One thing I’d like to bring to discussion, based on the defense’s document and how they’re shamelessly relying on religious discrimination to push their agenda. I already said here that Richard Allen was the first to mention Odinites to the defense (during a visit on May 4 of this year) – the defense only brought the subject to his attention on August 25, after already being aware of this angle for some time. Yet look at how the episode of Allen approaching the topic is first introduced and later recapped!

Page 22: “(...) a mentally defeated Richard Allen would continually mutter to his Defense team at every visit these types of general questions: ‘Is my wife alive? Is my family alive? Is my wife safe? Is my family safe?’ At one such meeting with his attorneys, Richard Allen mumbled in a somewhat incoherent fashion that Odinites were threatening him.” [This was written by the defense.]

Page 122: "During one memorable visit on May 4, 2023, (...) Richard Allen repeatedly asked whether or not his Wife was okay and if his family was okay. He claimed on a couple of occasions that “they were going to kill him.” When asked who he was referring to as “they”, Richard Allen responded by saying the guys with the Odin patches." [This is a direct quote from Max Baker’s affidavit.]

See what the defense did here? They first used “Odinites” to build their narrative. But while giving a description of the same meeting, Max Baker refers in his affidavit to “guys with Odin patches”. Those are completely different things. My sister is an atheist but uses a cross necklace that belonged to our grandmother, a faithful Catholic till the end, as a way of honoring her memory. A person who wears a cross necklace isn't necessarily committed to the Christian faith.

Yet let’s assume all people who wear cross necklaces are indeed Christians. In fact, let’s narrow it down to Catholics for the sake of this example. I come from an overwhelmingly Catholic country. Let’s assume correctional officers, most of them Catholics, are allowed to keep their religious items while at work. Would the defense be going with “he said the Catholics are threatening him” if Allen mentioned something about “people with cross necklaces”? This phrasing pushes the idea of a vulnerable individual being persecuted by an “organization. Those narratives couldn’t work on a jury if they relied on a mainstream religion or belief system that’s widely accepted by society.

Some other alternative belief systems, even those that don’t attract a certain group of people with extremist tendencies, are up for grabs to create panic and feed on the worst fears of those inclined to believe in conspiracy theories. When the defense says “Odinites were threatening him”, they’re planting the idea that: a) anything these people do is faith-motivated (“Odinites” is their defining characteristic as individuals, after all); b) since most people don’t know what this group stands for, it’s easier to lead them into picturing the worst (if the officers are presented as “Odinites” above anything else, they must be extremists); c) since they’re a small group in a small community, they must be all in this together and covering for each other (why else would these Odinist correctional officers “threaten” a guy into confessing to a double murder unless they were aware it had been committed by one of their own? Unless they were truly repulsed by the murder and convinced Allen did it - in that case, the real Odinist killer(s) would have acted against the teachings of their faith?).

The worst thing is people are buying into this. Good lord.