LIBBY GERMAN & ABBY WILLIAMS: Indiana vs. Richard Allen for 2017 murder of two Delphi girls *TRIAL IN PROGRESS*

On February 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail Williams and Liberty German were discovered near the Monon High Bridge Trail, which is part of the Delphi Historic Trails in Delphi, Indiana, United States, after the young girls had disappeared from the same trail the previous day. The murders have received significant media coverage because a photo and audio recording of an individual believed to be the girls' murderer was found on German's smartphone. Despite the audio and video recordings of the suspect that have been circulated and the more than 26,000 tips that police have received, no arrest in the case has been made.[1][2][3]



Police have not publicly stated nor released details of how the girls were murdered.[6] As early as February 15, 2017, Indiana State Police began circulating a still image of an individual reportedly seen on the Monon High Bridge Trail near where the two friends were slain; the grainy photograph appearing to capture a Caucasian male, with hands in pockets, walking on the rail bridge, head down, toward the girls.[4] A few days later, the person in the photograph was named the prime suspect in the double-homicide.[5]

On February 22, law enforcement released an audio recording where the voice of the assailant,[7] though in some degree muffled, is heard to say, "Down the hill." It was at this news conference that officials credited the source of the audio and imagery to German's smartphone, and, further, regarded her as a hero for having had the uncanny foresight and fortitude to record the exchange in secret. Police indicated that additional evidence from the phone had been secured, but that they did not release it so as not to "compromise any future trial." By this time, the reward offered in the case was set at $41,000.[5]

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On Feb 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail Williams & Liberty German were discovered in Delphi, #INDIANA. The suspect in their deaths is awaiting trial.

On February 22, law enforcement released an audio recording where the voice of the assailant, though in some degree muffled, is heard to say, "Down the hill." Even with a lot of media coverage, their murders remain unsolved.

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[Cousin Dupree]

@Olenna Is the Frank's Memo about hot dogs?

 

[Guess Who]

It was her brother that did the Massacre.

Uhhhhh, I have no brothers Twas the son of my parents best friends that was about 4 - 6 years older than me. Our mom's were working on some project in the basement where my Barbies were and I had to go to bed before he did. I loved getting up in the mornings just to see what he had in store. I think our mom's got a kick out of it, too. Plus, a 10ish year old boy was not fussing or complaining during the massacre, while they were trying to finish up

 

[Guess Who]

Where am I getting it? It's my opinion. There seems to be no DNA and the murders were brutal, especially Libby. I just can't see his motive as sexual for such a brutal crime as this. It's more like a rage crime. His confessions are maybe because now his sanity has perhaps partly returned. I thought I explained by comparing it to the murders witnessed by my husband. It was a murder frenzy.

I don't think it was sexual either. I think he posed them strictly for shock value for those that found them. I think the undressing was for control.

 

[Olenna]

I just thought I'd take a few moments to offer my good-natured, however diametrically opposite response to a few comments on my recent posts regarding facts learned via the Franks motion, LE statements, Old D, and Court biz related production and papers at the IN SC re: Allen v Gull. Thanks all for your generous tolerance!

We've had no indication the LE leak investigation found issue with anyone other than Westermann. Were there LE leak concerns regarding the old D, Gull would have referenced that in her Supreme Court Response re: old D's removal. After all, Gull directed/chose McL (the Prosecution) to direct and investigation of the leak; P was obligated to report back to the Court. Gull had the info, drew conclusions, and acted upon them (against old D) even before Westermann was arrested.

re: Frank's Motion. Facts show Gull had more than 2 months to instruct the old D as to corrections required for the Frank's motion to be put back up on the public docket and she chose to NEVER explain her objection nor direct corrections to the old D. Instead, and months later, upon duress of an SC Writ, Gull responded to Allen at the SC: the "reason" for suppressing the Frank's motion was that the Frank's memo contained the (widely published for 7 years) underage murder victims' names, whose vicious murders have been televised on prime time, who have been publicly honored, lives celebrated, and parks/monuments built/erected in their names. SC found the issue mute b/c the old D can't correct a motion on a case they've been tossed off of. (Convenient, no? )

A point of irony (if not favoritism) here: Gull's docket itself proves Gull took this "redacting rule" position against Defense filings whilst giving the Prosecution a pass on the exact same issue regarding Prosecution's public filings; the P's filings also failed to redact the victims' names - but Gull didn't mind.

Gull showing favor to P over D ... Gull sending the P to investigate the D ... Gull involving P in her decision making to remove D ... Gull planning and replacing old D with a personal friend who was just formally disciplined for behavioral issues ... Gull stalling on putting the Frank's Motion hearing on the calendar and removing (with no explainer) the Frank's Motion from the public docket ... Gull conducting exparte meetings with the P about the old D and then soliciting P's opinion on the record as to old D's competence ... none of this is appropriate judicial behavior, nor is it a good look for an ostensibly fair trial.

Gull conducted her Court's decision process in secrecy, and manipulated the docket until she was compelled in papers to IN Supreme Court (due to being respondent to 2nd writ) to (finally) document her Court's process by which and deliberations upon the removal of the old D. Gull's Supreme Court response was that over the course of a year of Allen representation, 3 events (the old D's public statement, one email error, and the failure to anticipate and prevent Westermann's leak/conversion) were evidence of negligence/incompetence that warrants old D removal - the need (and against RA's expressed preference) for RA to lose his trusted chosen counsel and have his trial delayed a year - in favor of counsel known to Gull and hand-picked by Gull. Which is superior? The Court's (Gull's) judgement? Or the Defendant's right to counsel of their choice? Apart from Gull's assertion of gross negligence against the old D ... Gull's secretive behavior and process-free choices have created a crisis of confidence in her Court managing the Delphi murder trial for Allen.

So ... the SC will hear RA/Gull regarding the old D, but the SC can still punt this ball back to a lower court. If the SC makes a decision, they're making Indiana case law. We'll see. As previously confessed, all that is super interesting (law-nerdy stuff) to me. My thinking and preference here: for the sake of all with stakes in the Delphi double murder case - GULL should (at the minimum) step down due to appearance of unfairness. The court, as an institution, is expected to maintain a professional and impartial demeanor. Judges are expected to be fair, unbiased, and objective in their decisions. Judges should be deliberate, reasoned, direct, specific, clarifying, transparent, fair and unemotional in their directives to all Court officers. It appears Gull's judicial style is emotionally passive-aggressive. Passive aggression attempts to hide aggression via secretive, coded tactics. Passive-aggression gets in the way of the court's obligation to maintain a professional and impartial demeanor. At the minimum, I hope we see the SC recommend this self-removal solution to the Court.

To my knowledge, Gull has never expressed her view of the "O Theory", nor did she object to the Franks motion's content. Gull never objected to the Frank's Memo publication (nor required redaction) of the other POI's names (and stating in SC reply papers that the redaction requirement was for victims names only), nor did Gull object to the Frank's motion detailing of POI-related interview product. Thus, opinions/views that the "O Theory" represents old D being legally inappropriate or irresponsible are 100% unsupportable pedestrian emotional speculation, fact-free and frankly, legally uniformed. i.e. This is how a proper murder defense is developed; we don't have to like it but there's no cause for outrage nor for sliming the defense's integrity and skill. If a plea is in order ... it's not always known until substantial discovery has been conducted; it's not time to plea until the defense develops it's strategy, does the fact-finding, and has an opportunity to pursue that strategy. IMO

Gull did acknowledge delay in scheduling the hearing on the Frank's motion, she did complain that it was lengthy, she did state she'd not finished reading the Exhibits, adding that when she did read the Exhibits, she could then schedule the hearing. We then learned that all the while that Gull states she has not had time to read the Frank's Motion, she was in fact (EX-PARTE!!) privately discussing and planning the removal of the old D with the Prosecution and replacement w/ her personal choice of new D ... without informing the D. (More passive aggression.)

In documenting (after-the-fact) her decisions, NOTHING about the O Theory or the Frank's Memo was included in her description of old D's "negligence" and/or "incompetence" (excepting the need to redact victim's name from the memo ... a need that was never compelling enough for Gull to actually issue such the instruction to redact to the old D.)

Who owns responsibility for a suicide? IMO, the leak suicide cannot be blamed upon far removed strangers (the old D). There's no connection between old D and suicide victim. Placing upon old D the "responsibility" for the suicide of a stranger (to them) seems unreasonable.

We have a confession from Westermann that specifically disabuses the old D's involvement in Westermann's leak. Westermann's affidavit describes his theft/secrecy and his abuse of his friendship and familiarity w/ Baldwin's law office. (LE likely has further, more detailed statements from Westermann as to motive and others involved.) LE is not investigating the old D.

The deeply personal, complex and unknowable psych history, stress, emotional management and flawed judgement of the suicide victim himself ... is the mystery and ultimately the cause of the suicide. The decision to send stolen photos to vloggers was the victim's decision alone.
Heck, it's more likely that it was LE's interview w/ the suicide victim that was so threatening it became his last trigger. There's no way of knowing how that interview went ... and LE will bury that unless the victim's family presses the point. Should LE be held responsible for triggering the suicide here? I'm betting that would be viewed as unreasonable as well.

Finally, I'll add that Murder Sheet early-on reported that the suicide victim's wife stated that her husband had worked hard on his problems and that he was a good man and his life was about so much more than his choice to share crime scene photos.

And no, Emu. There's no hot dog in the Frank's motion. (Is that raunchy enough sounding for ya?)

all JMHO.

 

[Tresir]

Only, that he claims to have told LE what happened, but they don't believe him. I'd think somebody in the media would have at least tried to interview him.



If he failed on that topic then he knows more than was saying at that time. Did his story about what happened come before or after that polygraph.

Re your last question, I don't know the sequences of the polygraph and his statement so I don't know what came first. Would it matter anyway?

 

[Tresir]

I just thought I'd take a few moments to offer my good-natured, however diametrically opposite response to a few comments on my recent posts regarding facts learned via the Franks motion, LE statements, Old D, and Court biz related production and papers at the IN SC re: Allen v Gull. Thanks all for your generous tolerance!

We've had no indication the LE leak investigation found issue with anyone other than Westermann. Were there LE leak concerns regarding the old D, Gull would have referenced that in her Supreme Court Response re: old D's removal. After all, Gull directed/chose McL (the Prosecution) to direct and investigation of the leak; P was obligated to report back to the Court. Gull had the info, drew conclusions, and acted upon them (against old D) even before Westermann was arrested.

re: Frank's Motion. Facts show Gull had more than 2 months to instruct the old D as to corrections required for the Frank's motion to be put back up on the public docket and she chose to NEVER explain her objection nor direct corrections to the old D. Instead, and months later, upon duress of an SC Writ, Gull responded to Allen at the SC: the "reason" for suppressing the Frank's motion was that the Frank's memo contained the (widely published for 7 years) underage murder victims' names, whose vicious murders have been televised on prime time, who have been publicly honored, lives celebrated, and parks/monuments built/erected in their names. SC found the issue mute b/c the old D can't correct a motion on a case they've been tossed off of. (Convenient, no? )

A point of irony (if not favoritism) here: Gull's docket itself proves Gull took this "redacting rule" position against Defense filings whilst giving the Prosecution a pass on the exact same issue regarding Prosecution's public filings; the P's filings also failed to redact the victims' names - but Gull didn't mind.

Gull showing favor to P over D ... Gull sending the P to investigate the D ... Gull involving P in her decision making to remove D ... Gull planning and replacing old D with a personal friend who was just formally disciplined for behavioral issues ... Gull stalling on putting the Frank's Motion hearing on the calendar and removing (with no explainer) the Frank's Motion from the public docket ... Gull conducting exparte meetings with the P about the old D and then soliciting P's opinion on the record as to old D's competence ... none of this is appropriate judicial behavior, nor is it a good look for an ostensibly fair trial.

Gull conducted her Court's decision process in secrecy, and manipulated the docket until she was compelled in papers to IN Supreme Court (due to being respondent to 2nd writ) to (finally) document her Court's process by which and deliberations upon the removal of the old D. Gull's Supreme Court response was that over the course of a year of Allen representation, 3 events (the old D's public statement, one email error, and the failure to anticipate and prevent Westermann's leak/conversion) were evidence of negligence/incompetence that warrants old D removal - the need (and against RA's expressed preference) for RA to lose his trusted chosen counsel and have his trial delayed a year - in favor of counsel known to Gull and hand-picked by Gull. Which is superior? The Court's (Gull's) judgement? Or the Defendant's right to counsel of their choice? Apart from Gull's assertion of gross negligence against the old D ... Gull's secretive behavior and process-free choices have created a crisis of confidence in her Court managing the Delphi murder trial for Allen.

So ... the SC will hear RA/Gull regarding the old D, but the SC can still punt this ball back to a lower court. If the SC makes a decision, they're making Indiana case law. We'll see. As previously confessed, all that is super interesting (law-nerdy stuff) to me. My thinking and preference here: for the sake of all with stakes in the Delphi double murder case - GULL should (at the minimum) step down due to appearance of unfairness. The court, as an institution, is expected to maintain a professional and impartial demeanor. Judges are expected to be fair, unbiased, and objective in their decisions. Judges should be deliberate, reasoned, direct, specific, clarifying, transparent, fair and unemotional in their directives to all Court officers. It appears Gull's judicial style is emotionally passive-aggressive. Passive aggression attempts to hide aggression via secretive, coded tactics. Passive-aggression gets in the way of the court's obligation to maintain a professional and impartial demeanor. At the minimum, I hope we see the SC recommend this self-removal solution to the Court.

To my knowledge, Gull has never expressed her view of the "O Theory", nor did she object to the Franks motion's content. Gull never objected to the Frank's Memo publication (nor required redaction) of the other POI's names (and stating in SC reply papers that the redaction requirement was for victims names only), nor did Gull object to the Frank's motion detailing of POI-related interview product. Thus, opinions/views that the "O Theory" represents old D being legally inappropriate or irresponsible are 100% unsupportable pedestrian emotional speculation, fact-free and frankly, legally uniformed. i.e. This is how a proper murder defense is developed; we don't have to like it but there's no cause for outrage nor for sliming the defense's integrity and skill. If a plea is in order ... it's not always known until substantial discovery has been conducted; it's not time to plea until the defense develops it's strategy, does the fact-finding, and has an opportunity to pursue that strategy. IMO

Gull did acknowledge delay in scheduling the hearing on the Frank's motion, she did complain that it was lengthy, she did state she'd not finished reading the Exhibits, adding that when she did read the Exhibits, she could then schedule the hearing. We then learned that all the while that Gull states she has not had time to read the Frank's Motion, she was in fact (EX-PARTE!!) privately discussing and planning the removal of the old D with the Prosecution and replacement w/ her personal choice of new D ... without informing the D. (More passive aggression.)

In documenting (after-the-fact) her decisions, NOTHING about the O Theory or the Frank's Memo was included in her description of old D's "negligence" and/or "incompetence" (excepting the need to redact victim's name from the memo ... a need that was never compelling enough for Gull to actually issue such the instruction to redact to the old D.)

Who owns responsibility for a suicide? IMO, the leak suicide cannot be blamed upon far removed strangers (the old D). There's no connection between old D and suicide victim. Placing upon old D the "responsibility" for the suicide of a stranger (to them) seems unreasonable.

We have a confession from Westermann that specifically disabuses the old D's involvement in Westermann's leak. Westermann's affidavit describes his theft/secrecy and his abuse of his friendship and familiarity w/ Baldwin's law office. (LE likely has further, more detailed statements from Westermann as to motive and others involved.) LE is not investigating the old D.

The deeply personal, complex and unknowable psych history, stress, emotional management and flawed judgement of the suicide victim himself ... is the mystery and ultimately the cause of the suicide. The decision to send stolen photos to vloggers was the victim's decision alone.
Heck, it's more likely that it was LE's interview w/ the suicide victim that was so threatening it became his last trigger. There's no way of knowing how that interview went ... and LE will bury that unless the victim's family presses the point. Should LE be held responsible for triggering the suicide here? I'm betting that would be viewed as unreasonable as well.

Finally, I'll add that Murder Sheet early-on reported that the suicide victim's wife stated that her husband had worked hard on his problems and that he was a good man and his life was about so much more than his choice to share crime scene photos.

And no, Emu. There's no hot dog in the Frank's motion. (Is that raunchy enough sounding for ya?)

all JMHO.

Oh so many points in this. I did think Gull should stand down at one point too but am wavering on that now. On the suicide and LE questioning him, why didn't they arrest him, where he could have been protected and under observation? I found that whole thing strange. Did LE threaten him? Is there a transcript of the interview anywhere? Why didn't he get a lawyer? So many questions there and it has been brushed under the rug IMO.

I cannot comment on the Frank's memo except for what I know about those named in it. I don't think the accusations stand up as I know at least one had an alibi and was cleared. That makes me doubt the other two named also.

Knowing about the jailhouse confessions of RA just made me doubt the Odin theory in the Frank's memo more. In the end, Baldwin and Rozzi stood down and left by the back door, when they had the chance to deal with it there and then in court, but chose not to. That was their choice therefore. Now, for some reason, they have changed their minds.

However we look at it, it is an unsatisfactory situation as it will be a delay for all involved, when it has already taken years to resolve the KK and the catfishing angle. Did the first judge foresee some of the problems when he stood down early on?

I hope they can resolve this with the least disruption to the calendar and if the confessions from RA continue, I hope his new defence will take him seriously.

 

[Guess Who]

I'm probably the only person here who thinks RA is a lone wolf.

nope. I think it's most likely the case, but not ruling out others.

 

[Guess Who]

I know that KK failed a polygraph when he was asked if he knew who killed the girls.

Also, RA must have spoken to DD before the 22 Feb '17 PC when the pic of BG came out.

Knowing who is not the same as actually being involved and could explain the results.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Oh so many points in this. I did think Gull should stand down at one point too but am wavering on that now. On the suicide and LE questioning him, why didn't they arrest him, where he could have been protected and under observation? I found that whole thing strange. Did LE threaten him? Is there a transcript of the interview anywhere? Why didn't he get a lawyer? So many questions there and it has been brushed under the rug IMO.

I cannot comment on the Frank's memo except for what I know about those named in it. I don't think the accusations stand up as I know at least one had an alibi and was cleared. That makes me doubt the other two named also.

Knowing about the jailhouse confessions of RA just made me doubt the Odin theory in the Frank's memo more. In the end, Baldwin and Rozzi stood down and left by the back door, when they had the chance to deal with it there and then in court, but chose not to. That was their choice therefore. Now, for some reason, they have changed their minds.

However we look at it, it is an unsatisfactory situation as it will be a delay for all involved, when it has already taken years to resolve the KK and the catfishing angle. Did the first judge foresee some of the problems when he stood down early on?

I hope they can resolve this with the least disruption to the calendar and if the confessions from RA continue, I hope his new defence will take him seriously.

Good points and I agree with all. Just catching up. I have my own as well but don't know that I will get the time to sort all that out.

The two attorneys darned well could have went into court that day and done something other than worrying about leaving without attention. They also at any time could have looked to sub the judge for cause if so "partial" or not doing her job. They could have sought remedy in the lower court. They also could have protected their info. They weren't let go over the Frank's memo. And no, she didn't address their theory or any of that, NOR did the prosecution, they responded professionally to the points of law and not to all parts of the novel that was written and filed by D.

No one knows the truth about the leak, perhaps LE know more and I'm SURE they suspect more. I wouldn't take a thing Westerman said as truth, why would anyone? Nor of Baldwin, again why would anyone? Of COURSE they didn't have Baldwin meet suicide guy or talk directly with him (most likely), he was meant to be at least a step removed for this very reason. But it was a "chain"i mo and an intentional one and so unbelievably obvious I think anyone believing this was not all intentional is naive and lives under a rock. Guaranteed LE knows more than we do and I'd hope it was enough for warrants and that they are also looking for area cameras and far more. It may even be an ongoing investigation.

The Supreme Court could have ruled on all filed and they did NOT simply make a ruling but called for arguments.

I'd hope the D has attorneys that know their sh*t because I personally don't think those two are supreme court argument worthy and in fact I think less of their lawyering with each new stunt. The O filing had to be done BECAUSE of the confessions and they had to tie in the guards. I also think they NEED evidence thrown out found in the search and were probably working on that but then it had to be added to, changed and more because of the confessions. I also suspect they came down on RA for confessing when he likely WANTED to and that's disturbing. This of course is opinion and is not just responding to you but all the posts today and I may not get to all of it ever but shall see.

This is a partial response to you @Olenna

Much of your post I find not relevant as this has not been decided and will be decided. If some of the things you talk of are issues that the Supreme Court even will acknowledge, I'd be surprised. You have through most of your posts called Gull passive aggressive and I don't know that that's true and personally am not a buzz word diagnosis kind of person but go for it. I see no reason to think it.

Also I have never seen a bit of evidence of anything ex parte. I recall hearing it more than once but then when things came out, it seemed to show all were in on these things. I could be wrong but I'd like to see a link confirming that if you have one. I'm prepared to be wrong on it and don't care but I don't think it's fact at this time.

Several on here a few weeks back think this theft was intentional/the leak was intentional.

I agree with you that the IN SC could hand this back to the lower court and I think it as likely as anything. I'm not sure but I also think they can decide some things and send back others. I am no expert but would like to know if you are? Some of the things you call partiality are really nothing that would even move the needle or even will be addressed by the IN SC. It's your personal opinion imo as is the constant passive aggressive remarks/diagnosis.

Much of my post as well is personal opinion along with a mix of the rest. You though talk of Westerman and other things as though anything he said is FACT. The man is at minimum a thief and helped cause all of this for his "buddy" so I ignore about all you said about him, the D and the leaks and the suicide guy.

There's so much we don't know it is not even funny. Not just me, but you as well.

I doubt the SC will issue their decision the day of arguments either. And no matter what happens this trial is off, they rushed nothing on that emergency basis. Even IF they rush a decision at that point and say defense is ready go for it, I'll guarantee you it won't go. I think that's a safe bet and they aren't likely to do that as neither side has been anything but sidetracked from the Ds own actions or lack of security uh huh.

The expediency D asked for was for trial as the urgent basis and RA's lack of having that trial if something was not done right? I believe so. I do know some things and I've said it before, it is not the same kind of thing when a SC decides on an issue going on in a trial court process as something after conviction, etc. I do know some things. We had one. in our criminal case in OUR favor. We also had a side case that got returned to the lower court on a 4 to 3 split by an appeal to the State, they did not accept the judge's dismissal of the case or what it was based on, that was not the murder case but it was big and a precedent setting type of case. In FACT a group came in offering to help our side with it for that very reason. Not the same state but just saying I do know a bit about such things. And have some former working knowledge of appeals, briefs, etc. too from a long, long time ago. God I'm old.

I don't know a thing about what you do or have done in life but as far as I know you're just a nice person here on a website with their own opinion and as to naivete I find you to be a bit that way as well no matter how you word things as if you know otherwise. I'm clearly not so that way about it and you will get a mix of interpretation of the legal parts with of course my opinion in the midst of an informal and tired post.

I do agree the SC thing is NOT about the Os. Of course it isn't. None of that has anything to do with the issues they are deciding IF they even decide that they should be the deciding court at this point.

And no, I don't like the Old D and have decided on them and it would take a lot to change my mind. That is a mix of instinct, what they've done even with thiings other than ethics, I don['t think they are professional, know the law themselves as well as they should and I think they were more UPSET with Allen confessing than HE WAS and that really bothers me. They need to be kept away from him. He DOES however deserve good counsel but if not private pay the law does not allow him to pick.

I MAY agree the pick of public defenders for him should be done a different way than Gull, I am not up on that enough to have a strong opinion on that.

I wouldn't recommend Baldwin and Rozzi to my worst enemy.

You also ignore a lot of things.

All as always in good nature. Not a bit of animosity intended. I like back and forth and I only want justice.

Sorry @Tresir for jumping off your post. I read the others and then yours and went to respond to you as I agree with the points you made and then kept going. It is the only way I keep up I swear is to just kind of pick one respond and then keep going. I'm sure I missed some thoughts I had reading the other posts and don't know if I'll get back to it there was a lot and I'm beyond probably doing it and then when I get time it will have all moved on with more to catch up with on other cases too.

It's really too bad we won't be able to listen to and watch the arguments. I think no matter what our opinions, we'd all like to see it.

 

[GrandmaBear]

@Olenna Is the Frank's Memo about hot dogs?

No it's about chicken wings! Frank's hot sauce ya know? Get it right Bird.

And then there's MY Frank and no he is not amused nor did he write that stupid memo. He's about the 'nip, all about the 'nip. Catnip. His high.

And my grandpa was Frank and he'd have considered a hot dog junk and don't ever feed him such for dinner nor anything that resembles sh*t on a shingle, spaghetti, etc., it was to be a real piece of meat/cut of meat.

You're so goofy. But then you're an emu so...

You forgot the last name of yours. I take it it is Furter? Is that where your mind was?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Uhhhhh, I have no brothers Twas the son of my parents best friends that was about 4 - 6 years older than me. Our mom's were working on some project in the basement where my Barbies were and I had to go to bed before he did. I loved getting up in the mornings just to see what he had in store. I think our mom's got a kick out of it, too. Plus, a 10ish year old boy was not fussing or complaining during the massacre, while they were trying to finish up

I didn't think that was right either but wasn't sure, the very close family friend and son now fits what I was trying to remember and now do. That was a crazy and fun "episode" in the basement. Laughs on end for all I think.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I don't think it was sexual either. I think he posed them strictly for shock value for those that found them. I think the undressing was for control.

I don't have the words for it but I think there is a sexual component or thrill even in doing these things for those reasons. Maybe sexual isn't the word and there needs to be one created. For lack of the way to put it, this is a fantasy, a desire and they recall it and get off on it forever after, that power, that control, that memory, etc. And intend to during the action of it all as well. The thrill, the high, they get off on that.

And you may both be right, I don't know, none of us do but I think of it as sexual in both the above way and I think it was intended to be in other ways as well but that remains to be seen or may never be known... If there is ANY connection to Kline or a pedo group, then it is sexual more than likely.

There's a lot we don't know. Not just on this part but all.

What's the main thing anyone wants to see or know?

I want his wife's answers about that day and night and even the days before and after, etc. I'd HOPE they did a thorough interview.

 

[Olenna]

Oh so many points in this. I did think Gull should stand down at one point too but am wavering on that now. On the suicide and LE questioning him, why didn't they arrest him, where he could have been protected and under observation? I found that whole thing strange. Did LE threaten him? Is there a transcript of the interview anywhere? Why didn't he get a lawyer? So many questions there and it has been brushed under the rug IMO.

I cannot comment on the Frank's memo except for what I know about those named in it. I don't think the accusations stand up as I know at least one had an alibi and was cleared. That makes me doubt the other two named also.

Knowing about the jailhouse confessions of RA just made me doubt the Odin theory in the Frank's memo more. In the end, Baldwin and Rozzi stood down and left by the back door, when they had the chance to deal with it there and then in court, but chose not to. That was their choice therefore. Now, for some reason, they have changed their minds.

However we look at it, it is an unsatisfactory situation as it will be a delay for all involved, when it has already taken years to resolve the KK and the catfishing angle. Did the first judge foresee some of the problems when he stood down early on?

I hope they can resolve this with the least disruption to the calendar and if the confessions from RA continue, I hope his new defence will take him seriously.

I totally get how the jailhouse confession would derail folks interest in points of RA's defense. Jailhouse confessions on tape ... unless those confessions contain new facts and/or detail that only the murderer would know ... are not terribly useful.

And I hope this case's NEW Judge is not a lazy passive aggressive lip-curling eye-rolling wimp.

 

[Olenna]

Good points and I agree with all. Just catching up. I have my own as well but don't know that I will get the time to sort all that out.

The two attorneys darned well could have went into court that day and done something other than worrying about leaving without attention. They also at any time could have looked to sub the judge for cause if so "partial" or not doing her job. They could have sought remedy in the lower court. They also could have protected their info. They weren't let go over the Frank's memo. And no, she didn't address their theory or any of that, NOR did the prosecution, they responded professionally to the points of law and not to all parts of the novel that was written and filed by D.

No one knows the truth about the leak, perhaps LE know more and I'm SURE they suspect more. I wouldn't take a thing Westerman said as truth, why would anyone? Nor of Baldwin, again why would anyone? Of COURSE they didn't have Baldwin meet suicide guy or talk directly with him (most likely), he was meant to be at least a step removed for this very reason. But it was a "chain"i mo and an intentional one and so unbelievably obvious I think anyone believing this was not all intentional is naive and lives under a rock. Guaranteed LE knows more than we do and I'd hope it was enough for warrants and that they are also looking for area cameras and far more. It may even be an ongoing investigation.

The Supreme Court could have ruled on all filed and they did NOT simply make a ruling but called for arguments.

I'd hope the D has attorneys that know their sh*t because I personally don't think those two are supreme court argument worthy and in fact I think less of their lawyering with each new stunt. The O filing had to be done BECAUSE of the confessions and they had to tie in the guards. I also think they NEED evidence thrown out found in the search and were probably working on that but then it had to be added to, changed and more because of the confessions. I also suspect they came down on RA for confessing when he likely WANTED to and that's disturbing. This of course is opinion and is not just responding to you but all the posts today and I may not get to all of it ever but shall see.

This is a partial response to you @Olenna

Much of your post I find not relevant as this has not been decided and will be decided. If some of the things you talk of are issues that the Supreme Court even will acknowledge, I'd be surprised. You have through most of your posts called Gull passive aggressive and I don't know that that's true and personally am not a buzz word diagnosis kind of person but go for it. I see no reason to think it.

Also I have never seen a bit of evidence of anything ex parte. I recall hearing it more than once but then when things came out, it seemed to show all were in on these things. I could be wrong but I'd like to see a link confirming that if you have one. I'm prepared to be wrong on it and don't care but I don't think it's fact at this time.

Several on here a few weeks back think this theft was intentional/the leak was intentional.

I agree with you that the IN SC could hand this back to the lower court and I think it as likely as anything. I'm not sure but I also think they can decide some things and send back others. I am no expert but would like to know if you are? Some of the things you call partiality are really nothing that would even move the needle or even will be addressed by the IN SC. It's your personal opinion imo as is the constant passive aggressive remarks/diagnosis.

Much of my post as well is personal opinion along with a mix of the rest. You though talk of Westerman and other things as though anything he said is FACT. The man is at minimum a thief and helped cause all of this for his "buddy" so I ignore about all you said about him, the D and the leaks and the suicide guy.

There's so much we don't know it is not even funny. Not just me, but you as well.

I doubt the SC will issue their decision the day of arguments either. And no matter what happens this trial is off, they rushed nothing on that emergency basis. Even IF they rush a decision at that point and say defense is ready go for it, I'll guarantee you it won't go. I think that's a safe bet and they aren't likely to do that as neither side has been anything but sidetracked from the Ds own actions or lack of security uh huh.

The expediency D asked for was for trial as the urgent basis and RA's lack of having that trial if something was not done right? I believe so. I do know some things and I've said it before, it is not the same kind of thing when a SC decides on an issue going on in a trial court process as something after conviction, etc. I do know some things. We had one. in our criminal case in OUR favor. We also had a side case that got returned to the lower court on a 4 to 3 split by an appeal to the State, they did not accept the judge's dismissal of the case or what it was based on, that was not the murder case but it was big and a precedent setting type of case. In FACT a group came in offering to help our side with it for that very reason. Not the same state but just saying I do know a bit about such things. And have some former working knowledge of appeals, briefs, etc. too from a long, long time ago. God I'm old.

I don't know a thing about what you do or have done in life but as far as I know you're just a nice person here on a website with their own opinion and as to naivete I find you to be a bit that way as well no matter how you word things as if you know otherwise. I'm clearly not so that way about it and you will get a mix of interpretation of the legal parts with of course my opinion in the midst of an informal and tired post.

I do agree the SC thing is NOT about the Os. Of course it isn't. None of that has anything to do with the issues they are deciding IF they even decide that they should be the deciding court at this point.

And no, I don't like the Old D and have decided on them and it would take a lot to change my mind. That is a mix of instinct, what they've done even with thiings other than ethics, I don['t think they are professional, know the law themselves as well as they should and I think they were more UPSET with Allen confessing than HE WAS and that really bothers me. They need to be kept away from him. He DOES however deserve good counsel but if not private pay the law does not allow him to pick.

I MAY agree the pick of public defenders for him should be done a different way than Gull, I am not up on that enough to have a strong opinion on that.

I wouldn't recommend Baldwin and Rozzi to my worst enemy.

You also ignore a lot of things.

All as always in good nature. Not a bit of animosity intended. I like back and forth and I only want justice.

Sorry @Tresir for jumping off your post. I read the others and then yours and went to respond to you as I agree with the points you made and then kept going. It is the only way I keep up I swear is to just kind of pick one respond and then keep going. I'm sure I missed some thoughts I had reading the other posts and don't know if I'll get back to it there was a lot and I'm beyond probably doing it and then when I get time it will have all moved on with more to catch up with on other cases too.

It's really too bad we won't be able to listen to and watch the arguments. I think no matter what our opinions, we'd all like to see it.

The SC determined most of the 1st Writ was mute given Gull got off her lazy arse and fixed her docket ... (not without shamelessly laying blame on her court clerk) so that the SC was able to dismiss/opine without a hearing.

IMO, the fact that that the SC has set a hearing for the 2nd Writ rather than issuing a ruling without a hearing ... means there's law to interpret and SC believes it's their job to do so.

Oh yeah, Westermann had a relationship and was a prime source for Murder Sheet ... and ... his wife filed for divorced last month, so ... there's a few things more we have learned about him. (Didn't mean to "ignore" that.)

I'm sorry. Did you just wave your magic wand, refer to most of my post as "irrelevant" and then call me naive? LOL!! It's okay, I deserve it.
It's true, you know little about me. You're sweet for thinking I'm nice, though. That's a relief!

reference: You'll enjoy reading the SC 2nd Writ docket - Allen's first motion with exhibits that contain admissions of Gull's exparte discussions w/ Prosecution. It's all posted earlier on this thread - mid October, I beleive.

You've explained many times that if you just feel someone isn't worth your trust, you're self-exempt from considering what they say. Kinda reminds me of your take on Gwenyth. But to be honest, when one's argue thusly: "I don't trust anything they say, so I am not taking that into account" ... that is not an argument. I'm just sayin'.

As for "passive aggressive" - here's the common behaviors; IMO Gull has exemplified each of these; she plays games and she's unfit for her critical role.
True, I'm hard and I'm persistent on this point and that is b/c it's women like Gull in the workplace that give powerful women leaders everywhere a bad rep.
These are back-stabbing toxic personalities that are unproductive, erode teams, and damage the workplace. How?
Just look at what's happened to Gull's Court! It is absolutely ridiculous.

Common characteristics of passive-aggressive behavior include:

1. Indirect Communication: Passive-aggressive individuals may avoid expressing their feelings or concerns directly. Instead, they may use subtle hints, sarcasm, or nonverbal cues to convey their displeasure.
2. Procrastination: Deliberate delays or procrastination on tasks can be a way for someone to resist complying with requests or expectations without openly refusing.
3. Sulking or Withdrawing: When upset, a passive-aggressive person might withdraw from social interactions or sulk, making it challenging for others to address the issue directly.
4. Sabotage: Engaging in behaviors that undermine or sabotage the efforts of others, often without overtly confronting the issue.
5. Agreeing Verbally, Disagreeing Behaviorally: A passive-aggressive individual may verbally agree to requests or commitments but then fail to follow through or purposely do a task inefficiently.
6. Backhanded Compliments: Offering compliments that carry a hidden criticism or sarcasm is another common feature of passive-aggressive behavior.

Hey, gran, in this post I just quoted you started with "good post Tresir" and ended with "Olenna, you ignore a lot of things but please find me stuff you already put on the thread b/c I think I read something about exparte but I can't remember".

Good news - last I heard the SC arguments are recorded and they can be listened live on line ... or listened after the fact - link is at the Indiana SC website, and I'll pop a link in here as we get closer.

 

[Tresir]

No it's about chicken wings! Frank's hot sauce ya know? Get it right Bird.

And then there's MY Frank and no he is not amused nor did he write that stupid memo. He's about the 'nip, all about the 'nip. Catnip. His high.

And my grandpa was Frank and he'd have considered a hot dog junk and don't ever feed him such for dinner nor anything that resembles sh*t on a shingle, spaghetti, etc., it was to be a real piece of meat/cut of meat.

You're so goofy. But then you're an emu so...

You forgot the last name of yours. I take it it is Furter? Is that where your mind was?

LOL glad you had time to respond to Emu. I didn't follow his hot dog comment till I read your response.

 

[Tresir]

MW's wife is divorcing him? That seems harsh if all he did was wander in to a room and see some pics that he photographed to show a mate.

Makes me think it is more serious. Has he been charged with anything? Eg contempt of court as a minimum.

 

[RoundPeg]

MW's wife is divorcing him? That seems harsh if all he did was wander in to a room and see some pics that he photographed to show a mate.

Makes me think it is more serious. Has he been charged with anything? Eg contempt of court as a minimum.

I hadn't heard about the divorce, either.

 

[Tresir]

I don't think I knew this but Westerman has been charged with the class A misdemeanor of conversion. This is appparently the equivalent of the common law crime of theft. The crime took place on Oct 5th according to the Law and Crime article, however, that seems incorrect if you see my ETA below. That suggests it happened in August.

Man charged over evidence leak in Delphi murders case that led to removal of defense attorneys

"I observed printed copies of photo evidence on the conference room table," a sworn statement reads. "I took pictures of a few of them."

lawandcrime.com

"Bartholomew County Prosecutor Lindsey Holden-Kay unsealed the charge on Wednesday, according to The Republic, a local newspaper that serves the Columbus, Indiana, region. Holden-Kay is a special prosecutor assigned to the case and will prosecute the charge in Johnson County."

ETA the article above links The Republic article also dated 22 Nov. That article appears to state that the offence took place a couple of months before Oct 5th. See below.

"On Oct. 9 at around 4 p.m., Westerman contacted Baldwin to meet with him, and shortly after they met at Baldwin’s office. Westerman reportedly confessed to Baldwin that had used his phone to take photos of crime scene photos from the Delphi case. The photos were in a conference room at Baldwin’s office, the affidavit shows.

Westerman also allegedly said he had done so a few months earlier and shared them with the individual. Police later learned that the individual had shared the photos with the Texas man, who then shared them with YouTube creators and podcasts, according to the affidavit."

Here is link from the L & C article that takes you to the sworn affidavit from the ISP officer who interviewed Westerman.

"A sworn statement in an affidavit of probable cause attached to the charging document obtained by Indianapolis-based ABC affiliate WRTV offers more details about the theft."

 

[Olenna]

I don't think I knew this but Westerman has been charged with the class A misdemeanor of conversion. This is appparently the equivalent of the common law crime of theft. The crime took place on Oct 5th according to the Law and Crime article, however, that seems incorrect if you see my ETA below. That suggests it happened in August.

Man charged over evidence leak in Delphi murders case that led to removal of defense attorneys

"I observed printed copies of photo evidence on the conference room table," a sworn statement reads. "I took pictures of a few of them."

lawandcrime.com

"Bartholomew County Prosecutor Lindsey Holden-Kay unsealed the charge on Wednesday, according to The Republic, a local newspaper that serves the Columbus, Indiana, region. Holden-Kay is a special prosecutor assigned to the case and will prosecute the charge in Johnson County."

ETA the article above links The Republic article also dated 22 Nov. That article appears to state that the offence took place a couple of months before Oct 5th. See below.

"On Oct. 9 at around 4 p.m., Westerman contacted Baldwin to meet with him, and shortly after they met at Baldwin’s office. Westerman reportedly confessed to Baldwin that had used his phone to take photos of crime scene photos from the Delphi case. The photos were in a conference room at Baldwin’s office, the affidavit shows.

Westerman also allegedly said he had done so a few months earlier and shared them with the individual. Police later learned that the individual had shared the photos with the Texas man, who then shared them with YouTube creators and podcasts, according to the affidavit."

Here is link from the L & C article that takes you to the sworn affidavit from the ISP officer who interviewed Westerman.

"A sworn statement in an affidavit of probable cause attached to the charging document obtained by Indianapolis-based ABC affiliate WRTV offers more details about the theft."

Yup. I thought I posted this development. Sorry if I didn't. I'll put the investigator's affidavit here below in quotes.

FWIW, This is why I think the leak investigation stopped w/ Westermann.
LE's not interested in Baldwin/Rossi for this crime; this affidavit and the charges themselves assert that Baldwin was "robbed".

(Apologies for spelling westerman with 2 nn's in previous postings.)

CASE NUMBER: 41D03-2311-CM-001119 FILED: 11/21/2023

NUMBER: 41D03-2311-CM-001119 FILED: 11/21/2023 STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE: ) oss: COUNTY OF JOHNSON ) CAUSENO: STATE OF INDIANA )) Vs. )) MITCHELL WESTERMAN ) AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE 1, Benjamin Rector, being duly sworn upon oath, states that:

1. I am employed as a law enforcement officer with the Indiana State Police (ISP). My current assignment is adetective in the Criminal Investigations Division.

2. Law enforcement was advised that on or about October Sth, 2023, that evidence from the ‘murder case ofState 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 screenshots 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 withstaffand 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 ofYoutube 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 not authorize 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). 2p. 4CASE NUMBER: 41D03-2311-CM-001119 FILED: 11/21/2023 FURTHERAFFIANT SAITH NOT. L affirm under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing representations are true. /S/ Ben facto Benjamin Rector

 

[Olenna]

MW's wife is divorcing him? That seems harsh if all he did was wander in to a room and see some pics that he photographed to show a mate.

Makes me think it is more serious. Has he been charged with anything? Eg contempt of court as a minimum.

Westerman was having an affair; he was outed for having the affair in papers filed w/ Gull's court during Baldwin's lawyer's filed papers and/or Rozzi's filed papers which described (for Gull's court) the course of events of this theft, and the affidavit from Westerman. The question was - why and how often does Westerman travel to the area of Baldwin's office for visits. The answer included the explanation that Westerman's girlfriend lives nearby and he's in the area frequently - to see his girlfriend. (News to his wife, perhaps - who filed divorce papers within the month of that reveal. Or perhaps their divorce was already in the works.)

These papers (and facts) are available for review in both Gull's and the Supreme Court's 2nd Writ docket ... for those interested in the facts related to the leak that the old D was removed over.

(I have to think that his affair was out in the open by the time they blew Westerman in? Otherwise ... a double OUCH for his wife. Regardless, his arrest was a divorce filing trigger, FOR SURE. You'll likely fair better when you sue for divorce from a criminal-type spouse. )