The Delphi Murders: The Defense's Ricci Davis Gambit

[00:00:00] 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] 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] 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've 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. Fast with food. Take charge of your health. Try Prolon.

[00:01:07] 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] Add some luxury into your life without breaking the bank. Check out our wonderful sponsor, Quince. 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] 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. 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. Give yourself the luxury you deserve with Quince.

[00:02:30] Go to quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot 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. So I want to start off by saying that we actually hesitated before doing this episode because

[00:02:59] I think whenever we release an episode on any subject whatsoever, there is an implicit message from us to you that we think this is worth your time. You know, maybe you don't agree with us. Maybe you don't want to hear about the assassination of President Garfield, but we can say at the very least, we think it's interesting and worth your time. And what we're going to be discussing today is something that is not interesting and is not worth your time. You know, I love this.

[00:03:28] In our Facebook group, which has so many wonderful people, somebody posted, kind of was a meme a few years ago of actor Ben Affleck standing in a doorway with a cigarette, looking exhausted and irritated. And they said, this is what Anya and Kevin are right now. And yes, that is how we are right now. That was very disturbingly accurate because we're kind of caught in this conundrum of, frankly, not really wanting to cover things that we think are stupid and pointless.

[00:03:56] But at the same time, it feels on some level like by not explaining things, we're almost ceding the ground to people who are just going to lie or obfuscate or whatnot. So we've tried to work this out where we feel good about covering things like this going forward because it's not going to be the last time, I'm sure. And here's what we've worked out. Because here's the thing. Listen, I'm not a lawyer.

[00:04:26] Many of our listeners are lawyers. Many are not. And I think it's one thing for, you know, us to be like, oh, it's not worth your time. But if we don't explain that, a lot of people might be like, but I don't understand. And, you know, like, we don't want to just abandon the case. I mean, frankly, sometimes I... The thing that this reminds me of the most, sometimes in terms of, like, the situation we found ourselves in with this case, I, for some reason, I ended up watching a lot of Looney Tunes shorts as a child.

[00:04:56] I had them on VHS tape. And there's this one called Buccaneer Bunny, where Bugs Bunny is up against Yosemite Sam, who is a pirate for some reason in this one. And they're on the ship. And Bugs keeps on lighting a match and throwing it into the powder room of the ship with all this gunpowder so it explodes. And Yosemite Sam keeps running down the stairs to go get the lit match so that the ship doesn't explode. And the one time he doesn't immediately do that, he's kind of, like, sweating and looking at it.

[00:05:24] And then the second he starts to run for it, like, it blows up. And, like, sometimes I feel like that with this case, where I feel like we're constantly trying to debunk misinformation, talk about sort of pointless legal filings that have no merit. And it's kind of, it's just, I don't feel like that's necessarily always the best use of our time. But then again, when we don't do it, everything seems to blow up. So I guess we're kind of, that's where we are.

[00:05:54] So here's the system. Yeah, I was struck that a number of outlets and other people seem to take this particular matter we're going to be discussing a lot more seriously than I thought it merited. Yeah. So it's like, you know, we don't go for the lit match and the powder room explodes. So let's talk about what we're going to do. The worst thing, I think, one of the worst things you can do to somebody is waste their time. And we are, we really try not to waste your time. Your time is valuable.

[00:06:22] You could be going out and listening to anything else. You could be hanging out with your family or friends. You could be going to the gym. I mean, and you can do that and listen to podcasts. But you know what I'm saying? Like, you could be doing anything else. So we think of your time as valuable. So when we get a Delphi filing that we don't feel is important, we are going to say that up front. And at that point, we would say that you can just bounce. You can skip it.

[00:06:51] You're not going to miss much. It doesn't matter. Is that fair to say? That's fair to say. This subject we're discussing today is not important. We always enjoy your company. Love to have you hang out with us. But if frankly, if you were to turn off now and go out and do anything else. Take a walk. Yeah, you can hang out. If you want to hear two very exasperated people descending into, you know, group madness, please stick around.

[00:07:21] But if you only want to get the big updates, skip this one. And we will be labeling every Delphi episode going forward, whether it's skippable or not, when it comes to these filings at least. Because again, we don't want to waste your time. Now, I want to say, so we'll be saying at the top of these episodes whether we think it's important or not important. If we say something is important, that doesn't mean we agree with it. That doesn't mean it's like a momentous shift in the case. That doesn't even mean it's a big development.

[00:07:50] It just means it reaches the normal threshold of something we would have covered anyway. Whereas when we're covering something that we think is not important, that means we're basically in combating misinformation and stupid speculation mode. And it's more of a defensive posture. So hopefully that clears things up. We're really trying here to kind of do the right thing by the case while also not wasting your time.

[00:08:14] So hopefully this at least gives everyone the option of saying, okay, I don't need to listen to the unimportant episodes. I'll tune back into the important ones. And for people who want that extra clarity or want to hear us get very annoyed, you can stick around and enjoy yourselves. So that's what we're doing. And maybe go back and give that assassination of Garfield episode a listen. Okay. I'm still pitching for that one because I think that episode is more interesting than what we're

[00:08:42] about to talk about, just to be honest. Yeah. But, you know, I also, I understand that people, you know, I want people to have the tools and the information and whatnot that they can use when they're faced against kind of a mountain of nonsense. And so I don't want to deprive people of that while also not necessarily giving it too much importance. Hopefully everyone understands. But we're trying our best here.

[00:09:12] We're fighting for our lives out here, people. Um, shall we get started? Yeah. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. 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 are The Murder Sheet. And this is the Delphi Murders. The defense's Ricky Davis gambit.

[00:09:40] So we, before we actually get to the Ricky Davis portion of the program, uh, the defense

[00:10:32] did another filing. And so as long as we're here, we may as well discuss that too. Uh, and I'm referring to the defendant's verified motion to strike the state's response to motion to correct error. You will recall that the defense filed a motion in which they said, oh, there was these, these errors in the trial, uh, and then Prosecutor McClellan responded to that. And now they're, they're responding to that response and basically saying, just throw his response out.

[00:11:00] And for me, I, I, I think, uh, some of the most important things in their original motion was, were they said, for instance, that, uh, Richard Allen had a defense attorney representing him shortly after his arrest.

[00:11:25] And that this defense attorney was ostensibly intending to represent him throughout the rest of the proceedings. And that this defense attorney was not a part of the safekeeping motion and the decisions around the safekeeping motion. And those, that's basically, uh, the decision to send, uh, Mr. Allen to the department of corrections. And so what was interesting to me about this is, well, we're, first of all.

[00:11:55] That is an allegation they made that they literally supplied no evidence to support. Oh, well, they had some weak tea, uh, Kathy Allen, uh, affidavit saying, you know, when they have their client there who could presumably confirm or deny this. So, well, yeah. If for instance, uh, I hired someone to cut my front lawn, you could then say, Kevin, did you hire this person to cut your front lawn?

[00:12:23] And I could say yes, or you could go out and let's say you have the name of the person I said I hired. You could also ask him. They did not ask the lawyer for a statement. Well, they didn't get, I mean, we don't know if they asked, but they didn't get one. They didn't get one. They did not get a statement from the lawyer saying it was his intention to represent Richard Allen in this. They did not ask Richard Allen if it was his understanding that this man represented him. All they had was the equivalent. If, if you could ask Anya and say, Anya, what do you think Kevin hired this guy for?

[00:12:53] You know, it's tangential. They had, they had the ability to ask their client whether or not this man represented him. They had the ability to ask this attorney whether or not he represented Richard Allen. So then in the response from Mr. McClellan, he pointed out that he received an email from the attorney said, in which the attorney said, I'm not representing him.

[00:13:20] So in this reply, basically there's no response to that. They focus instead on the issue of whether or not the attorney filed an appearance in the cases. And well, even if he didn't file an appearance, who knows? Maybe he still represented him. But that's not the issue. The issue is, did he in fact represent him? And also I would wonder if this person did in fact represent him and court proceedings were going on without him being notified of set court proceedings.

[00:13:50] I would imagine that the attorney would have made his displeasure known years ago. Maybe he's part of the whole conspiracy, Kevin. Ever consider that? And then the other big issue was that there is this. A video of a white van, probably Brad Weber's white van going down the road to his house that was taken on the afternoon of the killings.

[00:14:18] And McClellan basically said, we don't know what time this video was taken. And because we don't know exactly what time it was taken, at best, it's impeachable evidence. It's not really evidence that goes to the heart of whatever. And they have this video and they could have used it at trial to impeach Brad Weber. That's not even the issue. The issue is, we don't know what time it was shot at.

[00:14:40] And there's nothing in this document, their verified motion to strike, which responds to that and establishes any criteria for whether or not we know what time that video was taken. Which would have been the important thing to do if we're to take this seriously. Those were the things that I thought were most important to respond to and I didn't see them. When we sound all dry and weird, that's not good for anyone. So we try to drink lots of water. The problem is, I don't like tap water.

[00:15:10] I always go for the bottled water. But maybe I'm on to something. Extensive research by the Environmental Working Group finds that many homes in America can have harmful contaminants in their tap water. But there's one system that's selling me on tap water once and for all. I'm talking about Awkward True. Their four-stage reverse osmosis purification system makes your life so much easier. No more water bottles. No more pitcher filters. You have to keep changing.

[00:15:38] Awkward True is countertop purifiers. No installation and no plumber either. They do also have higher capacity under the sink options, a Wi-Fi connected purifier, and some that give your water a boost of minerals. Targeting chemicals like PFAS, which is found in 45% of United States tap water, Awkward True removes 15 times more contaminants than ordinary pitcher filters. Plus, it's going to save you money.

[00:16:01] One set of filters from their classic purifier gets you the equivalent of 4,500 bottles of water for basically 3 cents a bottle and no mountain of plastic waste. Awkward True comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee and even makes a great gift. Today, my listeners receive 20% off any Awkward True purifier. Just go to Awkward True.com. That's A-Q-U-A-T-R-U dot com and enter code MSHEET at checkout.

[00:16:29] That's 20% off any Awkward True water purifier when you go to Awkward True.com and use promo code M-S-H-E-E-T. 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.

[00:16:56] This is an automatic investment service that's built to help everyone invest, no matter how much money you have. You've heard us speak about our sponsor, Acorns, before. Sure. 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.

[00:17:21] Acorns lets you get started with the spare money you've got right now, even if all you've got is spare change. 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.

[00:17:47] 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. Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. View important disclosures at acorns.com slash msheet. Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's worth going through this whole thing point by point. I think this team, again, has a history of filing things that turn out not to be true.

[00:18:17] And a lot of this struck me as carefully worded press release type stuff. Stuff that's going to really interest the folks in the media and their internet peanut gallery online. But I don't feel like it's relevant or – I mean, and just the way this was written was just bizarre to me. Yes. They also threw in – well, before – let me say this.

[00:18:46] They got some grief from people like us and also they got some grief in McClellan's response for the fact that they posted a video clip, which they said was evidence, highly relevant evidence. They posted that to YouTube, which to me, that kind of gives the whole game away. They're not really interested in appealing to the judge or to anybody within the system.

[00:19:12] They want their YouTube fans to be able to see all of this. And so by putting it on YouTube, they were trying to do an end run around the system and try to make that video available to their fans online. And they say, no, no. I'm reading now. That web link was provided for ease of viewing by the parties in the court. And with all due respect, does anyone believe that? No.

[00:19:41] That's – oh, my God. They put the YouTube link in the filing so their fans could read it, not so the judge Gull would be able to access it. I just think it's embarrassing, the level of connection between – it's like they're like a – like some true crime equivalent of like a teacher who wants to look cool in front of the students. So like kind of like tries to act almost like a student.

[00:20:10] It's like you shouldn't be even – you shouldn't be even like – that shouldn't even be on your radar. I don't even know why this is hard. Like just ignore these people. Like why are you trying to cater to them at all times? Why are you trying to give Michael Osbrook a little YouTube boost? It's embarrassing. All of these people should be embarrassed. I just – like I – we obviously – we're in the new media. We have a podcast.

[00:20:38] We feel mixed feelings about new media. I think there's some great podcasts, some great YouTube creators. Most of it I think is garbage and a waste of time if I'm being honest. But like that's my opinion being in this space. I can't like – I can't fathom that actual attorneys in a high-profile case have been citing YouTubers in filings, have been palling around with YouTubers in court, have been doing stuff like this.

[00:21:08] It's just like – I don't know. Like are they trying to look cool for the kids or something? What's next? Are we going to see Baldwin and Rosie trying to start a TikTok dance trend? What is next? All I have to say is it's obviously been their strategy to cater to the fringes of YouTube. And I would ask, how has that worked out for you guys? I don't think it's worked out that well. They picked a frankly ridiculous defense of Odinism.

[00:21:36] They catered to this fringe. They lost their case badly and their client got the absolute maximum term. Stay winning. I don't think their strategy has worked. No. So I'm at a loss as to why they pursued it and I'm at a loss as to why they are continuing it. I am at a loss as to why they are still here.

[00:21:57] If you have a coach lead a football team to a devastating series of losses and, you know, just disgrace, frankly, you know, usually that coach is fired and a new coach is brought on to handle things and try to get things back and running.

[00:22:44] That's what I would expect. I would expect.

[00:23:15] The mental health records of Richard Allen and some crime scene photographs that should not be made available to the public. And, hey, the defense obviously has mishandled this material in the past because they allowed some crime scene pictures to get out. So ordinarily a lot of this evidence would become public. But he felt in this motion.

[00:23:39] He said, let's let's keep these photographs sealed so that the public can't access them. So then in his response to some, frankly, false claims made by the defense in their original filings, he he disproved the claims by including a picture or two pictures, actually. I think there's several. Of the phone of Libby's phone as it appeared at the crime scene.

[00:24:07] And so now they are trying to claim in this particular filing that by doing that, he somehow broke the order. That the judge made to keep those documents, those photos sealed from the public. And so because of that, he should be held in contempt. And that's dumb. That's dumb. I wrote down dumb as my note there. When you seal something, you're controlling the ability of the public to access it.

[00:24:38] His use of those photos was not gratuitous. It did not include any bodies or anything of that nature. It was meant to disprove a dubious and false assertion made by the defense and their witnesses in their filing. There was nothing wrong with that. It's what it tells you is. They're kind of smarting from the fact that they they messed up. They messed up when they let those pictures get out.

[00:25:08] And they're smarting from that. They're smarting that they were that McClellan asked them to be held in contempt. So they say, well, he asked us to be held in contempt. We want him to be held in contempt. There's something so childish about their interactions with McClellan and some of these filings. There's something so childish. Like, remember the Ding Dong filing? Oh, the judge called McClellan a Ding Dong, but she never called us a Ding Dong. It's like it's like little boys whining.

[00:25:31] Like half of this is the is the kind of underlying in legal filings, the underlying vibe of some of this stuff. It's like, oh, well, he did it, too. And no, he's not in trouble. You didn't get a timeout. I did. And it's like, you know. Maybe if they wanted to have come across better from their disastrous leak, which, to be clear, led directly to photos of dead children existing on the Internet right now. That is their fault.

[00:26:01] That is something they allowed. They are entirely responsible for the fact that crime scene pictures of these two dead girls are all over the Internet. And so for the rest of their lives, when relatives of these victims turn on their computers, there is a chance that they might come across these pictures. I don't feel they failed in their basic responsibility to keep those materials private. I don't feel personally and listen, I do. Mistakes can happen.

[00:26:28] I don't feel that in their dealings with the public, in their public statements since trial, in their public statements, in the pretrial phase. I don't feel like there's really been any accountability from them on this. I hear Brad Rosey saying things like it doesn't matter. I hear people who are basically acting as their spokespeople go online and go on TV and say it's just a drip. It doesn't matter. And I hear, you know, a lot about forgiving Mitch Westerman, the guy who did this, you know, or is alleged to have done it.

[00:26:58] Yeah, it is alleged that Mitch Westerman did this acting alone, although he's also been described as a valued confidant. Yeah. So which is it? But they immediately have forgiven him for that. Yeah. So that's all well and good for them. But again, I don't if they wanted to perhaps take some of the heat off of themselves, I would have expected a little bit more contrition. I certainly would have, you know, I think it would have been fine if they wanted to argue, listen, we're really sorry about this. We take accountability. We don't think we should be removed. We don't think it rises to that level.

[00:27:28] That's fine. That's an argument I could understand making. But they've just been dismissive. And frankly, I would argue cruel given what has happened. So I think I think the fact that they're still basically trying to relitigate that again is more about public perceptions, because I think they realize that a huge segment of the public is completely disgusted with them based on that alone. Yes. Based on what they allowed to happen and then what they continue to try to justify up until recently.

[00:27:58] And I'm sure we'll continue trying to justify and continue trying to smear Nicholas McClelland, who, again, did not do that and is not responsible for any of that. And there's no moral equivalency here. They're being intellectually dishonest because they are so obsessed, I think, with public opinion that, again, this is an important thing in their minds to relitigate, even though none of this even has anything to do with that. We're not even talking about the leak here.

[00:28:27] They're continuously bringing it up to try to be like, see, we're not so bad. They did it, too. And I also want to make this point in their filing. They said, oh, the phone was not dirty. It was not wet. And so McClelland produced a photo that proved the phone was dirty and the phone was wet. And they are not saying, oh, those photos were inaccurate or doctored in any way.

[00:28:53] So what is their contention that if they make a false assertion, McClelland should not have the right to produce photographic evidence that proves them to be liars? Well, Kevin, he's not a phone expert, you know. So, I mean, like, I know we all saw the phone covered in, you know, refuse and leaves and droplets of moisture. But I mean, like, does he really know that that I mean, like it's like basically don't trust your lying eyes here. You know, he like what? What?

[00:29:21] Maybe I misspoke and went too far when I said they are liars. But clearly what they put in that filing about the condition of the phone was not accurate. I mean, I don't know. There's an awful lot of things that turn out not to be true in these filings. So. I don't know. Speaking of that, did you want to move on to Ricky Davis or there's more stuff you want to say about this file?

[00:29:45] I think it's very interesting given the amount of spelling errors that they've had in their filings that they're dunking on McClelland and some of this for misspelling impeachable. Listen, you and I have fun with typos, but we're podcasters. We're not making a legal filing for a judge. So the fact that they're doing that, it's just there's something so petty and weird about this. And it's just like, I don't know. I, you know, I think I've heard people say, well, maybe they're trying to put some of this in to get it in the record.

[00:30:14] But again, they had their shot to perform well in this case. They didn't. And I just want to emphasize for people who who who might be wondering, this is not the appeal. The appeal is going to be done by different attorneys. That's down the line. So we'll we'll be assessing that when it comes out separately. But none of this is an appeal. This is, you know, this is what it is. So let's move on. So this is the defendant's verified motion to strike the state's response to. Oh, pardon me.

[00:30:44] Sorry, I think I put the wrong thing down there. This should be the defendant's verified motion to preserve and produce specific evidence. Yes. So. Yeah. So the first thing. Let's explain who Ricky Davis is first. Otherwise, people are going to be like, what? Ricky Davis is a man who was convicted on drug charges and has a history, kind of a long criminal

[00:31:12] history, including things like forgery. So crimes where he is lying theft, I believe. So this is a guy who's at the Newcastle Correctional Facility. He's inserted himself into this case by claiming to have information on all sorts of things connected to Delphi. And, you know, in true crime, we all know that when someone does that, that's obviously incredibly believable and should be taken very seriously. Anya, of course, is being sarcastic is is her want.

[00:31:42] Thank you for narrating that. I just want to make it clear. I just want to make it clear. So and Mr. Davis, as it has come out that Mr. Davis at one point reported that Ron Logan made a confession to him that Mr. Logan was involved in the murders and he provided Mr.

[00:32:06] Davis provided some details of said confession, which were at best wildly inaccurate. Can you remind me what some of those details were? I believe one detail was that Liberty was killed. In the clearing where they were found. But Abigail was taken, abducted from that scene and then brought back and dumped later or killed later, which doesn't make any sense.

[00:32:36] And that the the phone battery was removed from Liberty's phone. And there was something about burning clothes. So there were a number of details that Mr. Davis claims that Mr. Logan allegedly told him about the crime, which were completely inaccurate. And then furthermore, Mr. Davis was given a polygraph test, which he failed completely.

[00:33:06] So when you have someone saying, oh, I heard this bit of information and that information, you know, from other sources is inaccurate. And furthermore, you know that the person who is making this claim failed a lie detector. You would be pretty safe to assume that the information he is trying to peddle is wrong. I would imagine that in a case as high profile as this, police probably received quite a lot of

[00:33:36] wrongful convictions or people tipping in other people who got details wrong. Like, you know, oh, I shot the girls or I strangled them or something. And then you can rule that out because, no, that's not what happened. That didn't match the scene. So Ricky Davis is very clearly, in my opinion, and I think the opinion of anyone who's freaking paying attention to this thing, not a credible person. I will go so far to say he's a liar.

[00:34:03] The story he tells is not credible. You don't think he just wants to help the families? Aw. So that's who Ricky Davis is in this filing. Former defense attorney, Andrew Baldwin, I guess he's reentered the case. I guess current, current for. Remember, there was like two sets of defense attorneys in this case at one point. And then defense attorneys for the defense attorneys. Like inception with defense attorneys.

[00:34:31] Andrew Baldwin says on February 12, 2025, a little less than one week ago, as we record, Mr. Baldwin went to the Newcastle correctional facility where Mr. Davis is incarcerated and met with him. And at that time, Davis says, Davis supposedly told Baldwin that Logan confessed to him numerous

[00:35:00] times and indicated that he had committed the crime with two other people and that Logan had provided certain details of the crime that only the actual killer would know. And so. Well, by that I'm provided certain details of the crime that only the actual killer would know. I guess he meant got a bunch of details completely wrong that did not fit the facts of the case. Yes. And I would be curious, what are these details?

[00:35:26] And how would Ricky Davis be in a position to know whether or not these details, the only the killer would know are accurate or not? You know, sometimes I feel like I've got one of those faces where people just start opening, like telling me stuff sometimes. Like just not, not even in interviews, just in like in life, like people are just telling me stuff. And Ricky Davis must be that to the Newcastle correctional facility, because apparently everybody and we're going to get to this later, but everyone's just telling him their darkest

[00:35:55] secrets and he's he's really in the mix here. So interesting. But again, how it is Ricky Davis know whether these details that only the killer would know are accurate or not? Well, maybe that's Baldwin's editorializing. Then why aren't these details provided to the court? I don't know. Maybe it would make people take the filing less seriously.

[00:36:19] So then Mr. Davis further informed Mr. Baldwin that he also got to know Kagan Klein, as Anya alluded to. And the Kagan Klein started to get very friendly. Yeah. With Mr. Davis. And what happened? Sorry. Like, I can't I can't help but laugh. It's just that this guy is like pretending like he's like the, you know, Forrest Gump of this

[00:36:46] case where he's like running into every high profile figure and having some meaningful interaction with them. So he says that in March 2024, he's in the same area of Newcastle as Kagan Klein. Somehow Klein learns that Davis talked to Logan and then starts basically interrogating Davis about his talk with Logan saying, oh, did he mention me? Did he mention me? And so intrepid inmate slash sleuth Ricky Davis pieces together the clues and thinks to

[00:37:14] himself, hmm, this Klein fellow may know more than he's saying. I'll try to get to the bottom of this one. And then very conveniently, Klein also corroborated details to Davis. You know, it came from Logan. It came from that came from Logan again. Supposedly. You know, this is the guy who described the crimes completely wrong. But but Klein also very helpfully absolved Richard Allen of being involved, saying, no, he wasn't one of the guys. It was, you know, it was me, Logan and someone else.

[00:37:40] And Klein and Logan apparently, according to according to Davis's version of this that Klein told them, they were sharing child sexual abuse materials together. And Klein would also help Logan deal with his burner phones and devices because Logan was an old man and not good at technology. So Kagan Klein, a few times a year out of the kindness of his heart, would meet in person

[00:38:07] with Logan, apparently, and help him access child sexual abuse. He's like the IT guy for pedophiles, I guess, you know, but like but somehow there's no actual evidence of any of that, despite the fact that Logan and Klein both had all of their stuff, their property, their devices, everything ripped apart multiple times by authorities. In this case, looking for evidence. Yes, I guess that's all part of the cover up. Right. Again, I'm being sarcastic. So, yeah.

[00:38:36] And it's worth noting that Kagan Klein's phone shows that he was in Peru, Indiana, using his phone at the time of the murders. So, you know, that that kind of definitively. So Kagan Klein is someone who lies frequently. We've discussed this on the show. And he also there's evidence that he was not in Delphi that day, that he was, in fact, in Peru. So. How he then suddenly gets to. And I think you brought this up and I want to mention this.

[00:39:06] So in this version, Ricky Davis has three people committing the crime, Logan Klein and someone else. So that's interesting. So there's three guys stumbling around the woods and the trails that day. So where are these guys? Because we have plenty of witnesses. We have plenty of people who were on the trails that day. And they see a person fitting Richard Allen's description there. They don't see a mysterious group of three other men hanging around. Yeah.

[00:39:36] Two other men. Yeah. So if this crime was committed by three other people, one of whom is Kagan Klein, who is a very large man, you would think he couldn't stay hidden and we'd have other witnesses corroborating that. Well, it's it's I mean, it's one of those things where I feel. You know, here's the thing about Kagan Klein. I think there were reasons to investigate Kagan Klein and the Klein lead. I think there were reasons to investigate Ron Logan.

[00:40:05] You know, investigators looked strongly, I believe, into both of those leads and did not find anything. And I think personally, we've interacted with Kagan Klein. We've we've talked to him. We've we've covered that angle in particular quite extensively. To me, one thing that I always get hung up on, in addition to the phone evidence putting Klein far away from Delphi that day, the thing that I get hung up on is that I believe

[00:40:32] and I believe he tried to do this, but he was lying. Obviously, I believe that Kagan Klein is ultimately motivated to benefit Kagan Klein. And if Kagan Klein had actionable information about the killer, he would have been in a position to potentially use that to his advantage when he was talking with law enforcement and facing some significant charges of his own. And he did not do that. Instead, he jerked everybody around.

[00:40:58] He gave false information that could not be corroborated or that turned out not to be true. And and that was it. And I just personally am of the belief that Kagan Klein had he had something that he could have used, had he had a bargaining chip. You would have used it. I think he would have used it. So he didn't. And again, like people can be irrational, but I just don't see I don't see how that would have been something he would have been holding back.

[00:41:24] And I think with with Ron Logan, again, it's like he was they they grilled him hard. They they tore apart his life looking into him. He went to jail in a probation violation. He went to prison on a probation violation, I should say. You know, I you know, it's not like these different leads were like kind of like dismissed or not taken seriously. And I want to make another point.

[00:41:51] If we are being asked to believe that this Ricky Davis lead was like really, really hot and that McClellan and the evil Odinist conspiracy of which he is an agent was determined to hide this from the defense is part of their elaborate scheme to frame Richard Allen.

[00:42:12] And what they did a very poor job of it because Baldwin and the defense team not only knew about Ricky Davis and his story, but they had access to him. And in fact, Baldwin admits in this filing that he had a meeting with Ricky Davis on March 27th, 2024. Yes. So, oh, my gosh. And this is where this is where things really go off the rails for me. So.

[00:42:43] Obviously, that means apparently information about Davis did, in fact, reach the defense because there were meeting. There was this there was a meeting prior to the trial. And one thing that Baldwin notes at some point is that Davis did not tell him everything that Davis gave him an incomplete story at this time. That Davis was not completely truthful with him, you might say. So.

[00:43:08] Like when you meet someone and they're not honest and then their story changes to get your attention again and then it benefits you. Are you not the least bit skeptical? You know, if I tell you, Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, I've got some I've got some real information on the latest serial heist down at the Walmart and you come to me and I give you, you know, oh, some guy named Joe might have been involved. And then and then later on, you know, your client gets convicted.

[00:43:36] And then I'm like, no, no, it was Joe and this other guy. And is that like, wouldn't you be skeptical at that point? Yeah. Like you weren't honest with me in the first place. Why should I believe you now? But of course, as we know, this defense team will believe literally anything that remotely in their minds benefits them. No matter how ridiculous. They say that supposedly. Well, first of all, there is a claim which we will return to in a few minutes when we cover something else.

[00:44:06] But there is a claim that Ricky Davis sent Prosecutor McClellan as many as eight letters in the summer and fall of 2024 with this hot information. And these alleged letters never allegedly made it to the defense. So remember that for a second.

[00:44:29] Baldwin then also explains that the reason that Davis did not be fully honest with him. Did not be. The reason that Davis was not fully honest with him in March of 2024 was that at that time he thought there was a chance Richard Allen might be guilty. Wow. So apparently it wasn't until the trial that convinced him that no Richard Allen is innocent.

[00:44:53] So if that's the case, then these letters that he sent to him prior to the trial, do they implicate Allen? Because the whole reason he's not being fully honest with Baldwin in March is, well, I think Richard Allen might be guilty. Right. And then before the trial, he's writing letters to the prosecutor. So that's just a thought I have.

[00:45:17] Maybe he's having Allen telepathically communicate with him from Westville because, I mean, obviously he's got to get the full triumvirate of Logan Allen and Klein. I mean, like you can't make this up. And frankly, it wouldn't even surprise me. So he thinks Allen's guilty at first, but then it gets him more attention if he goes full defense. Right. So he's got to do that. He's got to pivot. I mean, he he's he's as indecisive as one of these lunatic YouTubers where it's just they're just jumping from theory to theory. And oh, it was Logan. Oh, it was Klein. Oh, it was.

[00:45:48] Maybe it was both of them. It was both of them. It was everybody. I mean, I did it. It's like just geez Louise. This is not. I mean, like that. I don't understand how people are taking this seriously. I guess when I'm looking at this, this is comedic. This is this is it's not a funny situation. But if it wasn't about the horrible, horrible murder of two girls and the continue, you know, nonsense from this defense, it would be almost like like a comedy of errors because it's just like this.

[00:46:15] This guy is obviously so full of it and doing anything he can to insert himself into the case, even though it means continuously just changing his story. You compared it to, I believe, Marvel Endgame. Yeah. No, it's this is the Marvel Endgame. You know, I'm not a huge superhero person. I did see Marvel Endgame in theaters. I remember I don't know all the superheroes, but they bring out, you know, they bring out the superheroes. And then this isn't a spoiler, but like they're fighting in a big battle.

[00:46:42] And then you see all the superheroes and you're like, oh, there's Captain America or there's Thor. There's Iron Man. And, you know, people in the theater were like clapping because they're like, oh, I know that guy. That guy's cool, too. This is that for like a very stupid segment of the Delphi online following. This is that for like the Delphi people who are obsessed with the case, but also happen to possess zero critical thinking faculties and are extremely online.

[00:47:11] Because it's like that. It's like that. It's like that kind of endgame situation where you're like, oh, no, actually, all of them are coming together and are really important. So it's like all the theories colliding. So soon we're going to have a theory where it's Logan and Klein are the sort of co-counsels of the, you know, Odinist conspiracy in Indiana. And the police have been behind it, too, all the time, even though, you know, they arrested both of them.

[00:47:39] And one went to prison for a while for a probation violation and the other one is serving a very long sentence on CSAM. You know, but but naturally the police are involved. And it's all it's all just this elaborate thing. It's like trying to combine all these theories. And what I love about this is that if you know the case and, you know, the online contingents as we do, maybe you don't because maybe you have better things to do with your life.

[00:48:01] But there is a segment of just vitriolic, just awful people, just like really just nuts who have been screaming about how Ron Logan did it forever. They basically became radicalized because some journalist went on a discord and shared her theory. And they've been obsessed with that ever since. And they've you know, you can you can you could probably show them video of Ron Logan not doing it and being in the wrong place at the time. But they would not believe that they are. This is their religion.

[00:48:32] And I think it's going to be really funny to see some of these people adopt this. Oh, yeah. Klein must be involved in their stupid theories because I remember these are the same people who were screaming about how it couldn't be Klein for years. So now they're going to either have to disagree with their defense daddies or they're going to have to get on board the Klein train. And it will be a fun, fun thing to see what happens with that.

[00:48:57] Yeah, that that leads me to something else I wanted to say is that they seem to be taking Ricky Davis's statements about Logan and Kagan Klein and the third man. Very, very. It's Harry Lime. Very, very seriously. And so that seems to me to be an implicit recognition and admission that their theories about Odinism were nonsense.

[00:49:25] Well, I could have told them that for free a long time ago. Because if you think it was Ron Logan and Kagan Klein and the third man, then obviously it is not the Odinists. And that would be seeming to you seem to be admitting that, well, maybe after all, Judge Gold was correct when she said there was no nexus between your Odinist suspects and this crime. And that Nick McLean was correct when the answer to the crime did not lie with the Odinists.

[00:49:54] And so those two people, the two enemies of the defense in their minds, had a better understanding of the crime than they did. Because after two years of work on this case, they seem to be only now getting to the Logan and Kline theories and only now seem to be recognizing the obvious point that their Odinism theories were utter nonsense. Well said, sir. But please stop saying the third man because every time you do, zither music plays in my head. Okay.

[00:50:23] Can't have that. So, yeah, I think this is, I mean, I think it's ridiculous. I think you're absolutely right. And I think for people who are taking this seriously, you got to wonder what happened to Odinism, right? I mean, we were told that that was a sure thing. And not only was that a sure thing, but that Judge Gold did irreparable damage to this defense by not letting them put on that stupid performance, you know, at trial.

[00:50:51] But now we're learning, well, I mean, I'm not seeing an Odinism nexus here, but I would not put it past them to try to link that all up. Because why not? I mean, we've gone this far. Why not make everything linked up? You know, we're all in the Odinverse now. I mean, I don't, I just, this is just ridiculous and exhausting.

[00:51:14] I think the defense is intent on no matter who it is, no matter what they say, just useful idiots will be utilized in and out of prison to try to keep this running and keep them relevant in the case and keep the headlines coming. That is my assessment of this.

[00:51:32] I want to mention and read point 16, quote, the defense can produce a witness with admissible evidence that in the months before Mr. Allen's trial, the prosecution received some number of letters from Ricky Davis and those letters had been given to the people investigating the case, end quote. So they are saying they have somebody who can claim not only that the letters were sent, but that the letters were in fact given to investigators.

[00:52:02] So produce that person. Well, I mean, this is the same people again who said that Professor Jeff Turco of Purdue could prove that Lieutenant Jerry Holman of the Indiana State Police was a liar who twisted his words and gave the defense some wrong idea in a deposition about what his opinion was. And then, of course, Turco came out in a prosecution filing saying, no, he was accurate. The defense of the people who's twisting around my words. So, I mean, yeah, I will believe this when I see it.

[00:52:32] But there's talk of a video. Can we talk about that a little bit? Sure. Go ahead. So this is they're talking about how Ricky Davis said that he was interviewed and there was a video of it. And basically, well, you know, they need to look at the video. I don't I don't know if it's a video of just a separate interview or video of his polygraph or both or what.

[00:52:57] But but I think I mean, you know, they seem to be making a very big deal about that. To me, what's important is that they had access to Davis well before the trial and they had the ability to interview him, get his information, get what he had to say. I don't think producing or not producing a video matters in this context. Am I wrong? What do you think? If a video actually exists, I don't even know the video exists.

[00:53:27] What's crucial is they knew the story and they had access to them, to it, to the man. Uh, this this prosecution case has been plagued with technical issues. Yeah. If a video was done and it was erased, I would feel comfortable saying that I would very much doubt it was done intentionally. I mean, yeah, obviously. But I mean, it just how much of a problem would that be for the prosecution then?

[00:53:58] If an interview with a proven liar lying was accidentally erased, but the people still had the defense still had access to the proven liar. Yeah. Sounds like it's a really big deal. Yeah, it's not. I'm being sarcastic. So, um. Yeah, I don't know. I just. This is this is low to me. This is this is just low down nonsense.

[00:54:25] And I think Ricky Davis seems like he's very, you know, it. Well, we'll talk more about him later because there's there's more about him. But, um, I think the I just it's it's it's it's not surprising, but it's striking when you have Baldwin saying basically, well, yeah, this guy lied to me. He covered up stuff because he thought my client was guilty. But, you know, because he thought he was the one of the other guys with Logan. But, you know, we should all believe him because, you know, now he's saying something that's helpful to me.

[00:54:55] I'm sure if Ricky Davis came out before the trial and said, I know Richard Allen did it. Ron Logan Logan told me Richard Allen did it. That Baldwin would say this guy's obviously a liar who's, you know, in in prison, has a history of forgery. The theft has a history of drug dealing. All of that would have been reasonable for Baldwin to say. And I would have agreed with him.

[00:55:20] I would have said we should not be condemning Richard Allen based on the word of a man like this. That's not reasonable. That's not fair. He could be just making this up for attention. It's a high profile case. People of all walks in and out of prison want to be associated with it for whatever reason because, I don't know, they have sad lives and they want to make themselves seem important. It doesn't have to be for some really complicated reason.

[00:55:48] It can just be as simple as that. And this is something to do. And the thing is, you know, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would be I would be saying this guy should not be taken seriously as a as a person going against Richard Allen just because of who he is and his story is changing and he's not credible. And that the same goes for what he's doing now. And that's just the end of story. I don't I don't feel in most instances that inmates make for good witnesses.

[00:56:16] There are some cases where you might again, I've said this, but like you might have someone plotting to murder someone in prison and they go to their cellmate. Hey, can you hook me up? And then a prosecutor wires up that cellmate. And unless there's a lot of like entrapment going on, I can I feel like that can be reasonable if they're like, OK, here's the plan. We're going to kill this. I'm fine with that. But in many cases where there's no corroborating evidence and it's just one person's word against another, I don't care unless they're giving specific details.

[00:56:45] The truly only the killer would know. I don't care. And that's obviously not what wrong. Logan did here because he got so much information wrong. Yes. Shall we move on? Please. So Fox 59 did a report recently on a letter that they received from Ricky Davis. And we'll go into some of that because it's related to some of the things discussed in these filings. Right. And, you know.

[00:57:15] First of all, just the letter itself is written quite beautiful handwriting, but the words themselves are. Inarticulate. Inarticulate. Yes. Inarticulate. Very confusingly written. So we're doing our best here. But there's there's things that are not super clear. And he seems to concede that he failed the lie detector test. He does. He does seem to implicitly admit that he failed the polygraph examination. It's not super clear. Again, he's inarticulate.

[00:57:43] But he suggests that the reason he failed it was because he was asked what if what Logan told him was the truth. And he's basically like, how could I know that? I don't know. In my experience, that's not how lie detector tests or polygraph tests work. No. You don't ask people about the truth or falsity of something that is outside their knowledge. Also, like, I don't like I mean, you could say, well, you're showing deception on this question.

[00:58:09] But I don't know if that would make you show deception on everything else. And flunk it. I think this guy is just a liar. That's just what I think. I something else that jumped out to me is back when he was incarcerated with Ron Logan.

[00:58:28] He says that Logan told him that McClellan was like an old family friend and that McClellan had assured people that he had Ron Logan's back and was basically going to stand up for Ron Logan. Going to let him out of prison because he didn't think he did the crime. Here's my question.

[00:58:49] If Mr. Davis seriously believes that Prosecutor McClellan is a devoted family friend of Ron Logan and is willing to commit improprieties to protect his good friend Ron Logan, then why would he send Mr. McClellan seven or eight letters saying, oh, Ron Logan, your good friend is guilty?

[00:59:15] If you hate to break it to you, if you think in that situation that the prosecutor is corrupt and is knowingly protecting a guilty man who is his buddy, then I would suggest that you would be more likely to send your letters elsewhere, perhaps to the judge or someone else. So that makes no sense to me.

[00:59:39] And so that that's something that certainly discredits Mr. Davis even further in my eyes. Wouldn't it be hilarious if the letters he was sending were like just about other things or like Richard Allen being guilty? Because I feel like like that. According to Baldwin, Davis believed Richard Allen was guilty up until the trial. Right. It's just a bunch of like Richard Allen, weird fan fiction about like, oh, I heard through a guy who was at Westville and he told me that.

[01:00:08] And the defense is making a huge deal of this. And it's I mean, it like it just this guy just strikes me as a guy who's willing to say anything to be relevant here. And that means switching stories. That means switching focus from Logan to Klein to Allen and back again.

[01:00:22] I mean, just there's also in this letter a discussion of these letters that Davis seemed to the discussion of like seven letters or so that were, according to Baldwin, sent to McClellan.

[01:00:40] But in the Lewis letter, Davis says, and I apologize if I'm misreading his handwriting, but he seems to say McClellan knew this as family communicated that the letters were passed on to McClellan.

[01:00:56] End quote. So is Davis suggesting that these seven or eight letters that he claims to have sent to McClellan were actually sent to family members of his who may or may not have actually passed them on to McClellan? Oh, geez. I mean, how do you read that? Yeah, that's a bad. That is how I read that. Now, we could be misreading that or it's possible that, again, it's garbled because this guy is completely unclear in his writing. So could be could be that.

[01:01:26] But it definitely raises some questions because obviously there's a huge difference between sending a letter to a prosecutor and, you know, sending a letter to your cousin who assures you that she'll post it and send it to the prosecutor who just forgets about it and lets it sit in a pile in her house. So, you know, one of those things is definitely not anybody else's problem except for Davis's and the defenses. So I yeah, I just. It's ridiculous.

[01:01:55] I think I think it's interesting. I think the letter has a quite a petulant tone at times. Davis seems to me there's a there's a genre of person in this case, a type of guy in this case where it's like I have credibility issues, but I'm upset because no one takes my information seriously, even though I get I'm getting key facts wrong. This this this person could be a YouTuber. It could be a law enforcement officer. It could be just anybody.

[01:02:23] But it's like this kind of entitlement of like, take me seriously. We demand to be taken seriously. And it's usually just clowns. And that struck me. You know, I think. I think you even see some of that kind of tone and behavior from the defense teams, like, why is no one taking me seriously, even though I'm saying things that are not true? So in the letter, he's like upset because he apparently wanted to wear a wire to try to talk to Logan.

[01:02:52] And he was told, no, that's not necessary. And. Putting someone putting a wire on someone and going through all of that takes time and money and resources. And why on earth would you do that when you don't believe the person telling you the story?

[01:03:10] There are certain rules about who can be an informant in terms of police investigations and people who have credibility issues to the point where they've been convicted on forgery charges. I would imagine would, let's just say, not be very high on the list of people you'd even want doing that for you. So even if they're like this guy wouldn't have been good for an operation like that. Regardless of what this was about.

[01:03:40] Because he's not credible. They can't. I mean, they can't use that. You can't just, you know. You know, Kagan Klein is another person where he's lying constantly. You don't want someone like that in any sort of operation like that because you can't believe what they're saying. So, I mean, I don't know. This whole thing. It just the whininess and just, you know. You know, make it about yourself, basically. That's just what this letter strikes me as. You know, Ron Logan, to be very clear, was never charged in the Delphi murders case.

[01:04:08] He went to prison on a probation violation. It's very clear that at one time the police were looking at him very strongly. They investigated. They searched his entire property. They searched his house. I believe there were multiple searches conducted. They found no evidence. He lied to police on the day of the murders. He made a claim, or perhaps the next day, I forget. But he made a claim, oh, I was going to this fish shop with my cousin.

[01:04:36] And people say, well, why would you lie about that? Well, I believe it's pretty clear for this for me. When you look at it, he is somebody who had a history of DUIs. He's on probation for that. And he probably panicked and just made something up to make it clear that he wasn't the one driving, even though he was. I believe that he was lying to cover that up. I don't believe he was lying to cover up a part in the murders.

[01:05:05] So, you know, he's there on a parole violation. He was never going to be there forever. Any sort of nonsense about how McClellan's like pulling strings to get him out, that doesn't even make any sense. I mean, it was a parole violation. So I don't know. It's just ridiculous. In his letter, Davis claims to feel deeply for, quote, them baby girls and families because, you know, he has children. But, you know.

[01:05:28] So he was actually convicted of manufacturing meth within a thousand feet of a youth center. So that obviously cares a lot about his deep devotion to the youth of this great land. Yeah. And so that's why people have wondered why his sentence is so high in Indiana. If you're manufacturing meth within a thousand feet of a youth center, that's considered a class A felony. Also, you know, for you know, he's very adamant in this letter to the media that he is not out for media attention.

[01:05:58] Well, I mean, he could have fooled me. He sure seems bound and determined to get media attention for someone who eschews it. So I don't I don't know. I I think this I again, I think this is unfortunate. I think what the defense is doing is they've set up sort of a process, a pipeline, you know, to.

[01:06:23] That will, I'm sure, continue throughout the case where now unstable people, lunatics, inmates with an agenda, whoever, you know, whoever they're feeling that day has a process to, you know, tell us what we want to hear. And we will put it in a legal filing and the press will run with it.

[01:06:44] And then when you message the press yourself about your, you know, woes and your case and how you were railroaded and how you just want to help and you just you know, you don't care about the reward money. You just want to help the families, you know, that you'll get that attention. You'll get that spotlight. You can be a little hero. You know, maybe people on on social media will, you know, treat you like a little rock star. And I think that's not not good. I don't I don't think that's helpful. I don't I don't think.

[01:07:13] I don't think stuff like this has any merit and I therefore don't feel like it's a good thing. And I think it just confuses the public. And I think, you know. In an ideal world, I would not want to cover Delphi ever again until perhaps the appeal where we could discuss that, because that would be something that I would be actually interested in.

[01:07:34] But because this pipeline has been set up, it sort of feels like, you know, it's going to be it's going to be a long haul. I mean, I think there's some things for people who are. Seeing media coverage and seeing discussions and seeing filings, there's some things that we could all almost apply ourselves where you can just kind of like.

[01:08:04] Almost like almost a checklist a little bit. So like this could be helpful to people. Questions to ask yourself when you're reading something or you are looking at a filing or a media story are one. Why was this not brought up at trial? Why wasn't this used before or even pre-trial? Like what? What happened? Like, is it linked to Odinism? If not, why was this not the strategy?

[01:08:30] Um, another thing would be what's not being said in filings. You know, Kevin pointed this out. There were certain elements that the defense alleged in their initial filing. McClellan hit back on that and then they failed to follow up such as the video timestamps of the van. You know, they're saying this proves that Brad Weber wasn't there at the right time. And McClellan's like, no, it doesn't. And then the defense is like, oh. They don't have a response to that. So that's important. What is not being said?

[01:09:01] And then what is the actual evidence other than the defense's assertions? What's the actual evidence or something? So, you know, the defense has their own assertions in this. And then they bring up Ricky Davis as their little ringer from Newcastle. You know, is that enough? Do we need more than that? I would hope so.

[01:09:20] And then I would just say when you're dealing with people in a case like this, I wouldn't say this applies to all cases because I think in most cases parties are acting with a level of, you know, responsibility and adherence to the facts. You know, but in this case, I think this defense team has a history of maligning McClellan, the judge, law enforcement officers and many others in ways that later oftentimes prove to be completely false or at least vastly exaggerated.

[01:09:50] And I would say that it is usually better to take maybe everything they say with a grain of salt, maybe everything they say with a whole pound of salt. Maybe it's just not it's better to not take their word for it alone. That's a checklist that everyone can kind of use when assessing this stuff, because I think that's all really important to remember. And it's.

[01:10:14] A lot of the stuff just seems to be distractions and it gives the kind of the YouTube crowd, it gives kind of the Reddit crowd, you know, there's obviously good people in both camps, but, you know, there's there's a lot of frankly bad actors in some of these online spaces. It gives them all a lot to spiral about and chew on and freak out about. But but that doesn't mean it's relevant. It doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere. And I really don't see this going anywhere. It's not going to go anywhere.

[01:10:43] Tell me about that. I've been ranting. I mean, it's like a waste of all of our time. The the Ricky Davis story is obvious nonsense. Uh, at least we're getting to the point where the obvious nonsense is becoming more and more apparent quicker and quicker that it is a nonsense.

[01:11:11] You know, we wasted over a year on Odinism. Hopefully we won't be wasting that much time on Ricky Davis. His story is not true. Ron Logan did not kill the girls. Kagan Klein was not there that day. He did not kill the girls. Girls were brutally murdered by Richard Allen. And that happened. I thought it was telling that also that these filings came on the anniversary of the day.

[01:11:41] The bodies of the girls were discovered. There was something really uniquely tasteless about that, in my opinion. Crass. It was almost as if they, uh, resented the, the attention being returned to the girls. Because earlier I'd seen some media stories, uh, highlighting the families. And, uh, maybe this was an attempt to get the focus back on Richard Allen and their false claims of his innocence.

[01:12:11] And again, he's not innocent. He is guilty as charged and guilty as convicted. Well said. I don't think there's anything else to say. What do you think? 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.

[01:12:39] 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.

[01:13:05] 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, 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.

[01:13:35] Thanks again for listening. 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? Yeah, I've got two of their Mongolian cashmere sweaters.

[01:14:03] 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. You've gotten a lot of compliments when you go out wearing these sweaters. I think I have, yeah. And deservedly so.

[01:14:31] 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.

[01:14:59] 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. I do wash my clothes. I know you wash your clothes, but I mean, you're filthy. You just made me sound awful. So no, I wash my clothes. 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. Thank you. Great products, incredible prices. Absolutely. Quince.com.

[01:15:28] 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. Before we wrap up this episode, can we take just a moment to say a few more words about our great new sponsor, Acorns? Yeah. Thanks so much to Acorns.

[01:15:55] 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. We love our sponsors. 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?

[01:16:21] 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. 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.

[01:16:51] 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.

[01:17:19] View important disclosures at acorns.com slash msheet. Before we go, we just wanted to say another few words about Vaya. This is really a wonderful product. I think it's really helped both of us get a lot better rest. Vaya 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.

[01:17:48] 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. 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 the 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.

[01:18:18] Anya, if I wanted to get this discount you speak of, what do I do? Okay. If you're 21 and older, head to VayaHemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off. And if you're new to Vaya, get a free gift of your choice. That's V-I-I-A, hemp.com and use code MSHEET at checkout. Spell the code. M-S-H-E-E-T. And after you purchase, they're going to ask you, hey, where did you hear about us?

[01:18:43] Say the murder sheet because then it lets them know that our ads are effective and it really helps us out. Thank you.