Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #178

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does that mean one girl was found undressed? I don't recall what the Frank's memo had to say, whether accurate or not, about that.

Is it consistent with clothes in the creek? One girl's clothes fell into the water....

I hate that day.


I thought Libby was naked but don’t quote me on that. That’s what thought I read.
 
More ex parte comms, copied to all parties.
This one appears to be a plea for cameras in the courtroom.

1711475909363.png


1711475925838.png

May I request a link only if it's easily available because the .png images are gone and unavailable for me.
Who's asking for cameras, this time?

if anyone can screenshot for DeDee?
I'm out for the night... but I can get to it tomorrow if no one has.

... also it's just an email to Gull from an Indiana citizen, request for cameras for trial, with a little flourish and "advice" for the Judge and what's good for Indiana here.

Were those png attachments the 2 ex parte communications? If so - no need to post them again - I saw them posted. If not - what were they? :)
 
Does that mean one girl was found undressed? I don't recall what the Frank's memo had to say, whether accurate or not, about that.

Is it consistent with clothes in the creek? One girl's clothes fell into the water....

I hate that day.
Abby was found dressed in Libby's clothing according to the infamous FM and Libby had no clothing. There were some item(s) recovered from the creek, I think one of Libby's tennis shoes and I'm not sure of what else.

Missing from the scene according to the PCA was a pair of underwear and a sock. :( If this isn't considered a SM crime I don't know what would be. It's sick and disturbing and I cannot imagine the fear those 2 young girls suffered. It breaks my heart to even type it out.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO
 
Good questions. I've wondered about the reasons behind that move.
All my opinions only.

I have a multiple-pronged approach to those questions:
1. They got an admission of guilt; so it was time to get him out of there and out from under the public scrutiny Westville has been subjected to.
His confessions were in April, he wasn't moved to Washburn until months later. Ironic isn't it that he said Washburn was doing basically the same things to him and S&L filed a Motion to Transfer during their short interim as Defense?
2. They needed to shake him up even more by relocating him to a strange place even farther from his family and attorneys.
That shouldn't matter if he was relocated from the mean old, life threatening Odin security guards. Safety first.
3. They thought the new digs had a better environment for his mental and physical health. His skinny, drugged-up look wasn't a good one going into court.
Trying to present as crazy and eating your court documents and drooling on photo command IMO can take it out of a person I'd bet, but RA rebounded quickly and was back to eating food, showering and rec time soon afterwards.
4. Maybe they just needed his cell for someone who was an actual convict.
Or another Defendant in a Double Murder Case without Bail, although I think there was probably a few left.

MOO
 
Last edited:
The new attorney the defense added should fit right in with the team - she's had 2 disciplinary actions against her.

View attachment 493119


And, there has been no decision as to whether the allegations are true.

What we do know, is that the P read an Ex Parte filing that was not meant for him and then went on to use the information in a motion and then ever-so-quickly withdraw it. Too late, everybody saw it!

If you want perfection from all attorneys, try applying it across the board.

JMO
 
Just curious... did you read them?
It looks to me like they are going to use her as a law clerk.

Attorney Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin have sought out the services of Attorney, Jennifer Auger, who practices in Franklin, Indiana, near Attorney Baldwin's office where she would have easy access to the pertinent discovery in this case;
Attorney Auger, simultaneously herewith, has entered her Limited Appearance in this cause;
Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin believe that it is in the best interest of Defendant Allen and in the interest of judicial economy that Attorney Auger assist Defendant Allen and Rozzi and Baldwin, by addressing the circumstances surrounding digital forensics in this case...


Eta: Interesting - addressing the circumstances surrounding digital forensics
 
Last edited:
Okay - thanks! Do you know "what kind" of expert? Just to put it in my notes! :)
Just a guess: addressing the circumstances surrounding digital forensics :)

Eta: Thank goodness someone's taking notes! And thanks to everyone here that takes the trouble to post all these legal documents for us to peruse.
 
The new attorney the defense added should fit right in with the team - she's had 2 disciplinary actions against her.

View attachment 493119


I'm posting this opinion in hopes it will stop people from trying to cast her in a bad light and ruin her reputation.
The death of a loved one can totally wreck a person's life until they make their way through the grief. What happened with her business could have been handled differently; but it wasn't and she was punished for it.

She received a public reprimand and a fine. Ten years ago.

Opinion
No. 41S00–1402–DI–120.
09-02-2014

In the Matter of Jennifer J. AUGER, Respondent.




PUBLISHED ORDER APPROVING STATEMENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONAL AGREEMENT FOR DISCIPLINE​

Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(11), the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have submitted for approval a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed discipline as summarized below:

Stipulated Facts: Respondent Jennifer J. Auger and her husband, Michael R. Auger, practiced law together in a professional corporation known as Auger and Auger, P.C. Michael and Jennifer also were associated in practice with Jennifer's father, Tom G. Jones. Jones was diagnosed with cancer in 2006 and died in 2007, contributing to Jennifer's failure to manage cases, including the one described below.

Michael is a respondent in Cause No. 41S00–1402–DI–131. He and the Commission have tendered a conditional agreement to resolve that action with an agreed public reprimand, which is accepted on this date by separate order.
--------
In 2005, a client hired Respondent's firm to represent her in a medical malpractice action against two providers. From the outset, Jennifer had primary responsibility for the case. Michael's responsibility was as a partner of the firm. In May 2006, Jennifer filed a proposed complaint with the Department of Insurance under the Medical Malpractice Act (“Act”). In June 2006, the Department of Insurance notified her that “Provider One” was not subject to the Act and that she had 90 days to file suit against Provider One. Neither Michael nor Jennifer filed a complaint against Provider One. Provider One filed a petition to dismiss in the Marion Superior Court (“Court Proceeding”) due to failure to file suit within 90 days.

In June 2006, “Provider Two” served discovery requests on the firm. Jennifer has asserted that she sent the requests to the client but received no reply from her. No responses to the discovery requests were ever submitted. In February 2007, Provider Two moved to dismiss in the Court Proceeding for failure to respond to discovery and failure to prosecute.

On February 26, 2007, Michael entered an appearance in the Court Proceeding, and on April 9, 2007, he responded to the motion to dismiss and reported the firm's difficulty in handling cases. On May 17, 2007, the trial court dismissed the medical malpractice action against all defendants with prejudice. Neither Michael nor Jennifer notified the client of the dismissal at that time.

The client filed a grievance against Michael and Jennifer in August 2009. In September 2009, Michael and Jennifer jointly notified the client of the dismissal of the case and acknowledged neglecting the client's case.

Mitigating facts. The parties cite the following facts in mitigation: (1) Respondent has no prior discipline; (2) Respondent has admitted the factual allegations that pertain to her; (3) Respondent has expressed remorse to the client; (4) after Respondent and Michael directed the client to contact their malpractice insurance carrier, the client made a successful claim against the carrier; and (5) Respondent's failure to fulfill the litigation of her client was due in substantial part to depression she suffered in dealing with her father's illness. (She does not claim depression as an excuse, but rather to explain the actions.)

Violations: The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct:

1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.
1.4(a)(3): Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.
1.16(a)(2): Representation of a client when the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to do so.

Discipline: The parties propose the appropriate discipline is a public reprimand. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, now approves the agreed discipline and imposes a public reprimand for Respondent's misconduct.

The costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent. With the acceptance of this agreement, the hearing officer appointed in this case is discharged.


The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to the hearing officer, to the parties or their respective attorneys, and to all other entities entitled to notice under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(3)(d). The Clerk is further directed to post this order to the Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish a copy of this order in the bound volumes of this Court's decisions.

All Justices concur.
 
I recall it was Libby that was naked (hate that). Abby was dressed in her own and Libby’s clothes to the best of my recollection. JMO
**DESCRIPTION OF CRIME SCENE - GRAPHIC WARNING**

From the FM pg. 28
Part I - The Crime Scene
When members of a search party found the girls in the late morning of February 14, 2017, Abby and Libby had been missing for approximately 22 hours. The scene was ghoulish. Libby was found at the base of a tree with four tree branches of varying sizes intentionally placed in a very specific and arranged pattern on her naked body. Libby was positioned flat on her back, with her left arm stretched above her head touching the base of the large tree. Libby’s right hand was covered in blood. Libby’s left hand was covered in blood. Blood spots and blood drippings were seen all over Libby’s body, from head to toe. Libby’s right arm was placed along the side of her body.

eta: FM link
I wonder if these tree branches were a start of a framing to be filled in with leaves, sticks, etc, to try to hide the bodies before the killer started hearing Libby’s dad and others yelling and decided to get out of there.
This doesn’t say horns — when I read text that I indicate the branches formed horns I think the killer watched True Detective Season 1.
 
I wonder if these tree branches were a start of a framing to be filled in with leaves, sticks, etc, to try to hide the bodies before the killer started hearing Libby’s dad and others yelling and decided to get out of there.
This doesn’t say horns — when I read text that I indicate the branches formed horns I think the killer watched True Detective Season 1.
Or he was on the front end of building a funeral pyre to destroy all the evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
2,829
Total visitors
2,978

Forum statistics

Threads
594,714
Messages
18,010,667
Members
229,472
Latest member
MissyWildFlower
Back
Top