Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #186

[New Penny]

Only lost recording I know about that been talked about ad naseum, IIRC. DD didn't record RA's interview on the street

There are three types of recording that I’m aware of: video, audio and written. IMO a written recording can be as invaluable as the other two, if properly dissected.

DD did record the interview.

 

[mrjitty]

Or RL (dead), PE, (dead), Chadwell, DN, or even one of the odinists, especially the one with a capacity mental of a child (EF), etc. So many possibilities.

the idea LE would frame someone in such a high profile case is farfetched IMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

A post to clear up interpretations of the following documents. Links below.

The memo is about the contempt charge and it includes a discussion about RF's (online?) communications.

The Appendix 1 was not the D's emails; it was comments taken from Nick's 145 pages of RF's comments.

Page 4
State’s Exhibit 6 was one hundred and forty-three pages of Fortson’s communications.
The State had previously provided undersigned counsel one hundred and forty-five pages. At no
time did they disclose what pages were removed or why.
Not once did Fortson identify Westerman as his source. Not once did he describe any
direct contact with Andrew Baldwin. Not in person, not by phone or any messaging application.
(See Appendix I attached hereto).

Post Hearing Memo defense.pdf

drive.google.com

03/25/2024

Memorandum/Brief Filed POST HEARING MEMORANDUM Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/25/2024

Appendix post hearing brief.pdf.pdf

drive.google.com

03/25/2024

Document Filed Richard Allen Appendix Attachment to Post Hearing Memorandum Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/25/2024

 

[TTF14]

the idea LE would frame someone in such a high profile case is farfetched IMO.

Who said it was LE? And, I don't think ANYbody knew how high profile this case was going to get.

JMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

Who said it was LE? And, I don't think ANYbody knew how high profile this case was going to get.

JMO

If not LE, who?

 

[TTF14]

If not LE, who?

As I've stated before, whoever killed the girls. Staged it to make it look like the heathens did it (Odinists, etc.).

IMO MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

As I've stated before, whoever killed the girls. Staged it to make it look like the heathens did it (Odinists, etc.).

IMO MOO

Hmmmm.
So then, I assume you are not looking at BH, PW and company?
I am really curious to know if you have anyone in mind?

 

[nadia90]

Good answer .

Another reason is that the image known as BG looked nothing like RA to him, so he didn't think to speak up about it.

IMO MOO

Ra looks EXACTLY like bg imo
........

 

[sunshineray]

I think it was touch DNA. (We see BG "sort of spitting" on the video, but I wouldn't bet on it.)

They collected DNA from many Delphi men. Even if they did not sample RA, thinking logically, Indiana was formed by six German families who had relocated from Pennsylvania, so the "founder effect" should be strong, and at least, those descendants could be identified. So, maybe, whoever left touch DNA was either nonlocal, or it was a later NPE case, or just a much later migration.

Or, it could be a very rare Y subclade. Thinking of Indiana Western Europeans: you'd except R1b1b, R1a1a, I1, I2, N1C1, something along these lines. What if it is J, E, G groups? Could still be European, even Western European, but a rare family, arriving much later than the main migration to Indiana happened. If they have full DNA, autosomal analysis can tell a lot, but if it is partial...

I think they hit some common roadblock early enough, some peculiarity, and didn't have full DNA to interpret it correctly.

This is why Paul Holes said, "they have a long road ahead of them." JMO.

RA, I assume, was "local enough." I wouldn't bet on him matching that DNA. I think it is that type of DNA when if you know the ownership, it makes perfect sense, but without it, and especially if it is partial, it should indeed look peculiar. I wonder if they looked at the Interpol samples, not because I think this DNA is there (I am positive it is not), but just to see who could have a similar pattern. JMO.

If it was touch DNA they might have narrowed it down with the DNA research testing but not enough to point to one family group.

I've always thought the BG video looked like he was talking to himself (or possibly someone else) not spitting.

 

[susane7]

In order to "frame," you don't need a specific person to pin it on. And, for someone who "has a little bit of a conscience left," maybe they purposefully did not want to frame anyone in particular. Just stage the scene to make it look a certain way/like a certain group did it, for the sole purpose of throwing the investigation over there, over here, in fact, quite literally, all over the United States via billboards and what-not.

IMO MOO

I agree the killer could stage the crime to make it a certain way/confuse the investigation. I was saying LE didn't frame RA in my opinion. I don't think anyone framed RA especially because no one knew about him until 6 years later and they would have to know that he will talk with the officer, saying he was there at critical time, etc.

 

[sunshineray]

Surely, she must read their motions.
But there's absolutely no transparency with the minute decisions and no one knows upon what grounds the hearings were denied. A "denied" is efficient but a decision with deliberative discussion and legal citations provides transparency and clarity.

If the judge would elaborate on her thinking and direction, future motions from both parties would follow suit; things would more quickly move forward. Otherwise, both parties must continue throwing arguments into a void, hoping they've correctly "read between the lines" ... such that the "efficient" "DENIED" ends up being the opposite of efficient.

Bonus: If court's decision record has detailed, legally cited decisions ...that lowers the risk of appeal.
JMHO

I don't agree. If a motion is so poorly put together and doesn't prove a hearing is warranted, it's up to the judge to explain further or just let that motion speak for itself in determining why it was denied. Some things are obvious and need no explanation. It's not lack of transparency concerning the judge, it's the obvious lack of validity of the motions presented to the court.
MO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Or RL (dead), PE, (dead), Chadwell, DN, or even one of the odinists, especially the one with a capacity mental of a child (EF), etc. So many possibilities.

And GK. Could have been pinned on him and virtually no one would have blinked.

jmo

 

[sunshineray]

There are three types of recording that I’m aware of: video, audio and written. IMO a written recording can be as invaluable as the other two, if properly dissected.

DD did record the interview.

I'm not of the mind that RA was coerced to confess, in writing or on audio, by anyone except by his own guilty conscience. I know may others feel differently.

If you're talking about DD's written notes and report, we'll just have to wait until trial when he testifies to understand the particulars.

I believe it's been said though that RA's meeting with DD was possibly not recorded. Another thing for DD to testify about at trial.

 

[Emma Peel]

A post to clear up interpretations of the following documents. Links below.

The memo is about the contempt charge and it includes a discussion about RF's (online?) communications.

The Appendix 1 was not the D's emails; it was comments taken from Nick's 145 pages of RF's comments.

Page 4
State’s Exhibit 6 was one hundred and forty-three pages of Fortson’s communications.
The State had previously provided undersigned counsel one hundred and forty-five pages. At no
time did they disclose what pages were removed or why.
Not once did Fortson identify Westerman as his source. Not once did he describe any
direct contact with Andrew Baldwin. Not in person, not by phone or any messaging application.
(See Appendix I attached hereto).

Post Hearing Memo defense.pdf

drive.google.com

03/25/2024

Memorandum/Brief Filed POST HEARING MEMORANDUM Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/25/2024

Appendix post hearing brief.pdf.pdf

drive.google.com

03/25/2024

Document Filed Richard Allen Appendix Attachment to Post Hearing Memorandum Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/25/2024

So ... it appears that the State had the Forston phone dump (if you will) from the Westerman investigation or the Forston investigation related to the Westerman investigation and they attached that whole thing as the State's Exhibit 6 of the State's filings re: Contempt Hearing. So the party that first put the Forston phone dump on the record was the State?

Also, IIRC, this Forston phone dump (IIRC) was first collected for/by the Westerman investigation and it's already on the record in that Court ... I would surmise ... where it was put on the public record by the State.

Unless I misunderstand ... the STATE brought the Forston dump into the public record (twice) quite some time before the Contempt matter Defense (that would be Hennessey) did.

Practically speaking, and with respect to all government servants ... some (jerk) *rumor-texted* a rumor about the CC DA, a public figure/govt servant. Just nonsense - probably from Reddit or Discord - where Forston recreated frequently. Can you imagine all the *junk-texting* that goes on in any County about the DA and/or LE between friends? It's an occupational hazard. Government servants vs 1st Amendment. sigh.

BTW, if someone believes a random text with local trash talk (also seen on Reddit) ... may the good lord help them find a nice fitting, very attractive tin foil hat.

JMHO

 

[steeltowngirl]

So ... it appears that the State had the Forston phone dump (if you will) from the Westerman investigation or the Forston investigation related to the Westerman investigation and they attached that whole thing as the State's Exhibit 6 of the State's filings re: Contempt Hearing. So the party that first put the Forston phone dump on the record was the State?

Also, IIRC, this Forston phone dump (IIRC) was first collected for/by the Westerman investigation and it's already on the record in that Court ... I would surmise ... where it was put on the public record by the State.

Unless I misunderstand ... the STATE brought the Forston dump into the public record (twice) quite some time before the Contempt matter Defense (that would be Hennessey) did.

Practically speaking, and with respect to all government servants ... some (jerk) *rumor-texted* a rumor about the CC DA, a public figure/govt servant. Just nonsense - probably from Reddit or Discord - where Forston recreated frequently. Can you imagine all the *junk-texting* that goes on in any County about the DA and/or LE between friends? It's an occupational hazard. Government servants vs 1st Amendment. sigh.

BTW, if someone believes a random text with local trash talk (also seen on Reddit) ... may the good lord help them find a nice fitting, very attractive tin foil hat.

JMHO

It appears to me that NM noted the messages were between defense and MW. Item 21 here. https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2024/01/Allen-Verified-Info-of-Contempt.pdf

No?

 

[FrostedGlass]

So ... it appears that the State had the Forston phone dump (if you will) from the Westerman investigation or the Forston investigation related to the Westerman investigation and they attached that whole thing as the State's Exhibit 6 of the State's filings re: Contempt Hearing. So the party that first put the Forston phone dump on the record was the State?

Also, IIRC, this Forston phone dump (IIRC) was first collected for/by the Westerman investigation and it's already on the record in that Court ... I would surmise ... where it was put on the public record by the State.

Unless I misunderstand ... the STATE brought the Forston dump into the public record (twice) quite some time before the Contempt matter Defense (that would be Hennessey) did.

Practically speaking, and with respect to all government servants ... some (jerk) *rumor-texted* a rumor about the CC DA, a public figure/govt servant. Just nonsense - probably from Reddit or Discord - where Forston recreated frequently. Can you imagine all the *junk-texting* that goes on in any County about the DA and/or LE between friends? It's an occupational hazard. Government servants vs 1st Amendment. sigh.

BTW, if someone believes a random text with local trash talk (also seen on Reddit) ... may the good lord help them find a nice fitting, very attractive tin foil hat.

JMHO

That's the way I understand it.

I don't give weight to rumors about personal behavior. The locals will know if any of the govt. servants are hanging out doing stuff. Shrug....

I do wonder why the P gave the D 145 pgs of RF comments but only introduced 143 pages as an exhibit. I say: Hand both sets of docs over to us and we'll find what's missing. lol...

 

[TTF14]

That's the way I understand it.

I don't give weight to rumors about personal behavior. The locals will know if any of the govt. servants are hanging out doing stuff. Shrug....

I do wonder why the P gave the D 145 pgs of RF comments but only introduced 143 pages as an exhibit. I say: Hand both sets of docs over to us and we'll find what's missing. lol...

Is this why NM put in one of his motions (as the first item, IIRC) that nobody be allowed to say anything bad about him? Paraphrasing.

IMO MOO

 

[sunshineray]

That's the way I understand it.

I don't give weight to rumors about personal behavior. The locals will know if any of the govt. servants are hanging out doing stuff. Shrug....

I do wonder why the P gave the D 145 pgs of RF comments but only introduced 143 pages as an exhibit. I say: Hand both sets of docs over to us and we'll find what's missing. lol...

Maybe the judge in that case decided some things on RF's phone were personal and didn't belong in the exhibit? That's one thing that judges do, they judge what's relevant to the case and what's not. MO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Is this why NM put in one of his motions (as the first item, IIRC) that nobody be allowed to say anything bad about him? Paraphrasing.

IMO MOO

I don’t know, as Nick hasn’t shared his thoughts with me lately.

If that’s in a motion, it would seem he can’t prevent people from talking, but would like to prevent defense team and/or their associates from slandering him via messages that can later be brought forward. As in, a hearing about a leak.

Kind of a shame he would have to motion for such a thing. Would seem to me it would go without saying that communications between legal professionals and associates would actually be…. professional.

ETA: I think the question wasn’t to me. Some WS features I’ve just enabled are showing posts up oddly.

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

It appears to me that NM noted the messages were between defense and MW. Item 21 here. https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2024/01/Allen-Verified-Info-of-Contempt.pdf

No?

Off the top of my head, (disclaimer!!) ... here's my understanding ... as I recollect ... (and I'm traveling so ... ):

I'm thinking ... MW's ICloud is not in Defense Filing, Exhibit 1. (that's Forston)

D's Exhibit 1, and P's 146 pagers = (It's my understanding) is ONLY Forston's texts with ... various. (The one that's "my wife is leaving me" is likely Westerman (now divorced) - to Forston.

But I think that MW's ICloud production would be confidential/not public record, b/c the MW/AB ICloud records were RA's Defense Team's Work Product. (Pretty darn sure, off my head.)
It remains a shocker that NM and Holeman actually investigated and read through RA's Attorney Work Product, without the D realizing ... which is why I remember this ICloud account.

They (NM/Holeman) must have been certain that the Defense they were investigating were being removed from RA's case; otherwise how could the ISP lead in Abby/Libby's death and the DA bringing charges against RA possibly think it was okay to investigation the Defense who just deposed you (Holeman) b/c you are their RA witness ... or the Defense is you opponent in RA's court.?

The ICloud evidence is another layer of absurdity and massive distrust between D & P here. b/c that ICloud evidence revealed RA Defense work product, IIRC, it's withheld from public but was presented to the Court and the D.

JMHO. AND by memory. Feel free to check my memory.