Anya (2:59)

So the New Direction conference happened, I think, prior to Kevin and I even knowing each other. But I do remember it because, again, like, me and my mom were following this case just from. From New York. And I remember talking to her, and I was like, okay, either they're about to arrest somebody, or perhaps more likely, they don't have anything, because it just seemed kind of like a shot in the dark to me. And. And I think that ended up being the case. What we found out behind the scenes, I think it was a calculated shot in the dark. But at that point, they didn't really. I mean, they were just trying to. Basically, they got a profile saying, hey, if you confront the killer, he might make a mistake and trip himself up. So that was what they were trying to do. Do you remember it, Kevin?

Kevin (3:40)

Yeah, I remember it. My reaction was much the same. I also remember that people were speculating a lot about, why did Carter mention the shack? Is that some sort of code where the girls killed in a shack? And so that was one of the questions we asked Carter. And essentially he was just riffing.

Anya (4:02)

He was riffing. And then the. The wildest thing was afterwards, Holman went up to him and was like, what is the shack? Like? Why. Why did you mention, like, what. What are you talking about? Although I think he said it in a slightly more profane way, but I think he was just trying to. I think he was. They were thinking maybe the guy's religious or maybe he has religious family members, and they're just trying to appeal to that. But I think everyone was reading so much into it and sort of treating it like it's like the Da Vinci Code or something, where we can all figure it out. But I think it was really just for an audience of one, which was supposed to be the killer. And that was based, again, on. They got some profilers to tell them, okay, we think this is the kind of guy who did this. And I think that profile ended up being somewhat accurate, actually, to Richard Allen. But. But they were like, go out there, confront him, and see if he maybe does anything. So I think a lot of it was more about trying to get his goat than anything else.

Kevin (4:58)

Yeah. And there was contention behind the scenes, not just with the family, but amongst law enforcement, because the idea was, let's have one of our guys go up there, Just. Just one guy be talking to the killer one on one. That man they selected to do that was Doug Carter. And the then sheriff of Carroll county told Blasenby says, no, it's not right. I'm the elected sheriff. It's our case. I should be up there, too. And the two men got into quite a heated argument in the minutes leading up to that press conference.

Host 1 (5:34)

And that is a strategy that goes back many years, decades, in fact. We saw the FBI roll out a similar strategy in the Atlanta child killings case. We know that they did the exact same thing out in Wichita with btk, with Ken, Len Lenware, who was the officer out there that they, behind the scenes, they, they were saying, we need a super cop. We need. We need to put forward a face in a body that is the super cop that, that our killer will not. He needs to be challenged. And he's of the type that needs to be challenged. And therefore we. We don't know his face and we don't know his name. However, on our side, we're going to put a face and name to a worthy adversary of this unknown killer and challenge them publicly because we know that it's about power and control. So we're going to start to take some of that power and control away by presenting you with somebody that we don't think that you can defeat. And they certainly did that with Doug Carter. They certainly picked the right person. But as you said, was some squabbling behind closed doors of. Is this the right tactic? Some words were exchanged and probably some feelings were hurt.

Anya (6:50)

Oh, yes, I imagine so. And you know, and I can understand where all the sides were coming from behind the scenes, but it, it definitely. And ultimately, I mean, Alan did not take the bait, so it wasn't something that ended up being fruitful. But knowing what I know now about where they were with the investigation, I understand why they did it and why they felt like they needed to take that risk at that point.

Kathleen Kelly (7:11)

Yeah. My thoughts on that would be if there was a continuation of killings, that maybe you could then challenge this killer. But I think because there wasn't a continuation that we knew of, that maybe the approach would be to try to reach some kind of humanity in this individual, if there's any left to try to get them to come out of the woods.

Anya (7:37)

Yeah, well, well said. I think there was also a bit of an idea of maybe he's got relatives who are ready to come forward or maybe there's someone who knows something that we can kind of push a little bit here. And again, that didn't work either.

Host 1 (7:53)

Yeah. And the thought that they were. And usually, you know, this isn't just this investigation, but oftentimes the Investigators are pretty well convinced that the killer has told somebody or somebody close to them has witnessed, overheard something or has suspicions, but they've not, they're, for one reason or another, they don't feel comfortable coming forward with that information. It only takes one tip. We know that in every situation. And they, I think you're right. They were trying to not necessarily draw out the killer with this tactic solely, but also maybe draw out somebody that knows the killer, has a suspicion about somebody that they maybe even love and care about. But then back to the killer, you could, you could make him squirm, make him do some, something out of desperation because that, and you're right that that press conference took place before you guys started your podcast, but it was well enough into the investigation and gears into the investigation that one could come to the conclusion that, oh, they haven't caught me yet because they don't have anything. They haven't caught me yet because I've not given them anything. Their investigation is, is no good and, and soon they will give up. And part of that is just reminding the killer, we're not giving up. We're, We've, we've not cut back on the hours, we've not cut back on, on the people power here. We're putting in the time and we're going to get you. We will not rest until, until we do. But sadly, as you said, that nobody comes forward with that and it doesn't even appear that. I hope it made Richard Allen squirm like hell. I hope it made him nervous as hell with many sleepless nights to just know that they, one day they're going to come a knocking on his door.

Anya (9:40)

Yeah, I hope it did too.

Kathleen Kelly (9:41)

I mean, sadly, I don't think it did though, because they're, they're coming out again in this almost taunting, challenging manner. But then they release a sketch that, you know, the first sketch looks like Richard Allen, second sketch does not. So if I was Richard Allen at that moment, I go, they got nothing. And they're even further away from me than they're claiming.

Anya (10:08)

Yeah, I do agree that the first sketch looks a lot like him to me and that second one doesn't.

Host 1 (10:12)

Interesting to wonder too, did he have any thought at any time of getting rid of that gun? I mean, we know that he kept it, obviously, and that worked to the advantage of getting justice for the girls. But one person absolutely did know that he was at the trails that day, the day that the girls were killed. And in fact he lied to that woman and, and, or conveniently left out the part where he walked onto the bridge, which later he tells that to police. And Kathy's left scratching her head, saying, well, you never told me about that part. Had he at some point got rid of that gun, that might have been a telltale sign to her that maybe my husband, who was at the trails that day, wasn't doing what he said. And I shouldn't believe everything I've, I've come to believe about what he's told me.

Anya (11:07)

Right. She'd have to pull her head out of the sand. I, I think, like, for me, though, I don't know if he knew that he lost a cartridge that day. It's, it's not really clear to us. It's, it's possible to me that he didn't realize that because he was drinking that day and maybe lose his track. I'm speculating here.

Kevin (11:30)

Right.

Kathleen Kelly (11:30)

But if he, if he wrecked the gun twice, which I believe in one of the confessions he talks about at the top of the hill, and then obviously he would have done so at the bottom of the hill as well. Did he collect the bullet at the top of the hill? And again, like you said, because he was drinking, not collected at the bottom of the hill.

Anya (11:49)

I think some have also said, like, you can rack a gun once and then if you rack it twice, then it ejects. I don't understand guns at all well.

Host 1 (11:56)

Because there's no bullet loaded in the, in the chamber. So when you rack it the first time, that's what kicks the bullet into the chamber. So then if he would were to rack it again, then it's going to expend it out the side. And I think you're absolutely right, Anya. I don't think he had any clue that, that he had did that it may have happened on accident or in the heat of the moment. He didn't realize that he had done it twice. But, and, and the reason why we, we can speculate that it may have happened simply on accident was something that the law enforcement officers at the murder scene were talking about behind closed doors. They were checking to make sure that it wasn't one of their guns that had left the bullet there. And some investigators had told and explained to you guys that oftentimes we'll remove our firearm when we have to go into these crime scenes, especially ones where there's hills and, and rough terrain involved. Because you can accidentally expend a bullet.

Anya (12:56)

Yeah. And it's, it's uncomfortable. CSI investigators, it's just hard to be like kind of crouching and doing all this different stuff when you got a gun on. So I think they, a lot of them just didn't even bring one that day. And then they were checking around, okay, could anyone else have dropped this? And the answer was no one else had a gun like that. So it was like, okay, this can't be us. This has got to be the killer.

Host 1 (13:20)

Talk about Richard Allen's phone a little bit that he had with him on that day in 2017. Because so much of this story is Liberty German's phone, how it led us to the suspect, visuals of the suspect being found at the murder scene. But his phone is a large part of this story as well. He says he's on his phone that day, but we know that they did a data dump and don't seem to have been able to track his phone in the area that day. But when they search his home, obviously they're looking for electronic devices. They don't find that phone. We don't, to this day, we have no clue what happened to that phone.

Anya (13:58)

Yes, it's very unusual. And we know exactly what phone he had in 2017, because in the initial lead that he called in on himself, he gives Dan Doolin, a Department of Natural Resources officer, his IME number, which is specific to a device. So we're able to pinpoint, okay, that's the exact phone he had. And as you mentioned, he claims he's on his phone during his hike on the trails. He claims he's looking at his stock ticker. And when they look at the data from the towers, they don't see it there. So that's one issue. But then the other issue is that some people, you know, they trade in their phones and then other people, they kind of hoard all their old phones in like a bag in their office or something. Richard Allen is the latter kind of person. He is the kind of person who's got all of his old phones in one place and he just has them. The one phone that is missing from that collection that he has in his house when police search it is the phone that he had in 2017 with that specific IME number. So it raises some questions. Why get rid of that phone and none of the others?

Host 1 (15:07)

And it doesn't register in their data dump. Correct. So it's, there's. Yeah, that, that his phone is, is a very weird mystery to me on this, this whole front.

Kathleen Kelly (15:20)

I have a two part question.

Host 1 (15:22)

Hit him. Hit him hard, Captain.

Anya (15:23)

Do it, do it.

Kathleen Kelly (15:25)

Hit me right in the face. So this is actually for all Three of you. For people that are on the fence on whether or not Richard Allen is responsible for this crime or solely responsible for this crime, is there a piece of evidence that you think they're overlooking? And is there a piece of evidence or maybe speculation out there that makes you feel like they're somewhat justified for questioning this result in the trial?

Kevin (15:57)

I think one of the challenges in this case for people is there's not one single piece of evidence you can point to and say, this alone proves it. You know, there's no, like, DNA, the crime scene, or anything of that nature. It's a lot of things that just add up and gradually build a wall around him and box him in.

Anya (16:21)

Yeah, it's just not a sexy case in the sense that normally you can say, okay, there was DNA found on the body and the killer cut himself, and so his blood is there. And it's like, okay, that you can immediately understand what happened there. This is the case where it's not one big boulder. It is a bunch of small pebbles adding up to a greater weight. To me, the pebble that's most important to me, I guess where I should say that I think is kind of conclusive and cinched it for a lot of people is Richard Allen confesses. And in one of his. Well, he confesses like, 61 times. But the. One of the confessions that was very descriptive and much more in depth than the others. He talks about how there was a van that came by that day as he was abducting the girls, and that he saw this van and he panicked and he forced them across the creek and killed them. This van was not in the discovery. This van. There was nothing about this van in anything that he could have seen. This van was not something that was being talked about. This van was driven by a man named Brad Weber, who lived at the end of this access road kind of trail thing that went past the bridge. And he would be the only people who had any reason to be on that were people who lived there. And it was just very sparsely populated. So investigators were able to actually go back and figure out, based on texts, that Brad Weber would have been driving his van that day. And we know that because he's texting people, oh, I'm going to bring this to you. And it requires a hitch to move it. And his van is the only thing that has that hitch. They're also able to find his. His work records. He clocks out at a little bit early that day, and the time he clocked out would have taken him under the bridge and in that area at the exact time they're being abducted. So it all aligns. How on earth does Richard Allen know about a van being there at a specific time when even the police didn't know about that until he said something.

Kevin (18:26)

I also find persuasive. After the murders, the police talk to everybody who was out on the trails that day, and they know about everybody who was there and when they were there and what they saw. The only person they're not able to identify is bridge guy. But they'll have like a group of witnesses say, oh, around this time, we saw bridge guy going towards the bridge. Then Richard Allen appears and he says, oh, those witnesses who said they saw bridge guy, I saw them and I was dressed just as bridge guy was dressed. And there's actually two groups of witnesses, or there's rather there's two witnesses, important who have these bridge guy sightings. And so then you'd have to imagine, if Richard Allen is innocent, then you need to have another person out there dressed just like bridge guy that no one else saw.

Anya (19:23)

And in addition to that, Richard Allen's just unfortunate enough to have a firearm that matches a spent an unspent cartridge at the scene. And he confesses in a way that has details only the killer would know. So it's like everything.

Kevin (19:37)

And he also sounds just like bridge guy.

Anya (19:39)

He also sounds exactly like bridge guy and just happened to have the day off of CBS and be at the trails that day and, you know, to express a lot of remorse and saying, oh, I'm. I killed those girls. Do you still love me? To his wife and mother. So it's just. There's too much that adds up. I understand why people have skepticism, though. I want to say that I really do, because I think a lot of the coverage of this case at trial specifically was flawed. Flawed at best and actually misleading at worst. So when people are kind of basing their assumptions off of what they're hearing, a lot of what they heard is nonsense. And so I don't blame those people for coming to what I think is a wrong conclusion. I just think they're. They have bad information. And when people I see dive into it and they really get immersed in it, I see them saying, oh, wait, now I get it. So it's interesting. Like, I think people who have a little bit of information tend to be very skeptical. And I think people who really dive into it, at the end of the day, most people who are acting in good faith, I think they say, oh, I think I understand this better now. So it's just, it's, it's not really people's fault in a way.

Host 1 (20:47)

And I'll echo what Anya and Kevin laid out for us here, because I think that it, it is the totality of the evidence. And I know that wasn't your question there, Captain, but I think in this case, and in a lot of cases, it gets really difficult to boil it down to one piece of evidence. But a couple of things here. When, when they're searching his home, he's saying it's, he's repeatedly saying it's all over, which is a strange thing for an innocent man to be saying in that moment. Now, now, you know, we might be picking at nits with, with that sort of speculation there, but let's take it a step further. Part of it's his car. When he's denying any involvement before he's locked up and starts confessing, when he denies any involvement, he, his car seems to be parked right where the witness, where the, a witness comes forward and says, you know, I think I saw bridge guy walking to his car. I think I saw the suspect walking to where he may have been parked. And, and so we learn that about Richard Allen and his vehicle before he confesses. This is during the part where he's still denying any involvement, the part about the van when he, when he is confessing once he's locked up, that the piece about that van on is exactly right. There's only, the only way for him to know that. And you can call, you can call his confessions crazy if you want, but in that confession, he gets that detail that nobody else knows, 100% correct. And then I also think that people were a little too quick to dismiss the ballistics testing on the bullet. They don't. The general public does not have the experience that we have here in the garage or that Anya and Kevin have with the murder sheet. We are thankfully tasked with examining cases every single week. You guys have been doing it for five years. We've been doing it for, for well over nine years now. And we've reviewed there. We've reviewed a lot of cases. We've reviewed a lot of cases where there's, there's different, there's different gun work and ballistic work that is conducted in these cases. And I don't think that the general public realizes more than often the, the testing reveals that it's either not a match or it's inconclusive. It's, it's almost. I wouldn't say that it's exactly one third, but we've reviewed a Lot of cases, and it feels very much one third of the time it comes back as a match. So to, to dismiss that or be so quick to dismiss that, I think that that is, is something that is easily overlooked by the general public.

Anya (23:37)

That's extremely well said, in my opinion. I think, I think you just summed it up really well because it's like, it's frustrating to see people get it wrong. But we just try to remember that people, you know, we all hear what we hear and sometimes it's easy to just fall into assumptions based on limited information. And that's just a very human thing. And we just hope that this case is a good, almost like lesson for everybody, ourselves included, that it's, it's dangerous to just kind of make assumptions. But I, I agree with you. I found the cartridge extremely compelling. And I thought the state's expert on that, Melissa Oberg, was extremely good on the stand. And I think, you know, one thing that people may not realize is that she did the testing and saw that it was, it was consistent with, with the, with a bullet, with a cartridge ejected from his gun. But her supervisor also did the identical test without knowing what her results were, and he got the same conclusion. So it wasn't like they were just slapping something together. I mean, these are pretty highly trained experts.

Kathleen Kelly (24:42)

Yeah, I think I differ from a lot of people in this case in the sense of, okay, now we have a verdict. And so I do think there's this group of people that are then questioning things. But I think it's also in the similar manner of which we dove into the case initially was because you want justice for these girls. And I think double checking the work of justice for these girls is something I feel like sometimes we're so quick to go, well, here's the answers. That's the answers. There's no other possibilities. You're stupid if you think so. And I think a lot of these individuals that are just questioning things are still doing so with the, the lens of justice for these two girls.

Anya (25:31)

I think for some of them it's more of their own egos though, I think. I think because some of them are the same people that continue to attack the girls families. And it's like, if you care so much about the girls, why are you doing that? You know, it's like, leave the families alone at least. But I think some people got really convinced that their person of interest was going to be it. And then they just kind of, they've gone off on that. And it's like, I think if they step back and sort of really thought about it, they might, they might go about things in a different way. Although some of them are just kind of nuts, I think.

Kevin (26:02)

Yeah.

Kathleen Kelly (26:02)

And I, I think the other thing about this is, like you said, some of his ego, that you had a thought and, and so that thought is right and when it's proven wrong, that you just stick to that initial thought. But I think a lot of these other individuals that haven't moved on, that haven't put a period in their chapter of, okay, we covered this case and now it's time to move on. I think some of that is, this is the biggest thing that has happened to them. And whether they have hundreds of thousands of listeners or viewers, some of these people, to have a hundred listeners or viewers, it's the biggest thing that has happened in their life. And I feel sad for them because I could understand getting some attention in this world where it's hard to get attention in this world. So to get any kind of attention, whether that's good attention or bad attention, that I feel bad for these individuals that just can't seem to move on and just want to keep. And I don't even know if they believe everything that they're saying because if they had a definitive viewpoint and not ever changing viewpoint, then they would lose the attention. So I think some of these people are just going, well, here's new speculation. I'm going to go down that rabbit hole and it'll just keep this attention coming on onto me. And I feel sad for them that they, they can't move on.

Kevin (27:49)

I feel sad for them, too. I think that's very well said. And I'll go even so far as to say that when I consume some of the content these people put out, I can often tell that these are people who have some good qualities, they have some intelligence, maybe some wit. And I find myself wishing they would find a way to make more constructive use of their gifts. And also, when you look at these people, a lot of them have frankly had lives of disappointment and a lot of them have lost quite a bit because of their obsession with this case. There's people who've lost marriages, jobs, their homes, over their obsession with this case. And it is just sad. It is just very sad.

Anya (28:48)

It makes me sad. I feel like true crime should never be something that hurts your life. And if it's ever getting to that point, then people need to step back and sort themselves out before they continue with. Because it. Delphi is a good example. We've talked about how some of the bad actors have hurt the families or people in the case, and they've done things that are not okay, but they've often really just ended up hurting themselves. And it's genuinely, it's, it's sad. You don't want to see people go down that road.

Host 1 (29:38)

Let's talk about the trial a little bit and talk about the, the prosecutor, the defense team. Team. I was a little surprised. I wasn't completely blindsided by it, but I was a little surprised because with the defense team, one attorney in particular, Rosie, I was, I was somewhat mildly familiar, let's say, with his career in some cases that he had worked over the years. And I thought he had done a good job in those cases. But I ultimately, my. We'll get in my feelings here a little bit. I thought a lot of what the defense did and how they conducted their defense of Richard Allen was a bit slime ball at times.

Anya (30:21)

Oh, yeah, I think they're complete slime balls. I'll just be totally blunt. I think that's a good word for it. I, we were shocked. We, we had done some pretty in depth profiles on both Rosie, Brad. Rosie, who is the lead counsel, and Andrew Baldwin, who was working with him. And we, we expected to be dazzled. We expected that they were going to do a really good job. We'd heard very good things. So we had every expectation that these are going to be some really good attorneys who are going to do some really good attorneying. And that's not what happened.

Kevin (30:54)

And a lot of it was. Wasn't subtle stuff. One of the moments that stands out in my mind is from even before the trial began, which was during the process of jury selection. This is an opportunity for the attorneys to ask questions of the prospective jurors. And generally they want to come across as seeming like a nice, regular guy. And one woman is in the jury box, and Rosie looks at her and says, so is it true that you have an intellectual disability? And the room falls silent and the woman just says, no. And that really alienated a lot of people.

Anya (31:36)

He also came in with his, like, little poster board and he was like, all right, guys, I'm gonna dumb this down for you. And you can just tell the jury, the prospective jurors are just like, what the heck? He's just arrogant, you know, and so we can talk all day about them. They. They did a. They did a. I mean, there's, there's what we see in the movies when it comes to defense attorneys. And, and that tends to be very Flashy and over the top. And then there's what is actually being a good defense attorney. And oftentimes that's a little bit quieter. It might mean making a really good deal or making a lot of objections to ensure things are preserved for the record. And it's usually not crafting a narrative of the case that's going to sell in the media based on the fact that these guys were literally filming themselves work seemingly in anticipation of being part of a documentary series. I just, I don't feel like their hearts were in the right place, I guess is what I view from, from this because it's about your client. It's not about your own egos or being part of a docu series or portraying yourself as some sort of hero attorney, Atticus Finch style. It's just like it just they seem to be in it to aggrandize themselves.

Kathleen Kelly (32:52)

Well, and to stay on that topic a little bit, they recently put out key issues that Allen's attorneys are focusing on for the appeal. Do you have any thoughts on, on that article that came out?

Host 1 (33:07)

Yeah, let's get to that. But before we get into that, let's not brush aside the idea that they were essentially trying to blame the murders on other folks. That gets tossed out, doesn't get allowed to be in court. And to the captain's point, exactly what he's saying now, they're, they're like, oh, well, you didn't believe that. Well, how about this, you know, and they're just shifting gears to what, what appears to me that they're pointing the finger in a different direction now.

Anya (33:39)

Yeah, you know, this Odinism theory, this theory that the girls were murdered by a cult of white supremacists in a sacrifice in the woods. It was very heavy on speculation and very light on actual facts. And in Indiana at least, you have to have some evidence to bring in a third party suspect in court. And the judge rightfully dismissed that because.

Kevin (34:02)

There'S a reason for that. Because it wouldn't be fair if I was accused of a terrible crime, if I could go into court and say, oh, it wasn't me, it was the.

Kathleen Kelly (34:11)

Captain, and goddamn right it was.

Kevin (34:16)

You can't just drag someone in without any evidence because then you're violating that person's rights. And there was a three day hearing where the defense had an opportunity to present evidence. Here's why we think it was these other people and they weren't able to produce anything. In fact, their investigators had to admit that they could not even come up with any evidence. That their main suspect was even in deli at the time of the murders. So if you came and place your suspect in the, the town where the murders happened, how can you claim that you have good enough evidence to accuse him publicly in a trial?

Anya (34:57)

But, but it fit their modus operandi because they were just writing these legal filings that were really more like press releases. Like normally legal filings are super dry and they go to the judge and you're trying to convince the judge to do what you want. They seem to be writing for the media and for the public. And they, they were, you know, I mean, it was a pretty open secret that they were leaking like crazy. And they were trying to cultivate media, they were trying to cultivate YouTubers. And I think the, the idea was to try to taint a jury pool in order to basically put out their side so that no one would vote to convict. And I think they convinced themselves that that was going to work. But I mean, these guys just, I mean, they didn't do very well. They weren't good. The, the prosecution team, they were very prepared, they were organized, they were methodically building their case. It felt like the defense was almost like ad libbing or like, you know, doing some kind of like riff solo. Like it just didn't, it didn't work well.

Kathleen Kelly (36:02)

And I question these guys intelligence because at first when they, when they spoke, I thought, okay, well, the state is going to be in for a fight here. But their main suspect that they keep pushing, like you said, we can't even place him in Delphi at the time of the crimes. And I've heard that there's actually definitive evidence that puts him at work during the time of the crimes. But if you dive into the suspect, which I won't even entertain the audience with giving out his name, his online social presence is the second coming of Buffalo Bill. And so I think there are some individuals out there that when you see, I don't know if you ever saw some of the video footage that was put out on Richard Allen of him playing pool at a bar. He just looks like this normal guy. He doesn't look like this psychotic serial killer. And when you watch this footage of the suspect, he, like I said, he comes off very crazy. And I think some of the individuals that are on the fence or, or, or opposed to Richard Allen being bridge guy, they see this, this footage and they can't unsee it. And when you see somebody, I mean, and I think he's doing this on purpose again, I think he's probably somewhat of a sick individual. But here's another person involved in the case that is enjoying attention and speculation that he might be the real killer.

Anya (37:42)

Yeah, I think that's well said. And it's like people, I think, are comforted by the idea that the killers amongst us have to be kind of walking red flags because then you could just avoid the creeps. If someone's creepy, hey, they might be a bad person, let me get away from them. When you're dealing with somebody like Richard Allen, where it's more below the surface, that's scary because how would you ever know? And we uncovered things that, you know. Richard Allen is a pretty creepy dude himself.

Kevin (38:11)

Yeah.

Anya (38:11)

But he's a lot more subtle about it. And his social media presence isn't, as you said, you know, like a walking nightmare. So, you know, you can understand why people are creeped out by this guy. But people just need to remember, like, Ted Bundy was a law student, you know, and he seemed like a nice guy to a lot of people, but he was not a nice guy. And people can wear masks.

Host 1 (38:31)

Page 405 from Shadow of the Bridge reads. After hearing the jury convict her husband of the murders, Kathy Allen had walked out of the courthouse and passed a line of television cameras. And it goes on to say that she, she looks at members of the media and says, this isn't over. Now, we know that you guys were there. You're battle tested and battle true. You went to the trial, you stood in line, you sacrificed so that you could cover the trial for everybody, put our wonderful listeners into your shoes and tell them about what was the trial experience like for you guys and what, what was it like in the moment when the verdict was finally read?

Anya (39:22)

It was an, it was a battle. It was. We did not get media passes because we're podcasters. And the judge was like, nope. So, and honestly, even the people who did get media passes, that a lot of them still had to wait in line certain days. It was very small courtroom, limited amount of seats. I think there were usually about like 25 seats, kind of vary day to day.

Kevin (39:44)

We should say when we talk about waiting in line, it's not like waiting in line to get something at the grocery store. You had to get in line. In the early days of the trial, you'd have to get in line like at 1am for a trial that would begin at 9am and then as the trial progressed, you'd have to get in line earlier and earlier and by the end, by the trial would finish for one day, there would already be a line forming for the next day.

Anya (40:14)

And also so the judge decreed that you can't get out of your seat in the day and then get your seat back. Once you get out of your seat, you forfeit it. So you can't go and take a restroom break. So that meant we couldn't eat anything or drink anything for the morning or really for the afternoon session either. So you're very dehydrated and hungry and you're also sleep deprived because you got in line so early. It's also very cold out. And there's also kind of a weird threat of violence because most of the people in line were super nice and people got along pretty well, at least in the beginning. But we've been threatened before. We've gotten threats from people. And so there's always that worry in the back of your head, are they going to show, show up and start shooting or try to beat us up or something. So there's that. Also getting, getting a seat in the morning does not guarantee a seat in the afternoon. So you have to get back in line in the lobby after the morning session in order to get another seat. So, and this constant fighting and oh, this person cut me in line and all this stuff, there's like a lot of drama. Eventually the judge seems to keep changing the rules because in the beginning, if you got a seat in the morning, that was your seat in the afternoon. But then she's like, no, everyone vacate the courtroom and go to no first line up in the hallway. No, now go downstairs. So you sort of feel like you're playing musical chairs, except like there's no music and it's, it's just bad vibes all around. I guess it was, it was really insane. But we had a lot of help. I mean, that was the only way we got through this was getting help from people who sat in line for us. Because by we, we really didn't want to do that. We were like, we want to stand in line ourselves. We don't want to be like hiring people or doing anything. But people volunteered and I think that saved us because we were starting to like visually hallucinate by the end. By the end of when we were staying up all night doing this, it was, it was getting bad.

Kathleen Kelly (42:06)

Well, in fairness to the judge's decision, podcasters are the lowest form of content creators.

Anya (42:14)

I, having been through this, I can't like be that mad about it because I'm like, now we're self hating podcasters.

Host 1 (42:22)

And talk about the verdict. When the verdict was finally read and being present for that, what was the reaction in the courtroom and around the courtroom?

Anya (42:32)

We had these wonderful, lovely people who let us kind of hang out. They had this house that they were sort of renovating and doing construction around, but it was a nice place to go to, kind of just sit down and, you know, warm up and have, like, a break once in a while. So we were there, and we got the news that a verdict had come in. And I. I love that place because they had these wonderful cats, and I would just play with the cats, and they were like my therapy cats throughout this whole thing. So shout out to Stuart and Sheldon. But so we get this tech. We get, you know, like, hey, there's a verdict. And it had been a couple of days, so I, at that point was like, maybe it is going to be a mistrial. I think Kevin was still whole, kind of believed that it would be a conviction. And we were convinced that it was going to be a conviction. Once the verdict came in, we knew.

Kevin (43:21)

That after sitting through that trial and hearing all the evidence, that he would not be acquitted. So we knew it was either going to be a conviction or a mistrial because of a hung jury. And so as soon as we found out there was a verdict, we knew he's been convicted. And then there was a gap of, I think an hour or so after the time it was announced they had a verdict, and before the verdict was revealed, it was. It was awkward because a number of people did not share our certainty that it would be a conviction. And I remember we talked to a reporter, I think, on television, and they said, what do you think is going to happen? And I said, a conviction. And I think the reporter gasped and said, really?

Anya (44:07)

Yeah. And people afterwards were like, are you sure? Like, I mean, I think that might. This might be an acquittal. And we were like, nope, we're definitely right. Like, we're just being obnoxious about it because we've. We've no social skills because we've gone totally feral during this trial. And, like, you've listened to the podcast. You know how we are. You know how we are. So we're just like, no, no, no, we're. It's definitely he's going to prison. And people were just shocked. And one thing I remember, we were like, kind of power walked over to the court because it's. You know, we were pretty nearby, and there was this one really nice lady we met who was covering it herself. She's walking by, she's like, hey, guys. And we're like, there's a verdict. And she's like, what? Like, she just starts running. And there's a kind of almost a panic outside because everyone's trying to fight to get in. We at that point made the executive decision. We don't care about getting in. Like, one of the reasons we kept fighting to get in was because there were people going and like, lying about what was going on inside. Like, they would go and they'd cover it and it would have no bearing on reality. So we fought to get in to counteract that during the trial, during the trial. But we were like, there's no point in fighting to get in now because no one's going to be able to lie about a verdict. So we just didn't really care anymore. So we hang out outside on the sidewalk. There's all this weirdness going on. This one lady's like, singing hymns. It's just all very extra. But there's like, you know, there's like a big anticipation. And then finally people start walking out of the courthouse. I think. I kind of. I don't know if you remember this, Kevin. I remember someone yelling, guilty on all counts. A cheer went up in the crowd. It seemed like the crowd was mostly pretty happy about that. And. But you could see certain people who were big defense partisans. They, they almost just looked shell shocked. They looked thunderstruck, like they had no idea that was going to happen. There was some shock, but there was a lot of relief, I think.

Host 1 (45:58)

So you guys are dialed in much, much more than most people involved. And Kevin, especially with your background, you are a helping hand in allowing the rest of us to understand that. But where does this stand? Where does Richard Allen's appeals stand? What's the next part of this process that hopefully leads to him spending the rest of his days and serving out the 130 year sentence that he received?

Kevin (46:27)

The next thing that's going to happen is that his appellate attorneys are going to file a brief in which they are going to try to argue that the trial was unfair. And I should stress two things. First of all, the appellate attorneys are different from the attorneys who represented him in the trial. And the appellate attorneys have an excellent reputation. And so I imagine they will do a great job with the brief. But I'd also like to add it's very, very rare for a conviction to get overturned. And so I don't expect that to happen here. They've indicated that one of the things they will be arguing is that it was unfair that the judge didn't allow third party stuff to come in, that it wasn't fair that the judge didn't let the attorneys go in and accuse other people of committing the crime, even though there was no evidence those people committed the crime. And they've also indicated that they are going to try to argue that the search of Richard Allen's home was improper and the things seized during that search should not have been admitted into evidence. And I think that's also a very weak claim that I don't expect to succeed.

Host 1 (47:48)

And I apologize, Captain, I have to jump in because I got to get there. And this is just purely your guys's opinion. But sorry, there's no nice way to put this. How freaking dumb does the defense team look when they're pointing the finger at this Odinism idea? When you had two suspects that you very likely could have worked into the trial much easier than this Odinism theory? Yeah, we know that law enforcement went down that route. Rabbit Hill, let's Rabbit hole, let's call it. But you have here, you have Ron Logan, who, we know that they conducted a search. Right. They, they filed for a search warrant. And you also have Kegan Klein, who at times even admits involvement and has a communication with one of the victims. It's, it's like if you were going to pick somebody to point the finger at, why the hell did they go in this direction? It just seems so blatantly dumb that the, the obvious places to point the finger were right there in front of you the whole time.

Kathleen Kelly (48:53)

Well, don't give them any ideas.

Anya (48:56)

Well, no, I mean, you're right. I mean, he's, it's too late. And, and, and those would have been better suspects, in our opinion. We were shocked that they didn't go those routes. We thought that those would be the natural fit for third party. And if people are wondering, I mean, they did try to get them in at the third party hearing, but they really, really did not put in a lot of effort, especially with Logan. It was just sort of like, yeah, here's Ron Logan. Anyway, they didn't seem to care much about that. So I have some theories and I just want to be clear. I'm speculating here because the defense team would not talk to us for this book. So we don't know what was in their heads. But I think when you look at this from like a storytelling perspective, the Odinist theory is the most exciting because it's a cult. It's a mysterious group of evil white supremacists in the woods sacrificing people. It's almost out of a pulp novel. It's almost out of some, like, weird detective magazine that you'd read in, like, the 1940s. So I think the storytellers in them that appealed to them because they knew it was going to get a lot of media interest, maybe even more so than this kind of ornery property owner who was accused of domestic abuse and a sexual predator. It was just going to be something that was really exciting for the press to cover. And I think they were. I think they were obviously motivated to try to get as much press attention and. And stuff out of this as possible. I mean, they were literally filming themselves work like. Like they wanted that attention. It's sort of like wanting a lot of attention is the root of all evil in this case, because whenever people are motivated by that versus, like, what's the right thing to do, it just seems things go off the rails. So that's one aspect of it, and then the other aspect of it is Richard Allen starts confessing to the crime. And I think they wanted to have a way to be able to cast doubt on that. And they encountered these guards in the prison who. Who had, like, a Norse symbol on, like, a patch on their uniform. And let's just be clear. You can be a Norse pagan and not be evil or racist or a white supremacist. You can just. You can just dig Odin and Thor and all that. I mean, it's. It's a religion. There is an element of it that is white supremacist. And then there's another element that's not. It's just, you know, it's just people with their religion, whatever. It's an. It's a. Not a common religion. But it doesn't mean that people who are Norse pagan are bad people. So I think when they saw that, they thought, oh, we can tie this all together into a big conspiracy and make it out that, like, everyone's in on it. The state of Indiana, like, you know, the police are covering up for the Odinists. I think they just almost got ahead of themselves, and they were thinking more like YouTubers. And I don't mean just like any YouTubers. I mean conspiracy YouTubers. They were thinking more like that than lawyers because, like, a lot of the things they did just didn't make any sense as far as benefiting their own client.

Kathleen Kelly (52:05)

Well, and also, sometimes there's symbols that mean one thing, and then we can make assumptions of what their meaning is. But I also heard speculation early on when these defense attorneys signed on. Like I said, when they first talked, I was like shocked by their intelligence at first and thought, the state's in for a fight. But I heard speculation from, from Jump that these individuals were more interested in being involved in a documentary or writing a book.

Anya (52:39)

Yeah, I think they, it's funny because I think they seem to think that the prosecutor was like this small town attorney who was out of his league. And I think in the end, Rosie and Baldwin were small town attorneys way out of their league. Like, I think they really overestimated their own abilities.

Kevin (52:57)

Right.

Anya (52:57)

And you don't want to have. Here's an example. They both seem to get sort of emotionally invested in this case in a way that I think is inappropriate. It's okay to care about your client and it's okay to really fight for them and to form a bond. And that's all great. But once you're just letting your emotions make all the decisions, that's not good. And their emotions, I think, were more selfish than they probably even want to realize. I think they came into this and thought that this would be a case that would put them on the map and they wanted to make it as dramatic as possible because that's what makes a. That's what gets you in a documentary. If you just defend your client to the hilt and do it in a quiet and thoughtful way, that's not as sexy as. We're the, we're the lawyers who solved the case and, you know, expose the cult that controls all of Indiana. That's a lot bigger and better as far as a narrative is concerned. But I think they just, they got. They were just goofy at some point. It was just embarrassing to watch. I mean, I think they overestimated themselves, but I think they also really underestimated the prosecutor.

Kathleen Kelly (54:03)

I mean, ask the last question.

Host 1 (54:06)

Hit him hard, Captain.

Kevin (54:09)

Do it.

Kathleen Kelly (54:09)

Well, it's not going to be a hard question.

Host 1 (54:13)

Take it easy on him, Captain.

Kevin (54:16)

Come on, give us mercy.

Kathleen Kelly (54:17)

All right. Fall is in the air Smell of bonfires Autumn leaves are falling.

Kevin (54:24)

Right.

Kathleen Kelly (54:24)

We're in the Midwest. You could call me Kathleen Kelly. I'm walking down the streets of New York with my pixie cut, my pencil skirt and my penny loafers Carrying my Pride and Prejudice book. I love the fall. So in that spirit, to end on a fun note, pumpkin pie or pumpkin spice latte?

Anya (54:50)

That is a good and hard question. I thought you were going easy on us. I gotta say, pumpkin pie.

Kevin (54:57)

I don't drink tea or coffee or hot drinks. I don't believe in it. So I go with pumpkin pie.

Anya (55:04)

But I will say, I do like a nice PSL once in a while, but my. My preference is chai latte. But. But a pumpkin pie, that's just classic.

Kathleen Kelly (55:12)

Well, you're both wrong, because the answer is pumpkin beer. So there we go. Thanks for joining us here in the garage.

Kevin (55:20)

Thank you for having us.

Anya (55:21)

Thank you for having us. You guys are awesome.

Host 1 (55:22)

You guys are the tops. And as I said earlier, you. You're our neighbors, so don't be a stranger. Let's do this again sometime. And congratulations on the book.

Anya (55:30)

Thank you so much. That means a lot coming from you guys. And you guys have to come visit us in Indiana at some point.

Kathleen Kelly (55:50)

Sa.