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

[sunshineray]

Hearing on 11/15?? What is this about - the IN Supreme court case? TIA!

Yes, JG asked for more time to deliver anything she will be submitting to the SC.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Thanks for sharing your research.

Have you come across anything that addresses identifying a casing match to a specific individual gun when the casing was ejected from a gun five years prior to the identification testing?

i.e. When a gun is used over 5 years, do the casing markings change over time and use?

I didn't come across anything that specifically talked about this in detail but but things like rust, regular use of the gun, etc can impact the markings that it would make on the cartridges, which are used in order to match to an individual gun.
Some quotes on this from the Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise:

The subsequent use of the firearm adds further individual imperfections. For example, mechanical action (erosion) caused by the friction of bullets passing through the bore of the firearm produces accidental imperfections. Similarly, chemical action (corrosion) caused by moisture (rust), as well as primer and propellant chemicals, produce other imperfections.

The condition of a firearm or evidence bullet may preclude an identification. For example, there may be insufficient marks on the bullet or, because of mutilation, an insufficient amount of the bullet may have been recovered. Likewise, if the bore of the firearm has changed significantly as a result of erosion or corrosion, an identification may be impossible. (Unlike fingerprints, firearms change over time.)

 

[sunshineray]

I perceive this situation very similar to you. JMP, as you said, I think AB and the ex-employee collaborated or at least AB liked to bounce ideas and get feedback from him with the understanding that due to the gag order the printed pictures and documents could not be copied and disseminated outside the office. I suppose he put blind faith in his friend and former employee.

Unfortunately AB’s trust was betrayed by his friend who seemed to know that AB’s hard copy of the discovery was not locked in his office or his file cabinet, at least not during the work day, when he found it more convenient to keep the door unlocked so he could walk in and out without the hassle. When AB was absent and unaware the ex-employee made copies to share with a friend or connect who in turned shared it with multiple people, including the individual who would inform MS and shared the pictures with them and possibly others.

IMO they knew they were breaking the law due to the gag order which is why they seem to draw out vows to protect each other should their identities and actions become public or discovered by LE. Others online have mentioned that it is possible that man from Fishers probably felt overwhelmed and distressed with the implications of he and his family losing his position, benefits and place among the U.S. Air Force base if he was found guilty or linked to the crime.

Tragic and just so unnecessary </3

 

[Emma Peel]

I didn't come across anything that specifically talked about this in detail but but things like rust, regular use of the gun, etc can impact the markings that it would make on the cartridges, which are used in order to match to an individual gun.
Some quotes on this from the Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise:

SBM and BBM

Thank you.

So, not exactly a smoking gun. (sorry for the gun pun)

It seems to me the 5 year time gap for testing, plus the chain of custody, who found the casing and when, and the fact the the Crime Scene team missed the bullet ... combined with the 50/50 science on this type of evidence the experts are obliged to reference ... means the P won't build their case around that casing ... IMO, it will be offered as possibly corroborative - at best.
JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

Exactly and even the paralegals, investigators etc that do work there but aren't lawyers are required to sign that they will protect discovery they're exposed in doing their jobs. AB definitely has some explaining to do in all this. Very odd that his personal attorney has withdrawn considering the hot water AB must be in. Has H been replaced? AJMO

IIRC and JMO, H entered his withdrawal in Gull's court b/c his clients had already entered their w/ds ... not to mention ... H's withdrawal language put "judicial overreach" on the record as the reason he withdrew. I could be wrong, but I read that as H laying down the gauntlet on behalf of his clients.

 

[sunshineray]

IIRC and JMO, H entered his withdrawal in Gull's court b/c his clients had already entered their w/ds ... not to mention ... H's withdrawal language put "judicial overreach" on the record as the reason he withdrew. I could be wrong, but I read that as H laying down the gauntlet on behalf of his clients.

Laying down a gauntlet he wants no part of...interesting. When parties come before the SC, if asked to testify or submit evidence, are they required to have council?

 

[Emma Peel]

Laying down a gauntlet he wants no part of...interesting. When parties come before the SC, if asked to testify or submit evidence, are they required to have council?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
Were you referencing Hennessey's withdrawal of his temporary appearance from Gull's court?
I've seen no reference that H has withdrawn as B & R's counsel.

There is a list of interested parties noticed by the SCION on the RA docket there. Not sure if H is on the list, but B & R and the New D are all on that list. Parties have been advised to get any additional papers in to SCION by deadline. JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

But he was not allowed to collaborate or bounce ideas off MW because MW was NOT included in people he was allowed to share this info with.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf (begins at Page 212 & 213)
5. That the discovery material may be viewed only by parties, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts.
7. That none of the discovery material shall be divulged to any person not authorized to view the discovery material; this includes other witnesses, family members, relatives and friends of the Defendant.
8. That no person other than the Defendant, Counsel for the Defendant and those persons listed in paragraph 5 shall be granted access to said discovery material, or the substance of any portion thereof unless that person has signed an agreement in writing that he or she has received a copy of this Order and that he or she submits to the Court’s jurisdiction and authority with respect to the discovery; agrees to be subject to the Court's contempt powers for any violation of this Order; and is‘ granted prior permission by this Court to access said discovery.


So AB did not comply with the court's orders in terms of this discovery info. He was not allowed to discuss it with MW at all. Let alone show him the pictures. Showing him the secret files and leaving him access to the discovery is gross negligence on AB's part. IMO



'Friends' were specifically mentioned as NOT ALLOWED access to this material. So who cares if his friend betrayed him. He was specifically ordered not to share this info with any friends or family.


Again, gross negligence. AB didn't want 'the hassle' of locking his doors and locking away the secret discovery materials, so he left himself vulnerable, to people he was not supposed to share that info with in the first place.


Total negligence on AB that anyone was able to make those copies and even knew about them and where they were kept.


It ended up in a tragic suicide and that gave every right to the judge to shut this attorney down and end their negligence, and irresponsible actions from continuing to affect this case. JMO

RBBM - in RED

To clarify, you're not suggesting it was a suicide that gave the right to the judge to shut this attorney down. Correct? It's all the other stuff.

 

[sunshineray]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
Were you referencing Hennessey's withdrawal of his temporary appearance from Gull's court?
I've seen no reference that H has withdrawn as B & R's counsel.

There is a list of interested parties noticed by the SCION on the RA docket there. Not sure if H is on the list, but B & R and the New D are all on that list. Parties have been advised to get any additional papers in to SCION by deadline. JMO

Didn't H send a letter saying he withdrew as AB's council?

 

[Ward Thisperer]

It named witnesses and explained what they saw and where.

To be fair to them, previous documents released by the court had already named the witnesses and explained what they saw and where. (Available in the doc dump made public by Gull, the Affidavit for Search Warrant names all witnesses including the juveniles.)

It laid out in great detail what the defense's strategy for trial was going to be.

Just as the PCA lays out the strategy for the prosecution. Based on feedback from other defense attorneys it seems like laying out their narrative would generally be seen as helpful to their defendant in countering the public narrative laid out by the prosecution via the PCA, which ends up impacting the narrative available to whoever may end up on their jury.
I certainly understand not approving of including the names of the other individuals as part of this, or the description of the crime scene, but imo I don't think that getting their strategy/narrative out there was wrong.

 

[sunshineray]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
Were you referencing Hennessey's withdrawal of his temporary appearance from Gull's court?
I've seen no reference that H has withdrawn as B & R's counsel.

There is a list of interested parties noticed by the SCION on the RA docket there. Not sure if H is on the list, but B & R and the New D are all on that list. Parties have been advised to get any additional papers in to SCION by deadline. JMO

IIRC A&B were on that list? Does everyone involved, testifying or submitting evidence, need to have their own council when coming before the SC?

 

[O.Incandenza]

Didn't H send a letter saying he withdrew as AB's council?

No. He just withdrew from his limited appearance in the Delphi case. He only appeared in the case in an attempt to represent AB at the 10/19 and 10/31 hearings. So once the judge refused to allow Baldwin and Rozzi to continue as RA's counsel, it makes sense for him to withdraw his appearance as well. It doesn't mean he stopped representing AB.

It's similar to Wienekie. She has filed a limited appearance in the case in an attempt to get a transcript of the 10/19 chambers meeting. Once/if she gets that, she'll withdraw from the case because the reason for her appearance wouldn't exist anymore.

 

[Emma Peel]

Didn't H send a letter saying he withdrew as AB's council?

Not that I'm aware of. He withdrew from his temp appearance at Gull's Court, not from his client, IMO.

H hasn't submitted much to Gull's Court (temporary appearance, and withdrawal of that appearance, a pre-Oct 19th hearing memo and his statement from Oct 31 hearing). But, his submissions have been bombshells. H's last submission was the written record of what he read to Gull at the last hearing; making certain the D's arguments against Gull's no-due-process removal of RA's counsel made it on the record in spite of Gull's persistent fact-blocking. That record prevents Gull from asserting that she conducted a fair due process in "finding" upon "deliberation" that the just and fair action for all parties was to fully deny RA his two attorneys of choice and delay his trial another year. JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

IIRC A&B were on that list? Does everyone involved, testifying or submitting evidence, need to have their own council when coming before the SC?

This appeal (writ) under SCION concerns RA's complaints under the Old D's tenure.

This RA action at the SCION calls for a review of the errors of the lower Court; it is not an action against the Defense.

IMO the Old Defense can submit evidence (likely) in support of their client's (RA) position (regarding his interests/rights of due process/transparency) before the SCION.

The Weineke et. al. attorneys arguing RA's matter at SCION are appellate specialists. They could be working in concert w/ the Old D ... but in the brief these appellate counselors state they are repping not only RA's interests but the interest of the public as to transparency.

Technically, I don't know if the SCION frequently explores adjacent issues brought up in writ filing (issues beyond the specific review request on transparency of records). (For example - the obvious issue of the removal of RA's counsel without any record of findings supporting the removal). As to powers, SCION can poke about and explore and advise and rule upon less or more or ... pretty much whatever they deem relevant to their review.

 

[Dhighsmith]

Although deadly serious business, as a bit of a legal junkie, i had to laugh at all the internet lawyers who felt Rozzi was playing 9 dimensional chess, only to get strung up by Gull after some increasingly meek submissions (according to MS)

I take more seriously than others the allegation that the defence were wildly irresponsible in the drafting of their Franks memo. For instance, only last week Rozzi claims in writing he never agreed to resign from the case, yet in oral arguments yesterday, he agreed with Gull that he had in fact agreed to withdraw in chambers but as it was unfair he was now trying to do Backsies.

Whatever the procedural flaws, IMO you cannot do that as counsel.

It's beyond to obvious to me that the Odinist stuff is a wild conspiracy, and if you actually had a strong franks case, which would almost certainly collapse the trial, why the hell would you be publishing 100 pages of fan fic?

So yeah - not a fan.

Such a relief, “Common Sense” has not been abandoned like I feared!

 

[Emma Peel]

Such a relief, “Common Sense” has not been abandoned like I feared!

Fortunately, it appears we'll have SCION weigh in with "legal sense" that is (presumably) weightier than "common sense" given the venue within which these arguments exist. These are technical arguments. Emotion and false arguments are (theoretically) removed.

 

[sunshineray]

No. He just withdrew from his limited appearance in the Delphi case. He only appeared in the case in an attempt to represent AB at the 10/19 and 10/31 hearings. So once the judge refused to allow Baldwin and Rozzi to continue as RA's counsel, it makes sense for him to withdraw his appearance as well. It doesn't mean he stopped representing AB.

It's similar to Wienekie. She has filed a limited appearance in the case in an attempt to get a transcript of the 10/19 chambers meeting. Once/if she gets that, she'll withdraw from the case because the reason for her appearance wouldn't exist anymore.

So is H then still involved in the whole Delphi mess going to the SC?

 

[sunshineray]

This appeal (writ) under SCION concerns RA's complaints under the Old D's tenure.

This RA action at the SCION calls for a review of the errors of the lower Court; it is not an action against the Defense.

IMO the Old Defense can submit evidence (likely) in support of their client's (RA) position (regarding his interests/rights of due process/transparency) before the SCION.

The Weineke et. al. attorneys arguing RA's matter at SCION are appellate specialists. They could be working in concert w/ the Old D ... but in the brief these appellate counselors state they are repping not only RA's interests but the interest of the public as to transparency.

Technically, I don't know if the SCION frequently explores adjacent issues brought up in writ filing (issues beyond the specific review request on transparency of records). (For example - the obvious issue of the removal of RA's counsel without any record of findings supporting the removal). As to powers, SCION can poke about and explore and advise and rule upon less or more or ... pretty much whatever they deem relevant to their review.

SC was not asked to review the judge herself...whether recuse or removal is warranted?

This is all so confusing, more and more as it goes along.

 

[O.Incandenza]

SC was not asked to review the judge herself...whether recuse or removal is warranted?

This is all so confusing, more and more as it goes along.

Not yet. Wieneke appearing in the Delphi case and requesting the transcript of the in-chambers meeting "for an original action" seems like an indication that the attorneys who filed the first petition with the Supreme Court are also interested in petitioning about Rozzi & Baldwin's removal from the case. But they haven't filed anything about that yet. I'd imagine they'll want to see that transcript (assuming it exists) before they decide on what, if anything, they'll file.

 

[zh0r4]

From Wieneke Law Office, LLC. 8 hours ago:

https://x.com/wienekelo/status/1721126999765258534?s=46&t=rlxmmTQVKLhzP78ILfWjKQ