IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

[photographer4]

Allen Verified Info of Contempt.pdf

drive.google.com

It is super interesting to me that MW isn't charged with violating the court order in accessing the evidence or in forwarding it. He's charged as you know with theft. Nothing more. I noted in the linked document that the Prosecution has stated that the the items leaded were photos side by side created by the defence and some that were altered by them. Screen shot below for ease of access. Altered - how exactly? We're not told - funny that. I'm asking because the charges against MW are anemic and make me think that maybe whatever he forwarded were not "real" crime scene photos? Does that make sense as a possible reason why he's not facing big charges?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I was not aware the families were the ones who alerted the State to the leaked photos.

 

[photographer4]

Please link or explain where LE has stated evidence of s tool used.

Thank you, I appreciate it!

I double checked - that was mentioned in the Franks Memo filed by the defence, not a statement by LE. But I've no reason to challenge that statement - I can't imagine they'd flat out lie about that, can you? https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

Page 10, bottom of the page is where it was stated. Sorry for the confusion in attributing the statement to LE incorrectly.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Allen Verified Info of Contempt.pdf

drive.google.com

It is super interesting to me that MW isn't charged with violating the court order in accessing the evidence or in forwarding it. He's charged as you know with theft. Nothing more. I noted in the linked document that the Prosecution has stated that the the items leaded were photos side by side created by the defence and some that were altered by them. Screen shot below for ease of access. Altered - how exactly? We're not told - funny that. I'm asking because the charges against MW are anemic and make me think that maybe whatever he forwarded were not "real" crime scene photos? Does that make sense as a possible reason why he's not facing big charges?

View attachment 478945

MW wasn't covered under the gag order because he was not an employee or affiliate of the defense or prosecution. He was a civilian receiving documents from the defense that he should not have been. The gag order contempt lies at the feet of AB & BR. I am also disappointed that MW is not facing larger charges at this time for his part in distributing the leaked information further. It's a disgrace that the defense did not do what they were legally bound to do. Another person is dead and the victims families are caused more grief. JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I double checked - that was mentioned in the Franks Memo filed by the defence, not a statement by LE. But I've no reason to challenge that statement - I can't imagine they'd flat out lie about that, can you? https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

Page 10, bottom of the page is where it was stated. Sorry for the confusion in attributing the statement to LE incorrectly.

They don't have to lie to be untruthful. The statement in the FM states "At least one of the branches appeared to have it's end to be cut off cleanly by some type of tool like an electric saw, providing proof of preconceived plan".
They state "appeared" which means opinion. They bring up the electric saw to just push the envelope into speculation.
What would have been more convincing is if they had used direct language such as "a branch laying over victim 2 was 9 inches in circumference and had tool marks indicating saw marks". Instead they used ambiguous language that allows untruthfulness and misleading without outright lying.

If, for instance the branch was 9 inches, I would still be skeptical that it required an electric saw, but by not telling us the specifics it allows it open to interpretation and speculation. Like you did when you recalled "tool marks" when they didn't exist in the memoandum.

 

[susiQ]

The fight point makes me wonder if she observed he was wounded or cut? To me it's not obvious you'd be able to see blood on clothes unless they were a light colour - but on skin you could see it. But it any event you can get into a world of interpretation which is different to lying.

Gull really should have resolved all this.

Maybe this guy that was seen WAS in a fight! Perhaps one of the girls was fighting for her life and boxed him about the ears, eyes and mouth? Didn’t Mike Patty say Libby ”fought like hell?” or something to that effect?

 

[iamshadow21]

Allen Verified Info of Contempt.pdf

drive.google.com

It is super interesting to me that MW isn't charged with violating the court order in accessing the evidence or in forwarding it. He's charged as you know with theft. Nothing more. I noted in the linked document that the Prosecution has stated that the the items leaded were photos side by side created by the defence and some that were altered by them. Screen shot below for ease of access. Altered - how exactly? We're not told - funny that. I'm asking because the charges against MW are anemic and make me think that maybe whatever he forwarded were not "real" crime scene photos? Does that make sense as a possible reason why he's not facing big charges?

View attachment 478945

I think it more likely alterations were of the sort to diagram a defense point - like an outline of a supposed rune over the sticks the killer covered the bodies with. The prosecution wouldn't have created images like that; as per the Franks, that was defense strategy. Real photos of the scene, just with, say, a big red arrow pointing to something, for example.

If the photos weren't real, I don't think we'd be where we are right now.

MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

Maybe this guy that was seen WAS in a fight! Perhaps one of the girls was fighting for her life and boxed him about the ears, eyes and mouth? Didn’t Mike Patty say Libby ”fought like hell?” or something to that effect?

Unfortunately, it think that was determined to be wishful thinking on the part of her family. The girls didn't show any signs of having struggled, if I recall correctly.

However, if you kill somebody with a knife to their major blood vessels, there's a good chance you will get blood on you.

MOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Maybe this guy that was seen WAS in a fight! Perhaps one of the girls was fighting for her life and boxed him about the ears, eyes and mouth? Didn’t Mike Patty say Libby ”fought like hell?” or something to that effect?

I always thought it might mean red faced, sweaty and disheveled. Maybe scratches around arms and face. Which could have occurred during the act of the crime or moving and staging after.
It was odd enough for it to stand out in the mind of the witness.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I was not aware the families were the ones who alerted the State to the leaked photos.

Yes I see that language is a bit ambiguous again here in section 12 and 24. I wish they had used more direct language. It's implying they were alerted "initially" by the families of the victims ( which I doubt is true knowing what we do). My friends and family call me the human lie detector and those two statements pinged with me.
While I am sure the state is trying to convey the damage that the leak has caused the families is great and incurable, I think that the language used is problematic. AMO

Sorry I have been hogging the board... ill go cook and let others discuss.

 

[Emma Peel]

Sections 15, 18 ad 21 are very troubling. Definitely what many of us were assuming and not at all what AB was trying to sell with his "snookered and abused" story.

Thanks! I certainly see how these sections could be of concern.
Also in Sections 15 and 18 and 21 I did get some of that new info.

If it's okay I'll reference these below and comment... all just my thoughts & IMO.

Here in Sec. 15 there IS something that is new info for me. Who this 2nd civilian is - is not evident. I'd need to know who b/4 knowing if this was a concern.

Section 15 - Westerman AND another "civilian" proof read the FM
(don't know who, irrelevant?)





IMO: Section 18 - New info explains MRC's leaks to reddit and/or youtubers, JMHO. And it explains Murder Sheet's "sourcing" for their inside scoops during that time. This new info confirms the relationship between Fortson and MRC. Some of that I was extrapolating, but now it's officially confirmed for me. As Murder Sheet explained, MRC was their source. So, this new info also confirmed for me the quality of Murder Sheet's sourcing. JMHO.

Section 21 - My sense is this is a common practice for attorneys; Westerman was a regular and experienced consultant for Baldwin. Note that Baldwin's never been faulted for his Westerman working relationship by any reviewing authority. There's no allegations of Baldwin to Forten discussion. So nothing newly confirmed for me regarding Westerman as consultant, with Westerman reviewing discovery as Baldwin received it, etc. I'll also note that the Westerman trial- is about Westerman conversion of photos; Baldwin charges relating to gag order issue have not emerged.

Sect 21 NEW: Westerman confiding in Forten slowly over time ... is new confirmation, I think. Then it seems Forten over time leaks to MRC. And MRC leaks to YT creators/public. I sense we're getting a better picture of why Forten may have felt so terribly distraught.

McL does not suggest that Baldwin knew anything about Forten (or Westerman and Forten or Forten and MRC). It seems that if the investigation had discovered that connection, McL would report it here ... Not only would McL report it here, he'd have provided it for the AG and Gull and for the SCOIN hearing. This did not happen. So I think this puts to rest that the LE investigation found Baldwin directly involved with the leaks.

McL wants Sanctions b/c Baldwin's counsel offered that as the hobson's choice solution.
Plus McL gets these allegations against the D on the record. Seems maybe weird (opportunistic?) timing though.

JMHO

 

[Ward Thisperer]

So aside from the knife, I see they have an unspent bullet from his gun at the CS and the defense tried to have that information suppressed. That's worrisome from the other side of things. If the defense lacked enough confidence to go head-to-head on the scientific validity of that-- it's not inspiring confidence in the defense, either, to put it mildly. Right, I know the fact that they tried to have it suppressed will be hidden from the jury (pretty sure that's how that works), but it's not hidden now. Glad they're allowing that evidence in.

This isn't how it works. They don't just decide not to challenge evidence because they feel confident enough that they can convince a jury it isn't scientifically valid. If they were going to argue to the jury that it wasn't scientifically valid and decided not to challenge that it could be admitted, and had a reasonable basis to request that it was suppressed based on the Frank's standard, then they would be actually incompetent, negligent counsel.

Even if it delays things I won’t she doesn’t because she has done nothing wrong.

SBM. The supreme court of Indiana disagrees…

Honestly, the D were ordered to stop working the case in early October. The new D was waiting in limbo if they were even staying on the case. When was anyone supposed to be moving on this? I am hopeful this get beck on track soon.

Interesting they haven't discovered anything.

Kevin Greenlee stated on TMS today that they only need to discover based on a new rule effective 1/1/24. However State did previously request discovery from them back when D asked for discovery deadline.
Indiana rules on criminal procedure re discovery state that the defense discovery is due within 30 days of state submitting their discovery

Rule 2.5 - Discovery, Ind. R. Crim. P. 2.5 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 2.5 - Discovery, Ind. R. Crim. P. 2.5, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

(C) Disclosures by the Defense(1) Within thirty days after the prosecutor's disclosure, the defense must furnish the state with the following material and information within the defense's possession or control:(a) The names and last known addresses of persons whom the defense intends to call as witnesses, with their relevant written or recorded statements. The defense may refrain from providing a witness' address or other contact information under this rule if the defense in good faith believes the disclosure of the witness' address or other contact information may jeopardize the safety of the witness or the witness' immediate family. If the defense does not disclose the witness' address or other contact information in its possession for the reason stated under this rule, then the defense must make the witness available to the state upon reasonable notice.(b) Any books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects the defense intends to use as evidence.(c) Any reports or statements of experts, made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons, that may be used at a hearing or trial.(2) The defense must disclose any statutory defense in writing by the statutory deadline or, if there is no statutory deadline, within a reasonable time.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

"Judge Gulls then daughter in law".
What does that mean?

Children participating in a community event doesn't mean that the family socialized with the Patty family does it?
Offering championship rings is probably what their role in the tournament was.

Then..

Who did judge Gull congratulate?
Her grandkids? That is unclear and a bit of a stretch to claim any inappropriate behavior IMO.

I do think it’s an issue that there is a likelihood that the grandparents will be called as witnesses for the state, so Gull’s comment can give the appearance that she is referring approvingly of state witnesses, when the judge should remain impartial regarding any witness. its definitely an uncomfortable line to draw but as she was already judge on the case I personally think it was a poor judgement to comment publicly. I don’t think it’s an issue for the children to be on the team or for the daughter in law to post it, but JG should have privately shared congratulations IMO. Without the other issues, I don’t think it would be a big deal, but I think it was worth mentioning along with everything else.

 

[Emma Peel]

Random:
It would be cool if MS would discuss how MRC represented himself to them and how they verified his credentials as a "source" and if they can corroborate the timeline of MRC leaking. Maybe they will if they discuss this latest Sanctions motion. (Although they might feel wary about inserting themselves once again into the case. hmmm.. Tough call. But I wanna know!! )

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Allen Verified Info of Contempt.pdf

drive.google.com

It is super interesting to me that MW isn't charged with violating the court order in accessing the evidence or in forwarding it. He's charged as you know with theft. Nothing more. I noted in the linked document that the Prosecution has stated that the the items leaded were photos side by side created by the defence and some that were altered by them. Screen shot below for ease of access. Altered - how exactly? We're not told - funny that. I'm asking because the charges against MW are anemic and make me think that maybe whatever he forwarded were not "real" crime scene photos? Does that make sense as a possible reason why he's not facing big charges?

View attachment 478945

My guess is that the alterations were covering of areas of the girls that didn’t need to be shown. I think any sane person who is going to print out photos of that nature would want them covered up as much as possible. I think this would also answer some questions people have as to whether passing them around would constitute distributing CSAM.

Regarding the question of being charged with violating the court order, I don’t think he was legally subject to the order as he isn’t actually on the defense. NAL JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Weineke's take on the State's Discovery Motion and Sanction Motion: "desperation".

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1752098716595499277?s=20

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1752101247014904018?s=20

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1752100125869031491?s=20

 

[photographer4]

TLDR: New Info: a tiny bit more of the Westerman investigation included here.
It's clear MRC earned some type of LE deal/protection for his cooperation.

Also, the State wants those sanctions Hennessey was offering.

After that, I assume, the D & P can get back to being friends.

P.S. McL involvement in the Westerman investigation still makes me wince.

JMHO

That document also shows that the police did NOT interview Forston. He declined. Then expressed that if he just came clean, it would all go away (paraphrasing from the document). Came clean about WHAT??? This again makes me wonder what MW's end goal was in sending the info forward??? What did he hope / think or expect would happen as a result?!?

 

[photographer4]

They don't have to lie to be untruthful. The statement in the FM states "At least one of the branches appeared to have it's end to be cut off cleanly by some type of tool like an electric saw, providing proof of preconceived plan".
They state "appeared" which means opinion. They bring up the electric saw to just push the envelope into speculation.
What would have been more convincing is if they had used direct language such as "a branch laying over victim 2 was 9 inches in circumference and had tool marks indicating saw marks". Instead they used ambiguous language that allows untruthfulness and misleading without outright lying.

If, for instance the branch was 9 inches, I would still be skeptical that it required an electric saw, but by not telling us the specifics it allows it open to interpretation and speculation. Like you did when you recalled "tool marks" when they didn't exist in the memoandum.

I see how sneaky that is, now that you've pointed it out to me! This is my first experience with a FM - quite interesting how they go about these things!

 

[photographer4]

I think it more likely alterations were of the sort to diagram a defense point - like an outline of a supposed rune over the sticks the killer covered the bodies with. The prosecution wouldn't have created images like that; as per the Franks, that was defense strategy. Real photos of the scene, just with, say, a big red arrow pointing to something, for example.

If the photos weren't real, I don't think we'd be where we are right now.

MOO

To be fair, I also thought that altered must mean with arrows or a circle to highlight some part of the scene.... Surely they didn't fabricate something out of thin air using the girls / the scene...

 

[O.Incandenza]

Contempt motion:

Allen Verified Info of Contempt.pdf

Sanctions for violating the protective order is the way this should have been handled from the start, so this makes sense to me.