The Delphi Murders: Baldwin's Complaint: Part One

Summary

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.

Transcript

[A]

It's cold. The holidays are coming up and it's time to refresh your wardrobe effortlessly with our wonderful sponsor, quince.

[B]

Quince makes uplifting your style easy and affordable. We're talking luxury goods for less Mongolian cashmere sweaters to italian wool coats. Just in time to deck the halls for the holidays.

[A]

Quince keeps prices down on these premium fashion staples by cutting out the middleman. We're talking prices 50% less than those of their competitors.

[B]

My quince sweaters are quickly becoming my go to garments. As the temperatures fall. I really enjoy putting on my Australian merino wool cable crew neck sweater and my navy mongolian cashmere crew neck sweater. They are so soft and do an incredible job keeping me comfortable in these temperatures.

[A]

Kevin is too modest to say, but he also looks very cute in them. Whether you're treating yourself for the holidays or looking for terrific gifts for your loved ones, Quinn's is the place to go for coats, sweaters, silk shir and dresses and much more. We're confident you'll love quince as much as we do. And with prices 50% less than other brands, they make it easy to stay stylish without squeezing your wallet.

[B]

Get your wardrobe sorted out and your gift list handled with quints. Don't wait. Go to quints.commsheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's q u I n c e.com msheet Free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet.

[A]

Guys, thanks for helping me carry my christmas tree.

[B]

Zoe. This thing weighs a ton. Drew ski, lift with your legs, man.

[A]

Santa. Santa, did you get my letter?

[B]

He's talking to you, bridges. I'm not.

[A]

Of course he did.

[B]

Right, Santa, you know my elf drew ski here. He handles the nice list. An elf? I'm six' three. What everyone wants is iPhone 17 and at T mobile you can get it on them. That center stage front camera is amazing for group selfies. Right, Mrs. Claus?

[A]

I'm Mrs. Claus, much younger sister. And at t mobile, there's no trade in needed when you switch. So you can keep your old phone.

[B]

Or give it as a gift.

[A]

And the best part, you can make the switch to t mobile from your phone in just 15 minutes.

[B]

Nice. My side of the tree is slipping. Kimber. The holidays are better. AT T mobile. Switch. Switch in just 15 minutes and get iPhone 17 on us with no trade in needed. And now t mobile is available in U. S cellular stores with 3, 4 monthly.

[A]

Bill credits for well qualified customers plus tax and $35 device connection charge credit and imbalance due if you pay off earlier. Cancel Finance Agreement 256 gigs $830 eligible for in a new line $100 plus.

[B]

A month plan with auto PayPal taxes fees required.

[A]

Check out 15 minutes or less per line. Visit t mobile.com did you know you can opt out of winter with VRBO? Save up to $1,500 for booking a month long stay. When thousands of sunny homes are waiting for you, why subject yourself to the cold? Put the snow shovel down, put the parka back in the closet and don't you dare scrape another windshield. Slip into some flip flops, consider a sunless tan and use the monthly stays filter to save up to $1,500. Book your warm getaway at vrbo.com hi.

[B]

This is Kevin as we all know, back last year, Andrew Baldwin was part of a defense team that lost very badly to Nicholas McCle, Cleveland in the trial of Richard Allen. What we didn't know and which we now exclusively report is that in August of this year Andrew Baldwin filed a 57 page complaint against Nicholas McLeland with the Disciplinary Committee here in Indiana. He lost badly there as well. We're going to talk about all that and in these episodes we also talk for the first time about some complaints that were filed against me. Complaints that also lost badly Content Warning.

[A]

This episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls as well as suicide.

On February 13, 2017, a man named Richard Allen murdered two girls, 14 year old Liberty German and 13 year old Abigail Williams and that occurred in Delphi, Indiana which is in Carroll County. Allen was arrested in 2022 and then was prosecuted by Carroll county elected prosecutor Nicholas McLeland. Allen's defense team had lead counsel Brad Rosie as well as as well as a Jennifer O.J. and Andrew Baldwin. But anyways, they did a very bad job at trial and also Allen was pretty clearly guilty. He was convicted on November 11, 2024 by a jury of his peers. Now at this point we can exclusively report that Baldwin filed a ridiculous complaint against McLeland this past summer with Indiana's Disciplinary Commission, a body tasked with disciplinary complaints against attorneys. And this was not an isolated incident. Kevin also had groundless complaints filed on him over the Delphi case. This appears to be part of a larger strategy or tactic by Richard Allen truthers to attempt to punish their perceived enemies using frivolous complaints. And it underscores the fact that even though they lost in court, these people are still Attempting to extract revenge long after the verdict came down. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[B]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[A]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[B]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[A]

We're the Murder Sheet.

[B]

And this is the Delphi Baldwin's Complaint, Part one.

[A]

It.

[B]

Anya, before we get to discussing the complaint itself, which is a monumental and ridiculous task, let's start at the beginning. Nicholas McLeanland was actually sent a letter from the executive Director of the Disciplinary Commission. Can you read that letter?

[A]

Yes. On August 20, 2025, Andrew Joseph Baldwin filed a grievance against you. The complaint was considered by this office and has been dismissed as not raising a substantial question of misconduct under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. That would warrant disciplinary action. As this grievance was dismissed for not raising a substantial question of misconduct, it does not require any formal response from you. Copy of this grievance is enclosed for your information. The commission file on this matter is now closed. Sincerely, Adrienne L. Meering, Executive Director.

[B]

There's a couple of things we should talk about in regards to that letter. Absolutely. The number one most important thing is they're saying this complaint he filed, 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. So that, I think, is the most important thing is this. This responsible body whose entire job is to regulate questions like this and discipline attorneys who make mistakes. They think that what Baldwin has given him is, on its face, insufficient and not even deserving of a response from McLeland. I think that's the most important part about that.

[A]

Yeah, but if you would have saved some. Baldwin could have saved some steps by just depositing it directly into the waste basket. Right. I mean, like, it's just like the. The. The. I mean, they didn't. They didn't say, okay, well, we need to have some hearings to see the facts and, you know, figure out what's going on here. It didn't even rise to that level.

[B]

So flimsy doesn't even need a response. I think it's also interesting they say he filed this on August 20, 2025. Anya just is a refresher so we can put ourselves back, because we're sitting here in early December. Summer seems a very long time ago. What was going on in August 2025.

[A]

So, yeah, so the. The commission, Disciplinary Commission, they received the letter on August 20th. It's dated August 19th. A week after August 19th. As some of you may remember, our book Shadow of the Bridge, the Delphi Murders and the Dark side of the American Heartland came out. So that's one data point there. In addition, In August, on August 5, 2025, a Hulu documentary came out that was incredibly sympathetic to Andrew Baldwin specifically and the defense team as a whole. And it also featured extensive footage shot by Baldwin himself of himself working on the case and saying little catchphrases as he files motions.

[B]

And so, yeah, either he or his team were filming themselves on, on phones doing things that they thought were like, very dramatic. Like he was about to file the Franks memorandum and he's pushing a button. He says, this is for Richard Allen. He pushes the button dramatically. Yeah, I remember that.

[A]

I remember cringing and just. It was bad. So that was something that came out. And that, that docu series, it kind of came and went pretty quickly in my memory. Like people were like, oh, wow, for a day. I know that Anna Williams slammed it on stage at crimecon.

[B]

That's Abby Williams mother.

[A]

Yes. And it's not very good. It's not very accurate in my op, but, but more so, it seemed to be kind of Baldwin's big vehicle for whatever he wanted to do. Whatever he wanted to do when he was filming himself work on this case seems to have, you know, that was the fruit of his labors. Came and went two days later on Facebook. On August 7, the CrimeCon's clue awards are announced and they're going to not only the families of both girls, Libby and Abby, but also Lt. Jerry Holman of the Indiana State Police and Nicholas McClelland, the Carroll county prosecutor who beat Baldwin. So August seems to have been a month that maybe, shall we say, triggered Baldwin somewhat. You know, I mean, he's like, right. His, his documentary comes out, doesn't really make that much of an impact. Then you have McClelland getting an award and then you have our book about to come out. Now, we approached Baldwin many times attempting to get his side of the story for our book. It was not through lack of our effort that he did not participate in that, but he did not.

[B]

As we've said before, during the trial and the pre trial process, he often gave personal assurances that he would speak with us after the trial. And those personal assurances were not lived up to.

[A]

In addition, he also went on the record telling people that he was only going to talk to outlets that would quote, unquote, baby him. So I guess we didn't count, we were not in the baby group, I guess, of treating him like an infant. So we were not, we were not part of this. But so anyways, I just, I note all these data points because it just seems like August, he was having a month in August.

[B]

Okay. So with that said, we are going to talk about what he wrote in his complaint and I just ask that you all keep in mind as we discuss this, that again, it was so flimsy, it was so meritless that it didn't even warrant a response. And so it was. Keep that framing in mind as we talk about that. And I'm also going to say we're only going to be reading excerpts from this. And the primary reason for that is this thing is 57 pages long and it is incredibly repetitive. And when I say incredibly repetitive, I actually mean that in two different ways. It is repetitive in the sense that everything that is covered in there, everything that has been covered in this complaint has been covered extensively in pre trial motions that Baldwin tried and lost or in post conviction motions that he tried to do and lost. So it's all stuff we've heard before. And also it's repetitive in terms that the complaint itself, he repeats things from one page to another. It is incredibly repetitive and to a shocking extent. And this comes from somebody. I read a lot of this, Maine's writings over the years.

[A]

Yeah, this was not, not in the top, top tier effort here. It was, it was surprising. It, I mean, I think you said it best about how, how it sounds.

[B]

I, I want to read a line from it. Quote, it has taken me several months to draft and finish this complaint. As you will see, it is lengthy, end quote. And I, I, I don't mean to be unkind. This does not read like a document that he spent months slaving over. This reads, as I think you will see, like a transcription of an overnight session where you're ranting with a YouTuber.

[A]

Yeah, it was shocking.

[B]

To get back to the document, he writes, quote, I apologize for the length of this document. I wish that I did not have to provide the level of detail I am providing. I am a very busy lawyer and the amount of time taken to prepare this has taken time away from other pursuits and family time.

So he took time away from his family to write this thing. And just like his representation of Richard Allen, it accomplished nothing.

[A]

Yeah, I want to say something because I think sometimes people are impressed with the wrong things when they're looking at documents like this, especially from attorneys. People tend to, no offense, Kevin, give Attorneys too much of the benefit of the doubt in various situations, I've found. But I think there's a sense of, like, Whoa, it's 57 pages. He must make a pretty good case. There's a lot in there. It's pretty stuffed. And I just want to note with the repetition and with the padding out and with the extraneous details and with how badly this is organized. He. He himself actually kind of seemingly almost in a braggadocious manner, mentions the length of the document a few times. And again, I think he's trying to almost awe people for 57 pages of complaints. Wow. Content is what counts, right? The content, not the length of the document. What's in the document. So I. I guess I. I would just caution that I don't. It's just. We only say that because he references the length of the thing a bunch of times, and it's like. It just. It's bizarrely performative.

[B]

And this may not apply to you, Anya, because you were always a fine student, but I had the experience, and maybe some of the listeners have had experiences where you get assigned to write a report that's supposed to be, like, 10 pages, and you don't really have 10 pages worth of things to say, so you start padding it and you're repeating yourself and things like that, quoting the dictionary. And this reads like that to me.

[A]

Oh, it really. It doesn't. It reads. I mean, honestly, it doesn't read like an essay so much as it reads like someone just ramb. Like, if, like, he cornered you at the bar and started unloading on you about all his grievances against McCleland, it feels like you'd have a similar experience to us reading this document. And that's. That's not a good thing. But in a nutshell, let's break down. What.

[B]

Boil it down.

[A]

Yeah, let's break down. What is he specifically accusing McLeland of? And what. Reading this document, going through this, seeing what. What he's. What he's actually bringing up. He is. Baldwin is saying that McCleland withheld crucial evidence from him and the Richard Allen defense team. That is the nutshell. He's hiding evidence. He's lying about it. That's. That is what Baldwin is saying happened here. And I guess that prompts a kind of a question or something that I think maybe, Kevin, you should address being. Being new resident attorney here over. You know what. What are a prosecutor's duties as far as discovery? What is exculpatory evidence? What. What is all of that? And how do prosecutors sort of need to maneuver that as they're dealing with a case?

[B]

You need to turn over any exculpatory evidence. This is evidence which points to the crime being committed by someone other than the defendant.

[A]

So, for instance, let's use the. Because I have Stockholm syndrome. Now, about the subject. Let's use the serial theft example. So if I'm on trial for stealing cereal from our local Walmart, and then there's evidence that, you know, a person's car is seen in the parking lot of the Walmart and that person was posting pictures of bowls of cereal that match the same type stolen, and maybe they have a criminal record around stealing cereal that's exculpatory because, hey, maybe it's not me. Maybe I'm just getting blamed for everything. And if the prosecutor withheld that from my defense team, that would be a pretty egregious situation and the case could get dismissed over that.

[B]

As we will hear, Baldwin has a very broad definition of exculpatory. He also has a very bizarre definition of turning stuff over. Because if McClelland would turn stuff over, it doesn't really count in his mind unless it's, like, properly indexed and tabbed so he could find it all very, very easily.

[A]

Basically, McCleland has to sit with Baldwin, holding his hand and doing a presentation for him about where everything is seemingly as far as he's concerned, which is very much not McLellan's job. And bizarre that Baldwin would expect that. But anyways, I don't know about you, Kevin, but I'm always getting those irritating spam calls.

[B]

It is so annoying.

[A]

There are predatory grifters out there just waiting around trying to steal our money. That's why I'm so grateful for our wonderful sponsor, Cash App. Cash App makes me feel more secure knowing my money is safe.

[B]

The holidays are all about finding the perfect gift. But this time of year, not every deal is actually what it seems. Scammers are getting more creative to trick people into sharing their payment info or through methods like fake shopping sites and giveaways that are too good to be true. Luckily, Cash App's 247 fraud monitoring helps detect and alert you for unusual card activity should someone gain access to your card so you can act fast if something seems off. You can also lock or unlock your Cash App card instantly right in the app. For extra control and peace of mind, stay one step ahead of scams this season and keep your money secure with.

[A]

Cash App for a limited time, only new Cash App customers can use our exclusive code to earn some additional cash for real, just download Cash App. Use our exclusive referral code secure 10 in your profile. Send $5 to a friend within 14 days and you'll get $10 dropped right into your account. Terms apply. That's money. That's Cash App. Cash App is a financial services platform, not a bank. Banking services provided by Cash App's bank partners. Prepaid debit cards issued by Sutton Bank Member FDIC Promotions provided by Cash App, a Block Inc. Brand. Visit Cash app LegalPodcast for full disclosures. If you had the power to stop a crime before it happened, wouldn't you do it? What if that crime was done against yourself or your own family? Well, with Simplisafe's home security system, you can stop break ins and burglaries before they even happen.

[B]

The big problem with traditional home security systems is that they react after an intruder is already breaking in or even inside. At that point, it's far too late. Your peace of mind is gone the moment someone intrudes on your space.

[A]

SimpliSafe is different. Thanks to their advanced home security technology, AI powered cameras can lock onto potential threats outside. If a prospective intruder approaches live, agents step in to confront the person via a camera. Now the potential bad guys know that someone's watching and also prepare to dispatch police in an instant. The agents can also start blaring sirens and flashing lights.

[B]

We have relied on Simplisafe to keep our homes safe for years. We trust them with our safety. It's great knowing someone is looking out for you and your family. It does wonders for our peace of mind, especially since we've gotten threats in the past over our reporting.

[A]

Simplisafe really does have your back. No hidden fees, no long term contracts, no punishment for canceling at any time. Try it out today. You even get a 60 day money back guarantee this month.

[B]

Only take 50% off any new system. This is one of the best prices you will ever see for Simplisafe. Don't miss it. Hit simplisafe.com msheet again. That's simplisafe.com msheet and lock in your discount. There is no safe like SimpliSafe.

[A]

So this, I guess this, I mean this document gets started with for some reason a summary of Baldwin's discredited theory that Odinist cult members murdered the girls. So yes, we're starting there.

Immediately. I just want to say he got a bunch of stuff wrong and, and, and I frankly I think he misled in, in this, you know, summary even which was like but, you know, he's relitigating it, so I think it's worth noting.

[B]

Go into it, lay it all out.

[A]

So this is what he wrote. Quote, immediately after the victims were found, law enforcement started investigating whether the murderers were members of a cult or religion who had left certain symbols at the crime scene that resembled something called runes formed from sticks and blood, end quote. So, okay, police looked at the possibility of a variety of things. Police in this case were dealing with thousands upon thousands of leads. They were going every which way. They were looking at different possible suspects, different possible theories of what happened. They interviewed the family members of the girls in the early hours of this happening. So, like, everything was on the table. To say that police were kind of focused on this or to suggest that, as he does here, is inaccurate. It's just not correct. I will also note before we get rolling on Odinism again, you know, these stick formations, as the defense kind of claims, you know, they were shown to a professor, as we'll get into later, and they were also shown to members of the Behavioral Analysis Unit of the United States Marshal Service. No one thought these were runes. Everyone. No one looked at this and said, yes, those are runes. The opposite. What the BAU of the Marshal Service said was, it looks like someone's trying to essentially hide the bodies. And if you look at where the sticks are put it, it makes it pretty clear that they're essentially like Richard Allen says in his confession, hey, there's a van on this access road. It looks like someone's trying to hide the bodies. From the perspective of someone on the opposite side of the creek. They're not very well hid when you're just on top of them. But when we're talking about being across the creek, that's where he saw movement and activity. So he's trying to shield the bodies from eyes on that side of the creek. It's pretty simple. No, if I just throw a bunch of sticks down in my front yard, you know, like. And they're just in some random scattering formation. You know, you might see a V, you might even see a W. But if you're not able to spell anything, then it probably doesn't mean anything. Runes are letters. It's not like. Like they're either letters or they're not. Like, there's no. I don't know.

[B]

Calm down. We get it. We get it.

[A]

So, okay, anyway, also, the blood. Okay, so this was another quote quote. Also, the blood of one of the victims appeared to form another rune on a tree, as if someone had Painted the tree in her blood to form a rune. End quote. Okay, so there was a transfer stand on one of the trees.

The defense had every opportunity to call a crime scene analyst expert to say, hey, we think this was painted on. There's plenty of experts who you can find, and they can analyze it and they can tell you, yeah, I think it was painted on versus I think it was just a transfer stain in the sense that someone had blood on their palm and pressed it against the tree. They can analyze that. They had their. They had the money, they had the time. They had the opportunity to call their own expert. They did not. Instead, all we got was crime scene analyst and expert Major Pat Cicero of the LaPorte County Sheriff's Office, who is a widely respected crime scene analyst. He testified that the blood at the scene matched. Was a transfer stain that matched the hand of victim Liberty German. So this was a child who was dying, who is resting against the tree as she's going through this horrible experience. I mean, it's a. It's a horrifying image. What he also testified to was because the defense put out their stupid theory, he was able to actually try painting that. That shape with blood on that kind of tree. And what he found was it would have taken forever to do that. First of all, he would have had to been going back and forth between the blood source, AKA the bodies and the tree. There was no dripping to indicate that that was happening, and it would take an inordinate amount of time, and it was very difficult to do. So it's a situation of what is likely, you know, and where's the. Where's the drippings if what they're saying is true? And why couldn't they find an expert to testify for them? Because obviously it's not true. So those are two things. In addition, the defense contends throughout this document and throughout the trial and the case and everything, the whole process, Baldwin and the defense as a whole has contended that law enforcement simultaneously was really super duper interested in the Odin is mangle. And they were running with that in the early days, and that was all they were doing. It was the only important thing. But also they were trying to cover it up. Which is it? You know, like, was. Was it a sit? Like, the detectives were like, okay, it's Odinism. Oh, wait, no, we have to cover it up. Like, why? Like, why?

What happened was that law enforcement was looking at everything as they should, and they weren't like, closing anything down. They were like, okay, let's see if someone Thinks that these sticks form something good. And then what they were told was they don't, so then they move on. That's how it works. Like, they don't just like. Anyways.

None of this is important because none of the Odinism angle went anywhere with the investigation. The people involved who were kind of put forward by tipsters had alibis or were never linked to Delphi that day or the crime scene in any way. So it's like it was a lead to look at, to run down. They did, and that's it. And that's how it works. You know, Baldwin himself doesn't even seem to really fully grasp. I mean, he keeps using this term Odinism, as we've described. The term is Norse paganism. Odinism is. Is a specific kind of criminal gang. He doesn't even know what he's talking about. And like, honestly, I think he's just sticking with Odinism for branding reasons because that's what, that's what got, you know, play in the media. It's just. But it's not accurate, you know, saying people are Odinous. That's a very specific group within Norse paganism. You know, there's no evidence to me that any of the people they're even talking about are actually Odinous. I think they may worship, you know, Norse pagan, and that can. That can have a number of different looks. You know, we've talked about this, we've interviewed experts on the show, but it's just inaccurate and ridiculous at this late stage.

I mean, like, for instance, I mean, we talked about alibis. Quote, here's a quote. Quote, Brad Holder, one of the third party suspects involved in Odinism, had direct link to one of the victims. His son dated one of the victims. Holder also lived near Delphi. End quote. Is there another fact about Brad Holder, Kevin, that they kind of conveniently leave out near?

[B]

What about the fact that he had an ironclad alibi which completely proved his innocence?

[A]

Oh, oh, okay. It's kind of weird that they didn't.

[B]

Mention that Brad Holder had nothing to do with these murders.

[A]

Like, it's just like, it's astounding. Quote. One of the suspects in Rushville, Elvis Fields, had even confessed the crime to his sister, made incriminating statements to Trooper Kevin Murphy, end quote. Trooper Kevin Murphy, of course, being one of the people who investigated the Odinism angle for the state police. This fails to mention that Murphy actually had pretty extensive concerns with the mental health issues and credibility of Elvis Fields's family. So, you know, kind of conveniently leaving that Part out.

And then this is my favorite quote. These were the leads that Murphy, Klick and Ferency were following. Pause here for a second. Murphy, I mentioned. Todd Klick was the former assistant police chief of Rushville, Indiana. And Greg Ferency was a Terre Haute police officer with the FBI Counterterrorism Task force, as was Murphy. They were both part of that task force. Greg Ferency was tragically murdered. But these three guys were looking into the Odinism. For a time, they were looking into that angle, and they got on this kind of theory of like, there's some kind of connection between Rushville and the Delphi area. And it's all very complicated and frankly, not supported by the evidence. But. So, quote, these are the leads that Murphy, Klick and Ferency were following. It was months among the vast amount of evidence they uncovered that led them to believe that third party suspects involved in Odinism and therefore also involved with runes, had killed the girls. End quote. So, I mean, this was. These guys assembled evidence so vast and so insurmountable that they never got probable cause at all and were never able to link suspects to the crime scene, which both Murphy and Click testified to on the stand. So who cares? I mean, I like. Like, that's great that they looked at that. Okay? They. They seem to all get emotionally invested in doing that. And I understand that. I mean, everyone's human. Law enforcement's human. But at the same time, that doesn't. Just because they did a lot of work and it never went anywhere doesn't mean that we need to take this super seriously.

You know, I. Yeah, no, I promise.

[B]

I promise, Anya, I promise you, I promise the dear Listener, I won't do this too often. I'm going to do it at least one more time. But I don't want to be repetitive about pointing out Baldwin's repetitiveness.

[A]

I think you already have been, but I love it. It's meta.

[B]

I'm going to do at least one more time after this. But on page seven in this document, in this document that I again remind you, Baldwin says he spent months perfecting like a jeweler. On page seven of this document, he mentions not once, not twice, but three times, that one of the alleged onus lives 125 miles away from one of the others. That is being repetitive just a little bit.

[A]

Super important details.

[B]

Now, I. In this next part is going to upset you. But again, he brings up Jeff Turco. I know that's a remind. Remind us. Who is this? What's this Jeff Turco angle To this.

[A]

Jeffrey Turco is a professor at Purdue University in Indiana. He has an expertise in Old Norse German. So this, in other words, is a man who can presumably recognize and read runes in ancient Norse.

[B]

So when it became a question, oh, are these sticks runes? One of the things police did was they went to this Purdue professor Turco and said, what do you think?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And then what happened?

[A]

Well, I mean, and then he said, and, well, I mean, I don't, I don't know. Where do you want to go from here? I don't even know what happened. I mean, so this guy, he has the expertise. They go to him. I want to make it clear the context of this. They're going to him pretty early on in the investigation. And this is a time where and, and our, I mean, if you read our book, I think it gets into this pretty effectively. Like, it's chaos. It's total chaos. Everyone's running around and doing stuff. And what they're trying to do is like, focus on the best leads. Right, right. And so if someone, you know, if you go to somebody and they say, okay, that's not. Those are not Norse runes, then, okay, then we, we solve that mystery. So, you know, like, there's a brief interaction between Turco and law enforcement where he's asked to kind of look at the shape of the sticks and, and what he says ends up making them think, okay, there's not, there's not really anything there. Police have to be going where the evidence is. They can't just be hoping or, or kind of stretching things to make it fit because they want it to be runes. Because that's how you get wrongful convictions. When you get blinders on. When you just say no, it has to be that, you know, I'm just going to keep shopping for experts until I find someone to tell me what I want to hear. Then that's not a real investigation. So from there, this, the Turco thing becomes just this obsession during the pre trial phase. And for Baldwin and for the defense team, it becomes this thing that they will not let go. And they think it's a big aha moment.

[B]

They think they're not telling us.

[A]

Yeah, well, so what happens is. So what happens is on August 10, 2023, Lieutenant Jerry Holman of the state police is deposed by the defense. And they, you know, there's a conversation and he essentially says that law enforcement became less interested in the possibility of a Norse pagan connection after hearing from a Purdue professor who told them, hey, I don't think these are runes. And the defense asked, okay, who is the Purdue professor? And nobody remembered immediately. Ultimately, they gave the name, but it was a situation where took a few weeks, but they did not immediately know. Holman did not directly talk to this Purdue professor, so he was not aware of the name. And they had to do some digging to figure out, okay, who has the name, who talked to him, let's get this information to them. But I mean, when you're asked in a deposition, hey, who's the. Who's this guy? You're not going to just make up a name to make people happy. You're going to say, I'm going to go look into it and get back to you. So that's what happened from that. I mean, I think most people would look at that and say, okay, well, it's annoying to wait a few weeks, but it was obviously not very important to them. So I think that's pretty understandable.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Or, you know, maybe if you're a defense attorney and you kind of want to get your digs in, you kind of complain about it in some filings, whatever. These guys spun a whole conspiracy theory out of it, like, to an extent that is. Boggles my mind, because they, oh, they're.

[B]

Keeping him from us because he has, like, explosive information. They get his name and what. We're jumping ahead a little bit, but what happens when he finally comes forward when he's been publicly identified?

[A]

He said, I don't think they're runes, essentially.

[B]

And he says what Holman said. Holman's summary of what I said is more accurate than what the defense says.

[A]

Yeah, let's go into. So. So McLeland was ultimately able to clear this up in filings. And this filing was. Was done April 3, 2024. And it was the state's response to defense's third motion for Frank's hearing. And McLellan was able to bring in the report that Turco did for law enforcement in 2017 in, like, March 2017, shortly after the murders. This is what Turco wrote. It is not self evident that these markings are runic inscriptions, nor it is immediately clear what they would mean if they were. However, the argument that these markings constitute an inscription inspired by Norse runes or modern recreations thereof, is quite plausible. The following are conjectures based on the working assumptions that these lines do in fact constitute a runic or runicly inspired inscription, end quote. Okay, so what does that mean? It means that he's saying, let's take it as a given that they're at least inspired by runes.

[B]

Right. Is a working assumption.

[A]

He's starting with the intellectual exercise of, okay, it doesn't look like runes. It's not self evident. It's not clear that what this would even spell out. But let's just assume that they are and then let's go from there. So he's saying, I'm trying, he's trying to give these people, he's trying to give detectives something to work with. So he's trying to say, okay, let's just erase the fact it doesn't look like runes and it's not apparent that they are even inspired by runes. Let's assume that they are. That's all. I mean, there's nothing that he's not, he's not concluding that they're runes. Clearly, like any adult with a functioning critical thinking ability can read this and understand that. So, you know, but of course, this is the Delphi defense team. So anyways, you know, we go from there. And this is what McClelland revealed in that filing was that March 21, 2024, Turco is deposed. And he says then under oath that Lt. Holman's report on what he told him when being re interviewed was more accurate about his beliefs on the runes than what the defense concluded that he must be, you know, saying that they are runes. What the defense did when they read this thing was they said they focus a lot on the quite plausible of it all. The, the markings constitute an inscription inspired by Norse runes. They ignore the fact that he's saying we're going to take that as a given that it's runes. So they made it out to be like, oh, they were hiding the fact a professor said it was runes when it wasn't bad at all. And at this deposition, Turco was essentially able to tell them, hey, I, you know, I don't agree with you.

[B]

So again, to boil it down, there was this mysterious Purdue professor. The defense says he supports us and our theories that Purdue professor is named. And he says, no, what the defense says is not what I support. I, I support what Holman said. That that's, that's what you need to know. Right?

[A]

Yeah. This is a, this is from that, that 2024 filing. Quote, the professor went on to debunk all the statements that the defense put in their motion, including that this was a ritualistic sacrificial killing. He stated that nowhere in the recorded history of Odinism has a sacrificial killing of children occurred. And if by some slight chance that it is, that it would be the only one in recorded history. And goes against the definition of ritual, since a ritual is something that is done over and over again, end quote. Pretty devastating.

[B]

This. This professor blew a hole through their theory. Yeah, that's what you need to know.

[A]

And he also said they basically lied about what he said.

[B]

Right. So put a pin in that. And we're going to go and I'm going to read something from Baldwin's complaint. And he's talking about. He's talking about the initial deposition when he's talking to Holman. And Holman cannot remember the name of the professor off the top of his head. And this passage I'm reading, it's actually I'm reading like a paragraph from one page, and then I'm jumping to another page. It's like a page or so later. And I'll explain why in a moment, but here I'm going to read it. Lt. Holman claimed he could not remember the name of this professor. Professor McCleland. Pardon me, Freudian slip. Again. Lieutenant Holman claimed he could not remember the name of this professor. Prosecutor McCleland also claimed that he did not know the name of the Purdue professor. Both McCleland and Holman claimed that they would try to find the name of the Purdue professor and turn it over to the defense. The defense at the time thought at most that it would take just a few minutes, maybe an hour or two, to determine the name of the Purdue professor. Making a few phone calls. Maybe call Sergeant Steve Buckley, who worked with a professor. Maybe look in the evidence bank on a computer. Maybe call Purdue. It should be very easy to quickly solve the mystery of the Purdue professor's identity. That is a big, gigantic deal. Huge. During the weeks following the early August 2023 depositions in which the importance of a Purdue professor's opinion became known. As I asked myself this. How could McLeland and or law enforcement not quickly locate this professor by looking at the reports and records the professor generated or by talking to law enforcement who were involved in that aspect of the investigation. Steve Buckley. Or by simply picking up a phone and calling Purdue University and asking which professor might have been utilized in trying to analyze certain symbols. It was absurd to think that Indiana State Police, a law enforcement agency with all the investigative tools and records, reports and resources available to them, could not quickly or even immediately locate the identity of this professor. So I quote those passages from two different pages for a couple of reasons, because, again, I think this might be the last time I do it. But it highlights how Baldwin padded this thing out with a lot of needless and frankly, sloppy repetition. Because in those two, he's basically listing the exact same steps he thinks they should have taken to find the identity of the professor. The exact same thing he's saying basically twice in just a couple of pages.

[A]

But it's like. It's also like, you know, I mean, they got it. I mean, again, like, this all seems like a petty overreaction to feeling like they took too long to get back to him.

[B]

They got the name a couple of weeks later. And also, if it was truly as easy as he said it was, if all you have to do is call up Purdue and get the names of some of these professors, you know, I remind all of us, Baldwin had a team of taxpayer funded investigators.

Had at least a couple of them, didn't he? Yeah. Is there a reason why if it was so easy, they did not make those calls?

[A]

Yeah, like if it, you know, I mean, who.

[B]

Like things like that, Anya, make me suspect that perhaps Baldwin's investigators were not top flight.

[A]

Oh, wow. God, that's. That's going out on a limb.

[B]

Anya, why don't you give me a break and read this next paragraph from Baldwin that I've highlighted.

[A]

Sure, sure. Quote, I begin to think that something more sinister might be happening. Perhaps Lieutenant Holman and the other law enforcement officers who testified under oath during depositions the week of August 6, 2023, were trying to hide the fact that Lieutenant Holman had lied in his sworn deposition testimony. Perhaps what the Purdue professor actually said was that the symbols left behind were runes, or at least could be runes, thus supporting the possibility that certain third party suspects with ties to Norse paganism, like Brad Holder and Patrick Westfall, had committed the murders? What if Lieutenant Holman had lied under oath at the deposition about the claims of the Purdue professor? To get the defense off that scent, McLean knowingly allowed it to happen. What if the reason the prosecutor was not providing the name of the professor and observedly stating that he may never be able to identify the professor was that he, McClelland, was trying to cover for Lieutenant Holman and the others, and more importantly, was trying to divert the defense away from the third party suspects who practice Odinism.

[B]

Now, I wanted to highlight that passage because it's an example of a certain technique some people use. If you don't have any actual evidence to back up the wild assertions you want to make, then what you do is you try to plant the ideas you want people to have have in the form of questions and speculation. So that lets you plant a particular framing in people's mind. And if anyone calls you on it, you can just say, oh, I was just asking questions. What's wrong with that?

[A]

Yeah, I mean, if I'm charged with, say, serial theft, and I just start just asking questions and encouraging others to do the same, like, let's say, you know, I'm just asking if police may have planted the cereal in my house. Don't police have a history of eating cereal themselves? Maybe one of the officers involved in my case, maybe one, maybe his wife, posted a picture of their breakfast that included cereal. Could she be part of Big Cereal and they're covering up for her? If we did a search of the homes of those officers who arrested me, would we find cereal on the shelves of their cupboards? Maybe the same exact brands I'm accused of stealing, doesn't that imply that some of them could be the serial thief and framing me?

[B]

And if Anya did that, I think we'd all be justified in suspecting that she was trying to deflect some blame and evade the consequences of her own pathetic actions.

[A]

And you'd be right. I mean, seriously, I, like, I, I, it's, it's something that people do when they don't have evidence for what they're saying, and it's, it's meant to trick rubes. But, I mean, he's filing this to the disciplinary commission. I mean, these are attorneys. They know. They know.

I think most attorneys have a rhetorical nonsense detector, you know?

[B]

Yeah, there's a show on television, Penn and Teller Fool Us, I think is what it's called, or something like that, where magicians come on and they perform tricks in front of Penn and Teller. And most of us average laypeople see these tricks and say, wow, that's really impressive. But Penn and Teller would say, ah, I know how you did that. And so 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.

[A]

He seems to think that he's smarter than other people. And it's like when you're talking to YouTubers, you're probably right. But when you're talking to peers who are also attorneys who are tasked with disciplining other attorneys, I think, you know, this kind of stuff is not very effective, and it just looks bad, I think.

[B]

And with all that said, let's answer some of the questions Baldwin was asking there. Yes, no, Lieutenant Holman did not lie under oath. No one hid the name of the professor, and no one was interested in diverting the defense from the preposterous Odinism theory.

[A]

Yeah, in. In 2017. Let's just be clear again, Turco said, quote, it is not self evident that these markings are runic inscriptions, nor is it immediately clear what they would mean if they were. Again, he's an academic. He's assuming that they're Norse inspired. He says that in the frigging report. And the defense basically chopped this up and garbled it so it would fit what they wanted it to fit. And it is fully believable to me that Lt. Holman and others like McCleland would not remember this one professor's name because it was a bad lead that went nowhere. And other things were happening at the time that were likely more promising. So having one conversation where it's like, oh, no, that. That doesn't look like runes to me, that's not exactly going to be the big highlight of your memory from March of 2017, you know, and it's believable to me that it took some digger digging to figure out who talked to whom. I mean, like, I'm sure if they just fired back, I think it was this guy, and they'd gotten the wrong name, then they would have freaked out about that. I mean, they're trying to, like, figure out who it is so they can get that information to them accurately. It seems like Baldwin got ticked off that they didn't treat him with kid gloves. And it took a while for them to get back to him. But, like, again, why didn't he call around himself? It was that frigging timely.

[B]

And then now I want to do a brief glimpse behind the murder sheet curtain. We both prepared notes for this, and in this, this next section, Anya prepared the notes, and she's going to be making a point about some of the language Baldwin used in this document. And to do this, she, like, cut and paste several different lines from different parts of the document. And it looks like some sort of jazz beat poem. What you've done here, I'm gonna read.

[A]

I'm an artist.

[B]

What Anya has done here, this is all from the document, but it's not consecutive. These are, like, from different parts of the document.

[A]

It does look like a poem.

[B]

But this is what Anya has prepared here. This is all Andrew Baldwin. This struck me as very, very, very bizarre and troubling. That is a big, gigantic deal. Huge. Professor Jeffrey Turco told a very nervous Jerry Holman, perhaps the missing Purdue professor himself might come forward and say, hey, I'm here. This is a gigantic deal. Let me repeat that. I'm Sorry, I just don't believe McCleland, which is crazy to me to find the truth. Having early interviews recorded over would be huge news among law enforcement and the prosecutor in 2017. I mean, huge. Once again, nothing to see here. Undated report, nothing to see here. Missing evidence that the defense have been seeking for many months. Nothing to see here. Just move on. All of it is shady and not normal.

[A]

So we got a snap for Kevin is performance.

[B]

I don't mean to jump on your point. What. What point were you going to make.

[A]

With all this is not written by a professional. I mean, this is not. Does not read like it's been written by a professional. It reads like either a silly preteen writing attempting to write what they think is a legal document or like, you know, your. Your really angry uncle ranting on Facebook. It. It just beyond the overt manipulations that we've talked about and the level of editorializing and the sort of lack of respect for basic facts of what actually happened, there's just this bizarre tone of, like, petulance and like, almost like this kind of language would be totally fine if he were just ranting to friends about something that happened. But like, in a legal. In a. In a complaint about a legal matter, it's just really surprising to see, like, the casualness. I think it's meant to be disarming. I think it's meant to be charismatic and get people on his side and sort of charm them. But it just comes across to me as really manipulative and stupid. But that's just me.

[B]

What it reminds me of a little bit is there are songs you might like, and if you hear this song, you might all think that this is a fun song. But then if you read the lyrics without the music, the lyrics just sound stupid. And I think if Baldwin was, like, saying this stuff in front of a jury in that context, maybe it'd have more power, I don't know. But in this context, it doesn't work.

[A]

It doesn't work at all. It made me embarrassed for him reading this. Honestly, I got bad secondhand embarrassment reading this.

[B]

So Baldwin goes on. Of course.

[A]

Of course. We're what, like two pages in?

[B]

Baldwin goes on, and he says something quite bizarre, even for him. Now he spends about a page discussing his Frank's memorandum. And that, of course, is the document he prepared that outlined their Odinism theory, which again, is their contention that for the first time in recorded history, a group of modern white supremacists murdered two white girls as part of a ritual. Baldwin points out that in this document, he talked about the fact that at the time, they had not yet been given the name of Turco, the Purdue professor. But then Baldwin says after the document came out, lo and behold, and he misspelled low.

They were given Turco's name. Now I'm going to read exactly what he wrote in his document. If the defense had never filed the Frank's memo calling out the prosecution for its absurd claim that law enforcement could not figure out the name of the professor, the defense may never have learned the name of the professor. End quote. So wait a minute. Let's stop. I'm pushing pause.

Let's think about what he just said there. He says the reason we all learned Turco's name was because he cannily brought up the issue of the professor not yet being identified in the Franks memo. Oh, my God. But remember what we just told you. After Turco was identified, he came forward and said the defense's interpretation of his words was wrong, which was a huge problem for their theory. So when he comes out and he's identified, he says the defense was wrong and Holman was right. He blew a huge hole in the defense theory. And if we accept Baldwin's interpretation, the one and only reason the Turco got the opportunity to blow that hole through their theory, the only reason he was identified was because of Baldwin's brilliant decision to raise the issue in the Franks memo. What a strategic masterstroke by the learned attorney. If there is an alternate universe where he is a prosecutor and I ever get charged with a serious crime, I would hope and pray that he's my prosecutor because I would surely be acquitted.

[A]

It's like. It's like watching.

[B]

Does he not think what he says?

[A]

He doesn't. It's like watching. It's like watching Edward Smith, Captain Edward Smith, you know, in the water, watching the Titanic sink, rubbing his hands and being like, all according to plan. Like, what are you. Why are you bragging about doing something that blew up your whole defense? But this is what they do. It's. There's no. There's no connective tissue between anything. Everything is its own weird compartmentalized battle that they don't really seem to realize affects the whole tapestry of their defense. And that's been a consistent problem for this team.

[B]

With all of that said, I mean, I don't want to leave his assertions unanswered. I want to be clear. I believe Turco would have been identified and his name given to the defense even if Baldwin had not mentioned him in The Frank's motion, it's sort of.

[A]

Like, you know, I don't know, it's like, if I open my front door and it starts snowing shortly afterwards, did the snow come because I opened my front door, or am I kind of maybe associating two events together that aren't really connected? Feels like they do that a lot. Baldwin does that a lot.

[B]

He does that a lot.

[A]

A lot of logical lapses, a lot of logical fallacies, a lot of lack of logic. And it's. It's like, why would the prosecution care? Because Turco was completely backing them up. So, like, why would. You know, just. If you. If you look at it these. I mean, the prosecution's not corrupt. Law enforcement's not corrupt. But even if they were, like, Turco is devastating to the defense.

[B]

Devastating.

[A]

The idea that they would hide that. No, we don't want anyone to know that. The defense is just completely, you know, enamored with a theory that doesn't make any sense and isn't accurate. Like, it just doesn't make any sense from any sort of logical standpoint, and it's embarrassing.

[B]

So then Baldwin, in this. In this complaint, he then talks about some of the issues we've talked about, where he claims that Jerry Holman lied during the deposition and gave an inaccurate summary of what Turco said. Again, Turco said, no, what Holman said is accurate. That's a fair summary of what I said. And then Baldwin says something else remarkable, Anya. And I'm going to quote it.

[A]

Yay.

[B]

Baldwin writes, had the defense simply believed Holman's statement as being true, as well as the statements of other law enforcement officers, testimony from that August 6, 2023 week of depositions, the defense might have abandoned pursuing the Odinism theory. End quote. Does anyone out there have any doubt at all that this defense team should indeed have abandoned their hapless Odinism theory? It was ridiculous. It was nonsense. It was easily debunked, and it did their client, Richard Allen, far more harm than good.

[A]

There's something so sweaty and defensive about all of this, like, oh, it's good that we did the Franks memorandum, even though it kind of, like, blew things up. It's good that we. We. We did Odinism. Like that, of course, was the theory. Of course we would do Odinism. We would do it again in a heartbeat. And it's like. It's like if, like, it's like your friend takes you to a restaurant where, you know, the. The service is terrible. They're an hour late with your food. It's all cold. You get food poisoning and you get robbed at gunpoint in the restaurant. And it's like, oh, wasn't that the best restaurant ever? It's like, no, it wasn't. We were all there. It was terrible. Like, why are we act. Like, it's like if I say it enough, if I put that into the universe enough, and if I tell all my colleagues and I tell all my friends and I tell the disciplinary commission about how great Odinism was, maybe that'll make it true. And it's like, no, no, no. Like the blue fairy is not going to come wave a wand over this, you know, disaster, garbage fire of a theory and make it any good or any, you know, any way intellectually honest or coherent. Everyone who has a brain thinks it's stupid.

[B]

But anyways, Baldwin goes on. I mean, this is again, 57 pages. He renews some of his old complaints about what he unfortunately calls evidence dumps.

[A]

Yeah, that's. And again, it's like this immaturity of that this is a professional. This is a man who went to law school. Every, every time he can choose some kind of petulant or stupid or childish way of saying that, for some reason he opts for that rather than trying to at least sound a bit professional in this process.

[B]

And these evidence dumps, that was his term for. There was an enormous amount of work done on this investigation over the years, and McClelland would provide huge amounts of evidence to the, to the defense team.

But he. Apparently the defense didn't have the wherewithal to go through and organize it themselves. And they often complain, why doesn't McClelland organize this for us? Why doesn't he help us find things we want to find? You want to take it up from there? I think you had something to say.

[A]

One of the most striking moments about this for me, because there were all these complaints from the defense about discovery issues. And listen, discovery issues is something to take seriously. I think we said up the top, if you hide discovery, if a prosecutor hides discovery and hides exculpatory evidence, a case can get thrown out over that. It's very serious. It's violating somebody's rights. So you got to make sure discovery is done right. But with this, I can't even make this up. I remember this so vividly. And I was. I was listening to our old episodes because I was like, I know this happened. I know I didn't like Fever Dream this, but I was able to lock down the exact date of this. So the three day hearings, the first one of those, those occurred in 2024, summer of 2024. And they saw that the defense team, OJ, Rosie and Baldwin, arguing to judge goal why their third party odinism theory should be allowed at trial. Ultimately, Judge Gull ruled that it should not be allowed a trial because there was no nexus. And you need to have some kind of link between your suspects and the crime. And they didn't have that. So first day, July 30, 2024, OJ is going, going up and saying, you know, what the defense is arguing is that the McLeland has been withholding discovery from them, and they're not getting discovery and they're not getting specific stuff that they wanted. And OJ Is up there and she's going on about how, like, we're not asking the prosecution to do our jobs for us. We're doing the, you know, and like. And McClelland's like, you are. You are asking us to do your jobs for us. And, you know, basically what the defense is doing is ordering us to find stuff for them because they can't find it. And that. And, and basically what he said is they're trying to get around not being able to beat the burden for introducing third party suspects. So what they did was they'd file a request for sanctions on the prosecution. And I don't know if you remember this, but one of the sanctions was just let us do OD mechanism, please.

[B]

I remember that.

[A]

And you're not allowed to say anything bad about it.

[B]

I remember that.

[A]

I forgot that. And it's because. Oh, because you hid all this evidence and you didn't give us all this evidence. So we take a lunch break. I'm in. I, for some reason, I didn't go to lunch. I just sit around the kind of like, I don't know what you call it, kind of balcony area in the center of the courthouse. And I'm just staring into space. I think at the time I said I was questioning my life choices about why am I here? And then I look down and McClelan's, like, running down the stairs. And I was like, okay, what's going on there? I don't know. We go back in and McClelland gets up and he says that he and Detective David Vito were looking at some of the defense complaints, and he provided receipts, receipts on that, that those specific pieces of discovery had been turned over. Not only had they been turned over, but people on the defense team had signed for them.

And Jennifer, O.J. said, quote, it was very kind to McClelland to find that proof, it was like. It was like, surreal because it was like all this caterwauling and yelling about, oh, we're being hidden from it. Oh, we didn't get this, and you need to let us do odinism, please. And don't, don't say anything bad about it. It's very good. And they were able to just be like, we turned that all over to you. They had a history of claiming things that were simply not true. And it was like they. It really showed to me that they did not have a handle on this case. As attorneys, I don't feel like. Listen, I sympathize with them to the extent that it was a tremendous amount of discovery to go through. It's a tremendous amount of data. But it seemed like they put so much energy into basically cultivating things in the court of public opinion that they didn't actually have a handle on the important information that they had in their case. And it showed in their performance, you know, and it's like, I just. Stuff like that underscored that. I don't believe a word any of them say about discovery issues. I think that McLuhan did things properly and he probably went further than he had to in helping them organize things to a certain extent. And, you know, instead of being, you know, remotely grateful, they turn around and try to basically act like he was doing things he shouldn't have been, which is not backed up by the evidence.

[B]

Yeah, I don't know about you. We're like halfway into this thing. We haven't even gotten to Todd Klik.

[A]

Oh, my God.

[B]

We haven't gotten to Ricky Davis. Yes, he brings that up. He brings up Ricky Davis. Folks, we haven't gotten to the complaints against me. I don't know about you. I really need a drink. And by a drink, I mean a Mr. Pip, why don't we take a break, come back and do part two in a few minutes.

[A]

Let's do it.

[B]

So stay tuned. We'll also be dropping part two today.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[A]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at the www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[B]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web at Kevin Tg.

[A]

If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. We've run into some pretty creepy people in our true crime journey and we've even gotten some threats as a result. Safety is often top of mind for Kevin and I.

[B]

That's why we trust our long term sponsor, SimpliSafe. SimpliSafe is a home security system that's both innovative and proactive. They're not just about sounding the alarm when someone breaks through your front door. They seek to prevent the break in from even happening. We've used them for years. The reason is the peace of mind they give us every day right now. Murder Sheet listeners can save 50% on a SimpliSafe home security system. Just go to simplisafe.com msheet SimpliSafe deploys.

[A]

So many technologies and techniques to keep you safe. I'm talking about AI powered cameras. Not to mention they're always looking out for you. Professional monitoring agents are on hand to intervene in real time. They'll switch on the two way audio to confront possible prowlers. Start blaring sirens and spotlights to get rid of them.

[B]

Simplisafe is great for renters and homeowners alike. You can customize your approach to home security. They've got lots of different options, but one constant is that you don't need to sign a long term contract. Between that and your 60 day money back guarantee, it's a cinch. Try out SimpliSafe today.

[A]

Right now my listeners can save 50% on the SimpliSafe home security system at simplisafe.com msheet that's simplisafe. Com msheet. There's no safe like SimpliSafe.