BBM
Hennessey mentions it in his POST HEARING MEMORANDUM filed 3/25/2024:
State’s Exhibit 10 consists of 20 pages of back-and-forth messages between Mr. Baldwin
and an unidentified person. The State alleged that person was Mr. Westerman. That exhibit was
admitted over objection because it contained Mr. Baldwin’s mental impressions and work
product and failed to identify the other participant. Mr. McLeland read that exchange with
advanced knowledge that it was communications regarding consultation on the case. He never
should have read it.
Then you can read the STATE’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CONTEMPTUOUS CONDUCT filed on 4/1:
The screenshots from the iCloud account of Mitch Westerman. The screenshots are of
text messages between Mitch Westerman and “Andy”. Again, the messages are voluminous but
if the Court will read through them, the Court will clearly see that “Andy” is Andrew Baldwin.
In the text, “Andy” talks about writing the Franks’ memo and how it is a huge endeavor on his
part. In other messages, “Andy” encourages Mitch Westerman to reach out to the media and
push their narrative. “Andy” further states that he has already been in touch with Dateline and
spoke to them. All of this is a violation of the “Gag” order by Andrew Baldwin and the Defense.
When the State was notified of the leaked crime scene photos in early October 2023, the
Defense was on a phone conference with the Court and gave the Court the explanation that Mitch
Westerman broke in and stole the photos. When interviewed by the Indiana State Police,
Andrew Baldwin stated that he gave the Franks’ memo to Mitch Westerman to review. Then, at
the hearing on March 18th, 2024, the Defense implied that Mitch Westerman is now a consultant
of the Defense and any communication between Mitch Westerman and Andrew Baldwin should
be considered work product. The Defense has consistently altered Mitch Westerman’s
involvement in this case. Why didn’t the Defense make the Court and the State aware on the
October 10th, 2023 phone call that Mitch Westerman was a consultant and that he had access to
discovery? It is the State’s belief that the Defense was trying to conceal or diminish Mitch
Westerman’s role in the leak.
A reasonable person can deduce that the Defense was trying to hide the fact that the
Defense was intentionally leaking information. Once the State was notified of the leak, an
investigation began where the State began to gather evidence. As the State got closer to the
source of the leak, the Defense changed their story from Mitch Westerman being a criminal who
broke into their office and stole discovery to Mitch Westerman being a consultant assisting on
the Delphi case whose communication with Defense is protected work product. The Defense
intentionally violated the Court’s orders and leaked discovery information in an effort to push
their narrative out to the public to gauge public response. This was a strategic move by the
Defense in violation of the Court’s orders.
