Take Away Richard Allen's Confessions and the State Is Left With This

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

This is HiddenKillers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dre.

Tony Brueski (0:08)

If you throw out the confessions, dragged out of the hallucinating man in the prison cell, what's actually left? There is zero DNA connecting Richard Allen to Abby and Libby. Instead, the state built its case on a single unfired bullet found in the dirt in an eyewitness. But did the jury get the whole truth? The defense wanted to bring in the expert to explain that matching an unspent bullet found outside in the elements is complete fantasy as to matching it to a spent bullet. Listen to Leeman rip into the state's forensic evidence comparing it to astrology.

Mark Leeman (0:51)

If Tobin's in there, the jury gets to hear that the argument between the other two people is like an argument about astrology, when really the argument should be, is this astrology? Because Tobin's going to say, listen, this is junk science and that this argument isn't worth the jury's time because you can't find a magic bullet, 40 caliber unspent casing out there in the field and apply this AFTE methodology and look at that and say, ah, this can be matched to something we can create in the lab if we try a few different techniques and fire 10 cartridges and do them in this way that we can match it. Tobin has the common sense answer. When you find a casing in the middle of nowhere in Indiana, in the ground and you find markings on that, that's about as valuable as astrology.

You can't use it.

Judge Elaine Brown (1:39)

Well, the Supreme Court of Virginia held that it was reversible error to exclude this mystery.

Tony Brueski (1:46)

There's the argument being made in front of the judges right there. It will be fascinating to see what their ultimate take is on this once they've had some time to...

Bob Motta (2:00)

I'm ready for it.

Tony Brueski (2:01)

Yeah.

Bob Motta (2:03)

It could take months, man.

Tony Brueski (2:05)

I mean, it really could. The defense also wanted to bring in an expert to explain, oh, that matching unspent bullet found outside of the elements is being complete fantasy. But also, beyond that, maybe the most damning part of the state's case is the eyewitness. Leeman hits the absolute core of this case. The main eyewitness, Betsy Blair, who we were just talking about in the last segment, saw the killer on the bridge, and she told police it was not Richard Allen. But that didn't get in.

Take a look.

Mark Leeman (2:39)

The man who came forward to volunteer to help the police is not the man who killed these girls. It's the man who didn't come forward to volunteer and help the police. It's this man.

If Betsy Blair doesn't see my client, nothing else matters. The rest of this is sound and noise. Betsy Blair saw the killer, and she didn't see my client. She saw this man.

The rest of this is timeline. It's not about a timeline. The question isn't about who was where when. The question is, was there more than one man on the trail that day? And the answer is absolutely yes, there was. It's the man who Betsy Blair saw. It's the man who drove the car that Betsy Blair saw. It's the man who cares about sticks and carefully arranged them on the bodies. It's not the pharmacy technician who on his day off goes for a walk and commits this bizarre crime scene. It's this man.

Ellen Meilaender (3:38)

Of course, we have another composite of someone walking away from the scene, down the road, with blood on there.

Mark Leeman (3:46)

Yeah.

Tony Brueski (3:47)

Oh, there's another composite, too, that also doesn't look a thing like Richard Allen.

Bob Motta (3:51)

I think one of them said he, like, I think it might have been Vedic, who's the middle judge there. I think she might have said, well, he looks like he might might look a little like Richard Allen or something to that effect. But never forget, never forget, Doug Carter, when they brought the second sketch out, originally said that those two sketches were the same person.

Never forget it.

Tony Brueski (4:21)

Never forget. Here's the state's answer to all of that. This is the rebuttal.

Ellen Meilaender (4:27)

Take the time to go through them here. Waiver with, not withstand. That's right.

To be entitled to a Frank's hearing, has to make a substantial showing that there are statements or with reckless disregard for the truth, and that they were material to the existence of probable cause. And I think the easiest way for this court to address that is that they were not material. Even if you take out everything that he says was from the affidavit, and you include everything that he says was omitted, there is still probable cause, which is not a high standard, because we still have his own statement saying, I'm the guy who passed these girls on the path at 1.30. These girls all identified him as BridgeGuy, and he says, I'm the guy who was out on the bridge shortly before Abby and Libby would have arrived at the bridge. And that in and of itself is probable cause for a search warrant. So none of the rest of it is material to the existence of probable cause at all. And as I said, I think that's the easiest way. We again have arguments in our brief about why these statements were not false, why the omissions were not material. But I think that's the easiest way is that he never made that necessary preliminary showing this would have mattered to the existence of probable cause.