Content warning.This episode contains discussion of the brutal murder of two young girls.Hi, everybody.Today's October 25th, 2024.Today, we watched or, you know, attended the seventh day in the Delphi murders trial here in Carroll County.
And, you know, we're going to talk about what we saw today. And basically it was all one witness, so.
We'll get all into that later.Play the music.Play the music, sir.My name is Anya Kane.I'm a journalist.
And I'm Kevin Greenlee.I'm an attorney.
And this is The Murder Sheet.
We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.We're The Murder Sheet.
And this is The Delphi Murders, Richard Allen on trial, day seven. the forensics firearms examiner.
Well, before we get started, can we do a little bit of housekeeping?
Yes, can I just say, if we sound a little bit more normal today.
Exactly what I was gonna talk about.
We have two people to thank for that.So I can't convey enough gratitude to these folks.They really came through for us.They held our place in line.And it's a situation where we're like, if we wanna do something like that, I don't know.
I mean, we kind of, I wanted to power it out.I think you were like, we should look into getting help sooner because... I suggested it before we even came.Yeah.
And Ani said, no, this is like the civil war when people tried to pay someone else to do their work for them and take... I'm always using civil war references to justify my bad decisions.But name the people who did this for us.
Yes, seriously, God bless you guys and thank you so much.We got seven hours of sleep last night and it was amazing.Thank you so much to Barbie Drury Griffith as well as Josh Traxler.
You guys are amazing and it was so nice to meet you and just thank you again. I don't know.So many nice people have reached out offering to help and it's just really overwhelming.
It's very nice.If someone out there is looking to have a really unpleasant experience, please feel free to send us an email with a line in the title and hopefully something can be arranged.
I also want to mention, speaking of emails, we are getting a lot of wonderful emails from people, and I just wanted to say to all of you, I really appreciate that.
It is really invigorating to come out of the courthouse and turn on our phones and see a lot of great emails from our wonderful listeners.
And it's also great because we go to bed ridiculously early now because of this trial schedule than to wake up and see more kind email.It really means a lot to us and it invigorates us.
Please feel free to keep it coming, but I do want to say we are so busy right now.It is our intent to reply to everybody, but the chances are we won't be able to reply to you until after the trial is over at some point.
So I want to apologize in advance for that.And I really did just want to thank everybody because it really does mean a lot.
Yeah, it really does.It makes me like want to cry sometimes.It's really nice.And I just I feel very lucky to be talking to all of you and like you're taking time out of your day to just spend time with us.And that's just so nice on top of everything.
But then to be like also like when you have people sending nice notes or just like
Doing kindnesses or offering to do kindnesses.It just means a lot.And we're incredibly grateful for that.
A lot of people have been joining our Patreon or doing the Buy Me a Coffee.We've been getting a lot of pre-orders on our book.And it all means a great, great deal.And it helps motivate us.
I also wanted to take a moment to talk about something behind the scenes, which is, I don't wanna violate anyone's privacies, but I feel like I should mention the families in this case who are affected by this tragedy are just wonderful, caring people.
This is a time when you would, They're going through just something horrible.
Perhaps the worst thing you could imagine, losing a child in this way.
and then having to go and watch this trial and go through that and all the emotions it must bring up.But despite that, they're being kind to other people.
I think one family member posted last night about how she's come to feel that all the people standing in line care about Libby and Abby in a profound way, and that, I'm probably misquoting what she put on Facebook, but it means something to her.
And I believe they actually gave some of the people in line some food last night.And they also want to do what they can to help as many people as possible get into the trial.
So I think we mentioned you go in in the morning, you get a seat, and then there's a lunch break and you lose your seat and you have to get in line again.
And so- It's musical chairs, basically.
So when we got our post-lunch seats today, we ended up a row behind the family.
Behind the families.And as it happened, that row quickly filled and the courtroom filled.
But the families happened to have a couple of extra seats in their row, and they said, well, you know, if you guys come up here just for this session and sit in this row, then two other people outside can come in.
Because the deputies are always going around and counting, hey, is this open?Is this open?
And they wanted to give as many people a chance as possible, a chance to come in.So I wanted to call that out.And I thought that was a nice gesture.
It was a really nice gesture.And it's like they care about this public access, too.They want people to be able to see what's going on and draw their own, you know, basically come in and shine a light on it.
And I just, I commend them for that because this is an incredibly painful situation, but they're out there doing things like that.And it's just, they're, they're really good people.
It breaks my heart that this happened to these two families and just the fact that they're still out there just being kind and compassionate is just, it, It's remarkable to see.
They are wonderful people.
Yeah, they really are.But, you know, anyways.
I guess I'm trying to avoid talking about what happened in court today.
So Nicholas McClelland, the Carroll County prosecutor, who of course is leading the prosecution.And of course he is capable deputies, Stacey Diener and James Latrille.
We've been saying it wrong and we've been informed multiple times and we just kept goofing up, but now I think we're saying it right.Latrille?
Apologies to his family.Yes.
Sorry to everybody.We apologize.Um, and, and, So that's the prosecution team, and they've been really zipping along.Like, we are flying.Well, it felt like we were flying.
We're going and we're hitting all these different interesting things and we're getting all this information.Today we hit a roadblock, we only had one witness for the entire day.
And this is, I just wanna be clear, the prosecution side went on for a while, but it was the cross-examination by a defense attorney, Brad Rosey, that I think I put most of the blame on for this very.
Let's start at the beginning.
So James Latrell?Latrill.Latrill.
He presented this witness, and it's Melissa Oberg, who used to be with the Indiana State Police as a forensic firearms examiner.And she was the one who analyzed the weapons in this case.
Some information about her?I will give you a little bit of context.
So she is the one who analyzed the cartridge found at the crime scene, and she was the one who at different times analyzed some weapons in the case and ultimately concluded that that cartridge had been cycled through a gun that belonged to Richard Allen.
And so this is pretty important because this is a big part of the prosecution case.
It's not the only part by far because if you've been listening to some of the testimony that we've been discussing with you about how a number of witnesses saw him on the trail that day and how he said he saw them on the same day, there's a big web
around this man, but this bullet is a big piece of evidence.So it was important that the defense do what they could to try to damage and discredit it.So with that in mind, please tell us about this woman's background.
So Melissa Oberg was, I say was, a forensic firearms examiner for the Indiana State Police Laboratory in Indianapolis.So there's four ISP laboratories, one of them's in our capital city of Indy, and that's where she worked.
And she worked there up until April, 2023.She had worked there for 17 years. And I believe she also spent some time early on as some sort of forensic drug analyst, but then she went into firearms and I think she was there from 2006 to April 2023.
So she, you know, very experienced. And she, again, as Kevin mentioned, that's her role in the case.She kind of gave her background in the beginning.James Latrill handled the direct on this.
And even though she no longer works in the firearms examination community, what have you, She's still involved with it, she's still a member of a number of professional organizations.
And I wanted to stress one fact that I think, it made me feel sorry for her at the time when I heard it this morning, and it made me feel even sorrier for her at the end of the day.This woman has testified in court 112 times.
And that's like getting 112 root canals, because when you go to court, not only are you being, not only are you presenting evidence through the prosecution or whatever side is calling you, but then you have to be subjected to cross-examination.
It is not a fun process, even under the best of circumstances.And to think that she had to do this 112 times, this poor woman, But the flip side of that is think of anything that you have done 112 times.You get better and better and better at it.
And she was indeed, spoiler alert, she was a very solid, intelligent witness.
The word that comes to mind for me with Melissa Oberg was unflappable she was put through a gauntlet today and You could tell maybe at times that like there was a strain, but she remained very calm very professional and I
stuck to her guns at the same time.No pun intended.What is wrong with you?Why do I always do that?I inadvertently pun so much in daily life.I don't know what's wrong with me.I'm not trying to do that.It's like, it's just, I don't know.I'm sorry.
In fairness, a number of people were making accidental puns about this testimony today.At lunch, I was talking to a reporter who had missed some of the testimony and he said, Kevin, can you give me the bullet points?
He didn't even realize what he was saying.
What is it with journalists and punning about this?
So the big thing to remember is, again, the cartridge wasn't fired.It was cycled through the gun.And so it's from a, it's like to a mark examination.
Yeah, that's what they said.That's the umbrella term.It's all toolmark identification.And then forensic firearms examination is a part of that overall thing.
And if you want to go back and listen, just go onto our ART19 website and like type in firearms and things like that.
And our episode with Radley Balko, because we've had on both sides of this, we've had on people who are forensics examiners and believe in the science and believe in that. And then we've had people who are more critical.
Bradley Balko is a journalist who's been very critical of firearms examination.And so it's this debate around this, but if you want to have more of a primer, a lot of this stuff is very technical.
Kevin and I do not own weapons, nor are we particularly technical and scientific people here.We're like to be to be full disclosure here.I have a history degree and he has an English degree.So
I felt very out of my depth for a lot of this, I'll just be honest.So we're just gonna try to relate to you as best we can what was said.
But I feel like with some of this stuff, this is why I often prefer to have experts on who can speak to this stuff.They can explain to me so I don't sound foolish.
As we surely will today.So the important thing to remember is a tool in this context, a tool is a hard object that comes into contact with a softer object and in that process leaves behind some marks.
And she said the tool marks can, generally speaking, fall into two different categories, impressed or striated. And the way she explained it, she said, imagine that you're on a beach and you run your hands and your fingers through sand.
The marks you leave behind would be striated marks.But if instead you take your hand and you start like patting and patting the sand down as hard as you can, those marks you leave behind are impressed marks.Does that make sense?
Yes, and she said with what we're looking at here, the more common thing is impressed type marks, but it can vary depending on what's going on.And I'm sorry, remember the other day I kept on calling it cartilage?Yes.Because I was so tired.
That was wild.I'm sorry about that, guys.
And she's talked about how when you're analyzing things like this, there are three different types of characteristics.One is class characteristics, and that means anything in a particular group falls into that category.
And then there are subclass characteristics, and those are for things that might happen during the manufacturing process of, I guess, certain ones, but it still applies to a large group.
But what you really want to look for if you're trying to tie something to a particular weapon would be individual characteristics.So these would be marks or features that are produced by random imperfections or irregularities of the tool surface.
And again, it's the tool surface that is hitting something softer.
Yes.And some other sort of things, she went over some of the sort of terminology around this.So the cartridge, is the bullet in its case, right?Right.And then the bullet is what's in the cartridge.That's what ends up getting shot out if it's fired.
out of the gun.And then the cartridge case is something that's then kind of the remnant.Is that fair to say?Yes.And so that's what it is.
What we're talking about, my understanding is what we're talking about in the Delphi murders case is we're talking about a cartridge that got Ejected from a gun without being fired.
So an unspent round exactly found at the scene in between the two bodies and Again is important evidence in the case.And so, you know, it's gonna be talked about by both sides quite a lot In terms of What came next?
She talked about the examination process, how she studies this, how she studies the cartridge, she's identifying marks.Basically, Latrell walked her through the entire process of examination.They even talked about how weapons are manufactured.
He walked her through everything so that the jury would have a very thorough understanding of this discipline.
I'll walk you guys through what she mentioned in terms of the sort of checklist almost that she goes through when she's examining something.So one, the first thing she does, she talks about level one analysis.
She starts out by sort of assessing what she has, looking at the packaging of whatever she's been sent, opening it, looking if there's any sort of like biological material, say, on a bullet, you know, looking at just kind of that kind of initial overall assessment.
Step two, another part of the level one assessment, looking for class characteristics.That's what Kevin mentioned earlier, the sort of the broadest, the broadest, I guess, element of this whole practice.
And three, we'll be going on to level two, test firing the firearm and doing some sort of function exam. And then four, get out the comparison microscope and like look at each object under that, I believe.
And five is, I guess, reviewing some of that and maybe rendering a conclusion after that.So there's like different steps that they're supposed to take in order to really give something a comprehensive look in this situation.
It's a very interesting process.
And she ended up, much like Lieutenant Jerry Holman of the state police did yesterday, she ended up donning some blue crime scene gloves or, you know, those kind of, I can't do words right now.
She ended up wearing these blue gloves and then taking out the weapon, in this case, which is of course Richard Allen's six-hour gun, and then racking it. And so to kind of show how that worked, show the jury, right?
Yes.And I noticed that when she did it, it wasn't as loud as when Lt.Holman did it, which was interesting to me.
Yeah, I didn't know that.He did it and it was like, And I was talking to other people who were there when that happened, and a lot of us were like, we knew it was coming, but it was scary.
No one thought they were in danger, but it was just chilling to hear it like that, because you're just like, that is the loudest sound in the world.And imagine if you hear that and you're in the woods with this guy, it's just awful.
But yeah, it wasn't quite as loud, but still. still going back to that kind of that sound.And we both heard that metallic click, I think, in the video.
So I think some other people heard it.Some didn't.I mean, I didn't hear it.I don't think I heard it the first time necessarily.But over time, I feel like I hear more and more when I when I when we've been shown that video.
Another thing that Oberg mentioned is that when it comes to looking at this stuff, she said that, quote, I am a DNA and fingerprint destroyer, end quote.
So what she meant by that was that it really makes sense to have things examined by the DNA experts, the fingerprint experts, people who are looking at that initial evidence first, because once she starts messing around with this stuff,
that's all out the window.It's going to be lost.So, you know, typically, you know, you have to make a decision about what goes first.
I think the defense has been critical of some of the handling of this stuff, but I think what the state's response is essentially is like, well, first we have to make sure there's no DNA on it, then the firearms people can have it.
So that was something that came up.
And then she started talking about some of the guns and bullets she's analyzed in this case, starting with a gun she analyzed all the way back in February of 2017.
Didn't tell us where the gun came from, but it's interesting and it wasn't linked to the bullet.
Yeah. I'm glad she clarified this because I didn't know this, so maybe all of you know it and I didn't, or maybe no one else knows this, or maybe somewhere in between.
I was confused because they were talking about, oh, a Glock model gun, comma, 40 Smith & Wesson.So 40 Smith & Wesson refers to a type of ammunition that the gun takes. Yeah, it's not like another gun.
It's a caliber thing.I was confused about that too, because I was like, I thought Smith and Wesson was a brand, but it's a caliber designation.It's an ammunition designation.It's not the same thing as, you know, the gun.
Right. There was another very interesting detail.She was asked to test some more weapons, and these weapons came to her in water.
When I heard that, my eyebrows like perked up.I was like, hmm.
And she had to take some special steps for them to be dried out before she could test them.And then she mentioned, oh, by the way, these guns that I tested that were in water, I received in August of 2022.So- Now, isn't that interesting?
So this wasn't said in court, but our informed speculation is that those weapons surely came from the search of the Wabash River. that we reported on at the time and we were actually the outlet that broke that story.
We did break that story and so it sounds like they found a bunch of guns from that.
And also they found pieces of other guns and those weren't able to be tested.
And so, I mean, I think it around the time, I think we ended up reporting, you know, in the aftermath because every, you know, that whole thing came and went and then everyone was confused and some people were mad at us because they were like, that obviously had nothing to do with Delphi and it's just murder sheets and blah, blah, blah.
But it was, it was all about Delphi.And it was a situation where I think we reported at the time that they'd found stuff, but like nothing necessarily linked and,
It sounds like these guns fit the ticket on that because they had, you know, they, some of them, it sounds like just fell apart when they tried to do anything with them.
And some of them were already in pieces.
Some of them were already in pieces.Some of them were able to be pieced back together and it just, they didn't get anything out of it.
And then, of course, there was the submission in August of 2022.She was given Richard Allen's gun to test, and she said that she was able to identify that the pistol from Allen's home was the one that cycled the cartridge found at the crime scene.
And I should mention she also talked about they have a process that after someone comes to a conclusion at the lab, someone else has to basically look at it again and verify it.
So it wasn't just her making this conclusion and then everybody says, well, she must be right.It was checked by a superior.
Yeah, supervisor came in and kind of I don't think he restarted the entire process, but he there was some sort of verification aspect that they were, you know, that supervisor was supposed to do that.He did.
In terms of one thing I noticed about this round was that Rosie ended up making a good amount of objections that Judge Gull sustained, Judge Francis Gull sustained. And they were mostly around, like, literature that Oberg wanted to cite.
I don't really remember what the reasoning was for her sustaining them, but that was something.So I think, you know, Rosie actually got some wins in that respect, and Gull was siding with him on some of this stuff as it came up.
So that was something to note.One thing people ask us a lot is like, is Gull being really mean to the defense and is she doing all this stuff, you know, to trip him up?And I guess, what's your interpretation?
I've not seen that at all.
We'll talk about some stuff that happened later, but I'm just, I wanted to single out that like.
Yeah, I want to single that out. I think in recent episodes, we've certainly made some complaints about Judge Gull, which we stand behind.
So if she was leaning in one direction or another and behaving inappropriately, hopefully that would show that we wouldn't hesitate to call that out.
because we called her out pretty strongly on other matters, but I haven't seen anything like that.
And someone actually contacted us that said that, oh, we saw some other YouTube that said that Judge Gold is somehow giving secret signals to the prosecution to telling them when to object.And this is reported on YouTube.
Nothing like that is happening.That would be inappropriate of Judge Galt.She wouldn't do that.
But where are these people getting this from?
And also, frankly, if you've seen Nicholas McCleland in court and if you've seen these other people in court, they don't need signals to know when to object.They are professionals and they are very good at their jobs.
Yeah.And I just want to say this because I think like, I just want people to understand.And I, you know, I, listen, I'm not a legal professional.I'm just, I'm just a journalist.
So I feel like, you know, I wouldn't have necessarily known this either, or, you know, you don't know all the rules.So I'm not saying this in a way to be like, oh, people are silly for thinking this, but you know, in my view,
the public access rule, the public access element of what Judge Gull has done with this case is very vexing.We stand by that.I don't think it's good.
I think it ultimately helps conspiracy theorists and harms people's actual understanding of the facts.That's just my take.You can disagree or you can agree either way.
But, you know, ultimately, while ultimately a public trial is identified as something where like the public can come in and the public is being let in, in a way that we find quite objectionable.
But I guess I'm saying when people say there's gonna be a mistrial because of all this, I don't see that.I don't even know what grounds that would, you know what I mean?
When people are almost saying that that's gonna lead to some disaster, it's really annoying and I don't think it's good.
In many ways, Judge Gull is doing a great job.She's getting the trains to run on time, she's making things go pretty efficiently, she's being respectful of the jury, and she is not showing any bias that I can see.
On the legal side of things, I'd say she's doing absolutely fine, what you would expect.But again, some people, I think, you know, like, oh, well, everyone's complaining about public access.
So that must ultimately be a huge deal to the outcome of this case.And I just don't see how that could be at this point.I don't think it is.
I just think it's something we can complain about because we care about public access and we care about getting information.But it's not something that I necessarily look at and say, like, this is going to lead to an automatic appeal.I mean, no.
Now, if there's one thing the prosecution has consistently had problems with throughout this entire trial so far, it's technology.
Because at one point, they said, well, we want to show a couple of videos to illustrate how guns are made.
And it's like, as soon as they say something like that, you know, OK, well, this is going to this TV is probably going to blow up at some point by the rate of what we're going.
And so they try to show these videos and they had problems.
It's like watching the substitute teacher come in and have the class watch a video and doesn't know how to turn on the TV.
I mean, it's just, I hope they get this stuff in order, because I feel like it's... So Judge Gull had a, I think she actually called lunch a little early because of that.She was just like, let's just go to lunch, basically.
Yeah, I think, did she call lunch early or did she just call a break?I forget.
I think she called lunch early.
Okay, so we, yeah, everyone, well, we didn't really go to lunch.We just went downstairs to get in line.
you know it was yeah I mean I don't think it's a huge deal that they keep on having that but I feel like it would it would look a lot more it would look like a slicker operation if they were just like punch it and then like a video is playing as opposed to like
But on the other hand, I've never been able to do that.
I can't criticize.I was actually at an internship once basically banned from using the printer because I constantly, things were always going wrong with it.It was like I was cursed.So, I mean.
So then, are we ready to kind of transition from the direct examination into the cross?
And let me just say, like, I think the direct examination, you know, again, led by by Jim Latrell, it went on for a long time, but it felt like we were getting a lot of information and it didn't bother me necessarily because it felt like ultimately the bullet is or the cartridge, I should say, is a very important piece of evidence.
And having a lot of information on Melissa Oberg's background, her analysis, her work specifically in this case, felt like something that the jury is going to need to know about.
and, you know, kind of give the defense an opportunity then to kind of push back.So I figured this witness would take a long time.
You can't just go and say, have someone come in and say, hey, I'm an expert, the bullet matches the gun, goodnight, folks.So you need all of this.
So one of the last things raised during the direct examination was basically, well, how can you determine that a cartridge matches a particular gun?And she said something to the effect that that determination is based on if there is
sufficient agreement of the quantity and quality of marks.So if there's enough marks from a particular tool mark and they're unique, you have a match.That's pretty much how things end.If there's a sufficient agreement.
And so then it was time for Brad Rosey to begin his cross-examination, and that's where he started.He said, oh, sufficient agreement, that's just a term of art.
And he really barreled down on the word sufficient, and he started, talk about what he did.
he started, he started like listing synonyms, like synonyms are listed as like adequate, okay.I like, it was just like, It was, it felt really banal, I guess.It just felt like, like maybe, I don't know.
It felt like the like lawyer equivalent of like when a kid starts their essay with like some Merriam-Webster dictionary version of a word.And it's like, you think you're being deep here, but it's not a very effective opening in my opinion.
It got off things on the wrong foot.
And then for me, things quickly got worse.I feel that throughout this entire trial, for reasons not clear to me, Rosie has been quite condescending.I'm not sure why he thinks the jury wants to be condescended to or hear a man be condescending.
It's an odd strategy.And it came up here because he said, oh, there's no minimum educational requirement for people in this professional groups related to firearms examination, is there?
And she said, well, no, but there is for the police where I was to have this position, I need to have a bachelor's degree.And he said, oh, I guess you could have had a bachelor's degree in physical education.So basically,
That sounded to me as if he was being very condescending to people who don't have advanced degrees.And the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of very, very intelligent people in this world doing work that is important
and that requires intelligence and hard work, and a lot of these people don't have advanced degrees.And that doesn't mean that the work they do is not important or that it doesn't take skill or whatever you want to call it.
Also, some of the dumbest people I know have advanced degrees.
But I feel like there are a number of people on that jury who don't have advanced degrees.And is he basically saying, well, if you don't have an advanced degree, I'm not impressed with you.
Some of them might not even have bachelor's degrees.
Anya doesn't have an advanced degree.Well, I guess I approve his point then. But I know a lot of very, very intelligent people.Some of the smartest people I know don't even have a bachelor's degree.
It's just they have this problem where they list all the things they could say and then they say all of them instead of paring down the well, okay, this might be kind of offensive.Why don't we focus on this and really double down on it?
That doesn't seem to happen on this team.It's like something pops into their collective minds and it just gets blurted out. Can I just also say with... Let me just say one more thing.
I do have an advanced degree, but I'm here to tell you it's not like when I went to pick up my law diploma, they handed me a brain to think.I was able to think before that.
And I don't feel like I'm any smarter today than I was before I went back to school to get the degree.So it just came across, especially the tone and the condescension.
And just the, oh yeah, you could have a physical education degree.
You know, I have an aunt who has a bachelor's in physical education.She's a great woman and she's very smart.Why put these people down?
I don't get it.It's just, it's just cringe worthy at this point.He just, he is not coming across well at all.
And let me just say the sufficient thing was just balderdash because he's just like Googling the word and like pulling up whatever dictionary thing comes up first.
And she's talking about a specific definition around her work and she's explaining that to him and he's just acting like, Oh, I can just look it up.It's like, what the hell are you talking about, man?
He seemed to be reading definitions off his phone.
It was just like, ugh, I don't... It's like when you're watching someone who knows what they're talking about trying to explain something to somebody who's being really stubborn and obnoxious about it.That's not a good way... Because listen, this...
What the defense could do with this is essentially have the opportunity to really knock the bullet evidence.And the bullet is important to the prosecution.And they could do that by attacking the science.
They could do that by saying that Melissa Oberg didn't do a good job with it.There's all that opening.
But why are you almost wasting, don't kill me, ammunition in this fight by parsing over some stupid definition of sufficient that you just pulled off your phone When she's talking about something specific, it's just it's obnoxious.
And like, can I just say this?I don't know Brad Rosie in real life, OK?He could be a very nice guy.I think that to a certain extent, trial attorneys play a bit of a character. Maybe you're the icy, stoic one.Maybe you're the kind of fiery demagogue.
Maybe you're the kind of folksy but brilliant guy who's just spouting witticism.You know, maybe you're just a simple country lawyer.There's all kinds of, like, personas that you can adopt, maybe multiple ones if it suits you in different situations.
And, you know, it probably reflects something about your personality and your persona, but it's not necessarily the real you or, like, how you're acting all the time.So, like, I would never say, like,
Brad Rose, he's a jerk, but I will say like his persona in court. is one.
And I guess I think that could be really effective at times because he could be the kind of fiery truth teller who's like, you know, forcing people to say what he wants and kind of like berating everyone and getting to the truth and cutting out all this stuff.
And like, I think that's probably what he thinks he's going for.And I think if he was perhaps implementing this strategy with a little bit more care and thoughtfulness, Maybe he could be closer to that.
But when you're basically cranking up the like obnoxious yelling, you know, kind of obstinance dial to 11 at all times, then it has no impact.And it's just frankly unpleasant and annoying to watch.And frankly.
I mean, watching juries is a fool's errand because you never know what they're thinking, but this is the absolute most annoyed I've ever seen them.
They seem very, very annoyed.
This cross-examination went on a very, very long time.
And I can tell you he seemed to lose the interest of the jury relatively early on and perhaps didn't seem to realize it.
And a lot of the reporters in the gallery who were taking notes seemed to really slow down.Some of them just started doodling.
I was drawing pictures, too, at one point.
I saw at least two or three other reporters doing that.So if he had some solid points to make, if he had a case to make that her analysis was flawed, it was lost because he presented it so badly.
And I think one of the reasons, I think typically when we do one of our episodes, we go really in-depth on the content of the testimony. he lost us, it was just hard.
And he was making, at one point he said, oh, in one of your reports on this bullet, it's like 14 pages, I think it was 14 pages of text, but there's no picture of the bullet.Why on earth wouldn't you put in a picture?And like, why is that an issue?
Do you want her to write, like, Goodnight Moon for you?I mean, like, what the heck?It just made him sound foolish.
And then she, I think she said something back, like, well, there are pictures and, like, there was at one point, oh, my God, do you remember this?He starts going on about, like, you know, well, we can get to that when it comes up.
But, like, there was so much just whining.
Most of most of his points seem to be on the level of what I just told you about the picture.
There's no pictures.I don't understand it.Like, yeah, neither do I, dude.
But it's like it's like he's inventing new standards for her to meet and then be upset that she didn't meet them because.
But I'm sure if she had met them for some reason, then you'd have a problem with that because that's not what's normally done.
And he seemed thrown that he never could seem to get at her.Because she was unflappable.She's done this 112 times for the love of God.
She doesn't care about the whining and crying.I mean, she's just sitting up there just like very cool, very, very placid.You could tell at points that this was like all, it was a lot.She was up there for a very long time.
But like, she never really cracked at all.She never really, let him in and she, she was also standing up for herself.Like when he was saying something that she didn't feel was accurate, she was pushing back in a polite way.
And he was saying things that I think he clearly thought were meant to rattle her.Like, oh, isn't it true that the examination of firearms involves subjectivity?It is not all objectivity.It involves some subjectivity.
And she just very calmly said, well, you know, anything that involves human beings involves subjectivity.
This went on for a very, very long time.
He asked her if she compared, what was it, ballistics to paternity tests.Remember that?
And he was sort of saying, it's just as reliable as paternity testing.And she made it clear that she did not say that.She basically was discussing something.
At one point, I think you said you felt the judge goal was looking really annoyed.
And so there was a break, an afternoon break, and after a break, in case you may or may not realize, the attorneys come in, the judge comes in, and she basically says, is there anything we need to talk about before the jury comes in?
And so they had a conversation before the jury came in, and she looked at him and she said, are we about done with this cross?
There were a couple other things I wanted to mention.I will say that this is probably the most annoyed I've seen Latrelle.I feel like he was really getting pissed.Rosie was essentially badgering The Witness.
I know that's often something that gets said in TV shows, like, stop!Objection!Badgering The Witness!I've not heard someone say that.I don't really know if that's a real thing. There was a lot of badgering going on here.
Yeah, even if she wasn't like he was trying to bully her essentially into saying what he wanted asking repetitive things again and again making kind of a huge deal about little things and It just it frankly the problem with this wasn't even that it was just that it was going it just never seemed to go anywhere
It never built up into something relevant.
It was on the level of, oh, there's no pictures in this report.I guess that means we can't trust anything in it.
Also, like, you know, hasn't forensic firearms examination been roundly criticized and all these issues?And like, frankly, that would've been something I think, you know, focus on that perhaps.
Focus on answering the pictures.
You know, they're gonna have a guy who is a, you know, former forensics or, you know, maybe not former, but it's someone who's worked in that field too.
So it's like, okay, so, you know, you think it's ridiculous, but you're bringing in an expert of your own that's gonna, you know, like, what? You know, it just, you know, he, you know, and then this is a good point.
Like he noted, like normally in ballistics, it's about fired cartridges or fired bullets, right?That's what you're looking at.And this is unusual.
I can name one other high profile case, the Kaufman County murders out of Texas where two prosecutors and a prosecutor's wife was murdered.And that had evidence around an unspent, an unspent round. But I mean, it's not common.
And he mentioned that a bit, but I kind of felt like that ended up getting completely lost in the shuffle.And it it's unfortunate because that would have been, I think, a big point to make to the jury of like, hey, this is kind of a. You know.
I don't know, this is kind of not the thing that you typically see it.
Are we ready to get to the break in Judge Gold's comment? Let's do it.So during the break before the jury came in, she, a tone of frustration in her voice said, are we about done with this cross?And he said, well, I think it's sure we are.
It's only about 15 minutes more.There was a pause and Gull said, well, you know, when lawyers tell me a time, I usually just double it.And people in the gallery laughed.
Now, a few minutes ago, I said that the prosecution had some trouble with technology.The defense had some trouble with paper. I think this kind of underscores, I think we mentioned yesterday they didn't seem to bring their A game.
They often don't seem terribly organized.So they printed out some pictures to give to the jurors that were supposed to be specific exhibits, like exhibit A, exhibit B, what have you. and they forgot to put the letters on each individual picture.
And so that means it would be very challenging for the jurors to follow some of this.And so Rosie, looking a little bit embarrassed, goes up to the jury and he starts holding up pictures and he says, take this picture out.This picture is Exhibit Q.
This picture's exhibit R. It was very- It was embarrassing.It was embarrassing.And then Gall said, well, why don't you guys redo those pictures for tomorrow and actually put labels on them?
And then on top of that, you're supposed to give the exhibits to the jurors and to the alternates, and they forgot to give them to the alternates.It seemed kind of sloppy.
And then he said, oh, and here is Defendants Exhibit 2.And Gold said, what?Two?
Because they've been using letters.
And he said, sorry, I meant Exhibit Z. So. I've seen him in other in pre-trial stuff and he's usually much better on details and things like this.
So I've seen Rosie do some really good, you know, he can be very smooth.I mean, that's where I say like a bulldog can be a really good person to be in a situation like this, but you have to know.
It's not like him to be making mistakes like that on top of the bulldog persona.
Because it really doesn't work with the bulldog persona where you're like, I'm going to kick your ass and then you fall on your face.That's kind of what it feels like.You've got to be organized to make that feel intimidating.
And then he started talking about, there's some studies out there that have raised some concerns over the reliability of ballistics evidence.
He started asking the witness about them very aggressively, those studies, and when he would ask the questions, he would vastly overstate what the study said.
He would indicate that the studies had reached stronger conclusions against ballistics than they actually had.And any time he asked a question in that way, oh, this study says all a bunch of bonk, I'm paraphrasing,
Luttrell would object and say, no, that's not what it said at all.And then he would ask the question again in a very similar way.And Luttrell would keep on objecting.And finally, Luttrell would keep on objecting.
And Rosie said, well, I'll move on with a little bit of cheer in his voice.And before he moved on, Judge Gull said, will you stop misstating the evidence? And I saw the back of his neck redden a bit.
And then instead of moving on, he just said, no more questions.
Yeah, that was embarrassing.And frankly, I thought, I mean, again, She was siding with him earlier in some of the objections he was making.I think she showed a lot of restraint with him in this situation.I think he was going completely over the top.
To link it back, and also, this is again the most annoyed I've seen Latrelle, who I remember the other day, I remember there was a great moment.Wasn't there something, because he and Rosie have been kind of going back and forth a bit at times.
There was a time where he, like Rosie, made some objection to something he said, like asked and answered, and he was like, you know, like, that's the first time I've agreed with you all day, or something like that.Like, he kind of snapped a bit.
At one point, like, I thought he was, I mean, maybe this is the kind of sleep deprivation, but he was, I thought he was on one side of the courtroom, and then suddenly he's yelling object on the other side.Do you remember that?
He was like over by the door, and I was like, what the hell's going on?But, you know, it was, I thought Gull saying, like if she had said that at the beginning, you might be like, well, that's a little bit harsh.
But I mean, at that point, do you remember the saga with the boards, the poster boards?
Yeah, but let's talk a little bit more about this misstatement of the evidence.
Oh, okay, sure.Did that come later?
This was at the end.Okay.So we can jump back and do the boards if you want.
Because I feel like that kind of underscores what we're talking about now.
I'm sure people who consider themselves big fans of the defense will, or propagandists for the defense, will indicate, oh, it's so awful that she made such a negative comment about the defense, or maybe in front of the jurors, maybe that will prejudice the jurors.
But I have to tell you, back when we did our episodes on firearms examination, I read those studies, and he was misstating them.
He was.No, he was going way over the top.
And yeah, so again, you all know I've said some very harsh things about Judge Gull, and I stand by them all, but she was correct.He was misstating the evidence.
He was full of it, and I'm sorry, like, he didn't have to be.
He could have just, I would characterize the reports that he was citing as critical of forensic firearms examination and essentially like, I think he could have done a lot with the truth and what was actually in there.
He could have, if he didn't overstate it, he could have made some solid points.
That's what I'm like so frustrated by this because it's like you can just play it down the middle and do well, or you can completely just jump off the bridge into the insanity river.And why is the instinct constantly to do that on this team?
I don't know, I don't know.When she said that, it completely took the wind out of his sails and it finally brought the cross-examination to an end.But now, jump back and talk about the poster boards.
Okay, so we actually saw him coming in with poster boards that morning.So I was like, this morning, this morning.Oh, and also I want to, I want to say one thing about the other weird mystery from the morning.Can I say that?Yeah, please do.
So he's coming in with poster boards.The real mystery is that a bunch of people showed up with like papers and said they were witnesses in the case.
They appeared to be subpoenas and a bailiff looked at one of them and said, Oh, the defense will come for you soon.
And we were thinking and another reporter heard that, too.I wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy.And we were all like, why would there be witnesses for the defense?Because we're going through the prosecution's case right now.
And we were confused and we never got an answer to what the heck.
So for all we know, it was just some strange flash mob and it was all a prank or something.So it seems like, you know, one thing Oberg explained was that when she's doing this, I mentioned she's looking at things under a microscope.
And when she's looking at the bullet or the cartridge under a microscope, the microscope has the capability, as I understand it, to take photos, capture images of what she's looking at.
But what she was very emphatic about again and again and again and again was the fact that the photos, she's like, basically, the photos is like taking a picture of a single frame in a movie.
you're not gonna understand what the movie's about or know the plot.
She said, for instance, imagine that you saw a still from E.T.that showed a couple people riding on a bicycle.That really is from E.T., but it's not really gonna give you an idea of the movie.
So what she's saying is that you can't really, and what she was saying is responsible forensic firearms examiners do not draw conclusions from a photograph.They have to examine it themselves.
So they're not just basing it off of what they see in a photo.It's a holistic thing, but she takes the images from the microscope to document what she's doing to document the process.
So it sounds like Rosie blew up a bunch of those and then was basically flapping them around, kind of slamming them on tables, and kind of like trying to show them and basically trying to force them
into things and She you know over kept saying this, you know, it would be this is inaccurate.Essentially.
This isn't This is like literally what I said, you can't just draw conclusions based on these and you know He's acting like no this proves that it's you know, they're all different and she's basically like you don't like that's just totally inaccurate You don't know what you're talking about essentially, but certainly in a nicer way than that
Latrile's getting really mad.I mean, it was just like, I mean, he was, he was calm, but he was, you know, he was objecting a lot at this point.And it just was like a big mess.
Cause it was like, you know, it felt, you know, what Gullah ended up doing was I think sustaining one of Latrile's objections, but basically noting like you,
like by this witness's testimony, it would be inaccurate and misleading to be kind of bringing these in and showing them to the jury in this way.And I don't know, it just like it, the whole thing rubbed me the wrong way.
Cause it just, it felt like there's something like, I don't think people like to feel like they're being flim flammed.
And that's kind of the whole, I, I, again, I cannot convey like this, this, this jury looked frigging done.I mean, it was a lot of technical stuff on top of then a very unpleasant to watch cross-examination that seemed to go absolutely nowhere.
And that ultimately just kind of led to the admonishment of one of the attorneys for, for his behavior. And I mean, I don't know.I don't I mean, I wonder if I like, is it just going to be like this for the rest of the whole time?
Is it just going to be like I'm all for a fiery cross-examination because I think that could be a really good opportunity for the defense to want land some solid blows and maybe kind of
start to push back against stuff, I think that could be really good for them.But you can't just swing wildly and hope for the best.
You have to like kind of conserve your energy and figure out where the most impactful points are so you can make those, right?Yeah.Isn't that what a professional does?
I would think it's been disappointing.I guess like you always hope things will get better before trial, but I mean, I don't know. It just seems very, I don't know, amateurish on some level.
Maybe they'll do a better job once they're putting on their case, whatever the heck that is at this point. They're filing to get Odinism back in.Meanwhile, Bill Tobin's out.
Maybe because Bill Tobin's out, he was supposed to be their guy to come in and say forensics is all, you know, forensics, ballistics is all wrong.Don't worry about it.He's out.Maybe this was supposed to be the replacement of that.
But I guess I just felt like it wasn't done in a very good if it maybe if it'd been done in a better way, I think it would be more effective.I think I'm not saying the prosecution won big today because it just like it just felt like an endless slog.
I feel like in one way of thinking, no one won, because it was just an endless long slog with a cross-examination that went nowhere and had so much bullying.But no one won, but the defense really, really needed to win today.
they needed to at least land some solid punches.And there was just kind of like, it was like, instead of that, we just saw kind of a weird slap fight.
Yeah.I mean, he literally was complaining.There wasn't a picture of the bullet in the report.
And then like, there was one point.
If that's your best argument against the accuracy of the report, that's not much of an argument.
She, she, she answered something.I forget what it was, but it was about like some information.He's like, well, you knew I wanted that information.So why didn't you write another report for me essentially?And it was like, What?
Do you think that sounds good?I mean, like, and also, let me give you a sense of how long the pause with the documents was.
I drew a actually pretty good, and I'm pretty proud of it, a pretty good Frankenstein's monster in my notebook, and then a couple of very, very mediocre sharks.
This was all during that long, long pause where it's just rustling papers and then suddenly like, let's do the alphabet.Q, B, you know, like when they're giving the documents, nothing's going on.Everyone's just sitting awkwardly.
I mean, the prosecution's tech issues have been definitely grating at times.They seem to know how to use paper.
In the recross, he came back and said, oh, Oberg, when you worked for the United States Police, you were designated as Forensic Scientist One.But that designation was just created by the state, right?
It didn't come from a real accrediting organization.
I mean, didn't the state also create laws and stuff?Isn't that kind of what we're all hearing?
Well, it's basically when you work for the state, you have to fall into a certain category, and they give you a job title, and the government classifies you in a certain way, and that's how you get paid.
So it doesn't mean you're the number one forensic examiner?
Yeah, so it's just how civil service stuff works.And it came across as condescending.There were a few juror questions.
The juror questions kind of seemed to be interesting.
I only got the first one.That was, I think we mentioned earlier that when Lieutenant Holman racked the gun, it was quite loud.When Oberg racked the gun, it was softer.So someone asked,
Would the force with which a person cycles around change the depth of markings?And the answer was yes.
The next one was, can you be sure that you're at all times cycling the round with the same force? And she said, no, I cannot.Now, this is interesting.
I thought that this might be a good question for the state, because one thing that came up was some of the test bullets.They didn't have the ejection and.
They didn't have the same ejection and marks, essentially, like it wasn't as they weren't as clear in some of them.
And so if that's the case and there's some issue around like racking it or cycling it, then that kind of feels like that could explain that pretty easily.Yes.Right.Another question was kind of like different.
Like, you know, there was with the bullet she pointed out or the cartridge rather, she pointed out on the side there were some little tiny scratches that almost looked like they didn't come from anything that had to do with a gun.
So somebody is asking, like, How could that be caused?Cause they'd just be like having it loose in your pocket with like coins or something.And she kind of indicated that like, she felt like whatever it was did not come from any sort of weaponry.
And then they were talking about, um, could you, uh, could you tell, um, you know, basically like would putting, um, I'm trying to read my own handwriting right now.Jesus.
Like, is there a way to determine if some of the items, like, came from, like, the same lot?And she said no. They seemed like, I mean, honestly, sometimes the juror questions really just, like, make me happy because they're really engaged.
And also, like, it just feels like a lot of these almost seem to be seeking to clear up information and answer common sense questions.
And I feel like the defense missed an opportunity to maybe do some of that themselves and make the jurors feel like, wow, they're asking the right questions.I had that question, too.
And maybe I, you know, like, maybe I should listen to them because they're kind of speaking common sense. Like they didn't really seem to gravitate.Like none of the questions were like, so is forensic firearms examination total bunk?
Like, I mean, like that, that would be something that I'd be like, wow, they might be buying that.But like, there's nothing in there that I was like, if I were the prosecution, I would be happy with the questions.
If I were the defense, I'd be concerned that what I was trying to do, whatever the heck that was, was not resonating.
I'm curious why the defense is giving Brad Rosey so much to do.Well, he's the lead attorney.I know he is, but he's clearly turning the jurors off.
He's leading them off a cliff.
I get the idea that the jurors seem to be more receptive to Andrew Baldwin and to Jennifer Roget.
I think you said, I think you just said it to me earlier, like, give me Andrew Baldwin's folksy charm any day over whatever this is.And I agree with that.
I mean, but he can't- Even if you're not the one who's the victim of the condescension, it's not fun to see, and it doesn't make you like that person, it doesn't make you say, hey, this guy who's being a condescending jerk, I'd like to hear what he has to say.
Yeah, I don't like elitism, and I just feel like it didn't look good, and I think
Baldwin has his own problems, but, but in general, I don't feel like he's like suddenly like slamming everyone who, who got like a Bachelor of Arts as opposed to an advanced degree.I've yet to see anything like that.
And I think that it's like, also, who are you trying to impress at this point?Like, you know what I mean?Like, like the jury, I don't think is filled with a bunch of like lords and ladies in their finery and furs and big hats.
I mean, it's just normal people from Fort Wayne.We can just be, Is he not able to turn that off?Because I would have thought, if I were on that team the first day I would have been like,
when you, when you said I was going to dumb it down and when you asked a woman randomly out of the blue, if she had an intellectual disability and when you like maybe use that as a lesson, maybe we're going to see a new gentler Brad, like with Gull, she, I've said, she's been kind of mean, I guess, to the, to the public and to the media.
I don't feel like things have gone well in that direction, but she's always so nice and warm and caring to the jury. That ultimately is what she cares about.It's not the public.
And, you know, and like we can disagree with that, but it makes sense to be like the thing she cares about.She's putting that energy into that and to kind of look out for them and let them know that she is looking out for them.
But like, you know, like she's able to kind of be maybe harsh in one instance, but like nice in another. It's but like Rosie, it's like this is his mode.
And I think again, I don't want to sound like I'm just dunking on him because I feel like it could be really effective at times.Maybe it's been effective for him in the past.
I just think you have to like, you know, when you're acting, you don't just like yell at the same pitch every scene like you interpret it based on what's going on and you adjust.
And that makes for a better performance rather than like, you know, I'm going to play each scene at 11 and, you know, hope for the best.
Yeah, it's an amazing thing to see.We can actually close with something we haven't been able to do before, and that is to give you a preview of coming attractions.
Because in that bit of dialogue during the break when the jury was out of the room, when they were talking about, is this cross about to wrap up?Judge Gull said, you know,
this is going on so long, I'm not sure the prosecution has time for their DNA witness.And Prosecutor McLeelan said, well, actually, the DNA witness is scheduled for tomorrow.
We had another witness scheduled for today that because of this cross, we won't have time for.So we have whatever witness was scheduled for today that was meant to go after this, and then we have the DNA witness.
And I will say with the DNA witness, I'm very confident that this is going to be a situation where, and I don't, I mean, this is informed speculation, but.
I think this person's going to get up and the defense is going to be able to just ask them again and again, like, did you find any of Richard Allen's DNA on this, on this, on this?And the answer is going to be no, no, no, no, no.
I don't think there's any DNA in this case.Or let me say this again.I don't think there's any usable DNA that led to a profile in this case.And that's what you need.
You know, I'm not, if you have some weird partial things or like a little tiny bit that it would be destroyed if it were tested at this point, I don't think that counts.I don't think this was never a DNA case.
I know a lot of folks at home are like holding out hope that there's some 11th hour DNA revelation.I don't think that's happening.And I think, you know, I guess I just think that people perhaps underestimate
that some cases just don't have DNA or they don't have usable DNA.And I don't think DNA is obviously very important.
I can understand that's a huge focus in true crime, but I don't necessarily see that as being the end-all be-all at this point when there's other evidence.
So I think that's just something to keep in mind.I'm sure it's going to be just no DNA that is usable, that was testable.Certainly nothing tying Allen. I don't think there's going to be DNA in his car.
I don't think there's going to be DNA in his house.I don't think there's going to be DNA on any of those master bedroom knives that he had.I think it's just going to be nothing.Do you have any predictions?Nope.Nope.Leave me to it.
I'd like to just sit back, let you do all the work.You drive the car, I'll sit at the back seat.
You're very hardworking.You're not sitting in the back, what?You're just, oh, geez.Anyways, listen, thank you all so much.We'll be back and talk about other things.
that happened in the trial, and we just wanna say thanks again for sticking with us and dealing with whatever inanities we're saying, and hopefully we're getting stuff right, and we just appreciate you for listening.
I mean, it really does mean a lot, and we really enjoy doing this, and we just hope you enjoy it too.
The emails in general are terrific.
The men over the top of the show have been showing the great emails.
I know, I'm just teasing you. All right, well, good night, everybody.Thanks again for listening.
Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet.If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheetatgmail.com.
If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.
If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet.If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet.
We very much appreciate any support.
Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at KevinTG.com.
If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook.We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.
We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.Thanks again for listening. Thanks so much for sticking around to the end of this Murder Sheet episode.
Just as a quick post-roll ad, we wanted to tell you again about our friend Jason Blair's wonderful Silver Linings Handbook.This show is phenomenal.
Whether you are interested in true crime, the criminal justice system, law, mental health, stories of marginalized people, overcoming tragedy, well-being, like he does it all. This is a show for you.
He has so many different conversations with interesting people, people whose loved ones have gone missing, other podcasters in the true crime space, just interesting people with interesting life experiences.
And Jason's gift, I think, is just being an incredibly empathetic and compassionate interviewer, where he's really letting his guests tell their stories and asking really interesting questions along the way, guiding those conversations forward.
I would liken it to like you're kind of almost sitting down with friends and sort of just hearing these fascinating tales that you wouldn't get otherwise, because he just has that ability as an interviewer to tease it out and really make it interesting for his audience.
On a personal level, Jason is frankly a great guy.He's been a really good friend to us.And so it's fun to be able to hit a button on my phone and get a little dose of Jason talking to people whenever I want.It's a really terrific show.
We really recommend it highly.
Yeah, I think our audience will like it.And you've already met Jason if you listen consistently to our show.He's been on our show a couple times.We've been on his show.He's a terrific guest.
I say this in one of our ads about him, but I literally always am like, oh yeah, I remember when Jason said this.That really resonated.I do quote him in conversations sometimes because he really has a good grasp of different
complicated she quotes them to me all the time i do i'm like remember when jason said this that was so right so i mean i think if we're doing that i think and you like us you you i think you should give it a shot give it a try i think you'll really enjoy it and again he does a range of different topics but they all kind of have the similar theme of compassion of overcoming suffering of dealing with suffering of mental health uh wellness things like that there's kind of a common through line of compassion and empathy there that i think we find very nice and
We work on a lot of stories that can be very tough and we try to bring compassion and empathy to it.
But this is something that almost can be like if you're kind of feeling a little burned out by true crime, I think this is kind of the life affirming stuff that can be nice to listen to in a podcast.
It's compassionate, it's affirming, but I also want to emphasize it's smart.Jason is a very intelligent, articulate person.This is a smart show, but it's an accessible show.I think you'll all really enjoy it.
Yeah, and he's got a great community that he's building.So we're really excited to be a part of that.We're fans of the show.We love it.And we would strongly encourage you all to check it out.Download some episodes, listen.
I think you'll understand what we're talking about once you do.But anyways, you can listen to The Silver Linings Handbook wherever you listen to podcasts.
Wherever you listen to podcasts.Very easy to find.
Sign in
