Content warning, this episode contains discussion of the brutal murder of two girls.Hi, everybody.It's Saturday, October 26, 2024.And you know what Saturday means right now?Half a day of court in the Delphi murders case.
And so we have kind of come back from that, from this half day of court.There was only one witness today.And we're going to talk about what we saw. 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 eight.The second police interview.
Just a reminder to everyone that we've been writing articles on this case, in addition to covering it on our podcast for a wonderful newspaper called the Franklin Daily Journal.Please check them out.
There's different, I guess, arts to newspaper writing and podcasting.We're getting you some of the same information, but typically in a print story, you're gonna kind of focus on some of the big highlights and organize in a different way.
But it's been really fun to kind of go back to some print writing for the both of us. and they're a great paper, we've long admired their work, so please go look those up, check them out, and you know.
I should mention that we'll be covering it in yet another way, because we're going to be writing a book covering the entire case, laying out everything we know, and that will be coming out I believe next summer, and you can pre-order it.
It's funny sometimes pre-order on Amazon.We're going to be doing a lot of events where we'll like sign it and stuff.So don't worry about that.Well, if you want it signed, we'll get it.We'll get it signed.We'll show up at your house.
They can worry about it if they want.
I don't want them to worry.Why are you trying to stress people out?
And also, before we get going, I want to say thanks to today's Murder Sheet lifesaver, Mallory.This work is very challenging because in order to get in, you have to basically stand out in line forever.
and it would be getting very, very difficult to stand out in line forever and then possess enough mental acuity to actually do a program afterwards.And now that we have some people helping us out, I can say things like acuity.
And Mallory helped us out, and if anyone is interested in becoming a Murder Sheet lifesaver, send us an email with some line in the subject line.
Yeah, Mallory, you're the best.Thank you so much.It just means a lot that so many people are willing to do this.And thanks to everyone who just volunteered and everyone has sent us some nice notes.We really appreciate it.It means a lot to us.
And I just, yeah, thank you.It's made it really possible to do this work without completely losing it. More so than we already have, let's be honest here.But yeah, so that's some housekeeping.
So court sessions on Saturday, as I mentioned, are abbreviated.So it's not all day.So it's not as surprising that we only got to one witness today.We only had time for one witness yesterday on Friday, which is a full day, which was a bit surprising.
And it was just basically Rosie Grilling, Bradley Rosie, one of the defense attorneys, Grilling, Melissa Oberg, the forensic firearm examiner who you know, worked on the case and it was kind of a mess.
So we're curious to see what's in store for today.
And what was in store for today was Prosecutor Nick McClellan presented as his witness, Lieutenant Jerry Holman of the Indiana State Police.
He is a key player in Unified Command, which was the group of investigators who had the responsibility of investigating this tragic double homicide.
Absolutely.And this is the second time he's been recalled to the stand.Initially, he was called by the prosecution.They called him again today.Kevin, is that unusual at all during a trial that people kind of show up again and again?
It's not the least bit unusual because you may want to talk to them about different events and at different times.Even in this trial, we've had Steve Mullen, who was police chief of Delphi at the time of the murders.He's testified several times.
So I wouldn't even be surprised if Jerry Holman came back a time or two.
Makes sense.I just wanted to clarify that for people.
McClellan started off by kind of taking care of some old business.You might remember, I think Anya mentioned this yesterday.
I did, I did.Now it made more sense.
Anya's psychic.At one point during the cross-examination of Melissa Oberg yesterday, who's the ballistics expert, Brad Rosie asked, would you ever tell a law enforcement officer that a ballistics test is as reliable and as good as a paternity test?
And she said, no.And the first question Nick McLean asked Lieutenant Holman was, can we clear up something?
So apparently in some deposition, Holman reported that this was said to him by Oberg, and he says after what he heard in court and talking about it and thinking about it, he realizes that he misinterpreted something she said. Those things happen.
It didn't seem to be any malicious intent on his part.
It seemed to be a pretty benign Also, it seems like a complete nothing burger to be honest, and it made me so my interpretation of this and Kevin Tell me if you have a different conclusion.
This is just me speculating to a certain instance But it sounds like she was talking about like I guess margins of error Is that kind of?
forensic firearms examiner and she made some kind of comparison.She was really more talking about the error aspect of it.And he thought she was comparing like the accuracy or something.So, you know, okay.
Like, I mean, gosh, if, if, if we were deposed every day, then I'm sure you'd find a million instances where you're saying one thing and I'm interpreting something or, or vice versa.
But it almost sounded like McClelland was sort of preemptively attempting to neutralize that because he had a feeling that the defense was going to go after Holman for that and make a huge deal about it.
Because, and I think they signaled that they were going to do that by asking.
I've been in court too long.
No, I feel like that because why was Rosie bringing it up otherwise?
So they were trying to trip him up in the beginning.And so by basically getting ahead of that, it kind of made it- Yeah, that's likely what it is.It took a weapon off their table, so to speak, you know what I mean?
Well, whatever.We're past forensics at this point.
And there was another thing where he indicated that, and he may have told other people, and other people may have believed that the ballistics expert Oberg had told him that the round discovered at the crime scene was linked to a Sig Sauer.
And he now realizes after listening to her testimony that he misinterpreted something she said, and she apparently did not say that.
But oddly enough, it did turn out to be linked to a Sig Sauer, at least according to her analysis, because she links it to a Sig Sauer, owned, of course, as we all know, by Richard Allen.
Right.And I guess, I mean, it just seems sort of like a nothing burger.
So I guess it would make sense that McClelland would sort of diffuse that so as not to distract from the points that he was trying to make and let that get lost in a cross that would be, you know, like, you're lying, you lied on the stand and all the, you know, like, you're going to jail for perjury, you know, like this kind of nonsense that kind of seems to be the tenor this whole case is taking on for the defense.
So the main subject of Lieutenant Holman's testimony today involved an interview he did with Richard Allen back in October of 2022.And this was an interview which concluded with Richard Allen being arrested.
And so they wanted to discuss what happened in this interview.
So it took place, to be clear, on October 26, 2022.
Which, oddly enough, we're recording, correct me if I'm wrong, on October 26, 2024.That is very correct.
Two years to the day.Wow, we've been doing this a long time.
In these trials, of course, you're not just talking about the substance of these interviews and the facts elicited, but to a certain extent, attorneys, especially defense attorneys, want to look at the style.Why do the police do it this way?
Why do they do it that way? And so anticipating that, McLeelan started asking Holman some questions about his training in interrogation and interviewing suspects.And Holman mentioned he's taken courses in the read technique.
He's taken courses in the advanced read technique.
Critical incident training around identifying someone who might have a mental illness and and working through that and finding words, which is about interviewing kids who may have been sexually abused.
Yeah, and he mentioned that one of the things that he's trained that you're supposed to do is to try to build rapport with the person you're interviewing, trying to give them like something personal that makes them feel connected or comfortable with you in some way.
And remember that because later on we'll see some examples of where Lieutenant Holman did just that. and Holman reported that he's interviewed hundreds of people in the course of his career.
In addition to building rapport, he said it's important to present evidence to the person you're interviewing and, pardon me,
He mentions that police officers are actually allowed to lie or over-exaggerate the evidence they have as part of a technique to elicit statements and cooperation from the person they are interviewing.
So the silly example is if the cops are grilling me over my latest serial heist and they say, listen, Kane, we have you on surveillance footage leaving the Walmart with armloads of Special K and we know exactly where you were.We saw you drive off.
And, you know, I might be like, if I, you know, if I if I did it. I might be like, well, you got me.I'll tell you what I was doing.That would be the goal.
And maybe they don't maybe they have some evidence that I did it, but maybe they don't have the surveillance footage.But by exaggerating it, they're eliciting the reaction from me that they want, which is that I confess.So.
That's also why it's also really important to get a lawyer.
Because lawyers know that.
Lawyers know that police are allowed to exaggerate.
A lawyer would say, show us the video then, you know, like they wouldn't, you know, they wouldn't necessarily, but like, you know, that's why people encourage others, you know, get a lawyer if you're facing a criminal matter.
And I think it's important also to stress that maybe as you're listening to us talk about this, maybe you feel a little uncomfortable with the idea of police being allowed to lie.
And that's a perfectly legitimate feeling, it's a perfectly legitimate concern, but that's kind of a separate issue because they are, as of now, allowed to do that.Maybe they shouldn't be, maybe that should be changed, I don't know.
It's been adjudicated pretty extensively, right?
But I'm just saying what Holman did and what he discussed doing is within the law.And you can't really fairly hold police to a standard other than what's in the law.
And if you feel that law is wrong and you feel that should not be allowed, that's another discussion.
Well, yeah, then there has to be work done to change it, obviously.But yeah, I tend to feel the same way.Sometimes it seems like, you know, conflating something with like, well, in an ideal world, you wouldn't do that.I mean, like, I don't know.
I don't necessarily have a super strong opinion either way, but I can see people being like, well, I don't like that.And it's like, yeah, that's fair.But I don't think I don't know.That is not how it is right now.
It's not considered wrong to do that in these situations, and therefore.
And maybe that'll change someday.The criminal law is a continuing I'm very tired.
Criminal law is a continually evolving set of weights and balances, checks and whatever, when you're balancing the interests of the accused versus the rights of the accused, what the police can do, rights of victims.
You're just trying to find the right balance.This is where it's at now, this is where it's been for a while.Maybe you think it's the wrong balance, maybe you don't, but that's where it is now. And so I just think it's important to stress that.
So with that out of the way, as Anya mentioned, the Holman indicated that this interview was done on October 26th, 2022.And this interview with Richard Allen took place at the Indiana State Police Post in Lafayette, Indiana in the interview room.
And it was recorded and transcribed, actually,
To be more accurate, it was mostly recorded because there was some kind of technology problem where the beginning of the interview wasn't recorded, and it sounded like Trooper Dave Vito, who we saw testify, I believe, day before yesterday, he very early on in the process came in and said, wait a minute, this isn't being recorded.
So Holman had to step out. and do whatever was necessary to get it to start recording and then go back in the room.
And yeah, and there's also apparently a delay too on the recording.
And, you know, and we've talked about in the trial itself, the prosecution has had a lot of problems with technology.
Yeah, they have.I think at one point Holman alluded to that, like they kind of held up his hand at the notorious giant TV and basically it was like, we've had a lot of issues with this.
the giant TV in the courtroom that always has problems.
Yeah, the big TV that I'm sure everyone on that side absolutely hates right now and all the defense probably love.I think the TV is definitely on the defense side.
But it's crucial to stress that the beginning, the opening minutes of this conversation were not recorded because according to Holman and other witnesses, Because there were witnesses watching this interview from another room.
According to them, it was during that period where Holman reminded Allen of his Miranda rights.
Now we've been over this because this all, this was all already sort of gone over in pretrial filings.So this shouldn't be new to our audience.
We've talked about this where we talked about, well, what, you know, what, do you have to Mirandize somebody at all times?When do you have to, when is it considered like you don't have to, you know, um, can you just remind somebody?
And, and that was all kind of discussed again with some of those filings.But as a reminder, um, The argument from the state is that Richard Allen was by no means in custody at this time.
He came to the station, to the post rather, with his wife Kathy, and they arrived there in order to procure his car that had been seized. And they had some sort of communication with police where it was like, you can get your car back.
Then Richard Allen was told he can go into this conference room.The door is not locked.He can leave at any time.
We just want to talk, maybe clear a few things up.And it is important to stress that before this interview with Richard Allen began, Lieutenant Holman had received already the report from Oberg.
So he knew at this point that the bullet at the crime scene matched a gun found in the home of Richard Allen.So he knows this even before the interview begins.
And they also go over again, like if anything was damaged at your house in the search, there are forms you can fill out.That was what Holman previously testified to talking to Allen about, after which Allen said, it doesn't matter, it's over.
So that didn't happen again this time, but they went over that again, gave him a sheet to fill out.
And I think it's also worth stressing that when he showed up at the police station, they don't arrest him.They just basically invite him back to talk.
And Holman even went so far to say is at the beginning of this conversation, there was no plan in place to arrest Richard Allen.
Right.And they talked about the Holman attempted to build up some rapport.They talked about guns, firearms.They talked about so Richard Allen served at one time, I believe, in the Army Reserves.Is that right?
I think so, and Lieutenant Holman apparently was in the Marines.So this is a part of the building rapport process.He's saying, hey, I was in the Marines.I shot some guns.I know what that's like.Just trying to find something.
What an opener.No, but they're talking about, yeah, like the guns that they had in the military, comparing them, talking about, you know, what all of that just to build up some rapport.
Holman said that he wanted to build an indoor range because then he could just shoot guns all the time.So he's trying to kind of like, Alan has an interesting gun, so it's trying to connect over that.
And then Holman has an agenda.There are certain questions he wants to ask to get Allen on the record about certain things, and he wants to try to do it in a conversational style.
So he started talking about Richard Allen's vehicle, the one that was seized.The one that was seized was the Ford Focus, which investigators believe was the vehicle that Allen used when he went to the Monon High Bridge.
And so he said, we know sometimes I let other people borrow my vehicles and stuff.Once a friend of mine had a problem with a car and I let him borrow my car.He ended up taking it for like four to five months.Have you ever let anyone borrow this car?
And Alan said, no.And Holman had some similar lines to say about, you know, sometimes people wear my clothes and my jacket.Anybody ever borrow your clothes?No. How about the gun?You know, sometimes he had a story about somebody using his guns.
No, no, not someone using his guns.He talked about like sometimes with a relative, he'd like almost like buy their gun off them for a while and then, you know, give it back when they paid it back.
Like, you know, like just sort of like, would there ever be a situation where someone else would have your gun?
And Allen said no.And so all of this is important because if Richard Allen said, oh, yes, I let plenty of people use my gun, for instance.If you say, oh, I let everybody in the neighborhood use my gun.
I took my gun to a shooting club and let them keep it for a year.
If more people have their hands on the gun, then that means it is difficult to tie that bullet specifically to Richard Allen because whoever else was using the gun might have been using it on that day.
But Allen is said very strongly, no, no one else has used the gun.
Can I point out one thing?And I'll be curious what you think about this.I mean, I don't know what to think about this.It's more of just an observation, I guess, at this point.
But, you know, Holman's building rapport and getting him on the record with some of this stuff.But I mean, at this point, Allen has to know absolutely that he is being looked at in this murder case because his house was just recently searched.
Well, as you said a moment ago, on the day of the search, he says, it doesn't matter.It's all over.So, yeah, he knew what was happening.He knew he was in a very difficult position.
Yeah, I just, I just find it odd because it's not like he came in there with a story to sell.Well, my weird nephew always borrows my gun, so who knows what he,
You know, it's just, it's just odd, you know, that like, I don't know, he goes in and he- I just keep thinking it doesn't matter.
And, uh, yeah, maybe there's that resignation.
I wouldn't be surprised if when he walked into that police station that day, he expected to be arrested.
Yeah.It almost sounds like it.Cause I mean, like you, you sometimes think, well, people go to talk to police cause they want to get ahead of something or because they think they can talk themselves out of like a bad situation and
This doesn't really sound like that.And I'm not saying like, I mean, I'm not commenting about guilt or innocence or like, oh, he's guilty and he knew he's going to be arrested.
It's just I'm more of saying, like, what does this look like from the outside?And it certainly doesn't look like a spin attempt.It more of looks like resignation.
Yes.And before we get back to some of the other things that were discussed in this interview, I feel I should make clear we did not see the recording of the interview.
I believe it's likely that we're going to see the recording of that and the recording of the earlier interview that Steve Mullen did next week.
So when we're discussing things that happened in the interview, we are discussing things that Holman discussed about the interview during his testimony.
Yeah, they brought in like the transcript and stuff, but not the actual video.So I'm sure the defense will be rolling that out.
So Holman asked if Richard Allen normally carried his gun, and he said no.And he indicated that he did not have the gun on February 13th.And it was about at this point that Holman apparently confronted Allen with the news
that the round at the crime scene matched Richard Allen's gun.And Richard Allen denies it, doesn't have any explanation, but he says it wasn't me.And Holman said that at this point, Richard Allen started growing increasingly agitated.
But again, even at this point, there was no plan in place to arrest him on this day.
So he started off, according to Holman, quote, normal and calm.And then he became more and more agitated as this whole conversation went on, as the confrontation went on.I will note one brief aside, because it'll come up later.
Allen indicated that he really only took his gun with him when he was either mushroom hunting or fishing. So keep that in mind, because they'll discuss that later.
Because one thing that the defense has consistently asked is, well, don't people in Indiana just go out and shoot handguns in the woods?That's not something Richard Allen suggested at this time that he was doing.
Exactly. Adnan has mentioned it a couple of times, I've mentioned it a couple of times, the statement that Richard Allen made on the day of the search, it doesn't matter, it's over.Holman asked Richard Allen about that statement during the interview.
He said, quote, I told him I was concerned about that comment, end quote. I think everyone was in that last hearing.Alan clarified that he was not all he meant by that was that there was a police presence around his house and that
you know, quote, everyone, everybody believes I did it, end quote.So he basically was saying all my neighbors saw the police descend on my house and my life is over.
Holman said that he was paraphrasing and that he's not directly quoting Allen here, but like basically his life is ruined.And McClelland asked Holman, had we publicized anything about this arrest at that time?
The arrest hadn't even been made.
No.All that happened was a search.Oh, not the arrest.We publicized that the search was connected to the murder investigation at that time.And they hadn't.No, they had not.
Obviously, in Delphi, there was always going to be a contingent of people who every, you know, raid or arrest, people might be saying, was that Delphi linked?But as far as official channels, you know, nothing, nothing was out there.
At one point, um, Holman gave Alan a water break or, you know, good break to either get some water.He got him a water bottle at some point.He gave him a break to go to the restroom.He let him go out and smoke cigarettes.
Holman did talk with Allen about the voice of Bridge Guy on the phone and, of course, the video on the phone.And this is one of the things he says that he told Richard Allen that was a lie.
He told him that they had experts who had studied the video and the audio and had determined that that person and that voice was definitely him.
And Richard Allen emphatically denied this.
In fact, he maintained his innocence and he said, actually, he denied his guilt about 20 to 25 times during the course of this interview, but he offered no explanation, again, for why it was his bullet at the crime scene.
Holman indicated that he even asked Allen, is it possible that you went mushroom hunting or even like fishing or something out in that area where the bodies were found?
Because if he takes his gun, maybe that's an explanation for how the bullet got there.And his answer to that was no.
He said, I think he even denied that he'd ever even been in that area where the bodies were found.
Yeah, which is kind of interesting.Yeah, it kind of speaks to maybe Yes, I mean, there's a resignation there because you think you'd be taking it out.I mean, it's it's interesting.
And then you could argue like, you know, an innocent person wouldn't wouldn't lie.So they wouldn't want to be like making up an excuse.But it's it's interesting.
Richard Allen told Lieutenant Holman that he, Richard Allen, had some depression and anxiety.He, again, denied any role in the murders, denied the lab findings.
Holman indicated he did not observe any obvious signs of mental health issues on the part of Richard Allen.But again, as this interview progresses,
and things become increasingly serious and real, Alan's demeanor changes and becomes increasingly agitated.
He said, oh yeah, this was an odd thing.Is this in your note too?At one point, they were talking about the ballistics evidence and Alan said something to the effect, can my gun tell you something I didn't do?
I don't care what you do to me, I'm not going to tell you something I never did.
Yeah, I think I wrote down, quote, I'm not going to tell you something I didn't do, end quote.And then, quote, I don't care what you do.I'm not going to tell you I did something when I didn't, end quote.
So he denied knowing Liberty German or Abigail Williams.He denied contacting them.And around this time, it seemed to get heated, according to Holman.
Yes, Richard Allen was getting pissed off and said he didn't effing do that.
And Holman said that – earlier in his testimony, Holman indicated that one thing to do in these interviews is you have to mirror basically the language and the behavior of the person you're interviewing or interrogating.
So in other words, if you are talking with a nice, respectable person like Anya, a gentlewoman who uses refined language, you talk like that.
And then if you talk- All the listeners are shaking their heads no.
But then if you talk to someone who starts getting angry and using rougher language- Like Anya.Then you need to start getting rougher and using rougher language yourself in order to mirror them.
Yeah, we often, I mean, I don't think I do this on purpose necessarily, but I often find myself maybe mirroring interview subjects.
And we're not cops, obviously, but, you know, if someone's really enthusiastic, you know, you might get enthusiastic or you might be reflecting that if someone is more businesslike and professional, maybe that's the way you handle the interview because you're trying to elicit the best information.
In our case, it's for journalistic purposes.But yeah, I mean, it makes sense to me.
It was it was weird to me when the defense made such a big deal about this in their pretrial hearings because again We've I feel like this is a very repetitive episode and I apologize for that ladies and gentlemen But it's just like we've already talked about all this before with the second interview defense raised a lot of these issues and McClelland in direct seemed to be trying to kind of Lay it down for the jury in a way that would not damage the state's credibility but it's like
I don't know who in the world is expecting a police interview to be some sort of formal Downton Abbey tea party where the etiquette must be observed.It just seems like kind of a weird thing to put on this.
And again, if the person you're interviewing starts cursing, swearing, it's normal for the person doing the interview to echo and mirror that.
Yeah, I wouldn't really want Holman to be like, Etiquette sir, you know, please this offends my sensibilities and leaves.
I mean that that's not very effective I think you I think the mirroring makes sense and that's what they're trained to do essentially.So he starts getting heated back to kind of I think Put you know kind of like show that it's serious.
I think he indicated at one point Like it's also showing it's serious for both of them.Like if Alan wants to get upset about it.Well, I You know, people are upset about the murder of two kids and they want some answers.
And at this point, again, he's he's completely free to go.The door is unlocked.He can just leave.Uh.
And Allen is again repeatedly denying his guilt.He says, there's no way that round was cycled through my gun.He did admit to being on the trail and on Monon High Bridge on February 13th, which of course was the date of the murders.
And they discussed what he wore that day.And of course, he describes wearing garments that are very similar, if not identical, to what Bridge Guy wears in the video.
And at that point there was some kind of a break and there was a conversation, I believe Kathy Allen came into the room and it's...
You're saying in the interview.In the interview.Yeah.
Yeah, there was a break in the interview, and there was some sort of interaction between Richard Allen and his wife, Kathy Allen.And she apparently expressed some concerns.Maybe she wanted to go home.
And Richard Allen told her, all you have to do is ask for a lawyer, and they have to let you go.Don't worry about me.
So I think that tends to support the idea that he did get a reminder of his Miranda rights, or at the very least he understood that a person in the situation that he and his wife were in had the right to get a lawyer, and that if they did get a lawyer, that lawyer might assist them in doing whatever.
So he clearly understood that.
Yeah, yeah.It was interesting.Yeah.I found that interesting, too.It's kind of revealing that he's aware of the situation.What do you make of him saying she should get a lawyer but not him?
Because you would think, well, this doesn't seem to be going terribly well.Let me get a lawyer if he's aware of the process.
Yes.It's odd.There's a lot about Richard Allen, frankly, to be blunt, that is odd, to say the least.The questioning of Richard Allen continued.Holman asked him how he carried his gun when he did carry it.
Allen indicated he had a side holster and that he would normally carry his gun with one bullet in the chamber.
And at this point, McClellan continues, continuously was asking this question.He asked him again, had you decided to arrest him at this point?And the answer was no.No.
not under arrest, no decision, no plan to arrest him at that time.McClellan starts asking, well, you know, when you're in interrogation, are there some signs that a suspect is being deceptive?And Holman says, you know, sometimes body language.
He said if a person is touching their face a lot, if they're looking away, if they're looking down, those can be signs of deception. And at this point, Andrew Baldwin objected.
Well, one thing that kind of opened the door for that.
Holman said, I think this is something people often say, but he kind of said, I'm no expert, but.
Right, and so that's kind of something that you say and you're humble about what you're doing, but that's an opportunity for a defense attorney to swoop in and be like, well, if you're not an expert, get out, basically.
So then that's- So Baldwin was like, okay, tell me exactly who told you that a person touching their face a lot could be a sign of deception.And if you can't tell me, maybe it's not true.And I want you to tell me about eye contact?
Who said that if a person looks away that might be a sign of deception?And what were their credentials?
Yeah, I was like, oof. McClellan was able to ask some foundation questions to show that yes, he is an expert, he's done hundreds of criminal interviews, and it's just saying that does not necessarily undo those years of experience.
And he did bring out that Richard Allen during this interview apparently was touching his face a lot.
Kind of rubbing his face, not making the best eye contact necessarily.
And Holman talked about, you know, there were different comments that were... He also said, let me just say this.
He also said it wasn't obvious.He was saying, I mean, what I think he was saying was like, I'm not making up my mind on someone based on that.It's just more of like, I mean, McClellan asked him the question.
So he was like, these are some things that can be something to look at, but not like, you know, Richard Allen seemed fine, but he touched his face.So I had to, you know,
I had no choice but to arrest him.
How to book him, you know, like that's not, it just more of like, this is stuff that you can kind of add to the whole thing.And it's like, and it can be indicative of deception.It is not necessarily, it's not.
Some people have different neurodivergence and, and different, you know, things that they do when they're feeling stressed.
And so, you know, one thing that interviewers have to do is kind of keep that in mind in order to not just, you know, jump to conclusions just because someone's doing that.
Holman brought up a comment that Richard Allen made that he found of concern.And I think a version of this comment is not going to be new to you because I believe it appeared in one of the defense filings, didn't it?
And the comment was, Holman said to Richard Allen, well, you know, your wife and I don't think you're a bad person.And Richard Allen said, well, would a good person kill two girls?
I have two minds of that.What do you think?
My two minds.One mind is... That sounds really bad.
Yeah, it sounds a little bit like a confession.
Yeah, it sounds really bad.
Or an incriminating statement.
Just sounds like a bad thing to say in this scenario.My other mind is...
Like if you were accusing me, if you and a police detective were here accusing me of stealing cereal and you just kept on assisting it, but then you were like, well, but I think you're a good person.
I'd be like, I might be saying something like, well, if you think I'm so good, why do you think I'm stealing cereal?Like something like that.Like it's just kind of defensive.
It's not, so I don't, I don't really see it as that big of a deal to be honest.I could see myself saying that, you know, if you, I could see someone saying that when they were feeling really defensive. I think that's a wash.
I think it sounds terrible when you kind of like just read it, but like I could almost see a conversation in fairness playing out in a way where that wouldn't necessarily be like. Bad, does that make sense?
That makes sense.I think that I think I'm in line with your way of thinking miss Kane Yeah, so stop bringing police detectives over to confront me about my serial killer.
Okay, you see your theft I see serial killing.Oh my Jesus.
It's funny Like I I thought I would be like totally normal today like but it I guess it takes a while to catch up on while sleep so Apologies to everyone.Meanwhile, everyone listening is like, no, they're always like this.What are they talking about?
Please, if you want to volunteer to be a Murder Sheet lifesaver, please send us an email.
Such a cheesy branding choice.
They kept on stressing during this testimony that Richard Allen was not under arrest and he was free to leave at any time.So the obvious question was, did he ever make any attempt to end the interview and in fact leave?
And Holman said there were a couple of times where Richard Allen said the words, I'm done, but then he kept on talking.So the fact that he kept on talking kind of took precedence over the phrase, I'm done.
And it got more heated.And it sounds like, you know, Holman was was cursing and yelling as well, like and maybe maybe even more so than Richard Allen based on this, you know, and I think that's that's something to note.
I think the defense is definitely going to play this tape and be basically like.You know.
Let's talk about the end of the interview.
Well, yeah, this is something Allen said.
Yeah, at the end of the interview, Holman says he just flat out told Richard Allen, I think you did this.And Richard Allen said, well, then take all your evidence and arrest me.
Yeah, and just arrest me.
So then Holman went and conferred with some other investigations, and they made the fact to indeed arrest him, and they did.
And McClellan said, why'd you do that?And Holman said, quote, we felt we had enough evidence to establish probable cause. You know, at that point, they have him with the witnesses.They have him with the clothing.They have him with the bullet.
And they have him with his statement that there's no way the bullet got out to that scene by any other sort of innocuous means.No one has access to his gun.And he was not out there mushroom hunting.So, yeah.
It's, I mean, I'm not, again, like if we're, let's just kind of do a hypothetical here.Let's not, let's not use this as any sort of conclusion, but like kind of, I almost see it two paths.
One path is he's innocent and it's just kind of a big misunderstanding.And the other path is he's guilty.If he's guilty in that hypothetical, and I'm not saying I think, but let's just say it almost sounded like he wanted to get arrested.
Like he wanted it to be over.Yeah.
Because it means like when you're goading people to arrest you and you're not calling a lawyer, even though you know you can call a lawyer and you know you probably should call a lawyer, and you're not offering any explanation or taking any out that's given to you around how a bullet tied to your gun got there.
So then it was time for the cross-examination conducted by attorney Andrew Baldwin.
And just at the beginning, I will say that stylistically, we're talking about the content of this in a minute, but stylistically, this was so much better than the cross-examination that Brad Rosey did yesterday.
Rosie's cross-exam ultimately, not immediately, but maybe earlier on than it should have, became like nails on a chalkboard for me.Like at a certain point it was just like, enough.Like the caterwalling, we don't need this.
Baldwin's stylistically, no, because Baldwin actually like varies what he's doing.So it's not just the same thing over and over and over again.And it makes it just frankly more interesting to listen to.
And I feel like you're taking away, I'm not saying it was perfect, but you're taking away more information that I think he wants you to take away as opposed to having a situation where maybe some points that are important are getting buried under all the minutia.
Yeah, Baldwin was more focused.
If Baldwin had 10 points he wanted to make, he made those points and that's it.
Where Rosie, if there were 10 points he wanted to make, he'd make 300 points and somewhere within that 300, you just cross your fingers and hope the jury would pick the important 10.
Yeah, so Baldwin is definitely a better cross-examiner from what we've seen than Rosie.
In terms of in terms of the standard in terms of what you'd see I think Rosie can be good probably if you would be able to like kind of control it and then just unleash them more of the kind of. bulldog aspect like at a proper moment.
But that just doesn't seem to be happening.So Baldwin starts out by grilling Holman about like signs of deception.And then he says, quote, The nice calm guy on the stand right here is not the calm guy.
Richard is not the same guy Richard Allen experienced. So he's saying, you know, he's they've made a really big deal in their filings about this.I mean, like, remember this?
This was like the filing where they were like, Holman is a big guy and Richard Allen's a little guy.And the height disparity makes it so that he was in custody.
Do you remember that?Yeah, I do.And it's something I've always struggled to understand, because even
Most of you, I assume, are lucky enough to never have been in a police interrogation, but even if that's the case, I'm sure in your life you've watched episodes of Homicide, A Law and Order, and you know enough to realize that
An interrogation by the police is not supposed to be a pleasant experience.As Anya said a moment ago, it's not supposed to be like a dinner party on Downton Abbey.That's just not the way it is.
And so are we supposed to be shocked that a police interrogator is not as nice as he would be in a different setting?
Well, obviously they needed to find a police officer who's the same exact height and has the same exact life experiences as Richard Allen so that it would be totally equitable and no one's feelings would get hurt.
I mean, it just it frankly just seems preposterous at this point. But, you know, one one big thing that he slammed him on early about was the was the missing portion of the video.
Holman pointed out that, you know, and, you know, what Baldwin's one of Baldwin's favorite things, actually, one of this defense team's favorite things is definitely like, you know, so we're just supposed to take your word for it.
And, you know, you know, it's like, well, there's witnesses.Other people saw this happen.And McClelland, pretty early on, asked to approach the bench.
Yeah, the implication is that they wanted the suggestion that Allen was not reminded of his Miranda rides and they had trouble accepting the idea that there were tactical difficulties and they said, wait a minute, you went into the other room
And he said, when you were in that other room, you became satisfied that then it was recording.But then when the recording began, you were already sitting down to interrogate Richard Allen.Explain that, sir.
And he says, well, when you push the button to start recording, there's a short delay before it actually starts recording.You can see that it's working.
Kind of makes sense, because if you were alone, you might, I don't know.I mean, that didn't seem so crazy to me, but Baldwin made a huge deal about it.
Yeah. And at this point it was discussed.I think Baldwin wanted to play these videos today.There was a long sidebar and Judge Gold said, we'll play it for you next week.
I think part of the, I'm guessing, this is just speculation, I'm guessing part of the reason why it wasn't played today is This is a short session.We were already an hour into it.
And if we'd watched these videos, that would have just been pretty much the rest of the session.
Yeah, was there a break around this time?
There was a break shortly after this because Baldwin said, well, if we're not playing the video, some of these questions I have planned I may not be able to use.Let me go through them.And Judge Gold said, well, I don't want you to rush that process.
Why don't we take a break so you have plenty of time to do that to more fully prepare for your cross-examination?
Yeah, she was very friendly to him in that moment, just kind of like, you know, like, I don't want you to feel like you have to rush. Let's just – we need to take a break anyway, so why don't we just give you that moment?
And we took a 15-minute break.Alternatively – because people often ask how Richard Allen seems.In terms of physically, he's – like when you see pictures of him before all of this, he definitely is a heavier guy.
In fact, like if you look at pictures of him in 2017, like things like that. Like, you know, he looks different now.He's lost weight.
But when we when we used to see him in the beginning, it was like he lost a lot of weight rapidly and he looked kind of it was troubling to see his condition physically.Nowadays, I don't really I think it I think it's like stabilized.
I think he looks his head is shaved.He doesn't have any facial hair.He's skinnier than he maybe used to be, but he doesn't seem concerningly skinny, I would say.What do you think?
Yeah, I would agree with that.He looks Uh, like, uh, he looks physically healthy.
Yeah, that's a good, yeah, fair.
Tells my words carefully.
During the break at, alternatively, he was staring at the audience, just like, you know, he can stand there in the well and he's just looking out.
And sometimes he like tries to catch his family's eye, I think, and kind of have a nice moment where he's like smiling at them and they're smiling at him.But other times he's just straight up staring at people.He was staring at me at one point.
I mean, I saw him staring at, I've seen him staring at people in the press row.
I've seen him staring at jury members, which I can't think is helpful to his cause.
And I mean, when I say staring, I don't want to say glaring or glowering too much because sometimes it really looks like that.But maybe that's not the intent.Maybe that's just what his face is doing in that moment.
We don't know if there's any anger or anything behind it, but it's Creepy?I think that's fair to say.Creepy to experience and it's creepy to see, but we don't know the intent. And so we can't read into that because we can't ask him.
And I mean, I'm sure, you know, I'm sure we've all zoned out, but he does it a lot.And the other thing is then I saw him be very normal.
He was almost sort of like laughing a little bit, smiling, talking to some of the, the folks on the defense side in the well.So like you kind of see him run the gamut at some of these things, like one minute he's totally normal.
And like, just like having a conversation with people and just seems, you know, fine.And then the next moment he's, uh, he's just like staring out at you.I don't know.It's kind of odd.It seems like something that just kind of varies a lot.
Baldwin wanted to stress that you did all of these things.You lied to him.You told him at one point that the prosecutor wanted to lock him up.You told him that the death penalty was on the table.But Allen still professed his innocence.
He wanted to stress that.And Jerry Holman did say after the death penalty being on the table was mentioned, he said that Richard Allen responded to that by saying, I'm going to die anyway.
And then Baldwin brought up another comment where Holman at one point in the interview is saying, you're going to drag your effing wife and effing daughter through all of this.
And the implication was you could avoid things and make things better for them and easier for them if you just accepted your guilt.
And so Baldwin says, so by doing that, you put it in his head that his wife and daughter would suffer if he didn't confess.
And I thought that was an interesting claim by Baldwin, because is he really suggesting that if Richard Allen was arrested for this crime, it would never occur to him that it might have a bad impact on his wife and daughter unless Jerry Holman first pointed it out to him?
That sounds like an interesting conjecture.But he's trying to plant some seeds there saying that maybe that influenced Richard Allen down the line to make confessions.
Absolutely.Trying to find the next
Oh, there was one point just, the defense team, whenever they talk about Richard Allen, they call him Rick.And there was one point where Baldwin started to call him, he said, and then Rich, Rick.
At one point, Baldwin brought up the statement about it's over.He acted like he didn't know who said that, whether it was Mullen or Holman.Kept on calling Mullen, Mullens.
And he said, you know, this statement that it's over, when Richard Allen said, it doesn't matter, it's over, you never recorded that, did you?
And then Holman was like, well, you know, Richard Allen admitted saying that phrase in the interview that was recorded.
And Baldwin was like, no, he didn't say, oh, he kind of like tried to spin it.I forget what his reasoning was.Like, well, yeah, but he was saying that, you know.
Well, yeah, I know he said he said it, but what I want to focus on.
Yeah, let's not focus on that.
Let's not focus on the fact that he said it.Let's focus on the fact that you didn't record him saying it.
Yeah.Baldwin stressed that Allen ultimately left this October 26 meeting in handcuffs, and he then pivoted.
Baldwin is an easier cross-examiner to watch in some ways because I think he jumps around a lot and that makes it more interesting for me to watch.I mean, Rosie did too.
Baldwin is the cross-examiner for the
No, no, don't say ADHD, OK?Because I probably have that.But it's not even that.
It's just- He likes to jump around.And I think part of that has to do with his personal style and his personal way of thinking.
But knowing how strategic these guys are, I also imagine that a big part of the reason why he does it that way is it can keep a witness off balance.Because you never know where he's going to jump to next.
Do you think Coleman seemed off balance?
He wasn't.I mean, he was very calm, professional, sort of like something similar to what we saw with Oberg, just kind of like, he's done this a lot.I'm sure it's high stress for everyone who's going to be up there.
Another thing to keep in mind is that by the time these witnesses appear in court and are cross-examined by attorneys, this is not the first time they're meeting, there have been depositions.
I think Holman indicated he's given three depositions to Baldwin.And so that means Baldwin has a pretty good sense of Holman's answers and Holman's style, and Holman has a pretty good sense of Baldwin's style and how Baldwin operates.So.
Yeah, I thought Holman was a good witness and he just kind of didn't let, you know, didn't let it shake him it seemed like he just you know but like he also one thing that I think was interesting to see is like at times when it was like
Baldwin made a good point or was raising an issue or was like, you guys made a mistake.He didn't get defensive or try to deny it.It seemed like in instances where he was like, yeah, it was a mistake.There was technology mess up.That's what happened.
He wouldn't be trying to argue him out of it.He would just acknowledge that there was a mistake.And if there was something that Baldwin was saying that he felt was wrong, he would say, well, no, that's not. something I agree with.
So I thought he did a very good job of just kind of – I think the worst thing you can do in something like this, especially if you're in law enforcement or you're some sort of expert witness, is to get really defensive and be like fighting a lot.
I think you have to pick your battles.Maybe you can kind of sass back a little bit, but you can't like just be constantly like, no, we didn't do anything wrong.Because I think then the jury is going to look and say like, well, come on, you know.
So that's just a thought.
So Baldwin asked him, do you find Betsy Blair credible?And Holman said he did.And then Baldwin said, what about the car?
And this hasn't come up in the trial yet, but Betsy Blair describes seeing a car parked where they think Richard Allen might have parked his car.And she describes it in a way that doesn't sound like Richard Allen's car.
She describes like an old 1965 model.And let me just say this.
I, I thought the discrepancy between the car descriptions and the original PCA, the probable cause of David, that Tony Liggett wrote, I thought that was pretty concerning for the prosecution.
But if there's a car that exactly matches the description of Richard Allen's car on video with like special rims that he had, and it's at the same exact time that he said he was going there, then I really don't think any of these witness sightings around cars are going to be as big of a deal as I thought they were.
And that kind of comes up because, again, Baldwin is saying Betsy Blair is describing a car that doesn't sound like it was Richard Allen's car.And isn't it your theory that Richard Allen was parked where Betsy Blair saw this car?
And Tolman was like, that's not my theory.I don't know where he was parked.I just know he was there because the car is on video going there.
Yeah, that was smart.Yeah, that was, that was a good answer.Cause I think at first when he said, that's not my theory, everyone was like, what?
Like I felt like the kind of room kind of like, I felt like there was kind of a little bit of like a wait, what?And then it was like, you know, basically it doesn't matter where he parked.If that's him, right?
Like, I mean, that, that would be the police view.I would imagine like, they don't need him at CPS.They just need him there.And he puts himself there.
And then, uh, Baldwin asks, do you find, uh, Sarah Carbaugh credible? And Holman said yes, and then they started discussing the muddy and bloody witnesses.
Sarah Carbaugh, of course, is the woman who said she saw a man walking down the street muddy and bloody.And Baldwin said, if this muddy and bloody guy is walking along like that and it's a very busy street, why wouldn't other people see him?
And McLeelan objected and said, I want to ask some foundation questions.
and he established through his foundational questions that Jerry Holman has never studied traffic patterns in Carroll County, so he doesn't know what streets are busy and what streets are not, and so Holman was not in a position to agree or disagree with the premise that the road in question was a busy one.
Yeah, and then also he was asking him about reviewing the Hoosier Harvest store footage,
And Holman said, I never watched that video, and Baldwin professed to be shocked by this.And Holman said, well, you know, I'm the lead detective, and so I assigned someone else to do it and bring me the pictures of the relevant vehicles to review.
Obviously, there's a lot of people involved in this case.I mean, that's why they call it unified command.And it's, you know, I mean, you have a couple of different people.I imagine a lot of people are doing everything.
And if you have different things, rather, and if it would be a waste to have one person be trying to do everything.
So, I mean, one thing Baldwin kept slamming him on was like, you're the lead investigator, and you're telling me you didn't look at that.And it's like, I mean, like, that might sound good to the jury.I don't know.To me, it's like,
You don't need to reinvent the wheel a hundred times.
He said, so according to the law enforcement theory, Richard Allen left the crime scene after the murders and never returned.And Holman said that's correct.And Baldwin said, he said, you found Sarah Carbaugh credible.
She sees the guy walking down the road about 3.57 p.m.So that means Richard Allen's role in this crime is done by 3.57 p.m. And Holman said, yeah.
Well, wasn't there something where, like, he confused Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh at one point, but he, I mean, Baldwin, he's like... And Holman corrected him.
Betsy Baldwin was doing, like, and I wonder, is that him forgetting or is that him being disorganized or is that him being kind of like, if I get somebody on the stand to, like, say yes to the wrong thing, then I can nail him for it later?
I don't know.It's interesting.It seems to happen a lot.
So he says again that, so you're saying that his role in the murders was done by 357 when Sarah Carbaugh sees him walking away and Holman says yes.
And then Baldwin said, so it is law enforcement's theory that Richard Allen did not take the cell phone, Libby's cell phone, from the crime scene and return it later. And Holman agreed, yes, that is not his theory.
And that's not law enforcement's theory.And then Baldwin started talking about, he said, we know Richard Allen never sold his Ford Focus, never sold his gun, didn't get rid of the clothes he was wearing that day.
And I guess the implication would be that if he was guilty, he would have done those things.
Yeah.Wouldn't he have done a better job covering it up if he was guilty?That's one of those things that doesn't move me at all, I guess. A lot of people make a lot of choices, I guess.
A lot of people make a lot of choices.
A lot of interesting choices.And I think when you're asking somebody to like, I mean, I know we have criminal profiling and whatnot.
When you're asking me to get into the mindset of someone who's doing stuff like this, you know, I'm not really like looking for somebody who's like gonna, you know, make a lot of decisions that make sense to me personally.
You know, I don't need that, you know, if they're if it's sort of it's just a wash either way if they're doing things to cover something up.Okay, that's interesting.If they're not okay.Well, maybe they thought they got away with it.I don't know.
Like it's like I feel like as a as a layperson that wouldn't really compel me either way.
Nor does anyone coming forward to police, because I've seen so many cases where people come forward to police in an attempt to learn what the police know, learn if they're on the radar, or get ahead of something because they know they've been seen.
Hey, I was there, but I wasn't stealing cereal.I was just hanging out and checking out what was on sale.It's not that difficult to imagine those scenarios.I don't know why they keep on bringing up these really banal,
thought exercises, because I think when you do that and the jury can think of some alternate things immediately, it doesn't really have that much effectiveness.
Yeah, I would agree.And then there was an interesting exchange.Baldwin asked Holman, so you believe one and only one person was involved in this murder?And Holman said, that's what I believe now.And Baldwin was like, well, what about before?
And Holman said, it's important for an investigator to consider all possibilities.
But Holman said, I think if there was more than one person involved, one of them by now would have turned on the others and turned them in in order to try to get something.
And I base this based on my experience with units working with undercover drug transactions.And at this point, Baldwin kind of acts all morally indignant, and he says, so you're equating how people dealing drugs act with an act of brutal murder?
And Holman was like, yes.
Basically, the point being that when you have a large group of people and they're up to something as heinous as killing a child, you know, if one of them gets busted later on for child sexual abuse materials charges, all they have to do is like, you know,
knock on their cell door and say, I know who did Delphi and maybe they can cut a better deal out of the equation.
So he's saying his reasons for doubting that there were a lot of people involved or multiple people involved and why he's gravitated since it sounds like from what I gather from this testimony,
His testimony and others testimony is that the police were for many years open to whatever, like maybe one guy did it, maybe a group did it.Like, I don't feel like it was some people may have gone more with the group.
Some people may have gone more with the individual.
But I mean, I don't like, you know, this idea that they were all operating from the strong belief that it had to be at least three people or two people or whatever just doesn't seem to be really borne out by any of the testimony.
Yeah.But Baldwin stayed on this topic.Do you really think one person did all of that?Holman said, without a doubt. Would you agree, asked Baldwin, it would be easier for two people to do this?And Holman said no.
And then there was a discussion that Liberty German was apparently killed by a tree, and that's not where her body was discovered.Her body was discovered a short distance away.And Baldwin said there was no sign of any drag marks.
And Holman says, yes, there are drag.And Holman said, yes, there are drag marks, but maybe they're not super visible.
In any case, Baldwin tried to raise the possibility that the reason why there weren't more obvious drag marks was perhaps that Libby's body was picked up and carried by two perpetrators.
Yeah.And then they talked about height.I know a lot of people for years have said, if you guys or law enforcement, anyone ever tried to figure out how tall bridge guy is.
And my reading on that in attempts to, you know, sort of see if that's something we could even do has always been, there's been a lot of people making claims that they can tell you how tall he is.
But frankly, there's not a lot of ability of us as non-mathematic people to assess whether that's credible.
It always just seemed like that's a fool's game for people like us to even try to get involved in because we don't see where we'd get that expertise.
Baldwin tried to suggest that the reason why they didn't have that sort of study done was because of the cost.And Holman said, no, it was more a concern of accuracy.
And apparently, whoever does this sort of thing professionally for law enforcement told them that the best they could do would be to estimate Bridge Guy's height within two inches.
And so I assume, and maybe please correct me if I am saying this wrong or getting this mistaken, I assume that when they say within two inches, they really mean within four inches.Because let's say they say the person is five foot 10.
In theory, he could actually be six foot, and that'd be within two inches.Or he could be five foot eight, and that would also be within two inches.
So in other words, it's functionally useless. Unless he's like the tallest man ever or the shortest.
Because if you have a height differential of up to four inches, I'm not sure how useful that really is.
It's not.It's just not.I mean, like, yeah, I think that would have been a waste of time and resources.
And it would have told them nothing, because if it's that much of a range, again, unless you're dealing with a really tall person or a really short person.And even then, I just, yeah, that just seems like that was understandable.
Baldwin brought up the fact that there was hair found in Abby's hand.Why on earth wasn't this hair tested for DNA?And Holman said the reason it wasn't tested was because we were told that the hair was female and familial.
and we did not test because of limited resources and the fact that we did not have any female family suspects.
It sounds like there was at least some testing if they knew it was from the family, from Libby's family.
So there was some initial testing, but they didn't get like a full profile mocked up because they don't think that Kelsey German now Kelsey Seabird and Becky Patty were involved in these horrible murders.So yeah.
And if there had been, I'm sure something that came around where there was like looking at that, then it would have been more reason to deal with it.But I mean, I don't know that people, people seemed like freaked out about that.
I guess I, I don't know, like, It was her sweatshirt that Abby was in?
Yeah.Abby was wearing Liberty German sweatshirt and that sweatshirt had been laundered in the Patty home with clothes belonging to Kelsey and Becky Patty, presumably in that mix.
At one point, Holman said, quote, there have been mistakes made.Yes.End quote, talking about the investigation.So it goes back to, wasn't particularly defensive, just kind of like rolling with it seemingly.
And then he, yeah, I'm going to say this, he raised the possibility that, you know, you can't say for sure, you can't see on the video for sure if it is bridge guy saying down the hill, isn't it possible
that there was a second person there who actually said down the hill and who actually was the person responsible for this.And Holman was like, you know, there was no evidence whatsoever of that.
And I found that, I found this interesting because first of all, yeah, there is no evidence of another person there in that video.No other witnesses, none of the witnesses who saw a person behaving oddly there.Everybody just saw one man.
No evidence whatsoever of a second person.But what is interesting to me is what possible insight this gives us into the defense's thinking because they have maintained that Richard Allen is not Bridge Guy.
They've maintained that Richard Allen was gone by the time Bridge Guy committed these awful crimes.So if that is what they really believe, then why are they trying to say, well, maybe Bridge Guy's completely innocent?
Because it may be- Maybe we should all stop being so hard on this Bridge Guy fellow.I mean, he might be fine.
Because if they are trying to defend Bridge Guy, it makes me think that maybe they think their client is, in fact, Bridge Guy, or that they think that a portion of the jury is likely to think that he is Bridge Guy, and they are concerned that no one is going to buy some of their theories.
McClellan's so far boxed Allen into being bridge guy pretty solidly in my view.Yeah.Let me go over this.
So one, so Allen originally says he goes to the trails at one 30, one 27, a car that looks like a Ford Focus with rims that Richard Allen had is seen driving on the road toward the trails.So that matches that.
Richard Allen says he saw three girls on the trails that day near the Freedom Bridge.
A group of four girls who were sort of three teens, it sounds like, and then one younger girl end up seeing a guy who they say looks like Bridge Guy that day near the Freedom Bridge.Betsy Blair then sees
bridge guy on the platform, the first platform of the bridge, looking upstream, and then he turns and looks at her.Richard Allen says he was on the first platform of the bridge, looking down, watching the fish.
In addition, he says he's not really paying much attention on the trails that day, and he didn't see anyone else because he was looking at the stock ticker on his phone.
Some have pointed out that the stock markets may not even have been open that day.I don't know.Sorry, folks who sent me that.I've not looked into that.But even, let's just say they were open.I have not looked into that yet.
Either way, his phone, according to Sheriff Tony Liggett, doesn't even appear in any of the tower data. So why is that?Why is his phone not there?Why is his phone from 2017 missing when he has like 23 other phones in like a plastic bag in his house?
Like, things are starting to stack up against him.This is not good.They are boxing him into being bridge guy.
So it does not surprise me that the defense is kind of going with this, like, he's not bridge guy, but if he were, uh, that doesn't mean bridge guy did anything.Maybe bridge guy just kept walking.Who knows?
Like, it feels like we're about to get into, like, well, maybe Richard Allen, as bridge guy, fell in the mud and then ended up stumbling onto the road because he was confused.I mean, it wasn't blood that she saw.It was, like, paint, you know?
It feels like we're really trying to be very proactive about some of this bridge guy stuff from the defense perspective.I feel like they're losing ground on the he's not bridge guy thing.
Yeah, and so the effort that they are making to defend Bridge Guy against being the killer, I think is indicative of that.
Well, I mean, I don't even know at this point, are they defending him against being the killer, or are they just trying to cause confusion?Because I mean, you hear somebody say, guy's down the hill.
So if you're just some normal dude having a walk, and you see a guy pull a gun on some girls and order them down the hill, and they seem scared, and they're talking about being creeped out, Wouldn't you intervene?
Yeah.Baldwin said to Holman, can you rule out the theory that the girls left the area on February 13th and came back to the area in the early hours of February 14th, where I guess presumably they were then killed?
And Holman said, yes, I think I think we can rule that out. That really does appear to be the theory that they are going with, the defense.And then I thought this was odd.
He complained, Andrew Baldwin complained that a number of people had their phones extracted, which means basically taking all the data out of it in some form so it can be looked at by law enforcement.
We heard a lot of testimony about Liberty German's phone being extracted. And Baldwin said, you never did an extraction of Kelsey German's phone.You should have done that.And Holman said, I don't think so.And this makes me wonder why exactly
Does the defense believe they needed to do an extraction of the phone belonging to the victim's sister?
They should explain that.
Are they trying to suggest that the family was somehow implicated in these crimes?Is that what they're going for?I hope not.
Well, it's a weird insinuation to make in my view.At one point, Baldwin confused Abby with Libby in the questioning.And again, I kind of wonder if there's a purpose to that or if that's just him being confused.
And Holman shot back with, Abby didn't have a phone. The girls, in fact, it was Libby's phone, but she sometimes let Abby use it.
There was also talk about this infamous feud between Unified Command and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which I think McClelland ended up shooting down because it was beyond the scope.So they didn't really talk about that.
I don't really know what they're doing with that, honestly. But I guess we'll see.We'll hear it out and see if there's anything.
Should we move on to the redirect?
So in the redirect, Nick McLean said that he felt that Andrew Baldwin had mischaracterized some things.And he wanted to stress that the video showing the girls being abducted happened at 2.13 PM.
Sarah Carbaugh saw a bloody man walking down the road at 3.56. That means that the bridge guy had close to two hours to do whatever it was he did. He asked Holman, Nick McLeelan asked Holman, do you believe the voice on video belongs to Bridge Guy?
Holman said yes.McLeelan asked, is there any evidence whatsoever of another person there?And Holman said no.And they stressed that Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh, I.D., the person they saw was Bridge Guy.
Yes.And also, McClelland had him clarify, you know, because something had kind of gotten confused, I think, at one point.And McClelland had Holman clarify, like, witnesses saw a person they thought to be bridge guy on the trail.
And Holman noted, yes.I think the thing he had exaggerated about in the interview with Allen was that, like, people saw you there, like Richard Allen, as opposed to BG. And so, you know, he was able to clarify that.
I do want to note there was one funny moment where, at one point, Baldwin, I think, asked McClellan if he could do something.And McClellan just started laughing at him, like, I'm not in charge of the court.You have to ask the judge that.
But, you know, it's just interesting their different personas that they sort of present to everyone.
McClellan asked Holman, is there any information or evidence that suggests that the girls were put in a vehicle and taken elsewhere and then returned the next day?And Holman said, absolutely not.
That's a big thing to ask people to buy, in my opinion.That's a big, that's a stretch.
And there's two stretches here because they want us to believe that the girls were not killed then, that someone actually took them into a car, returned them to the same general vicinity without any steps or movement being shown.
Drove around with them for hours.
And no steps or movements were shown either then on the phone or later when the girls and the phone got out of the car to return to the scene. They want us to believe that.
And they also want us to believe that Bridge Guy apparently had nothing to do with that.
And people say to me sometimes, well, Anya, they're defense attorneys.They're trying to raise reasonable doubt.And I agree with that.I just personally feel that a better way to reasonable doubt is maybe don't stake a claim on a preposterous hill.
Maybe instead of presenting your alternative theory, you just poke holes in the state's case and attack the mistakes they've made.
And I don't mean by attacking mistakes they've made, doing what Rosie did yesterday and just go on and on and on forever about everything.I mean like focusing on the big mistakes that you feel the jury could feel
Undermine the whole thing focus on that focus up And instead of like you don't need to offer like an alternate theory.
That's not you Like you just need to knock down what the prosecution has and it feels like by pouring so much of their energy from every theory from odinism to whatever this like Magic flying car nonsense is is just like I don't know.
It's just where are we?Where are we going here in? I had another thought.And again, I thought Baldwin, to give him credit, did a much better job with this than Rosie did with Oberg and certainly went on for less long.So that probably helped, too.
But I just want to say this.One thing I've noticed with the defense is doing in the prosecution's case, and they'll have an opportunity to kind of think bigger, I think, with their own portion when they can present their case.
sometimes I feel like they're really focusing on stuff I don't know why they're focusing on like the analogy I would use is okay so like I promise this is going somewhere but like I really
This is not a thing, I don't think, because I remember when I told you about this, Kevin, you were like, what the hell is, what are you talking about?But one of my favorite Thanksgiving side dishes growing up was mashed turnips.
I know probably a bunch of you are like turning off the show now, but like, hear me out.I really liked the way they tasted.I thought they were great.
I don't think a lot of people actually have those as Thanksgiving side dishes that might've just been my family.I don't know.But anyways, that was an important side dish to me.
but I almost feel like I'm watching this defense team meticulously put together the mashed turnips on the side of the Thanksgiving dish, on the side of the Thanksgiving spread.
Meanwhile, in the kitchen, the turkey is literally on fire and the flames are seeping out and getting some of the other food too.And you're like, hey, the kitchen's on fire, let's just get to the turnips.They're focusing on
a lot of small little things, whether it's Rosie defining sufficient, or... I don't know, some of the questions Baldwin asked even seem kind of like, well, okay.
Like, I think it might be a bit of a problem for the prosecution if there was a contentious interview and Alan was confessing a bunch of times during that, but obviously that's not what happened.
It just feels like we're kind of like, they're making us kind of like look at a bunch of little trees and we're kind of, they're not focusing on like a forest.And I feel like it would be better for them if they
got to a point where they can kind of sell a coherent narrative because it just feels like, OK, so we're supposed to believe that.
I don't know, like I don't really know what their narrative of this is, the police are incompetent, but also Legate was orchestrating everything so we could win an election, but also like you can't believe forensics, but forensic firearms examination.
But we're going to bring in a guy who did that.Like there's just been a lot.I mean, am I. What do you think, Kevin?
Yeah, I think you're making some good points.
I think there's been a lot of small fry stuff and I'll be hoping and curious to see if in their case, they're able to kind of give us a bigger picture.Maybe give us a sense of who this guy is.
I mean, I said this, I mean, like in the show, I was like, geez, bridge guy starter kit, plus he's got like all these box cutters and knives in the bedroom.
And one thing I kind of, I haven't really been as much on social media before, but I saw some people commenting of like, well, I was a retail employee.I would bring home box cutters.That's not too weird to me.And I think that makes sense.
And that would've been something that would be nice to know in court.It still seemed like an unusual amount, I'm not gonna lie.And the fact that they were in the master bedroom vaguely disturbs me.
I can see having them in the kitchen or something, but whatever, that's just my opinion.
I think if the defense wants to win this case, they need to do better than saying, oh, Jerry Holman used profanity in an interview.That's where I'm at.
Jerry Holman failed to follow the rules of etiquette.
You wanna talk about the juror questions and then wrap up for the weekend?Sure.
So, one juror question, let me see.Where are we going?Jury cues.
One, Lieutenant, Something about getting to where the girls when they oh Could someone get to where the girls were?Can you read it cuz I don't understand what I wrote here
Lieutenant, is there a way to get to where the girls were when they encountered Bridge Guy without crossing the bridge?And I think there was some misunderstanding going on there.
Because I think the questioner probably meant the area on land.
And I believe the prosecutor and Holman took it literally because the place where the girls first encountered Bridge Guy was on the bridge, in the middle of the bridge, because Bridge Guy was right behind Abby.
And obviously there's no way to get to the middle of a bridge without crossing that bridge.
Yes.And then I believe there was another.Let's see.
Do you know where Derek was when he was shouting for the girls?
Yeah, I think there was some discussion about whether, you know, what, there was some discussion of what the state's theory was and could, you know, why did he force them across the creek and kill them, essentially.
Yeah, why was he interrupted?Is it possible?
Was he, yeah, was he, who interrupted him?How did that?
Was it possible it was a search party?And I don't think we know exactly where Derek German was when he was calling out for the girls.
No.And then they kind of went over a couple of things.But also Baldwin was arguing, well, you know, that was that was too like the search didn't start until later.But family members were searching for them earlier.
But I think the state will probably go into more depth later on about what exactly they think happened.You know, it seems like they're really going in a strictly chronological order about what they're what they learned.
But as we know, there there there there should be confessions, numerous confessions, some of them vague. And then possibly some of them with details, maybe even details only the killer would know.So that all remains to be seen.
But I imagine also McCleland will have an opportunity on his closing statement, I think, to kind of make an impact in that sense and really describe, spell it all exactly out for the jury. But anyways, thanks so much for listening.
Thanks again for all the people who are really helping us out right now.Like, thank you.Like, it really means the world to us.
Hey, if you want to be a Murder Sheet lifesaver, please send us an email.
That sounds so weird and cringe.Murder Sheet lifesaver.I don't even... He just made that up today.
I made it up a second before I said it.If you have something better.I don't.I don't at all.Then maybe stop the negativity.
So everybody please have a good weekend or what's left of it and all goes well.We'll talk to you again on Monday night.
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 murdersheet at gmail dot 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 him 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
