GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #219

[iamshadow21]

Maybe they're envisioning a book deal when this is over. Nothing wrong with that?

I am certain they are considering some kind of money making venture.

It would have a better ending in a publisher's eyes if they'd been successful at trial. I'm sure that's frustrating to them.

MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

@FrostedGlass

Okay, agreeing that Dateline episode MAY have been "better if they had, in hand, the discovery they asked for" but not sure as I have not watched it yet.

Unusual or delayed TIMING of judge's order, as OP suggests?

Conviction on Nov. 11, 2024 & sentencing on Dec. 20, 2024.
If Dateline NBC was planning to air a Delphi trial follow up (could there be a question about that), say ~ Feb 21, is there a reason for failing to request the Public Trial Exhibits until either -
- the initial Jan. 8 EMAIL request to the court, or
- the actual Feb. 3 MOTION filed w court,
just a couple weeks before the planned air-date?

Without reviewing statutory specifics of IN. "Access to Public Records" act and application to state court records, I gotta think the folks involved w Dateline NBC production made some ASSumptions in phrasing these requests.
From ¶4 of Judge Gull's order re NBC's requested "priority requests" seems clear to me, that NBC did not cite authority which was/could have been a basis for such a demand.

From the order's findings (¶9 & other ¶'s) about the requests being "overbroad, vague and not specific," it seems that some of the requests were rather hastily drafted.

Personally I don't think there was necessarily a deliberate delay and do not know of anything suspicious about the timing of the judge's order.

Reminds me of an old saying :
Poor planning on your [Dateline NBC's] part does NOT constitute an emergency on my [the Court's] part.
jmo
_________________________________
*IN. statute.

Indiana Code | Chapter 3 - ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS | Casetext

Browse Indiana Code | Chapter 3 - ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS for free on Casetext

casetext.com

I tend to agree with your comments about NBC. I'm not a fan of MSM in general and the idea they should have access to something that the public doesn't have access to doesn't sit well with me. OTOH maybe they aren't accustomed to dealing with public docs that aren't public?

It sounds like the judge wants exhibit numbers but where would anyone find those? The defense and the prosecution are likely to be the only ones who would have those handy.

The judge's mention of the exhibit volume being contained in two bankers boxes has raised more questions for me. I have ASSumed that all the documents were available online from Mycase and, with a mouse click, that info could be emailed to the public upon request.
MOO

 

[al66pine]

Exhibit Numbers. Not Given in Dateline's Request (Apparently?)

I tend to agree with your comments about NBC. I'm not a fan of MSM in general and the idea they should have access to something that the public doesn't have access to doesn't sit well with me. OTOH maybe they aren't accustomed to dealing with public docs that aren't public?

It sounds like the judge wants exhibit numbers but where would anyone find those? The defense and the prosecution are likely to be the only ones who would have those handy.

The judge's mention of the exhibit volume being contained in two bankers boxes has raised more questions for me. I have ASSumed that all the documents were available online from Mycase and, with a mouse click, that info could be emailed to the public upon request.
MOO

@FrostedGlass --- A good question about source of Exhibit Numbers (Identifiers, whatever IN's terminology is).

Briefly, by media or anyone else attending trial ime, imo.

Not so briefly.
In the "observation" ¶'s of Judge Gull's order, ¶ 14 - 16 stated Dateline's producer was there. Yes, right there in court.

¶ 14, 15, 16. There were 22 credentialed reporters "assigned front row seats" (yes, literally), and each day they were invited into the well to examine the exhibits.
Dateline NBC’s Marianne O’Donnell, was among them. O’Donnell was present.

A possible reading-btwn-the-lines interp of part of the order?

Something like, HOW in the world does an experienced producer of true crime series of a national media outlet NOT BOTHER to get (personally, thru an asst., or from other members of this specific coalition) the Exhibit Numbers/Identifiers, while sitting in courtroom front seats during trial & being invited into the well to review exhibits at end of each day?

BTW, per imdb.com, O'Donnell was producer of 54 Dateline episodes since 2003.
My note: She was not the Daily Planet’s cub reporter Jimmy Olsen in the “Adventures of Superman” and presumably the records request motion filed on behalf of NBCU (Dateline NBC) was not drafted by the star of "My Cousin Vinny." Okay, a bit o' sarc.
jmo. ICBWrong.
_________

* Judge's Feb. 18, 2025 Order

_Order on Feb 18, 2025.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

Exhibit Numbers. Not Given in Dateline's Request (Apparently?)



@FrostedGlass --- A good question about source of Exhibit Numbers (Identifiers, whatever IN's terminology is).

Briefly, by media or anyone else attending trial ime, imo.

Not so briefly.
In the "observation" ¶'s of Judge Gull's order, ¶ 14 - 16 stated Dateline's producer was there. Yes, right there in court.

¶ 14, 15, 16. There were 22 credentialed reporters "assigned front row seats" (yes, literally), and each day they were invited into the well to examine the exhibits.
Dateline NBC’s Marianne O’Donnell, was among them. O’Donnell was present.

A possible reading-btwn-the-lines interp of part of the order?

Something like, HOW in the world does an experienced producer of true crime series of a national media outlet NOT BOTHER to get (personally, thru an asst., or from other members of this specific coalition) the Exhibit Numbers/Identifiers, while sitting in courtroom front seats during trial & being invited into the well to review exhibits at end of each day?

BTW, per imdb.com, O'Donnell was producer of 54 Dateline episodes since 2003.
My note: She was not the Daily Planet’s cub reporter Jimmy Olsen in the “Adventures of Superman” and presumably the records request motion filed on behalf of NBCU (Dateline NBC) was not drafted by the star of "My Cousin Vinny." Okay, a bit o' sarc.
jmo. ICBWrong.
_________

* Judge's Feb. 18, 2025 Order

_Order on Feb 18, 2025.pdf

drive.google.com

Right, they were treated equally as the other 11 members of media were. Maybe therein lies the problem, they expected 'special' treatment because they're Dateline vs the Carrol Comet?

Big $$$$ to be made, never mind the Judicial Process of the actual trial and subsequent conviction of a double child murderer.

JMO

 

[somequestions]

This doc, page 9, is a good place to start your search. IMO, it's highly unlikely that witness was 4' 8" tall in 2017. You have a good idea but I really don't think it would have mattered, considering the way stories changed from the original interviews to the trial.

I've always wondered if the timestamp on the picture was confirmed to be accurate since they didn't find it until 2020. Another point: this witness was the one who said he had his hands in his pockets, head down, didn't get a good look at his face but believed he was a white male. What led her to that conclusion? An assumption based on his clothing? His height?

https://www.wishtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Objection-Filed-6-27-2023-13.34.25-248103915-FFC47C07-5DAF-414E-9879-66EEBA100263.pdf

The statement at the end that stood out to me was, "From Richard M. Allen's statements, investigators believe that Richard M. Allen was also on his phone when he was at the trail prior to meeting the girls."

Then he takes the same phone to the meeting with the conservation officer a few days later and lets him write down the phone's identification number. In RL's search warrant they were able to triangulate his phone's location placing it outside near the crime scene. I do not think RL has anything to do with the crime since the crime scene was on his property, but I do not know.

But if LE had done the same thing with Richard Allen's phone location, they would have had this case solved the first week. If they could have placed his phone's location on the other side of the creek in the same location as Liberty German's phone, how many people would just so happen to have crossed the creek in mid-February for no reason? The case would have been solved.

Nobody knows who wrote the word, "cleared" on Richard Allen's tip file. They don't know why it was written either.

 

[somequestions]

If a pair of juvenile witnesses are walking down a trail, and they see a random guy walking by, how accurate are thy going to be in estimating his height?

It is not an easy thing to do, especially if there was no engagement or interactions between them. And there was no reason for them to spontaneously make that assessment. He was just a passerby.

So to be asked about it days later, how accurate is a height estimate going to be?

I do not know. I guess it will only be as accurate as people think the statements are about everything else concerning descriptions and tip files and all the other evidence. It is subjective.

It would be nice to try to verify the person in Liberty German's phone video is Richard Allen. I liked the description from the witness who took the 1:26pm picture because she would have been next to him to compare her height to his. I recently saw something online that said Abigail Wiliams was 5 foot, 4 inches tall? Is this true? Since Richard Allen was also 5 foot, 4 inches tall, maybe the witness could say whether or not the person she saw was taller or shorter than Abby (if she knew Abby)?

 

[FrostedGlass]

The statement at the end that stood out to me was, "From Richard M. Allen's statements, investigators believe that Richard M. Allen was also on his phone when he was at the trail prior to meeting the girls."

Then he takes the same phone to the meeting with the conservation officer a few days later and lets him write down the phone's identification number. In RL's search warrant they were able to triangulate his phone's location placing it outside near the crime scene. I do not think RL has anything to do with the crime since the crime scene was on his property, but I do not know.

But if LE had done the same thing with Richard Allen's phone location, they would have had this case solved the first week. If they could have placed his phone's location on the other side of the creek in the same location as Liberty German's phone, how many people would just so happen to have crossed the creek in mid-February for no reason? The case would have been solved.

Nobody knows who wrote the word, "cleared" on Richard Allen's tip file. They don't know why it was written either.

If only they had not lost DD's tip.

One would think whoever wrote "cleared" initialed and dated it. I'm curious about who used that desk where the file was found.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Exhibit Numbers. Not Given in Dateline's Request (Apparently?)



@FrostedGlass --- A good question about source of Exhibit Numbers (Identifiers, whatever IN's terminology is).

Briefly, by media or anyone else attending trial ime, imo.

Not so briefly.
In the "observation" ¶'s of Judge Gull's order, ¶ 14 - 16 stated Dateline's producer was there. Yes, right there in court.

¶ 14, 15, 16. There were 22 credentialed reporters "assigned front row seats" (yes, literally), and each day they were invited into the well to examine the exhibits.
Dateline NBC’s Marianne O’Donnell, was among them. O’Donnell was present.

A possible reading-btwn-the-lines interp of part of the order?

Something like, HOW in the world does an experienced producer of true crime series of a national media outlet NOT BOTHER to get (personally, thru an asst., or from other members of this specific coalition) the Exhibit Numbers/Identifiers, while sitting in courtroom front seats during trial & being invited into the well to review exhibits at end of each day?

BTW, per imdb.com, O'Donnell was producer of 54 Dateline episodes since 2003.
My note: She was not the Daily Planet’s cub reporter Jimmy Olsen in the “Adventures of Superman” and presumably the records request motion filed on behalf of NBCU (Dateline NBC) was not drafted by the star of "My Cousin Vinny." Okay, a bit o' sarc.
jmo. ICBWrong.
_________

* Judge's Feb. 18, 2025 Order

_Order on Feb 18, 2025.pdf

drive.google.com

IMO there likely have been a number of requests for the documents and AFAIK, nobody has received copies. So either this issue is rather specific to this judge or the folks requesting the docs are uninformed as to the procedure. I wouldn't doubt but what there have been FOIA requests that have been denied.

I expect some of these people will come back with what the judge wants and we'll see how that goes.

 

[Megnut]

The statement at the end that stood out to me was, "From Richard M. Allen's statements, investigators believe that Richard M. Allen was also on his phone when he was at the trail prior to meeting the girls."

Then he takes the same phone to the meeting with the conservation officer a few days later and lets him write down the phone's identification number. In RL's search warrant they were able to triangulate his phone's location placing it outside near the crime scene. I do not think RL has anything to do with the crime since the crime scene was on his property, but I do not know.

But if LE had done the same thing with Richard Allen's phone location, they would have had this case solved the first week. If they could have placed his phone's location on the other side of the creek in the same location as Liberty German's phone, how many people would just so happen to have crossed the creek in mid-February for no reason? The case would have been solved.

Nobody knows who wrote the word, "cleared" on Richard Allen's tip file. They don't know why it was written either.

This. Gave. Me. Chills.

I think I might know how RA's tip got cleared.

He self-reported to being on the bridge.

He self-reported having his phone.

So why didn't his phone number show up in the geo fence sweep? Even a burner phone should have shown up.

RA turned his phone off. (IMO)

Why did he get rid of that phone? Must have been incriminating somehow... Perhaps because of the blackout hole that would coincide with the crime.

So how did the tip get cleared?

Admittedly I'm still result confused about what info he gave DD. Not his phone number but his phone's ID number???? Who does that?

Anyway, I think someone manually cleared RA because his number didn't appear in the geo fence catch, believing he had a phone on him when he was there, therefore, false conclusion: he was not there at 2:15, wasn't bridge guy.

I wonder where RA was when he turned his phone off (or left it behind). It would be really telling.... to know the very minute he started taking active steps to avoid capture for a crime he was about to commit.

JMO

 

[Megnut]

Yeah, if RA was in fact on his phone at the MHB at any point plus or minus 2pm, why didn't his number show up in the geo fence?

Doesn't that mean he would have had necessarily to turn it off prior to whatever tge geofence start time was? Or turn it off before he got there?

jmo

 

[INfisherman]

Yeah, if RA was in fact on his phone at the MHB at any point plus or minus 2pm, why didn't his number show up in the geo fence?

Doesn't that mean he would have had necessarily to turn it off prior to whatever tge geofence start time was? Or turn it off before he got there?

jmo

That’s why NM wanted the geofencing suppressed. The defense would have used that to introduce doubt to the jurors & it would have been misleading, not to mention the 3 other people who would have shown up near the CS, which also want locationally accurate.

I thought RA handed his phone to DD & DD copied the MEID & HEX numbers from his phone?

MOO

 

[Megnut]

That’s why NM wanted the geofencing suppressed. The defense would have used that to introduce doubt to the jurors & it would have been misleading, not to mention the 3 other people who would have shown up near the CS, which also want locationally accurate.

I thought RA handed his phone to DD & DD copied the MEID & HEX numbers from his phone?

MOO

Did DD never have RA's actual phone number?

If RA had his phone on at MHB between 1 and 5, it should have been geo netted.

Jmo

 

[mrjitty]

Did DD never have RA's actual phone number?

If RA had his phone on at MHB between 1 and 5, it should have been geo netted.

Jmo

right.

his phone was never there that day.

100%

IMO

 

[al66pine]

@FrostedGlass​

More thoughts after another read of the judge’s order.*​

In filing the Motion to Intervene, NBC also asked for some "Public Trial Exhibits" from RA's trial. In fairness to Dateline, I wish I had found that motion. Anyone? TiA.

Trudging ahead w the order, I’m paraphrasing some of judge’s “observations” (her term here, not using the more common “Findings of Fact”)

- ¶6. To date, the "Exhibit Volume" has indexed about 2 banker's boxes of exhibits, estimates could exceed 15 volumes. Requires more steps to prepare confidential & non-confidential volumes.
- ¶7. Interrupting that work now would force Ct Reporter to request extension(s) of time from IN. Ct of Appeals to file transcript.

But here's the real KICKER, mentioned in my earlier post:
- ¶8, 9, & 10. All LACK SPECIFICITY.
- ¶12. Which EXHIBITS are being requested?

(My note: Appears w this public records request, the judge expected to be provided the EXHIBIT IDENTIFIERS (like Prosecution No. 10, or Defense No. 20, or whatever IN. equivalent) which would commonly be used in making a request re trial.

¶ 14, 15, 16. There were 22 credentialed reporters "assigned front row seats" (yes, literally), and each day they were invited into the well to examine the exhibits.
Dateline NBC’s Marianne O’Donnell, was among them. O’Donnell was present.

¶18. This court is one of the busiest trial cts in the state, w 25 MURDER cases set for jury trial, along w hundreds of other major felony cases set for jury trial.

(My note: This was an open criminal trial, which Dateline attended w the opportunity to collect info like Exhibit Number Identifiers but apparently failed to do so. Or there may have been communication boo-boo’s btwn Dateline personnel & the law firm drafting the motion. Or something else. IDK. Kudos to @Vern who posted “… the justice system does not cater to social media clicks and television ratings.”)

Seems in BALANCING a convicted criminal’s constitutional rights against the public’s “right to know” the court refused to DELAY defendant’s APPEAL in order to fulfill Dateline’s entreaties (my note: in its quest for ratings) which were vague, or overbroad, or lacked specificity.

Altho the records were not provided in time to include in Dateline’s scheduled airdate, the judge did NOT DENY Dateline’s records request. The order DELAYS the record production UNTIL à

¶23 on receiving "a particularized, specific request for an actual exhibit introduced in the jury trial" the court & reporter will set aside "dates and time to consider and accommodate appropriately."
Then almost verbatim: The court & reporter CANNOT GUESS at what is being requested.

Did Dateline hope judge or court reporter would mindread?

IDK, but seems the ball is back in Peacock’s court.
jmo

____________________________
*Judge’s Feb 18, 2025 Order

_Order on Feb 18, 2025.pdf

drive.google.com

BTW, acknowledging that I'm not familiar w specifics of
- IN access to public records act, or other act applicable to trial court records in crim cases, or
- IN. judicial rules re third party's "right to intervene" in a criminal procedure, or
- IN. ct rule establishing deadline for judges to issue orders re access to public records motion.

Caveats, done now. Whew, whaddidImiss?

 

[al66pine]

This order. This judge. Unique?

IMO there likely have been a number of requests for the documents and AFAIK, nobody has received copies. So either this issue is rather specific to this judge or the folks requesting the docs are uninformed as to the procedure. I wouldn't doubt but what there have been FOIA requests that have been denied.

I expect some of these people will come back with what the judge wants and we'll see how that goes.

@FrostedGlass
Quoting from ^ thoughtful post. TYVM.

1. "likely have been a number of requests for the documents"
Yes, ¶2 of the order noted that the court has received THOUSANDS of emails re this case.

2. "AFAIK, nobody has received copies."
AFAIK, true, but not sure how we would know as a fact.
Personally doubting that the court, at this stage, would publicly announce - This month, we've fulfilled X number of public records requests re RA case under IN law, section ___.
Same re announcement by any news outlet which may (emphasis, MAY) have received records.

3. "either this issue is rather specific to this judge or the folks requesting the docs are uninformed as to the procedure."
Personally doubting that this judge is the only one in IN requiring exhibit numbers or equivalent. ICBWrong.
Agreeing that some requestors may be unfamiliar w the IN. process.
Likely imo, many requests may have been submitted in a manner not compliant w details of applicable statute or IN. court rule.

Like you said, we'll see.

Alternatives?
In trials where a court authorizes pooled audio-video streaming/recording, a media outlet or anyone viewing, may be able to make public records request, specifying the requested material by the time stamp or hour:min:sec number on the recording. Would seem to apply more to a request for a document type exhibit not visible on camera.

IIRC, judge did not authorize any recording during the RA trial, so not an option in his trial.

Many issues re either "side" of debate re aud-vid cameras in courtrooms. Seems it may be time for changes in our judicial systems.
______________________________________
Judge's Feb 18, 2025 Order

_Order on Feb 18, 2025.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

That’s why NM wanted the geofencing suppressed. The defense would have used that to introduce doubt to the jurors & it would have been misleading, not to mention the 3 other people who would have shown up near the CS, which also want locationally accurate.

I thought RA handed his phone to DD & DD copied the MEID & HEX numbers from his phone?

MOO

Yeah, the one and only phone that conveniently went 'missing' after the murders...although he kept 12+ others stockpiled over the years.

Sure.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

This order. This judge. Unique?

@FrostedGlass
Quoting from ^ thoughtful post. TYVM.

1. "likely have been a number of requests for the documents"
Yes, ¶2 of the order noted that the court has received THOUSANDS of emails re this case.

2. "AFAIK, nobody has received copies."
AFAIK, true, but not sure how we would know as a fact.
Personally doubting that the court, at this stage, would publicly announce - This month, we've fulfilled X number of public records requests re RA case under IN law, section ___.
Same re announcement by any news outlet which may (emphasis, MAY) have received records.

3. "either this issue is rather specific to this judge or the folks requesting the docs are uninformed as to the procedure."
Personally doubting that this judge is the only one in IN requiring exhibit numbers or equivalent. ICBWrong.
Agreeing that some requestors may be unfamiliar w the IN. process.
Likely imo, many requests may have been submitted in a manner not compliant w details of applicable statute or IN. court rule.

Like you said, we'll see.

Alternatives?
In trials where a court authorizes pooled audio-video streaming/recording, a media outlet or anyone viewing, may be able to make public records request, specifying the requested material by the time stamp or hour:min:sec number on the recording. Would seem to apply more to a request for a document type exhibit not visible on camera.

IIRC, judge did not authorize any recording during the RA trial, so not an option in his trial.

Many issues re either "side" of debate re aud-vid cameras in courtrooms. Seems it may be time for changes in our judicial systems.
______________________________________
Judge's Feb 18, 2025 Order

_Order on Feb 18, 2025.pdf

drive.google.com

There are thousands of trials every day across this country that are not televised. It was left to the discretion of the Judge in this case and she chose not.

I think it was a smart decision on her part after all the malarkey and shenanigans pulled by this Defense and their minions. Plus, people forget that CC is a very small, antiquated building and courtroom. Not a lot of capacity for people in general so she assigned the space up fairly IMO. Media, Defense parties, State Parties, and the rest left open to the public.

JMO

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

Did DD never have RA's actual phone number?

If RA had his phone on at MHB between 1 and 5, it should have been geo netted.

Jmo

Good questions, particularly his CELL number.

PLEASE correct me if I’m misremembering - RA called in to LE himself to report he was there. Then DD called RA back (home or cell phone???) wanting to meet to take his statement & after declining to meet at RAs home & police station, RA settled on a Save A Lot parking lot, where DD copied down the MEID & HEX numbers. Surely he included the cell’s phone number, if LE didn’t have it.

So LE had to have at least RAs home phone in order for DD to call him back. Maybe they already had his cell number & that was how DD returned the call?

ETA For clarity, I’m not disagreeing with you - added in my OP that because his phone didn’t show up in geofencing, NM suppressed it as a strategic move to prevent the defense from claiming RA was never there that day (no phone, no RA excuse) as well as removing other phones which were from other trail walkers.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

All of this nitpicking flurry of misinformation and the bloviating blustering by Baldwin is not going to change the fact that a jury of RA's peers sat through 3 weeks of trial, heard testimony and reviewed the evidence. They came to a unanimous decision of GUILTY.

Appeals are automatic, but he'll run out of those and MSM have already moved on, it's the SM crank$$$ that keep anything going. RA is a thing of the past, convicted, sentenced, and serving his life term. Like a child murderer should be.

Let's talk about the wonderful girls Abby & Libby and the innocence and goodness in them. The Dateline Special really showed the human side of these true VICTIMS who were cruelly exploited and all but forgotten by the offensive actions of Rozzi and Baldwin.

I wonder what they would be doing today? I guessed Libby would be in some type of LE related field, and Abby maybe a Vet, Nurse or something similar, she seemed very kind and compassionate. Both gone too soon, but never forgotten.

MOO

 

[Megnut]

Good questions, particularly his CELL number.

PLEASE correct me if I’m misremembering - RA called in to LE himself to report he was there. Then DD called RA back (home or cell phone???) wanting to meet to take his statement & after declining to meet at RAs home & police station, RA settled on a Save A Lot parking lot, where DD copied down the MEID & HEX numbers. Surely he included the cell’s phone number, if LE didn’t have it.

So LE had to have at least RAs home phone in order for DD to call him back. Maybe they already had his cell number & that was how DD returned the call?

ETA For clarity, I’m not disagreeing with you - added in my OP that because his phone didn’t show up in geofencing, NM suppressed it as a strategic move to prevent the defense from claiming RA was never there that day (no phone, no RA excuse) as well as removing other phones which were from other trail walkers.

MOO

Rbbm

Good point!

(Except I'm still confused. If LE had an extra number, they would have called it and identified RA during the investigation, separate from the DD tip.)

But it's good to remember that things are often left out of trials. By suppression. By stipulation.

Recent case, conspiracy to commit murder, defendant's phone is never mentioned at trial. Defense got it thrown out on a warrant technicality.

If we ever get transcripts if the trial, it's gonna be voluminous, better then nothing but a real challenge to re-imagine what testimony was like in the original 3D. We may never know what didn't make it to trial (again, technicalities, suppression, stipulation).

Far as we know, they're was next to testimony as to RA's movements that day. I've grown accustomed to that. CAST reports from defendants' cellphones and vehicles, generating a timeline of defendants' movements leading up to and following crimes.

Case continues to come down to the simple fact that the defendant put himself on the bridge at the time if the crime and nothing -- no one, no data, no testimony, nothing -- could get him off of it. And nothing put him anywhere else.

JMO

JMO