IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173

[zh0r4]

Given the guy who bragged about having taken the pictures of the evidence photos did so on his phone, I'm pretty sure the exif data would make proving it easy. And hasn't he been charged? There would have to be enough linking him directly to the pictures for the arrest warrant. Digital investigation by LE would make short work of the trail.

MOO

EXIF data doesn’t prove where the picture was taken. I’m not saying MW is lying, only that I want more information, which in this case is very difficult-especially when stuff keeps getting conveniently unprofessionally wiped from the record. There is zero transparency, which breeds suspicion. I would be a nightmare as a juror I’m sure. JMO.

 

[iamshadow21]

EXIF data doesn’t prove where the picture was taken. I’m not saying MW is lying, only that I want more information, which in this case is very difficult-especially when stuff keeps getting conveniently unprofessionally wiped from the record. There is zero transparency, which breeds suspicion. I would be a nightmare as a juror I’m sure. JMO.

I think that you're wanting things that aren't going to come out until trial, and maybe not even then. It's not like the data evidence witnesses go through every single data point for a jury. Especially when dealing with digital trails. They tend to highlight the relevant time/date/location etc data and move on, before the jury falls asleep. (I love digital trail data, but I know everyone is not like me.)

While exif data alone might not, it in conjunction with cellphone pings and location data probably will, very accurately.

What matters is that Westerman claims he was the source, and has said he was on record. He sent those pictures to another person. (Given that he has been charged, I assume LE has been able to verify this.) What hands it went through after that point is out of the scope of his actions, and while the subject of the broader investigation of the leak, they might not come up at all in court unless people further down the chain are called as witnesses or are charged with offenses themselves.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

Man accused of leaking evidence in Delphi murders appears in courtPre trial was reset for March 7

Why doesn't he just plead guilty and make some kind of a deal? Does he want a trial for some reason?

 

[iamshadow21]

Why doesn't he just plead guilty and make some kind of a deal? Does he want a trial for some reason?

He's a wannabe lawyer who couldn't pass the bar, it might be his only chance ever to be the centre of a courtroom drama.

MOO

 

[al66pine]

"Wheat Intolerance" Mystery Solved.

Guttwein leaned heavily on this case in his oral argument and Chief Justice Rush asked him to cite another authority as she wasn’t convinced of his interpretation.

Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988)

Wheat v. United States

supreme.justia.com

@Ward Thisperer
Thank you very much for this explanation.

Before posting Q, I google-searched "Wheat Intolerance" & got zip. Even urbandictionary.com was no help.
Well, no wonder. Again, TY.

 

[sunshineray]

No, and this is a huge issue for me. Most leaks end up somewhere on the internet, I’ve seen nothing from these leaks. I prefer evidence for things, and so far I’ve seen no evidence of the leaks only regurgitation of these allegations over and over by prosecutor friendly, grifter podcasters. There was also Westerman who allegedly stole the pics (unbeknownst to Baldwin), then distributed them-it wasn’t Baldwin. There should be a chain of custody of all evidence, including evidence to substantiate “gross negligence” per the leaks. If I was a juror, I would ask “Where is the proof Westerman acquired these photos from Baldwin’s office?” Gull has already wiped Westerman records from the record, ironically and conveniently.

I assume numerous people have access to CS photos so I found it interesting it’s immediately blamed on the defense, soon after the release of the Frank’s memo.

AJMO.

"According to court documents, Westerman told Baldwin on October 9 that he was behind the leak of crime scene photos."

Man charged after admitting to leaking Delphi murders evidence

A man has been charged after admitting to photographing sensitive crime scene evidence from the Delphi Murders case and sharing the photos online.

www.wrtv.com

 

[katydid23]

No, and this is a huge issue for me. Most leaks end up somewhere on the internet, I’ve seen nothing from these leaks. I prefer evidence for things, and so far I’ve seen no evidence of the leaks only regurgitation of these allegations over and over by prosecutor friendly, grifter podcasters. There was also Westerman who allegedly stole the pics (unbeknownst to Baldwin), then distributed them-it wasn’t Baldwin. There should be a chain of custody of all evidence, including evidence to substantiate “gross negligence” per the leaks. If I was a juror, I would ask “Where is the proof Westerman acquired these photos from Baldwin’s office?” Gull has already wiped Westerman records from the record, ironically and conveniently.

I assume numerous people have access to CS photos so I found it interesting it’s immediately blamed on the defense, soon after the release of the Frank’s memo.

AJMO.

Both Baldwin and Westerman have admitted , under oath, that Westerman stole the photos from Baldwin's office. So why would a juror not believe that's what happened?

 

[photographer4]

They withdrew.
Had they not they would have had a hearing that day.

JMO

They didn't seem to have much other choice really - and JG's bias was showing (in my view). She would have ruled against them anyhow probably.

 

[photographer4]

Leeman brought up the points that JG ordered them to cease working on the case before the hearing, that going into the hearing could have further polluted the jury pool and jeopardize RA's right to a fair trial, and that JG had already told them her decision. One of the SCOIN judges brought that point up again, that JG's decision was already made before the hearing, and it was her own finding. This is all just what I picked up on first listening.

And that is key - her own finding. She cannot just arbitrarily decide to can the counsel weeks before trial can she? I would think she derailed that entire trajectory more than the lawyers did. She could have taken other measures. A waiver. A penalty imposed on them...

 

[photographer4]

So, let's say that the exD allowed the hearing to take place that day instead of offering their withdrawal.

They may have been removed, but wouldn't that have allowed them to appeal that decision and all of this would now be resolved and moving ahead instead of sitting in limbo?

This feels like theatrics, which from my perspective is putting RA's rights behind their own?

Add to this the fact that they wanted to represent RA pro Bono, because ..they believe in their clients innocence, but today they want to be be paid?

Did they really ever want to do this for free? If the SCOIN agrees to reinstate them as Co Counsel with the understanding that they are ProBono, will they fight that too? Prolonging this case even more?

I feel like this case is all about B&R
.
Even RA has taken a back seat to them. Then, way on the barely visible horizon sit Abby and Libby.


JMO

Libby and abby are NOT the point of this particular matter though. Sad but true. This is a matter of legal issues and only that. JG made up the rules at her whim and fired counsel because she was irritated with them. I don't think a judge should be allowed to just trample RA's rights, whether or not he is guilty of the crime. That seems like her personal bias was showing through and I'm glad it's being checked - even if that means we wait to get the trial back on track.

 

[photographer4]

I understand.

I just can't help but wonder where we would be today if exD had refused to withdrawal and allowed the hearing to take place that day.


JMO

Its clear the ex-D felt under pressure to withdraw. Its not something they really wanted to I don't think.

 

[Emma Peel]

(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.

I think given her multiple on the record statements about their incompetence/gross negligence/dishonesty, her disagreements with their strategy in this case, and her attempt to disqualify them, it would be reasonable to question Judge Gull's impartiality in regards to Baldwin & Rozzi. She may be fully capable of divorcing her personal feelings about them from any rulings on the case, but there will certainly be a portion of the public who wonders about her motivations whenever she rules against them. IMO, given that, it would be wise for her to recuse herself if they continue on the case. But she's the one who would make the decision on that, at least initially.

Thank you.

IMO, we've been on recusal watch since SCOIN made it abundantly clear that old D was neither grossly negligent nor incompentent.

SCOIN has given Judge Gull the opportunity to do the correct judicial thing - find that high bar once again and recuse gracefully. There was enough inside-baseball going on between AG and that Court today to make me think both AG and Gull knew likely outcome prior to Gull accepting more Superior Court Administrative responsibilities. IMO - Gull is prepared to recuse.

AND now the P puts the Death Penalty on the table. Stakes are even higher. The appearance of bias EXISTS and all that would accomplish is an much greater likelihood of having a guilty verdict overturned verdict on appeal.

If she persists ... we'll have both sets of attorneys scratching their heads and fretting.

And old D, - seems to me they'd be ethically obligated to advocate for a fair, non-bias trial environment for RA's trial ... and to motion for Gull's recusal due to her documented past bias against the D team; her "judgement" railroaded RA's right to counsel and speedy trial and her "judicial discretion" was overturned by the SCION.

In fact, old D has a pending motion for Gull to recuse herself - on the docket - from 10/31.

All Just MHO...

 

[photographer4]

So if the exD are reinstated, and remain even after a potential hearing to have them removed, and if JG is not removed, will she possible recuse herself because of a conflict?

Man I hope so! She is not doing a very good job in my view. Not releasing docs then having a doc dump - and then saying it would be on X day and then delays on even that happening, kicking counsel off the case, not seeming to care how far counsel must travel to get to see their client, nor the hoops they must go through, not seeming to care about the conditions he's apparently facing with Odins as staff at the facility (these are troubling matters!)

 

[Emma Peel]

Libby and abby are NOT the point of this particular matter though. Sad but true. This is a matter of legal issues and only that. JG made up the rules at her whim and fired counsel because she was irritated with them. I don't think a judge should be allowed to just trample RA's rights, whether or not he is guilty of the crime. That seems like her personal bias was showing through and I'm glad it's being checked - even if that means we wait to get the trial back on track.

If you're family of victims, you have a vested interest in having verdicts protected from structural errors (which risk - on appeal - an immediate verdict reversals due to technical structural errors.)

Gull's bias was/is a threat to both parties here. JMHO

 

[photographer4]

As someone who lived not too far from where this happened,Monticello. My guess is that the area is pushing for this to resolve because it is hurting tourism at nearby Indiana Beach. I myself, am experiencing some skepticism that they have the right guy or everyone involved. We will see what comes out in trial. Still talking to Delphi community friends.

How is this affecting tourism? Have I missed something? Is the beach somehow tied to the case?

 

[photographer4]

All things being equal, I think insistence on keeping him in the state prison during pre-trial is an unforced error. Unless their system of county jails is seriously flawed or deficient, they should leave him in one of those, per standard protocol. Doesn't have to be in the county where the trial is being held, just any county that has the room and quality security. It's been done before.

Otherwise, its going to play out, regardless of the news and social media drama. Juries mostly do their jobs well in these circumstances. Judges deserve to have control and order in their court, defendants deserve a fair trial, drama not necessary.

Maybe what they should consider is beefing up security at a county jail closer to his counsel. One that has an appropriate meeting space for him and counsel to review materials and prepare his defence? Just a thought.

 

[photographer4]

If you're family of victims, you have a vested interest in having verdicts protected from structural errors (which risk - on appeal - an immediate verdict reversals due to technical structural errors.)

Gull's bias was/is a threat to both parties here. JMHO

I don’t deny that her rulings to date pose a threat here to the victims families at all. The only thing I am pointing out is that the matter today was not about the kids or their families. It was only to address legal issues that arose. It’s not that no one is thinking of the girls or their families but more so that they’re thinking about how rulings have affected the court proceedings. It was all technicalities of law and ins and outs of legal proceedings. That is all. I do hope for resolution for the accused and the girls loved ones sooner than later.

 

[sunshineray]

I'm kinda not surprised at JG's lawyer bringing up RA mental health awareness. The ExD has stated that many times he doesn't have mental presence of mind (like when he called his wife and mom to confess). Good point made by her IMO.

MOO

It was a lawyer that was speaking on behalf of Judge Gull who mentioned RA's mental health...in the context of if he was even aware of all that was going on in the SC and if his mental health was good enough to judge things capably. That's why it surprised me.

And shortly after that was when RA's lawyer read the letter he supposedly wrote saying he wanted AB & BR as his attorneys.

 

[Emma Peel]

I guess my question is if both the ex-D and JG remain, will the reinstated-D even need to file for her recusal, or will JG see all of this as a conflict of interest and see it fit to remove herself. It can't just be water under the bridge at this point, because it leaves another door open for appeal that the judge was biased. JMO.

It was quite noticeable that this aspect was not brought up in the hearing.

I've been thinking about the old D's motion from 10/31 - motion for Gull to recuse herself.
Is it still on the docket? Regardless, the work there is done, resubmit.

 

[photographer4]

That was always the charge that made more sense to me given the description of events in the AA. I still wonder why they charged it as felony murder at first, but I guess we may never know.

Maybe they found more evidence?