The Delphi Murders: An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney on Delphi, the Death Penalty, and Deals

[00:00:00] Content Warning. This episode includes discussion of the murder of two girls. You know that on the Murder Sheet we love to talk to guests with experience in the world of criminal justice. Well today, we'll be speaking to a highly seasoned Indiana criminal defense attorney, Mark Inman.

[00:00:18] He's got years of criminal defense experience. He was one of the defense attorneys on Indianapolis' infamous Richmond Hill explosion case and tried that case in front of Judge Francis Gull. He's even argued before the Indiana Supreme Court.

[00:00:32] We're beginning his thoughts on the latest happenings in the case against Richard Allen, as well as other related issues. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:00:47] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reported interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is The Delphi Murders, an experienced criminal defense attorney on Delphi, the death penalty and Deals.

[00:01:04] Mark, to start off with just tell us a little bit about yourself and your legal career. I'm still practicing a little bit, but not much. But I kind of always wanted to do criminal law. One, my grades weren't good enough to get hired anywhere else.

[00:02:02] So I always wanted to be in court. So I did about 40 years, I started practicing in 82. Always pretty much had a public defender contract or position of some capacity throughout that 40 years. At that point in time, there were a lot more part-time public defenders.

[00:02:21] And so you could do a part-time contract and then have a private practice as well. I had different partners over the course of time, but for the most part, and some great lawyers that I've practiced with that helped me out in many ways.

[00:02:35] They knew more about the community, knew more about the judges, knew more about the courthouse. But I had my own private clients and they were mostly in state court. And then I kind of shipped it over later on and did a lot more work in federal court.

[00:02:48] I was on the board of the federal defenders at who when we hired Monica Foster. 11 years ago, who's now the chief defender here in federal court. And I did a lot more public defender work and cases over there. And I've done several death penalty cases.

[00:03:04] It's all pretty good. What's it like to do a death penalty case? I'm just worried I can't say no kind of. So when I was called and asked to do it, I mean you've got to maintain your number rule 24 qualification. I mean, it's nerve wracking.

[00:03:20] I think you have to realize that the death penalty wouldn't be filed if they didn't have a substantial amount of evidence against your client. It's not always the selection process for the death penalty cases is so arbitrary that that's why it shouldn't exist.

[00:03:39] But once you get asked to take that case, either by a judge or by whoever's in charge of putting together a representation for that client, then it makes you a little nervous and makes you anxious. You don't want to lose. You don't want to do anything wrong.

[00:03:55] I mean, you know, it's going to be some height scrutiny. But I was fortunate once again to be able to work with people who were more experienced. Because you know, you can't take it.

[00:04:06] You're not supposed to be lead counsel on a death penalty case unless you've been second chair once. So someone can kind of help you and walk you through what you need to do and how you need to handle it.

[00:04:19] And I was fortunate to do death penalty cases with like Bob Hill, Brent Westrofeld, Andy Borland recently. And then we had a great team of investigators, especially Jan Dallin doing mitigation. Bob Fisher and Larry Atwell doing some fact.

[00:04:38] But the fact is once you start doing it, you can put a team together. You relax a little bit. You map it out. And the irony of the death penalty is that if you can negotiate a life sentence, you've won. Kind of right? Yes.

[00:04:51] For instance, in the Delphi case, there's no death penalty file. So there's really no. There's no bargaining point. I mean, that's the irony of the death penalty. It gives you something to bargain. And I had to try one death penalty case. That was nerve-racking.

[00:05:07] Are you surprised that Delphi is not a death penalty case? Well, when we first talked, I just assumed it was because of the attention and because of the appointment of the two lawyers, you know, right from the get-go.

[00:05:24] I think it's smart that it's not a death penalty case.

[00:05:28] From a resource standpoint, just from a pure resource standpoint, the county that files the death penalty case takes on an incredible financial obligation, which Carroll County has anyway by kind of treating it like a death penalty case without filing the death penalty.

[00:05:44] I think it's smart not to file death penalty on it. Someone who if sentenced for two murders is going to serve what amounts to a life sentence. So, I mean, it's not worth it in many regards. Right. And that makes sense.

[00:06:03] And would there be like in a case the way a case is structured or a way a case looks, would there be other reasons to not do death penalty and take that off the table? To never file it? Yeah.

[00:06:16] Well, I mean, I think there's all kinds of considerations. Well, I don't know how a property makes decisions filed up on the case to be honest.

[00:06:23] I think a lot of it's very arbitrary and very, I don't want to say need to, but you know, if a policeman killed, they're pretty much going to file it, right? Right. You've got to have a good case if you're going to file it.

[00:06:34] But then how you pick whether, and of course there's statutory aggravating circumstances that the case has to qualify for, but many of them do. I think the filing of the death penalty is much more of a practical consideration.

[00:06:50] Morally, no one, like seeing people get killed and morally, you can believe in the death penalty or not. It doesn't really matter.

[00:07:01] From a practical standpoint, you have to figure out where it's going to cost you and your office, your staff, all the other agencies involved and whether it's worth it. And I don't see ever coming out in this day and age on the side where it's worth it.

[00:07:19] That makes a lot of sense, especially when so high profile. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if like Timothy McVeigh, you know, bombed the federal courthouse downtown or something that might be a little different. But once again, where do you draw the line?

[00:07:37] You never know where to draw the line. Right. So that's always been my view of the death. From my standpoint, I mean, I don't like it morally. I don't think it solves anything.

[00:07:49] You know, it's not a different, but from, but I think you have to be practical about it. And when you're practical about it, you have a real reason not to do it. And like I said, the only irony is that it gives you a bargaining chip.

[00:08:05] And then as you say, the death penalty is not on the table in the alpha. So is that going to make it harder for a potential plea bargain in the case? Sure. I mean, what incentive does Allen have to plead guilty?

[00:08:21] They're going to give them a 20 year deal? No. And I've had many cases where myself that have been serious to middle-aged people, even younger people. And my argument has been, I know it sounds like a lot of time, but the question is,

[00:08:37] well, you want to die in prison or not? And I'm giving you a deal where you won't die in prison. And you can't give that deal to Allen. So I'd be shocked if there were a plea agreement. Now of course, there's so much going on in this case.

[00:08:55] We don't even know who his attorneys are going to be. Can we talk about this situation? Yeah, we've talked a little off record before about it. How weird is this situation regarding the original defense team and Judge Goh? In your view, with all of your experience. One to 10?

[00:09:18] Yeah. 9.99, I suppose. Have you ever seen anything like it before? No. When you're a PD, when you're a public defender, if you do it for longer than a month, you're going to have a client who wants to get rid of you.

[00:09:40] Either because you won't present some ridiculous alibi or you won't propose 50 witnesses on a level six felony or you won't do what they want done. Or you're saying, look, they've got you. You've got three felonies on your record. They're offering you a year. It's a good deal.

[00:10:01] No, I won't take that. I want to go to trial. I want another lawyer that'll work for me. Complaints in other words, right? And so or someone might write a letter to the court. In federal court, they're much more formal about how they do this.

[00:10:17] And, you know, I've been on the side of several of these where you have a hearing to determine whether or not you should remain as his or her attorney. But I've never had someone write that.

[00:10:34] I don't know, Mark Inman, but I've heard about him and I really, really want him as my lawyer. Right? You know, you can. So that's what that my public defender, right? I mean, you can hire whatever lawyer you want. You know, and that's right.

[00:10:50] This idea of right, the right to be represented by whoever you choose really is twisted around here from a public defender standpoint. So back to, I got to handle myself back to. So if you have a hearing, you go in and the prosecutor is not there.

[00:11:12] This is the one thing that I think we talked about before was. Should the prosecution really have any say or any position on who represents Alan or who represents anybody?

[00:11:27] Because when Mary Smith wants to fire me, then Mary and I go in and the judge says, well, Mary, you know what's going on. And she says, well, you know, voices, errors are complained. You can't take it personally as a lawyer. Many do. You can't take it personally.

[00:11:45] You know, you might have made a mistake somewhere, but it doesn't mean you can't rectify it. Like no judge, I haven't visited in a while. That's my fault. But I've been working on the case and over the top, you know, we're okay now.

[00:11:57] That'll be half the time I'll get some of that way. Or the judge may say, I mean, you know, is it just, is there a complete breakdown here? And sometimes the lawyer will follow red motion saying there's a complete breakdown.

[00:12:10] And then the judge says, okay, half the time we'll say, Mr. Iman knows what he's doing. You know, you don't get to pick your public defender. He will continue on the case.

[00:12:20] You guys need to kiss and make up the other half the time you may be gone and another public defender comes in. But the point is you don't get to choose a public defender in the context of that hearing. That's what makes this so unique.

[00:12:32] I think some people have expressed the concern that I'd be curious if you think this is legitimate or not. That if it becomes easier or if it becomes even possible for judges to dismiss someone's defense attorney, whether it's a public defender or whatever.

[00:12:49] That's basically giving the judge a veto power over what defenses are offered. Because in theory, a judge could say, oh, I don't like this defense. You're incompetent. You're off the case. Is that a legitimate fear? Yeah. I mean, I can't say it's not.

[00:13:06] I don't think that this sets a precedent that judges are going to view as giving them carte blanche on who they can let go and or regain. But having said that, in the interest of caution, you really don't want to see it happen if you can keep it.

[00:13:26] Now, the court's concerns, half of the court's concerns in this case from what I can tell were more almost ethical or professional responsibility violations.

[00:13:40] You don't have to do with the leak of the photograph and the early release of a press release that just jumped in the face of the gag order or something to that effect. Am I right there? Definitely with the photographs.

[00:13:53] I think the gag order came down right after the press release was put out there. But I believe what Judge Gull is citing there is that there were conversations with her where, you know, we're not going to try it in the press. Right.

[00:14:05] The next thing she knows, there's a press release out there. It seems like there's a breakdown between as far as Judge Gull cites between the defense, the original defense team and like her faith that they're telling the truth. Given that circumstance, you know, I think she's.

[00:14:22] I think she has the power to address that. Right. And needs to address that. How important is that? I'm curious. I want to drill down on that a little bit if you don't mind. The importance of trust between the parties and the judge and.

[00:14:37] It's 100 percent from where I'm coming from. You know, my thing about practicing law for as long as I did was, you know, I wasn't the best trial lawyer in the world. I maintained good relationships with judges, prosecutors, other defense attorneys, whoever.

[00:14:58] And you do that by being, by keeping your word. You know that when you go back into chambers trying to defuse a difficult situation or to or to go back and not.

[00:15:13] And lay out to the judge what both of you are trying to do in a professional manner. That you're going to go into open court and you may argue that you may do this.

[00:15:24] So the judge doesn't get surprised every 15 minutes in court with a shouting match between the lawyers. But you have, you have to say, OK, we're going to do this and this when we leave the chambers, we're going to do this and this.

[00:15:37] And then you have to do that. You have to trust each other. Now you can't practice that way everywhere with every judge or every attorney. And there are some attorneys who just don't even bother doing that. And they want to be completely adversarial all the time.

[00:15:54] And that's their call, but that was never how I did it. So I think it's I think it's very important and having tried to case the judge goal and being in, you know, a very important case at Richmond Hill case

[00:16:05] and being back in chambers with my co-counsel and with prosecutors. I know that we had a couple of meetings back there that weren't anything super secret or anything like that. It was just this is what's going to come out.

[00:16:18] This is how we think it's going to come out. This is how we want to do it. Is that OK? Streamlines trial, it's good, right? Right. In your experience, was she biased against the defense attorneys against you in that situation?

[00:16:31] Or did you feel like she just didn't hand it? The whole world would bias the captain. Yeah, fair. But did you feel like she demonstrated a more favorable attitude towards the prosecution? Or did you feel she was pretty even-handed as a judge in that situation?

[00:16:47] No, I mean, I think she made a couple of rulings that she could have thrown us a couple of wins to help ease us to really wouldn't have affected the ultimate result. She made a ruling. But you know, judges make bad rulings. You know, lawyers make bad arguments.

[00:17:04] Something like that. I don't think she... No, I mean, that trial was so lopsided anyway. I mean, she couldn't have made it any more lopsided. So she didn't have to. She knew that. Right. She knew it was... I don't know what...

[00:17:23] I think it's been through appeal and peace in post-conviction, and it's not going to get overturned. Oh, it was fair. Well, different situation, but still, I never felt that... I mean, she... Every judge has a reputation, right?

[00:17:40] I think at that time her reputation was that she's somewhat pro-prosecution. But you know how many times I've heard that about judges? I mean, half the judges are prosecute. We're prosecutors, right? Yeah, right.

[00:17:56] I imagine a lot of that has to do with where the judge came out of being a defense attorney or being a prosecutor beforehand. It's going to influence your perspective.

[00:18:08] We had a loser from the beginning, and Ted Minch was the attorney that did most of the work on that case. I was second chair. They're a phenomenal job. And the state did a phenomenal job. And I think that made it easy.

[00:18:23] You know, we knew the prosecutors because we had dealt with them before. We knew how much work they had put into putting the case together and how they tried to streamline their presentation. There were only a few things that we could challenge. And so it made it...

[00:18:43] And she didn't get away at that. You know, her job, their judge's job many times is not to get in the way of good lawyers trying their case. Right? Whether that's going to happen here or not, I don't know.

[00:18:59] You keep on talking about what a lopsided case that was. I don't mean to go off on a deterb. I'm just curious, what's it like as a defense attorney to get up every morning and go to court

[00:19:10] to litigate a case you know is not going to go well for you? Well, you just say, you know what your spots are. You have to kind of put out of your mind the, not what's at stake, but what happened.

[00:19:25] You almost have to be a little scientific about just picking your spots, know what you're going to do that day. I know I've got to challenge their expert after these two witnesses. I'm doing the best I can, but I know what the verdict's probably going to be.

[00:19:40] It's not to me and there are a few that aren't like me, but it's not a when it all costs that. And it's not a matter of, I've never lost a trial before. I mean, I don't buy that from anybody. If you have never lost a trial before,

[00:19:57] then you've never really tried some public defender cases that are pretty lousy. So, yeah, you're cherry picking in that situation. Yeah, right. Yeah. So, but that was like Kevin, I heard a quote years ago when I was younger,

[00:20:12] but you know, when I was it all balanced out when I was young, I lost some I should have won and when I was old at one, some that I should have lost called the gray hair factor.

[00:20:22] I just think you have to be objective about what your chances are or you're going to be telling the client stuff and giving them false hope that you maybe shouldn't be doing. One question I have kind of going back to the possibility of having a judge

[00:20:39] essentially fire the defense team in this case, setting a bad precedent, but this is I'm going to flip it and indicate, you know, so what we know is that the defense team told Judge Gull that they were going to recuse

[00:20:53] and then they kind of turned around and indicate that they were strategically not telling the truth there. Would that be a bad precedent to set if Judge Gull has removed that, you know, parties can essentially weaponize lying? Well, yeah, I think so.

[00:21:14] I mean, from what I can glean about what happened back in chambers in the end, it was she said, I mean, to talk to the chase. She said, look, you can either withdraw back here or I'm going to lay out an open court.

[00:21:32] I mean, to me that that's that makes sense to you. Yeah, that's sort of what I'm reading. And like, and they decided that they didn't want to get laid out at all court because of my reputation. I don't know.

[00:21:46] I mean, that cannot be the deciding factor if you represent somebody. You know, and they tell the judge they're going to withdraw and then they go out and say they were strong armed into withdrawing. You know, if you felt you were strong on them to being withdrawn

[00:22:04] and put her feet to the fire and make her make the record and then walk out of there with your head up high, not, you know, that's what you do. You're afraid to get laid out by a judge. Is it the defense attorney? You know, last long.

[00:22:20] Yeah, it's that's the way I look at that now. You know, it's like, I don't know everybody's right. Nobody's wrong in that old line from song. It's just everybody who's been put in such a weird position here

[00:22:43] that I don't know that there's been any precedent for what they did. But back to your point, if you're back in chambers, you say judge, you know, I'm not going to call witness acts or I just have a few questions on cross examination

[00:23:00] for your witness and then we'll be done for the day or whatever, you know, you stick to that. You know, I don't go back in chambers and talk to the judge. So yeah, it certainly it certainly speaks to a general breakdown

[00:23:16] and trust and certainly I think that no matter what happens we can agree that both both the judge and these old defense old defense attorneys cannot stay on because that would just be a disaster going forward. I'm going to ask you to do some crystal ball gazing

[00:23:32] if you don't mind that. What what do you think? Obviously we don't know. I'll lead into the crystal ball gazing. We'll ramp it up to that. My question is to start off with, are you surprised that the second writ of mandamus was granted

[00:23:50] an oral argument or oral, you know, the hearing with the Indiana Supreme Court? I think some people that we talked to thought that that would just be dismissed outright. But is it are there any tea leaves to read into what you said that was actually granted a hearing?

[00:24:05] There was the would you say second writ? I don't know what. Oh, sorry, the one that should be thrown out. Okay. I think given the uniqueness of the case and given the you given this and it, you know, just given all the convolution,

[00:24:26] a convolution, I think it's I think in a way it's smart for them to set up for oral argument just let everyone air this out because it is so unique. You don't have a lot of precedent like the briefs that were filed.

[00:24:43] As far as case law is concerned, cases where a judge has removed lawyers that a client wanted are few and far between. Right? I mean the Supreme Court is to rely on precedent. And I don't think they have a lot here.

[00:25:01] And I think in part that's why they want to hear from people. I think they understand that it's gotten a lot of publicity. I think it's great that this is going to be aired and what all of their arguments are, but that everyone's been made aware

[00:25:16] of that and to be able to watch it all your listeners if they're interested. It's right there for them to be part of the public. Why hearings are in public. And as far as the other, so I think it's a good thing.

[00:25:33] And I think brief, I think these are very difficult subjects to breathe to be honest and an oral argument will help flush them out. As far as the other red being granted, I think a lot of it took care of itself as far as the records being released.

[00:25:49] And I think the court said that a lot of this was moved because a lot of the problems had been solved and in no small part of the work you did. Well, I mean, it's true. So, yeah, I'm anxious, not anxious, but I'm kind of excited to watch.

[00:26:12] I think it'll be a shit show, but I think it'll be fun to watch. Yeah, I think that's a pretty good. I'd be like, you know, flying up in corners and, you know, no, but I think the court, you know, to argue a case in

[00:26:28] front of the Supreme Court, and I've only done it. I think I'm done it twice actually in Indiana and I've argued in front of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. But, you know, it'll be, it'll be, and I think the lawyers involved, all the lawyers involved have

[00:26:46] argued more than that, I think. I think that, you know, the court is, they're not going to just yell and interrupt and ask questions. They're going to interrupt and ask questions. They're going to be polite about it and they're going to be curious.

[00:27:06] They've done their homework and know what they want to talk about. What was it like for you to argue before the Indiana Supreme Court? You remember I was in a fog the whole time. No, it was an early death penalty issue actually and

[00:27:26] it was a very specific point and these, gosh, I don't even know if any of those justices are still alive. I mean this was 35 years ago. They were very polite to me. Some of the 7th Circuit judges aren't the same way,

[00:27:43] but you know, the point was made, we had a half hour argument. Once I got started, it's just like, you know, you just start going and the thing about standing up and talking and arguing is that time goes quickly. Right?

[00:28:01] I mean, I don't know that we didn't have an hour argument. I think we probably had a half hour, maybe 40 minutes. It went fast. Once you went to her up there, you started going. It goes fast. Generally speaking, how is it different from a standard

[00:28:16] trial experience as far as the skill set that you're deploying as an attorney and just, you know, painting that picture for the audience that may not be so familiar with those kinds of arguments? Well, I think what your listeners or people that

[00:28:32] are not familiar with need to understand is there's no evidence. You're not questioning what. So it's a little more theoretically intellectual. But you've already submitted your arguments in briefing to the court. The court has the transcript of all the evidence and exhibits and everything else.

[00:28:55] And so you're focused on a much more specific topic or topics depending on what you've raised. And it's not a question of innocence of guilt. One issue is whether they stated actually prove their case, but that's rare that you're ever going to win anything on that.

[00:29:15] It's more technical. It's more specific. And you get to argue more, you know, more like, you know, what the Constitution protects in the criminal case, for instance, what the law should be. You get to argue more on a philosophical

[00:29:34] constitutional basis, which is kind of nice in a way. Yeah. And then they throw some hypotheticals at you and you got to be ready to handle it. You got to be able to think on your feet. But as far as what's in front of that court for

[00:29:50] whoever's watching and may not have ever watched that before, the court's going to come in there with some questions in mind. They're going to have met. They're going to have talked about what they want to find out. And, you know, they're going to try to direct the

[00:30:10] lawyers, steer them in that direction, you know, they may add like why once again, this goes back to something we started talking about 20 minutes ago. I'm curious as to how they're going to handle the question of whether the state should be involved

[00:30:27] in this election of an attorney for a defendant. You know, it's not that the state made a motion to disqualify them, right? No, they did not. And it's not like they jumped in and said, well, judge, don't get rid of them.

[00:30:45] We want them to be on the case. They don't have a position here. Who represents the defendant is not the prosecutor's call, nor should he be. So I'm just curious how they're going to handle that. Right. Yeah, we are understanding is that on the early call

[00:31:03] when the defense was alerted that they were in trouble essentially, Nick McLean, the Carroll County prosecutor made a statement like, I think, you know, I think they should be taken off the case and the judge responded affirmatively to that statement.

[00:31:17] But there's been no, as you said, there's no record. Yeah, I just thought that's not his call. Right. It doesn't matter what he does. Right. I mean, I mean, maybe, you know, it's, yeah, anyway. So it's kind of a reach and maybe, maybe we'll

[00:31:34] cause them problems within the hearing. So here's the crystal ball question. What do you think is going to happen? Is the judge gone or the defender's gone? Is everybody gone? Is there a betting line on this? Yes, we're the bookies. Not on fan duel yet. No, it's not.

[00:31:55] Oh, man. Well, I, all right. You want me to make a guess? I know. Let's put it this way. I think it's 6535. The attorney stay on the judge goes. That's my. That's my, that's my breakdown because it was more who's more dispensable here in a way. Right.

[00:32:24] I mean, it is from the, from the standpoint of ineffectiveness at this point. If Alan is saying that I'm, I'm brainstorming here. I'm just trying to think. If Alan comes back after he's convicted and says, you know, I'm not going to be able to get him out of

[00:32:43] the house. If Alan comes back after he's convicted and says, I was denied the right to have these attorneys talk about Odinism or whatever he wants them to do. It's more likely that it's going to be overturned on appeal than it is if judge Goal

[00:33:03] or judge Jones or judge Smith. I mean, it doesn't matter who the judge is in a way, right? Right. I mean, it's going to be from a, from a, once again, I'm resource driven sometimes.

[00:33:17] I guess on these, it's going to save a hell of a lot of time in the end if the lawyers stay on. Follow up question on this. And this might be drilling down too far, but do they stay on as public defenders and get paid by the county

[00:33:31] or is their initial request to come back as pro bono granted? Well, I mean, it was, that was, that was not handled. I mean, if Alan, if Alan wants to hire them and they charge him a dollar, then the judge has no business in that business. Right.

[00:33:53] They're here, they're private counsel and a quirk in criminal rule 24 is that private counsel don't have to compete. Well, once again, I'm thinking it's a death case. So it's, and it's not, it's, if Alan says, I paid these guys a dollar, I want them as my attorney,

[00:34:12] attorney, then, then it's done that, you know, it's to me. Now, if you go back and say the reason they were dismissed because of contempt, and it doesn't mean it doesn't matter where they were public counsel, but I don't know that, that's, that's,

[00:34:34] I mean, I guess in a way you got to clarify exactly what the reasons are that they were let go. But she said gross negligence. I think that includes things other than just violating a couple of orders. Right. So it does.

[00:34:49] So do you think that they would be let back on as pro bono or do you think that they would be reinstated? Well, they have, if Alan wants them as his attorney and it says I have hired them then, yeah, I mean a pro bono attorney is not

[00:35:07] appointed by the court. No. They, they volunteer to do it for free, but they are private. Now, they can petition the county for funds for an investigator and all that, whether you're private or not, you could say I'm private counsel, but we don't have any money

[00:35:23] to do this and we need the money to do this because it's essential. That might get thrown back in their face. You know, they take that risk. But, um, and they're taking a risk if they jump back in and do it pro bono knowing that

[00:35:38] they may cut them short of the funds that they need, that he needs. Don't forget this is not him. And so if, if they take a step that cuts off money that Alan needs for his defense, then they, they have to, I mean, who's,

[00:35:55] who are they trying to please? Right. Well, I think they're, they seem to indicate from their rhetoric that they feel that they're the only attorneys who can help them with their odinous theory. So I think that may be driving some of the actions on their side.

[00:36:13] Well, I, well, I doubt that Alan told them that he thinks it's the odinous and dealt by the debt. Let's put it that way. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I've never seen that good luck. I mean, stranger things have happened. Stranger things have been presented that have won.

[00:36:35] Let's put it that way. Thanks so much to Mark for his great insight. We appreciate him. Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com.

[00:36:52] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murder sheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at

[00:37:16] www.buymeacoffee.com slash murder sheet. We very much appreciate any support. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the murder sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered,

[00:37:39] 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.

[00:37:56] Thanks again for listening.