Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[grannygates]

MW has his final pre-trial hearing today.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[TTF14]

I think CW has made some big mistakes here. I’m interested to know: if someone obtained the messages by stealing them (use of someone’s password) then what recourse if any does she (and others involved have)? I think it’s unlikely this was a breech by use of password. Who had the password and why? Who gave it to whom? When?

I don't think any password stealing was necessary. The person who created/"owned" the Discord group just decided to release all the private conversations within it, from what I understand. I don't get the feeling any hacking happened here. Maybe the two ladies he use to be "with" had the password to that Discord so they all could be admins, and he changed the password to lock them out so he could preserve all the messages in it for the purpose of taking them to the MS for publication to the masses, tattle tale style. Just my opinion and interpretation of what happened here.

JMO MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

In addition to your points (well made), I was specifically referring to CW's public tweets about the motion for parity, which she allegedly drafted. These would appear to me to be in breach of the Court's order prohibiting extra-judicial statements to the public



And



It seems arguable that either CW was acting in a professional capacity for the defendant whilst making public statements on social media OR she was given such information by the cousnel for the defendant in order to end run the gag order.

At the end of the day, it would seem an odd state of affairs if the defense can circumvent the gag order simply by getting a surrogate attorney they are coordinating with to make the statements on their behalf?



So like you say, perhaps unsurprising that CW has not made any further tweets about the case.

MOO

There's been nothing much to tweet (or post) about on this case, has there?

FWIW, CW tweeted just last week (7 days ago) regarding the praecipe.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811384787761864867

 

[susane7]

Since all we ever get is he said / she said, I don’t know who’s responsible for what. It is my hope that if the D has done things in violation of any order or if they’ve done things unethically that they meet consequences through the appropriate channels.

I agree. I don't know if B and A know exactly what was happening in the group. My thing is everytime the defense or people associated the defese was called out for things they have done, the excuse is always "so who does this help? not the defense". I mean if the defense or people associated with them are doing things they shouldn't have and they are caught, of course the news and the headlines wouldn't be kind for the defense..Doesn't mean it is the prosecution behind it. There are unethical defenses.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

So we know now, without a doubt that the Odinists theory is made up fiction. But people are OK with that.
We know that the defense and their cronies have zero respect for the victims to the point that they bristle when people post their smiling faces. And people are OK with that.
We know that the defense and their cronies plot to introduce false narratives in hopes of confusing future jurors. And people are OK with that.
There’s more and folks are OK with it all.
This is all out of the defense cronies own mouths. And people are whining about how the information was made public instead of what it says about the defense and its tactics.
Where is the outrage?
Why is this OK?
Could someone please explain how this helps RA in any way?

 

[iamshadow21]

Here’s one reason I’m mad. They placed motive for the murders on the Odinist’s perceived hatred towards the mother of one the victims - due to alleged interracial dating.

Entirely unfounded and unsubstantiated.
Disgusting.

jmo

And they wrote that whole thing to get sealed information about the crime scene and the girls into the public sphere... but with their sensationalist, tabloidesque slant on it. Knowing that there was absolutely no substance to what they were claiming. And knowing that under the gag order, there was no way of any other version countering theirs.

Until they released the Franks, we still had no idea of cause of death. That had been kept private for six years. I remain absolutely infuriated about that. It should have stayed that way until trial.

MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

So we know now, without a doubt that the Odinists theory is made up fiction. But people are OK with that.
We know that the defense and their cronies have zero respect for the victims to the point that they bristle when people post their smiling faces. And people are OK with that.
We know that the defense and their cronies plot to introduce false narratives in hopes of confusing future jurors. And people are OK with that.
There’s more and folks are OK with it all.
This is all out of the defense cronies on mouths. And people are whining about how the information was made public instead of what it says about the defense and its tactics.
Where is the outrage?
Why is this OK?
Could someone please explain how this helps RA in any way?

Oh, I am outraged, believe me, but I've been outraged since the Franks and the photo leak. This is just one more thing.

MOO

 

[TTF14]

So we know now, without a doubt that the Odinists theory is made up fiction.

RSBM

We don't know this for a fact. YouTubers who are approved sources have said it. But, IMO, it most certainly doesn't make it fact. We haven't heard anything of the sort from Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin, the actual defense attorneys for Richard Allen.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

And they wrote that whole thing to get sealed information about the crime scene and the girls into the public sphere... but with their sensationalist, tabloidesque slant on it. Knowing that there was absolutely no substance to what they were claiming.

RSBM BBM

The substance was the discovery they received from the State, as referenced/cited in the footnotes.

IMO MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Here is the gag order (pg. 49 of 284):

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf

In relevant part:

4. "That the discovery material shall not be publicly exhibited, displayed, shown, used for educational, research or demonstrative purposes or used in any other manner, except in judicial proceedings in the above referenced action."

• Discord chats don't fall under the category of "publicly exhibited."

5. "That the discovery material may be viewed only by parties, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts."

• People that are used in a vetting process for voir dire fall into the category of "counsel's investigators."

This was was not that.

MH is an intern/investigator working for Rozzi discussing the case with YT cranks. That seems like a definite conflict of interest.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

So we know now, without a doubt that the Odinists theory is made up fiction. But people are OK with that.
We know that the defense and their cronies have zero respect for the victims to the point that they bristle when people post their smiling faces. And people are OK with that.
We know that the defense and their cronies plot to introduce false narratives in hopes of confusing future jurors. And people are OK with that.
There’s more and folks are OK with it all.
This is all out of the defense cronies own mouths. And people are whining about how the information was made public instead of what it says about the defense and its tactics.
Where is the outrage?
Why is this OK?
Could someone please explain how this helps RA in any way?

What did these people say that means the 3rd party culprit was made up?

 

[grannygates]

This was was not that.

MH is an intern/investigator working for Rozzi discussing the case with YT cranks. That seems like a definite conflict of interest.

JMO

Isn’t the story that the YouTuber being interviewed said that another YouTuber told him that MH met them face to face at a Walmart and told him secrets? So there’s no actual text history of any of this happening ? MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Okay, I'll slow this down for you.

@mrjitty said this:

The issue I was addressing with my response to this quote (not your quote) was whether B & R or CW breached the gag order.

I then produced the gag order to show the exact wording of the gag order. You know, to show what actually must happen for a breach of the gag order to occur.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf

Issue 1: Did B breach gag order? Did R breach gag order?
Rule 1(gag order #4): That the discovery material shall not be publicly exhibited, displayed, shown, used for educational, research or demonstrative purposes or used in any other manner, except in judicial proceedings in the above referenced action. Rule 2(gag order #5): That the discovery material may be viewed only by parties, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts.
Application: No discovery material has been publicly exhibited by B or R. Any discovery material that was exhibited was shown to "counsel's investigators."
Conclusion: B & R did not breach the gag order.

Issue 2: Did CW breach gag order?
Rule (gag order #5): That the discovery material may be viewed only by parties, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts.
Application: first, CW is not bound to the gag order. She is not RA's attorney of record for this particular cause of action. Even if she was to be considered "counsel" for the purposes of Gag order 5, she would not be in breach, as she has not publicly exhibited any discovery material. In the alternative, any discovery material she has viewed is allowed under Gag order 5, as "counsel's investigators" are allowed to view same.
Conclusion: CW did not breach the gag order.

The point I was making about vetting and the voir dire process was more for everyone. Vetting of jurors is a normal occurrence in trial preparation. Hope this helps.

ETA: a vetting service would be counted as "counsel's investigators" for the purpose of Rule 5 of the Gag order

One, you're conflating the gag order and protective order relating to discovery. See attached for the actual gag order. I made reference to material covered under both of these.

The main issue with 1 and 2 combined is that in order for CW to draft the motion, she had to have been made aware of materials that were bound by the protective order. She specifically makes reference to discovery materials, and the substance of those discovery materials. So, either she is actually on the defense team and violated the gag order when she posted on Twitter about it, or the defense team violated the protective order when she drafted the motion for parity. There's not a lot of gray area there.

The element you did not address was regarding MH, a member of the defense team as of at least March 2024 (as referenced in the motion for parity). He was allegedly revealing the substance of discovery materials to random people unrelated to the defense team in order to have these "influencers" skew public opinion of RA. That is, 100%, a violation of the protective order if true. And I'd say warrants further investigation.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

Isn’t the story that the YouTuber being interviewed said that another YouTuber told him that MH met them face to face at a Walmart and told him secrets? So there’s no actual text history of any of this happening ? MOO

With as many pages as the discussion about this one 3-part podcast has taken up, I now totally understand why podcasters and YouTubers are (usually) off limits. Can you imagine how many pages there would be (and how frustrated the mods would be) if we were allowed to discuss them all/hear both sides? It would break the internet. Or at least WS servers.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

The element you did not address was regarding MH, a member of the defense team as of at least March 2024 (as referenced in the motion for parity). He was allegedly revealing the substance of discovery materials to random people unrelated to the defense team in order to have these "influencers" skew public opinion of RA. That is, 100%, a violation of the protective order if true. And I'd say warrants further investigation.

JMO

RSBM

If he violated the gag order with what he was doing, maybe he should be fired. I'm sure B&R are looking into it.

IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

RSBM

If he violated the gag order with what he was doing, maybe he should be fired. I'm sure B&R are looking into it.

IMO MOO

If he violated the protective order, he should be held in contempt as would be the usual remedy for such things. I hope the defense is able to get their people and associates under control, for RA's sake.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

RSBM BBM

The substance was the discovery they received from the State, as referenced/cited in the footnotes.

IMO MOO

Gotta love those famous Franks Memo 'footnotes', often slyly worded that what they are stating as fact in the main body of the document may not actually be factual. I linked a page of those from the Franks Memo CS section page 28. If I had the time or inclination, I'd make a list of all of those type of many footnotes just for kicks, but it's not funny IMO.

R&B counted on the average reader not actually reading them, they just wanted to push that shock and awe document out to SM to support their narrative. I'm a stickler for details so I do, especially when it's something that makes absolutely no sense to me.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Fair enough. Too late to correct my post to say Due Process Gang, not defense.

Partially true, CW and the others said they were in contact with R&B about some of the topics they were discussing, acting like they were all close friends.

MOO

 

[grannygates]

With as many pages as the discussion about this one 3-part podcast has taken up, I now totally understand why podcasters and YouTubers are (usually) off limits. Can you imagine how many pages there would be (and how frustrated the mods would be) if we were allowed to discuss them all/hear both sides? It would break the internet. Or at least WS servers.

IMO MOO

it’s all a looooong telephone game. And no actual screenshots will ever be posted (and I don’t want them! I think this is really stupid)

Its a listeners interpretation of a podcasters dramatic interpretation of cherry picked YouTuber group chats, out of context.

Or stories from a disgruntled YouTuber about what his other YouTuber friends said.

This has nothing to do with the actual case and is all made-up inflated 2nd hand info drama to sell a podcast. It shouldn’t be allowed IMO

all MOO

 

[TTF14]

R&B counted on the average reader not actually reading them, they just wanted to push that shock and awe document out to SM to support their narrative. I'm a stickler for details so I do, especially when it's something that makes absolutely no sense to me.

JMO

The average reader doesn't have access to most of what's cited in the footnotes. So of course they counted on the average reader not reading them, as they have no other choice in the matter. I, an average reader, wish we had access to all of it.

IMO MOO