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

[photographer4]

You are missing a few things...

• The interview I assume you are referring to is the MS one...and that was recorded many months ago I believe.
• According to some of the recent filings, MW retained a lawyer, that lawyer has resigned their representation, and MW was being encouraged to obtain a new lawyer.
• From the new filings it appears that the former D knew about the leak "the week of Oct 2"...they were non-specific in the exact date...but it sounds like the former D probably knew about the leak before the P was made aware by ISP on Oct 5. If you recall...MS said they reported the possible issue to both ISP and the former D.
• There were text messages disclosed between the intermediary leaker RF and the Texas leaker MR, where RF references the source of his information as, "his guy" in "Franklin, IN"...which according to the docs recently released the former D is admitting that "guy" was MW their former employee and AB's friend.

I agree, there were other remedies to the Court...but the former D also doesn't seem to have reported the leak in a timely fashion...and whether foreseeable or not, a man involved in the leak has killed himself (a decorated veteran with a family)...it's messy, and very sad, and IMO the other remedies are not sufficient given the circumstances.

JMO

Respectfully, we cannot begin to presume to know why the decorated veteran killed himself. It could have been that he had suffered mental illness many years prior to this. As yet, we do not (and may never) know whether he had any prior mental health issues / suicidal ideation / suicide attempts. We do not know if he was taking any medication which may have led to his suicide (some medications can cause depression and suicidal ideation - one needs only to google to be horrified by some of the side effects of medications intended to lift one's anxiety or depression!). We don't know what happened at all. Just because he was involved in the leak of information does not necessarily mean that this was the sole reason for his demise. A factor possibly, but we cannot assume that.
Additionally, in one document summary above somewhere, someone noted that there were TWO 911 CALLS from the RF residence on the night of his death. One for "back pain" and then hours later a gun shot. What was going on in that household that day? We have no idea. If 911 was contacted twice, did they respond to the scene both times? One time? What was their assessment of the scene at the time? If they didn't attend the home for the "back pain" then why not? What was their direction to the caller? Who even called??

 

[photographer4]

I agree that the judge has been slow as molasses and I’ve griped about it before. The void caused by her slowness was filled by nonsense from the defense.
The ex-defense admitted all of this was their strategy. They have succeeded in vilifying everyone except themselves. They are not the victims here. They do not deserve the hero worship they are receiving.

To be clear, I'm not worshipping anyone in this matter. At all. I cannot think of a single official from this case who deserves any praise to date. Not one.

 

[Jurisprudence]

If an attorney has been ordered by the court to follow specific directions concerning sealed documents, then they are legally required to do so. Those crime scene photos were supposed to be kept away from friends, family, everyone except a very few select individuals.

So it was negligent, imo, to leave those classified documents in an unlocked room unsupervised. If he has those photos out on the conference room table and needs to go to a meeting or take a call then he needs to secure those sealed docs, or take them with him. You don't leave them in an unsupervised, unlocked room if you are legally responsible for keeping them secret. JMO

We don't know these facts. For all we know AB could have been prepping for depos, this could have been his war room in his small office, no outsiders were present in the main office, he briefly went to answer a call in his office and in the interim, MW walked in of his own accord. In this instance there would be no reason for AB to foresee that any evidence in the case would be examined by an outside party. I don't agree that it was foreseeable by AB that MW would take it upon himself to go into the conference room and snap pictures of the evidence with the intent to disseminate them for whatever reason - and there was a reason he did this which I wish we could learn.

We would know more if there had been a hearing. But, there wasn't one. Instead, imagine a judge asking the state who is prosecuting you if they think your lawyer should be let go and other counsel chosen and acquainted with them was appointed instead? It's unfathomable.

jmo

ETA: Record of Proceedings, Volume 2, Exhibit T, p. 5

Record of Proceedings Volume 2.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[photographer4]

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.”?

If he transmitted them electronically, then that wouldn't have been so hard for investigators to find out really. Forensic examination of his devices probably would have given them the info pretty easily.

 

[Jurisprudence]

To be clear, I'm not worshipping anyone in this matter. At all. I cannot think of a single official from this case who deserves any praise to date. Not one.

I agree. It's not about them. It's about the sanctity of the system. They keep getting mentioned only because they are the counsel for the accused that have been removed. It's not personal or a matter of taking one side over another. It's only a desire to make sure that things are done right.

jmo

 

[TL4S]

Nobody, even AB and BR, seems to be denying the ex-D's fault in the leak. AB's lax office space and communication style is apparently to blame, but that isn't in question, imo.

Jmo, but if JG had put a list on record of items she was going to discuss with the D at the Oct. 19th hearing, giving the D time to prepare a rebuttal, as the P was prepared with witnesses, this could have possibly been avoided. And where is the record of the in-chambers "hearing," if there is one?

Where is the official document determining "gross negligence" and why wasn't that available on the 19th?

As far as I'm concerned, we can hate RA and the ex-D all we want, but some of what has happened was due to JG's lack of proper procedure with her docket, and that's what she's answering for now.

I'm looking at all of these issues as separate entities, of sorts. They are not working together as they should be.

It's like sitting in a music room with fifteen 5 year olds, each with their own instrument, all playing at the same time. It's maddening.

 

[Emma Peel]

bbm I don't think so only because there has been far too much damage done to the case at this point. If a judge involved in anything like this were to remain on the case the verdict - whichever way it falls, I think would always be questioned. There have been far too many instances of the appearance of impropriety raised by the 2 supreme court actions that I can't see the supreme court leaving this be. And, this I think would be true even if JG is found to have done nothing wrong and that is bc it all goes to the need to remove even the "appearance."

jmo

BBM

IMO, JG realized this Oct 31 (the day after the 1st SCOIN filing) when she asked pro-bono BR this Q twice: "you haven't answered my question that nothing has changed in the 12 days since I found gross negligence on the part of the Defense in representing Mr. Allen." (quote from the transcript of the Oct 31 hearing in yesterday's SC motion Exhibits Vol 2 on this thread.)

The proceeding didn't get into the SC motion change but ...
Well, for one thing, JG's Defendant, had just brought an action against her Court to the SCOIN regarding this case. (There's a change for ya.)

IMO, with that SCION filing, JG's CONFLICT w/ RA's interests (or at least appearance of conflict) began.

And she knew it.
So for the pro-bono move, JG stuck with her "finding"; really the only logical thing to do. JMHO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

We don't know these facts. For all we know AB could have been prepping for depos, this could have been his war room in his small office, no outsiders were present in the main office, he briefly went to answer a call in his office and in the interim, MW walked in of his own accord. In this instance there would be no reason for AB to foresee that any evidence in the case would be examined by an outside party. I don't agree that it was foreseeable by AB that MW would take it upon himself to go into the conference room and snap pictures of the evidence for whatever reason - and there was a reason which I wish we could learn.

We would know more if there had been a hearing. But, there wasn't one. Instead, imagine a judge asking the state who is prosecuting you if they think your lawyer should be let go and other counsel chosen and acquainted with them was appointed instead? It's unfathomable.

jmo

The attorneys are responsible. It is their offices. The buck stops with them. It doesn’t matter if it was foreseeable by Baldwin or not. It was his responsibility to protect those photos and he knew it. Claiming to run a free flowing free spirited office does not excuse him. His responsibility and he knew it. He knew it and didn’t have the decency or desire to put forth the effort to protect their families or the girl’s memories. He is not a hero.
How this argument has morphed from “they leaked info but they shouldn’t have been dismissed” to “it’s not their fault at all” is astonishing to me.
Certainly MW is responsible too. Still don’t understand why he hasn’t been charged with something yet.
There would have been a hearing if B and R hadn’t resigned beforehand, which was their strategy according to them.

 

[zh0r4]

No but if my bank took my money out of my secure account and left it in the lobby near the deposit slips, and someone helped themselves to it. I would be blaming the bank for their gross negligence.

But the bank would have committed theft taking your money out of a secure account in the first place.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

The attorneys are responsible. It is their offices. The buck stops with them. It doesn’t matter if it was foreseeable by Baldwin or not. It was his responsibility to protect those photos and he knew it. Claiming to run a free flowing free spirited office does not excuse him. His responsibility and he knew it. He knew it and didn’t have the decency or desire to put forth the effort to protect their families or the girl’s memories. He is not a hero.

RSBM
I wholeheartedly agree. I am appalled what the defense has done here. I wonder if the possibility of a 16 million dollar judgement from a civil lawsuit for pain and anguish to the victims’ families would have made them more valiant in their efforts to secure these photos.
I also think the judge may have overstepped. I think she did it because of repeated patterns by the defense but that doesn’t make it right. IMO her decision to was to try to protect the defendant. She didn’t want his defense to be harmed because is the bad choices of his defense team. I have faith that that will be dealt properly and justice system will be righted.
The problem I see is that people are so busy chasing the judge down with fire and pitchforks they forgot a serious real injustice that was done just days before. Which has been a typical play from the defense time and time again.
So I keep circling back to the wrongdoings by defense because I am not satisfied with the explanations we have received so far. And I am concerned they are being forgotten.

 

[Jurisprudence]

The attorneys are responsible. It is their offices. The buck stops with them. It doesn’t matter if it was foreseeable by Baldwin or not.

[sbm]

Negligence is a civil law (tort) concept, not a criminal concept and the extent to which something is foreseeable is most certainly a factor in determining liability. ETA also see where local counsel said in their brief filed yesterday (also posted upthread) that negligence, even gross, is not a recognized ground to sever the attorney client relationship over the objections of the accused.

jmo

 

[Megnut]

I'm no lawyer, I've never played one on TV, but it seems to me we have a case of parallels.

I think a judge has the right to sanction public defenders, including removing them in cases of gross negligence and/or the perception there of.

Secondsrily these PDs were the acting attorneys at law for a suspect whose very case may or may not have been compromised....

I can't think of a time an accused murderer has been allowed into chambers. Is that a thing????? Seems dangerous, ill-advised.... and a confidentiality nightmare. How many baliffs and deputies would that require, to flank one individual?

More to the point, who was representing RA's best interest at that moment? His newly stripped, former public defenders (seems like they had interests of their own at that moment)? The judge herself? Overstep? Caution?

Like nearly every sudden arraignment, why wasn't RA assigned The Next Available Public Defender, to represent his best interest in chambers?

Isn't that how it's done? The attorneys meet in chambers, not the parties!

Admittedly I may be way off in the reeds all by mineself....

But I just don't see how his lead PD could continue to represent him when that PD may be up against chargers himself.

He had a duty to protect those files, images, etc. IMO snookery is not a defense.

Akin to showing the DailyMail sensitive crime scene photos and expecting some kind of honor code not to publish.

His office. His conference room. His fault.

JMO

 

[zh0r4]

Thank you for this great timeline! So very helpful

Making myself a note that it might be nice to add:
- the date JG's email between JG, P, D where JG put on her LE hat, and ordered LE to arrest and (until they gave the CS photos back) jail the "defense leakers"? Including who she ordered to do this?
- the date Hennessey filed temp appearance repping Baldwin and filed a memo - was it 10/18?
- MW's timeline from Rozzi's Oct 12th letter (e.g. when did MW confess to Baldwin?, timeframe MW lawyered up, MW's affidavit date, when was MW affidavit filed w/ Court (by H or Rozzi, iirc)).
- MS first podcast shaming everyone but themselves, naming names, announcing suicides.
- Date MS notifies ISP Holeman of receiving leak
- Date MS notifies Defense of reporting the leak to ISP
- Date 10/2-ish from Rozzi's letter timeline when D heard rumblings of leak?
- Date in Sept of leak of F-Tree CS photo and someone accusing D of leaking that photo?

(what should I do when I quote your questions?/do I bold and bbm them or? TIA)

bbm

-the date JG's email between JG, P, D where JG put on her LE hat, and ordered LE to arrest and (until they gave the CS photos back) jail the "defense leakers"? Including who she ordered to do this?
I am unsure if this is related to your question, but according to the exchanges emails, October 8, 2023 @ 11:05am, JG responds:

“Good morning Gentlemen,

Thank you for passing this troubling information along to me, I am quite disturbed by this new development. Since Nick has been made aware of this information, I am making some assumptions that I would like a response to:

1. I assume that law enforcement is investigating

2. I assume the "local contact creator", Rick Say, has been interviewed.

3. I assume the individuals named, Aine and Kevin, have been interviewed.

4. I assume law enforcement has demanded the return of the photographs in the possession of Rick Snay, Aine, and Kevin.

5. I assume that Brad and Andy have provided the name of their staff member and the uninvolved third party to Nick for interview by law enforcement.

I recall our communication back in December 2022 regarding an email from Andy to Brad which contained discovery information but was sent to the wrong "Brad" in Andy's address book. Has that individual been interviewed? Could that be the source of the leak?

l am also recalling a bill I received from Brad and Andy for duplication of exhibits by a vendor which I disallowed... is it possible that vendor is involved? Brad and Andy should share the name of that vendor and the date that vendor was hired to Nick and/or law enforcement for investigation as a possible source of the leak.

These local content creators are not journalists and have no right to claim any type of privilege. They should divulge to law enforcement who they got these photographs from to allow law enforcement to continue to investigate. The photographs must be returned to law enforcement. It they refuse to turn them over voluntarily. I will issue an order directing the immediate return or they will be subject to contempt of Court. That contempt will result in an immediate arrest and incarceration until such time as the photographs are returned. This is a drastic measure I should not have to take but will if necessary.

Each of you have numerous staff and assistants helping you with your work. I am also assuming that you all trust those individuals to maintain the integrity of the case and that you are confident none of those individuals are involved.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience what your thoughts are about moving forward.

J. Gull”

-the date Hennessey filed temp appearance repping Baldwin and filed a memo - was it 10/18?

I am unsure if things are being filed on mycase later than the date they are filed? (It also seems, as of right now, some stuff that was up is now down or either I’m doing it wrong @FrostedGlass ?)
Either way, Hennessy filed a PRAECIPE and MOTION TO RECONSIDER (linked below) on 10/27/2023. The same day, the docket had Motion to Reconsider, Praecipe, and Appearance Filed (pic of docket activity that day attached below). Does this mean Hennessy’s appearance was filed on 10/27?

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

MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Hennessy, filed 10/27/2023
Adobe Acrobat

-MW's timeline from Rozzi's Oct 12th letter (e.g. when did MW confess to Baldwin?, timeframe MW lawyered up, MW's affidavit date, when was MW affidavit filed w/ Court (by H or Rozzi, iirc)).

Per Rozzi’s 10/12 letter:
-Monday, October 9, 2023 4:00PM MW confessed to Balwin.
-October 9, 2023 4:48PM Baldwin emailed Rozzi abt the leak.
-October 10, 2023 abt 5PM Rozzi saw the email for the first time and called AB.
-October 11, 2023, afternoon, NM & JG were informed per the letter on Oct 12 “We agreed that we needed to disclose these facts to Nick, immediately, which we did. This occurred by way of a phone call with Nick just minutes before we spoke with you yesterday afternoon.”
-Between Oct 9-12, MW lawyered up.
-October 18, 2023 MW affidavit filed by Attorney Huntzinger.

-Date MS notifies ISP Holeman of receiving leak
October 5, 2023.

-Date 10/2-ish from Rozzi's letter timeline when D heard rumblings of leak?
October 2, 2023 “During the week of October 2nd the Defense became aware of a gentleman in Texas who had claimed that crime scene photos had been leaked and that Andy was the party who leaked the photos. Naturally, this called for some immediate disclosure. Andy and I discussed the matter and believed that it was important to communicate our concerns with the Prosecutor and Court.”

Idk the other dates, is there a way to search WS for when their shaming podcast originally aired?

 

[zh0r4]

BBM.
I have issue with the time in between the first moment defense claims to became aware of the leak ( Texas guy) and 10/9 when MW dropped by the office to admit to his participation in the leak.
The defense disclosed to Judge and Prosecution a completely different scenario in the 10/6 email. They pointed to Rick Snay. No mention of guy in Texas that seems to be directly related to one of their former employees.
Why did they mislead in this email? (Exhibit I)
What were they doing between the time they were first aware and emailing the judge and prosecution?
Record of Proceedings.pdf

They were probably trying to find out how and when this happened. Just bc some random guy named Mark from Texas blames them for something doesn’t mean they were the source of the leak (from their perspective). Numerous individuals had access to this information from 2017-2022. October 5 is when the podcasters allegedly contacted ISP abt leaked photos; presumably on October 6, the D still didn’t know where the leaks came from but alerted JG and P anyways (but they did find out RS has knowledge of the sticks per his YT). October 9 is when MW came forward to confess (and this is when they learned where the connection allegedly was).
JMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

BBM.
I have issue with the time in between the first moment defense claims to became aware of the leak ( Texas guy) and 10/9 when MW dropped by the office to admit to his participation in the leak.
The defense disclosed to Judge and Prosecution a completely different scenario in the 10/6 email. They pointed to Rick Snay. No mention of guy in Texas that seems to be directly related to one of their former employees.
Why did they mislead in this email? (Exhibit I)
What were they doing between the time they were first aware and emailing the judge and prosecution?
Record of Proceedings.pdf

Defense did not have to mention the Texas guy to LE because MS contacted both sides to let them know about the leak. That was on Oct 5.

The D probably also learned of RS the next day and sent that info to LE. Was RS the person that NmcL already knew about? I think MS must have made at least 2 calls to LE: one as soon as the the sun rose on Oct 5 and then again shortly thereafter when Texas contacted them.

From MS episode:
5:48 mm MS claim they were sent the crime scene photos in the early morning hours of Oct. 5, 2023. When the sun rose, they called LE to let them know there had been this massive crime scene leak. Shortly thereafter, the person who sent the images contacted MS and asked them to help plug the leak.

Not only did they reach out to LE that day and they also reached out to the the defense team to make sure they knew there had been a leak. At that point they didn't know where the leak was coming from. They felt it was prudent to alert both sides to the issue of what was going on.

The Delphi Murders: Leaked Crime Scene Photographs

Content warning: This episode contains discussion of suicide. This episode of The Murder Sheet will cover the recent catastrophic leak of crime scene photographs and other discovery material. Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com. The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC .

art19.com

 

[zh0r4]

We don't know these facts. For all we know AB could have been prepping for depos, this could have been his war room in his small office, no outsiders were present in the main office, he briefly went to answer a call in his office and in the interim, MW walked in of his own accord. In this instance there would be no reason for AB to foresee that any evidence in the case would be examined by an outside party. I don't agree that it was foreseeable by AB that MW would take it upon himself to go into the conference room and snap pictures of the evidence with the intent to disseminate them for whatever reason - and there was a reason he did this which I wish we could learn.

We would know more if there had been a hearing. But, there wasn't one. Instead, imagine a judge asking the state who is prosecuting you if they think your lawyer should be let go and other counsel chosen and acquainted with them was appointed instead? It's unfathomable.

jmo

ETA: Record of Proceedings, Volume 2, Exhibit T, p. 5

Record of Proceedings Volume 2.pdf

drive.google.com

I would love to know MW’s motive, there is always a motive. Usually money and/or power are the top 2 (for non-serial killers). JMO.

 

[zh0r4]

If he transmitted them electronically, then that wouldn't have been so hard for investigators to find out really. Forensic examination of his devices probably would have given them the info pretty easily.

Exactly. And I would love for the digital forensics to be properly recorded and filed, especially considering this is JG’s reason for DQing the D. Until there is recorded proof of something, in any situation, I remain skeptical. Who conducted the digital forensics? Where was this filed? JMO.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

[sbm]

Negligence is a civil law (tort) concept, not a criminal concept and the extent to which something is foreseeable is most certainly a factor in determining liability. ETA also see where local counsel said in their brief filed yesterday (also posted upthread) that negligence, even gross, is not a recognized ground to sever the attorney client relationship over the objections of the accused.

jmo

I don’t think either B and R have been charged either civilly or criminally. They’ve only been dismissed. So I don’t think I have to determine liability to realize they are responsible.
I have stopped caring what the ex-defense’s hired guns and cronies have to say about any of this as they push the narrative that the poor upon and persecuted B and R are totally blameless.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I am unsure if things are being filed on mycase later than the date they are filed? (It also seems, as of right now, some stuff that was up is now down or either I’m doing it wrong @FrostedGlass ?)
Either way, Hennessy filed a PRAECIPE and MOTION TO RECONSIDER (linked below) on 10/27/2023. The same day, the docket had Motion to Reconsider, Praecipe, and Appearance Filed (pic of docket activity that day attached below). Does this mean Hennessy’s appearance was filed on 10/27?

RS for focus. In mycase the date within the entry is the date that action took place. The date on the far left is when it appears in the CCS = mycase.

The date on the left can be a few days later than the one with the file stamp but should never be earlier. If you see something odd in mycase, try to get a screen cap of it.

10/27/2023

Appearance Filed Notice of Appearance For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/27/2023

 

[zh0r4]

RS for focus. In mycase the date within the entry is the date that action took place. The date on the far left is when it appears in the CCS = mycase.

The date on the left can be a few days later than the one with the file stamp but should never be earlier. If you see something odd in mycase, try to get a screen cap of it.

10/27/2023

Appearance Filed Notice of Appearance For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/27/2023

Tysm! I cannot find these 10/27 filings on mycase today, are they still up on your side? (In that case I am searching incorrectly)