The "Van Detail" Confession
The prosecution claimed Allen’s mention of being startled by a white van near a private drive was a detail only the killer would know. They linked this to Brad Weber, who drove a van and claimed to have been in the area around the presumed time of the murders.
The Defense Argument:
Public Knowledge
Defense attorney Baldwin argued that the van detail was not exclusive, citing “22, 23 things” found online mentioning a white van near the crime scene. This public availability suggests Allen could have incorporated the detail from external sources, negating its value as “killer-only” knowledge.
Witness Inconsistencies
The defense highlighted inconsistencies in Brad Weber’s accounts of his whereabouts, questioning his reliability as a corroborating witness for the prosecution’s narrative.
Suspicious Circumstances
The defense noted that Weber brought text messages to his police interview, despite allegedly not knowing why he was questioned. This suggests he anticipated needing an alibi, further undermining his credibility.
Prevalence of Vans
The defense dismissed the van’s significance, noting that vans are common in the area, reducing the specificity of Allen’s statement as incriminating evidence.
The "van detail" hinges on the assumption that only the killer could know it, but the defense effectively demonstrated its public availability and lack of uniqueness. Coupled with Weber’s inconsistent testimony, this evidence fails to provide a compelling link to Allen’s guilt, appearing more speculative than definitive.