Murder Sheet Podcast Episode Summary Title: The Delphi Murders: The Odinism Theory
Host/Authors: Áine Kane (Journalist) and Kevin Greenlee (Attorney)
Release Date: November 26, 2024

Introduction

In this compelling episode of Murder Sheet, hosts Áine Kane and Kevin Greenlee delve deep into the controversial Odinism Theory related to the tragic Delphi murders of 2017. The episode meticulously examines the defense's alternative theory, scrutinizes the evidence presented, and evaluates the integrity of the investigative process.

Content Warning

[02:21]

Áine Kane: "This episode contains discussion of the brutal murder of two girls."

The Odinism Theory: Overview and Origin

The Delphi murders, involving the tragic deaths of Abby Williams and Liberty German, have been the subject of intense scrutiny and various theories. The defense, led by attorneys Andrew Baldwin, Bradley Rosie, and later Jennifer Roget, introduced the Odinism Theory as an alternative explanation for the crimes.

Kevin Greenlee explains:

[02:49] "We're talking about the Odinism theory, especially as it was presented in the so-called Frank's memorandum in the Richard Allen case. It laid out what the defense contends actually happened to Abby Williams and Liberty German on February 13, 2017."

Áine Kane summarizes:

[03:10] "The defense posited that Richard Allen did not commit the murders; instead, a group of men they dubbed Odinists, who worship Norse paganism, were responsible for sacrificing the two victims in the woods."

The theory suggested that these Odinists conducted ritualistic sacrifices, diverting suspicion from Allen. Despite initial media fascination, the theory was dismissed by Judge Francis Gull and never brought to trial.

Third-Party Defense: Legal Framework in Indiana

To establish a third-party defense in Indiana, the defense must demonstrate a connection between the proposed third party and the crime. This legal nuance is critical in understanding the shortcomings of the Odinism Theory.

Kevin Greenlee elaborates:

[12:24] "Before evidence of a third party is admissible, the defendant must show some connection between the third party and the crime. If there's no connection, accusing someone is slanderous and wastes the court’s time."

Using a simplified analogy, Greenlee illustrates:

[10:23] "If you present an option that the jury doesn't find plausible, they may reject your entire case."

This underscores the importance of credible evidence when proposing an alternative explanation for a crime.

Defense’s Evidence and Interpretation of the Crime Scene

Central to the Odinism Theory is the defense's interpretation of the crime scene, particularly the placement of sticks on the victims' bodies, which they claimed were runic symbols.

Áine Kane points out:

[22:06] "Both Abby and Libby's bodies had sticks placed atop them. The prosecution concluded these were attempts to conceal the bodies or signs of 'undoing.' The defense interpreted the sticks as Norse runes."

Kevin Greenlee critiques the lack of expert validation:

[25:15] "They did not produce a single credible expert who said these sticks are definitely runes. It's just a vibe."

Áine Kane concurs:

[25:41] "They just look like sticks. If experts had corroborated the runic interpretation, it would have been more compelling."

The absence of expert testimony supporting the runic claim significantly weakened the defense's position.

Examination of Defense Testimonies: Experts and Witnesses

The defense's reliance on questionable expert testimony further undermined the Odinism Theory. Notably, Dawn Perlmutter, presented as a crime scene expert, failed to provide credible analysis.

During cross-examination, Kevin Greenlee exposes the flaws:

[53:20] Kevin Greenlee questions: "What training do you have specifically to recognize when a crime scene is part of an Odinist ritualistic killing?"
[54:04] Dawn Perlmutter: "No, I haven't done this for a long time."
[54:27] Kevin Greenlee presses: "Have you had any training specifically on Odinist ritualistic killings?"
[54:40] Perlmutter: "No."

Kevin Greenlee concludes:

[57:08] "She connects symbols to Odinism without credible expertise, merely based on vague observations."

Additionally, the defense's chosen witnesses, such as Amber Holder and statements from Elvis Fields' sister, lacked credibility and failed to substantiate any concrete links to the crime.

Critique of Defense’s Investigation Complaints

The defense aggressively criticized the investigative process, alleging negligence and bias against the Odinism Theory. They contended that law enforcement failed to pursue this line of inquiry thoroughly.

Áine Kane observes:

[86:31] "Defense accused investigators of ignoring the Odinism angle, but actual evidence shows investigators were encouraged to explore all leads."

Kevin Greenlee counters:

[85:44] "They committed intellectual dishonesty by suggesting a conspiracy without evidence."

The hosts argue that the defense's accusations were unfounded and intended to discredit reputable investigators rather than present a viable alternative theory.

Intellectual Dishonesty and Misrepresentation by Defense

The Odinism Theory not only lacked substantial evidence but was also marred by misrepresentations and logical fallacies.

Kevin Greenlee states:

[102:14] "Defense had a predetermined outcome and ignored evidence that contradicted their theory."

Áine Kane adds:

[123:16] "The defense twisted expert testimonies and fabricated connections, planting false impressions without substantiation."

Examples include the flawed testimony of Dawn Perlmutter, who failed to identify Odinist symbols convincingly, and the misrepresentation of Professor Jeff Turco's findings, leading to further discrediting of the theory.

Hypothetical Evidence that Could Support Odinism Theory

For the Odinism Theory to gain traction, credible and tangible evidence would have been necessary. The hosts outline what such evidence might entail:

Kevin Greenlee suggests:

"If there were credible witnesses who saw Odinists at the crime scene or concrete evidence linking Odinist symbols to the murders, it would have been compelling."

Áine Kane echoes:

"Presence of multiple individuals executing a coordinated ritualistic act without leaving trace evidence would lend some plausibility."

However, no such evidence was ever presented, rendering the theory speculative and unsubstantiated.

Conclusion and Insights

Áine Kane and Kevin Greenlee conclude that the Odinism Theory was fundamentally flawed due to its reliance on weak evidence, lack of credible expert support, and the defense's misrepresentations. They emphasize the importance of adhering to factual evidence and legal standards to ensure justice is served accurately.

Kevin Greenlee affirms:

"A murder trial is a very serious thing. We owe it to the victims and the defendant to take theories presented by the attorneys very seriously. This is garbage."
[132:50]

Áine Kane concurs:

"It's irresponsible to promote unfounded theories that undermine genuine investigative work and disrespect the victims' families."
[134:20]

The episode serves as a critical examination of how alternative theories, when not rooted in solid evidence, can derail justice and perpetuate misinformation.

Key Takeaways

• The Odinism Theory lacked credible evidence and expert validation.
• The defense's approach demonstrated intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation.
• Effective defense must focus on factual evidence rather than speculative theories.
• Upholding legal standards ensures the integrity of the judicial process.

Notable Quotes:

• Kevin Greenlee on third-party defense requirements:

  "[12:24] 'Before evidence of a third party is admissible, the defendant must show some connection between the third party and the crime.'”

• Áine Kane on defense strategy:

  "[123:16] 'The defense consistently misrepresented the truth, which hurt their credibility with us and many others.'”

• Kevin Greenlee critiquing the theory:

  "[132:50] 'This is garbage.'”

Final Thoughts

Murder Sheet provides an incisive analysis of the flawed Odinism Theory in the Delphi murders case. By dissecting the defense's approach and highlighting the absence of substantiated evidence, the hosts reinforce the necessity of rigorous standards in criminal investigations and legal defenses.

For listeners seeking in-depth true crime analysis and thoughtful legal discussions, this episode stands out as a testament to the importance of evidence-based conclusions in the pursuit of justice.