- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 7,073
- Reaction score
- 33,747
I don't remember seeing the Westerman PCA. I didn't include the 2 signature pages.
It's from WRTV
www.documentcloud.org
N ) AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
1, Benjamin Rector, being duly sworn upon oath, states that:
1. 1 am employed as a law enforcement officer with the Indiana State Police (ISP). My current assignment is a detective in the Criminal Investigations Division.
2. Law enforcement was advised that on or about October Sth, 2023, that evidence from the ‘murder case of State of Indiana v. Richard Allen had been released to the public. There is currently an Order from the Court in that case prohibiting the release of evidence to the public. Law Enforcement was made aware that this evidence may have been obtained illegally and began an investigation. Law enforcement was able to retrieve the evidence from the creators of a podcast who stated that they got the evidence from an individual in Texas. Indiana State Police First Sergeant Jerry Holeman was able to identify the individual in Texas as Mark Robert Cohen. Mark Cohen was interviewed, and law enforcement obtained screen shots of a messages between Mark Cohen and an individual named Robert Fortson. Robert Fortson and Mark Cohen have various discussions about various pices of evidence involved in the Richard Allen case. 1, Indiana State Police Detective, Ben Rector, was assigned to assist in the investigation.
3. As part of the investigation. Affiant completed interviews with Attorneys Brad Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin on October 12th, 2023, concerning the evidence that was taken without consent in regards to the representation of Richard Allen. Affiant previously knew that Rozzi and Baldwin were attorneys which were assigned to represent Richard Allen in his criminal charges.
4. During the course of the interview with Andrew Baldwin, Detective Rector learned that Baldwin is an associate of Mitchell Westerman. Baldwin has known Westerman for several years and Westerman was previously employed by Baldwin's law firm, Westerman is no longer employed by the law firm however he still routinely stops by the firm to visit with staff and Baldwin.
5. On Monday, October 9, 2023, Westerman contacted Baldwin around 4PM and requested to meet with him. They met at Baldwin's office shortly afterwards. Westerman told Baldwin that he had used his cellular phone to take photographs of photographs, which were in Baldwin's conference room area. The photographs depicted the crime scene related to the criminal charges against Richard Allen. Westerman stated that he had done this a couple of months prior and that he had shared them with an individual named Robert Fortson. Through the course of the investigation, law enforcement learned that Fortson shared these photos with another individual in Texas, Mark Cohen. Cohen then shared them with various creators of Youtube channels and podcasts.
6. Baldwin stated that based on the timing of events he believed that there were in fact crime scene photos from the Richard Allen case in the conference room when Westerman visited his office. He also stated that there would have been side by side photographs which were previously used by the defense team in depositions. The photographs that Baldwin described are consistent with photographs that affiant has viewed which were released ofthe crime scene. Baldwin stated that he did not authorize Westerman to take these photographs.
7. During an interview with Rozzi he also indicated that he did notauthorize Westerman to take the photographs. Rozzi further concluded that he believed that Westerman’s taking of the photographs constituted theft because he did not believe that anyone had authorized Westerman to take the photographs.
8. An affidavit was also provided to Allen County Judge Gull which states the following: “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. 1was 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. 1 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 Tam freely and voluntarily typing and signing this affidavit on my own accord because it is the truth.” This document indicates it was signed on October 18, 2023, by Mitchell Westerman and was also notarized.
9. Affiant further believes that the above-mentioned facts establish probable cause to believe that Mitchell Westerman has committed the act of Conversion (Indiana IC Code 3543-43).
It's from WRTV
Delphi Evidence Leak
www.documentcloud.org
N ) AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
1, Benjamin Rector, being duly sworn upon oath, states that:
1. 1 am employed as a law enforcement officer with the Indiana State Police (ISP). My current assignment is a detective in the Criminal Investigations Division.
2. Law enforcement was advised that on or about October Sth, 2023, that evidence from the ‘murder case of State of Indiana v. Richard Allen had been released to the public. There is currently an Order from the Court in that case prohibiting the release of evidence to the public. Law Enforcement was made aware that this evidence may have been obtained illegally and began an investigation. Law enforcement was able to retrieve the evidence from the creators of a podcast who stated that they got the evidence from an individual in Texas. Indiana State Police First Sergeant Jerry Holeman was able to identify the individual in Texas as Mark Robert Cohen. Mark Cohen was interviewed, and law enforcement obtained screen shots of a messages between Mark Cohen and an individual named Robert Fortson. Robert Fortson and Mark Cohen have various discussions about various pices of evidence involved in the Richard Allen case. 1, Indiana State Police Detective, Ben Rector, was assigned to assist in the investigation.
3. As part of the investigation. Affiant completed interviews with Attorneys Brad Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin on October 12th, 2023, concerning the evidence that was taken without consent in regards to the representation of Richard Allen. Affiant previously knew that Rozzi and Baldwin were attorneys which were assigned to represent Richard Allen in his criminal charges.
4. During the course of the interview with Andrew Baldwin, Detective Rector learned that Baldwin is an associate of Mitchell Westerman. Baldwin has known Westerman for several years and Westerman was previously employed by Baldwin's law firm, Westerman is no longer employed by the law firm however he still routinely stops by the firm to visit with staff and Baldwin.
5. On Monday, October 9, 2023, Westerman contacted Baldwin around 4PM and requested to meet with him. They met at Baldwin's office shortly afterwards. Westerman told Baldwin that he had used his cellular phone to take photographs of photographs, which were in Baldwin's conference room area. The photographs depicted the crime scene related to the criminal charges against Richard Allen. Westerman stated that he had done this a couple of months prior and that he had shared them with an individual named Robert Fortson. Through the course of the investigation, law enforcement learned that Fortson shared these photos with another individual in Texas, Mark Cohen. Cohen then shared them with various creators of Youtube channels and podcasts.
6. Baldwin stated that based on the timing of events he believed that there were in fact crime scene photos from the Richard Allen case in the conference room when Westerman visited his office. He also stated that there would have been side by side photographs which were previously used by the defense team in depositions. The photographs that Baldwin described are consistent with photographs that affiant has viewed which were released ofthe crime scene. Baldwin stated that he did not authorize Westerman to take these photographs.
7. During an interview with Rozzi he also indicated that he did notauthorize Westerman to take the photographs. Rozzi further concluded that he believed that Westerman’s taking of the photographs constituted theft because he did not believe that anyone had authorized Westerman to take the photographs.
8. An affidavit was also provided to Allen County Judge Gull which states the following: “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. 1was 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. 1 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 Tam freely and voluntarily typing and signing this affidavit on my own accord because it is the truth.” This document indicates it was signed on October 18, 2023, by Mitchell Westerman and was also notarized.
9. Affiant further believes that the above-mentioned facts establish probable cause to believe that Mitchell Westerman has committed the act of Conversion (Indiana IC Code 3543-43).
