sunshineray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 8,752
- Reaction score
- 69,268
Leaving the door [wide open] to inaccurate speculation by whom? <modsnip>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.
Last edited by a moderator: