October 24, 2023 • 52 mins
On this episode, we share some bonus content of Indiana Stories. Jeff Townsend catches up with the Murder Sheet Podcast, they discuss the recent updates regarding the Delphi Murders, including: the crime scene photos leaked by the Defense and the patches worn by staff at the Westville Correctional Facility. Also discussed are some issues with how the "True Crime" genre crave and handle sensitive information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
This podcast is a Jeff Townsend Mediaproduction. This is Jeff Townsend. Thank
you for joining us for another episodeof Indiana Stories. All right, welcome
(00:23):
back to another Indiana Story segment,a branch of America Stories, of course,
and we are doing our monthly Ican't believe it's like been a month
since we've done the last update onthe Delphi case, but here we are
again. I'm just gonna say ourmonthly update because I don't think, my
opinion, this will stop from havingat least a monthly update from here till
(00:45):
when we ever we see this trialthrough. I don't know. This is
the Murder Sheets joining me. Bythe way, that the power couple of
the the Brad Pitt and Angelina ofthe true crime podcasting world. Okay,
that's a little much the point ofbeing Yeah, I'm glad you guys took
a few minutes to chat with mehere. What do you think? Do
you say we're going to have theseupdates all the time? Yeah, I
(01:06):
imagine there's definitely periods in the Delficase where not a lot is happening,
So you do get your stretches wherethere's not much to update, or there's
only minor filings, but judging frompast history, it seems like there are
kind of major updates pretty often,which is kind of unfortunate because oftentimes they're
not good updates. Well, Ithink as we get closer to this trial,
(01:30):
whatever happens, I think we'll continueto have more and more. We're
definitely starting to get to where Idon't want to call it a game because
that just sounds psychotic. Things arejust starting. I guess you could say
really here, Ultimately, we're reallyjust getting going, and we got a
long haul. I see we aseverybody that has any sort of emotional investment,
but especially the people that are involvedin the case, really just getting
started. Absolutely. That being said, so last time we talked, we
(01:57):
talked about this odinous claims that cameout, and they basically when the defense
filed purposely I wanted everybody to seeit, in my opinion, and it's
all starting to play out a littlebit more now. They released information saying,
hey, like Richard Allen did committhe murders. This is what happened,
which is all part of a defensetrial. And I get that they
(02:17):
claimed with this odinus cult am Isaying that right, Yeah, they're cold.
I guess that sounds maybe biased.I don't know if by nature they're
actually a cult that that's how we'regot to determine. So that's yeahka,
so I'm on the right track therethen I'm not saying anything out of line.
And they tied up the tried thisto the connection with the crime scene
(02:42):
itself and some of the things thatwe're done at the crime scene. We
talked about that on the last episode, and they even went as far as
to say that, hey, theseguards at the prison are involved trying to
I guess pressure coheres. They theymade Richard Allen confess to the crimes because
the Odinis group is they're involved withit. It's a whole whole situation of
a lot of people, I guesscoming together to do this is what the
(03:04):
defense is saying. And they said, Hey, the guards at the prison
and this is all like, I'mnot looking at anything in front of my
screen. I'm not reading any officialterms here, right, this is just
a casual conversation about it and anupdate for the listeners interested. But they
haven't even gone as far as saythere were badges on the uniforms at the
prison, which you know this ismy opinion. There's two things to man,
(03:29):
would they really be allowed to wearthat and that environment? Then the
other part of me, I'm notas surprised as other people that the news
has came out because I assume thedefense said that for a reason. That's
how I looked at it when ithappened. So when the news came out
this week, I'll let you guess, touch up on it more that they
(03:49):
actually and I don't know all thedetails, a couple of different individuals.
They have statements from say, hey, we do wear these patches. That
may or may not be what itactually is connected to, but crazy to
say that. I'm not surprised thatthey had the patches on after that was
leaked. I mean, after theysubmitted that document last month. Everybody's acting
(04:11):
really shocked to me, I'm notshocked. They wouldn't have said it unless
they had a reason to say itis the way I can look at it.
I think you're I think you're onthe money, Jeff. It's a
situation where we're there's cameras in ajail or or a prison. Rather in
this case, doesn't really make senseto just make up hatches out of whole
cloth no pun intended, because youknow, that could easily be debunked.
(04:33):
So when we saw that they werestating that there were patches, we believe
that because again, what that couldbe easily disproven if it wasn't true.
The question lies in whether or notthe patches signify what the defense says it
does. And there's you know,the guards have said that they are actually
(04:53):
Heathens. They're not os oldiness orspecific sect of Heathenry where they are very
racist attached to gang's white supremacists,and Heathens are not necessarily that they you
know, heathen Rea is a vast, vast faith with all these different practices,
and you can be a Heathen andjust a nice person, just a
(05:14):
normal person, just like any otherreligion who's inclusive and non racist, anti
racist in fact. So it's youknow, and I think it's just kind
of shows the public's kind of pendulumattitude to this case, where it's like,
we're not going to believe the defense. Oh wait, the patches are
there, then everything the defense saysmust be true. And it's kind of
just that's you know, it's it'sa it's a tactic to you know,
(05:40):
unleash different narratives, and people justseem very susceptible to like whatever the last
thing they heard is seems like astrange thing to allow the patches to be
worn, I will say that,and especially in a place that's I guess
I'm just going to put in simpleterms, ran by this ran at a
federal state level, however you wantto phrase it. It's it's connected with
(06:01):
the government right in some way,this facility, h am I fair by
saying that, So to me,that was kind of strange that yeah,
yeah, so is that kind ofis that is that? Is that fair
to say that that's kind of strangethat being a division of that that you
know, they wouldn't probably have morestrict rules on that. I'm not getting
caught up on this, but itwas that was kind of strange to me.
(06:24):
I think that it seems like fromthe documents filed by I doc that
they were breaking the rules by doingthat, or were they allowed that was
mine You're not really supposed to fromwhat we've talked to plenty of CEOs,
and they told us consistently, youreally shouldn't be you know, putting,
you know, a patch across orsomething on your stuff, like it.
It's not a place for self expression. So it definitely seems like it was
(06:46):
a breach of rules, or abreach at least of you know, what
should be rules, because you know, that's not necessarily the appropriate place where
it. Honestly, when this stuffabout the Patches came up, we were
just so in the midst of thisunfolding disaster about the leak that we kind
of, you know, people weremaking such hay out of it. We
(07:11):
kind of were just like going overour heads, honestly, So the leak.
We'll get to the leak here ina minute. So you guys have
known about that since before we hadtalked last, and you were managing through
that. Yeah, it's fair tosay, well, we got the leak
October fifth, and I think wehad okay after a little bit. So
(07:32):
we got in the early morning hoursof October fifth. I think I think
we talked last in mid Yeah,so it was we were still much less
jaded when we last talked to you. At least I'm not the crazy part.
At least I'm not the only onethinking that like this Patches thing is
way out of like like that nobodysaw it coming. Once that information was
(07:53):
shared because to me, it wasI think going to be a given at
that point in time, they weregoing to connect it somehow, talk about
I'll know who's behind it all.But man, talk about being really observant,
huh. I mean picking up onon on obviously things that you visit
the prison and as you they talkedto Richard Allen. You know, somebody's
(08:15):
very observant and did catch that obviously. You know, whether Richard Allen directly
told them or they picked it,it will never know, but I guess
that's aside the point. But definitelyobservant of the environment that he's in.
Yeah, I agree. He hasgreat lawyers. Lawyers are the ones who
visited him at Westville, and Iwouldn't be surprised if they noticed that and
(08:37):
say, maybe we can do somethingwith this. Oh yeah, I mean
that was like a low hanging fruitfor them to pick there. So to
get into the details a little bitmore, they did get a statement from
a couple of individuals, one ofwhich was a sergeant and was another person
just I don't want to mess upthe titles. Was it that there's two
sergeants? Was it three people?I don't remember? Was it two sergeants
(09:00):
and two sergeants sergeant in the Frank'smemorandum that they said not only did these
guys have patches, but they theythere was a suggestion that they were devoted
members of Anism cult for lack ofa better word, and they were so
devoted to it that apparently they werethreatening and intimidating Richard Allen and basically coercing
(09:28):
him to make confessions to his wifeand mother. So in these statements,
the guards acknowledged that they did havepatches, that they were they indicated that
they were just part of their faithand they were not oldness. And they
also said, we don't have ahistory of being violent with prisoners. Look
(09:48):
at our work record history. Andhe certainly never pressured him into making confessions
and the war and also back thatup. And inherently there was some sort
of internal investigation of these two guardsshortly after the Frank Smain random was filed
(10:09):
last month, and that investigation clearedthem. And I'll say this, Jeff,
you know, with the Odinism versusif there are many to wearing the
patches, how could they not beOdinis? And again that goes back to
the Heathen read being these people mayworship similar gods, Norse God's, Germanic
gods. But it's sort of likeif you're wearing a cross and I say,
(10:31):
oh, you're a Baptist and yousay, actually, I'm episcopalian.
You know, you may have thesame fundamentals, but there may be very
different practices. And so they're basicallydisputing that. And I think the thing
people are missing on this is thatthis gives an explanation for Richard Allen's alleged
confessions that does not bring in mentalhealth, because the defense has been fighting
(10:56):
to keep his mental health records fromthe prison from going to the prosecution.
If his mental health becomes an issue, you know, then the prosecution maybe.
So I that's my opinion personally,but I think it's kind of it's
kind of in that case an ingeniousstrategy because it keeps that out of it.
They need to come up with away to explain away these so called
confessions. Uh, the national thingto do would be to say, well,
(11:20):
he had some sort of breakdown,mental breakdown. These are things he
didn't me And they don't feel comforablemaking that argument for whatever reason, at
least they haven't made it yet.So there seems like it's probably overdone quite
a bit. Yeah. Yeah,that's something that's pretty calm, and I
think in a trial like that wouldright or wrong. I'm not saying that.
(11:41):
Yeah, you talk about it,you gotta explain the mental health,
you gotta explain the confession, andthey're just this is defense just doing their
job here. But you guys haveprobably spent a lot of time researching this
oldness thing that none of us hadreally been looking into you before. So
you're you're sharing this information, soI'm assuming you've put in quite a bit
of time research this subject. Minerfurther. Yeah, we've even interviewed members
(12:03):
of the Tropes, which is aheathen group. They're anti racist. They
actually combat the odeness. They havea whole ministry where prisoners write them and
they write box saying hey, youcan be a Heathen without being racist or
joining a white supremacist gang. Yeah, which, man, it's just next
is, like Kevin said, they'regoing to have to really connect all that
(12:24):
and how it relates to So Ithink you got the patches in there,
so that's the first step. Butit's all about creating questionable doubt, right,
I mean that's a ultimate Let's tobe honest, by definition, that's
literally what they're trying to do,and they're certainly on track to attempt to
do that, but they are goingto have to tie it all in and
explain things a little bit more.With that being said, let's segue to
(12:48):
that you referred to as the leaguean unfortunate thing. And this was odd
for me because last week I was, uh, well the last couple weeks,
but last week in particular, Iwas really key up with that.
What was the Boy in the Boxtrial? Yeah, and they also had
a defense leak as well. Areyou aware of what I'm talking about here?
(13:09):
No Boy in the Box trial?Who haven't really followed that, honest,
but you're aware of like what thetrial is though. So the defense
had a leak last week. Sowhen the jury is going to go back
and make a decision the trials wrappingup the arguments have been made, they
supply you with the evidence that you'reallowed to review until you come back with
the decision right guilty or not guiltyor whatever. And they leaked. So
(13:33):
they had come to an agreement wherebecause the police had to arrest, they
arrested the young man, Well,they handcuffed him, right, the wouldn't
necessarily arrest him. He ran away, and that was protocol how they were
going to handle it. And sothe defense was told to and what was
greed upon and presented in the trialitself was they were going to show They're
going to clip the footage, notshow the kid. Could not show him
(13:54):
being arrested, right, that waslike what was agreed upon because it was
the termin it was irrelevant to thecase. So the defense sends the jury
back with this thumb drive and onit, what do you know, all
the footage is there of him literallybeing interested, which was not supposed to
be seen by the jury. Sothey have to call they had to call
(14:16):
it back in hey, you weren'tsupposed to see that. The defense has
to give an explanation and all that, and people were like and watching court
TV, which you guys are onall the time. How the heck is
say, like, what do youdo? Like, what's the reaction to
this? How do you get disciplinedfor this? And obviously at this point
in time, the jury deliberating,so the judge is just like, I'm
very disappointed that this happen, andso I was already like, man,
(14:39):
that leak was crazy to me.Right, So then this week, you
guys, with the information that you'vehad for a little less than two weeks,
came forward with information that and I'lllet you explain it, because people
are here to listen to you,mostly not me, that what had happened,
and you guys were able to sosomebody reached out to you and supplied
you with some information that had andcirculated. Yeah, so on the early
(15:03):
morning hours of October fifth, well, to back it up, there had
been a photograph of a blood smearedtree circulating out there online and there was
not really we looked at that andwe I mean, I honestly thought it
was just some jerk in their backyarddoing a hoax, you know, painting
something. And to be clear,this was purported to be something from the
(15:26):
crime scene because in this Frank's memorandum, the defense attorneys provided a description of
the crime scene and they indicated thaton a tree mirror where the girls were
killed was some sort of symbol writtenor drawn and blood and right, well,
they maintained that this was a symbolof odinism, and others maintained what
(15:52):
perhaps it was just random or something, so it became very important to a
lot of people. What was thissymbol? Yes, so that starts floating
around. Then the person who publishedthat on social media reached out to us,
and you know, early morning hours, ended up sending us a number
of more graphic I'm seeing photographs inaddition to other discovery material. To give
(16:15):
you a sense, the discovery materialin the Delpi case is under a protective
order, meaning that you're really notsupposed to leak it, like there's an
order against that from the judge.That's not the case in every trial or
every case, but that is thecase here because it's so sensitive and so
(16:36):
we were you know, it wasvery you know, we're not describing what
exactly we saw on the images,but it was very very disturbing and apparently
that there'd been a very serious breachimmediately, so crime scene though, crime
scene the crime yes, that's correct. This is like when obviously is early
morning hours. We're talking about liketwo or three in the morning. Yeah,
we were just like it was verydifficult to sleep that night because it
(16:59):
was just really it was bad.And we reached out to the police the
next you know, when the whenthe sun Rose essentially and let them know
that a serious breach had occurred.We also reached out to Defense that day
to let them know that there seemedto be some sort of breach going around.
We wanted to let both sides knowbecause we did not know where the
(17:22):
breach was coming from. So seemedprudent to say, hey, these are
the two sides, here's what's goingon. And with that, at the
same time, the man who sentthem to us, who is not associated
with the Defense in any way andwas not the original leaker, he was
feeling freaked out. I think hewas in a position where he didn't necessarily
(17:44):
think through through ramifications, and hewanted to cooperate at that point and wanted
to give the police what he knewand basically offer to give us all his
information so that we could provide thatto police since we're here in Indiana,
and we agreed to do that,and basically he said, I'll give this
to you on the condition that yougot police, and so we said,
(18:07):
okay, and so that's what wedid. We basically provided them with everything
he had, and the information hehad is that he received these images from
a person we identified as Are andare happened to be a friend with a
former employee of Criminal Defense in thisparticular case. This is some of those
(18:32):
close to attorney Andrew Baldwin used towork there and never worked there while the
Delpi case was going on, youknow, has not This is not like
a disgruntled employer or anything like that. But you know, it's just,
I guess we don't know motivations.We don't know any of that. It's
(18:52):
hard to fab them, frankly,but it's just it's just been such a
sad and devastating situation. Frankly,the you know, the families now have
to worry. Unfortunately, so we'renot the only ones who got these.
These have been circulated all over fromwhat we can tell, and the families
should not have to worry because ifthey get published once then they're on the
(19:15):
internet forever. And and you know, obviously there's a benefit, an investigative
benefit to crime scene photos, likethe jury needs to see them, the
judge may need to see them,certainly the defense and the prosecution, and
they're various experts who are going totestify all of that. It's not like
these don't have a place, butthey don't you know, we've said this,
(19:36):
like they don't have a place inthe general public. We don't need
to see those, And after wereported everything to the police, we deleted
them. We don't have them anymore, you know, and we've just been
trying to encourage people to remove themas well, because they just these we
shouldn't have these. And you know, we've gotten documents that we've reported on
(19:56):
in the past that you know,like we're you know, like we're you
know, either accidentally posted. AndI feel like there's a spectrum in journalism
of like, you know, stuffthat furthers the public's understanding. But as
far as we're concerned, deans don'thave any journalistic purpose whatsoever because none of
us have the tools to analyze thembecause we don't have the full context of
(20:18):
the case as the jury will have. Is that so the saddening part,
obviously, just to start, isthe victims of the case, which are
are and I've said it before,ranging from the families of the two girls
of course Livian Abbey, and thenof course there's other victims in this.
You know, Richard Allen's family doesn'texactly come out of this great no matter
(20:42):
what huge impact on everybody. Sothat's saddening. So would you say that
back end of that is the saddeningpart is also that journalism integrity that you
touched up on. What was thequestion? Sorry? Is is that like
the second part of what's actually sadto you? When you get past the
(21:03):
most important part, which is obviouslythe victims being so involved in this case,
in the thousands of hours you guysspend on this point in time,
is that sad? Is that what'ssaddening to you as well? That's not
really saddening to me. I mean, I feel like we kind of did
rut of the right thing here.I think, to me, what's really
sad and what's just like understandable andwe relate to this. I feel like
(21:27):
curiosity drove a lot of this,and curiosity is a wonderful thing, Like
you're curious, We're curious, likewe want to know what's going on in
these cases. It's just when ittrumps everything else, when it trumps like
human decency or respect for the courtor respeck for the process, respect for
Richard Allen's rights as a defendant whois not guilty, who is innocent until
(21:49):
he's proven guilty. When the curiosityand the morbid curiosity just consumes everything.
I feel like we get here becausewe get people who are acting just based
on their own interests and not basedon any sort of social responsibility. And
that is sad to me because Ifeel like it's not fair to paint everyone
(22:11):
who's interested in DELFI with that broadbrush. I think the vast, vast
majority of people care about the case. They want to see justice done.
They don't want to convict Richard Allenbefore they have evidence. They just want
to let the process play out,and they want to be informed along the
way. And that's most of thepeople that we speak to. That's most
of the people who listen to us. That there is a minority of people
(22:33):
who let their interests essentially become anobsession, and that obsession is not,
in my opinion, always the healthiest. And we say that as obsessive people
ourselves. It's not a personal criticismat anyone. It's just that when actions
are being taken that could damage acase and could damage a defendant's rights,
(22:53):
things have gone way too far,and a lot of it could be the
way this case has been managed.There's a lot of there's a long time
without a lot of information, soit's kind of been a breeding ground of
miscellaneous probably not very good activity.I'm not blaming anybody, but I'm not
(23:14):
blaming the prosecutors or anything. Butthere was certain there was little information for
five years, so people are justgoing a frenzy with it. Well,
you have a combination of a hugeamount of understandable interest, a huge amount
of understandable curiosity, and you combinethat with a complete lack of verified information.
(23:40):
People still want it, and ifthey can't get it from verified sources,
they'll go to crazy people on YouTubeor Reddit, and they're get gossip
or lies or rumors which they twistaround them. So I understand why law
enforcement and prosecutions wanted to keep someof these details under wrap. I certainly
(24:03):
think that did contribute to their eyesof social media in this case. So
in social medium, this contact.Well, I'm gonna also throw some shane
at true crime, and that's that'sdangerous because obviously we have a true crime
podcast, but for years, asa marketing tactic and a branding tactic,
true crime creators have been encouraging theiraudiences like, let's solve a mystery together,
(24:25):
we'll crowdsource, we'll all work together, we'll solve a mystery. That
is not how it works, andit's not how the system works. I'm
not encouraging people from being citizen journalistsor citizen salutes and trying to find things
in a responsible manner. But it'sgone way too far because we've basically said,
you know, you know, youcan google and jump to conclusions and
(24:45):
figure it all out. And that'swhy you have people for years posting side
by sides with the sketches and theiryou know, uh aspect djure. And
the result is you have a lotof really entitlement and arrogance amongst a small
minority of people who just think,I'm going to solve it. I just
need all the information, give meall the information so I can solve it.
(25:08):
And it's like that's totally unwarranted.It's totally unwarranted. And I mean
you have like a kind of amedia landscape where like people's you know,
you know, experts are weighing inon everything, and half the time it's
like, are they really even dothey really even have the credentials that they
say they do. And I justfeel like all of that has kind of
(25:29):
created this this atmosphere that could allowfor something like this to happen, and
it's just very, very unfortunate.I mean, true crime is just a
genre, So let's talk about thata little bit. To me, I
mean, you didn't say anything wrongthere. It kind of sounds like to
me when when I just analyze whatyou said and I put my opinion on
(25:49):
it, some of the things thatmake true crime great are also some of
the things that have really heard it. I mean, it's become such a
thing that you can people get involvedin, which is not always a bad
thing, but just like anything elsein life, moderation has to be taken
(26:12):
into account. So I think someof the things that's really made this true
crime boom in the last ten years, which I remember getting Investigation Discovery that
channel and it was crazy, itwas cool, And I think before that
(26:33):
you really besides documentaries and stuff,you kind of relied on the America's most
wanted or unsolved mysteries things like that. Then when that channel in particular,
I'm just kind of mentioned it becauseI think that everybody's heard of it at
this point in time. It's reallyjust boomed in the last ten years.
But with that, you kind ofhad this. Like you said, this
(26:55):
citizen involvement has really escalated, andalong with the Internet in social media,
all these things that have grown.Because even ten years ago the Internet is
what it is today, you certainlyhad to put in a lot more work
to find something. Search engines werenot optimized like they are today. You
could basically find anything by googling somethingnow, which is not always a bad
thing, but in this case,I can certainly see what you're saying.
(27:18):
So some of the things that aregreat about true crime also are starting to
show their ugly head now, Iguess I'm saying, yeah, I think
that's well said, and I thinkthat it's a situation where I mean the
amount of stuff I mean anyone.People are not always good at like kind
of figuring out like the nutritional valueof what they're consuming on the Internet.
And they'll just be like, well, these people were saying this on Reddit,
(27:41):
and it's like those are anonymous people. They can say whatever they want,
they can lie. It's very possibleto lie on Reddit, believe it
or not. That might shock somepeople, But you don't even want to
see my credit karma on Reddit.Sorry, oh credit we don't even I'm
on wrestling one, so I've gotlike a negative five hundred karma. We
don't even go on it anymore becausein the beginning, when we started covering
(28:03):
this case, we're like, oh, people have some interesting ideas, And
now that we actually talk to peoplewho know what they're talking about, you
can kind of see where like it'sjust people jumping to conclusions. It's not
really that helpful. And I'd liketo say, I think it's important to
stress that the vast, fast,vast, vast majority of people who are
interested in true crime and who followtrue crime, it's a healthy interest.
(28:26):
And I think their level of interestand attention to these cases helps provide public
accountability. And I think that's agreat thing and I applaud it. There's
just a tiny minority who take thingstoo far. There are people out there
who, like, are very upsetthat we did not post these crime team
(28:48):
pictures. People were saying things likethe girls would have waned those crime team
photos to be posted so people canfigure out the truth. It's like,
how dare you, Like, yeah, you can show some consideration for the
families. Yeah, I mean,I just I get disgusted with some of
that sometimes because it's like you obviouslyare just operating based on your own And
(29:10):
I also think it's important to placeall of this in a context. People
have listened to other episodes and thenlisten to this one. With us,
we'd probably seen down and sedate andon He's obviously mesh are very upset about
the state of true crime, andso I went up to mention that the
(29:30):
person we referred to as are actuallyin the midst of all of this,
took his own life. And obviouslywe can't be in this man's head,
and we can't understand why he madethis decision, but the fact that it
happened when it did is very disturbing, and so that's certainly informed some of
(29:53):
our more sedate mood and some ofour anger and frustration. And it's been
devastating because now this tragedy, whichis ultimately about two girls losing their lives,
has actually expanded and affected another family. And we certainly are against this
(30:14):
leak and feel like it was totallytotally wrong, And at the same time
we understand that people involved are notjust leakers. They're people with families and
lies, and you can make abad mistake and still be worth something as
a human being. And I justfeel so bad for this man's family at
(30:37):
the end of the day. It'sjust horrible. And even before this man's
family got a chance to bury himor have a funeral, there are people
online spreading his name. We haveto find out the truth about this.
They have conspiracy theories. Are youmurdered biotinists? And there's obviously something distasteful.
It's very distasteful, and I justI wish I think a lot of
(31:00):
people are reaching out with empathy andsort of like this is an awful situation.
But then again, this is likelittle fraction of people who are just
del fi obsessives who just don't havethe tact or the restraint to avoid doing
stuff like that, which just furtherYou know, in journalism, there's a
concept called harm reduction. You're supposedto if you have two choices, and
(31:22):
one you always looking to devastate people'slives, And there's not really much served
by it from you know, eitherletting the public know about something important.
You know, it's it's you're supposedto consider that, and there's not a
lot of consideration for that at timeson social media unfortunately. I definitely think
this is a conversation that needed discussed. I don't know how far and detail
(31:48):
you guys have gone into the contentyou've created the last couple weeks on that
top of grade there, but Iappreciate you sharing that definitely made me emotional.
I think it really should make youthink twice when while you're doing and
you guys, I want to walkback through one thing before I forget,
and then I'm going to come backto this and we'll wrap it up.
So just to specify and clear itout, because there's so confusion on this.
(32:10):
The person was or was not workingin the law office. You said
was not working in the law officeduring this entire DELFI sing. That is
correct, So the question's got tobe how did they get it then if
they don't, if they didn't workthere during this DELFI thing, So we
don't know. I can say thatgenerally, Andrew Baldwin's firm is called the
(32:31):
Criminal Defense Team. It's a veryunusual place to work because they tried to
foster an environment of collaboration, sharingthings with one another. People who work
there say, you're not just friends, you're not just employees. You're like
part of a family, and soif someone leaves on your good terms and
(32:53):
then comes by to visit it,I'm guessing it wouldn't be out of the
norm for or someone say, oh, you helped us and you had good
opinions when we collaborated before. Letme let me shoot something by you and
see what you think. Is thatwhat you would say? Yeah, it's
that You're not saying that somebody leakedto the leaker. I just want to
(33:15):
specify that because the way it kindof sounds like right now, we don't
know how the leaker, excuse me, hit my microphone. We don't know
how the leaker got the information.Did somebody leak it to the leaker?
Is there more leaking going on thatwe know about? I guess is why
I'm trying to clean up here.We've not seen any evidence in all of
this and all of our digging intothis, that the defense team, the
(33:36):
attorneys directly knew about this league.All we've seen is that it's coming through
somebody who used to work for AndyBaldwin who may have gotten improper access,
but nothing about like, oh,they directed this, And I'd like also
to make a player I don't thinkwe made in this discussion. The league
(33:57):
ultimately was more than just photos becausethis person, we got it out here
to read the messages exchanged between ourand our source, and those messages included
a lot of details about defense strategyand things the defense was doing, things
(34:20):
that have not reached the public's attention, and also even details like oh today
Andy's going to drive here and dothis, things of that nature. So
it's it's become clear that the personwho worked at the firm, who was
past person it previously worked at thefirm, who was passing this information along,
still enjoyed good relations with people thereand was getting information from them.
(34:45):
So it was that one time breach, It was a it was a extended
breach, if that makes sense now. I just wanted to specify that if
you if you're just watching television somethingsometimes that is not explained for well to
kind of go jumping on to thenext guest, the next expert or whatever,
(35:05):
and what you just said does notbeen explained really well. In my
opinion, can't speak for what youguys have said because I haven't listened for
a few weeks. I'm not gonnalie, but I wanted to specify here
in this setting. So two thingsleft, and I'm appreciate you staying over
with me. I know you're busy. What is the fallout of this?
What do you see happening? Whodoes this impact negatively positively aside from the
(35:29):
victims of this heinous crime. I'mjust talking in a courtroom setting. So
there's a hearing that's been called.And what's the general consistence of what I'll
be discussed there? And what aresome possibilities from when this has happened before
some fallouts that have happened from it. Great question, and I know so
tomorrow is it's going to be thehearing on Thursday, October nineteenth. Our
(35:52):
understanding is that the league will bediscussed and Judge Gall, Judge Frank Gall,
who's the judge on this, hasa wide range of options because these
attorneys are appointed by the court,so Richard Allen isn't paying for them,
the state is, and they werebrought in by the court. He can
reprimand them, don't let this happenagain. She can. There could be
(36:15):
fines, There could be contempt atcourt charges. There could be the dismissal
of one or both attorneys and Wedon't know this because this is all up
to the judge. They have suchpower and such latitude over handling a situation
like this. But again, theconsequences could be very severe. Consequences could
be comparatively minor as well. Whothis negatively effects, in addition to the
(36:39):
girls' families, just on an emotionallevel, it negatively effects in my opinion,
Richard Allen's writes, he's been accusedof an awful crime. If images
of what he's alleged to have doneare published, then I believe that inflames
public opinion against him. Maybe forsome people if they say, oh,
it must be the others who didthis, But I think other people are
(37:00):
going to be inflamed against him.It's not fair to him prior to his
trial. In addition to that,I would say that it negatively, I
mean, it negatively impacts the defensebecause there's a there's a there's a credibility
issue here, you know, whenthey're directed to you know, guard this
material carefully and it gets out.There's also an issue of if they are
(37:20):
removed, then what happens, youknow. I mean, it's just it's
an awful situation, and you know, even though we've not seen any evidence
implicating the lawyers directly, it's goingto come down on them because this is
not If it was a situation wherethis was like a current paralegal who was
doing something to sabotage them, butwho had filled out the paperwork and the
(37:43):
lawyers have done everything correctly, thenit would come down on that person.
But the buck stops with the attorneys, we believe in this situation. So
it's going to be ramifications for them. It's by deal, do you think,
Yeah? And I'd also like tostress another thing to consider in terms
of the rights of Richard Allen.If the most extreme thing happens and Judge
(38:04):
goal ends up removing both of thesedefense attorneys, then obviously this man's trial
is not going to happen in January. There's so much evidence in this case.
It's such a complicated case that ifthere's new attorneys appointed, they're going
to need a lot of time togo through that, all through all that,
and Richard Allen is innocent until provenguilty. He hasn't been convictim of
(38:29):
anything. He's already been imprisoned fora year, and so that time's going
to be extended. Yeah, andwe just want to say, Jeff,
like this is just sorry, justan aside, we really appreciate you and
the sensitivity and intelligence that you bringto your coverage of this case, because
I feel like us checking in withyou once in a while is clarifying for
(38:52):
us as reporters to kind of regrouplook at the big picture. We're so
in the weeds on this sometimes itfeels that it's often very nice to come
on and out with you, especiallyin circumstances like this where it's just been
a very heavy process for the pasta few weeks, and just thank you.
We're sorry that we probably seem depressed. We're not our usual bubbly selves
(39:13):
because we're normally so charismatic and happy. No, I'm just I'm sharing of
it. I'm you know, II just want to say we appreciate what
you do because I feel like youyou get a lot of this, and
you get a lot of the bigpicture and able to convey that to your
own We get a lot of ourwe get a lot out of our conversations.
Yeah, so I just again wantto commend you for what you're doing,
and you know your coverage and justkeep up the really good work because
(39:36):
we appreciate it. That means alot to me, and I've I've got
very emotional when you started tearing up, I was tearing up on you.
Uh. It's been rough because upof the last few weeks, but a
lot of just crying jags. Youknow. I can't like say I relate
to this situation with anybody, norwould I be that crazy to say that
I do have daughters, So Ido I feel emotional connection there. Although
(40:00):
I can't relate to the situation,and God haven forbid that never would want
to. But it's still an emotionalattachment there that I definitely feel for me.
It's beyond obviously it hits at homebecause it is near home, right
and because of the situation if Ihave kids. So I appreciate you guys
(40:22):
taking the time to tidy up thatpart of it a little bit. And
I would summarize it also by sayingthat it doesn't do the prosecution any favors
either, if we have any sortof question that this the Richard Allen's not
going to have a fair trial.And that's piggybacking off what you just said,
but I wanted to bring that pointup. This just muddies the waters
even more of this guy's getting afair trial. So there's nobody that benefited
(40:46):
from the leak or a lot ofthe other drama that we've talked about that
happened with this case. Yes,But and you're kind of just on a
lighter note, you're talking about thebuck stops with me. I was thinking
of those, Joe Hogg said,political commercials that tree Fort, the guy
running against him put out on thetrue Crime on the Crime. Have you
(41:07):
seen that commercial where there's talking aboutlike all the crime that happened and he's
like it all is on me,Joe Hogg said, saying that anyway,
so you know it's that time ofthe earth, the political commercials. What's
in this? On a really anotherheart tugging moment here before we split our
ways for the day. What doesit mean to you guys that people,
(41:30):
this isn't the only time that somebody'scoming with you information that probably shouldn't be
public or information true or false orwhatever. But what does it mean to
you, guys that this individual cameto you and trusted you with doing the
right thing with this. It's veryhumbling and we appreciated and we just want
to say the guy who leaked tous was not the original leaker. A
(41:52):
lot of people have been putting hateon him. I don't really understand why
I tend to think that in thissituation like this is especially since somebody has
possibly had a suicide link to it, coming towards people with compassion, and
he very quickly, I think,was just like, wait, what have
I been doing? And then canyou help me make it right? And
(42:15):
for him, making it right wasgoing to the police, and so we
very much appreciated him. I feellike we've gotten to know him, and
he's a nice guy, and we'veall of us made mistakes, all of
us about things that we may notbe proud of or it bears by,
and we all deserve better than tobe judged by our worst moments. And
(42:37):
I just feel like he immediately rectifiedthe situation by saying, okay, I
was participating in this league and thenall of a sudden, you're like,
I'm sure we've all had that momentof realization where we've been doing something,
we've almost been so one track minded, we're just doing it, and then
we kind of come up for airand say, I mean I may need
to do something differently now. AndI feel like the strength of changing your
(42:59):
mind and then switching and pivoting saysa lot more about somebody's character than just
the initial mistake. And so weappreciate him and appreciate the trust he gave
us. How have you guys grownas individuals and professionals since we started this
a journey with this case? Sothis case has done a lot of things,
(43:23):
had a huge impact on a lotof people. But you guys in
particular, how would you say it'schanged as far as your view on law,
Kevin? Than you know, Anyaand Kevin, I guess your view
on journalism. We talked about truecrime directly, But what about you guys
personally? This has got to bejust a crazy journey this last year and
(43:47):
a half, two years, youguys really dug deepn Well, I guess
it's been about a year since you'vedug deep. Yeah, how kind of
you to assume we've grown. Ifeel like I've just become more angry and
jaded sometimes because I like, I'vejust seen a lot of stuff that I
find wrong with this. I thinkit's made me realize on some level the
(44:10):
importance of good journalism, and whynot waiting for authority to give you information
is so important. Why it's importantto just go and get it and inform
the public, because I've seen whathappens when it's Kevin said, you're not
getting the information. You know,credible reporters are very busy, especially at
(44:35):
the local level. They are coveringeverything. They're running around and covering a
fire and then city hall meeting,and they don't have a lot of time
to dig, and so it's nota criticism to say that sometimes it's hard
for them to break through a storyif they're not being given any official word
from law enforcement in this case.But when that happens, when all the
credible journalists go home because they don'thave any reporting to do because they can't
(44:58):
get backs on the record from authorities, then you have the clowns sweep in
and they just start making stuff up. And if nobody is going there and
pushing and saying, what is reallygoing on, let's get this out there,
then you have an informational vacuum,and that's dangerous and that is harmful
to the people at the center ofthis, and so that's it's heightened my
(45:22):
resolve to try to do journalism,responsible journalism in a new media format.
And I'll say for me one thing, when you're not a part of the
case directly, when you're just readingabout it as a news consumer, I
think it's easy to almost think ofit as a story, no different from
(45:47):
something you might read in a book. So the book, I'm reading it
on a computer monitor or newspaper,and so it's easy to lose track of
the fact that these are real peopleat the center of it. And I'm
going to be big about our sources, but we have a lot of sources
(46:07):
all over the case that we've talkedto and come to now and that's been
meaningful to get to know that theseare all real people. And also,
generally speaking, any time we've talkedwith people and learn more about what's happening
behind the scenes, I think it'sfair to say we've developed more empathy and
(46:29):
understanding. I feel that really everybodyinvolved in this is really doing their best.
And it's easy to say, oh, John Doe really messed up and
he made this choice, or sodid this they just don't care, But
everybody in this case cares, andwe're all doing their best. But they're
(46:50):
human and so I think it's increasedmy empathy for everyone in the case and
just people in general, because it'slike when you're flattened down to a you
know, few words in a newsarticle, you know, that doesn't really
capture the very complicated human person youknow behind that name, and you know,
it's just important to just remember thatif you were suddenly thrust into a
(47:14):
really high profile situation, you know, regardless of what side you're on,
you know, you would probably hopethat people engage with you in an empathetic
manner too, as opposed to justassuming the worst at every turn, or
you know, criticizing. I mean, I mean, even the families in
this case have gotten so much criticismabout how they're hiding something, They must
be hiding something, and it's like, just imagine if that were you and
(47:37):
your family and you were thrust intothe spotlight and people were without any evidence,
just taking apart everything you said andjust maybe consider that that would be
pretty hurtful. And one more thingI think something that's really changed and helped
me grow with this is this wholeexperience has brought a lot of wonderful people
(47:58):
into our lives. Play about someof the social media stuff with justification.
But we've met a lot of greatpeople. We've met you, We wouldn't
have met you if not for thiscase, and you're a great person.
We really get a lot of outof our conversations with you. And we've
also met other people listeners and stuffwho we don't even talk to, we
(48:19):
just exchange emails or text with.And there are so many good people out
there. There's so many good andcaring people. It really does give you
faith for the future. Well said, and I think for me, it's
also important to kind of think aboutif you have a platform like what we
(48:43):
do, like we've built different platforms. Obviously I'm not big into the true
crime scene by any means, butother things that I do. If you
have a platform, you need toreally think about what you're doing with it
and kind of take it considering thesethings that we've talked about today. Even
if your platform is a blog abouttrue crime, being in a community about
(49:08):
true crime and trying to help investigatewhether your blogs, being a podcaster or
somebody on television, you really gotto do and think about what's right for
and do what's right on the platformthat you have available as an outlet and
make sure you're doing the right things, you're utilizing it correctly, because it's
(49:28):
easy to get off track, Ithink, is what I can say from
this conversation. We just said amen, And it's easy when you see people
making mistakes to want to calls themout and put your boot on their neck
and just shame them as much aspossible. But please try to have some
grace because you don't know what thosepeople are going through. And sometimes when
(49:52):
you're facing a lot of public criticismor personal criticism, it feels worse than
it really is and you think it'llnever pass. It'll pass, right,
But in that moment, if peopleare putting their heels on your neck and
just kicking you and kicking you,who knows what a person might be.
Gret Huh very well said, Ienjoyed this time. Sorry went a little
(50:15):
bit over. If you're here toif you're here because of the Murder Sheet,
check out some cool stuff I haveon Indiana and American history. If
you're here for because you've come fromthat outlet, then make sure you check
out the Murder Sheet podcast. They'vegot. They do some other deep dives
into some things, so they gotthey've got a lot of stuff and they've
talked to a lot of people aboutthis case in particular, and it's valid,
(50:37):
good logical information, nothing reckless beingshared on the Murder Sheet podcast,
which I always appreciate. So makesure you check out that podcast wherever you
listen to podcasts or Murder Sheet podcastdot com. Man, I'll never forget
that because I run the website.Yes I running. I mean I don't
(50:58):
have to do anything with it.But nevertheless, yeah, thank you both
for your time as always, andI encourage everybody to check out everything you
guys are doing. Thank you,Thank you, Thank you for listening to
this episode of Indiana Stories. Ifyou like what you heard, you can
go to Indiana Stories dot com formore episodes and other stories relating to Indiana.
(51:19):
Also, if you're enjoying this podcast, there's several things you can follow,
the podcast itself, the newsletter,and various other things. Thanks again
for listening, and we will beback with another episode, and I hope
you join us for another Indiana Story. And the question is do I stay
(51:59):
here? Will you be back?How are you going to come back?
Will you be back? How areyou coming back?
This podcast is a Jeff Townsend Mediaproduction. This is Jeff Townsend. Thank
you for joining us for another episodeof Indiana Stories. All right, welcome
(00:23):
back to another Indiana Story segment,a branch of America Stories, of course,
and we are doing our monthly Ican't believe it's like been a month
since we've done the last update onthe Delphi case, but here we are
again. I'm just gonna say ourmonthly update because I don't think, my
opinion, this will stop from havingat least a monthly update from here till
(00:45):
when we ever we see this trialthrough. I don't know. This is
the Murder Sheets joining me. Bythe way, that the power couple of
the the Brad Pitt and Angelina ofthe true crime podcasting world. Okay,
that's a little much the point ofbeing Yeah, I'm glad you guys took
a few minutes to chat with mehere. What do you think? Do
you say we're going to have theseupdates all the time? Yeah, I
(01:06):
imagine there's definitely periods in the Delficase where not a lot is happening,
So you do get your stretches wherethere's not much to update, or there's
only minor filings, but judging frompast history, it seems like there are
kind of major updates pretty often,which is kind of unfortunate because oftentimes they're
not good updates. Well, Ithink as we get closer to this trial,
(01:30):
whatever happens, I think we'll continueto have more and more. We're
definitely starting to get to where Idon't want to call it a game because
that just sounds psychotic. Things arejust starting. I guess you could say
really here, Ultimately, we're reallyjust getting going, and we got a
long haul. I see we aseverybody that has any sort of emotional investment,
but especially the people that are involvedin the case, really just getting
started. Absolutely. That being said, so last time we talked, we
(01:57):
talked about this odinous claims that cameout, and they basically when the defense
filed purposely I wanted everybody to seeit, in my opinion, and it's
all starting to play out a littlebit more now. They released information saying,
hey, like Richard Allen did committhe murders. This is what happened,
which is all part of a defensetrial. And I get that they
(02:17):
claimed with this odinus cult am Isaying that right, Yeah, they're cold.
I guess that sounds maybe biased.I don't know if by nature they're
actually a cult that that's how we'regot to determine. So that's yeahka,
so I'm on the right track therethen I'm not saying anything out of line.
And they tied up the tried thisto the connection with the crime scene
(02:42):
itself and some of the things thatwe're done at the crime scene. We
talked about that on the last episode, and they even went as far as
to say that, hey, theseguards at the prison are involved trying to
I guess pressure coheres. They theymade Richard Allen confess to the crimes because
the Odinis group is they're involved withit. It's a whole whole situation of
a lot of people, I guesscoming together to do this is what the
(03:04):
defense is saying. And they said, Hey, the guards at the prison
and this is all like, I'mnot looking at anything in front of my
screen. I'm not reading any officialterms here, right, this is just
a casual conversation about it and anupdate for the listeners interested. But they
haven't even gone as far as saythere were badges on the uniforms at the
prison, which you know this ismy opinion. There's two things to man,
(03:29):
would they really be allowed to wearthat and that environment? Then the
other part of me, I'm notas surprised as other people that the news
has came out because I assume thedefense said that for a reason. That's
how I looked at it when ithappened. So when the news came out
this week, I'll let you guess, touch up on it more that they
(03:49):
actually and I don't know all thedetails, a couple of different individuals.
They have statements from say, hey, we do wear these patches. That
may or may not be what itactually is connected to, but crazy to
say that. I'm not surprised thatthey had the patches on after that was
leaked. I mean, after theysubmitted that document last month. Everybody's acting
(04:11):
really shocked to me, I'm notshocked. They wouldn't have said it unless
they had a reason to say itis the way I can look at it.
I think you're I think you're onthe money, Jeff. It's a
situation where we're there's cameras in ajail or or a prison. Rather in
this case, doesn't really make senseto just make up hatches out of whole
cloth no pun intended, because youknow, that could easily be debunked.
(04:33):
So when we saw that they werestating that there were patches, we believe
that because again, what that couldbe easily disproven if it wasn't true.
The question lies in whether or notthe patches signify what the defense says it
does. And there's you know,the guards have said that they are actually
(04:53):
Heathens. They're not os oldiness orspecific sect of Heathenry where they are very
racist attached to gang's white supremacists,and Heathens are not necessarily that they you
know, heathen Rea is a vast, vast faith with all these different practices,
and you can be a Heathen andjust a nice person, just a
(05:14):
normal person, just like any otherreligion who's inclusive and non racist, anti
racist in fact. So it's youknow, and I think it's just kind
of shows the public's kind of pendulumattitude to this case, where it's like,
we're not going to believe the defense. Oh wait, the patches are
there, then everything the defense saysmust be true. And it's kind of
just that's you know, it's it'sa it's a tactic to you know,
(05:40):
unleash different narratives, and people justseem very susceptible to like whatever the last
thing they heard is seems like astrange thing to allow the patches to be
worn, I will say that,and especially in a place that's I guess
I'm just going to put in simpleterms, ran by this ran at a
federal state level, however you wantto phrase it. It's it's connected with
(06:01):
the government right in some way,this facility, h am I fair by
saying that, So to me,that was kind of strange that yeah,
yeah, so is that kind ofis that is that? Is that fair
to say that that's kind of strangethat being a division of that that you
know, they wouldn't probably have morestrict rules on that. I'm not getting
caught up on this, but itwas that was kind of strange to me.
(06:24):
I think that it seems like fromthe documents filed by I doc that
they were breaking the rules by doingthat, or were they allowed that was
mine You're not really supposed to fromwhat we've talked to plenty of CEOs,
and they told us consistently, youreally shouldn't be you know, putting,
you know, a patch across orsomething on your stuff, like it.
It's not a place for self expression. So it definitely seems like it was
(06:46):
a breach of rules, or abreach at least of you know, what
should be rules, because you know, that's not necessarily the appropriate place where
it. Honestly, when this stuffabout the Patches came up, we were
just so in the midst of thisunfolding disaster about the leak that we kind
of, you know, people weremaking such hay out of it. We
(07:11):
kind of were just like going overour heads, honestly, So the leak.
We'll get to the leak here ina minute. So you guys have
known about that since before we hadtalked last, and you were managing through
that. Yeah, it's fair tosay, well, we got the leak
October fifth, and I think wehad okay after a little bit. So
(07:32):
we got in the early morning hoursof October fifth. I think I think
we talked last in mid Yeah,so it was we were still much less
jaded when we last talked to you. At least I'm not the crazy part.
At least I'm not the only onethinking that like this Patches thing is
way out of like like that nobodysaw it coming. Once that information was
(07:53):
shared because to me, it wasI think going to be a given at
that point in time, they weregoing to connect it somehow, talk about
I'll know who's behind it all.But man, talk about being really observant,
huh. I mean picking up onon on obviously things that you visit
the prison and as you they talkedto Richard Allen. You know, somebody's
(08:15):
very observant and did catch that obviously. You know, whether Richard Allen directly
told them or they picked it,it will never know, but I guess
that's aside the point. But definitelyobservant of the environment that he's in.
Yeah, I agree. He hasgreat lawyers. Lawyers are the ones who
visited him at Westville, and Iwouldn't be surprised if they noticed that and
(08:37):
say, maybe we can do somethingwith this. Oh yeah, I mean
that was like a low hanging fruitfor them to pick there. So to
get into the details a little bitmore, they did get a statement from
a couple of individuals, one ofwhich was a sergeant and was another person
just I don't want to mess upthe titles. Was it that there's two
sergeants? Was it three people?I don't remember? Was it two sergeants
(09:00):
and two sergeants sergeant in the Frank'smemorandum that they said not only did these
guys have patches, but they theythere was a suggestion that they were devoted
members of Anism cult for lack ofa better word, and they were so
devoted to it that apparently they werethreatening and intimidating Richard Allen and basically coercing
(09:28):
him to make confessions to his wifeand mother. So in these statements,
the guards acknowledged that they did havepatches, that they were they indicated that
they were just part of their faithand they were not oldness. And they
also said, we don't have ahistory of being violent with prisoners. Look
(09:48):
at our work record history. Andhe certainly never pressured him into making confessions
and the war and also back thatup. And inherently there was some sort
of internal investigation of these two guardsshortly after the Frank Smain random was filed
(10:09):
last month, and that investigation clearedthem. And I'll say this, Jeff,
you know, with the Odinism versusif there are many to wearing the
patches, how could they not beOdinis? And again that goes back to
the Heathen read being these people mayworship similar gods, Norse God's, Germanic
gods. But it's sort of likeif you're wearing a cross and I say,
(10:31):
oh, you're a Baptist and yousay, actually, I'm episcopalian.
You know, you may have thesame fundamentals, but there may be very
different practices. And so they're basicallydisputing that. And I think the thing
people are missing on this is thatthis gives an explanation for Richard Allen's alleged
confessions that does not bring in mentalhealth, because the defense has been fighting
(10:56):
to keep his mental health records fromthe prison from going to the prosecution.
If his mental health becomes an issue, you know, then the prosecution maybe.
So I that's my opinion personally,but I think it's kind of it's
kind of in that case an ingeniousstrategy because it keeps that out of it.
They need to come up with away to explain away these so called
confessions. Uh, the national thingto do would be to say, well,
(11:20):
he had some sort of breakdown,mental breakdown. These are things he
didn't me And they don't feel comforablemaking that argument for whatever reason, at
least they haven't made it yet.So there seems like it's probably overdone quite
a bit. Yeah. Yeah,that's something that's pretty calm, and I
think in a trial like that wouldright or wrong. I'm not saying that.
(11:41):
Yeah, you talk about it,you gotta explain the mental health,
you gotta explain the confession, andthey're just this is defense just doing their
job here. But you guys haveprobably spent a lot of time researching this
oldness thing that none of us hadreally been looking into you before. So
you're you're sharing this information, soI'm assuming you've put in quite a bit
of time research this subject. Minerfurther. Yeah, we've even interviewed members
(12:03):
of the Tropes, which is aheathen group. They're anti racist. They
actually combat the odeness. They havea whole ministry where prisoners write them and
they write box saying hey, youcan be a Heathen without being racist or
joining a white supremacist gang. Yeah, which, man, it's just next
is, like Kevin said, they'regoing to have to really connect all that
(12:24):
and how it relates to So Ithink you got the patches in there,
so that's the first step. Butit's all about creating questionable doubt, right,
I mean that's a ultimate Let's tobe honest, by definition, that's
literally what they're trying to do,and they're certainly on track to attempt to
do that, but they are goingto have to tie it all in and
explain things a little bit more.With that being said, let's segue to
(12:48):
that you referred to as the leaguean unfortunate thing. And this was odd
for me because last week I was, uh, well the last couple weeks,
but last week in particular, Iwas really key up with that.
What was the Boy in the Boxtrial? Yeah, and they also had
a defense leak as well. Areyou aware of what I'm talking about here?
(13:09):
No Boy in the Box trial?Who haven't really followed that, honest,
but you're aware of like what thetrial is though. So the defense
had a leak last week. Sowhen the jury is going to go back
and make a decision the trials wrappingup the arguments have been made, they
supply you with the evidence that you'reallowed to review until you come back with
the decision right guilty or not guiltyor whatever. And they leaked. So
(13:33):
they had come to an agreement wherebecause the police had to arrest, they
arrested the young man, Well,they handcuffed him, right, the wouldn't
necessarily arrest him. He ran away, and that was protocol how they were
going to handle it. And sothe defense was told to and what was
greed upon and presented in the trialitself was they were going to show They're
going to clip the footage, notshow the kid. Could not show him
(13:54):
being arrested, right, that waslike what was agreed upon because it was
the termin it was irrelevant to thecase. So the defense sends the jury
back with this thumb drive and onit, what do you know, all
the footage is there of him literallybeing interested, which was not supposed to
be seen by the jury. Sothey have to call they had to call
(14:16):
it back in hey, you weren'tsupposed to see that. The defense has
to give an explanation and all that, and people were like and watching court
TV, which you guys are onall the time. How the heck is
say, like, what do youdo? Like, what's the reaction to
this? How do you get disciplinedfor this? And obviously at this point
in time, the jury deliberating,so the judge is just like, I'm
very disappointed that this happen, andso I was already like, man,
(14:39):
that leak was crazy to me.Right, So then this week, you
guys, with the information that you'vehad for a little less than two weeks,
came forward with information that and I'lllet you explain it, because people
are here to listen to you,mostly not me, that what had happened,
and you guys were able to sosomebody reached out to you and supplied
you with some information that had andcirculated. Yeah, so on the early
(15:03):
morning hours of October fifth, well, to back it up, there had
been a photograph of a blood smearedtree circulating out there online and there was
not really we looked at that andwe I mean, I honestly thought it
was just some jerk in their backyarddoing a hoax, you know, painting
something. And to be clear,this was purported to be something from the
(15:26):
crime scene because in this Frank's memorandum, the defense attorneys provided a description of
the crime scene and they indicated thaton a tree mirror where the girls were
killed was some sort of symbol writtenor drawn and blood and right, well,
they maintained that this was a symbolof odinism, and others maintained what
(15:52):
perhaps it was just random or something, so it became very important to a
lot of people. What was thissymbol? Yes, so that starts floating
around. Then the person who publishedthat on social media reached out to us,
and you know, early morning hours, ended up sending us a number
of more graphic I'm seeing photographs inaddition to other discovery material. To give
(16:15):
you a sense, the discovery materialin the Delpi case is under a protective
order, meaning that you're really notsupposed to leak it, like there's an
order against that from the judge.That's not the case in every trial or
every case, but that is thecase here because it's so sensitive and so
(16:36):
we were you know, it wasvery you know, we're not describing what
exactly we saw on the images,but it was very very disturbing and apparently
that there'd been a very serious breachimmediately, so crime scene though, crime
scene the crime yes, that's correct. This is like when obviously is early
morning hours. We're talking about liketwo or three in the morning. Yeah,
we were just like it was verydifficult to sleep that night because it
(16:59):
was just really it was bad.And we reached out to the police the
next you know, when the whenthe sun Rose essentially and let them know
that a serious breach had occurred.We also reached out to Defense that day
to let them know that there seemedto be some sort of breach going around.
We wanted to let both sides knowbecause we did not know where the
(17:22):
breach was coming from. So seemedprudent to say, hey, these are
the two sides, here's what's goingon. And with that, at the
same time, the man who sentthem to us, who is not associated
with the Defense in any way andwas not the original leaker, he was
feeling freaked out. I think hewas in a position where he didn't necessarily
(17:44):
think through through ramifications, and hewanted to cooperate at that point and wanted
to give the police what he knewand basically offer to give us all his
information so that we could provide thatto police since we're here in Indiana,
and we agreed to do that,and basically he said, I'll give this
to you on the condition that yougot police, and so we said,
(18:07):
okay, and so that's what wedid. We basically provided them with everything
he had, and the information hehad is that he received these images from
a person we identified as Are andare happened to be a friend with a
former employee of Criminal Defense in thisparticular case. This is some of those
(18:32):
close to attorney Andrew Baldwin used towork there and never worked there while the
Delpi case was going on, youknow, has not This is not like
a disgruntled employer or anything like that. But you know, it's just,
I guess we don't know motivations.We don't know any of that. It's
(18:52):
hard to fab them, frankly,but it's just it's just been such a
sad and devastating situation. Frankly,the you know, the families now have
to worry. Unfortunately, so we'renot the only ones who got these.
These have been circulated all over fromwhat we can tell, and the families
should not have to worry because ifthey get published once then they're on the
(19:15):
internet forever. And and you know, obviously there's a benefit, an investigative
benefit to crime scene photos, likethe jury needs to see them, the
judge may need to see them,certainly the defense and the prosecution, and
they're various experts who are going totestify all of that. It's not like
these don't have a place, butthey don't you know, we've said this,
(19:36):
like they don't have a place inthe general public. We don't need
to see those, And after wereported everything to the police, we deleted
them. We don't have them anymore, you know, and we've just been
trying to encourage people to remove themas well, because they just these we
shouldn't have these. And you know, we've gotten documents that we've reported on
(19:56):
in the past that you know,like we're you know, like we're you
know, either accidentally posted. AndI feel like there's a spectrum in journalism
of like, you know, stuffthat furthers the public's understanding. But as
far as we're concerned, deans don'thave any journalistic purpose whatsoever because none of
us have the tools to analyze thembecause we don't have the full context of
(20:18):
the case as the jury will have. Is that so the saddening part,
obviously, just to start, isthe victims of the case, which are
are and I've said it before,ranging from the families of the two girls
of course Livian Abbey, and thenof course there's other victims in this.
You know, Richard Allen's family doesn'texactly come out of this great no matter
(20:42):
what huge impact on everybody. Sothat's saddening. So would you say that
back end of that is the saddeningpart is also that journalism integrity that you
touched up on. What was thequestion? Sorry? Is is that like
the second part of what's actually sadto you? When you get past the
(21:03):
most important part, which is obviouslythe victims being so involved in this case,
in the thousands of hours you guysspend on this point in time,
is that sad? Is that what'ssaddening to you as well? That's not
really saddening to me. I mean, I feel like we kind of did
rut of the right thing here.I think, to me, what's really
sad and what's just like understandable andwe relate to this. I feel like
(21:27):
curiosity drove a lot of this,and curiosity is a wonderful thing, Like
you're curious, We're curious, likewe want to know what's going on in
these cases. It's just when ittrumps everything else, when it trumps like
human decency or respect for the courtor respeck for the process, respect for
Richard Allen's rights as a defendant whois not guilty, who is innocent until
(21:49):
he's proven guilty. When the curiosityand the morbid curiosity just consumes everything.
I feel like we get here becausewe get people who are acting just based
on their own interests and not basedon any sort of social responsibility. And
that is sad to me because Ifeel like it's not fair to paint everyone
(22:11):
who's interested in DELFI with that broadbrush. I think the vast, vast
majority of people care about the case. They want to see justice done.
They don't want to convict Richard Allenbefore they have evidence. They just want
to let the process play out,and they want to be informed along the
way. And that's most of thepeople that we speak to. That's most
of the people who listen to us. That there is a minority of people
(22:33):
who let their interests essentially become anobsession, and that obsession is not,
in my opinion, always the healthiest. And we say that as obsessive people
ourselves. It's not a personal criticismat anyone. It's just that when actions
are being taken that could damage acase and could damage a defendant's rights,
(22:53):
things have gone way too far,and a lot of it could be the
way this case has been managed.There's a lot of there's a long time
without a lot of information, soit's kind of been a breeding ground of
miscellaneous probably not very good activity.I'm not blaming anybody, but I'm not
(23:14):
blaming the prosecutors or anything. Butthere was certain there was little information for
five years, so people are justgoing a frenzy with it. Well,
you have a combination of a hugeamount of understandable interest, a huge amount
of understandable curiosity, and you combinethat with a complete lack of verified information.
(23:40):
People still want it, and ifthey can't get it from verified sources,
they'll go to crazy people on YouTubeor Reddit, and they're get gossip
or lies or rumors which they twistaround them. So I understand why law
enforcement and prosecutions wanted to keep someof these details under wrap. I certainly
(24:03):
think that did contribute to their eyesof social media in this case. So
in social medium, this contact.Well, I'm gonna also throw some shane
at true crime, and that's that'sdangerous because obviously we have a true crime
podcast, but for years, asa marketing tactic and a branding tactic,
true crime creators have been encouraging theiraudiences like, let's solve a mystery together,
(24:25):
we'll crowdsource, we'll all work together, we'll solve a mystery. That
is not how it works, andit's not how the system works. I'm
not encouraging people from being citizen journalistsor citizen salutes and trying to find things
in a responsible manner. But it'sgone way too far because we've basically said,
you know, you know, youcan google and jump to conclusions and
(24:45):
figure it all out. And that'swhy you have people for years posting side
by sides with the sketches and theiryou know, uh aspect djure. And
the result is you have a lotof really entitlement and arrogance amongst a small
minority of people who just think,I'm going to solve it. I just
need all the information, give meall the information so I can solve it.
(25:08):
And it's like that's totally unwarranted.It's totally unwarranted. And I mean
you have like a kind of amedia landscape where like people's you know,
you know, experts are weighing inon everything, and half the time it's
like, are they really even dothey really even have the credentials that they
say they do. And I justfeel like all of that has kind of
(25:29):
created this this atmosphere that could allowfor something like this to happen, and
it's just very, very unfortunate.I mean, true crime is just a
genre, So let's talk about thata little bit. To me, I
mean, you didn't say anything wrongthere. It kind of sounds like to
me when when I just analyze whatyou said and I put my opinion on
(25:49):
it, some of the things thatmake true crime great are also some of
the things that have really heard it. I mean, it's become such a
thing that you can people get involvedin, which is not always a bad
thing, but just like anything elsein life, moderation has to be taken
(26:12):
into account. So I think someof the things that's really made this true
crime boom in the last ten years, which I remember getting Investigation Discovery that
channel and it was crazy, itwas cool, And I think before that
(26:33):
you really besides documentaries and stuff,you kind of relied on the America's most
wanted or unsolved mysteries things like that. Then when that channel in particular,
I'm just kind of mentioned it becauseI think that everybody's heard of it at
this point in time. It's reallyjust boomed in the last ten years.
But with that, you kind ofhad this. Like you said, this
(26:55):
citizen involvement has really escalated, andalong with the Internet in social media,
all these things that have grown.Because even ten years ago the Internet is
what it is today, you certainlyhad to put in a lot more work
to find something. Search engines werenot optimized like they are today. You
could basically find anything by googling somethingnow, which is not always a bad
thing, but in this case,I can certainly see what you're saying.
(27:18):
So some of the things that aregreat about true crime also are starting to
show their ugly head now, Iguess I'm saying, yeah, I think
that's well said, and I thinkthat it's a situation where I mean the
amount of stuff I mean anyone.People are not always good at like kind
of figuring out like the nutritional valueof what they're consuming on the Internet.
And they'll just be like, well, these people were saying this on Reddit,
(27:41):
and it's like those are anonymous people. They can say whatever they want,
they can lie. It's very possibleto lie on Reddit, believe it
or not. That might shock somepeople, But you don't even want to
see my credit karma on Reddit.Sorry, oh credit we don't even I'm
on wrestling one, so I've gotlike a negative five hundred karma. We
don't even go on it anymore becausein the beginning, when we started covering
(28:03):
this case, we're like, oh, people have some interesting ideas, And
now that we actually talk to peoplewho know what they're talking about, you
can kind of see where like it'sjust people jumping to conclusions. It's not
really that helpful. And I'd liketo say, I think it's important to
stress that the vast, fast,vast, vast majority of people who are
interested in true crime and who followtrue crime, it's a healthy interest.
(28:26):
And I think their level of interestand attention to these cases helps provide public
accountability. And I think that's agreat thing and I applaud it. There's
just a tiny minority who take thingstoo far. There are people out there
who, like, are very upsetthat we did not post these crime team
(28:48):
pictures. People were saying things likethe girls would have waned those crime team
photos to be posted so people canfigure out the truth. It's like,
how dare you, Like, yeah, you can show some consideration for the
families. Yeah, I mean,I just I get disgusted with some of
that sometimes because it's like you obviouslyare just operating based on your own And
(29:10):
I also think it's important to placeall of this in a context. People
have listened to other episodes and thenlisten to this one. With us,
we'd probably seen down and sedate andon He's obviously mesh are very upset about
the state of true crime, andso I went up to mention that the
(29:30):
person we referred to as are actuallyin the midst of all of this,
took his own life. And obviouslywe can't be in this man's head,
and we can't understand why he madethis decision, but the fact that it
happened when it did is very disturbing, and so that's certainly informed some of
(29:53):
our more sedate mood and some ofour anger and frustration. And it's been
devastating because now this tragedy, whichis ultimately about two girls losing their lives,
has actually expanded and affected another family. And we certainly are against this
(30:14):
leak and feel like it was totallytotally wrong, And at the same time
we understand that people involved are notjust leakers. They're people with families and
lies, and you can make abad mistake and still be worth something as
a human being. And I justfeel so bad for this man's family at
(30:37):
the end of the day. It'sjust horrible. And even before this man's
family got a chance to bury himor have a funeral, there are people
online spreading his name. We haveto find out the truth about this.
They have conspiracy theories. Are youmurdered biotinists? And there's obviously something distasteful.
It's very distasteful, and I justI wish I think a lot of
(31:00):
people are reaching out with empathy andsort of like this is an awful situation.
But then again, this is likelittle fraction of people who are just
del fi obsessives who just don't havethe tact or the restraint to avoid doing
stuff like that, which just furtherYou know, in journalism, there's a
concept called harm reduction. You're supposedto if you have two choices, and
(31:22):
one you always looking to devastate people'slives, And there's not really much served
by it from you know, eitherletting the public know about something important.
You know, it's it's you're supposedto consider that, and there's not a
lot of consideration for that at timeson social media unfortunately. I definitely think
this is a conversation that needed discussed. I don't know how far and detail
(31:48):
you guys have gone into the contentyou've created the last couple weeks on that
top of grade there, but Iappreciate you sharing that definitely made me emotional.
I think it really should make youthink twice when while you're doing and
you guys, I want to walkback through one thing before I forget,
and then I'm going to come backto this and we'll wrap it up.
So just to specify and clear itout, because there's so confusion on this.
(32:10):
The person was or was not workingin the law office. You said
was not working in the law officeduring this entire DELFI sing. That is
correct, So the question's got tobe how did they get it then if
they don't, if they didn't workthere during this DELFI thing, So we
don't know. I can say thatgenerally, Andrew Baldwin's firm is called the
(32:31):
Criminal Defense Team. It's a veryunusual place to work because they tried to
foster an environment of collaboration, sharingthings with one another. People who work
there say, you're not just friends, you're not just employees. You're like
part of a family, and soif someone leaves on your good terms and
(32:53):
then comes by to visit it,I'm guessing it wouldn't be out of the
norm for or someone say, oh, you helped us and you had good
opinions when we collaborated before. Letme let me shoot something by you and
see what you think. Is thatwhat you would say? Yeah, it's
that You're not saying that somebody leakedto the leaker. I just want to
(33:15):
specify that because the way it kindof sounds like right now, we don't
know how the leaker, excuse me, hit my microphone. We don't know
how the leaker got the information.Did somebody leak it to the leaker?
Is there more leaking going on thatwe know about? I guess is why
I'm trying to clean up here.We've not seen any evidence in all of
this and all of our digging intothis, that the defense team, the
(33:36):
attorneys directly knew about this league.All we've seen is that it's coming through
somebody who used to work for AndyBaldwin who may have gotten improper access,
but nothing about like, oh,they directed this, And I'd like also
to make a player I don't thinkwe made in this discussion. The league
(33:57):
ultimately was more than just photos becausethis person, we got it out here
to read the messages exchanged between ourand our source, and those messages included
a lot of details about defense strategyand things the defense was doing, things
(34:20):
that have not reached the public's attention, and also even details like oh today
Andy's going to drive here and dothis, things of that nature. So
it's it's become clear that the personwho worked at the firm, who was
past person it previously worked at thefirm, who was passing this information along,
still enjoyed good relations with people thereand was getting information from them.
(34:45):
So it was that one time breach, It was a it was a extended
breach, if that makes sense now. I just wanted to specify that if
you if you're just watching television somethingsometimes that is not explained for well to
kind of go jumping on to thenext guest, the next expert or whatever,
(35:05):
and what you just said does notbeen explained really well. In my
opinion, can't speak for what youguys have said because I haven't listened for
a few weeks. I'm not gonnalie, but I wanted to specify here
in this setting. So two thingsleft, and I'm appreciate you staying over
with me. I know you're busy. What is the fallout of this?
What do you see happening? Whodoes this impact negatively positively aside from the
(35:29):
victims of this heinous crime. I'mjust talking in a courtroom setting. So
there's a hearing that's been called.And what's the general consistence of what I'll
be discussed there? And what aresome possibilities from when this has happened before
some fallouts that have happened from it. Great question, and I know so
tomorrow is it's going to be thehearing on Thursday, October nineteenth. Our
(35:52):
understanding is that the league will bediscussed and Judge Gall, Judge Frank Gall,
who's the judge on this, hasa wide range of options because these
attorneys are appointed by the court,so Richard Allen isn't paying for them,
the state is, and they werebrought in by the court. He can
reprimand them, don't let this happenagain. She can. There could be
(36:15):
fines, There could be contempt atcourt charges. There could be the dismissal
of one or both attorneys and Wedon't know this because this is all up
to the judge. They have suchpower and such latitude over handling a situation
like this. But again, theconsequences could be very severe. Consequences could
be comparatively minor as well. Whothis negatively effects, in addition to the
(36:39):
girls' families, just on an emotionallevel, it negatively effects in my opinion,
Richard Allen's writes, he's been accusedof an awful crime. If images
of what he's alleged to have doneare published, then I believe that inflames
public opinion against him. Maybe forsome people if they say, oh,
it must be the others who didthis, But I think other people are
(37:00):
going to be inflamed against him.It's not fair to him prior to his
trial. In addition to that,I would say that it negatively, I
mean, it negatively impacts the defensebecause there's a there's a there's a credibility
issue here, you know, whenthey're directed to you know, guard this
material carefully and it gets out.There's also an issue of if they are
(37:20):
removed, then what happens, youknow. I mean, it's just it's
an awful situation, and you know, even though we've not seen any evidence
implicating the lawyers directly, it's goingto come down on them because this is
not If it was a situation wherethis was like a current paralegal who was
doing something to sabotage them, butwho had filled out the paperwork and the
(37:43):
lawyers have done everything correctly, thenit would come down on that person.
But the buck stops with the attorneys, we believe in this situation. So
it's going to be ramifications for them. It's by deal, do you think,
Yeah? And I'd also like tostress another thing to consider in terms
of the rights of Richard Allen.If the most extreme thing happens and Judge
(38:04):
goal ends up removing both of thesedefense attorneys, then obviously this man's trial
is not going to happen in January. There's so much evidence in this case.
It's such a complicated case that ifthere's new attorneys appointed, they're going
to need a lot of time togo through that, all through all that,
and Richard Allen is innocent until provenguilty. He hasn't been convictim of
(38:29):
anything. He's already been imprisoned fora year, and so that time's going
to be extended. Yeah, andwe just want to say, Jeff,
like this is just sorry, justan aside, we really appreciate you and
the sensitivity and intelligence that you bringto your coverage of this case, because
I feel like us checking in withyou once in a while is clarifying for
(38:52):
us as reporters to kind of regrouplook at the big picture. We're so
in the weeds on this sometimes itfeels that it's often very nice to come
on and out with you, especiallyin circumstances like this where it's just been
a very heavy process for the pasta few weeks, and just thank you.
We're sorry that we probably seem depressed. We're not our usual bubbly selves
(39:13):
because we're normally so charismatic and happy. No, I'm just I'm sharing of
it. I'm you know, II just want to say we appreciate what
you do because I feel like youyou get a lot of this, and
you get a lot of the bigpicture and able to convey that to your
own We get a lot of ourwe get a lot out of our conversations.
Yeah, so I just again wantto commend you for what you're doing,
and you know your coverage and justkeep up the really good work because
(39:36):
we appreciate it. That means alot to me, and I've I've got
very emotional when you started tearing up, I was tearing up on you.
Uh. It's been rough because upof the last few weeks, but a
lot of just crying jags. Youknow. I can't like say I relate
to this situation with anybody, norwould I be that crazy to say that
I do have daughters, So Ido I feel emotional connection there. Although
(40:00):
I can't relate to the situation,and God haven forbid that never would want
to. But it's still an emotionalattachment there that I definitely feel for me.
It's beyond obviously it hits at homebecause it is near home, right
and because of the situation if Ihave kids. So I appreciate you guys
(40:22):
taking the time to tidy up thatpart of it a little bit. And
I would summarize it also by sayingthat it doesn't do the prosecution any favors
either, if we have any sortof question that this the Richard Allen's not
going to have a fair trial.And that's piggybacking off what you just said,
but I wanted to bring that pointup. This just muddies the waters
even more of this guy's getting afair trial. So there's nobody that benefited
(40:46):
from the leak or a lot ofthe other drama that we've talked about that
happened with this case. Yes,But and you're kind of just on a
lighter note, you're talking about thebuck stops with me. I was thinking
of those, Joe Hogg said,political commercials that tree Fort, the guy
running against him put out on thetrue Crime on the Crime. Have you
(41:07):
seen that commercial where there's talking aboutlike all the crime that happened and he's
like it all is on me,Joe Hogg said, saying that anyway,
so you know it's that time ofthe earth, the political commercials. What's
in this? On a really anotherheart tugging moment here before we split our
ways for the day. What doesit mean to you guys that people,
(41:30):
this isn't the only time that somebody'scoming with you information that probably shouldn't be
public or information true or false orwhatever. But what does it mean to
you, guys that this individual cameto you and trusted you with doing the
right thing with this. It's veryhumbling and we appreciated and we just want
to say the guy who leaked tous was not the original leaker. A
(41:52):
lot of people have been putting hateon him. I don't really understand why
I tend to think that in thissituation like this is especially since somebody has
possibly had a suicide link to it, coming towards people with compassion, and
he very quickly, I think,was just like, wait, what have
I been doing? And then canyou help me make it right? And
(42:15):
for him, making it right wasgoing to the police, and so we
very much appreciated him. I feellike we've gotten to know him, and
he's a nice guy, and we'veall of us made mistakes, all of
us about things that we may notbe proud of or it bears by,
and we all deserve better than tobe judged by our worst moments. And
(42:37):
I just feel like he immediately rectifiedthe situation by saying, okay, I
was participating in this league and thenall of a sudden, you're like,
I'm sure we've all had that momentof realization where we've been doing something,
we've almost been so one track minded, we're just doing it, and then
we kind of come up for airand say, I mean I may need
to do something differently now. AndI feel like the strength of changing your
(42:59):
mind and then switching and pivoting saysa lot more about somebody's character than just
the initial mistake. And so weappreciate him and appreciate the trust he gave
us. How have you guys grownas individuals and professionals since we started this
a journey with this case? Sothis case has done a lot of things,
(43:23):
had a huge impact on a lotof people. But you guys in
particular, how would you say it'schanged as far as your view on law,
Kevin? Than you know, Anyaand Kevin, I guess your view
on journalism. We talked about truecrime directly, But what about you guys
personally? This has got to bejust a crazy journey this last year and
(43:47):
a half, two years, youguys really dug deepn Well, I guess
it's been about a year since you'vedug deep. Yeah, how kind of
you to assume we've grown. Ifeel like I've just become more angry and
jaded sometimes because I like, I'vejust seen a lot of stuff that I
find wrong with this. I thinkit's made me realize on some level the
(44:10):
importance of good journalism, and whynot waiting for authority to give you information
is so important. Why it's importantto just go and get it and inform
the public, because I've seen whathappens when it's Kevin said, you're not
getting the information. You know,credible reporters are very busy, especially at
(44:35):
the local level. They are coveringeverything. They're running around and covering a
fire and then city hall meeting,and they don't have a lot of time
to dig, and so it's nota criticism to say that sometimes it's hard
for them to break through a storyif they're not being given any official word
from law enforcement in this case.But when that happens, when all the
credible journalists go home because they don'thave any reporting to do because they can't
(44:58):
get backs on the record from authorities, then you have the clowns sweep in
and they just start making stuff up. And if nobody is going there and
pushing and saying, what is reallygoing on, let's get this out there,
then you have an informational vacuum,and that's dangerous and that is harmful
to the people at the center ofthis, and so that's it's heightened my
(45:22):
resolve to try to do journalism,responsible journalism in a new media format.
And I'll say for me one thing, when you're not a part of the
case directly, when you're just readingabout it as a news consumer, I
think it's easy to almost think ofit as a story, no different from
(45:47):
something you might read in a book. So the book, I'm reading it
on a computer monitor or newspaper,and so it's easy to lose track of
the fact that these are real peopleat the center of it. And I'm
going to be big about our sources, but we have a lot of sources
(46:07):
all over the case that we've talkedto and come to now and that's been
meaningful to get to know that theseare all real people. And also,
generally speaking, any time we've talkedwith people and learn more about what's happening
behind the scenes, I think it'sfair to say we've developed more empathy and
(46:29):
understanding. I feel that really everybodyinvolved in this is really doing their best.
And it's easy to say, oh, John Doe really messed up and
he made this choice, or sodid this they just don't care, But
everybody in this case cares, andwe're all doing their best. But they're
(46:50):
human and so I think it's increasedmy empathy for everyone in the case and
just people in general, because it'slike when you're flattened down to a you
know, few words in a newsarticle, you know, that doesn't really
capture the very complicated human person youknow behind that name, and you know,
it's just important to just remember thatif you were suddenly thrust into a
(47:14):
really high profile situation, you know, regardless of what side you're on,
you know, you would probably hopethat people engage with you in an empathetic
manner too, as opposed to justassuming the worst at every turn, or
you know, criticizing. I mean, I mean, even the families in
this case have gotten so much criticismabout how they're hiding something, They must
be hiding something, and it's like, just imagine if that were you and
(47:37):
your family and you were thrust intothe spotlight and people were without any evidence,
just taking apart everything you said andjust maybe consider that that would be
pretty hurtful. And one more thingI think something that's really changed and helped
me grow with this is this wholeexperience has brought a lot of wonderful people
(47:58):
into our lives. Play about someof the social media stuff with justification.
But we've met a lot of greatpeople. We've met you, We wouldn't
have met you if not for thiscase, and you're a great person.
We really get a lot of outof our conversations with you. And we've
also met other people listeners and stuffwho we don't even talk to, we
(48:19):
just exchange emails or text with.And there are so many good people out
there. There's so many good andcaring people. It really does give you
faith for the future. Well said, and I think for me, it's
also important to kind of think aboutif you have a platform like what we
(48:43):
do, like we've built different platforms. Obviously I'm not big into the true
crime scene by any means, butother things that I do. If you
have a platform, you need toreally think about what you're doing with it
and kind of take it considering thesethings that we've talked about today. Even
if your platform is a blog abouttrue crime, being in a community about
(49:08):
true crime and trying to help investigatewhether your blogs, being a podcaster or
somebody on television, you really gotto do and think about what's right for
and do what's right on the platformthat you have available as an outlet and
make sure you're doing the right things, you're utilizing it correctly, because it's
(49:28):
easy to get off track, Ithink, is what I can say from
this conversation. We just said amen, And it's easy when you see people
making mistakes to want to calls themout and put your boot on their neck
and just shame them as much aspossible. But please try to have some
grace because you don't know what thosepeople are going through. And sometimes when
(49:52):
you're facing a lot of public criticismor personal criticism, it feels worse than
it really is and you think it'llnever pass. It'll pass, right,
But in that moment, if peopleare putting their heels on your neck and
just kicking you and kicking you,who knows what a person might be.
Gret Huh very well said, Ienjoyed this time. Sorry went a little
(50:15):
bit over. If you're here toif you're here because of the Murder Sheet,
check out some cool stuff I haveon Indiana and American history. If
you're here for because you've come fromthat outlet, then make sure you check
out the Murder Sheet podcast. They'vegot. They do some other deep dives
into some things, so they gotthey've got a lot of stuff and they've
talked to a lot of people aboutthis case in particular, and it's valid,
(50:37):
good logical information, nothing reckless beingshared on the Murder Sheet podcast,
which I always appreciate. So makesure you check out that podcast wherever you
listen to podcasts or Murder Sheet podcastdot com. Man, I'll never forget
that because I run the website.Yes I running. I mean I don't
(50:58):
have to do anything with it.But nevertheless, yeah, thank you both
for your time as always, andI encourage everybody to check out everything you
guys are doing. Thank you,Thank you, Thank you for listening to
this episode of Indiana Stories. Ifyou like what you heard, you can
go to Indiana Stories dot com formore episodes and other stories relating to Indiana.
(51:19):
Also, if you're enjoying this podcast, there's several things you can follow,
the podcast itself, the newsletter,and various other things. Thanks again
for listening, and we will beback with another episode, and I hope
you join us for another Indiana Story. And the question is do I stay
(51:59):
here? Will you be back?How are you going to come back?
Will you be back? How areyou coming back?
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.