0:06

From NBI Studios,

0:09

this is Truth

0:12

and Justice, a

0:14

crowd-sourced investigation in

0:17

real time. I'm

0:19

Bob Roth. Ahoy

0:35

friends, you're listening to the Friday follow-up

0:38

for season 16, episode 19. This is

0:40

the second Richard Allen interrogation. We're doing

0:42

analysis on that, but we are joined

0:45

by a very special guest. Once again,

0:47

we're joined by Dr. Scott from the

0:49

wonderful LA Not So Confidential podcast, but

0:51

we are songs Zach. So we still

0:54

have a power trio. Zach, we miss

0:56

you. There's a lot to discuss and

0:58

we certainly have input from our listeners

1:01

that we want to get into as

1:03

well, but before we do all that.

1:05

Bob, do we have any housekeeping? Nothing

1:07

real pressing right now. We're still,

1:10

as I mentioned last week, the

1:12

Kids Podcasts, underestimated, is dropping two

1:14

episodes a week right now. So Wednesday

1:16

will be episode two of the

1:18

voiceless podcast, which is the one

1:20

covering several of the voiceless podcast,

1:22

which is the one covering several

1:24

missing persons cases. Their first one

1:26

dropped last Friday. Their third one will

1:29

drop this coming Friday, the same day

1:31

as this. And the next week we'll tell you here on

1:33

the air. I just thought this last, everybody's doing such great

1:35

work, obviously it's a matter of taste and she came in

1:37

over the moon yesterday. She's a fan, she's a huge fan

1:39

of yours, she's open the moon, she said she's going to

1:41

print that out and frame it. Oh my gosh. So just

1:43

thought I'd let you know that. Maybe I should send her

1:45

a little video text to give to her. Yeah, I mean,

1:47

I just thought this last, everybody's doing such great work. Obviously,

1:49

it's a matter of a matter of taste and it's a matter of

1:52

taste and it, it's a matter of taste and it's, this, it's, it's

1:54

a matter of taste and it, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a matter

1:56

of, it's a matter of, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's

1:58

a matter of, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's just,

2:00

when I hear a reporter, a

2:02

young reporter, talking about being emotionally

2:04

affected by the story that she's

2:07

reporting on, that just is a

2:09

real kindred spirit for me, and

2:11

I just thought it was a

2:13

really dynamic episode, fascinating story, and

2:16

again, just very, very proud of

2:18

all the hard work that your

2:20

students are putting in on,

2:22

underestimated. fantastic work. And now

2:25

we'll get right into this one. I

2:27

just had something to my head and

2:29

it popped right back out of there.

2:31

We'll see if that's... Oh, housekeeping still.

2:33

We're going to make some changes probably

2:35

for the next few. I've got, I

2:37

don't know, like six weeks of school

2:40

left. And so at least for that

2:42

time, we're going to be probably moving

2:44

these follow-up recordings to Wednesday nights, as

2:46

opposed to Tuesday nights. So that only

2:48

affects you if you're one of the

2:50

people like to join the Patreon for

2:52

the main. So next week it'll be

2:54

the plan is the same time on

2:57

Wednesday nights which is 8 p.m. Eastern

2:59

time, 5 p.m. Pacific time, Janet looks

3:01

confused. I thought you said we were

3:03

you were going to be in Montana

3:05

next week. No that's not till June.

3:08

Oh I'm so okay great. Yeah June got

3:10

it. First first first first full

3:12

week of June I'll be gone.

3:14

So yeah for the foreseeable future

3:16

we'll be doing on Wednesday nights

3:18

which may come up Dr. Dr.

3:20

Dr. Scott because because I'll. I'm

3:22

hoping not to keep bothering you

3:24

guys, but man, I'm going through

3:26

the Richard Allen confessions and everything

3:28

with Dr. Walla on the phone calls

3:30

and sure could use one of

3:32

you guys back again next week

3:34

if you or Dr. Shiloh are

3:36

interested or available on Wednesday evening.

3:38

They're not going to have any time

3:40

to do their other stuff. Yeah, you're

3:42

just permanent fixtures on the truth

3:45

and justice stuff. So we'll figure

3:47

that out. offline, but yeah, I'm breaking it

3:49

all down now and I'm so what you guys

3:51

are going to get on Sunday also released

3:53

with all these other audios was another

3:56

the same crime circuit the same YouTube

3:58

channel put out a video that has all

4:00

of the phone recordings, the phone recording

4:02

confessions with Richard Allen and his wife

4:04

and with his mother. So that's about

4:07

a 47 minute video, so I'm kind

4:09

of going through those. But then I

4:11

also went and did some research on

4:13

Dr. Wallace testimony because what seemed like

4:16

was the big confession, the one that

4:18

I feel probably played a large part

4:20

in getting Richard Allen convicted, was Dr.

4:22

Wallace testimony about what she said Richard

4:25

Allen said to her. And so I'm

4:27

kind of like intermingling those timing also.

4:29

We have a phone call from April

4:31

3rd and then we have Dr. Wallace

4:34

notes from the month of the rest

4:36

of the month of April and then

4:38

we have her notes from April 2nd

4:40

and then the phone call from May

4:43

10th. So I'm kind of putting all

4:45

those in order and kind of breaking

4:47

down like how this whole process came

4:49

to be and give him kind of

4:52

my analysis on it. So that's what's

4:54

going to be coming on Sunday that

4:56

I'm working on right now. my clients

4:58

are out of town. That is, I,

5:00

like, Shila would have to probably pull

5:03

me back, like, or chain me down,

5:05

because the job that that psychologist used

5:07

is the thing, it makes my blood

5:09

boil. Your episode about that was so

5:12

good. I really strongly recommend people go

5:14

to that. Is it ethics in, ethics

5:16

in psychology? I'm trying, yeah. Such a

5:18

great episode. They cover. Scott and Shiloh

5:21

cover more than just that particular thing

5:23

that happened, but I really, really appreciated

5:25

your perspective and your candor about the

5:27

professionalism or lack thereof of some of

5:30

the behavior there. Yeah. You're on, Dr.

5:32

Scott, sorry Shiloh, for next week because

5:34

yeah, I'm getting in some of that

5:36

and that's on the LA not so

5:39

confidential podcast. The episode the Jan is

5:41

talking about, if you want a little

5:43

precursor to that. So yeah, so Sunday

5:45

will be me breaking those down and

5:48

then on next Wednesday, which will be

5:50

the follow-up that'll air on Friday, we

5:52

have Dr. Scott again to talk about

5:54

that. And now we should get into

5:57

this one before we get to Dr.

5:59

Scott, Janet, what were your thoughts on

6:01

this week's episode? Well, as you know,

6:03

I, because I sent you a text,

6:06

I listened to, I watched the interview,

6:08

the interrogation before I listened to your

6:10

episode and it was a really hard

6:12

listen. It was a hard watch, it

6:15

was a hard listen. I can't, I

6:17

cannot, I mean, I was extremely, extremely,

6:19

extremely upset by all of the stuff,

6:21

especially with Kathy. That was just very

6:24

hard. You know, no matter where you

6:26

fall on this, that it was just

6:28

absolutely shattering to see her, to see

6:30

her and hear her and get some

6:33

small sense of the pain that she

6:35

has been through and continues to suffer.

6:37

So that was that made it, you

6:39

know, about six times as hard compared

6:42

to the first interrogation for me personally.

6:44

I really, here's what, and then we'll

6:46

get to Dr. Scott because nobody needs

6:48

to hear my pedantic. non-explanations, but I

6:51

guess what I would say is I

6:53

thought that it's he seemed very not

6:55

guilty in his behavior. It felt very

6:57

real. Of course, I was, you know,

7:00

once I listened to your episode and

7:02

you were talking about something that you

7:04

had gone through similar. It reminded me

7:06

of one of those movies, and I'm

7:09

sorry that we always compare things to

7:11

media because many of us don't experience

7:13

them in real life, but we see

7:15

some version of it depicted in media.

7:18

which I once got used to to

7:20

actually it was a wonderful tool on

7:22

their podcast, but I felt like I

7:24

was it was like I was watching

7:27

one of those movies that I can't

7:29

watch because it's the one where one

7:31

person is saying and everyone else is

7:33

telling them that they're wrong or they're

7:36

crazy. Yeah. Those are really hard for

7:38

me to take. So it definitely triggered

7:40

me and I haven't even had an

7:42

experience like the one you've had. Does

7:45

any of that or all of that

7:47

mean that Richard Allen is not guilty?

7:49

Is he definitively definitively innocent? that I

7:51

could maybe, if someone wants to point

7:53

me in the direction... What I would

7:56

like is for a comparison, and every

7:58

person is different, but I would like

8:00

to sort of see a version of

8:02

the read technique in an interrogation used

8:05

where a person we know is guilty

8:07

maintains their innocence. Because I don't have

8:09

anything to compare it to. Versus, I

8:11

know what it sounds like when someone

8:14

uses the read technique and someone falsely

8:16

confesses. We've heard that many times because

8:18

of the work that we're trying to

8:20

do. But I don't have a lot

8:23

of experience seeing people who... are provably

8:25

guilty like you know the serial killers

8:27

of the world that have been caught

8:29

maintaining their innocence perhaps everyone is that

8:32

you know believable would be to me

8:34

you know I don't know so I

8:36

guess that's what I'm saying is like

8:38

I don't have a control of like

8:41

what does it look like when we

8:43

know someone's guilty and they maintain their

8:45

innocence does it come off as believable

8:47

as Richard Allen did? Yeah I'd have

8:50

to see it may be good question

8:52

for like Jim Clemente he may have

8:54

like some resources that he can send

8:56

to some examples of some examples of

8:59

examples of those because yeah I haven't

9:01

I haven't seen that either but it

9:03

was like you know I know you

9:05

know from what I've learned on statement

9:08

analysis like what you expect from the

9:10

guilty person in those moments and kind

9:12

of what you expect from it and

9:14

it was just shocking to me but

9:17

then again too like as I tried

9:19

to express and it was just shocking

9:21

to me but then again too like

9:23

as I tried to express and it

9:26

was a lot of it was just

9:28

to be transparent because I mean like

9:30

I'm seeing so much Like it was

9:32

it was one of those and Dr.

9:35

Scott I'm sure you can you know

9:37

from with your expertise know what that

9:39

feeling is but it was just like

9:41

when I was watching him react and

9:44

go through that it was like taking

9:46

me back to that place like I

9:48

was feeling what he was feeling what

9:50

he was feeling what he was feeling

9:53

and it was like I was feeling

9:55

what he was feeling and it was

9:57

like I had to step away for

9:59

a minute and then I came back

10:02

and wrote what did you think? Well,

10:04

I'm just going to picky back on

10:06

both of you. I think you both

10:08

make really excellent points and I even

10:11

had to consult with Dr. Shiloh this

10:13

afternoon because it's, you know, we cover

10:15

so many cases and I don't really

10:17

dive deep into that because we're diving

10:20

more into research, you know, so I

10:22

for one second considered like looking on

10:24

one of the Reddit pages and then

10:26

I glanced at it. I was like,

10:29

oh no, not not going to go

10:31

here. And that's, and I say that

10:33

as somebody who really admires some of

10:35

the work that people post on some

10:37

of these things, they post some very

10:40

thoughtful things, and then there are other

10:42

ones that just muddy the water so

10:44

badly. And my thoughts here are, I

10:46

mean, for you Bob, yeah, you are,

10:49

you're getting retromatized and we all have

10:51

to be careful about those things. This

10:53

is, I'll tell you where I did

10:55

do a deep dive because I was

10:58

only superficially. familiar with read techniques. So

11:00

I started reading more and more. I

11:02

was like, well, let me look at

11:04

the stats. And the stats do not

11:07

look good for this technique because it

11:09

is coercive. Police are in and again,

11:11

I'm going to mirror what Janet said.

11:13

I don't know if he's innocent or

11:16

not. The evidence looks very, very sketchy

11:18

to me. And, you know, it was

11:20

so theatrical. you know I had so

11:22

many reactions to this cop sort of

11:25

this is his lens the cop goes

11:27

in with the ability to lie he

11:29

has a permit to lie right like

11:31

he's right able to lie he's throwing

11:34

everything against this guy and all I

11:36

see in response and this could mean

11:38

so different so many different things and

11:40

I want to be careful here for

11:43

everybody that's listening like I don't want

11:45

this to come across as like super

11:47

judgmental. But he's a he's a strange

11:49

guy. Like he's odd. There are a

11:52

lot of very odd things about him.

11:54

But I would go so far as

11:56

to say if what I've seen so

11:58

far is not particularly creepy. Like he's

12:01

assured of himself, he's almost a little

12:03

bit cocky. But you know, I've seen

12:05

people who absolutely knew that they were

12:07

innocent and by hook or by crook,

12:10

however they were raised, they don't back

12:12

down at all. And they're absolutely relaxed.

12:14

Now on the other side of that,

12:16

there's a lot of really famous psychopaths

12:19

that have done that. You know, Ted

12:21

Bundy to the last minute. Christopher Watt,

12:23

Scott Peterson, all of them just denied,

12:25

denied, denied. But all of them had

12:28

incredible evidence against him. And this doesn't

12:30

seem like a case where there's more

12:32

blester in this interview than there is

12:34

evidence, right? Well, and that's the thing

12:37

is what we know, so what he

12:39

doesn't know, and that's part of the

12:41

perspective when I'm doing the statement analysis,

12:43

right? What Richard Allen doesn't know. is

12:46

that Holman's full of shit about that

12:48

bullet, right? I mean, there is a

12:50

now and now, I know, I know,

12:52

I know. But does Holman know he's

12:55

full of shit about it? Great question.

12:57

Yeah, he knows. Okay. Okay. He absolutely

12:59

fucking knows. And I know somebody's gonna

13:01

be, I can probably name the names

13:04

of the people that are like, yeah,

13:06

what I mean, it's, well, it was,

13:08

so, you know, what it was, is,

13:10

you know, recreating what actually happened to

13:13

the round they found. They compared them

13:15

no match. So then they fired, I

13:17

think they fired four more rounds. And

13:19

of those four rounds, they found one

13:22

after they fired it, which is not

13:24

what happened to the one in the

13:26

crime scene, and it had sufficient agreement.

13:28

And we heard from, which I know,

13:30

there's a question about it, so I'll

13:33

wait, I'm assuming, I hopefully grabbed that

13:35

question, and then I'll talk about it

13:37

later. About the testimony at trial. by

13:39

the firearms expert, but at trial she

13:42

said like no this could have come

13:44

like she admitted this could have come

13:46

from any gun of that making model

13:48

and they compared it to other ones

13:51

like there was no there was a

13:53

lot where he's saying it's forensically proven

13:55

scientifically proven that's your gun and I

13:57

think that to me when I see

14:00

I was almost the second time through

14:02

was looking at Holman's behavior I'm like

14:04

is he is this an act or

14:06

is he genuinely getting mad because he

14:09

set this trap and it didn't fucking

14:11

work because he's like you know he

14:13

tells him that here it is now

14:15

I got you you put on the

14:18

record I got you to say you

14:20

didn't loan it out I got you

14:22

to say that you had it you

14:24

had it before then and then boom

14:27

drop the hammer we know with 100%

14:29

certainty that bullet found six inches from

14:31

one of the victims came from your

14:33

gun and he's like now I got

14:36

him and and generally again what you're

14:38

what you're hoping for by the book

14:40

is you want them to start making

14:42

excuse for oh you know what I

14:45

was out there a couple weeks ago

14:47

so maybe it came you want something

14:49

those contradictions right Yeah, they're wanting something

14:51

like that. And instead, so I guess

14:54

circling back to what we're just talking

14:56

about is when you said that like

14:58

there was this mountain of evidence against

15:00

these other people, in his case, he

15:03

doesn't know that Holman's full of shit.

15:05

He believes he's telling him he's telling

15:07

him and that was that's what I

15:09

was reading from his reaction. It was

15:12

just like, that's impossible. He couldn't give

15:14

them any other explanation other than that

15:16

is impossible over and over and over

15:18

and over over over again. As opposed

15:21

to. Someone like, you know, like you

15:23

mentioned Scott Peterson. I don't know about

15:25

that case. I know there's controversy about

15:27

it or there's innocent guilty. I don't,

15:30

I don't know anything about it. I

15:32

know a little bit about it, but

15:34

I'm not enough to have a strong

15:36

opinion. But in that case, there's like

15:39

all this evidence and that's a different

15:41

kind of, but in that case, there's

15:43

like all this evidence. And that's a

15:45

different kind of thing to me when

15:48

you're like all this evidence and that

15:50

that's legitimate evidence is legitimate evidence and

15:52

is legitimate and is legitimate and is

15:54

legitimate and is And you can't argue

15:57

it whatsoever in just saying that's bullshit.

15:59

Can't be. Impossible. That's pretty assured for

16:01

him to say, for Allen to take

16:03

that perspective, you know, that he says.

16:06

over and

16:12

over

16:22

showed over and over again the power

16:24

of coercion was to have a group

16:26

of people. and in a

16:28

class and being told, you know, given

16:31

a simple equation or even

16:33

shown a set of lines.

16:35

And if all seven out of

16:37

eight people agree that line

16:39

A is longer than line

16:41

B, even though it's not,

16:43

the person you're looking at,

16:45

you're looking at it, you

16:47

can see, you could measure

16:49

it with your finger, they

16:51

will eventually collapse and agree

16:54

with the group just to go. to

16:56

not be an outlier, to not be

16:58

the center of attention. So, you know, that,

17:00

that speaks to the power of techniques

17:02

like this, and that's not necessarily a

17:05

good thing. You know, it sounds like...

17:07

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

17:09

Yeah. I was just going to say

17:11

exactly that. Same thing when you have... Oh,

17:13

that's how juries act. Yep. It's

17:16

exactly how they act when you have...

17:18

I've witnessed, I've been on those juries

17:20

where there's, you know, you've got... Two

17:22

people that are holdouts that have

17:24

heard all the evidence, they've heard

17:26

all the discussion and they're like,

17:28

no, not guilty, not guilty, not

17:31

guilty, not guilty. And then after

17:33

the second Allen charge, they come

17:35

through, okay, now they're guilty. Well,

17:37

what changed? Nothing changed. Nothing

17:39

changed except for exactly what

17:41

you're talking about. They're just

17:43

tired of pushing against the

17:45

herd. And yeah, the stats, I'm wondering, oh,

17:48

sorry, I would rather. Have someone

17:50

guilty go free than someone innocent

17:52

go to prison Which actually you

17:54

know, which dovetails perfectly with what I

17:56

was going to say which is I'm

17:59

wonder the statistics of people holding

18:01

out because they insist someone's

18:03

guilty versus people holding out

18:05

because it says someone is not

18:07

guilty, is it more often that the

18:09

pressure that you fold if you are

18:11

voting not guilty than if you are voting

18:14

guilty? You know what I'm saying? Like,

18:16

is it more often that someone says,

18:18

I really feel this person is not

18:20

guilty, but the pressure of all of

18:22

these people saying this person's guilty and

18:24

has to be held accountable causes me

18:26

to say guilty? versus someone who's like,

18:28

I know in my bones this person

18:31

is guilty, I'm never going to say

18:33

they're not guilty because they're accountable. You

18:35

know what I'm saying? I just wonder

18:37

if it's, I bet it's not, I

18:39

bet they're not equal. I bet they're

18:41

not equal. I don't know that's quantifiable,

18:43

but that's a great perspective. And I

18:45

wish we had the data on that. That'd

18:47

be fascinating. Yeah. There

19:02

were a few things, I don't know, hopefully,

19:04

because I'm trying to remember what they were,

19:06

but I know there was a few different things,

19:08

Scott, that I called you out in the episode

19:10

that I wanted you to take note of. One

19:13

of them that I heard, I heard it, I

19:15

was like, oh, shit, I got right there. One

19:17

of them I remember, and I'm not even you,

19:19

was when I was, we kind of already talked

19:21

about how, you know, that he just was, you

19:24

know, that he just was, you know, you

19:26

know, that he just was, you just was,

19:28

you know, you know, There was never like

19:30

there's never even a crime. It was like

19:32

literally someone said something offhand to a

19:34

cop. You know, and I work with cops, you

19:36

know, so they like said something like

19:39

kind of somebody was pissed off about

19:41

something and it said something and it

19:43

said something and it said something

19:45

and then the cop took it upon

19:47

themselves to be like, oh, well, I'm

19:50

going to investigate this crime and start

19:52

going around and start going around and

19:54

start going around and start hearing

19:56

from all these people. that that

19:59

first it was that the cops

20:01

are investigating you and then it was

20:03

that you did this and then they

20:05

wouldn't say that to me but then

20:07

I heard that so and so told

20:10

so and so told so and so

20:12

that you did this thing and it

20:14

was like I'm like what the fuck

20:16

is happening you know it was it

20:18

was it was it was it was

20:20

it was it was so there was

20:22

there was that feeling for me where

20:24

it was and then when I finally

20:27

confront and this was long enough ago

20:29

that I wasn't you know right now

20:31

I would never even have a conversation

20:33

with a conversation with a conversation with

20:35

a conversation with a conversation with a

20:37

conversation with a Like this is not,

20:39

and they're like, well, we think, da,

20:41

da, da, da, da, I'm like, bullshit.

20:44

You could never, ever, ever, ever, ever,

20:46

ever, ever, ever prove that happened, because

20:48

it didn't happen. Why are you doing,

20:50

you know, why are you doing this?

20:52

And I just, you know, I would

20:54

all, and it was, kind of that

20:56

same reaction. They're like, well, we think,

20:58

like, well, we think, it was, it

21:01

wasn't even a fear, it was a

21:03

realization, it was, it was, it was,

21:05

it was, it was, it was, it

21:07

was, it was, it was, it was,

21:09

it was, it was, it was, it

21:11

was, it was, it was, it was,

21:13

it was, it was, it was, it

21:15

was, it was, it was, it was,

21:18

it was, it was, it, it was,

21:20

it, it was, it was, it was,

21:22

it, it, it, Like, all these people

21:24

think I did this bad thing that

21:26

I didn't do. Like, I felt like

21:28

my life was ruined. It wasn't, obviously,

21:30

time goes on, but, you know, I

21:32

felt like my life was being ruined.

21:35

I never even for a second thought

21:37

I'm going to jail for this, you

21:39

know, that didn't even cross my mind.

21:41

It's kind of that's what I was

21:43

seeing in him. But the other thing

21:45

was, piggybacking onto that was, so to

21:47

me I kept seeing that there was

21:49

seeing that there was going to prison.

21:52

But then when he seemed that where

21:54

I saw him actually get emotional at

21:56

least it seemed to me was With

21:58

Kathy when his wife came in and

22:00

she was upset and she was crying

22:02

and and and and he's he's kind

22:04

of consider I remember what the other

22:06

thing is to we'll talk about this

22:09

first you know that he's consoling her

22:11

and then later in the interview you

22:13

hear him like go you know when

22:15

they're like well you look at you

22:17

you you're getting mad now and he

22:19

says yeah did you see what you're

22:21

doing to my wife? Did you notice

22:24

the same thing? Did you get the

22:26

same vibe? What do you think about

22:28

that, the way that he was, that

22:30

that was the thing, because it's gonna

22:32

play, and I asked that because it's

22:34

gonna. play in later as we go

22:36

into the next episode too, as far

22:38

as his mental state and his kind

22:41

of dependence or protectiveness or whatever about

22:43

his wife. So what were your thoughts

22:45

on all that? Okay, so narrow it

22:47

down a little bit. Because we wouldn't

22:49

win a little. To put it in

22:51

a nutshell, to put it in a

22:53

nutshell, he was less emotional and angry,

22:55

in my opinion, about being accused of

22:58

this, about being, you know, he was

23:00

not concerned about being convicted of being

23:02

convicted of this crime. What he was

23:04

upset about was two things. One was

23:06

that other people were going to think

23:08

he did it. Right. And two, the

23:10

thing that he got really angry about

23:12

and emotional about was that they were

23:15

putting his wife through this. Right. Okay.

23:17

So the first part of your question

23:19

or your observation is what I would

23:21

frame that is that that's in that's

23:23

what happened to you and what's happened

23:25

in other situations. Unfortunately, is the the

23:27

the the pool is spoiled. like the

23:29

pool of information now is tainted because

23:32

somebody dropped a pebble in the wrong

23:34

area or at the wrong time. You

23:36

know, a great example of this is

23:38

Richard Jewell, you know, talk about somebody

23:40

else whose life was just ruined by

23:42

those accusations. Innocent guy, yeah. Or even

23:44

Ray Bucki in the Martin preschool hearings,

23:46

you know, just because one severely mentally

23:49

ill woman made an accusation about her

23:51

child at the hands of this person

23:53

and that set off a firestorm because

23:55

the police took it and sent an

23:57

email, said no, and this was long

23:59

before email, sent a letter to all

24:01

of the community members, if your child

24:03

has had any reaction with this person,

24:06

they may have been molested. I mean,

24:08

like it's just crazy to think about.

24:10

So yeah, poisoning the pool like that

24:12

is just is bad police work. But

24:14

in terms of how it affects the

24:16

individual is significant as well, because when

24:18

you are invested. in your presentation. gone

24:20

back and forth with Alan on this,

24:23

like I remember one of the things

24:25

that was impressive was how he was

24:27

holding it together. I mean, part of

24:29

me went, dude, why didn't you just

24:31

say, fuck all y'all, and get me

24:33

an attorney, I'm out of here. Yeah.

24:35

But, you know, and there are two

24:37

schools of thought about that, you know,

24:40

the true psychopathic or antisocial criminal, feels

24:42

like they can fake it. So they're

24:44

going to go all in. or the

24:46

person who actually believes that they're innocent

24:48

will actually go all in too because

24:50

they keep you know it all becomes

24:52

surreal to them this cannot be happening

24:54

how is this person accusing me of

24:57

this so you know we can go

24:59

either direction regardless you know how we

25:01

feel that now to your next point

25:03

about how he reacted with his wife

25:05

is that and I even went to

25:07

the point where I was going is

25:09

he on blood pressure medication or is

25:12

he on you know, a benzo or

25:14

something that's keeping him from having like

25:16

a huge surge of anger because there

25:18

were many times throughout this, even before

25:20

Holman started getting, you know, louder and

25:22

angrier, it was so circular, I just

25:24

thought like I would have thrown my

25:26

hands up and said this is bullshit,

25:29

I'm out of here. Or I think

25:31

that I would, you know, I like

25:33

to assume that I would, you know,

25:35

we don't know what we're in that

25:37

situation. But I'm sorry Janet, Janet, what

25:39

were you know, what were you gonna

25:41

say? Oh, I was just going to

25:43

agree with you. I had the same

25:46

thought, Dr. Scott, because I, because we

25:48

know, we hear about his mental health

25:50

history, he talks about it, and it's

25:52

also out there, it's a big part

25:54

of the trial. But I have the

25:56

same thought, because if I were going

25:58

in to a situation like that, I

26:00

could see myself going, I might need

26:03

to take like, for Pranolol or whatever,

26:05

because just being closed in a small

26:07

room with people. kind of intimating that

26:09

I can't leave. I mean for a

26:11

long time I I was afraid I

26:13

couldn't serve on a jury because I

26:15

just had this, if you've ever had

26:17

a panic disorder or anxiety, it's not

26:20

that you think the situation, it doesn't

26:22

necessarily take a specific situation to trigger

26:24

that. It could just be as simple

26:26

as what if I have a panic

26:28

attack in a situation in which it's

26:30

incredibly inappropriate and it's incredibly not useful

26:32

and the more pressure you feel. in

26:34

that situation, the more likely it is

26:37

that we're going to create it. You're

26:39

already having anticipatory anxiety. Totally. So it's

26:41

very easy to, yeah. So it's easy

26:43

to imagine being like, okay, I need

26:45

to take, I'm, maybe I should take

26:47

something, not something that's mind altering, but

26:49

just something like propranol, propranol. Yeah. Any

26:51

of the medications that are used for

26:54

blood pressure. Actually, I mean, it's sort

26:56

of, we've, in the, in the, in

26:58

the, in the, in the, in the

27:00

treatment world, in the treatment world, in

27:02

the treatment world, in the, in the,

27:04

in the, in the, in the, in

27:06

the, in the, in the, in the,

27:08

in the, in the, in the, in

27:11

the, in the, in the, in the,

27:13

to prescribe blood pressure medication so that

27:15

individuals can safely relive their trauma without

27:17

getting all of the chemicals activated, you

27:19

could process it. What was, so to

27:21

tie that back to what we're talking

27:23

about is when you see him get

27:25

upset because of the secondary factor, the

27:28

effect that it's having on his wife

27:30

and how upset she is, and it's

27:32

showing how protective he feels like, you

27:34

know, either. his adrenaline is pumping so

27:36

much that it's pushing through or pushing

27:38

through the medication which can happen but

27:40

it's not very common like I think

27:43

that that is notable to me that's

27:45

notable that like how dare you do

27:47

this to this person I care about

27:49

that's here and it's one he's not

27:51

stating the thing that surprised me is

27:53

how he did not find a voice

27:55

to say you're lying when he knew

27:57

Or from his perspective, if we're assuming

28:00

that he's innocent, he knows that there's

28:02

no evidence, then why isn't he coming

28:04

more for with this? But then again...

28:06

Like you said earlier Janet, everybody has

28:08

their own experience with trauma and retromatization

28:10

and how we mask and deal with

28:12

it because we are still taught that

28:14

police are authority and they're there to

28:17

be trusted and they're here to protect

28:19

the community. And because I've worked closely

28:21

with police, I've met many, many police

28:23

that are absolutely invested in doing that.

28:25

But I really believe that interrogation techniques

28:27

like this. need to be completely overhauled

28:29

because there are too many people out

28:31

there. There are too many, you know,

28:34

barrel-chested guys that are certified and read

28:36

technique that have done over 11,000 interviews,

28:38

you know, and they've got their LinkedIn

28:40

pages going. And it's like, you're not

28:42

a subject matter expert. You're a bro

28:44

dude who's found your own Joe Robin

28:46

in the read technique. That's sort of

28:48

my take on it. And God knows

28:51

the shit I'm going to get for

28:53

that. I know that's so well said

28:55

that it is really notable that he

28:57

acted with so much emotion out of

28:59

care for you know his the main

29:01

support in his life knowing that she

29:03

had been going through something similar in

29:05

another room but I don't know but

29:08

I don't know if that indicates either

29:10

way about guilt or innocence. Well I

29:12

don't I don't think either but what

29:14

it did for me and I think

29:16

it's kind of the point you're making

29:18

is it's because it seemed like he

29:20

was so kind of emotionless through the

29:22

accusatory part of everything and the bullet

29:25

and all the stuff that he's, so

29:27

it was almost like does he, does

29:29

this guy, maybe he's just, for me,

29:31

I'm trying to assess everything on a

29:33

baseline, like is this just a guy

29:35

that doesn't show emotion, is that what

29:37

I'm, is that what I'm, is that

29:39

what I'm seeing here, you know, how

29:42

do I judge these behaviors, but then

29:44

when he had that reaction about his

29:46

wife and about people thinking that he

29:48

did that he did, he does get

29:50

emotional. But it wasn't that emotional. But

29:52

it was, it was, it was, it

29:54

was, it was all, to me is

29:56

when he showed anger, but it was,

29:59

it was like. he was angry at

30:01

them, he pushed back on that. And

30:03

so to me it was like, okay,

30:05

so he does, like, he does get

30:07

mad, he does get upset, but it

30:09

was about these things, but not about

30:11

this thing, with this thing, and I

30:13

think to answer your question as far

30:16

as, or what you said about, why

30:18

doesn't he say you're lying? I think

30:20

a lot of people don't know police

30:22

are allowed to lie, and that was

30:24

to me what I kept looking to

30:26

me, like, like, That bullet came from

30:28

your gun and he's just like I

30:31

don't like you keep asking me to

30:33

tell you how it happened I can't

30:35

I have no idea that's impossible He

30:37

just kept saying it's impossible. It's impossible.

30:39

I think it's easy And he got

30:41

a hint at yet he continues with

30:43

the interview which is very I don't

30:45

it's just notable I don't know how

30:48

to interpret it because I don't have

30:50

enough data, but again, and maybe maybe

30:52

it's because all of us here. We're

30:54

steeped in this in this in this

30:56

in this genre But again, I go

30:58

back to that, why not just shut

31:00

the whole thing down and say, I've

31:02

got nothing else to say to you?

31:05

That part didn't surprise me a bit.

31:07

I've seen, because I've just studied so

31:09

many interrogations and everybody always thinks, whether

31:11

they're innocent or guilty, that they could

31:13

talk their way out. They're going to

31:15

be able to reason their way. Yeah,

31:17

so I mean, that makes them look

31:19

guilty. Yeah. Like I've said before, the

31:22

read technique handbook says you should expect

31:24

to get your confession in the fourth

31:26

hour of interrogation in the fourth hour

31:28

of interrogation. Right. So here's the thing

31:30

that this is a problem. You should

31:32

expect to get your confession, but you're

31:34

also going in with the assumption that

31:36

the person is guilty. Yeah. Right. Right.

31:39

So there's there isn't like a neutral

31:41

area of ambivalence where it's like we're

31:43

going to get some more information from

31:45

this person. No. It's like they're ready

31:47

to go because they feel like they

31:49

have all the evidence or they have

31:51

enough evidence or they don't have enough

31:53

evidence. So now they have to go

31:56

and and go through this in order

31:58

to where the person down. Yeah, engage

32:00

in psychological warfare and here's the steps

32:02

to do it. Yes. to break someone's

32:04

spirit, this is how to get them

32:06

to, to say what you want, essentially

32:08

what the book should say is, here's

32:10

a way to get people to say

32:13

what you want them to say. It's

32:15

a four hour process. That's what it

32:17

should say, because that's what it is.

32:19

They didn't even take four hours. That's

32:21

what it's designed to do. Well, no,

32:23

he never confessed. No, but I mean,

32:25

by the time he gets to like,

32:27

it feels, yell at him. like you

32:30

can go into bad cop mode and

32:32

you can mirror their angry behavior like

32:34

because that last piece where he does

32:36

remain extremely calm and it's a very

32:38

uncomfortable listen after Kathy's gone and he's

32:40

just the guys just dropping F bombs

32:42

left and right and screaming at him

32:44

it's just so uncomfortable but yeah I

32:47

mean the the the the the book

32:49

it talks about getting aggressive and he

32:51

he and that was the thing what

32:53

I noticed too like kind of analyzing

32:55

Holman is like he broke character he

32:57

was going by the book boom boom

32:59

boom boom boom and what you're supposed

33:01

to do at that point to just

33:04

keep wearing on him right he should

33:06

he should have kept wearing on him

33:08

for three more hours but eventually Alan

33:10

did say I'm done arrest me or

33:12

I'm leaving I'm done and that's it

33:14

and that's when he put a stop

33:16

to it so he put a stop

33:19

to it so he didn't get to

33:21

keep going for for longer I do

33:23

sometimes still push it because he didn't

33:25

specifically say I want a lawyer and

33:27

I'm done but he said I said

33:29

I'm done but you know he said

33:31

I'm done but you know he said

33:33

I'm done but you know the book

33:36

I'm done but you know the book

33:38

talks about the book talks about the

33:40

book talks about scoot closer to them

33:42

get close you know invade their personal

33:44

space and do it and then kind

33:46

of I say do the same thing

33:48

scoot right into their lap and give

33:50

them a big old icky on the

33:53

net make them just as push back

33:55

make them as comfortable touch their wrist

33:57

touch the inside of their wrist if

33:59

you can that always like it's a

34:01

button for freaking people out wow yeah

34:03

so I think this I was going

34:05

to say something else about about it

34:07

I know there's a question about so

34:10

why don't why don't we get into

34:12

the questions you have Janet you have

34:14

Janet you have Janet so we can

34:16

zip through those sure For sure, and

34:18

I just want to reiterate that last

34:20

week, you know, I guess we'll kind

34:22

of split the difference I don't want

34:24

to I don't want Scott to feel

34:27

beholden to answer questions about evidence or

34:29

guilt or innocence rather than behavior just

34:31

because we are honored to have him

34:33

as a guest. So I had skipped

34:35

some last week. We also just spoke

34:37

for a long time because there was

34:39

a lot to say. But like for

34:41

example, Whitney I know you did post

34:44

something last week and the reason that

34:46

I didn't get a chance to address

34:48

it is because it was more evidence

34:50

based and more guilty or innocent or

34:52

not guilty based. and we were talking

34:54

more about observing behavior from the actual

34:56

video, so we kind of steered away

34:58

from some of that. But I want

35:01

to acknowledge, you know, you did post

35:03

again, and so I'll just go ahead

35:05

and acknowledge that you said, you know,

35:07

can we, essentially what you asked was,

35:09

can we come at this from the

35:11

position that Richard Allen is actually guilty,

35:13

because everything that Whitney has seen, she

35:15

believes that they caught the right person,

35:18

but at the same time does not

35:20

feel that the trial proved it. from

35:22

what she has seen from multiple sources.

35:24

She just truly believes that they caught

35:26

the right person, but that it shouldn't

35:28

have gone through the court the way

35:30

that it did. And she feels that

35:32

it leaves herself and everyone else in

35:35

a super awkward position where she truly

35:37

believes that the right person is behind

35:39

bars, but doesn't believe they've proved in

35:41

court a law. So we said that

35:43

a few different ways. I mean, wouldn't

35:45

you, not to push back, I kind

35:47

of do feel like we've had that

35:49

conversation. I mean, that's something that Bob

35:52

has said many times. leading up to

35:54

these conversations even before these last couple

35:56

of episodes. Bob you've repeatedly said I

35:58

really don't know and I'm really uncomfortable

36:00

with the idea that this person is

36:02

guilty and yet the system failed in

36:04

the sense that a guilty person still

36:07

should have walked free because the trial

36:09

was such a mess or because the

36:11

evidence was such a mess. So no

36:13

disrespect. I just feel like we talked

36:15

about it a little bit at least.

36:17

Well, to address her directly, the beginning

36:19

of her question was, you know, could

36:21

we approach this from the position that

36:24

he's actually guilty? And the answer for

36:26

me is no. That's not what it

36:28

is. So it depends what you're tuning

36:30

in for, right? Or if you're tuning

36:32

in to somebody to tell you a

36:34

story or a narrative, they'll have whatever

36:36

perspective they have. What we do on

36:38

this show, whether you like it or

36:41

trusted or not, is we analyze cases

36:43

to try to determine if someone is

36:45

innocent or guilty. So I'm never going

36:47

to go into this process with a

36:49

perspective of Richard Allen's innocent, now let

36:51

me watch this and prove it. Can

36:53

I glean anything from these interviews that

36:55

will maybe help me make a better

36:58

determination? Because the evidence is weak and

37:00

I would, you know, I struggle with,

37:02

like, the, from everything I see, he's

37:04

guilty. I'm not saying you're wrong. I

37:06

don't get, because that's one thing that

37:08

I, you know, there's some other people

37:10

that have comment and stuff that, listen,

37:12

in general, here's a little kindergarten lesson

37:15

for everybody. It's okay to disagree with

37:17

somebody about their conclusion and have a...

37:19

meaningful discussion about it. I'm constantly amazed

37:21

at the people that will like, oh,

37:23

I disagree and therefore I'm angry at

37:25

you because you think something different than

37:27

me. And it comes out very clear

37:29

in their questions or posts and stuff

37:32

like that. So that's just beside the

37:34

point. That's just beside the point. That's

37:36

not you post, whoever this person. I

37:38

forgot the name. You said that Whitney.

37:40

I think that's not, I'm not talking

37:42

about you, but some other people, but

37:44

some other people. But for me, like

37:46

when somebody says that I felt that

37:49

I felt that I felt that I

37:51

felt that way. I really do. I

37:53

do. I do. I've been very closely

37:55

attached to this case for many years.

37:57

It's one of those that's literally physically

37:59

close to me. It's close to where

38:01

I live. When they arrest Richard Allen,

38:03

I was so relieved that they finally

38:06

caught the guy and the bastard who

38:08

did this is going to pay for

38:10

it. And I wanted nothing more than

38:12

to have all the evidence come out

38:14

of trial and said they got him

38:16

and that's it. So this is not

38:18

something that I'm happy about is the

38:20

fact. that I don't feel comfortable. I

38:23

mean like what like to say everything

38:25

points to him being it I and

38:27

again this is a discussion for another

38:29

episode that we will get into but

38:31

it was like what what is it

38:33

that makes you like this bullet like

38:35

in I know I know there's a

38:38

question about it so I'll wait to

38:40

get into that but like that's not

38:42

convincing these interviews I'm sure as hell

38:44

not convinced by these interviews if anything

38:46

they make me lean as I said

38:48

in the other way The confessions, which

38:50

we'll talk about next week, you know,

38:52

that's the one thing that I think

38:55

you could hang your hat on, but

38:57

I think this case is questionable at

38:59

best, but yeah, I don't want to

39:01

go on. We're already going to get

39:03

to the point where we're going to

39:05

run out of time if I go

39:07

to on too long about this. Go

39:09

ahead, Scott. Well, first of all, I

39:12

don't have an out tonight like I

39:14

did last week, so... We shouldn't be

39:16

assuming... there's guilt because that's we're supposed

39:18

to be honoring what is actually one

39:20

of the better judicial systems in the

39:22

world and that's not saying much you

39:24

know but we have a pretty good

39:26

system here or we're supposed to have

39:29

a good system here and many times

39:31

we get pulled into this innocent until

39:33

proven guilty when it's actually supposed to

39:35

be innocent until proven otherwise and even

39:37

in this system, we know that there

39:39

are a lot of flaws and things

39:41

happen. And I do, I mean, at

39:43

least in the times that we've been

39:46

speaking and preparing for this, is I

39:48

think that we are taking a big

39:50

picture. Again, I keep saying, I don't

39:52

know. I'm observing that if he is

39:54

guilty of these crimes, then he really

39:56

deserves an award for acting because... you

39:58

know that that interview it was really

40:00

off putting in just hearing this person

40:03

no no no that's not happening, that's

40:05

not happening. But yeah, I mean, I

40:07

get the sentiment, but I think that's

40:09

also part of the discomfort of sitting

40:11

in the gray area of not knowing.

40:13

And nobody wants to be there, right?

40:15

We want to be certain about things.

40:17

We want to be certain about what

40:20

we're looking at, what we're understanding, your

40:22

bad, this person's good, and it's just

40:24

not clean like that. That's one of

40:26

the reason that this this whole genre

40:28

keeps churning around. Yeah, and I think

40:30

that a lot of the the bad

40:32

blood that comes out through Social media

40:34

or whatever about any of these podcasts

40:37

or anybody that's talking about something like

40:39

this because I think there's a need

40:41

from from like the general population More

40:43

so that that want validation like people

40:45

have like they've heard whatever they've researched

40:47

and they've come to a conclusion and

40:49

so they want to tune into the

40:51

podcast in here someone supporting the conclusion

40:54

that I've come to and I think

40:56

that I don't I don't think it's

40:58

intentional I think it's in most cases

41:00

it is it's rooted deeper than that

41:02

but it's like well I've already made

41:04

up my mind and now you're you're

41:06

saying something else well you you must

41:08

not be approaching it right right you

41:11

know it's it's that cognative dissonance is

41:13

thrown around like an insult all the

41:15

time but it would take it to

41:17

its true meaning is just literally like

41:19

it's hard to reconcile and in your

41:21

mind I think sometimes if it's like

41:23

I've decided this why is this you

41:26

know assuming Whitney is a fan of

41:28

the show and and tunes in to

41:30

hear me doing analysis because she likes

41:32

my analysis for whatever reason they're like

41:34

why is this podcast or I like

41:36

saying so the opposite of what I

41:38

believe there has to be a opposite

41:40

of what I believe there has to

41:43

be a reason for that and I

41:45

don't think it's something that is you

41:47

know like intentional or come from a

41:49

bad place or anything like that doesn't

41:51

mean I'm right either. Yeah. Like I'm

41:53

not any different. Somebody said something like,

41:55

how can you say that he's innocent

41:57

with this? And I was like, careful.

42:00

I didn't say he was innocent. What

42:02

I said is after so far me hearing

42:04

this much of the evidence, which we

42:06

haven't had all the data available to

42:08

us yet, but as we're getting it, as

42:10

I've heard it, the opinion that I

42:12

have personally come to is I'm feeling

42:15

more and more like they've got the

42:17

wrong guy. That's just my opinion. I'm

42:19

not saying he's innocent. I'm saying I'm

42:22

feeling that way. And you're allowed to

42:24

feel differently than that. That's a great

42:26

distinction. And on that topic, this is

42:29

so off topic, but what the hell,

42:31

it's my show. I just want to point

42:33

out, there's a listener, her name's

42:35

Jennifer, it's someone who I've had

42:37

conflict with on the show and on

42:40

social media in the past about other

42:42

cases where we've butted heads a whole

42:44

lot and somebody that I kind of

42:47

like in the time did my own

42:49

version of what I'm talking about right

42:51

now, where I just kind of. put her

42:53

aside as she's a troll. She's this. I

42:55

just want to give a shout out if

42:57

she's listening or anybody is that

42:59

the kids are working on the

43:02

group that's working on the Jeanette

43:04

Roberson case. This person Jennifer

43:06

has a connection to that case and

43:08

has done some research on it. And

43:10

despite our previous, I mean years of

43:12

hating each other online, like reached out

43:14

to me and was like, you know,

43:16

this case is important to me, I

43:19

want to help. We've had a ton

43:21

of communication back and I don't

43:23

know, it was just one of

43:25

those moments I had, it was

43:28

just today, I just exchanged an

43:30

email with her today and I

43:32

was thinking like what, like, and neither

43:34

of us are like, you know

43:36

what, actually I like you, you

43:38

know, but it's just like, you

43:41

know what, I was wrong about

43:43

probably what I thought her motivation

43:45

was years ago and had this

43:47

opinion of her and then now

43:49

I'm seeing that, you know, like,

43:51

you, I, you know, people have

43:53

an assumption about, I mean,

43:56

I put a lot of myself out

43:58

there on our show, but, you know, you're

44:00

really only seeing one facet of me,

44:02

or maybe you're seeing five facets, but

44:04

you know, I have a lot. And

44:07

I love that you gave that example

44:09

of coming back around. I, you know,

44:11

we did a meetup two weeks ago

44:14

and had, you know, like about 10

44:16

of our local LA area people come

44:18

and hang out with us at Fikeshed

44:21

and downtown LA, had a blast. And

44:23

I had like the greatest conversation with

44:25

three listeners that had very different opinions

44:28

on some high profile cases than I

44:30

do. And it was the greatest conversation

44:32

because everybody was willing to go, well,

44:35

look, this is what convinced me in

44:37

this case, because I looked at this,

44:39

this, and this. And it wasn't, you

44:42

know, it wasn't like craziness, it wasn't

44:44

out there kind of stuff, it was

44:46

all evidence based stuff. And I countered

44:49

with But this to me is the

44:51

underpinning of it. And you know, but

44:53

anyway, the point being is like we

44:56

can have healthy conversations, but we have

44:58

to work at having healthy conversations. There

45:00

are a lot of people that get

45:03

behind the anonymity of a keyboard and

45:05

they're like, oh yeah. How I reacted

45:07

to things and you know because I

45:09

got bombarded with you know negative shit

45:12

all the time So like I had

45:14

this quick reaction was like oh I

45:16

know what this person is this person's

45:19

a troll duh and then now like

45:21

I'm having this conversation. I'm like they're

45:23

not a Troll. They were just mad

45:26

because of what I didn't then I

45:28

got mad and they said shit and

45:30

then I said shit and then like

45:33

and it's like now also now we're

45:35

working together on something. We're working together

45:37

on something. We're working together on That

45:40

bits for three guys. I don't know

45:42

when the right time to bring that

45:44

up would be. You know, it's not

45:47

going to fall into a classic bucket

45:49

of like what we're talking about in

45:51

an episode. And I think I really

45:54

appreciate you having that grace and knowing

45:56

that she gave that grace and respect

45:58

to you. I think that's really lovely

46:01

too. It's never the perfect time to

46:03

say that maybe, and it's never the

46:05

wrong time to say that. That's important.

46:08

And especially when we see that exactly

46:10

what Dr. Scott was talking about, not

46:12

just the like you have to have

46:14

a firm decision or that everything's black

46:17

and white and chiloh said it when

46:19

she was on the show, on your

46:21

show Bob recently too, is this idea

46:24

that we're living in an era where

46:26

more than ever now, it's perceived as

46:28

weakness. to be undecided and to feel

46:31

that we live in the gray. And

46:33

that's a huge bummer because that's where

46:35

these kinds of confrontational, adversarial things come

46:38

up where it's like, well, if you're

46:40

interested in wrongful convictions, then you are

46:42

categorically cannot be a victim's advocate. You

46:45

cannot ever be thinking about victims' rights

46:47

or a family's rights because you've, you've,

46:49

the die is cast and that's just

46:52

not fair and it's not fair for

46:54

us to do the same. you know,

46:56

to somebody who maybe, you know, is

46:59

advocating hard for the hay families of

47:01

the world, the haymanly families of the

47:03

world, who, you know, at times we

47:06

feel frustrated because we worry about what

47:08

it's going to do to future cases.

47:10

But, you know, everybody can live in

47:13

the gray. It's really hard, but we

47:15

can do it. And I think we

47:17

can still get a lot of work

47:19

done. I

47:33

do want to segue into another listener

47:36

because this is another listener who is

47:38

very very thoughtful and a critical thinker

47:40

and has, you know, I don't want

47:43

to say pushback necessarily, but has definitely

47:45

isolated certain pieces that she feels were

47:47

overlooked or would like you to address

47:50

more succinctly. In past cases as well,

47:52

Kate says, where is your source? We'll

47:54

talk about the gun here for the

47:57

statement that they tested multiple other guns.

47:59

That was also... determined as sufficient agreement,

48:01

the scientific appropriate term for a match

48:04

in physical comparisons. I followed the case

48:06

closely using multiple sources, both pro-defense and

48:08

prosecution, and neither said they tested multiple

48:11

guns and they were also determined as

48:13

meeting sufficient agreement. Only Richard Allen's did,

48:15

the others were not determined to be

48:18

any match. And then all, there's a

48:20

second piece to this that is separate

48:22

that we should address separately. Yeah. Okay,

48:25

so my source was a million places

48:27

online. I went back to double check

48:29

this. So I had heard it, I

48:32

think I originally heard it from Bob

48:34

Mata, but then I went and checked

48:36

several. So what I tried to do

48:39

is go to news sources from people

48:41

that legacy media people that were at

48:43

the trial and were reporting on what

48:46

was said, because none of us have

48:48

seen the trial transcripts yet. What they

48:50

said. So the firearms expert was Melissa

48:53

Oberg and she testified everything we talked

48:55

about as far as Alan Six Hour

48:57

P 226. that the one round was

49:00

able to, he was, they could not

49:02

exclude his round because it had sufficient

49:04

agreement. They also, during cross-examination, they asked

49:07

if they can, if she compared the

49:09

bullet to rounds from Brad Weber, who

49:11

was the guy that lived right there,

49:14

because he also had a six-hour, and

49:16

she said his gun could not be

49:18

excluded either. So Richard Allen's gun. couldn't

49:21

be excluded, and Brad Weber's gun couldn't

49:23

be excluded. And then they continued on

49:25

through cross-examination and asked, like, could this

49:28

bullet have had that kind of agreement

49:30

with any, any Sig sour 40 caliber

49:32

that, you know, of this, of this,

49:35

this make and model? And according to

49:37

all the, every single article that I

49:39

found online where they were talking about

49:42

who were that trial that day, They

49:44

said that she conceded yes, it could

49:46

have. What I had read was, I'm

49:49

kind of reading from my notes here,

49:51

that she had said, no, there's no

49:53

way to pinpoint that it came from

49:56

one. particular gun, it very well could

49:58

have come from any six hour 40

50:00

caliber from that. But it was compared

50:03

to Brian Weber's and his also could

50:05

not be could not be excluded from

50:07

that. So that's my story. And I

50:10

don't know what sources you have that

50:12

say that that was never done, but

50:14

from everything, it's pretty consistent across every

50:17

article I've read that, yeah, it came

50:19

in direct examination. It was. Yep, we

50:21

did the test, it was sufficient agreement,

50:24

so it probably came from his gun.

50:26

And then a cross is like, wait,

50:28

didn't you test it to Brad Weber's?

50:31

Well, yeah, his couldn't be excluded either.

50:33

Could it have come from any six

50:35

hour? Well, yeah, probably could have come

50:38

from any six hour. Could it be

50:40

nailed down to one gun like this?

50:42

No, it can't be. That's what I

50:44

was getting at. And all of that

50:47

is important and absolutely worthy of consideration

50:49

and worthy of dialogue. I don't mean

50:51

to discount to discount it for everyone

50:54

across the board. I

50:56

will never get past that they had

50:58

to do something to the weapon that

51:00

was not done on the crime scene.

51:03

I'll never get past it. I mean,

51:05

I just won't. I just can't. I

51:07

can't. I can't have someone say, well

51:09

yes, we had to do something different.

51:11

The nature of the test radically changed.

51:14

Like, I just can't. You know what

51:16

I mean? I can't. Well that's the

51:18

thing is, is toolmark analysis like this

51:20

is bordering on, I mean I think

51:23

it is junk science, it's being challenged

51:25

as junk science all over the place,

51:27

but it's not, if you look at

51:29

like the, if it's not, you know,

51:31

scientifically if you're doing some kind of

51:34

experiment, like you have to, it has

51:36

to be repeatable, you know, like a

51:38

fingerprint, a fingerprint, I could put my

51:40

fingerprint on any surface, anything, anywhere that

51:43

I touch it, where you're able to

51:45

pull a clean latent latent print off.

51:47

that's not smudder, obviously there could be

51:49

smudge, there's a lot of different things,

51:51

but if I, if you get a

51:54

clean print of my finger, years apart

51:56

on multiple different things, it will always

51:58

match. It's a repeatable science. DNA, same

52:00

thing. It either, it either has the

52:03

alleles that match. or it doesn't. It's

52:05

repeatable over and over again. This idea

52:07

that it's like, well, it was ejected

52:09

out of the gun, I ejected out

52:11

of the gun, doesn't match. Let me

52:14

try it again. Doesn't match. Try it

52:16

again. Nope, that one doesn't match. This

52:18

one doesn't match. Well, let's try firing

52:20

it. Nope, that still doesn't match. Well,

52:23

let's try firing it. Nope, that still

52:25

doesn't match. Well, let's try firing it.

52:27

Nope, fire in. Let's fire. Let's a

52:29

fire in it. Let's a fire in

52:31

it. Let's a fire in it. Well,

52:34

no. Let's a fire in it, no.

52:36

Let's a fire in it, no. Let's

52:38

a fire in it, no. Let's a.

52:40

Let's a fire. Let's a. Let's a

52:42

fire. Let's a no. Let's a fire.

52:45

Let's a no. Let's a. Let's a

52:47

fire. Let's a. Let's a fire. Let's

52:49

Again, I also do not know if

52:51

Richard Allen was guilty. I just feel

52:54

that that test was... that was crazy

52:56

to me. Okay. Additionally, why did you

52:58

not also include observations of Richard Allen's

53:00

physical reactions? Like for instance, his constant

53:02

glances at the crime scene photos of

53:05

the girls, or how Kathy Allen's physical

53:07

reaction, which in most opinions she was

53:09

trying to put space between her and

53:11

Richard Allen. It was weird to hear

53:14

your analysis not include any other observation

53:16

than his words. when you could see

53:18

his body language too. And in other

53:20

cases where video was involved, you did

53:22

comment on their physical too. Before Scott

53:25

chimes in, I'll just say, from my

53:27

perspective and Scott's the expert, I just

53:29

didn't see any notable behaviors. I didn't

53:31

see anything that was, for example, for

53:34

example, in the notable behaviors. I didn't

53:36

see anything that was, for example, in

53:38

the first one, there was the water,

53:40

Personally, I didn't see anything that I

53:42

thought was a notable behavior, but go

53:45

ahead Scott, you had your hand up.

53:47

First of all, I love that you're

53:49

using the word notable. Did I plant

53:51

that in you? Yes, you did. I

53:54

love it. Oh my God, I love

53:56

it. I've never heard of music before.

53:58

It's awesome. So this is such a,

54:00

I mean, I respect the question. The

54:02

problem is, is that we are wanting.

54:05

in asking a question like that. we

54:07

want human behavior to be qualifiable and

54:09

quantifiable, meaning every single time every single

54:11

person should react in this certain way

54:14

that we expect. And our expectations are

54:16

shaped by our cultural biases, our personal

54:18

biases, and it may not reflect insight

54:20

into our own process or understanding. that

54:22

that individual that we're observing has an

54:25

entire life that we don't know shit

54:27

about right right that's why and okay

54:29

another episode we've done on this body

54:31

language interpretation is bullshit it is like

54:34

it's frightening to me that you can

54:36

go online and Google body language experts

54:38

and there are people that are claiming

54:40

all they might as well be claiming

54:42

that they're clairvoyant And like I say

54:45

that as somebody who has gone to

54:47

a couple of clairvoyants, like, oh, this

54:49

was a great experience, right? But it's

54:51

crazy how this, you know, you were

54:54

talking about junk science in terms of

54:56

the bullet. Behavioral analysis in body language

54:58

does not have any foundation. It does

55:00

not have any standardized statistically sound basis

55:02

for interpreting people. Everybody is going to

55:05

act. Yes, we can glean some things

55:07

that point to some people in these

55:09

type of situations will most likely present

55:11

this, but there's always, unless these factors

55:14

are present, right? And again, it's the

55:16

gray area. Nobody wants to sit in

55:18

this area of not knowing. They want

55:20

to be able to interpret every single

55:22

one of those things. I always use

55:25

the example of statistically, and this is

55:27

supported, is the statistical number of men

55:29

in the US over the age of

55:31

40 who have lower back problems is

55:34

incredibly high. Why is it incredibly high?

55:36

Part of it is, and this is,

55:38

you know, I've spoken to chiropractors and

55:40

specialists and they go, they all kind

55:42

of joke, it's like, well, it's the

55:45

flaw in the design, right? Luckily, we

55:47

have a lot of people with low

55:49

back because really our skeleton was not

55:51

designed to stand up and do the

55:54

things that we do all the time.

55:56

It involved in a different way. And

55:58

the reason I go off on that

56:00

tangent using that as an example is.

56:02

whenever I see long-term interrogation videos and

56:05

you see people squirming and people like

56:07

all of the armchair in detectives like

56:09

jump up and go look how uncomfortable

56:11

they are and I want to go

56:14

bitch I have a slit I have

56:16

a herniated disc at L5 S1 I

56:18

have to move all the time so

56:20

you're telling me that it because I'm

56:22

shifting in my seat and I have

56:25

to constantly cross and uncross my legs

56:27

that you're going to interpret that as

56:29

something. And that could determine my guilt

56:31

or innocence if I'm being interrogated. Yeah.

56:34

Sorry, it just rattles me when I

56:36

hear that. So, sorry. Yeah, no, that's

56:38

good. That's why they were asking. And

56:40

I always like for I kind of

56:42

land probably somewhere in between the the

56:45

people who are like, oh, their eyes

56:47

looked up into the right, so they're

56:49

lying, or their eyes looked like that

56:51

nonsense, and that there's nothing to glean

56:53

from it at all. For me, two

56:56

things. One is like we talked about

56:58

in the last one. It's like, all

57:00

I can tell is using the example

57:02

of the first interview. I can note

57:05

that there was a definite change in

57:07

his posture and his aggressiveness. I can't

57:09

tell you what that means. We're trying

57:11

to maybe, but it's like. It's notable.

57:13

Exactly. And you're observing it and we

57:16

should take note of it and look

57:18

at it within the context of all

57:20

these other factors, right? Yeah. And then

57:22

there's there's some stuff I done a

57:25

ton of study on and maybe it's

57:27

all bullshit because I just read it

57:29

in books. But yeah, there's. But there's

57:31

some stuff that I look out for,

57:33

and I tend to do my everyday

57:36

life, because after I studied it for

57:38

years, and so I just watch it,

57:40

is something like what they call like

57:42

limbic system responses, the attendant. And it

57:45

is shockingly accurate how often people do,

57:47

but again, it's not a lie detector,

57:49

things like, you know, particularly with women,

57:51

when they're uncomfortable, they tend to touch

57:53

their chest and their neck. I definitely

57:56

do. Yeah. And I also do it

57:58

when I'm feeling strong positive feelings. Like,

58:00

you know, I'm like, oh, you, like,

58:02

it's, I'm doing it all the time.

58:05

Yeah, during the time when I was,

58:07

like, studying, I was reading a tons

58:09

of books on it and studying a

58:11

lot of this stuff, I used to,

58:13

you know, Becky and I used to

58:16

sit in a bar and we just

58:18

watched couples and be like, look, okay.

58:20

Oh, well, wait, wait, but that's, Bob,

58:22

what's really cool. They have an institute

58:25

in the Pacific Northwest where they study

58:27

micro expressions. And I mean, he is,

58:29

this guy is like a genius and

58:31

he can tell within like generally three

58:33

to four minutes whether or not a

58:36

couple is going to stay together because

58:38

he has trained himself to pick up

58:40

on micro expressions. So I take that

58:42

back, this is, you know, again, or

58:45

maybe I don't take it back, I'm

58:47

going to say. In this rarefied situation,

58:49

looking at these two people with all

58:51

this data set that I've collected over

58:53

30 years, I can actually predict what

58:56

kind of interactions they're going to have

58:58

and whether or not that's going to

59:00

work. So maybe if we put some

59:02

real science and did hours and hours

59:05

of cameras trained on blow-ups of the

59:07

iris to see if there's blood flow

59:09

during certain things, you know, we could

59:11

put that information in context, but until

59:13

then... Just be careful about what you

59:16

interpret, right? No, don't interpret it. Well,

59:18

and the big thing that's it is

59:20

in the interpretation, right? So even in

59:22

like some of the books I read,

59:25

they would say. that's an indication that

59:27

they're lying. It's not an indication that

59:29

they're lying. One of the books was

59:31

called like the human lie detector data.

59:33

And it got into some of the

59:36

same science and other books I read,

59:38

but you know, the other ones that

59:40

were more scientifically in their approaches, yes,

59:42

generally, like, generally, like, generally, like, generally,

59:45

like, like, like, generally, like, like, like,

59:47

like, That doesn't mean they're lying. It

59:49

doesn't mean bad's happening. What it just

59:51

means is they're uncomfortable. Now what does

59:53

that discomfort mean? It could just mean

59:56

I'm uncomfortable because I'm in a police

59:58

station and some feeling it could be

1:00:00

emotional or physical discomfort. Yeah, there's a

1:00:02

million different things it could mean different

1:00:05

things it could mean. Yeah, there's a

1:00:07

million different things it could mean. So

1:00:09

that's kind of where I like. I

1:00:11

get really into this. I said like

1:00:13

back you and I we would go

1:00:16

to go to the bar and we

1:00:18

would go to the bar and we

1:00:20

would look at like you know some

1:00:22

guy we would go. Look at her

1:00:25

feet, look at her hands, look at

1:00:27

her eyes, look what she's doing, look

1:00:29

at she's like, she's not into this,

1:00:31

she's not in it, and then you

1:00:33

watch it a few months later, she'd

1:00:36

walk away. It was like a fun

1:00:38

game that we would play. See, migration

1:00:40

of that is like a makeup dialogue

1:00:42

forum. So I'm covering that. So I'm

1:00:45

covering my migration of that is like

1:00:47

a make up dialogue forum. So I'm

1:00:49

covering my mouth. So I'm covering that.

1:00:51

I'm like a joke out. She's not

1:00:53

into this. She's not into this. She's

1:00:56

not into this. She's not into this.

1:00:58

She's not into this. She's not. She's

1:01:00

not. She's not. She's not. She's not.

1:01:02

She's not. She's not. She's not. She's

1:01:04

not. She's not. She's not. She's not.

1:01:07

She's not. She's not. She's not. She's

1:01:09

not. She's not. She's not. She's not

1:01:11

Well, if I could, I'll just say

1:01:13

that, you know, Kate did give two

1:01:16

examples that I think she's saying perhaps

1:01:18

would lean towards culpability of some kind

1:01:20

that, you know, his constant lensing of

1:01:22

the room, I can't. To that, I

1:01:24

would say, why do we stop, all

1:01:27

slow down when we see a car

1:01:29

wreck? I mean, I just don't know,

1:01:31

you know, I don't know, we're drawn

1:01:33

to horrible things, that's why a lot

1:01:36

of people are into two crimes, so

1:01:38

I don't know if there's... something horrible

1:01:40

on the desk that your eyes keep

1:01:42

darting back to like I just don't

1:01:44

know what that means. Right, I could

1:01:47

also say that like that's an interesting

1:01:49

point is that he's glancing or he

1:01:51

keeps glancing I don't know see all

1:01:53

then you're in you're inserting and you're

1:01:56

serving a descriptor in there keeps glancing.

1:01:58

What do you mean by that? Is

1:02:00

it two times? Is it four times?

1:02:02

But what I do know is that

1:02:04

you know working in my prior work

1:02:07

with sexually violent predators and sex offenders

1:02:09

is we had to be very careful

1:02:11

about showing them any pictures that might

1:02:13

restimulate them because you know, you don't

1:02:16

want to stimulate an offender, habitual offender

1:02:18

is what we call euphoric recall. But

1:02:20

that is something that has been researched

1:02:22

about how pillars on the more psychopathic

1:02:24

end of the spectrum do want to

1:02:27

look at it because it's their handy

1:02:29

work. I didn't see that here. I

1:02:31

saw him like, I saw that in

1:02:33

sort of in the framework of like,

1:02:36

what is happening? Like, let me see

1:02:38

if I can look at this and

1:02:40

is there anything there that will help

1:02:42

me, you know, maintain my composure. Again,

1:02:44

that's just my clinical observation, which could

1:02:47

be absolute BS. But I do know

1:02:49

that like if I'm looking at something

1:02:51

is very different from staring and being

1:02:53

fixated on it. Also, there's another taking

1:02:56

that's even broader than that is. you're

1:02:58

in a tiny room for over an

1:03:00

hour that has nothing on the walls

1:03:02

and anything like like glancing at like

1:03:04

how many things you're going to glance

1:03:07

at or you know million scenarios yeah

1:03:09

is he glancing because he's looking at

1:03:11

his handiwork is he's looking at his

1:03:13

handiwork is he glancing because he's looking

1:03:16

at his handiwork is he glancing because

1:03:18

he's looking at his handiwork is he

1:03:20

glancing at his hand he's telling me

1:03:22

something it just wasn't for me for

1:03:24

me was he looking for the bullet

1:03:27

in the bullet in the picture rather

1:03:29

than the bodies And the stuff with

1:03:31

Kathy's really hard because again if you

1:03:33

were authority it's just would be really

1:03:36

hard to have someone isolate you and

1:03:38

say like we know that it's him

1:03:40

so you can just stop objecting stop

1:03:42

why don't you let it go from

1:03:44

your mind that it's not him you

1:03:47

need to what you need to start

1:03:49

doing is learning to accept that he

1:03:51

did this and we're gonna let you

1:03:53

see you know what I mean so

1:03:56

I just don't know I mean I

1:03:58

definitely was doing that thing where as

1:04:00

that was happening I was imagining what

1:04:02

it would be like if my partner

1:04:04

was accused of that and people were

1:04:07

telling me Point blank, and then they

1:04:09

were like, I'm gonna put you in

1:04:11

a room with this person, but everyone

1:04:13

knows that you're on camera So then

1:04:16

it's also weird because it's like he

1:04:18

Richard Allen knows he knows that she's

1:04:20

been brought in there He doesn't and

1:04:22

I thought it was very interesting that

1:04:24

he was very interesting that he was

1:04:27

like don't say anything that he was

1:04:29

very interesting that he was like don't

1:04:31

say anything I know you know I

1:04:33

couldn't do back to that I want

1:04:36

to be worried over an hour now

1:04:38

The one thing that I saw that

1:04:40

I thought was like an odd behavior

1:04:42

I didn't know what to make of

1:04:44

was when he kept saying like the

1:04:47

way he kept telling her like I

1:04:49

know you know I didn't do this

1:04:51

I know he was like he was

1:04:53

like telling her I know like Dr.

1:04:56

Scott what did you think about that?

1:04:58

There are two different ways to interpret

1:05:00

it you know if you can go

1:05:02

one direction where he's trying to convince

1:05:04

her of his innocence or He's saying

1:05:07

it in a way that validates their

1:05:09

relationship, like you know, you know who

1:05:11

I am. You know that I would

1:05:13

never do this. So I, I, yeah,

1:05:16

it's, it's, it's, it's notable, but I

1:05:18

don't know what it means. I, I

1:05:20

kind of leaned, I saw him really

1:05:22

trying to navigate a difficult situation. Somebody

1:05:24

did, now look here, I'm going to

1:05:27

completely back up on what I said

1:05:29

earlier she. does seem really tense and

1:05:31

she is her body language is not

1:05:33

as open to him. She's clutching onto

1:05:35

the coat. I think she's traumatized by

1:05:38

what she's been told. She's been told

1:05:40

as just as many lies, if not

1:05:42

more, than Alan has. But I think

1:05:44

he's reading that and he's seeing that

1:05:47

she is acting outside her normal range

1:05:49

of behaviors. And so he's seeking validation

1:05:51

in that. Yeah. I don't, it doesn't

1:05:53

seem like it's indicating like he's trying

1:05:55

to coerce her. but more to like

1:05:58

what what what did they do to

1:06:00

you you know he's got so many

1:06:02

things going on right there in the

1:06:04

medical you know he's gotten multiple conversations

1:06:07

going on in his head right now

1:06:09

because he's already shown how angry he

1:06:11

was about how the you know his

1:06:13

reputation has been spoiled and now they're

1:06:15

interrogating her so that's my take on

1:06:18

it I mean it I'm maybe I've

1:06:20

just muddied the water is even further

1:06:22

but I found that interesting myself well

1:06:24

I mean the answer is really nothing

1:06:27

you can you can you know you

1:06:29

know It's hard to make a determination

1:06:31

one way or the other. That's fine.

1:06:33

It was just to me, that was,

1:06:35

that was the, as far as notable

1:06:38

behaviors. I'm like, well, that's interesting. I

1:06:40

don't know when I'm not, I'm not

1:06:42

well-versed enough to know what it could

1:06:44

possibly mean, but it's interesting to me

1:06:47

that he is, continues to say, you

1:06:49

know, I know, you know, I didn't

1:06:51

do this. It's like, it was just,

1:06:53

I just found it interesting, but, but,

1:06:55

but, we got, we got, we got,

1:06:58

we got, we got, we got, we

1:07:00

got, we got, we got, we got,

1:07:02

we got, we got, we got, we

1:07:04

got, we got, it, it, it, it,

1:07:07

it, it, it, it, it, it, it,

1:07:09

it, it, it, it, it, it, it,

1:07:11

it, it, it, it, it, it, it,

1:07:13

it, it, it, it, it Well, Dr.

1:07:15

Shiloh made a great comment to soothe

1:07:18

her. Yeah, you know, he's working on

1:07:20

soothing her because he sees she's so

1:07:22

distressed. Thank you, Dr. Shiloh, always rescuing

1:07:24

me. Thanks, Dr. Shiloh. Yeah, I'm still,

1:07:27

I still, that was, like I said,

1:07:29

that was a thing that stood out

1:07:31

to me that I, but it was

1:07:33

just hard for me to know, again,

1:07:35

because he knew, he knew he was

1:07:38

on camera, so the idea of like

1:07:40

them having a real conversation, You know

1:07:42

I didn't do this. Like, let's not...

1:07:44

I don't need you to be unsure

1:07:47

of me right now in front of

1:07:49

these people. Whether that... that she believed

1:07:51

and continues to believe somewhere in her

1:07:53

heart that he's responsible, I can't say.

1:07:55

But I do want to very quickly

1:07:58

make sure, because I don't believe that

1:08:00

you mentioned this in the episode, and

1:08:02

because you mentioned that we are going

1:08:04

to be looking at the confessions, something

1:08:07

that really stood out to me was,

1:08:09

here we are doing the read technique,

1:08:11

here we are looking for the information

1:08:13

to come from the suspect, and the

1:08:15

cop just straight up says, here's what

1:08:18

I know you did with your gun,

1:08:20

you racked it to scare them. Like

1:08:22

he told him what he did which

1:08:24

by the way is the thing that

1:08:27

Richard Allen said later, but he like

1:08:29

fucked it up on purpose or fine

1:08:31

to stay. That's what I'm saying. That's

1:08:33

what I'm saying. But that's why I'm

1:08:35

saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's so

1:08:38

that's just an example of like well

1:08:40

I had I kind of have to

1:08:42

throw that away because he did not

1:08:44

say that he did that he didn't

1:08:47

intimate that he had done that he

1:08:49

maintained that there was no way that

1:08:51

is going to be out. I'll tell

1:08:53

you what you did. You held it

1:08:55

up, you had it with you, you

1:08:58

held it up, and you racked it

1:09:00

to scare them. So now he knows

1:09:02

for sure. They weren't shot. I mean,

1:09:04

what information can you glean from that?

1:09:07

Sounds like they weren't shot. Sounds like

1:09:09

they weren't shot. Sounds like they weren't

1:09:11

shot because the whole point is they

1:09:13

weren't shot because I know that this

1:09:15

bullet was there that was unspent because

1:09:18

you racked it to scare them. And

1:09:20

that's why you did. You're welcome. So

1:09:22

he's in front. So he's in front.

1:09:24

If you want to confess at some

1:09:27

point, yeah, if you want to confess

1:09:29

at some point, feel free to insert

1:09:31

that piece of information because I've now

1:09:33

handed it to you. Do we have

1:09:35

a, did somebody ask a question about

1:09:38

Holman's behavior? I feel like. Yes, um,

1:09:40

Brian said, do you think the detective

1:09:42

losing his cool was him truly feeling

1:09:44

like Richard was guilty for his crime

1:09:46

or just wanting to get someone locked

1:09:49

up for this on his watch? So,

1:09:51

because about my third or fourth time

1:09:53

through I was trying to analyze Holman's

1:09:55

behavior. Like, what do we have going

1:09:58

on from here? I think I had

1:10:00

seen that question come up, so I

1:10:02

went through it again. and it was

1:10:04

watching it. And to me, I think

1:10:06

he starts out trying to do the

1:10:09

aggressive part and play the bad cop

1:10:11

part, but it felt to me, and

1:10:13

he could be a really good actor

1:10:15

maybe a million times, and he thinks

1:10:18

he's good at it, but he seemed

1:10:20

to me like he had lost his

1:10:22

shit. Like to me, that seemed like

1:10:24

absolute frustration. I think that he probably

1:10:26

thought he had the right guy, but

1:10:29

he, and this is the part that

1:10:31

I wanted to point out. You want

1:10:33

some leakage? Here's some leakage. He's furious.

1:10:35

Why is he furious that Richard Allen's

1:10:38

not confessing? Why, think about that, why

1:10:40

is he so mad? Because he knows

1:10:42

they don't have enough evidence to convict

1:10:44

him. They know he doesn't have enough

1:10:46

evidence to prove it. And you know

1:10:49

how I know that? Because the last

1:10:51

thing that Holman says, here's your leakage

1:10:53

before he walks out of the room

1:10:55

and he says, I know... that you

1:10:58

murdered those girls and then wait for

1:11:00

it and I'm going to prove it.

1:11:02

He's in an emotional state and he

1:11:04

blurts out I'm going to prove it.

1:11:06

That is really interesting for the length

1:11:09

of Joseph. He knew that they did

1:11:11

not have the evidence to convict Richard

1:11:13

Allen. He knew they did not have

1:11:15

the evidence to convict Richard Allen. He

1:11:18

knew they did not have the evidence

1:11:20

to prove that he did not have

1:11:22

the evidence that he did this. That's

1:11:24

why he was so mad that he

1:11:26

wasn't confessing because he knew he had

1:11:29

to have a confession and it turns

1:11:31

out they did need to have a

1:11:33

confession, which they got after the whole

1:11:35

thing in prison, which we're talking about

1:11:38

next week. But I just found a

1:11:40

very interesting one, and I kept playing

1:11:42

it over and over again. I'm like,

1:11:44

did he really, he did say that.

1:11:46

He didn't say, I know you did

1:11:49

it, we have the proof. He said,

1:11:51

I know you did it, and I

1:11:53

know you did it, and I'm going

1:11:55

to prove it. I think you're making

1:11:58

a really, really good point because... It's

1:12:00

so funny because this is from

1:12:03

way before I ever was in

1:12:05

the genre. I'm talking like undergrad

1:12:08

school back in the 80s. You

1:12:10

know, I, one of my BAs

1:12:12

was in English lit and I

1:12:15

had, you know, like English grammar

1:12:17

is like kind of crazy. Our

1:12:19

language is crazy. You know, like

1:12:22

it's not as bad as French

1:12:24

as far as like, you know,

1:12:27

the tenses and the adverbs and

1:12:29

the prepositions about how we. place

1:12:31

things in time. But what you're

1:12:34

talking about would be really interesting

1:12:36

from a linguistic linguist's point of

1:12:39

view, because it's presupposing a possibility

1:12:41

in the future indicating I don't

1:12:43

have enough, evidence, but I am

1:12:46

going to prove it. Well, if

1:12:48

you have all the evidence, it

1:12:50

proves itself. Right. Now, I mean,

1:12:53

we're splitting hairs, but I do

1:12:55

think it's notable and very interesting.

1:12:58

Yeah, and I think that, so,

1:13:00

and then look at, look at

1:13:02

the foreshadowing. Right. So he has

1:13:05

all this evidence, this hard concrete

1:13:07

evidence. He's furious, he's not getting

1:13:09

a confession. So, so what, to

1:13:12

me, what is that telling me?

1:13:14

It's telling me that he knows

1:13:17

the thing he needs to close

1:13:19

this case is a confession. That's

1:13:21

what he's missing. He's not getting

1:13:24

it. I'm going to prove it.

1:13:26

And then ultimately what happens? They

1:13:29

put Alan in the prison and

1:13:31

put him in this position and

1:13:33

then he did prove it once

1:13:36

he got the thing that he

1:13:38

was looking for back during these

1:13:40

interrogations. It's just interesting. No, it's

1:13:43

really interesting. Just one more quick

1:13:45

thing and then we can call

1:13:48

it, but Georgina asks a really

1:13:50

good question that I do still

1:13:52

feel unclear on, which is one

1:13:55

of the things that... that the

1:13:57

that what's his name uses to

1:14:00

attack Richard Allen with vis-a-vis evidence

1:14:02

is you put yourself there. You

1:14:04

came forward. You put yourself there.

1:14:06

And I'm still not clear. I

1:14:08

understand the people that they had testified

1:14:10

were there or seemed to have been there.

1:14:12

All of them not being asked to

1:14:15

identify Richard Allen in the courtroom,

1:14:17

but putting that aside for a moment.

1:14:19

Georgina says, do we know if he's

1:14:21

the only man that came forward to

1:14:23

say he was on the trail that

1:14:25

day? And I thought that was a

1:14:27

great question because... I don't feel like

1:14:29

I have a quantitative sense of

1:14:31

who all came forward to say they were

1:14:33

there, like who was accountable, you know what

1:14:35

I mean? I just don't know that.

1:14:37

I don't for sure know the answer to

1:14:39

that. I feel like my memory is

1:14:41

telling me that he that all the

1:14:44

other witnesses that came forward that said

1:14:46

that they were at the trail that day

1:14:48

were all female, but I feel like maybe

1:14:50

there was a couple, but I don't know.

1:14:52

But as far as I know, he was the only...

1:14:55

Man that came forward and I think

1:14:57

that's what she's asking. Yeah, the only

1:14:59

man that came forward and said that

1:15:01

he was there that day I'd love to

1:15:03

know that definitive answer to that because it

1:15:05

does get used all the time as it

1:15:07

as one would I mean that was something

1:15:09

that you know Jim Clemente kept saying over

1:15:12

and over again on his podcast It's like

1:15:14

he put himself on the bridge. He put

1:15:16

himself on the bridge But that's pretty much

1:15:18

it. I think we've, you know, Jordan,

1:15:20

you asked, you asked for clarification about

1:15:22

whether Abby and Libby were shot. Hopefully

1:15:25

I answered that when I said that they

1:15:27

weren't. They were not. No. And Jordan feels

1:15:29

confused about why the bullet match evidence

1:15:31

is the forefront of linking Richard Allen

1:15:33

to the crime, if they weren't shot.

1:15:35

And the answer is just again that

1:15:37

there was a bullet that was found.

1:15:39

An unspend bullet found. So they used,

1:15:41

they still used it and tested it and

1:15:43

tested it and stuff. The way

1:15:46

the current conversation frames

1:15:48

bullet analysis is as if

1:15:50

it is like, absolutely, it's

1:15:52

just like a fingerprint. I

1:15:55

mean, I remember, you know, how

1:15:57

many times in the, you know,

1:15:59

date line. and 2020, have they said,

1:16:01

it's like a fingerprint of a gun,

1:16:03

it's a fingerprint, it's a fingerprint, it

1:16:06

absolutely links, and then we find out,

1:16:08

oh no, that's like basically pseudoscience as

1:16:10

well. Yeah, it is absolutely, as a matter

1:16:12

of fact, Holman used the term, it's

1:16:14

just like a fingerprint. Yeah, you're just

1:16:17

like a fingerprint. You're right, you're right.

1:16:19

Yeah, yeah, and it is certainly not. And with

1:16:21

that we're gonna go ahead and wrap this

1:16:23

thing, and wrap this thing, and wrap this

1:16:25

thing, and wrap this thing, and wrap this

1:16:27

thing, At the very beginning of the episode,

1:16:29

I guess I, when I was, that was

1:16:32

when I was just reading off of notes

1:16:34

and not a script, I had said that

1:16:36

it was the murder of Abby Williams, and

1:16:38

I guess I said Kelsey German, I said

1:16:41

a Libby German, so I just wanted

1:16:43

to correct that a Libby German, so

1:16:45

I just wanted to correct that, correct

1:16:47

that, I was going to this weekend,

1:16:50

try to get on, and it wouldn't

1:16:52

do any good, because everybody, it's already

1:16:54

all been downloaded, correct that, and, and,

1:16:56

I think obviously other than the six

1:16:58

of you know that it was not

1:17:01

because I was disrespecting the victims. It

1:17:03

was just because I misspoke while

1:17:05

I was talking about it. But yeah, that

1:17:07

was a mistake that I made two episodes

1:17:09

ago, just wanted to correct that. And with that

1:17:11

being said, we're going to go ahead and

1:17:13

we're going to wrap this thing up. We

1:17:15

will be, I'll be back on Sunday talking

1:17:18

about all these confessions and Dr. Walla, Dr.

1:17:20

Scott's going to be coming back because it

1:17:22

refuses to let Dr. We can get her

1:17:24

in as well. I was going to say, was

1:17:26

there a reason we can't have the book?

1:17:28

We had a big conversation about Dr.

1:17:30

Walla that was. Yeah. So we're

1:17:32

going to be covering all that. So

1:17:35

Sunday will be over the confessions

1:17:37

and then next week's follow-up Dr. Scott

1:17:39

will be back and we're going to

1:17:41

be talking about that again for those

1:17:43

of you again that watch like to

1:17:45

watch us live on YouTube that will

1:17:48

be at 8 p.m. Eastern time. Next

1:17:50

Wednesday not Tuesday and for our patrons that

1:17:52

like the our pregame show before that that'll

1:17:54

be at 7 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday

1:17:56

with that being said Dr. Scott. Thank you

1:17:58

so much for joining us and we'll talk

1:18:01

to you all again next week.

1:18:03

Bye folks. Thanks everybody. Truth In

1:18:05

Justice is an NBA studio's production.

1:18:07

Co-written and produced by Erica Bergenham.

1:18:09

Music for season 15 is created

1:18:11

and composed by Caden Lattislaw. Follow-up

1:18:13

episodes are co-hosted by Janet Barney

1:18:15

and Zach Weber. Our logo font

1:18:17

was created by Tate Krupa of

1:18:19

Red Swan Graphic Design. Our website

1:18:21

is created, managed, and maintained by

1:18:23

Katie Ross of Creative in tandem.

1:18:25

Thank you to our volunteer transcription

1:18:27

team. Erica Cantor, Kathy Mcallaney, Courtney

1:18:29

Wimberly, Kaywood Yomnick, Daniel Ror, Jennifer

1:18:31

Atheie, and Caroline Dwyer. Truth and

1:18:33

Justice provides all investigative and advocacy

1:18:35

work for the wrongfully convicted, completely

1:18:37

free of charge. We're able to

1:18:39

do that in large part thanks

1:18:41

to you our listeners through your

1:18:43

generous pledges on Patreonages on Patreon.

1:18:46

Patreon accounts for the overwhelming majority

1:18:48

of our funding. The number one

1:18:50

way you can support our work

1:18:52

is to become a patron at

1:18:54

patreon.com/truth and justice. For just $5

1:18:56

a month you'll get all episodes

1:18:58

ad-free, a bonus pre-game episode every

1:19:00

Wednesday, and also a video version

1:19:02

of the Friday follow-ups exclusive to

1:19:04

our patrons. Patrons also get to

1:19:06

participate and join the chat live

1:19:08

in many of our interviews and

1:19:10

get early access to much of

1:19:12

our content. Just go to patron.com/truth

1:19:14

and justice to sign up. You

1:19:16

can also help us out by

1:19:18

going to iTunes and leaving us

1:19:20

a five-star rating and review. It

1:19:22

doesn't cost you a penny and

1:19:24

goes a long way towards making

1:19:26

the show more visible. If you

1:19:28

have a new case that you'd

1:19:30

like us to consider, you can

1:19:33

submit your cases on our website,

1:19:35

Truth and Justice pod.com. Just click

1:19:37

on the case submission button and

1:19:39

fill out the form. You can

1:19:41

always keep in touch with us

1:19:43

through our email at theories at

1:19:45

Truth and Justice pod.com. You can

1:19:47

like our Facebook page or join

1:19:49

in on the conversation on the

1:19:51

official Truth and Justice podcast fans

1:19:53

page. You can also connect with

1:19:55

us on social media platform X

1:19:57

at Truth Justice pod. I'll follow

1:19:59

our personal accounts on social media.

1:20:01

I can be found at Bob

1:20:03

Ruff Truth. Janet can be found

1:20:05

at Janet Barney. And Zach is

1:20:07

at Z to the Q. However

1:20:09

you do it, stay engaged and

1:20:11

stay in touch. But as for

1:20:13

now, we're signing off. I'm Bob

1:20:15

Ruff. I'm Zach Weaver. And I'm

1:20:18

Janet Barney. And this has been

1:20:20

Truth and Justice. Six

1:20:43

months from now, you could be

1:20:45

running a 5K, booking that dream

1:20:47

trip, or seeing thicker, fuller hair

1:20:50

every time you look in the

1:20:52

mirror. Through hers, you can get

1:20:54

dermatologist trusted, clinically proven prescriptions, with

1:20:57

ingredients that go beyond what over-the-counter

1:20:59

products offer. Whether you prefer oral

1:21:01

or topical treatments, hers has you

1:21:04

covered. Getting started is simple. Just

1:21:06

fill out an intake form online.

1:21:08

And a licensed provider will recommend

1:21:10

a customized plan just for you.

1:21:13

The best part. Everything is 100%

1:21:15

online. If prescribed, your treatment ships

1:21:17

right to your door. No pharmacy

1:21:20

trips, no waiting rooms, and no

1:21:22

insurance headaches. Plus, treatments start at

1:21:24

just $35 a month. Start your

1:21:27

initial free online visit today at

1:21:29

forhers.com/talk. That's f-o-r-h-e-r-s.com/talk. Tontundant products are

1:21:31

not FDA approved or verify for

1:21:34

safety effectiveness or quality. Prescription required.

1:21:36

Price marries based on product and

1:21:38

subscription plan. See website for full

1:21:41

details, restrictions, and important safety information.