Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #189

[photographer4]

The source gave MS access to their Twitter (X) accounts and also Discord.

Within this access, there are messages between the parties that we have discussed here. There were messages, conversations, screenshots and whatever else happens within group chats.

I don't have to be in love with MS to believe that they intend to be around long after the Delphi case commences. If they want to continue to grow, they are not going to fabricate information.

They are allowed to be used as references here on WS. That is a pretty big deal to me. It means that their information is trusted. So far, they have not lied about their information.

I have no doubt that they are imperfect, that they make mistakes. But that is not the same as plotting to derail a case.

All of this is simply my opinion.

I've asked this before but not sure anyone seems to know - what makes any source an "approved source" on WS exactly? Posters aren't allowed to note things as if they know something in a given field unless they're somehow verified by mods or admin (eg: lawyers who want to say they're lawyers must be vetted, or they can't say that here is my understanding). So what steps must approved source go through if any in order to become approved? What makes Grey Hughes a better source than an actual journalist such as say - James Renner, who I believe has interviewed KG? I won't link to his website as it would be in violation of the TOS, but for those interested, he has a fantastic interview with KG in which she explains how many people she believed were at the trail that day (and if I recall rightly, she gave the interview before RA was arrested).

I understand that MS is a well loved podcast for various reasons, but imo, they don't really help matters by stirring up a lot of drama in the case. On the bright side, I can see how it makes for good entertainment - its full of drama and espionage or subterfuge - all the things to make people want to listen and keep listening! But unless there are actual repercussions for what they're portraying as leaks and court order violations, then to me, that is all it is - entertainment. For now. Maybe I'll change my view if their show ends up leading to something like criminal charges etc for those they're talking about.

 

[photographer4]

We have to wait and see, don't we?
I have no idea what could come from any of this.

Definitely going to be interesting to see what if anything does come of any of it. I wonder if there will be some clap back at MS for their broadcasts, or if there will be anything from authority figures to the lawyers involved etc... Not sure what sort of timeline it might take for anything to come of it.

 

[Megnut]

And then MS broadcasting it to planet Earth.

MS has not broadcast or published discovery They are exposing a covert group who had access to discovery only the Defense could have provided. There are strict protocols for sharing discovery and this isn't that.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

MS has not broadcast or published discovery They are exposing a covert group who had access to discovery only the Defense could have provided. There are strict protocols for sharing discovery and this isn't that.

JMO

I don't even think RA had representation at the time this happened. It certainly wasn't AB and BR. They had already been booted by JG. Were Scremin and Lebrato on the case yet?

Sounds to me like MH was a lone wolf at that point. He must have felt quite strong, then, about what he'd seen in the evidence.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

MS has not broadcast or published discovery They are exposing a covert group who had access to discovery only the Defense could have provided. There are strict protocols for sharing discovery and this isn't that.

JMO

DBM - thought you had replied to me, then realized you hadn't. I think I've made the point already, so no need really to keep saying it. Thank you for the discussion. We may not always agree, but I do enjoy a good debate / discussion.

 

[photographer4]

General question: the people who have provided MS with whatever information is being circulated about now regarding this lawyer or that lawyer's private convos etc - what made them go to MS vs say providing their info to an authority be it police, the Bar, JG herself etc? What is their end goal in providing MS the info in the first place? Do we know?

 

[ClearAhead]

So because he didn't state he saw someone else wearing X clothes, that makes him guilty? Is it not possible that he left before someone else arrived? What makes it completely impossible that he left before someone else arrived? I'm not saying that is what happened, I'm asking why it couldn't have happened? I'm not asking for his alibi or anything else. I am only asking, what makes it completely impossible that he left before someone else arrived such that he didn't see BB or L & A?

Sure, could be so, as it’s a guessing game without having access to the evidence file. But I do think the various timestamps on photos and/or cellphone activity will create a solid timeline - the photo one of the 3 took, if RA was viewing his stock ticker, the video Libby took and anything more - and collectively will play a critical role in the jury’s verdict in the upcoming trial. So neither can I discount the significance in a possible conviction.

It’s equally possible RA claimed not to have seen the girls, hoping LE wouldn’t be interested in anything further he might have to say. If anyone knew he went to the trails that day, RA may have been pressured into talking to LE, as they were asking. MOO

 

[photographer4]

Sure, could be so, as it’s a guessing game without having access to the evidence file. But I do think the various timestamps on photos and/or cellphone activity will create a solid timeline - the photo one of the 3 took, if RA was viewing his stock ticker, the video Libby took and anything more - and collectively will play a critical role in the jury’s verdict in the upcoming trial. So neither can I discount the significance in a possible conviction.

It’s equally possible RA claimed not to have seen the girls, hoping LE wouldn’t be interested in anything further he might have to say. If anyone knew he went to the trails that day, RA may have been pressured into talking to LE, as they were asking. MOO

Actually that is also a good point - I do wonder now if RA also told anyone else he'd been at the trails that day before he spoke to LE. I wonder if he tested a story on someone, and then enhanced or altered it based on their reactions? If witness statements can be affected by talking to a co-witness, I wonder if a witness statement from the perp can similarly affected by sharing his version of events with neutral parties who weren't there? I wonder if there is any research on this and will go searching for it when time permits. It must be a thing, surely, right? MOOOOOO.

 

[TTF14]

General question: the people who have provided MS with whatever information is being circulated about now regarding this lawyer or that lawyer's private convos etc - what made them go to MS vs say providing their info to an authority be it police, the Bar, JG herself etc? What is their end goal in providing MS the info in the first place? Do we know?

Discredit the defense, taint a jury, get the defense team thrown off the case, delay the trial.

Possible reasons.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Discredit the defense, taint a jury, get the defense team thrown off the case, delay the trial.

Possible reasons.

IMO MOO

Ok, so in theory, it is possible perhaps, that the people providing the information to MS might be doing exactly what people are mad that they think others are doing (eg: putting info in the public, tainting public opinion etc)?

On the other hand, have we considered that maybe the people being talked about in the MS podcast perhaps *wanted* whatever they are accused of out in the public so they sent someone forward to provide the info to MS, knowing it would hit the public quickly? I can't imagine why someone would want to make themselves look bad in this way really, but nothing would really shock me at this point. Just wondering, MOOO as a possibility, absurd as it may sound and all that....

 

[ClearAhead]

General question: the people who have provided MS with whatever information is being circulated about now regarding this lawyer or that lawyer's private convos etc - what made them go to MS vs say providing their info to an authority be it police, the Bar, JG herself etc? What is their end goal in providing MS the info in the first place? Do we know?

Isn’t this a similar roadmap to MW’s leak of the crime scene photos? In the midst of severe criticism of MS, charges against MW were subsequently laid.

We can’t know how far this latest issue will go, yet.

 

[ClearAhead]

Actually that is also a good point - I do wonder now if RA also told anyone else he'd been at the trails that day before he spoke to LE. I wonder if he tested a story on someone, and then enhanced or altered it based on their reactions? If witness statements can be affected by talking to a co-witness, I wonder if a witness statement from the perp can similarly affected by sharing his version of events with neutral parties who weren't there? I wonder if there is any research on this and will go searching for it when time permits. It must be a thing, surely, right? MOOOOOO.

Best of luck searching the internet for testimony for a trial that hasn’t even occurred, a trial protected by a gag order.

It used to said “don’t believe everything you read on the internet”. When did that change?

 

[photographer4]

Isn’t this a similar roadmap to MW’s leak of the crime scene photos? In the midst of severe criticism of MS, charges against MW were subsequently laid.

We can’t know how far this latest issue will go, yet.

I am not sure - I believe MW took photos of some sort from the office of RA's lawyer, and then provided that photo / those photos (not sure which) to someone in Texas, who then provided them to someone else and some youtubers and podcasters. This link seems to agree that I have it right:

Indiana man is charged over leaking Delphi murder crime scene photos

Mitchell Westerman, 41, has been charged for allegedly leaking gruesome crime scene photos of the Delphi murder case to the public

www.dailymail.co.uk

But MW was not charged with breech of a court order, and he wasn't charged with CSAM or anything significant imo. If I recall rightly, he was charged with a misdemeanor theft. If he'd been in possession of CSAM or in breech of some sort of court order regarding this case, I'm not really sure why his charge was so minimal? What MS did in that particular case was to get the trial delayed by 10 months per the same article: "The leaks delayed Allen's trial by ten months after Baldwin's team withdrew from the case due to 'gross negligence' over gruesome crime scene pictures being leaked to the public. "

In the end, I believe recently, MW got some sort of probation, and nothing really has come of the entire thing except that the trial was long delayed... The info that he got some sort of diversion program came from this link:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1814045301193253209

 

[photographer4]

Best of luck searching the internet for testimony for a trial that hasn’t even occurred, a trial protected by a gag order.

It used to said “don’t believe everything you read on the internet”. When did that change?

To be clear, I wasn't asking to see evidence that RA provided info to anyone else before he gave his statement. I was asking in general - since we know that witness statements can be influenced by things such as talking to people before talking to police, talking with co-witnesses, how questions are asked etc etc etc... then I wondered if similar things can affect statements given by a guilty party (any guilty party, doesn't have to be RA in particular). Was just a theoretical question more than anything, not a literal one.

 

[Spartygirl]

I don't even think RA had representation at the time this happened. It certainly wasn't AB and BR. They had already been booted by JG. Were Scremin and Lebrato on the case yet?

Sounds to me like MH was a lone wolf at that point. He must have felt quite strong, then, about what he'd seen in the evidence.

IMO MOO

HA!!!

R & B said MH was their PI
actually, he was an office asst.

Pretty sure B & R had him on payroll doing this dirty work for them. IMO

Leaking more leaks, like they did with the CS photos which ended up with one person committing suicide.

No wonder MH was worried if something happened to him.
I would have been too, dealing with these unethical, evil people.

 

[TTF14]

HA!!!

R & B said MH was their PI
actually, he was an office asst.

Pretty sure B & R had him on payroll doing this dirty work for them. IMO

They weren't even on the case at the time this alleged "offense" occurred by this "office assistant." Judge Gull had already kicked them off and they weren't reinstated until two months later.

 

[Spartygirl]

Discredit the defense, taint a jury, get the defense team thrown off the case, delay the trial.

Possible reasons.

IMO MOO

DBM

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I've asked this before but not sure anyone seems to know - what makes any source an "approved source" on WS exactly? Posters aren't allowed to note things as if they know something in a given field unless they're somehow verified by mods or admin (eg: lawyers who want to say they're lawyers must be vetted, or they can't say that here is my understanding). So what steps must approved source go through if any in order to become approved? What makes Grey Hughes a better source than an actual journalist such as say - James Renner, who I believe has interviewed KG? I won't link to his website as it would be in violation of the TOS, but for those interested, he has a fantastic interview with KG in which she explains how many people she believed were at the trail that day (and if I recall rightly, she gave the interview before RA was arrested).

I understand that MS is a well loved podcast for various reasons, but imo, they don't really help matters by stirring up a lot of drama in the case. On the bright side, I can see how it makes for good entertainment - its full of drama and espionage or subterfuge - all the things to make people want to listen and keep listening! But unless there are actual repercussions for what they're portraying as leaks and court order violations, then to me, that is all it is - entertainment. For now. Maybe I'll change my view if their show ends up leading to something like criminal charges etc for those they're talking about.

DBM

 

[Spartygirl]

They weren't even on the case at the time this alleged "offense" occurred by this "office assistant." Judge Gull had already kicked them off and they weren't reinstated until two months later.

DBM

 

[photographer4]

HA!!!

R & B said MH was their PI
actually, he was an office asst.

Pretty sure B & R had him on payroll doing this dirty work for them. IMO

Leaking more leaks, like they did with the CS photos which ended up with one person committing suicide.

No wonder MH was worried if something happened to him.
I would have been too, dealing with these unethical, evil people.

We can't really know for sure though why the person in receipt of the photos sent out by MW actually killed himself. We know only that he was in receipt of the photos from someone MW sent them to who then forwarded them to him. We know he was asked for an interview by LE, and then he committed suicide. It is possible that being in receipt of those photos played a role in his suicide but how do we know this for certain? We don't know what else may have been going on for him at time, or what his past life experience was. We don't know what the photos were even really of that might have led him to make his decision to suicide. We don't know what his past mental health status may have been, or whether any alcohol or drugs may have been consumed prior to his suicide. We don't know if he had long dealt with suicidal ideation or not, or even if he had made prior attempts.

It is unfair to declare that the man killed himself specifically because he was in receipt of photos somehow connected to this crime. It also feels very incomplete. If he did kill himself because he was in receipt of the photos, then why did he exactly? What made him so upset that it had this impact on him overall? We won't know because as far as we know, he did not grant police the interview they requested (depending on which source one uses - this one says he killed himself post police questioning: Indiana man is charged over leaking Delphi murder crime scene photos but this one claims he suicided "after police knocked at his door" - Man charged over evidence leak in Delphi murders case that led to removal of defense attorneys). Not sure if he did actually give the interview or not... Still, my point remains, we can imagine that his suicide was all because of the MW photos, but we can't know that for sure.