The Delphi Murders: First Person: Updates and Conclusions: Part Two

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_04] The Murder Sheet keeps us super busy and so sometimes between writing and podcasting and trying to sell these t-shirts, we don't do a great job of taking care of ourselves. That's probably something a lot of people can relate to. We're all busy people with jobs and families and obligations. It can be hard putting yourself and your own health first.

[00:00:17] [SPEAKER_02] Our brand new sponsor Prolon can help. Prolon's fasting mimicking diet is a plant-based nutrition program that is backed by science. It takes all the fuss out of fasting. Instead of giving up food, you undergo a five-day program where you enjoy snacks, soups and beverages designed to make your body's cells believe they are fasting.

[00:00:41] [SPEAKER_04] It's designed to give a serious boost to your metabolic and cardiovascular health. Plus, it's a no-brainer. Your food comes in prepackaged and labeled so you know what to eat and when. They found that three consecutive Prolon cycles can reduce your biological age score by 2.5 years and cut your waist circumference down by 1.5 inches. Plus, it gets you down to a healthier blood sugar level.

[00:01:04] [SPEAKER_00] Fast with food. Take charge of your health. Try Prolon.

[00:01:07] [SPEAKER_04] To help you kickstart a health plan that truly works, Prolon is offering Murder Sheet listeners 15% off site-wide plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their five-day nutrition program. Just visit prolonlife.com slash msheet. That's P-R-O-L-O-N-L-I-F-E dot com slash msheet to claim your 15% discount and your bonus gift. Prolonlife slash msheet.

[00:01:33] [SPEAKER_04] Add some luxury into your life without breaking the bank. Check out our wonderful sponsor, Quince.

[00:01:39] [SPEAKER_02] This is a brand that's unlocking luxury products for all of us ordinary people. All the things that sound pricey and out of reach like washable silk shirts and dresses, 14-karat gold jewelry, European linens, Italian leather handbags, sweaters of Mongolian cashmere and organic cotton. That's what Quince offers, but at an unbeatable price.

[00:02:01] [SPEAKER_04] All Quince items are 50-80% less costly than those of their competitors. It's an amazing deal. They cut down the middleman and pass the savings on to you. And remember, by supporting our sponsors, you're supporting our show.

[00:02:14] [SPEAKER_02] We recently gifted ourselves some pieces from Quince. I got their suede bomber jacket. This one is very stylish and it keeps me really warm, which is helpful because it's been a cold winter. I also like the way I look in it, which is big for me.

[00:02:27] [SPEAKER_04] Give yourself the luxury you deserve with Quince. Go to quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince.com slash msheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. Content warning. This episode contains discussion of the brutal murder of two girls. It also contains profanity.

[00:02:56] [SPEAKER_04] So, let's get into it.

[00:02:58] [SPEAKER_02] Let's get into it. We've been doing a series that we've called First Person. We've been talking to a variety of people connected to the Delphi case in some ways. I think we've likely reached the end of that series. It's always very possible that we'll get a few more here and there, but certainly at the rate we've been doing it, that's now concluded.

[00:03:24] [SPEAKER_02] So, before we moved on from that, we thought it'd be worthwhile to sit down and talk about some of our reflections on that series. And also, as long as we're talking Delphi, Judge Gull issued a rather interesting order not too long ago. And then there's some more stuff in the continuing saga of Ricky Davis and Kagan Klein that we thought was worth discussing.

[00:03:48] [SPEAKER_03] Yes, the ballad of Ricky Davis. So, shall we get into it?

[00:03:52] [SPEAKER_02] Let's do it. This is actually part two of a conversation that turned out longer than we thought. We released part one earlier today. You can go back and listen to that and then pick up here with part two.

[00:04:04] [SPEAKER_04] And just remember, this is going to be in lieu of our Tuesday episode. We believe we're going to release this on Monday. Thanks so much for listening. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:04:14] [SPEAKER_02] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:04:26] [SPEAKER_04] And this is The Delphi Murders. First Person. Updates and conclusions. Part two.

[00:05:20] [SPEAKER_04] So, let's talk about first person. So, first person was a really surreal experience doing this series in a way because I felt like the dog that caught the car. Where we've been observing, discussing, criticizing, just talking about all of these people for years without really getting any interaction. You see them in court and that's pretty much it.

[00:05:51] [SPEAKER_04] And then suddenly we're talking to them and getting them to answer questions that we've had for a while. So, it was really surreal. It was an honor. And it was – I was just happy that a lot of people trusted us to have those conversations. So, I mean, it was just –

[00:06:08] [SPEAKER_02] It meant a lot to me.

[00:06:10] [SPEAKER_04] It meant a lot to me too. I would say that our approach to these interviews tends to be – I mean, if you listen to the show just for Delphi, you probably don't hear a ton of interviews except with just sort of experts. But if you listen to the show as a whole, you probably realize that our interview style tends to be just to kind of let people talk and share their experiences. We have a lighter touch than some.

[00:06:33] [SPEAKER_04] And that's just our personalities that we feel complements, you know, what we want to do with interviews kind of – I don't want you to be hearing us just yammering about what we think.

[00:06:43] [SPEAKER_02] We want to hear what the guest thinks, whether – no matter what that guest thinks.

[00:06:47] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah.

[00:06:47] [SPEAKER_02] An example I can pull off the top of my head is one of the attorneys actually who's been involved with the Delphi case, Michael Osbrook. We once had him on the show to talk about the Delphi case, and we didn't argue with him. We let him talk and share his perspective, and that's just what we do. We want to hear from people.

[00:07:07] [SPEAKER_04] And so at this point, we feel like, again, as Kevin said at the top, this is probably the end of the regularly scheduled first-person interviews. We may very well get more people to talk to us eventually. That could be soon. That could be a long time from now. I just don't know. But as far as I'm concerned with a lot of people, you have to let people do things on their own time, and, you know, it is what it is. So we're really eager to get started working on some new cases.

[00:07:36] [SPEAKER_02] We're going to be taking baby steps towards other cases.

[00:07:38] [SPEAKER_04] I'd really like to do that soon because I'm just eager to kind of get – start tackling something new. But we wanted to have a few closing words on sort of what we feel we've learned and gotten from just the first-person series, but also just sort of the culmination of some of the Delphi reporting. And I will say, I feel like looking back, like, I can see mistakes we made covering the case.

[00:08:02] [SPEAKER_04] I can see where I feel like we've improved with some of our critical reasoning on the case. I think for a long time, you know, like, we – I mean, I think everyone can kind of see the trajectory. We tried to remain very, very neutral in the beginning. At a certain point, there was a point where I think the defense's theorizing just became so anti-factual that we felt we had to at least point out things that were becoming inconsistent.

[00:08:31] [SPEAKER_04] Throughout that, prior to the end of trial and the conviction of Richard Allen, we did not discuss whether or not we thought he was factually innocent or guilty.

[00:08:42] [SPEAKER_02] Another thing that was odd throughout this experience is back at the contempt hearing now close to a year ago, oddly enough, the defense made the decision to – I'll say it – to lie about us in court. And I don't know why they would choose to demonstrate in such a dramatic way to people with the platform that they are liars. But that is a choice they made.

[00:09:10] [SPEAKER_04] Well, I don't think – when I look at the totality of this defense team, I don't think that they necessarily plan things out more than a few steps in advance. I don't feel like there's a lot of strategic thinking. I think that's the sort of thing that is just an impulsive move that you throw off the cuff in court and expect, you know – and you don't really have any expectations on the future.

[00:09:35] [SPEAKER_04] But I think that actually underscores some of the reason why I think they struggled with this case. We like to automate things here at The Murder Sheet. We get all kinds of alerts about our episodes. We schedule emails in advance. We set reminders for ourselves to do interviews, lest we accidentally ghost a detective or a defense attorney. Automation makes life easier because it's one less thing to have to think about. That's why we love Acorns.

[00:10:01] [SPEAKER_04] This is an automatic investment service that's built to help everyone invest, no matter how much money you have.

[00:10:07] [SPEAKER_02] You've heard us speak about our sponsor, Acorns, before. Today's episode is sponsored by them. Acorns is a financial wellness app that makes it easy to start saving and investing for your future. You don't need to be an expert. Acorns were a recommended diversified portfolio that matches you and your money goals. You don't need to be rich. Acorns lets you get started with the spare money you've got right now, even if all you've got is spare change.

[00:10:31] [SPEAKER_04] I just wish we had had an app like Acorns back when we were just starting out. It would have saved us so much money-related time and stress because it's really a no-brainer. All it takes is $5 or even just your spare change. Sign up now and join the over 13 million all-time customers who have already saved and invested over $22 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com slash msheet or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns.

[00:11:01] [SPEAKER_04] Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor. View important disclosures at acorns.com slash msheet.

[00:11:11] [SPEAKER_02] And, yeah, I think I've alluded to it. I confronted Baldwin about it at the time.

[00:11:15] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah.

[00:11:16] [SPEAKER_02] It was a bizarre move. It was an odd move.

[00:11:20] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah.

[00:11:21] [SPEAKER_02] I'll leave it at that.

[00:11:22] [SPEAKER_04] But, you know, it's just – well, we'll talk more about the defense in a minute. But I think when we're seeing this kind of all play out together, I think that I feel like the big lesson for me – and I always said this, but I think experiencing it firsthand is different than just saying it. And things are – no matter what crime we're talking about, things are always so much more complicated than you will ever know.

[00:11:52] [SPEAKER_04] And, like, we all contain multitudes. There are so many nuances and just strange things and coincidences and mistakes and errors and whatnot. And you can't make assumptions. Like, it's just – it's important. Like, I will go back to the beginning of our show. The first episode Kevin and I ever put together was about a case that we just thought was a legal kind of little quirky weird case.

[00:12:18] [SPEAKER_02] I remember this. Wasn't the first episode aired, but it was the first one we made.

[00:12:22] [SPEAKER_04] So it was a man named James Redline. He and his partner in the 50s robbed a Reading, Pennsylvania establishment that was part brothel and part restaurant. Odd little combo there.

[00:12:37] [SPEAKER_02] And it was a case, I'll say, that is used often in law school classes because it illustrates felony murder and the limits of felony murder.

[00:12:47] [SPEAKER_04] What happened was they took hostages and then they were leaving. They were not leaving with hostages, I believe. I think they were just leaving. And the police had them surrounded. Redline's partner fired at the police, did not hit any – did not hit anyone. But the police fired back, killing Redline's partner. Redline was arrested and charged with –

[00:13:07] [SPEAKER_02] And convicted.

[00:13:08] [SPEAKER_04] And convicted of a felony murder, right?

[00:13:12] [SPEAKER_02] Yes, because somebody died during the commission of a felony. It was his partner who died because he was shot by a police officer. And ultimately the courts came down on – well, something – a shooting and a death is not a crime if it was a lawful act. And a police officer shooting at a dangerous criminal is a lawful act. So therefore, Mr. Redline could not be held guilty of felony murder.

[00:13:35] [SPEAKER_04] So the reason I bring that up is because, yeah, it is a little quirky, weird legal scenario. But every case is its own universe with its own just insane arc and just stuff you would never know. And what happened was we ended up connecting with James Redline's son who told us about after his father's release, he became a pillar of a community. He became a volunteer fireman.

[00:14:04] [SPEAKER_04] He – I mean, he was like this father figure to other people. He was a wonderful father to him. He didn't even know about his criminal backstory until he was a bit older. His son became a homicide detective himself. It was just this moving story about a man who did wrong and did something very bad and did bad things before that, but who ultimately was able to marry a wonderful woman, raise a family, become a trusted member of a community again.

[00:14:33] [SPEAKER_04] And it was beautiful. It was the most – it was one of the most, like, precious, beautiful stories I felt like I ever heard. And it just – it told me you can't just necessarily assume something is just one thing when it could mean – it could be something completely different when you really look inside of it. It's not just this weird legal case study for law students.

[00:14:58] [SPEAKER_04] It's a story of a man who learned to become a good person and, I don't know, repaid his debt to society in a way. And I just – I don't know. I think that sticks with me as I'm doing this. And Delphi – Delphi could be like that at times because you would – we would all be looking at it from the outside. I always said we're like people peering in one window of a house, but we're not in the house. We can't see all the rooms. We can't see what's upstairs.

[00:15:27] [SPEAKER_04] We can't see what's behind the staircase. We can't see this or that. We're just doing our best from the outside. And I just think it's important. And I forget this sometimes. I have to remind myself. I think you forget it. We all have to remind ourselves. You have to come into these cases with a level of humility that I don't know everything. I can't possibly expect to know everything at all times. And I certainly can't necessarily – I can judge behaviors. I can judge actions. But I can't necessarily look much beyond that.

[00:15:56] [SPEAKER_04] And we have to be okay with that. But we also have to be saying, well, you know, let's hold back on necessarily drawing conclusions. There were times in this case where I feel like I drew conclusions, especially early on, and turned out to be somewhat wrong. And so, yeah, this is – this is – I don't know. Sorry for going on a whole ramble there. I guess what I'm trying to say is things are always more complicated than you will ever know.

[00:16:26] [SPEAKER_04] I feel like this –

[00:16:27] [SPEAKER_02] There's so much nuance. Yeah. We started by reading something that Judge Gull wrote, and she had some good points to make in that thing.

[00:16:35] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah. We don't have to throw everything out just because we don't like the way somebody's handling one thing. You know? And that's why, again, like when we were – even when we were becoming increasingly disillusioned with some of the things the defense was doing, one thing we were very adamant on when covering this is that does not make Richard Allen a guilty man. That does not mean that he should be convicted. Just because we don't feel his defense – the performance or the credibility is good here. That does not mean anything about him. He is his own situation.

[00:17:04] [SPEAKER_02] Separate issues.

[00:17:05] [SPEAKER_04] Separate issues completely. And I still separate those issues because guilty people, innocent people, all people, if you're constitutionally innocent or whatnot, you deserve a good defense. And a lot of our criticisms about the defense, especially very early on, were more of towards – an eye towards is their client getting what he's supposed to be getting from them? You know?

[00:17:29] [SPEAKER_04] So in terms of the first person, in terms of people we're actually able to speak to, I feel like one theme that came out for me is like we talked to a lot of just normal people who tried very, very hard in this case one way or another and did not give up. That to me was the kind of key strength of the people behind this, whether you're talking about the prosecutors or people on the police side of things. They were able to continue working this for years and put in a lot of effort.

[00:17:57] [SPEAKER_04] I think that Hollywood and television tell us that sort of good investigative work is some troubled genius coming in and kind of sleuthing everything out themselves and, you know, putting the clues together and whatnot. That's total nonsense in my opinion. I think solid investigative work, solid police work is about a team working very hard and going by the book. And I think that was reflected in these interviews. And they did not give up.

[00:18:25] [SPEAKER_04] And I think that ultimately was what ensured that this case became – was eventually solved. I feel like these people cared a lot. I feel like in a good number of these interviews, I don't know if it was always audible on the show, but people were tearing up. They were getting emotional. They were getting choked up. And then that was making me get choked up. And I think people cared deeply about this case who worked on it. Is that fair to say?

[00:18:51] [SPEAKER_01] Yes.

[00:18:53] [SPEAKER_04] And I think after watching these people in action, it was a treat to get to talk to a lot of them. I don't feel like – I don't feel like from the beginning the media was necessarily equipped to cover this case. And I think that continues to be a disservice, frankly. I just think a lot of people in the media care about it too and they try. It's just – I think there's a lot of – there's been a lot of sloppy reporting on this and I think that's not ideal. I'll just say that.

[00:19:23] [SPEAKER_04] But when people say that – I mean, in fairness to the people in the media, I think for me in the beginning, I did not necessarily – I think we had questions about the PCA. We had concerns about the PCA. I feel like over time as it's kind of unrolled itself and certainly through trial, I feel like the case was a lot stronger from the beginning than we realized.

[00:19:46] [SPEAKER_02] We didn't fully appreciate what the PCA meant.

[00:19:50] [SPEAKER_04] No. It was difficult to parse because it's fundamentally based around a timeline, I think, as opposed to like a smoking gun or a DNA hit or something like that. I think people have an easier time grasping that conceptually than a timeline. But I think that the thing is about the media is the media does not cover most cases. If you go into most homicide cases, no one's in the gallery.

[00:20:19] [SPEAKER_04] You're not seeing anything on the news about it. But fundamentally, I think a lot of cases are more similar to this than, say, some crazy DNA bombshells.

[00:20:32] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:20:32] [SPEAKER_04] And so people just kind of think, well, that means it's weak. No, it really doesn't. When people say the police bungled this or investigators bungled it or, you know, this or that, you know, this was the big mistake, keystone cops, stuff like that, I don't think that.

[00:20:53] [SPEAKER_04] I mean, I think there's a difference between mistakes happening that should – and we're going to talk about this because I'm going to talk about what I think was the fundamental error in this case by police. But I think there's a difference between bungling something and making a level of mistakes that's just like humans are involved in this enterprise. You know, I mean, there's a – I guess like I don't see a bungling. What do you think?

[00:21:20] [SPEAKER_02] I agree.

[00:21:22] [SPEAKER_04] I do believe there was a key mistake that I do believe led to a, frankly, tragic delay in justice.

[00:21:28] [SPEAKER_02] We all know what that was.

[00:21:31] [SPEAKER_04] Well, it's not – it's obviously the misfiled tip, but it's not just the fact that – I believe that happened in a way because there were too many people involved early on. That key mistake happened within the first few days of the investigation. That tip got lost very quickly.

[00:21:50] [SPEAKER_04] And I do believe that people worked to get the manpower issue and organized and under control very quickly, but it was too late because that happened so quickly. And had a similar thing happened to a tip on like Sasquatches or some other random person who had nothing to do with the case, this may have been solved very quickly. But it happened to the tip that mattered and I – that led to this delay.

[00:22:19] [SPEAKER_04] And I believe that that was just because there were too many people involved early on. I think that can be a lesson for people involved in a high-profile case. When something bad happens, people want to help. That's a really nice thing about human beings. You know, we're social animals. We want to help. Other investigators wanted to help. And other people wanted to help. So it's a situation where you can understand that.

[00:22:44] [SPEAKER_04] But I also think it's fair to say that that is perhaps the most fundamental issue. You know, tip management, case management, too many people, people reporting to different people. That – those early few days of kind of complete chaos were ultimately what buried this. I think it is fair to also note issues like technical errors, glitches, things not recording properly.

[00:23:11] [SPEAKER_04] I mean, I think that's probably more par for the course than people would imagine. I mean, I think that's kind of just the realities of working with technology for any business. I guess I'm not really as like – I take the mindset of like that kind of stuff happens. It's not good. It's not to be celebrated and it certainly can be criticized fairly. It's just I don't really know what people are supposed to do about that necessarily. So I don't know. Do you think there are any fundamental issues that you see in this investigation that kind of stand out for you?

[00:23:41] [SPEAKER_02] I think the one of too many cooks in the kitchen that you just so cleverly articulated.

[00:23:46] [SPEAKER_04] But I also want to say that I don't believe that the too many cooks in the kitchen or the technology issues are like the fault of anyone within the sort of unified command circle or, you know, it's not like it's – sometimes I think people really want to find a scapegoat where it's like this is the bad guy. This is – like we can blame all the problems on this person. And even someone like the dispatcher who may have gotten Alan's name wrong, it's like – it's a systemic issue. It's not like anyone was lazy or bad here.

[00:24:15] [SPEAKER_04] It's just a mistake.

[00:24:16] [SPEAKER_02] That kind of morphs a bit into something else that came – that struck me about these interviews is almost every single person we interviewed has been attacked online at one time or another just for doing their jobs.

[00:24:36] [SPEAKER_02] And so it's upsetting to sit across a desk or a table from these good men and women and get to have a sense of them as people and to understand how much they care about the case, how hard they worked on the case. And then just to reflect on all of the entirely undeserved harassment they have received for doing their jobs.

[00:25:03] [SPEAKER_04] I think it's funny that the people doing the harassment have essentially like see themselves as the real investigators, like the true – they've deputized themselves as like the true arbiters of the case and what's true and what's not despite not being qualified and not having anything really to say and just kind of being a bunch of losers online, frankly. But like there's almost like a weird – I don't know. Like this is a weird entitlement.

[00:25:29] [SPEAKER_04] Like, you know, like no, we could do it better because then if we did it, then I would figure out that it was my person of interest all along. And it's like – I don't know. I think people could be channeling some of their energies better into other pursuits who are doing stuff like that. Like I guess that's just kind of what it comes down to because a lot of it just seems more about self-aggrandizement and entitlement than actual facts. And I think it's fair to criticize people who have worked on a case.

[00:25:56] [SPEAKER_04] I don't think it's fair to like harass people under any circumstances.

[00:26:01] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah. And I'd also – if you are genuinely concerned about issues in the criminal justice system, I think you'd be well advised instead of harassing people you don't know in other states, look to cases maybe in your own area that are not getting a lot of attention and try to do some honest boots on the ground reporting.

[00:26:26] [SPEAKER_04] No, I think the people – we should not be encouraging any of these people who lack critical thinking skills and any level of morality or ethics to do anything in any true crime case. Go away.

[00:26:36] [SPEAKER_02] Fair enough.

[00:26:37] [SPEAKER_04] Volunteer at an animal shelter. Put your time into knitting. Anything else. You shouldn't be anywhere near any of this. I would agree with you in general though. I think cases like Delphi kind of take over and it's like everyone's like, whoa, this stuff is so crazy and all this stuff is happening here. And then you look at it as like, well, if you looked in your own backyard, there would probably be similar issues or similar things happening, but you're just not paying attention to that.

[00:27:00] [SPEAKER_02] And maybe in your own background the issues are actually egregious and not fictitious.

[00:27:05] [SPEAKER_04] Right. It's just – it's – yeah. But I think the people who are doing actual harassment in cases like this do not belong in true crime. I think they should be shunned and I think it – you know.

[00:27:16] [SPEAKER_02] Fair enough.

[00:27:16] [SPEAKER_04] If other true crime creators weren't completely cowardly about stuff like this all the time, I think we could actually ostracize some of these people. And they should be ostracized. It's appalling. This is not what the true crime realm should be devolving into, but it is what is happening unfortunately. But I think what you make – you make a good point. I don't think Delphi is this kind of unique case necessarily.

[00:27:42] [SPEAKER_04] I think you have cases where a perpetrator wants to rape people and then ends up killing them. And I don't think that's super uncommon. I don't think it's a particularly twisty case when you get down to it. I think a lot of the stuff as it played out in public was twisty, but I think as far as the basic facts of the case, it's kind of just a tragic kind of disturbing occurrence that happens sometimes.

[00:28:08] [SPEAKER_02] I also want to mention we've gotten a lot of feedback. Oh, you talked to this person. Why didn't you talk to this person or that person? We basically reached out to probably everyone you imagine. And a lot of people didn't get back to us. A lot of people are people who we've talked to behind the scenes and just for one reason or another don't feel comfortable going public.

[00:28:34] [SPEAKER_02] Some of them have gotten a little bit of the taste of online harassment just from their limited exposure in the case already and don't really want more of that. And I'm not going to second guess any of their decisions. And I certainly bear no ill will towards people. I don't bear ill will towards most people who haven't talked to us.

[00:28:59] [SPEAKER_04] No, because it's like, I don't know. Wait, they don't owe us anything. I feel like I don't. It's what people want to do. We can't force people to talk to us. We're not going to.

[00:29:09] [SPEAKER_02] And also, as we've mentioned, some law enforcement people no longer have the option.

[00:29:13] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah, there's a lot of, you know, it is what it is. It's we reached out to people and some people, I think, might actually get back to us at some point in the near distant future and stuff might happen and maybe not or whatever. But it's just we don't have any power to compel anyone to talk to us, nor would we want to do that if we could.

[00:29:31] [SPEAKER_02] And some people are nervous to go and be interviewed by us.

[00:29:37] [SPEAKER_04] Exactly. It's not it's not easy. And, you know, it's basically like, hey, want to step into the public arena and maybe get harassed? You know, that's not exactly a great sell for a lot of people.

[00:29:46] [SPEAKER_02] And I understand that because I'm often nervous talking to Anya.

[00:29:49] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah, I scare a lot of people and that's OK. That's just how I am. I've always had that effect on people. I don't I think.

[00:29:59] [SPEAKER_02] Let me talk specifically about some people who chose not to be featured. Members of the defense team specifically, Andy Baldwin told me more than once that he was very interested, if not eager to come on the show. He would say things like, oh, you know, you may have been critical of this or that.

[00:30:25] [SPEAKER_02] But if you really understood everything that was going on, you would understand exactly what I'm doing and why. And I can't wait to have the opportunity to explain all that to you on your podcast. And for whatever reason, he chose not to follow through on that. I can speculate on the reasons because I know on one program that he went on, he actually said something.

[00:30:50] [SPEAKER_02] I'm paraphrasing the healing one to go on media outlets that would baby him. And I think that's really telling.

[00:30:59] [SPEAKER_04] I think it's embarrassing to publicly admit that. But I think, listen, on the one hand, I mean, we're humans. It's no secret that we've been quite critical of the defense, especially as time has gone on. And I understand that feelings get hurt and criticism is not fun. And it's not fun to talk to people who criticize you. I get that. I feel like from our perspective, our criticism has at times been harsh, but it has always been sincere.

[00:31:25] [SPEAKER_04] And I think at some point we've completely lost faith in the credibility of this defense team. But we're also willing to hear what they have to say. In addition to that, especially during the pretrial phase and even through trial, mostly during pretrial, though, because this is when it would matter. Our criticism was leveled with the mind of this is not good work. Do better. This is not necessarily the best thing for your client. This is not something that's good.

[00:31:55] [SPEAKER_04] So it's not like we've been sitting here being like, oh, we just want to be mean to people. It's it's genuinely like I whatever you're trying to achieve here isn't working. And guess what? You know, for all of the media that got it completely wrong during trial, for all of what you heard about how, oh, my gosh, the prosecution's case is gone, falling apart. That's not what happened. And we were right. OK, the defense imploded.

[00:32:22] [SPEAKER_04] And so I'm just saying that, like, it's not like we've been sitting here being, you know, grouchy and saying, oh, they didn't do a good job. And then they totally won and got an acquittal or even got a pretty good mistrial with a with a, you know, very evenly split jury. I think what we've been criticizing them for was born out of what the results were of this case. So I don't feel like we've I don't feel like we've been unreasonable. I feel, if anything, we really held back for a long time.

[00:32:52] [SPEAKER_02] And I would say we've continued to hold back. Believe it or not.

[00:32:55] [SPEAKER_04] I think we have continued to hold back.

[00:32:57] [SPEAKER_02] I think the things we could say.

[00:32:58] [SPEAKER_04] I think we've held back a lot. And so I think when I think what I see and again, we don't know what's in their minds. And maybe if they talk to us, they would have something else to say that would make me say, oh, OK, well, I kind of understand that better now. But I think they built up a bizarre cult of personality around themselves and they isolated themselves with only the most obsequious of sycophants and built up some kind of bizarre hermit kingdom with their weird online fans.

[00:33:28] [SPEAKER_04] And it's like, you know, maybe hearing once in a while from people who think, well, I see what you're going for, but that's stupid. I think that could have only benefited this defense team.

[00:33:39] [SPEAKER_02] I think that could only have benefited the defense team when when he when when Baldwin made the comment that, you know, I only want to go on media outlets that baby me. It certainly creates the impression that he is, for lack of a better word, uncomfortable with the idea of doing an interview with people who know a great deal about the case and who are prepared to challenge him.

[00:34:07] [SPEAKER_02] That's the impression it gives me. And that's not really a sign of strength or confidence in your argument. I'd also like to add that for us, the purpose of the first person interviews was basically there's all these people in the case who we haven't gotten a chance to hear from. Let's give them a chance to talk.

[00:34:31] [SPEAKER_02] So if if Baldwin had decided to keep his his promise to us and go on as part of the first person series, I think it would have been an interview in style and in format very similar to the other ones we did. We wouldn't have been yelling at him or anything like that. We'd just be asking him to tell us his story.

[00:34:55] [SPEAKER_04] We might ask questions that would lead to some uncomfortable places, but I it wouldn't be with the end of like, gotcha. It would be the end of like, let's try to all learn together and explain this.

[00:35:06] [SPEAKER_02] And I really tried to remain open to the idea that when he told me, if you hear if you knew what was going on, you would understand why I did this and this. And so I was interested in hearing that context and I've yet to hear it. And I'm still mystified by a number of decisions they've made.

[00:35:29] [SPEAKER_02] I think they really could have benefited from listening to people who weren't thoroughly in the tank for them.

[00:35:37] [SPEAKER_04] Here's what I think they could have benefited from. Don't don't don't, I guess, outsource your strategy to a bunch of people with emotional problems online. I think that's what could have benefited them in this case. And you know what? I think if they'd done that, they could have. I think the prosecution's case was strong enough that they were going to win. But I think they could have lost with some dignity.

[00:35:59] [SPEAKER_04] I think they could have lost without basically spreading around a bunch of nonsensical conspiracy theories, playing around with like, you know, things that ultimately led to a significantly worse outcome for the families of these victims where now they have to deal with this awful leak and a bunch of emboldened conspiracy theories, theorists accusing them of the murders. I think they could have gone without accusing of, you know, the alleged Odin is this cult of like smearing them as child killers.

[00:36:27] [SPEAKER_04] I think they could have avoided smearing law enforcement as like, I guess, enforcers of this cult and part of the conspiracy. You can you can slam law enforcement, criticize law enforcement, criticize the prosecution, do all that. You can do that without making it out to be a conspiracy theory.

[00:36:43] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, I think one of their fatal flaws was they would make really extravagant comments that they didn't fact check and then those would fall apart. And that's what I fully expect to happen with Ricky Davis. But to get back to what I was saying, I think they really needed to have people around them in the real world who were not thoroughly in the tank for them.

[00:37:04] [SPEAKER_02] And I keep coming back to that closing statement, the closing argument made by Brad Rosey, which concluded with a montage of medieval torture devices. And then the last image was a picture of a really big snake, you know, wrapping itself around somebody. And that is the sort of argument that maybe it sounds great to people who are thoroughly convinced of your side.

[00:37:34] [SPEAKER_02] That is not the sort of argument that is going to appeal to anybody in the middle. And it's not the sort of argument that is going to appeal to people who are kind of leaning against you. It is not an argument that persuades. It is a dumb argument. It's an argument. It's an argument that's going to be applauded by people who already believe you. And so I have to believe that if there was anybody on their side who was not a dyed in the wool conspiracy believer,

[00:38:03] [SPEAKER_02] that person would have told them, maybe this isn't the way to go. Maybe try a more moderate closing argument. And so I tend to believe that their team around them in the real world did not perform that function for them. And that says something about them and their styles. And let's talk a little bit about their team around them. They had an investigative team. Why don't you tell us about their investigative team?

[00:38:27] [SPEAKER_04] I believe when you look at their investigative team, it seemed to be assembled to us based on loyalty and enthusiasm rather than competence and experience. I mean, when we found and reported on previously a text from Matt Hoffman, one of their investigators, who I guess technically was an office assistant but was also one of their investigators, like the man's texting with people about how the judge must be being blackmailed.

[00:38:54] [SPEAKER_04] And that's the only reason why she could find fault with his beloved defense attorneys. I mean, what? Like, that's the level of quality we're getting here?

[00:39:03] [SPEAKER_02] And I want to hasten to say Matt Hoffman used to be a fire chief in Carmel, Indiana. I have firemen in my family. My father is a volunteer fireman. And I'm not going to go into personal details, but I know after someone I'm related to passed away in the firefighting community, Matt Hoffman, then a fire chief, was very, very kind to them. So I'm not saying he's a bad man.

[00:39:31] [SPEAKER_02] I'm saying I don't think he was really qualified to be an investigator in this role. I think he was probably chosen more for loyalty to Andy Baldwin than anything else. And I also look at people like Erica Morris, who's also purportedly an investigator for their team. And she's gone on national TV repeatedly and said many things that are flagrantly untrue. This woman is facing charges for harassment.

[00:39:58] [SPEAKER_02] She also is facing charges for animal cruelty. If you look it up on my case, you see these really disturbing pictures of the cat in her care. And there's just some awful detail. She was really.

[00:40:14] [SPEAKER_04] Where did they find these people? That's what I want to know. Where the heck did they like? I this is the biggest case of your career. This is an internationally known case. You would think that you would be looking for quality investigators to assist you. And I can tell you, you know, for as much as we're told about like, oh, well, sometimes it's kind of the quirky, unexpected people who solve the mystery and the cozy mysteries. No, this life is not a novel, first of all.

[00:40:40] [SPEAKER_04] And second of all, the quality of the investigation they did into their premier theory of Odinism was garbage. And I know this because what we saw in the Franks memorandum was essentially all the information put together by with maybe a few add ons from Baldwin and Rosie. It was information put together by Todd Click, Greg Ferencene, Kevin Murphy. And I felt when we got to the three day hearing and it was time for them to really say, OK, here's everything we found after that.

[00:41:07] [SPEAKER_04] Basically, what we got was the reheated leftovers of the Ferencene, Click and Murphy theory. We did not get a lot of additional stuff. So I don't know what they had been doing that whole time, but it was not it was not effective. And frankly, that's not surprising when you're looking at the quality of the investigators here. I just I the whole thing baffles me.

[00:41:29] [SPEAKER_02] Maybe you've been in a situation in your life where you weren't prepared for something. The equivalent of maybe you've had to do an oral book report on a book you didn't finish. And we know what that's like. You know how you're like stumbling through that and riffing wildly and just hoping something sounds good. That's what the defense was like. The defense was like a person giving an oral report on a book they haven't finished. We've all been in that situation. It's an awkward situation to be in.

[00:41:56] [SPEAKER_02] But I would think if that oral report I had to give was one of the most important things in my entire career and I had years to prepare for it, I would do a damn good job with that oral report.

[00:42:08] [SPEAKER_04] And you know what they say? Like, well, OK, well, yeah, but there were troubles and they got kicked off and whatever. Yeah. OK, fine. Then continue it. You know, I mean, they had that option. They did not take it. They thought it was fine to go ahead. I don't I will never understand that.

[00:42:21] [SPEAKER_02] I'll never understand it. We did. We're going to we're going to mention this one thing. Anya mentioned earlier. There are things about our coverage that we regret. One thing is we did these profile episodes of Baldwin and Rosie. And when you listen to those episodes and you hear people describe Baldwin and Rosie, particularly Baldwin, they describe a very skilled attorney, a very wonderful attorney. I did not see that attorney in this court.

[00:42:49] [SPEAKER_04] I didn't even see like half of that attorney. I I'm dismayed. I'm going to tell you, I regret those episodes. I feel like I mean, I don't I don't know whether people were just over hyping them or it was a matter of normally they're quite good or even OK, but they just really fell short here, like well below what people would have expected. I don't know. At the end of the day, I can't know.

[00:43:14] [SPEAKER_04] I can't parse it, but we're never doing profile episodes again for that reason. That's never going to happen again, because it's just that. It just it wasn't it wasn't accurate. I mean, we tried. It wasn't like we were like looking out for people who would say nice things. It was just like, hey, you worked with them. Talk to us. And it just it didn't work out. It's never going to happen again. So that's probably the coverage I regret the most.

[00:43:44] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I agree.

[00:43:44] [SPEAKER_04] It was done. It was done with good intentions. It was done just to kind of give you a sketch of like, hey, what are these people like? What have they done so far? I mean, we're interested in stuff like that. But in the future, it'll be like someone can come on and tell us themselves about their background or or nothing. Because I just the profile model did not work out in this situation. And therefore, it's going to be thrown out.

[00:44:09] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, it's been frustrating because I think people sometimes say they think, oh, you haven't been fair to the defense. Go back and listen to those episodes. And you will see not only were we fair in the profile episodes, we leaned over backwards.

[00:44:24] [SPEAKER_04] We were very complimentary. And we had no reason for at that point to doubt that we were going to get anything less than what was described there.

[00:44:33] [SPEAKER_02] My fantasy and in retrospect, considering everything that has happened, it was a very naive fantasy. My fantasy was that we would get a trial in the process where there would be extraordinary attorneys on all sides operating at the peak of their powers.

[00:44:54] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah, men and women of honor trying to get to the truth as best as they can in our in our wonderful but flawed system. And, you know, not at all what happened. But that's, you know, we have a bias toward wanting everyone to be competent professionals. That's our bias. It's it and it's a bias. It's something where I think we were more inclined to hope to believe that in the beginning of this.

[00:45:19] [SPEAKER_02] And it if you go back, the person we were concerned about at the beginning was Nick McClellan.

[00:45:24] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah. Oh, yeah, definitely.

[00:45:26] [SPEAKER_02] And that was entirely unwarranted.

[00:45:28] [SPEAKER_04] Well, I mean, we were like, well, he's he's only done one murder trial. So we were looking at things from kind of a numbers experience sort of perspective.

[00:45:37] [SPEAKER_02] If you were dropped into that courtroom and didn't know which side was the experienced side. And if you didn't know which side had done hundreds of trials and hundreds of murder trials and was super experienced and were considered super lawyers and which side was considered to be the young guy side who doesn't have the experience. You would think that the inexperienced side was the defense and that the experienced side was Nicholas McClellan.

[00:46:07] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah.

[00:46:07] [SPEAKER_02] And he and his team performed like people who'd been doing it for decades.

[00:46:12] [SPEAKER_04] Well, I mean, in fairness, with prosecution side, Miss Diener and Mr. Luttrell had. But I mean, but certainly what you're saying just in the general, like who's. Yeah. I mean, it's it was it was surprising. And, you know, again, it's like I just all of this is to talk about competence, too. It doesn't really even have anything to do with the facts of the case or who's guilty or who's not guilty. It's just performance.

[00:46:36] [SPEAKER_02] And I and Nick McClellan really outlawyered them every step of the way. I would be. I would take the L and walk away. Take the L. He is Nick McClellan was in a stratosphere above these other lawyers in terms of competence and skill, and they were criticizing him behind the scenes and he outclassed them every step of the way.

[00:47:03] [SPEAKER_04] I concur. It wasn't close. I wanted it. I wanted it in a way to be close because that and my bias. But, you know, it is what it is that we ultimately were bound to look at things as they really are, not as we want them to be. And that's that's what happened here. I I think. Yeah. And it's disappointing that they won't speak to us. But frankly, after everything we've seen.

[00:47:29] [SPEAKER_04] And and frankly, the lack of credibility that I've seen and the lack of being able to really rely on what they're saying to turn out to be accurate and true. I'm not surprised that we were told that they talked to us and then they didn't because we criticized them. That's not surprising to me. So it's unfortunate. I think it's a it's it's it's I would like to at least kind of understand where they were coming from. It's possible that if they explained it, there would be certain areas where we'd say, OK, well, maybe we can kind of understand that.

[00:47:59] [SPEAKER_04] But I think there's a lot of things that I'll never understand about this because there's really no good explanation.

[00:48:04] [SPEAKER_02] If they had something that would explain everything and make them come out smelling like a rose. You would think they would want to share it with people who were writing a book on the case.

[00:48:15] [SPEAKER_04] You would.

[00:48:19] [SPEAKER_02] What else?

[00:48:19] [SPEAKER_04] I think for me, at the end of the day. When I. We talked in first persons all about these kind of people with the firsthand experiences, we're talking to them, we're getting their insights. And one thing that just felt like a huge absence in that was. The girls at the center of this story, obviously, Abigail and Liberty.

[00:48:43] [SPEAKER_04] I think having talked with all these people who actually investigated the case and prosecuted the case and looked into this case for years. I think one of my big takeaways I'm going to steal from prosecutor McClelland, which is what's something he closed with, I thought, very effectively. I mean, the girls are the heroes of this story. We can't talk to them. They've been taken from us, but they they are the heroes and they would have gone on to do great things. And I.

[00:49:12] [SPEAKER_04] I believe that they're not here anymore because of a despicable man who put his own sexual fantasies and selfishness above the lives of his fellow human beings. You know, I don't I think that is what happened. I think he I think Richard Allen tormented these girls and put them through absolute hell before they died in a brutal, horrible fashion. I mean, I've seen those photos. I can't unsee what I saw. It's horrible.

[00:49:39] [SPEAKER_04] But I think at the end of the day, through their own bravery and through their commitment to being there for one another and through whatever whatever instincts were telling them to do this, I think they were able to, in Liberty's case, take video of him. And in Abigail's case, conceal the device on which that video existed. And they were able to show the world what Richard Allen is and what he really is. And I think they deserve to be remembered that way. They deserve to be remembered as heroes.

[00:50:07] [SPEAKER_04] They would have gone on, in my opinion, to do wonderful things. I think they were both smart, capable and wonderful young people. They won't get to do that. They won't get to have families of their own. They won't get to grow up and have careers, fall in love, do everything everyone should have the right to do in their lives. They won't get to do that. But and they won't even get to have privacy in their death because. Because not only.

[00:50:35] [SPEAKER_04] Because this case, unfortunately, had a defense team that instead of protecting discovery materials as they were supposed to, as they were ordered to by the court, allowed for some of those materials to leak out onto the Internet.

[00:50:47] [SPEAKER_04] And because there are certain people within the true crime space with no respect for boundaries, no respect for other people's privacy, no respect for the privacy of murdered children who feel like their own sick, morbid curiosity is more important than anything else in the universe. Because of that, that stuff will continue to circulate forever. It's disgusting, but it's just true. They don't get that privacy in death.

[00:51:14] [SPEAKER_04] But I think we can honor them by, at the very least, acknowledging and remembering and celebrating them for what they did do in their short lives and what they brought to this world, what they brought to their community, what they brought to their families and what they were able to accomplish in their last moments. Despite, I'm sure, the immense fear and horror they must have felt, they were able to help solve this crime.

[00:51:38] [SPEAKER_04] And without that video, I think Richard Allen would still be puttering around in the CBS, you know, with a very dark secret and a very sick mind. So I think they deserve an incredible amount of credit. So I just wanted to call out that even though we weren't, obviously, they're gone, but they deserve all the credit in the world, I guess. Was there anything else you wanted to say?

[00:52:08] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah, I don't think there is anything else to say. Well, thank you all very much for listening.

[00:52:15] [SPEAKER_02] 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 dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:52:33] [SPEAKER_04] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:52:59] [SPEAKER_02] 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.

[00:53:08] [SPEAKER_04] 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.

[00:53:33] [SPEAKER_02] Before we go, we just wanted to say another few words about VIA. This is really a wonderful product. I think it's really helped both of us get a lot better rest.

[00:53:42] [SPEAKER_04] VIA is pretty much, I guess you'd say, the only lifestyle hemp brand out there. So what does that mean? It means that they're all about crafting different products to elicit different moods. Kevin and I really like their non-THC CBD products. Specifically, Zen really helps me fall asleep. Some Zen can really just kind of help me get more into that state where I can relax and fall asleep pretty easily. And they've been such a wonderful support to us. They're a longtime sponsor.

[00:54:09] [SPEAKER_04] We really love working with them, and they really make this show possible. I'm going to say this. You may not realize this, but when you support our sponsors, you're supporting us, and it kind of makes it possible for us to do this show. So if you or one of your loved ones is interested in trying some of this stuff, you're going to get a great deal. It's very high quality, high value.

[00:54:28] [SPEAKER_01] Anya, if I wanted to give this discount you speak of, what do I do?

[00:54:32] [SPEAKER_04] Okay, if you're 21 and older, head to viahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off. And if you're new to VIA, get a free gift of your choice. That's V-I-I-A, hemp.com, and use code MSHEET at checkout.

[00:54:46] [SPEAKER_00] Spell the code.

[00:54:47] [SPEAKER_04] M-S-H-E-E-T. And after you purchase, they're going to ask you, hey, where did you hear about us? Say the murder sheet because then it lets them know that our ads are effective, and it really helps us out.

[00:55:01] [SPEAKER_02] Before we wrap up this episode, can we take just a moment to say a few more words about our great new sponsor, Acorns?

[00:55:08] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah, thanks so much to Acorns. Remember, when you support our sponsors, you're supporting us, and our sponsors make it possible for us to do this job. So we really appreciate them.

[00:55:17] [SPEAKER_00] We love our sponsors.

[00:55:18] [SPEAKER_04] Absolutely. Acorns is a terrific investing app. It's the perfect thing for somebody who wants to get started with their personal finance journey. That can seem daunting. It is daunting. I'm so not financially minded. For me, it's always really hard to get started with something like this where you're like, what am I doing? But Acorns sort of takes the guesswork out of that. It gets you started, and it will essentially help you take control of your financial future.

[00:55:46] [SPEAKER_04] You can get set up pretty quickly, and it allows you to start automatically saving and investing. That money can help you, your kids, if you have a family, your retirement. And you don't need to be rich. You don't need to be an expert to do this. It's very simple. And you can start with only $5 or whatever change you have. It's not like you need to put in some massive payment.

[00:56:06] [SPEAKER_04] So it's a great fit for people who are starting out, but they want to take the next step and improve themselves financially and make their money work for them more. So if you're interested, head to acorns.com slash msheet or download the Acorns app to start saving and investing for your future today. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns. Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involved risk. Acorns Advisors, LLC, and SEC registered investment advisor.

[00:56:35] [SPEAKER_04] View important disclosures at acorns.com slash msheet.

[00:56:37] [SPEAKER_02] Can we talk a little bit before we go about Quintz, a great new sponsor for us? I think in one of the ads that we've already done for them, we talked about the compliments I'm getting on my jacket. I know you're a very modest woman, but can we talk about the compliments you're getting on the Quintz products you wear?

[00:56:56] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah, I've got two of their Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're a brand that just does this sort of luxurious products, but without the crazy costs really well. They give you Italian leather handbags. They do like European linen sheets. You have a really cool suede jacket. And I really like the way I look in my sweaters. I like the way you look in your bomber jacket. It looks super cool.

[00:57:21] [SPEAKER_02] You've gotten a lot of compliments when you go out wearing these sweaters.

[00:57:24] [SPEAKER_04] I think I have, yeah.

[00:57:26] [SPEAKER_02] And deservedly so.

[00:57:27] [SPEAKER_04] Also, I'm one of those people, my skin is very sensitive. So when it comes to wearing sweaters, sometimes something's too scratchy. It really bothers me. These are so soft. They're just very delicate and soft. Wearing them is lovely because they're super comfortable. You're not, you're not, it's not one of those things where you're like, you buy it and it looks great, but it doesn't feel that great. They look great. They feel great. But yeah, I really love them. And you got, you know, your cool jacket.

[00:57:55] [SPEAKER_04] I mean, that's a little bit of a, you're the guy who like wears the same thing all the time. So this was a bit of a gamble for you, a bit of a risk. You got something a bit different.

[00:58:03] [SPEAKER_02] I do wash my clothes.

[00:58:04] [SPEAKER_04] I know you wash your clothes, but I mean, you're filthy.

[00:58:08] [SPEAKER_02] You just made me sound awful. So no, I wash my clothes.

[00:58:11] [SPEAKER_04] But you don't really, you don't really experiment with fashion that much is what I'm saying. So this is a little bit out of the norm for you, but I think you really like it and it looks good.

[00:58:20] [SPEAKER_02] Thank you. Great products. Incredible prices. Absolutely. Quince.com.

[00:58:25] [SPEAKER_04] There you go. So you can go to quince.com slash msheet. And right now they're offering 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order. So it's quince.com slash msheet. That's quince.com slash msheet.