The Docket Ep. 1041: Indiana v. Richard Allen pt. 41: Interview with Andy Baldwin pt. 4

Defense Diaries

True Crime

4.6 • 2.3K Ratings

🗓️ 9 February 2026

⏱️ 77 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Pt. 4 of 4 of Bob and Ali interview with Andrew Baldwin

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	In his response,
0:08.0	In his response motion, the prosecutor also provided purported information that he apparently obtained from one of three law enforcement officers who apparently had analyzed the data and relayed that information of the prosecutor.
0:34.7	Thus, providing proof that the prosecutor has actually known the name of
0:39.7	the exact geoffencing expert who will be explaining law enforcement's interpretation of the data,
0:45.0	but has refused to provide the name of that specific geo-fencing expert to the defense.
0:50.7	Rather than simply identifying the proper law enforcement officer for the defense to pose
0:57.0	concerning the geo-fencing evidence.
0:59.2	Again, evidence that the prosecutor provided to the defense 10 months late, who put the map
1:05.0	together, the prosecutor continues to conceal the identity of the actual expert, only narrowing it down to three
1:12.4	possible candidates. The defense has no way of knowing if anything that the prosecutor claims
1:18.3	concerning the interpretation of the geo-fencing data is correct because no reports have been
1:24.7	provided that substantiate the prosecution's claim in his response to the third Franks notice.
1:31.2	Please notice on pages two and three of his response brief that the prosecution has failed to provide the name of a single authoritative report that supports his claim as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the geo-fencing data, while the defense
1:47.7	has provided 126 exhibits to back up their claims in Franks won alone.
1:55.3	Apparently, the prosecution simply expects this court to rely and believe in the prosecution's
1:59.7	claim, which she did.
2:02.2	He, the prosecutor, has asserted on pages two and three of his response.
2:06.7	His response brief concerning geo-fencing evidence without providing a single shred of proof whatsoever that his claims are in fact true.
2:16.2	Again, juxtapose this fact with the defense who has provided 126 exhibits to back up their claims
2:24.1	spread throughout three Franks notices.
2:27.4	At this time, the state of Indiana has provided to the defense a map constructed by someone
2:32.5	that shows that three phones were in the area of where
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Defense Diaries, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Defense Diaries and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.