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

[Dhighsmith]

What I found in the transcript that was interesting is
Page 3 line 24-25.
BR acknowledges he had requested the huddle up and asks to lead. ( judge affirms Pg 4 ln 2)
Page 4 line 13-15
BR acknowledges that DQ had been mentioned weeks prior.
Page 4 lines 17-20
BR acknowledges they will be airing this in open court and that it also had been mentioned in a prior email. (Judge affirms)
Page 5 lines 1-3
BR states he feels more comfortable discussing this privately (on record) or ex-parte CONFIDENTIAL hearing.
Page 5 line 22
AB states he feels ambushed but doesn’t want to use that word.
Page 5 line going into the top of page 6
AB mentions that he thinks Nick used the word “ disqualification “.

The reason I find this interesting is that they used the word ambush within a few moments of having the floor. The judge had not laid out her thoughts “hobsons choice” at that point. ( she doesn’t until page 13)
AB had introduced that word “ambush”even though they both had heads up that DQ was on the table.
I think this was strategic.
AB arrived with counsel and a file showing that leaks had occurred on the onset of the investigation. They spent two+ pages in attempt to point fingers at non lawyers under no gag order or protective order of discovery that may have been involved in early leaks.
This does not point to ambush to me.
I think they introduced the scenario of wanting to keep this leak issue and the possible legal/professional consequences for them out of the public eye.

I was actually about to layout the same areas that in my personal opinion that lacks direct experience in the criminal courts seem to contradict certain arguments of not having clear insight into the purpose of the scheduled hearing- blindsided by calling into question their competency based on perceived pattern of certain actions.

The most revealing point to me in rejecting an “ambush” is:

AB arrived with counsel

 

[Ward Thisperer]

I was actually about to layout the same areas that in my personal opinion that lacks direct experience in the criminal courts seem to contradict certain arguments of not having clear insight into the purpose of the scheduled hearing- blindsided by calling into question their competency based on perceived pattern of certain actions.

The most revealing point to me in rejecting an “ambush” is:

“AB arrived with counsel”

Was DH present or had he just filed an appearance to submit the memorandum? I didn’t think he was actually in the courthouse until 10/31.

Imo it’s an ambush because they hadn’t been given legal notice that would allow them to defend themselves or even discuss specifics with their client. I think everyone agrees they were expecting some development regarding a DQ that day but not that it would happen that day.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

MW is being charged

State of Indiana v. Mitchell Thomas Westerman​

Case Number	41D03-2311-CM-001119
Court	Johnson Superior Court 3
Type	CM - Criminal Misdemeanor
Filed	11/21/2023
Status	11/21/2023 , Pending (active)
Reference	Case cross references Prosecutor Case Management Number 41-DM2704607 Police Agency Number 23ISPC016405

11/21/2023	Case Opened as a New Filing
11/21/2023	Case Filed Electronically Added By EFile Manager
11/21/2023	Appearance Filed Appearance For Party: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Motion Filed Motion to Seal Warrant and Informations Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Notice of Exclusion of Confidential Information Access to Court Records (Exclusion) Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Information Filed Information Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Probable Cause Affidavit Filed Westerman PCA 112023.pdf Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Order Issued Order Sealing Arrest Warrant and Charging Informations Confidential entered. Judicial Officer: Cummins, Douglas B. Order Signed: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Probable Cause Found: Order Issued Order Determing Probable Cause and Request for Warrant entered. Court set bond in the amount of $1,000.00 Surety or $250.00 cash. Clerk is directed to issue a Warrant.cd Judicial Officer: Cummins, Douglas B. Order Signed: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Warrant or Writ of Attmnt for the Body of a Person Issued
11/22/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 11/21/2023 : Mitchell Thomas Westerman Probable Cause Found: Order Issued ---- 11/21/2023 : Mitchell Thomas Westerman
11/22/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 11/21/2023 : Lindsey Holden-Kay;Lance Dalton Hamner Probable Cause Found: Order Issued ---- 11/21/2023 : Lindsey Holden-Kay;Lance Dalton Hamner
11/22/2023	Motion Filed Motion to Unseal Arrest Warrant Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/22/2023
11/22/2023	Order Granting Motion to Unseal Public Record Judicial Officer: Cummins, Douglas B. Order Signed: 11/22/2023

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Based on this limited info it doesn’t seem that the investigation has found anything different than what B&R have said.

Edit- adding charge info.

Charges​

Hide all charge details

35-43-4-3(a)/MA: Conversion
	Statute 35-43-4-3(a) Degree MA

(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person commits criminal conversion, a Class A misdemeanor.

Section 35-43-4-3 - Conversion, Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Section 35-43-4-3 - Conversion, Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

MW is being charged

State of Indiana v. Mitchell Thomas Westerman​

Case Number	41D03-2311-CM-001119
Court	Johnson Superior Court 3
Type	CM - Criminal Misdemeanor
Filed	11/21/2023
Status	11/21/2023 , Pending (active)
Reference	Case cross references Prosecutor Case Management Number 41-DM2704607 Police Agency Number 23ISPC016405

11/21/2023	Case Opened as a New Filing
11/21/2023	Case Filed Electronically Added By EFile Manager
11/21/2023	Appearance Filed Appearance For Party: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Motion Filed Motion to Seal Warrant and Informations Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Notice of Exclusion of Confidential Information Access to Court Records (Exclusion) Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Information Filed Information Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Probable Cause Affidavit Filed Westerman PCA 112023.pdf Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Order Issued Order Sealing Arrest Warrant and Charging Informations Confidential entered. Judicial Officer: Cummins, Douglas B. Order Signed: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Probable Cause Found: Order Issued Order Determing Probable Cause and Request for Warrant entered. Court set bond in the amount of $1,000.00 Surety or $250.00 cash. Clerk is directed to issue a Warrant.cd Judicial Officer: Cummins, Douglas B. Order Signed: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Warrant or Writ of Attmnt for the Body of a Person Issued
11/22/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 11/21/2023 : Mitchell Thomas Westerman Probable Cause Found: Order Issued ---- 11/21/2023 : Mitchell Thomas Westerman
11/22/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 11/21/2023 : Lindsey Holden-Kay;Lance Dalton Hamner Probable Cause Found: Order Issued ---- 11/21/2023 : Lindsey Holden-Kay;Lance Dalton Hamner
11/22/2023	Motion Filed Motion to Unseal Arrest Warrant Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/22/2023
11/22/2023	Order Granting Motion to Unseal Public Record Judicial Officer: Cummins, Douglas B. Order Signed: 11/22/2023

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

View attachment 463082View attachment 463083View attachment 463084
Based on this limited info it doesn’t seem that the investigation has found anything different than what B&R have said.

Good find!

They got him on Conversion, charge date: 08/01/2023

Charges​

Hide all charge details

	01	08/01/2023	35-43-4-3(a)/MA: Conversion
	Statute 35-43-4-3(a) Degree MA

 

[zh0r4]

Good find!

They got him on Conversion, charge date: 08/01/2023

Charges​

Hide all charge details

	01	08/01/2023	35-43-4-3(a)/MA: Conversion
	Statute 35-43-4-3(a) Degree MA

2022 Indiana Code
Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure
Article 43. Offenses Against Property
Chapter 4. Theft, Conversion, and Receiving Stolen Property
35-43-4-3. Conversion​

2022 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 43. Offenses Against Property :: Chapter 4. Theft, Conversion, and Receiving Stolen Property :: 35-43-4-3. Conversion

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

 

[zh0r4]

Westfield man charged in Delphi murders evidence leak​

Westfield man charged in Delphi murders evidence leak

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — A friend and former co-worker of attorney Andrew Baldwin, who was one-half of accused Delphi murderer Richard Allen’s original defense team, is being charged after he a…

fox59.com

 

[Jurisprudence]

Well if there's one thing observed about this case, IMO, it needs more clarity.

[bbm]

100%

 

[Boxer]

So here’s where we are.

Some believe the memorandum was ground-breaking in exposing LE’s mistakes, and exculpatory for RA, who was targeted by LE as a fall guy. Gull‘s actions are under review and many legal folks, media, and members of the public believe her actions were hinky, and possibly part of a grand plan to thwart RA’s defense and his rights. Got it.

Others believe RA’s original defense was throwing mud at the wall with the memorandum, and the leak may have been orchestrated to sabotage prosecution from moving quickly to trial, and to have the judge removed, or to recuse. Got it.

Now we await SCOIN’s response to learn if B&R will be reinstated (pro-bono, or appointed as public defenders.) We await their decision on sanctions against Gull. B&R still matter to this case. Got it.

I still have questions.
Who killed Libby and Abby?
RA? What is the totality of evidence?
If it was RA, did he do it alone, or were others involved?
WHO are they? WHERE are they?
Are the killers still out there, free to kill again, or is the right and solo suspect behind bars?

What have I missed?

MOO he did it, and he did alone. He did it to feel powerful.

He may have known they were going to be there or not. I lean toward that he did not.
Seeing vulnerable girls in an indefensible situation took him over.
Once he said "down the hill" he knew he already kidnapped them and it went horribly down hill from there.

MOO he regretted violating Abby so he had her redress in clothes available at the CS.
He threw some branches on the bodies possibly was going to do more when he heard DG calling so from the trail so he high tailed out.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Personally, I think the “gravest injury and harm” was done on Feb. 13, 2017. What has happened with the leak, does not amount to “gross negligence” IMO. What appears to get lost in all this talk of gross negligence is the fact that MW secretly copied confidential information and disseminated it. That, I see as downright criminal and hopefully the investigation will bring some charges for the person ultimately responsible.

Now, if you are speaking about the individual that died, I still don’t agree. First off, I’m very sorry he died, however, I in no way feel that the leak was directly responsible for this tragedy. This individual had a choice before LE showed up at his door. He could have called them to report he was in possession of the leaked evidence like MS did. He didn’t. Why? Was there something SO damaging in his possession that he knew would be uncovered during an investigation over and above the leaked documents that he did not want exposed? We may never know. JMT

I just don’t see the leak as gross negligence on the part of B & R and we would do well not to bandy about JG‘s estimation of the situation as it has not been proven. AJMO
eta I think

(and it's not a ground under IN law) [Relator's Brief, page 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.” And courts across the country regularly issue extraordinary writs in criminal cases to reinstate defense attorneys who have been kicked off cases for conduct the trial court found upsetting or negligent..."

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Jurisprudence]

I was actually about to layout the same areas that in my personal opinion that lacks direct experience in the criminal courts seem to contradict certain arguments of not having clear insight into the purpose of the scheduled hearing- blindsided by calling into question their competency based on perceived pattern of certain actions.

The most revealing point to me in rejecting an “ambush” is:

Just to clarify, appearing that date and having counsel make a filing for the record on his behalf does not take away from the ambush aspect in his (or Rozzi's, or Hennessy's) mind because the worst case scenario that was expected is that the judge would tell them "I've decided to move forward to have you DQ'd, I'm setting this hearing for X date at Y time" because that's they way it's supposed to happen. He showed up with the filing and for Baldwin bc they knew the matter would be discussed, not bc they knew she made up her mind on her own and coordinated with the prosecution to bring in witnesses for it to have a DQ hearing without notice to either the D attorneys or to RA.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

The first part of Oct was when LE were notified of the leak (MS?) but the Westerman charges are dated Aug 1.
So those photos were taken 2 months prior to when we thought they were. Huh...

 

[steeltowngirl]

Slightly O/T - just came home from the grocery store and passed the Dairy Queen. Their big store sign stood out in red letters: DQ.

Thought of you all and smiled. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to remind myself here that DQ means disqualify. Not an ice cream cone.

 

[Dhighsmith]

MW is being charged

State of Indiana v. Mitchell Thomas​

Thanks for sharing, guess expected so not too surprising. Thanksgiving may take on a new meaning.

 

[Dhighsmith]

DBM- Duplicate Post

 

[zh0r4]

The first part of Oct was when LE were notified of the leak (MS?) but the Westerman charges are dated Aug 1.
So those photos were taken 2 months prior to when we thought they were. Huh...

Good catch. This corroborates Rozzi’s Oct 12 letter in Exhibit K, p. 215, Record of Proceedings Vol. 1 (pictured below).

bbm

“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 us during depositions.”



Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

PDF

Record of Proceedings Volume 1.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[katydid23]

Personally, I think the “gravest injury and harm” was done on Feb. 13, 2017. What has happened with the leak, does not amount to “gross negligence” IMO. What appears to get lost in all this talk of gross negligence is the fact that MW secretly copied confidential information and disseminated it. That, I see as downright criminal and hopefully the investigation will bring some charges for the person ultimately responsible.

I disagree, respectfully, with the above -----I see it as gross negligence.

Number one, there was talk that MW was used to 'bounce legal strategy around' with AB. That is problem number one if that was true. MW is not an attorney, does not work for AB, and son should not be told anything about the murder case.

Number two, we don't know that MW 'secretly' did anything. Why would a 'good friend and confidante' illegally disseminate confidential trial info to You-tubers ? That makes no sense.

However IF he did do that, it is still AB's responsibility, for allowing MW to wander around in private rooms while sealed documents were laying around unsupervised. And that in itself is the definition of gross negligence, IMO.

Now, if you are speaking about the individual that died, I still don’t agree. First off, I’m very sorry he died, however, I in no way feel that the leak was directly responsible for this tragedy.

He was visited by LE , who interrogated him, and he killed himself the next day. It sounds like a pretty direct connection to me. He probably knew he was likely to lose his Air Force career and be humiliated and embarrassed as well, in front of family and friends, co-workers.

This individual had a choice before LE showed up at his door. He could have called them to report he was in possession of the leaked evidence like MS did. He didn’t. Why? Was there something SO damaging in his possession that he knew would be uncovered during an investigation over and above the leaked documents that he did not want exposed? We may never know. JMT

How does the above negate the impact this had on the man who killed himself? You are making my point for me, IMO.
He knew he was in bad shape legally and was overwhelmed.

I just don’t see the leak as gross negligence on the part of B & R and we would do well not to bandy about JG‘s estimation of the situation as it has not been proven. AJMO
eta I think

I disagree, respectfully, with the statement this was not gross negligence. To me, it fits that criteria perfectly. After the first incident, where he sent a jump drive to the wrong person, did he become more careful with the classified documents?

No, he was very irresponsible in the way he handled the sealed photos and documents. These were highly sensitive photos he was in charge of, and he did nothing to protect them. They should been locked up when not in use. Not left out on a table in an unsupervised room, while people were allowed to wander around in the area.




The Five Elements of Negligence:

• The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff;
• The defendant breached this duty;
• But for the defendant's action (or failure to act), the plaintiff wouldn't have suffered the injury;
• The defendant's action (or failure to act) was the proximate cause of the injury, and the defendant could have foreseen this; and
• The plaintiff suffered damages.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Thanks for sharing, guess expected so not too surprising. Thanksgiving may take on a new meaning.

I'm curious what you think about the charge.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Mitch Westerman’s arrest document.
Not particularly interesting.

OneDrive

onedrive.live.com

 

[susiQ]

I disagree, respectfully, with the above -----I see it as gross negligence.

Number one, there was talk that MW was used to 'bounce legal strategy around' with AB. That is problem number one if that was true. MW is not an attorney, does not work for AB, and son should not be told anything about the murder case.

Number two, we don't know that MW 'secretly' did anything. Why would a 'good friend and confidante' illegally disseminate confidential trial info to You-tubers ? That makes no sense.

However IF he did do that, it is still AB's responsibility, for allowing MW to wander around in private rooms while sealed documents were laying around unsupervised. And that in itself is the definition of gross negligence, IMO.


He was visited by LE , who interrogated him, and he killed himself the next day. It sounds like a pretty direct connection to me. He probably knew he was likely to lose his Air Force career and be humiliated and embarrassed as well, in front of family and friends, co-workers.


How does the above negate the impact this had on the man who killed himself? You are making my point for me, IMO.
He knew he was in bad shape legally and was overwhelmed.

I disagree, respectfully, with the statement this was not gross negligence. To me, it fits that criteria perfectly. After the first incident, where he sent a jump drive to the wrong person, did he become more careful with the classified documents?

No, he was very irresponsible in the way he handled the sealed photos and documents. These were highly sensitive photos he was in charge of, and he did nothing to protect them. They should been locked up when not in use. Not left out on a table in an unsupervised room, while people were allowed to wander around in the area.




The Five Elements of Negligence:

• The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff;
• The defendant breached this duty;
• But for the defendant's action (or failure to act), the plaintiff wouldn't have suffered the injury;
• The defendant's action (or failure to act) was the proximate cause of the injury, and the defendant could have foreseen this; and
• The plaintiff suffered damages.

Thank you for your response. With respect, it’s more than clear that we will not find agreement on any of these issues. Let’s just leave it at that.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

M

“AB arrived with counsel”

Was DH present or had he just filed an appearance to submit the memorandum? I didn’t think he was actually in the courthouse until 10/31.

He was present at the courthouse on 10/19.

Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland and the defense attorneys entered Judge Gull’s chambers for a pow-wow at 12:30 p.m. as Hennessy sat on a bench in the hallway, waiting to be summoned.

Baldwin and Rozzi were spotted transitioning in the hallway from the judge’s chambers to Allen’s holding area and Hennessy, who was prepared to defend his client Baldwin in the courtroom debate over the leak, also disappeared into the back hallway.

Behind the scenes of the Delphi defense team’s dismissal