The Delphi Murders: The Appeal

Podcast: Murder Sheet
Air Date: December 18, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain (A), Kevin Greenlee (B)

Episode Overview

This episode takes an in-depth look at the appellate brief filed by Richard Allen’s legal team following his conviction for the murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams in Delphi, Indiana. Hosts Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee walk through the legal appeal's major arguments, dissect the brief’s approach, highlight points of contention, and provide their own legal and journalistic analysis. The discussion primarily focuses on the legal process and the nuances of Allen’s appeal rather than sensational developments or new evidence.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Centering the Case ([05:38])

• Emphasis that the focus must remain on the victims: Liberty German (14) and Abigail Williams (13), who were murdered in 2017.
• Richard Allen was not arrested until 2022; convicted in 2024 and sentenced to 130 years.

The Appellate Brief: Purpose & Audience ([01:08–04:34])

• Appeals are about reviewing the fairness of trial procedures, not introducing new evidence or bombshells.
• The brief is directed at the appellate court and is not meant to be entertaining or newsworthy to the public.

“It’s not a piece of entertainment. It’s a legal appeal. So of course it’s gonna be boring. It doesn’t mean it’s bad.” – Áine ([04:24])

Summary of Main Legal Issues ([06:25])

Kevin reads the three central issues the appeal raises:

1. Search Warrant Constitutionality: Did law enforcement omit or alter key facts when obtaining the warrant for Allen’s home, which led to crucial evidence (notably, the Sig Sauer gun)?
2. Involuntary Statements: Were Allen’s incriminating statements during pretrial solitary confinement unconstitutional and thus inadmissible?
3. Right to Present a Full Defense: Was Allen denied the right to fully explain the scene, impeach the investigation, and present alternative theories (such as “Odinism”)?

Critique of the Appellate Brief’s Summary Section ([07:39–12:20])

• Hosts find the brief’s summary “heavily slanted towards Mr. Allen” and sometimes “dishonest.”
• Omission or manipulation of key facts is noted.
• The brief portrays Allen as returning peacefully to normal life post-murder, which Áine sharply ridicules as irrelevant.

“We’ve never ever heard of a murderer who didn’t change their lifestyle after the murders… What are we talking about?” – Áine ([08:41])

Clarifying Witness Testimony ([12:24–14:31])

• Witness inconsistencies in age or appearance are normal; what matters is that multiple witnesses consistently identified “Bridge Guy” as the man seen in Liberty’s video.
• Allen himself admitted to being at key locations at the critical times.

Exclusion of Odinism & Alternate Suspects ([14:36–15:06], [59:06–61:52])

• Brief claims police disregarded other suspects; hosts correct that people like Brad Holder had strong alibis.
• Attempts to float unsubstantiated theories are dismissed as speculation (“this isn’t a Reddit forum” – Áine ([19:38])).

On Alleged Policing & Search Warrant Issues ([26:57–32:19])

• Liggett (investigator/now sheriff) is accused in the brief of altering witness statements; the podcast meticulously refutes this with reference to actual statements and testimony.
• Law enforcement is not required to list every detail or theory in warrant affidavits.

“There’s no reason to believe or conclude that Liggett misrepresented anything.” – Kevin ([30:31])

Discussion of Allen’s Confessions & Mental Health ([32:38–47:14])

• Defense claims Allen’s confessions were involuntary due to conditions akin to “solitary confinement.”
• The brief includes grandiose references—Nelson Mandela, Charles Dickens, John McCain—which hosts find inappropriate and sensationalist.
• Allen was in protective custody to prevent harm; he communicated with family and had amenities unusual in true solitary confinement.
• Mental health experts at the trial addressed whether Allen's behaviors were genuine or manipulative.

“[Referencing Mandela and McCain] is offensive to any POW… He’s been accused of murdering two kids, and then they convicted him. He’s not an object of sympathy.” – Áine ([46:19])

Excluding Evidence and Witnesses ([49:27–52:11])

• The defense was denied use of certain testimony (e.g., odinism “expert” Don Perlmutter) and physical evidence (e.g., defense sketches ruled as hearsay).
• Hosts state Judge Gull acted within her broad judicial discretion throughout.

Forensic & Digital Evidence ([53:54–58:40])

• The brief makes an issue of how certain forensic analysis was or wasn’t introduced (e.g., confusion over an aux cable event on a phone).
• Defense claims omission of other non-confession phone calls was prejudicial; hosts disagree.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Misusing Cultural References:

  “Citing a novel in an appellate brief. … Dickens is a wonderful writer. I don’t believe his words really have the force of law or case law or really have much impact on how judges should make decisions.” – Kevin ([42:11])

• Exasperation at Defense Tactics:

  “Why are we bringing that up in a legal filing? It just sounds kind of dumb. … Are the appellate judges gonna sit there and be like, ‘Oh, the movie said okay?’” – Áine ([24:33])

• On Trial Team Performance:

  “...I think Mr. Allen’s trial team did an abysmal job. And the arguments for ineffective counsel were certainly stronger than anything I saw in this brief.” – Kevin ([22:36])

Appellate Brief Approach and Tone ([41:51], [49:04])

• The brief employs dramatic and literary references, undermining its credibility for the hosts.
• There’s substantial focus on fostering sympathy for Allen, seen by hosts as manipulative rather than legally substantive.

Rapid Fire Observations & Additional Points ([63:43])

• Issues raised re: Odinism, DNA evidence, alibi witnesses, and Allen’s alleged weight loss, are quickly debunked or contextualized by the hosts.
• Áine and Kevin stress that many defense claims are distortions or misunderstandings of how courts and law enforcement actually operate.

Timestamps for Significant Segments

• Opening and framing the appeal process: [01:08–04:34]
• Victims/background of the case: [05:38]
• Overview of appellate brief issues: [06:25]
• Appellate team and their approach: [09:16–10:28]
• Hosts critique the brief’s summary and factual presentation: [07:39–14:31]
• Rebuttal of Odinism and alternate suspect theories: [14:36–15:06], [59:06–61:52]
• Search warrant and witness issues: [26:57–32:19]
• Solitary confinement argument & misuse of literature: [32:38–47:14]
• Exclusion of evidence/witnesses at trial: [49:27–52:11]
• Digital and forensic evidence debate: [53:54–58:40]
• Brief discussion of phone calls and confession evidence: [58:40]
• Hosts summarize and evaluate the overall quality of the appeal: [68:41–70:33]
• Final reflections and future steps: [72:51–end]

Hosts’ Final Assessment ([68:41–72:51])

• Áine: Found the brief unconvincing, poorly constructed, and more focused on emotional manipulation than substantive legal arguments.
• Kevin: Considers the brief “competent” compared to the original trial defense, but not strong enough to overturn the verdict—also notes omission of an “ineffective counsel” argument, which might have held more water.
• The appeal is unlikely to succeed but serves the necessary function in the legal process.

“The fact is he got a fair trial and he’s a guilty man. ...they made the best possible arguments they could, but... there’s not really enough there.” – Kevin ([69:22])

Noteworthy Quotes (with Timestamps)

• “[The appellate brief] feels more like somebody listened to Andrew Baldwin ramble about the case at a bar and then tried to clean it up in a legal filing.” – Áine ([07:39])
• “There’s not a single eyewitness. There’s many eyewitnesses.” – Kevin ([14:31])
• “This isn’t a Reddit forum. ... You don’t get to just say, ‘well, maybe this happened.’ It’s facetious.” – Áine ([19:38])
• “Citing Dickens at this point... If we’re citing Dickens, is it possible the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future just appeared to Allen and told him he was going to hell and that’s why he needed to confess?” – Áine ([43:11])

Summary

This episode meticulously analyzes the main arguments of Richard Allen’s appellate brief in the Delphi murder case, highlighting the limitations and weaknesses of the defense’s claims. Áine and Kevin, drawing on their backgrounds in journalism and law, provide clear explanations of the legal issues, debunk distortions, and keep the focus on the victims and substance of the appeal process. The hosts express skepticism regarding the likelihood of success and note the dramatic, sometimes absurd, rhetorical flourishes in the defense filing—offering both critical insight and dry humor for listeners desiring an informed breakdown of this stage in the case.