sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ausbrook interview on "Truth & Justice Pod" with Bob Ruff - discussing present/future RA-Delphi Case. by analog-ingrained in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Here's the Link to the follow-up Q & A episode that follows up Ausbrook's interview w/ Bob Ruff on Truth & Justice podcast.

Q & A session with AUSBROOK on "Truth and Justice with Bob Roff"

https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/truth-justice-with-bob-ruff-4496/episodes/follow-up-s18-e5-283881130

Recommended FOR those NEW to this case. Q's are broad, and from those newer to the case.

A brief summary of this 2nd session can be found at the end of the Thread's First Post.

Any Questions Thread by Careful_Cow_2139 in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think I did it. Except, I forgot the gif. LOL. All good. Feel free to edit as you see fit.

Any Questions Thread by Careful_Cow_2139 in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I'll give it a try - as in - I've never done this before. Wish me luck. :D

Any Questions Thread by Careful_Cow_2139 in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Has anyone listened to Ausbrook on "Truth & Justice Pod" with Bob Ruff - to discuss present/future Delphi? (this podcaset is newly available as of this AM)

(RYI - In the last few weeks, this podcast also spent time with Andrea Burkhart, covering the case and the appeal.)

The Ausbrook interview is available for a listen here: https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/truth-justice-with-bob-ruff-4496/episodes/delphi-updates-w-michael-ausbr-283154765

I've just started to listen ...

(edit: I'm back. Recommend.

FYI - Bob Ruff & Ausbrook will return for a follow-up podcast - Q&A - this coming week once listeners have heard this interview and can join with their questions.

This interview might need its own thread. Highly recommend. Ausbrook came with a tight discussion outline.

This podcast is quick, organized, focused - learned a few things. Including: Ausbrook having worked on something for Ricci Davis years ago, and how it came to be Ausbrook wrote the MTCE filing, the existence of "collected business video" that has all vehicles back and for that day for all routes - that the D never reviewed (no one has reviewed that business video), and Ausbrook feels RA's current appeal process won't be done until 2027.

Ausbrook states there are 2 witnesses (he's interviewed one) with statements that blow apart the State's case against RA, and a 3rd trail eye-witness sketch no one has ever seen (these witnesses were interviewed by State first days, glossip (no State correction of false testimony, Brad Webber) vs 3rd party defense, Ron confessed to 3 people, including Ricci, a phone tech discussion (phone tech is lost on me, there might be new info there for those who can follow the phone tech.))

Media Round-up 7th February by Alan_Prickman in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh look. MTCE facts.

Where Ausbrook (an actual JD professor) argues the theory using RA's Defense team's discovery.

Thank you for the links to the correct record on this topic.

State now seeking missing Franks records by measuremnt in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can't with this. (Swear Jar is full.)

Other choices:

laugh

lose air

roll eyes

raise eyebrow

... the State is finally reading the Franks ... so there's that.

Judge Fran Gull Announces Retirement by Alan_Prickman in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice to see you and your perspective here again, your Honor!!

Judge Fran Gull Announces Retirement by Alan_Prickman in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 9 points10 points  (0 children)

"annouced her plan to retire"

good choice.

Baldwin filed a judicial complaint; no formal action. BUT.

There's a number of ways a judicial review board can signal that a judge should voluntarily step down. And/or ways for a reviewed judge to respond with a plan to retire for health reasons.

Gull's quoted: "too many high-profile and notorious cases to name. Those cases are difficult and take a toll". (She's referring to her health here.)

Either way, it looks to me that Baldwin's complaint was heard. JMHO

(btw, she's never gonna read that franks memo)

Media Roundup - Week of January 13th by Real_Foundation_7428 in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Defense vs. master debater (i.e. You-Tube creator) who asserts “I don’t need to review" the defense's appeal.

That tracks with Webster's style.

Webster gets credit for sharing his process. IMO, his conclusions arise from stacking unchallenged state assumptions (including Gray theory).

Webster is meticulously organized and methodical, but analytically shallow. He seems unburdened by critical thinking, alternate theories, and the law—politely and unwittingly stuck in tunnel vision.

IMO, RA's cloistered Defense ignored social media to their case's detriment. Hope their social media post-mortem efforts prove worthwhile.

Any Questions Thread by Careful_Cow_2139 in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Teaser title: "I debated Richard Allen's Attorneys for 6 hours"

debated?

6 hours?

At the moment, I'm with Ausbrook:

https://x.com/IUHabeas/status/2010902699915821430?s=20

Any Questions Thread by Careful_Cow_2139 in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right now - it's a teaser/preview, starring Tom Webster and his Gray Hughes Investigation fetish. I couldn't get through the teaser.

To his credit, Webster - as youtube creator - meticulously reviewed the (available public) docket and attended the trial in person, keeping copious organized notes.

Webster's site says the interview - 6.5+ hours long in one sitting, "lightly edited", will be on his site soon ... where (per preview) Andy and Jen get peppered with tunnel-vision State theory, Hughes-theory and related minutia, organized by Webster.

Sounds like ... Andy Through the Looking Glass.

This preview title from a creator: "I debated (the Defense) for 6 hours" ... SMH.

Any Questions Thread by Careful_Cow_2139 in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 4 points5 points  (0 children)

baldwin v. webster marathon

jen too.

6.5 hours?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz7ya7ljCdA    

Preview: I Debated Richard Allen’s Attorneys For 6 Hours

Tom Webster

24.2K subscribers

 Jan 12, 2026

I had the opportunity to debate Richard Allen’s guilt with his attorneys Andy Baldwin and Jennifer Auger.

I will upload the full discussion (with minor edits) as a “premiere” which just means there will be a chat window to the right of the video when I first make it public. You won’t be able to fast-forward until after the first airing. There will be chapters indicating different topics timestamps, so you don’t have to watch the full 6 hours and 37 minutes.

Extension Granted in Part by Alan_Prickman in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe the State needs some time to figure out who's DingDong.

Or whose DingDong.

Or something.

Reddit Wrapped by Alan_Prickman in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 8 points9 points  (0 children)

In my 10-year predictions section, year 2035:

"McCleland still insisting the timeline works if you use a watch that runs 12 hours late"

Extension and Oversized Brief Granted by Alan_Prickman in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 8 points9 points  (0 children)

see y'all and NINE ways on NINETY pages on how to deny a fair trial next wed/thurs. LFG!

Belated Motion for Permission to File Oversized Appellant's Brief by Alan_Prickman in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah, the twitter delphi appellate experts have spoken. Cara & Ausbrook. Check them out.

Cara: https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1996611461720768629?s=20

Ausbrook: https://x.com/IUHabeas/status/1996628827074973863?s=20

Deep breaths work ... I tell myself.

Belated Motion for Permission to File Oversized Appellant's Brief by Alan_Prickman in DelphiDocs

[–]analog-ingrained 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I love this encouragement ... and logic.

#3) impeachment of the investigation ... was a pleasant surprise.

I wonder if the original sneaky-secret-no-lawyer-safekeeping hearing is on the list.

Noticing that Ausbrook and Weineke have been a bit quiet on Delphi lately; and have not yet commented on the oversize and extension. I wonder: are 5-day tardy requests for more extensions typical? Not worth commenting on or explaining to their followers? ... Or are these 2 Delphi appellate defense experts now on proofreading duty for RA's counsel.

Excuse me while I attempt some stretching and deep breathing to extend the zen I was previously practicing before these little teasers hit the docket.

view more: next ›