Hidden True Crime - DELIPHI: Day 15 - 11/4 Dr. John Reacts to Richard Allen's Psychologist Evaluation

Episode Date: November 19, 2024

Dr John Matthias joins Lauren to talk about the days evidence after the defense's expert psychologist testifies. Lauren Matthias is inside the Courtroom in Delphi, Indiana for the trial of Richard Allen, and bringing us the very latest from Carroll County as the trial has no audio or video recording. Richard Allen is charged with murdering 13-year-old Abigail Williams and 14-year-old Liberty German in 2017. About Hidden True Crime: Lauren Matthias, a former television reporter, and her husband Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, started Hidden True Crime in 2020 with their Season, 'Beyond the Veil,' a psychological deep dive into the doomsday murders and prophet. What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a forensic psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime Our Sponsors:* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Armoire and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.armoire.style* Check out Effecty and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.effecty.com* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://happymammoth.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/hidden-a-true-crime-podcast1836/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Now's the time for a great deal on a new Honda. It's time to take an adventure with rugged capability and commanding. standing style. Check out the Honda Ridgeline, pilot or CRV. For a limited time, well-qualified buyers can get a 3.9% APR on a 2025 pilot or a 2.9% APR on a

2025 Ridgeline or CRV. See dealer for financing details. Hidden gems, this is a moment you've all been waiting for where Dr. John joins me while I am in Delphi. Indiana, I've been managing this case alone. You did go on Patreon. last night. We do have some thoughts from John over on patreon.com slash shouldn't you crime? That's not what we're going to cover tonight. In fact, on Patreon, he said,

I'm not showing up on YouTube for a while, man. But then I didn't know that I would be going to court today in Delphi. It is just so everybody knows. I always start with the date. It is Monday, November 4th, and it is day 15. And it is another of the Richard Allen trial in Delphi, Indiana. He is charged in the murders of Abby Williams and Liberty, German and defense had another day. And it started with a forensic psychologist and an assessment

of Richard Allen. And so we don't have a co-host that is a clinical and forensic psychologist or a criminal psychologist for nothing. So everybody here knows that what I typically do, John, is I go live with verbatim. I say, this happened and then this happened and this happened. Well, the very first witness on the stand was the psychologist. This is how I, I think we're going to do it, everyone. John court just got out. I have not been able to tell John everything. So I'm going to put John backstage. And he is going to be listening and taking notes to everything that I say. And before I get to the rest of the day, which is all after lunch, Dr. Westcott, we'll first talk to John about the assessment. He'll help answer our questions, perhaps

the jurors questions that they had. They had some great ones. And then we'll say goodbye to John and I'll finish the rest of the day. But I just thought, I can't do this without you. All right, thank you to our moderators who are here. I'm going to just take you off here. Okay, let's get to it. Hey, everyone. So Dr. John is here. He's listening backstage. And let's do this. So it started today. Just you know, it was very gloomy. The first thing I wrote, honestly, I might be a little bit homesick today. I was home for a couple of days. I'm back now. And first thing I wrote, was a gloomy Monday, pouring rain, cold dark, and it is a full courthouse. We were all dripping with rain before we got in. I met our line sitter outside, Ted and his Australian Shepherd Red,

and they were so kind. He sat in the rain all night, and then we got drink before, the hour before. So all of us were wet in the courtroom. A lot of people there. Of course, the patties were there. Becky and Mike Patty, Carrie, that's Libby's mother, her aunt, Anna Williams, Abigail Williams' mother was there. Frankfurt police spotted them, which means that Richard Allen is being transported in. He came in in a blue plaid shirt, gray, blue and gray plaid, excuse me. Now, Kathy Allen was not there today.

She typically is. She wasn't there on Saturday, and she was not again here today. And, oh, yeah, the defense, because Kathy Allen was missing, the defense section was actually lined with some journalists, as well as Bob Mata, who's the host of defense diaries. He's been sitting with the defense and Kathy Allen every day of the trial. And then this was an interesting way to start the day, before everything. Richard Allen was holding a Bible with Baldwin, his attorney, and as well as Aege, they were all there.

And Richard Allen was holding a Bible. And he was like reading from the Bible right before the jury came in. And of course, he stood for the jury to come in. And once they came in, he went back to reading the Bible. So in front of the jury. I noticed that Kathy Shank, the woman who discovered Richard Allen's name in the filing cabinets or the non-filing cabinet in the drawer, was there. She was talking to Becky Patty and Anna was sitting right next to Becky. It was specifically revelation.

We actually caught that. That's what Richard Allen was reading today. Revelation from the Bible when the jury came in. He's reading one passage for about three minutes. Rosie then called the first witness, and that's who we're talking about and why Dr. John is backstage. Rosie calls Dr. Polly Westcott. She is a 49-year-old neuropsychologist. So she is a 49-year-old neuropsychologist. She completed her residency in 2003. She's a clinical psychologist that specializes in forensic and neuropsychology. Forensic, essentially, which is what Dr. John does as well as clinical.

That understands aspects, you understand aspects of the law, mental health, cognitive issues. Neuro is the science that studies the bridge gap between brain function and forensic work. She charges $450 an hour for her forensic work for the state, for a variety of, and she charges the state for a variety of different factors. It can be because somebody committed a crime. It can be that they need mental help, help. They need to understand more about the person's background. They have questions about incompetency or if someone is able to.

able to testify. There are mitigating circumstances that are taken into consideration during sentencing or if they are if they can testify. She explains that she's worked on both sides, prosecution and defense. And she could also help understand things about feigning or faking or malingering as Dr. John explains. She's been in the courtroom a lot. She's testified about 72 times. She has done extensive work with prisoners. She worked with the, Indiana Women's Prison and she did evaluations there. She has testing tools that she uses. She's worked with police departments and their crisis department.

She's worked with the Westville Hospital in college for three years. And she was a contracted psychologist for 12 years for the Indiana State Police. She explains what an assessment or evaluation is. And again, this was also familiar. This is what Dr. John does as well. And so again, he'll be able to come and comment on this afterwards. Assessment or evaluation helps guide treatment. She is typically hired by a judge or a lawyer,

and there has been a push for the police department since 2006 to understand mental health better. And so she probably is called by the police department six times a year to work for them. And here are the three things in Richard Allen's assessment before she gets to it. So now she's setting the stage. This is what is going to be in an assessment. Number one is his mental health history. So Richard Allen's history of mental health.

We already know that we have heard of some depression and anxiety. We're going to learn more about his upbringing, childhood, all of that. And how his brain, so the number two, so number one, mental health history. Number two is the neuropsychological assessment by Dr. Westcott. And it'll be how his brain is doing and she'll do an evaluation on his brain. And then number three is she offers her opinion or a summary in the breadth of context of his mental health since, and what she was specifically asked to do was his mental health since his decline being incarcerated. So her goal was to offer an opinion in the breadth of context of mental health since his decline being incarcerated. That was what she was called to do.

And she gives a summary at the end. So one, two, and three. So his prior treatment records, this is how she did her assessment. She reviewed videos of him and audio of him a lot. She kept emphasizing just how much there was 24-hour surveillance in Westville of video, not sound but video of then transferring him and a lot of phone calls reviewed. And she said she was able to get all of that. she explained as this, that they provided an enormous amount of information,

and she was able to review 20 hours of video footage plus notes from the suicide companions. There is typically not that level of scrutiny or supervision for pretrial detainees. Thus, there was so much information. And she also reviewed some of Dr. Wallace's notes. and she explains that she has some records and this information since he was incarcerated in Westville until 2023 when he was sent to Wabash, Wabash. And then she stopped getting information March, April of 2023.

She did meet Richard Allen. She met Richard Allen in August of 2023. And she went to Westville to perform the evaluation. She said that she took seven to eight hours of interviews. She used tests or tools to do the interview, and it took her five to six hours, or excuse me, yeah, it took her five to six hours spread over two days. Yeah.

And then there were five to six hours spread over two days. Someone assisted, it was a psycho assistant. They performed standardized tests, and they know how to perform those tests. So she had an assistant that helped. and she did this in a segregated room, and there was one collateral interview. She said there was one interview that she did

to help understand his background, and that was with Kathy Allen, his wife. She did ask for medical records and pictures and handwriting samples. She had a 127-page evaluation or 127-page report. It was a chronological summary. It was extensive records,

and she would like to refer to the report during this testifying. All right. So I see, by the way, you guys can't see Dr. John, but I can see him. I see him and he's taking notes and he's listening. So he's here with us. Rick Allen's life, this is his sort of extensive background. He has extensive mental health issues. He as a child started having intense anxiety and intense fears

that something bad was going to happen to him. He was fearing that someone would always be looking at him or judging him. He was always extremely worried about what others thought of him. And he was also afraid to go back to school because he was afraid he would never come back from school. A depression was a reaction to the anxiety that he seemed to not be able to control from a very young age. he had feelings of worthlessness and feeling like no one likes him and wants to die or hurt himself all the time. A lot of the records about his severe anxiety and depression, adulthood was when he started getting medication. So he did not get medication until adulthood. So there were no medical

records before he was an adult, in other words. And again, she emphasizes that it was his anxiety that led to his depression and that there were some external stressors. Primary stressor was work. He was always worried about letting his employers down for things being too stressful. He was actually committed at work. He would keep a job for years, nine years. And then what would happen is that he would be loyal and committed, but then he would get promoted because he was loyal and committed.

Again, remember, he was a manager at Walmart at one time even. But then when he would get promoted, there was this additional stress and anxiety of him feeling like he couldn't do it. He would curl up in a ball. He couldn't handle the stress of the management. his wife played a good role in helping him sort of with this classic cycle that would go on in his life. And he would worry about not providing for his family, even though he did it. He would feel worthless and he would have against severe depression.

Then I noticed that Richard Allen at that moment was nodding, almost like invalidation when she was sharing this. There was an interesting objection at this moment where they said hearsay and it was sustained. and it was because some of this history came from Kathy Allen and not Richard Allen, that that was interesting. There was never a time in Richard Allen's adult life that he was not suffering from anxiety and depression. There was always some level of depression, but sometimes meds or work stress lessened,

so there was less suffering. And if there was a change in the work environment, something could happen easily, like that would be a big external stressor. If he was living away from his family, he would crumble. There was a time where he actually had to move away from his family for work, and it was just like he could not do it. Then she discovered and diagnosed him with dependent personality disorder.

By the way, I just want to point out that before this trial even started, John and I did an assessment, or not an official assessment, But John and I did talk about this upcoming trial and the evidence. And John did refer to believing that even before this trial started that he had depression and he referred, John referred to dependent personality disorder. So here we go. So nothing's too surprising yet is what I'm saying. And we know that he has anxiety and depression.

So Dr. Westcott found that he truly did indeed have dependent personality disorder. He needs his wife. He needs his mother as well to be able to be there. and to have this reinforcement for him. Essentially, people with dependent personality disorder, Dr. Westcott explains cannot function on their own. They cannot be independent. They need someone else to help them understand their role.

So in other words, Richard Allen needs outside reinforcement, outside people like his mother and wife, to understand his role and help him know what to do. He has constant fears of abandonment, which are common with, again, dependent personality disorder. and has constant fears of abatement and rejection. If he is with loved ones, he feels better.

But when he is separated, he questions his role. And his wife and daughter were able to visit. And then the next question that the defense asks her is, did you draw any conclusions from all of this, Dr. Westcott? And she said, yes, there is a long history of mental health. The father, his father abandoned him. And then there was an objection to hearsay. And it was overruled. His father abandoned him.

And because he did, he grew up with a stepfather that he was that. And he's often in the courtroom, but it's not his biological father. And so his sister that's in the courtroom is his half sister. Then she explains that there were tools available to help them process info that they gathered. Dr. Westcott explaining, we have all these tools to process. information we gathered. We look for consistencies and behavior and we look to find out if there was real psychosis

involved. So then she said that they also, she also looked over audio and visual recordings of Richard Allen. In August of 23, she was given extensive records, more than average. Again, she emphasizes videos and audios and she was looking for consistency. And they

ask her what psychosis looks like. And page 123 of her report. She ruled out exaggeration on the tools or testing. So let me explain what that means. She explains that she has tools and testing in play. And John can explain this further, like an MMPI or different standardized testing and tools. She explains that when he took those tests, there are some questions, John can explain this more. There are some tools they use to figure out if someone is lying on the standardized test or malingering or exaggerating. She ruled that out that he was answering honestly on the test or on the standardized tests.

That was an interesting point where a lot of the jurors were taking notes. She explained that she saw cognitively there was a significant slowing of Richard Allen's brain to understand and remember that he was actually in the fifth or sixth percent of age range when it comes to the slowing of thinking. and then she said that his frontal lobe, a portion, there was a portion with problem solving in the frontal lobe, problem solving skills. When it comes to problem solving skills, he was in the 2 to 4% range compared to his peers, like in other words, gender age.

He would get stuck on concepts of thinking and he could not get off the topic. He had a hard time jumping from one topic to another and he could not leave a topic alone once he got on something. Like once something was in his head, he could not leave it. It would just like fester there. So there was no jumping to another topic. It was very difficult to get him to leave it. And an example that she gave is his concerns about money or providing for his family.

He would be like, I'm failing. I need to check my stocks. I can't get it outside of his mind or set it aside. So which is interesting because they referred to him wanting to check his stock. on February 13th or February 13th, 2017. That was an example. Like he can't get it out of his mind. He needs to check his stocks, check stocks and that he's failing.

He felt a lot of guilt before his incarceration as well about who he was. He also had a distinct decline in mental health when he arrived at Westville. The decline led to possibly, you know, the desire to self-harm. And then he would pull back. back and he wouldn't talk and he would go into psychosis. Has delusions. Most of the other negative symptoms doesn't show any emotion. Banging head, asking for Trump.

So these are some of the things he would do. He would go, these are things she explained. He would slow any emotion. Then he would do some of these things, bang his head against the wall until he was injured. He would ask for Trump. That was the first time we've heard that. He would be drinking from the toilet or rolling around in feces. drinking toilet water.

She mentioned later eating his own feces. She said the totality, the totality of it all is a major depressive disorder. And her official diagnosis beyond dependent personality disorder is major depressive disorder with psychosis. And so this is the first thing, just to you guys can recall, that's a little bit different than Dr. Walla.

Dr. Walla did diagnose him with possible, well, she didn't diagnose him because she was only therapy based, but she suggested that he had symptoms of dependent personality disorder and did diagnose with major depressive disorder with intermittent psychosis. So actually, I think the same thing. And she explained the high levels of stress makes him decompensate his high levels of stress. And he feels that people don't think he's a good person. he's extremely dependent of his wife. And when he was put in prison the first time, he had such high levels of stress,

and that could bring high level symptoms. She assessed a handwriting sample of his, and there was a major objection from the prosecution, you know, questioning if she is able to read handwriting. And she explained that as a psychologist, they assess all behavior, and that includes changes in handwriting. So she specified changes in handwriting.

And then they put forth an exhibit. And it was a letter from Richard Allen on 11, 922, asking the court for help, asking for lawyers and whatnot. That's an exact quote. So it's a letter on 11, 9, 22, asking court for help, asking for lawyers and whatnot. And they wanted to compare that letter and see if his handwriting had changed. There's a sidebar. The prosecution wasn't too happy with that idea because I think what it means,

that the does are going to bring up a handwriting sample of his confession that the jury was shown. I showed you guys on X what that recreation of that. So back to handwriting. She shows that this letter on 11-9 was, on 22 was organized. There was punctuation. And then she compares it to the confession statement later. And it shows it's different. It shows it's disorganized.

There's fragments, no grammar or punctuation. By the way, we kind of looked at a recreation of that. If my mouse was working, I'd pull it up, but I can't. I don't think John's seen it. Okay, so that's what she compared. And then it might show changes. This might, she explains, this comparison might show changes in fragmented thoughts and it is not showing linear lines either.

And then that's that. So she explains the differences there. Then she explains some of the different testing that she did. and she brings up the MCMI. There was also the MMPI, but she specifically brings up the MCMI. And personality features. Dr. John, again, is backstage.

I see. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers,

spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond

data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance. All backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN.

ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. He's got his reading glasses on now, guys. He means business. He's looking at this. So she's explaining what the MCMI is.

Let me clarify that. And you know what, Dr. John can explain that better. She said it has to do with personality features, disorders, depression, anxiety, any mental health disorders. Then they ask her, does I have anything to do with malingering, how they took the test, or withholding any accurate question? Like, how do you know he's being honest? And she says, he's being honest.

We had these tools and tests. He is being honest. He is not malingering. He is not feigning his test answers. What's one financial lesson you learned the hard way? I'll go first. It's not too late to start saving. Today's episode is sponsored by Acorns.

Acorns is a financial wellness app that makes it easy to start saving and investing for your future. don't need to be an expert. Acorns will recommend a diversified portfolio that matches you and your money goals. You don't need to be rich. Acorns lets you get started with the spare money you have right now. And one of the best things about acorns is they allow you to see projected growth on their website. Simply go online, type in how much money you'd put in and see the potential future balance of your account. Sign up now and join the over 13 million all-time customers who've already saved and invested over $22 billion with Acorns. head to acorns.com slash hidden true crime or download the acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote acorns, tier one

compensation provided. Investing involves risk, acorns advisors, LLC, and SEC registered investment advisor. A few important disclosures at acorns.com slash hidden true crime. Does anyone else find themselves saying, I feel way older than I actually am or I feel way younger? Did you know there might be some truth behind that feeling? that's where true diagnostic comes in. With their true age test, you can discover your true biological age, plus get insights into health risks for heart disease or Alzheimer's, even your mortality.

I just ordered my true diagnostic test, and while nervous, I'm looking forward to what it may tell me about my own health so I can take control of things now. When taking tests pertaining to my health, I want to make sure it's scientifically backed and true diagnostic is. Their true age test is based on peer-reviewed research from scientists working at Harvard, Duke, and Yale. And by tracking your biological age,

you can actually see how the changes you make, whether that's exercise, diet, or sleep will affect your health over time. Ready to find out your biological age? Right now, our listeners can get 20% off their entire order at TrueDiagnostic.com by using code Hidden True Crime at checkout. That's True Diagnostic, T-R-U-D-A-G, and O-T-I-C-C-com. Just use code Hidden True Crime to save 20% off.

Plus, if you subscribe, you'll get an additional 20% off. Discover your true age today. Hormonal changes are so hard to see the least. Hot flashes, anyone else. Add in the thousands of hormone disruptors that are in our environment, and it is even worse. From our water, food, the air we breathe, and the clothes we wear, they are everywhere. But the good news is that when hormone harmony enters the picture, it can help reduce hormonal symptoms in women of all ages. hormone harmony is a supplement that contains science-backed herbal extracts called adaptogens.

The best thing about adaptogens, they help the body adapt to any stressors like chaotic hormonal changes that happen naturally throughout a woman's life. Hormone harmony is actually part of my personal 2024 playbook. Hormone harmony makes no compromises when it comes to quality and it shows. For a limited time, you can get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com. that's happy H-A-P-P-Y mammoth, M-A-M-M-O-T-H.com. Just use the code hidden true crime at checkout. That's code hidden true crime.

Use that with happy mammoth.com for 15% off today. Then she brought up the M-N-P-I, and she offered this up. This info has been available for months, maybe years, and what she is saying is reliable and accurate. And then Rosie really gave the 127-page report. It had 12 assessment tools. and they were given. Okay, so then we have an objection.

I know what it is. So Rosie wants to give the jury. This is an interesting moment. So John and Dr. Westcott write these reports, the 123 page reports. They take the test results, put it in, right? So there was this moment in court that was really interesting

where Rosie is trying to submit the test results for this test. And there's an objection by the prosecution because they're like, we didn't get that test in discussion. discovery. And Rosie's saying, well, this is part, she's the expert witness. This is part of them. They're like, but it wasn't in the report. We received her report, but this test result wasn't in it. And when we were actually requested the test results, we couldn't get them unless we had another mental health provider. This is what the prosecution is saying. And so the defense was not allowed to submit the actual test results. They could only submit the 127 page report, like the actual tangible test. Test results, yes, excuse me, but not the tangible test. So it makes sense. But again, they repeat again, it's a big thing that they want to keep explaining that it shows he was being honest in the test. So other things we learned in the test, it shows that he was being honest in the test.

He shows that he is extremely dependent on others to feel good about himself at all. He has a strong fear of rejection or abandonment. He's quite quiet and he pulls away and he avoids conflict. and she is looking for consistency in different test results. The MCMI offered a bit different findings than the MMPI, so she compared and contrasted them. And she explained that he is someone who has little emotional reserve in a stressful situation. He decompensates and then he can go into psychosis.

She saw changes from December 2022 to March of 2023. It was less of emotional reactivity. It was slower thinking, mumbling to himself between 2022 and 2023. She saw a difference. In April, June, July, in a improvement that he doesn't go into full psychosis, she believes that there's nothing that he's faking or exaggerating. She talks in the courtroom about what serious mental illnesses or SMI in clinical settings and professional settings.

But they explain that she can't, then there's a. objection because they said, but you are in a prison setting, not a clinical setting. So you have to like, come on, let's talk prison setting. Then she explains what the DSM-5 is in what severe mental illness is in the DSM-5 or chronic MI, which means chronic mental illness. And she said that Richard Allen falls into chronic mental illness. Then she is asked if she reviewed Dr. Wallace stuff. Yes, she had 30 notes or 50.

notes that she reviewed from Dr. Walla. And again, for people joining me, Dr. Walla was his daily therapy person while he was in prison in Westville. And yes, she had 30 to 50 notes she reviewed. Did you observe trends from Dr. Walla? Is there a way that she reported the confession? And her answer to the way Dr. Waller reported the confession to her was, we are writing what she wrote in her words.

And the confession comes across as a narrative. a beginning, middle, and end. And she is also, but she kind of plays it down because it came in Dr. Walla's words. That's at least how I took it. That she's like, well, it was in Dr. Walla's words. She's also looking at videos, though, that are a bit more fragmented. And while Dr. Walla, in the confession, is telling this congruent story, she also has videos of Richard Allen drinking out of the toilet.

So you contrast that between what Dr. Walla is writing and what the videos that she is seen, and she has seen disorganized thoughts, et cetera. And I thought this was interesting. I want to pause for a little bit because it was clear what she was kind of trying to do was downplay Dr. Walla's organized assessment. She was saying, well, it was Dr. Walla's words. We don't know. But I want to point out too, and I put this in parentheses here,

that Dr. Walla did admit that he had disorganized thought. And she did testify to this confession. And according to Dr. Walla, this is what he told her, and that she saw no signs of psychosis. while he was giving her this confession. And she wrote down, she claims what exactly he said. There was no recording. There was just this.

So now Dr. Westcott is here. And I see that they've actually kind of almost diagnosed him similarly. But Dr. Westcott is kind of saying, well, that wasn't Dr. Wallace's words. And I'm looking at, you know, video of him drinking out of the toilet. So I don't know. This was an interesting moment. This is where I felt like she was really kind of like, okay, the defense's witness at this time. he is extremely by himself people calling him so when he arrived she said that he was extremely

by himself that was a trigger that was a stressor who's by himself and then there were inmates that he could hear calling him a baby killer and she explains that he is a sponge and that makes him feel worse and worse and then she said then dr wiscott explained that the lights are always on and he lost a lot of weight by the way dr wallace said that he's he was happy that he was losing weight. But the lights were always on and he doesn't know what time of day it is. And then he would go into psychosis because when someone goes into psychosis, it's not knowing what's real or isn't real.

And there are changes in the brain when that happens. And so all of these things could actually allow him to sort of hit that point. All these extreme stressors could allow the depression to lead to these times of psychosis. The prosecution objects and says the report says otherwise. There's a sidebar. And someone asks, is Delirium a state of mental illness? Yes, it is. And what are the causes?

Well, in the DSM-5, it says that it can be caused by many factors, medicine, drugs, sensory deprivation, like solitary confinement. That's one of them. And in someone who has been in solitary confinement for a long period of time can experience this. And again, she refers to drinking out of the toilet and videos that she watched them, eating his own feces. And during those moments, it would be hard to understand what reality is.

And then it's the prosecution jumps in. And they say, well, you made a reference to solitary confinement. What is solitary confinement to you? And she says, sensory deprivation, no freedom, less interaction, no physical contact. And they have a rejection to solitary confinement because they said, she continues solitary confinement. He had a small space. He had a scratch the window,

so she didn't believe that he could see outside. And he was deprived any interaction. And this is where the prosecution rejects. And they say, well, from December 5th to August, did you know that he was meeting Monday through Friday and had daily visits from Dr. Walla? And she said, did you know that she met daily in contact with him? Did you understand that?

And she said, well, I recall reading her records. where there were sometimes where she could not get him out of his cell. And so she couldn't meet with him. And then they said, but she was seeing him every day. And then Dr. Westcott's response was, well, she was not, well, she, there were some days that she could not get him to come out of his cell. So there were some days she couldn't see him daily. And then the prosecution said to Dr. Westcott, well, you said that you read 30 to 50 notes,

of Dr. Walla. Do you have all the dates and times? I mean, she saw him for months and months, but you only have 30 to 50 notes. And then her response is, well, again, I see notes that she is saying he isn't responsive. But, and then they said, well, do you have all of the results? And she said, well, I asked for all of his records from Westville. And they questioned her.

And you believe that you only have 30 to 50 notes in all the months that she saw on Monday through Friday daily. She said, well, you know, I have the info as to know, that she sometimes couldn't see him. And I'm basing it all on Mr. Allen's records. And then they said, well, with the lights, you say the lights were always on, but did you know that they could be dimmed? Are you aware?

She says, yes. They said, did you know that he could leave the room for rec daily? She said, yes. At this moment, there's a tennis match between the jurors and the jurors and the prosecution. Right. Yeah. he would refuse. Yeah, and they asked if he could leave his cell for daily check for vitals.

He was also allowed to leave for daily checks for vitals, but then he was sometimes refused because he was worried about his health. In your report, he made confessions inconsistent with known facts. How do you know the known facts? Well, he said, Satan killed the girls. That's not a confession, right? Oh, yeah, that's perfect. That was an important moment.

So the prosecution, I remember that moment. So the prosecution, can let me explain this, is like you're saying that in confession he misstated quotes or he misstated facts and then they said like that Satan killed the girls like you realize that's not a confession that we've entered into this trial like his statement his statement that Satan killed the girls

was not entered so it wasn't a confession so they're like you can't say that he misstated facts in his confession if that hasn't been entered as a confession that was a prosecution argument and then again they reiterate that he is not faking behaviors and this was a good question from the prosecution. They said, while you said that he was not malingering on his test results, you didn't say that you could tell that he wasn't faking his behaviors.

And at first she was like, I don't understand your question. So then the prosecution tried to re-answer it because I feel like this was a really important clarification. You didn't say he wasn't faking his behavior. You said that he wasn't faking the test results. And she then said, correct. And then she said, and then the prosecution asked, and that is different than behavior, like faking behavior.

And then I put a question mark, I might not have gotten that. And then she explains that she met, yeah, how are you introduced to them? Richard Allen, were the attorneys there? That's right. She said, no, the attorneys were not there. Someone else used they met a superintendent. And the specific question, I think, I remember this was, was he aware you were there on the behalf of the defense?

And then she said, I don't identify myself in that way. she said, but it was kind of like she didn't know if they had told him. Right, but she didn't know what they had told them to. And dependent personality was that also in Walla's report. This was a good moment. Like, let me go back to mine for a second because I think I have this. And so they go back to, well, Dr. Wallace said dependent personality too, no. You mentioned dependent personality disorder.

Didn't Dr. Walla mentioned that? And she said, well, she didn't test and I tested. And they're like, well, okay. and she mentioned that he was really attached to his wife. Dr. Walla mentioned that. And she worked to make sure that he could talk to his wife. That's what she got to, right? Yes.

And so they're kind of pointing out that like if she's trying to discredit Dr. Walla, they got a lot of the same conclusions about him. And then a question was opposed to her by the prosecution. Well, if a person, he clings to like a wife, if he has a person, And if he has a person that he clings to, like his wife, and is that person that is then in his inner circle, would you agree? And she said, yes, I would agree. So is it possible that he goes into prison and he sort of then makes Dr. Walla that type of person that's in his inner circle? And her answer was, so when Kathy says, please don't leave me, you're the only only.

person he can trust, wouldn't it make sense that he would transfer his dependency of that onto Walla? And her answer is not necessarily. No, she would not transfer that on to necessarily Dr. Walla. And then she said, well, would you disagree that she wouldn't be a confidant? And the answer is, no, she could be a confidant. Dr. Walla could be a confidant, but it wouldn't be a transfer from his wife to Dr. Walla. There would be like no transfer, but Dr. Walla would absolutely be a competent. And then do you agree, the question is on cross from the prosecution that people can fake psychosis?

Answer, yes. And did you have these records that you can provide? And you do realize that Richard Allen was seeing a psychologist and a psychiatrist, yes. So is there a competence that they have by? all I have is a lot of, so is there a confidence that you can have that they're there, pretty much like he's being seen by these people and she's like, look, I have a lot of video, or how can you be so certain if they were there? And he had a psychologist and a psychiatrist, and they were there at the time.

And you weren't there at this time. How can you be so certain of all this stuff is essentially what the prosecution is posing to her? And she says, I have a lot of video. I took a lot of their notes into consideration. And I am looking at all of the info and I am considering all the, the notes and my job is to look at the breadth of everything. And so they keep going with that. The prosecution on Cross says, well, with your previous questions, are you aware of the details of the homicide investigation? She actually says, I'm not aware of all the facts. No.

And then they say, look, he was diagnosed with brief psychosis related to stressors in prison by Dr. Walla. So isn't that essentially like the same thing that you've diagnosed him with? And she says, well, that's in the DSM-4. But the DSM-5, that actually isn't a diagnosis anymore. The DSM-5 is severe depression disorder with psychosis. And so then the prosecution's question is, okay, so does that mean then that the psychosis is not prevalent after May or June? Does it go away? And she said, correct.

When a person experiences psychosis, she said, correct. And the next question by the prosecution. So when a person experiences psychosis, aren't there things that happen that aren't psychosis, like things that are reality and not psychosis? And she said, and isn't there like an onset of psychosis? And she said, yes, it is gradual. And so when someone is in a psychotic state, the prosecution asks, can they say things still that are factual?

Dr. John put a pin in this because this is a question we have. Like when someone is in a psychotic state, can they say things that are factual? And the answer is their reality is not our reality. That was how she answered it. And I have to say, I think it was kind of like a non-answer. Their reality is not our reality. Yes, it's gradual. They can be factual, but psychosis reality is different than reality.

See, I have that she didn't say that to later when they pushed her. So she said, their reality is not our reality. And then they asked it again. And she kind of said, well, yeah, they can. but he had disorganized speech. What is his disorganized speech in relation to psychosis? On a symptom of psychosis, he's not able to put together multiple sentences if that makes sense. So how is disorganized speech equate psychosis?

And then she even wrote if that makes sense. And I wrote that. Do you have the notes of Dr. Wall on April 5th and May 3rd, the confessions in your report? Or have you read them? She's read them. well so how would you decide the symptoms or changes in the symptoms or the unusual symptoms on these two very important dates in these notes right of dr walla april 5th and may 3rd and she they said so in your report of your detailed statement of all of the stuff you said the summary of dr wallet is there a reason you didn't put these two specific notes in your report and she said well these notes

she kind of discredits them at this point again she says well these notes that dr waller wrote that she claims that were confessions and that this is how, you know, Richard Allen explained them to her. They were not in quotes, she said. So she could not use them in her report or she did not, not could not. She did not use them in her report. And then they said, well, what about May 3rd? And then she said, did you guys get that? They tried to show that maybe that was, May 3rd wasn't there and entry page 11. But no, the conclusion is she did not include the two confessions in her detailed report. And her job was. was to, yes, I have that.

Yeah, she did not have them in her report. And then she is, so did you not find these relevant to your assessment? And then there's an objection. And then they again ask her, so you have all the notes. Why not these two notes? Why not these confessions in your report? You have three notes May 3rd. You have three notes on May 3rd, but you avoid this one.

And then her, she explains, well, my job is to discuss the breadth of symptoms while there so that I can use it to show that the psychosis, his psychotic state or his psychosis state. And then May 3rd, you put in Dr. Wallace's diagnosis, but not her details. And they explained that there was an addendum, that she did not have the addendum, which is, I think it was addendum of, was that the, the, the endendum came like a few days later and I read it yesterday. Was that the, I think that was the original diagnosis of major depressive disorder with brief psychosis. And then May 10th, page 72, they say that there is a session with Dr. Walla where he asked to stay in the room when he called his wife.

Do you read that? Yes. And they said that he did this. I think I'm losing my mind. Did you listen to this phone call? And then what was the answer to the? that and then no other questions after that. Did you listen to this phone call he made?

And then she said, Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off.

They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one. one service. Start your free trial today at aura.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. Okay, I did have it right. I don't remember. I listened to all the calls made available.

I have that too. She doesn't remember. I just didn't believe myself. They said, did you listen to that call? That confession call of Dr. Walla where he says, I think I did this. I think I'm losing my mind. She says she doesn't remember. That was everything before lunch. There are some jury questions. and I'll tell you the jury questions. Has Mr. Allen, does he have, this was an interesting jury question, does he have, if he has a common sense to be, to not want to leave his cell out of safety reasons, because that was part of the testimony,

would he have the common sense about his mental state? Her response was that it was a good question that she noticed slow thinking from December to March during that time and when the inmate said, made the baby killer statement. But it was that, yeah, it was kind of like it. But what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, it's a great question because it speaks to problem solving, which the psychologist said he couldn't do.

It shows, right, I think it shows that he understands purposeful behavior and he understands the consequences of leaving a cell, right? This is someone who does have some problem solving skills. this is someone who understands the risks of leaving his cell, rightly so. In terms of what that means to the jury, I don't know. But yeah, it's interesting. So, I mean, if he understands that, the question to me is, does he also understand his mental health issues?

Does he understand he's seen a therapist every day, he's seen a clinician every day, does he understand how someone might perceive his mental state in prison? Right? I think that's what they're getting at. They're saying if he's aware, enough to not leave his cell. Could he not have awareness of these extreme behaviors? Theoretically, in a psychosis, you're going to have very limited awareness of those types

of behaviors. You're going to be disoriented and you're not going to have a good grasp of reality. So in theory, when you have psychosis, you don't know that you have psychosis necessarily. I mean, you know something's different. You know something's wrong, but you're generally speaking, you're not going to have enough kind of what you call metacognition. You're not going to have the ability to see that psychosis, which is an interesting, which those confession, well, anyway, well, I'm getting ahead. It's okay. I know, I know.

You have things to say. It puts the confessions in perspective. So one of the questions that she didn't answer today was the big question for me is during these confessions, was he oriented? In other words, what was his mental state at the time of his confessions? was he oriented to the person, place, and time? That's a fundamental, that's forensic psychology and clinical psychology 101. You learn that in your first day in graduate school.

There's something called a mental status exam, and the mental status exam is, you know, if a client comes in for therapy, let's say, or I walk into a jail cell, the first question I want to know is, can I conduct this interview? Is the person oriented? Does he know, he or she, do they know where they're at? Do they know the time of day? Do they know the year? Right.

That's a mental status exam. If somebody doesn't know where they are and they're totally disoriented and out of it, you can't do therapy with them. Nor can I do testing, nor can I do forensic work, right? Like, that's a fundamental question here. And nobody seems to have asked them. What was this mental state? She can't, by the way, the testing doesn't reveal mental state at the time of the crime

or time of the confessions. It reveals this mental state at the time of the testing. which was in July of which is roughly around the time when all his mental health issues were being resolved or had been resolved, right? Your old or broken phone can let you down.

But at Verizon, trade in any old phone from our top brands and get iPhone 16 Pro with Apple Intelligence with a new line on my plan and iPad and Apple Watch Series 10. After all, you don't want your old phone to die on you when you're lost. Perfect.

Or for your broken phone to glitch at the worst possible time. Hey, can I get your number? Trade in your old phone for a brand new iPhone 16 Pro iPad and Apple Watch. Visit Verizon.com today. Additional terms apply. Service and required for Apple Watch and iPad. Now's the time for a great deal on a new Honda.

It's time to take an adventure with rugged capability and commanding style. Check out the Honda Ridgeline, Pilot or CRV. For a limited time, well-qualified buyers can get a 3.9% APR on a 2025 pilot or a 2.9% APR on a 2025 Ridgeline or CRV. See dealer for financing details. So I don't know if that provides an accurate picture in terms of trying to assess whether this is psychosis. I mean, she looked at a lot of video and audio. That's exactly what I would do.

And I think that was a really excellent step. I don't know how much, I don't know if she looked at everything. But, I mean, the question is, for me, would be during that audio and video, how much of behavior is planned, how much of it's purposeful. How, right? Like, in other words, that capacity, like, the juror just asked, that capacity to not leave the cell, that's purposeful. Yeah. And one of the things we know about malingering is malingerers act purposefully. In other words, they malinger because they know they need to malinger to improve their situation. Someone in true psychosis doesn't have that

capacity necessarily to act purposefully. I mean, there's different levels of psychosis. By the way, the thing about Dr. Walla and brief psychotic disorder, brief psychotic disorder is in DSM-5. Okay, there you go. Brief psychotic disorders on the schizophrenia spectrum, from the DSM-4 to the DSM-5, they put schizophrenia on a spectrum. And brief psychotic disorder is on that spectrum. So to say it's not in DSM-5, that's a, I don't know. If the prosecution catches that, that's a seriously debilitating answer. Because it shows that it would show, to some degree, it would throw into question the diagnoses in the sense that this is someone who doesn't know the brief psychotic disorder, which Dr. Walla gets right, is in the DSM-5. Yeah.

I was actually kind of surprised at how similar a lot of their thoughts are on it. And honestly, I mean, we'll wait. I thought it was a little surprising her take that she sort of seemed to dismiss Dr. Wallace's notes on the confession. But that was just an interesting thing to me. The next jury question was, I just really appreciate these jury questions because these are the, these, these, they were astute jury questions. And I want to dig into them. She said, if a child, a jury question, if a child had anxiety or depression, how, would they become someone who could commit a crime? Dr. Westcott's answer was, well, it would depend.

It's more about personality. But the reason I wanted to bring on for the jury questions is, A, they were brought by the jury, not the court. And B, her answers were short and succinct, and I thought we could delve into them a little bit more. Right. There's a certain amount of avoidance going on. Typically, when you're asked those types of questions from a juror and you're hired by the defense, you might tailor your answer. answers to help the defense. There's been a lot of research showing that whether it's the prosecution, whoever hires a forensic person, there's an intrinsic bias usually. Sure. Right. To dismiss the Dr. Walla confessions shows an intrinsic bias. I'm not even blaming her. She's

working for the defense. But yeah. Right. I mean, it's just, it's part of the process. It's the way the system works. Right. That's not to say that I trust what Dr. Westcott said and did. And I think she she seems to have done a really thorough analysis. I think she did a good job. So I'm not questioning that. However, there's no question that our own biases are going to affect how we present information and how we interpret things. Here's an example. For example, if you're determining malingering, and this is brought up by the prosecution, this is correct. You're looking at, first of all, the MMPI and the MCMI, which she apparently used, those aren't necessarily going to, First of all, they're not going to tell you whether there's psychosis previously. Okay.

They're going to tell you whether there's psychosis in that moment or from taking the test, right? Because you're answering question. If you're trying to determine previous mental state, it's retrospective. It's not reflective of your current mental state. This is one of the difficulties that forensic psychologists have is oftentimes we're asked to determine mental state at the time of a crime. And testing doesn't necessarily, it can reflect that, but it doesn't necessarily reflect that. So I would be more inclined to use tests like the Roar Shock, for example, that would look at

his mental state in that moment. And then I would try to go backwards a little bit. And, you know, I would want to know from him, is your mental state now similar to what it was three months ago? I mean, that might not be, it's a little hard to determine still. But it's a double-edged sword here, right? Because he's not malingering on these tests. And she's, saying he's honest. And so that would suggest that his confessions are honest. If he's an honest guy, then you'd have to say, according to her, if he's not malingering, then you'd have to say that he's being honest. He's being honest on the test. He's being honest in his confessions. Yeah. Unless I guess you argue that he's so psychotic that he can't understand where he is,

that his mental state is so disoriented that he can't make sense of anything. But when he's Talking to Kathy, for example, during some of the confessions, he clearly knows where he is. And he clearly knows who he's talking to, right? So in that sense, he's oriented, at least in that moment, it doesn't have heard that he's psychotic. You may wrap around some psychotic symptoms around that moment. But again, like, the question of malingering gets to whether behavior is purposeful, whether he can plan that. Are there moments during those videos when,

It's very clear that he knows what he's doing and why he's doing it. You and I have talked a lot about Brian David Williams, who was... Mitchell, Brian David Mitchell. I looked at the, yeah. We said on our Patreon, by the way, John delves into a little bit more unguarded territory on our Patreon. Patreon.com slash indecrym. We did this last night.

You're a little bit guarded. But we brought up Brian David Mitchell, Elizabeth Smart's, Kinepper. Go ahead. Yeah, Brian David Mitchell, he malingered for seven years. And it took seven years for forensic psychologists to figure out what was going on. But the essence of it, the person who finally solved that riddle began to see from looking at video and looking at notes and from interacting with him personally, he spent, I believe he spent over 100 hours actually in prison interviewing him. He began to see that he was adopting strategies, which is extremely purposeful, right? Like somebody who's truly psychotic and has schizophrenia at a very high level,

let's say, they're going to be generally incapable of adopting these very purposeful strategies to avoid being put on the stand. Brian David Mitchell was found incompetent for many, many years until a psychiatrist actually, forensic psychiatrist actually came in and figured out what he was doing. And they were able to put him on the stand and justice was served. thankfully. Yeah. It's worth noting, by the way,

it's worth noting by the way that never once, as far as I'm aware, never once was Richard Allen declared incompetent in any way. It's also worth noting. And that's important because you have to ask why, right? Right. He was never declared incompetent, ever. He was never declared incompetent.

The other thing that's interesting is his psychosis resolved fairly quickly. He starts his psychotic behaviors on April 4th. No, I'm sorry. April 4th is the day after he received his discovery from the case, and he had met with his attorneys twice. So the April 4th is the day his bizarre behaviors begin, and that happens to be the day after he talked to his attorneys about the discovery and the facts that were just the evidence that the prosecution had against him.

By July, roughly, by June July. his psychosis is resolved. And you could say that maybe that was the meds. You could argue that that's a lot of things. Maybe it was part of that was treatment. Psychosis at this level, I would anticipate that you might see some of this prior to. I understand this is a really stressful situation for him. Right?

I understand that from his perspective, he feels like he's being tortured. Yes. Yes. And he also has a lot of turmoil over the, fact that he seemingly wants to confess. So on March 21st, 2023, that's when he goes to this conversion to Christianity. And it's at that point when he can't stop talking to inmates and guards and his therapist about the crime. That's when he starts these confessions. So it's worth noting, by the way, that that's a gap of a couple weeks between some of his confessions and his supposed

in psychosis, right? Or let's call it psychosis because that's how he was diagnosed. Let me see this too. I just want to go back to one thing you said about the evaluation, but I just have to say, like, I agree. The fact that he was not malingering on his test, like he was not malingering when he was taking the test to me showed up. So he's honest.

So he's honest then, right? Like that's how I took it. So I just want to reiterate that I thought, okay, so he's honest, but the way they worded it was he is not malingering, but it was kind of vague, like you to make them think that he wasn't malingering on his psychosis, but it was actually wasn't lingering on the test questions. So I agree. I'm like, oh, so he's an honest guy. Right. So there's, I think the prosecution pointed out something important, which is that there's a difference between malingering on a test and malingering behavior. But yes, to answer your question, you know, he's fundamentally answering the questions honestly. And so when the psychologist says that he's an honest person, you'd have to see that as applying to potentially, I mean, people can interpret however they want, as applying to any statements he's making about his predicament, including a confession. Right, right. Going back to the question that the jury asked, I have a question for you,

because a lot of times people will ask these types of questions. Well, let me, maybe I should read the next one too, but they ask, would someone with anxiety and depression as a child, would they cause them to commit a crime later in life? Isn't it like more so the right way to, I mean, a lot of people have depression, anxiety and don't commit crimes. What is the right way to be is could someone that commits the crime of murder or have depression and anxiety, right?

I don't think that's what they're asking. I think the jury's trying to find some causal pathway between his childhood and the murders. Okay. I think part of what they're saying. So it's an interesting question to me in the sense that what they're saying is, and it would have been interesting to hear the psychologist talk about this, but dependent personality, generally speaking, dependent personality, let's assume that's what the diagnosis is, which many of the things she talked about seem are obviously consistent with that. So the risk of dependent personality, so dependent personality in general, someone with that diagnosis is generally speaking going to be less aggressive. They're going to take fewer risks. They're going to be more. avoidant of social situations, they're going to be more inhibited, unless,

this is a big caveat, unless there's some type of rejection or abandonment or some need to, there's some loss of control and then some need to reestablish that control. Okay. There's been plenty of murderers

diagnosed with dependent personality disorder and typically the reason is because they find themselves in situations where often they're highly dependent upon, let's say, a spouse. And then the spouse rejects them or they have a fight or there's some, there's some perception that they're going to be. What a dependent personality disorder person does not want is separation. That's their biggest fear, abandonment and separation. As you pointed out, he didn't have his father. His father abandoned him. So I think that's a big part of it.

But when there's that fear of loss and separation, sometimes, not most of the time, but sometimes there can be an overreaction to that. And aggression becomes a mean of trying to control the situation or trying to reestablish the relationship, right? And when it goes too far, you see this in domestic violence. the spouse gets rejected, maybe the one spouse gets a restraining order, that's when there's a highest risk for homicide. Well, that's interesting because although his daughter had left home, his daughter actually

testified after lunch. So there's a teaser for everyone's daughter. And it was interesting. So she just asked a few questions. They asked her when she left home. She left home really. She did get engaged in 2000, just before the crime. interesting to me, you know, if Adam is hard. But yeah, I mean, that's just something. They didn't

bring that up today. So I think I need her say that's not part of, that was not part of the daughter's testimony. The testimony is that she left home when she was 18, I think in like 2000. I'll check the notes. I want to stay with this question for a second. So I think they're trying to establish a causal pathway between his childhood and the murders. And they're asking whether someone with anxiety could commit a murder. And I think you have to, you have to, you have to see it in a broader perspective. Like, you have to bring independent personality disorder and other issues to really answer that. And I think you have to know, too, whether there's some history of abuse in his past or, right? That would all play a role in this in terms of whether someone like

Richard Allen could commit this type of crime. I mean, generally speaking, the question, though, it's too broad. The question is, what are the defense mechanisms that somebody like Richard Allen would use to deal with his anxiety that would then potentially lead to violent action, you know, violent or aggressive behavior. So, I mean, you know, the jurors, obviously, they're not, they're not forensic psychology people, so they're not going to put that together. But I think indirectly what they're asking is, if somebody who is so anxious is Richard Allen and so fearful of relationships and life in general and his boss and all, right, how could he possibly commit murder? How could he possibly become aggressive? If he has this kind of fear and this

dependency, then I, you know, help me explain, right? Help me understand how someone like this filled with anxiety could do something like that. Okay, that was a great segue to the next questions because I need to tell you something that came out and then the prosecution jumped in and I'll tell you why it has to do with aggression. So that was followed by a question from the prosecution. So the prosecution, let me explain this to everyone, after the jury leaves, this is done without the jury in the room. Last week, the prosecution fought really hard. They had a motion that they wanted to submit a video of Richard Allen that was taken recently while he has been in jail of him being aggressive. And in this video, he's yelling and telling the guards that he's going to kill them.

and this is again, has been argued outside of the jury's presence. And I think it's for this reason. Dr. Westcott will get to that, like claims that he is subdued and he avoids conflict and a believer, but there's this also other side

and the prosecution is trying to show it where he shows exhibits a lot of aggression and he says he's going to effing kill the guards allegedly according to the prosecution. He's trying to enter this into evidence. And so after this was asked if a child with anxiety or depression as a child, would that cause him commit a crime? The prosecution jumped in because they're trying to end. It's interesting that there are some specific instruments used to detect malingering.

And from what I can tell, the psychologist did not use any of those tests, which would be a little unusual. But I guess the purpose of her evaluation was not to examine malingering per se. it was to evaluate his mental health. So that is the referral question, essentially, that she's trying to answer. So in that sense, I think she is, let me see, yeah, the question that she's trying to answer is, what has his mental health been since being incarcerated? And that's a very different question than is he malingering specifically. So I think that in that sense, although I probably would have administered some instruments

that look at malingering, I don't think she felt compelled to do that because that wasn't apparently the question she was given to answer in her report. For me, personally, it would be really interesting to look at the results of this test. You know, I know that's not something that would happen since I'm not involved in the case, but it would be fascinating to me to kind of drill down to some of his answers and to see the specifics. So I was just explaining that the prosecution then asked, because they want to submit this motion and show this video of him being aggressive, they asked following the, could a child with anxiety and depression grow up to be a criminal? The prosecution jumped in and said, well, would aggressive behavior affect this as an adult?

Would it affect his behavior as an adult? Would it be as important? And Dr. Westcott's response was, well, it depends if there is psychosis or not. And so the prosecutor, prosecutor was deaner. she restated it and she said, so in your report, you show passiveness for Richard Allen. So you consider him as passive.

And her answer was, yes, he tends to be less confrontational. His testing showed that. And so then her follow-up question is, so what if aggressive behavior, if there's aggressive behavior outside a psychotic state, would that be a risk factor? Would that be something?

And her response is, well, that would be a different type of aggression, but I would need more information. And so my point is clearly, again, the prosecution is trying to, here I'll go over. I think we're, so truly the prosecution is trying to get this, you know, video in. But he does, I guess my point of saying that is whether or not the jury will see it, there is video of him from recently threatening the guards and nobody has diagnosed him with psychosis at this time. In fact, they're saying he's acting and looking great. So there is some aggression in him, according to the prosecution. We haven't seen the vid. But would that add to it?

Like if he does have that aggression? Yeah. I mean, yeah, of course. It shows that he's capable of it. I mean, he's putting on display behavior that would be consistent with someone who would potentially commit a violent crime. So I think that video would be really important. I mean, for the prosecution, I think that video would be really useful because it would show if you're presenting someone as dependent personality disorder and you're arguing that they're so fearful that they can't leave their home or they can't leave their room, I mean, he worked, obviously.

So he was able to function at a fairly high level at times. If your narrative is that this person is incapable of acting violently and then most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in.

ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove.

Protect yourself now atora. dot com slash remove. You have video showing that he is capable of acting violently. Obviously, it throws into question that picture you're trying to portray of someone. So, yeah, I mean, again, to me it goes back to what are the defense mechanisms that somebody uses to cope with anxiety? And as part of that, you know, does violence become possible with given a particular set of defense mechanisms?

So in other words, somebody, I'm not talking about Richard N, Allen here, but somebody who was abusive or somebody who was abused as a child, for example, and not the small minority of people that were abused as children act out that abuse later, but they do. It's a higher percentage in the average, Joe, it's a higher percentage in the general population. But one of the themes in the criminal mind is that those who have been abused and suffered humiliating pain and helplessness as children may often, in their criminal, acts act out that pain later in life. They may become violent later as a result of, depending on how they defend against the pain and the anxiety, but it's the cycle of violence.

There's a lot of research on the cycle of violence, and it's generally accepted that abuse begets later abuse. And I don't know, so I don't know his history well enough to know if he was abused, but that could play a role here. Yeah, I don't know. I just know the history that she shared, which is, you know, abandonment from his father, severe anxiety, depression, fearful. We know that according to the confession, I thought that was interesting, according to the confession that we'll put a pin in this, but according to the confession that he told Dr. Wall that he was wanting to like look at stalks that day and he was stressed. So now we kind of hear about how he gets stressed about work. And then rather than going to lunch with his family,

he went and got a six pack instead, according to one confession that was submitted. But let me, let me keep going with the questions of the jurors. Wasn't there some, an early testimony when the prosecution's case was put on, wasn't there some talk of, didn't Dr. Walla talk a little bit about his past history? Yeah, she referred to anxiety and depression as well. Okay. But no history of abuse. No, he, there was talk of, no, yeah, sorry, forgive me, yes, his talk of abuse. Yeah, he claims that he was molested by a grandparent.

and then he claimed to have lost his virginity at age 11 by perhaps someone that was babysitting him. Okay. Yeah. Well, that's exactly. That's exactly what I'm talking about. He said he was abused as a babysitter at 11 years old too. Yeah. Okay.

Dr. Walla actually said it. Dr. Yeah, Walla said it. Okay. That's what I'm talking about is it's those moments. It's that type of abuse that could potentially lead to later crimes. in particular, I would expect, you know, a sex crime. But oftentimes things change.

When a crime is being committed, perpetrators change their MO or they change their expectations of what they set out to do. So that could have been the case here. He could have been looking to potentially. And again, I'm not saying, I'm not forming an opinion here, but he could have been potentially somebody could have been potentially setting out to commit some type of, sexual assault, which then became something else. And according to the confession you gave Dr. Walla, yeah, that's what he said. So potentially, that could be something. Really quickly, before we go forward, Sarah is saying, I disagree with Dr. John.

Zeta are abused, you're not ever want to become the abuser. I just want to clarify it before we go forward. It's not what you meant. It's not what I'm saying is there's a small percentage. Not everyone who's abused becomes an abuser. That's not my argument. So there's a small percentage that's higher than a person who is not abused. A small percentage, some estimate upwards, David Finkelhor has done a lot of research on this.

Some estimates are upwards of 25%, but typically it's a little less. But a small, a percentage of people that are abused as children will go on to become abusers. It's higher than a typical person in the population. That's all. Right. I'm not saying that a hundred people. 100% of people that were abused go on to become abusers. They don't.

They clearly don't. Absolutely not. Many of them are very resilient. And they actually, they go through, they actually grow from it. There's something called post-traumatic growth. And so they have an opposite outcome. They actually become more compassionate. So I'm not, I'm just saying that the odds go up for future problems.

If you're abused as a child or neglected. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. because we, yeah, we do not want to say that or make anyone think that we're saying that. The next jury question was, can anxiety or depression cause someone to be a sex addict? And the answer from Dr. Westcott was not necessarily, I would not agree with that. No. What does it say about the jury question too?

Clearly, the jury questions are showing shedding light on what they're trying to figure out. Yeah, the jury's trying to, they're trying to figure, again, they're trying to draw a causal map of a perpetrator. and or alleged verbitrator and a crime. Yeah. And because anxiety is such a big part of this puzzle and because everyone, the psychologists keep talking about it and depression, they want to know if this is a major factor in the crimes.

And they're presumably, you know, their question also shows that they're clearly thinking of the impact of, they clearly think this was a sex crime. If they're asking that type of question, that's interesting, right? Yeah. I'm going to back up on that because, I don't think the answer is no immediately. I think the answer is maybe in the sense that if you see anxiety is the basis for most

addictions, if you see addiction is a type of self-medication and what they're self-medicating is anxiety and depression, and the answer is yes. I mean, sex addition is not technically a diagnosis in the DSM. That's a little problematic. Right, that's a problematic is there's no diagnosis of sex. It's more of a sexual disorder. Is that correct? sex disorders or be the more better way to explain.

Right, a parapheria or right, something like that. But you can put in sex addiction as kind of an other category and a diagnosis. You can kind of fit it in. I would typically do it under the category of addictions. Maybe it depends on what it is. But the answer is the broad answer to the question has to be yes, because anxiety, you know, again, anxiety is for, if you go back, even if you go all the way back to Freud, every defense mechanism according to Freud was driven by anxiety.

Anxiety becomes the basis of, in short, and again, this is a basic Freudian idea that many psychologists have adopted, although they don't credit Freud for it. But anxiety is the basis of almost all mental health problems. I mean, but the jury isn't going to know that. Yeah, right. But the answer is if you have overwhelming anxiety and depression, oftentimes a very common way of coping with that is through addiction. So somebody who drinks too much alcohol, they're dealing with that anxiety in that particular way and maybe other ways too. And obviously you can have something called polysubstance dependence, which is multiple addictions, right? You can have a problem with alcohol, which he seemingly drank alcohol.

But sex can be a part of that. And let me bring up, yeah, a sex addict, that term actually did come up in trial. So that's probably why they're using that term. Yeah, that accordingly, according to some of the confessions that the correction officers came up, but they, yeah, yeah. At one point, Richard Allen allegedly called himself someone that dealt with sex addiction because he struggled. I think he told Dr. Wall and he struggled. And then he sort of confessed to molesting other children, whether or not that's true. I'm just sharing what he stated.

Right. And so that's a great example of how this overwhelming, how he's coping with this overwhelming anxiety. Yeah. Right. He's using, according to him, and that testimony, he's seemingly using sex as a drug. It could be an addiction for him in the same way that someone would use heroin or someone would drink too much alcohol, right? It's a type of self-medication. Yeah. He's self-medicating to try to cope with that anxiety. The other thing that a sex addiction might do for somebody like Richard Allen, if in fact, that's what he believes and that's accurate. And I don't know if it is, but that's what he said is, is if you have dependent personality disorder. And a big part of it is this desire to connect to other people, even though you really struggle with it, right? Like, it's, you tend to avoid interpersonal contact unless you know that someone is going to like you or prove of you that the sexual part could be his way of asserting control in a relationship so that he feels loved.

Yeah. I mean, it's a, obviously, it's a really dysfunctional way of doing that. It's a really dysfunctional way, potentially, of someone like Richard Allen or anything sex offender that might have the dependent personality disorder of connecting to a victim to feel as if whatever it is are struggling with, their inadequacy, their social inhibitions. It's a way of trying to mollify those feelings and to feel some sense of connection and love from a victim, even if it involves violence. I know that sounds really strange, but I think that's potentially what's happening with him. Thank you.

That makes sense. That was, and the last question from the jurors, and I really do find these questions interesting. It does show you their mindset. They asked if she, Dr. Westcott, ever watched the police interviews from October of 2022. So the two interrogations, one where they first questioned him on October 13th and one, I believe it was October 26th, where they ended up arresting him. And her answer to that was no.

So I wonder how that affected the jury. they brought up some things about obsessive thoughts. Yeah. And I was curious about your thoughts on that as someone that assesses criminals. You know, we've been doing this for 25 years. I did see you taking notes behind this, you know, backstage while I shared that. And I was curious what you. That's really important.

I did highlight that. I wanted to come back to that. In fact, as a matter of fact, in our first show on Delphi, where I talked about dependent personality disorder, months ago based on Dr. Walla's testimony. Not my diagnosis, by the way. I'm not diagnosing. It was based on Dr. Wallace's testimony during those three days of hearings back in July.

I speculated at the time that I thought there might be an obsessive component to this. And here today, you're bringing it up. And so it confirms what I thought. It confirms my hypothesis that this is someone who might, even back in when we did that show a couple months ago, my general hypothesis was that this is someone who if you had dependent personality disorder, someone who was probably rejected or felt like he was being rejected or abandoned.

And he had these obsessive thought that were sexual in nature. And he could not purge himself of these thoughts. So that's when he went out on that hike, on that day or whatever, whether it was Richard Allen or someone else, couldn't purge himself of these thoughts. The anxiety became overwhelming. He wanted to take action. He wanted to act out so he could rid himself of these thoughts.

And that seems to be the case. So this happens to be true of a lot of criminals, that they have these obsessive qualities. And that's not to say that they're necessarily diagnosed with OCD, obsessive-compulsive disorder. They may or may not be. Many criminals are, but many aren't. But the issue is it's one thing to have violent ideation or violent thoughts and sexual thoughts,

sexual ideation. It's one thing to have that temporarily or momentarily. And then you kind of, you have those and then they pass and then you're fine, right? It's another thing to ruminate on those thoughts and to obsess over them. And then you can't get rid of them. And when you can't get rid of them, the anxiety builds tremendously, especially in somebody like Richard Allen, for example, who already has problems with anxiety. And it can't. gets to the point where, and I think this was true of, well, I'm not going to mention the name because it's going to be, but it's true of many other criminals in the sense that they feel like they need to act on those thoughts in order to rid themselves, purge themselves of this overwhelming anxiety in the same way that Richard Allen might feel like he needs to engage in some type of sexual behavior to deal with his anxiety or a drug addict feels like they need to take heroin because they're overwhelmingly, they're experiencing overwhelming. anxiety around the world in their life that they can't control. And so in theory, this is what obsessive-compulsive disorder is.

You have an obsessive thought, and then you have a compulsive behavior to rid yourself of that thought so that you reduce your anxiety. And so here you might have, he's obsessing about some type of, potentially some type of sexual abuse, and it's building and it's building. And it gets to the point where he feels like he needs to act on it. And that's when he's somebody, Richard Allen or someone else is going out and trying to find a way to alleviate that anxiety, unfortunately, through potentially this type of crime. Okay. When she said, when Dr. Westcott said that he could not jump to a new topic, I think that's really important because it suggests that if someone like Richard Allen is having these obsessive thoughts about sexual assault and he can't rid himself of these thoughts.

and let's say that let's just paint a picture here. He's struggling at work. He's feeling a lot of anxiety at work. He's getting promoted. You talked about this. He's getting promoted at work when he doesn't want to get promoted. He just wants to sit back and do his job and not have too much responsibility. But because he's so committed to his job, they keep promoting it.

He's having more and more anxiety at work. His daughter, whom he's very close to, gets married and leaves the house. That's a separation. that's probably filling him with more anxiety, right? I can paint a picture here. He's maybe having some issues with his wife or in the marriage. I don't know. I can paint a picture here where this anxiety is just becoming really difficult to manage, right?

And so for whatever reasons, he starts having these sexual thoughts or sexual ideations and they become obsessive. And there you go. It leads to acting out in a sexual manner. That's interesting. And so before we continue, because my next question is really, really important. True crime, as I want to know, if Dr. John has an inferiority complex because he just refused to agree with today's testimony even once.

I actually want to point out that actually he hasn't disagreed with it once. He is actually respecting Dr. Westcott. We are discussing her findings. These are her findings that we're discussing. So he actually hasn't disagreed with it. I want to point out. Right. I haven't disagreed.

I'm saying that I'm agreeing with. her diagnosis of dependent personality disorder. I'm agreeing with her diagnosis of major depression. I mean, I don't know. I said that I have a lot of respect for what she did. So part of my job, we're discussing it. Part of my job is to examine some of the flaws in her testimony. That's, if I just came on here and said everything she said was completely 100% accurate, then that wouldn't be a valid interpretation because it's not. And when I, when I present report, What I do forensic work, what I do is in 100% accurate either. There's always someone who's in an adversarial position who attacks and critiques my work.

That's just part of what we do. That's our profession. It's adversarial in nature. If the prosecution had someone, a psychologist, to come on the stand, maybe they will tomorrow. I don't know. Maybe they will in their rebuttal case. But if they bring on another psychologist, that person is going to critique her work. And so that's part of what I do.

That's what she did with Dr. Walla. And Dr. Wallace been critiqued. And Dr. Westcott's critiquing. Yeah, it is just right. That actually made me remember that there were more jury questions. And I flipped the page and I found another page. Okay. I was like, no, there was a jury question about this.

So there are quite a few more. In fact, there were so many jury questions on this. It's clear that this testimony mattered to the jury. And that's exactly after the jury questions. And it was break. I ran down, grabbed my phone outside and said, John, we need to go, we need to talk about this because there's just so many questions. So thank you.

I respect Dr. Westcott's work as well. And it really helps me to understand Richard Allen more, the man on trial, the man we're discussing. And everything we're discussing are things that we've learned about Richard Allen from trial. And we're just saying what does that mean in reference to a murder charge? Okay, he's on trial for murder. So what does this look like? What does this mean? And also, let me reiterate something else.

her idea that stress leads to decompensation, that means like that his mental state deteriorates and potentially psychosis. I agree with that too. I totally agree that he's in an extremely high stress environment. I would say that he feels, if he's not, you know, that objectively to say that he's tortured, I don't know what that means. They're not, as far as I know, the law enforcement is not taking, you know, red hot pokers and putting them in his eyes.

So that to me is torture. So the question is, does he feel subjectively like he's being tortured? And the answer to that I think is he probably does. Does that influence his confessions? Does that influence his psychosis, right? Like, ultimately the real question here, if we boil this down to its essential elements, the real question here that everyone wants to know, because this is a confession case, the question is, is his confession accurate? Is it truthful? Is it valid? That's what people want to know. What the defense is saying is that he's psychotic. His confessions have no meaning whatsoever because he wasn't oriented to the reality. He was making stuff up. He was apparently thinking of unicorns and butterflies when he was talking to his wife. And therefore, you have to discount it.

You can't count the confessions as something real and valid. The other side of that is that if they are real and valid, then he's a murderer. So the defense is going to do everything. the other. The offense is going to do everything in their power to show or discredit those confessions as not being truthful, as not being accurate. And when you talk about confessions, by the way, people say, well, there's no evidence. There's confessions. Like what people forget is confession cases are some, I know people are going to disagree with this because this is a crazy case, but confession cases are.

some of the strongest cases you can put on in the sense that the juries tend to, for the most part, if confessions are valid, if they're not coerced by somebody sitting in a room for 20 hours with an irate, you know, police officers spitting in their face, if confessions are given freely and voluntarily, those tend to be very strong cases and juries tend to convict more often than not in these types of cases. Now, I'm not saying that's true. year. But what I am saying, and this is not, by the way, purely a confession case. There's other evidence, but I don't want to talk about that. For our purposes, the point of today's testimony was simple. And that was for the defense to try to show that his confessions, to create doubt about

whether his confessions were valid and truthful. That's what this was. And so on that topic, and since I have to pick our son up soon. Let me boil this down. I want you to ask the jury questions, but I want to boil this down to the most important elements. So I just summarize what those were. Let's go with dependent personality disorder. And again, both Dr. Wall and Dr. Westcott,

they diagnose that. So I'm going to say that's a valid diagnosis. I can't diagnose. I haven't met the guy. So I wouldn't presume to. But here's what it comes down to, right? Okay. Someone with dependent personality disorder is going to be more compliant with authority figures.

They're going to be more persuadable. They're going to be more amenable to a false confession if they are coerced. If they are put under pressure, if they are put in a room with, you know, a bad cop, you know, the bad cop's scenario, there's a technique called the Reed technique, which is an interrogation technique that law enforcement has been... It's been used for years and years and years. You know, there's a lot of different thoughts about it. I'm not going to get into that.

But my point is that this type of personality disorder is extremely susceptible to... Because they want to be compliant, they're extremely susceptible to false confessions in the sense that they want to please the authority figure. They can't take the pressure of an interrogation. They feel inadequate, right?

There's so many reasons why if you take someone with a gender personality disorder and you put them in a room with an officer who's acting as authoritarian figure and... That's happened. We saw the video. That's October 26th, and the jury was asking about it. Go ahead. Yes. Then there's a very high probability or more probability of a false confession, and that would be

definitely important to know and would have to be taken into consideration. Well, what do you mean? He didn't confess on October 26. I know. I'm just telling you the issues. But he did later. Well, no, I don't get it. But he did later. What I'm saying is, what I'm saying is that somebody with dependent personality, I know. There's a type of, this is called a compliant false confession. There's different types of false confessions. my argument that didn't happen. Oh, it didn't happen. That did not happen.

But here's my point. He didn't elicit a false confession when he was interrogated, right? But if you have someone with this personality disorder in his situation in a confined space who feels like he's being tortured, and you have all these authority figures surrounding him trying to get him to confess. So this is the, if you have all these law enforcement officers saying, right, coercing him and saying, you need to confess, you need to confess, you need to confess, you need to confess. That is not going to be a good situation for Richard Allen. He is more likely to elicit a false confession under those circumstances. So it doesn't have to be in the interrogation room.

It could be just in the culture of a prison where all these officers are indirectly interrogation. him and coercing him and like telling him you need to confess you need to confess but i don't see any evidence of that by the way but i'm just presenting the other side so you're saying if he's in that situation false confessions could be a thing correct i'm saying they could be a thing but you'd have to show you'd have to show that he was mistreated by law enforcement and that they were trying to elicit false confessions just not in the interrogation room beyond the interrogation room they were trying to list at this, which, okay, yeah. Right.

The question is, was that happening, right? Was that happening? I don't see any evidence of it, but, but I don't know. I'm just throwing it out there. I'm trying to present both sides of the story here. Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, I've been in the courtroom every day and there's definitely, like, there's definitely been, like, evidence of, like, things that were very difficult and

him being alone. But when it comes to the confessions, it's actually Dr. Wallace saying that, like, you shouldn't do this. His wife's saying she shouldn't, shouldn't do this. not, there's no read technique in prison at all. So let's, so let's present. There's all saying don't confess. Right.

Let's present the other side of this. Let's present the other side of this. So that's, that's the side for why he might make a false confession. Now let's look at the side where, looking at both sides. Let's look at the side where he would make a accurate, a true confession.

Okay. So a lot of his confessions occurred with his family members. Right. A lot of his confessions occurred with his wife. Kathy, here's the other side of this. Defendant personality disorder, more than anything else, he wants to please his family, in particular, his wife. He wants his wife to love him more than anything.

As Dr. Westcott testified, she's the key to his stability, right? How did she say it? Yeah, just, yeah, that's, I can't remember. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet. and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere.

That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring,

or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. His wife was his buffer. His wife was the thing that kept him level-headed and stable. Okay, so his wife is everything to him.

His wife is his world, right? He's confessing to his wife. And his wife is essentially telling him, so he wants nothing more than to have his wife's approval and validation. That's what he wants, right? And so he's dependent personality disorder. Right. And he's, so he goes to his wife and he says, look, I did this.

I know you're not going to like it, but I did it. And she says, oh, no, no, no, don't talk about that. You didn't do it. You're talking crazy, right? I'm paraphrasing. Yeah. He says, stop, basically. Don't tell me you're doing this, right? And what does he do? He says, nope, I did it. He persists.

He persists, even though the one person who loves him the most in the world and that he wants validation from and approval from and love from, she tells him stop. And what does he do? He says, no, I'm not going to stop. I did this. He persist in telling the truth. right? Think about that for a moment. There is, think about that. There's almost nothing he wouldn't do for his wife. And she tells him, stop. And what does he do? He says, no, I won't stop. I'm going to tell you the truth. I don't know anything more powerful than that.

That in terms of arguing for the truthfulness of this confession, think about that. The person that he needs more than anything else in the world is saying, I don't believe you stop and he doesn't. That would speak to honesty, truthfulness, right? He says to his wife, no, I'm going to tell the truth. I did this. I committed this crime. That takes a lot of courage for someone with dependent personality to tell the truth.

Now, I presented both sides that somebody with dependent personality disorder is going to be very compliant with authority. Anybody who knows the Milgram experiments and the shock, you remember the Milgram's, in a nutshell, the Milgram experience were they occurred after World War II. They were designed to show that when authority figures ask people to give shocks to strangers that they'll do it no matter what, basically.

I mean, a lot of them didn't, and it's controversial. But the point is that you have someone who tends to be very compliant with authority on the one hand. On the other hand, you have someone who, is standing up to the person he loves the most in the world and saying, no, I did this. I'm telling the truth. I want you to hear me. And as I said on Patreon yesterday when we did this for Patreon, he wants to unburden himself. There's a type of confession that this isn't in the research literature.

This is what I call it. It's that I call a cathartic confession, which is a confession made by an inmate who wants to talk about his, who wants to talk about his crimes to unburden himself of his or her guilt, his or her shame, whatever it is. That oftentimes criminals have a hard time keeping their mouth shut about crimes because if you're not a psychopath, they feel guilt and they feel like they have,

that's why a lot of inmates will confess to their, to their cellies. Right. He's not a psychopath. He's just, yeah. There's not a psychopath. In other words, If this is, yeah, and nothing that we see in anything shows that Richard Allen is any type of

psychopath. There's nothing there that shows that dependent personality disorder. He's not a psychopath. So even both Walla and Westcott said that he has guilt, right? And so. Yeah, he experiences guilt and anxiety. Part of his confessions are that he wants to, he wants to deal with that guilt. He wants to purge that guilt.

He wants to unburden that guilt, right? And so that would speak to the truthfulness of that. confession too. He's doing it for personal reasons that are even more important than his wife loving him, and that is so that he can feel some sense of peace, some sense of catharsis from making this type of confession. Any way you look at it, it seems to me that these types of confessions, even if you argue that he's psychotic, he doesn't seem to be because he knows it's his wife, he knows where he is. Also, many of these confessions occurred before the so-called psychosis. So that's important too. Does that mean he's guilty? I don't know. You know,

that's up for the, that's up to the jury to decide. That's up to the triers of fact. But I think if I were the prosecution, I would say something like what I just said. Well, I know we only have you for so much longer. So there are so many questions. First of up, people are wanting you to talk about Dr. Wall and her professionalism. We actually asked that to John last night, Patreon. on.com slash injure crime. If you guys want more of Dr. John's thoughts, head there. Anna Jones and others are saying, but he was in a depressive cycle when he was talking to her. Doesn't matter.

Depression doesn't mean you can't be truthful. Okay. But then somebody else said, but he was in psychosis or what you, by the way, actually. Psychosis doesn't mean you can't be truthful. But, I mean, putting that aside, this confession was made before his supposed psychosis. And people that are psychotic can, it depends on the psychosis. They can still remember moments from the past, especially traumatic moments, and they can tell the truth about it. Yeah.

But again, I don't know. I mean, I presented two sides. This is somebody who wants to be compliant. This is someone who wants to please people. This is someone, if you take an authority figure and the authority figure says, you need to confess, you know, basically the authority figure says, you need to confess or we're going to look like fools for arresting you, then he might. So I don't know. Like it's not clear cut.

And I think that's what people are struggling with here. Yeah, we're all struggling with it. There was another one by Jeannie Maria I wanted to show. I pinned it earlier, but, you know, he felt like he felt torture, right? Like, of course the prosecution is trying to show, no, he wasn't in solitary. He had to have it to all this stuff. And the defense, of course, is trying to say he was absolutely, you know,

tortured into... He wasn't tortured. How does that weigh into a false confession? So let me just ask you this because this is one of the jury questions. I know I needed to go, but like essentially,

like, do you feel like his confessions that you've seen or heard, like look, like could they be fake if he's in psychosis or do you see him being linear or what do we see? I don't know. Or maybe I shouldn't even go here.

Maybe this should be Patreon and you go over there. First of all, Maybe don't answer that if you don't want to. First of all, it's important to note that a lot of his confessions occurred before he was psychotic. So you have to consider that. Yeah, I mean. He starts confessing.

He starts confessing on March 21st. He doesn't become psychotic until April. And between March 21st and April 4th, he's doing a lot of confessing. Yeah. Dr. Barry's psychologist responds. I agree. This is difficult and complex. I wish the public trial had more access.

I know. I'm doing my best, guys. As you guys see the two note takers on each side of me, man, we've got a community here, seriously. And also in tech difficulties, I just want to thank my two roommates in this Airbnb for helping me. I think they can hear me. So thank you to the mods, but thank you to my incredible roomies right now. Okay.

And right, for people that want more of what I just asked, head to patreon.com slash shouldn't do crime. The other jury questions, I'll just say them, and then you can take off, John. If you want to say anything here, you can. I'll just go through really quickly because you're exactly right. Troublemaker Baker, I'm going to jump on explaining everything else that happened in court right after this. This was a hard stop to ask John questions we had and he had a time. So the other questions were, is your diagnosis of depressive disorder with psychosis different than the full diagnosis of psychosis?

They're two very different diagnoses. This is interesting. She explained, no, these are two very different diagnoses from a diagnosis of psychosis. psychosis and a diagnosis of depressive disorder with psychosis. Two very different things. Major depressive is when it gets to the full level, or a full level of depression. And then he ends up having a psychotic episode where a psychotic disorder is outside of depression.

It's just psychotic disorder. And she defined that. And I thought that was actually really important, helpful. If you want to say anything to that, you can. But let me just finish. And then they ask, can this be lifelong? She depends, 25% more likable. likely to have a psychotic episode after having this. And the best way to deal with it is taking

care of the depression. It lessens it. Anyway, things on that. There are more and more and more. Is that a jury? Is that a jury? These are all jury questions. You guys, I've got two more pages of jury questions. I was not done. You can have, it's a good question in the sense that, you know, I talked about this a little bit earlier. If someone has what I would call a deep somatic depression. That's not a diagnosis. And by the way, let me just say, none of these are my diagnoses. These are all diagnoses from the two psychologists who I am referring to and deferring to and thanking for their work here. And their work like mine is not perfect. So that's why I'm providing some critiques because I'm just reflecting on this situation. But I think one question

I would have is for somebody with a deep somatic depression throughout their life, you would expect possibly you'd expect maybe some similar psychotic episodes in the past and those don't seem to exist. However, you could argue that the stressors here was so intense and so unique that is depression, you know, maybe it reached a bit of a tipping point and led to some psychosis. But again, it's psychotic behavior is not all or none. You can be in a psychotic episode for two hours and then you could you can come out of it a little bit, right? Like it's it's not like, you have psychosis for months on end, you can. I guess that's called schizophrenia.

But you can. But even then it kind of waxes and wanes. It's not like this constant state. And it's worth noting, as I said earlier, that his psychosis resolves. When he stops confessing, basically, his psychosis resolves. So what is that?

Right? And there's another thing I talked about on our previous episode, which is that this is someone who, it seems to me, he fundamentally wants to confess, but his attorneys and his family are telling him not to. And that puts him into this tremendous turmoil. You know, I could argue that some of his bizarre behaviors are driven by this deep turmoil, this deep conflict that he's experiencing. It's almost a type, I can argue that it's a type of masochism.

It's masochistic behavior. Masochistic behavior in the extreme. And in that sense, maybe it isn't millingering. Maybe this is someone acting out, this deep turmoil that he's experiencing. And that could lead to a bit of psychosis too. So I don't know, there's all kinds of gray areas. Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah, they actually asked that.

Is psychosis, that's actually the next jury question. So you're nailing exactly what the jury's asking. They're like, is it a constant, is the psychosis a constant state? And her response is it can ebb and flow. Yeah, exactly. I just said it can wax and wane. And that's, that's, and again, that's where even if you're psychotic, depending on, you know, your level of psychosis and whether you're oriented to, to where you are,

you can still give a truthful confession. Yeah. Psychosis doesn't necessarily disqualify a confession. It might, you know, if you're, if you're hallucinating, if you're, hallucinating and you're riding dragons, you know, yeah, but then you're probably not going to recognize that the person in front of you is your wife. Hi, speaking of which, you recognize me? Yes.

You said you didn't recognize the person in front of you as your wife. I thought I was making a joke, but clearly, clearly it's a bad time, bad time, you guys. You're going to determine if I'm oriented. Yeah, you need to go. You need to go. I have so many more questions. I'll just finish the jury questions. Then she asked, a juror asked,

can objective testing be interpreted in multiple ways? That was a jury question. She says, no, there are. Can objective testing be interpreted in multiple ways? And her answer was no patterns or not to get too technical. There's no variation between personality tests. But that's, that's, yeah, actually, it's not accurate. I mean, she didn't give any,

she didn't give any projective tests. But, I mean, generally speaking on the formal structured personality test like the MMPI, it's pretty cut and dry. But if you're giving something like a roar shock, that's more open to interpretation. So which she didn't give. So it really depends. People ask that how we have that on patreon.com. We have it on patreon.com. You talked all about it.

Yeah. So, and I'll explain some of that in a little bit. And then another question is before prison, did his historical medical records have any testing for? medicines, the answer was no. They asked what the difference between delusions and delirium is. Delusions are false beliefs, but delirium is someone who doesn't know what they are or who they are. By the way, in another place, he was actually, they said an earlier testimony that he was tested negative for delirium, not delusion. And then that was, and then that was the break. As far as howled all goes, you pretty much said you can take howled all for reasons beyond antipsychotic

reasons. Right. Exactly. It's a powerful sedative. It's, it's, it's, it's, it can be used as a type of tranquilizer. That's not quite accurate, but I mean, it sedates. So years ago, I worked on an inpatient ward at a psychiatric hospital. And a lot of times antipsychotics were used for patients that were super agitated and couldn't be calmed. And right, so it's a way to sedate someone to. It's not just treating psychosis, but it does that too.

Right. Yes, it is literally an antipsychotic, but people take antipsychotics for a variety of of a reason. Right. It is, yes, including being sedative. Including anxiety, including anxiety, which he had apparently in spades. So yeah. Right. So that would help him. Yes. Thank you, Alicia.

We give Hal Dahl off frequently in the intensive care unit. So, all right, I appreciate it. This was a hard stop. This was an extra hour or longer of our typical overview of the testimony. You need to run. Is there any final things you want to say? And yes, we're married to those new here. We are married and far.

away and you've got to go get our son. So I am self-interested in his desire to get going. I'm like, don't leave our son. If I don't get him, if I don't pick him up in time, I'm going to experience a lot of anxiety. And I don't want to, I don't want to act out in any way. So I am experiencing anxiety. And I would love a sedative right now. If someone has anything for me, let me know. I would highly recommend that you don't take Haldol if you want to finish the show. So. All right. Well, thank you. Thanks for having me, and, you know, hopefully I clarified a few issues.

If nothing else, this is, this is complex and difficult, and there's no clear-cut answers. And I think that the lack of information coming out of the court and the lack of a suspect for years and years and years has led us to this point where there's so much disagreement and there's so much, you know, I don't know, vitriol. I mean, it's, I don't know, whatever. Anyway, might you sense, you know, thanks for doing this. Thanks for hanging in there. I'm sure we'll be back on. Well, I think I'm going to, so we said this, I'm going to give more in-depth analysis on Patreon because I think it's a safer spot to do that. So we'll be, we'll be heading over to Patreon for kind of more unfiltered opinions of mine on this case.

But for today, thanks for having me and I will talk to you later. welcome. Hey, go parent. Go get him. And I'm going to do the rest of this live on the telephone, guys. Do I just call it a telephone, a cell phone? Bye, babe. He left.

Goodbye. Okay, he's getting our son. And for those of you that are new here listening, we're going to keep going through the day. It got really, really interesting. We had family members testifying to stick with me. I again, just want to like thank John for jumping on. As everybody knows, I decided, as I got here, to just sort of share the day's events that I wrote down on notes because there's so little transparency. And as a journalist,

I, everyone knows, I just have a passion for transparency. And so I just thought, what could I do best here? Just relay the facts as I hear, admittedly, all of us are taking notes. We're all sharing. We're all trying to learn. Sometimes you can't hear things. I'm doing the best I can. And we can't wait until the transcripts come out one day. But I, my job is what I've been desiring to do is just come to my, come to our channel. And we will tell you what happened. Today was a little bit different. We did. We had a hard stop to receive commentary and ask questions with Dr. John. Yes, he is my co-host and my husband and I love him and I miss him. And so I also, it was selfish. But after I heard the entire assessment by Dr. Westcott, I thought, look, I don't, we don't, I don't have a co-host for no reason while I've been trying to just state what's going on in court. I just had to bring him on board. board for this because it's exactly what he does. And we've all had questions.

And I know we have more. And it is true. John does want to go on Patreon more. He feels it safer because we have been getting a lot of hate email and some concerns. John has some concerns about just being too transparent online. So if people have been wondering where he is, he did jump on Patreon last night for something a little bit more unfiltered. And there, he actually said, I don't want to go on YouTube anytime soon. So I convinced him tonight.

But thank you, everyone, for your support. And as always, hidden two crime loves and values differing opinions. And as we always say, surround yourself with people who disagree with you. That's important. Check yourself by surrounding yourself with people who disagree with you. Make sure you never end up in an echo chamber. So thank you to everyone that is here, disagreeing respectfully and bringing something to the argument and talking about this. It is a conversation.

This is a trial that has been very heated and emotional for many reasons. but overall I want to say this it's about Abby and Libby. So let's keep going. We just finished that testimony. I felt it was a bombshell testimony. I don't know if everyone else did. Maybe it's because I'm married to a psychologist and psychology is fascinating to me.

But after that concluded, and again, how many fascinating questions from the jury, right? It was just interesting. So after that, we went back to Saturday. So for those that watched my show on Saturday, They explained to the jury. So on Saturday, they showed a lot of video of Richard Allen being transported to and from Westville or outside of his cell.

So there's camcorder video, which is during his transportation. And on Saturday, which is a half day in court, they showed the jury a lot of video that the gallery couldn't see, nor could they hear. They turned the sound off to show sort of what Richard Allen was going through and the defense. showed the jury, and I shared a lot of their expressions about that day, and they chose not to show the gallery to keep Richard Allen's dignity. Some reporters, local reporters, did catch what they showed on Saturday, and including, I believe, showering with handcuffs on allegedly. That's what someone might have seen in the gallery. Today, I think because some reporters allegedly saw the video on Saturday, they turned it more today. So after Dr. Westcott finished, they said that they, Max was.

back on the stand. Remember Max, Max is a employee of the defense. He's a younger guy. And he was, started as an intern and they said, your job, your job is to assess all the surveillance 24-7 of Richard Allen and find some things to share with the jury. And that's what he did. And he explained that he generated 20 hours to a video to show and he reduced it to save time. And so two videos he felt were the most important. And they were given to, All of these videos were given to Max by the state in five-minute chunks. And so Max spent hours and hundreds and hundreds of hours going through all this video. God bless Max.

None of us had this job. There are some interesting jobs out there. So he said it was, and I was very impressed with Max on the stand. He's an impressive witness, I must say. He said it was super time-consuming. He cleaned it up, all of the video up to make a continuous file. And he dressed and dropped files into one video. and the two videos that he decided to show to the jury today were April 12th,

2020, and May 25th, 2023. And so in reality, April 12th, 2023, he showed the times 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. These are in-cell videos. I should explain that to you. And by in-cell, I mean inside the cell. So Saturday was camcorder during transports. Today, in court, they showed in his cell. He has, again, 24-7 surveillance in his cell.

So April 12th, 2020, 23, 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. in real time. And then May 25th, 2023, 8th to 10 p.m. in real time. And they say real time because they fast forward these videos so that they are not skipping, but as fast as they can to show five hours in an hour and 12 minutes. The state, by the way, objects. They just simply say we have a continuous objection to showing these videos. We don't want this. We're just letting you know that we continue to object to this. And the judge understands who's already overruled their objection. And the video begins for the jury. And again, the TV screen is like, so it was like on Saturday, it was more here. Today was like way over. Like no one was going to see this TV. No one. And so I wrote down all the times it stopped and went, stopped and went.

It actually did go really fast. I thought it would be an hour and 12 minutes after that. But they fed through it. I noted at that time, too, there was a break. I noted Richard Allen's daughter was sitting outside, and so I recognized that she might be testifying later, which she indeed did. So they went through the entire video, and I noticed that Richard Allen would look up a lot at the ceiling, like that.

So that was Richard Allen today. Oh, that felt good. When looking at the ceiling feels good, you know your next kinked from looking down, taking notes. But I'll point out that the ceiling in the courtroom is quite beautiful. and there's giant stained glass windows on the ceiling in the courtroom. So I have looked up at the ceiling. So he was clearly looking up as a stained glass window and looking up at the ceiling.

And he did that quite a lot. And the jurors were taking a lot of notes. I didn't notice anyone looking too appalled or too disgusted. There were sometimes two of the biggest note takers or two males in there. And as far as attorneys, Luttrell was watching the video and Ajay was watching the video that the jury saw. And then they break. Max is questioned.

So then it's done. Then they conclude the video. And they came back with some cross-exam for Max. So the prosecution is like, okay, time to cross-exam Max. Let's find out what Max is thinking. And Max questioned, Max's question on the conditions of the cell that Richard Allen was in. And then, oh, excuse me. me. Pause, that was actually still the defense. The defense question Max on the conditions of the cell

and he just explained that it was really small and then they said nothing further. They take the screen away. Cross-exam. The defense asks Max, is Richard Allen in a cell by himself? And he says yes. And the next question, the prosecution asks Max, well, do you believe it was safer for Richard Allen to be in a cell by himself? There's an objection. and it's sustained. How many hours did you watch? The prosecution asks. And Max says hundreds.

Some of them I watched multiple times, days in, days out. There's 24-hour surveillance. I chose a moment. Or the question is, so why did you choose these moments? There were tons of moments. And these two very short videos, these 15 videos, why did you choose these? and why did you choose, I mean, you saw videos of him going to the nurse, right?

And you saw videos of Richard Allen going to see Dr. Walla. And you saw Richard Allen taking showers and getting x-rays done. And, you know, why did you pick these? And why did you pick him being tased and all of these times? and he explained, well, I just, yeah, I thought they were interesting moments. And he said, but why only these 15 moments? And was it, was it, the prosecution asked, why Max, did you show these 15 minutes? Was it to show the worst conditions that Richard Allen possibly could have to get him sympathy?

And Mack said, I guess. I wasn't only said, I guess. And then the defense said, you picked these 15 videos to show the worst conditions. Is that true? And he said, answer said, well, I wanted to show more. And then the prosecution asked, but you did so, didn't you? So to convince Richard Allen that Richard Allen is a victim by being incarcerated. Is that why you did it?

Max's answer was, I'm not trying to show that Richard Allen is a victim, but I am trying to show the most interesting videos. And then the prosecution asked, but you're trying to show the worst videos? And Mack said, no, the most important. And then a question by the prosecution. So Allen's the victim then, right? Is that what you're saying? Not Abigail Williams and Liberty German, but Richard Allen's the victim? Then there's an objection to that.

And then he asks again, the 15 videos you picked, are they to show the worst moments of Richard Allen's incarceration in these in-cell videos? Oh, no, his answer is, no, I'm just trying to show some in-cell videos. And then the prosecution asked, but why pick these inside the cell videos? His answer is, so now we learn what the videos are, well, I wanted to depict him, oh, these videos. So they depict him eating his own feces and banging his head against a wall. So now we know what they saw.

Max just testified to it. He said, these videos depict him eating his own feces and banging his head against the wall. Well, a question, the prosecution asks, were these events then that you wanted the jury to see? Why did you want the jury to see these events? You didn't pick these. Why did you not pick other videos to show the jury?

And he said, yes, I didn't. And I don't believe you choose to show any other. Oh, this was a good moment for Max. Max is good. So they said, again, I got to start over. Hold on. Pause. This was a good moment for Max.

It was kind of a mic drop. I was like, Max, you've impressed me. The prosecution keeps pushing it, right? Keeps pushing it, keeps pushing it. You didn't pick the other videos to show the jury. Why did you not pick other videos to show the jury? And Max said, well, I don't believe you chose to pick any other videos to show the jury either, right? And that was like kind of a tushe moment because, yeah, if they really wanted a cross-exam,

why didn't the prosecution decide to show videos that they wanted the jury to see they didn't? So Max, well played. I admit that. Then it continues. So then prosecution continues, continues questioning Max. Since you work for the defense, did they give you discretion on the videos to choose? And he said that, yeah, he picked them at his own discretion. and then the prosecution asks, were you in court when we played the,

when we were playing the phone calls that we played? I think in other words, the confessions, the phone calls, the confessions that the jury heard, all the confessions of Richard Allen, were you there in court when we heard these? And his answer is, oh, and then the prosecution asked, like, were any of those videos where the confessions were made, were any of those videos from days that he made those confessions, just days that he made those confessions. And his answer is, well, I don't know. I don't believe I have the dates in front of me of the videos.

So it was a non-answer. But I thought, you know, I thought the prosecution did some good cross on that, but Max is good on the stand. Okay, so we go to lunch, we come back, the jury comes in. And the next witness is Jamie Jones. Jamie Jones is the half-sister of Richard Allen. And they have the same mother, but they have a different dad. And Rick is the older brother of Jamie.

And she explains that he's about five years older, and he left home early for basic training. And then he got married shortly after basic training. He'd gone twice for military, and then he did some service, military service on the weekends. And they had one question for her. and the one question they asked Jamie Jones is, did Richard ever molest you? And her response, no, he did not. Did Richard ever touch you inappropriately?

No, he did not. And that was all the defense. And then the defense, this was Aegee doing the questioning with the defense. And they said, that's it. That's all we want. And to point out, to remind all of you that are new listening here in some interesting confessions to some of the S companions, as we call them the self-harm companions.

He implied that he molested his sister. He may have touched his daughter. And then he confessed to, or that he claimed to say that he molested a Chris and a Kevin and a couple of other names. And people are like, who are those names? So this is why they have her on the stand. And now we have cross.

So on cross exam is Littrell, and he asked, so are there a lot of neighborhood children when you grew up? May I ask you? May I ask you, Jamie, if there was a Chris that you were friends with growing up? She says yes. And then quickly there's an objection by the defense. They claim it's out of scope and the judge sustains the defense's objection. And there are no further questions. And that yeah that was good because i mean i i applaud everyone there i applaud the prosecution for asking that question because they're trying to point out that richard allen was you know at least he was coherent enough to remember names from his childhood to claim that he molested others whether or not jamie is you know was or wasn't uh but the defense in my opinion was really smart to object that outside of scope and the judge absolutely did agree with the defense there and so we sat down so it will not be part of the evidence they get, but she did say yes before the objection was made.

The next witness is his daughter, Brittany, Richard Allen's daughter, Brittany. And I'm not going to attempt to state her last name because it's long she's married now. She does have a different last name. And they ask, so the defense asks, Brittany, how do you know this man? He is my father.

Is Kathy your mother? Yes. question, did you live with both? And did you move out around 2015 for a job? She explains that yes, she moved out and she worked to urgent care. And then she was gone for school. She was at Ball State as an 18 year old and followed by Indianapolis. And I assume that's sort of the set the stage that like just because she got engaged in 2017 doesn't mean she'd already left. I think they're trying to like set that stage. And then they asked, did your father ever molest you? And she said, No. And then they asked, do you love your father? And she said yes. During cross-exam, they asked,

did you and your father go to the trail often, meaning the Monon High Trail? And there was a quick objection by the defense, and they said outside of scope. And then Luttrell tries to ask, well, the Monon High Bridge, did you go there? There's an objection. And so then he tries it one more time. did your dad's appearance stay the same after leaving home? She said, yes. And the prosecution continues. With Luttrell, did his height and weight remain the same? Then there's a giant objection.

They say outside the scope. He explains that he's trying to get the question answered the previous question. The judge allows him to keep going. And then Luttrell explains that I'm going to show you four photographs from when you left college to when he dot, dot, dot, dot. there's a sidebar requested by the defense. And last week, just to remind all of you, they denied these four photos last week to be submitted as evidence. Like the prosecution wanted to admit these four photos,

and they were like, no, no admitting these photos. So that's all we knew. They said, no, you cannot admit them unless you have dates and times. So we're assuming now everyone in the gallery that they got the dates and times. and during this sidebar, I do want to point out too, that there was a moment where Richard Allen looked at his daughter and I think might have mouthed something to her and she started to cry and she also looked up at the ceiling

to hold back her tears. It was an emotional moment. I felt for her just a personal thing. I've actually had to testify for someone I love. So my heart went out to her during this moment. So they say they're going to show you So the sidebars requested, they come back, and the prosecution comes back with the four photos. Is this the way he looked from 2014 to 2022?

She says yes. Okay, so now 306 to 387 may be admitted over into evidence. There are more objections. There were so many objections during Brittany's testimony. I felt bad. It just meant she had to sit up there a lot longer. Your Honor, these pictures are now beyond the same. scope. The judge said, I don't know. What are they? Help me out here. They asked maybe we approach. There's another sidebar. Then they come back and the objection is actually sustained. So once again, the defense's ejection is again sustained. The prosecution, though, now would still like to admit to the jury pitchers 306 to 309. And Brittany looks teary-eyed. And then Luttrell is now able to ask, Brittany, did you visit the high bridge?

in your teens, Lutrell asks. She says, yes. Did you cross the bridge? Yes. With your father? Yes. Were you scared to cross the bridge? Yes.

I was scared on high bridge. Yes, is what she said. But your dad and you would cross? Answer, only about once or twice. And there were no further questions. The another witness was the next witness after that was Shelby Hicks. Shelby is 30 years old,

which means that in 2017, she was 23 years old. She was born in Monticello, which I was pronouncing at Monticello, and she said Monticello, so good to know. And forgive me, everyone, for not getting local pronunciation right.

I am working on it. Monticello area, born and raised. She's a realtor with Hiller Williams now in Lafayette, on February 13th, 2017, she bought a new car and she took it to get it fixed at the city Dodge. It was a pretty day, so she stopped at the trails to go hiking with her boyfriend, Daniel. And they went to the Highbridge Trail, and they arrived at 230-ish. And she kept saying, she actually said 230, give her take, and she said it could be later, could be earlier. She explained that her car was supposed to be done at 2.30.

The trail connector is where she parked between the bridge highway and the high bridge. Oh, and then her dad also called around that time, so she has a time stamp. That's where she's kind of gathering. It was probably 2.30. So they parked at the Mears connector, or sorry, they parked at the trail connector is where she parked. It was between the bridge highway and the high bridge. And then the defense asks, do you know it sometimes as the mirrors connector? Could that be where you parked?

And she said, well, no, I have never heard it called that. And then she said, well, you went to the gate parking and walked around and you came to the bridge. in the middle of the parkway. Were there vehicles? She does not recall. Well, can I refresh your memory? They do a lot of refreshing of these witnesses' memories today. The defense does.

She refreshes her memory, meaning she reads her old interviews or the deposition. She explains, well, yeah, there were other cars, but she doesn't remember which cars. So they go down to the connector. So when you go down to the connector, you can turn two ways. If you turn right, you go towards the high. wait for a minute and then if you turn around you go towards high bridge so how far from the highway she said she went pretty hard pretty far to the end she can't recall and then again can you refresh your

memory page 20 to 25 she reads it she says okay well i walked to where i could see the highway and then i turned around and to go back to the to the monon high bridge did you see anyone she says i recall seeing a man and two friends from high school they were the i saw two girls from high school they were and then an older gentlemen and kids. And she recalls that the man, the older gentleman she saw had a camera. And then he said, well, who are your friends? And she said, well, it was Cheyenne and Shelby Duncan. So now we have two Shelby.

So you got to keep them set apart. So we're talking to one Shelby. She's saying she saw Shelby Duncan and her friend's Cheyenne. And she saw them on the Highbridge. I think I was there first. She refreshes her memory on page 24, the monocles. Highbridge. And I was the first on the first platform on the bridge. And then she says that she saw Shelby and Cheyenne from high school and it was unexpected. It was a very quick interaction.

They said hi to each other. And then what did they do? The defense asked. And she said that Shelby, the other Shelby and Cheyenne then walked to the other side of the bridge. And they, she explains that she was on the right side of the bridge. And so then they asked, did you watch? your friends go all the way to the end. And she said, I watched them go in that direction, but I don't recall. And then they asked her, if the old man with the camera, did you see him, did you see him approaching? And she says, I recall that we were walking and that I looked back and I saw a man taking pictures on the bridge. And so he's like, let me refresh your memory. And then the question again, do you recall if you passed you or if you passed him? She says,

I do not remember that. And then she says, well, what about the two kids? She said, I don't remember where they were walking. How long did you stay on the platform? She explains 10 minutes, and we walked back straight to the vehicle. Were there any new calls when you got back to your car? She says she doesn't recall. When you were on the bridge and on the platform, how long was it?

She says 20 minutes, maybe. I put up talk. So she put 20 minutes, like she really didn't know. And then they're like, could you refresh your memory with the deposition? How long were you on that platform? She explains less than 30 minutes. So she's re-answered. Now less than 30.

And once you got to the car, what did you do? She said she drove around her boyfriend wanted to drive around the Amish community and then they went home. Well, when did you think you had info that could help us with this case? And she said, well, the next day, when we learned to learn to, about it, Daniel, her ex-boyfriend, their ex, we learned. Daniel wanted to talk to people to tell them everything we saw. And they brought him in from work. So Daniel called and they actually called back and they went and got him from work.

And then they got her too. And there were two times that they came to speak to Shelby about everything. And then the prosecution ejects. And not sure why, but then we learned that the, law enforcement that she did. She spoke to law enforcement two separate times once on February 14th and once in March of 2017. The second time that they met law enforcement, it was page 11, line 11. She shows that to her, the defense shows that to her to refresh your memory. And she says, do you recall if the police extracted your phone data? And she says, they did not. Well, would you have

given them your phone data if they had asked? And she said, I'm not, she said, she said, She said, sure, but then she admitted, do you know where your phone is today? No, she does not know where her phone is today. I think, of course, that was to imply, like, you know, why are they not doing a great investigation here? Why would they not extract your phone data to get a better timeline? Then the prosecution crosses. They ask her, who is your provider? Deiner's questioning. Who's your provider? She said sprint. On the highway with Daniel, Deiner asked, can you see far end of the bridge where your friends were walking? and she's actually confused by that. And so she explains again, have you ever crossed the bridge, like all the way? And she says, no. Well, did you watch your friends go all the way to the end? She says no.

Did you see your friends walk back? No. Did you leave before they walk back? Yes. And then they have jury questions for Shelby. They ask about the man in the camera. The jury wants to know, was the man with the camera old? They say yes.

Could he have arrived around 255 or 3 p.m., they ask? And she said, it could have been. Yeah, around then. By the way, this is interesting that the juries are asking this, because we didn't hear about any men on the trail beyond the bridge guy until the defense came about. And we've now learned of like some men on the Monon Highbridge Trail. And one of them had a camera.

And we know that the bridge guy camera, the bridge vibe video, was taken at 2.14, or excuse me, 213, 213. So it's interesting that the jury to me is asking questions about the camera. The cameraman was old. Could he have arrived around 255 or three? And she just said, could have been. And then the defense said, well, could it have been earlier? They asked when she said could have been.

And she's like, yeah, I could have been earlier. And then the next witness is, again. Steve Mullins. I mean, this guy should just start sleeping outside with us. He's on the stand so much. I'm kidding. And I did not sleep outside last night thanks to Ted and Red. And if they're here, a huge thank you to them.

Guys, if you didn't see my community post about them, thank you for your generosity, Ted and Red. And I'll definitely be doing something nice for them from all of you. So thank you, Hidden Gems. Witness Steve Mullins. there's an exhibit JJJ and they ask, is this familiar to you? Yes. It is familiar to Steve Mullins? And they ask, is it a search for the forward focus that was registered from 2011 to 2017 models? And Mullin says, yes, yes. And then the defense asks, do you know among all of these searches if there were any hatchbacks?

and Mullen actually explains that the P3K is a code for the hatchback on the Ford Focus and they asked him, well, it's it important for all the jury to have all of the models that were registered that look like Richard Allen's 2016 Ford Focus? It's a great question. Creating doubt. The defense is create doubt.

And then they ask, do you know how many people own a similar body hatchback in Carroll County or the surrounding counties in 2017. And Steve Mullins says, I don't have that information with me. And then they move on to missing evidence. And the defense says, the missing evidence, do you remember us talking about that with you? Steve Mullins goes, yes. And the defense says, under oaths were logs created to memorandum, memorialize missing interviews.

And his answer is, yes, I did do logs, but they weren't dated. And then the defense says, well, can I refresh your memory? And the prosecution says, argues to that and says, no, the testimony was given. He's already said there were logs back to the questions. And the defense explained that's not what explains, well, this is not what he told us, told the court back in March of 2018 about any logs. The defense continues. Steve Mullins, you told the court on March 18th,

there was no log of like the missing evidence, the missing interviews. And last week on the stand, you changed that. And he wrote, yes. And so they said, so there are no logs. And he actually said something funny. He said, are you asking me the question or telling me? Because oftentimes the defense does, it's pretty sneaky, but like the defense will state the,

defense will state their question as a statement, but like kind of up-talk it, because I just want you to say yes or no. So like, so there are no logs. So there are no logs. So there are new logs? And so he's literally asking him, are you just telling me that or are you asking me? He's like, we're asking you. Answer the question. And he said, well, that's not correct. At the best, at best we can tell, there were logs. I might have said back then, not knowing, but I am telling you the truth, there were logs. My father's alibi, that is really touching and I'm going to make sure that Ted and Red get that. So thank you. Thank you. And Ted did make sure you're in touch with me. We'll make sure to get that. Thank you so much. Thank you, my father's alibi.

He's saying he's doing it for the families, for Libby and Abby. So it's really touching. Thank you. I'll make sure he gets that. So at this moment, just to you guys know, it seems as if they were trying to impede Steve Mullins because he changed his testimony, but he explains like, look, back in 2018, I didn't know. I went back. I found him. I found the logs of the interviews. And so then they asked him, the defense asks, did you ever learn that Libby's phone was no longer in the area?

There's a major objection by the prosecution, and they sidebar that. And the prosecution's objection, they come back to the sidebar, and it's been sustained, which makes sense because I don't really know or they're going with that, but Libby's phone, they concluded in court was never turned off. Like, even the defense has been like it reconnected to the satellite, but they can't say it turned off because the cell data witnesses testified that the phone never turned off, nor left the area. So it's just interesting that I don't, maybe Steve Mullins like implied that at one time. I don't know, but there's an objection and it's sustained. So they were probably trying to get them to slip up somehow. But, okay. Defense then asks after that sidebar, did you hear Trooper Harshman's testimony about the van?

He says, yes. Question, well, did you hear him testify to there being no social media where a white van was talked about? And Dr. Walla, she was following the case. Isn't it important to know if in 2017 there was a white van talked about on social media? And the reason why they're bringing up Dr. Wall in this white van is because in Richard Allen's testimony to Dr. Walla, according to Dr. Walla, he said that he saw a van, a white van, and he got scared, took the girls across the creek and killed them. So of course, they need, and nobody allegedly knew about the white van. So that is like why Richard Allen allegedly knows this fact that nobody else knew before his confession, right? It's like, the white van is like, seals a deal for many people. I'm like doing this. Sorry. And so of course,

they need to let people know that this white van was talked about. It's not that important. So they're saying, so Steve Mullen says, well, I didn't look. And he says, well, there's a combo, if there was a conversation about a white van, would it surprise you if, and then there's an objection and it's sustained? So there's a now cross with the prosecution. And the question the prosecution asked Steve Mullen is, when Richard Allen gave a statement about a van, was that the first you ever heard about a van? Steve Mullen says, correct. Next question by the prosecution.

And you spoke to Brad Weber there then? Yes. And then here are the jurors' questions. The jury asks, why would anyone discussing a van prior to Richard Allen's confession? Oh, why would anyone discuss a van prior to Richard Allen's confession that a van scared him? And the answer to that from Steve Mullen's is that's why we looked at. into this van. That's what we looked into it.

That's the exact reason. Then the defense gets to redirect, and they say to Steve Mullins, well, did you ever hear from social media about a suspicious van asking kids about candy? He says he doesn't recall. Then there's an objection, and they're saying that this calls for speculation,

and the judge sustains it. And then they ask a question again. Did you ever hear of, and then the objection sustained? The next witness, once again, is Brad Weber. Brad Weber is testified before. It's the owner of the van that the prosecution is trying to say, was the van that bridge guy or Richard Allen saw when he took before he decided to take the girls across the creek to kill them. So this is what the, of course, what the prosecution is trying to theorize and get people to believe.

And Brad Weber, he was subpoenaed after his testimony by the defense, that's also why he's testifying. So he was a witness for the prosecution. And he got kind of angry at the defense with questioning when they were like, did you go straight home? And he's like, I did. I went straight home after work that day on February 13th, 2017.

And when they pushed him, he kind of got angry. And he shouted no. So after that testimony with Brad Webb, he was subpoenaed by the defense. And so here we are, here we are. And the first question by Baldwin to Brad Weber is, why were you upset at me that day? And Brad Weber says, I was upset because you were trying to tell me what I did when I didn't. And then Baldwin says, well, do you remember an agent pool on February 19, 2004? You didn't tell them what you told me about going straight home. and Brad's question is, who are they?

And Baldwin says, law enforcement. Have you ever talked to law enforcement? The defense asks a lot of times. He says, yes, a lot. The event says, after you got off that day on February 13th, 2017, did you just go home? And he said, yes, I just went home. And they said, well, you've gone to see, you've told some people that you go and check your credit card machines before you go home, meaning he has ATM machines. And there's an objection

by the prosecution that's sustained. And so they try some new questioning. The defense says, well, a week before, a week before February 13th, where were you? And he said home. Brad Weber said, home. And they said, well, not in Arizona. And Baldwin said not in Arizona. And Brad says, well, I did go on a three-day trip to Arizona, but it wasn't a week. Baldwin says, that's fair. That's fair. So you're home Sunday. Tell the jury about your ATM work. And Brad Weber's answer is, I have ATMs. Well, tell us about those. Brad Weber's response, they are money machines. Well, they keep pressing them. Tell us more. Tell us more. So finally, Brad Weber explains that, yeah, when people are willing to pay a dollar,

to use an ATM, he gets money. He has about 30 ATMs or something at one point he did. And this day in February 13th, 2017, he owned 15, or he had, excuse me, he had 15 ATMs. So how often in 2017 would you attend to ATM machines? And he said every day that he would probably do something with them. Well, what would you do? He said, well, I wouldn't do maintenance, but I would have to look them up at computers to find out where they were. well, how is money put in these ATM machines?

He said, by me. He would get the money from the bank. Well, and how do the receipts get changed, you know, new receipts? And he said, me. Well, who takes the money out? And he said, well, no one. The people taking the money out, take the money out. I just put it in, not me.

And he goes, what bank would give you money? And they asked, and where were these ATMs? They were at gas stations in Indiana. What would you need to do at your 35 ATM machines? and did you use your van? He said no, he didn't use his van to go to him. That he owned a black Subaru back then. It was a black Subaru in 2017,

and he would take that to attend to his ATM machines. So in February 13th, 2017, did you use your van? And they explained on that day, you got off at 202. Is that correct? Yes. And a phone call of August of this year, you had a phone call in August of this year to come to the police. station. They called? He explains, yeah, they know, he explained, no. They called and they asked me to go to a

different location. Was it okay if I refresh your memory? And then he answered, well, is it up to me? And everyone in the gallery laughed because this whole like, can I refresh your memory? Yeah, right. Is it even up to him? This is good point. Everyone laughed. Then they say, well, who called you that day to go meet you someplace? What law enforcement, Brad, asked you to go visit him? And he said, investigator Mullins, Steve. And he said, so you call him Steve? And he said, well, I don't know. I don't really talk to him. I told police on that day. This is what he told police on that day, on the very day of Abby and Libby's murderer, that he drove the van to work, and then he dropped off a trailer, and he went home. He explains that he owned a Subaru and a van at that time. He used

the van whenever he needed to take the trailer someplace. And for everywhere else, he used the Subaru. Is your memory better in 2017 than now? And he said, he doesn't know. Well, what did you do that day? He says, well, I got home and I probably smoked and I watched TV and I took a nap after I got home. Well, an officer came to your door that day, February 13, 2017, and they said they were looking for a couple of little girls. Have you been to the north side of the creek? He answers, well, I am now, right now, this moment, in this courtroom. And they said, no, actually, this is the south side. The north would be the opposite side. He goes, oh, yes, I've been to the north side. Yeah, he goes, that's my property. He said, well, do trespassers ever come on your side? And he's, your property? He said, yes.

In 2017, did they come? He said, yes. Well, did you address the trespassers? There's an objection, and it's sustained. So a question by the defense, you could not hear anyone scream that day. And he said, he didn't hear anyone scream. And they said, and if you're driving, could you see, and if there's someone that could see you, if you're driving down there, could you see anyone from that area, like where Richard Allen would have gone off the Monon High Bridge? And he said, if I looked over to the left, I would have seen somebody. They asked, how many stories is your house, two. Did you allow the police to go into your outbuildings around your house?

And he said, yes. And so then the defense said, uh-uh, let me refresh your memory. and they realize that what this is, there's just a confusion about his house being searched, but not on February 13th. Because they were talking about February 13th, and then they jumped to his house being searched. His house has been searched,

and so he parked, so they moved on. Where did you park your van that day? He said, on the grass in my Subaru in the driveway. Then the defense is asking to admit evidence, which would be photos of Brad Weber's garage, and there's an objection and the judge used to get into this, they also wanted to admit

photos of, I think, because there were sticks on the ground, judge, I couldn't decide if she objected or if she was going to check it out later. I think she objected it. Then, no, she might have. She allowed it. So the judge said, February 19th, 2017 photo,

I will admit this over the state's objection. Excuse me. So she did admit it. And there's a sidebar. November 4th, 2024. Brad Weber continues with the defense. So they admit a picture of his garage with his car inside. And it shows that there are three outbuildings in his property around his house in 2017.

And so now there's a cross with the prosecution. The prosecution gets to now ask the defense's witness, Brad Weber, some questions. Would you agree, they say, that your memory would be better on February? 13th, 2017, than it is now. And he says yes. Well, you have talked to law enforcement a lot, right? He says, yes. Well, what about Shane Bernhardt and Covey Act? And Brad Weber's response is, I don't know. I got stopped and my car got searched too. It's, you know, it's clear that he was definitely like the police had an eye on him back in the day. And they said, well, let's go back to 13th, 2017, the day of the crimes. Tell me what you did. He said, I took a nap. Well, the officers asked to,

and then how long did you nap? He woke up at about 530. And then did the officers ask to look at your property when you woke up? And he said, yes. And I let them. Well, later, they asked you if they could search your outbuildings. And he let them look. He goes, yeah, I let them look. And they even searched my house and I took a lie detector test. He spoke to law enforcement every day, for a very long time. Do you remember talking to people on February 17th, and on that day you told them that you get off work on February 13th, and you went straight home and took a nap?

He said, correct. And then you were woken up at 5.30, and he said, correct. And when you say that you can't recall if there was a phone or a text to law enforcement, cell phones can drop in your area, correct? the prosecution asks them, and he said, yes, they can often drop in my area. So texts can come in easier, and is that why sometimes you text? And he said, yes, law enforcement texted me at one time. That was interesting, clarify. Jury questions. And by the way, Agent Pull, the defense wants to call Agent Pull. This was discussed last week at the end of the week. I just want to remind all of you.

Agent Poll is in a lot of testimony now with the defense. They asked to call him as a remote witness. actually has some medical issues that he cannot travel. And he's also in Texas helping with elections. Don't forget to vote those in the United States. And he's running the election sort of in Texas. And so it's mentally hard for him to travel. There was a motion for a remote witness. And it was actually denied by the judge.

So agent pole is, so here are the questions from the jury. Would ATMs have photos of when you would service them? One of the jurors asks. great question. And it sounds like, yes, they would or some would. He said it depends on, I think, where they are, but he thinks they would. So how far in advance would you need to order cash was one juror's question? And I didn't get the answer to that. Another question, how do you check out of work? Like, how do we know it's accurate that you checked out at 202? And he explains that when you check out of his work, then it releases the turnstop and you

walk out the door. So in other words, you time out and you are straight out the door. So that was actually really important to know because if you time out and you like mingle longer and chat with a coworker, it changes the time you left work, right? So he's saying that he, that you check out and it, the turn stop means that you can walk out the door. What driveway did you park in back then? Or what driveway did you use? There are two driveways, I guess, or more than one driveway. And he said that he would use the driveway by the Monon Highbridge. They asked him if he drove under the Highbridge, and he says he would have yes.

And they asked him, do you typically go home after work? And he said, I did not get the answer to that question. That was important. Sorry about that. And then court was recessed for the day. The court was recessed for the day. They had no other witnesses, which is why, we were able to jump on alive a little bit faster for everyone.

And then there was a motion, though, for Kevin Murphy. Kevin Murphy worked on the investigation from 2017 to 2021. Again, the jury's left the room now. Courts done, though, but they're discussing a motion without the jury in here. And they listened to the Unified Command for daily updates, and they are bringing up Kevin Murphy because Kevin Murphy would always say, and this is the defense's motion, and the defense is pitching this. They're like, look, Kevin Mercy would always,

Murphy, who listens to the Unified Command Daily, would always say that two to three or five to six people might have been involved in this crime. And it was consistent. And he would never say it was just one person. And we would like it if he could testify about that. And that is what he would talk about. So we want to call this Kevin Murphy.

There's an objection by the prosecution because they're saying, well, he wasn't even in contact with a unified command. He wasn't even a part of the unified command. So this would be like overhearing something. And so the judge goals sustained the courts, the state's objection to that. You know, it would be him just hearing something. And then they say, well, look, if Richard Allen told police, okay, if Richard Allen's spit was found on the girls, would that be used in trial? If statement and social media, hold, let me read this because actually this was taken by, I just concluded.

and I had to grab something. And so somebody, I had to, like, go run outside to save a spot for tomorrow. And so somebody else just ended the last two notes. Let me make sure I understand this. Okay. So if Richard Allen spit was found, this is the defense sort of defending their motion, saying, like, come on, we're pushing this. They're like, look, if his spit was found on the girls, would that be used a trial?

Yes, would. So if statements and social media and things for Elvis and Brad Holder were, mentioned, you know, by Richard, were found by Richard Allen, or if statements or social media things for Chris and Brad Holder, Elvis and Brad Holder were by Richard Allen, would that be used in trial? Thank you, sorry.

And the state says this is complete speculation. Elvis is not charged. If there were a crime scene photo of Richard Allen that showed up on what the girls, would that have been used? and the goal says, look, we have had this discussion one thousand times. There is no evidence of a third party. And

Baldwin says, I could ask if it's incriminating. And Goal said, so you want to put him on the stand? And Goal said, there's no nexus. And Baldwin says, I believe there's more than enough nexus. I believe I've made it my record. And that was that. And it was interesting.

So after that happened, because like the defense is obviously really trying. This is their last ditch effort to try to get a third party in saying, look, It could possibly be someone else. It's a great way to create doubt. Like, let's get these other people. It's their odinism theory.

All these other people that are involved. Odinism has been shot down. Third party. People have been shot down. I didn't notice this. Well, I didn't notice it. Someone sitting next to me pointed this out. And they said that Judge Goal,

whenever she makes these decisions, she never cites case law. And at first, honestly, I was kind of like, no, that's not true. Like, she just said that she's already gone over this thousands of times. Like, look, but then and Gull said there's no nexus. And then Baldwin said,

I believe there's even more than enough nexus. And then Judge Gull said, I believe I've made my record. She's saying she believes her made her record. So I was kind of like, no, because she's claiming she made a record, like she probably cited case law earlier. And my court neighbor's like,

no, she really just doesn't cite it a lot. And I got to thinking it, let's put this aside because I don't know what a record says. I don't know if there's case law on that record. But that aside, I have to admit that it's true, I haven't heard for citing case law a lot, which is interesting. Like usually case law means a precedent. Like what case can we look at that says this is how this was handled?

This says the precedent for the law that, you know, would show that I'm going to object this or accept this motion. And oftentimes judges will cite case law a lot. judge Boyce in Idaho always cited case law he was methodical about that very careful when citing case law i have to admit i haven't heard a lot of judge goal citing case law you know so i'm going to take some time and look at superchats and see how everyone's doing i finished the day and um by the way people were lined up for court like at 2 p.m. it's kind of crazy so my roommates are now there I might have to go over there tonight. It depends on if they're the long story.

Every night's different. How about that? Every night is different. But thank you to Ted and Red yesterday who were out there. If you guys want more unfiltered Dr. John, definitely check out our Patreon. Patreon.com slash hint true crime. And thank you for supporting us there. The best way you can support us as well.

I just want to say this to subscribing, sharing and liking this. It means so much while we bring you all this information. and do trial recaps. And thank you guys for allowing me to bring on John for a bit and take that break and talk to him because I thought, I don't have a co-host that's a forensic psychologist for no reason. So thank you. Thank you, thank you, everyone. I will, oh, well, no, I'll answer this tonight, Moonlight Cafe.

What do you think is the best evidence against him? Well, I've learned a lot about myself and how I assess crimes from watching this because for watching this trial because it's just not so clear cut, right? And so I've had to learn a lot about what stands out the most of me. And I think there's a trifecta of things that stand out to me when it comes to any case that I think are just sort of main things. And I think for most criminal cases, these three things always matter. And I would say it's the alibi, a confession, and DNA.

And two or three of those things have been presented here. DNA had there was no DNA found but there's been no conflicting DNA necessarily either yet. But the alibi, meaning the timeline, does evidence presented put the person at the crime scene. That has happened with Richard Allen in this case. And then the third thing, confessions, there are certainly confessions. of course, the defense is trying very hard to possibly imply that they might be false or not accurate. If that's my trifecta of things that really gets me in a case, those are the two things that have been the most compelling for me. And I would say it's the multiple confessions and not just to Dr. Walla, but also to the multiple S companions that testified that day.

That was a very interesting day to me, probably one of the most interesting days because it's like boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, seven of them in row. And then Dr. Wall actually thought her testimony was interesting. And then so confessions and the alibi, which, you know, we don't have video or audio, but we have a self-reporting that he was essentially near with a crime scene and at the Monon Highbridge. I guess there were two crime scenes because the abduction happened on the Monon High Bridge. So that's also a crime scene. You know, wearing similar clothing, that's compelling to me. So those two things, those two things for me are the best evidence against Richard Allen.

With that being said, the defense is doing a hell of a job. So I don't know where the jury is or, you know, I have no idea. Being in the courtroom, I want to say, I do not know. There was one gentleman outside today waiting. We were all waiting in the rain, pick it in. and he was hesitant to talk to me. I won't share his name or anything, but we were all talking about our different thoughts outside in the line,

and we all differing opinions, and finally we learned that he was there because he had known Richard Allen back in the day and believed he was innocent, and Richard Allen didn't know he was necessarily coming, but he was there to support him. And if he said, if Richard Allen saw him, he would know who he was.

And I told him that that was a good friend. All right, everyone. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for being here. And we'll see you tomorrow. Oh, and for those looking for me at lunch and there was no lunch live, yeah. Those are getting harder. Those are getting a lot harder to do.

The lines are getting more intense. We barely got in after lunch. So it's like if you choose now to stay in until the break, you may or may not get in for lunch. So we're dividing forces and doing our best. And it's just luckily, all of the creators that have been there for a long time are supporting each other. And, you know, we've put in our work and everybody's kind of trying to help each other. And for that, I'm grateful. All right, guys, we'll see you.

Hello, Hidden Jems. It's Lauren with Hidden a True Crime podcast. As a TV reporter, I learned the art of visual storytelling. So if you're like me, you enjoy listening, but also viewing. You can actually head to our story. YouTube channel, Hidden True Crime, to watch these interviews. Hit the subscribe button for surprise lives and breaking news. And for exclusive content, things Dr. John and I only dare say behind a paywall,

become a Patreon member at patreon.com slash hidden true crime. You'll find bonus episodes, early releases, and insider info. Thank you for your endless support. Your old or broken phone can let you down. But at Verizon, trade in any old phone from our time. top brands and get iPhone 16 Pro with Apple Intelligence with a new line on my plan and iPad and Apple Watch Series 10. After all, you don't want your old phone to die on you when you're lost. Perfect.

Or for your broken phone to glitch at the worst possible time. Hey, can I get your number? Trade in your old phone for a brand new iPhone 16 Pro iPad and Apple Watch. Visit Verizon.com today. Additional terms apply. Service and required for Apple Watch and iPad. Now's the time for a great deal on a new Honda. It's time to take an adventure with rugged capability and commanding style.

Check out the Honda Ridgeline, pilot, or CRV. For a limited time, well-qualified buyers can get a 3.9% APR on a 2025 pilot or a 2.9% APR on a 2025 Ridgeline or CRV. See dealer for financing details. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers.

It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN.

ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove.