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

[girlhasnoname]

This is unethical:

Making accusations that RA is being kept in conditions on par with being a prisoner of war.

Creating a story that revolves around a cult group that are "THE REAL murderers ."

'Leaking" a 200 plus page court document that was not meant to be public.
Knowing that the information in said document continuously points out the slow suffering death of a 13 year old girl.
Knowing that said document NAMES people in the community that will now be targeted forever.

Allowing friends to have free access to everything that happened to 2 children during their murder, and allowing this friend enough time to photograph and distribute photos of 2 dead children.

Not unethical enough? Well, let's add in the suicide of a family man that was next in line to receive the photos. His family now lives without him.
AB knew he was WRONG. He willingly withdrew from the case.

Rozzi, apparently, is doing all he can to stay in the center of attention. Clown, IMO, BUT it's not funny. It's appalling.


JMO

Agreed, and that's why I now want every single thing they've done or covered up to be made public record. No holds barred now. They created this fiasco in the first place.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

I'm looking at the email at the beginning of the chain, dated Friday 10/6/23 from Rozzi. " ...We just learned of this in the last hour. I immediately called Nick and informed him of the circumstance. Turns out, Nick has known about this for the past 24-30 hours or so. He informed me they are looking into the matter."
So I read this as, yes, P did in fact know about it before the defense attorneys. It makes sense, too, considering some recipients claim they were good and duly notified/turned the materials over to LE.
What do you mean leak of this nature? I think basically any police outfit could investigate it for the court if deemed necessary, no? I wouldn't invite the conflict of interest.

This is correct per docs released today. P knew first, and P is who suggested D be removed from the case to JG.

To add source here (attached below)

Email:

“Good afternoon judge. Andy and I wanted to touch base with you before the end of the work week. The issue revolves around the possibility that some of the crime scene photos have been leaked, so to speak, and are in the hands of the public. There is most certainly a photo of the "f tree" that is floating around in public. The photo itself, is not overly disturbing, but the concept that it is in the hands of the public is of concern.

Of greater concern is the fact that a local content creator, by the name of RS, has apparently communicated to the public that he has copies of the crime scene photos. I am attaching a copy of the communication that was forwarded to one of our staff members by a an uninvolved third party. We just learned of this in the last hour. I immediately called Nick and informed him of the circumstance. Turns out, Nick has known about this for the past 24 to 30 hours or so. He informed me that they are looking into the matter.

The primary purpose of this email is to communicate our concerns with the situation. We most certainly, did not leak this information. We wanted to make sure we got out ahead of this and informed the court, as well as Nick, in the event these pictures found their way on the internet. This might be a circumstance which requires the courts attention. I say that in terms of conducting some inquiry into the source of this information leak. Otherwise, Andy and I are both available for a phone call if necessary. Nick informed me earlier that he too, is available for a phone call throughout the weekend, if necessary.

We await your response.

BR

 

[MistyWaters]

Why would a Detective from ISP represent a conflict of interest? Not every ISP Detective investigated this case. I'm confused...

MOO

And specifically what conflict did an alleged conflict result in? I thought everyone involved has acknowledged their part in it? Pray to heavens up above, please please let us not hear MW is now denying any part in it, claiming he was set up by ISP. That would be too much.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Attorney Shay Hughes weighs in

https://x.com/publicdefender_/status/1719127089545199693?s=20

snips, more in the link
Ind. Trial Rule 7(B) states “unless made during a hearing…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.”
...
Additionally, there is no authority allowing a Court to w/draw counsel under such circumstances. Ind. Code 35-36-8-2 governs w/draws in criminal cases and does not address the facts presented in this case.
...
Also push back against those that think Baldwin must be removed for the leak. For starters, no contempt proceedings have been initiated. Second, there is nothing to suggest willful disobedience by Baldwin. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest Baldwin released evidence by means of public communication.
...
As it relates to Rozzi, the Court of Appeals has stated that a “mere leave to withdraw…not consummated by actual withdrawal, is ineffective for any purpose[.]”

 

[MistyWaters]

Agreed, and that's why I now want every single thing they've done or covered up to be made public record. No holds barred now. They created this fiasco in the first place.

MOO

Yes let it come to pass, that public shaming.

 

[girlhasnoname]

This is correct per docs released today. P knew first, and P is who suggested D be removed from the case to JG.

To add source here (attached below)

Email:

“Good afternoon judge. Andy and I wanted to touch base with you before the end of the work week. The issue revolves around the possibility that some of the crime scene photos have been leaked, so to speak, and are in the hands of the public. There is most certainly a photo of the "f tree" that is floating around in public. The photo itself, is not overly disturbing, but the concept that it is in the hands of the public is of concern.

Of greater concern is the fact that a local content creator, by the name of RS, has apparently communicated to the public that he has copies of the crime scene photos. I am attaching a copy of the communication that was forwarded to one of our staff members by a an uninvolved third party. We just learned of this in the last hour. I immediately called Nick and informed him of the circumstance. Turns out, Nick has known about this for the past 24 to 30 hours or so. He informed me that they are looking into the matter.

The primary purpose of this email is to communicate our concerns with the situation. We most certainly, did not leak this information. We wanted to make sure we got out ahead of this and informed the court, as well as Nick, in the event these pictures found their way on the internet. This might be a circumstance which requires the courts attention. I say that in terms of conducting some inquiry into the source of this information leak. Otherwise, Andy and I are both available for a phone call if necessary. Nick informed me earlier that he too, is available for a phone call throughout the weekend, if necessary.

We await your response.

BR

Thanks for the memo. But what's ironic, and they've now agreed, is that the leak came from their office. MW supposedly got access to AB's files and took the photos. They are responsible for the leak, snookered of not. It didn't come from the State or anybody else.

 

[Emma Peel]

anyone find the Westerman affidavit in this dump?


grrrrrrr...
3. Judge Gull has removed and concealed, or allowed to be removed by the Clerk of Carroll County, defense pleadingsfrom the chronological case summary in violation of the Indiana Supreme Court's Administrative Rules. Those pleadings include: ranks)ssOriginal Action Record of Proceedings p.220HILLIS. HILLIs. Ruzzx DEAN. LLCATTORNEYS AT LAW200 FOURTH ST. LOGANSPORT. [N 46947(574D 122-4560 FAX (574) 722-2650JOHN R. HxLLls1.)). «753309.BRADJEY A. Rozzx1.1. #2336509 BRADEN J. DEAN1.1). #31 941-34motion filed 9/18/23; ranks memorandum filed 9/18/23; three affidavits (WardenGalipeau, Sgt Jones, Sgt Robinson) filed 10/10/23 and the afiidavit of the leaker, MitchWesterman. Judge Gull has not removed or hidden any State filings.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes let it come to pass, that public shaming.

I'm picturing that scene in GOT where they rang those bells while they marched Cersi through the town square and claimed "Shame, Shame, Shame".

I think Judge Gull did try and let them withdraw with the least bad effect on their careers and reputations. They've thrown that and Judge Gull to wolves now.

JMO

 

[zh0r4]

The only question I’m curious as to the answer - what was in the Judge’s prepared statement alleging gross negligence that D&G were so fearful of if it were to be read in public?

No matter how many times they offer the same excuse, their explanation just seems so shallow, if the accusations were nothing.

“They believed such a public statement from the trial court “risked tainting thejury pool, harming their client’s defense, undermining their professional relationship with the client, and possibly creating an actual conflict for their continued representation.” (Id.)”

And so what about the jury pool now?

JMO

Bbm

According to

RELATOR’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
(p. 9 & 10), Filed by Smith, Wieneke, & Cook

“During the October 19th, 2023 in-chambers meeting at which Allen was not present even though he was in the courthouse and his presence had been requested-the trial court read a prepared statement to Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin accusing them of "gross negligence" in their capacity as Allen's counsel. (Record, pp.223-24.)

These purported acts of "gross negligence" included:

• efforts by the defense to level the playing field with a press release after the prosecution filed multiple releases;
• filing motions to protect Allen's basic human rights-motions that the trial court either granted or that remain pending;
• filing the Franks memorandum that the trial court believed contained "improper statements";
• filing a tort claim notice to preserve Allen's rights to seek redress from conditions and treatment related to his incarceration; and
• a third-party's unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of nor participated in.

(Record, pp.223-24.)

After reading from this prepared statement, the trial court then informed Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin that they had two options:

1) they "voluntarily" withdraw their appearances immediately; or

2) the trial court would read the prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both attorneys in open court.

(Record, p.230.)

Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin were shocked and asked to meet with Allen before making any decisions. (Id.) Allen re-affirmed that he did not believe Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin had engaged in any negligence, much less gross negligence. (Id.) Allen also re-affirmed his desire to move forward with Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin as his sole counsel and objected to the trial court's attempts to strip him of that counsel.”

RELATOR’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION

Brief in Support of Petition for.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[abams]

Attorney Shay Hughes weighs in

https://x.com/publicdefender_/status/1719127089545199693?s=20

snips, more in the link
Ind. Trial Rule 7(B) states “unless made during a hearing…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.”
...
Additionally, there is no authority allowing a Court to w/draw counsel under such circumstances. Ind. Code 35-36-8-2 governs w/draws in criminal cases and does not address the facts presented in this case.
...
Also push back against those that think Baldwin must be removed for the leak. For starters, no contempt proceedings have been initiated. Second, there is nothing to suggest willful disobedience by Baldwin. Similarly, there is nothing to suggest Baldwin released evidence by means of public communication.
...
As it relates to Rozzi, the Court of Appeals has stated that a “mere leave to withdraw…not consummated by actual withdrawal, is ineffective for any purpose[.]”

Interesting that there is the legal question as to whether the judge had the authority to remove his counsel in the first place.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Well this proves that the defense was well aware of what was going to happen on the 19th of October.

There was NO ambush by Judge Gull. She had EVERY right to hold the hearing in public and admonish the attorneys publicly. But, she offered them to be spared from this taking place in public.

The way Rozzi stomped through the court room would make one conclude that he did, in fact, agree to withdraw.

The fact that Rozzi now refuses to step down and asks that Gull be removed is disgusting. Ego for days.

Regardless of how anyone feels about RA's guilt or innocence, I would imagine that the public would support their removal. They have been amazing with their antics and side shows. It seems like many people have forgotten about the horrific murders of two children. Shame, shame.


JMO

Disagree. They knew only that this was to be discussed and they were ordered to cease work. They asked the judge what else would be addressed (I bet they were hoping it was the Franks hearing. She didn't give them an answer).

She went to the bench and announced on camera (the one and only day she allowed (in advance) for cameras to be in the courtroom) that there had been an "unexpected turn of events".

Now knowing facts that we did not previously know, this was anything but unexpected. She had a prepared statement ready in advance, and the jury box filled with LE.

jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

Thanks for the memo. But what's ironic, and they've now agreed, is that the leak came from their office. MW supposedly got access to AB's files and took the photos. They are responsible for the leak, snookered of not. It didn't come from the State or anybody else.

Excellent advise, that!

“This might be a circumstance which requires the courts attention. I say that in terms of conducting some inquiry into the source of this information leak.”

 

[zh0r4]

There is a memo from Rozzi dated Oct 6th to the Judge and P that they were 'concerned' of a potential leak (see page 193 of the download), so the P didn't know before the D, the Judge replied to all parties on the 8th and the P responded on the 12th after one of the leakers committed suicide.

Curiously, who else at this point should have investigated a leak of this nature than ISP, certainly not local LE?

MOO

Ideally the FBI. JMO.

EDIT: typo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Disagree. They knew only that this was to be discussed and they were ordered to cease work. They asked the judge what else would be addressed (I bet they were hoping it was the Franks hearing. She didn't give them an answer).

She went to the bench and announced on camera (the one and only day she allowed (in advance) for cameras to be in the courtroom) that there had been an "unexpected turn of events".

Now knowing facts that we did not previously know, this was anything but unexpected. She had a prepared statement ready in advance, and the jury box filled with LE.

jmo

I'm not surprised at a stop work order by the Judge, what else might be leaked? This was a major violation with serious consequences to the the case. The vicious photos of the CS were loose on the internet. She had a right to be cautious.

I also disagree, Judge Gull looked shocked and frazzled and it was far from a prepared statement. It was 3:48 minutes long.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I’m

Ideally the FBI. JMO.

The FBI was also involved in this case. I just don't think we can say every single ISP detective or FBI agent had nefarious intent in investigating this.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

Have a closer look at II. B. of the RA Appellate submission at the link above:

IMO, here RA's attnys acknowledge there's a technical problem where the lower Court should rule on any Original Actions in his case first (before approaching Appellate) ... BUT, Gull bounces every motion brought by RA's "chosen" attorneys, so these attnys (and thus RA) is barred from getting his motions in front of the Court.

RA's attnys requests the Appellate court consider a loophole and accept this Appeal from RA - without RA going through Gull, due to "extraordinary circumstances".

IMO, in accepting this appeal, (technically out of order) the Appellate agrees that RA has demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" that earn him the loophole (skipping the lower court to make this argument.)

What are the ramifications of the Appellate Court agreeing RA meets "extraordinary circumstances" which permit him to skip Gull and go direct to Appellate with this action?

A real Catch 22...RA's old attorneys are not recognized by the court (Judge Gull) so anything they file is removed from the record. RA won't recognize his newly appointed attorneys to act on his behalf.

Who assigned/paid for these three new attorneys to act for RA. His name is on their filings.

This is all so confusing

 

[MistyWaters]

Interesting that there is the legal question as to whether the judge had the authority to remove his counsel in the first place.

Hennessy sited specific circumstances in his October 18th brief.

 

[FrostedGlass]

anyone find the Westerman affidavit in this dump?


grrrrrrr...
3. Judge Gull has removed and concealed, or allowed to be removed by the Clerk of Carroll County, defense pleadingsfrom the chronological case summary in violation of the Indiana Supreme Court's Administrative Rules. Those pleadings include: ranks)ssOriginal Action Record of Proceedings p.220HILLIS. HILLIs. Ruzzx DEAN. LLCATTORNEYS AT LAW200 FOURTH ST. LOGANSPORT. [N 46947(574D 122-4560 FAX (574) 722-2650JOHN R. HxLLls1.)). «753309.BRADJEY A. Rozzx1.1. #2336509 BRADEN J. DEAN1.1). #31 941-34motion filed 9/18/23; ranks memorandum filed 9/18/23; three affidavits (WardenGalipeau, Sgt Jones, Sgt Robinson) filed 10/10/23 and the afiidavit of the leaker, MitchWesterman. Judge Gull has not removed or hidden any State filings.

No. I did a word search; his name is mentioned 3 times but no affidavit.

 

[Emma Peel]

No. I did a word search; his name is mentioned 3 times but no affidavit.

maybe b/c Judge Gull has concealed or removed it.

 

[zh0r4]

This is unethical:

Making accusations that RA is being kept in conditions on par with being a prisoner of war.

Creating a story that revolves around a cult group that are "THE REAL murderers ."

'Leaking" a 200 plus page court document that was not meant to be public.
Knowing that the information in said document continuously points out the slow suffering death of a 13 year old girl.
Knowing that said document NAMES people in the community that will now be targeted forever.

Allowing friends to have free access to everything that happened to 2 children during their murder, and allowing this friend enough time to photograph and distribute photos of 2 dead children.

Not unethical enough? Well, let's add in the suicide of a family man that was next in line to receive the photos. His family now lives without him.
AB knew he was WRONG. He willingly withdrew from the case.

Rozzi, apparently, is doing all he can to stay in the center of attention. Clown, IMO, BUT it's not funny. It's appalling.


JMO

-If you look at before & after photos of RA I don’t think this is an unethical statement.

-Whether Odinist or otherwise, there’s something going on. It may make some uncomfortable but cults are not a conspiracy, researchers like Dr. Randy Noblitt have done extensive research on cults and cult crime. Either way, the D is doing its job. It is the P’s job to prove their case against RA, which is weak.

-There is no proof the D leaked the Franks memo and it wasn’t a clerical error. Also, what about KK, RL, and that other guy? They were named before the D was on the case.

-Someone he trusted taking photos from his office unbeknownst to him is totally different than “giving everyone free access” and “allowing him to take photos of two dead children”. He did not consent or allow to this.

-The suicide, allegedly happened after his talk with ISP where he asked for a lawyer. Furthermore, MW mysteriously takes ZERO blame even though he’s the leaker and stealer of CS pics.

-Rozzi is an amazing D lawyer with a great record and likely truly believes his client is innocent. There are numerous other lawyers now calling out this miscarriage of Justice per their filings today, this isn’t about Rozzi, this is about the justice system functioning with integrity.

AJMO