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

[CGBSpender]

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

I am not buying what they are selling about not having notice that this was going down. BR sent that Ex Parte letter on October 12th to JG...at that point they already knew that NM had recommended they be removed...and he was giving his side of the situation...AB's lawyer subsequently did the same thing with his filing prior to the 19th. I guess the question I have is...was the former D entitled to notice of any such hearing? Isn't the process simply the Judge investigating the facts, and making a ruling...and if the D and client disagree...they file an interlocutory appeal? I could be totally wrong, but I didn't think this administrative process called for notice and an opportunity for the D to present information at that juncture?

JMO

 

[duckcat]

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?

Really helpful timeline. Something to add:
10/6 BW (man who filed a lawsuit against CC and received a table of contents of discovery accidentally from Baldwin’s office, was also in contact with MR) A search warrant is executed at his home.
10/11 BW back in jail for violating terms of release

 

[zh0r4]

Amicus Brief has been filed by the Indiana Public Defender Council

Amicus Brief.pdf

drive.google.com

This is awesome. JMO.

Bbm

p. 10-11

“Mr. Allen was pleased with the work of
his initially appointed public defenders. Mr. Allen and the public that funds his defense should be entitled to more than vague and broad concerns about "gross negligence" and that a judge "cannot and will not allow these attorneys to represent you I can't do it, sir. I just can't." Record Vol. 2, p. 26. Such statements do not engender confidence in the criminal justice system for criminal defendants, many of whom believe that appointed counsel is not a "real lawyer" but a "public pretender" or a lawyer who works for the State. When followed, the statutes and decisional law outlined above provide some means to dispel these misconceptions. When not followed, the trust and rapport developed during a full year of intensive representation is lost and Mr. Allen is left to wait nine additional months incarcerated in the Department of Correction under conditions that he and his counsel of choice have stated undermine his ability to prepare his defense.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Is/ Bernice Corley
Bernice Corley, 22315-49

Is/ Joel Schumm
Joel Schumm, 20661-49”

 

[Jurisprudence]

[sbbm] ... Soon after that we had our phone conference between the 4 of us.

Who were the 4? Is this evidence they unwittingly put on the record of an ex parte communication that took place prior to the time defense counsel was advised or was this after defense counsel was told?

jmo

 

[Salah11]

But consider if your statement was changed to this:


jmo

They are still accountable because it’s their office that it happened from.

 

[zh0r4]

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.

You think 2 highly qualified lawyers would let an internet blogger write a document for any client for them instead of writing it themselves? Especially a client they presumably believe is innocent? Maybe I am misunderstanding.

 

[photographer4]

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

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Yes! Thank you - that is what I meant, and I clearly need coffee - pls pass the coffee! Sorry if I just confused everyone! Thank you @Jurisprudence for helping here!

 

[Jurisprudence]

I am not buying what they are selling about not having notice that this was going down. BR sent that Ex Parte letter on October 12th to JG...at that point they already knew that NM had recommended they be removed...and he was giving his side of the situation...AB's lawyer subsequently did the same thing with his filing prior to the 19th. I guess the question I have is...was the former D entitled to notice of any such hearing? Isn't the process simply the Judge investigating the facts, and making a ruling...and if the D and client disagree...they file an interlocutory appeal? I could be totally wrong, but I didn't think this administrative process called for notice and an opportunity for the D to present information at that juncture?

JMO

I understand. I think the problem comes with what one considers notice. The definition of notice in the traditional sense as you are viewing it is not the same as the definition of required notice under the law. It's different. There are rules in place that have to be followed. One is notice on the record and an opportunity to be heard (and with that a reasonable opportunity to prepare for that hearing). Don't forget too, RA was not even in the room. That's huge.

jmo

 

[iamshadow21]

You think 2 highly qualified lawyers would let an internet blogger write a document for any client for them instead of writing it themselves? Especially a client they presumably believe is innocent? Maybe I am misunderstanding.

Well, it wouldn't exactly be out of the realm of possibility, given what else we've seen so far from the defense side.

MOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

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.”?

Per MS podcast they looked into the chain of individuals that had leaked the photos through Facebook messenger. This evidence had been turned over to LE during a formal interview on 10/9.
They had evidence that MW had leaked the photos to RF and RF had leaked the photos to Mark ( IMO in Texas) and othe individuals. Mark sent the photos to MS along with Facebook messenger chain.
What they didn’t know is who else RF leaked photos to, and if he had any involvement with defense or in the plan to steal and distribute the photos.

 

[CGBSpender]

I understand. I think the problem comes with what one considers notice. The definition of notice in the traditional sense as you are viewing it is not the same as the definition of required notice under the law. It's different. There are rules in place that have to be followed. One is notice on the record and an opportunity to be heard (and with that a reasonable opportunity to prepare for that hearing). Don't forget too, RA was not even in the room. That's huge.

jmo

I get that...sorry...I didn't word it well...what I'm questioning is whether or not the former D and/or RA were legally entitled to formal notice of that process that JG may have had to commence on the 19th?

JMO

 

[LaurelTedytamer]

Gah we should be discussing the search warrant and bullet evidence rather than rollercoaster of secrecy, defense attorneys’ attorneys and Judge’s attorney.

 

[photographer4]

and• A third party impermissibly photographing discovery without the knowledge or consent of either lawyer.

I wonder whose wording this^^^ was because I don't think this explains the negligent part very well.

The negligence comes from the fact that the 'sealed' discovery photos were left, unattended in an unlocked conference room. And left unattended long enough for a visitor to walk in unnoticed and snap photos, without being stopped.

It's not just that a 3rd party took photos w/out consent---it's that they were able to do so because of the negligence of the attorneys.

I don't find this negligent - we do not know if MW was expected to drop by? Was he expected to wait in the waiting area (if such existed?). Where had he waited for his friend on prior visits? I see no problem with a conference room being unlocked, and unattended if the lawyer was in his own office, on a call or in a meeting of some sort - especially if he wasn't expecting anyone to drop by. But even if he expected his friend to pop in, the friend seems to have just seen the material was out, gone in to look, take photos and leak them. That isn't the Defence's fault.

 

[zh0r4]

Who were the 4? Is this evidence they unwittingly put on the record of an ex parte communication that took place prior to the time defense counsel was advised or was this after defense counsel was told?

jmo

I am also curious who the 4 are. Does he mean McL, JG, BR, and AB? Are these phone conferences typically recorded for the record?

 

[photographer4]

BINGO

No way that Mitch just snuck in without anyone knowing he was there. . You don't find your way into an empty conference room full of sealed trial documents unless everyone in the office is OK with you wandering around.

I worked in my Dad's front office. He would have killed me if I let someone back in the private office areas without an appointment or invitation, and even then I had to buzz him and announce their presence.

You don't just walk into a law office private sanctum and start poking around unless you are considered part of the group. JMO

We don't know that there was anyone else IN the office to notice the dude do this though! It sounds like it was an office and a conference room set up. Doesn't sound like a massive firm with many offices specific to his practice / other employees.

 

[zh0r4]

They are still accountable because it’s their office that it happened from.

Does this mean if someone steals your car, you are responsible bc it is your car and you left it parked there?

 

[photographer4]

IDK. They must have a pretty lax law office if someone can just walk in past the front desk and go into the private areas where sealed trial documents are laying around.

We do not know if there was a front office though. It is possible there isn't. If for instance - if this is just an office and a conference room in a building, its possible its not manned front desk. I've rented an office space in a building where many professionals from various walks of life have also worked and no one would have even noticed if I'd gone into someone else's office, or them into mine. No one even knew who was who or who worked in what field really!

This could also have been a small set up without any other offices / front desk staff etc.

 

[Salah11]

Does this mean if someone steals your car, you are responsible bc it is your car and you left it parked there?

Completely different when this is confidential information that’s been leaked of a horrific crime scene that involved children. The two are not comparable at all im afraid.

 

[photographer4]

I don't think that is legally correct. I do think court appointed attorneys can be 'fired' for cause.


If the attorneys had already orally withdrawn in chambers, then the judge can table their motions. It wasn't probably the best decision but it is a legal issue that is going to be worked through this week.

These 2 attorneys aren't doing RA any favours. They are going to put him into a LWOP sentence if they continue as they have been.

The jury is not going to believe that a cult of Odin prison guards killed the girls in a forest ritual sacrifice that day.

Why not? Many online case followers seem to have no problem believing this - all one needs to do is read across various social media sites devoted to discussions regarding this case to realize this theory seems quite valid to many followers from varied professions!

 

[zh0r4]

Per MS podcast they looked into the chain of individuals that had leaked the photos through Facebook messenger. This evidence had been turned over to LE during a formal interview on 10/9.
They had evidence that MW had leaked the photos to RF and RF had leaked the photos to Mark ( IMO in Texas) and othe individuals. Mark sent the photos to MS along with Facebook messenger chain.
What they didn’t know is who else RF leaked photos to, and if he had any involvement with defense or in the plan to steal and distribute the photos.

Has Mark (C) not been officially named? But RF and MW were named? Why is MC not being named and held accountable for circulating these photos?