're, seriously, really, we're, I'm in a, I'm in a world where it's, it's, it's March 26, 2026, and we're relitigating. Bill Tobin just kind of, you know, we're back there. We're going back, folks, now. We're going to relitigate the two phone calls Alan made on April 3, 2023.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yes. There.

[Anya Cain]

You know what? Like, it's sort of like, you know, for fans of, of Tolkien. Right. Like he wrote, you know, like, like there's like, minutiae and footnotes he has that kind of people debate about. And I sort of feel like we're there, you know, but in a less fun way because it's about a horrible murder case. Ve. Something, you know, fun fantasy and whatever. But it's just like, it's like we're getting so in the weeds here that I'm sure our audience is probably already tuned out. But we're, but we're sticking around because

[Kevin Greenlee]

we're, we're, we're getting there. We're almost done.

[Anya Cain]

We're fighting through it, folks.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So Richard Allen made, I guess, three phone calls on April 3, 2023. The state presented one of them to the jury. It included some incriminating statements. And the defense said, hey, this isn't right because he made two other phone calls that day. And under the doctrine of completeness, all other statements, all other phone calls he made that day should also be presented. And what the state argues, and I find compelling is that under the doctrine of completeness, a complete statement should be offered, or in this case, a complete phone call should be offered. A phone call should not be selectively edited or cherry picked in order to create a false impression. And it wasn't a complete phone call was offered. That does not require them to offer into evidence all other statements he may or may not have made that day in other calls.

[Anya Cain]

Uh huh.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Anything else on that?

[Anya Cain]

Nope.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with a name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match, limited by state law. Not available in all states, day or night.

[Anya Cain]

VRBoCare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out. From the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I'm skimming. Oh, I. I'm going to skip down to Pearl Mutter's testimony.

[Anya Cain]

Okay. Oh, God, not again. Okay, yeah, fine.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I'm going to turn the Pearl Mutter.

[Anya Cain]

Pearl Mutter. Jump Scare.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So you're our Pearl Mutter expert?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. Pearl matter. I don't want to say like I disassociated during that three day hearing at that point, but I just. I just remember being like, so angry that our time was being wasted to that extent and the court's time was being wasted in that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

As a reminder, Perlmutter was ostensibly an expert Dr. Don Perlmutter that the defense team wanted to present on the subject of Odinism. Under some withering cross examination, it turned out she was no such thing. She was not.

[Anya Cain]

She's a joke.

[Kevin Greenlee]

She was excluded from the trial and the defense appellate team, the appellate team for Richard Allen said, no, no, no. She should have been allowed in.

[Anya Cain]

She's the living embodiment of the meme source. I made it up. I mean, that's who she is as a person.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Do you want to discuss any of this?

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, happy to quote, not really. Quote Perlmutter's testimony that the murders were realtualistic. The court, the trial court, properly excluded Perlmutter's testimony opining this was a ritual killing proffered in support of Allen's theory that this was a ritual killing committed by Odinists. Expert opinion testimony is admissible only when it will help the trier of fact. Rule evidence Rule 702. Rule 702 is restricted by evidence Rule 403, which permits the exclusion of evidence that will confuse the issues or mislead the jury. Third party motive evidence must establish more than a speculative connection to the crime to be admissible. Perlmutter's opinion that this was a ritual killing, an opinion she reached before seeing any evidence in the case, was too speculative to be admissible as third party motive evidence. It was a motive in search of a suspect. As discussed subsection 7 below, no evidence connected any Odinus the murder or place them at the crime scene. It was a speculative motive. There's no history of ritual human sacrifice in Odinism, and according to an Odinist, the sacrifice of children would be contrary to the principles of the religion. Even Perlmutter acknowledged that apart from the case, she had knowledge of only one other Odinous ritual killing. And that case remained an open investigation with no confirmation of the perpetrator or a motive, which means she actually could not identify any other example of an Odinous ritual killing. Perlmutter also acknowledged that outdoor killings committed with a knife are not necessarily ritual killings, and it was a motive based on inaccuracies with respect to the alleged symbolism. At the crime scene. There was no F in blood on the tree. That was a misapprehension caused by the reddish tints in the tree bark. When a chemical was applied that turned the blood white. It was apparent that there was no second horizontal line necessary to form an F. The blood only formed an upside down link. And neither Perlmutter nor Allen have ever contended that an upside down L is a rune or Odinous symbol. The blood patterns on the bodies and on the ground were inconsistent with the bodies of it being hung upside down. As Odin typically is depicted, the sticks on the bodies were fundamentally ambiguous. Professor Turco found it equally plausible that they were not attempted runes at all and could only offer conjecture as to their meaning if it if it was assumed. Arguendo that they were intended to be runes, as the arrangement of the sticks did not in any obvious way spell a word. As seen in the crime scene photographs, the sticks were much less suggestive of runes than in the police sketch. He was Initially shown with respect to the sticks on Liberty German, even Perlmutter could only say that she believed that they had specific meaning to the offender. She could not identify any rune or symbol they purportedly formed. The FBI's Behavior Analysis Unit was unable to verify or find support for the theory that this was an Odinous killing, determining that neither the blood on the tree nor the sticks on the bodies clearly depict, capture or present known aspects of Odinism or its symbiology. Particularly in the absence of any evidence placing any odinus at the crime scene or directly connecting to the one to the crimes, the trial court acted well within its discretion in declining to admit evidence on a speculative alternative motive that would have confused the issues, turning the trial into a sideshow debate over disputed claims of Odinist symbol, symbology, and distracted the jury from the issue before it, namely whether the evidence proved Allen committed these murders. That is especially true because motive was not a basis which the state purported to identify Allen as the perpetrator. Because motive was not a significant factor in the proof of guilt. The probative value of evidence of an alternative motive was correspondingly low and easily outweighed by the dangers of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. As discussed in section B below, the error was harmless. Any error was harmless. End quote. That was brilliant. Wow.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So do you have any.

[Anya Cain]

I'm living for this. Perlmutter takedown in March 2026. You know, I mean, this was joke. This woman came on and talked about how, like, she made up. I mean, McLelan brought out that she had gone on Court TV before being involved in the case and been like, it's a ritual killing. Why do I think that? Because I get paid to talk about ritual killings. You know, I mean, like, it. It's. It like, just no intellectual rigor, no intellectual honesty. Her whole methodology stinks. And one correction here, or at least. I don't know. I'm not trying to be a know it all, but I. My understanding was that the behavioral analysis unit that actually worked on this case was at the United States Marshal Service and not the FBI. I mean, maybe that. Maybe that's wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, but I'm just pointing that out.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So basically, they're saying, hey, she would have just confused things. She didn't have anything to add.

[Anya Cain]

Also, she got stuff wrong. She was acting like, oh, this is meaningful. The defense had every opportunity to call a blood spatter expert or a crime scene expert of their own to say, yes, we think this. This symbol was painted on the tree. They didn't, because they couldn't get one, because no one's gonna lie on the stand for them to that extent. You know, I mean, like, that's it. The fact that they brought this woman out there and she's saying all this stuff that's being, like, debunked by Pat Cicero, the state's crime scene expert. You know, it's just like. It's laughable. It's laughable. It was a waste of time then. It's embarrassing that they're still bringing it up. I don't even know what to say.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The other thing that they wanted to introduce into the trial, the defense team, of course, was evidence that Odinists, particularly a man named Brad Holder and a man named Patrick Westphal, were responsible for this crime. And they were not allowed to do that because Judge Goll found that they did not offer any evidence suggesting any connection between those people and the crime. And as we've often said, you can't just go into court and randomly accuse people of murder. You have to have a reason. And if you have some sort of a connection between your alternate suspect and the crime, then you are allowed under Indiana law to raise that. But there was no connection. And one of the big problems with their theory that Mr. Holder committed this crime was, thanks to the video, we know exactly to the minute when these girls were kidnapped, and we know by what time they were dead. And we know that Mr. Holder has a great alibi for that time he was at work, and then he went to a health club in another town, not Delphi. So there is no way that he could have committed this crime. And the defense at different times has said, well, yeah, sure, we have him punching out of work, and we have him going into the health club, but isn't it possible someone else punched him out? And so there's a discussion here in this brief saying, no, there's no real way someone else could have done that. And they have, you know, the clerk for where he works said, you know, she had not changed the record. Quote, she confirmed it would not be possible for him, Mr. Holder, to be absent while his time card showed he was present. Only a small number of people work each shift, and it would be immediately noticed if someone was absent or left

[Anya Cain]

early in, quote, maybe she's part of the Odinist theory. Ooh.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So it's a good alibi. The issues the defense has tried to raise about it don't really work. And so if he has a good alibi, it's solid alibi. Obviously, it makes no sense to accuse him of the crime. And then the only reason Mr. Westfall is accused of the crime is supposedly he did it with Mr. Holder. But if Mr. Holder didn't do the crime, then that stands to reason Mr. Westfall didn't do it either. Because if the whole theory is they did it as a pair.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah. As a duo.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So the argument there is no, it was properly excluded.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, it obviously was. Again, people were mad about it, people felt it was interesting, people felt it was just raising questions, but it ultimately did not hold up factually. It just didn't. You know, people put a lot of work into it. They put a lot of effort into making that work, and it did not, you know, the judge go was not under any obligation to include this stuff when they couldn't even, you know, the defense team couldn't even get there factually and really even expand upon the theory other than what, you know, the kind of slipshod job that had been done previously.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I would go even further and say she actually was obligated to get it out of there. Yeah, to get it out there. I'm not a judge Goal fan, as I think I've made clear, but I think she had no choice here. This was the only ruling to make. It was the appropriate ruling. If you have evidence, oh, they're going to accuse this man of murder, but we know for a fact he was somewhere else, in another town. There's no way any judge in this country would have allowed that in.

[Anya Cain]

No, it's absurd. They did a. I mean, the fact that they went for Odinism tells me everything about Rosie and Baldwin and what their priorities were, which were to entertain the masses. Bread and circuses. Right. Instead of actually make decisions that were putting their client first. You know, and frankly, Todd Klick and the people who were behind this theory and pushing it forward, this kind of thing is how wrongful convictions actually happen. You take a bunch of people and you say they have weird beliefs, or I, I think they're sketchy. And you tried to make a case around that, around wanting them to be guilty because you've already put all this time and investment in it. That's not a way to put a case together. That is how you get wrongful convictions.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I think that's about all I wanted to cover. There's a couple more small things. I don't really think they're worthy. I, I don't think they're essential. If you want to cover any of them, that's fine. I, I, I would say again, Generally, I think this was a very well done brief.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, I think.

[Kevin Greenlee]

I think it really demolished.

[Anya Cain]

I'll say. I'll say one thing because this is a little bit. They said the quote. I'll read this part.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Okay.

[Anya Cain]

Quote. A mission of A possible explanation for a cell phone code was harmless. The admission of the Google search was at most harmless. Defense witness Stacey Eldridge opined that between 5:45pm and 10:32pm Liberty German cell phone registered a code in the Knowledge C database of an audio output start which indicated that the headphones or an AUX cable was plugged into the phone. She opined that this event required human interaction which Allen offered to someone else committed to the murders because Carbaugh saw him leave the scene by 4pm There was water and debris on the phone when it was found. To Elridge's knowledge, water could not affect the plug in data. The state's two cell phone experts, Christopher Cecil and Brian Bunner, testified that they did not know what audio output start meant. On cross examination, the state asked Cecil if he had done a Google search to determine if water damage could cause audio output code. Ellen unsuccessfully objected on hearsay grounds. Cecil testified that he found through the search that water damage or dirt within the headphone plugin could cause the phone to register an audio output. Cecil acknowledged that he does not normally do Google research and that information on the Internet can be wrong. This information was proffered as an alternate theory to the cause of the audio output code. But neither of these theories made it more or less probable that Allen committed the murders. As argued above, Allen's identity was proven through eyewitness testimony. Allen's statements to police cartridge from his gun foundation between the bodies and his confessions. The health app data showed the phone did not move after 2:32pm defeating any suggestion that the phone was returned to the crime scene after 10:30pm which in any event would not preclude Allen being the perpetrator. Any suggestion that another person was present at the murder scene at 5:45pm and 10:32pm during the height of the search for the girls inserting unplugging headphones from the phone was implausible. This evidence has no bearing on the verdicts and was a harmless error, end quote. I agree with that. I. I mean like, is it, is it elegant to have your expert be like, well, I googled it. No, it's not elegant. Does it matter? Absolutely not. Does anyone? I've had my phone's headphone jack messed up by, by water, moisture, whatever, or you know, like dropping the phone and then it gets all wonky. It's not, it's not a compelling argument at all. I think that was supposed to be the defense's aha moment. But anyway.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, it's. Yeah. I. I can't imagine while people were looking for the girls for the killer to go back to the crime scene and plug in headphones and how do

[Anya Cain]

you do, how do you even plug in headphones? The phone was found under Abigail's body, so. And also it only for her body. The blood flow only looks like she was. Her head was moved slightly. So how are you getting the phone under her body without moving it at all after 2:32. Like. It just doesn't make any sense. What's more likely the thing that happens to a lot of our phones happened or that they somehow are like levitating? Like I just. It doesn't make any sense that I. That that whole thing was just stupid. I think you are correct. I think this was a very strong brief. I think it knocked down a lot of the appellate team's contentions. I just feel like a lot of this stuff is just pretty boring and obvious and self evident to anyone who's been following the case in any depth. There's nothing here. What will an appellate court do? I don't know. I mean, what will an appeals court do? I mean.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Well, they're gonna. They're gonna dismiss the appeal.

[Anya Cain]

I mean, do you think they're gonna hold oral arguments though?

[Kevin Greenlee]

I don't know. The thing to remember is the vast majority of appeals, certainly at this stage of the process, die. Yeah. The state wins. You would only expect to see a defendant win an appeal at this point if they have an extraordinarily strong case. Richard Allen did not have an extraordinarily strong case. And that was apparent on the day the trial ended. Frankly, I sat through every day of that trial. I saw how it was conducted. I went to all but one of the pretrial hearings. I saw how they were conducted. He got a fair trial. He should have had better attorneys. But he got.

[Anya Cain]

Well, they tried to give him better attorneys and he said no. So that's kind of a him problem.

[Kevin Greenlee]

He got a fair trial.

[Anya Cain]

He absolutely got a fair trial.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah. The appeals court is going to end up denying Mr. Allen's appeal and then

[Anya Cain]

we'll be on to post conviction relief attempts, which I'm sure will get even more cartoonish and stupid because they'll be trying to introduce new evidence and oh, we didn't know about this before. And I'm sure that'll get even more off the rails. At the very least, the appeal had to kind of be consigned to the. What was in the trial. But I think we're going to get into even more lunacy later. But, but I agree. I don't. I don't think this is going anywhere. This is all pretty. And the state had a good response. I mean, they, they kind of destroyed some of these arguments pretty readily. I thought so. Yeah. Well, sorry to bring you guys through all this kind of repetitive information, but hopefully it kind of gives you some insight into our views on the brief and our views on where this appeals to.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And as I say, it's important the defense claims are so flashy and get so much attention. I think it's important to take the time to go through the answers to them to explain the considerable problems with the defense positions. And by defense, I mean Mr. Allen's positions.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, it's nothing. And I think he's going to die in prison as he should for what he did to those kids.

[Kevin Greenlee]

He's never getting out.

[Anya Cain]

Yeah, he can delude himself and his family, but, you know, he's going to die alone. He's going to die without ever having been a free man ever again. And that is proper because when you do something this heinous, you do not deserve any sort of consideration. So are we going to get out of here and go stare at a lake or something? I don't know. Back in Delphi again?

[Kevin Greenlee]

No. This is good. This is good. This was a well done brief. And it is another step in the process to ensure justice for the girls. Often we tend to think that the story ends either with the verdict or with the sentence. It doesn't. The process continues as it should to ensure everybody gets a fair trial and is treated fairly.

[Anya Cain]

Well said.

[Kevin Greenlee]

This is a part of the process. I believe it is justice for Richard Allen to die behind bars. And when people like the people who wrote this brief, their efforts are important steps to continue the process. They're important steps to ensure that the justice and the results achieved by the hard work of Nicholas McClelland, Stacey Deener and James Luttrell. This is an important step to ensure that that holds.

[Anya Cain]

Well said. Very well said. All right, thank you all so much for listening.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[Anya Cain]

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

[Kevin Greenlee]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with

[Anya Cain]

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.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with a name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try [e-mail], progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law not available in all states.