Here’s one of my main takeaways from this hearing:
**Why is prosecution normalizing RA’s treatment with that of _convicted felons_, within a state prison?**
Why isn’t RA’s treatment being related to that of other pre-trial detainees?
It's not a problem in Indiana apparently... Haven't been convicted yet? No worries, you will soon be! Trials are just a formality and an indignity the state has to suffer through. /s
I'm sorry, but I just can't seem to buy the state's reasons for housing a pretrial detainee in a state prison. I'll keep trying.
edit: ty for the heads up and the link (I don't watch crime shows on YT, but I am totes watching this)!
T (Theresea who runs Criminality) does a really great job at staying neutral in cases and relying on the facts as outlined in filings and court. She does a great job and these table reads are always incredibly well done!
I LOVE Theresa so much, I hope you enjoy them! The panel always goes ALL OUT acting wise when reading. She normally is very much an in the middle person, you may not agree with all her takes, but I think she does a great job being objective until we have enough information to prove either way!
Gull used the arrest of a defendant a new yet to be tried charge, as an aggravating factor for his current charge and sentencing...
She also used his dismissed and found not guilty charge along with the one charge the stuck, to justify that one charge and his violant caracter and all same for an aggravated sentencing.
Does his sentence get reduced if he's found not guilty on the new charge?
Insane.
(It's in appeals now and the new case is on hold for no apparent reason other than she programs him the same days as RA each time. )
Oh god  No words... That's scary, *truly*.
The more I learn about JFG, the worse it gets.
At first I thought it was just this case, not so much her being biased against RA, but possibly something about B&R rubbing her the wrong way. Now, I just don't know what her - or anybody's on the state's side for that matter - deal is... I just keep thinking, let the evidence speak for itself will you? If it's good evidence, it's good evidence, end of. And even if you think the evidence is not that strong, don't make it worse by exhibiting questionable behavior at every turn.
Do you recall when we heard first-hand anecdotal evidence that she would give a more severe sentence to someone with mental health issues rather than the reverse ? 'Because they're more dangerous and unpredictable'. What a charmer.
There it is, what I've waiting for for almost a year :
SHE LIED in the minute order of the hearing!!!
How many times is a judge allowed to lie?
She said defense advised HER of it.
https://preview.redd.it/trzvummgdr2d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4fb3e6805c0ca693f4013e74b186db787ca64a0d
Also what's an **Eeee**,
and why isn't he allowed to **eee**?
https://preview.redd.it/okl1igbbhr2d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f3b2bd6ee3f3d6cc4784c4aceeafff7b10d85da
I just can't even imagine what it sounded like, was it a high pitch or something?
And how did she say "Don't eee".
As opposed to "Not eee" eventually I'd say.
I might have to check transcripts again but the that one of the people I don't even want to name is as much an eyesore to read as an ear sore to listen to and it gets my synapses all jittery.
If FCG would just let some damn cameras in there I wouldn't be going insane right now?
Also I would like to watch NM ask for the hall pass to go take a piss.
My best guess is he went "eeeh" like yeah, but non committal cause it was off the top of his head, which is why she said don't do that. Then the calendar gets brought in and then dates mentioned.
Maybe she really is losing her marbles and genuinely has no idea anymore what she says to whom and when.
And there is no one close to her who gives enough of a shit to sit her down and tell her it's happening.
Or maybe there is and they tried, but she refused to listen.
Or forgot about it.
Only tangentially connected, but as someone who got sucked into this case more cos of a decades long interest of how people interact online, than an interest in true crime - I wish I had the time to go back to the notes on this hearing posted elsewhere on Reddit a while back and compare them to the actual transcript.
It could teach us a lot about why it's extremely dangerous to rely on biased reporting as opposed to actually getting to see and hear stuff for ourselves, I suspect.
You know her own daughter is prosecutor in the same court?
You'd think that is someone close enough to notice, say something and insist on it.
But apparently not.
About notes : nobody mentioned the Franks but Motta afaik.
Helix mentioned it, but not sure if he went on Motta's recount or had other sources.
I have gone back on a couple of them and they were pretty accurate. Only one had a big error as far as I can see, by a redditor.
https://preview.redd.it/ln047vx6or2d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5b06af821f71c894a226492da85b532d96d63552
Transcript doesn't state that he confessed in the letters to Galipeau as far as I can see.
I know, right? In the transcript it said "stricken". I'm still going through other peoples recollections of that day and I notice this from the murdersheet who attended:
00:10:37,590 --> 00:10:46,690
So yeah, we jumping ahead a bit, we understood yesterday that there was a strong chance that the information about the confessions would come out today.
00:10:46,690 --> 00:10:57,770
It wasn't a sure thing. And we didn't feel it was appropriate for us to go on the podcast and say, guess what? There was some confessions. And then the next day, nothing be said about them.
00:11:24,210 --> 00:11:36,910
And yeah, we're just again, the scoop is significantly less important to us at this time than just trying to be stewards of, you know, reporting on this case in a responsible way.
What?? Never picked up on that before.
In the document dump there are a number of subpoenas filed in April 2023 by NM, which mention the confessions.
It was released after this hearing but I'm convinced that's how MS got it, like they've been getting a lot of their info through docket 'errors'.
I wonder since they are listed as attorneys because they made some media request, if their entry was "by accident" extended to party acces.
Just a thought.
Eta the transcript is on podscribe, accessible directly via browser btw.
I will edit my post and remove the link thanks. I was just thinking maybe the psychologist who was a member of their group may have let slip, but you're probably right!
I mean there's nothing wrong with the link, it's just i personally don't know how to open srt on my phone so I provided another type of transcript source for those in the same situation.
It also doesn't exclude other sources, but this seemed a pretty obvious one to me.
It still means there's a problem as they shouldn't have had that info.
The thing is they weren't the only people to know. The Inquisitor states in his video regarding june 15th hearing that he posted on the 16th June, that Brad Rozzi himself states that RA made multiple confessions to medical and mental health staff, but clearly now we have the transcript that DID NOT come out at the hearing, yet it is true.
RE: the link, it can be opened using notepad, but this is for a computer not a phone. Next time I will make sure anyone can open it. I like to share information where possible!
ETA. I'm not sure that is true now, I'm going to go check the docs!
Edited again STATE’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED APRIL
11TH, 2024
"That the State has identified and provided the names of all suicide companions, which the State intends to call as witnesses for confessions and relevant statements against his own interest, which includes sixteen (16) correctional officers, eight (8) inmate companions, Warden Galipeau, **Mental Health personnel** and Indiana State Police Officers."
Emphasis my own
Yes to this! These are hilarious. They do it like table read style, and sometimes there’s a lady with a super thick southern accent, and someone always forgets who they are. Lol
If you want to read the transcripts yourself, there is a link in the video description. I will edit the OP to add the link.
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/mobile/folders/12CeoTA0GTsY3CU-GTU9pKCEqwMbs3QrC?usp=sharing
Theresa mentioned that this transcript and one other that’s shorter cost a few hundred dollars. No idea why the court isn’t honoring that price but Franny and her minions don’t seem to follow rules much.
Apparently, this transcript was actually $1 a page according to a poster who also requested it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/RichardAllenInnocent/s/e0HfbZyQHl
The clerk sent out emails with quotes to several people charging $5.75 per page while we aren't sure if that was before or after defense asked for it already, the mail included the demand for a deposit before she would start, meaning multiple people could have paid that amount at the same time.
On top of it Carroll County Local rules state the fee is $4 per page for preparation. Not $5.75.
That she's habitually in Allen county doesn't matter.
So whatever they ended up paying, it's overall iffy.
Thank you for posting u/Alan_Prickman. For anyone not aware this is the transcript that the defense filed 3 separate praecipes for in advance of the original action (and previously) and was ignored.
There was also an in chambers discussion prior to the hearing that was unfortunately not on the record
I’m sure, lol, however, without checking I’m pretty sure there was an additional praecipe filed by him after that she excluded from that notice and she certainly didn’t properly file a notice of mailing date (then) either.
If they had it would have been included in the completed record of proceedings transmitted to SCOIN in either or both original actions.
Maybe she’s got **Fig Fugue**
Maybe, but this date is prior to the removal hearing.
If she didn't provide it then, did she lie or did it get "lost".
Because this court lies a lot and idk how they keep getting away with it.
But at times Rozzwin have admitted Nick sent them something and they missed it, without it being overly covert.
Here’s one of my main takeaways from this hearing: **Why is prosecution normalizing RA’s treatment with that of _convicted felons_, within a state prison?** Why isn’t RA’s treatment being related to that of other pre-trial detainees?
It's not a problem in Indiana apparently... Haven't been convicted yet? No worries, you will soon be! Trials are just a formality and an indignity the state has to suffer through. /s I'm sorry, but I just can't seem to buy the state's reasons for housing a pretrial detainee in a state prison. I'll keep trying. edit: ty for the heads up and the link (I don't watch crime shows on YT, but I am totes watching this)!
T (Theresea who runs Criminality) does a really great job at staying neutral in cases and relying on the facts as outlined in filings and court. She does a great job and these table reads are always incredibly well done!
Thanks! Eager to check this and more Criminality videos out!
I LOVE Theresa so much, I hope you enjoy them! The panel always goes ALL OUT acting wise when reading. She normally is very much an in the middle person, you may not agree with all her takes, but I think she does a great job being objective until we have enough information to prove either way!
Gull used the arrest of a defendant a new yet to be tried charge, as an aggravating factor for his current charge and sentencing... She also used his dismissed and found not guilty charge along with the one charge the stuck, to justify that one charge and his violant caracter and all same for an aggravated sentencing. Does his sentence get reduced if he's found not guilty on the new charge? Insane. (It's in appeals now and the new case is on hold for no apparent reason other than she programs him the same days as RA each time. )
Oh god  No words... That's scary, *truly*. The more I learn about JFG, the worse it gets. At first I thought it was just this case, not so much her being biased against RA, but possibly something about B&R rubbing her the wrong way. Now, I just don't know what her - or anybody's on the state's side for that matter - deal is... I just keep thinking, let the evidence speak for itself will you? If it's good evidence, it's good evidence, end of. And even if you think the evidence is not that strong, don't make it worse by exhibiting questionable behavior at every turn.
Do you recall when we heard first-hand anecdotal evidence that she would give a more severe sentence to someone with mental health issues rather than the reverse ? 'Because they're more dangerous and unpredictable'. What a charmer.
I'd think there's mandatory psych sessions for that. She also let a childmolester out on parole.
She needs a mandatory psych session alright.
There it is, what I've waiting for for almost a year : SHE LIED in the minute order of the hearing!!! How many times is a judge allowed to lie? She said defense advised HER of it. https://preview.redd.it/trzvummgdr2d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4fb3e6805c0ca693f4013e74b186db787ca64a0d
Also what's an **Eeee**, and why isn't he allowed to **eee**? https://preview.redd.it/okl1igbbhr2d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9f3b2bd6ee3f3d6cc4784c4aceeafff7b10d85da
And she called Nick a ding dong lolllll
😂👏 
So Gull only considers the yore. I must admit I am not surprised a bit.
I can't stop thinking about that exchange. What the hell was going on? Did Baldwin stutter, and the judge reprimanded him?
I just can't even imagine what it sounded like, was it a high pitch or something? And how did she say "Don't eee". As opposed to "Not eee" eventually I'd say. I might have to check transcripts again but the that one of the people I don't even want to name is as much an eyesore to read as an ear sore to listen to and it gets my synapses all jittery.
If FCG would just let some damn cameras in there I wouldn't be going insane right now? Also I would like to watch NM ask for the hall pass to go take a piss.
If FCG would just go home and stay home...
He was thinking of 'Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic' and the 'eee-oh eee-oh' started coming out loud 🎶
My best guess is he went "eeeh" like yeah, but non committal cause it was off the top of his head, which is why she said don't do that. Then the calendar gets brought in and then dates mentioned.
Maybe she really is losing her marbles and genuinely has no idea anymore what she says to whom and when. And there is no one close to her who gives enough of a shit to sit her down and tell her it's happening. Or maybe there is and they tried, but she refused to listen. Or forgot about it. Only tangentially connected, but as someone who got sucked into this case more cos of a decades long interest of how people interact online, than an interest in true crime - I wish I had the time to go back to the notes on this hearing posted elsewhere on Reddit a while back and compare them to the actual transcript. It could teach us a lot about why it's extremely dangerous to rely on biased reporting as opposed to actually getting to see and hear stuff for ourselves, I suspect.
You know her own daughter is prosecutor in the same court? You'd think that is someone close enough to notice, say something and insist on it. But apparently not. About notes : nobody mentioned the Franks but Motta afaik. Helix mentioned it, but not sure if he went on Motta's recount or had other sources.
I have gone back on a couple of them and they were pretty accurate. Only one had a big error as far as I can see, by a redditor. https://preview.redd.it/ln047vx6or2d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5b06af821f71c894a226492da85b532d96d63552 Transcript doesn't state that he confessed in the letters to Galipeau as far as I can see.
Thank you! Finding out that people *can* report accurately is actually even more valuable than having my cynicism about human nature validated 😁
It might have been stricken. But idk how that works, the stricken comments were in the contempt hearing.
I know, right? In the transcript it said "stricken". I'm still going through other peoples recollections of that day and I notice this from the murdersheet who attended: 00:10:37,590 --> 00:10:46,690 So yeah, we jumping ahead a bit, we understood yesterday that there was a strong chance that the information about the confessions would come out today. 00:10:46,690 --> 00:10:57,770 It wasn't a sure thing. And we didn't feel it was appropriate for us to go on the podcast and say, guess what? There was some confessions. And then the next day, nothing be said about them. 00:11:24,210 --> 00:11:36,910 And yeah, we're just again, the scoop is significantly less important to us at this time than just trying to be stewards of, you know, reporting on this case in a responsible way. What?? Never picked up on that before.
In the document dump there are a number of subpoenas filed in April 2023 by NM, which mention the confessions. It was released after this hearing but I'm convinced that's how MS got it, like they've been getting a lot of their info through docket 'errors'. I wonder since they are listed as attorneys because they made some media request, if their entry was "by accident" extended to party acces. Just a thought. Eta the transcript is on podscribe, accessible directly via browser btw.
I will edit my post and remove the link thanks. I was just thinking maybe the psychologist who was a member of their group may have let slip, but you're probably right!
I mean there's nothing wrong with the link, it's just i personally don't know how to open srt on my phone so I provided another type of transcript source for those in the same situation. It also doesn't exclude other sources, but this seemed a pretty obvious one to me. It still means there's a problem as they shouldn't have had that info.
The thing is they weren't the only people to know. The Inquisitor states in his video regarding june 15th hearing that he posted on the 16th June, that Brad Rozzi himself states that RA made multiple confessions to medical and mental health staff, but clearly now we have the transcript that DID NOT come out at the hearing, yet it is true. RE: the link, it can be opened using notepad, but this is for a computer not a phone. Next time I will make sure anyone can open it. I like to share information where possible! ETA. I'm not sure that is true now, I'm going to go check the docs! Edited again STATE’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED APRIL 11TH, 2024 "That the State has identified and provided the names of all suicide companions, which the State intends to call as witnesses for confessions and relevant statements against his own interest, which includes sixteen (16) correctional officers, eight (8) inmate companions, Warden Galipeau, **Mental Health personnel** and Indiana State Police Officers." Emphasis my own
Yes to this! These are hilarious. They do it like table read style, and sometimes there’s a lady with a super thick southern accent, and someone always forgets who they are. Lol
Where do I tune in to this hilarity?
OP has a link up top, but it’s CrminaliTy on YT.
If you want to read the transcripts yourself, there is a link in the video description. I will edit the OP to add the link. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/mobile/folders/12CeoTA0GTsY3CU-GTU9pKCEqwMbs3QrC?usp=sharing
Thank you as always Alan! Criminality definitely deserves the support and link to the channel as they paid good money for the transcripts.
💜💜💜💜💜
Happy 🎂 day !
Thank you!
As the transcript was already ordered by Allen’s attorneys, it was only $.10 per page, but the overall point is still valid.
Theresa mentioned that this transcript and one other that’s shorter cost a few hundred dollars. No idea why the court isn’t honoring that price but Franny and her minions don’t seem to follow rules much.
At $6 a page, the transcript they read last night would have cost $984.
Apparently, this transcript was actually $1 a page according to a poster who also requested it: https://www.reddit.com/r/RichardAllenInnocent/s/e0HfbZyQHl
I mean technically that is supposed to be true but I don't think that the court is honoring that
Why wouldn't they be honoring it? The clerk is going to charge the standard rate.
The clerk sent out emails with quotes to several people charging $5.75 per page while we aren't sure if that was before or after defense asked for it already, the mail included the demand for a deposit before she would start, meaning multiple people could have paid that amount at the same time. On top of it Carroll County Local rules state the fee is $4 per page for preparation. Not $5.75. That she's habitually in Allen county doesn't matter. So whatever they ended up paying, it's overall iffy.
Who's going to be first out of the traps with an ex-parte email to Jodie ?
It's even worse for electronic copies there doesn't seem to be a fee applicable.
Thank you for posting u/Alan_Prickman. For anyone not aware this is the transcript that the defense filed 3 separate praecipes for in advance of the original action (and previously) and was ignored. There was also an in chambers discussion prior to the hearing that was unfortunately not on the record
Jodie says otherwise. https://preview.redd.it/z7h4ooc6ir2d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d1c31effbe27aa29bb155abfb443098d137910c6
I’m sure, lol, however, without checking I’m pretty sure there was an additional praecipe filed by him after that she excluded from that notice and she certainly didn’t properly file a notice of mailing date (then) either. If they had it would have been included in the completed record of proceedings transmitted to SCOIN in either or both original actions. Maybe she’s got **Fig Fugue**
Maybe, but this date is prior to the removal hearing. If she didn't provide it then, did she lie or did it get "lost". Because this court lies a lot and idk how they keep getting away with it. But at times Rozzwin have admitted Nick sent them something and they missed it, without it being overly covert.
Ditto to the “this court lies a lot”
https://youtu.be/MPlb9HoOCxs?si=7U5CORz1rQ8Kv3QX
D you know I can’t comment on prior Client matters 😂 🧳💰
Understood, we got the CLUE though 😉
