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

[Jurisprudence]

It should have never been off track.
If the ex-defense team had behaved professionally from the get-go, we wouldn’t be here.

I know there is a lot of disagreement over their behavior but I think it is important for people to understand that the defense has a right to put forward a theory. If the Indiana Supreme Court accepts the second case I think they would have to consider whether they stepped out of bounds by including it in their Franks memo and if so, whether it was harmless considering that this is in-fact, the theory they planned to put forward, on the record, in public, anyway.

I also think it's important for people to look at the timeline and conduct of the state's investigators and LE. There seems to be video evidence that the state through their investigators and LE violated the gag order a number of times without any backlash from the court, prior to any theft of photos by MW. See #668

jmo

 

[Cyber sleuth]

From Exhibit K- 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.

I notice the former D does not commit to a firm date on when the former D became aware (just saying during the week of October 2nd). They sent the e-mail to JG "disclosing" on October 6...which appears to be after Rick Snay had posted on social media that he had photos of the crime scene. Doesn't exactly scream immediate disclosure to me...

JMO

Sure does not. I wonder why such a delay?

 

[legalmomma]

Richard Allen asks Indiana Supreme Court to order reinstatement of his defense team

Allen is requesting his old lawyers back, Special Judge Fran Gull removed, and his trial moved up.

www.wfft.com

...
, Allen is requesting that the Indiana Supreme Court to reinstate Baldwin and Rozzi as his defense counsel. He is also requesting his trial to be set within 70 days of the court acting upon his request. Allen is also asking for the Indiana Supreme Court to remove Gull from the case and to appoint a new special judge in her place.

As part of this filing, Allen is asking for a copy of the transcript of the meeting between Gull and his previous defense team before the October 19 hearing, where she announced they would no longer be on Allen's case. Allen's team needs the transcript before an appellate court could rule on his requests.

Allen's request, if granted, would place the beginning of his trial in January 2024, as was previously planned. However, in light of a new defense team being appointed for Allen, Gull moved his trial back to October and November of 2024.

 

[Jurisprudence]

From Exhibit K- 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.

I notice the former D does not commit to a firm date on when the former D became aware (just saying during the week of October 2nd). They sent the e-mail to JG "disclosing" on October 6...which appears to be after Rick Snay had posted on social media that he had photos of the crime scene. Doesn't exactly scream immediate disclosure to me...

JMO

The email in Exhibit I dated 10/6/2023 states they had just learned of it within the "last hour" (and they attached a copy of communication that made them aware of it).

They also state they immediately informed the prosecution only to learn from the prosecution that the state had known of this for at least 24-30 hours.

So, I have a more pressing question that I would love to know the answer to but I'm not sure we will learn it unless one of the parties before the state S Ct raises it.

"Did the state immediately inform the court?" And, if not, why not. And, why did they not inform the defense?

And, more importantly, if you find it hard to believe that the state did not inform the court (and I do - I think they informed Gull) this tells us that the state did so by ex parte communication. And, this imo would be another huge problem and another piece of evidence against JG.

jmo

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Cyber sleuth]

The email in Exhibit I dated 10/6/2023 states they had just learned of it within the "last hour" (and they attached a copy of communication that made them aware of it).

They also state they immediately informed the prosecution only to learn from the prosecution that the state had known of this for at least 24-30 hours.

So, I have a more pressing question that I would love to know the answer to but I'm not sure we will learn it unless one of the parties before the state S Ct raises it.

"Did the state immediately inform the court?" And, if not, why not. And, why did they not inform the defense?

And, more importantly, if you find it hard to believe that the state did not inform the court (and I do - I think they informed Gull) this tells us that the state did so by ex parte communication. And, this imo would be another huge problem and another piece of evidence against JG.

jmo

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

Does the state have to inform the defense if the defense is the party of the crime it is investigating ?
Honest question.

 

[Megnut]

Richard Allen asks Indiana Supreme Court to order reinstatement of his defense team

Allen is requesting his old lawyers back, Special Judge Fran Gull removed, and his trial moved up.

www.wfft.com

...
, Allen is requesting that the Indiana Supreme Court to reinstate Baldwin and Rozzi as his defense counsel. He is also requesting his trial to be set within 70 days of the court acting upon his request. Allen is also asking for the Indiana Supreme Court to remove Gull from the case and to appoint a new special judge in her place.

As part of this filing, Allen is asking for a copy of the transcript of the meeting between Gull and his previous defense team before the October 19 hearing, where she announced they would no longer be on Allen's case. Allen's team needs the transcript before an appellate court could rule on his requests.

Allen's request, if granted, would place the beginning of his trial in January 2024, as was previously planned. However, in light of a new defense team being appointed for Allen, Gull moved his trial back to October and November of 2024.

Chess move?

Setting up for a massive appeal or civil rights' suit? Long game?

I must constantly remind myself that justice for victims is a myth.

The US justice system is about justice for the accused, the right to a fair trial before a jury of impartial peers.

It's a high bar to remove one's right to liberty...

It's just especially painful here when that's the very name of one of the beloved victims.

In the end, the only real justice will be at sentencing, when the guilty party or parties get LWOP or an equivalent.

True justice would restore life to two young girls...

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Quick Qs?
just stuff that comes to mind, some are rhetorical, I suppose.

Once RA files against his trial Judge at SCOIN, does Gull now have a conflict?

If so, when is that RA v Gull conflict truly resolved?

i.e. Assuming Gull is not removed, SCOIN ruling in her favor, could Gull then - unquestionably - continue on ruling RA's trial impartially and in good faith?

Is it worth it to Gull to fight here at SCOIN (with her own attny) - if she's recently been a defendant against the defendant?

Does anything prevent Gull from avoiding this 2nd SCOIN writ motion by recusing now ?

Will the Indiana AG provide Gull with representation on this 2nd matter at SCOIN?

Will Right to Speedy Trial and Right to Counsel trump Gull's list of Defense Counsel's negative behaviors?

The Speedy Trial documents aren't quite filed, but Gull knew they were coming ... is that good enough?

uh oh, this list was longer than I thought and ... could be longer still. I'll stop.

JMHO

 

[Salah11]

This is why they are trying to get this back on track.

jmo

Well that happen if the incompetent lawyers are allowed back. Crime scenes photos were leaked and that’s on them and their office.

Moo

 

[Ward Thisperer]

They skipped over some stuff in regarding the leak.
Early October “F” tree photos from crime scene leaked. MS had seen but unable to verify validity, chose not to share.
10/5 - early morning hours MS received graphic crime scene photos from source M.
10/5- as soon as sun comes up MS informs LE and defense of leak.
MS some point thereafter receives Facebook messaging screenshots that show conversations between M, RF and MW. From investigating on they determine MW to be former employee of AB.
Also MS makes note that RF states he had been involved with collaborating with defense “at their invitation” for a length of time. Messages also indicated MW was still meeting with defense and shares in FB messages another POI and strategies considers by defense.

SBM, Thank you for putting together this timeline!
IMO MW saying to others that he was invited by the D doesn't necessarily mean he was invited -- he could be lying in order to make himself appear more important and informed than he is, and making stuff up or referencing things he had seen while sneaking into the office. Or, combining what he was actually told while legitimately collaborating with what he had sneaked access to.
In addition, RF being a recipient of the leak when he was previously collaborating with AB/BR, may indicate that he did not have access to the photos when collaborating with them, and needed to be 'leaked' to.
Did MS indicate what types of leaks they were sent - were they pictures of photos printed out, or pictures of a screen, or both?
I know that there were reports of a previous leak that had been pictures of a screen from almost a year ago, which coincides with Chris Todd of CourtTV reporting he had been sent CS photos 12/3/22 and planned to release them.

(@7mins, he says that he received them from "LEO whistleblowers" and that there is "creepy posing and staging")

MW in his affidavit cops to pictures taken of printed out photos:


Even though I personally wouldn't say from what I know that I think AB/BR were actually the ones leaking, IMO it isn't a good look that they were involved with MW at all let alone leaving such photos lying around without locking them up.

Ugh, I need to stop being distracted from my work, but it's hard to focus on anything but these developments!

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I know there is a lot of disagreement over their behavior but I think it is important for people to understand that the defense has a right to put forward a theory. If the Indiana Supreme Court accepts the second case I think they would have to consider whether they stepped out of bounds by including it in their Franks memo and if so, whether it was harmless considering that this is in-fact, the theory they planned to put forward, on the record, in public, anyway.

I also think it's important for people to look at the timeline and conduct of the state's investigators and LE. There seems to be video evidence that the state through their investigators and LE violated the gag order a number of times without any backlash from the court, prior to any theft of photos by MW. See #668

jmo

I understand and appreciate what you’re saying, but all of this that is being talked about right now, to me, is after the fact to the ex-defense’s misbehavior. Without that we would be gliding toward a trial in January with RA having his best buddy defense team by his side.
If they had not ignored the gag order, played fast and loose with protected discovery, exaggerated and lied in their spring motion, attempted to try and plead their case to the public instead of waiting for the trial to talk of Odinists with sworn testimony instead of their opinions, that they hoped potential jurors would take as fact, then all of the circus going on now, would never had happen.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Does the state have to inform the defense if the defense is the party of the crime it is investigating ?
Honest question.

As far as I am aware all parties should be noticed. There should never be secret communications between the judge and one side. Even when there is an in-camera review by the judge of documents for example, all parties are made aware that this will occur. There should be no appearance of impropriety at all. If Nick informed Fran how did he do it? Did he call her? Send her a direct message outside of the court? Because we can see from the exhibits that not only was the defense unaware that the state already knew, but also that the defense is not in possession of any communication from the state to the court making the court aware of this. Instead, the only communication the defense has from the state in writing on this issue appears to come 6 days later on 10/12. Note, however, that in contrast to any former communication by the state to the court, BR's email of 10/6 includes the prosecution - as it should.

jmo

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Quick Qs?
just stuff that comes to mind, some are rhetorical, I suppose.

Once RA files against his trial Judge at SCOIN, does Gull now have a conflict?

If so, when is that RA v Gull conflict truly resolved?

i.e. Assuming Gull is not removed, SCOIN ruling in her favor, could Gull then - unquestionably - continue on ruling RA's trial impartially and in good faith?

Is it worth it to Gull to fight here at SCOIN (with her own attny) - if she's recently been a defendant against the defendant?

Does anything prevent Gull from avoiding this 2nd SCOIN writ motion by recusing now ?

Will the Indiana AG provide Gull with representation on this 2nd matter at SCOIN?

Will Right to Speedy Trial and Right to Counsel trump Gull's list of Defense Counsel's negative behaviors?

The Speedy Trial documents aren't quite filed, but Gull knew they were coming ... is that good enough?

uh oh, this list was longer than I thought and ... could be longer still. I'll stop.

JMHO

I have some questions too.

How long does it usually take to disbar an attorney(s). More or less than 70 days?

If they are reinstated to the case then what legal liability does the Indiana court open itself up to from a civil suit by the victims’ families for allowing defense to continue on the case when their negligence caused a catastrophic leak of graphic crime scene photos to the public?

If attorneys are reinstated to the case then during the ongoing investigation of the photo leaks they are determined to be active parties and therefore lose all public trust- how does that affect a fair trail for RA?

What if because of the crime scene leaks and ongoing investigation the defense faces legal or civil or career penalties due to their involvement- how can that affect RA and his right to competent defense and fair trial?

 

[Emma Peel]

SBM, Thank you for putting together this timeline!
IMO MW saying to others that he was invited by the D doesn't necessarily mean he was invited -- he could be lying in order to make himself appear more important and informed than he is, and making stuff up or referencing things he had seen while sneaking into the office. Or, combining what he was actually told while legitimately collaborating with what he had sneaked access to.
In addition, RF being a recipient of the leak when he was previously collaborating with AB/BR, may indicate that he did not have access to the photos when collaborating with them, and needed to be 'leaked' to.
Did MS indicate what types of leaks they were sent - were they pictures of photos printed out, or pictures of a screen, or both?
I know that there were reports of a previous leak that had been pictures of a screen from almost a year ago, which coincides with Chris Todd of CourtTV reporting he had been sent CS photos 12/3/22 and planned to release them.

(@7mins, he says that he received them from "LEO whistleblowers" and that there is "creepy posing and staging")

MW in his affidavit cops to pictures taken of printed out photos:
View attachment 458670

Even though I personally wouldn't say from what I know that I think AB/BR were actually the ones leaking, IMO it isn't a good look that they were involved with MW at all let alone leaving such photos lying around without locking them up.

Ugh, I need to stop being distracted from my work, but it's hard to focus on anything but these developments!

Well, WOW this AFFIDAVIT !! - and its contents is more fresh NEWs to me ...

and my goodness, where did you find the illusive, sealed, long sought after MW affidavit?


it's your fault that I'm distracted from work at this moment but I can only say ... my hero.
nice work! thank u! MOO

 

[CGBSpender]

"Did the state immediately inform the court?" And, if not, why not. And, why did they not inform the defense?

And, more importantly, if you find it hard to believe that the state did not inform the court (and I do - I think they informed Gull) this tells us that the state did so by ex parte communication. And, this imo would be another huge problem and another piece of evidence against JG.

It would appear from the e-mails that NM likely was informed sometime on Oct 5th that ISP was investigating. Wild guess here...but if the MS podcasters state that they notified the former D and ISP...and ISP notified NM...then ISP would have probably told NM that the former D was notified by the same individuals that notified ISP...so NM telling the former D about it then becomes a moot point?

JMO

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Well, WOW this AFFIDAVIT !! - and its contents is more fresh NEWs to me ...

and my goodness, where did you find the illusive, sealed, long sought after MW affidavit?


it's your fault that I'm distracted from work at this moment but I can only say ... my hero.
nice work! thank u! MOO

I was also very excited to see it -- it was posted by SleuthieGoosie on twitter. I am very curious to know how she obtained it -- doesn't seem coincidental that Wieneke shouted her out when announcing the new case. JMO...

 

[Jurisprudence]

I understand and appreciate what you’re saying, but all of this that is being talked about right now, to me, is after the fact to the ex-defense’s misbehavior. Without that we would be gliding toward a trial in January with RA having his best buddy defense team by his side.
If they had not ignored the gag order, played fast and loose with protected discovery, exaggerated and lied in their spring motion, attempted to try and plead their case to the public instead of waiting for the trial to talk of Odinists with sworn testimony instead of their opinions, that they hoped potential jurors would take as fact, then all of the circus going on now, would never had happen.

This is opinion only. I think we would only be gliding toward trial if the defense never put forward their theory. Once they put forward their theory, they were shut down and kicked off. This is opinion only. If they are reinstated, this case will once again move forward on time.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

It would appear from the e-mails that NM likely was informed sometime on Oct 5th that ISP was investigating. Wild guess here...but if the MS podcasters state that they notified the former D and ISP...and ISP notified NM...then ISP would have probably told NM that the former D was notified by the same individuals that notified ISP...so NM telling the former D about it then becomes a moot point?

JMO

We don't know - because there is no record. ETA: MS podcast is not a party to the case. The obligation is between the parties.

jmo

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Well, WOW this AFFIDAVIT !! - and its contents is more fresh NEWs to me ...

and my goodness, where did you find the illusive, sealed, long sought after MW affidavit?


it's your fault that I'm distracted from work at this moment but I can only say ... my hero.
nice work! thank u! MOO

Where’s the date? Why isn’t the date and time of MW’s conference room access noted? Surely he can recollect.

 

[Jurisprudence]

SBM, Thank you for putting together this timeline!
IMO MW saying to others that he was invited by the D doesn't necessarily mean he was invited -- he could be lying in order to make himself appear more important and informed than he is, and making stuff up or referencing things he had seen while sneaking into the office. Or, combining what he was actually told while legitimately collaborating with what he had sneaked access to.
In addition, RF being a recipient of the leak when he was previously collaborating with AB/BR, may indicate that he did not have access to the photos when collaborating with them, and needed to be 'leaked' to.
Did MS indicate what types of leaks they were sent - were they pictures of photos printed out, or pictures of a screen, or both?
I know that there were reports of a previous leak that had been pictures of a screen from almost a year ago, which coincides with Chris Todd of CourtTV reporting he had been sent CS photos 12/3/22 and planned to release them.

(@7mins, he says that he received them from "LEO whistleblowers" and that there is "creepy posing and staging")

MW in his affidavit cops to pictures taken of printed out photos:
View attachment 458670

Even though I personally wouldn't say from what I know that I think AB/BR were actually the ones leaking, IMO it isn't a good look that they were involved with MW at all let alone leaving such photos lying around without locking them up.

Ugh, I need to stop being distracted from my work, but it's hard to focus on anything but these developments!

I can't believe you have MW affidavit. The clerk informed those who asked to take it up with the judge because it was confidential. Is this now on (is she now placing things on) the docket?

 

[Emma Peel]

I was also very excited to see it -- it was posted by SleuthieGoosie on twitter. I am very curious to know how she obtained it -- doesn't seem coincidental that Wieneke shouted her out when announcing the new case. JMO...

How crazy is this but: It's possible she got it from Westerman. (?)
speculation warning. Just noodling and MOO - ing.