IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #169

[twall]

I'm off to watch "Killers of the Flower Moon" 3+ hr. movie, good thing I took a nap today! Everyone have a great evening. (where I am at anyway!)

#JusticeforLibbyandAbby

 

[TL4S]

good grief. no wonder I needed to be reminded.

Another quick Q:
Do we know who's shoe had the phone in it at the crime scene.
Do we know where the matching shoe to the shoe found under a body at the crime scene was found?

The phone was under L's shoe, according to the ex-D. We can presume the matching shoe was found in the creek because that's where LE said all recovered clothing was, if not on the bodies. If the clothing in the creek CS photo floating around is real, the shoe was most definitely in the water (and the one seen by searchers immediately before the bodies were found).

 

[Emma Peel]

The phone was under L's shoe, according to the ex-D. We can presume the matching shoe was found in the creek because that's where LE said all recovered clothing was, if not on the bodies. If the clothing in the creek CS photo floating around is real, the shoe was most definitely in the water (and the one seen by searchers immediately before the bodies were found).

Sorry, my question wasn't terribly precise.

Do we know: Which body at the crime scene - (A's body or L's body) was the shoe/phone under?

I ask b/c there's a couple of ways to think about this - for example:

a) Some clothing was removed from crime scene after the killings and these were dumped in the water.

or

b) Only L's clothing (and one of L's shoes) made it to the crime scene.

 

[mrjitty]

The Motion To Reconsider....some important points IMO...

Comes now counsel for Andrew J. Baldwin and moves the court to reconsider the erroneous order to the Clerk of Carroll County...

• This motion wasn't filed on behalf of BR! BR has nothing to do with this motion other than being mentioned it in. This is all stuff being filed on behalf of AB by his lawyer.

6. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin.

• AB admits an oral motion was obtained.

That withdrawal is a nullity and invalid as not in compliance with Rules 3.8 and 7.0(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.

• I don't see where rule 3.8 of Ind. R. Trial exists.
• Rule 7(B) gives the court discretion, so it doesn't have to be written if "otherwise ordered by the court". (See below for text of rule.)
  • (B) Motions and other papers. Unless made during a hearing or trial, or otherwise ordered by the court, an application to the court for an order shall be made by written motion. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and the relief or order sought. The requirement of notice is satisfied by service of the motion.
    Rule 7. Pleadings allowed—Form of motion, 22B Ind. Prac., Civil Trial Rule Handbook R 7

Mr. Baldwin has never filed a written motion to withdraw and will not do so. By operation of trial rules he remains counsel of record.

• Seems fairly clear AB made an oral motion, and the oral motion was granted consistent with R7. Caveat being I have no clue what R3.8 is in reference to. I feel like the written motion is a moot point, and this argument fails big time. Why make these filings? CYA?

7. On that same date the court obtained in the same manner an oral promise from Attorney Rozzi to file a motion to withdraw which he has not done and will not do.

• Interesting this lawyer is making statements on behalf of BR...since the lawyer that filed this motion doesn't seem to represent BR...little inappropriate IMO. (As a side note: I think BR would be unwise to have this individual representing him given how his co-counsel's actions/inactions create a conflict of interest were the same individual to attempt to represent both BR and AB as to these matters.)
• This motion is silent as to whether BR made an oral motion to withdraw. Just because he made an "oral promise" to file a written motion doesn't mean he didn't also make an oral motion, the two are not mutually exclusive.
  • Could have gone something like this...BR withdraw orally and offers to follow-up with a written motion...AB withdraws orally and refuses to follow-up with a written motion (wouldn't be shocking, he's clearly unhappy about the situation).
• Unless I missed it...I haven't seen anything to indicate that BR is contesting his withdrawal on the 19th is he? This is all coming from AB's lawyer, who does not appear to represent BR and doesn't appear to have any authority to speak on BR's behalf.

JMO

These are very interesting points.

In my opinion, Judge Gull was careful to differentiate between Rozzi and Baldwin in her 3 min press conference (i note some people don't want to call it a presser but seeing as the defendant and his lawyers were not present and she simply updated the media i don't see a better name for it).

1. All parties agree Baldwin withdrew. Potential coercion will have to be determined by another fact finding body, however on any view, he did actually withdraw via oral motion.

2. Gull did not say Rozzi made such a motion. She said he agreed to file a written motion. Given he never filed such a motion, it is common ground Rozzi did not in fact move to withdraw IMO

3. Gull ordered both Baldwin and Rozzi removed on the 19th, but not placed on the docket until a week later. When did she actually order this? It is not clear, IMO but perhaps said order reflects what she ordered in chambers.

4. In view of point 2, Judge Gull appeared to order the removal of Rozzi before his expected motion to withdraw. As she apparently did not disqualify him, how did she order this?

5. In view of point 4, IMO the order is defective as regards Rozzi.

I am sure what Judge Gull will argue, is that Rozzi somehow defacto withdrew in chambers but this all seems deeply unsatisfactory - especially as no one can see the transcripts (if they exist)

It seems fairly clear to me that under no circumstances will either Rozzi or Baldwin be restored. Their conduct has been shocking in my opinion, and in my view they are continuing to grandstand.

However given all that has happened it is surely in the interests of justice that another fact finder now reviews what on earth happened here.

This is why Judge Gull now needs to recuse

1. What happens if a fact finder were to discover her conduct was deeply at fault and she should have been disqualified? The trial will be further disrupted.

2. Regardless of point 1, and even if Judge Gull was correct, there is now a potential for perception of bias IMO, such that it would be expedient for a new Judge to be appointed.

This trial needs to be squeaky clean.

 

[Jurisprudence]

The Motion To Reconsider....some important points IMO...

Comes now counsel for Andrew J. Baldwin and moves the court to reconsider the erroneous order to the Clerk of Carroll County...

• This motion wasn't filed on behalf of BR! BR has nothing to do with this motion other than being mentioned it in. This is all stuff being filed on behalf of AB by his lawyer.

6. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin.

• AB admits an oral motion was obtained.

That withdrawal is a nullity and invalid as not in compliance with Rules 3.8 and 7.0(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.

• I don't see where rule 3.8 of Ind. R. Trial exists.
• Rule 7(B) gives the court discretion, so it doesn't have to be written if "otherwise ordered by the court". (See below for text of rule.)
  • (B) Motions and other papers. Unless made during a hearing or trial, or otherwise ordered by the court, an application to the court for an order shall be made by written motion. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and the relief or order sought. The requirement of notice is satisfied by service of the motion.
    Rule 7. Pleadings allowed—Form of motion, 22B Ind. Prac., Civil Trial Rule Handbook R 7

Mr. Baldwin has never filed a written motion to withdraw and will not do so. By operation of trial rules he remains counsel of record.

• Seems fairly clear AB made an oral motion, and the oral motion was granted consistent with R7. Caveat being I have no clue what R3.8 is in reference to. I feel like the written motion is a moot point, and this argument fails big time. Why make these filings? CYA?

7. On that same date the court obtained in the same manner an oral promise from Attorney Rozzi to file a motion to withdraw which he has not done and will not do.

• Interesting this lawyer is making statements on behalf of BR...since the lawyer that filed this motion doesn't seem to represent BR...little inappropriate IMO. (As a side note: I think BR would be unwise to have this individual representing him given how his co-counsel's actions/inactions create a conflict of interest were the same individual to attempt to represent both BR and AB as to these matters.)
• This motion is silent as to whether BR made an oral motion to withdraw. Just because he made an "oral promise" to file a written motion doesn't mean he didn't also make an oral motion, the two are not mutually exclusive.
  • Could have gone something like this...BR withdraw orally and offers to follow-up with a written motion...AB withdraws orally and refuses to follow-up with a written motion (wouldn't be shocking, he's clearly unhappy about the situation).
• Unless I missed it...I haven't seen anything to indicate that BR is contesting his withdrawal on the 19th is he? This is all coming from AB's lawyer, who does not appear to represent BR and doesn't appear to have any authority to speak on BR's behalf.

JMO

It can be difficult to respond sometimes because we can only link a widely searchable source and general internet searches on the law in particular are not always current so they are not always right. Official sources aren't accessible to the general public so they can't be posted. But, you are right that it is difficult to find. They're referring to 10-days' notice to their client imo. RA received none.

(H)Withdrawal of Representation. An attorney representing a party may file a motion to withdraw representation of the party upon a showing that the attorney has sent written notice of intent to withdraw to the party at least ten (10) days before filing a motion to withdraw representation, and either: (1) the terms and conditions of the attorney's agreement with the party regarding the scope of the representation have been satisfied, or(2) withdrawal is required by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(a), or is otherwise permitted by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b).
An attorney filing a motion to withdraw from representation shall certify the last known address and telephone number of the party, subject to the confidentiality provisions of Sections (A)(8) and (D) above, and shall attach to the motion a copy of the notice of intent to withdraw that was sent to the party. A motion for withdrawal of representation shall be granted by the court unless the court specifically finds that withdrawal is not reasonable or consistent with the efficient administration of justice.

Rule 3.1 - Appearance, Ind. R. Trial. P. 3.1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 3.1 - Appearance, Ind. R. Trial. P. 3.1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Moo

 

[zh0r4]

Not sure if we are allowed to discuss here, so delete if not okay...

Changing the subject for a moment...the alleged leaked photo of the clothing in the water...is this legit or a hoax? Seems weird to me that the alleged shoe shown in the photo appears pretty clean...unless shoes were removed prior to crossing the river, I would expect a victim shoe to be covered in mud, no?

Also, the texts allegedly from DE that surfaced online early on...where it was unclear whether they were legit or a hoax...some stuff in them seems to fit with what is in the Franks Memo, but the position of the hands on one victim does not seem to match. Anyone have thoughts on the consistencies an discrepancies between these two?

Finally, in the Franks Memo, one para says the shoe and phone (underneath the shoe) were found under the left lower back of the victim, but then a different para says they were under the legs. Not that it matters much, but I was just pondering why the killer might have done either. Any thoughts?

JMO

Good questions. I also wondered if those pics were a hoax? What date did they “leak” if they aren’t a hoax? I saw a post from August 2023 but they could have been leaked for a while as I haven’t been closely following for years.

I am not sure if I have seen the texts, please feel free to message privately if you have them, I would love to analyze!

I wondered how those CS photos were taken per the shoe/phone, how it was recorded on record, and/or whether the D made a typo? As you said it clearly says under the lower back and under the legs (D memo, p.31 attached below).

AJMO below

I do think it matters btw, because regardless of how I look at it, it screams some type of intentional deception. The scene itself doesn’t really flow, from what we know it’s both organized (per the cleanliness of the bodies, lack of blood, placement of the bodies/how they were posed, placement of the sticks) and disorganized (clothes strewn by/in the creek, Abby dressed in Libby’s clothes, leaving the phone with alleged evidence right under the body, and Libby’s shoe & phone under Abby’s body), which leads me to believe it was a staged scene. Whether it was staged to confuse and mislead LE, hide evidence, or both. I don’t think the alleged time of death is correct and I don’t think they were murdered at the scene due to Abby being clean and re-dressed. Their cause of death listed on their Indiana death certificates is exsanguination, which on face value doesn’t make sense time wise.

Are we allowed to post death certificates filed by the state here? Their DCs are on Ancestry, and are ideally worth discussing due to the sloppiness and inaccuracy of basic facts about the girls (especially since this is such a high profile case, you would think meticulous care would be given in their filing).

Tl;dr I believe clothing items were strewn around to mislead LE, and I believe the phone was placed under the body intentionally, whether the shoe was or not. Why would the killer(s) spend all of the time moving the bodies back from the place they were killed, cleaning at least one of the bodies, & displaying the scene while simultaneously throwing clothing items around the area to mislead LE but leave a cell phone (evidence) right under the body? It’s because they wanted the phone to be found for whatever reason. This is why I want to know chain of custody and what forensics was conducted on the phone-I believe the killer(s) likely tampered with it and left it there purposely to confuse investigators. Ideally, the phone would have immediately been collected as evidence and cloned-larger (city) PDs usually have this cloning software, the FBI definitely has this software.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

January 2018

"The attorney for a man facing the death penalty was removed from the case after a judge said he was unprepared and inexperienced. Nikos Nakos, the defense attorney in the state of Indiana’s murder case against Marcus Dansby, was removed as counsel by Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull Friday morning during a hearing...

... Nakos, who has twice filed motions to have Gull recuse herself from the case for violating the code of judicial conduct, said he plans to appeal the ruling...

... Nakos had said Allen County Prosecutors will argue that Dansby killed the family because the baby wasn’t his but a DNA test confirmed with near-certainty that Dansby was the father...

'Unprepared' defense attorney removed from death penalty case in Ft. Wayne

The attorney was defending a man in a quadruple homicide case.

www.wishtv.com

I wonder what the circumstances were surrounding his filing that she recuse herself. Curious.

Unbelievable. It was unclear to me if the attorney she removed was court appointed? JG said his attorney didn’t meet the qualifications to try death penalty case, so surely she didn’t appoint the attorney herself? FTR Rozzi is DP qualified, I’m unsure about the new attorneys though.

 

[zh0r4]

Given the content of the Franks memo and other alleged behavior of the D, I can understand offering the option of withdrawing privately in order to a) allow the D to save face a bit, and b) prevent the D from making any statements in front of press cameras in open court that might harm their client's case publicly.

In light of everything that is alleged to have happened, the D have a conflict of interest with their own client. The Court I believe was balancing a number of things, and was probably damned if the do, damned if they don't so to speak. The Court's top priority however needs to be protecting the future integrity of the trial, and preventing the accused from not receiving a fair trial due to actions or inactions his counsel might be inclined to take to protect themselves from certain liabilities (hence the conflict of interest problem).

As for BR, unless I've missed it, I don't see where BR is contesting his withdrawal. Everything I've seen appears to have been filed by an attorney on behalf of AB...and that attorney doesn't represent BR as far as I am aware.

JMO

MOTION FOR CONTINUING REPRESENTATION

Edit to add I am not caps yelling at you I typed it the way it was on the motion lol.

 

[zh0r4]

It's interesting that none of the 25th-27th flurry of Old Defense's motions mention conflict of interest. Baldwin's still fighting to stay in the case. Not so easy to do if you have a conflivct.

These goofy things makes me wonder if LE investigation cleared Baldwin; thus no conflict.

Westerman's affidavit Westerman's affidavit Westerman's affidavit, I wanna see it!

From the YAWN law stuff I was reading earlier, I think Motion to Disqualify includes conflict of interest per 28 U.S.C. ss 455 & 144.

<snip>

1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.

(2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge’s spouse or domestic partner,* or a person within the third degree of relationship* to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:
(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;
(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(c) a person who has more than a de minimis* interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or
(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary,* or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge’s family residing in the judge’s household,* has an economic interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.

(4) The judge knows or learns by means of a timely motion that a party, a party’s lawyer, or the law firm of a party’s lawyer has within the previous [insert number] year made aggregate* contributions* to the judge’s campaign in an amount that [is greater than $[insert amount] for an individual or $[insert amount] for an entity] [is reasonable and appropriate for an individual or an entity].

(5) The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate,* has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy.

(6) The judge:
(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association;
(b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy;
(c) was a material witness concerning the matter; or
(d) previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court.

(B) A judge shall keep informed about the judge’s personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge’s spouse or domestic partner and minor children residing in the judge’s household.

<snip>

Rule 2.11: Disqualification​

Rule 2.11: Disqualification

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

www.americanbar.org

 

[zh0r4]

I'm sorry I must be missing something...I know it says in the CCS "filings by former attorney BR"...but the documents filed that I've seen all appear to be documents drafted by AB's attorney, signed by AB's attorney, and filed on behalf of AB (not BR). I wonder if the reference to BR in the CCS notes referencing those filings is a typo?

JMO

Here is another doc filed by Rozzi on 10/25 the MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (the judge).

 

[CGBSpender]

Unbelievable. It was unclear to me if the attorney she removed was court appointed? JG said his attorney didn’t meet the qualifications to try death penalty case, so surely she didn’t appoint the attorney herself? FTR Rozzi is DP qualified, I’m unsure about the new attorneys though.

One thing to keep in mind…if there is a Judge that is out of line…the Defense bar in local jurisdictions will often take notice and sometimes work together to lobby for positive change and/or extend their support.

When the other members of the local bar are not interested in stepping up and having a fellow member’s back…it’s something worth maybe paying attention to.

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

Here is another doc filed by Rozzi on 10/25 the MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (the judge).

Thank you! Wow! OMG if they felt this strongly they could have just let the disqualification hearing happen, and had their client immediately file an interlocutory appeal on the J’s decison. What are they so darn afraid that was in her prepared statement that kept them from doing that?

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

These are very interesting points.

In my opinion, Judge Gull was careful to differentiate between Rozzi and Baldwin in her 3 min press conference (i note some people don't want to call it a presser but seeing as the defendant and his lawyers were not present and she simply updated the media i don't see a better name for it).

1. All parties agree Baldwin withdrew. Potential coercion will have to be determined by another fact finding body, however on any view, he did actually withdraw via oral motion.

2. Gull did not say Rozzi made such a motion. She said he agreed to file a written motion. Given he never filed such a motion, it is common ground Rozzi did not in fact move to withdraw IMO

3. Gull ordered both Baldwin and Rozzi removed on the 19th, but not placed on the docket until a week later. When did she actually order this? It is not clear, IMO but perhaps said order reflects what she ordered in chambers.

4. In view of point 2, Judge Gull appeared to order the removal of Rozzi before his expected motion to withdraw. As she apparently did not disqualify him, how did she order this?

5. In view of point 4, IMO the order is defective as regards Rozzi.

I am sure what Judge Gull will argue, is that Rozzi somehow defacto withdrew in chambers but this all seems deeply unsatisfactory - especially as no one can see the transcripts (if they exist)

It seems fairly clear to me that under no circumstances will either Rozzi or Baldwin be restored. Their conduct has been shocking in my opinion, and in my view they are continuing to grandstand.

However given all that has happened it is surely in the interests of justice that another fact finder now reviews what on earth happened here.

This is why Judge Gull now needs to recuse

1. What happens if a fact finder were to discover her conduct was deeply at fault and she should have been disqualified? The trial will be further disrupted.

2. Regardless of point 1, and even if Judge Gull was correct, there is now a potential for perception of bias IMO, such that it would be expedient for a new Judge to be appointed.

This trial needs to be squeaky clean.

No good deed goes unpunished unfortunately. I think she gave them the professional courtesy to withdraw privately, and not put their alleged negligence on display by reading the evidentiary findings to support disqualification into the record. The D can’t have their cake and eat it too…if they wanted the disqualification evidence to be challenged procedurally, then they needed to proceed with the hearing and have their client file an immediate interlocutory appeal to review the decision.

Gotta be way more to this. I can’t understand why the D was so afraid of moving forward with the hearing.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Here is another doc filed by Rozzi on 10/25 the MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (the judge).

Thank you for bringing these forward, @zh0r4

Thank you! Wow! OMG if they felt this strongly they could have just let the disqualification hearing happen, and had their client immediately file an interlocutory appeal on the J’s decison. What are they so darn afraid that was in her prepared statement that kept them from doing that?

JMO

To be a fly on the chambers wall...

I am super curious to know ... as she's rejected these latest motions as "filing errors" ... if - as these latest (rejected) filings now qualify them to request the interlocutory appeal.

Perhaps someone cleverer with tech than me can check out the appropriate Appellate docket.

 

[Emma Peel]

These are very interesting points.

In my opinion, Judge Gull was careful to differentiate between Rozzi and Baldwin in her 3 min press conference (i note some people don't want to call it a presser but seeing as the defendant and his lawyers were not present and she simply updated the media i don't see a better name for it).

1. All parties agree Baldwin withdrew. Potential coercion will have to be determined by another fact finding body, however on any view, he did actually withdraw via oral motion.

2. Gull did not say Rozzi made such a motion. She said he agreed to file a written motion. Given he never filed such a motion, it is common ground Rozzi did not in fact move to withdraw IMO

3. Gull ordered both Baldwin and Rozzi removed on the 19th, but not placed on the docket until a week later. When did she actually order this? It is not clear, IMO but perhaps said order reflects what she ordered in chambers.

4. In view of point 2, Judge Gull appeared to order the removal of Rozzi before his expected motion to withdraw. As she apparently did not disqualify him, how did she order this?

5. In view of point 4, IMO the order is defective as regards Rozzi.

I am sure what Judge Gull will argue, is that Rozzi somehow defacto withdrew in chambers but this all seems deeply unsatisfactory - especially as no one can see the transcripts (if they exist)

It seems fairly clear to me that under no circumstances will either Rozzi or Baldwin be restored. Their conduct has been shocking in my opinion, and in my view they are continuing to grandstand.

However given all that has happened it is surely in the interests of justice that another fact finder now reviews what on earth happened here.

This is why Judge Gull now needs to recuse

1. What happens if a fact finder were to discover her conduct was deeply at fault and she should have been disqualified? The trial will be further disrupted.

2. Regardless of point 1, and even if Judge Gull was correct, there is now a potential for perception of bias IMO, such that it would be expedient for a new Judge to be appointed.

This trial needs to be squeaky clean.

Thank you for this.
That's what I'm talkin about. (Agree.)
One can see why Rozzi's working independently of Baldwin on these latest (rejected) motions ...
Rozzi did not withdraw, and Gull insists he did. THAT should be looked at.
And unless Gull coughs up transcript that repudiates Rozzi ... she should DQ herself for her conduct here.

If we look at the timeline from the 12th forward, and the speed of appointing the new D counsels - both who come from her home Court world - it's evident she decided to remove Rozzi without a fair process.

 

[Emma Peel]

Good questions. I also wondered if those pics were a hoax? What date did they “leak” if they aren’t a hoax? I saw a post from August 2023 but they could have been leaked for a while as I haven’t been closely following for years.

I am not sure if I have seen the texts, please feel free to message privately if you have them, I would love to analyze!

I wondered how those CS photos were taken per the shoe/phone, how it was recorded on record, and/or whether the D made a typo? As you said it clearly says under the lower back and under the legs (D memo, p.31 attached below).

AJMO below

I do think it matters btw, because regardless of how I look at it, it screams some type of intentional deception. The scene itself doesn’t really flow, from what we know it’s both organized (per the cleanliness of the bodies, lack of blood, placement of the bodies/how they were posed, placement of the sticks) and disorganized (clothes strewn by/in the creek, Abby dressed in Libby’s clothes, leaving the phone with alleged evidence right under the body, and Libby’s shoe & phone under Abby’s body), which leads me to believe it was a staged scene. Whether it was staged to confuse and mislead LE, hide evidence, or both. I don’t think the alleged time of death is correct and I don’t think they were murdered at the scene due to Abby being clean and re-dressed. Their cause of death listed on their Indiana death certificates is exsanguination, which on face value doesn’t make sense time wise.

Are we allowed to post death certificates filed by the state here? Their DCs are on Ancestry, and are ideally worth discussing due to the sloppiness and inaccuracy of basic facts about the girls (especially since this is such a high profile case, you would think meticulous care would be given in their filing).

Tl;dr I believe clothing items were strewn around to mislead LE, and I believe the phone was placed under the body intentionally, whether the shoe was or not. Why would the killer(s) spend all of the time moving the bodies back from the place they were killed, cleaning at least one of the bodies, & displaying the scene while simultaneously throwing clothing items around the area to mislead LE but leave a cell phone (evidence) right under the body? It’s because they wanted the phone to be found for whatever reason. This is why I want to know chain of custody and what forensics was conducted on the phone-I believe the killer(s) likely tampered with it and left it there purposely to confuse investigators. Ideally, the phone would have immediately been collected as evidence and cloned-larger (city) PDs usually have this cloning software, the FBI definitely has this software.

MOO

Thank you again @zh0r4
See Red by me above in your quote

2 Quick Clarifying Qs:

- Only L's phone was found at crime scene - is that correct? Was A's phone found - or - found elsewhere as she didn't have it with her that day at the park?

- Did they find/locate crime scenes/blood evidence other than the bridge kidnapping and the final crime scene where bodies were located?

 

[mrjitty]

Thank you for this.
That's what I'm talkin about. (Agree.)
One can see why Rozzi's working independently of Baldwin on these latest (rejected) motions ...
Rozzi did not withdraw, and Gull insists he did. THAT should be looked at.
And unless Gull coughs up transcript that repudiates Rozzi ... she should DQ herself for her conduct here.

If we look at the timeline from the 12th forward, and the speed of appointing the new D counsels - both who come from her home Court world - it's evident she decided to remove Rozzi without a fair process.

I don't go so far but I do think it is somewhat Kafka that Rozzi has been removed without DQ or Motion to withdraw, (at least nothing on the record) and when he files to challenge that, his motions are removed because he is not on the case.

I guess he has to appeal based solely on the order to remove of the 19th

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Thank you for this.
That's what I'm talkin about. (Agree.)
One can see why Rozzi's working independently of Baldwin on these latest (rejected) motions ...
Rozzi did not withdraw, and Gull insists he did. THAT should be looked at.
And unless Gull coughs up transcript that repudiates Rozzi ... she should DQ herself for her conduct here.

If we look at the timeline from the 12th forward, and the speed of appointing the new D counsels - both who come from her home Court world - it's evident she decided to remove Rozzi without a fair process.

The answer to one important question for me would be, WHEN were these two new court appointed attorney's first contacted and by whom? Certainly there is formal documentation.... I hope.

 

[Emma Peel]

I don't go so far but I do think it is somewhat Kafka that Rozzi has been removed without DQ or Motion to withdraw, (at least nothing on the record) and when he files to challenge that, his motions are removed because he is not on the case.

I guess he has to appeal based solely on the order to remove of the 19th

it is Kafka!!
(And I'm stealing that. lol.)

 

[CGBSpender]

Good questions. I also wondered if those pics were a hoax? What date did they “leak” if they aren’t a hoax? I saw a post from August 2023 but they could have been leaked for a while as I haven’t been closely following for years.

I am not sure if I have seen the texts, please feel free to message privately if you have them, I would love to analyze!

I wondered how those CS photos were taken per the shoe/phone, how it was recorded on record, and/or whether the D made a typo? As you said it clearly says under the lower back and under the legs (D memo, p.31 attached below).

AJMO below

I do think it matters btw, because regardless of how I look at it, it screams some type of intentional deception. The scene itself doesn’t really flow, from what we know it’s both organized (per the cleanliness of the bodies, lack of blood, placement of the bodies/how they were posed, placement of the sticks) and disorganized (clothes strewn by/in the creek, Abby dressed in Libby’s clothes, leaving the phone with alleged evidence right under the body, and Libby’s shoe & phone under Abby’s body), which leads me to believe it was a staged scene. Whether it was staged to confuse and mislead LE, hide evidence, or both. I don’t think the alleged time of death is correct and I don’t think they were murdered at the scene due to Abby being clean and re-dressed. Their cause of death listed on their Indiana death certificates is exsanguination, which on face value doesn’t make sense time wise.

Are we allowed to post death certificates filed by the state here? Their DCs are on Ancestry, and are ideally worth discussing due to the sloppiness and inaccuracy of basic facts about the girls (especially since this is such a high profile case, you would think meticulous care would be given in their filing).

Tl;dr I believe clothing items were strewn around to mislead LE, and I believe the phone was placed under the body intentionally, whether the shoe was or not. Why would the killer(s) spend all of the time moving the bodies back from the place they were killed, cleaning at least one of the bodies, & displaying the scene while simultaneously throwing clothing items around the area to mislead LE but leave a cell phone (evidence) right under the body? It’s because they wanted the phone to be found for whatever reason. This is why I want to know chain of custody and what forensics was conducted on the phone-I believe the killer(s) likely tampered with it and left it there purposely to confuse investigators. Ideally, the phone would have immediately been collected as evidence and cloned-larger (city) PDs usually have this cloning software, the FBI definitely has this software.

MOO

I sent a couple of complaints into Ancestry…something happened in the process of transfer of electronic data (not sure if it was IN Archives or Ancestry or both)…MANY Indiana DCs are messed up in that database. The DC form changed at some point, and the electronic data being pulled into certain boxes on the forms for certain years is screwy. Most notably, for certain years homicide was switched with suicide and vice versa.

I was pondering something similar…like maybe the phone and shoe were left purposefully…I’m at a loss as to why though.

The exsanguination piece is particularly disturbing. I also don’t understand how a killer(s) would be comfortable spending that amount of time at the scene in light of how soon people started searching the trail area.

JMO