IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #172

[Willow Knight]

Still trying to understand how the AS account worked.

Delphi Murders: Investigators looking into another ‘anthony_shots’ profile

Investigators looking into the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German are asking for information about another online profile linked to the anthony_shots account.

fox59.com

Two things from the above link:

1. Kline reveal that the account was interacting with Libby German the day she and Abby Williams were killed.

2. Kline said gave the password to the account “to a lot of people”.

My thought is that those 'a lot of people' gave the PW to another set of a lot of people. So if a person logged into the AS account, would said person be able to see everything? Would a person be able to see that Abby and Libby were going to and arrived at the bridge that day? Wish there was a site where this AS account was fully explained.

 

[MistyWaters]

I do think the record supports that they essentially had no choice. I wasn't sure we'd see from this meeting corroboration of what they said occurred but I think the record accurately reflects that the way they recalled it is the way it unfolded.

jmo

Of course they had a choice - they chose to withdraw as opposed to not doing so. I actually give them credit for acknowledging the seriousness of the issues and realizing the situations were embarrassing and shameful, reflecting poorly on their reputation, if shared publicly. Had they thought gross negligence ppfftttt, no big deal, they‘d have put their big boy pants on and attended the status hearing that followed.

I wonder how they feel about the Writ filed to the SC in their defense.

JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Of course they had a choice - they chose to withdraw as opposed to not doing so. I actually give them credit for acknowledging the seriousness of the issues and realizing the situations were embarrassing and shameful, reflecting poorly on their reputation, if shared publicly. Had they thought gross negligence ppfftttt, no big deal, they‘d have put their big boy pants on and attended the status hearing that followed.

I wonder how they feel about the Writ filed to the SC in their defense.

JMO

Good point.
I thought it kind of pathetic that they literally were trying to find ways to slink out the back door.

 

[susiQ]

"I do recall discussing with Chief Deputy Mike Thomas the possibility of seeking additional experts in the Delphi case,” Ives wrote. “I thought there were aspects of the investigation that needed experts, that the team had not sought.”

Was this quibbling occuring around the time, in NOV 2017, when Ives decided to quit as P by the end of the year? Truth be told, Ives and Thomas were aligned in how to conduct the investigation. Maybe they were forced out in the way Rozzi and Baldwin are being forced out of the way.

We know how things went from the Nov election and with Judge D also recusing himself from the dangerous case.

JG's bold in disqualifying Rozzi.

JMOO

Yes, I feel there are some shenanigans going on down in CC. Thomas knew that something was off. There was a line of investigation that should have continued, experts consulted, more interviews followed up on, but NONE of that happened. Crickets. Nothing to see here, let’s move on. There was “nothing to see here” because somebody didn’t want certain things ”seen”, for instance, the connections. That’s why the FM is so important. Thomas knew, Ives knew and Diener knew…..it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because to link the creeps from Rushville to Delphi could expose the connections. ALL of them. By doggedly pursuing the work of those that did their job the way it should be done, the xD hit the motherload painstakingly going through the disclosure material and hence we have the FM.

When I think back to the 2019 PC where DC could roll out the new sketch and somehow claim it was the same guy as the first, this should have been our first clue that something was seriously “off.” Back then, I still trusted the investigation. Not anymore. The FM details why Liggett‘s timeline DOES NOT WORK, and why there are two sketches, they are two DIFFERENT men.

More than anything, I hope they get everyone involved so that there will be true justice for Abby and Libby and their families. It’s been too long coming. Baldwin and Rozzi are in my opinion the best choice to take this case forward. They know what they are dealing with.

AJMHO
ed:sp

 

[MistyWaters]

Good point.
I thought it kind of pathetic that they literally were trying to find ways to slink out the back door.

Yeah, it’s unexpected behaviour for defense attorneys IMO, who in general have a reputation of aggression and viciousness, verbally bullying witnesses on the stand.

 

[Ravenmoon]

There is a process of withdrawal in Indiana law that was not followed (Source below, 3.1(H). Even if they wanted to withdraw and weren’t given a Hobson’s choice, RA is suppose to have a 10 day notice of intent to withdraw from the defense before the filing. There was no hearing for the attorneys to plead their case, and RA was not even present, which violates his constitutional rights. Rozzi did nothing wrong, RA wanted these lawyers. JG is acting like a queen in a monarchy instead of an impartial judge in a democratic republic. This is not following the law, and of all people, judges should follow the law. This is blatant bias, the transcript was a horrific read. I understand people want justice for Abby & Libby, but justice and injustice are not synonymous. It’s disconcerting how many are OK with constitutional rights/due process being violated in our judicial system. Imagine, even if you think RA is guilty, if this was your father/brother/husband/family member, and he was innocent? There are reasons the judicial system has protocol to follow, to prevent exactly stuff like this happening.

AJMO.

Source for withdrawal process in Indiana 3.1(H) p.5:

https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/trial_proc/trial_proc.pdf

Got it.

Can we create a thread for this aside from it taking front and center since they are no longer on the case?

I think that the amount of time talking about the EX-D is taking away from anything regarding A&L.

JMO

 

[zh0r4]

Got it.

Can we create a thread for this aside from it taking front and center since they are no longer on the case?

I think that the amount of time talking about the EX-D is taking away from anything regarding A&L.

JMO

IMO until the Supreme Court of Indiana rules we don’t know if they will be reinstated or not. @Jurisprudence, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Ravenmoon]

IMO until the Supreme Court of Indiana rules we don’t know if they will be reinstated or not. @Jurisprudence , please correct me if I am wrong.

That could be true, but why not let those that want to discuss the EX-D have a space to do that?

Less confusion, less repetitive conversations, less.....talk about people that as of now, withdrew from the case.


JMO

 

[Kittybunny]

I have never seen a Memorandum in support of a Frank Hearing crafted in this fashion by ANY LAWYER ever. The 136 page document included and blatantly exploited the CS of Abby & Libby and so much more. How does that support the motion to suppress the SW?

It was a sensationalized, overstated, non-confirmed, speculative piece of garbage to influence the public's opinion. It backfired in a spectacular fashion, and rightly so. It also points to the depths of over sensationalizing and skirting the line of lying and misrepresentation by this non Dynamic Duo, so the leaking of CS photo leaks and leaks of confidential depositions doesn't surprise me one bit.

Ironic how not the entirety of their depositions by the parties weren't referenced, just the cherry-picked sentences they needed to include for dramatic purposes and the exploitive crime scene pages were highly offensive and had no business in that memorandum for a FM.

I think that's exactly why they filed it under the cover of darkness at 2:04 am and then magically, the reporters and podcasters and other SM parasites grabbed it and ran with it. (Tipped off by B&R IMO) They knew it would be placed under seal as it rightly should have been. Dirty doesn't win cases, it hurts the entire process. Look where we are today!

JMO

I'm way behind, but bravo! 100 percent agree.

And in no way does this excuse the issues that I had with the investigation, the prosecution, the secrecy, etc, but I believed we were finally close to justice for Abby and Libby. But yeah, not so much.

I hate what this case has become. I personally can't stand the legal sausage making, and on a scale of 1 to 10, this exceeds even the world's most disgusting Andouillette. (Apologies to any devotees).

So I will just retreat back into the shadows and bid all our legal eagles a Bon appetit!

 

[Jurisprudence]

Got it.

Can we create a thread for this aside from it taking front and center since they are no longer on the case?

I think that the amount of time talking about the EX-D is taking away from anything regarding A&L.

JMO

This is not correct. This issue is still being litigated. They aren't off until the supreme court issues an opinion or dismisses it. ETA: Or they kick it back down, have a hearing, get an adverse ruling and proceed from there. Either way it needs to be resolved and as it stands right now the trial has been moved out another year.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

IMO until the Supreme Court of Indiana rules we don’t know if they will be reinstated or not. @Jurisprudence, please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes. Agree.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

That could be true, but why not let those that want to discuss the EX-D have a space to do that?

Less confusion, less repetitive conversations, less.....talk about people that as of now, withdrew from the case.


JMO

This is the only matter active in this case right now, and it's a critical issue. I saw you said this 3 times already now and not sure why. This is directly related to this case.

jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

IMO until the Supreme Court of Indiana rules we don’t know if they will be reinstated or not. @Jurisprudence, please correct me if I am wrong.

This is what I’m curious about. Since R did in fact withdraw and therefore the factual basis of the Writ is false, what then?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

This is what I’m curious about. Since R did in fact withdraw and therefore the factual basis of the Writ is false, what then?

View attachment 462573

He states in chambers that he would withdraw. In fact he said it more than once but he didn’t follow it up with a filed motion.
I personally believe they went in to chambers expecting to do exactly what was done. They knew she was leaning toward DQ, they request a “huddle”, are given the floor, invoke the word “ambush” immediately, then pretend to withdraw.

Not the first time this team has been less than truthful, regardless of their intent.

 

[zh0r4]

This is what I’m curious about. Since R did in fact withdraw and therefore the factual basis of the Writ is false, what then?

View attachment 462573

IMO the answer is in the ss you posted above.

“Faced with this dilemma, Attorney Baldwin orally moved to withdraw his appearance, and Attorney Rozzi informed the trial court he would file a formal motion to withdraw his appearance at a later date. [R2, 6). Attorney Rozzi did not withdraw.”

So faced with a Hobson’s choice, as reflected in the transcript released today, Rozzi said he would file a formal motion (bc again, according to Indiana law 3.1(H), nothing about this entire thing is formal/followed judicial procedure, even with Baldwin)-a formal motion on a later date. But he didn’t file a motion to withdraw, he did what he could to avoid a public lashing that would hurt his client in that moment.

He then filed 4 other motions instead: Motion to Disqualify (the judge), Verified Notice of Continuing Representation, Praecipe for Transcript, and a Motion for Continuance (Sources below). He was asking for the transcript since it reiterates exactly what he said happened in his Motion to DQ/violation of constitutional rights by JG.

Reading the transcript released today, it is very clear JG made her decision that she would unconstitutionally & without due process dismiss RA’s defense.

JMO.

Sources:
Indiana Rules of Court -Rules of Trial Procedure

https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/trial_proc/trial_proc.pdf

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
Rozzi, filed on 10/25/2023
Allen Motionpdf.pdf

VERIFIED NOTICE OF CONTINUING REPRESENTATION
Rozzi, filed 10/25/2023
Allen Noticepdf.pdf

PRAECIPE FOR TRANSCRIPT
Rozzi, filed 10/25/2023
Allen Praecipepdf.pdf

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
Rozzi, filed 10/26/2023
1pdf.pdf

 

[zh0r4]

He states in chambers that he would withdraw. In fact he said it more than once but he didn’t follow it up with a filed motion.
I personally believe they went in to chambers expecting to do exactly what was done. They knew she was leaning toward DQ, they request a “huddle”, are given the floor, invoke the word “ambush” immediately, then pretend to withdraw.

Not the first time this team has been less than truthful, regardless of their intent.

Please provide a source for these allegations. The transcripts tell a different story entirely. The facts are in the transcript.

I have linked Indiana Law re: Rules of Trial Procedure twice.

	(H) Withdrawal of Representation. An attorney representing a party may file a motion to withdraw representation of the party upon a showing that the attorney has sent written notice of intent to withdraw to the party at least ten (10) days before filing a motion to withdraw representation, and either:
	(1) the terms and conditions of the attorney's agreement with the party regarding the scope of the representation have been satisfied, or
	(2) withdrawal is required by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(a), or is otherwise permitted by Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b).
	An attorney filing a motion to withdraw from representation shall certify the last known address and telephone number of the party, subject to the confidentiality provisions of Sections (A)(8) and (D) above, and shall attach to the motion a copy of the notice of intent to withdraw that was sent to the party.
	A motion for withdrawal of representation shall be granted by the court unless the court specifically finds that withdrawal is not reasonable or consistent with the efficient administration of justice.

Source, p.5

https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/trial_proc/trial_proc.pdf

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Please provide a source for these allegations. The transcripts tell a different story entirely. The facts are in the transcript.

In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdfThe transcripts actually support that he stated he would withdraw.

 

[zh0r4]

In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdfThe transcripts actually support that he stated he would withdraw.

“I personally believe they went in to chambers expecting to do exactly what was done. They knew she was leaning toward DQ, they request a “huddle”, are given the floor, invoke the word “ambush” immediately, then pretend to withdraw.

Not the first time this team has been less than truthful, regardless of their intent.”

There is no factual basis or source for these allegations when you read the material in front of you.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

“I personally believe they went in to chambers expecting to do exactly what was done. They knew she was leaning toward DQ, they request a “huddle”, are given the floor, invoke the word “ambush” immediately, then pretend to withdraw.

Not the first time this team has been less than truthful, regardless of their intent.”

There is no factual basis or source for these allegations when you read the material in front of you.

Bbm
I beg to differ.
Also to help you find the source of BR’s oral withdrawal it said twice in page 20 of the transcript. Line 5 and line 7 and then the 3rd time by BR on Page 21 line 14.

 

[texasbean]

I’m disappointed to continue to read people misunderstanding frustration with Judge Gull’s failure to properly and impartially do her job as some sort of personal animus toward her. If she had carried out her duties properly, neither of the two matters would be before SCOIN right now. I understand some people think Baldwin and Rozzi have committed grievous mistakes. From there, it does not logically follow that Gull hasn’t really botched this. She has, and it’s a disservice not only to the defendant but also to the victims and to the public. JMO