Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

[katydid23]

Not sure, but why would someone else walk back McLeland’s statement? Surely he could do that for himself.

Regardless, Tobe Leazenby stated in his deposition that he believed at least two people were involved. Strange (or not), Tony Liggett was adamant during his deposition, the day prior to Leazenby’s, that he believed it was done by only one person, RA. However, during Leazenby’s deposition he was asked if anyone else on the force shared his belief that more than one person was involved in the murders and he answered yes, that Tony Liggett shared his belief and they often spoke of it privately. Interesting. Either Leazenby is lying about Liggett under oath or Liggett lied under oath in his deposition. Awkward. (Franks Memorandum pg 43, 44)

I would hazard a guess that there are other LE that believe this was done by more than one person. It appears NMcL was merely echoing that sentiment. JMHO

There is also a strong possibility that the detectives had varying 'beliefs' or theories at various times.

IME, they will hold various opinions throughout their investigation, and at some point one might be pretty convinced it was done by one perp but then they might change that opinion as new evidence comes in.

And they each do that kind of 'dance' over a period of time until all the facts and data and testimony is compiled. During the trial we will see where everyone agrees and disagrees, no doubt/

 

[FrostedGlass]

For the record: To date, there have only been 3 times where "defendant appears" in a word search of the CCS; in one of which he was transported but wasn't allowed to actually appear.
11/22/2022, 06/22/2023, 11/02/2023

Spoiler: Richard Allen Appearances

11/22/2022

Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel. State by Prosecuting Attorney. Hearing held on State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record. Matter taken under advisement. Defendant's Petition to Let to Bail ordered set for hearing in Carroll Circuit Court on February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am. Court to enter transport order. Omnibus date rescheduled to February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am by agreement of counsel Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 11/22/2022

06/22/2023

Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel, Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas McLeland. Court is informed by Counsel that the hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress needs to be continued to be reset once defense counsel files its notice of omissions/inaccuracies. Hearing conducted on defendant's Motion to Reconsider Safekeeping Order. Evidence and arguments of counsel taken under advisement. Defendant's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Department of Correction Use of Cameras and Request for Preliminary Injunction to pend as the Department of Correction has stopped remote filming attorney meetings with defendant. Court grants defendant's Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure of Defendant's Mental Health Records under separate order. Ex Parte Motions heard and concluded. Counsel will submit Ex Parte pleading under seal for the Court to consider. Court will issue a separate, detailed order on the sealed pleadings which will be unsealed by agreement of Counsel. Jury trial ordered set January 8-26, 2024, with jury selection to be conducted in Allen County, Indiana, and trial to be conducted in Carroll County, Indiana. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 06/20/2023

11/02/2023

Order Issued Defendant appears in person with court appointed counsel Robert Scremin and William Lebrato. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas McLeland and Special Prosecutor James Luttrell. Former counsel Rozzi and Baldwin also appear, having entered an appearance October 30, 2023. Attorney Scremin and Lebrato's Motion to Continue the jury trial heard and granted without objection by the State as defendant is accepting the Criminal Rule 4 time. Court then addresses former attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi's appearance. The Court previously found gross negligence by said attorneys in their representation of the defendant. Nothing has changed in the intervening twelve (12) days that removes the Court's grave concerns about their representation. Over Rozzi and Baldwin's strenuous objections, Court disqualifies them from representing the defendant and affirms the appointment of contract Public Defenders Scremin and Lebrato. Former attorneys represent to the Court they will return all discovery to the State of Indiana by the end of the week. Counsel ordered to do so to enable the State to provide that discovery to Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato. Court encourages former attorneys to cooperate with Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato for the benefit of the defendant. Court notes two (2) pending motions (Motion to Suppress, Motion for Franks Hearing) and will await a report from Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato and Prosecuting Attorney McLeland regarding hearing dates. Baldwin's attorney, Hennessey, addresses the Court at Baldwin's request. Jury trial scheduled for October 15 - November 1, 2024, with jury selection to be conducted in Allen County and trial in Carroll County. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Scremin, Robert Cliff Noticed: Lebrato, William Santino Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Order Signed: 11/01/2023

 

[susiQ]

His actual quote is that investigators didn't feel RA acted alone, right? I'd be leaning in a different direction with that, more towards the unknown (to this point) persons possibly being the parties that executed the actual murders. That would mean BG/alleged RA-- while he plays a crucial role, is intricately bound up in the overall crime itself, and can still be found guilty under the felony murder rule-- may not have been the one who executed the actual murders themselves. Does any investigator directly call these unnamed collaborators "accomplices"? I'm not seeing that exact wording in what I'm viewing, but not sure if that "accomplice" wording is elsewhere. The "accomplice" wording would imply a more peripheral role. And let me make it clear, even if this is the case where BG didn't hold the weapon that brought about the death, BG is still in my mind a murderer. He may or may not have had his hand on the actual instrument used to cause death, but he is part of this horrifying conspiracy, and that conspiracy was all about murdering these two poor little girls. The conspiracy at this point is speculative, but even if it's reality and it's revealed BG never had his hand on the instrument of death, he is in my mind a murderer nonetheless.

I agree with what you’ve said, I just can’t take the leap that BG=RA until it can be unequivocally proven that RA can be linked to the CS, the girls, EF or those he is connected to. I cannot dismiss out of hand that EF had guilty knowledge of what happened there, his admission to his sisters of being there, placing sticks in Abby’s hair and spitting on her because she was a “troublemaker.” How would he know she was a troublemaker unless someone put that in his feeble head?

For everyone here who says they want justice for Abby and Libby, remember the disrespect afforded them by EF and whoever he was with. I would like to see how/if RA was connected to EF or any of the people EF was connected to that day. I highly doubt there’s a link between RA and Rushville or any white supremist cult. This is a problem for the P, at least in my mind. EF’s sister passed a lie detector examination. She did not pull this tale out of the air. What NMcL didn’t count on, was two attorneys who took their job very seriously and painstakingly examined the discovery he hoped they would not have time for, or that he himself had not fully examined. All JMHO as always.

 

[girlhasnoname]

For the record: To date, there have only been 3 times where "defendant appears" in a word search of the CCS; in one of which he was transported but wasn't allowed to actually appear.
11/22/2022, 06/22/2023, 11/02/2023

Spoiler: Richard Allen Appearances

11/22/2022

Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel. State by Prosecuting Attorney. Hearing held on State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record. Matter taken under advisement. Defendant's Petition to Let to Bail ordered set for hearing in Carroll Circuit Court on February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am. Court to enter transport order. Omnibus date rescheduled to February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am by agreement of counsel Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 11/22/2022

06/22/2023

Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel, Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas McLeland. Court is informed by Counsel that the hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress needs to be continued to be reset once defense counsel files its notice of omissions/inaccuracies. Hearing conducted on defendant's Motion to Reconsider Safekeeping Order. Evidence and arguments of counsel taken under advisement. Defendant's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Department of Correction Use of Cameras and Request for Preliminary Injunction to pend as the Department of Correction has stopped remote filming attorney meetings with defendant. Court grants defendant's Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure of Defendant's Mental Health Records under separate order. Ex Parte Motions heard and concluded. Counsel will submit Ex Parte pleading under seal for the Court to consider. Court will issue a separate, detailed order on the sealed pleadings which will be unsealed by agreement of Counsel. Jury trial ordered set January 8-26, 2024, with jury selection to be conducted in Allen County, Indiana, and trial to be conducted in Carroll County, Indiana. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 06/20/2023

11/02/2023

Order Issued Defendant appears in person with court appointed counsel Robert Scremin and William Lebrato. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas McLeland and Special Prosecutor James Luttrell. Former counsel Rozzi and Baldwin also appear, having entered an appearance October 30, 2023. Attorney Scremin and Lebrato's Motion to Continue the jury trial heard and granted without objection by the State as defendant is accepting the Criminal Rule 4 time. Court then addresses former attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi's appearance. The Court previously found gross negligence by said attorneys in their representation of the defendant. Nothing has changed in the intervening twelve (12) days that removes the Court's grave concerns about their representation. Over Rozzi and Baldwin's strenuous objections, Court disqualifies them from representing the defendant and affirms the appointment of contract Public Defenders Screen and Lebrato. Former attorneys represent to the Court they will return all discovery to the State of Indiana by the end of the week. Counsel ordered to do so to enable the State to provide that discovery to Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato. Court encourages former attorneys to cooperate with Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato for the benefit of the defendant. Court notes two (2) pending motions (Motion to Suppress, Motion for Franks Hearing) and will await a report from Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato and Prosecuting Attorney McLeland regarding hearing dates. Baldwin's attorney, Hennessey, addresses the Court at Baldwin's request. Jury trial scheduled for October 15 - November 1, 2024, with jury selection to be conducted in Allen County and trial in Carroll County. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Scremin, Robert Cliff Noticed: Lebrato, William Santino Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Order Signed: 11/01/2023

I'm not following you here FG? What are you speaking to when you say "Defendant Allen" only appears 3 times? And wasn't allowed to appear on 11/02/23? Defendant Allen was indeed there is person with his new Defense and Old Defense present.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I agree with what you’ve said, I just can’t take the leap that BG=RA until it can be unequivocally proven that RA can be linked to the CS, the girls, EF or those he is connected to. I cannot dismiss out of hand that EF had guilty knowledge of what happened there, his admission to his sisters of being there, placing sticks in Abby’s hair and spitting on her because she was a “troublemaker.” How would he know she was a troublemaker unless someone put that in his feeble head?

For everyone here who says they want justice for Abby and Libby, remember the disrespect afforded them by EF and whoever he was with. I would like to see how/if RA was connected to EF or any of the people EF was connected to that day. I highly doubt there’s a link between RA and Rushville or any white supremist cult. This is a problem for the P, at least in my mind. EF’s sister passed a lie detector examination. She did not pull this tale out of the air. What NMcL didn’t count on, was two attorneys who took their job very seriously and painstakingly examined the discovery he hoped they would not have time for, or that he himself had not fully examined. All JMHO as always.

I will say RA has no connection to EF. As for EF's sister passing a lie detector test, #1) they are not admissible in court because they are not always correct but more so #2) The sister was just repeating what EF had said to her, therefore she was not 'lying' in that scenario.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

There is also a strong possibility that the detectives had varying 'beliefs' or theories at various times.

IME, they will hold various opinions throughout their investigation, and at some point one might be pretty convinced it was done by one perp but then they might change that opinion as new evidence comes in.

And they each do that kind of 'dance' over a period of time until all the facts and data and testimony is compiled. During the trial we will see where everyone agrees and disagrees, no doubt/

Totally agree, they probably had numerous beliefs or theories or POI's over a 6 year span. Those would have been brought forward, looked at and investigated, and then dismissed based on some pertinent information.

Just like the Odin and Rune theory. They: LE, ISP, FBI brought in a qualified expert on the matter early on. They dismissed the idea of it being a literal ritual human sacrifice, suggesting the staging and posing could have been someone of Nordic origin trying to portray the scene as that. Could the LE officer (Holeman?) have remembered in his deposition by Defense (I'll only believe the Defense if I see it with my own eyes) the expert's exact name and where he came from after 6 years? Maybe not considering the ton of information that was investigated and processed after that.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

RSBM

While I agree with this, Ausbrook also made a series of trolling posts on the internet and did an extensive podcast interview with MS where he was extremely critical of Judge Gull (I can't remember if he did others). Personally I find that conduct quite odd if you are then going to act on the case.

In general IMO, it would make sense to be more circumspect, IMO.

That is exactly what I was referring to when I said the entire circus of Defense 'experts' aren't just doing it out of altruism. What professional attorney in an ongoing case do that and why? I truly don't get it.

MOO

 

[susane7]

That is exactly what I was referring to when I said the entire circus of Defense 'experts' aren't just doing it out of altruism. What professional attorney in an ongoing case do that and why? I truly don't get it.

MOO

In my opinion, fame. For instance, when there are a famous case here it is common many attorneys offering their services pro-bono because they will probably be interviewed on tv and can elevate their reputation. An attorney was appointed by the court in one famous case: the father killed his 8 year old daugther and many attorneys visited the father on the pre-trial detention offering their services pro bono just because they could gain more notoriety. Nobody trought that he was innocent.

I think many attorneys has the same mentality and since motions are public online (which is odd for me), many people are taking advantage of the fame of this case. Nothing wrong with that but a bit exhausting. Here the proof on criminal cases is made on the trial, just on trial. I assume in United States it's the same.

 

[girlhasnoname]

In my opinion, fame. For instance, when there are a famous case here it is common many attorneys offering their services pro-bono because they will probably be interviewed on tv and can elevate their reputation. An attorney was appointed by the court in one famous case: the father killed his 8 year old daugther and many attorneys visited the father on the pre-trial detention offering their services pro bono just because they could gain more notoriety. Nobody trought that he was innocent.

I think many attorneys has the same mentality and since motions are public online (which is odd for me), many people are taking advantage of the fame of this case. Nothing wrong with that but a bit exahusting . Here the proof on criminal cases is made on the trial, just on trial. I assume in United States it's the same.

Most of the key evidence of the State Prosecution and Defense is usually presented at trial. Some Motions are public record in this case and some are sealed due to the gag order and in case of prejudicial influence.

This Defense made up their own rules when they decided to release publicly their theory and name suspects and graphically describe the horrific crime scene in their 136 page Memo for Franks by circumventing the process in which they should have filed it. That is what pushed an already contentious and emotional case over the edge IMO. They should pat themselves on the back, because we know how good they are at stretching. lol

What is really the worst thing in all of this, to me, is that I think they are completely unable to provide RA with the best and most competent defense, which he is entitled under our laws in the US even if I believe he is guilty. But at the SCOIN hearing on Oct 18th RA waived his right to appeal based on incompetent representation because he chose and insisted he wanted R&B reinstated on his case.

I just want Abby & Libby's killer(s) punished to the fullest extent of the law. They deserve that.

moo

 

[FromGermany1]

I just want Abby & Libby's killer(s) punished to the fullest extent of the law. They deserve that.

bbm
I agree, absolutely!

 

[girlhasnoname]

RSBM

@girlhasnoname

In their written opinion, the SC judges were not unequivocally stating that JG was unbiased (IMO), but rather that the Defense had not met the burden required by the applicable Indiana rule. Namely, that Defense had not identified specific facts showing bias/prejudice. The judges weren't saying that JG was not, in fact, biased. They also weren't saying she was. Rather, they were stating that the Defense had not highlighted any facts that would lead to such a conclusion of bias/prejudice. The only showing of facts on record to support such was the adverse ruling JG made regarding the DQ.

The Court stated the rule(s) as follows:

• We begin with the presumption that a trial judge is unbiased. Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. 2002).
• To overcome that presumption, the party seeking disqualification must identify facts reflecting the judge’s actual bias or prejudice. Id.
• Our law is well settled that “[p]rejudice is not inferred from adverse judicial rulings.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 269 (Ind. 2014)
• "...judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” Noble v. State, 725 N.E.2d 842, 848 (Ind. 2000)

So, the courts of Indiana start from the presumption of judicial impartiality, and one must then specifically outline the facts which the defendant feel show alleged bias.

Anyways, not trying to argue or be difficult. But the distinction is important.

See at pg. 15: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisi...w0N5f1k5NjXezrOt02MdSk7tzOjXnR6SVtncFrbE60HI0

I would add this in a friendly debate: Page 16 of the SCOIN Decision linked above

<snipped & BBM>

Though she mistakenly hit defense counsel’s eject button instead of the case’s lockdown button, she was right to try to get the situation under control quickly and decisively. Her efforts did not reflect any bias or prejudice, and Allen doesn’t identify anything she has done that demonstrates she isn’t impartial. We therefore deny Allen’s request to replace the special judge.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I'm not following you here FG? What are you speaking to when you say "Defendant Allen" only appears 3 times? And wasn't allowed to appear on 11/02/23? Defendant Allen was indeed there is person with his new Defense and Old Defense present.

MOO

Thank you for asking this. I’m trying to decipher the meaning behind some of the snippets of documents and cryptic references being cited on this thread. I would like to understand and hope to learn something.

 

[susiQ]

I will say RA has no connection to EF. As for EF's sister passing a lie detector test, #1) they are not admissible in court because they are not always correct but more so #2) The sister was just repeating what EF had said to her, therefore she was not 'lying' in that scenario.

JMO

True, but there is a connection between EF and BH and that’s what interests me. And yes, I am aware that lie detector examinations are not admissible and that BH has an “alibi.” What I would like to have seen are the phone records of the Odinists connected to EF and likely BH, like Messer and Abrams in and around the time of the murders. Why did BH implicate his former friend PW to his ex? Look over there, not here. EF knew BH and BH knew AW and according to EF, AW was a “trouble maker.” So, in my mind, where’s there’s smoke, something was simmering. LE shut down that line of investigation and threw a bucket of water on the fire but the embers were still simmering under the ashes and R & B uncovered them.

If one can outright ignore everything in the FM, so be it. But I don’t find any justice or pleasure in convicting a man while ignoring other strong candidates that may have had a hand in this tragedy. The investigation was sabotaged by agents of deception IMO. The “brotherhood” strikes again. Also JMO.

 

[steeltowngirl]

True, but there is a connection between EF and BH and that’s what interests me. And yes, I am aware that lie detector examinations are not admissible and that BH has an “alibi.” What I would like to have seen are the phone records of the Odinists connected to EF and likely BH, like Messer and Abrams in and around the time of the murders. Why did BH implicate his former friend PW to his ex? Look over there, not here. EF knew BH and BH knew AW and according to EF, AW was a “trouble maker.” So, in my mind, where’s there’s smoke, something was simmering. LE shut down that line of investigation and threw a bucket of water on the fire but the embers were still simmering under the ashes and R & B uncovered them.

If one can outright ignore everything in the FM, so be it. But I don’t find any justice or pleasure in convicting a man while ignoring other strong candidates that may have had a hand in this tragedy. The investigation was sabotaged by agents of deception IMO. The “brotherhood” strikes again. Also JMO.

While I do not share your view that agents of deception sabotaged the investigation (assuming the reference is to LE), I do share your view that any others involved in the murders of Libby and Abby should be brought to justice.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm not following you here FG? What are you speaking to when you say "Defendant Allen" only appears 3 times? And wasn't allowed to appear on 11/02/23? Defendant Allen was indeed there is person with his new Defense and Old Defense present.

MOO

Thank you for calling my error to my attention.
My errors are not intended to be cryptic in any way.

There are so many entries in the CCS that I resorted to a word search. He did make 4 appearances instead of 3. My word search didn't pick up the conference on Oct 19 because he wasn't given the opportunity to appear in the chambers even though he had been transported.

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2024/01/Affidavit.pdf-1.pdf

IV. Judge Gull Engaged in Critical Stage Proceedings in Defendant’s Absence. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull conducted critical stage proceedings in chambers outside the presence of the Accused even though she had ordered him transported and he was available to participate in the in-chambers hearing, placing his attorneys in an ethical dilemma and creating a public record outside the presence of the Accused. This ignored any sense of due process and violated Rules 1.2 and 2.2 of the CJC.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Thank you for asking this. I’m trying to decipher the meaning behind some of the snippets of documents and cryptic references being cited on this thread. I would like to understand and hope to learn something.

No problem, I feel like I'm missing out on something or that I'm completely out of the loop here. I'm open to discuss and debate anything from Court Records and MSM but have no desire to engage in SM sources or Podcaster theories, heck even the 'expert attorneys' who are associated with the case on SM don't get a vote of confidence from me. Especially the ones tweeting out gag emojis as a joke. These are supposed to respectable, highly regarded lawyers in their fields of expertise??

I would suggest they stay off Twitter/X and SM in general during an ongoing trial. It's better to save your arguments for the Court, of which it appears you have little to no respect for. IDK, maybe they're addicted to the likes? I've never this happen in a case before, ever.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

While I do not share your view that agents of deception sabotaged the investigation (assuming the reference is to LE), I do share your view that any others involved in the murders of Libby and Abby should be brought to justice.

jmo

Absolutely 100% agree, any and everyone, should be prosecuted as well.

 

[susiQ]

So, we can all agree that any and all involved in this murder should be prosecuted. That’s something .

Here’s my problem. If RA is guilty, which LE and P believe, and a number of LE along with the P believe more than one is involved, how is it that 1 year and 4 months after RA’s arrest we haven’t seen another arrest? Surely by now they would have gleaned something from his phone activity during that crucial time frame? Computer forensics, perhaps? The mere notion that others could be involved makes it a conspiracy. But nothing, zilch, nada, nichts. I find that very, very strange. By now, one would think that RA would gladly have “spilled the beans” and made himself a deal, especially if he was BG and perhaps not involved in the actual deed. Nope. He’s just gonna take the fall for the lot of them.

Not buying it.

 

[Emma Peel]

I suspect personally it's option B and they can simply make these arguments at the hearing.

Ausbook is an academic as I understand it. It's common enough for these professors to get involved in cases where it is their specialist area. Way back he appeared to be fascinated about the case and a potential habeas application down the track - as many here know, he gave an extended murdersheet interview on this topic.

My guess is this is why he is involved - because he is interested in the constitutional impacts on RA and a potential habeas (maybe). I suspect he is less interested in whether <modsnip - namecalling> get sanctioned per se.

Thanks for pointing out that Ausbrook, being a law academic (and appellate specialist), is a respected contributor to and interpreter of IN law.

And you're right - he's sharply criticized the RA proceedings and the Court's decisions/choices. (Noting also that Ausbrook is not the only highly skilled lawyer to do so.)

When he entered the RA docket, Ausbrook's purpose was to focus on the technical management of a significant brief (the State's Contempt Motion) filed incorrectly in Gull's court for RA's case. The brief has structural errors that would once again sideline RA's trial if not corrected. Ausbrook's motion was technical and instructive.

The tone of Ausbrook's motion expressed exasperation and was consistent with his public commenting. Prior to appearing in Gull's court, Ausbrook has publicly taken exception to this Court's case management, this Court's Indiana records statute violations, and this Court's failure to cite it's decisions. Once this Court was successfully corrected by SCOIN as to records, and reversed as to blowing up RA's rights to counsel, Ausbrook entered the docket because the Court was headed sideways into structural error once again. (Heck, aren't we all exasperated?)

Ausbrook's brief rips apart the State's motion. Ausbrook is precise, cites plenty of supporting law, and is very transparent: Fix this error or we'll see you at the Appellate, AGAIN.

When translating sharp tone in legal briefs, I find it useful to consider context. Briefs are argument; when tone in a legal brief is firm - these are not personal attacks. These are attacks on the merit of arguments made by courtroom adversaries. (Lawyers attacking arguments i.e. debate - is fair game.)

So, I find Ausbrook both candid and refreshing in calling yet another foul play in this Court. I also find it refreshing that he's doing it IN ADVANCE. That's more than fair notice to the Court. Gull can change direction and avoid more Appellate delays. Which RA and his 6th A rights would really really appreciate.

...

You could be right (about option B). But just the idea that at the March 18th hearing, Gull will stand over the State and have them rewrite their Contempt Motion to comply with the law ... and then hold a hearing on the revised motion ... seems so absurd. Yet, here we are, thinking it's plausible ... because we now realize Gull is allergic to making a record. This shouldn't even be plausible, IMO. Especially not after Gull's SCOIN First Writ scramble to get that think mooted.

Is it too optimistic to hope the State's motion re-write to proper form (or clarification) appears on the docket in the next few days? Probably.

BTW, we have both Ausbrook AND Hennessey visiting Murder Sheet well before appearing in Gull's court. Which came first? Murder Sheet's "journalism" requests for expert interviews and analysis ... or these professional's academic interest in the highest profile case in Indiana for the past 7 years? (We don't know.) Motta reached out to Wieneke after she'd submitted her papers, and before the SCOIN decided on the 1st Writ and to hear the 2nd Writ. The Appellate case is not subject to a gag order, and (IMO) Cara's interview w/ Motta was a gift to fans of public transparency.

JMHO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Thank you for calling my error to my attention.
My errors are not intended to be cryptic in any way.

There are so many entries in the CCS that I resorted to a word search. He did make 4 appearances instead of 3. My word search didn't pick up the conference on Oct 19 because he wasn't given the opportunity to appear in the chambers even though he had been transported.

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2024/01/Affidavit.pdf-1.pdf

IV. Judge Gull Engaged in Critical Stage Proceedings in Defendant’s Absence. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull conducted critical stage proceedings in chambers outside the presence of the Accused even though she had ordered him transported and he was available to participate in the in-chambers hearing, placing his attorneys in an ethical dilemma and creating a public record outside the presence of the Accused. This ignored any sense of due process and violated Rules 1.2 and 2.2 of the CJC.

Ok now I understand. Wasn't he also at the July 2023 hearing for Bond and MTT?

Not a great decision by Judge Gull as she should have held the hearing in open court @ 2pm as scheduled, but it was more a safety issue for Defendant RA to be escorted to the Judge's chambers through a busy courthouse. It is very unusual to do that, especially considering such a high profile Defendant. IMO

Judge Gull granted R&B the opportunity to present and discuss the evidence to RA where he was being held and report back. Of course they would have been truthful in their representation of what they told the Court RA said and the document he signed.

JMO