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

[mrjitty]

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!

This is one of the reasons I adopted Don't Trust / Verify because they've done this right through the motion. How did they tell from photos that it is an electric saw, hand saw, chainsaw? My suspicion is they reverse engineered this speculation to fit with the Odinist social media posts.

 

[mrjitty]

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

Your thoughts on the conduct?

 

[mrjitty]

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.

It's been clear to me all along that AB and BR were intentionally concealing the true circumstances from the Court. Especially because in chambers, and in Court, they all (including DH) conspicuously avoided some of the critical facts - like was MW allowed in the war room and did AB know he was in there?

What irks me about all this, is you simply cannot deceive the Court IMO. If you messed up, you need to tell the Court all of what happened and not hide things. They obscured this from the Court, they hid it from the public while their boosters shouted from the rooftops, and they concealed it from SCOIN.

Now to some extent this is Gull's own fault for not holding the hearing so this would be on the record. But I do wonder if she knew this?

End of the day, these guys are deceitful and dishonest. I certainly feel deceived having had some sympathy for Wieneke's pleadings, personalities aside, on a constitutional basis. Did Wieneke know this???

 

[mrjitty]

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

I've wondered all along if MW was not the trusted cutout for their social media strategy. They've got a fairly sophisticated operation where they've built something akin to a fan base since they dropped the Franks. And of course now they have a group of proxies like Wieneke as the appellate attorney, who can talk about the case outside of the gag order.

It's very clever, and is a self fulfilling prophecy as regards recusal now because Wieneke will beat the drum of bias on every decision.

I actually doubt this will stop if they get a new Judge - they will just change targets back to NM

02c

 

[Willow Knight]

RSBM
Exactly! Seems highly unlikely RA would have the knowledge of Odinism to stage the CS to direct an investigation away from himself and toward the local Odinists. Simple fact is, there is nothing that links RA to the CS. SURELY, if the P had information that RA was in anyway linked to the local Odinists, Rozzi and Baldwin would know to. In fact, it appears (to me at least), the more likely scenario in this case is that certain LE were instrumental in directing this case AWAY from the Odinists.

I just cannot believe one man was able to do all the evil that was done in that space of time. JMO

When we talk about the crime scene, wouldn't it start at the end of the bridge when Abby and Libby were told to go down the hill?

As far as being fact. It's hard to know all the facts until trial, at this time we have evidence. RA was there that day, in that area, wearing clothes matching BG that Libby took. RA placed himself there by his own admission, witnesses saw RA there.

For me, I believe RA was near the crime scene because he said he was, witnesses saw him, and Libby took a photo that looks like him to me. The photo Libby took appears to me to be just prior to being instructed to go down the hill. Wouldn't that be considered a crime scene?

 

[mrjitty]

I am also awarding myself bragging rights on the following.

I argued way back that if MW was operating as an ad hoc consultant to the defence, then this was a breach/leak by the defence team itself.

Whether authorised or unauthorised we don't know, but I certainly no longer give any credibility to the claims of AB and MW that he took the photos without authorisation. IMO he took one for the team - which I said way back.

I am flabbergasted at this. They idea AB would have wanted a hearing is laughable. He should have thrown himself on the grenade when this first broke.

 

[iamshadow21]

I am also awarding myself bragging rights on the following.

I argued way back that if MW was operating as an ad hoc consultant to the defence, then this was a breach/leak by the defence team itself.

Whether authorised or unauthorised we don't know, but I certainly no longer give any credibility to the claims of AB and MW that he took the photos without authorisation. IMO he took one for the team - which I said way back.

I am flabbergasted at this. They idea AB would have wanted a hearing is laughable. He should have thrown himself on the grenade when this first broke.

They basically, if not literally, took their law degrees, their credibility, and their careers and lit them on fire. And for what? What was in it for them? Did they see the trial as a chance to make themselves household names, big bucks, like OJ's lawyers or Baez? How did they not understand it was all going to lead right back to them, a trail so obvious a kindergartener could follow?

I keep trying to make sense of it, but I can't. Maybe they've been this level of unethical all along, and it was only the level of attention on this case that meant they got caught, I don't know.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

They basically, if not literally, took their law degrees, their credibility, and their careers and lit them on fire. And for what? What was in it for them? Did they see the trial as a chance to make themselves household names, big bucks, like OJ's lawyers or Baez? How did they not understand it was all going to lead right back to them, a trail so obvious a kindegartener could follow?

I keep trying to make sense of it, but I can't. Maybe they've been this level of unethical all along, and it was only the level of attention on this case that meant they got caught, I don't know.

MOO

I'm not naive about the realities of defending a case like this. And multiple things can be true. The Judge did breach the defendant's rights when she illegitimately removed counsel

But let's also get real about what has been going on here. There is evidence the wider defence team intentionally leaked this stuff as part of their strategy - in combination with the Franks.

IMO Judge Gull knew this, and it's why she tried to take them out behind closed doors. She shouldn't have done that - but these guys have been deceitful.

<modsnip>

SMH

 

[iamshadow21]

I'm not naive about the realities of defending a case like this. And multiple things can be true. The Judge did breach the defendant's rights when she illegitimately removed counsel

But let's also get real about what has been going on here. There is evidence the wider defence team intentionally leaked this stuff as part of their strategy - in combination with the Franks.

IMO Judge Gull knew this, and it's why she tried to take them out behind closed doors. She shouldn't have done that - but these guys have been deceitful.

<modsnip>

SMH

If they do the 'everyone does this' then they deserve the big boot that is definitely coming to stomp them.

I know in my heart that there are a vast majority of people who choose to be defense lawyers who have a strong belief in ethics and the honour of a profession that defends the rights of anyone charged with a crime, no matter the nature of that crime.

If they insist that everyone treats that as not worth the paper it's written on, and that everyone would get away with it if they could then... Well. There's a parallel there to rape culture that I'm sure puts a rank taste in the mouths of anyone out there doing the best they can and conducting themselves with honour.

Tl;dr, they'd be tarring their whole profession with a very ugly brush.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

If they do the 'everyone does this' then they deserve the big boot that is definitely coming to stomp them.

I know in my heart that there are a vast majority of people who choose to be defense lawyers who have a strong belief in ethics and the honour of a profession that defends the rights of anyone charged with a crime, no matter the nature of that crime.

If they insist that everyone treats that as not worth the paper it's written on, and that everyone would get away with it if they could then... Well. There's a parallel there to rape culture that I'm sure puts a rank taste in the mouths of anyone out there, doing the best they can and conducting themselves with honour.

Tl;dr, they'd be tarring their whole profession with a very ugly brush.

MOO

As recently as yesterday, I was wondering if this Judge had gone rogue but now I understand what she is dealing with here. If she does not recuse, then she needs to be careful to get all her decisions and reasoning on the record IMO. It will be very interesting to finally get that SCOIN reasoning.

Also - huge props to Murder Sheet for their reporting on this. They've taken massive flak for supposedly being pro-prosecution but they were right all along.

 

[sunshineray]

I didn't say he confessed to investigators, I said "his people" (meaning family). We don't know if he was coerced, or what frame of mind he was in when he said whatever he said. We do not even know WHAT he said, or how consistent his statements were to his family members. We don't know if the guards were on the other side of his cell taunting him, or scaring him. We've no idea. I'll wait to hear what both sides have to say in court before I decide the statements are convincing of his guilt or not.

I didn't state that in reference to anything you said. That was just my thought. It's not like he was pressured by LE in interrogations to make a false confession, as others have supposedly done.

Who would he have been coerced by, his wife or mother? His lawyers? If he's sitting in a prison cell, all by himself, and he knows he's an innocent man, I find it hard to believe an inmate or two or three that are yelling things at him from outside his cell are going to make him confess to his wife and mother that he brutally murdered two little girls? If he's innocent that is. He'd wind up in prison hell forever by crumbling to the present verbal attacks, so that arguement makes no sense to me.

Who would have coerced him? The guards? Isn't RA's cell under surveillance 24/7? Isn't that one of the things his old/new lawyers were up in arms about?

I'm doubtful RA's guards verbally browbeat him so much into confessing multiple times to his wife and mother. I think it's a theory his lawyers cooked up because some guards were allowed flair on uniforms, which was probably put there to make them, in their minds, less of a target inside. Look I'm a tough Viking, don't mess with me type thing.

I'm hoping RA winds up pleading to get a life sentence and the families won't have to go through a terrible trial experience.

All the above is just my opinion.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Link 1:

Weineke:

“Let me get this straight. The prosecutor in the #RichardAllen case believes Allen's attorneys have engaged in contemptuous conduct by violating a gag order that wasn't yet in place -- OVER A YEAR AGO -- and by being the victim of improper, if not illegal, conduct by a third party. You can't make this up...”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752098716595499277

Someone comments asking:

“thoughts on the allegation re woodhouse? to me doesn't seem like a violation of the gag order as written”

Weineke replies:

“It isn't. The order prohibited the dissemination of that information by public communication. Sending an email to a private individual accidentally is not public communication. Whatever the recipient did with the information is on him, not on the sender, unless the sender told him to disseminate. Which of course there is ZERO evidence of.”

https://x.com/wienekelo/status/1752101247014904018?s=46&t=rlxmmTQVKLhzP78ILfWjKQ

Additionally, Weineke states:

“In its response to the motion to transfer, the State claims that #RichardAllen is being held in safekeeping for his own personal safety.

Indiana Code section 35-33-11-2 allows the defendant to refuse a safekeeping transfer if the only issue is his personal safety.

Indiana Code section 35-33-11-4 authorizes the trial court to return a defendant to the county jail if the circumstances necessitating a transfer no longer exist.

Read together, one could argue that if Allen no longer wishes to be held in safekeeping (and my guess is he doesn't), he can refuse and request return to the county jail, especially considering he is NOT suicidal.”

https://x.com/wienekelo/status/1752038126187368567?s=46&t=rlxmmTQVKLhzP78ILfWjKQ

CW should be held to the gag order as well IMO. She was RA's appellate attorney, but you gotta ride those 15 minutes of fame while you can, along with BM too. I liked him before the RA case, thought he was somewhat level headed. Now he's just gone all in on "Save RA from the terrible system and Judge Gull".

They are the ones helping the Defense derail this trial.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

“A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor.”
-American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...nduct/rule_1_3_diligence/comment_on_rule_1_3/

I think the key word here is Ethical.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

I think the key word here is Ethical.

JMO

And Lawful. They seem to have forgotten about both.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

CW should be held to the gag order as well IMO. She was RA's appellate attorney, but you gotta ride those 15 minutes of fame while you can, along with BM too. I liked him before the RA case, thought he was somewhat level headed. Now he's just gone all in on "Save RA from the terrible system and Judge Gull".

They are the ones helping the Defense derail this trial.

MOO

I respect your opinion and personally I like hearing different opinions, so I don’t mind lawyers having different opinions either. I enjoy when CourtTv has attorneys with different perspectives on about a case.

CW is an appellate lawyer so I doubt a gag order from a specific county would be applicable to her? Either way, more power to anyone who’s passionate about their profession. I do believe multiple people on 2 “different sides” can all have the best intentions, and feel they are doing what is right, even if they don’t agree!

JMO.

 

[mrjitty]

What troubles me, is the foundation of the in chambers hearing was AB negligently allowing unauthorised access to the crime scene photos. But he intentionally mislead the Court and Judge Gull in chambers by concealing that he gave MW the Franks and who knows what other info.

15. In an interview with Indiana State Police, Defense Counsel Baldwin admitted that he
voluntarily gave Mitch Westerman copy of the Frank's Memorandum to review. Defense Counsel Baldwin also stated that he gave the Frank's Memorandurn to another civilian to review.

Why was this not disclosed? The Franks itself contains descriptions of the crime scene!

 

[Emma Peel]

It's been clear to me all along that AB and BR were intentionally concealing the true circumstances from the Court. Especially because in chambers, and in Court, they all (including DH) conspicuously avoided some of the critical facts - like was MW allowed in the war room and did AB know he was in there?

What irks me about all this, is you simply cannot deceive the Court IMO. If you messed up, you need to tell the Court all of what happened and not hide things. They obscured this from the Court, they hid it from the public while their boosters shouted from the rooftops, and they concealed it from SCOIN.

Now to some extent this is Gull's own fault for not holding the hearing so this would be on the record. But I do wonder if she knew this?

End of the day, these guys are deceitful and dishonest. I certainly feel deceived having had some sympathy for Wieneke's pleadings, personalities aside, on a constitutional basis. Did Wieneke know this???

I'm not sure I understand your assessment, but I'm interested in understanding it.

Here's what I understand - let me know where we differ:

MW consulted w/ Baldwin and was reviewing discovery and consulting over weeks/months.

MW asserted (affidavit and to investigators) that when he was "converting" (photographing) - the crime charged, that Baldwin did not know he was in there "converting". LE conducted that investigation; MW discloses he leaked to Forten. MRC cuts a deal with LE and discloses Forten leaked to him. Forten commits suicide. All youtube creators that MRC sent crime scene photos to were contacted and advised to destroy by LE. Only MW is charged. Baldwin is the victim of that conversion/leak crime (Westerman conversion and sharing w/ Forten, Forten to MRC and down the chain).

At the time of the in-chambers conference, Gull and McL have the LE investigation of the leak - and the leak investigators - sitting in the courtroom. When Westerman realized there was a leak that started with photos he took w/o Baldwin's knowledge ... he confessed to Baldwin. Baldwin told Rozzi and Rozzi wrote to the Court their understanding of the leak from Westerman within 24 hours - you may recall reading that Rozzi stayed up all night to submit the report as soon as Westerman confessed. That was before the inchambers. After the inchambers Westerman executed an affidavit, which Rozzi submitted to court before the 10/31 hearing.

In your view, what information and how were true circumstances withheld from the court and when?

Re: Weineke - Weineke understood all of the above b/c the pertinent information was detailed in the supporting exhibits for the 2nd Writ. And her twitter today indicates her disgust with the P's filing for Sanctions today. Her twitter comments are on this thread.

JMHO

 

[sunshineray]

I think the key word here is Ethical.

JMO

And Lawful. Lying to the court, the judge is breaking the law.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yet if RA truly is the killer, it’s quite unique that it all began and ended in a single day.

Yes it's unique, but it does happen. What if RA has committed other crimes we or LE are not aware of?

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

What troubles me, is the foundation of the in chambers hearing was AB negligently allowing unauthorised access to the crime scene photos. But he intentionally mislead the Court and Judge Gull in chambers by concealing that he gave MW the Franks and who knows what other info.



Why was this not disclosed? The Franks itself contains descriptions of the crime scene!

And if it included the attachments it included the crime scene photos. Who the heck is this "other civilian?