IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170

[FrostedGlass]

Very nice reporting and writing - but one must subscribe to read?

No. Just scroll down past that large ad.

 

[Emma Peel]

No. Just scroll down past that large ad.

have you tried reading a 2nd article of his blog? fwiw I'm completely blocked.
which is too bad b/c this guy knows how to report and how to write. especially compared to the rest of the junk out there. *sigh* jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf (begins at Page 212 & 213)

17 Feb 2023



I'm thinking that as this was AB's second (minimum) abysmal failure to comply with JG's Order of 17 Feb 23, that the families have a very good chance of showing negligence on his part IMO.

Thank you for finding that! There’s no way that AB can justify why MW, with no connection to the law firm, had access to the discovery documents.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

have you tried reading a 2nd article of his blog? fwiw I'm completely blocked.
which is too bad b/c this guy knows how to report and how to write. especially compared to the rest of the junk out there. *sigh* jmo

I didn't try earlier. I can't read more without a free trail. I mostly wanted it for the pic of RA's shoestrings.

 

[sunshineray]

I believe the responsibility of the leaked CS photos and other info. comes from the top down. MW was no longer an employee of AB, he isn't even a licensed attorney. What was doing with access to such highly delicate and sensitive information?

I know AB states MW procured the info. by stealing it from his office unknowingly. I don't believe anything AB says personally. I expect charges brought against MW if he did in fact do as AB has suggested, it will be curious to see.

It's technically distribution of CSAM and a punishable offense by law. Maybe that's why we saw a suicide by another person who passed on the images? I find it also curious that in the email chain, it referred to "Andy you have to have my back, protect me" <paraphrasing>. Gross misconduct by the Defense is an understatement and Judge G was right in removing them from the case. How could they ever have been trusted going forward?

JMO

Did it really have someone saying, "Andy" whatever...as in the message conversation included "Andy"? Or was it saying more along the lines of..."Andy" has or will have my back? If it's the first...WOW. The second could still keep AB removed enough from the situation to be negligent but not complicit.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Did it really have someone saying, "Andy" whatever...as in the message conversation included "Andy"? Or was it saying more along the lines of..."Andy" has or will have my back? If it's the first...WOW. The second could still keep AB removed enough from the situation to be negligent but not complicit.

You very well could be right sunshineray, I will have to reread the doc, which I'm loathe to do. Either way though, "Andy" is referenced and that is not a good thing.

I do wonder why would AB have MW's back if he did such a horribly unethical thing, putting one of his very high profile cases in jeopardy? I find it all highly suspect.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf (begins at Page 212 & 213)

17 Feb 2023



I'm thinking that as this was AB's second (minimum) abysmal failure to comply with JG's Order of 17 Feb 23, that the families have a very good chance of showing negligence on his part IMO.

Also by the people he outright named and accused of committing the crime. That document was reckless among other things.

moo

 

[Emma Peel]

MSN

The Indiana Attorney General's office declined to represent Gull or the Carroll Circuit Court in the filing, so Gull has Indianapolis attorney Matthew Gutwein representing her, according to the filing.

The Attorney General's office represents the state officials and prosecutor's offices in legal actions, including appeals and lawsuits.

I think it's worth pointing out that the AG's office took a look at the SCION writ with regard to Gull that have been brought in the writ to the SCOIN ... and they opted out of repping Gull on these matters.

IMO, while we don't know the AG's reasoning, it's safe to say that the IN AG has determined that it is not in the State's interest to support Gull. This is very uncommon.

Gull is a high state official, and like all Circuit Judges, her judicial work is protected by the state; the fact that her AG won't back her up and she has to go out and get her own attorney is not small potatoes.

It's the Circuit Court Judge's right under the AG ... to have that AG representation at higher court reviews. If the legal or administrative decision(s) made by Gull is within the bounds of the law and ethical standards and not in conflict with the interests of the State, the AG would be repping her.

IMO, Gull either may have the law wrong here to the point where it does not serve the State to argue in her behalf, or Gull is setting a legal precedent that falls outside of IN written law, or Gull's ethical standards are under review, or there's a conflict between Gull and the State here somehow. I think that covers the field.

JHMO, I don't see any other reasons the AG would reject representing her at the SCOIN.

There's always the technical question as to whether or not SCOIN - upon reviewing all papers submitted by Nov 16 deadline - will decide not to hear the case. However, in this situation where even the AG opts out of repping Gull on a double murder matter with tremendous public interest ... I'm pretty sure SCOIN has no choice.

Also, while it's not (yet) clear that SCOIN will (or will not) take up the dismissal of Defense counsel issue, it seems that Gull's papers MUST address it. This Dismissal and B & R's objections to it - is detailed in the Weineke writ brief submitted ... along with related Exhibits ... and these are the D's motions filed with Gull's that fell victim to Gull's whack-a-mole "poof the part where the D asked me to recuse just magically disappeared from the record".

Also JHMO, Given the dark sloppiness of the record and/or the dearth of the due process record upon the disqualification of the Defense, I don't think Gull's case will result in making precedent (i.e. new IN law) on this one.

It seems what's left is: The AG can't back up Gull as to the Law, or the AG can't back up Gull as to Ethical issues ... and so the AG finds it's not in the State's interest to represent Gull's positions here.

This appears to be a grave moment, no only for RA and his preferred Defense team, but for Gull.

All JMHO

 

[photographer4]

Gull is a high state official, and like all Circuit Judges, her judicial work is protected by the state; the fact that her AG won't back her up and she has to go out and get her own attorney is not small potatoes.

I was absolutely shocked that the AG has declined to represent JG at the SCION!!! That is MASSIVE!! That makes me wonder what the heck do they know that we do not yet know? Is it as you said some conflict of interest? Has she set a precedent that concerns them? What do they know that we do not know and could it be that they simply do not agree with her and cannot represent her in good faith?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I was absolutely shocked that the AG has declined to represent JG at the SCION!!! That is MASSIVE!! That makes me wonder what the heck do they know that we do not yet know? Is it as you said some conflict of interest? Has she set a precedent that concerns them? What do they know that we do not know and could it be that they simply do not agree with her and cannot represent her in good faith?

I'm not, I don't think it's this nefarious at all. I guess we'll find out more on the 15th of Nov.

MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

Also by the people he outright named and accused of committing the crime. That document was reckless among other things.

moo

I'm 100% with you on doxing the other POI's. REDACT REDACT REDACT.

However, I don't agree the the D is accusing other POI's.

The D will attempt to raise doubt taking a microscope to LE's 7 year investigation's process, investigation lines abandoned, and investigation conclusions with regard to a variety of other POI's that were investigated. Maybe even some that weren't investigated.

And that's the D's job. The P's job is to knock all that stuff down as frivolous with LE testimony, facts, experts, P's argument skills. The P did this in his filed Answer.

 

[Jurisprudence]

PRAECIPE FOR TRANSCRIPT
Attorney Rozzi, filed 10/25/2023
Allen Praecipepdf.pdf

PRAECIPE
Attorney Hennessy, filed 10/27/2023
Adobe Acrobat

Thank you for this. BR's request indicates to me that the original recording might be the stenographers notes that were later transcribed, and not an "audio" recording. If so this is unfortunate. I would have loved to hear the tone in that meeting. I also wonder if the judge ordered her ultimatum off the record before she issued them in chambers, meaning whether she told the court reporter stop typing for a minute right now.

With respect to Hennessy's filing he mentions two in-chambers sessions. I did not know there were two in-chambers meeting that day. Hmmm.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I'm completely confused as to who Gutwein is representing here or how he is the attorney of JG's choice? Help....

It could be totally me and I've missed something posted, I wasn't on much yesterday.

JMO

It would give real-world effects if BR and AB could have appointed her attorney and when she resisted to who was assigned to represent her they told her "Well, tough luck for you".

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

I'm not, I don't think it's this nefarious at all. I guess we'll find out more on the 15th of Nov.

MOO

The AG declines to back up its Judge/State's Protector of Fair Process/Finder of Fact & Law.
It can just be the AG declines to argue in support of the Judge's error or legal argument.

In other words, AG has taken the position that Gull has the law wrong here.
Doesn't have to be nefarious. It can just be a judicial error.

Judicial errors risk the State's (AG's) interests in seeing fair trials where verdicts hold upon appeal, etc..

 

[Jurisprudence]

I was absolutely shocked that the AG has declined to represent JG at the SCION!!! That is MASSIVE!! That makes me wonder what the heck do they know that we do not yet know? Is it as you said some conflict of interest? Has she set a precedent that concerns them? What do they know that we do not know and could it be that they simply do not agree with her and cannot represent her in good faith?

I was a bit surprised too, even given the AG's own disciplinary problems of 11/2 since he has an office full of people who could have handled this. His office already appeared in this matter too, representing the DOC to quash the subpoena. Maybe that's why. Or, maybe he knows she violated rules and doesn't want that attached to his office given what just occurred with him. We will likely never know. But, I am curious about the docket potentially growing. I didn't look close enough at it but is she using this adjournment to put the docket back together again so she can argue that the Indiana Supreme Court should dismiss the writ as moot? That would be a potential play.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

I'm 100% with you on doxing the other POI's. REDACT REDACT REDACT.

However, I don't agree the the D is accusing other POI's.

The D will attempt to raise doubt taking a microscope to LE's 7 year investigation's process, investigation lines abandoned, and investigation conclusions with regard to a variety of other POI's that were investigated. Maybe even some that weren't investigated.

And that's the D's job. The P's job is to knock all that stuff down as frivolous with LE testimony, facts, experts, P's argument skills. The P did this in his filed Answer.

The defense likely would have called them as witnesses. Now that won't happen unless the original team is reinstated.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Yes, there was audio as well as transcript. Not surprising to me given the scope and nature of the hearing. Maybe that will alleviate some of the rampart feelings of the 'in chambers secret meeting with no records'.

MOO

I recall hearing that too but their filings don't make this clear. I'm wondering if the confusion came with his request for the "original recording" and transcript. This has me leaning toward it being the court reporters original recording (by device) that the court reporter later transcribed, and not audio. I think we will find out soon enough because now, I think they will finally get it.

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

I was a bit surprised too, even given the AG's own disciplinary problems of 11/2 since he has an office full of people who could have handled this. His office already appeared in this matter too, representing the DOC to quash the subpoena. Maybe that's why. Or, maybe he knows she violated rules and doesn't want that attached to his office given what just occurred with him. We will likely never know. But, I am curious about the docket potentially growing. I didn't look close enough at it but is she using this adjournment to put the docket back together again so she can argue that the Indiana Supreme Court should dismiss the writ as moot? That would be a potential play.

jmo

Imagine Gull arguing to SCOIN that SCOIN should go full Gull and dismiss the writ as moot ...
that feels a bit Monty Pythonesque.

Perhaps Gull is acknowledging errors and taking advance voluntary corrective action ... which she would never have done without the writ? And if that's the case, keep that writ and the SCOIN's answer on the record so everyone else in IN can learn from the SCOIN instruction/ruling. JMHO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Imagine Gull arguing to SCOIN that SCOIN should go full Gull and dismiss the writ as moot ...
that feels a bit Monty Pythonesque.

Perhaps Gull is acknowledging errors and taking advance voluntary corrective action ... which she would never have done without the writ? And if that's the case, keep that writ and the SCOIN's answer on the record so everyone else in IN can learn from the SCOIN instruction/ruling. JMHO

It would be tragically unjust imo.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I was a bit surprised too, even given the AG's own disciplinary problems of 11/2 since he has an office full of people who could have handled this. His office already appeared in this matter too, representing the DOC to quash the subpoena. Maybe that's why. Or, maybe he knows she violated rules and doesn't want that attached to his office given what just occurred with him. We will likely never know. But, I am curious about the docket potentially growing. I didn't look close enough at it but is she using this adjournment to put the docket back together again so she can argue that the Indiana Supreme Court should dismiss the writ as moot? That would be a potential play.

jmo

When JG did her doc dump, I copied the CCS through June 22, 2023 with the thought of joining the documents with their entry dates. I deleted all of the scheduling activities and automated emails; then I grouped the entries by date. I'll be able to tell if she has updated any of those entries unless it's an item that is included as part of the entry ( like the things only attys can see).
Here it is if anyone wants it.