September 26, 2023 • 46 mins
In 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 information from the 136 page memorandum Richard Allen's Lawyers filed.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
What's she gonna do? Brother?When Jeff Townsend Media runs wild on you.
This is Jeff Townsend. Thank youfor joining us for another episode of
Indiana Stories. All right, you'relistening in to another episode of America Stories.
(00:27):
But we're pivoting to our Indiana Storiesthat we do from time to tie,
that we used to do all thetime. And the reason we're doing
that is because about a year ago, actually interesting backstory of how this happened.
I had the Murder Shoot podcast onas they joined me today on Yukane
and Kevin Gramley, the lovely onYukane and the stoic Kevin Gramley will say
that anyway. So we actually wehad a lot of listeners last year asking
(00:50):
a lot of questions about the Delphicase. I think they're just casual interest
in it, probably not as deepas some people are into it. And
we recorded an episode. We dida two parter I think we recorded in
one session, though I've released itin two parts, where we talked about
just the case in general. ThenI believe three days later there was an
arrest made. If I remember howthis happened, So we talked about the
(01:12):
case in detail before any arrest wasmade. Then before I could even release
the episode, an arrest was made. So then we've kind of because of
interest and a lot of questions andcomments, we come back in as soon
as we receive more information, andthat's exactly what happened earlier this week.
So yeah, the Murder sheryt podcastjoins me. Of course, guys,
(01:33):
I'm excited to talk to you again. I wish it was ever better circumstances,
but it's always nice when you takethe time to catch up with me.
You're all over TV, you're hereeverywhere, and you take the time
to talk to this guy, Sothat means we love talking with you,
Jeff. You always ask such greatquestions and you have a real grasp of
the case, so it's always delightfulfor us to speaking to grasp with the
case. You guys definitely have byfar more than that than me. Whenever
(01:55):
I hear anything I actually I think, I think it's on you I speak
with, I always say, hey, how significant is this? You're like
big he you know, whatever you'lltell me, and this week was definitely
significant. We'll get into some ofthe details of that. The people listening
to start off though, the defense, so walk me through what happened here
because this information was available for whatjust a short amount of time. Originally,
(02:16):
I don't I'm not an expert byany means, but how does something
like this go about, where thisinformation comes out then it's like sealed or
what happened? Well, the defenseon Monday filed this document and they did
not request that it be made confidentially, did not request that it be sealed,
(02:36):
and so it was open for anybodywho wanted to access it. We
actually received a copy of it fromthe Clerk of the court. She emailed
it to us. Yeah, andsome people are wondering if it should have
been sealed, given that a lotof details, a lot of names.
It's since been seemingly we've heard thatit's been sealed, possibly by the judge.
(03:00):
Though not to be flippant, butthe horses out of the barn,
you know, like that's shutting thebarn door at this point, because the
media has been all over it.It's been extensively reported on, so the
information is definitely out there seemingly.And this is my opinion I get so.
I guess it's my podcast. Ican be more opinionated than you guys
are. Pretty neutral and respective,I guess I could say on yours in
(03:23):
investigative integrity, which is great,but seemingly to me purposely possibly I guess,
done strategically. In my opinion,it could be a strategic move like
that. We'll get into some ofthe details. But to me, how
weird is this that this didn't waittill trial. Oh, that's such a
good question. To me, it'sa little bit weird. And I'll explain
(03:45):
why. Specifically. The Frank's memorandumreally includes a lot of the really interesting
information, and it essentially outlines thedefense's entire case, you know, who
they think did the murders, asopposed to their ban Richard Allen. And
what's interesting about that is the Frank'smemorandum really only has to get into where
(04:06):
law enforcement messed up so the PCAcan be thrown out probable cause affidavid for
the search warrant. And that's whatthe Frank's motion is meant to do.
So all of this stuff about whothey think did it is, you know,
not necessarily fundamental to achieving the goalof saying, hey, law enforcement
(04:28):
lied about this. Here's why thesearch warrant should be tossed. So that
seems a bit unusual to me,how about you, Kevin, Yeah,
I was a little bit surprised andwent into so much detail. It's spelling
out this alternate theory. But certainlybehind the scenes they've been the defense has
been deposing witnesses, asking witnesses questions. To me, though, just from
(04:50):
watching a lot of televised cases andcourt particularly court events before, this is
like a defense that would be laidout in a tr I'll especially the some
of the revellions that there are peoplethat they can we'll just say it people
they say did it, Like normallythat would be something that's kind of laid
(05:10):
out in court, like not RichardAllen didn't do this, but this person
did it. And this has allbeen laid out in front of us months
before this even goods of trial.So to me that seemed very unique.
Yeah, there's so much about theDelphi case that is just kind of really
see it in other cases, andit makes it hard for us because we
always like to compare things to othercases. Okay, well, this is
somewhat like, you know, whathappened in this case, But unfortunately there's
(05:35):
a lot of things that are singularabout Delphi, and certainly it puts the
people who were named and rather uncomfortableposition because suddenly they're being associated with the
murder of these two young children.That's certainly it must have been a shocking
thing for them to wake up toMonday morning. Just going into it a
(05:56):
little bit here, So some ofthe things that we had not I'm more
than certain that you guys had hearda lot of these things that were released
today beforehand but did not share anda lot of other individuals as well that
have been investigating the case. Butof one of the things that wasn't made
a little bit more clear is themurder scene itself had been a pretty closed
lip like what the environment was likethere, what it happened, what the
(06:19):
bodies were like, and all that, and that was revealed in this document
to an extent. As far asthe positioning there was actually I'm trying to
it was on Court TV. Itwasn't. It wasn't an episode that you
guys were on. But they actuallyhad a presentation of a layout of how
the bodies were staged, and alot of this information was new, and
(06:40):
along with that, it was someof the they wanted a greater detail about
it, but just to start offsome of the how the bodies were positioned,
and then they actually clarified something thatwe had all been discussing though,
where the location of the phone was. So this is something that, like
I think, was always wondered,like where was this phone at? There
was a record had tossed off tothe side. It certainly didn't seem like
(07:01):
the whoever's being accused of committing themurder knew about it, and I think
this kind of solidifies that because thephone was stuck up underneath one of the
victims bodies, correct, Yeah,or hidden underneath or or laid on.
I mean, I don't know howto describe it exactly, but I understanding
it was it was under one ofthe bodies. Yeah, And we hadn't
known that really before, and Ithink that was something that was snooted from
(07:26):
this today, I mean earlier thisweek, excuse me. Yeah, there
was a number of details about thecrime scene had not been publicly confirmed.
Also, it was mentioned that oneof the victims had been dressed in the
clothes that the other victim had beenwearing. That's certainly an odd detail that
(07:46):
certainly must have taken the killer orkillers a fair amount of time and effort
to do, and you can't helpbut wonder why they did that. I
don't want to go into the I'lljust give the basic details real quickly and
get it out of the way,because they're kind of grewesome and to be
quite frank, making me uncomfortable havinga father of three daughters. So one
of the victims, Libby, wasfound nude. Blood spots and blood dripping
(08:09):
sent all over Libby's body. Noblood sprayed or dripped onto the leaves or
tree near the Libby's head, whichhad basically made it look like stage right
off the side of the directly inline with the tree. I guess I'm
going to say. They also determinedthe wound to the neck. Abbey was
found fully closed, dressed in Libby'swet shirt and jeans like you just brought
that up. Abbey was found wearingtwo brawls. Strange, no blood on
(08:31):
Abby's clothes, very little blood onthe body, and Libby's phone was found
lit, phone and shoe found underAbbey's lower back. So we just talked
about that and knocked out of theway. Uncomfortable, but it's important to
the pieces together, So Yeah,the phone was revealed underneath one of the
body's victims. But like you said, two different and both of them handled
completely different. And then some ofthe things that were used were tree limbs,
(08:54):
correct to cover up the bodies.Yes, that's correct. This one
of the strange signatures that seemed tobe at the scene. Yeah, and
it's one of those things where wecan look at it like signature. We
could kind of go down a rabbithole as much as we want on too
how significant it is. We obviouslydon't. We weren't there, We didn't
see it. But if some peopleare saying, hey, they just used
(09:16):
lembs cover them up, some peopleare saying there strategically placed symbolically, I
guess you could say, and we'llgo into that a little bit here.
So with that being said, there'sbeen some things that are brought on that
document based on just the crime sceneitself. Yes, yeah, sorry,
I guess it was a really goodquestion. It was a statement with a
(09:37):
question like statement question work, Iam Rod Burgundy question work sort of thing.
But yeah, so they this documentreveals, and I hadn't heard of
this group, and maybe you guyshad or hadn't that there could have been
a cult like setting that took orevent that took place motivationally charged this murder.
(10:00):
It's a doozy so, but thedefense is theory of the case essentially
is that a group of Odinists followingan old Norse religion sort of neopaganism that
the defense associate has associated with whitesupremacy and certainly has been associated with white
(10:20):
supremacy publicly, like you know bythe Southern Property Law Center, A group
of them sacrifice the girls in somesort of religious and obviously that's generating quite
a lot of headlines. It's avery unusual type of killing. From what
we can tell. It's not commonthat you have cults running around sacrificing children.
(10:43):
It's just I think that's fair tosay. And this group is actually
identified by name in the document andit's basically what the defense is saying is
that there are runics symbols in thecrime scene that speak to the odiness essentially,
(11:03):
and I think what we're gonna seeis come down to is interpretation and
whatever lens you're looking at it,If you're looking at it through an Odinis
lens with which the defense is andyou're seeing the ruins in the sticks that
posed over the bodies. You're seeingit in some blood spladder on one of
the trees, unfortunately with Libby's blood, and they claim that that is in
(11:26):
the shape of a ruin. Sothat's what they're saying. I don't know
this for a fact, but Ihave a feeling that prosecution's probably going to
say that that's blood spladder and sticks. So we're it's going to be the
two interpretations. Who's is more credibleto the jury? Go ahead, Kevin,
it seems like you're in thought orwell, I just couldn't mention that.
(11:46):
They further identified an individual whom's sonwas the boyfriend of Abbey, and
they indicated that they weren't sure thatit is alibi. Shocked out and said
he was at work at the time, and they went so far as to
say, well, even if hewas at work, it could be a
Charles Mainson type of situation where hedid not personally participate in the murders,
(12:13):
but he's somehow inspired. They basicallyconfirmed his alibi that yes, you know,
he was at the very least hiscard was clocked in from worked from
this time to that time. Theykind of throw out, well, maybe
someone clocked in for him. We'rekind of getting into the realm of is
that likely. But they do notethat the true ring leader doesn't have to
(12:35):
be at the scene, so itseems like they're identifying that specific individuals very
important for their theory because he seemsto be a connected tissue between a couple
of different elements of this alleged group. But it seems like the defense is
almost strategically leaked information out over thelast several months. I don't even want
(12:56):
to say leaked. This thing isjust part of a defense strategy. We
talked about that last time we spokehow the time into this was very interesting,
the confessions and all that, andit seems like this is this part
of piecing together to defense before thetrial even begins, or seemingly could be,
if you understand what I'm saying,right, Yeah, it's definitely very
aggressive messaging because, as we said, there's no reason for this to really
(13:20):
be in a Frank's memorandum. Sothe fact they're putting it out there,
I means, you know, theywant the public to have it, they
want the media to engage with itand get it out there. Basically that
narrative, which is that it's acult of odin Us, And what they're
actually arguing is even a bit morefar flooded than that, because they're saying
that there are Odinus in the prisonwhere Richard Allen is being capped, who
(13:46):
are not you always get you.I'll go where I'm gonna go on you
every time. I don't have tosegue either one of you two where I'm
going. It's just some connection thatwe have. So I wanted to say
that, absolutely, you're going rightinto what I had thinking about. Next.
Yeah, this is I mean,because I'm sure you picked up on
this. This is where it getsreally, I mean, because the other
stuff is wild. I mean,I think that's fair to say. I'm
not being flippant. It's just,wow, a cult of Pagans did it?
(14:11):
Now we're getting into Actually, thecult of Pagans is also aligned with
prison guards who are actively torturing RichardAllen and maybe forcing him to confess to
the crimes or they will hurt hiswife. So a lot to impact there.
But one thing I do want tosay is that if anyone is associated
with a white supremacist group who's workingin a prison, that's obviously an unacceptable
(14:37):
situation. We have been hearing fromsome people that there are people who are
Pagans and believe in Odin who arenot white supremacists and just want to practice
their religion. So we get intokind of a complicated area here because I
think everyone can kind of condemn whitesupremacy but also want people to be able
to worship their own religion. SoI don't know where any of this falls
(14:58):
on this spectrum here, but that'sjust something that I'm thinking about. But
yeah, the prison guard stuff iswhere you get in an interesting footnote,
the attorneys did say that they hadnever heard from Richard Allen that he was
being forced to confess. They didclarify that in a footnote, but they
(15:20):
did indicate it was possible that that'swhy he confessed, because obviously that's something
they have to explain the fact thatRichard Allen, we are told in court
filings he actually repeatedly confessed to thisprime in a phone call with his wife,
and the defense has to try toexplain that. And this seems to
(15:43):
be their exclamation that he may havebeen forced to do sell back women guards.
Last time we spoke, we actuallydiscussed that in detail, and going
back to what I just said,it seems awfully strategic the release of information
here. So we have the confessionand now we're lining it up with some
of the wise of why there mayhave been a confession. This is certainly
one of them. They've even goneto detail to say that they've been filming
(16:06):
some of the sessions between the attorneysand Richard Allen and other different things that
could be impactful on the court.This is a huge allegation for sure,
and they're gonna have to investigate further, and hopefully this is something that they
could be proven to be true orfalse, which other direction they go.
It seems definitely something they could beinvestigated though. Yeah, I think,
I mean, certainly, as wesaid, a prison is an environment where
(16:30):
you know, there's a lot ofpeople of color who are incursorted and if
you have people associated with any sortof white promise this group, we're in
a position of power there that's notokay, and so that I think should
be taken seriously just and investigated onits on its own. You know,
where you have a possible link betweenpeople interested in odinism who may have committed
(16:52):
the Delphi murders. And for folkswho are not in Indiana, Westville is
not close to Delify, this prettyfar away. It's an inn ordern part
of Indiana, the northmost part.So it's not like you're having people from
Delphi. You're just like kind ofassociating with I don't know, it's it's
it's definitely a lot of interesting thingsto unpack, but yeah, it's it's
(17:17):
a lot. It's a lot.There were some other things that came out
of this though, I think thatwould be very impactful on this case.
One of which was the way therewas a complaint on the way to which
the evidence and things were collected,and that would be a dammy That would
probably be what would just spook ofkind of seems like a rabbit hole to
me, but in fact, ifsome of this evidence gets tossed out,
(17:40):
that would be very damning for prosecution. Yeah, that's absolutely right, and
I'll jump in there. I mean, the thing that really speaks to the
Franks the Delaware issues is the defense'sallegations about Tony Leggett lying about witness statements.
And if that's the case, andthe piece and the probable cause effidavit
(18:02):
for the search warrant was flawed,then you could have an impact. Could
you could get the search warrant thrownout. If you lose the search warrant,
you lose his gun. Therefore,you lose the bullet tying him to
the scene, and you probably losehis confessions because he wouldn't have been in
prison if he hadn't been arrested overthe search warrant, over the findings of
the search warrant. So you losethe case against Richard Allen if that piece
(18:26):
is flawed. You talked about someof the witnesses and all that. What
exactly was said in this that happened? I know there some of it was
around a sketch, the sketches ofthe suspect. Yeah, there was a
crucial witness who gave a description ofthe person she saw out on the trails
that day, and the description shegave clearly does not fit Richard Allan.
(18:51):
She describes him as having I thinkfufy or puffy hair or poofy hair,
and Richard Allen clearly does not haveyour fluffy hair. Vinnie Politan on Court
TV calls him a young justin Timberlake. Yes, yes, I saw you
guys both crack a smile on thatone too. Also, there was a
witness who supposedly saw the car matchinga description of the vehicle that Richard allenone
(19:18):
in a parking lot at the Tide, or the description she gained does not
match the description of Richard Allen's actualvehicle. So these things might suggest that
the person she saw the vehicle theysaw was not Richard Allen or Richard Allen's
vehicle. So if if, ifit turns out the law enforcement massaged witness
statements to get the outcome they wanted. You know, we did notice that
(19:41):
some of the language used by thedefense to describe some of this, they
were like in twenty seventeen, thiswitness just said muddy, not bloody,
And that kind of left the dooropen for us a little bit where like
war was there a twenty eighteen statementwhere she said maybe it was blood I
don't know. I mean, that'sjust total speculation, But there could be
(20:03):
there could be some meet like meetingin the middle where you can understand why
the defense is making this argument,but you can also say that it's not
necessarily fair to say that like lawenforcement is lying. Do you know what
I'm saying, This is all Thisfeels like to me, more of a
normal route of what you would hearin trial compared to the the theory that
(20:26):
we had we started off on.This discussion on these things are critical on
any defense, right, I meanimmediately you want to be able to attack
the integrity of the investigation. Andthis is absolutely huge. So makes sense
to me what you're saying ahead,Kevin, Yeah, I was gonna say,
I agree. The first hundred somepages were all about Oldenism, oldness,
(20:48):
but then it really gets to thispart about well, maybe the witnesses
didn't say what we were told,maybe there's chain of custody issues with the
evidence, and these are things weren'tin lying what you were expect from a
typical Frakes motion. I would alsojust say that a lot of pre trial
motions in most cases, even relativelyhigh profile cases, don't always get a
(21:11):
ton of attention. And the Delphi'sobviously different Delphi. The media is ready
at every turn about what the latestmotion is. So there's a lot that
can be lost or won on pretrial motions. I think in this case,
you know, if Judge Gulls like, yeah, they totally messed up
the PCA. I think the caseagainst Richard Allan falls apart if you lose
(21:33):
that search warrant. But if notand it stays in the bullet ultimately stays
in and the confession stay in,then obviously that's a different landscape for defense
to navigate. Yeah, confession andthe bullet casing place and you get to
seem of the crime are definitely verypowerful. A lot of things released in
this I will say that that,like we just touched up on that end
(21:59):
part is definitely It was interesting howit was loaded up frontloaded with a lot
of this information on this cult religiousorganization, then kind of factually on the
back than the facts at the end. To summarize these documents up with something
like this is normally normally released asit normally this big is not typically this
long, and typically they focus morenot they focused not on alternate theories of
(22:26):
the case as much as picking apartwhat law enforcement may have done to incorrectly
in order to get the warrant.So basically, in general they've been more
like the last thirty or so pagesand lost like the first hundred pages.
The both of you have spoke witha lot of people who probably know Richard
(22:47):
Allen, and what's the general consensusyou get from those conversations. Basically,
we've talked to people who grew upwith him and people who worked with him
in some capacity at the scene,yes, in Peru Indiana, and because
he worked at the Peru Indiana CBSbefore he worked at the doll I gotcha.
(23:07):
Basically what everyone is said is normaldude, just a normal very quiet
not talking much, but had asense of humor. And you know,
it wasn't completely standoffish, but youknow, generally not somebody who was going
to get super personal with you atwere but somebody who you could count on.
(23:27):
One person had more of a negativeexperience with him, but it was
it was really in line with likehypical coworker stuff. They had a bit
of a conflict. She felt hewas micromanaging her, and there was just
kind of not a good vibe there, but not in like a murder way,
just really in like that was reallythe only negative saying. Other people
(23:48):
you know who grew up with thefamily grew up in Mexico, Indiana,
which is right outside of Peru,Indiana. A while of confusing names in
Indiana and moved to Delphi later onand had had a child, had a
daughter, was married for years toa woman named Kathy, who he was
(24:11):
you know with I think they weretogether since high school and you know,
just kind of very much a guywho's under the radar. So and that's
what you know, people were alwaysemailing us like, oh, find out
how weird he was. And it'slike, we're going to just report what
people who knew and tell us,like, we're not going to try to
cherry pick to make him look sinister. If people are telling us he's a
(24:33):
normal dude and that's what they saw, then that's what's going in the show.
Sometimes when when there is a murdercase and and somebody is arrested and
convicted and we deep dive back intotheir past and we hear about things,
a lot of the times that theyare just this seems to be the case,
just a normal person. You'll havea person here or there, we'll
(24:53):
have share some ridiculous experience they hadwith him, or or a negative one
I guess I'll say, but alot of times it's just they are,
I mean, seemingly a normal person. You know. I will say,
like on the spectrum of is he, you know, sociable versus non sociable.
We have not been able to finda lot of people who knew him,
(25:15):
and that's not the case for everybodythat we've looked at on the show
if But then again, like Imean, I'm I'm probably somewhat introverted.
I don't think there's a lot ofpeople who really know me. I don't
think that's necessarily sinister, but itis something to be said here. I
don't think he was mister out onthe town, going around, hanging out,
(25:37):
partying with everybody. I think hereally strikes us as just more of
us, person who went to work, did his job, came home,
was with the family. We've nottalked to a lot of people who have
said that they were his friend,or even people who lived in his neighborhood
who knew him or the family particularlywell. We have that Again, that
(25:59):
doesn't mean anything. It's just anote. Although frankly, sometimes when a
high profile thing like this happens,people who do know somebody, they don't
really want to come forward because theydon't want to be maligned. And there's
such an undercurrent in this case wherepeople try to make it into everyone wants
it to be bigger, bigger,bigger. It's not one guy. It's
a sex cult. It's not oneguy. It's a pedophile ring. You
(26:22):
know. So if you come forwardand say Richard Allen was my buddy,
you know you're gonna be grouped intothat. And I can understand if some
people are like, I don't wantto put myself through that, Yeah,
absolutely understandably. So I don't knowif this is on the same Court TV
episode that you guys were on.There was an individual on there that dropped
bombshell of a statement being that therewere Yeah, the recordings is famously heard
(26:48):
around the world, guys down thehill. This individual, I don't remember
the person's name, flat out saidthere's two different people saying that. So
one person saying guys, other personssaying down the hill. I don't know
how he came to that conclusion.But to summarize this document, they kind
of went off on a lengthy statementabout how it would be impossible for Richard
Allen to physical Let's just say physicallydo this right, and I'll give you
(27:11):
some examples on that they touched theytouched up on. We stated a little
bit earlier, but just some ofthe crime scene. Even Abbey's hands were
clean, no blood, Abbey's feetwere clean, no blood other than blood
founder around Abbey's neck area. Iguess I don't want to read it all,
but it goes in this huge detailabout how how much work for one
person, particularly Richard Allen, had, would have gone into performing these murders.
(27:34):
Not only that they talk about Ibelieve they use the word hike,
hiking across the river, all theground that would have to be covered,
and just the amount of time atwork that would go into this time span.
Am I accurately describing how that summarizesall this? And they're trying to
end on that note saying a littlea little Richard Allen wouldn't be able to
(27:55):
do that? Yeah, is thisa little short? I throw that opinion
on myself because they had to makesure to mention how small on statue of
his height he was. He's avery short man and we've seen him in
court and he definitely is not atall man, right, I think,
I mean to me, it's likeif sometimes, I mean, when people
emphasize that so much, I'm kindof like, you know, he had
it if he's guilty. Whoever hasa gun on two teenage girls? And
(28:19):
you know, I don't really knowhow much height matters at that point,
but that's just me. That personyou were, I'm not even going to
say their name on this because theydo not deserve any attention. I don't
even know. They're not a credibleperson in our view. We've had dealings
with them and some of the anticsbehind the scenes who wouldn't believe to be
(28:41):
to be frank, So I don'tbelieve the thing. I mean, if
that person says, you know,it's raining out, I'm going to look
out the window. There's so manypeople in this case who just getting on
TV and saying whatever, So that'sfun. But I would say that,
yeah, they I think the fensemade some compelling points about how much work
(29:03):
would have been done at the crimescene. I tended to view it like
as a writer, I feel likeI could make a lot of things sound
a lot more involved. Like ifI was to narrate your morning Jeff,
I could like write down everything inits own little paragraph, and first Jeff
got some coffee, or at firsthe turned the coffee maker on. Then
he like, wouldn't you know,it would just it would make it sound
(29:25):
like you were a very busy personwhen maybe in reality it's just part of
a routine you'd do it. Thatbeing said, it is a lot to
do. He's a middle aged man, he's not exactly in the prime of
his life physicality wise. So Ithink it was a fair point for the
defense to bring up. And Iknow it struck Kevin as like, wow,
I think it would be hard forone person to do that. It
struck me as more like, Ithink somebody can do that, but I
(29:47):
don't know. And of course,after Alan was arrested last year and the
press conference where that was announced prosecuted, Nick mcleland actually said directly that we
think it's possible other people are involvedin this. So when you leave that,
which is why they wanted to nottheir information to get out right,
That was basically one of the reasonsthey wanted this to be stilled a little
(30:08):
bit more exactly, Yeah, becausethey wanted the investigation is ongoing, so
we can't release this information without compromisingthe investigation. So we have to assume
they mean what they say, andif their theory was more than when people
when person involved, there was reasonto believe that. And one of the
reasons to believe that, apparently it'sjust because of how bizarre the crime scene
(30:32):
was and how long and how much, how long, and the effort involved
in doing all this. But thatwas okay. So them describing this religious
cult and all that is going intoto try to make you and the defense
is doing their job. Let's justsay that, I'm not knocking the defense
that is going into to convince youthat these leaves, these these limbs,
(30:56):
these tree limbs, that they metsomething everything, it's something. Therefore,
it would make that event impossible todo in that time frame with one person.
See what I'm saying, like obviouslystrategically done, because let's just say
these were just trying to cover upsomebody just trying to cover up a body,
real quick. That is a lotdifferent than saying somebody's strategically trying to
(31:18):
set up a I don't be everthe word ruin or whatever we used,
it's completely different. And you haveto paint that picture for a believability for
the case of two people doing it. I don't say you have to,
but it makes it more than likelywith two people to do it. If
the events that took place were thatmuch more detailed and lengthy in nature.
(31:38):
You can interpret it in many differentways like on you just said and she
feels one thing, you feel theother way. But to me like they
have to paint and they went thereally long way to do it. But
the most important part of this documentwas where we're at here at the end,
Why something like that would have takenthat amount of time or why would
(31:59):
it pause? Possibly be that youcould absolutely prove him guilty, right,
I think all that plays in thefactor here as this as all these all
these things were released in this document. Yeah, and I'll say that I
think that it's been a very effectivenarrative so far because we've get we get
a lot of messages from people whoare curious about the case, and I
(32:21):
think something about the odinist angle hasfired up a lot of people. They're
stalking the facebooks of the men whohave been named as odinists. They are
engaging with it in a way theyare basically saying, I mean, we're
getting emails from people who are tryingto like thread the needle and say,
well, could Richard Allen have beenan odinist? And it's like, okay,
(32:45):
no, because I think the defensewould be crazy to do that if
they if there's any like inclination thatkid as gordinous, they're not going to
go with that theory. You know. They're they're they're smart, these they're
smart attorneys. They're not gonna shootthemselves in the foot like that. And
also it's it's also shows me thatpeople are just kind of accepting the defense's
characterization of the crime scene on facevalue, because it's like, Okay,
(33:07):
we have to get around this odeand this thing, how do you know?
And it's like, I think that'svery interesting and it shows the power
of the narrative here. Do youthink the overwhelming amount of information is part
of the strategy too? And I'llgive you an example. Yeah, I
don't want to say it's exactly,this is one. It reminds me of
my opinion. I used to workwith this co worker. Whenever we had
(33:28):
a project, he would go ingreat length to describe how it was impossible
to do the project. I mean, he would give y'all so much information
on how it would be impossible toachieve a goal of a project. It
overwhelmed you with it. As sometimesI felt like irrelevant information in an attempt
to just to derail the project.Does it makes sense what I'm saying to
(33:51):
you. Again, I'm not sayingthis is your guy's opinion, it's mine.
So in a court case, Kevin, you're you're you're a lawyer on
to investigate a journalism for these typesof things, and you have been Is
it common to just I'm going tothrow everything at you to try to overwhelm
you with the purpose of doubt ortrying to raise doubt in your mind.
(34:12):
Yeah, I'd say so, AndI'd say it's often a very effective strategy
because sometimes the more information you givepeople, the more confused they'd become trying
to make sense of it all.There's details, and hear about people allegedly
confessing to their involvement, and thetypical person when they hear that somebody confess,
(34:36):
they said, well, that mustbe an accurate confession, because why
would they confess that they weren't involvedin the crime. And so that people
just try to make it all fitin together like some sort of jigsaw puzzle.
Real life, it's a complicated caseand just causes confusion, and in
this case, confusion helps the defenseabsolutely. Man, I don't I know,
(35:00):
you guys don't feel I don't wantto keep you on here much longer.
But just two more things, oneof them being what do you feel
like this information getting out right nowbefore trial? What are the pros and
cons to sum this up of whatit could do at this trial. I
think a pro for the defense isthat their narrative gets some time to take
root, the lack of a betterterm, they get that out there.
(35:22):
Maybe people are looking for other Odinnessin the Delphi area and they can expand
that theory with the help of thepublic, and they're kind of putting their
line in the sand of like,Okay, here's what we think happens.
So I think that's positive for them. I think the negative for defense,
I suppose maybe people get used toit, and you know, novelty is
(35:46):
a huge thing in the Delfi case. Everybody wants something new, so,
you know, but I think it'sit's an interesting enough theory that it's not
going to be boring, So Idon't know how much that a negative would
be. What do you think aboutfor the prosecution, Kevin, I think
for the prosecution, the biggest negativeimpact is that this document, if you
(36:07):
take it seriously. It strongly suggeststhat the investigation was fatally flawed and that
the investigators made some serious errors.And if that idea gets into the blood
stream, people are going to assume, even when they hear of compelling information
(36:29):
from the prosecution, well, maybethey're not telling us the whole story,
or maybe this is just another oneof their mistakes, and that is something
the prosecution has to deal with.They they're going to have to come out
and defend the integrity of their investigationand the integrity of them men who let
it. I want to say theflip side for the pro for the prosecution
(36:51):
is that if they're able to debunksome of this publicly in a filing for
trial and maybe indicate areas where thedefense overstepped with their statements, I think
that that's adding to the defense's credibilityfrankly, so you know, or you
might get into a situation where it'ssort of a gray area where both sides
are saying they're the liar and asthe public appear to be like okay,
(37:14):
at I don't know who's telling thetruth. So that's kind of I think
where it's dead. Yeah, withthe whole purpose to be to really question
this investigation, which has been scrutinizedby yourselves, by others, by the
world in great detail. And thiswould be like, for example, we
didn't get into it, we all, but the description on how the tree
limbs were cut and how the treelimbs weren't collected, all of this information
(37:37):
being released with the intent of reallymaking you question the I don't even want
to say integrity. I just wantto say, I guess the how much
you could truly rely on the skillset of the people that performed this investigation,
not even negatively maybe just like likepurposely doing it right, just more
or less how professionally there were gapsand opportunities. So I think the obviously
(38:00):
is to try to highlight that lastquestion for you. You guys stick to
a pretty tight script on your podcast, You stick to a pretty tight script
on Court TV. I want totake this opportunity here for you to share
any other feelings or thoughts you haveon the case. And I'll start out.
For me, it's kind of likesad because the further we get into
(38:21):
this and it's just gonna get worsethe further we get away, the more
we dive into these details, thefurther we get away from the victims,
the true victims of the case.That that's my thoughts, just to summarize.
When I look at all this informationin front of me, we start
to victimize Richard Allen. We startbringing all these other people you talked about,
(38:42):
these names that released, You juststart watering it down. More and
more people get impacted, and itjust take it away from the original victims
of this gruesome crime. Very Wellsaid, I feel like there's a movie
that always comes to mindfully with thiscase, and the movie subject is not
about a murder or anything like that, but I just think the environment around
(39:07):
this case reminds me a lot,and I would I'm not going to do
any spoilers, but people should watchit. It's a Billy Wilder directed film.
It's called Ace in the Hole andit's about a newspaper man who's very
jaded, very cynical, and hehappens upon a story where a man is
trapped in a cave and it's aboutthe media circus that ensues. And it
(39:28):
is to me. I watched itand felt like so dead inside because I
was like, yeah, nothing haschanged. It's the most kind of disturbingly
accurate portrait of what could happen ina media circus, and unfortunately, I
think a lot of the things goingon with Delphi their hallmarks of that film.
(39:49):
So I would recommend for all yourlisteners to check it out. It's
but as far as my own feelingsabout all this without going off to the
gunn and going unhinged, excuse me, which I'm sure a lot of people
want us to do, but Idon't. I wasn't my intent. I've
just literally you guys stick to areally tight script. There's you don't share
(40:13):
your opinion, which is fine,Okay, you do a little bit.
Well, that's not the intent ofyour platform. My platform here, I'm
giving you a few minutes not todo something you're uncomfortable with or to try
to put you on the spot.Wait to give you a few minutes to
do something that you wouldn't necessarily takethe time to do on television. We're
skating pressure release, you know.I would say for me, people just
(40:35):
need to stop beating weather rains onit, like, you know, like
we're all waiting for information and theamount of times you know, people I
feel like when he got arrested,when Alan got arrested. People were like,
he's the guilty, you know,get him, and it's like,
okay, he's just been arrested.Fellow, like, let's just see what
the case against him is, seewhat his attorneys have to say. And
(40:58):
then you know, they release fothose of him looking you know, disheveled
and not in good spirits in prison, and then oh my gosh, she's
being tortured, and then it goesback to oh, well, he confessed,
he must be guilty, and it'slike, I just feel like this
roller coaster is just so exhausting,and I just feel like the public I'd
love to see more people just saying, okay, this, let's take in
(41:22):
all this information and like assess itand think about it. And there's no
rush to have a hard opinion onanything in this case. Either way.
It's ultimately going to come down tothe jury and that's what's important. But
I just feel like there's almost likea kind of impulse to like kind of
everyone everyone be a take factory onsocial media, and I kind of just
(41:45):
feel like there's no ultimate point inthat, and there's certainly no point,
you know, the prosecutions slinging stuffat the defense I think we need to
wait till the defense responds before wemake up our minds, and same with
vice versa. So I think that'swhere I am. I think the rush
to judgment can be somewhat problematic attimes. Do you have any I just
(42:06):
went off in Jeb and you haveto do one too. Yeah, it's
very striking. People like immediate gratification. They want immediate answers, and so
when something like this comes out andis revealed, they want it to be
definitive and they want to be ableto believe it without having to do any
(42:30):
further reading or investigation. And unfortunately, it's a it's a boring thing to
say, it's an a dult thingto say, but before you can come
to any final conclusions, you reallydo have to get the other side of
the story, and you have towait. And we certainly hope that the
(42:51):
prosecution files and substitutive response and assoon, and we hope it's not sealed
because we think people have a rightcan see it so they can evaluate the
work their public officials have been doingin their name on this case. Well
said, and I appreciate both ofyour time. Is check out our previous
conversations are all on there. We'vekind of we haven't broken down in long
(43:12):
for what we have done is apretty good job of a couple of probably
hours of listening time that would summarizethis case really well without going into the
greatest detail. If you want tohear more detail, obviously, check out
the Murder Sheet podcast Murder Sheet podcastdot com. You guys have a really
neat Facebook group that I'm a partof, so I think if anybody's interested
in that should look into that andanything else you guys want to plug or
(43:37):
share it. What did I misshere? No, you did it?
That was perfect, And yeah,just check out our Facebook group. It's
it's really pretty chill, I thinkfor a true crime Facebook group. But
just don't fight. I'm in another. I'm in a couple of these del
fi Facebook groups by the way,and yeah, they're they're very different.
They vary indifference from group to group. In comparison to your guys, I
will say that, Yeah, wetry to do something a little different.
(44:00):
We have an excellent we have anexcellent moderator, and people get mad at
us because they like go in andact you know, act up and then
get kicked out and they're like,you kicked us on and we're like,
we leave everything to our mod andshe boots first, nass questions later,
so she's awesome. Yeah, yougotta nip the butt early, I guess,
and get ahead of it. AndI will say again, thank you
guys for the manner you've handled this, the integrity you put into this,
(44:24):
and the way you conduct yourselves allthe time on your podcast, on television,
on social media. As you've hadyour let's just say, arguments with
different true crime podcasters throughout the years, you guys have always handled it really
well in comparison the way they handledit even though, but you guys have
(44:45):
taken the higher out, and Imean the higher I guess you've just you
know, when to pick your battles. And I really appreciate the professionalism that
you guys put it behind your work. We so appreciate that. Thank you.
Jeff. I used to joke toKevin, yet she's the imagine dry
song that comes on everyone wants tobe my enemy. It was a certain
period in time where I was Kevinlike we should meet this our things by
(45:07):
Yeah, yeah, Now, Imean it's it's it's you know, we
just try to. We don't.We don't try to start drama, but
sometimes it happens and you just gotto deal with it. But I would
say a lot of people we've beenable to meet like yourself and and you
know, just a community of peoplewho really I feel like, care about
covering crime and responsible and you know, thoughtful manner, and we just have
(45:29):
been very gratified to meet kindred spiritslike yourself. Kevin, you want to
leave us with a really impactful,stoic quote, I'm just kidding, man,
I will put you on spot likethat. You're sick. You both
are sick, and I appreciate youtaking that time to do this. Check
out the Murder Sheet podcast and backepisodes of this podcast. Thank you both,
and I hope you have a greatrest of the day you too,
Jad. Thank you for listening tothis episode of Indiana Stories. If you
(45:51):
like what you heard, you cango to Indiana Stories dot com for more
episodes and other stories relating to Indiana. Also, if you're enjoying this podcast,
there's several things you can follow,the podcast itself, the newsletter,
and various other things. Thanks againfor listening, and we will be back
with another episode and I hope youjoin us for another Indiana story evening any
(46:36):
Jeff Townsend media, see you goodnight. And the question is do I
stay here? Will you be back? Are you gonna come back? Will
you be back? Are you comingback?
What's she gonna do? Brother?When Jeff Townsend Media runs wild on you.
This is Jeff Townsend. Thank youfor joining us for another episode of
Indiana Stories. All right, you'relistening in to another episode of America Stories.
(00:27):
But we're pivoting to our Indiana Storiesthat we do from time to tie,
that we used to do all thetime. And the reason we're doing
that is because about a year ago, actually interesting backstory of how this happened.
I had the Murder Shoot podcast onas they joined me today on Yukane
and Kevin Gramley, the lovely onYukane and the stoic Kevin Gramley will say
that anyway. So we actually wehad a lot of listeners last year asking
(00:50):
a lot of questions about the Delphicase. I think they're just casual interest
in it, probably not as deepas some people are into it. And
we recorded an episode. We dida two parter I think we recorded in
one session, though I've released itin two parts, where we talked about
just the case in general. ThenI believe three days later there was an
arrest made. If I remember howthis happened, So we talked about the
(01:12):
case in detail before any arrest wasmade. Then before I could even release
the episode, an arrest was made. So then we've kind of because of
interest and a lot of questions andcomments, we come back in as soon
as we receive more information, andthat's exactly what happened earlier this week.
So yeah, the Murder sheryt podcastjoins me. Of course, guys,
(01:33):
I'm excited to talk to you again. I wish it was ever better circumstances,
but it's always nice when you takethe time to catch up with me.
You're all over TV, you're hereeverywhere, and you take the time
to talk to this guy, Sothat means we love talking with you,
Jeff. You always ask such greatquestions and you have a real grasp of
the case, so it's always delightfulfor us to speaking to grasp with the
case. You guys definitely have byfar more than that than me. Whenever
(01:55):
I hear anything I actually I think, I think it's on you I speak
with, I always say, hey, how significant is this? You're like
big he you know, whatever you'lltell me, and this week was definitely
significant. We'll get into some ofthe details of that. The people listening
to start off though, the defense, so walk me through what happened here
because this information was available for whatjust a short amount of time. Originally,
(02:16):
I don't I'm not an expert byany means, but how does something
like this go about, where thisinformation comes out then it's like sealed or
what happened? Well, the defenseon Monday filed this document and they did
not request that it be made confidentially, did not request that it be sealed,
(02:36):
and so it was open for anybodywho wanted to access it. We
actually received a copy of it fromthe Clerk of the court. She emailed
it to us. Yeah, andsome people are wondering if it should have
been sealed, given that a lotof details, a lot of names.
It's since been seemingly we've heard thatit's been sealed, possibly by the judge.
(03:00):
Though not to be flippant, butthe horses out of the barn,
you know, like that's shutting thebarn door at this point, because the
media has been all over it.It's been extensively reported on, so the
information is definitely out there seemingly.And this is my opinion I get so.
I guess it's my podcast. Ican be more opinionated than you guys
are. Pretty neutral and respective,I guess I could say on yours in
(03:23):
investigative integrity, which is great,but seemingly to me purposely possibly I guess,
done strategically. In my opinion,it could be a strategic move like
that. We'll get into some ofthe details. But to me, how
weird is this that this didn't waittill trial. Oh, that's such a
good question. To me, it'sa little bit weird. And I'll explain
(03:45):
why. Specifically. The Frank's memorandumreally includes a lot of the really interesting
information, and it essentially outlines thedefense's entire case, you know, who
they think did the murders, asopposed to their ban Richard Allen. And
what's interesting about that is the Frank'smemorandum really only has to get into where
(04:06):
law enforcement messed up so the PCAcan be thrown out probable cause affidavid for
the search warrant. And that's whatthe Frank's motion is meant to do.
So all of this stuff about whothey think did it is, you know,
not necessarily fundamental to achieving the goalof saying, hey, law enforcement
(04:28):
lied about this. Here's why thesearch warrant should be tossed. So that
seems a bit unusual to me,how about you, Kevin, Yeah,
I was a little bit surprised andwent into so much detail. It's spelling
out this alternate theory. But certainlybehind the scenes they've been the defense has
been deposing witnesses, asking witnesses questions. To me, though, just from
(04:50):
watching a lot of televised cases andcourt particularly court events before, this is
like a defense that would be laidout in a tr I'll especially the some
of the revellions that there are peoplethat they can we'll just say it people
they say did it, Like normallythat would be something that's kind of laid
(05:10):
out in court, like not RichardAllen didn't do this, but this person
did it. And this has allbeen laid out in front of us months
before this even goods of trial.So to me that seemed very unique.
Yeah, there's so much about theDelphi case that is just kind of really
see it in other cases, andit makes it hard for us because we
always like to compare things to othercases. Okay, well, this is
somewhat like, you know, whathappened in this case, But unfortunately there's
(05:35):
a lot of things that are singularabout Delphi, and certainly it puts the
people who were named and rather uncomfortableposition because suddenly they're being associated with the
murder of these two young children.That's certainly it must have been a shocking
thing for them to wake up toMonday morning. Just going into it a
(05:56):
little bit here, So some ofthe things that we had not I'm more
than certain that you guys had hearda lot of these things that were released
today beforehand but did not share anda lot of other individuals as well that
have been investigating the case. Butof one of the things that wasn't made
a little bit more clear is themurder scene itself had been a pretty closed
lip like what the environment was likethere, what it happened, what the
(06:19):
bodies were like, and all that, and that was revealed in this document
to an extent. As far asthe positioning there was actually I'm trying to
it was on Court TV. Itwasn't. It wasn't an episode that you
guys were on. But they actuallyhad a presentation of a layout of how
the bodies were staged, and alot of this information was new, and
(06:40):
along with that, it was someof the they wanted a greater detail about
it, but just to start offsome of the how the bodies were positioned,
and then they actually clarified something thatwe had all been discussing though,
where the location of the phone was. So this is something that, like
I think, was always wondered,like where was this phone at? There
was a record had tossed off tothe side. It certainly didn't seem like
(07:01):
the whoever's being accused of committing themurder knew about it, and I think
this kind of solidifies that because thephone was stuck up underneath one of the
victims bodies, correct, Yeah,or hidden underneath or or laid on.
I mean, I don't know howto describe it exactly, but I understanding
it was it was under one ofthe bodies. Yeah, And we hadn't
known that really before, and Ithink that was something that was snooted from
(07:26):
this today, I mean earlier thisweek, excuse me. Yeah, there
was a number of details about thecrime scene had not been publicly confirmed.
Also, it was mentioned that oneof the victims had been dressed in the
clothes that the other victim had beenwearing. That's certainly an odd detail that
(07:46):
certainly must have taken the killer orkillers a fair amount of time and effort
to do, and you can't helpbut wonder why they did that. I
don't want to go into the I'lljust give the basic details real quickly and
get it out of the way,because they're kind of grewesome and to be
quite frank, making me uncomfortable havinga father of three daughters. So one
of the victims, Libby, wasfound nude. Blood spots and blood dripping
(08:09):
sent all over Libby's body. Noblood sprayed or dripped onto the leaves or
tree near the Libby's head, whichhad basically made it look like stage right
off the side of the directly inline with the tree. I guess I'm
going to say. They also determinedthe wound to the neck. Abbey was
found fully closed, dressed in Libby'swet shirt and jeans like you just brought
that up. Abbey was found wearingtwo brawls. Strange, no blood on
(08:31):
Abby's clothes, very little blood onthe body, and Libby's phone was found
lit, phone and shoe found underAbbey's lower back. So we just talked
about that and knocked out of theway. Uncomfortable, but it's important to
the pieces together, So Yeah,the phone was revealed underneath one of the
body's victims. But like you said, two different and both of them handled
completely different. And then some ofthe things that were used were tree limbs,
(08:54):
correct to cover up the bodies.Yes, that's correct. This one
of the strange signatures that seemed tobe at the scene. Yeah, and
it's one of those things where wecan look at it like signature. We
could kind of go down a rabbithole as much as we want on too
how significant it is. We obviouslydon't. We weren't there, We didn't
see it. But if some peopleare saying, hey, they just used
(09:16):
lembs cover them up, some peopleare saying there strategically placed symbolically, I
guess you could say, and we'llgo into that a little bit here.
So with that being said, there'sbeen some things that are brought on that
document based on just the crime sceneitself. Yes, yeah, sorry,
I guess it was a really goodquestion. It was a statement with a
(09:37):
question like statement question work, Iam Rod Burgundy question work sort of thing.
But yeah, so they this documentreveals, and I hadn't heard of
this group, and maybe you guyshad or hadn't that there could have been
a cult like setting that took orevent that took place motivationally charged this murder.
(10:00):
It's a doozy so, but thedefense is theory of the case essentially
is that a group of Odinists followingan old Norse religion sort of neopaganism that
the defense associate has associated with whitesupremacy and certainly has been associated with white
(10:20):
supremacy publicly, like you know bythe Southern Property Law Center, A group
of them sacrifice the girls in somesort of religious and obviously that's generating quite
a lot of headlines. It's avery unusual type of killing. From what
we can tell. It's not commonthat you have cults running around sacrificing children.
(10:43):
It's just I think that's fair tosay. And this group is actually
identified by name in the document andit's basically what the defense is saying is
that there are runics symbols in thecrime scene that speak to the odiness essentially,
(11:03):
and I think what we're gonna seeis come down to is interpretation and
whatever lens you're looking at it,If you're looking at it through an Odinis
lens with which the defense is andyou're seeing the ruins in the sticks that
posed over the bodies. You're seeingit in some blood spladder on one of
the trees, unfortunately with Libby's blood, and they claim that that is in
(11:26):
the shape of a ruin. Sothat's what they're saying. I don't know
this for a fact, but Ihave a feeling that prosecution's probably going to
say that that's blood spladder and sticks. So we're it's going to be the
two interpretations. Who's is more credibleto the jury? Go ahead, Kevin,
it seems like you're in thought orwell, I just couldn't mention that.
(11:46):
They further identified an individual whom's sonwas the boyfriend of Abbey, and
they indicated that they weren't sure thatit is alibi. Shocked out and said
he was at work at the time, and they went so far as to
say, well, even if hewas at work, it could be a
Charles Mainson type of situation where hedid not personally participate in the murders,
(12:13):
but he's somehow inspired. They basicallyconfirmed his alibi that yes, you know,
he was at the very least hiscard was clocked in from worked from
this time to that time. Theykind of throw out, well, maybe
someone clocked in for him. We'rekind of getting into the realm of is
that likely. But they do notethat the true ring leader doesn't have to
(12:35):
be at the scene, so itseems like they're identifying that specific individuals very
important for their theory because he seemsto be a connected tissue between a couple
of different elements of this alleged group. But it seems like the defense is
almost strategically leaked information out over thelast several months. I don't even want
(12:56):
to say leaked. This thing isjust part of a defense strategy. We
talked about that last time we spokehow the time into this was very interesting,
the confessions and all that, andit seems like this is this part
of piecing together to defense before thetrial even begins, or seemingly could be,
if you understand what I'm saying,right, Yeah, it's definitely very
aggressive messaging because, as we said, there's no reason for this to really
(13:20):
be in a Frank's memorandum. Sothe fact they're putting it out there,
I means, you know, theywant the public to have it, they
want the media to engage with itand get it out there. Basically that
narrative, which is that it's acult of odin Us, And what they're
actually arguing is even a bit morefar flooded than that, because they're saying
that there are Odinus in the prisonwhere Richard Allen is being capped, who
(13:46):
are not you always get you.I'll go where I'm gonna go on you
every time. I don't have tosegue either one of you two where I'm
going. It's just some connection thatwe have. So I wanted to say
that, absolutely, you're going rightinto what I had thinking about. Next.
Yeah, this is I mean,because I'm sure you picked up on
this. This is where it getsreally, I mean, because the other
stuff is wild. I mean,I think that's fair to say. I'm
not being flippant. It's just,wow, a cult of Pagans did it?
(14:11):
Now we're getting into Actually, thecult of Pagans is also aligned with
prison guards who are actively torturing RichardAllen and maybe forcing him to confess to
the crimes or they will hurt hiswife. So a lot to impact there.
But one thing I do want tosay is that if anyone is associated
with a white supremacist group who's workingin a prison, that's obviously an unacceptable
(14:37):
situation. We have been hearing fromsome people that there are people who are
Pagans and believe in Odin who arenot white supremacists and just want to practice
their religion. So we get intokind of a complicated area here because I
think everyone can kind of condemn whitesupremacy but also want people to be able
to worship their own religion. SoI don't know where any of this falls
(14:58):
on this spectrum here, but that'sjust something that I'm thinking about. But
yeah, the prison guard stuff iswhere you get in an interesting footnote,
the attorneys did say that they hadnever heard from Richard Allen that he was
being forced to confess. They didclarify that in a footnote, but they
(15:20):
did indicate it was possible that that'swhy he confessed, because obviously that's something
they have to explain the fact thatRichard Allen, we are told in court
filings he actually repeatedly confessed to thisprime in a phone call with his wife,
and the defense has to try toexplain that. And this seems to
(15:43):
be their exclamation that he may havebeen forced to do sell back women guards.
Last time we spoke, we actuallydiscussed that in detail, and going
back to what I just said,it seems awfully strategic the release of information
here. So we have the confessionand now we're lining it up with some
of the wise of why there mayhave been a confession. This is certainly
one of them. They've even goneto detail to say that they've been filming
(16:06):
some of the sessions between the attorneysand Richard Allen and other different things that
could be impactful on the court.This is a huge allegation for sure,
and they're gonna have to investigate further, and hopefully this is something that they
could be proven to be true orfalse, which other direction they go.
It seems definitely something they could beinvestigated though. Yeah, I think,
I mean, certainly, as wesaid, a prison is an environment where
(16:30):
you know, there's a lot ofpeople of color who are incursorted and if
you have people associated with any sortof white promise this group, we're in
a position of power there that's notokay, and so that I think should
be taken seriously just and investigated onits on its own. You know,
where you have a possible link betweenpeople interested in odinism who may have committed
(16:52):
the Delphi murders. And for folkswho are not in Indiana, Westville is
not close to Delify, this prettyfar away. It's an inn ordern part
of Indiana, the northmost part.So it's not like you're having people from
Delphi. You're just like kind ofassociating with I don't know, it's it's
it's definitely a lot of interesting thingsto unpack, but yeah, it's it's
(17:17):
a lot. It's a lot.There were some other things that came out
of this though, I think thatwould be very impactful on this case.
One of which was the way therewas a complaint on the way to which
the evidence and things were collected,and that would be a dammy That would
probably be what would just spook ofkind of seems like a rabbit hole to
me, but in fact, ifsome of this evidence gets tossed out,
(17:40):
that would be very damning for prosecution. Yeah, that's absolutely right, and
I'll jump in there. I mean, the thing that really speaks to the
Franks the Delaware issues is the defense'sallegations about Tony Leggett lying about witness statements.
And if that's the case, andthe piece and the probable cause effidavit
(18:02):
for the search warrant was flawed,then you could have an impact. Could
you could get the search warrant thrownout. If you lose the search warrant,
you lose his gun. Therefore,you lose the bullet tying him to
the scene, and you probably losehis confessions because he wouldn't have been in
prison if he hadn't been arrested overthe search warrant, over the findings of
the search warrant. So you losethe case against Richard Allen if that piece
(18:26):
is flawed. You talked about someof the witnesses and all that. What
exactly was said in this that happened? I know there some of it was
around a sketch, the sketches ofthe suspect. Yeah, there was a
crucial witness who gave a description ofthe person she saw out on the trails
that day, and the description shegave clearly does not fit Richard Allan.
(18:51):
She describes him as having I thinkfufy or puffy hair or poofy hair,
and Richard Allen clearly does not haveyour fluffy hair. Vinnie Politan on Court
TV calls him a young justin Timberlake. Yes, yes, I saw you
guys both crack a smile on thatone too. Also, there was a
witness who supposedly saw the car matchinga description of the vehicle that Richard allenone
(19:18):
in a parking lot at the Tide, or the description she gained does not
match the description of Richard Allen's actualvehicle. So these things might suggest that
the person she saw the vehicle theysaw was not Richard Allen or Richard Allen's
vehicle. So if if, ifit turns out the law enforcement massaged witness
statements to get the outcome they wanted. You know, we did notice that
(19:41):
some of the language used by thedefense to describe some of this, they
were like in twenty seventeen, thiswitness just said muddy, not bloody,
And that kind of left the dooropen for us a little bit where like
war was there a twenty eighteen statementwhere she said maybe it was blood I
don't know. I mean, that'sjust total speculation, But there could be
(20:03):
there could be some meet like meetingin the middle where you can understand why
the defense is making this argument,but you can also say that it's not
necessarily fair to say that like lawenforcement is lying. Do you know what
I'm saying, This is all Thisfeels like to me, more of a
normal route of what you would hearin trial compared to the the theory that
(20:26):
we had we started off on.This discussion on these things are critical on
any defense, right, I meanimmediately you want to be able to attack
the integrity of the investigation. Andthis is absolutely huge. So makes sense
to me what you're saying ahead,Kevin, Yeah, I was gonna say,
I agree. The first hundred somepages were all about Oldenism, oldness,
(20:48):
but then it really gets to thispart about well, maybe the witnesses
didn't say what we were told,maybe there's chain of custody issues with the
evidence, and these are things weren'tin lying what you were expect from a
typical Frakes motion. I would alsojust say that a lot of pre trial
motions in most cases, even relativelyhigh profile cases, don't always get a
(21:11):
ton of attention. And the Delphi'sobviously different Delphi. The media is ready
at every turn about what the latestmotion is. So there's a lot that
can be lost or won on pretrial motions. I think in this case,
you know, if Judge Gulls like, yeah, they totally messed up
the PCA. I think the caseagainst Richard Allan falls apart if you lose
(21:33):
that search warrant. But if notand it stays in the bullet ultimately stays
in and the confession stay in,then obviously that's a different landscape for defense
to navigate. Yeah, confession andthe bullet casing place and you get to
seem of the crime are definitely verypowerful. A lot of things released in
this I will say that that,like we just touched up on that end
(21:59):
part is definitely It was interesting howit was loaded up frontloaded with a lot
of this information on this cult religiousorganization, then kind of factually on the
back than the facts at the end. To summarize these documents up with something
like this is normally normally released asit normally this big is not typically this
long, and typically they focus morenot they focused not on alternate theories of
(22:26):
the case as much as picking apartwhat law enforcement may have done to incorrectly
in order to get the warrant.So basically, in general they've been more
like the last thirty or so pagesand lost like the first hundred pages.
The both of you have spoke witha lot of people who probably know Richard
(22:47):
Allen, and what's the general consensusyou get from those conversations. Basically,
we've talked to people who grew upwith him and people who worked with him
in some capacity at the scene,yes, in Peru Indiana, and because
he worked at the Peru Indiana CBSbefore he worked at the doll I gotcha.
(23:07):
Basically what everyone is said is normaldude, just a normal very quiet
not talking much, but had asense of humor. And you know,
it wasn't completely standoffish, but youknow, generally not somebody who was going
to get super personal with you atwere but somebody who you could count on.
(23:27):
One person had more of a negativeexperience with him, but it was
it was really in line with likehypical coworker stuff. They had a bit
of a conflict. She felt hewas micromanaging her, and there was just
kind of not a good vibe there, but not in like a murder way,
just really in like that was reallythe only negative saying. Other people
(23:48):
you know who grew up with thefamily grew up in Mexico, Indiana,
which is right outside of Peru,Indiana. A while of confusing names in
Indiana and moved to Delphi later onand had had a child, had a
daughter, was married for years toa woman named Kathy, who he was
(24:11):
you know with I think they weretogether since high school and you know,
just kind of very much a guywho's under the radar. So and that's
what you know, people were alwaysemailing us like, oh, find out
how weird he was. And it'slike, we're going to just report what
people who knew and tell us,like, we're not going to try to
cherry pick to make him look sinister. If people are telling us he's a
(24:33):
normal dude and that's what they saw, then that's what's going in the show.
Sometimes when when there is a murdercase and and somebody is arrested and
convicted and we deep dive back intotheir past and we hear about things,
a lot of the times that theyare just this seems to be the case,
just a normal person. You'll havea person here or there, we'll
(24:53):
have share some ridiculous experience they hadwith him, or or a negative one
I guess I'll say, but alot of times it's just they are,
I mean, seemingly a normal person. You know. I will say,
like on the spectrum of is he, you know, sociable versus non sociable.
We have not been able to finda lot of people who knew him,
(25:15):
and that's not the case for everybodythat we've looked at on the show
if But then again, like Imean, I'm I'm probably somewhat introverted.
I don't think there's a lot ofpeople who really know me. I don't
think that's necessarily sinister, but itis something to be said here. I
don't think he was mister out onthe town, going around, hanging out,
(25:37):
partying with everybody. I think hereally strikes us as just more of
us, person who went to work, did his job, came home,
was with the family. We've nottalked to a lot of people who have
said that they were his friend,or even people who lived in his neighborhood
who knew him or the family particularlywell. We have that Again, that
(25:59):
doesn't mean anything. It's just anote. Although frankly, sometimes when a
high profile thing like this happens,people who do know somebody, they don't
really want to come forward because theydon't want to be maligned. And there's
such an undercurrent in this case wherepeople try to make it into everyone wants
it to be bigger, bigger,bigger. It's not one guy. It's
a sex cult. It's not oneguy. It's a pedophile ring. You
(26:22):
know. So if you come forwardand say Richard Allen was my buddy,
you know you're gonna be grouped intothat. And I can understand if some
people are like, I don't wantto put myself through that, Yeah,
absolutely understandably. So I don't knowif this is on the same Court TV
episode that you guys were on.There was an individual on there that dropped
bombshell of a statement being that therewere Yeah, the recordings is famously heard
(26:48):
around the world, guys down thehill. This individual, I don't remember
the person's name, flat out saidthere's two different people saying that. So
one person saying guys, other personssaying down the hill. I don't know
how he came to that conclusion.But to summarize this document, they kind
of went off on a lengthy statementabout how it would be impossible for Richard
Allen to physical Let's just say physicallydo this right, and I'll give you
(27:11):
some examples on that they touched theytouched up on. We stated a little
bit earlier, but just some ofthe crime scene. Even Abbey's hands were
clean, no blood, Abbey's feetwere clean, no blood other than blood
founder around Abbey's neck area. Iguess I don't want to read it all,
but it goes in this huge detailabout how how much work for one
person, particularly Richard Allen, had, would have gone into performing these murders.
(27:34):
Not only that they talk about Ibelieve they use the word hike,
hiking across the river, all theground that would have to be covered,
and just the amount of time atwork that would go into this time span.
Am I accurately describing how that summarizesall this? And they're trying to
end on that note saying a littlea little Richard Allen wouldn't be able to
(27:55):
do that? Yeah, is thisa little short? I throw that opinion
on myself because they had to makesure to mention how small on statue of
his height he was. He's avery short man and we've seen him in
court and he definitely is not atall man, right, I think,
I mean to me, it's likeif sometimes, I mean, when people
emphasize that so much, I'm kindof like, you know, he had
it if he's guilty. Whoever hasa gun on two teenage girls? And
(28:19):
you know, I don't really knowhow much height matters at that point,
but that's just me. That personyou were, I'm not even going to
say their name on this because theydo not deserve any attention. I don't
even know. They're not a credibleperson in our view. We've had dealings
with them and some of the anticsbehind the scenes who wouldn't believe to be
(28:41):
to be frank, So I don'tbelieve the thing. I mean, if
that person says, you know,it's raining out, I'm going to look
out the window. There's so manypeople in this case who just getting on
TV and saying whatever, So that'sfun. But I would say that,
yeah, they I think the fensemade some compelling points about how much work
(29:03):
would have been done at the crimescene. I tended to view it like
as a writer, I feel likeI could make a lot of things sound
a lot more involved. Like ifI was to narrate your morning Jeff,
I could like write down everything inits own little paragraph, and first Jeff
got some coffee, or at firsthe turned the coffee maker on. Then
he like, wouldn't you know,it would just it would make it sound
(29:25):
like you were a very busy personwhen maybe in reality it's just part of
a routine you'd do it. Thatbeing said, it is a lot to
do. He's a middle aged man, he's not exactly in the prime of
his life physicality wise. So Ithink it was a fair point for the
defense to bring up. And Iknow it struck Kevin as like, wow,
I think it would be hard forone person to do that. It
struck me as more like, Ithink somebody can do that, but I
(29:47):
don't know. And of course,after Alan was arrested last year and the
press conference where that was announced prosecuted, Nick mcleland actually said directly that we
think it's possible other people are involvedin this. So when you leave that,
which is why they wanted to nottheir information to get out right,
That was basically one of the reasonsthey wanted this to be stilled a little
(30:08):
bit more exactly, Yeah, becausethey wanted the investigation is ongoing, so
we can't release this information without compromisingthe investigation. So we have to assume
they mean what they say, andif their theory was more than when people
when person involved, there was reasonto believe that. And one of the
reasons to believe that, apparently it'sjust because of how bizarre the crime scene
(30:32):
was and how long and how much, how long, and the effort involved
in doing all this. But thatwas okay. So them describing this religious
cult and all that is going intoto try to make you and the defense
is doing their job. Let's justsay that, I'm not knocking the defense
that is going into to convince youthat these leaves, these these limbs,
(30:56):
these tree limbs, that they metsomething everything, it's something. Therefore,
it would make that event impossible todo in that time frame with one person.
See what I'm saying, like obviouslystrategically done, because let's just say
these were just trying to cover upsomebody just trying to cover up a body,
real quick. That is a lotdifferent than saying somebody's strategically trying to
(31:18):
set up a I don't be everthe word ruin or whatever we used,
it's completely different. And you haveto paint that picture for a believability for
the case of two people doing it. I don't say you have to,
but it makes it more than likelywith two people to do it. If
the events that took place were thatmuch more detailed and lengthy in nature.
(31:38):
You can interpret it in many differentways like on you just said and she
feels one thing, you feel theother way. But to me like they
have to paint and they went thereally long way to do it. But
the most important part of this documentwas where we're at here at the end,
Why something like that would have takenthat amount of time or why would
(31:59):
it pause? Possibly be that youcould absolutely prove him guilty, right,
I think all that plays in thefactor here as this as all these all
these things were released in this document. Yeah, and I'll say that I
think that it's been a very effectivenarrative so far because we've get we get
a lot of messages from people whoare curious about the case, and I
(32:21):
think something about the odinist angle hasfired up a lot of people. They're
stalking the facebooks of the men whohave been named as odinists. They are
engaging with it in a way theyare basically saying, I mean, we're
getting emails from people who are tryingto like thread the needle and say,
well, could Richard Allen have beenan odinist? And it's like, okay,
(32:45):
no, because I think the defensewould be crazy to do that if
they if there's any like inclination thatkid as gordinous, they're not going to
go with that theory. You know. They're they're they're smart, these they're
smart attorneys. They're not gonna shootthemselves in the foot like that. And
also it's it's also shows me thatpeople are just kind of accepting the defense's
characterization of the crime scene on facevalue, because it's like, Okay,
(33:07):
we have to get around this odeand this thing, how do you know?
And it's like, I think that'svery interesting and it shows the power
of the narrative here. Do youthink the overwhelming amount of information is part
of the strategy too? And I'llgive you an example. Yeah, I
don't want to say it's exactly,this is one. It reminds me of
my opinion. I used to workwith this co worker. Whenever we had
(33:28):
a project, he would go ingreat length to describe how it was impossible
to do the project. I mean, he would give y'all so much information
on how it would be impossible toachieve a goal of a project. It
overwhelmed you with it. As sometimesI felt like irrelevant information in an attempt
to just to derail the project.Does it makes sense what I'm saying to
(33:51):
you. Again, I'm not sayingthis is your guy's opinion, it's mine.
So in a court case, Kevin, you're you're you're a lawyer on
to investigate a journalism for these typesof things, and you have been Is
it common to just I'm going tothrow everything at you to try to overwhelm
you with the purpose of doubt ortrying to raise doubt in your mind.
(34:12):
Yeah, I'd say so, AndI'd say it's often a very effective strategy
because sometimes the more information you givepeople, the more confused they'd become trying
to make sense of it all.There's details, and hear about people allegedly
confessing to their involvement, and thetypical person when they hear that somebody confess,
(34:36):
they said, well, that mustbe an accurate confession, because why
would they confess that they weren't involvedin the crime. And so that people
just try to make it all fitin together like some sort of jigsaw puzzle.
Real life, it's a complicated caseand just causes confusion, and in
this case, confusion helps the defenseabsolutely. Man, I don't I know,
(35:00):
you guys don't feel I don't wantto keep you on here much longer.
But just two more things, oneof them being what do you feel
like this information getting out right nowbefore trial? What are the pros and
cons to sum this up of whatit could do at this trial. I
think a pro for the defense isthat their narrative gets some time to take
root, the lack of a betterterm, they get that out there.
(35:22):
Maybe people are looking for other Odinnessin the Delphi area and they can expand
that theory with the help of thepublic, and they're kind of putting their
line in the sand of like,Okay, here's what we think happens.
So I think that's positive for them. I think the negative for defense,
I suppose maybe people get used toit, and you know, novelty is
(35:46):
a huge thing in the Delfi case. Everybody wants something new, so,
you know, but I think it'sit's an interesting enough theory that it's not
going to be boring, So Idon't know how much that a negative would
be. What do you think aboutfor the prosecution, Kevin, I think
for the prosecution, the biggest negativeimpact is that this document, if you
(36:07):
take it seriously. It strongly suggeststhat the investigation was fatally flawed and that
the investigators made some serious errors.And if that idea gets into the blood
stream, people are going to assume, even when they hear of compelling information
(36:29):
from the prosecution, well, maybethey're not telling us the whole story,
or maybe this is just another oneof their mistakes, and that is something
the prosecution has to deal with.They they're going to have to come out
and defend the integrity of their investigationand the integrity of them men who let
it. I want to say theflip side for the pro for the prosecution
(36:51):
is that if they're able to debunksome of this publicly in a filing for
trial and maybe indicate areas where thedefense overstepped with their statements, I think
that that's adding to the defense's credibilityfrankly, so you know, or you
might get into a situation where it'ssort of a gray area where both sides
are saying they're the liar and asthe public appear to be like okay,
(37:14):
at I don't know who's telling thetruth. So that's kind of I think
where it's dead. Yeah, withthe whole purpose to be to really question
this investigation, which has been scrutinizedby yourselves, by others, by the
world in great detail. And thiswould be like, for example, we
didn't get into it, we all, but the description on how the tree
limbs were cut and how the treelimbs weren't collected, all of this information
(37:37):
being released with the intent of reallymaking you question the I don't even want
to say integrity. I just wantto say, I guess the how much
you could truly rely on the skillset of the people that performed this investigation,
not even negatively maybe just like likepurposely doing it right, just more
or less how professionally there were gapsand opportunities. So I think the obviously
(38:00):
is to try to highlight that lastquestion for you. You guys stick to
a pretty tight script on your podcast, You stick to a pretty tight script
on Court TV. I want totake this opportunity here for you to share
any other feelings or thoughts you haveon the case. And I'll start out.
For me, it's kind of likesad because the further we get into
(38:21):
this and it's just gonna get worsethe further we get away, the more
we dive into these details, thefurther we get away from the victims,
the true victims of the case.That that's my thoughts, just to summarize.
When I look at all this informationin front of me, we start
to victimize Richard Allen. We startbringing all these other people you talked about,
(38:42):
these names that released, You juststart watering it down. More and
more people get impacted, and itjust take it away from the original victims
of this gruesome crime. Very Wellsaid, I feel like there's a movie
that always comes to mindfully with thiscase, and the movie subject is not
about a murder or anything like that, but I just think the environment around
(39:07):
this case reminds me a lot,and I would I'm not going to do
any spoilers, but people should watchit. It's a Billy Wilder directed film.
It's called Ace in the Hole andit's about a newspaper man who's very
jaded, very cynical, and hehappens upon a story where a man is
trapped in a cave and it's aboutthe media circus that ensues. And it
(39:28):
is to me. I watched itand felt like so dead inside because I
was like, yeah, nothing haschanged. It's the most kind of disturbingly
accurate portrait of what could happen ina media circus, and unfortunately, I
think a lot of the things goingon with Delphi their hallmarks of that film.
(39:49):
So I would recommend for all yourlisteners to check it out. It's
but as far as my own feelingsabout all this without going off to the
gunn and going unhinged, excuse me, which I'm sure a lot of people
want us to do, but Idon't. I wasn't my intent. I've
just literally you guys stick to areally tight script. There's you don't share
(40:13):
your opinion, which is fine,Okay, you do a little bit.
Well, that's not the intent ofyour platform. My platform here, I'm
giving you a few minutes not todo something you're uncomfortable with or to try
to put you on the spot.Wait to give you a few minutes to
do something that you wouldn't necessarily takethe time to do on television. We're
skating pressure release, you know.I would say for me, people just
(40:35):
need to stop beating weather rains onit, like, you know, like
we're all waiting for information and theamount of times you know, people I
feel like when he got arrested,when Alan got arrested. People were like,
he's the guilty, you know,get him, and it's like,
okay, he's just been arrested.Fellow, like, let's just see what
the case against him is, seewhat his attorneys have to say. And
(40:58):
then you know, they release fothose of him looking you know, disheveled
and not in good spirits in prison, and then oh my gosh, she's
being tortured, and then it goesback to oh, well, he confessed,
he must be guilty, and it'slike, I just feel like this
roller coaster is just so exhausting,and I just feel like the public I'd
love to see more people just saying, okay, this, let's take in
(41:22):
all this information and like assess itand think about it. And there's no
rush to have a hard opinion onanything in this case. Either way.
It's ultimately going to come down tothe jury and that's what's important. But
I just feel like there's almost likea kind of impulse to like kind of
everyone everyone be a take factory onsocial media, and I kind of just
(41:45):
feel like there's no ultimate point inthat, and there's certainly no point,
you know, the prosecutions slinging stuffat the defense I think we need to
wait till the defense responds before wemake up our minds, and same with
vice versa. So I think that'swhere I am. I think the rush
to judgment can be somewhat problematic attimes. Do you have any I just
(42:06):
went off in Jeb and you haveto do one too. Yeah, it's
very striking. People like immediate gratification. They want immediate answers, and so
when something like this comes out andis revealed, they want it to be
definitive and they want to be ableto believe it without having to do any
(42:30):
further reading or investigation. And unfortunately, it's a it's a boring thing to
say, it's an a dult thingto say, but before you can come
to any final conclusions, you reallydo have to get the other side of
the story, and you have towait. And we certainly hope that the
(42:51):
prosecution files and substitutive response and assoon, and we hope it's not sealed
because we think people have a rightcan see it so they can evaluate the
work their public officials have been doingin their name on this case. Well
said, and I appreciate both ofyour time. Is check out our previous
conversations are all on there. We'vekind of we haven't broken down in long
(43:12):
for what we have done is apretty good job of a couple of probably
hours of listening time that would summarizethis case really well without going into the
greatest detail. If you want tohear more detail, obviously, check out
the Murder Sheet podcast Murder Sheet podcastdot com. You guys have a really
neat Facebook group that I'm a partof, so I think if anybody's interested
in that should look into that andanything else you guys want to plug or
(43:37):
share it. What did I misshere? No, you did it?
That was perfect, And yeah,just check out our Facebook group. It's
it's really pretty chill, I thinkfor a true crime Facebook group. But
just don't fight. I'm in another. I'm in a couple of these del
fi Facebook groups by the way,and yeah, they're they're very different.
They vary indifference from group to group. In comparison to your guys, I
will say that, Yeah, wetry to do something a little different.
(44:00):
We have an excellent we have anexcellent moderator, and people get mad at
us because they like go in andact you know, act up and then
get kicked out and they're like,you kicked us on and we're like,
we leave everything to our mod andshe boots first, nass questions later,
so she's awesome. Yeah, yougotta nip the butt early, I guess,
and get ahead of it. AndI will say again, thank you
guys for the manner you've handled this, the integrity you put into this,
(44:24):
and the way you conduct yourselves allthe time on your podcast, on television,
on social media. As you've hadyour let's just say, arguments with
different true crime podcasters throughout the years, you guys have always handled it really
well in comparison the way they handledit even though, but you guys have
(44:45):
taken the higher out, and Imean the higher I guess you've just you
know, when to pick your battles. And I really appreciate the professionalism that
you guys put it behind your work. We so appreciate that. Thank you.
Jeff. I used to joke toKevin, yet she's the imagine dry
song that comes on everyone wants tobe my enemy. It was a certain
period in time where I was Kevinlike we should meet this our things by
(45:07):
Yeah, yeah, Now, Imean it's it's it's you know, we
just try to. We don't.We don't try to start drama, but
sometimes it happens and you just gotto deal with it. But I would
say a lot of people we've beenable to meet like yourself and and you
know, just a community of peoplewho really I feel like, care about
covering crime and responsible and you know, thoughtful manner, and we just have
(45:29):
been very gratified to meet kindred spiritslike yourself. Kevin, you want to
leave us with a really impactful,stoic quote, I'm just kidding, man,
I will put you on spot likethat. You're sick. You both
are sick, and I appreciate youtaking that time to do this. Check
out the Murder Sheet podcast and backepisodes of this podcast. Thank you both,
and I hope you have a greatrest of the day you too,
Jad. Thank you for listening tothis episode of Indiana Stories. If you
(45:51):
like what you heard, you cango to Indiana Stories dot com for more
episodes and other stories relating to Indiana. Also, if you're enjoying this podcast,
there's several things you can follow,the podcast itself, the newsletter,
and various other things. Thanks againfor listening, and we will be back
with another episode and I hope youjoin us for another Indiana story evening any
(46:36):
Jeff Townsend media, see you goodnight. And the question is do I
stay here? Will you be back? Are you gonna come back? Will
you be back? Are you comingback?
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.