IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

[sunshineray]

I respectfully disagree that I was not addressing your point. Everything has been documented in the recent filings (at least on the D side), including by MW himself in his own affidavit. The only side in this case withholding pertinent information, leaving the door to inaccurate speculation wide open (conveniently) is the state and JG. This is, IMO, bc the P has a shoddy case. If they were confident, as they should be, about their evidence, they would welcome these so called “conspiracies” or anything else the D presented. Instead, the P wanted the D DQ’d, because they can’t win in court fairly. MOO.

bbm

In Record of Proceedings, Vol. 1, Exhibit K, p.214-220, 10/12/2023 Letter to Court from Attorney Rozzi, discusses the leak:

“At no time did Andy ever authorize Mitch to duplicate or take physical possession of any exhibits or documentation in this case.

<snip>

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.“

In Record of Proceedings Vol. 2, p. Exhibit U, p.33, 10/18/2023 Affidavit from Mitchell Westerman:

“Comes now Mitchell Westerman being first duly sworn, under oath, and states that the following information is within his personal knowledge and is true to the best of his knowledge:

1. I was in Attorney Andrew Baldwin's Office Building waiting to visit with Andrew. He was in his office either meeting with a client or on a telephone call with the door closed. I went into the conference room to wait.

2. I observed printed copies of photo evidence on the conference room table. I took pictures of a few of them.

3. Andrew Baldwin did not give me permission to take the photos of the printed copies, he was not present and he did not have any knowledge that I took pictures of the evidence photos.

4. I am freely and voluntarily typing and signing this affidavit on my own accord because it is the truth.”

According to MW, AB was on the phone. According to both parties, MW was not authorized to steal the photos he took. AB was on the phone in the other room. I am unsure which of the 25-ish briefs you are mentioning that is self-serving-perhaps the D memo? Or the Motion to Disqualify?

Either way, seven other lawyers have filed motions questioning the constitutional protocol of JG, and the SCOIN (Supreme Court of Indiana) has giving a deadline to JG et. al for November 16, 2023. This is a pretty serious matter that could totally destroy the case against RA if you believe he is guilty, bc it opens the door to appeal.

AJMO.

Leaving the door [wide open] to inaccurate speculation by whom? <modsnip>

 

[zh0r4]

Leaving the door [wide open] to inaccurate speculation by whom? <modsnip>

Inaccurate speculation by anyone and everyone-podcasters, the media, individuals, all over social media. The Oct 19 hearing was an absolute mess. There have already been documentaries about the case before the D even got on the case. Now that a suspect has been arrested, the public (which are the same as potential jurors IMO), are left to speculate from what the media is hand-feeding them (not official documentation, which has regularly been hidden and concealed). This causes speculation on both sides, whether you believe RA is guilty or not guilty. Most of the bias has been favorable to the state, when factually, the documentation of evidence, alleged confessions, general records appear either extremely sloppy or are completely sealed. It is disconcerting to me that people are so ready to crucify a suspect with no due process, & based on selective information, when they don’t have the entire truth. Justice for Abby & Libby = a fair trial. So again, why is the Judge violating the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel? Why did the P ask for the D to be DQ’d, if the D is such a silly joke? Why on earth would a judge act on recommendation from the P? This is a blatant abuse of power. I have faith SCOIN will rule in the best interest of Justice. Hopefully everything won’t be so convoluted by then, so there is a fair trial and the correct perp is convicted.

AJMO.

 

[mrjitty]

I respectfully disagree that I was not addressing your point.

I am not getting at you, but you certainly have not addressed it. i.e Rozzi and Baldwin can be seen as vicariously liable for what a team member did, even if they didn't actually know about it, but rather were negligent in their exercise of control and responsibility (objective not subjective standard).

tldr; employers have vicarious responsibility for what employees etc do. In my analogy, MW might be seen as a member of the team. (Of course this should all be subject to argument and proof in a hearing).

Everything has been documented in the recent filings (at least on the D side), including by MW himself in his own affidavit. The only side in this case withholding pertinent information, leaving the door to inaccurate speculation wide open (conveniently) is the state and JG. This is, IMO, bc the P has a shoddy case. If they were confident, as they should be, about their evidence, they would welcome these so called “conspiracies” or anything else the D presented. Instead, the P wanted the D DQ’d, because they can’t win in court fairly. MOO.

bbm

In Record of Proceedings, Vol. 1, Exhibit K, p.214-220, 10/12/2023 Letter to Court from Attorney Rozzi, discusses the leak:

“At no time did Andy ever authorize Mitch to duplicate or take physical possession of any exhibits or documentation in this case.

Right but it is not necessary that AB directed MW to do so. Rather he afforded the opportunity.

<snip>

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.“

In Record of Proceedings Vol. 2, p. Exhibit U, p.33, 10/18/2023 Affidavit from Mitchell Westerman:

“Comes now Mitchell Westerman being first duly sworn, under oath, and states that the following information is within his personal knowledge and is true to the best of his knowledge:

1. I was in Attorney Andrew Baldwin's Office Building waiting to visit with Andrew. He was in his office either meeting with a client or on a telephone call with the door closed. I went into the conference room to wait.

2. I observed printed copies of photo evidence on the conference room table. I took pictures of a few of them.

3. Andrew Baldwin did not give me permission to take the photos of the printed copies, he was not present and he did not have any knowledge that I took pictures of the evidence photos.

4. I am freely and voluntarily typing and signing this affidavit on my own accord because it is the truth.”

According to MW, AB was on the phone. According to both parties, MW was not authorized to steal the photos he took. AB was on the phone in the other room. I am unsure which of the 25-ish briefs you are mentioning that is self-serving-perhaps the D memo? Or the Motion to Disqualify?

Right but notice what is not here.

Rozzi says that MW was a person who provided good strategy insights into cases. Did that happen here?

1. Did AB voluntarily reveal details of the case to MW so that MW could give his views on the case?
2. Did AB allow MW access to the conference room / discovery materials on previous occasions?
3. Did AB previously show the crime scene photos to MW?
4. Could MW be regarded as an informal consultant on the case? Did he provide advice on strategy?
5. Would AB have been uncomfortable with MW being in the conference room alone? Had this happened before?
6. Was MW made to sign any documentation re obligations/confidentiality?

The potential answers to the points above suggest to me that MW was given access to the case files and provided informal consultancy without relevant protections in place

Further re negligence we would need to ask what reasonable precautions did AB take to protect the discovery from a third party wandering in and accessing the content?

Either way, seven other lawyers have filed motions questioning the constitutional protocol of JG, and the SCOIN (Supreme Court of Indiana) has giving a deadline to JG et. al for November 16, 2023. This is a pretty serious matter that could totally destroy the case against RA if you believe he is guilty, bc it opens the door to appeal.

AJMO.

Right but those motions mostly focus on the due process aspect which I agree was likely not followed.

But as to substance, in my view, prima facie, Rozzi and Baldwin were negligent because it appears they knowingly and intentionally allowed informal access to the files and didn't put in place basic non disclosure documents. i.e. this doesn't happen in any reasonably and competently run practice.

It is of course possible that an employee at a firm could make unauthorised copies of case files and leak them so then the question of negligence of those in control depends on precautions.

But the idea that a 3rd party friend can be admitted and simply access the content without any subterfuge or difficulty seems negligent on it's face to me. Let alone that case strategy might have been disclosed to such a person.

my 02c

 

[mrjitty]

Just to note, there is no real reason to believe the version outlined by Rozzi, Baldwin and MW is true and accurate.

IMO it's clear already that it's self serving, and that lots of relevant background has been omitted. Personally I suspect MW had informal access over multiple occasions, which IMO it already a breach of the Judge's orders unless he was a formal team member working on the case. I suspect AB at a minimum, told MW parts of the evidence and strategy and perhaps even allowed him to review files.

In other words the defence is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, MW was a friend who betrayed AB by striking when his back was turned, but on the other hand, was a trusted informal advisor who had good ideas on strategy? How can that be reconciled?

Where I agree with the defence is there needed to be a hearing in Court to work through all of this and for the judge to make a ruling and present reasons.

ETA: This is even before we get to the question of what the appropriate sanctions are

To my mind it is awfully bizarre that there is no proper decision with reasons for any of this. But also it is quite bizarre that counsel withdrew from the case in chambers, then sought to do take backsies. That is not a thing!

 

[mrjitty]

My other thought on this, is it is simply so bizarre that a good mate would steal the crime scene photos and leak them on the internet. So I guess I am not willing to accept merely on the say so of Rozzi and Baldwin that all blame should be pinned on MW.

MW likely committed a crime on any view. I should think the Judge justifiably held at least an open mind as to whether this was intentional back door leak.

 

[zh0r4]

My other thought on this, is it is simply so bizarre that a good mate would steal the crime scene photos and leak them on the internet. So I guess I am not willing to accept merely on the say so of Rozzi and Baldwin that all blame should be pinned on MW.

MW likely committed a crime on any view. I should think the Judge justifiably held at least an open mind as to whether this was intentional back door leak.

I respect your opinion, thank you. I would also like to know the answers to all of your listed questions above.

I’m curious-What do you think about MW’s first hand words through his lawyer? Why do you think MRC (“Mark”), who allegedly distributed the photo(s) to numerous podcasters, has not made a statement or been held accountable? MW has submitted an affidavit, so why hasn’t “Mark”? From my understanding of the chain of the leaks, “Mark” distributed the photos more than anyone else, yet appears to be facing the least consequences of anyone.

What do you think about RS (Rick S, the podcaster, who was mentioned recently in the doc dumps)? What do you think about him saying very specific things about the CS and saying he has had sources back 2 years ago?

 

[mrjitty]

I respect your opinion, thank you. I would also like to know the answers to all of your listed questions above.

I’m curious-What do you think about MW’s first hand words through his lawyer? Why do you think MRC (“Mark”), who allegedly distributed the photo(s) to numerous podcasters, has not made a statement or been held accountable? MW has submitted an affidavit, so why hasn’t “Mark”? From my understanding of the chain of the leaks, “Mark” distributed the photos more than anyone else, yet appears to be facing the least consequences of anyone.

"Mark" didn't steal the photos from Baldwin so that is why he didn't file an affidavit. I suspect all these people will face charges in due course. That is a question for law enforcement not Judge Gull.

What do you think about RS (Rick S, the podcaster, who was mentioned recently in the doc dumps)? What do you think about him saying very specific things about the CS and saying he has had sources back 2 years ago?

It seems clear various reporters have had sources going back years - just like on every famous case. Police brief stuff off record. Witnesses, family talk. etc

 

[FrostedGlass]

They've been put on notice today. I wonder why James Luttrull gets a separate paper notice.

11/06/2023	Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court Order Signed: 11/06/2023
11/08/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 11/6/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
11/08/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 11/6/2023 : James David Luttrull

 

[zh0r4]

They've been put on notice today. I wonder why James Luttrull gets a separate paper notice.

11/06/2023	Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court Order Signed: 11/06/2023
11/08/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 11/6/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
11/08/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 11/6/2023 : James David Luttrull

What does put on notice mean?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Just a "how to search" note.

Go here

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Pick the tab "name" be sure to spell the name correctly
Hit the "search" button at the bottom
Both of RA's SC cases are at the top of the page

 

[FrostedGlass]

What does put on notice mean?

They received notice of the order from the SCOIN

 

[girlhasnoname]

They've been put on notice today. I wonder why James Luttrull gets a separate paper notice.

11/06/2023	Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court Order Signed: 11/06/2023
11/08/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 11/6/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
11/08/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 11/6/2023 : James David Luttrull

I can't keep all these players straight anymore hah. Who is James David Luttrull in all of this?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I can't keep all these players straight anymore hah. Who is James David Luttrull in all of this?

The second prosecutor. I don't know why he's noticed separately.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Disclaimer: I'm not the expert in this so maybe there's a good reason why I'm not finding what I'm looking for.
The filings are coming so fast, I'm wondering if the Carroll Co. clerk is getting behind.

This second SC case should be listed in RA's murder case like the earlier one is. That's my guess based on the two seem to be identical; we only have the case ending with 302 listed in his murder case. I don't find the Amicus Brief, either. BUT it's filed under case ending 311.

Case Number	Style	Court	Type	Filed	Status
23S-OR-00311	State of Indiana ex rel. Richard M. Allen v. Caroll Circuit Court, et al.	Supreme Court	OR - Original Actions	11/06/2023	11/06/2023, Pending
23S-OR-00302	State of Indiana ex rel. Richard M. Allen v. Carroll Circuit Court, et al.	Supreme Court	OR - Original Actions	10/30/2023	10/30/2023, Pending

See at the top where it shows Cause Number 23S-OR-00311

Amicus Brief.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

In the top part of mycase, the related cases are listed.
22S-SJ-00369 is Special Judge = order appointing JG.

Case Summary​

« BackNew SearchRefine Search​

State of Indiana v. Richard M. Allen

Case Number	08C01-2210-MR-000001
Court	Carroll Circuit Court
Type	MR - Murder
Filed	10/28/2022
Status	10/28/2022 , Pending (active)
Related	Lower Trial Court Case 22S-SJ-00369 Lower Trial Court Case 23S-OR-00302

 

[girlhasnoname]

Here's a couple of points that really show the 'slight of hand' and questionable behavior effect the former Defense uses:

Bullet Points 14, 15, 16 page 37, 38 at linked Record of Proceedings Volume 2:

14. Rozzi and Baldwin said they visited RA on Aug 17th at Westerville and and RA signed a Motion for Early Trial to firm up the Jan 8th 2024 Trial, they all signed it at that time, but it wasn't dated and it was not filed with the Court.

15. On Oct 4th, during a review of Defendants Discovery Motions deadline with all parties, Judge Gull mentioned that she thought it would be in continue of the Jan 8, 2024 trial. AB then told the parties that the Defense was not interested in a continuance.

Question, why then was the document never dated and filed as a motion? It remains with AB signed but undated still.

Answer, who knows when they actually got that signed by RA? It was never dated and filed...because they were keeping it in their back pocket for after their Memorandum for Franks Hearing explosion.

16. The parties had a teleconference on Oct 10th in which the discussion of MW taking pictures of the Crime Scene Photos and Deposition Exhibits was had. The State suggested the disqualification of the Defense might be allowed. In response Judge Gull indicated to ALL parties she was leaning towards disqualification. It was signed by Rozzi and Baldwin and dated 11/4 so they acknowledged that this did indeed happen as stated.

Question, how can the Defense now state they were ambushed by the Judge about disqualification when they knew on Oct 10th that the State had suggested it and Judge Gull was leaning in that direction?

Answer, they can't. They knew the State and Judge were looking to disqualify them. They had an attorney represent them and agreed to withdraw rather than face a reading of the charges of gross misconduct in open court. They also said they did this only to allow them time to get together a plan to counter attack what they felt was an unfair/unethical ruling. They lied to the Judge about withdrawing.

These so called lawyers have used subterfuge, outright lies and manipulation in this case consistently. Did the way Judge Gull handle this amount to a breach of RA's constitutional rights? I guess we'll have to wait on the ruling from SCOIN.

If so, I don't believe it was intentional, I think she genuinely was trying to give Rozzi and Baldwin a way out without suffering career suicide. Now they've used that against her.

If it ends up with a new Judge and new Defense counsel, so be it. If that ensures justice for Abby & Libby and a solid conviction of the heinous murderer(s) (RA IMO) it will be worth at the end of the day.

MOO

Record of Proceedings Volume 2.pdf

 

[steeltowngirl]

What do you think about RS (Rick S, the podcaster, who was mentioned recently in the doc dumps)? What do you think about him saying very specific things about the CS and saying he has had sources back 2 years ago?

Adding an article to help us to know who we are discussing.

“The Murder Sheet” also spoke with Rick Snay with the “Delphi After Dark” YouTube channel, who told the podcast he knows Tony Kline.

Kegan Kline on 'The Murder Sheet' podcast, shares what made him rethink guilty plea

Kegan Kline, who wants to withdraw his guilty plea, says someone accessing the 'anthony_shots' profile is part of the reason why he wants to.

www.wishtv.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here's a couple of points that really show the 'slight of hand' and questionable behavior effect the former Defense uses:

Bullet Points 14, 15, 16 page 37, 38 at linked Record of Proceedings Volume 2:

14. Rozzi and Baldwin said they visited RA on Aug 17th at Westerville and and RA signed a Motion for Early Trial to firm up the Jan 8th 2024 Trial, they all signed it at that time, but it wasn't dated and it was not filed with the Court.

15. On Oct 4th, during a review of Defendants Discovery Motions deadline with all parties, Judge Gull mentioned that she thought it would be in continue of the Jan 8, 2024 trial. AB then told the parties that the Defense was not interested in a continuance.

Question, why then was the document never dated and filed as a motion? It remains with AB signed but undated still.

Answer, who knows when they actually got that signed by RA? It was never dated and filed...because they were keeping it in their back pocket for after their Memorandum for Franks Hearing explosion.

16. The parties had a teleconference on Oct 10th in which the discussion of MW taking pictures of the Crime Scene Photos and Deposition Exhibits was had. The State suggested the disqualification of the Defense might be allowed. In response Judge Gull indicated to ALL parties she was leaning towards disqualification. It was signed by Rozzi and Baldwin and dated 11/4 so they acknowledged that this did indeed happen as stated.

Question, how can the Defense now state they were ambushed by the Judge about disqualification when they knew on Oct 10th that the State had suggested it and Judge Gull was leaning in that direction?

Answer, they can't. They knew the State and Judge were looking to disqualify them. They had an attorney represent them and agreed to withdraw rather than face a reading of the charges of gross misconduct in open court. They also said they did this only to allow them time to get together a plan to counter attack what they felt was an unfair/unethical ruling. They lied to the Judge about withdrawing.

These so called lawyers have used subterfuge, outright lies and manipulation in this case consistently. Did the way Judge Gull handle this amount to a breach of RA's constitutional rights? I guess we'll have to wait on the ruling from SCOIN.

If so, I don't believe it was intentional, I think she genuinely was trying to give Rozzi and Baldwin a way out without suffering career suicide. Now they've used that against her.

If it ends up with a new Judge and new Defense counsel, so be it. If that ensures justice for Abby & Libby and a solid conviction of the heinous murderer(s) (RA IMO) it will be worth at the end of the day.

MOO

Record of Proceedings Volume 2.pdf

To points 14 and 15, I'm not sure why you consider the D action to be "slight of hand and questionable behavior." They got the motion signed by RA and held it to see what transpired over the next few months.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Adding an article to help us to know who we are discussing.

“The Murder Sheet” also spoke with Rick Snay with the “Delphi After Dark” YouTube channel, who told the podcast he knows Tony Kline.

Kegan Kline on 'The Murder Sheet' podcast, shares what made him rethink guilty plea

Kegan Kline, who wants to withdraw his guilty plea, says someone accessing the 'anthony_shots' profile is part of the reason why he wants to.

www.wishtv.com

More on Rick Snay. Snay also claims to be friends with the Germans.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1587168258561548292

Suspect charged in connection with murder of Indiana teen girls

The suspect was reportedly booked into the Carroll County Jail Friday and then moved to a state facility for his safety

www.fox19.com

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Another way to think about this is to imagine of MW was actually a paid consultant to the team and then leaked.

That would be an intentional leak by the defence but not by Baldwin personally. Yet obviously Baldwin and Rozzi would both be responsible for it at the end of the day

Does the situation alter if MW was an ad hoc mentor to Baldwin and Baldwin shared strategy with him?

IMO that makes it quite a bit worse for Baldwin and Rozzi as I am guessing MW had not signed any documentation on confidentiality requirements.

This is why I suspect they are correctly held liable to a negligence standard. The disclosure was intentional by the team member but not by them personally. Rather they shared case details in a manner which was negligent - negligence is judged on an objective rather than subjective standard.

In the Ex-Parte Pleading dated 10/12/23 first page, last paragraph BR states “Andy communicated to me that Mitch was a fairly skilled strategist and that he would sometimes communicate ideas, and circumstances with Mitch to get his feedback. Andy reported that he did this. on occasion, in this case.”

So we can stop speculating if MW was collaborating with defense on this case.