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

[Emma Peel]

Just my own opinion, I don’t think AB was knowingly involved. I’d give him a pass as leaking a few crime scene photos wouldn’t be worth potentially destroying his good reputation and entire career.

What happened I think is people sometime get too bogged down with routine and overlook the fact there are sharks in the waters, like MW, awaiting an opportunity to snap. I can envision AB perceiving case discovery to simply be product to work with, really not any different than the recent $20 million gold heist from Toronto that was handled as if it simply a large, heavy package.

JMO

agree.
established work habits, safe assumptions about work family and work environment.
also wonder if one of those habits is a 2 martini lunch.

 

[MistyWaters]

Just looking at this timeline; WHEN was the Court informed of the LEAK?

10/12/2023

Correspondence to/from Court Filed Correspondence to Court Filed By: Allen, Richard M.

10/12/2023

Order Issued On the Courts motion, this cause is ordered set for status hearing on October 19, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in the Allen Superior Court. Counsel ordered to arrange their schedules to appear. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the up coming hearing on October 31, 2023 and other matters which have recently arisen. Court will prepare a transport order to have Defendant appear. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

10/19/2023	Status Hearing Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Rescheduled Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Comment: To be held in Allen Superior D05
10/19/2023	Affidavit Filed Affidavit Filed By: Allen, Richard M.
10/19/2023	Temporary/Limited Scope Appearance Filed Limited Appearance Form For Party: Allen, Richard M.
10/19/2023	Memorandum/Brief Filed MEMORANDUM REGARDING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION OR SANCTIONS Filed By: Allen, Richard M.

First, see 10/12 docket entries above; a week before 10/19:
In RED we see the decision that the 10/19 hearing is scheduled and ... it would address "other matters which have recently arisen" and some type of Correspondence to Court filed from Defense bear the same date.

(10/12 here, there's been a decision to add other matters to the upcoming 10/19 hearing)

Then, we see last minute 10/19 docket entry:
The next thing Defense files is the MEMORANDUM REGARDING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION OR SANCTIONS

Begs the question: What happened prior to 10/12/2023 above?
I think we can surmise that ... there's been other discussion between the parties - prior to filing the 10/12 scheduling order - likely a conference where Leak is discussed. (perhaps at a scheduling conference that is not recorded on this docket?)

(Q ? Scheduling conferences don't necessarily make it to the docket; b/c the resulting scheduling order does).

Theory:
- Scheduling conference (or such) on or prior to 10/12/23, when we see correspondence from Defense and the Court's scheduling notice ... where Court is advised of leak.
- Prosecution came loaded for bear on 10/19 expecting a hearing.
- Defense hired Hennessey and prepped/expected to quash the hearing with a memo-plea to Court to skip hearing and sanction.

MOO.

According to MS, upon receiving the leak from “Mark” on October 5th, they reported it to LE AND informed both Defense attorneys as well.

I think the judge would’ve been informed immediately upon the investigation commencing. For all we know there has been other private chamber meetings with the ex-D and it wouldn’t appear on the docket.

But it would make sense as it seemed AB was preparing himself for sanctions. What happened then? Maybe the sanctions would've been far greater than 24 hours of work donated to the cause, as Hennessy offered, and he wasn’t prepared to accept anything more. Maybe AB balked at cameras in the courtroom televising his admonishment. But it was the D who wanted the cameras…be careful what you wish for I guess.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

@Emma Peel: (Q ? Scheduling conferences don't necessarily make it to the docket; b/c the resulting scheduling order does).
Generally the scheduling is usually included in a hearing, like this. The hearing was on public access and they also scheduled hearing dates. At least that's how it looks from where I'm sitting. I've never seen the actual documents. I don't recall seeing scheduling conferences.

11/22/2022	Hearing Session: 11/22/2022 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Diener, Benjamin A. Comment: Public Access
11/22/2022	Motion Filed Motion for Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Members from Disseminating Information or Releasing Any Extra-Judicial Statements by Means of Public Communication filed. Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/22/2022
11/22/2022	Hearing Scheduling Activity Pretrial Conference scheduled for 01/13/2023 at 9:00 AM was cancelled. Reason: Judicial Action.
11/22/2022	Hearing Scheduling Activity Hearing scheduled for 02/17/2023 at 10:00 AM.
11/22/2022	Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel. State by Prosecuting Attorney. Hearing held on State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record. Matter taken under advisement. Defendant's Petition to Let to Bail ordered set for hearing in Carroll Circuit Court on February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am. Court to enter transport order. Omnibus date rescheduled to February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am by agreement of counsel Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 11/22/2022

 

[Emma Peel]

According to MS, upon receiving the leak from “Mark” on October 5th, they reported it to LE AND informed both Defense attorneys as well.

I think the judge would’ve been informed immediately upon the investigation commencing. For all we know there has been other private chamber meetings with the ex-D and it wouldn’t appear on the docket.

But it would make sense as it seemed AB was preparing himself for sanctions. What happened then? Maybe the sanctions would've been far greater than 24 hours of work donated to the cause, as Hennessy offered, and he wasn’t prepared to accept anything more. Maybe AB balked at cameras in the courtroom televising his admonishment. But it was the D who wanted the cameras…be careful what you wish for I guess.

JMO

October 5th, thank you, yes. Important date reference - we know D and P ... alerted of Leak; parties must advise Court immediately, IMO.

October 5 - one week before October 12th.
- two weeks before October 19.

So, 2 weeks ... and ... done.

mini-timeline observation:
A one-week LE investigation results in sufficient evidence to take an entire defense team down in advance of a ... likely franks hearing.

JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

@Emma Peel: (Q ? Scheduling conferences don't necessarily make it to the docket; b/c the resulting scheduling order does).
Generally the scheduling is usually included in a hearing, like this. The hearing was on public access and they also scheduled hearing dates. At least that's how it looks from where I'm sitting. I've never seen the actual documents. I don't recall seeing scheduling conferences.

11/22/2022	Hearing Session: 11/22/2022 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Diener, Benjamin A. Comment: Public Access
11/22/2022	Motion Filed Motion for Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Members from Disseminating Information or Releasing Any Extra-Judicial Statements by Means of Public Communication filed. Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/22/2022
11/22/2022	Hearing Scheduling Activity Pretrial Conference scheduled for 01/13/2023 at 9:00 AM was cancelled. Reason: Judicial Action.
11/22/2022	Hearing Scheduling Activity Hearing scheduled for 02/17/2023 at 10:00 AM.
11/22/2022	Order Issued Defendant appears in person and with counsel. State by Prosecuting Attorney. Hearing held on State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record. Matter taken under advisement. Defendant's Petition to Let to Bail ordered set for hearing in Carroll Circuit Court on February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am. Court to enter transport order. Omnibus date rescheduled to February 17, 2023 at 10:00 am by agreement of counsel Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 11/22/2022

thank you @FrostedGlass

The trigger for the scheduled hearing as to the "other items that have recently arisen" ...
shall remain ... a tad blurry. Apparently.

 

[MistyWaters]

mini-timeline observation:
A one-week LE investigation results in sufficient evidence to take an entire defense team down in advance of a ... likely franks hearing.

JMHO

Likely?? How likely is a Frank’s Hearing that was unscheduled in all this time. In the face of that I’d go with Unlikely and the D had already got wind of it.

So how about this theory! The D had good reason to doubt a Frank’s Hearing was going to occur so all hopes of the SW being tossed were dashed. That the SW was squashed was critical to the defense of RA since evidence collected during the search was extremely damaging. Not wanting to defend a losing case, the D took the first opportunity to exit.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

“Not completely true, are not supported by evidence”

Sounds like it fits the description of a fairy tale!

Wonder how the Judge felt about that and is it possible the meeting in her chambers did not solely pertain to possible sanctions relating only to the leak?

BBM

(amending to correct the link)

Defense motion alleges Delphi investigator misconduct

DELPHI, Ind. — A motion filed by attorneys representing accused Delphi killer Richard Allen claims investigators misled the court about the interpretation of its interview with an expert from…

fox59.com

“The memorandum is colorful, dramatic and highly unprofessional, it is not completely true,” wrote the prosecutor, and that the allegations, “are not supported by evidence…Sheriff Tony Liggett did not intentionally or recklessly omit evidence or lie about evidence in the probable cause affidavit to support the search warrant

 

[LaurelTedytamer]

Hi,
My question is … I can understand why Baldwin left (cos the leak from his office of the photos)…but why Rozzi too?

 

[TL4S]

Not completely true!

Wonder how the Judge felt about that and is it possible the meeting in her chambers did not solely pertain to the leak?

BBM

Defense motion alleges Delphi investigator misconduct

DELPHI, Ind. — A motion filed by attorneys representing accused Delphi killer Richard Allen claims investigators misled the court about the interpretation of its interview with an expert from…

fox59.com

“In late September, Prosecutor McLeland responded to the Franks Motion and its speculation that Liggett misled the search warrant judge and that Odinists were behind the killings.

“The memorandum is colorful, dramatic and highly unprofessional, it is not completely true,” wrote the prosecutor, and that the allegations, “are not supported by evidence…Sheriff Tony Liggett did not intentionally or recklessly omit evidence or lie about evidence in the probable cause affidavit to support the search warrant

My guess is that if every word was unfounded in regards to the Franks motion issues, then I suspect the new D will not pursue it any further, and we won't hear any more about it.

However, if any of those issues truly existed, whether intentional or not, the new D will file more on the topic and it will need to be dealt with by the judge.

I'm not even going to try to take a side on the matter because I have no idea if there's any truth to the ex-D's Franks motion claims. I personally see those issues as completely separate from the Odinist and leak issues, jmo. I'm hopeful we'll eventually know, one way or the other.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Kevin, I thought I saw you say in another interview that these images could support the defense’s theory of the case. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Greenlee: From reading some of the text messages between some of the people involved in this leak, we got the impression that they believed that these images supported a defense theory. Without going into too many details about what was actually in the images, I can say that I did not see anything in those images that would either confirm or debunk any theory about the case. I think it’s an instance where if you already have a preconception about what happened, you can probably find something in the pictures that would support that, no matter what that preconception is.
I really feel that all of us as laypeople just don’t have the background, or the ability or the know-how to really interpret them. And so all I saw was ambiguity.

Cain: Yeah, I think everyone is going to have their own lens. Frankly, even if a crime scene expert examined them, if they didn’t have the context of the wider case file, I don’t really know how they could make an accurate or well-informed assessment either. It’s one of those things where it’s just going to be people injecting their own bias into what they’re seeing, as Kevin said.

A Podcast Was Digging Into A Murder Case. Then Graphic Crime Scene Photos Leaked.

“The Murder Sheet” co-hosts Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee discussed receiving the leaked photos and shared why they contacted authorities immediately.

www.huffpost.com

 

[MistyWaters]

My guess is that if every word was unfounded in regards to the Franks motion issues, then I suspect the new D will not pursue it any further, and we won't hear any more about it.

However, if any of those issues truly existed, whether intentional or not, the new D will file more on the topic and it will need to be dealt with by the judge.

I'm not even going to try to take a side on the matter because I have no idea if there's any truth to the ex-D's Franks motion claims. I personally see those issues as completely separate from the Odinist and leak issues, jmo. I'm hopeful we'll eventually know, one way or the other.

Something you reminded me of, in the memo there was a brief point in the memo about the deposition with Liggett who responded the state had no DNA, no items that linked RA to the crime scene(not an exact quote). At the time I read it I wondered what did that have to do with the Frank’s issue since Liggett couldn’t predict what the SW might’ve revealed.

That word “since” being omitted from some recent news reports demonstrated how words and context matter as it pertains to truth.

For example, what if Liggett was asked during his deposition something such as this -
“<At the time you applied for the SW> did you have any DNA or any items linking RA to the crime?”
So his answer was be “no“ but what if the first part of the question was omitted. That‘s not the same as if he’d been asked “<During course of the entire investigation> did you have any…….”

All my opinion.

 

[MistyWaters]

Hi,
My question is … I can understand why Baldwin left (cos the leak from his office of the photos)…but why Rozzi too?

Nobody who knows for sure is saying. The Judge said he was to provide a written withdrawal but there’s no guarantee it will be publicly released.

 

[Emma Peel]

Likely?? How likely is a Frank’s Hearing that was unscheduled in all this time. In the face of that I’d go with Unlikely and the D had already got wind of it.

So how about this theory! The D had good reason to doubt a Frank’s Hearing was going to occur so all hopes of the SW being tossed were dashed. That the SW was squashed was critical to the defense of RA since evidence collected during the search was extremely damaging. Not wanting to defend a losing case, the D took the first opportunity to exit.

JMO

fabulous.
you win.

 

[CGBSpender]

Even with having rights restored, it's still pretty restrictive. IMO I was curious as to what percentage of that group would make it through the voir dire process and found a 127 pg report (which I did not read).

I'm curious why you're confident about a jury from Allen Co.

Allen County offers a nice mix of potential jurors. It isn't an area where the majority population works in one particular industry (such as in large University towns, or towns that are the center of Government). People are likely to have heard of the Delphi case, but you will have a fair amount that will not have followed the case very closely. Fort Wayne has its own crime and issues going on that many locals are more concerned about following. According to some studies Allen County juries tend to lean liberal, which if that is the case, may be a slight benefit to the Defendant (i.e. some studies will tell you that liberal leaning juries are more likely to entertain alternative theories and ideas, and may require more evidence before making a decision).

The thing that I think will have the largest effect on seating a jury, which will be the case no matter where they pull a jury from...will be the fact that it will probably be a long trial, and one that may require jurors to be sequestered in a hotel for multiple nights. There are limited segments of a possible jury pool in any jurisdiction that this kind of jury duty would not be unreasonably burdensome given their particular family and/or health circumstances.

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

October 5th, thank you, yes. Important date reference - we know D and P ... alerted of Leak; parties must advise Court immediately, IMO.

October 5 - one week before October 12th.
- two weeks before October 19.

So, 2 weeks ... and ... done.

mini-timeline observation:
A one-week LE investigation results in sufficient evidence to take an entire defense team down in advance of a ... likely franks hearing.

JMHO

Don't forget though...there was other information allegedly from the D that was leaking on social media in mid-August. That Franks memo IMO was rushed, unpolished and full of information irrelevant to the motion. I wondered after reading it why the fire drill to file it...and make sure the public saw it before the Court could seal it (since they hadn't even looked at half the discovery yet)...I'm thinking the leaks may have been what caused the fire drill...

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

October 5th, thank you, yes. Important date reference - we know D and P ... alerted of Leak; parties must advise Court immediately, IMO.

October 5 - one week before October 12th.
- two weeks before October 19.

So, 2 weeks ... and ... done.

mini-timeline observation:
A one-week LE investigation results in sufficient evidence to take an entire defense team down in advance of a ... likely franks hearing.

JMHO

Quoting myself to insert one more mini-timeline observation:

10/17/2023

Order Issued ... The Court has determined that allowing recording of the October 19, 2023, hearing is permitted provided that the means of recording will not distract the participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings, and the hearing itself is a non-confidential proceeding. The Court, therefore, authorizes the recording and broadcasting of the hearing set for October 19, 2023. ... Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

10/17/2023

Order Issued This case has generated substantial public interest and media attention. In light of this, and on the Court's own motion to ensure the integrity of the proceedings, to protect the Defendant's constitutional rights for due process, to ensure the safety of the parties and the public, and to permit public access to criminal proceedings, the Court sets forth the following rules and guidelines for the hearing set for Thursday, October 19, 2023, in the Allen Superior Court. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 10/17/2023

10/17/23 Gull opens Court to video tape. "the hearing itself is a non-confidential proceeding"

Between 10/17 and 10/19 ... the hearing became - pretty darn - confidential.

When approving cameras on 10/17 ... I'm wondering where Gull stood with regard to broadcasting a public hearing on the "other issue that came up". Did Gull approve broadcast of a hearing she understood would address Defense Counsel violations and consequences?

that seems transparent ...

 

[Emma Peel]

Don't forget though...there was other information allegedly from the D that was leaking on social media in mid-August. That Franks memo IMO was rushed, unpolished and full of information irrelevant to the motion. I wondered after reading it why the fire drill to file it...and make sure the public saw it before the Court could seal it (since they hadn't even looked at half the discovery yet)...I'm thinking the leaks may have been what caused the fire drill...

JMO

Interesting.

But do we know if the LEAK out that early?
Frank's Motion (first one) appears to be 9/18/2023.

By MS' "telling", I can't recall MS having the leaked photos that early on. Perhaps someone else knows this.

Or, perhaps folks are familiar with other social media that suggest MS was late to receive the LEAK photos and other had them prior to 9/18.

 

[MistyWaters]

Quoting myself to insert one more mini-timeline observation:

10/17/2023

Order Issued ... The Court has determined that allowing recording of the October 19, 2023, hearing is permitted provided that the means of recording will not distract the participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings, and the hearing itself is a non-confidential proceeding. The Court, therefore, authorizes the recording and broadcasting of the hearing set for October 19, 2023. ... Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

10/17/2023

Order Issued This case has generated substantial public interest and media attention. In light of this, and on the Court's own motion to ensure the integrity of the proceedings, to protect the Defendant's constitutional rights for due process, to ensure the safety of the parties and the public, and to permit public access to criminal proceedings, the Court sets forth the following rules and guidelines for the hearing set for Thursday, October 19, 2023, in the Allen Superior Court. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 10/17/2023

10/17/23 Gull opens Court to video tape. "the hearing itself is a non-confidential proceeding"

Between 10/17 and 10/19 ... the hearing became - pretty darn - confidential.

When approving cameras on 10/17 ... I'm wondering where Gull stood with regard to broadcasting a public hearing on the "other issue that came up". Did Gull approve broadcast of a hearing she understood would address Defense Counsel violations and consequences?

that seems transparent ...

I think the judge may’ve been referring to “confidential” with the specific piece of legislation in mind rather than directing the comment to certain pieces of business. Should the defense’s violations be kept secret? I think what occurred has to be revealed before the new D can move forward. JMO

Cameras welcomed back to Indiana courtrooms under new rule

Starting May 1, judicial officers in the Hoosier state can choose to allow news outlets to record or broadcast select court proceedings.

www.21alivenews.com

“Two overarching rules must be followed in order to broadcast: the recording must not distract the participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings and can not involve a confidential proceeding. Minors and jurors also may not be shown on camera.”

 

[MistyWaters]

Interesting.

But do we know if the LEAK out that early?
Frank's Motion (first one) appears to be 9/18/2023.

By MS' "telling", I can't recall MS having the leaked photos that early on. Perhaps someone else knows this.

Or, perhaps folks are familiar with other social media that suggest MS was late to receive the LEAK photos and other had them prior to 9/18.

Apparently MS received the leak late Oct5th and turned it over to LE the next morning. The private FB messages will be dated. IIRC MS did say it appeared the leak was more than a one-time thing because of the variety of information that was included along with the photos. Until the truth comes out we really don’t know.

Maybe MN was hired by AB to write the memo?

 

[Emma Peel]

I think the judge may’ve been referring to “confidential” with the specific piece of legislation in mind rather than directing the comment to certain pieces of business. Should the defense’s violations be kept secret? I think what occurred has to be revealed before the new D can move forward. JMO

Revealed to the new D vs revealing to the world?
Appearing to be transparent vs. actually being transparent.
Decisions, decisions.