Podcast Summary

Podcast: The Murder Sheet
Episode: The Delphi Murders: Baldwin's Complaint: Part One
Release Date: December 3, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain (A) and Kevin Greenlee (B)

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode dives into a 57-page complaint filed by Andrew Baldwin (former defense attorney for Richard Allen in the Delphi murders case) against Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland with the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. Cain and Greenlee scrutinize Baldwin's arguments, discuss the broader strategic landscape of "frivolous" legal complaints in the case, and reflect on their own experiences as targets of similar complaints. The overarching tone is analytical, direct, and refreshingly blunt, with the hosts bringing both legal and journalistic expertise to bear in dissecting court filings, discovery arguments, and defense strategies.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background and Context

• The Crime: On February 13, 2017, Richard Allen murdered Liberty German (14) and Abigail Williams (13) in Delphi, Indiana. He was arrested in 2022 and later convicted (11/11/2024).
• Defense Team: Led by Brad Rosie, Jennifer O.J., and Andrew Baldwin, who, in the hosts’ view, performed poorly at trial.
• Key Figure: Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland led the prosecution.
• Current Episode Focus: Baldwin filed a complaint against McLeland, which was promptly dismissed by the Commission as "not raising a substantial question of misconduct." ([06:27])

2. The Complaint: Dismissal and Analysis

• Commission's Response:
  • The disciplinary office immediately dismissed the complaint without requiring McLeland to respond, stating it was “not raising a substantial question of misconduct under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.”
    • “This responsible body… they think that what Baldwin has given them is, on its face, insufficient and not even deserving of a response…” —Kevin [07:01]
  • The hosts repeatedly mock the frivolity and redundancy of the complaint, characterizing its substance as padded, repetitive, and unserious ([12:38]).

3. Timing and Motivation

• Host Analysis:
  • The complaint came shortly after a Hulu docuseries featuring Baldwin, awards given to McLeland, and the release of Cain and Greenlee's own book, Shadow of the Bridge.
    • “August seems to have been a month that maybe, shall we say, triggered Baldwin somewhat.” —Áine [09:41]
  • The hosts suggest Baldwin’s motivations were personal and emotional, influenced by recent perceived slights or setbacks.

4. Substance of the Complaint: Alleged Evidence Suppression

• Core Accusation: Baldwin alleges McLeland withheld crucial evidence, claiming exculpatory material wasn’t turned over.
• Legal Duty Explained:
  • “You need to turn over any exculpatory evidence. This is evidence which points to the crime being committed by someone other than the defendant.” —Kevin [16:33]
  • Baldwin’s definition of “exculpatory” and the standard for turnover is characterized as exceedingly broad and unrealistic.
• Critique of Complaint Structure:
  • The complaint is described as repetitive and lacking rigorous argument. The hosts compare it to a padded school report or a rant at a bar ([15:24], [15:46]).
    • “It reads like someone just ramb... like he cornered you at the bar and started unloading on you about all his grievances against McLeland...” —Áine [15:24]

5. The Odinism Theory

• Summary: Baldwin persists in a theory that “Odinist” cultists committed the murders, based on “runes” found at the scene and supposed law enforcement interest in Norse pagan leads.
  • The hosts meticulously debunk this, explaining:
    • Law enforcement followed all leads, including pagan/occult angles, but quickly found no credible evidence for the “rune” claims ([21:48]).
    • Multiple experts, including a respected professor and crime scene analysts, dismissed the rune interpretation.
  • Notable Quote:
    • “No one looked at this and said, yes, those are runes. The opposite.” —Áine [21:46]
• Rebuttal of 'Exculpatory' Claims:
  • Defense failed to secure their own expert; only state crime scene analysts testified—disproving their painted rune theory ([24:23]).
  • Alleged “suspects” had confirmed alibis, or tipsters had clear credibility issues ([28:27], [28:39]).
  • The “conspiracy” around supposed state focus/cover-up is presented as illogical ([26:41]).

6. The “Turco Professor” Conspiracy

• Focal Point: Baldwin alleges nefarious delay in learning the identity of Professor Jeffrey Turco, an Old Norse specialist at Purdue, who was asked by law enforcement to assess the crime scene artifacts.
• Fact Check:
  • Law enforcement did eventually provide Turco's name after a brief delay to check records because the matter “was not important to them.”
  • When Turco was deposed, he supported the police/prosecution position: the markings weren't credible runes.
    • “What Holman said is more accurate than what the defense says.” —Áine [34:13]
    • “The professor... debunks all the statements that the defense put in their motion, including that this was a ritualistic, sacrificial killing.” —Áine [38:28]
  • Hosts’ Summary: The supposed conspiracy about suppressing Turco was simply a manufacturing of drama; the real content of his testimony undercut the defense's entire theory.
    • “When Baldwin tries to use some of these rhetorical tricks in front of a group of lawyers on the disciplinary committee, they know what he’s doing.” —Kevin [45:28]

7. Repetitiveness and Rhetoric in the Complaint

• Padding & Petulance:
  • Baldwin's document is ridiculed for its length and lack of substance, full of speculation and what the hosts call “rhetorical tricks.”
    • “If you don’t have any actual evidence... you try to plant the ideas... in the form of questions and speculation.” —Kevin [43:37]
  • The prose is described as immature and more befitting a social media rant than a legal complaint ([49:32]).

8. Discovery Complaints, “Evidence Dumps,” and Court Proceedings

• Accusation: Baldwin accuses McLeland of “evidence dumps”—dumping large quantities of evidence without organization.
• Host Perspective:
  • This is painted as an unserious and unprofessional complaint; it’s the defense’s job to organize discovery. McLeland fulfilled his legal obligations.
    • Memorable Moment: Recounting a hearing where McLeland provided signed receipts showing the defense had already received the disputed materials ([61:24]).
      • “They had a history of claiming things that were simply not true…” —Áine [61:24]
  • Defense's arguments about discovery problems were clearly undermined in live court.

9. The Broader Phenomenon of Frivolous Legal Complaints

• The episode contextualizes Baldwin’s actions as part of a larger strategy by “Richard Allen truthers,” who try to punish perceived enemies through baseless legal complaints.
  • "…appears to be part of a larger strategy or tactic by Richard Allen truthers to attempt to punish their perceived enemies using frivolous complaints.” —Áine [04:22]
  • Kevin mentions that similar complaints have been filed against him, also dismissed.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Dismissal of the Complaint:

  • "The number one most important thing is… there’s nothing to it. You don’t even have to answer the charges. We just look at it and say, no, this is garbage, and they toss it aside.” —Kevin [07:01]

• On Repetitiveness:

  • "It is repetitive... it reads like a transcription of an overnight session where you’re ranting with a YouTuber.” —Kevin [12:50]

• On the Odinism Theory:

  • “Everyone… No one looked at this and said, yes, those are runes. The opposite.” —Áine [21:46]
  • “It’s a horrifying image… This was a child who was dying, who is resting against the tree…” —Áine [24:23]

• On Defense Strategy:

  • “Does anyone out there have any doubt at all that this defense team should indeed have abandoned their hapless Odinism theory?” —Kevin [55:55]

• On Performance and Writing:

  • "This is not written by a professional… It reads like either a silly preteen writing attempting to write what they think is a legal document or… your really angry uncle ranting on Facebook.” —Áine [49:32]

Important Segment Timestamps

• [03:07] — Introduction of Complaint by Baldwin
• [06:27] — Reading Disciplinary Commission’s Dismissal Letter
• [12:50] — Discussion of Complaint’s Structure and Tone
• [15:24] — "Padding" and Comparison to School Reports
• [16:33] — Legal Obligations on Evidence Disclosure
• [21:46] — Debunking the “Odinism”/Rune Theory
• [34:13] — The “Turco Professor” Exchange
• [38:28] — Turco’s Actual Statement and Impact
• [43:37] — On Rhetorical Tactics and Question Planting
• [49:32] — On Professionalism and Baldwin’s Style
• [55:55] — The Disastrous Impact of the Odinism Defense
• [61:24] — Proof Provided Against Discovery Complaints

Overall Tone and Takeaways

• The episode is highly critical of Baldwin’s claims, taking a skeptical and sometimes sarcastic approach.
• Legal procedure and factual context are carefully explained, making the episode accessible to listeners unfamiliar with the case.
• The hosts’ direct style, their credible perspectives as journalist and attorney, and their use of memorable analogies (“ranting at the bar,” “angry uncle on Facebook”) keep the discussion lively and grounded.
• Conclusion: Baldwin’s complaint had no substantive merit and was part of a pattern of delaying and distracting tactics by Allen's defense team. The episode sets the stage for Part Two, promising a continued deep dive.

Episode Structure

1. Intro & Context
2. Complaint & Dismissal
3. Timeline: Motivations Behind the Complaint
4. Breakdown of Baldwin’s Claims
5. Analysis & Debunking of “Odinism” and Evidence Suppression
6. The Turco Professor Angle
7. On Rhetoric and Style in the Complaint
8. Discovery Issues & Courtroom Realities
9. Broader Trends of Frivolous Complaints
10. **Preview of Part Two / Outro

For anyone wanting an incisive, detailed, and sometimes darkly humorous breakdown of the ongoing legal aftermath in the Delphi murders, this episode is essential listening. The hosts’ careful sifting of facts from conjecture sharply exposes the weaknesses in Baldwin’s complaint and reminds listeners of the critical role of sound legal process in high-profile murder cases.