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

[Emma Peel]

Amicus Brief has been filed by the Indiana Public Defender Council

Amicus Brief.pdf

drive.google.com

ooooh! yummy! An Amicus Brief!
I'll be having that for lunch.

this one from practicing defense professionals throughout the state. wondering what other outside parties might paper the SC re presumed judicial powers.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

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.

Looks like a small building of 3 law offices. My bet is that there is not a manned front desk but that other people working there knew MW and wouldn’t have thought anything about him coming to visit AB considering it sounds like he visited regularly and perhaps used to work there.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

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

Richard Allen wrote JR on 10/11 stating he was aware of the crime scene leaks ( exhibit J) and was aware of his attorney’s potential disqualification but wanted them to remain as his attorneys.

 

[Justice101]

ooooh! yummy! An Amicus Brief!
I'll be having that for lunch.

wondering what other outside parties might paper the SC re presumed judicial powers.

Haha!

Better you than me.. I only got to the Argument section before I felt myself nodding off.

Go at it!

 

[CGBSpender]

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

I had heard many months ago that true crime followers of the case on social media were assisting the former D somehow. I took it with a very large grain of salt, and didn't pay much attention to the claim. That said...the lack of surprise by some surrounding the filing of the Franks Memo by the D...and the fact that some appear to have gone radio silent for the last few months does really make me wonder now about the alleged claims...

JMO

 

[Trebor5591]

<snip>
JG needs to recuse herself, this type of behavior from a judge is embarrassing. She is making this a charade. It is best for everyone if the Jan 2024 trial date stands and she is not judge over the case. JMO MOO. Pics of the pages quoted from official court transcript also attached below.

Post in thread 'IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170'
IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170

I agree 100%. Judge Gull needs to recuse herself or she likely will be removed. A possible alternative would be Baldwin and Rizzo reinstated and Gull remains! But I feel certain we will see Judge Gull shot down in some form. JMO

 

[zh0r4]

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.

bbm

Exhibit K, p. 215, Record of Proceedings Vol. 1:

“During the week of October 2, the Defense became aware of a gentleman in Texas (MC) 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, This disclosure was accomplished through the emails you received from us last week.

On Monday, October 9, 2023, Mitch Westerman showed up at Andy's office, and asked for a few minutes of Andy's time. Andy reports that during the conversation Mitch acknowledged that he had made a mistake and in fact, took it upon himself to access Andy's conference room and photograph some exhibits that he discovered laying on the table. We believe this occurred back in August when we were preparing for the first round of depositions. In fact, Nick later confirmed that they (the Prosecution) believes that the docs possessed by Westerman are the same or similar to the exhibits that were offered up by as during depositions. Westerman then reported to Andy that he shared these images with his military friend who is not associated with the Defense in any manner. This man then apparently, distributed them to a man in Texas. The man in Texas is the same individual that was accusing Andy of intentionally leaking these documents.”

 

[Cyber sleuth]

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

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.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

We can't... because there hasn't been a hearing.
jmo

 

[katydid23]

Per MW’s interview with Yhe Murder Sheet in March ( it’s almost 90 minutes long so buckle up) he describes the office as casual, lax, not buttoned up. That AB has a pretty open door policy and they all just pop in and out of offices to collaborate. He described AB as a mess, sloppy, personal office like a tornado had gone through.
Not exactly the pentagon.

That^^^ is why the judge could claim 'gross negligence ' IMO. AB was responsible for protecting those photos and documents. You can't do that with a lax, sloppy unorganised office situation. And while collaborating with people who are not authorised to see sealed discovery.

Don't they ever have depositions there, where prosecutors and witnesses would be walking through their office? I'd think they'd want to tighten up around them so they don't show their hand prematurely.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

Imo, absolutely. Especially if it regarded RA's 6th Amendment right to counsel. And, at minimum he absolutely should have been in chambers when she provided them with that choice (it's his rights that were being affected). And, even though it is not often mentioned, the in-chambers "withdrawal" was procedurally defective in and of itself imo. Their withdrawal, if it were to come at all, required 10 days' written notice to RA. (Ind. R. Trial P. 3.1(H))

Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure

Rule 3.1 - Appearance, Ind. R. Trial. P. 3.1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 3.1 - Appearance, Ind. R. Trial. P. 3.1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Finally, according to local counsel, there's also no basis for severing the attorney client relationship even if the judge unilaterally decided there was gross negligence. According to local counsel (Brief 2, p. 15):

"Indiana recognizes only two narrowly circumscribed situations where a trial court may sever the attorney-client relationship against the client’s wishes: (1) the lawyer is not a member of the state bar, Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988); or (2) the lawyer has an actual conflict of interest that will obstruct his ability to provide effective representation. See T.C.H., 714 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). No Indiana court has ever tolerated a trial judge removing a lawyer from a case, over the client’s objection, based on the judge’s subjective belief the lawyer is negligent, or even “grossly negligent.”

So, this case is now a huge mess.

jmo

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Emma Peel]

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?

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?

 

[katydid23]

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

No, unless I left my car unlocked w/keys in the ignition.

Leaving sealed trial documents in an unlocked unsupervised room is negligent. JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

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.

All due respect and by no means intended to quibble but you keep posting that the defense leaked these and I don't think any of us can say this. Arguably, there is just as much evidence if not more given MW's affidavit, that they were stolen and then disseminated. I don't find it fair to keep repeating this because that too could taint a potential jury pool. But that's jmo.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

“During the week of October 2, the Defense became aware of a gentleman in Texas (MC) 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 This disclosure was accomplished through the emails you received from us last week.

On Monday, October 9, 2023, Mitch Westerman showed up at Andy's office, and asked for a few minutes of Andy's time. Andy reports that during the conversation Mitch acknowledged that he had made a mistake and in fact, took it upon himself to access Andy's conference room and photograph some exhibits that he discovered laying on the table. We believe this occurred back in August when we were preparing for the first round of depositions. In fact, Nick later confirmed that they (the Prosecution) believes that the docs possessed by Westerman are the same or similar to the exhibits that were offered up by as during depositions. Westerman then reported to Andy that he shared these images with his military friend who is not associated with the Defense in any manner. This man then apparently, distributed them to a man in Texas. The man in Texas is the same individual that was accusing Andy of intentionally leaking these documents.”

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

 

[TL4S]

This case has become more complicated than ever, but I find it a relief to have the SCOIN now involved. AB allowing the leak to happen by means of lax office space, at the very least, is no good. But the severity of the D's mistakes don't just negate the alleged things done by the judge and/or prosecution/LE that has come into question. For example, we don't know yet if the new D will find cause to continue to pursue a Frank's hearing. JMO.

I do think third-party attorneys filing these motions with the SCOIN against JG is a healthy, necessary step to ultimately preserve RA's rights. L and A are not forgotten in all of this, not by any means, but maybe it's just as well their presence remains in the background while everyone in the judicial system gets on the same page. I don't think the girls need to be a large part of the fight for their alleged killer's rights, if you know what I mean. JMO.

While it seems a sloppy way to go about it, I think in the end this entire mess will pave a stronger road to justice, which won't just crumble in time, because problems areas are getting fixed as we go, rather than patched over until they become a bigger problem later. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

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.

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

 

[Jurisprudence]

I agree 100%. Judge Gull needs to recuse herself or she likely will be removed. A possible alternative would be Baldwin and Rizzo reinstated and Gull remains! But I feel certain we will see Judge Gull shot down in some form. JMO

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

 

[StarryStarryNight]

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 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.

 

[Salah11]

All due respect and by no means intended to quibble but you keep posting that the defense leaked these and I don't think any of us can say this. Arguably, there is just as much evidence if not more given MW's affidavit, that they were stolen and then disseminated. I don't find it fair to keep repeating this because that too could taint a potential jury pool. But that's jmo.

Their actions ( lake therefore) lead to the leaking of confidential information. It’s crazy that more care was not taken with confidential information that could harm the victims of a horrific crime. Like the family’s have not suffered enough and now photos of their dead children have been passed around.

Of course the thief is also to blame but they should never of been able to get access to such confidential information in the first place and that comes back to the law firm.

I am allowed an opinion on this as far as I am aware. <modsnip>