Could the quest for justice be swayed by the very system meant to uphold it? This is the central question that has emerged from a recent episode of the podcast "Hidden Killers," where Tony Brueski was joined by Bob Motta, a seasoned defense attorney and host of the podcast "Defense Diaries." The conversation turned to the Delphi murder case—a name that evokes chills in the spine of the community and now, conspiracy theorists.
 
 In an era where public trust in the judicial process is fragile, the case against Richard Allen has become a focal point for discussions about the integrity of legal proceedings. Motta doesn't shy away from expressing his concerns: “The timing of this is very convenient for the state,” referring to the release of crucial case information that some might dismiss as "tinfoil hat conspiracy type stuff."
 
 The controversy hinges on a "Frank's motion" alleging that the sheriff lied to obtain a warrant, coupled with a significant information leak during a critical juncture in the defense’s preparation. "That's shady," Motta states unequivocally. He calls for “an independent investigation away from all those guys away from people that have a vested interest in seeing a conviction in this case."
 
 Brueski and Motta unpack the legal strategies, contrasting the state’s narrative with that of the defense. “That’s what a defense of a guy that you believe is innocent looks like," Motta explains, stressing that the constitutional rights at stake are as significant as the verdict itself. He argues that the judge’s actions in the case have set the stage for a certain appeal, potentially undermining the prosecution’s efforts should Allen be convicted.
 
 Motta does not hold back in criticizing the handling of the case by the court, particularly the removal of filings from the public docket. “She's violating the state code in terms of how dockets are supposed to be run. There’s very specific rules… she violated them. It’s a slam dunk,” he asserts, painting a picture of a trial marred by questionable judicial decisions.
 
 The conversation takes an even more dramatic turn with the revelation that the Attorney General of Indiana declined to represent the judge involved, who subsequently had to hire private counsel. This development, Motta hints, signals the gravity of the situation to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
 
 Delving deeper, the podcast discusses a writ of mandamus—a rare legal motion filed by concerned defense attorneys, unrelated to Allen’s defense team—accusing the judge of running her docket in the shadows. This action, combined with the Indiana Supreme Court's interest, suggests the case's profile and its potential implications for the justice system.
 
 Amidst the legal turmoil, the humanity at the heart of the case is not forgotten. Motta speaks to the need for justice for the victims, Abby and Libby, and the broader implications for their families and the community. He reveals the undercurrent of mistrust and secrecy that pervades Delphi, with people constantly providing him with information that he must sift through for veracity.
 
 The podcast concludes with a haunting reflection: "Something stinks in Delphi." Motta is not ready to accuse, but he can’t ignore the odor of impropriety. The defense attorney’s cautious approach highlights a profound tension between the need for discretion and the urge to expose potential flaws in the system.
 
 This dialogue between Brueski and Motta presents not just another twist in the Delphi case but a deeper look at the American justice system's fragility when it becomes the story. With every procedural anomaly, the case's resolution seems to slip further into a murky abyss where justice may struggle to surface.
 
 The article closes by echoing Motta’s own rhetorical question, leaving readers to ponder: "How did this all go so wrong?" Could the answer expose unsettling truths not just about the case but about the legal system entrusted with our collective sense of jus