Delphi Investigation Exposed: The Stunningly Bad Police Work Behind the Case

Delphi Investigation Exposed: The Stunningly Bad Police Work Behind the Case

In the Delphi murders, the public was told a simple story: the police put the pieces together, the system worked, and justice was finally served. But when you actually read the documents — the transcripts, investigator depositions, Franks filings, internal notes, and the raw exhibits tucked into the case file — a very different picture emerges.

This wasn’t a clean investigation. It wasn’t methodical. It wasn’t disciplined. It was chaotic, fragmented, and politically pressured from the moment Abby and Libby were found. Leads were documented once and never followed up on. Entire suspects — and entire theories — were quietly dropped without explanation. Investigators contradicted each other, forgot key details, and admitted under oath that they weren’t even aware of evidence sitting inside their own case file.

And yet somehow, in year six, the narrative suddenly snapped into place — not because the investigation got better, but because it finally got a suspect it could backfill the story around.

Tonight, we dig into the evidence that was ignored, the leads that were buried, the internal disagreements investigators never wanted the public to see, and the retrofitted logic that shaped the state’s case. This is not about saying who is guilty or innocent — it’s about asking why the most important homicide investigation in modern Indiana history was handled with the kind of inconsistency you’d expect from a case no one was watching.

If this is how the system works when the world is paying attention… what happens in a case where no one is?

Join Tony Brueski as we break down the investigation behind the scenes — the failures, the shortcuts, the missing follow-through, and the real-world consequences of an investigative structure that collapses under pressure.

Subscribe and comment with your thoughts. This case isn’t just about what happened in 2017 — it’s about what kind of justice system we’re willing to accept today.

#DelphiMurders #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #AbbyAndLibby #RichardAllen #DelphiInvestigation #JusticeForAbbyAndLibby #CrimeAnalysis #TonyBrueski #TrueCrimeCommunity


Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?

Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/
Tik-Tok
https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod
X Twitter
https://x.com/tonybpod

Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Jaksot(500)

Why Institutions Freeze — Ret FBI Robin Dreeke on Bryan Kohberger's WSU Red Flags

Why Institutions Freeze — Ret FBI Robin Dreeke on Bryan Kohberger's WSU Red Flags

Tonight on Hidden Killers Live, we’re taking on the uncomfortable truth institutions hate facing: sometimes the danger is right in front of them, but the structure, culture, and psychology of the environment keep anyone from calling it what it is. Retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke joins us to break down how those blind spots cost Washington State University crucial opportunities to intervene. This episode digs into the behavioral complaints that circulated inside WSU long before any crime occurred: the staring, the hovering, the boundary-breaking, the fear expressed by women in the department. These weren’t isolated incidents. They were a pattern. And patterns matter. Robin explains why institutions tend to frame patterned discomfort as a paperwork problem instead of a risk-behavior problem — and why that distinction is everything. Graduate programs rely heavily on autonomy, hierarchy, and informal power dynamics. When the person generating concern holds influence over students, especially women, the risk isn’t hypothetical. It’s structural. We examine why institutions minimize threat signals: fear of liability, fear of mislabeling someone, fear of overreacting, fear of confronting what they don’t want to acknowledge. Stacy joins with psychological insight into why women's instincts responded before anyone had the “official language” to describe what was wrong. Then we explore what was missing at WSU — not actions, but training. Why were faculty unprepared to identify patterned risk? Why did warnings get siloed instead of escalated? Why did a mandatory meeting produce no meaningful change? And what could have been done differently from the moment the first complaints surfaced? This isn’t about hindsight. It’s about understanding systemic blind spots so they aren’t repeated. For anyone trying to understand the line between unusual behavior and genuine threat, this conversation is a must-watch. #HiddenKillers #WSU #RobinDreeke #ThreatAssessment #CampusWarnings #BehavioralPatterns #TrueCrimeLivestream #TonyBrueski #RedFlags #InstitutionalFailure Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

24 Marras 202549min

What’s Left of Brian Walshe’s Defense After His Bombshell Plea-WEEK IN REVIEW

What’s Left of Brian Walshe’s Defense After His Bombshell Plea-WEEK IN REVIEW

Brian Walshe’s courtroom strategy just blew apart. When he stood in front of a judge and admitted — in his own voice — that he willfully conveyed Ana Walshe’s remains and misled investigators, he didn’t just plead guilty to two charges. He detonated the core of the defense narrative he’s been hiding behind for nearly two years. Now he’s walking into a murder trial without the one thing most defendants in no-body cases cling to: deniability. In this episode of Hidden Killers, we break down exactly how this guilty plea changes the entire trajectory of the trial and what it leaves his defense team scrambling to do next. Because once you admit that you touched the remains, once you admit you interfered with the investigation, once you admit you contributed to evidence being destroyed, you’re no longer arguing about whether you were involved. You’re arguing about how deep that involvement goes. So what does Brian Walshe have left? What does a defense look like when you’ve already admitted to actions that most jurors see as the behavior of someone with something enormous to hide? We examine the only narrative his team has left: the idea that Ana’s death was not murder, that something happened suddenly or unexpectedly, and that Brian spiraled into panic and made disastrous choices afterward. It’s a narrow road — one that has to compete with a mountain of digital searches, forensic findings, surveillance footage, and behavior prosecutors say lay out a chilling timeline. This episode digs into the strategies the defense is likely to deploy, how they’ll try to reinterpret the incriminating searches, how they’ll frame his mental state, and why they may try to turn the guilty plea itself into proof of honesty rather than guilt. With the trial about to begin, and with 70 potential jurors being questioned, this case is entering a new phase — one where the stakes for Brian Walshe couldn’t be higher, and his room to maneuver couldn’t be smaller. Subscribe for daily trial coverage, expert analysis, and every major update as it happens. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrimeUpdates #CourtCase #TrialCoverage #JusticeSystem #LegalAnalysis #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

24 Marras 202513min

Holeman’s Testimony EXPOSES How Badly Delphi Was Investigated-WEEK IN REVIEW

Holeman’s Testimony EXPOSES How Badly Delphi Was Investigated-WEEK IN REVIEW

In today’s episode, we take a hard, relentless look at Lieutenant Jerry Holeman’s testimony in the Delphi murders case — and what it reveals about the investigation that led to the conviction of Richard Allen. This isn’t speculation. This isn’t rumor. This is straight from the sworn record: the contradictions, the assumptions, the missing analysis, and the investigative gaps that no one watching the press conferences ever got to see. Holeman was positioned as one of the state’s anchors — a senior Indiana State Police investigator expected to bring clarity and confidence to a deeply complex double-homicide case. Instead, his testimony exposes just how shaky the investigative foundation really was. Sticks placed on the bodies of Abby and Libby were dismissed as “camouflage,” even though they concealed nothing. Then, suddenly, the state floated a psychological term — “undoing” — that had never appeared in the investigative record, and Holman endorsed it without hesitation. His certainty about a “single offender” wasn’t based on forensic proof. It came from a belief he stated on the stand: that in multi-offender crimes, “someone usually talks.” Yet the case file contains exactly that — a suspect making disturbing comments investigators inexplicably labeled “no further action.” We dive into everything Holman didn’t explain: why symbolic elements were barely analyzed, why alternative suspects weren’t vetted, why forensic opportunities were missed, why the bullet lacked field documentation, why major investigative questions were replaced with assumptions, and why his testimony often stood in open conflict with other investigators on essential questions like the FBI’s role. This isn’t about guilt or innocence. It’s about whether the investigation that shaped the entire Delphi narrative was thorough, consistent, or grounded in evidence. And Holman’s testimony makes it undeniably clear: the holes aren’t small. They’re foundational. If you care about the truth in Delphi, this breakdown matters. #Delphi #DelphiCase #TrueCrime #RichardAllen #InvestigativeAnalysis #HolemanTestimony #CourtRecord #JusticeSystem #HiddenKillers #TrueCrimeCommunity Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

23 Marras 202519min

Why Institutions Freeze — Ret FBI Robin Dreeke on Bryan Kohberger's WSU Red Flags-WEEK IN REVIEW

Why Institutions Freeze — Ret FBI Robin Dreeke on Bryan Kohberger's WSU Red Flags-WEEK IN REVIEW

Tonight on Hidden Killers Live, we’re taking on the uncomfortable truth institutions hate facing: sometimes the danger is right in front of them, but the structure, culture, and psychology of the environment keep anyone from calling it what it is. Retired FBI Special Agent Robin Dreeke joins us to break down how those blind spots cost Washington State University crucial opportunities to intervene. This episode digs into the behavioral complaints that circulated inside WSU long before any crime occurred: the staring, the hovering, the boundary-breaking, the fear expressed by women in the department. These weren’t isolated incidents. They were a pattern. And patterns matter. Robin explains why institutions tend to frame patterned discomfort as a paperwork problem instead of a risk-behavior problem — and why that distinction is everything. Graduate programs rely heavily on autonomy, hierarchy, and informal power dynamics. When the person generating concern holds influence over students, especially women, the risk isn’t hypothetical. It’s structural. We examine why institutions minimize threat signals: fear of liability, fear of mislabeling someone, fear of overreacting, fear of confronting what they don’t want to acknowledge. Stacy joins with psychological insight into why women's instincts responded before anyone had the “official language” to describe what was wrong. Then we explore what was missing at WSU — not actions, but training. Why were faculty unprepared to identify patterned risk? Why did warnings get siloed instead of escalated? Why did a mandatory meeting produce no meaningful change? And what could have been done differently from the moment the first complaints surfaced? This isn’t about hindsight. It’s about understanding systemic blind spots so they aren’t repeated. For anyone trying to understand the line between unusual behavior and genuine threat, this conversation is a must-watch. #HiddenKillers #WSU #RobinDreeke #ThreatAssessment #CampusWarnings #BehavioralPatterns #TrueCrimeLivestream #TonyBrueski #RedFlags #InstitutionalFailure Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

23 Marras 202549min

Suosittua kategoriassa Politiikka ja uutiset

tervo-halme
aikalisa
rss-ootsa-kuullut-tasta
ootsa-kuullut-tasta-2
politiikan-puskaradio
viisupodi
rss-vaalirankkurit-podcast
rss-podme-livebox
rss-kuka-mina-olen
otetaan-yhdet
rikosmyytit
et-sa-noin-voi-sanoo-esittaa
rss-kaikki-uusiksi
rss-hyvaa-huomenta-bryssel
rss-tasta-on-kyse-ivan-puopolo-verkkouutiset
radio-antro
rss-poliittinen-talous
rss-merja-mahkan-rahat
rss-asiastudio
suomenkielisia-podcasteja