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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the document *[1] all he did was slip into a conference room, one time, and he saw the photos there in that room.And then copied them.

So he wasn't going in and out of where discovery was kept. Apparently it had been left out in an empty conference room. That seems very negligent.

And there was no mention of him being signed in as someone allowed by the court to do so.


Brief
*[1]
In August 2023, a former employee of Attorney Baldwin’s office, Mitchell Westerman, stopped by Baldwin’s office to visit. [R2, 34]. Westerman slipped into a conference room where he found crime scene photos, and by his own admission secretly photographed some of the discovery material and disseminated it

He could have been subpoenaed if they had a formal hearing. Then we'd have a better chance of knowing the full facts. Talking to your friend, fessing up via affidavit (under oath) with limited detail is not the same as what they might have elicited if he was actually subpoenaed and put on the stand. So for me it's all still speculation.

jmo
 
Amicus Brief has been filed by the Indiana Public Defender Council
Thank you.
12 pgs... I'll add that to the other few hundred that I'm wading through.
OR could you serve up a small summary paragraph?

ETA: OK, I'm trying to wade through it and this sure jumped out at me:

"IPDC is unaware of the removal of an Indiana prosecutor under
circumstances of alleged “gross negligence.” Public defenders deserve the same
treatment as prosecutors by Indiana’s trial courts."
 
Last edited:
This is an aside and a theory, i don’t know where I’m going with this, but I had a gut instant feeling that the Memo writing style reminded me of the blogger RL whom many of us loathe.

He even wrote a blog post after it was released and spent a whole section talking about how he’s been working with the defense for months.

I agree that the writing style is unusual and uncharacteristic of a lawyer. The timeline of it getting drafted and released seems related to the leak.
Wow, I didn't know that. It did seem like the filing of that document was not a surprise to some true crime people on social media...but I didn't think much of it at the time. I was thinking maybe someone might have tipped the media off to keep an eye out for a filing...it never occurred to me to consider whether non-lawyer internet followers might have had more intimate knowledge of things being prepared for RA's defense. Certainly at least RF and MR seemed to be in the know based on what we know now.

Edit: I was also a bit surprised when I saw AB's attorney call the Franks Memo a "work of art" in one filing...that seemed really odd.

JMO
 
[sbm] I read some of AB's opinion pieces that he wrote some years ago in the local newspaper in Franklin, Indiana. I will say....this guy is a decent writer, opinionated, and doesn't hold back. I feel like there is something else going on here that we are missing...because this guy to me does not get coerced into doing anything he doesn't want to do. After reading more about him...I feel like if AB didn't want to resign as counsel on the 19th...he wouldn't have done it...this is not someone that can be pushed around or told what to do.

Moo, I said (probably a full thread back at this point) before we even saw their filings that they likely did what they did (withdraw) to protect their client RA and to preserve his defense theory from the fallout of what JG read to them in chambers from her prepared statement. I didn't say this out of any genius. I said it because it was the one reason that seemed completely logical to me. Now they have stated in their filings exactly this and people still think they are lying. I don't understand at all.

jmo
 
Moo, I said (probably a full thread back at this point) before we even saw their filings that they likely did what they did (withdraw) to protect their client RA and to preserve his defense theory from the fallout of what JG read to them in chambers from her prepared statement. I didn't say this out of any genius. I said it because it was the one reason that seemed completely logical to me. Now they have stated in their filings exactly this and people still think they are lying. I don't understand at all.

jmo
How is the theory damaged for RA if they had made a different choice? I don't quite follow.

JMO
 
He could have been subpoenaed if they had a formal hearing. Then we'd have a better chance of knowing the full facts. Talking to your friend, fessing up via affidavit (under oath) with limited detail is not the same as what they might have elicited if he was actually subpoenaed and put on the stand. So for me it's all still speculation.

jmo
That makes sense. It also makes me wonder though...what if they did? It sounds like there were members of LE in Court available to testify if needed on the 19th if it proceeded to a formal hearing...maybe MW was waiting in the wings too?

JMO
 
Amicus Brief has been filed by the Indiana Public Defender Council
Good points throughout! Worth the read; I had no idea CaCo had a plan.
B. Counsel was replaced without regard to Carroll County’s comprehensive plan.
C. Public defense in Allen County is also affected.

Conclusion
The issues presented in this case justify the intervention of this Court at this
stage to preserve the independence of defense counsel and the integrity of the public
defense structures established by the General Assembly. The Court can uphold
these essential values by reinstating Mr. Allen’s initial and desired counsel. In the
alternative, the Court should direct the Respondent court to follow Indiana Code
section 33-40-7-10(b) by referring the case to the state public defender for selection
of counsel.
 
How is the theory damaged for RA if they had made a different choice? I don't quite follow.

JMO

I want to preface this post as being based on only the facts we know and on a general sense of why those facts we knew at the time struck me as this being the reason. It is only my opinion (and gut), not fact. It would be extremely prejudicial to RA's defense and his constitutional right to a fair trial to have the judge read in open court on television (the one and only time she allowed cameras) a statement that her attorneys were grossly negligent and perhaps even alleging that they "lied" in their sworn filings to the court as the prosecution accused them of (an extremely serious violation which also translates into a possible future disciplinary problem for Lebrato if it is indeed false jmo). Their conduct would have been imputed to RA and the taint to the jury pool could have been catastrophic. This is only my opinion. I have no crystal ball of course, but in assessing the fallout of a potential action by the judge like the reading of a prepared statement on television, without notice and opportunity to be heard and/or to call witnesses vs tell her what she wants to protect the client while saving the right to contest for another day, the latter is the first place my mind went.

At the start of the post I intentionally stated "based on only the facts we know" because that in-chambers transcript - her reading of that prepared statement and what it exactly said (and how it was said if there is audio) will tell us a lot imo.

jmo
 
Last edited:
That makes sense. It also makes me wonder though...what if they did? It sounds like there were members of LE in Court available to testify if needed on the 19th if it proceeded to a formal hearing...maybe MW was waiting in the wings too?

JMO

I don't think so. This is speculation only but is speculation based on these facts: The defense had no indication there would be a hearing on the matter on 10/19. There was no filing. No notice. No opportunity to prepare, including subpoenaing him. (ETA: Though I suppose it is possible they asked him to come voluntarily in case he was needed. That's always a possibility but I would think this would have been mentioned in the second writ brief filed in yesterday's new action)

jmo
 
Last edited:
Yes! The fire that killed ISP Officer Stephanie Thompson of Monticello (and her daughter Mya that also died in the fire...the husband was not home at the time, and the other child was away at college I believe)...the cause was ruled "undetermined". Not surprising...because there was very little left to that house if you look at the photos of it. She did polygraphs on the unsolved Flora Arson case, and worked on the Delphi case I believe. Her husband is also a Judge in White County, and one or both worked as EMTs I think at some point and/or volunteer emergency responders...this is not a home that one would think didn't have working smoke detectors...the fact that they didn't get out, and the amount of destruction to the home is very odd to me. I also feel like it would be odd if that house didn't have some kind of security system installed...with a cop and a judge living in it.

Something that stood out to me about the Thompson fire...that allegedly has been reported in some other arson cases in neighboring Counties...at least one neighbor of the Thompsons reported that they woke up around the time of the fire...not because of the fire itself...but because their power had gone out. It's almost like prior to some of these fires happening...the power is being cut...security cameras are not working...garage doors are not opening...etc.

I really hope there is some kind of investigation still ongoing with ISP and/or ATF on this and other arson fires in NW and Central Indiana...there seems to be a scary pattern.
(See: ArcGIS Dashboards)

JMO
Late ISP Stephanie Thompson is also who conducted the polygraph for EF’s sisters in the Franks Memo.
 
Is August not the same month that Baldwin/Rozzi informed Liggett and Holeman that they were aware of the Odin report?
Yes it is, they became aware through the depositions in August, and requested a meeting with Todd Click by 8/28.

I went back to the memo to check on the specific dates and footnote 67 caught my eye. "Just like [P1]'s video-taped interview, as of the date of the filing of this memorandum, the prosecutor still has not turned over the [P2] videotaped interview. The Defense only has a narrative that allegedly memorializes [P2]'s interview. The defense has requested both [P1]'s and [P2]'s videotaped interviews."

8/?/23 - D prepping materials for depositions including CS pics
8/?/23 - MW takes pics of the CS pics
8/8/23 - Sheriff Liggett deposition, learns D is interested in Odin/Rushville connections
8/?/23 - Holeman deposition
(these August events could be in a different order)
Week of 8/28/23 - Jerry Holeman requests meeting with Todd Click
Week of 9/4/23 - Click meets with Holeman and another detective
9/?/23 - Click submits affidavit regarding the meeting "I believe the interview was an attempt by them to clean up their loose ends"
9/18/23 - D file Franks Memo, note they are still waiting for videos of interviews of P1 and P2 and going to pick up another drop of discovery that day.
9/25/23 - Todd Click statement that no one in LE believes the murders were a ritual sacrifice and calling D theory sensationalist
9/26/23 - State responds to Frank's memo, confirms guards wore Odin patches, continues to oppose broadcasting
10/2/23 - D moves for discovery deadline
10/4/23 - D informs NM & JG they intend on going to trial on 1/8/24
10/5/23 - MS receive CS pics and alert Holeman
10/6/23 - youtuber posts he has also rec'd photos from anon email
10/8/23 - LE at home of MW, youtuber says he contacted Holeman and was told to delete pics and not asked the email that sent them
10/10/23 - D/NM/JG state suggests disqualification of defense counsel. JG indicates she is leaning toward disqualification. NM doesn't oppose motion for discovery, JG sets discovery deadline at 11/1/23. ISP try to interview RF
10/11/23 - 911 calls re: RF death
10/12/23 - NM alerts JG/D of death of RF by suicide and statements to wife. JG tells D to stop working on the case. BR submits letter opposing disqualification. JG sets hearing date for 10/19/23 re: "other matters which have recently arisen".
10/17/23 - JG orders allowing media recording of the 10/19 hearing for the first time.
10/19/23 - JG gives D "choice" to withdraw or be publicly shamed and then disqualified. AB orally withdraws, BR says he will submit in writing. JG asks them to return discovery. At hearing JG announces they withdrew and tells media she will appoint new counsel.

Did the D ever receive those videotaped interviews? Or were they disqualified via judicial overstepping before P was forced to hand them over?
 
Last edited:
So I'm wondering if defense diaries and SleuthieGoosie are now considered defense investigative sources and made privy to discovery? I mean they were used by an appellate lawyer on their way to the SC to argue (God knows what but I'll give it a try) the Delphi case.

The photos themselves, after reading BR's confidential letter to JG, were only shared by MW with an army buddy (who God bless him has since passed on). So we are to believe that this deceased army buddy shared them with various youtubers and a Texas guy and MW was blameless?

And oh yeah the "F-tree" picture, no big deal as far as defense is concerned, was leaked somewhere else as were the descriptions of the girl's crime scene so what's the fault really? Oh but they do feel bad for the families, how considerate.

They said they told Nick right away when guilty conscience MW came to see AB and confessed. Well BR left out the exact date in October when that occured (everything else had exact dates IIRC) so I can't really judge that statement's validity.

Now a confidential letter and affidavit have leaked...
You forgot to mention the Defence and their accidental emailing of some discovery document to some random citizen - Its mentioned in one of the docs above.
 
You forgot to mention the Defence and their accidental emailing of some discovery document to some random citizen - Its mentioned in one of the docs above.

I don't believe this is correct. Brief 2, Page 6:

"On December 21, 2022, Rick’s counsel, Andrew Baldwin, inadvertently emailed a summary log of the evidence on a flash drive received during discovery. The log did not contain any substantive evidence but was similar to a table of contents."

No discovery documents were ever emailed to an unauthorized party.

jmo

 
So are you saying that a judge is required to leave out of control attorneys on a case, and let them run roughshod over and ignore the judge’s orders, just because the defendant or the attorneys want to stay?
Or are you saying that attorneys who say they are resigning, then admit that they lied because it was part of their strategy should be allowed to turn everything in its head and remain on the case.
I feel like their fake resigning was their plan. They resign and there’s no hearing. Then they can whine about the judge not having a hearing. The judge showed them some grace by allowing them to resign….for abhorrent behavior…instead of blasting them in open court. They took advantage of her kindness. If she is removed they might as well let RA walk, because the wrong people will be winning this. Libby and Abby will not see justice, and Baldwin and Rozzi don’t care. I don’t think they care about RA either.
Whether or not that was their plan, Gull made the decision in the end on a hearing or not, that was on her. She shoulda held the hearing! It would be a lot less murky to have had an actual hearing, with a transcript, witnesses etc than to have to rely on he said / she said in chambers. :(

I'm not a fan of JG. She has made some really odd rulings in this matter, and sealed things that shouldn't have been, then unsealed them - but took weeks longer to release them than she stated it would take originally. She doesn't rule quickly on any matter brought to her attention and instead seems to prefer to take ages to review the least little thing.

The idea of justice in any major criminal proceeding is a falacy. There is no justice. There may be retribution, but there is no justice.
 
I am from the UK so thankfully a completely different system here. But photos leaked from the defenses office is grossly negligent especially when you consider these were all murdered children. It’s amazing being a outsider looking in that this system that something like this can happen and yet seemingly protected.

MOO
A lot of cognitive dissonance going on, I'm sure, when you're very familiar with one system of government and watch a different one in play! :) I admire your curiosity and interest in watching and trying to figure out what the heck is going on. I hope you're enjoying it a bit. When I watch your lively parliament, and the way you go through Prime Ministers, my head spins too!!

At this SCOIN (review) Court ... these are our civil rights being protected. Rights we all enjoy and we're quite fierce about them.

As the story we share from some centuries ago, folks from the UK area ... got on some tiny boats because they weren't entirely thrilled with the civil rights system across the pond ... took a good long time to figure out a new system, copied the French a bit, and here we are.

And so ... we have a republic, but only if we can keep it. Protecting our civil rights one major way of keeping our republic. It's election day here today, so forgive my digression.

(Don't forget to vote today, everyone!)

JHMO
 
No he did not give an interview. He stated he would speak to his attorney.
Also the leak was spread among defense friendly individuals that were staring the crime scene photos SUPPORTED the Odinist sacrifice sold by the defense in the memorandum.
This is the exact quote from the email from McLeland Oct 12 4:07AM:

“As part of the investigation, an ISP detective went to the Air Force Base in Fort Wayne to interview RF on Tuesday afternoon to get a statement from him about the leaked information. The goal was to 1) gather the photos that he had and make sure they were deleted from his phone and 2) find out who gave him the photos and who he gave the photos to.

RF met with the ISP detective but refused to answer any questions and stated that he wanted an attorney. Soon after that we had our phone conference between the 4 of us. At 10:00 P.M. last night, RF committed suicide. One self inflicted gun shot wound. He is married and has a teenage daughter. The initial information that I have is that his wife stated that he was worried sick about being in this situation and the last info that I have is that R stated to his wife that if I just be honest or "come clean" about where I got the photos I will be ok.”

If he didn’t talk and he immediately asked for a lawyer, how did they “2) find out who gave him the photos and who he gave the photos to.”?
 
I am from the UK so thankfully a completely different system here. But photos leaked from the defenses office is grossly negligent especially when you consider these were all murdered children. It’s amazing being a outsider looking in that this system that something like this can happen and yet seemingly protected.

MOO

But consider if your statement was changed to this:
".. photos stolen from the defenses office is a crime

jmo
 
Could you please check your reference for the statement in red? I've seen it said "the week of 10/2" and that's a lot different.
The statement written by BR does use the wording “ during the week of 10/2 the Defense became aware of a gentlemen in Texas who had claimed that crime scene photos has been leaked and that Andy was the party that leaked the photos. Naturally this called for immediate disclosure. Andy and I discussed the matter and believed that it was important to communicate our concerns with the prosecutor and Court. This disclosure was accomplished through emails you received from us last week.”

In the email that was written on 10/6 ( Friday) at 4:13pm by BR to JG states “ Of greater concern is the fact that a local content creator, by the name of Rick snay, has apparently communicated to the public that he has copies of the crime scene photos. I am attaching copies of the communication that was forwarded to one of our staff members by an uninvolved third party. “

Unless there are additional emails precluding this email from 10/6 ( which JG responded with dismay) then the “immediate disclosure” not only didn’t happen immediately it seems they made a completely different disclosure.
Why did they talk about a local content creator when they had been informed of a man in Texas that received the photos from the offices of the defense?
Was the man from Texas Mark? The same Mark they gave the photos and evidence of the leak to MS?
 
I am from the UK so thankfully a completely different system here.

[sbm] But it's not a completely different system. There are differences of course but our system of justice both civil and criminal is based on the English common law system. The one deviation from this is the state of Louisiana based on the civil code of Spain and France.

jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
1,886
Total visitors
2,035

Forum statistics

Threads
600,671
Messages
18,111,834
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top